|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many applicants for national insurance numbers have been refused national insurance numbers following right-to-work interviews in each quarter since July 2006. 
|National insurance number refusals following right to work interviews in each quarter since July 2006|
|Quarter 1 April-June||Quarter 2 July-September||Quarter 3 October-December||Quarter 4 January-March||Total|
|"-" Indicates no data available as the period was before the introduction of the right to work test.|
n/a = Not yet available.
The right to work test was introduced in July 2006
Jobcentre Plus Management Information
Dr. Pugh: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost to the public purse of the New Deal Gateway to Work programme was in the last 12 months; and how many participants the programme has had in each year since its inception. 
For the age 25-plus client group, it is not possible to identify the costs of the New Deal Gateway to Work programme separately from other types of provision undertaken during the gateway period. This is because expenditure on this provision is not recorded separately from other provisions. The total cost of all gateway provision for the 25 plus year old client group was £15.8 million in the 12 months to March 2009.
|Starters on the Gateway to Work course-a component of New Deal|
|Financial year||New Deal for Young People||New Deal 25 Plus||Combined New Deal for Young People and New Deal 25 Plus|
1. Figures rounded to the nearest 10.
2. The Gateway to Work course was introduced to New Deal for Young People in July 2000, so the first full year data is for 2001-02.
3. A pilot in a number of Districts for New Deal 25 Plus ended in March 2006, followed by optional use nationally.
Department for Work and Pensions, Information Directorate
Jim Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what guidance her Department gives people whose benefit claims are rejected or withdrawn on grounds of excess capital on what future rundown of capital will be regarded as reasonable. 
Jim Knight: If a customer is not entitled to an income-related benefit due to excess capital a decision notice will be issued to the customer that includes reasons for the disallowance and details of their right to a reconsideration of the decision and, where appropriate, to an appeal. Customers are also informed that they will need to reapply if their circumstances change, in order for eligibility to be reassessed. No specific advice is given as to the future rundown of capital in these cases. This is because subsequent decisions on whether deprivations have occurred are a matter of judgement by independent decision makers.
If it is established that the customer has deliberately deprived themselves of capital in order to obtain income- related benefits, the customer will be treated as still possessing that capital when assessing entitlement to benefit. Their claim will be subject to a calculation to determine at what point this notional capital would have been expected to reduce below the capital limit and so enable the customer to make a new claim. The calculation is based on the prevailing benefit rates. The customer will be given details of the calculation in their case, together with the rights of review and, where appropriate, appeal.
Mrs. Maria Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for which benefits and allowances administered by her Department a retired grandparent is entitled to claim in respect of a grandchild who is being fostered by that grandparent. 
Mr. Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the oral statement of 15 December 2009, Official Report, columns 818-20, on benefit reform, what changes to the work capability assessment (a) would be desirable and (b) are planned. 
Jonathan Shaw [holding answer 6 January 2010]: We are currently reviewing the work capability assessment with the help of a range of stakeholders and medical professionals. We believe there are some changes that could be made and plan to publish a report detailing these once the review is complete.
Dr. Cable: To ask the Minister for Women and Equality what efficiency savings projects the Government Equalities Office put in place under the Operational Efficiency Programme; on what date each such project was initiated; how much each such project was expected to contribute to the Office's savings; how much had been saved through each such project on the latest date for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Hands: To ask the Minister for Women and Equality how many plasma screen televisions the Government Equalities Office has purchased since its inception; and what the cost has been of purchasing and installing such screens in each such year. 
Robert Neill: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) with reference to the answer to the hon. Member for North West Norfolk of 18 May 2009, Official Report, column 1214W, on council tax: non-payment, how many applications for liability orders were made to each magistrates' court in 2008-09; 
The figures have been extracted from the intranet fees accounting system (IFAS). Fee income and volume are captured by accounting centres in IFAS. Some accounting centres comprise of more than one magistrates court. However, some of these accounting centres merge the management information which means it is not possible to supply data at individual court level.
Applications for liability orders attract the same fee charge, and are therefore recorded on the IFAS in the same way. It is not therefore possible to distinguish between applications for liability orders made in relation to council tax and business rates.
The overall number of applications made in 2008-09 as shown (3,121,089) is marginally different from my answer (3,124,406) to the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) of 18 May 2009, Official Report, columns 1214-1215W. The latter figure was extracted from the IFAS database at the time the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk tabled his question, but in order to obtain a breakdown by accounting centre, data have been re-extracted from the IFAS. The IFAS is a "live" database, meaning that, inevitably, the normal course of regular system updating means that various additions, deletions, amendments and corrections will have been made to the data it contains relating to applications in 2008-09, giving rise to the marginal difference.
Enforcement action in respect of non-payment of council tax is entirely a matter for local authorities. The Ministry of Justice has made no assessment of the reasons behind the increase in council tax liability orders.
|Number of applications for council tax liability orders made by accounting centre in England and Wales, 2008-09|
|(1) Was North, South and West pre 1 July 2009|
Intranet Fees Accounting System
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|