|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
(2) of prospective students who left school in 2008 and plan to enter university in 2009 and who did not receive the level of higher education grant they would have received had they entered university in 2008 as a consequence of the reduction in the income threshold. 
Mr. Lammy: On 29 October 2008, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, announced that the Government are making extra money available, totalling £100 million in steady state, to meet the higher than expected demand for student support in 2009/10 and beyond. This will enable the Government to maintain their intention that two-thirds of eligible students should receive either the full grant of £2,906 or a partial grant in 2009/10. We also expect that our commitment for one-third of eligible students to receive a full grant will be exceededunder the new package, we anticipate that 40 per cent. of students may be eligible for a full grant.
All 2009/10 entrants will be eligible for the same or higher levels of grant than they would have received in 2007/08. Eligible new students in 2009/10 from households with incomes from £18,000 to £50,000 will receive more grant that they would have done in 2007/08. New students in 2009/10 with incomes up to £57,000 will be eligible for more total support than in 2007/08.
In 2009/10, low income entrants will receive £2,906 of maintenance grant and £3,497 of maintenance loan. In real terms, the maintenance grant will be over 20 per cent. higher than in 1997/98 and the maintenance loan over 50 per cent. more generous.
Sandra Gidley: To ask the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills how many late payments to students at each university of (a) loans and (b) grants there were in each of the last five years. 
Mr. Lammy: The first payments of income-contingent student loans and grants are made after the university or college confirms that the student is in attendance. On current performance, the Student Loans Company (SLC) then initiates payment within one working day of receipt of the confirmation in all cases. Payments are made through an automated system into bank accounts, which takes three working days from initiation.
A payment may be made after the start of the course if the students application has been received late and did not allow sufficient time for processing. A change in students circumstances can also affect payment where re-assessment is required. If the reassessment is for a higher amount than the original and/or includes a new product such as a means tested grant then the system works out what the further term 1 payment should be and pays it immediately.
SLC monitors payment performance for loans against a target set in a Service Level Agreement with the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, and reported in the SLC Annual Report. The target is for 95 per cent. or more of payments to be initiated
within one working day of confirmation of attendance, and 99 per cent. within two days. In 2007-08 100 per cent. were initiated within one working day.
|Measure||Target (percentage)||Actual performance (percentage)|
Mr. Willetts: To ask the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills what the taper rates for the withdrawal of maintenance grants from 2009-10 will be, broken down by household income band. 
Mr. Lammy: On 29 October 2008 my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, announced that the Government are making extra money available, totalling £100 million in steady state, to meet the higher than expected demand for student support in 2009/10 and beyond. This will enable the Government to maintain their intention that two-thirds of eligible students should receive either the full grant of £2,906 or a partial grant in 2009/10. We also expect that our commitment for one-third of eligible students to receive a full grant will be exceededunder the new package, we anticipate that 40 per cent. of students may be eligible for a full grant.
Mr. Willetts: To ask the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills what estimate he has made of levels of error and fraud within the maintenance grant system for undergraduate students; and what measures are in place to ensure accurate payment. 
Mr. Lammy: The responsibility for assessing student support applications in England generally rests with local authorities and therefore complete information is not centrally available about the levels of error and fraud within the student support system. From 2009/10 the SLC will assess all new applications for student support, and records will be held centrally.
The NHS Counter Fraud and Security Management Service has carried out a study which estimated the rate of identity related fraud at around 0.6 per cent. of student support applications in 2005/06. Several measures have been taken to further tighten procedures since the study was conducted.
We constantly review procedures to ensure we can prevent and detect fraud, while making it straightforward for genuine students to obtain the funds they need to pursue their studies. Evidence in support of applications is always thoroughly checked before payment is authorised. Where local authorities suspect fraud, they will not process the application until they are completely satisfied with the documentary evidence. The Student Loans Company (SLC) run a range of checks using industry-standard software systems which picks up potential fraudulent applications before payments are made.
James Brokenshire: To ask the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills what recent discussions he has had with the Student Loans Company on the relationship between interest rates on student loans and the Bank of England base rate in light of the current economic situation; and if he will make a statement. 
Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills whether interest rates on student loans will be reduced in line with the recent reduction in base rates by the Bank of England. 
Mr. Lammy: Government student loans are not like commercial loans and are provided on generous terms with significant Government subsidy. The interest rate is linked to the rate of inflation (RPI) rather than to base rates. The borrower pays back the same amount in real terms as they borrowed.
Unlike a typical commercial loan, the rate of interest on an income contingent loan does not affect borrowers' monthly repayments, which are made at 9 per cent. of their earnings above a repayment threshold, currently £15,000. If earnings fall below this amount, repayments are suspended. The Student Loans Company update borrowers' accounts annually after the end of each tax year, once they receive details from HMRC of the payments made through the tax system. Interest is then calculated on a daily basis, and borrowers are sent an annual statement of their loan account. The statement notifies borrowers of the current interest rate, which is also publicised on the SLC's website and through advertisements in the national press.
The current interest rate is 3.8 per cent. This rate applied from September 2008, and was set at the rate of RPI for the year to March 2008. The interest rate has
been set annually each September, using the same methodology, since student loans were first introduced in 1990. The interest rate for income contingent student loans, which were introduced in 1998, is also subject to an additional statutory limit: it cannot at any time exceed a rate of 1 per cent. above the highest of the base rates of a specified list of banks. The interest rate is set in accordance with regulations, and the SLC do not have any discretion in setting or altering the rate.
Mr. Willetts: To ask the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills pursuant to the answer of 3 November 2008, Official Report, column 181W, on young people: unemployment, if he will break down the figures contained in the table by the smallest geographical area for which they are available. 
Mike Penning: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many cases of breast cancer were (a) diagnosed and (b) successfully treated in (i) Hertfordshire and (ii) the UK in each of the last 10 years. 
Justine Greening: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what estimate the Office for National Statistics has made of the number of patients diagnosed with cancer in each London borough in (a) 2005, (b) 2006 and (c) 2007, broken down by cancer type. 
Justine Greening: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what estimate the Office for National Statistics has made of the survival rate for patients diagnosed with cancer in each London borough in (a) 2005, (b) 2006 and (c) 2007, broken down by cancer type. 
As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what estimate the Office for National Statistics has made of the survival rate for patients diagnosed with cancer in each London borough in (a) 2005, (b) 2006 and (c) 2007, broken down by cancer type. 
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) does not produce survival rates by London borough. ONS regularly publishes one- and five-year survival rates for patients resident in government office regions and strategic health authorities. The latest figures are survival rates for eight cancers (bladder, breast, cervix, colon, lung, oesophagus, prostate and stomach) which are available on the ONS website at:
The one- and five-year relative survival rates for patients resident in the London government office region and London strategic health authorities, diagnosed during 1997-99 and followed for survival up to the end of 2004, are given in Table 1.
|One- and five-year age-standardised( 1) relative survival( 2) (percentage) for adult( 3) patients diagnosed during 1997-99 and followed up to the end of 2004,8 common cancers by sex: strategic health authorities within the London government office region|
|Cancer( 4)||No. of patients||Survival (%)||(95% CI)( 6)||Survival (%)||(95% CI)||No. of patients||Survival (%)||(95% CI)||Survival (%)||(95% CI)|
|* All ages 15-99 survival rate not age-standardised. For some SHAs, the small numbers of cases and deaths for some of these cancers lead to wide random fluctuations in the relative survival rates and this Is reflected in the wide confidence intervals. For some cancers, the numbers of deaths within a SHA were too small for reliable estimation of all of the age-specific survival rates. In such cases, the overall survival rates have not been age-standardised; in the table such rates are marked with an asterisk (*).|
(1) Cancer survival varies with age at diagnosis, so the survival rates for all ages (15-99 years) have been age-standardised to control for differences in the age profile of cancer patients between geographical areas. We used the standard weights given in Chapter 3 of Coleman M P et al (1999) Cancer Survival Trends in England and Wales 1971-1995: deprivation and NHS Region. Studies in Medical and Population Subjects No.61. London: The Stationery Office. 1999.
(2) Relative survival takes into account that some cancer patients will die from causes other than their cancer. It is the ratio of the crude survival to the survival in a corresponding (age and sex) group in the general population.
(3) Aged 15-99 years at diagnosis.
(4) Cancers registered in 1997-99 are defined by codes in the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10). Therefore, bladder cancer is defined by code C67. breast cancer by code C50. cervical cancer by code C53. colon cancer by code C18. lung cancer by code C34. oesophageal cancer by code C15. prostate cancer by
(5) There are well-recognised differences in the classification and registration of some bladder tumours, which are recorded as malignant by some cancer registries and as non-malignant by others. This contributes to some of the apparent geographical variation in the survival rate for bladder cancer. Survival rates for transitional cell papillomas are very high, so where cancer registries define these as malignant, this results in an apparently higher overall survival rate for bladder cancer.
(6) On repeated sampling, 95 times out of 100 the true value would be within the calculated confidence interval range and 5 times the true value would be either higher or lower than the range.
Office for National Statistics
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|