HC Deb 14 May 1991 vol 191 cc118-9W
Mr. McAllion

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the Information Technology Services Agency; and what percentage of that is allocated to staff costs;

(2) what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the Resettlement Agency; and what percentage of that is allocated to staff costs;

(3) what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the Benefits Agency; and what percentage of that is allocated to staff costs;

(4) what is the 1991–92 annual budget for the Contributions Agency; and what percentage of that is allocated to staff costs.

Miss Widdecombe

The 1991–92 annual budgets initially allocated to the Department's four agencies are in the table. Allocations differentiate between capital and running costs but the latter are not split between staff and non-staff costs. It is for agency chief executives to determine, within the framework of Government accounting, how their administration budget is actually spent and this includes flexibility to vary the amounts spent on staff and other running costs.

Agency Initial budget (£ million)
Information Technology Services Agency 406.566
Resettlement Agency 25.959
Benefits Agency 1,707.336
Contributions Agency 111.493

Mr. McAllion

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the computer consultancy companies currently employed by the Information Technology Services Agency, together with the purpose of each contract, total cost of each contract and number of non-civil servants employed in each contract.

Miss Widdecombe

The administration of the Information Technology Services Agency is a matter for Mr. John Kenworthy, the agency chief executive. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

Mr. Nellist

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answers of 1 May,Official Report, column 254, on the overpayments recovery guide and column 255, on deductions from income support, when the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East might expect replies from the Benefits Agency; whether it will be normal practice for the agency to reply on the same date for which a question was tabled for answer; whether the agency will contact Members to explain the delay in cases where a question is not answered on that date; and if he will make a statement.

Miss Widdecombe

I understand from the chief executive of the Benefits Agency that replies were sent to the hon. Member on 8 and 10 May respectively. Replies should normally reach the hon. Member concerned within a day of the question being answered. The chief executive will be writing to the hon. Member about the delay which occurred in replying to the two questions to which he refers.