House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 9 Jan 2006 (pt 10)

9 Jan 2006 : Column 43W—continued

School Sport Partnership Scheme

Mr. Don Foster: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of school children in England have spent a minimum of two hours each week on high quality physical education and school sport within and beyond the curriculum in schools outside the School Sport Partnership scheme in each year since 2002; and if she will make a statement. [40252]

Mr. Caborn: The information requested is not held.

The annual PE, School Sport and Club Links survey only collects data from schools that are within a School Sport Partnership. However all maintained schools will be within a partnership from 2006 and the national survey, already the largest survey of PE and school sport in Europe, will include all schools from that point on.

The 2004–05 survey, in which over 54 per cent. of schools in England who were at that time within a School Sport Partnership participated, showed that 69 per cent. of pupils were taking part in two hours or more of high quality PE and school sport each week.

Sports Activity

Mr. Don Foster: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the baseline is by which her Department's measures to increase the number of people from priority groups (a) who participate in active sports at least 12 times a year by 3 per cent., (b) who engage in at least 30 minutes moderate intensity level sport at least three times a week by 3 per cent., (c) who participate in an arts activity at least twice a year by 2 per cent., (d) who attend arts events at least twice a year by 3 per cent., (e) accessing museums and galleries collections by 2 per cent. and (f) visiting designated historic environment sites by 3 per cent. will be measured; and if she will make a statement. [40256]

Mr. Lammy: Final baselines for public service agreement target 3 (PSA3) will be available in late 2006.

Provisional baseline estimates for PSA3 were published on 15 December 2005. Copies of the report can be found at www.culture.gov.uk/global/research/taking_part_survey/survey_outputs.

Swimming Pools

Hugh Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many calls have been made to the hotline set up to deal with parents' questions about swimming pool admissions policy. [39642]

Mr. Caborn: The primary purpose of the hotline is to provide a point of contact for parents who wish to make a complaint about being denied access to a specific pool as a result of a child admissions policy. Since it went live" on 8 September 2005, the hotline has received nine telephone calls, all of which have been to request general information about local swimming facilities. The hotline has also received 14 e-mails which have ranged

9 Jan 2006 : Column 44W

from specific complaints about an admissions policy at an individual pool to more general concerns about admissions policies per se.

Hugh Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many pools have altered their admission policy on parental supervision of children since her meeting on the subject earlier in 2005. [39643]

Mr. Caborn: Data have not been collated on the numbers of pools where an admissions policy has altered since my meeting on this subject in 2005. Information on admissions policies at individual poolsin England is available through Sport England's Active Places" website (www.ActivePlaces.com). The Amateur Swimming Association has also compiled a comprehensive list of swimming pools through which similar information can be found. Both databases are maintained regularly.

It is for individual pool operators to determine appropriate measures to mitigate risks at their pools identified through a risk assessment. The Health and Safety Executive advocates that, as part of this process, pool operators should consider the number of children which can safely be accompanied by a single adult. Risk mitigation measures should be kept under review to ensure that they remain appropriate. It is also sensible for pool operators to take account of the guidance available in this area.

Hugh Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent assessment she has made of the situation regarding parental supervision of children in swimming pools; and if she will make a statement. [39644]

Mr. Caborn: On 8 September 2005 my Department, after consultation with the Health and Safety Executive and other relevant bodies, implemented an action plan to address the issue of apparent blanket applications of admissions policies at swimming pools. I am confident that the plan will encourage proper flexibility in the implementation of pool safety and risk management measures.

Television/Radio

Mr. Weir: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the estimated number of (a) televisions and (b) radios in use in (i) Scotland, (ii) Wales, (iii) each of the English regions and (iv)Northern Ireland is. [39204]

Mr. Caborn: The number of televisions in use by ITV region (the only format in which we possess this information) is:

Number of television sets

London 11 million

Midlands 9.1 million

North West 6 million

Yorkshire 5.5 million

Central Scotland 3.2 million

North Scotland 1.2 million

South and South East and Channel Islands 5.4 million

North East 2.8 million

East 4.3 million

South West 1.8 million

Ulster 1.1 million

Border 636,000

West 2.4 million

Wales 2.4 million

Note:
Border ITV covers communities on both sides of the England/Scotland border.
Source:
BARB Establishment survey June 2004.

9 Jan 2006 : Column 45W

	Number of television sets
London	11 million
Midlands	9.1 million
North West	6 million
Yorkshire	5.5 million
Central Scotland	3.2 million
North Scotland	1.2 million
South and South East and Channel Islands	5.4 million
North East	2.8 million
East	4.3 million
South West	1.8 million
Ulster	1.1 million
Border	636,000
West	2.4 million
Wales	2.4 million

The approximate number of radio sets (including analogue and digital) in the nations of the UK are:
Million

Number of radio sets

Scotland 13

England 120

Wales 7.6

Ulster 4.3

Source:
RAJAR

	Number of radio sets
Scotland	13
England	120
Wales	7.6
Ulster	4.3

WORK AND PENSIONS

Norcross (Job Losses)

14. Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures he has in place to deal with potential job losses at the Department's site in Norcross. [40171]

Mrs. McGuire: The significant investment made to modernise the Department's IT systems and transform the way it delivers services more efficiently means that fewer staff will be required to deliver high quality services in the future. These efficiencies are being made across the country and in all of the Department's businesses.

We are managing the reduction in staffing through normal staff turnover, controlling recruitment and promotions, and re-deploying staff to fill vacancies. In addition we are running a limited number of voluntary early release/early retirement schemes. There has not been a single compulsory redundancy at the Norcross site and we will continue to do everything possible to avoid the need for redundancies in the future.

Child Support Agency

15. Ben Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the process used by the Child Support Agency for the assessment of cases. [40172]

Mr. Plaskitt: Under the new scheme, non-resident parent's net weekly income is used to determine how much child maintenance they have to pay. Normally maintenance is then calculated with 15 per cent. for one

9 Jan 2006 : Column 46W

child; 20 per cent. for two children; and 25 per cent. for three children or more. But there are special provisions, for example, parents on benefits or low income.

19. James Brokenshire: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on progress with the reform of the Child Support Agency. [40176]

Mr. Plaskitt: There's good progress. The chief executive Stephen Geraghty has been undertaking a review of all aspects of the agency's operation. Ministers are considering his report and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make an announcement to the House shortly.

24. Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when all Child Support Agency cases will be calculated under the new scheme. [40181]

Mr. Plaskitt: The Secretary of State will make an announcement on Child Support shortly.

Mrs. May: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many complaints have been received by the Child Support Agency in each year since 1997; how many went forward for adjudication; and how many have been (a) fully and (b) partially upheld. [11799]

Mr. Plaskitt: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive. He will write to the hon. Member.

Letter from Stephen Geraghty, dated 9 January 2006:

In reply to your Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.

You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many complaints have been received by the Child Support Agency in each year since 1997; how many went forward for adjudication; and how many have been (a) full and (b) partially upheld.

I have provided tables below to show the number of complaints received by the Agency by clients, and by other bodies, for which information is available. It should be noted that it is difficult to use this information to make meaningful comparisons over time due to changes in the way that information has been recorded. In particular, whilst the volume of Stage 1 complaints undoubtedly rose between 2002/3 and 2003/4, this is likely to have been due in part to more rigorous recording of complaints received at the time, and the introduction by the Agency of a three tier complaints process during 2003/04.

The three tier complaints process comprises of; Stage 1 complaints from clients which are dealt with by the Complaints Resolution Team located within each of the Agency's six business units. Stage 2 complaints which are an escalation to the relevant Area Director when the client is not satisfied with the outcome of stage 1, and stage 3 which is an escalation to the Chief Executive if the client remains dissatisfied.

Complaints are also received into the Agency from MPs, or via MPs from a member of the public.

The outcome of whether a complaint to the Agency is upheld is not recorded. However, as described above, clients are signposted to the next level of the process should they remain dissatisfied. The table below shows the volume of cases escalated to stages two and three, for which information is available. Once these internal avenues have been exhausted, the client may wish to contact the Independent Case Examiner (ICE), their MP or, via their MP, to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

9 Jan 2006 : Column 47W

Agency complaints—number of cases received in the agency 1997 to 2005

1997–98 1998–99 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05

Stage 1 complaints received (written) 27,875 28,073 21,015 19,634 15,493 15,182 24,809 29,213

Stage 1 Complaints received (telephone) ⁽¹⁰⁾— ⁽¹⁰⁾— ⁽¹⁰⁾— ⁽¹⁰⁾— ⁽¹⁰⁾— ⁽¹¹⁾— 7,458 10,570

Chief Executive Complaints ⁽¹²⁾— ⁽¹²⁾— ⁽¹²⁾— 4,096 4,555 7,804 ⁽¹³⁾— ⁽¹⁴⁾—

Treat Official Complaints ⁽¹²⁾^(5508580013)— ⁽¹²⁾^(5508580013)— ⁽¹²⁾^(5508580013)— 2,609 2,869 1,344 1,521 1,108

MP Complaints to Business Units ⁽¹²⁾— ⁽¹²⁾— ⁽¹²⁾— 4,175 4,818 4,537 5,317 8,871

Stage 1: Complaints escalated to stages 2 and 3. Between June 2004 and March 2005

Number

Stage 1 complaints 32,898

Complaints escalated to stage 2 4,352

Complaints escalated to stage 3 2,549

⁽¹⁰⁾While the agency did receive stage 1 telephone complaints prior to 2002–03, their volumes were not recorded, thus preventing meaningful comparison with later years.
⁽¹¹⁾Although 671 stage 1 telephone complaints were recorded between December 2002 and March 2003, their volumes were not recorded throughout the whole year, thus preventing meaningful comparison with later years.
⁽¹²⁾While the agency did receive complaints directly to the chief executive, treat official complaints, and MP complaints to business units prior to 2000–01, their volumes were not recorded, thus preventing meaningful comparison with later years.
⁽¹³⁾During 2003–04 complaints sent directly to the chief executive were not recorded separately from those complaints, which were escalated to him as part of the 3 stage process. Therefore, although 7,183 complaints in total were received during 2003–04, it is not possible to separate out those complaints received by the chief executive directly (as opposed to those escalated via the complaints process), thus preventing meaningful comparison with data for earlier years.
⁽¹⁴⁾In April and May of 2004, the chief executive received a total of 1,435 complaints but is not possible to separate out those complaints received by the chief executive directly, as opposed to those escalated to stage 3 of the complaints process). From June 2004-March 2005, after which time such complaints were recorded separately, the chief executive received 4,352 direct complaints and 2,549 complaints escalated upwards from stage 2. Again, these recording issues prevent meaningful comparison of this category with earlier years.
⁽¹⁵⁾Treat official letters are those received by a Minister from a member of the public, and referred for initial consideration to an official of the agency.

	1997–98	1998–99	1999–2000	2000–01	2001–02	2002–03	2003–04	2004–05
Stage 1 complaints received (written)	27,875	28,073	21,015	19,634	15,493	15,182	24,809	29,213
Stage 1 Complaints received (telephone)	⁽¹⁰⁾—	⁽¹⁰⁾—	⁽¹⁰⁾—	⁽¹⁰⁾—	⁽¹⁰⁾—	⁽¹¹⁾—	7,458	10,570
Chief Executive Complaints	⁽¹²⁾—	⁽¹²⁾—	⁽¹²⁾—	4,096	4,555	7,804	⁽¹³⁾—	⁽¹⁴⁾—
Treat Official Complaints	⁽¹²⁾^(5508580013)—	⁽¹²⁾^(5508580013)—	⁽¹²⁾^(5508580013)—	2,609	2,869	1,344	1,521	1,108
MP Complaints to Business Units	⁽¹²⁾—	⁽¹²⁾—	⁽¹²⁾—	4,175	4,818	4,537	5,317	8,871

	Number
Stage 1 complaints	32,898
Complaints escalated to stage 2	4,352
Complaints escalated to stage 3	2,549

I hope you find this answer useful.

Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what monitoring he is undertaking of progress in eliminating the faults in the Child Support Agency computer system. [17583]

Mr. Timms: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Mr. Stephen Geraghty. He will write to the right hon. Member with the information requested.

Letter from Stephen Geraghty, dated 9 January 2006:

In reply to your Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.

You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what monitoring he is undertaking of progress in eliminating the faults in the Child Support Agency computer system.

The new Child Support computer system (CS2) is now more stable technically and performance has improved to the point where service levels are generally being met. A number of defects do remain but EDS has agreed to resolve these as a part of an agreed forward programme of enhancement.

9 Jan 2006 : Column 48W

EDS is required to report progress against its plans and maintain, jointly with the Department, records of IT items and fixes delivered. In addition, the Department has in place governance arrangements, including assessment against acceptance criteria, designed to achieve satisfactory delivery of all system improvements.

Finally, the Department's staff continue to monitor performance of the live CS2 service against agreed service levels.

I hope this information is helpful.

Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what proportion of parents with care on income support and income-based jobseeker's allowance have received Child Support Agency maintenance in each reporting period since 1999–2000; [21435]

(2) what proportion of parents with care on income support and income based jobseeker's allowance have received maintenance for their children in each year since 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [21957]

Mr. Timms: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

Letter from Stephen Geraghty, dated 9 January 2005:

In reply to your recent parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.

