| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
17 Jan 2006 : Column 1236W—continued
Sure Start
Mr. Jenkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children are participating in the Sure Start programme in Tamworth constituency. [42079]
Beverley Hughes: Sure Start Tamworth has 488 children aged four and under in its catchment area, which covers the wards of Glascote and Belgrave. During the last 12 month period for which data exists, it had delivered services to 448 of those children.
During the second phase of roll out of Sure Start Children's Centres from April 2006, Sure Start Tamworth is set to become a children's centre, and will continue to offer an expanded range of integrated services to these children and their families.
University Tuition Fees
Greg Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations her Department has received from Russell Group universities regarding the adequacy of tuition fee levels. [40262]
Bill Rammell [holding answer 9 January 2006]: The Secretary of State, I, and our predecessors have regular discussions, formal and informal, with Higher Education institutions, including Russell Group Universities, on a wide range of issues, including tuition fee levels. We have had no formal representations on the adequacy of tuition fee levels since the levels were set in regulations following the Higher Education Act 2004.
Under that Act, tuition fees may not be increased by more than inflation until 1 January 2010 at the earliest. After that date, it could only happen if approval was given by both Houses of Parliament.
There will be an independent review of the effect of our higher education funding reforms. The review, to be conducted by a Commission, working with the Office for Fair Access, will report to Parliament on the new arrangements based on the first three years' operation of the policy.
17 Jan 2006 : Column 1237W
WORK AND PENSIONS
Benefit Claimants
Mr. Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number of claimants moving into work in the last 12 months who are financially worse off. [41630]
Margaret Hodge [holding answer 12 January 2006]: The information requested is not available.
Through the introduction of the minimum wage, tax credits and changes to benefit rules we have made great strides to ensure that returning to work is more financially beneficial than staying on benefits. Employment is at record levels and this rising employment reflects people moving back into the jobs market who had not previously looked for a job, indicating that the Government's measures to make work pay are working.
Child Poverty
Mr. Paul Goodman: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether child poverty in Northern Ireland is included in assessments made in relation to child poverty targets. [41718]
17 Jan 2006 : Column 1238W
Margaret Hodge [holding answer 12 January 2006]: Our current child poverty targets are for Great Britain only and therefore do not include Northern Ireland at this time.
Child Support
Jo Swinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number of Child Support Agency cases which are being handled where the non-resident parent has been assessed as nil liability. [21105]
Mr. Plaskitt: The administration of the Child Support Agency is matter for the chief executive Mr. Stephen Geraghty. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.
Letter from Mr. Stephen Geraghty, dated 17 January 2006:
In reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.
You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number of Child Support Agency cases which are being handled where the non-resident parent has been assessed as nil liability.
The table below shows the number of cases with a calculation or assessment in September 2005 broken down by whether or not they had a nil liability. Overall, 41% of cases had a nil liability, with the equivalent figures for new and old schemes being 12% and 51% respectively.
Notes:
1. The above figures exclude an additional 30,000 old scheme cases which had a positive liability, but due to the non-cooperation of the non-resident parent a punitive interim assessment was imposed.
2. Figures are rounded to the nearest 1,000.
3. Cases which can result in a nil liability under the old scheme are:
People whose net income is less than the minimum amount of maintenance (2005–06 £5.70 a week)
People in receipt of sickness or disability benefit or award.
People who are looking after a child, so that their protected income calculation includes an amount equal to the family premium or income support.
Prisoners
People aged under 18 who are receiving income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance.
A non-resident parent (NRP) aged under 16, or aged 16–18 and in full time non advanced education (that is, up to A level, NVQ level 3 or equivalent).
An NRP receiving income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance, who satisfies the conditions for award of a family premium and who cares for a resident child for at least 104 nights a year.
4. Cases which can result in a nil liability under the new scheme are:
People whose net weekly income (including income from benefits) is less than £5 a week.
Students in full-time education (full-time means a course at a recognised school or college where there is at least 12 hours a week tuition).
An NRP aged under 16, or aged 16–18 and in full-time non-advanced education (that is, up to A level, NVQ level 3 or equivalent).
Prisoners.
16 or 17 year olds—in receipt of income support or income based jobseekers allowance or a member of a couple in receipt of income support or income-based jobseekers allowance.
People engaged in work-based training, or in Scotland, skillseekers training.
People living in a care home or independent hospital who get a benefit, pension or allowance which would otherwise result in flat-rate liability of £5, or who are getting help from a local authority with the cost of accommodation.
People in hospital who get a benefit, pension or allowance, which has been reduced to 'hospital pocket money' rate because of an extended stay in hospital (NB With the Government's announcement that reductions in benefit as a result of hospitalisation will cease from April 2006, it is intended that this category of nil rate will no longer apply from that date)
An NRP who gets a benefit, pension or allowance, which would otherwise result in flat-rate liability of £5, and who shares the care of a qualifying child for at least 52 nights a year.
I hope you find this information helpful.
17 Jan 2006 : Column 1239W
Mr. Byers: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he expects to move onto the new Child Support Agency scheme those who are paying under the old scheme. [42926]
Mr. Plaskitt: The remaining old scheme cases will transfer to the new scheme when Ministers are satisfied that it is working well. We are not willing to risk that flow of money and put at risk these cases by bringing them across before we are sure that the new system and operations are robust.
Mr. Byers: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps are taken to ensure that those resident in the Isle of Man meet obligations placed on them by the Child Support Agency. [42927]
Mr. Plaskitt: The Child Support Agency does not have jurisdiction to make a maintenance calculation unless the parent with care, non-resident parent and qualifying child are habitually resident in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom does not include the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands.
Immigration
Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the impact of immigration on long-term unemployment. [41509]
Margaret Hodge: While there has not been a specific study focused on the impact of immigration on long term unemployment, research on the labour market effects of migration into the UK has shown that migration appears to have little effect on the labour market outcomes of the existing work force.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |