Author: admin

  • Julian Knight – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Julian Knight – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Julian Knight on 2016-10-19.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what research his Department has carried out into the potential for widening of the secondary annuity market.

    Simon Kirby

    At March Budget 2015 the government announced proposals to remove the current restrictions on selling existing annuities, and to create the conditions for a secondary market in annuities to develop. The intention was that pensioners would be able to sell the income they receive from their annuity in return for a lump sum.

    The government undertook extensive consultation with industry and consumer groups to understand the conditions that would be necessary for there to be a vibrant market and to achieve good outcomes for consumers. However, it became increasingly clear that creating the conditions to allow a competitive market to emerge could not be balanced with sufficient consumer protections.

    It also became clear that there would be insufficient purchasers to create a competitive market. This means there was a high risk of significant consumer detriment as consumers would be likely to get poor value for their annuity income streams and incur high costs for selling. Furthermore, the steps that the government would have needed to take to create purchasing demand in the market would have undermined important consumer protections.

    In these circumstances the government concluded that it would not be in consumers’ interests to continue with this policy.

  • Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Stephen Timms – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Timms on 2016-10-19.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, on what date HM Revenue and Customs began to share RTI PAYE earnings data with Concentrix for use in its review of working tax credit claims.

    Jane Ellison

    HM Revenue and Customs began sharing Real Time Information data with Concentrix in November 2014.

  • Dan Jarvis – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Dan Jarvis – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Dan Jarvis on 2016-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, whether his Department plans to respond to the findings of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research evaluation study, No evidence Troubled Families Programme has any significant impact on key objectives, published on 17 October 2016.

    Mr Marcus Jones

    The National Institute of Economic and Social Research Impact Study was just one of 6 reports comprising the independent evaluation of the first Troubled Families Programme. The evaluation found that the programme had many positive achievements. These include:

    • Families feeling more confident and optimistic about being able to cope in the future
    • Joining up local services for families by encouraging a single keyworker approach to work with the whole family on all of its problems
    • Raising the quality and capacity of local data systems
    • Better joint working with partners such as Jobcentre Plus

    The data shows that nearly 120,000 of the families on this programme saw their lives improve – more children attending school, youth crime and anti-social behaviour significantly cut and, in more than 18,000 families, an adult holding down a job. The evaluation does not dispute this fact.

    Unsurprisingly, the ambitious and innovative impact study which used national administrative datasets to track changes in families circumstances over comparatively short time periods, was unable to specifically attribute positive outcomes achieved in employment, youth crime or school attendance to the Troubled Families Programme.

    This was because at that time the level of change achieved was not significantly different from that seen in a group of families not on the programme with whom comparisons were made. This is not the same, however, as saying that the evaluation shows family outcomes did not improve, as some have wrongly inferred.

    Of course, we will continue to review all evidence of how the programme is working, to learn from it and see if there’s more we can do to help families facing such multiple problems. In fact, we have already adapted the new programme in a number of ways, including extending the length of time over which family outcomes will be tracked – from 12 months to 5 years.

  • Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Gwynne on 2016-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what definition is used under the Troubled Families programme for a family being turned around; and on what criteria a family is released from the programme.

    Mr Marcus Jones

    ‘Turning around’ a family was a phrase used in the first Troubled Families Programme (2012 – 2015) and meant that real change was achieved to improve the lives of families in the programme:

    • children back in school for three consecutive terms; AND significant reduction in youth crime by a third and anti-social behaviour by 60%
    • OR an adult previously on benefits must be back in work for at least three consecutive months.

    The new Troubled Families Programme (2015 – 2020) reaches out to families with younger children and a broader range of problems – including families affected by domestic abuse or with children in need. The new Programme has different criteria for claiming a results payment. Local authorities can claim results payments for families when they can demonstrate that significant and sustained progress has been made against every problem a family is facing, or that continuous employment has been achieved.

  • Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Gwynne on 2016-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what plans his Department has for continuation of the Troubled Families programme.

    Mr Marcus Jones

    At the Spending Review 2015, £720 million was allocated to fund the remaining four years of the new Troubled Families Programme (2015 – 2020).

    We are absolutely committed to continuing to help this group of people, to help these vulnerable families that have some of the most complex needs of people in the country.

    We are looking at the evidence from the evaluation of the first Troubled Families Programme (2012-2015) to see how things could be done differently, to learn from it and see if there is even more we can do to improve the lives of troubled families

    We have already learnt lessons from the first Troubled Families Programme and reflected them in the design of the new programme. We have published an overview of the first programme which highlights the improvements that have been made:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-first-troubled-families-programme-2012-to-2015-an-overview

    “

  • Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Gwynne on 2016-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what data his Department has that demonstrate the effect of the Troubled Families programme on rates of domestic violence and abuse in (a) England and (b) the Greater Manchester authority area in each year since 2012.

    Mr Marcus Jones

    Domestic violence was not included in the target outcomes of the first Troubled Families Programme (2012-15). Given this, we did not have a robust national or local measure to assess prevalence of domestic violence families for the first programme.

    Domestic abuse has now been included as one of the six key headline problems of the new Troubled Families Programme (2015 – 2020). As part of the evaluation of the new programme, we are collecting data from all local authorities on police recorded incidents of domestic violence. This includes the Greater Manchester authority areas. We are also measuring self-reported domestic abuse through a survey of over 1,000 families using the same measure as the Crime Survey for England and Wales. The evaluation will report, in due course, the changes in these measures once sufficient families have progressed beyond intervention to make a robust assessment.

  • Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Gwynne on 2016-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, how many families in (a) England, (b) Greater Manchester, (c) Tameside and (d) Stockport have been identified as challenging and are subject to persistent visits under the Troubled Families programme.

    Mr Marcus Jones

    In Stockport, the local authority achieved outcomes with 565 families in the first Troubled Families Programme; in Tameside with 620 families; in Greater Manchester with 8,090 families. Across England local authorities achieved outcomes overall with 116,654 families. We expected that local authorities would work with more families than they claimed results for in order to achieve their targets.

    In the new programme, Greater Manchester, including Stockport and Tameside, is delivering the programme as a whole. Greater Manchester has engaged 13,228 families in the new programme so far; across England, 164,481 families have been engaged.

    The programme promoted but did not mandate a whole family intervention approach. It was not appropriate to do so: all local authorities are different, and the problems faced by each local authority and each family are different. The intensity of the intervention, and the number of visits made by key workers to each family, was dependent on the particular needs of each family and the approach agreed by the family and the key worker.

  • Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Andrew Gwynne – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Andrew Gwynne on 2016-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what data his Department holds on the effect of the Troubled Families programme on rates of school exclusions in (a) primary and (b) secondary education in (i) England and (ii) the Greater Manchester authority area in each year from 2012 to 2015.

    Mr Marcus Jones

    The published independent evaluation of the first programme presents data from local monitoring that shows that 10% of families had at least one child permanently excluded on entry to the first Troubled Families Programme (2012-15) and 28% had at least one child with a temporary exclusion. Where data were available for families at exit, 65% of families saw a reduction in permanent exclusion and 70% of families saw a reduction in temporary exclusions.

    Due to time-lags in national datasets, the first programme’s independent evaluation was not able to track school exclusion outcomes in national datasets within its timeframe.

    The evaluation of the new Troubled Families Programme (2015-20) will measure changes in school exclusions (both temporary and permanent) using national data held by the Department for Education at both a national and local authority level.

  • Caroline Lucas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Caroline Lucas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2016-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, what plans he has to safeguard access to the Interreg programme of interregional cooperation projects (a) until and (b) after the UK leaves the EU.

    Andrew Percy

    The Chancellor’s statement of 3 October 2016 explains that UK participants in European Structural and Investment Fund projects who have funding agreements signed after the Autumn Statement but before the UK leaves the EU will have their funding guaranteed, so long as they provide strong value for money and are in line with domestic strategic priorities. UK participants will not see a funding shortfall.

    Leaving the EU means that we will want to decide how we deliver the policy objectives currently delivered by EU-funded programmes. We will consult closely with stakeholders to review all EU funding schemes in the round, to ensure that any on-going funding commitments best serve the UK‘s national interest, while ensuring appropriate investor certainty.

    The source of ERDF funding is provided by the overall contributions made by each EU Member State. The United Kingdom currently makes a contribution to the EU, net of what it receives in return.

  • Gareth Thomas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    Gareth Thomas – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Communities and Local Government

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gareth Thomas on 2016-10-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, if he will take steps to ensure that local authorities can access cross-border, transnational and inter-regional co-operation funds from EU cohesion funding after the UK leaves the EU; and if he will make a statement.

    Andrew Percy

    The Chancellor’s statement of 3 October 2016 set out guarantees for local authorities’ funding for cross-border, transnational and inter-regional cooperation projects subject to certain conditions. The Treasury will guarantee funding for those projects which are signed after the Autumn Statement, but before the UK leaves the EU, provided that they provide strong value for money and are in line with domestic strategic priorities. This guarantee will apply even where those projects continue after the UK has left the EU. The Chancellor’s statement has provided certainty for local authorities and other UK participants in European Territorial Cooperation programmes.

    Leaving the EU means that we can decide how to deliver the policy priorities currently delivered by EU funding programmes. We will consult closely with stakeholders, including local authorities, to review all EU funding schemes in the round, to ensure that any on-going funding commitments best serve the UK‘s national interest, while ensuring appropriate investor certainty.