| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
1 Feb 2010 : Column 153W—continued
New Deal Schemes: Torbay
Mr. Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people resident in Torbay constituency have received assistance through New Deal schemes in each year since 1997. [312862]
Jim Knight: The information requested is in the following table:
Pension Credit: Fraud
Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of the sum overspent on pension credit between April 2008 and March 2009 was attributable to fraudulent claims; and what steps she plans to take to change the pension credit application process to prevent such claims. [310972]
Helen Goodman: In 2008-09, 28 per cent. of pension credit overpayments were a result of fraud.
In 2009-10 we have strengthened the pension credit application process by ensuring that claims in high-risk categories are selected for further scrutiny.
Pensions Act 2008
Gordon Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment her Department made of the effects on competition of the decision to implement the provisions of the Pensions Act 2008 over a four year period. [314266]
Angela Eagle [holding answer 29 January 2010]: The challenge of implementing the workplace pension reforms contained in Part 1 of the Pensions Act 2008 is unprecedented with over 1 million employers and over 10 million people affected.
In order to deliver the workplace pension reforms successfully, we are intending to stage in the automatic enrolment duties over a four year period, starting with large employers, medium and then small.
Inevitably, staging of employers by size can affect the ability of employers to compete with each other in the short-term. This is because some employers will face the cost of administering the reforms and contributing to their employees' pensions sooner than employers staged later. The extent to which implementation affects employers' ability to compete will depend on: how employers choose to cope with the reforms (e.g. increase prices, reduce wages, reduce profits) and the level of competition between firms staged at different times.
If, for instance, employers who are staged in earlier cope with the cost of the reforms by increasing prices then they will experience a price differential from competitors who are staged in later.
We considered a number of approaches to staging, including segmenting employers by random selection, by industry type or by geographical region. We believe that staging by size offers the best balance of maximising deliverability while minimising employer burdens and competition impacts.
We believe that any impacts on competition will be short-term and outweighed by the overall positive benefits of our approach. To further minimise competition issues we are also ensuring that employers will be required to contribute 1 per cent. of qualifying earnings throughout the staging period, before all employers move, at the same time, to 2 per cent. contributions, then 3 per cent.
Table 1 shows the estimated average additional contribution cost per firm during the staging period for different firm sizes. It can be used to quantify the competition impact between firms. The longer the difference in staging between firms that actively compete with each other, the greater the difference in the contribution costs they face. For instance, a small firm staged in 12 months before another small firm that it actively competes with will face approximately £960 more in contribution costs than the firm that is staged later(1).
(1) This is the cost of 12 months of additional contribution costs for large firms based on a £80 monthly cost.
Poverty: Children
Jim Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if she will estimate the (a) number and (b) proportion of children in (i) each region of England, (ii) Scotland, (iii) Wales and (iv) Northern Ireland who experienced material deprivation in (A) 2006-07, (B) 2007-08 and (C) 2008-09. [313264]
Helen Goodman: Information on the number and percentage of children living in low income households in each region and country of the UK is given in the following table for periods where data are available. Regional data are presented as three-year averages, due to variability in single-year estimates. Information for 2008-09 is not yet available.
Material deprivation and low income is defined as being in a household with a household income of less than 70 per cent. of contemporary median income and a material deprivation score of greater than 25. Full details of the way scores are constructed are available in the public service agreement document "Halve the number of children in poverty by 2010-11, on the way to eradicating child poverty by 2020". A copy is available in the Library.
| Number and proportion of children falling below thresholds of low income and material deprivation, three year average | ||||
| Percentage of children | Number of children (million) | |||
| Country or region | 2004-05 to 2006-07 | 2005-06 to 2007-08 | 2004-05 to 2006-07 | 2005-06 to 2007-08 |
| Notes: 1. The reference period for households below average income figures is single financial years. Three sample years have been combined as regional single year estimates are subject to volatility. 2. A child is defined above as anyone aged under 16 or an unmarried 16 to 18-year-old in full-time non-advanced education. 3. Information on households in low income and material deprivation is available only from 2004-05. 4. The income measures used to derive the estimates shown employ the same methodology as the Department for Work and Pensions publication "Households Below Average Income" (HBAI) series, which uses disposable household income, adjusted (or "equivalised") for household size and composition, as an income measure as a proxy for standard of living. The HBAI is available in the Library. 5. Low income and material deprivation is one of the three indicators for measuring child poverty. The other two measures are absolute low income, which includes households with incomes below 60 per cent. of the median income held constant in real terms from a 1998-99 baseline, and relative low income, which includes households with incomes below 60 per cent. contemporary median income. 6. The figures are based on Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development equivalisation factors. 7. Numbers of children have been rounded to the nearest hundred thousand children, while proportions of children have been rounded to the nearest percentage point. 8. Small year-on-year movements should be treated with caution as these will be affected by sampling error and variability in non-response. Source: Households Below Average Income 2004-05 to 2007-08. | ||||
Social Security Benefits: Disabled
Jim Cousins:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many recipients of (a) incapacity benefit and (b) disability living allowance there are in
Newcastle upon Tyne; and how many of these have issues of mental wellbeing or mental capacity or require support for mental health needs. [313258]
Jonathan Shaw: The information is as follows:
| Number of incapacity benefit/severe disablement allowance claimants in Newcastle upon Tyne local authority, and those with a diagnosis under the mental and behavioural disorders category-May 2009 | |
| Newcastle upon Tyne local authority | Number |
|
All incapacity benefit/severe disablement allowance claimants | |
| 1. Case load has been rounded to the nearest 10. 2. Data published at www.nomisweb.co.uk and http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/tabtool.asp 3. Mental and behavioural disorders claimants are classified under the mental and behavioural disorders category according to the International Classification of Diseases (version 10). To qualify for incapacity benefit/severe disablement allowance, claimants have to undertake a medical assessment of incapacity for work which is called the personal capability assessment. Therefore, the medical condition recorded on incapacity benefit/severe disablement allowance claim form does not itself confer entitlement to incapacity benefits, so for example, the decision for a customer claiming incapacity benefit on grounds of mental and behavioural disorders would be based on their ability to carry out the range of activities in the personal capability assessment. 4. Employment and support allowance replaced incapacity benefit and income support paid on the grounds of incapacity for new claims from 27 October 2008. This does not include employment and support allowance as data by medical condition are not available. 5. The mental and behavioural disorders category includes: Unspecified Dementia, Alcoholism, Drug Abuse, Schizophrenia, Persistent delusional disorder, Unspecified non-organic Psychosis, Manic Episode, Depressive Episode, Recurrent Depressive Disorder, Persistent mood disorder, Unspecified mood disorder, Phobic Anxiety Disorders, Other anxiety Disorders, Reaction to Severe Stress, Dissociative Disorders, Somatoform Disorders, Other Neurotic Disorders, Eating disorder, Mental and Behavioural Disorders associated with the puerperium, not elsewhere classified, Psychological and behavioural factors associated with disorders or diseases elsewhere classified, Specific Personality Disorders, Unspecified Mental Retardation, Specific Development Disorders of Scholastic Skills, Pervasive Development Disorders, Mental Disorder not otherwise specified. Source: Department for Work and Pensions Information Directorate 100 per cent. Work and Pensions Longitudinal Survey. | |
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |