| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
31 Jan 2005 : Column 607W—continued
Financial Assistance Scheme
Adam Price: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the company pension funds identified in government-funded research as potentially eligible for the financial assistance scheme, broken down by estimated number of relevant scheme members. [210996]
Malcolm Wicks: We are currently analysing information on pension schemes obtained from our recent data collection exercise. Once we have done so we hope, as indicated in the written ministerial statement I gave on 2 December 2004, Official Report, columns 64–66WS, to be able to issue an indicative list of schemes likely to be eligible for assistance if they are subsequently shown to comply with the financial assistance scheme rules.
Annabelle Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when his Department first publicly described the financial assistance scheme as an emergency package. [211993]
Malcolm Wicks: The Government's announcement of the financial assistance scheme (FAS) on 14 May 2004 made clear that the FAS is intended to deal with the considerable hardship caused by pension schemes winding up underfunded before the introduction of the Pension Protection Fund, which will cover such cases in the future. That objective is reflected in my oral answer on FAS as an emergency package on 24 January 2005, Official Report, column 18.
Annabelle Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) when he expects the financial assistance scheme to commence; [212004]
(2) what cross-departmental meetings have been held in the last 10 weeks on the timing of the commencement of the operation of the financial assistance scheme. [212005]
Malcolm Wicks: On the expected start date for the financial assistance scheme, I refer to the written statement I gave on 2 December 2004, Official Report, column 66WS. As usual when a new policy is introduced, we have held and continue to hold a number of meetings on operational issues both within DWP and with other relevant Government Departments.
Income Support (Disabled Claimants)
Mr. Edwards: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what framework his Department has put in place to enable a disabled claimant whose income support has been withdrawn under the cohabitation rule to have benefit restored if it can be demonstrated that he is not living with his carer as husband and wife; and if he will examine the case of Mr. Woodward, a constituent. [205705]
Malcolm Wicks:
Where there is a dispute as to whether unmarried persons who share accommodation can be treated as living as husband and wife for income support purposes, a decision will be made by a decision
31 Jan 2005 : Column 608W
maker. This decision is based on a careful consideration of all the relevant circumstances. No unmarried persons would be assessed as living together as husband and wife merely because they shared accommodation.
The decision maker will refer to a number of key criteria in deciding whether or not two people are treated as a single unit for income support purposes, but the decision is made on the relationship as a whole. When the decision letter is sent to the customer advising that their income support is no longer payable, they are advised what they can do if they disagree with the decision, including details of the appeals process.
For reasons of confidentiality, I will write to my hon. Friend about his constituent.
Jobcentre Plus
Dr. Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what standards are set in Jobcentre Plus offices for (a) response times within which telephone numbers which are advertised to the public are answered and (b) the percentage of time in a working day when lines are not engaged; and what the most recent figures are for performance against these standards. [208512]
Jane Kennedy: The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus, David Anderson. He will write to the hon. Member.
Letter from David Anderson to Dr. Vincent Cable, dated 31 January 2005:
The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning the response times on telephone calls. You asked specifically about the response times before telephone numbers which are advertised to the public are answered, the percentage of time in a working day when lines are not engaged and what the most recent figures are for the performance against these standards. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus.
Jobcentre Plus has a Customers' Charter which sets out the level of service that customers can expect when dealing with us, including the standards we aim for when answering telephone calls. The current standard states when you phone us or use a textphone we aim to answer your call within 30 seconds". The Charter is available from our local offices or can be printed from the internet through the Jobcentre Plus website. I have placed a copy of the latest version of the Charter in the Library.
This standard has been in place since the introduction of Jobcentre Plus and applies equally to all areas of the business—whether delivered through our local offices or through the network of modern contact centres that we are putting in place.
In the Jobcentre Plus National Customer Satisfaction Survey 2003, a copy of which is available in the Library, we asked our customers if this standard still met their expectations. Of those respondents who normally contacted us by telephone 69 per cent. felt that it was reasonable to wait at least 30 seconds and nearly two thirds of those people considered it reasonable to wait over a minute.
However, although the length of time taken is considered reasonable by many of our customers we endeavour to answer all incoming calls as quickly as possible for the people who need our services.
You asked for our most recent figures for performance in two separate areas. The performance of the 30 second response time is measured in two ways: through a Mystery Shopping Programme which measures performance against a range of service standards as defined in our Customer Service Target; and by Management Information from our contact centre network. I have provided that information. However, our telephony systems do not
- measure the percentage of time in a working day when lines are not engaged and I am therefore unable to respond to that part of your question.
We are moving towards an organisational structure in which many of our services will be delivered by telephone—but at the moment nearly 50 per cent. of the local office network has still to be converted to the integrated Jobcentre Plus service delivery model. Many of those offices do not have centralised switchboard systems, nor dedicated telephony teams. We therefore use the Mystery Shopping programme to undertake telephone calls on a sampled basis at a level that will provide us with robust information for the network as a whole.
The programme is undertaken by an external contractor (NOP Mystery Shopping). It includes three telephone calls to each office per quarter. The information for the first three quarters of this year (April—December) show:
| Time taken to answer | Percentage |
|---|---|
| 0 to 30 seconds | 79.3 |
| 31 to50 seconds | 5.6 |
| 51 to 60 seconds | 2.5 |
| Total calls made | 10,105 |
Of the remaining calls, they were either not completed as we instruct NOP to abandon calls not answered within one minute or a message/answer phone service cut in.
Our network of contact centres deliver services by telephone to those customers making new/repeat claims to benefit or those wanting to find jobs. For each type of service the contact centres have a more demanding internal standard of answering 80 per cent. of all calls within 20 seconds from the time that a call is routed to an agent. There is also a target to answer 95 per cent. of calls.
The contact centres handling new/repeat claims answered on average 80 per cent. of calls within 20 seconds, with 91.1 per cent. of calls being answered.
The contact centres helping customers to find jobs answered 91 per cent. of calls within 20 seconds, with 97.5 per cent. of all calls being answered.
New Deal
Mr. Wilshire: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what research his Department has conducted into the average cost per additional job created (a) under the new deal programmes and (b) in employment zones; whether the research produced figures broken down by region; and whether research investigated (i) the number who would have found employment notwithstanding the new deal and (ii) the effect on (A) tax receipts and (B) unemployment benefits from the jobs created. [210947]
Jane Kennedy [holding answer 25 January 2005]: Research has been conducted on the macro-economic effect of the new deal for young people (NDYP) and the new deal for lone parents (NDLP). Information is not available on costs per additional job by region. A full cost-benefit analysis, including the effect on tax benefits and unemployment benefits, is not available.
The National Institute for Economic and Social Research (NIESR) undertook a detailed macro-economic analysis of NDYP until March 2000 1 . NIESR calculated the net budgetary cost per job was £7,000 per
31 Jan 2005 : Column 610W
annum (excluding the Environmental Task Force and Voluntary Sector options) or £4,000 per annum when these two options are included. The National Audit Office report 2 suggested that the average annual cost per additional person of any age in employment through the new deal for young people is within the range of £5,000-£8,000.
NIESR calculated that by March 2000, NDYP had reduced unemployment among all age groups by 35,000. They also estimated that NDYP raised youth employment by 15,000 (excluding those on the Environmental Task Force and Voluntary Sector options). Adding these two options raised this to 30,000 more young people in work due to NDYP.
Evidence on the cost-effectiveness of the new deal for lone parents (NDLP) comes from the provisional cost-benefit analysis of NDLP carried out by departmental economists. The findings were published in the NDLP Evaluation Synthesis Report in June 2003 3 . The unit costs of NDLP in 2000–01 were £400 per participant. The gross cost per job was around £860.
A calculation of cost-effectiveness takes into account the additional earnings from movements into work and the costs of running the programme in 2000–01. NDLP provided a significant net economic gain to society, with a net benefit of over £4,400 from each additional job, and a total net gain of £115 million.
The net impact on public finance was also calculated. This included the cost of in-work credits and benefits such as the working families' tax credit. NDLP in 2001–02 resulted in a net exchequer saving of £1,600 for each additional job entry—a total saving of £41.5 million.
The gross cost per job of Employment Zones has been estimated by the Department to be £3,115 per job without benefit payments and £6,027 per job with benefit payments.
There has been no macro-economic analysis undertaken of the net impact of Employment Zones on the 25 plus client group. Research undertaken by the National Centre for Social Research 4 estimated the comparative outcomes of Employment Zones and new deal 25 plus.
Information is not available on new deal 25 Plus, new deal for disabled or new deal for partners. Information is not available on those who would have found employment without the new deal.
1 New Deal for Young People: Implications for Employment and the Public Finances, NIESR, December 2000 (Ref: ESR62).
2 New Deal for Young People, National Audit Office, February 2002. 3 Evaluation of the New Deal for Lone Parents: Early lessons from the Phase One Prototype—Synthesis Report. Research Report 108, June 2003. 4 National Centre for Social Research (2003): Evaluation of Employment Zones: Report on a Cohort Survey of Long Term Unemployed People in the Zones and a Matched Set of Comparison Areas.
Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in Burnley have found work through the new deal programmes since 1997. [210970]
31 Jan 2005 : Column 611W
Jane Kennedy: The information is in the table.
| Programme | Number of individuals into work |
|---|---|
| New Deal for Young People | 740 |
| New Deal 25 plus | 240 |
| New Deal for Lone Parents | 690 |
| New Deal 50 plus | 140 |
| Total | 1,810 |
Notes:
1.All data is to September 2004 except New Deal 50 plus which is to March 2003.
2.New Deal 50 plus figures are for the number of people who started work with the help of the New Deal 50 plus employment credit. Information is not available at constituency level for New Deal 50 plus after March 2003.
3.Data is not available at constituency level for the New Deal for Disabled People and New Deal for Partners programmes.
4.All figures have been rounded to the nearest ten.
Source:
DWP Information and Analysis Directorate
Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many (a) young people, (b) single mothers, (c) disabled people, (d) people aged over 50 years and (e) others have benefited from the new deal in the Nottingham, North constituency since its inception. [211016]
Jane Kennedy: The information is in the table.
Notes:
1.People can be included in more than one of these categories.
2.Young people figures relate to the number of clients who have started, and gained a job through the new deal for young people programme and people aged 24 and under on the new deal for lone parents programme.
3.Single mothers figures relate to the number of female lone parents who have started, and gained a job through the new deal for lone parents programme.
4.Disabled people figures relate to the number of people with disabilities who have started, and gained a job through the new deal for young people; new deal 25 plus; New deal for lone parents and new deal 50 plus programmes. Information on the new deal for disabled people is not available at constituency level.
5.The people aged 50 plus figures relate to the number of people aged 50 and over who have started, and gained a job through the new deal 50 plus; new deal 25 plus, and new deal for lone parents programmes.
6.New deal for partners information is not available at constituency level.
7.New deal 50 plus data is to March 2003. New deal 50 plus information is not available at constituency level after March 2003.
8.New deal for young people, new deal 25 plus and new deal for lone parents data is to September 2004.
9.New deal for young people started in January 1998; New deal 25 plus started in July 1998; New deal for lone parents started in October 1998; New deal 50 plus started in April 2000.
10.All figures have been rounded to the nearest ten.
11.Totals figures include people who have been helped through the new deal in Nottingham, North but who are not included in the individual categories.
Source:
DWP Information and Analysis Directorate
31 Jan 2005 : Column 612W
Shona McIsaac: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have started each of the new deal for employment programmes in (a) North East Lincolnshire and (b) North Lincolnshire; and how many have entered work. [211141]
Jane Kennedy: The available information is in the table.
Notes:
1.Figures relate to the local authority districts of North East Lincolnshire and North Lincolnshire.
2.New Deal for Young People information is from January 1998 to September 2004.
3.New Deal 25 plus information is from July 1998 to September 2004.
4.New Deal for Lone Parents information is from October 1998 to September 2004.
5.New Deal 50 plus information relates to the number of New Deal 50 plus employment credit starts up to the end of March 2003. New Deal 50 plus information is not available at local authority level after March 2003.
6.New Deal for Disabled People and New Deal for Partners information is not available at local authority level.
7.All figures have been rounded to the nearest 10 and components may not sum to totals.
Source:
DWP Information and Analysis Directorate
31 Jan 2005 : Column 613W
Ross Cranston: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many individuals have been on the New Deal in Dudley, North constituency in each year since 1998; and if he will make a statement. [211193]
31 Jan 2005 : Column 614W
Jane Kennedy: The available information is in the following table.
Notes:
1.New Deal for Young People data is from January 1998 to September 2004.
2.New Deal 25 plus data is from July 1998 to September 2004.
3.New Deal for Lone Parents data is from October 1998 to September 2004.
4.New Deal 50 plus data is from April 2000 to March 2003. New Deal 50 plus data is not available at constituency level after March 2003 when the New Deal 50 plus Employment Credit ended.
5.Information is not available at constituency level for New Deal for Disabled People and New Deal for Partners.
6.Figures are rounded to the nearest 10 and components may not sum to totals.
Source:
DWP Information Directorate
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |