| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
25 Jun 2007 : Column 430W—continued
Mr. Hood: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures are in place for the Child Support Agency to reimburse payments of child maintenance collected by the Agency through deductions from earnings orders imposed after liability had ceased; whether interest accrued is passed on; and what time limits are set for the Agency to effect reimbursements. [138698]
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 25 June 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, what measures are in place for the Child Support Agency to reimburse payments of child maintenance collected by the Agency through deductions from earnings orders imposed after liability had ceased; whether interest accrued is passed on; and what time limits are set for the Agency to effect reimbursements. [138698]
It is Child Support Agency Policy that any money sent in error must be refunded; even if the receipt has already been paid out to the third party. Where a deduction from earning order continues in force once liability has ceased, the Agency aims to reimburse such payments of child maintenance to employers, with ten working days following a request to reimburse. The Agency does not calculate interest accrued on individual payments. However the Agency is able to consider redress where the non-resident parent has suffered financial loss as a result of an error made by the Agency.
I hope you find this answer helpful.
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what proportion of Child Support Agency liability order applications were inaccurate in any particular for each quarter since March 1997; and if he will make a statement; [141936]
(2) what estimate he has made of the number of liability orders made by the Child Support Agency which were incorrect in each year since 1997. [143583]
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 25 June 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, what proportion of Child Support Agency Liability order applications were inaccurate in any way for each quarter since March 1997; and if he will make a statement. [141936]
And;
You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what estimate he has made of the number of Liability Orders made by the Child Support Agency, which were incorrect in each year since 1997. [143583]
To ensure the Agency applies for an appropriate Liability Order, a number of management checks are undertaken prior to a Liability Order application being made, including the provision of an account audit. In a small percentage of cases the Agency
may identify a case where a Liability Order has been granted but subsequently discovered an issue, which requires remedial action before further civil proceedings can be considered. This information is set out in the attached Table 1.
In addition, although Magistrates are not able to consider the accuracy of the Agency’s debt calculation, the Courts can dismiss an Agency Liability Order application following representation from the Non-Resident Parent. Information on cases dismissed by the courts is set out in the attached Tables 2 & 3.
The software for recording data was introduced in 2003, therefore information is not available on the earlier years.
I hope you find this answer helpful.
| Table 1: Liability orders, further Agency work required | |
| Quarterly period | Inaccurate liability order applications (Percentage) |
| Table 2 : Liability orders, dismissed by the courts, England and Wales | |
| Quarterly period | Percentage of liability order applications dismissed |
| Notes: 1. Information on liability orders accepted by the courts by requiring remedial work by the Agency before enforcement action is only available from April 2004. 2. Information on liability orders rejected by courts in England and Wales only available from April 2004. | |
| Table 3 : Rejected liability orders, dismissed by the courts, Scotland | |
| Quarterly period | Percentage of liability order applications dismissed |
| Note : 1. Information on liability orders dismissed by Scottish courts is only available from April 2006. | |
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what assessment he has made of the likely effect on Child Support Agency compliance levels of naming and shaming on a website those non-compliant non-resident parents who have been successfully prosecuted; what the annual cost of the procedure is estimated to be; and if he will make a statement; [141937]
(2) how many names of non-compliant non-resident parents he expects to be placed on the Child Support Agency website in each of the next five years; and if he will make a statement. [141938]
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 25 June 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, what assessment he has made of the likely effect in Child Support Agency compliance levels of naming and shaming on a website those non-compliant non-resident parents who have been successfully prosecuted; what the annual cost of the procedure is estimated to be; and if he will make a statement. [141937]
and
how many names of non-compliant non-resident parents he expects to be placed on the Child Support Agency website in each of the next five years; and if he will make a statement. [141938].
The decision to publish the names of successfully prosecuted non-compliant parents on the Child Support Agency website is only one measure in a broad programme aiming to build a culture of compliance among non-resident parents. The intention is to promote the message that not paying for your children is not a choice you can make, refusal to pay brings consequences including being named and shamed.
The cost of publishing this information is negligible; information on successful prosecutions is currently gathered as a matter of course and publishing names on our website will take place as part of regular maintenance activity, any remaining cost relates to our decision to consult parents with care which places little burden on our resources.
The number of names published on the Agency website is dependent on the numbers of non compliant non-resident parents found guilty in open court of refusing to provide information to enable child maintenance assessment to be made. In the 12 months to March 2007, there were 485 such successful prosecutions. However we hope that even those who are most determined to avoid their legal responsibilities will respond positively, such that this measure is not required in the future.
I hope you find this answer helpful.
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the caseload of the Child Support Agency and its successor, the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission, for each quarter from March 1997 to March 2012; and if he will make a statement. [141939]
Mr. Plaskitt:
The caseload of the Child Support Agency is published in the Quarterly Summary Statistics (QSS). The table 1 of the QSS shows the reported caseload of the Child Support Agency between May 1999 and March 2007. The caseload before this date is not reported by the Quarterly Summary Statistics as changes in the calculation
methodology mean that the numbers are not comparable. Table 6 of the QSS shows the number of CSA cases with a calculation from February 1997. The table can be found at:
It is estimated that the steady state caseload of the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission will be approximately one million. However, this estimate is subject to significant behavioural uncertainty and is dependent on the exact policy design and future decisions made by the Commission. It is therefore not possible to give quarterly estimates due to these dependencies.
The research report “Summary of Child Maintenance Redesign Survey—Indications of future behaviour and choices” was published on 22 June and provides further evidence to underpin the planning assumptions. The Department for Work and Pensions is currently conducting further research to assess demand for the services that the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission will offer through the Relationship Separation Survey which is due to be published in spring 2008.
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much outstanding liability there is in respect of (a) interest under the Child Support (Arrears, Interest and Adjustment of Maintenance Assessments) Regulations 1992 (S.I. 1992/1816) and (b) fees under the Child Support Fees Regulations 1992 (S.I. 1992/3094). [143039]
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 25 June 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 outstanding liability there is in respect of (a) interest under the Child Support (Arrears Interest and Adjustment of Maintenance Assessments) Regulations 1992 (S.I. 1992/1816) and (b) fees under the Child Support Fees Regulations 1992 (S.I. 1992/3094).
The Child Support Fees Regulations 1992 , S.I. 1992/3094 were repealed in 1996 and the Agency no longer charges interest on arrears of child support maintenance. As at March 31March 2006, £1.966 million in interest has been charged on outstanding maintenance.
Fees under the Child Support Fees Regulations 1992 (S.I. 1992/3094) have not been charged since the 1994-95 financial year as the Agency no longer has the powers to charge interest since the powers to do so were repealed in 1996. As at 31 March 2006 the outstanding balance on fees recoverable from non-resident parents was £12.35 million.
I hope you find this answer helpful.
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how the 100 parents with care written to by the Child Support Agency (CSA) in June 2007 informing them that their non compliant non-resident parent’s name would be displayed on the CSA website unless they objected were selected; [143588]
(2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the letter sent to parents with care which informed them that their non compliant non-resident parent’s name would be displayed on the Child Support Agency (CSA) website unless they objected. [143589]
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 25 June 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 the 100 parents with care written to by the Child Support Agency (CSA) in June 2007 informing them that their non compliant non-resident parent’s name would be displayed on the CSA website unless they objected were selected (143588), and
If he will place in the Library a copy of the letter sent to parents with care which informed them that their non compliant non-resident parent’s name would be displayed on the Child Support Agency (CSA) website unless they objected (143589).
The Agency identified those non-resident parents who were successfully prosecuted from January to March 2007 for either supplying incorrect information or failing to provide information.
We did not write to the parents with care where our records indicated that there was a possibility that the non-resident parent was potentially violent, where the case status was ‘closed’ or where there was insufficient contact details for the parent with care.
I have placed a copy of the letter sent to the parents with care in the Library, as requested.
I hope you find this answer helpful.
Mrs. Maria Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the (a) average and (b) maximum time has been for child maintenance payments to be processed by the Child Support Agency and made available to the parent with care in the last 12 months. [143804]
Mr. Plaskitt [holding answer 19 June 2007]: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive. He will write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Stephen Geraghty, dated 25 June 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.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |