HL Deb 04 April 2000 vol 611 cc126-8WA
Earl Russell

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will set out in a table the number of reduced benefit directions currently in force against parents with care, the amount of the reduction, the duration of those directions and the total amount of benefit not paid. [HL1670]

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

The information is in the table.

Details of Reduced Benefit Directions (RBD) at quarter ending (QE) November 1999
Quarter RBD was imposed Number of whole quarters RBD in place to date Estimated duration of RBD (weeks) Number of cases on 5% scan of Income Support Computer System Number of cases (grossed up) Average weekly amount of benefit not paid (£) Estimated total benefit not paid up to QE Nov 99 (£,000)
Nov 97 8 110.5 11 220 20.56 499.8
Aug 97 9 123.5 10 200 20.56 507.8
May 97 10 136.5 9 180 20.55 505.0
Feb 97 11 149.5 4 80 20.56 245.9
All cases with RBD in place at Nov 99 35.6 685 13,700 20.32 9,937.7

Notes:

1. Figures produced using ASD 5 per cent scan of Income Support Computer System, which is run at the end of Feb, May, Aug and Nov each year. Grossed figures are, therefore, subject to a degree of sampling error.

2. Scan does not hold start date when RBD imposed for each case, so taken to be mid-point of quarter.

3. Analysis may miss a small number of cases where RBD in place for only a very short period between the end of successive quarters.

4. Average amount includes cases where the full RBD cannot be deducted.

Earl Russell

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What steps they are taking to ensure that the decision to impose a reduced benefit direction upon a parent with care is considered quickly as a matter of course under the revision of supersession procedure. [HL1671]

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

The Child Support Agency treats applications for revision or supersession of a reduced benefit direction as a matter of urgency.

Earl Russell

asked Her Majesty's Government:

In how many cases, where a reduced benefit direction was imposed on a parent with care, was the decision to impose such a penalty subject to the revision or supersession procedure under the system of decision-making and appeals before being considered by an appeal tribunal; and what this number of cases represents as a percentage. [HL1672]

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

Since June 1999, all appeals cases are subject to the decision-making and appeals procedures. In the period June 1999 to date there have been 310 reduced benefit direction appeals. In 25 of these cases the decision to impose a reduced benefit direction was revised and consequently these cases did not go to tribunal.

Earl Russell

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What percentage of (a) parents with care who successfully appealed against a reduced benefit direction and (b) parents with care who unsuccessfully appealed against a reduced benefit direction had their cases subject to the revision or supersession procedure under the system of decision-making and appeals. [HL1673]

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

Since June 1999, when the decision-making and appeals procedures were introduced, a total of 166 appeals against reduced benefit directions have been referred to the Appeals Service. In each case, as part of the preparation of the appeal documents, the question of whether the decision should be revised was considered and rejected. Of the 166 appeals, decisions have been made in 39 cases. Ten were upheld and 29 were dismissed. In addition to the number of appeals referred, 36 parents with care withdrew their appeals following revision of their cases.

Earl Russell

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What was the mean average period during which parents with care who successfully appealed against the impostion of a reduced benefit were subject to such a direction while appealing under (a) the decision-making and appeals system; (b) the former system; and [HL1674]

What was (a) the shortest period between the imposition of a reduced benefit direction on a parent with care and the decision by the appeal body that the direction has been imposed wrongly and (b) the longest such period under (i) the system of decision-making and appeals and (ii) the former system. [HL1675]

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

The information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

The table shows the shortest and longest periods taken for the CSA Central Appeals Unit to clear a reduced benefit direction appeal since the introduction of decision-making and appeal procedures in June 1999.

Case type Shortest period Longest period
Appeals submissions written1 6 days 231 days
Appeals withdrawn2 15 days 231 days
Lapsed appeals3 21 days 232 days

Notes:

1. Cases referred by the Central Appeals Unit to the Appeals Service.

2. Cases where appeals have been withdrawn by the parent with care before the case is referred to the Appeals Service.

3. Cases where the original decision has been revised before the case is referred to the Appeals Service.