| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6 Feb 2006 : Column 861W—continued
Bowback House, Milton Keynes
Mr. Lancaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many (a) compulsory and (b) voluntary redundancies are expected as a result of the development of Bowback House in Milton Keynes. [48798]
6 Feb 2006 : Column 862W
Margaret Hodge: The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the chief executive of Jobcentre Plus, Lesley Strathie. She will write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Lesley Strathie, dated 6 February 2006:
The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question asking how many (a) compulsory and (b) voluntary redundancies are anticipated as a result of the development of Bowback House in Milton Keynes. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus.
We are not anticipating any compulsory or voluntary redundancies as a result of the development of Bowback House in Milton Keynes. Currently we are recruiting staff at this location.
Child Support
John Cummings: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many non-resident parents are paying child support under (a) the old system and (b) the new system; and if he will make a statement. [45017]
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.
In reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency, the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many non-resident parents are paying child support under (a) the old system and (b) the new system; and if he will make a statement.
In the quarter to December 2005, the latest period for which figures are available, just over 400,000 cases were in receipt of maintenance via the Agency's collection service or had a Maintenance Direct arrangement in place. This equates to over half a million children.
The table attached breaks down this figure with respect to cases under the old and new schemes across both the old and new child support IT systems according to whether or not a case is on the collection service, or has a maintenance direct arrangement in place.
Notes:
1. Numbers above exclude old scheme cases with a punitive interim maintenance assessment in place, as well as new scheme cases being progressed clerically.
2. Old scheme child supports cases a largely processed on the old IT system, but are also processed on the new IT system where they have been migrated due to links with new scheme applications.
3. Maintenance Direct cases are those in which the Agency has carried out a maintenance calculation or assessment, and the non resident parent has subsequently agreed to pay the parent with care directly. There will then be no further involvement from the Agency unless requested by either party (for example in the event of a change of circumstances requiring recalculation or non compliance by the non resident parent). The existence of such an arrangement does not guarantee that payment of maintenance occurs, as it could cease upon mutual agreement of both parties without the Agency being informed.
4. A case is counted as having been compliant on the Agency collection service if it is open at the end of December, and any money has been both requested and received via the Agency's collection service in the preceding three months.
5. Volumes are rounded to the nearest thousand.
6 Feb 2006 : Column 863W
Tim Farron: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the strategic review of the Child Support Agency will be published. [48337]
Mr. Plaskitt: The Secretary of State will make an announcement shortly.
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many times the Child Support Agency has used its powers to withdraw the driving licences of non-compliant non-resident parents in each year from 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [41345]
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.
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 times the Child Support Agency has used its powers to withdraw the driving licences of non-compliant non-resident parents in each year from 2000–01 to 2005–06; and if he will make a statement.
The legislation to disqualify non-resident parents from holding or obtaining a driving licence came into effect in April 2001.
The Child Support Agency does not have the power to withdraw the driving licences of non-compliant non-resident parents, this is a decision which may be made by the courts.
Once all possible means of civil recovery of the debt have been exhausted the Secretary of State will make application to the courts for non-resident parents to be committed to prison or disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence. If the non-resident parent is found guilty of wilful refusal or culpable neglect, it is the court who will decide which of the sanctions available is the most appropriate. The table below therefore details the number of non-resident parents who have had their driving licences withdrawn by the courts and the number of non-resident parents who have received a suspended withdrawal sentence and additionally those who have received suspended and actual committal sentences.
Notes:
1. The fact that the number of suspensions and actual penalties is less than half the number of referrals is explained by the number of debtors who enter into agreements to pay rather than attend court. Similarly, only a very small number of debtors actually go to prison or lose their driving licences, in our experience, because the courts normally seek to suspend a sentence on condition that the defendant commits to pay.
2. We do not have accurate data for the number of cases referred to court for the periods 2001–02 and 2002–03.
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on progress in (a) securing improved management information and (b) resolving information technology problems at the Child Support Agency. [41405]
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 6 February 2006:
You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on progress in (a) securing improved management information and (b) resolving information technology problems at the Child Support Agency.
(a) As a result of an Agency instigated independent review of its Data Warehouse and the subsequent Select Committee recommendations, an independent review of the Agency's management information service was commissioned and a project set up.
The project has made significant progress in recent months, providing audit assured information going back to March 2003 in respect of:
Further management information improvements covering change of circumstances and non-compliant non-resident parents are currently being developed.
(b) There have been a number of IT releases over the last year and as a result of this work the new computer system stability, availability and performance are much improved, in most cases now achieving and maintaining agreed technical service-level standards.
Improvements included the correction of a number of internal system defects and various system infrastructure improvements. Call Manager improved the telephony system by routing customer calls more quickly and effectively. Freetext provided the ability for staff to note down more detailed and specific information about individual cases directly onto the system that resulted in more efficient casework handling. The national roll out of Voice Recording provided the ability to record telephone conversations between Agency staff and new scheme clients and is now used for quality monitoring/learning and development purposes.
Work to improve the new computer system is continuing with additional IT releases planned for 2006 to deliver further improvements.
Tony Baldry: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions under what powers the Child Support Agency pays compensation for errors it makes; and who decides (a) when and (b) of what quantums such payments should be. [44229]
Mr. Plaskitt: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive and he will write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Stephen Geraghty, dated 6 February 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, under what powers the Child Support Agency pays compensation for errors it makes; and who decides (a) when and (b) of what quantums such payments should be.
The Department for Work and Pensions operates a discretionary, non-statutory scheme providing financial redress for maladministration under delegated authority from HM Treasury. Agency officials have authority to make payments up to £15,000. Payments exceeding that limit are referred to the Department for Work and Pensions' central team for authorisation.
Each case is treated individually. The Agency aims to deal with such cases within 30 working days of referral.
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what representations he has received on financial hardship caused by Child Support Agency maintenance assessments; and if he will make a statement. [44603]
Mr. Plaskitt: The information requested is not available.
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 19 January 2006, Official Report, column 1560, on the Child Support Agency, whether there have been reductions in (a) back office and (b) support staffing at the Child Support Agency since January 2005; and if he will make a statement. [45754]
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 6 February 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 pursuant to his Answer of 19th January 2006 Official Report column 1560 on the Child Support Agency whether there have been reductions in (a) back office and (b) support staffing at the Child Support Agency since January 2005; and if he will make a statement.
There have been reductions in both (a) back office and (b) support staffing at the Child Support Agency since January 2005. Over this same period there has been an increase in the numbers of staff employed in Frontline Services.
Mr. Steen:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much the Child Support Agency (CSA) has raised under the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971 and the Child Support Act 1991 as a result of
6 Feb 2006 : Column 866W
empowering employers to collect an additional fee of £1 to help defray the costs of administering each CSA order; and if he will make a statement. [48717]
Mr. Plaskitt: The information requested is not available.
Child support legislation allows employers to collect up to £1 towards administrative costs, whether they do so is up to them. The employer does not notify the agency when they do this, as it is a matter for them.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |