| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
18 May 2007 : Column 933W—continued
I hope this is helpful.
Child Support Agency: Pay
Mr. Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 8 February 2007, Official Report, column 1194W, on the Child Support Agency, what the (a) value and (b) number was of bonus payments made to staff at the Child Support Agency in each of the last five years, broken down by staff grade. [136019]
Mr. Plaskitt: The requested information is not available.
Children: Maintenance
Mr. Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) whether he approved the policy that the Child Support Agency Debt Collecting Agency may refuse to give information to customers and hon. Members on any progress they may be making in reclaiming non-paid maintenance; [133132]
(2) when he will be in a position to answer question 133132, on the Child Support Agency, tabled by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead on 18 April 2007. [137682]
Mr. Plaskitt: The administration of the Child Support Agency is the matter for the Chief Executive. He will write to my right hon. Friend with the information requested.
Letter from Jos Joures dated 18 May 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. As he is out of the country, I am responding, with his authority, on his behalf.
You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, whether he approved the policy that the Child Support Agency Debt Collecting Agency may refuse to give information to customers and hon. Members on any progress they may be making in reclaiming non-paid maintenance.
The Agency do not encourage parents with care to contact the debt collection agencies who are contracted to recover debt. If a parent with care requires an update on the progress of their case, they can contact the Child Support Agency directly and will secure an update on their behalf. The debt collection agencies are required to provide this update to the CSA when requested. Non-resident parents, however, should deal directly with the debt collection agencies when arranging the collection of arrears.
I hope you find this answer helpful.
Anne Main: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many credit card payments by non-resident parents have taken more than a week to be processed and passed on to the parent with care since 2005; and what the average time taken to pass on such payments has been in that period. [134123]
Mr. Plaskitt: Unfortunately the information requested is unavailable, as the Agency does not record the information in the format requested, and the information could be collated only at disproportionate cost.
Anne Main: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have disputed the clerical account breakdown of money received by the Child Support Agency from non-resident parents since 2005. [134124]
Mr. Plaskitt: The information requested is not available.
Jo Swinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number of child support claims relating to non-payment of full child support involving (a) self-employed people and (b) company directors; [134135]
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 Jos Joures dated 18 May 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. As he is out of the country I am responding, with his authority, on his behalf.
You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what estimate he has made of the number of child support claims relating to non-payment of full child support involving (a) self-employed people and (b) company directors.
In the three months ending December 2006, there were 25,320 cases charged by the Agency where the Non-Resident Parent was self-employed and not paying their full child support liability. These cases include those who only pay part of their maintenance.
I am sorry but due to limitations of available information it has not been possible to provide you with statistics where a non-resident parent is a company director.
I hope you find this answer helpful.
Jo Swinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he has taken to combat the practice of parents diverting income through company employees to avoid paying their children's full entitlement of child support. [134696]
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 Jos Joures, dated 18 May 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. I am responding, with his authority, on his behalf.
You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what steps he has taken to combat the problem of parents diverting their income through company employees to avoid paying their children’s full entitlement of child support. [134696]
Existing child support legislation includes provisions for both old and new scheme cases to cover circumstances where the non-resident parent appears to have reduced or diverted their income to avoid meeting their obligations to maintain their children.
For old scheme cases, where the parent with care has evidence that the non-resident parent is reducing their income to avoid their responsibilities, they can ask the Agency to review the maintenance assessment. This application, known as a ‘Departure Direction’, as the parent with care is requesting that the Agency departs from the original maintenance calculation, can be made in cases where the non-resident parents are able to control they amount of income they receive and where they unreasonably reduce that income.
For new scheme cases the procedure is similar, if the parent with care has evidence to believe that the non resident parent is diverting income for the purpose of reducing the maintenance assessment, they can apply for a ‘Variation’ to the maintenance assessment.
In either case, the decision maker will consider whether; the non-resident parent has the ability to control the amount of income they receive and whether they have deliberately reduced the level of income by diverting it to someone else or into a business in order to reduce or avoid child maintenance. The Agency is also required to consider whether it is “just and equitable” to make a departure or variation decision. Broadly this means that the result of the departure or variation must be fair, taking account of all the circumstances of the case, and, in
particular, the welfare of any child likely to be affected. This includes the child for whom maintenance is paid as well as any other children living with either parent.
The Agency will then consider the evidence and decide whether to restore the maintenance due to the level that it would have been had the income not been reduced. A typical example would be where the parent diverts income from a business to their spouse —who also works for the business—or where profits are retained in the company rather than producing an income.
Finally, where an allegation is made or conflicting evidence exists that suggests the non-resident parent has made a false statement, the Agency will consider whether a referral to the Agency's Criminal Compliance Team is appropriate. Section 14A (2) of the Child Support Act 1991 makes it an offence to knowingly make a false statement in reply to a request for information.
I hope you find this answer helpful.
Jo Swinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the effect of implementation of changes in child maintenance variation regulations made by the Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2005. [135404]
Mr. Plaskitt [holding answer 2 May 2007]: 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 Jos Joures, dated 18 May 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. As he is out of the country, I am responding, with his authority, on his behalf.
You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment he has made of the effect of implementation of changes in child maintenance variation regulations made by the Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2005. [135404]
The Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2005 extended the ground in Regulation 19 of the Child Support (Variations) Regulations for a variation for income not taken into account under the Child Support (Maintenance Calculations and Special Cases) Regulations 2000. Variation regulations were extended to cover cases in which the non-resident parent has the ability to control the amount of income he receives from a company or business and the Secretary of State is satisfied he is receiving income that would not otherwise be taken into account.
The Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2005 also amended the Child Support (Variations) Regulations 2000 by making provision to take into account financial assistance paid in respect to the long-term illness or disability of a relevant other child or disability living allowance paid on behalf of that child, to a member of the non-resident parent’s household where there is an application for a variation for special expenses for that relevant other child. The Regulations also made a number of consequential amendments.
The variations regime is intended to ensure the Agency offers an accurate and fair service to both the non-resident parent and the parent with care. It allows for variations to the amount of maintenance due based on extraordinary factors not covered by the standard formula. The Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2005 broadened the scope of the Agency’s ability to ensure non-resident parents meet their financial responsibilities, and are not penalised for unavoidable increased living costs.
No specific assessment of the impact of the changes made by the Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2005 has been conducted.
I hope you find this answer helpful.
Mr. Graham Stuart: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much money private agencies have collected on behalf of the Child Support Agency since private companies were first used; and how fees for successful collection are determined. [122409]
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 18 May 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, how much money private agencies have collected on behalf of the Child Support Agency since private companies were first used; and how fees for successful collection are determined. [122409]
The Agency singed contracts with two debt collection agencies on 7(th) July 2006 and started referring cases to these agencies in August 2006. As of the 31(st) January 2007 a total of £738,000 had been collected by the debt collection agencies.
A letter sent by the Agency to inform clients that their debt is to be transferred to the external debt collection agencies had also resulted in an additional £640,000 collected by the Agency by the end of January 2007.
Debt collection agencies are paid a commission by the Agency based on the amount of child maintenance that is collected on our behalf. The commission rate is calculated on a four-point scale, based on the complexity of the debt that is being pursued.
I hope you find this answer helpful.
Departments: Information and Communications Technology
Chris Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the (a) originally estimated, (b) most recently estimated and (c) outturn cost was of the five largest information technology contracts agreed by his Department with outside suppliers over the last five years, as referred to in the answer of 17 July 2006, Official Report, columns 233-4W, on information technology. [135608]
James Purnell: The information in the following table updates the estimated outturn for the IT contracts listed in my previous answer.
Departments: Sovereign Strategy
Mrs. May: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many meetings (a) Ministers and (b) officials from his Department held with Sovereign Strategy in each year between 1997 and 2006. [136868]
Mrs. McGuire: Ministers and civil servants meet many people as part of the process of policy development and advice. It is not normal practice to disclose details of such meetings.
Departments: Telephone Services
Mark Lazarowicz: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many telephone helplines are sponsored by his Department with the prefix (a) 0870 and (b) 0845; and whether alternative geographic numbers are available in each case. [136258]
Mrs. McGuire: Under arrangements with our telephone supplier, DWP has (a) 22 specific 0870 numbers and (b) 2029 specific 0845 numbers, used for a variety of purposes. The Department delegates the administration and management of non-geographic telephone numbers to local management at operational level. The services linked to individual telephone numbers broken down to helplines is not available, nor the availability of alternative geographic numbers.
Departments: Wales
Jenny Willott: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the cost was of staff relocations between his Department’s offices in Wales in each year since 2000; and if he will make a statement; [136654]
(2) which staff relocations between his Department’s offices in Wales took place in each year since 2000; how many staff were involved in each such relocation; and if he will make a statement. [136655]
Mrs. McGuire: Neither Jobcentre Plus or DWP hold detailed records of approved Public Expense moves within the Department’s offices in Wales. Any detailed investigation to retrieve this information would involve disproportionate costs.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |