| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
19 Jun 2006 : Column 1684W—continued
Furthermore an independent review has been commissioned by the Permanent Secretary to examine the Department's integrated programme. It is expected that recommendations from this review will influence the decision for further investment in BPRP. Until such work has been completed we are not in a position to confirm the overall BPRP delivery timeline, nor the planned level and timetable of relevant capital expenditure.
Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what progress is being made in improving processing times for disability benefit claims. [77622]
Mrs. McGuire: Processing times for disability living allowance (DLA) and attendance allowance (AA) claims have improved steadily over the last four years. For DLA, it has gone from 42 working days in 2002-03, to 34.5 working days in 2005-06. For AA claims, it has gone from 24.2 working days in 2002-03 to 17.9 working days in 2005-06.
The Disability and Carers Service has achieved this by identification, development and sharing of best practice, the continued exploitation of information technology, and the streamlining of business processes. This has secured continuous improvement in our service delivery to customers together with improved efficiency.
The average processing time for incapacity benefit claims for the year ending March 2006 was 16.3 days, against a benchmark of 19 days. From April 2006, incapacity benefit processing times have been incorporated into a new Jobcentre Plus target covering processing times for incapacity benefit, jobseeker's allowance and income support. Performance for incapacity benefit in April 2006 was 17.3 days against a target of 18 days.
Jobcentre Plus has a programme of work to improve the way that it processes all benefit claims. It is addressing variations in processing times in specific locations and taking action to clear backlogs.
For industrial injuries disablement benefit, the Department aims to clear 90 per cent. of claims within 175 days. For the year ending March 2006, 96.1 per cent. of claims were processed within 175 days. In April 2006, 97.6 per cent of claims were processed within 175 days.
Mrs. Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of (a) the percentage of housing benefit claimants whose 2005-06 payment was higher than that for 2006-07 and (b) the savings accrued to his Department from the changes. [75359]
Mr. Plaskitt: The information is not available.
Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of incapacity benefit recipients in (a) Coventry, South and (b) the West Midlands region had a full medical examination in each of the last five years. [77623]
Mrs. McGuire: The information is not available.
Mr. Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he expects to reply to the recommendations contained in the Work and Pensions Select Committee Report on Incapacity Benefits and Pathways to Work. [76122]
Mr. Jim Murphy: We intend to respond to Third Report of the Work and Pensions Select Committee session 2005-06 on Incapacity Benefits and Pathways to Work within two months of its publication in line with the Government’s commitment on responses to Select Committee reports.
Biological Diversity
Mrs. Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps his Department plans to take to monitor the extent to which public bodies which report to him comply, from October, with their duty to conserve biodiversity in exercising their functions, under section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. [74393]
Mr. Plaskitt: Under Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, all public bodies have a duty to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity in the exercising of their functions. There is no statutory obligation on Departments to monitor the extent to which public bodies comply with this duty. However, we understand Defra is working with a wide range of partners to develop guidance for public bodies to support the implementation of this duty and will involve all relevant Departments on the development of guidance.
Building on the New Deal Programme
Mr. Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent progress has taken place in the development of the building on new deal programme. [69446]
Mr. Jim Murphy: We are still considering the timing of implementation of the building on new deal pilots.
Child Poverty
Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans the Government have to review the way they measure child poverty and those who qualify as the poorest within the category of families living below 60 per cent. of median income since publication of the most recent figures on child poverty. [67282]
Mr. Jim Murphy: Our long-term strategy to meet the child poverty target remains as set out in ‘Opportunity for all’ and in the Child Poverty Review, which was published alongside the 2004 Spending Review White Paper.
A consultation around measuring child poverty was published in ‘Measuring Child Poverty’ in December 2003. This outlines the Government's measure of UK child poverty for the long term and will be used to measure progress against the 2010 target.
Absolute low income—to measure whether the poorest families are seeing their incomes rise in real terms;
Relative low income—to measure whether the poorest families are keeping pace with the growth of incomes in the economy as a whole; and
Material deprivation and low income combined—to provide a wider measure of people's living standards and includes a higher low-income threshold of 70 per cent. of median income.
From next year, we will be collating those material deprivation figures. The material deprivation tier will not only give a wider measure of people’s living standards, but it will also capture elements of persistent and severe poverty, as highlighted in the final conclusions of the child poverty consultation.
We remain firmly committed to our challenging goals to halve and then eradicate child poverty, and we are not resting on our laurels. We are currently re-examining our strategy for meeting the 2010 target, including a reinforcement of our labour market policies, complemented by increases in tax credits, and further improvements in public services.
All publications listed are available in the Library.
Child Support Agency
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the current backlog is of child support cases waiting to be assessed. [75806]
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.
In reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive. Given that he is currently on leave, I am responding on his behalf.
You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the current backlog is of child support cases waiting to be assessed.
In March 2006, there were around 304,000 cases that had yet to receive an assessment or calculation.
Please note that this number is different from the total number of cases waiting to be cleared, which stood at 333,000 in March 2006. This is because new scheme cases are only considered cleared when they have received a calculation and have a payment schedule in place. In March 2006, there were around 29,000 new scheme cases that had received a calculation, but were awaiting a payment schedule.
Although the total volume of uncleared cases fell by 8% between January 2005 and March 2006, the Agency recognises that this remains unacceptably high. The Agency therefore has a 2006/07 target to ensure that, by March 2007, the volume of new scheme uncleared applications outstanding at March 2006 is reduced by 25%.
I hope you find this helpful.
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many applicants under the old Child Support Agency system have applied to be transferred to the new system; [75808]
(2) what the cost would be of transferring all applicants under the old child support system to the new system; and if he will make a statement. [75809]
Mr. Plaskitt: There is no provision for applying for transfer from the old to the new child support schemes and for that reason information is not available. Legislation only allows transfer if a case has prescribed links to a new scheme application.
The cost of transfer would depend on the volume of cases transferred, which in turn will be impacted by the date of transfer. This is because old scheme cases are continuously reducing in number as a result of both natural attrition and reactive (linked case) conversion.
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many parents assessed under the old system of child support are still making payments to their children. [75812]
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.
In reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive. Given that he is currently on leave, I am responding on his behalf.
You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many parents assessed under the old system of child support are still making payments to their children.
The Agency records information in terms of cases rather parents. My answer is therefore provided on this basis.
At the end of March 2006, there were 305,000 old scheme cases on the old computer system (CSCS) where a Full Maintenance Assessment had been carried out, and a positive maintenance liability had been established. Of these:
Payment was received in 152,000 cases.
A further 61,000 cases had a Maintenance Direct arrangement in place. This means that although the Agency has established the appropriate amount due, the non-resident parent will pay the parent with care directly, without the need for the Agency to collect money.
In addition, there were 86,000 old scheme cases where a Full Maintenance Assessment had been carried out, and a positive maintenance liability had been established that were operating on the new computer system (CS2). Of these:
Payment was received in 34,000 cases.
A further 9,000 cases had a Maintenance Direct arrangement in place.
I hope you find this helpful.
Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a further statement on progress towards overcoming the computer problems at the Child Support Agency. [76461]
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. Gentleman with the information requested.
You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if he will make a further statement on progress towards overcoming the computer problems at the Child Support Agency.
The new child support scheme was introduced on 3 March 2003. It has been well publicised that there has been a number of technical problems with the performance of the new computer system (CS2) from this date.
A great deal of work has been carried out over recent years to improve the stability of the new computer system (CS2) and operational performance has improved to the point where contracted service levels are now consistently being met.
We are making good progress to remedy the remaining problems with the new computer system and future IT releases are planned during 2006 and 2007 to resolve various system performance issues and build on the improvements already made. In addition there are a number of planned enhancements to the computer system that form part of the programme to implement the three-year Operational Improvement Plan.
I hope you find this helpful.
Mr. Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many non-resident parents receiving benefits which the Child Support Agency has a claim against, are not paying the minimum payment required under the new scheme. [76834]
Mr. Plaskitt [holding answer 12 June 2006]: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive. He will write to my right hon. Friend with the information requested.
You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many non-resident parents currently receiving benefits which the Child Support Agency has a claim against, are not paying the minimum payment required under the new scheme.
The Agency records information in terms of cases rather parents. My answer is therefore provided on this basis.
In order to obtain the benefit status of non-resident parents associated with new scheme cases, it has been necessary to match data from the Agency's administrative systems with data from the benefit records system administered by Jobcentre Plus. The latter set of administrative data is published quarterly, and the latest information available is for November 2005.
At the end of November 2005, there were 70,000 new scheme cases involving a non-resident parent (NRP) in receipt of Income Support, Jobseeker's Allowance or Incapacity Benefit in which maintenance was due. Of these, maintenance was not received from 38,000 cases.
It should be noted that there are also a small number of Non Resident Parents (the number of which cannot be quantified) who receive other benefits against which the Agency has a claim;
namely—Retirement Pension, Pension Credit, Bereavement Allowance, Widowed Parents Allowance/Pension, Incapacity Benefit, Carer's Allowance, Severe Disablement Allowance, Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit, Maternity Allowance, War Disablement or War Widows Pension, also certain training allowances. However, it is not possible to provide information on maintenance collected from these cases.
Mr. Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many Child Support Agency cases remain to be transferred from the old scheme to the new scheme. [76835]
Mr. Plaskitt [holding answer 12 June 2006]: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive. He will write to my right hon. Friend with the information requested.
Letter from Hilary Reynolds dated 19 June 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. Given that he is currently on leave, I am responding on his behalf.
You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many Child Support Agency cases remain to be transferred from the old scheme to the new scheme.
At the end of March 2006 there were 923,000 old scheme cases. There were 600,000 cases on the old computer system (CSCS). There are 322,000 cases on the new computer system (CS2); these are cases that have been reactively migrated due to being linked to the new scheme cases.
Of those old scheme cases that had been reactively migrated from the old system to the new system, we estimate that around 41,000 cases had relevant links to the new scheme cases and have now been converted. We estimate that a further 48,000 cases also have relevant links and are currently awaiting conversion.
I hope you find this helpful.
Andrew Selous: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether the Child Support Agency is able to require mobile telephone companies to make known the addresses of parents not paying child support. [76940]
Mr. Plaskitt [holding answer 13 June 2006]: Client address details held by mobile phone companies are classed as ‘communications data’ under the Regulations of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and can only be disclosed to an authorised body within this legislation and in relation to a specific statutory purpose. The Child Support Agency is not a RIPA authorised body and is therefore unable to request such information.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |