Search Results

1-13 of 13 results for subject:"Data processing"

Show detailed: On Off

Results: 10 20 50 100

Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in which Indian cities the outsource of personnel of the Criminal Records Bureau is located.

Asked by

Keith Vaz (Labour)

Answering body

Home Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

10 December 2002

Reference

84922; 396 c231W

House

House of Commons

Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Date) (Elected Representatives) Order 2002

Draft SI on data protection (processing of sensitive personal data) (elected representatives) (SI 2002/2905). Lords debate on motion to approve agreed to on question.

Lead member

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

Answering member

Lord Kingsland

Department

Lord Chancellor's Department

Type

Debates on delegated legislation

Date

4 November 2002

Reference

640 c549-52

House

House of Lords

Dept for Work and Pensions

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many individuals' personal data have been processed in data matching exercises in connection with benefit fraud; how many cases were identified as part of that data matching exercise as being possible cases of benefit fraud requiring further investigation; how...

Asked by

Harry Cohen (Labour)

Answering body

Department for Work and Pensions

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

22 May 2002

For answer on

23 July 2002

Answered on

23 July 2002

Harry Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many individuals' personal data have been processed in data matching exercises in connection with benefit fraud; how many cases were identified as part of that data matching exercise as being possible cases of benefit fraud requiring further investigation; how many cases after investigation were deemed likely to be fraudulent; how many cases were prosecuted; what the total costs were of all data matching exercises, including staff and computer costs; and what the estimated total savings to the public purse are and the multiplier used in this calculation. [59210] Malcolm Wicks: Data-matching is a powerful tool in the detection of fraud and incorrectness in the benefit system. The Department's Matching Intelligence Data Analysis Service (MIDAS) operates the Generalised Matching Service (GMS) for benefits administered by the Department, and the Housing Benefit Matching Service (HBMS) for housing benefit and council tax benefit which are administered by local authorities. The data-matching process involves data extracts being taken from the Department's main benefit computer systems and local authority benefit systems which are matched against each other using data matching "rules" to identify discrepancies between the data sets. Such discrepancies are then referred for local investigation. Legislation also provides for personal data held by other Government Departments to be matched against departmental and local authority data to identify discrepancies. It is not possible to say how many individuals' personal data have been processed in data-matching exercises because each individual's details may be held on several systems at the same time. Information on the overall cost of conducting data- matching exercises and investigating discrepancies is not available. The available information on the results from GMS and HBMS data-matching operations is in the tables. General Matching Service _________________________________________________________________________________________________. 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 Referrals issued 62,937 85,071 137,307 139,292 217,039 234,671 167,950 Positive results{1} {2}-- {2}-- {2}-- {2}-- 67,121 86,598 83,742 Successful prosecutions {2}-- {2}-- {2}-- {2}-- 63 844 952 Cautions and administrative {2}-- {2}-- {2}-- {2}-- 288 2,417 2,497 penalties Total overpayments{3} (£ {2}-- {2}-- {2}-- {2}-- 35.0 59.5 65.5 million) Total negative monetary {2}-- {2}-- {2}-- {2}-- 1.9 2.5 3.0 value adjustment{4} (£ million) _________________________________________________________________________________________________. Housing Benefit Matching Service{ 5} _________________________________________________________________________________________________. Up to 1998 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 Referrals issued 25,940 49,084 65,143 86,006 78,144 Positive results{1} {2}-- {2}-- {2}-- 29,037 32,243 Successful prosecutions {2}-- 75 208 392 319 Total overpayments{3} (£ 3.4 10.6 18.6 37.2 36.8 million) Weekly benefit savings x 32 4.3 12.9 17.8 22.2 21.8 weeks (£ million) _________________________________________________________________________________________________. {1} Cases where, following investigation, there was an increase or decrease in the rate of benefit because of fraud, customer error or official error. {2} Information is not available. {3} Arising from fraud, customer error or official error. {4} Monetary Value Adjustment (MVA) is the difference between the weekly amount of benefit that would have been paid, or would have continued to be paid, and the benefit paid following the decision-maker's decision on the information gathered. MVA was introduced during the 1999-2000 financial year. Prior to the GMS recorded a Weekly Benefit Savings (WBS) figure that used a multiplier of 32 weeks. This method of recording savings was used by HBMS until 31 March 2002, after which it began to use MVA. Separate GMS figures for WBS and overpayments prior to 1999-2000 are not available. {5} HBMS does not record sanctions information. Source: Matching Intelligence Detection Analysis Services management information.

Date

23 July 2002

Reference

59210; 389 c1036-8W

House

House of Commons

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, in relation to data matching exercises undertaken by the Audit Commission and local authorities, how many individuals' personal data have been processed in data matching exercises in connection with fraud; how many cases have been identified as...

Asked by

Harry Cohen (Labour)

Answering body

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

22 May 2002

For answer on

10 June 2002

Answered on

10 June 2002

Harry Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in relation to data matching exercises undertaken by the Audit Commission and local authorities, how many individuals' personal data have been processed in data matching exercises in connection with fraud; how many cases have been identified as part of that data matching exercise as being possible cases of fraud requiring further investigation; how many cases, after investigation, were deemed likely to be fraudulent; how many cases were prosecuted; what the total cost were of data matching exercises, including staff and computer costs; and what the estimated total savings to the public purse are and what multiplier was used in this calculation. [59209] Mr. Leslie: I have been asked to reply. The following information is taken from the Audit Commission's National Fraud Initiative (NFI) 2000. All data collection and matching is undertaken in accordance with the Code of Data Matching, agreed between the Audit Commission and the Information Commissioner. Because data for matching is drawn from a wide range of data sources, with individuals' details potentially appearing on a number of data submissions, it is not possible to identify the number of individuals for whom data has been collected. However, in its report on the 2000 NFI, the Commission reported that over 14 million records were matched. The Commission's role is to identify matches and report these back to the relevant authorities for further investigation. It is for individual authorities to identify potentially fraudulent matches and to investigate these further, and, if appropriate, prosecute. The Commission does not have details of how many cases fall into these categories. The cost of the Audit Commission's role in NFI 2000 was some £600,000, including staff costs and computer costs. The Commission does not have information on the costs incurred by individual authorities in investigating potentially fraudulent matches. The Commission does not seek to estimate the potential savings arising from NFI. However, in its report on the 2000 NFI, the Commission reported that the value of detected fraud and overpayment, up to the date of publication, was £50 million, an increase of 19 per cent. over the previous NFI undertaken in 1998.

Date

10 June 2002

Reference

59209; 386 c1026-7W

House

House of Commons

Hunt of Kings Heath, Lord

In the light of recommendation 6.5 in the review of Korner Community Health Services and Cross Sector Returns (November 2000) that commissioners who use "total contacts" should move to more appropriate measures, how many commissioners have now moved to different systems of measurement; and what these systems are [HL 4390].

Asked by

Lord Morris of Manchester (Labour)

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

30 May 2002

Reference

635 c164-5WA; HL 4390

House

House of Lords

Deposited Paper DEP 02/988

Data Protection Act 1998 post-implementation appraisal: summary of responses to September 2000 consultation. CP(R)99/01. December 2001. LDC. 2002.

Deposited by

Lord Chancellor's Department

Type

Deposited papers

Date

14 May 2002

Reference

DEP 02/988

House

House of Commons

Lord Chancellors Dept

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his Answer of 20th March, 382 c413-4W, on the 1901 Census, what steps were taken to familiarise employees based in India and Sri Lanka with the handwriting and spelling used by enumerators of the 1901 Census.

Asked by

David Lidington (Conservative)

Answering body

Lord Chancellor's Department

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

26 March 2002

For answer on

10 April 2002

Answered on

10 April 2002

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to her answer of 20 March 2002, Official Report, column 414W, on the 1901 Census, what steps were taken to familiarise employees based in India and Sri Lanka with the handwriting and spelling used by enumerators of the 1901 Census. [47661] Ms Rosie Winterton: The data input company based in India and Sri Lanka demonstrated that it already had in-house skills at interpreting late nineteenth century handwriting by producing test results of a very high level of accuracy prior to award of contract. In order to augment these skills, 10 Public Record Office staff with expertise in interpreting census enumeration returns spent, between them, 20 weeks at the company's bases in India and Sri Lanka. They gave training sessions on the detailed transcription rules, on the formation of the handwriting to be found in the returns and on the etymology of Welsh place names. They also responded to queries raised by individual operators while they were transcribing the returns. Public Record Office staff ensured that keying operators had access to appropriate reference sources such as English and Welsh gazetteers and name listings. They also provided supervisors with detailed feedback on errors encountered during the quality assessment of the transcribed data to seek to prevent such errors reoccurring. The transcription rule for most of the data found in the 1901 census returns was to transcribe it exactly as it appeared. As a result, there was no requirement to translate 1901 spelling to its modern day equivalent.

Date

10 April 2002

Reference

47661; 383 c42-3W

House

House of Commons

Lord Chancellors Dept

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how much of the work to transcribe the 1901 Census returns on to computer was carried out outside the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. - Inc figure.

Asked by

David Lidington (Conservative)

Answering body

Lord Chancellor's Department

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

20 March 2002

Reference

38543; 382 c413-4W;382 c411-2W

House

House of Commons

Lord Chancellors Dept

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, who carried out the work of transcribing the 1901 Census reforms on to computer; how these people were selected; and if he will make a statement.

Asked by

David Lidington (Conservative)

Answering body

Lord Chancellor's Department

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

13 March 2002

Reference

38541; 381 c1174W;381 c1176W

House

House of Commons

Lord Chancellors Dept

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what budget was allocated for the work of transcribing the 1901 Census returns on to computer.

Asked by

David Lidington (Conservative)

Answering body

Lord Chancellor's Department

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

13 March 2002

Reference

38542; 381 c1174W;381 c1176W

House

House of Commons

Lord Chancellors Dept

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what was the budget allocated to cover the costs of checking the transcriptions onto computer of the 1901 Census returns. - Inc figure.

Asked by

David Lidington (Conservative)

Answering body

Lord Chancellor's Department

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

13 March 2002

Reference

38545; 381 c1174W;381 c1176W

House

House of Commons

Lord Chancellors Dept

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what proportion of the pages of the computerised transcriptions of the 1901 Census returns were checked for errors. - Inc figures.

Asked by

David Lidington (Conservative)

Answering body

Lord Chancellor's Department

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

13 March 2002

Reference

38546; 381 c1173W;381 c1175W

House

House of Commons

Lord Chancellors Dept

To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, if all the errors detected in transcription during the checking of the computer transcriptions of the 1901 Census returns were corrected; and if he will make a statement.

Asked by

David Lidington (Conservative)

Answering body

Lord Chancellor's Department

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

13 March 2002

Reference

38547; 381 c1173W;381 c1175W

House

House of Commons

Librarians' tools

Type

House

Session

Month

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

Publisher