Search Results

1-20 of 23 results for subject:Deductions

Show detailed: On Off

Results: 10 20 50 100

Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, whether he plans to extend the range of qualifying benefits for third party deductions schemes; and if he will make a statement; what representations he has received concerning the modernisation of the third party deductions schemes; and if he will...

Asked by

John Grogan (Labour)

Answering body

Department for Work and Pensions

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

18 November 2004

Reference

426 c1897W;426 c1902-3W; 198793;198794

House

House of Commons

Dept for Work and Pensions

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, under what circumstances the Child Support Agency may act as a creditor when a company has become insolvent and is holding deductions of earnings from an employee which should have been forwarded to the Agency.

Asked by

David Drew (Labour; Co-operative Party)

Answering body

Department for Work and Pensions

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

17 November 2004

Reference

197972; 426 c1651W;426 c1654W

House

House of Commons

Fines (Deductions from Income Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2004

SI 2004/2889 (Negative instrument). Coming into force 18 December 2004.

Department

Department for Work and Pensions

Type

Statutory instruments

Date

15 November 2004

Reference

SI 2004/2889

House

House of Commons; House of Lords

Energy-Saving Items (Deductions for Expenditure etc) Regulations 2004

SI 2004/2664 (Negative instrument). Coming into force 3 November 2004.

Department

Treasury

Type

Statutory instruments

Date

13 October 2004

Reference

SI 2004/2664

House

House of Commons

Lords debate on unstarred question on what steps Her Majestys Government are taking to speed up payment of compensation for mineworkers and former mineworkers who suffer from bronchitis and emphysema and to control the legal fees associated with such claims

Lead member

Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract

Answering member

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

Department

Department of Trade and Industry

Type

Questions for short debate

Date

14 September 2004

Reference

664 c1094-108

House

House of Lords

Untitled Written statement

Written Statement on further measures concerning the implementation of the decoupled single payment in England. (Inc figs).

Member

Baroness Beckett (Labour)

Department

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Type

Written statements

Date

22 July 2004

Reference

424 c68-72WS

House

House of Commons

Dept for Work and Pensions

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, why the level of benefit payable to in-patients who have been in hospital for more than a year is set at 20 per cent. of the basic state pension; what reviews of the level of benefit payable to long-term in-patients...

Asked by

David Leslie Taylor (Labour; Co-operative Party)

Answering body

Department for Work and Pensions

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

7 July 2004

For answer on

14 July 2004

Answered on

14 July 2004

David Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) why the level of benefit payable to in- patients who have been in hospital for more than a year is set at 20 per cent. of the basic state pension; [183162] (2) what reviews of the level of benefit payable to long- term in-patients have been conducted since it was first set at 20 per cent. of the basic state pension; and what the findings were; [183190] (3) what assessment was made of the (a) therapeutic and (b) financial needs of in-patients who have been in hospital over a year when the decision to maintain the level of benefit entitlement at 20 per cent. of the basic state pension was taken; and if he will make a statement; [183191] (4) what research he has commissioned on the (a) economic and (b) therapeutic effects of setting the level of benefit payable to long-term in-patients at 20 per cent. of the basic state pension. [183245] Malcolm Wicks: The National Insurance Advisory Committee (NIAC) originally considered the amount of benefit that should be paid to long-term in-patients in 1949. Although they said that there would be grounds for withholding the whole of benefit because no allowance should be paid for outside commitments, they thought it desirable that benefit should not be reduced below "a reasonable amount for personal needs in hospital". They recommended an amount which was roughly 20 per cent. of the standard rate of state pension. (A higher rate was set for long-term in-patients with respiratory tuberculosis.) When asked to review the amount of benefit paid to in-patients in 1952, the NIAC recommended that the amount paid to long-term in-patients should be increased to reflect increases in the cost of living. This increased amount continued to represent 20 per cent. of the prevailing rate of state pension. Changes were introduced in 1988 to abolish the resettlement benefit payable to long-term in-patients without a dependant on discharge, and to reduce the amount payable to dependants of long-term in-patients. The Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC), when considering those changes, said that they had received several representations that the level of benefit paid to long-term in-patients (that is, the 20 per cent. of basic state pension) was too low to meet their needs. SSAC said that they had seen no evidence to convince them that the level of benefit should be raised. The benefit paid to long-term in-patients is to meet their personal day-to-day requirements, such as newspapers, magazines, and toiletry items. It is not intended to cover the purchase of more expensive items such as clothing. That is the responsibility of the local NHS trust. We have seen no convincing evidence that the current level of benefit is causing long-term in-patients either therapeutic or economic harm.

Date

14 July 2004

Reference

423 c1207-8W; 183162;183190;183191;183245

House

House of Commons

Dept for Work and Pensions

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what estimate he has made of the total cost to his Department of establishing the Sanctions Database; if he will make a statement on the progress of the Sanctions Database; when he expects it to be fully operational; and when...

Asked by

Lord Willetts (Conservative)

Answering body

Department for Work and Pensions

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

13 July 2004

Reference

423 c1073W; 182079;182127

House

House of Commons

Dept for Work and Pensions

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what progress officials in his Department have made in providing more detailed and robust information on the sanction regime of the New Deal for Young People in the last year; if he will place the results of that progress in...

Asked by

Lord Willetts (Conservative)

Answering body

Department for Work and Pensions

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

23 June 2004

Reference

177556; 422 c1442-3W;422 c1442W

House

House of Commons

Dept for Work and Pensions

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many people on the (a) new Deal for Young People and (b) the New Deal for 25 Plus have had their jobseeker's allowance reduced in each year for (a) two weeks, (b) four weeks and (c) 26 weeks. -...

Asked by

Lord Willetts (Conservative)

Answering body

Department for Work and Pensions

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

23 June 2004

Reference

177550; 422 c1441W;422 c1440-1W

House

House of Commons

Dept for Work and Pensions

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many people on the (a) new Deal for Young People and (b) the New Deal for 25 Plus have had sanctions on their jobseeker's allowance in each year since 1998-99. - Includes fact that information about the number of...

Asked by

Lord Willetts (Conservative)

Answering body

Department for Work and Pensions

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

27 May 2004

For answer on

23 June 2004

Answered on

23 June 2004

Mr. Willetts: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people on the (a) new Deal for Young People and (b) the New Deal for 25 Plus have had sanctions on their jobseeker's allowance in each year since 1998-99. [177551] Jane Kennedy: Information about the number of sanctions applied to participants in New Deal 25 plus is not available. The Social Security Advisory Committee identified in late 2003 that work needed to be undertaken to review and evaluate the Sanctions Regime and DWP is nearing completion on a new Sanctions Database which will be operational following testing and evaluation. This will provide detailed sanction MI on a regular basis and information will be published in the Library. Information on the number of sanctions applied to participants in New Deal for Young People is in the following table. Number of sanctions applied to participants in New Deal for Young People _________________________________________________________________________________________________. Number of sanctions imposed 1 1998-99 8,030 1999-2000 18,764 2000-01 17,507 2001-02 12,972 2002-03 13,416 2003-04 12,816 _________________________________________________________________________________________________. 1 Some people may have been sanctioned more than once during a year. Source: Labour Market Statistics-Analysis of Sector Decisions. Full information on sanction decisions relating to jobseeker's allowance and New Deal for Young People can be found in the report "Labour Market Statistics-- Analysis of Sector Decisions". Copies of quarterly and annual reports are available in the Library.

Date

23 June 2004

Reference

177551; 422 c1441-2W;422 c1441W

House

House of Commons

Dept for Work and Pensions

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many people participated in each New Deal scheme; and how many of these received a benefit sanction each year, broken down by (a) New Deal programme and (b) type of sanction. - Includes table for number participated in each...

Asked by

Lord Willetts (Conservative)

Answering body

Department for Work and Pensions

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

27 May 2004

For answer on

23 June 2004

Answered on

23 June 2004

Mr. Willetts: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people participated in each New Deal scheme; and how many of these received a benefit sanction each year, broken down by (a) New Deal programme and (b) type of sanction. [177555] Jane Kennedy: Information on the number of people who have participated in each New Deal scheme is in the following table. _________________________________________________________________________________________________. Number of New Deal Participants1 New Deal for Young People2 831,350 New Deal 25 plus3 496,790 New Deal for Lone Parents4 459,070 New Deal for Disabled People5 69,460 New Deal for Partners6 7,480 New Deal 50 plus7 98,040 _________________________________________________________________________________________________. 1 All figures relate to individuals who have started each programme. 2 January 1998 to December 2003. 3 April 1998 to December 2003. 4 October 1998 to December 2003. 5 Pilots launched in September 1998. National network of NDDP job brokers launched from July 2001. Up to December 2003. 6 Launched as New Deal for Partners of Unemployed People in April 1999. Extended to partners of other benefit recipients in April 2001. Up to December 2003. 7 New Deal 50 plus was introduced in nine pathfinder areas on 25 October 1999 and rolled out nationally on 3 April 2000. Up to March 2003. Source: New Deal Evaluation Database, Information and Analysis Directorate, DWP. Within the New Deal programme, benefit sanctions are only applied within the New Deal for Young People and New Deal 25 plus. Information is not available for sanctions applied to participants in New Deal 25 plus. The Social Security Advisory Committee identified in late 2003 that work needed to be undertaken to review and evaluate the Sanctions Regime and DWP is nearing completion on a new Sanctions Database which will be operational following testing and evaluation. This will provide detailed sanction Ml on a regular basis and information will be published in the Library. Information on the numbers of sanctions applied to New Deal for Young People participants broken down by reason for sanction, up to March 1999, is published in the "Analysis of Adjudication Officers' Decisions". Information from April 1999 onwards is published in "Analysis of Sector Decision Making". Copies of quarterly and annual reports are available in the Library.

Date

23 June 2004

Reference

177555; 422 c1442W;422 c1441-2W

House

House of Commons

Dept for Work and Pensions

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many people have been penalised with reduced benefit for failing to attend a compulsory work-focused interview in each year for which figures are available, broken down by benefit received in each case. - Includes fct that information requested is...

Asked by

Lord Willetts (Conservative)

Answering body

Department for Work and Pensions

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

23 June 2004

Reference

177529; 422 c1444W;422 c1443-4W

House

House of Commons

Dept for Work and Pensions

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what the net effect has been of income tax, national insurance and benefits in each year since 1997 on the income of (a) two non-working parents with four children under 16 years and (b) two working parents with four children...

Asked by

Brian Jenkins (Labour)

Answering body

Department for Work and Pensions

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

10 May 2004

For answer on

27 May 2004

Answered on

27 May 2004

Mr. Jenkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the net effect has been of income tax, national insurance and benefits in each year since 1997 on the income of (a) two non-working parents with four children under 16 years and (b) two working parents with four children under 16 years earning up to (i) £10,000, (ii) £15,000, (iii) £20,000, (iv) £25,000 and (v) £30,000; [172831] (2) what the net effect has been of income tax, national insurance and benefits in each year since 1997 on the income of (a) two non-working parents with three children under 16 years and (b) two working parents with three children under 16 years earning up to (i) £10,000, (ii) £15,000, (iii) £20,000, (iv) £25,000 and (v) £30,000; [172832] (3) what the net effect has been of income tax, national insurance and benefits in each year since 1997 on the income of (a) one non-working parent with a child under 16 years and (b) one working parent with a child under 16 years earning up to (i) £10,000, (ii) £15,000, (iii) £20,000, (iv) £25,000 and (v) £30,000; [172833] (4) what the net effect has been of income tax, national insurance and benefits in each year since 1997 on the income of (a) one non-working parent with two children under 16 years and (b) one working parent with two children under 16 years earning up to (i) £10,000, (ii) £15,000, (iii) £20,000, (iv) £25,000 and (v) £30,000; [172834] (5) what the net effect has been of income tax, national insurance and benefits in each year since 1997 on the income of (a) one non-working parent with three children under 16 years and (b) one working parent with three children under 16 years earning up to (i) £10,000, (ii) £15,000, (iii) £20,000, (iv) £25,000 and (v) £30,000. [172835] (6) what the net effect has been of income tax, national insurance and benefits in each year since 1997 on the income of (a) one non-working parent with four children under 16 years and (b) one working parent with four children under 16 years earning up to (i) £10,000, (ii) £15,000, (iii) £20,000, (iv) £25,000 and (v) £30,000; [172836] (7) what the net effect has been of income tax, national insurance and benefits in each year since 1997 on the income of (a) two non-working parents with a child under 16 years and (b) two working parents with a child under 16 years earning up to (i) £10,000, (ii) £15,000, (iii) £20,000, (iv) £25,000 and (v) £30,000; [172837] (8) what the net effect has been of income tax, national insurance and benefits in each year since 1997 on the income of (a) two non-working parents with two children under 16 years and (b) two working parents with two children under 16 years earning up to (i) £10,000, (ii) £15,000, (iii) £20,000, (iv) £25,000 and (v) £30,000. [172838] Mr. Pond: The information has been placed in the Library.

Date

27 May 2004

Reference

421 c1805-6W; 172831;172832;172833;172834;172835;172836;172837;172838

House

House of Commons

Dept of Trade and Industry

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what level of compliance with the recent Law Society guidance on repayment of deductions from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease compensation payments has been achieved. - Inc figures. (Holding answer 13 May 2004).

Asked by

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour)

Answering body

Department of Trade and Industry

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

18 May 2004

Reference

421 c894W; 173028

House

House of Commons

Dept of Trade and Industry

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what estimate she has made of the total deductions made from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease compensation payments by (a) solicitors, (b) call farming agents and (c) the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers South Wales. - Not available...

Asked by

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour)

Answering body

Department of Trade and Industry

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

18 May 2004

Reference

173026; 421 c893W

House

House of Commons

Written Statement on an increase in the amount that can be deducted weekly from the benefits of fines defaulters until the fines are recovered

Written Statement on an increase in the amount that can be deducted weekly from the benefits of fines defaulters until the fines are recovered. (Inc figs).

Member

Chris Pond (Labour)

Department

Department for Work and Pensions

Type

Written statements

Date

26 April 2004

Reference

420 c35-6WS

House

House of Commons

McIntosh of Haringey, Lord

Whether employers should deduct both National Insurance contributions and income tax from workers coming from European Union accession states during the first 12 months of their employment; or whether such workers will not qualify for these deductions. [HL 2016].

Asked by

Lord Hylton (Crossbench)

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

31 March 2004

Reference

HL 2016; 659 c168-9WA

House

House of Lords

Sainsbury of Turville, Lord

Whether accommodation or other benefits can be taken into account for the purposes of determinations in relation to (a) the National Minimum Wage Act 1998; (b) the Sex Discrimination Act 1975; and (c) the Equal Pay Act 1970. - Inc figures.

Asked by

Earl of Northesk (Conservative)

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

5 January 2004

Reference

656 c25-6WA

House

House of Lords

Hollis of Heigham, Baroness

What assumptions they have made of the number of older people who may lose their entitlement to pension credit because of a temporary visit of more than four weeks to another country. - Inc fact that not available. [HL 432].

Asked by

Baroness Greengross (Crossbench)

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

18 December 2003

Reference

HL 432; 655 c180WA

House

House of Lords

Librarians' tools

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

Publisher