Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9 Jan 2007 : Column 564Wcontinued
Mrs. Maria Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what estimate he has made of the administrative costs of establishing the system for confiscating passports as a means of enforcing child maintenance, proposed in Sir David Henshaws report, Recovering Child Support: Routes to Responsibilities; [107072]
(2) what discussions he has had with other government departments and agencies on the establishment of the system for confiscating passports as a means of enforcing child maintenance, proposed in Sir David Henshaws report, Recovering Child Support: Routes to Responsibility; [107073]
(3) what estimate he has made of the (a) number and (b) proportion of non-resident parents whose passports might be confiscated as a means of enforcing child maintenance should the proposal in Sir David Henshaws report be implemented. [107079]
Mr. Plaskitt: Officials have been involved in extensive discussion with the Home Office, the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Identity and Passport Service concerning this proposal. Officials are continuing to work with other departments to assess the costs of various options associated with this proposal.
It is intended that the surrender of passports will be applicable only in cases where the non-resident parent has wilfully failed to pay child maintenance, and where most other methods of enforcement have proven to be ineffective. Work is ongoing to estimate the number of cases where this may impact.
Ian Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the September and October child support payments due to the parent with care in the case with Child Support Agency reference 324807264125 will be paid; what the reasons are for the length of time which has been taken to pass this money to the parent with care; and what steps the Agency is taking to ensure that such delays do not occur in the future. [108439]
Mr. Plaskitt: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive. He will write to my hon. Friend with the information requested.
Letter from Stephen Geraghty, dated 9 January 2007:
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, when the September and October child support payments due to the parent with care Child Support Agency reference 324807264125 will be paid; what the reasons are for the length of time which has been taken to pass this money to the parent with care; and what steps the Agency is taking to ensure that such delays do not occur in the future.
As details about individual cases are confidential I have written to you separately about this case.
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the total value has been of the contracts that his Department has held with (a) ER consultants and (b) Praesta in each of the last three years; and which Ministers have made use of their services. [102182]
Mr. Jim Murphy: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 8 November 2006, Official Report, columns 1624-25W.
Mrs. Maria Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his Departments policy is on deduction of earnings orders when the parents concerned subsequently make voluntary child support arrangements. [107094]
Mr. Plaskitt: If the parent with the care of the children subsequently decides to make private child support arrangements with the non-resident parent the Child Support Agency will cease acting on her behalf. In these circumstances the Agency will no longer attempt to collect ongoing maintenance but if arrears are outstanding it may decide to continue to collect them through a deduction from earnings order. However, the Agency will continue to act on behalf of a parent with care who is receiving income support or income-based Jobseekers allowance.
If any parent with care indicates that she wants to make her own payment arrangements with the non-resident parent, known as maintenance direct, the Agency will consider whether the proposed arrangement is more appropriate or more likely to ensure a positive maintenance outcome than a deduction from earnings order. It will also take account of any outstanding maintenance arrears.
In making a decision on whether to continue to collect ongoing maintenance or arrears through a deduction from earnings order, the Agency will take account of the welfare of any children involved, the circumstances of the non-resident parent concerned and the reason why the deduction from earnings order was initially imposed.
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of how many families living in (a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland receive more than half of their gross income in cash benefits and tax credits. [102165]
Mr. Jim Murphy: The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus, Leslie Strathie. I have asked her to provide the hon. Member with the information requested.
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the recent performance of Jobcentre Plus in dealing with claimants; and if he will make a statement. [102175]
Mr. Jim Murphy: The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus, Lesley Strathie. I have asked her to provide the hon. Member with the information requested.
Letter from Leslie Strathie, dated 9 January 2007:
The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question asking what assessment he has made on the performance of Jobcentre Plus in dealing with claimants. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus.
Jobcentre Plus employs around 71,000 staff dealing with some 235 million contacts from customers per year. Every working day, we conduct 36,000 work-focused interviews, and process over 15,000 new benefit claims. Through our website, we enable customers to access details of around 300,000 job vacancies.
We are part way through a process to transform the way the business operates to provide improved labour market and benefit services more efficiently and with fewer staff. In our new offices, which are already in place across most of the country, customers
experience a more welcoming and professional environment and our Contact Centres and e-channels provide greater flexibility in the ways customers can contact us. I am pleased to say that, this year, Contact Centre performance has consistently exceeded our internal target of answering 90 percent of calls. from customers. In addition, the vast majority of people contacting Jobcentre Plus to make a new claim for benefit can expect to be called back within 36 hours (currently 86 per cent.), helping to ensure that people receive the financial and work-focused support that they need at the earliest possible opportunity.
Following pilots of a new Standard Operating Model in North Lincolnshire and Central London, Jobcentre Plus has begun to roll-out changes to its delivery model to improve further our customer service. Changes to be introduced over the coming months include: an 0800 number for new claims customers, to replace the 0845 service; and a single call to the contact centre to claim benefit.
Jobcentre Plus must make more progress in the time taken to process new benefit claims and we have a new target for 2006-07 called the Actual Average Clearance Time target. A dedicated Customer Experience Improvement Team has been put in place to drive performance improvements in this area.
Performance on Income Support (IS) and Incapacity Benefit (IB) clearance times has shown some improvement this operational year and we are currently on track to hit the IB element of this target. We aim to build on the improvements seen so far during the remainder of the year.
Danny Alexander: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many personal advisers are employed by Jobcentre Plus; and at what total cost; [102386]
(2) how many Jobcentre Plus staff work in (a) benefit claims and processing, (b) provision of welfare to work advice to claimants and (c) regulation of external providers of welfare to work services; and at what total cost in each case. [102387]
Mr. Jim Murphy: The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus, Lesley Strathie. I have asked her to provide the hon. Member with the information requested.
Letter from Leslie Strathie, dated 9 January 2007
The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions asking; how many personal advisors are employed by Jobcentre Plus; and at what total cost, and how many Jobcentre Plus staff work in (a) benefit claims and processing, (b) provision of welfare to work advice to claimants and (c) regulation of external providers of welfare to work services; and at what total cost in each case. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus.
The latest month for which actual information relating to these questions is available is September 2006. The relevant figures are shown in the following table.
Jon Cruddas: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether relatives of an employee who has developed mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos on the employees work overalls are treated by his Department as eligible for (a) industrial injuries disablement benefit, (b) compensation under the Pneumoconiosis Etc. (Workers Compensation) Act 1979 and (c) and other compensation. [104729]
Mr. Jim Murphy: It has been an underlying principle of the Industrial Injuries Scheme since its introduction in 1948 that benefit under the scheme should be payable only to people injured or disabled as a result of their work and not the population at large. The purpose of Pneumoconiosis Etc. (Workers Compensation) Act 1979 is to provide compensation for sufferers of certain dust-related diseases (or their dependants on their behalf) who are unable to claim damages from employers. No payments have been made to the relatives under either scheme where they have exposure to asbestos from washing overalls and the Department operates no other schemes under which compensation would be payable.
We have asked officials to carry out a review of the current Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit Scheme. The present scheme may no longer meet the needs of our modern society. We will look at all aspects of the scheme, but have not yet looked in any detail at any particular component of the scheme. We will however be looking at all options for the future and we intend publishing a consultation document in early 2007. I have met the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council (MAC) and discussed the issue of the review of the Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit scheme. MAC has also recently met with the miners group of MPs and issues around asbestos related diseases were discussed.
On 20 July 2006, the Secretary of State announced measures to speed up the handling of claims for people suffering from mesothelioma and committed to having a full dialogue with interested parties. As part of that dialogue, we recently undertook a consultation exercise that ended on 23 November. The Department is now looking carefully at all suggestions in developing options for action.
Jon Cruddas: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much in benefits specifically related to mesothelioma claims has been clawed back through the Compensation Recovery Unit in the last 12 months (a) in the UK, (b) in the London borough of Barking and Dagenham and (c) in Dagenham constituency. [104730]
Mr. Jim Murphy: In the 12 months up to November 2006 a total of £4,743,502.99 has been recovered in respect of benefits paid in mesothelioma cases in Great Britain and £18,756.46 in Northern Ireland. Information is not available at local authority or constituency level.
The rationale behind compensation recovery is twofold. Firstly it ensures that the taxpayer (via the benefit system) does not subsidise the costs arising from a compensators actions. Secondly it ensures that an injured person is not compensated twice for the same need, once via the benefit system and again via the compensation payment. This is achieved by an offset mechanism within the scheme, which allows the compensator to reduce the compensation by some or all of the benefit repaid.
Legislation to exempt payments made to former employees of Turner and Newall (and associated companies) suffering from asbestos-related diseases from the scheme is currently being brought forward. The exemption is being made due to the unique nature of these cases. Payments are being made from two Trust Funds set up for the sole purpose of meeting asbestos liabilities. Due to the insolvent position of the parent American company-however-the Trust will not meet the claims in full.
Operating the compensation recovery scheme in these cases would further reduce payments to those suffering from asbestos-related diseases. The exemption does not breach either of the fundamental principles of the scheme as the finite amount to be paid out has already been established and the sufferers will only receive a small portion of their gross compensation awards.
Sir Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of personal capability assessments were finalised using LiMA software in 2006-07; and if he will make a statement. [113516]
Mrs. McGuire: Between January and 22 December 2006, 88 per cent. of all personal capability reports were finalised by the LiMA software.
Sir Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of personal capability assessments have been overturned on appeal; and if he will make a statement. [113517]
Mrs. McGuire: In 2005-06, there were around one million personal capability assessments and around 23,000, or two per cent., were overturned on appeal.
Sir Menzies Campbell:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what monitoring there has been
of the LiMA system's efficiency; and what proposals there are for audits of the LiMA system. [113518]
Mrs. McGuire: Since its inception, LiMA has, and continues to be, under constant review and improvement.
A steering group considers feedback from a number of sources, including users, medical quality auditors and the Department for Work and Pensions. All system changes and improvements are made in consultation with the Department and are thoroughly tested through a documented process before being released. There have been six system updates during 2006 and the process of system development will continue throughout 2007.
Medical Services has a robust externally validated audit system. The work of every doctor is regularly audited to ensure that medical reports produced using LiMA meet defined quality and professional standards.
Sir Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the impact of the integration of LiMA into the personal capability assessment on the efficient provision of benefits; and if he will make a statement. [113519]
Mrs. McGuire: LiMA is a tool used by assessing doctors that checks on the completeness and consistency of their advice. LiMA does not have an impact other than to provide consistent, legible reports.
The assessment of impact is on the quality of the medical report, and is, therefore, a function of medical quality audit.
Sir Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what effect the LiMA system has had on the revised personal capability assessment in relation to the (a) suggested changes to the increase in mental health descriptors and activities and (b) suggested changes to the physical health descriptors and activities. [113520]
Mrs. McGuire: LiMA is programmed on the basis of the current personal capability assessment (PCA) and descriptors. Before the revised PCA is implemented, the LiMA system will be completely reprogrammed to take into account the changes to both the physical and mental function assessments. This reprogramming cannot start until the regulations governing the revised PCA have been laid.
Reports based on the revised PCA, which are being used for evaluation purposes, are completed manually by Atos Origin healthcare professionals. But in justifying their choice of revised descriptors, the healthcare professionals are drawing on their expertise as disability analysts and on their familiarity with the up-to-date consensus of medical opinion that underpins the LiMA system.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |