| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
20 Nov 2003 : Column 1349W—continued
Printer Cartridges
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment the Health and Safety Executive has made of the impact on employees health of refilling and re-using printer cartridges. [139215]
Mr. Browne: The toner used as part of the printing process is an extremely fine powder which in itself is not classed as a substance hazardous to health. However, any dust in substantial concentration may be classed as hazardous as it may cause respiratory tract irritation. In these circumstances the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations (COSHH) place a duty on users of substances hazardous to health to carry out a risk assessment of their activity and to put in place appropriate control measures based on that assessment. Suppliers of substances for use at work also have a duty under the Chemicals (Hazard information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations (CHIP) to provide a safety data sheet with information to help users work with the substances safely.
Public Employees (Essex)
Mr. Francois: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many part-time workers were employed by Jobcentre Plus in Essex on 1 September. [139517]
20 Nov 2003 : Column 1350W
Mr. Browne: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 28 October 2003, Official Report, column 209W.
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
Brian White: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what statutory investigatory powers the Department has; which ones will be superseded by use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000; and what plans he has for removing these legacy powers. [136117]
Mr. Pond: Use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 will not supersede the statutory powers available to the Department. There are no plans to remove existing statutory powers from departmental or local authority authorised officers.
Social Fund
Richard Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what proportion of applications for assistance from the Social Fund in the last financial year were unsuccessful, broken down by departmental sub-region; [135577]
- (2) what proportion of applications for assistance under the Social Fund from Birmingham, Northfield were unsuccessful in the last financial year. [135578]
Mr. Pond: The available information is in the table.
| Community care grants | Budgeting loans | Crisisloans | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Great Britain | 58.3 | 26.3 | 21.9 |
| Birmingham, Northfield— April 2002 to August 2003 | 55.1 | 25.0 | 9.1 |
| All Birmingham Districts | 56.2 | 25.3 | 15.8 |
Notes:
1. An application is defined as unsuccessful if no award is made.
2. Figures refer to initial decisions only.
3. Social Fund data are held by Departmental District. It will not be available by Government Office Region until the migration of all work to Jobcentre Plus Districts is completed.
4. In September 2002 the Birmingham Northfield Social fund district amalgamated with other districts to become part of the Jobcentre Plus Birmingham and Solihull District.
5. The area covered by the Birmingham, Northfield site is not co-terminus with the Birmingham, Northfield parliamentary constituency.
Richard Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the average timescale was for reviews of unsuccessful applications for assistance under the Social Fund to be considered and determined by the Independent Review Service in the last financial year broken down by departmental sub-region; [135579]
20 Nov 2003 : Column 1351W
- (2) what the average timescale was for reviews of unsuccessful applications from Birmingham, Northfield for assistance under the Social Fund to be considered and determined by the Independent Review Service in the last financial year. [135580]
Mr. Pond: The operational performance of the Independent Review Service (IRS), an independent statutory body, is a matter for the Social Fund Commissioner who informs me that:
In the financial year 2002–03, the national average timescales for reviews dealt with by the IRS were 11.1 days for community care grants; 10.23 days for crisis loans for items; 7.64 days for budgeting loans; and 5.12 hours for urgent crisis loans, such as those for living expenses (express cases), respectively.
In the financial year 2002–03, the average timescales for reviews dealt with by the IRS from Birmingham, Northfield were 12.32 days for community care grants; 10 days for crisis loans for items; 7.25 days for budgeting loans; and 1.88 hours for urgent crisis loans, such as those for living expenses (express cases), respectively.
Tables setting out this information, which also give the average timescales by Government Office Region and Jobcentre Plus District have been placed in the Library.
Richard Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what proportion of applications for assistance under the Social Fund from Birmingham, Northfield were unsuccessful at independent review in financial year 2002–03; [135582]
- (2) what proportion of applications for assistance under the Social Fund were unsuccessful at independent review in financial year 2002–03, broken down by departmental sub-region. [135583]
Mr. Pond: The operational performance of the Independent Review Service (IRS), an independent statutory body, is a matter for the Social Fund Commissioner who informs me that:
In the financial year 2002–03, the proportion of applications for assistance under the Social Fund from Birmingham Northfield which were unsuccessful at independent review were 32.1 per cent. for community care grants; 33.3 per cent. for crisis loans for items; 100 per cent. for budgeting loans; and 100 per cent. urgent crisis loans, such as those for living expenses (express cases), respectively.
In the financial year 2002–03, nationally the proportion of applications for assistance under the Social Fund which were unsuccessful at independent review were 31.4 per cent. for community care grants; 46.7 per cent. for crisis loans for items; 89.2 per cent. for budgeting loans; and 68.3 per cent. urgent crisis loans, such as those for living expenses (express cases), respectively.
Tables setting out the information, which also give the proportions which were unsuccessful at independent review by Government Office Region and Jobcentre Plus District, have been placed in the Library.
20 Nov 2003 : Column 1352W
Richard Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the average time periods achieved were in the last 12 months for which figures are available for (a) reaching decisions on applications from residents of Birmingham, Northfield for assistance from the Social Fund and (b) passing these decisions to applicants; [135616]
- (2) what the average time period was in the last 12 months for which figures are available for reaching decisions on applications for assistance from the Social Fund, broken down by departmental sub-region; [135618]
(3) what the target time periods were in the last 12 months for which figures are available for (a) reaching decisions on applications for assistance from the Social Fund and (b) passing these decisions to applicants, broken down by departmental sub-region. [135620]
Mr. Pond: For the last 12 months the Jobcentre Plus Key Management Indicator for clearing applications for Social Fund Community Care Grants has been an average of nine working days. As an additional aid to monitoring performance, Jobcentre Plus aim to clear applications for Budgeting Loans within an average of eight working days and 95 per cent. of all Crisis Loan applications on the day of receipt. All decision letters, irrespective of the outcome of the decision, are sent by first class mail.
The available information is in the table.
| Great Britain | Birmingham, Northfield | |
|---|---|---|
| Community Care Grants | 8.1 | 6.8 |
| Budgeting Loans | 2.6 | 4.6 |
| Crisis Loans | 1.2 | 1.1 |
Notes:
1. Social Fund data is not at present available by Government Office Region, but will be from the completion of the migration of work to Jobcentre Plus Districts.
2. For grants, the clearance time is defined as the time from receipt of the application to making the decision.
3. For loans, the clearance time is defined as the time from receipt of the application to making the decision if an offer is not made or not responded to; if an offer is made, the clearance time is the time from receipt of the application to the decision to make an offer plus the time from the receipt of the accepted offer to the recording of that acceptance.
4. When a Crisis Loan application is received and the offer of acceptance is recorded on the same day that counts as a clearance time of one day.
5. Clearance times are measured in whole working days, but average clearance times have been given to one decimal place.
6. In September 2002 the Birmingham Northfield Social Fund district amalgamated with other districts to become part of the Jobcentre Plus Birmingham and Solihull District.
7. The area covered by the Birmingham Northfield office is not co-terminus with the Birmingham Northfield parliamentary constituency.
Source:
Department for Work and Pensions Central Data Unit Management Information.
20 Nov 2003 : Column 1353W
Richard Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the average time periods were for the last 12 months for which figures are available for (a) reaching decisions on reviews of unsuccessful applications from residents of Birmingham, Northfield for assistance from the Social Fund and (b) passing these decisions on to the applicants; [135617]
(2) what the (a) target and (b) average time periods were in the last 12 months for which figures are available for (i) reaching decisions on reviews of unsuccessful applications for assistance from the Social Fund and (ii) passing these decisions to applicants, broken down by departmental sub-region. [135619]
Mr. Pond: If a person is dissatisfied with their Social Fund decision, they may apply for a review of that decision; in the first instance reviews are carried out locally by a reviewing officer. If the applicant is still unhappy with the decision, they may apply for a further review by an independent Social Fund Inspector.
While there is no specific target for internal reviews of discretionary Social Fund decisions, Jobcentre Plus aim to reduce the average time taken to clear applications to 10 working days; all decision letters, irrespective of the outcome of the decision, are sent by first class mail.
As a result of staffing problems, arrears of work accrued over a period of some months in the Birmingham, Northfield office. Additional resource has been allocated to clear the backlog, and this should be achieved before the end of the year.
| Great Britain | Birmingham, Northfield | |
|---|---|---|
| Community Care Grants | 17.6 | 28.2 |
| Budgeting Loans | 16.3 | 17.6 |
| Crisis Loans | 11.3 | 2.9 |
Notes:
1. Data to answer both questions from the same source is available only from April 2003
2. Social Fund data is not at present available by Government Office Region, but will be from the completion of the migration of work to Jobcentre Plus Districts.
3. For grants, the clearance time is defined as the time from receipt of the application to making the decision.
4. For loans, the clearance time is defined as the time from receipt of the application to making the decision if an offer is not made or not responded to; if an offer is made, the clearance time is the time from receipt of the application to the decision to make an offer plus the time from the receipt of the accepted offer to the recording of that acceptance.
5. When a Crisis Loan application is received and the offer of acceptance is recorded on the same day that counts as a clearance time of one day
6. Clearance times are measured in whole working days, but the average clearance times have been given to one decimal place.
7. In September 2002 the Birmingham Northfield Social Fund district amalgamated with other districts to become part of the Jobcentre Plus Birmingham and Solihull District.
8. The area covered by the Birmingham, Northfield office is not co-terminus with the Birmingham Northfield parliamentary constituency.
Source:
Department for Work and Pensions Central Data Unit Management Information.
20 Nov 2003 : Column 1354W
The operational performance of the Independent Review Service (IRS), an independent statutory body, is a matter for the Social Fund Commissioner who informs me that:
The IRS time targets for reviews are absolute targets rather than average clearance targets. They are: Routine Cases—95 per cent. in 12 working days; Complex Cases—90 per cent. in 23 working days. Against these, in the last financial year the IRS achieved 98.1 per cent. and 94.8 per cent. respectively. For the purposes of responding to your questions, the information has been compiled by averages.
For the 12-month period ending 30 September 2003, the average time periods for reviews dealt with by the IRS from Birmingham, Northfield were 12.99 days for community care grants; 11.5 days for crisis loans for items; 8.41 days for budgeting loans; and 1.59 hours for urgent crisis loans, such as those for living expenses (express cases), respectively.
For the 12-month period ending 30 September 2003, the national average time periods for reviews dealt with by the IRS were 12.4 days for community care grants; 11.35 days for crisis loans for items; 7.95 days for budgeting loans; and 4.75 hours for urgent crisis loans, such as those for living expenses (express cases), respectively.
The IRS passed all decisions to applicants by first class post as soon as the decisions were completed. At the same time, the IRS passed a copy of the decisions to the Jobcentre Plus and they are responsible for making any payments that are due.
Tables detailing the performance of the Independent Review Service, which show the average time periods by Government Office Region and Jobcentre Plus District, and show the average national, regional and district times for cases that fall within the IRS 12 and 23 day targets have been placed in the Library.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |