| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12 Dec 2006 : Column 1019W—continued
Child Support Agency
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many changes of circumstances have been reported by non-resident parents on the (a) old and (b) new Child Support Agency scheme claims in Scotland in each month of the last three years. [102170]
Mr. Plaskitt: The information requested is not available.
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the compliance rate for the self-employed in Scottish claims with the Child Support Agency. [102171]
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.
You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what estimate he has made of the compliance rate for the self-employed in Scottish claims with the Child Support Agency.
In September 2006, the case compliance rate for collection service cases in which the non-resident parent was classified as self-employed and living in Scotland was 52%. A case is defined as case compliant if it was open at the end of the reporting period, and had paid all or part of any maintenance that was due (either regular or arrears) via the collection service over the preceding quarter.
These figures for self-employed persons reflect the status of the non-resident parent currently held on the system as at the last intervention by the Agency. This will not necessarily reflect the current status of the non-resident parent if the Agency has not been informed of, or has not yet actioned, a change of circumstances. It should also be noted that due to small sample sizes there could be some variation in the figures for cases operating on the old computer system.
I hope you find this answer helpful.
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what liaison he authorises the Child Support Agency to have with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority to ascertain whether heavy goods vehicle drivers have current licences and thereby investigate their current employment status. [102136]
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.
You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what liaison he authorises the Child Support Agency to have with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority to ascertain whether heavy goods vehicle drivers have current licences and thereby investigate their current employment status.
Section 14 of the Child Support Act 1991 provides the power for the Secretary of State to require specified person to provide information. The associated Regulation specify persons employed by the Crown under the Road Traffic and Vehicle Excise and Regulation Acts as having a duty to provide information to allow us to trace Non Resident Parents.
The Agency currently has a Service Level Agreement with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority to provide information to aid the tracing of Non Resident Parents. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency database holds information on all vehicles registered within the United Kingdom including heavy goods vehicles.
The Agency provides the vehicle registration details and the name of the Non Resident Parent they wish to trace, to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. They in turn check their records and where possible, match the information with any identical entries held, and report data to the Child Support Agency.
We can then use this information in checking the current employment status of Non Resident Parents, and to approach employers in support of a maintenance calculation.
I hope you find this response helpful.
Departmental Staff
Mr. Roger Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many (a) marketing officers, (b) communications officers and (c) press officers are employed in his Department; and what the total expenditure on communications for his Department was on (i) Government Information and Communication Service staff and (ii) other (A) press officers, (B) special advisers and (C) staff in the last year for which figures are available. [104362]
Mrs. McGuire: There are currently 45 press officers and 154 marketing officers employed by my Department and its four main delivery businesses.
During 2005-06, the last full year for which figures are available, the Department spent £9.7 million on external communications. It is not possible to break down expenditure costs by the types of communication staff requested.
Disability Living Allowance
Ben Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the cost of extending the higher rate mobility component of the disability living allowance to blind people. [104450]
Mrs. McGuire: The estimated cost of extending automatic entitlement to the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance to blind people would be about £61 million a year at current benefit rates(1).
(1) Estimate based on the number of disability living allowance recipients as at May 2006 whose main disabling condition is recorded as blindness.
Source:
Work and Pensions Longitudinal Study.
Financial Assistance Scheme
Ms Gisela Stuart: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost to public funds is expected to be of providing the extended Financial Assistance Scheme over 50 years. [108867]
James Purnell: We estimate that the total cost of providing the extended Financial Assistance Scheme will be £2.3 billion in cash terms (£783 million in net present value terms). These costs are likely to be incurred over 50-60 years. Costs in the last 10 years are likely to be small.
Housing Benefit
Margaret Moran: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the amount of unclaimed housing benefit in each local authority in the latest period for which an estimate is available. [105262]
Mr. Plaskitt: The information is not available because estimates of unclaimed housing benefit cannot be reliably produced below Great Britain level.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions who sets the rent limit for the purposes of housing benefit; how it is calculated; who it applies to; and what relationship it has to council house rents. [107140]
Mr. Plaskitt: Many tenants relying on housing benefit have no restriction placed on their rent and eligible charges as their rents are either regulated, or in some other way controlled, so as to be lower than the market rent. These include the rent levels of local authorities, registered social landlords and certain other prescribed tenancies.
However, as there are no such controls on rent levels within the private rented sector, claims from private tenants will generally be referred to the local rent officer for a rental valuation to determine the benefit claim. Any subsequent restriction reflects a reasonable rent for suitable accommodation of the appropriate size within the locality.
The rent officer either determines a reasonable rent for the property, by comparison with suitably sized properties in the vicinity or neighbourhood, or determines a local reference rent, which is based on the midpoint between the highest rent which is not exceptionally high and the lowest rent which is not exceptionally low for properties of a similar size in the same locality.
There is no relationship between the rent officer’s determinations and council house rents.
Internal Guidance Documents
David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which internal guidance documents are used in his Department. [104607]
Mrs. McGuire: The information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
Pensions
Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the percentage of employers who offer a final salary pension to new employees. [103398]
James Purnell: It is estimated that in 2005, 1 per cent. of private sector employers had an open occupational defined benefit scheme. In general, larger employers are more likely to have an open occupational scheme than smaller employers, and 8 per cent. of the private sector work force were active members of open occupational defined benefit schemes in 2005.
Social Fund
John Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the five most common reasons were for loans from the Social Fund being refused in each of the last 10 years. [106020]
Mr. Plaskitt: The available information is as follows:
Five most common reasons for initial refusal of budgeting loans (original scheme) in order
Not on a qualifying benefit for 26 weeks (although in receipt of a qualifying benefit)
Insufficient priority
Not in receipt of a qualifying benefit
Budgeting loan refused, but community care grant awarded
Repeat application
Not on a qualifying benefit for 26 weeks (although in receipt of a qualifying benefit)
Not in receipt of a qualifying benefit
Insufficient priority
Budgeting loan refused, but community care grant awarded
Repeat application
Note:
An application may be refused for more than one reason. There is a hierarchy of refusal reasons for budgeting loans and another for crisis loans. On each application, the first refusal reason in the relevant hierarchy is recorded as the primary refusal reason. The list above is based on primary refusal reasons.
Source:
Secretary of State’s annual reports on the Social Fund.
Five most common reasons for initial refusal of budgeting loans (simplified scheme) in order
Existing budgeting loan debt too high (although existing debt, for budgeting and crisis loans combined, below limit)
Not on a qualifying benefit for 26 weeks (although in receipt of a qualifying benefit)
Not in receipt of a qualifying benefit
Excluded item(s)
Existing debt, for budgeting and crisis loans combined, at or above limit
Existing budgeting loan debt too high (although existing debt, for budgeting and crisis loans combined, below limit)
Not on a qualifying benefit for 26 weeks (although in receipt of a qualifying benefit)
Not in receipt of a qualifying benefit
Fourth and fifth reasons not available
2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06
Existing budgeting loan debt too high (although existing debt, for budgeting and crisis loans combined, below limit)
Not on a qualifying benefit for 26 weeks (although in receipt of a qualifying benefit)
Not in receipt of a qualifying benefit
Existing debt, for budgeting and crisis loans combined, at or above limit
Excluded item(s)
Source:
DWP Social Fund Policy, Budget and Management Information System (PBMIS). (PBMIS data are not available for 2000-01, so the Secretary of State’s annual report on the Social Fund has been used instead.)
Five most common reasons for initial refusal of crisis loans in order
No serious risk to health or safety
Remaining reasons not available
No serious risk to health or safety
Repeat application
Inability to repay
Existing debt, for budgeting and crisis loans combined, too high
JSA sanction or disallowance
No serious risk to health or safety
Repeat application
Inability to repay
Existing debt, for budgeting and crisis loans combined, too high
Excluded item(s)
No serious risk to health or safety
Repeat application
Excluded item(s)
Existing debt, for budgeting and crisis loans combined, too high
JSA sanction or disallowance
No serious risk to health or safety
Repeat application
Excluded item(s)
JSA sanction or disallowance
Existing debt, for budgeting and crisis loans combined, too high
No serious risk to health or safety
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |