Tag: Frank Field

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Frank Field on 2016-04-08.

To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities, what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the enforcement of age discrimination legislation in respect of people seeking employment.

Caroline Dinenage

Age is a protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010. Where differential treatment because of age cannot be objectively justified, this will constitute unlawful age discrimination both in employment and in the provision of goods and services. Enforcement of the Act’s employment provisions is undertaken by Employment Tribunals, to which a person must make a claim if they feel that they have been discriminated against because of age.

Prior to an Employment Tribunal claim, conciliation services are provided by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Services (Acas). According to the Employment tribunal statistics, 1,087 age discrimination claims were made to Employment Tribunals in 2014/15. 70% (761) of these claims were either withdrawn or successfully conciliated by Acas without the need for a full hearing. The Acas process is intended to enable employers and employees to resolve disputes without the need for a full Employment Tribunal hearing.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s enforcement powers under the Equality Act 2006 apply to age discrimination as they do to other protected characteristics.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Frank Field on 2016-05-18.

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, on how many occasions has the personal independence payment (PIP) telephone has been unobtainable to the public in 2016; and how many people calling to enquire about PIP have been affected by those incidents.

Justin Tomlinson

The total number of calls made to Personal Independence Payment (PIP) Claims and Enquiry lines that were unable to access our services due to heavy demand at peak periods including customers receiving a busy or engaged tone are set out below, this covers the period 1 January to 30 April 2016:

	Calls Received	Calls not Connected	% Not connected
PIP Claims	411,147	168	0.04%
PIP Enquiries	1,113,803	18,949	1.70%

The department employs the following contingency arrangements to reduce the level of unanswered calls::

• assigning staff that are undertaking clerical work to take calls for busy periods,
• opening extra hours and ask for staff to volunteer to take additional calls
• postponing non-priority offline time (L+D, team meetings etc.) to meet the demands of the customers
• increasing the amount of open lines before a call is blocked by the network.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Frank Field on 2016-07-20.

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many people working for his Department or its executive agencies on a (a) directly employed, (b) agency or (c) outsourced basis are paid less than the living wage as defined by the Living Wage Foundation; and how many of those people are employed on zero-hours contracts.

Simon Kirby

No direct employees of HM Treasury, Office of Budget Responsibility, Government Internal Audit Agency and Debt Management Office are paid less than the rate defined by the Living Wage Foundation as a living wage. No direct employees are employed on zero hours contracts.

The Government supports businesses that choose to pay the Living Wage however our prime policy is the National Minimum Wage for the low paid. This is independently set by the Low Pay Commission at a level that maximises their wages without reducing employment prospect. It is for workers and employers to decide the level of wages above the minimum wage based on current circumstances. This includes the Government as a procurer and an employer. Over 95%, around 20 million employees earn above the minimum wage and the majority of public sector workers currently earn above the Living Wage. Government will always award contracts on the basis of the best value for money for the taxpayers – which includes the low paid.

HM Treasury does not hold information on wages paid by our suppliers.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Frank Field on 2016-07-20.

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, how many people working for his Department or its executive agencies on a (a) directly employed, (b) agency or (c) outsourced basis are paid less than the living wage as defined by the Living Wage Foundation; and how many of those people are employed on zero-hours contracts.

Joseph Johnson

As at 1 August 2016 (following the implementation of the 2016 pay award) there are no direct employees in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (former Department for Business, Innovation and Skills or former Department for Energy and Climate Change) paid less than the living wage as defined by the Living Wage Foundation.

As at this date there are no agency staff in former DECC paid less than the living wage as defined by the Living Wage Foundation.

There are 5 agency staff in former BIS paid less than the Living Wage Foundation’s definition. However, all 5 are paid more than the Government’s Living Wage rate of £7.20 per hour.

We do not centrally hold details of the pay levels of staff working for outsourced companies contracted by former BIS. Arm Length Bodies linked to former DECC have confirmed that they pay all their employees above the level set by the Living Wage Foundation.

There are no employees on zero hours contracts.

I have asked Chief Executives of the executive agencies of former BIS to respond directly to the Hon. Member.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Frank Field on 2016-10-12.

To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, for what reasons the Government plans to activate Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union by the end of March 2017.

Mr David Jones

There was a good reason why the Government said immediately after the referendum that it should not invoke Article 50 before the end of this year. This has given us the time to develop our negotiating strategy and avoid setting the clock ticking until our objectives are clear and agreed. As the Prime Minister has made clear, Article 50 will be triggered no later than the end of March next year.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Frank Field on 2015-10-27.

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what the average duration of a claim for tax credits was in the most recent (a) 12 and (b) 24 months for which data is available.

Damian Hinds

The information is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Frank Field on 2015-11-17.

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he expects to sign off in full the business case for universal credit.

Greg Hands

The 2nd Permanent Secretary to the Treasury explained to the PAC on the 10 December 2014 (see link below) the process for Business Case approvals within Government. The first stage of this process, the Strategic Outline Business Case, was agreed for Universal Credit in September 2014. The next step, the Outline Business Case, is now with Treasury Ministers for approval. The Full Business Case will follow for Ministerial approval by the end of 2017. This is in line with the process within Government and a Programme of the scale and complexity of Universal Credit.

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/public-accounts-committee/universal-credit-progress-update/oral/16340.html

“

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Frank Field on 2015-11-25.

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many tax credit claimants lost their entitlement as a result of action taken by Concentrix in the last financial year.

Mr David Gauke

5,244 tax credit claims were amended as a result of checks undertaken by Concentrix during 2014-15. This includes both partial and full loss of entitlement cases.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Frank Field on 2016-01-06.

To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what the average time taken is by (a) Concentrix and (b) HM Revenue and Customs to process each tax credit claim adjustment; and what guidance there is in Concentrix’s contract on how long it should take to process each tax credit claim adjustment.

Mr David Gauke

The average time taken by Concentrix to carry out a tax credit intervention – from writing to the claimant, receiving and investigating any response, through to closing the case and making any adjustment to the award – is 91 days. The average time taken by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is 64 days, but the figures are not comparable because the profiles of cases worked by Concentrix and by HMRC are different.

Concentrix are required under their contract with HMRC to complete 80% of High Risk Change of Circumstances interventions (these are a subset of Concentrix’s caseload consisting of the highest risk cases) within 75 days and 100% of such cases within 90 days. So far in 2015/16 they have closed 95.5% of these interventions within 75 days.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Frank Field on 2016-01-22.

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, how many and what proportion of homeless families with children who are living in bed and breakfast accommodation have been in that accommodation for more than six weeks.

Mr Marcus Jones

As at 30 September 2015 there were 3,000 families with children in bed and breakfast style accommodation in England, of which 960 had been in bed and breakfast style accommodation for longer than six weeks.

Whilst this is less than the previous peak, we are clear the long term use of bed and breakfast accommodation for families with children is both unacceptable and unlawful. The law and statutory guidance make clear it should only ever be used in an emergency, and then for no longer than six weeks.

Tackling and preventing homelessness remains a priority and that is why we have protected homelessness prevention funding for local authorities, through the provisional local government finance settlement totalling £315 million by 2019/20 , increased central government funding for homelessness programmes to £139 million over the Spending Review period; and have made a commitment to work with local authorities, homelessness organisations and across Departments to consider options, including legislation, to prevent more people from becoming homeless.