| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
20 July 2009 : Column 829W—continued
Attendance Allowance
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of total expenditure on benefits payments attendance allowance accounted for in (a) 1980, (b) 1997, (c) 2001, (d) 2005 and (e) 2008. [287417]
Jonathan Shaw: The information is in the following table.
| Percentage of DWP total benefit expenditure accounted for by attendance allowance | |
| Percentage | |
| Note: DWP total benefit expenditure excludes benefits that are no longer within the remit of DWP. Child benefit and war pensions have been excluded. Source: DWP accounting data | |
Children: Maintenance
Mr. Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what mechanism is in place for the recovery of child maintenance payments from British national absent parents who are resident overseas. [281844]
Helen Goodman: The Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission is responsible for the child maintenance system. I have therefore asked the Child Maintenance Commissioner to write to the hon. Member with the information requested.
In reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission, the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Child Maintenance Commissioner. The Child Support Agency is now the responsibility of the Child Maintenance Enforcement Commission.
You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what mechanism is in place for the recovery of child maintenance payments from British national absent parents who are resident overseas. [281844]
The Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission retains the power to pursue a non-resident parent who moves overseas, but only where the non-resident is regarded as being habitually resident in the UK. The criteria for establishing jurisdiction when a non-resident parent leaves the United Kingdom is described at Section 44 of the Child Support Act. There is no distinction made between an EU state and a non-EU state.
There are certain cases where the nature of employment will bring the non-resident parent under the jurisdiction of the Commission, for example those employed in the Civil Service or a member of the naval, military or air forces. The Commission may also have jurisdiction where a non-resident parent is employed by a company that is prescribed in Child Support (Maintenance Arrangement and Jurisdiction Regulations) 1992, Regulation 7A(2).
The Ministry of Justice, however operates a system for administering international child and spousal maintenance cases where the non-resident parent can not be treated as habitually resident in the UK; this is known as the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders (REMO).
Where a parent with care applies to their local magistrates' court or family proceedings court, details of the maintenance liability can be referred to the foreign jurisdiction - where the non-resident parent now resides - whom will be able to apply their domestic collection and enforcement mechanisms in order to recover the amount due. They will then refer this money back to the UK REMO administrators.
The UK has reciprocal maintenance agreements with over 100 states and territories.
I hope you find this answer helpful.
Mr. Chaytor: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many parents making payments to the Child Support Agency have their full liability reduced because they have responsibility for the care of their child for more than one night per week. [283211]
Helen Goodman [holding answer 8 July 2009]: The Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission is responsible for the child maintenance system. I have therefore asked the Child Maintenance Commissioner to 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 Child Maintenance Commissioner as the Child Support Agency is now the responsibility of the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission.
You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many parents making payments to the Child Support Agency have their full liability reduced because they have responsibility for the care of their child for more than one night per week. [283211]
The Agency estimates that at the end of March 2009, there were around 180,000 cases across both schemes where the maintenance liability has been reduced to take into account a shared care arrangement between the non resident parent and parent with care.
It should be noted that the current statutory maintenance scheme defines a shared care arrangement as one where a qualifying child spends at least 52 nights per year with the non-resident parent. However the original statutory maintenance scheme defined a shared care arrangement as one where the qualifying child spends two days or more per week with the non resident parent. The figure quoted above is based on these definitions.
I hope you find this answer helpful.
Damian McBride
Mr. Maude: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on what date she last met Mr. Damian McBride in the course of her official duties. [287419]
Yvette Cooper: I can confirm that I have not met with Mr. Damian McBride in the course of my ministerial duties.
Departmental Databases
Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what information databases her Department (a) maintain and (b) uses which do not contain personal information. [284383]
Jim Knight: The Department maintains a variety of large and small databases in order to process benefits, run the Department and deliver the range of services for which the Department is responsible. Those that contain personal information include: operational systems such as our Customer Information System; databases for research purposes; databases that contain staff-related resource management information and others that relate to the administration of specific benefits. Where personal information is stored and processed on such databases these comply with the requirements of the Data Protection Act.
Departmental Electronic Equipment
Jenny Willott: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many (a) photocopiers, (b) scanning devices and (c) fax machines, excluding multi-function devices, there are in her Department; how many there were in each of the last three years; and if she will make a statement. [286162]
Jim Knight: The Department had 5,243 photocopiers in April 2007; 4,952 in April 2008 and 4,294 in April 2009. 181 scanners and 1,377 fax machines have been ordered through the DWP IT catalogue since July and November 2007 respectively. Information on other orders and the total numbers in the Department are not available.
The Department is currently undertaking a project to rationalise the Department's printers and photocopiers and introduce where ever possible multi-functional devises with the capability to print, copy, fax and scan. This initiative will lower the total cost of printing and copying in the Department, reduce our carbon footprint and provide better support for our staff.
Departmental Risk Assessment
Mr. Rooney: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many investigations her Department's Risk Assessment Division carried out with external programme providers in each of the last five years; and how many resulted in (a) prosecution, (b) an administrative financial penalty, (c) other further action and (d) no further action. [285198]
Jim Knight [holding answer 9 July 2009]: Data in the format requested are only available from 2006-07.
The figures are shown in the following table:
| 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007 | 1 April 2007 to 31 March 2008 | 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2009 | 1 April 2009 to present | |
| (1) Five investigations in 2008-09 and two investigations in the current year to date are continuing and no conclusion has been reached. | ||||
All DWP contracts contain robust clauses that allow us to terminate or seek damages for breach. 'Administrative financial penalties' are not included in DWP contracts because penalty clauses, as such, are unenforceable through the courts. Contracts will be terminated where the breach of the contract terms is sufficiently serious.
Departmental Secondment
Sarah Teather: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many employees of her Department have been posted to work in offices of hon. Members of each political party in each of the last five years. [284883]
Jim Knight: Civil servants may shadow MPs as part of a programme run by the industry and Parliament Trust. Details on numbers of civil servants from this Department that have had such an attachment is not held centrally.
Civil servants are required to act in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Service Code.
Drugs: Rehabilitation
Mike Wood: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many people in each region were referred from Jobcentre Plus to Progress2Work in 2008-09; [284992]
(2) how many people in each region were referred from Jobcentre Plus to Progress2Work-LinkUP in 2008-09. [284993]
Jim Knight [holding answer 8 July 2009]: The available information is in the table.
| Customers in each region who started on the progress2work and progress2work-Link UP following a referral by Jobcentre Plus, in the 2008-09 operational year | ||
| Number | ||
| Region | Starts onto progress2work | Starts onto progress2work-Link UP |
| Notes: 1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 20. 2. Although the question has asked how many were referred by Jobcentre Plus in 2008-09 we can only say of those who started in 2008-09 how many were referred by Jobcentre Plus offices. Source: Department for Work and Pensions progress2work/LinkUp Evaluation Database. | ||
Employment Schemes
Mr. Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what proportion of (a) lone parents, (b) incapacity benefit claimants and (c) jobseeker's allowance claimants she estimates will be covered by the single personalised employment programme pilot scheme. [282685]
Jim Knight [holding answer 29 June 2009]: On 16 June 2009 we announced that we would pilot the Personalised Employment Programme in three Jobcentre Plus Districts: the London boroughs of Barnet, Enfield and Haringey, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight district and Thames Valley district
These pilot areas will cover around 6 per cent. of benefit claimants across the eligible customer groups.
Mr. Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what changes have been made to the single personalised employment programme pilot scheme since it was first announced; and when it is expected to commence. [282686]
Jim Knight [holding answer 29 June 2009]: In January 2009 the Department for Work and Pensions published a discussion paper on the next steps in implementing the Gregg Review. In this document the Government announced that the pilots would include parents with younger children in addition to jobseekers and those with health conditions or disabilities. The programme was also renamed and it is now known as the Personalised Employment Programme.
Changes to the programme have not altered the roll-out date for the pilots, which are expected to commence in March 2011.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |