|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
HSE remains unaware of any complaints in the east midlands concerned with deficiencies in ELCI policies. No successful prosecutions have been brought by HSE in the east midlands under the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 since the previous answer.
Kerry McCarthy: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent representations he has received from local partnerships on collection of data for on and off flows of individuals in receipt of benefits and the targeting of partnership employment and skills programmes. 
Mr. McNulty: The Department has received a number of representations from local partnerships to access more benefit data to help target employment and skills programmes more effectively. It is currently setting up a project steering group to agree the principles and, critically, security arrangements for data sharing; pilot areas where more data sharing can be tested; the methodology and timescale for sharing data to the pilot areas; and the evaluation criteria. The project outcomes will seek to inform the basis for the future sharing of data with local government and its partners to help more people into work.
Steve Webb: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many cases of potential eligibility for Home Responsibilities Protection (HRP) he has so far identified in his scan of the National Insurance Recording System; how many of those have resulted in the successful award of HRP; what the value has been to date of such awards; when he expects to complete this project; and if he will make a statement. 
Ms Rosie Winterton [holding answer 27 October 2008]: Our preliminary analysis suggests that somewhere in the region of 100,000 to 150,000 women may not be receiving their full entitlement to state pension because HRP has not been applied in the calculation of their state pension.
The Department and HM Revenue and Customs have undertaken a scan of NIRS to identify the potentially affected cases. Work on the exercise to correct affected cases is currently at the detailed planning stage. The Department aims to start the exercise early in 2009.
David Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the written ministerial statement of 18 November 2008, Official Report, columns 17-18WS, on the Rent Officers Order, whether Cambridge is considered to be one of the localities where local consensus was not achieved with the consequence that its boundaries will now be reviewed. 
Kitty Ussher: The Rent Service carried out routine reviews in 2006-07 that have resulted in fewer localities across the country as a whole. The vast majority of new boundaries were agreed by local authorities and our proposed amendments to the Rent Officers Order will enable the Rent Service to review the boundaries in those localities where consensus was not achieved. The Rent Service is committed to review 25 per cent. of all locality boundaries over a 12-month period. Cambridge will be one of the local authorities that will be reviewed following the amendments to the Rent Service Order.
Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment has been made of the effects of paying housing benefit direct to tenants, with particular reference to the effects on the number of tenants defaulting on rental payments to their landlords. 
Mr. Grieve: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many recipients of (a) incapacity benefit and (b) jobseekers allowance have cited drug abuse as the primary reason for being unable to work in each of the last five years. 
Drug dependency does not of itself confer entitlement to incapacity benefits. The medical assessment of incapacity for work is the personal capability assessment. This assesses the effects of a persons condition on their ability to carry out a number of everyday activities relevant to work. A majority of people with a recorded diagnosis of drug dependency also have other diagnoses, for example mental illness, which results in their incapacity for work.
|All||Incapacity benefit (shor t-term lower rate)||Incapacity benefit (short-term higher rate)||Incapacity benefit (long-term)||Incapacity benefit credits||Severe disablement allowance|
Case load figures are rounded to the nearest 10.
Work and Pensions Longitudinal Study
John Barrett: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he plans to reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh Wests correspondence of 1 April and subsequent letters of 23 May and 11 September on non-EU nationals attending sports events in the UK. 
Steve Webb: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the cost of extending eligibility to buy back six additional years of national insurance contributions to those with (a) 20, (b) 15, (c) 10 and (d) five or more qualifying years; and if he will estimate the cost of such extension to all those born within the relevant time period, regardless of qualifying years. 
|Estimated cost of allowing people reaching state pension age between April 2008 and April 2015 to pay class 3 contributions for an additional six years|
|Net costs less revenue (£ million, 2008-09 price terms)|
|Qualifying years required||2010- 11||2020- 21||2030- 31||2040- 41||2050- 51||Net present value to 2050|
1. Estimates for net costs have been rounded to the nearest £5 million. Estimates for potential gainers have been rounded to the nearest thousand. Totals may not sum due to rounding.
2. Estimates are based on a sample of national insurance records as at the end of the financial year 2003-04.
3. Estimates assume basic state pension is uprated in line with earnings from April 2012.
4. People who fail the 25 per cent. rule both before and after they have purchased six extra years are assumed not to purchase extra years.
5. Estimates assume that people buy additional class 3 national insurance contributions in whole years, even if less than 52 weeks of additional contributions are required to achieve a qualifying year. It is assumed that people buy these extra years when they reach state pension age.
6. Estimates assume that the option to buy extra years is available to everybody with a national insurance record and can be used to fill any deficient year between 1975 and state pension age as long as there is not a valid married womens reduced rate election in place.
7. Net present value calculated in line with the Green Book takes into account costs occurring before 2050, there may be small ongoing costs after this time.
8. Net costs are gross costs of higher basic state pension, less additional national insurance revenue raised, less income related benefit savings.
9. Estimates assume 20 per cent. take up the option.
10. Estimates take into account existing legislation only and do not take into account proposed measures in the current Pensions Bill.
11. Qualifying years include full years of home responsibilities protection.
Steve Webb: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make it his policy to extend eligibility to buy back six additional years of national insurance contributions to those with less than 20 qualifying years; and if he will make a statement. 
Ms Rosie Winterton [holding answer 4 November 2008]: We have no plans to extend the proposal to allow eligible individuals to buy six additional years of voluntary class 3 national insurance contributions to those with fewer than 20 qualifying years (taking into account home responsibilities protection). This measure will help people, particularly women and carers, who are approaching state pension age but have earlier gaps in their national insurance records to improve their basic state pension.
Joan Walley: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what specialist equipment is provided by Jobcentre Plus to make work placements arranged as part of the New Deal for Disabled People available to jobseeker's allowance claimants with visual impairment. 
Margaret Moran: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many complaints his Department and its agencies have received in respect of (a) all New Deal providers and (b) the Shaw Trust in each of the last three years. 
Rosie Cooper: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps are being taken by the Child Support Agency to resolve the case of Mr. Paul Barlow; and what steps the Agency plans to take to resolve the difficulties caused by the incorrect issue of a second liability order. 
Kitty Ussher [holding answer 10 November 2008]: The Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission is responsible for the child maintenance system. I have therefore asked the Commissioner to write to the hon. Member with the information requested.
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 steps are being taken by the Child Support Agency to resolve the case of Mr Paul Barlow; and what steps the Agency plans to take to resolve the difficulties caused by incorrect issuing of a second liability order. 
As details about individual cases are confidential, I have written to you separately about this case.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|