| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Child Support Agency
Mr. Edwards: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what powers the Child Support Agency has to obtain child support from a self-employed absent parent who has not contributed maintenance to a parent with care; and how these powers have been used in the case of Elaine Lanchbury, a constituent. [31116]
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.
6 Mar 2002 : Column 412W
Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Huw Edwards, dated 4 March 2002:
- 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 have asked firstly what powers the Child Support Agency has to obtain child support from a self-employed non-resident parent who has not contributed maintenance to a parent with care and secondly how these powers have been used in the case of Elaine Lanchbury a constituent.
- There are a number of options available which can be considered when the Agency is trying to obtain maintenance payments from a non-compliant, self-employed non-resident parent.
- Those options include:
- County Court Judgement—entering a Liability Order on the register which is passed to Credit Reference Agencies,
- referring a case to Bailiffs,
- a garnishee order—which allows recovery from money held in a bank account,
- a charging order—which enables the payment of debts to be secured by a charge on land or property and
- referral of a case to court for it to consider committal to prison or withdrawal or holding of a driving licence.
- Individual cases are a confidential matter and I have written to you separately regarding Ms Lanchbury.
- I hope this is helpful.
Mr. Webb: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the number of people who have had their driving licences removed by the courts since April 2001 as a result of the provisions introduced under the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000. [33342]
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. Steve Webb, dated 4 March 2002:
- 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 ask two questions of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Firstly, if he will estimate the number of people who have had their driving licences removed by the courts since April 2001 as a result of the provisions introduced under the Child Support Pensions and Social Security Act 2000. Secondly, how many people have been (a) prosecuted and (b) convicted; and what was the average sentence from that conviction under the criminal offence of non-co-operation with the CSA.
- No driving licences have been removed by the Courts from non-resident parents. In two cases the Courts ordered a non-resident parent to be disqualified from holding a driving licence but the order was suspended. They are both now making regular payments.
- There have been no prosecutions and therefore no convictions made under the criminal offence of non-co-operation with the Child Support Agency. The deterrent effect of a criminal sanction for failing to provide information when requested is an important element of the new system. We strongly encourage parents to co-operate voluntarily with requests for information before referring the case for consideration of prosecution under the new legislation.
- I hope this is helpful.
Mr. Webb: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average payment is made in child support maintenance by the non-resident parent under the CSA system for (a) one child, (b) two children and (c) three children. [33266]
6 Mar 2002 : Column 413W
Malcolm Wicks: The information is in the table.
| Number of qualifying children | Average per week (£) |
|---|---|
| 1 | 7.98 |
| 2 | 10.65 |
| 3 | 10.23 |
Note:
Includes nil assessments.
Source:
5 per cent. scan of the Child Support Computer System August 2001.
Mr. Webb: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the (a) percentage and (b) number of non-resident parents who would see a reduction in their CSA child support maintenance liability under the April 2002 scheme. [33264]
Malcolm Wicks: Based on an assessment made in 1998, had all cases transferred to the new child support scheme at that time, around 65 per cent. of non-resident parents in work would have seen a reduction in their child support liability. This amounts to approximately 425,000 cases. However, it is not possible to make a firm estimate of the impact on non-resident parents for 2003, five years later, given earnings growth and changes in family circumstances.
- Note:
- New scheme maintenance modelled on 5 per cent. scan of the child support computer system August 1998.
Jobcentre Plus
Mr. Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff have been (a) redeployed and (b) retrained as a result of the introduction of Jobcentre Plus; and what his estimate is of the costs incurred by his Department in undertaking retraining programmes. [33507]
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Approximately 4,000 staff are employed in the 56 Jobcentre Plus pathfinder offices that have opened since October 2001. The majority of these staff were perviously employed by either the Employment Service or the Benefits Agency. All have received some Jobcentre Plus specific training. The amount of training delivered to individual members of staff was largely dependent on their background and experience. The estimated cost of designing, implementing and delivering Jobcentre Plus training for all Jobcentre Plus pathfinder staff is £5 million.
Automated Credit Transfer
Mr. Peter Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the annual saving in handling costs is anticipated when benefits payments are changed to automated credit transfer. [33068]
Malcolm Wicks [holding answer 5 February 2002]: The movement to payment direct into bank and building society accounts assures a safe, convenient, more modern and efficient way of paying benefits and pensions and will bring very substantial savings. Against this, we will incur some additional costs which cannot yet be quantified, including payments to Post Office Ltd. which will depend
6 Mar 2002 : Column 414W
on the outcome of the current contract negotiations between the Government and the Post Office, and on the number of Post Office Card Accounts.
Universal Bank
Brian Cotter: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what level of investment the Government have committed themselves to providing for the universal bank project. [34794]
Malcolm Wicks: The Department, together with the Inland Revenue and the Northern Ireland Social Security Agency, are close to finalising contractual terms with the Post Office for universal banking services. The amounts involved will be commercially confidential to the parties.
Brian Cotter: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether the Government have reached an agreement with the high street banks as to the level of funding that they will invest in the universal bank project. [34792]
Malcolm Wicks: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness on 30 October 2001, Official Report, columns 589–90W.
Jobseeker's Allowance
Mr. Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many cases were the subject of rolling reviews in each of the last five years in determining the level of fraud in jobseeker's allowance and income support. [36254]
Malcolm Wicks: The total number of sample cases has been around 30,000 since the start of the area benefit review programme. The number for each reporting period is in the table.
The smaller sample size for 2001–02 was introduced as part of the move to a common sample for determining levels of fraud and customer error, and official error. The smaller sample size for 2002–03 is a result of the Department restructuring from 13 areas to 11 Government office regions. Neither of these reductions in sample size will result in a reduction in the confidence levels of the reported results.
| Reporting period | Sample size |
|---|---|
| October 1997 to September 1998 | 31,200 |
| April 1998 to March 1999 | 31,200 |
| April 1999 to March 2000 | 31,200 |
| April 2000 to March 2001 | 31,200 |
| April 2001 to March 2002 | 27,333 |
| April 2002 to March 2003 | 26,900 |
Source:
Area benefit reviews
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |