§ Mr. KirkwoodTo ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library a copy of(a) each of the CSA's monthly Business Information Bulletins since April 2001, (b) the CSA Board's quarterly review of its progress, (c) the CSA's Risk Management Framework and Report on Risk Management for and (d) the CSA's Latest Controls report from December 2001. [32548]
§ Malcolm WicksThe 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. Kirkwood, dated 1 May 2002:
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply by me. I'm sorry about the long delay in providing this.You have asked for a copy of each of the following to be place in the library:986W
- (a) each of the CSA's monthly Business Information Bulletins since April 2001,
- (b) the CSA board's quarterly review of its progress,
- (c) the CSA's risk management framework and reports on risk management,
- (d) the CSA's latest control report from December 2001.
I am anxious to place as much material as possible in the public domain and thereby open ourselves to public scrutiny. However I also need to balance this against the harm that release of the information could have in two areas:— First, where the code of practice on access to government information exempts from disclosure "information whose disclosure would harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion, including: internal opinion, advice, recommendation, consultation and deliberation; projections and assumptions relating to internal policy analysis; analysis of alternative policy options and information relating to rejected policy options".— Secondly, in the area of "effective management and operations of the public service" where the relevant code exemption can embrace information "relating to the conduct of tests, examinations or audits conducted by a Department where disclosure of the methods used might prejudice the effectiveness of the tests or the attainments of their objectives".I have carefully considered the four documents (or sets of documents) against those criteria. I do not believe that within that guidance it would be appropriate to release
- (a) The CSA's monthly Business Information Bulletins. These are internally produced documents flagging month by month updates focused on issues and risks. They are written openly and frankly and it's effectiveness would be significantly constrained if the authors were aware that it would be publicly disclosed. This appears to fall within the first area described above.
- (b) The quarterly review of progress. This is a standing agenda item for the Board and is not, as such a document. There are a number of documents commenting on different areas but my ability to release those documents is constrained by the factors mentioned in my previous paragraph. This also appears to fall within the first area described above.
- (c) I am content to place the CSA's risk management framework within the library. I do not believe that the report on risk management, which review our internal controls, should be released. This appears to fall within the second area described above.
- (d) I do not believe the CSA's latest controls report which by definition review our internal controls should be released. This also appears to fall within the second area described above.
If you are not satisfied with my reasons for not giving you the rest of the information, please tell me why. If you are still not satisfied after we have looked at your request again, you can approach the Ombudsman, who will be able to see all the relevant papers and decide whether the decision is fair.I am sorry if this reply appears negative. I would be happy to meet with you and colleagues on DWP Select Committee to discuss how I might provide you with briefings covering the substance of these reports, perhaps informally on a regular basis.
§ Mr. Andrew TurnerTo ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many assessments have been made by the Child Support Agency within(a) one month, (b) two to six months, (c) seven to 12 months, (d) one to two years and (e) more than two years of application in each year since the Agency's creation. [51062]
§ Malcolm Wicks[holding answer 18 April 2002]: 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 Andrew Turner, dated 1 May 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 to me.You ask, how many assessments have been made by the Child Support Agency within (a) one month (b) two to six months (c) seven to 12 months (d) one to two years and (e) more than two years of application in each year since the Agency's creation.987WI am sorry but the information you have requested is only available from 1998. The figures in the table below are extrapolated from a sample of 5 per cent. of the live cases on our computer system. They are therefore subject to a small degree of sampling error. As a result, whilst the figures I am quoting are statistically valid, they will not match exactly previously published figures for assessments made in the years in question.
Maintenance Assessments made Year to 31 March 1999 2000 2001 Under one month 8,300 4,000 2,300 Within two to six months 77,600 62,500 41,800 Within seven to twelve months 39,800 33,800 25,300 Within one to two years 25,200 17,200 17,400 Over two years 48,700 14,100 12,000 I do not yet have similar information available to 31 March 2002. I can tell you that for the period 1 April 2001–31 March 2002, 53,644 assessments were made within 20 weeks of receiving an application, 33,612 between 20 and 52 weeks and 19,209 over 52 weeks.
I hope this is helpful.
§ Mark TamiTo ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what was the average number of employees working for the Child Support Agency in each of the last five years; [30264]
(2) what the staff turnover was for each grade of employee working for the Child Support Agency in the last 12 months; [30265]
(3) how many appeals were made to the Parliamentary Ombudsman regarding the Child Support Agency in the last 12 months. [30267]
§ Malcolm WicksThe 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 Mark Tami, dated 1 May 2002:
988WThe Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply by me. I'm sorry about the long delay in providing this.You ask three questions: one, what was the average number of employees working for the Child Support Agency in each of the last five years, two, what the staff turnover was for each grade of employee working for the Child Support Agency in the last 12 months and three, how many appeals were made to the Parliamentary Ombudsman regarding the Child Support Agency in the last 12 months.Table 1 on the attached annex shows the staff in post figures, which are based on an average of the year, commencing January to December. Figures shown are the amount of staff based on a headcount (which includes part time staff), also the number of whole time equivalent staff. The higher figure for 2001 reflect additional staff currently employed within the Child Support Reform Project. These figures do not include work undertaken for us in Belfast by Northern Ireland Child Support Agency staff.Table 2 on the attached annex is the number of staff who have left the Agency between January 2001 to December 2001. These figures include staff who have moved to another part of Government as well as those who have resigned from the public service.From 1st January 2001 to 31st December 2001 the Parliamentary Ombudsman received 136 requests for investigation regarding Child Support Agency cases.I hope this is helpful.
Annex 1
Table 1: The average number of staff in post for each of the last five years Year Whole-time equivalent Headcount 2001 9,486.78 10,292 2000 8,720.75 9,298 1999 8,442.03 9,305 1998 8,271.08 9,067 1997 8,502.02 9,312 Source:
Corporate Services Division. Department of Work and Pensions
Table 2: Staff turnover 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001 Total leavers Grade Staff transferring to other Government department or agency Staff leaving the civil service Total Administrative Assistant 45 365 410 Support Grade 1 1 10 11 Administrative Officer 198 768 966 Executive Officer 141 98 239 Higher Executive Officer 55 17 72 Senior Executive Officer 16 4 20 Grade 7 4 0 4 Grade 6 0 1 1 Total 460 1,263 1,723 Source:
Corporate Services Division. Department of Work and Pensions
§ Mr. WebbTo ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many non-resident parents the CSA calculates have(a) 0 per cent. maintenance liability and (b) a net income of less than £100 per week; [42802]
(2) what the average percentage of net income paid in child support maintenance by the non-resident parent under the CSA system is for (a) one child, (b) two children and (c) three children; [42804]
(3) what the (a) number and (b) percentage of those in receipt of CSA child support maintenance who are also in receipt of (i) income support and (ii) income-based jobseekers' allowance is. [42805]
§ Malcolm Wicks[holding answer 12 March 2002]: 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 Steve Webb, dated 1 May 2002:
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply by me. I'm sorry about the long delay in providing this.You ask three questions;What is the number and percentage of those in receipt of Child Support Agency maintenance who are also in receipt of (i) Income Support and (ii) Jobseekers Allowance (Income Based);How many non-resident parents the Child Support Agency currently calculates have (i) 0 per cent maintenance liability and (ii) a net income of less than £100 per week;What is the average percentage of net income paid in child support maintenance by the non-resident parent under the Child Support Agency system for (a) one child, (b) two children and (c) three children.989WThe figures I have used in this reply have been taken from the Quarterly Summary of Child Support Agency statistics, a copy of which is placed in the House of Commons library the figures referred to below are all as at November 2001.There were 380,900 parents with care with full maintenance assessments in receipt of child support maintenance who are also in receipt of Income Support. (37.4% of the total number of parents with care), and 8,600 in receipt of Jobseekers Allowance (Income Based), (0.8% of the total number of parents with care).There were 497,400 non-resident parents with a nil maintenance assessment. At the same date there were 506,900 non-resident parents who had a net income for assessment purposes of less than £100 per week.The mean average percentage of net income (as currently defined) paid by a non-resident parent is 15% where one child is involved, 18% where two children are involved and 19% where three or more children are involved. This excludes cases where the net income for maintenance assessment purposes is nil.It should be noted that the definition of net income in the current scheme differs significantly from that in the new arrangements in the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000.Under the new scheme we will take account of the earned income of the non-resident parent, including overtime, bonus and commission, together with tax credits and income from occupational pensions. Deductions for tax, national insurance and pension contributions will be made.Under the current scheme, we allow deductions for half of the pension contributions and we take account of other sources of income such as child benefit, contributory and non-contributory benefits, income from property or capital, housing benefit and council tax benefit.Not all of these other sources of income will be ignored entirely in the new scheme. A non-resident parent who, for example, receives Incapacity Benefit will be required to pay maintenance at a flat rate of £5 per week. And, where a non-resident parent has substantial property or capital assets, the parent with care may apply for a variation to the maintenance calculation.