House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 18 Dec 2001 (pt 3)

Far East Prisoners of War

Mr. Swayne: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, (1) pursuant to his answer of 12 December 2001, Official Report, column 861W, on prisoners of war in the Far East, if he will state the assumptions on which budgetary provision was made for his ex-gratia payment scheme for former British civilian internees of the Japanese; [23768]

(a)

(b)

Dr. Moonie: When the scheme was announced on 7 November 2000, Official Report, columns 159–70W, I advised the House that it was estimated that up to 16,700 people might be eligible for the ex-gratia payment for

18 Dec 2001 : Column: 178W

former Far East prisoners. This figure was the best estimate available and was based on an assessment of the numbers of those who had been held captive in each of the groups covered by the scheme and of the likely number of surviving members of those groups or surviving spouses where the former prisoner had subsequently died. The data were gathered from official records and from the associations representing former Far East prisoners. The estimate made for the number of surviving civilian internees and surviving spouses of deceased internees was 3,700 based on data provided by the Association of British Civilian Internees—Far East Region.

I am withholding the further detail requested under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

Aldermaston

Mr. Salter: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will establish an inquiry into the suspension of private contractors working at the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston, following a police investigation and drug-testing among those working on the decommissioning of nuclear warheads. [23394]

Dr. Moonie: Safety at the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE), Aldermaston is paramount, and we are confident that it has not been compromised by the incident to which my hon. Friend refers. The decommissioning activities in this case related not to nuclear weapons, but to a redundant building. None the less, work was halted pending the outcome of a Ministry of Defence police investigation into allegations relating to drugs. This is now complete. No drugs were found during searches and no evidence emerged to support either further investigation or legal proceedings. AWE plc expect to resume the decommissioning shortly.

SCOTLAND

Departmental Staff

Mr. Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many employees of (a) her Department and (b) agencies sponsored by her Department work in (i) London, (ii) areas benefiting from EU Objective 1 status, (iii) areas with Objective 2 status and (iv) other areas. [16115]

Mrs. Liddell [holding answer 19 November 2001]: My Department employs 30 staff in London, 32 staff in an EU Objective 2 status area and 52 in other areas. No staff work in an EU Objective 1 area.

Public Bodies

Mr. Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if she will list those public bodies which are the responsibility of her Department and which are not listed in Public Bodies 2000; [17604]

Mrs. Liddell: Public Bodies 2000 sets out information on non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), certain public corporations (including nationalised industries) and NHS

18 Dec 2001 : Column: 179W

bodies. There are four types of NDPB: executive NDPBs; advisory NDPBs; tribunal NDPBs; and boards of visitors to penal establishments. The next edition will be published around the end of the year. Information about task forces, annual reports and ad hoc advisory groups is set out in an annual report, published by the Cabinet Office. Copies of Public Bodies 2000 are in the Library of the House and this publication may be accessed via Cabinet Office's website (http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/caboff/ pb00/pb00.htm). Copies of the annual report on task forces and similar bodies have also been placed in the Library of the House and the annual report is being made available on Cabinet Office's website.

The only public body for which my Department has responsibility is the Boundary Commission for Scotland, details of which are in Public Bodies 2000.

Abortion

Mr. Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans she has to propose legislation to permit the Scottish Parliament to amend the abortion law in Scotland. [22879]

Mr. Foulkes: None.

Scottish Parliament

Mr. Russell Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to her answer of 6 November 2001, Official Report, column 91, to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), when she plans to launch her consultation exercise on the size of the Scottish Parliament. [24542]

Mrs. Liddell: I have today issued the document "The size of the Scottish Parliament—a consultation". Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and are being sent to all MPs representing Scottish constituencies and Members of the Scottish Parliament. Views are sought on the case for retaining or ending the linking of Westminster and Holyrood constituency boundaries as provided in the Scotland Act 1998, in the light of the experience now gained of the Scottish Parliament. I am inviting responses by 29 March 2002.

WORK AND PENSIONS

Child Support Agency

Mr. Steinberg: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what his estimate is of the money owed to parents by absentee parents in the City of Durham; [13606]

(3) how many cases in the Durham area have been dealt with by the CSA since it was established. [13609]

Malcolm Wicks: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to my hon. Friend.

18 Dec 2001 : Column: 180W

Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Gerry Steinberg, dated 12 December 2001:

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency, promised a substantive reply by me.

You asked three questions; our estimate of the money owed to parents with care by non resident parents in the City of Durham, our estimate of how many CSA assessments will be processed at the end of this financial year and how many cases in the Durham area have been dealt with by the CSA since it was established.

I am sorry but we don't collect information in a way that will permit me to make a sensible estimate of the amount of maintenance that is owed to parents with care by non-resident parents in the Durham area. I can, however, provide answers to your other questions.

I estimate that around 16,500 cases in the Durham area have been dealt with by the CSA since November 1995. This is drawn from a sampling exercise which only started in November 1995 so my figures cannot precede that date.

During the current financial year the Agency is expecting to process 380,000 assessments arising from new maintenance applications and 715,111 assessments arising from changes to existing maintenance arrangements.

I hope this is helpful.

Mr. Todd: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will set out an action plan to address the concerns expressed by the Comptroller and Auditor General in qualifying the 2000–01 accounts of the Child Support Agency. [15244]

Malcolm Wicks: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to my hon. Friend.

Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Mark Todd, dated 12 December 2001:

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency, promised a substantive reply by me.

I take the concerns that the Comptroller and Auditor General have expressed very seriously and have created an action plan which has two key components:

An enhanced focus on corporate governance to ensure that basic checks are carried out, that risk management processes are fully embedded and that lessons learned from audit reports are implemented.

The implementation of the Child Support Reforms, which should obviate many mistakes which have led to the qualifications having previously been made.

I hope this is helpful.

Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the cost in (a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01 of compensation payments for maladministration by the CSA. [18994]

Malcolm Wicks: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. John Bercow, dated 17 December 2001:

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from me.

You asked for a statement on the cost in (a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–2001 of compensation payments for maladministration by the CSA.

18 Dec 2001 : Column: 181W

The amount of compensation paid by the Agency for maladministration was:

£3,075,000 for the financial year 1999–2000

£3,053,000 for the financial year 2000–2001

Deferred debt is also classed as a compensatory payment because we compensate the parent with care for the amount of deferred debt that we do not collect from the non-resident parent. The amounts that were paid were:

£2,024,000 for the financial year 1999–2000

£3,693,000 for the financial year 2000–2001

Advance payments are another form of compensation. They are lump sum payments of arrears paid to a parent with care when the Agency has delayed actioning a case. The arrears are however recovered from the non-resident parent over a period of time. The following amounts have been paid:

£862,000 for the financial year 1999–2000

£1,153,000 for the financial year 2000–2001

In 1999/2000, 2.58% of the total Agency budget was paid in compensation for maladministration and in 2000/2001 3.46% was paid. In both years the amount of compensation for maladministration paid was lower than the amount allocated towards these payments.

I hope this is helpful.

Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the performance target was for the CSA to reduce its outstanding work by 31 March; and if it was achieved. [19125]

Malcolm Wicks: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. John Bercow, dated 12 December 2001:

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from me.

You asked what the performance target was for the CSA to reduce its outstanding work by 31st March; and if it was achieved.

The Performance targets were published in the Annual Report and Accounts 2000/2001 and are set out in the attached annex. During the year, these targets were set aside in order to prioritise those elements of work which best supported successful implementation of the Child Support Reforms.

I hope this is helpful.

Targets for reduction of outstanding work for year 2000–01Weeks

Outstanding work	Target	Performance
Pre-maintenance assessment	18	30.5
Revisions, supersessions and case checks	6.2	10.8
Account advice	4	5
Interim maintenance assessment	49	276.0
Account maintenance	1.4	1.5
Debt management	12	20.1
Enforcement	30	46.7

Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if the CSA met its performance target in 2000–01 for the accuracy of the cash value of all assessments. [19124]

Malcolm Wicks: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

18 Dec 2001 : Column: 182W

Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. John Bercow, dated 12 December 2001:

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from me.

You asked if the CSA met its performance target in 2000–01 for the accuracy of the cash value of all assessments.

Our target measures the accuracy of our assessments to the nearest penny and requires us to revisit the whole of the current assessment including those elements which may have been in place for some considerable time. The measure therefore reflects historical mistakes rather than current performance. On that measure we achieved 67.4 per cent. accuracy against a target of 78 per cent. However if we look solely at the most recent action accuracy was 78.5 per cent.

In the current year we have continued to improve that latter figure and in October we achieved 82.4 per cent. accuracy.

I hope this is helpful.

Next Section

Index

Home Page