You asked the Secretary of State for Works and Pensions what proportion of parents with care on income support and income-based jobseeker's allowance have received Child support Agency maintenance in each reporting period since 1999–2000.

In addition, you asked the Secretary of State what proportion of parents with care on income support and income based jobseeker's allowance have received maintenance for their children in each year since 1995–96; and if he will make a statement.

The available information is detailed in the attached table.

I hope you find this helpful.

Proportion of parents with care on income support and income based jobseeker's allowance receiving maintenance between November 1997 and May 2005

Percentage

November 1997 28

February 1998 27

May 1998 27

August 1998 26

November 1998 26

February 1999 26

May 1999 26

August 1999 26

November 1999 26

February 2000 25

May 2000 25

August 2000 25

November 2000 25

February 2001 24

May 2001 25

August 2001 25

November 2001 24

February 2002 24

May 2002 24

August 2002 24

November 2002 24

February 2003 25

May 2003 —

August 2003 —

November 2003 —

February 2004 23

May 2004 23

August 2004 23

November 2004 24

February 2005 24

May 2005 25

Notes:
1.Percentages rounded to the nearest whole number.
2.The percentages are calculated by combing information from the CSA administrative system with that from the benefits system to get current benefit status. Information from the latter system does not exist prior to 1997.
3.We cannot provide information for 2003–04. This is due to limitations with the new system (CS2), which mean we do not currently hold information for new scheme cases and old scheme cases on CS2 for that period. This is an issue we are working to address and are hopeful that we will be able to provide this information in the near future.
4.The methodology used to produce these statistics is consistent with that used in the measurement of the Department's Public Service Agreement target in this area. Namely, all those cases with a child maintenance calculation or assessment where the parent with care is on income support or income based job seekers allowance (including those with a nil liability) who are in receipt of maintenance.

9 Jan 2006 : Column 50W

	Percentage
November 1997	28
February 1998	27
May 1998	27
August 1998	26
November 1998	26
February 1999	26
May 1999	26
August 1999	26
November 1999	26
February 2000	25
May 2000	25
August 2000	25
November 2000	25
February 2001	24
May 2001	25
August 2001	25
November 2001	24
February 2002	24
May 2002	24
August 2002	24
November 2002	24
February 2003	25
May 2003	—
August 2003	—
November 2003	—
February 2004	23
May 2004	23
August 2004	23
November 2004	24
February 2005	24
May 2005	25

Mr. Paul Goodman: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library the latest list of change requests made to EDS by the Child Support Agency. [30015]

Mr. Plaskitt: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Stephen Geraghty. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

Letter from Stephen Geraghty, dated 9 January 2006:

In reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.

You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if he will place in the Library the latest list of change requests made to EDS by the Child Support Agency.

A list of change requests was placed in the House Library on the 17 of November 2004. A list of subsequent requests is at Annex A and will also be placed in the House Library.

I hope you find this information useful.

Annex A: List of further changes agreed by the Child Support Agency and EDS

Description Benefits

To enable the number of concurrent users of the Training System to remain at 700. Maintain current capacity to train caseworkers on how to process cases on CS2.

The automatic deletion of superseded debt management work items.
Debt management work items are generated in caseworkers' work queues to prompt the investigation of late or unexpected payments. However, a subsequent event on the case can remove the need for such an investigation. This new functionality will remove any debt management work items that are no longer relevant for investigation. Improved workload management for caseworkers. Removal of unnecessary work.

The provision of several standard reports directly from CS2 audit trail data.
These reports will list, for checking and monitoring purposes, caseworkers that have completed activity on CS2 that has been pre-defined as a potential data security risk. Compliance with Departmental Audit and Security Standards.

To capture and record an audit trail of caseworkers' access to, and changes of, key data on CS2 client records. Compliance with Departmental Audit and Security Standards.

The provision of a facility to allow specified users to make enquires of the recorded audit trail data, to support the completion of management and security checks on caseworker access to, and processing of, client records. Compliance with Departmental Audit and Security Standards.

To provide an automated facility within CS2 to allow staff to record additional information provided by clients in note form, that will prove useful during subsequent contacts with the client. Removes the need for recording and holding information clerically and supports improved service to clients as caseworkers will have a greater understanding of previous case activity.

The automatic retrieval of Benefit Office details and Post Office details using office identity codes.
Staff have to record Benefit Office details on cases where clients are in receipt of Jobseekers Allowance/Income Support to enable the correct electronic exchange of information. Post Office details are recorded to support the processing of payments. Reduced resources required to correct transaction failures across the automated interface between the Child Support Agency and Jobcentre Plus, reduced delay in the start of deductions from benefit and improved levels of compliance.

The provision of functionality to support the bulk conversion of cases from old scheme to new scheme from more than one maintenance assessment effective date. Greater flexibility in the automatic processing available to support the bulk conversion of cases. (Note: bulk conversion is not yet scheduled).

The provision of automatic selection functionality within the bulk conversion process to identify cases based on their initial effective date. More efficient selection of cases for conversion from old scheme rules to new scheme rules. (Note: Bulk conversion is not yet scheduled).

To provide the ability to correct the effective date from which a case is converted from old scheme to new scheme. Improved accuracy in the bulk conversion of cases from old scheme rules to new scheme rules. (Note: Bulk conversion is not yet scheduled).

Notifications issued to clients to advise them that their assessment is to convert to new rules, to be amended to include an explanation of why their case has been selected for bulk conversion. Improved client service and a reduction in the volume of contact received from clients during bulk conversion from old scheme to new scheme. (Note: Bulk conversion is not yet scheduled).

To provide, as a prototype, additional functionality for staff to enquire on the progress of a case and view summary financial records.
Staff have to perform these enquiries to answer frequent client queries on the progress of their case or payment. The ability to test new functionality in a pilot study within one Business Unit to determine whether business benefits could be realised by the provision of this additional enquiry functionality.

9 Jan 2006 : Column 51W

Description	Benefits
To enable the number of concurrent users of the Training System to remain at 700.	Maintain current capacity to train caseworkers on how to process cases on CS2.
The automatic deletion of superseded debt management work items. Debt management work items are generated in caseworkers' work queues to prompt the investigation of late or unexpected payments. However, a subsequent event on the case can remove the need for such an investigation. This new functionality will remove any debt management work items that are no longer relevant for investigation.	Improved workload management for caseworkers. Removal of unnecessary work.
The provision of several standard reports directly from CS2 audit trail data. These reports will list, for checking and monitoring purposes, caseworkers that have completed activity on CS2 that has been pre-defined as a potential data security risk.	Compliance with Departmental Audit and Security Standards.
To capture and record an audit trail of caseworkers' access to, and changes of, key data on CS2 client records.	Compliance with Departmental Audit and Security Standards.
The provision of a facility to allow specified users to make enquires of the recorded audit trail data, to support the completion of management and security checks on caseworker access to, and processing of, client records.	Compliance with Departmental Audit and Security Standards.
To provide an automated facility within CS2 to allow staff to record additional information provided by clients in note form, that will prove useful during subsequent contacts with the client.	Removes the need for recording and holding information clerically and supports improved service to clients as caseworkers will have a greater understanding of previous case activity.
The automatic retrieval of Benefit Office details and Post Office details using office identity codes. Staff have to record Benefit Office details on cases where clients are in receipt of Jobseekers Allowance/Income Support to enable the correct electronic exchange of information. Post Office details are recorded to support the processing of payments.	Reduced resources required to correct transaction failures across the automated interface between the Child Support Agency and Jobcentre Plus, reduced delay in the start of deductions from benefit and improved levels of compliance.
The provision of functionality to support the bulk conversion of cases from old scheme to new scheme from more than one maintenance assessment effective date.	Greater flexibility in the automatic processing available to support the bulk conversion of cases. (Note: bulk conversion is not yet scheduled).
The provision of automatic selection functionality within the bulk conversion process to identify cases based on their initial effective date.	More efficient selection of cases for conversion from old scheme rules to new scheme rules. (Note: Bulk conversion is not yet scheduled).
To provide the ability to correct the effective date from which a case is converted from old scheme to new scheme.	Improved accuracy in the bulk conversion of cases from old scheme rules to new scheme rules. (Note: Bulk conversion is not yet scheduled).
Notifications issued to clients to advise them that their assessment is to convert to new rules, to be amended to include an explanation of why their case has been selected for bulk conversion.	Improved client service and a reduction in the volume of contact received from clients during bulk conversion from old scheme to new scheme. (Note: Bulk conversion is not yet scheduled).
To provide, as a prototype, additional functionality for staff to enquire on the progress of a case and view summary financial records. Staff have to perform these enquiries to answer frequent client queries on the progress of their case or payment.	The ability to test new functionality in a pilot study within one Business Unit to determine whether business benefits could be realised by the provision of this additional enquiry functionality.

Mr. Paul Goodman: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what proportion of parents who are waiting for their Child Support Agency cases to be transferred from the old to the new scheme will pay (a) increased and (b) decreased payments under the new scheme. [30043]

Mr. Plaskitt: For those cases with a Full Maintenance Assessment on the Child Support Computer System (CSCS) in May 2005, we estimate that around (a) 60 per cent. would have an increased liability and (b) 40 per cent. would have a decreased liability if the new scheme rules were applied to their current reported circumstances.

We estimate that the majority of changes in maintenance liabilities will be for less than 10 per week. To give non-resident parents and parents with care time to adjust to their new amount, most changes are phased in by fixed annual steps.

Source:

Child Support Computer System 5 per cent. extract, May 2005.

Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in respect of how many children are payments being made through the Child Support Agency's (a) new scheme and (b) old scheme. [31021]

Mr. Plaskitt [holding answer 24 November 2005]: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

Letter from Stephen Geraghty, dated 9 January 2006:

In reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency, the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.

You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, in respect of how many children are payments being made through the Child Support Agency's (a) new scheme and (b) old scheme.

In September 2005, payment of maintenance was received from the non-resident parent via the Agency's collection service, or a maintenance direct arrangement was in place, in respect of 529,000 children, (of which 365,000 were on the old scheme, and 164,000 on the new scheme).

These figures (which are rounded to the nearest thousand) can be further broken down as follows:

Payment of maintenance had been received from the non-resident parent via the Agency's collection service in respect of 391,000 children, of which 127,000 were on the new scheme and 264,000 on the old scheme.

Maintenance-direct arrangements were in place in respect of 138,000 children (101,000 on the old and 37,000 on the new scheme). However, it is not possible to say whether or not

9 Jan 2006 : Column 52W

I hope you find this helpful.

Danny Alexander: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of assessed Child Support Agency claims in Scotland had maintenance collected via deduction of earnings orders in each quarter since 1994. [31144]

Mr. Plaskitt: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

Letter from Stephen Geraghty, dated 9 January 2006:

In reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.

You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what proportion of assessed Child Support Agency claims in Scotland had maintenance collected via deduction of earnings orders in each quarter since 1994.

Such information as is available is presented in the attached table. I am sorry that I cannot provide disaggregated information for Scotland for the period prior to May 1997, or post February 2003.

Mr. Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in respect of how many (a) new scheme, new computer, (b) old scheme, new computer, (c) old scheme, old computer and (d) backlogged child support cases the Child Support Agency has no record of the address of the non-resident parent. [34143]

Mr. Plaskitt [holding answer 2 December 2005]: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

Letter from Stephen Geraghty, dated 9 January 2006:

You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many (a) new scheme new computer (b) old scheme new computer (c) old scheme old computer and (d) backlogged child support cases does the Child Support Agency have no record of the address of the non-resident parent.

We are not able to give statistics for the number of non resident parents for which the Agency does not hold address information due to limitations with currently available management information.

What I can tell you is that, at the end of September 2005, there were 35,000 cases on the old scheme old computer system that were suspended because the NRP could not be traced. In addition,

9 Jan 2006 : Column 53W

I hope you find this information useful.

Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether he has received a report from the chief executive of the Child Support Agency (CSA) with recommendations for the reform of the CSA; and what plans he has to make an oral statement to the House on this matter. [35689]

Mr. Plaskitt: Stephen Geraghty is undertaking a root and branch review of the Child Support Agency (CSA). Since his arrival at the Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been considering the emerging findings and recommendations. He will make an announcement to the House in due course.

Mr. Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for how long the Child Support Agency plans to continue collecting maintenance from the constituent of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, case number 327000131454. [39531]

Mr. Plaskitt: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Stephen Geraghty. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

Letter from Stephen Geraghty, dated 9 January 2006:

In reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive, as Stephen Geraghty is on leave Iam replying on his behalf.

You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for how long the Child Support Agency plans to continue collecting maintenance from the constituent of the hon. Member for Birkenhead case number 327000131454.

As details about individual cases are confidential I have written to you separately about this case.

Mr. Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average time was between the Child Support Agency notifying the Job Centreplus to deduct the five pound flat rate in maintenance from a non-resident parent's benefit and the maintenance deduction being made in the last period for which figures are available. [39537]

Mr. Plaskitt: I will let the hon. Member have such information as is available as soon as possible.

Next Section

Index

Home Page