§ Mr. ByersTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what was the average time for the Child Support Agency to complete first line reviews in the last year for which information is available; and what was the longest time that such a review took;
(2) what was the average time for the Child Support Agency to complete submissions to appeal tribunals in the last year for which information is available; and what was the longest time for such a submission to .be made.
§ Mr. BurtThe administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Miss Ann Chant, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.
Letter to Mr. Stephen Byers from Ann Chant, dated 26 January 1995:
I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the average times taken by the Child Support Agency to complete first line reviews and submissions to appeal tribunals.The Agency does not keep information on the average time taken to complete a Section 18 review or a submission to an appeal tribunal. There is no business requirement for the Agency to keep information on the longest time taken to complete either a Section 18 review or a submission to an appeals tribunal. The information which is available is contained in the tables below.321W
Time taken to complete Section 18 review: August—2 December 1994 Time taken Cases reviewed Per cent. 0–3 months 805 20.5 3–6 months 985 25.1 More than 6 months 2,134 54.4
Time taken to complete Section 18 review: August—2 December 1994 Time taken Cases reviewed Per cent. 0–3 months 104 8.5 3–6 months 397 32.5 More than 6 months 721 59
§ Mr. FatchettTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out(a) the number of letters from hon. Members which received a full reply (i) in 14 days, (ii) between 15 days and 28 days and (iii) in more than 28 days from the Child Support Agency and (b) the target set by the Child Support Agency for the time to respond to letters from hon. Members since the appointment of the current chief executive.
§ Mr. BurtThe administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Miss Ann Chant, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. Derek Fatchett, dated 26 January 1995:
I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the time taken and the target set to reply to letters sent to me by Members of Parliament.The information is not available in the form you request. The Agency aims to reply to letters from Members of Parliament within 20 working days, in line with the Department of Social Security target. Whilst I recognize that this target has not always been met procedural changes have been introduced and I hope that Members will have noticed an improvement in both the quality and speed of the replies sent to them over recent months.Average clearance times between September and November 1994 are shown in the table:
Percentage 1–20 days 21–40 days over 40 days September 14 55 31 October 26 44 30 November 53 37 10
§ Mr. IngramTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many cases were cleared by the Child Support Agency in the first half of 1994–95(a) without maintenance assessments and (b) with an assessment; and what are the reasons for this;
(2) what was the total number of the Child Support Agency's uncleared cases at 30 September 1994; and if this information could be added to the Child Support Agency's monthly statistical information.
§ Mr. BurtThe administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Miss Ann Chant, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. Adam Ingram, dated 26 January 1995:
I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary for Social Security about cases cleared by the Child Support Agency.A total of 338,642 maintenance assessment cases were cleared between April and September 1994, of which 152,482 resulted in a maintenance assessment and 186,160 were other clearances. Cases may be cleared without a maintenance assessment being completed for a variety of reasons. There is no business requirement for the Agency to record the specific reason for clearance in each individual case. Analysis of cases falling into this category suggests, however, that the majority are a result of the parent with care ceasing to322Wreceive benefit and not proceeding with a private application; good cause not to co-operate being accepted; or the case becoming ineligible for consideration by the Agency as a result of a change in circumstances.The total number of cases in which a maintenance application had been received, but a maintenance assessment had not yet been completed at 30 September 1994 was 474,000; this figure includes cases progressing normally through the system. By the end of November 1994, the figure had fallen to 444,000.The statistical information made available on a monthly basis is under review. I hope this is of help.