House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 25 Jan 2006 (pt 35)

25 Jan 2006 : Column 2225W—continued

Valuation Office Agency

Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total cost was of the digital mapping software and hardware purchased by the Valuation Office Agency from the company Tenet. [42839]

Dawn Primarolo: Since Tenet were awarded the contract in May 1999 to provide Digital Mapping Application Software to the Valuation Office Agency the total paid to Tenet for the software and user licences is £706,668 excluding VAT. Tenet has not provided any hardware to the agency to date. This tool is used across the agency's business.

VAT Fraud

Mr. Gauke: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost to the Government in 2004–05 of Missing Trader Intra Community (Carousel) VAT fraud; and what estimate he has made of the cost in 2005–06. [45244]

Dawn Primarolo: HMRC's latest estimates of MTIC fraud were published as part of the PBR 2005 documentation. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/pbr2005/mitl2005.pdf. These cover all forms of MTIC fraud, not just the carousel variant. Because of the difficulty of obtaining accurate estimates of the scale of fraud, the figures are presented as a range.

25 Jan 2006 : Column 2226W

HMRC do not produce forecasts of MTIC fraud, so an estimate for 2005–06 is not available.

WORK AND PENSIONS

Child Support Agency

Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his estimate is of the number of Child Support Agency cases (a) received and (b) cleared for each month from January 2004 to October 2005; and if he will make a statement. [21582]

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 25 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 his estimate is of the number of Child Support Agency cases (a) received and (b) cleared for each month from January 2004 to October 2005; and if he will make a statement.

Such information as is available is presented in the table below:

Potential new-scheme applications received and cleared

2005 Received Cleared

January 22,000 16,000

February 25,000 19,000

March 25,000 24,000

April 25,000 24,000

May 25,000 27,000

June 25,000 26,000

July 25,000 25,000

August 23,000 22,000

September 24,000 28,000

Notes to the table:
1. Volumes are rounded to the nearest thousand.
2. A potential application is defined as cleared if the case is closed, a maintenance calculation has been carried out and a payment arrangement between the parent with care (PWC) and the non-resident parent is in place, the PWC is identified as claiming Good Cause, the PWC is subject to a Reduced Benefit Decision or the application is identified as being a change of circumstances on an existing case as opposed to a new application.

2005	Received	Cleared
January	22,000	16,000
February	25,000	19,000
March	25,000	24,000
April	25,000	24,000
May	25,000	27,000
June	25,000	26,000
July	25,000	25,000
August	23,000	22,000
September	24,000	28,000

I hope you find this response helpful.

Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many complaints have been made to the Child Support Agency in each month since January 2003; and if he will make a statement. [21961]

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 25 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 how many complaints have been made to the Child Support Agency in each month since January 2003.

25 Jan 2006 : Column 2227W

The volumes of complaints received direct from clients, their representatives and MPs to the Child Support Agency or to our Ministers over the requested period are in the attached table.

During 2003–04 a three-tier complaints process was introduced. Stage 1 complaints are dealt with by the complaints resolution team located within each of the Agency's six business units. Stage 2 complaints are an escalation to the relevant Area Director when the client is not satisfied with the outcome of stage 1 ; and stage 3 is an escalation to the Chief Executive if the client remains dissatisfied. At each level of the complaints process, clients are advised as to how they can escalate their complaint should they remain dissatisfied with the reply they receive.

In a letter sent to you by Mike Isaac in July 2005, the number of complaints received by the Agency incorrectly included those which had been escalated through stages 2 and 3 as a separate component of the total number of complaints received by the

25 Jan 2006 : Column 2228W

As you can see, the volume of complaints received by the Agency has broadly stabilised. In the twelve months up to November 2005, the Agency received a total of 54,000 complaints, this compares to 55,000 for the 12 months up to May 2005 (the earliest period for which comparable data for total numbers of complaints received is available).

To put the attached figures into context, the 54,000 complaints received by the Agency in the 12 months to November 2005 represents less than 4% of the 1.4 million cases currently dealt with by the CSA.

I hope you find this helpful.

Number of complaints received by the child support agency in each month since January 2003.

January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003

Stage 1 written complaints 1,172 1,340 1,446 1,384 1,425

Stage 1 telephone complaints 144 175 208 220 310

To chief executive 574 649 764 ⁽³²⁾— ⁽³²⁾—

Treat official 108 144 115 73 93

MP letter to business unit 341 353 381 362 391

June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003

Stage 1 written complaints 1,666 2,017 1,725 2,086 2,724

Stage 1 telephone complaints 508 667 595 772 780

To chief executive ⁽³²⁾— ⁽³²⁾— ⁽³²⁾— ⁽³²⁾— ⁽³²⁾—

Treat official 96 132 107 107 178

MP letter to business unit 403 420 382 443 519

November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004

Stage 1 written complaints 2,553 1,697 2,360 2,358 2,814

Stage 1 telephone complaints 625 525 749 778 929

To chief executive ⁽³²⁾— ⁽³²⁾— ⁽³²⁾— ⁽³²⁾— ⁽³²⁾—

Treat official 124 110 139 204 158

MP letter to business unit 446 403 428 551 569

April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004

Stage 1 written complaints 2,422 2,748 2,611 2,457 2,505

Stage 1 telephone complaints 818 897 907 958 807

To chief executive ⁽³³⁾— ⁽³³⁾— 462 481 447

Treat official 123 114 111 89 86

MP letter to business unit 566 499 592 723 755

September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005

Stage 1 written complaints 2,746 2,483 2,633 1,494 2,229

Stage 1 telephone complaints 876 834 927 937 807

To chief executive 404 367 446 485 289

Treat official 82 58 75 93 70

MP letter to business unit 722 755 891 705 714

February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005

Stage 1 written complaints 2,454 2,431 2,561 2,187 2,209

Stage 1 telephone complaints 874 928 934 872 909

To chief executive 460 511 665 228 482

Treat official 89 118 127 83 105

MP letter to business unit 962 987 793 719 789

July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005

Stage 1 written complaints 2,030 2,213 2,291 2,158 2,438

Stage 1 telephone complaints 779 786 863 892 1,003

To chief executive 478 524 480 493 507

Treat official 53 66 93 128 162

MP letter to business unit 814 754 798 820 1,001

⁽³²⁾ 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 three-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 other years.
⁽³³⁾ Complaints to chief executive include complaints direct from customers and MP's. In April and May of 2004, the chief executive received a total of 1,435 complaints directly however they were not recorded separately from those received as part of the three stage process.
Notes:
1. Treat-official letters are those received by a Minister from a member of the public, and referred to the CSA on behalf of the Minister.
2. These figures do not include complaints received by the Independent Case Examiner as these were not made to the Child Support Agency, (your PQ9328 refers).

25 Jan 2006 : Column 2229W

	January 2003	February 2003	March 2003	April 2003	May 2003
Stage 1 written complaints	1,172	1,340	1,446	1,384	1,425
Stage 1 telephone complaints	144	175	208	220	310
To chief executive	574	649	764	⁽³²⁾—	⁽³²⁾—
Treat official	108	144	115	73	93
MP letter to business unit	341	353	381	362	391

	June 2003	July 2003	August 2003	September 2003	October 2003
Stage 1 written complaints	1,666	2,017	1,725	2,086	2,724
Stage 1 telephone complaints	508	667	595	772	780
To chief executive	⁽³²⁾—	⁽³²⁾—	⁽³²⁾—	⁽³²⁾—	⁽³²⁾—
Treat official	96	132	107	107	178
MP letter to business unit	403	420	382	443	519

	November 2003	December 2003	January 2004	February 2004	March 2004
Stage 1 written complaints	2,553	1,697	2,360	2,358	2,814
Stage 1 telephone complaints	625	525	749	778	929
To chief executive	⁽³²⁾—	⁽³²⁾—	⁽³²⁾—	⁽³²⁾—	⁽³²⁾—
Treat official	124	110	139	204	158
MP letter to business unit	446	403	428	551	569

	April 2004	May 2004	June 2004	July 2004	August 2004
Stage 1 written complaints	2,422	2,748	2,611	2,457	2,505
Stage 1 telephone complaints	818	897	907	958	807
To chief executive	⁽³³⁾—	⁽³³⁾—	462	481	447
Treat official	123	114	111	89	86
MP letter to business unit	566	499	592	723	755

	September 2004	October 2004	November 2004	December 2004	January 2005
Stage 1 written complaints	2,746	2,483	2,633	1,494	2,229
Stage 1 telephone complaints	876	834	927	937	807
To chief executive	404	367	446	485	289
Treat official	82	58	75	93	70
MP letter to business unit	722	755	891	705	714

	February 2005	March 2005	April 2005	May 2005	June 2005
Stage 1 written complaints	2,454	2,431	2,561	2,187	2,209
Stage 1 telephone complaints	874	928	934	872	909
To chief executive	460	511	665	228	482
Treat official	89	118	127	83	105
MP letter to business unit	962	987	793	719	789

	July 2005	August 2005	September 2005	October 2005	November 2005
Stage 1 written complaints	2,030	2,213	2,291	2,158	2,438
Stage 1 telephone complaints	779	786	863	892	1,003
To chief executive	478	524	480	493	507
Treat official	53	66	93	128	162
MP letter to business unit	814	754	798	820	1,001

Mr. Paul Goodman: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many complaints the Child Support Agency has received from members of the public in relation to the computer systems used by the Agency since their introduction. [30034]

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 25 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 how many complaints the Child Support Agency has received from members of the public in relation to the computer systems used by the Agency since their introduction.

It is difficult to absolutely categorise every complaint as there is often a mix of elements that cause problems and delays. A complaint may cover a number of different issues.

I can report that between August 2004 and September 2005 approximately 11,000 complaints were received in relation to cases affected by issues relating to the Agency's computer systems.

I regret that equivalent information was not recorded prior to August 2004. I must point out that the figures I have quoted include all complaints received and not just those that are received directly from clients. A complaint may be received on behalf of a client or by a representative, for example an MP, and the figures relating to the types of complaint for such cases cannot be broken down separately.

The numbers presented in this response are rounded to the nearest thousand.

I hope you find this information useful.

Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the answer of 24 November 2005, Official Report, column 2249W, on the Child Support Agency, for what reasons the Child Support Agency

25 Jan 2006 : Column 2230W

does not send a Deduction of Earnings Order to employers in all cases where an employed non-resident parent is not making regular payments. [37943]

Mr. Plaskitt: Deduction from Earnings Orders (DEOs) are a discretionary decision which means the Agency considers each case on merit and seeks to apply them if a non-resident parent (NRP) is employed but not compliant with maintenance payments. A DEO may not be appropriate for a limited number of reasons including, where the NRP's jobs are likely to be short term or if an NRP is employed outside of the UK.

Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of calls to the Child Support Agency helpline were (a) answered, (b) received, (c) engaged and (d) hung up on in each month from June to November; and if he will make a statement. [38207]

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

Letter from Stephen Geraghty, dated 25 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 calls to the Child Support Agency helpline have been (a) answered (b) received (c) engaged and (d) hung up on in each month from June to November; and if he will make a statement.

The information requested is contained in the attached table.

With regard to the first part of the question, the proportion of calls answered has been presented in two ways. Some calls are either ineffective (due to a network failure, for example) or are abandoned or lost during the Interactive Voice Response (IVR) part of the process before they have joined a queue to be answered by staff (for example if a client does not have their National Insurance number to hand and hangs up to go and find it before calling back). Therefore this figure has also been presented as a proportion of the total calls that are available for Agency staff to answer.

I hope you find this helpful.

2005

June July August September October November

Attempted customer calls to both CS2 and CSCS numbers 463,000 418,000 440,000 500,000 480,000 454,000

Calls for which outcome not recorded 7,000 5,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 2,000

Calls for which outcome recorded 456,000 413,000 436,000 496,000 476,000 452,000

Of which:

Percentage calls that received an engaged/busy tone 1 — — 1 5 —

Percentage calls otherwise ineffective 3 2 2 3 3 2

Percentage calls abandoned/lost during the IVR process. 4 5 5 5 6 7

Percentage calls abandoned in the queue (post IVR) 10 8 9 11 8 6

Percentage calls answered 82 86 83 79 77 85

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

Percentage calls answered that were available to staff to answer (post IVR) 89 92 90 88 90 93

Notes:
1. Data is presented for calls made regarding cases on the new system (CS2) and the old system (CSCS) combined.
2. —" indicates a figure less than 0.5 per cent.
3. Total calls attempted exclude calls attempted outside working hours.
4. 'Calls for which outcome not recorded' are those which were received but for which, due to problems with the MI system, the eventual outcome was not recorded. Some of these calls would have been answered, and others would have been abandoned. The volume of such calls has decreased significantly in the last 3 years as management information systems have improved.
5. 'Calls for which outcome recorded' are those which were received and for which there is management information to track the eventual outcome.
6. Other ineffective calls are those that resulted in a ring tone but no reply, fail due to network technical problems, or are answered by a BT message but do not connect to the CSA system.
7. IVR denotes the automated touch tone part of the process where customers enter their details via the telephone key pad. Once callers have cleared this part of the process, they enter a queue to be answered by a member of CSA staff. There is no IVR process on the old system.
8. The percentage of calls abandoned in the queue refers to the percentage of total calls received, for which the outcome is recorded, that were abandoned once in a queue to be answered by staff.
9. The percentage of calls answered that were available to staff to answer refers to calls answered as a proportion of those that were connected to the queue for an agent (post IVR where appropriate).
10. Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand, and percentages to the nearest 1 per cent. Components may not sum to totals due to rounding.

25 Jan 2006 : Column 2231W

	2005
	June	July	August	September	October	November
Attempted customer calls to both CS2 and CSCS numbers	463,000	418,000	440,000	500,000	480,000	454,000
Calls for which outcome not recorded	7,000	5,000	4,000	4,000	4,000	2,000
Calls for which outcome recorded	456,000	413,000	436,000	496,000	476,000	452,000
Of which:
Percentage calls that received an engaged/busy tone	1	—	—	1	5	—
Percentage calls otherwise ineffective	3	2	2	3	3	2
Percentage calls abandoned/lost during the IVR process.	4	5	5	5	6	7
Percentage calls abandoned in the queue (post IVR)	10	8	9	11	8	6
Percentage calls answered	82	86	83	79	77	85
Total	100	100	100	100	100	100

Percentage calls answered that were available to staff to answer (post IVR)	89	92	90	88	90	93

Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average length of time taken by the Child Support Agency is to update maintenance payments by absent parents where the income of the absent parent has changed. [41895]

Mr. Plaskitt: The information requested is not available.

Next Section

Index

Home Page