1-20 of 393 results for subject:Reviews
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.247 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.005 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Reviews
- We searched for
- subject_t:Reviews OR subject_ses:12492
Session
X
2002-03
Type
-
Early day motions (4)
+
Members' contributions (94)
-
Oral answers to questions (27)
-
Oral questions (27)
-
Proceeding contributions (40)
+
Parliamentary committees (19)
+
Committee proceedings (19)
-
Committee of the Whole House (HL) (4)
-
Public Bill Committee proceedings (12)
-
Select Committee oral evidence (2)
+
Parliamentary papers (4)
-
Command papers (1)
-
House of Commons papers (2)
-
Unprinted papers (1)
+
Parliamentary proceedings (91)
+
Debates (25)
+
Committee proceedings (19)
-
Committee of the Whole House (HL) (4)
-
Public Bill Committee proceedings (12)
-
Select Committee oral evidence (2)
+
Legislative debates (21)
-
Debates on bills (20)
-
Debates on delegated legislation (1)
-
Questions for short debate (1)
+
Statements (65)
+
Oral statements (2)
-
Ministerial statements (2)
-
Written statements (63)
-
Urgent questions (1)
+
Parliamentary questions (230)
-
Oral questions (27)
-
Urgent questions (1)
-
Written questions (202)
House
Session
More
2002-03 (393)
Year
Department
More
Member
More
Primary member
More
Answering member
More
Legislative stage
Legislation
More
Subject
More
Publisher
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what re-examination of the Office of Government Commerce Gateway review process he has undertaken as a result of the implementation of the Child Support Agency's reform programme.
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what re-examination of the Office of Government Commerce Gateway review process he has undertaken as a result of the implementation of the Child Support Agency's reform programme.
Asked by
Mark Todd
(Labour)
Answered by
Lord Boateng
(Labour)
Answering body
Treasury
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
17 November 2003
For answer on
20 November 2003
Answered on
20 November 2003
Mr. Todd: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what re-examination of the Office of Government Commerce Gateway review process he
has undertaken as a result of the implementation of the Child Support Agency's reform programme. [140039]
Mr. Boateng: There has been no re-examination of the OGC Gateway Review Process as a direct result of the implementation of the
Child Support Agency's reform programme.
Subjects
Child Support Agency; ICT; Procurement; Reform; Reviews; Office of Government Commerce
Date
20 November 2003
Reference
413 c1328W;413 c1324W; 140039
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, 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 ; what the average...
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, 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 ; what the average...
Asked by
Richard Burden
(Labour)
Answered by
Chris Pond
(Labour)
Answering body
Department for Work and Pensions
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
28 October 2003
For answer on
20 November 2003
Answered on
20 November 2003
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] (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.
Subjects
Applications; Birmingham; Community care grants; Social Fund; Standards; Reviews; Crisis loans; Independent Review Service for the Social Fund; Budgeting loans
Date
20 November 2003
Reference
413 c1354-5W;413 c1350-1W; 135579;135580
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, 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...
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, 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...
Asked by
Richard Burden
(Labour)
Answered by
Chris Pond
(Labour)
Answering body
Department for Work and Pensions
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
28 October 2003
For answer on
20 November 2003
Answered on
20 November 2003
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.
Average clearance times for reviews by Social Fund Reviewing Officers in days for April to September 2003
_________________________________________________________________________________________________.
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.
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.
Subjects
Disclosure of information; Applications; Administrative delays; Birmingham; Community care grants; Social Fund; Standards; Reviews; Crisis loans; Independent Review Service for the Social Fund; Budgeting loans
Date
20 November 2003
Reference
413 c1357-8W;413 c1353-4W; 135617;135619
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what proportion of applications for assistance under the Social Fund from Birmingham, Northfield were unsuccessful at independent review in financial year 2002-03 ; what proportion of applications for assistance under the Social Fund were unsuccessful at independent review in financial...
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what proportion of applications for assistance under the Social Fund from Birmingham, Northfield were unsuccessful at independent review in financial year 2002-03 ; what proportion of applications for assistance under the Social Fund were unsuccessful at independent review in financial...
Asked by
Richard Burden
(Labour)
Answered by
Chris Pond
(Labour)
Answering body
Department for Work and Pensions
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
28 October 2003
For answer on
20 November 2003
Answered on
20 November 2003
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.
Subjects
Applications; Birmingham; Community care grants; Social Fund; Reviews; Crisis loans; Independent Review Service for the Social Fund; Budgeting loans
Date
20 November 2003
Reference
413 c1355W;413 c1351-2W; 135582;135583
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, what process he followed in appointing Mr Steven Schwarz to lead a review into admissions to higher education; what (a) exchanges and (b) representations took place between himself and Mr Schwarz regarding the independence of such a review; and what...
To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, what process he followed in appointing Mr Steven Schwarz to lead a review into admissions to higher education; what (a) exchanges and (b) representations took place between himself and Mr Schwarz regarding the independence of such a review; and what...
Asked by
James Clappison
(Conservative)
Answered by
Alan Johnson
(Labour)
Answering body
Department for Education and Skills
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
12 November 2003
For answer on
19 November 2003
Answered on
19 November 2003
Mr. Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what process he followed in appointing Mr. Steven Schwarz to
lead a review into admissions to higher education; what (a) exchanges and (b) representations took place between himself and Mr.
Schwarz regarding the independence of such a review; and what guidelines there are regarding independence of reviews carried out at
his request. [139123]
Alan Johnson: The Secretary of State for Education and Skills appointed Professor Steven Schwartz following discussion with
organisations in the higher education sector. This included contact with the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE),
and Universities UK (UUK).
The Secretary of State for Education and Skills has drawn up clear terms of reference for the Admissions to Higher Education
Steering Group which are set out in its recent consultation paper, "Consultation On Key Issues Relating To Fair Admissions To Higher
Education", available from www.admissions- review.org.uk.
The Admissions to Higher Education Review adheres to good practice in preserving the independence of such reviews. This is
demonstrated by the following: Professor Schwartz, vice-chancellor of Brunel University, has been chosen as an independent chair
from the HE sector. Professor Schwartz has a Steering Group whose members represent a wide range of interests and views. The
secretariat support to the Steering Group is led by consultants seconded from universities, rather than permanent civil servants.
Any services commissioned by the Steering Group where resources or facilities are provided by the DfES have been subject to service
level agreements.
An independent press agency has been used for all matters relating to the review.
Subjects
Admissions; Higher education; Public appointments; Reviews; Department for Education and Skills; Higher Education Admissions Practices Task Force; Schwartz, Steven
Date
19 November 2003
Reference
139123; 413 c1008-9W;413 c1009W
House
House of Commons
Lead member
David Davis
Answering member
Lord Blunkett
Department
Home Office
Type
Urgent questions
Subjects
Ministerial responsibility; Recruitment; Vetting; Security; Reviews; Daily Mail; Security Commission; Buckingham Palace
Date
19 November 2003
Reference
413 c775-7
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Member
Lord Blunkett
(Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Subjects
Vetting; Security; Buckingham Palace; Ministerial responsibility; Recruitment; Reviews; Daily Mail; Security Commission
Date
19 November 2003
Reference
413 c781
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Member
Lord Blunkett
(Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Subjects
Vetting; Security; Buckingham Palace; Ministerial responsibility; Recruitment; Reviews; Daily Mail; Security Commission
Date
19 November 2003
Reference
413 c780-1
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Supplementary on the breach of security at Buckingham Palace.
Supplementary on the breach of security at Buckingham Palace.
Member
Lord Cormack
(Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Subjects
Vetting; Security; Buckingham Palace; Ministerial responsibility; Recruitment; Reviews; Daily Mail; Security Commission
Date
19 November 2003
Reference
413 c779
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Supplementary on the breach of security at Buckingham Palace.
Supplementary on the breach of security at Buckingham Palace.
Member
Andrew MacKay
(Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Subjects
Vetting; Security; Buckingham Palace; Ministerial responsibility; Recruitment; Reviews; Daily Mail; Security Commission
Date
19 November 2003
Reference
413 c780
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Supplementary on breach of security at Buckingham Palace and employee checks in general - Disallowed by Speaker.
Supplementary on breach of security at Buckingham Palace and employee checks in general - Disallowed by Speaker.
Member
Angela Watkinson
(Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Subjects
Vetting; Security; Buckingham Palace; Ministerial responsibility; Recruitment; Reviews; Daily Mail; Security Commission
Date
19 November 2003
Reference
413 c783
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Member
Lord Blunkett
(Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Subjects
Vetting; Security; Buckingham Palace; Ministerial responsibility; Recruitment; Reviews; Daily Mail; Security Commission
Date
19 November 2003
Reference
413 c785
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Supplementary on the breach of security at Buckingham Palace and security procedures at the Palace of Westminster.
Supplementary on the breach of security at Buckingham Palace and security procedures at the Palace of Westminster.
Member
Adrian Flook
(Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Subjects
Vetting; Security; Buckingham Palace; Ministerial responsibility; Recruitment; Reviews; Daily Mail; Security Commission
Date
19 November 2003
Reference
413 c785
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Supplementary on the breach of security at Buckingham Palace.
Supplementary on the breach of security at Buckingham Palace.
Member
Mark Oaten
(Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Subjects
Vetting; Security; Buckingham Palace; Ministerial responsibility; Recruitment; Reviews; Daily Mail; Security Commission
Date
19 November 2003
Reference
413 c777-8
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Member
Lord Blunkett
(Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Subjects
Vetting; Security; Buckingham Palace; Ministerial responsibility; Recruitment; Reviews; Daily Mail; Security Commission
Date
19 November 2003
Reference
413 c778
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Member
Lord Blunkett
(Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Subjects
Ministerial responsibility; Vetting; Security; Buckingham Palace; Recruitment; Reviews; Daily Mail; Security Commission
Date
19 November 2003
Reference
413 c778-9
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Member
Lord Blunkett
(Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Subjects
Vetting; Security; Buckingham Palace; Ministerial responsibility; Recruitment; Reviews; Daily Mail; Security Commission
Date
19 November 2003
Reference
413 c783
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Supplementary on the breach of security at Buckingham Palace and employment checks
Supplementary on the breach of security at Buckingham Palace and employment checks
Member
Teddy Taylor
(Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Subjects
Vetting; Security; Buckingham Palace; Ministerial responsibility; Recruitment; Reviews; Daily Mail; Security Commission
Date
19 November 2003
Reference
413 c780
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Member
Lord Blunkett
(Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Subjects
Vetting; Security; Buckingham Palace; Ministerial responsibility; Recruitment; Reviews; Daily Mail; Security Commission
Date
19 November 2003
Reference
413 c782
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Member
Lord Blunkett
(Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Subjects
Vetting; Security; Buckingham Palace; Ministerial responsibility; Recruitment; Reviews; Daily Mail; Security Commission
Date
19 November 2003
Reference
413 c781-2
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons