| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
23 May 2007 : Column 1362W—continued
Written Questions
Dr. Cable: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will answer Questions (a) 134095, on Sir Richard Cohen, tabled on 23 April 2007, (b) 131114, on marginal rate of taxation, tabled on 28 March 2007 and (c) 131115, on income tax, tabled on 28 March 2007; and if he will make a statement. [138441]
John Healey: The Treasury regrets the delay in answering the hon. Gentleman’s questions. His question 134095 has now been answered and the other questions will be answered as soon as possible.
Work and Pensions
Benefits Rules: Personal Income
Mr. Rob Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what process is used to determine the minimum income required for the purposes of setting benefit levels. [139047]
Mr. Plaskitt: The Government take into account a number of factors when reviewing benefit rates each year, the most important of which is the level of inflation. For some years, income related benefits have been increased by the Rossi index, which is based on the retail prices index and reflects the costs of living increases for people living on these benefits. Other benefits are increased in line with the retail prices index.
Child Support Agency: Disclosure of Information
David Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many times over the last two years Child Support Agency staff have revealed confidential details of clients to former partners without permission in cases where there is a background of domestic violence. [138859]
Mr. Plaskitt: The information requested is not available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
Child Support Agency: Expenditure
Mr. Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the total running costs were of each of the offices of the Child Support Agency in each of the last five years. [133901]
Mr. Plaskitt: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.
Letter from Stephen Geraghty, dated 23 May 2007:
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 the total running costs was of each of the offices of the Child Support Agency in each of the last five years. [133901]
The Agency has people employed in over 200 discreet buildings. Unfortunately, the Departments Accounting System
does not allow us to provide an analysis of the total spending by each of these buildings. The information is therefore not available in the format requested. The total administrative expenditure of the Agency is disclosed each year in the Annual Report and Accounts.
I hope you find this answer helpful.
Child Support Agency: Pay
Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much in performance bonuses was paid to officials at the Child Support Agency in each of the last 12 months for which figures are available; to whom such bonuses were paid; and if he will make a statement. [126815]
Mr. Plaskitt: The administration of the Child Support Agency is the matter for the Chief Executive. He will write to the right hon. Member with the information requested.
Letter from Stephen Geraghty, dated 23 May 2007:
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, how much in performance bonuses was paid out to officials at the Child Support Agency in each of the last 12 months for which figures are available; to whom such bonus were paid; and If he will make a statement. [126815]
The Child Support Agency is an executive Agency of the Department for Work and Pensions and operates a Performance Bonus scheme within a framework set out by the Department.
This is an annual scheme linked to annual appraisals markings, determined as part of the Departmental Performance and Development System. Overall funding available, and the size of the individual bonuses, were determined through discussions with Treasury about the Departments pay remit, and then, through negotiations with the unions.
All payments made in the last 12 months were for the 2005/06 performance year. Total payments for the 2005/06 performance year were £3.314m and were all made In July 2006 salaries.
The table attached at Annex A provides the distribution of performance gradings throughout the Agency for 2005/06. All employees receiving a ‘majority’ rating or higher receive a performance bonus.
In addition the Agency operates a Special Bonus scheme in line with Treasury guidance. Payments in any one-year are limited to 0.25% of the staffing budget. An Individual may be awarded a one-off bonus outside the annual reward performance and development system exercise to recognise and reward exceptional personal achievement.
In the twelve months to January 2007 the Agency paid £554,108 in special bonuses with an average cash value of £148. The vast majority, (94%) of these payments went to Agency people directly Involved in delivering our service to clients.
| Annex A: Number/proportion of agency people receiving performance gradings | ||||
| Top | Higher | Majority | Lower | |
| Notes: 1. The figures provided are approximate, based upon the best available information from the departmental accounts system. All figures are rounded to the nearest 500. Percentages rounded to the nearest whole percent. 2. Only those marked majority or above are eligible for a performance bonus. | ||||
Epilepsy
Chris McCafferty: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what information his Department collects on people with epilepsy; [138583]
(2) whether epilepsy is classified as a disability under the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Acts; and if he will make a statement; [138584]
Chris McCafferty: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the impact of the Disability Discrimination Acts on access to employment for people with (a) disabilities and (b) epilepsy. [138585]
Mrs. McGuire: The Government have a number of surveys (including the Labour Force Survey, the ONS Omnibus Survey, and the General Household Survey) which include information on whether the respondent has epilepsy. They provide information on the respondent’s age, sex, employment status, place of abode, interaction with the benefit system, marital status, income, participation in society and education. They also capture whether the respondent has experienced problems with accessibility, problems with participating in society, discrimination as a result of their health condition, and whether the respondent is aware of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
A person is a disabled person for the purposes of the Act if they have a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. A person with epilepsy will be protected by the provisions of the Act as long as their impairment meets the Act’s definition. The statutory “Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability” makes clear that a disability can arise from a wide range of impairments which can include:
“impairments with fluctuating or recurring effects such as rheumatoid arthritis, myalgic encephalitis (ME)/chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), fibromyalgia, depression and epilepsy”.
My Department undertakes regular research on how employers are responding to their duties under the Disability Discrimination Act. This shows that organisations are responding positively to their duties under the Act and that employers have positive attitudes towards employing disabled people. For example:
84 per cent. of employers that had employed disabled staff had made, or were planning, adjustments for disabled people. The majority making adjustments had found them easy to make.(1)
Around two-fifths of employers reported they had made adjustments due to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Most changes were motivated by an interplay of factors, including ‘doing the right thing’ and business benefits, as well as the influence of the Act.(1)
The research does not focus on specific impairments, but when asked in 2006 how easy it would be for them to employ somebody with epilepsy, 65 per cent. of employers said that it would be easy. This has increased since 2003, when only 52 per cent. said that it would be easy.(2)
Sources:
(1) “Organisations’ responses to the Disability Discrimination Act”, DWP research report 410, 2007. http://www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2007-2008/rrep410.pdf.
(2) “Disability in the workplace: employers’ and service providers’ responses to the DDA in 2003 and preparation for 2004 changes”, DWP research report 202, 2004. http://www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2003-2004/rrep202.asp
Jobseeker’s Allowance: Literacy
Natascha Engel: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of those receiving jobseeker’s allowance lack level 1 reading skills. [138595]
Mr. Plaskitt: The information is not available.
Pensioners: Poverty
Mr. Hepburn: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what percentage of pensioners have been living in absolute poverty in (a) Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside, (c) the North East and (d) the UK in each year since 1997. [131280]
James Purnell: The figures are based on OECD equalisation factors, therefore they will not be the same as any figures previously published that were based on McClements equivalisation factors.
Information can not be provided at a lower level than Government Office Region. Therefore figures for the North East region and United Kingdom are shown in the tables as follows.
| Table 1: North East region : N umber and percentage of pensioners living in households below 60 per cent. of 1998-99 real-terms median income: After housing costs | ||||||||
| 1996-97 to 1998-99 | 1997-98 to 1999-2000 | 1998-99 to 2000-01 | 1999-2000 to 2001-02 | 2000-01 to 2002-03 | 2001-02 to 2003-04 | 2002-03 to 2004-05 | 2003-04 to 2005-06 | |
| Notes: 1. Numbers, for the North East region, are presented using a three-year moving average, as single-year estimates do not provide a robust guide to year-on-year changes. Hence, figures are not consistent with any previously published single-year estimates and there may be differences in changes over time. In circumstances such as a change in trend, moving averages will show less variation than single-year estimates. 2. Absolute poverty is defined as below 60 per cent. of 1998-99 real-terms median income. 3. Figures are based on OECD equalisation factors. 4. Table shows number of pensioners in millions—rounded to nearest 10 thousand. Source: Family Resources Survey | ||||||||
| Table 2: United Kingdom : Number and percentage of pensioners living in households below 60 per cent. of 1998-99 real-terms median income: After housing costs | ||||||||
| 1998-99 | 1999-2000 | 2000-01 | 2001-02 | 2002-03 | 2003-04 | 2004-05 | 2005-06 | |
| Notes: 1. Data for the United Kingdom are only available from 1998-99 onwards. 2. Absolute poverty is defined as below 60 per cent. of 1998-99 real-terms median income. 3. Figures are based on OECD equalisation factors. Source: Family Resources Survey | ||||||||
Mr. Hepburn: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners have been defined as living in relative poverty in (a) Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside, (c) the North East and (d) the UK in each year since 1997. [131376]
James Purnell: The figures are based on OECD equivalisation factors, therefore they will not be the same as any figures previously published that were based on McClements equivalisation factors.
Information can not be provided at a lower level than Government office region. Therefore figures for the North East region and United Kingdom are shown in the following tables.
| Table 1: North East region—number and percentage of pensioners living in households below 60 per cent. of contemporary median income: after housing costs | ||
| Number (million) | Percentage | |
| Notes: 1. Numbers, for the North East region, are presented using a three-year moving average, as single-year estimates do not provide a robust guide to year-on-year changes. Hence, figures are not consistent with any previously published single-year estimates and there may be differences in changes over time. In circumstances such as a change in trend, moving averages will show less variation than single-year estimates. 2. Relative poverty is defined as below 60 per cent. of contemporary median income. 3. Figures are based on OECD equivalisation factors. 4. Table shows number of pensioners in millions—rounded to nearest 10,000. Source: Family Resources Survey | ||
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |