---

24 Mar 2003 : Column 100W—continued

Child Support

Mr. Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many mothers with care have exercised their right not to give the name of the father of a child for which they are applying to receive or receiving maintenance since the CSA became operational; and if he will disaggregate this by the reason given by the mother for not giving the father's name. [95012]

Malcolm Wicks: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to my right hon. Friend.

Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Frank Field, dated 24 March 2003:

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.

You ask how many mothers with care have exercised their right not to give the name of the father of a child for which they are applying to receive or receiving maintenance since the Child Support Agency became operational; and if he will disaggregate this by the reason given by the mother for not giving the father's name.

I do not have the information to answer this fully. I do however have some relevant information in relation to sole parents who are in receipt of "prescribed benefits". They are obliged to provide information to the Agency. Some parents may not wish to involve the Agency because they have a genuine fear of violence or intimidation from the other alleged parent, or where there are child welfare issues, which would mean that it would not be prudent to contact the other parent. We do not press the parent with care to provide information about the other alleged parent if there are reasonable grounds to believe that to do so may harm or distress the parent with care or any child living with her—this is known as "good cause".

I do not have figures relating to periods before April 1997. Since then approximately 650,000 applications have been made for "good cause". Around 79 per cent. of those accepted, or 120,000 cases, were on the grounds of a genuine fear of violence or intimidation. I do not know how many of these applications were from mothers rather than fathers.

Departmental Staff Survey

Mr. Webb: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library a copy of the results of his Department's 2002 staff survey. [103991]

Mr. McCartney: A copy of the results has been placed in the Library.

24 Mar 2003 : Column 101W

European Social Funding

Mr. Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much and what proportion of European Social Funding was allocated to voluntary and charitable sector organisations supporting people and groups facing disadvantage in the labour market in (a) 2001 and (b) 2002; and what such funds have been committed for 2003. [100060]

Malcolm Wicks: The amount and proportion of European Social Fund money allocated to voluntary and charitable sector organisations in Great Britain was (a) £134.5 million (22.2 per cent.) in 2001 and (b) £143.4 million (16.2 per cent.) in 2002. The amount and proportion of funds committed to the sector so far in 2003 is £28.2 million (15.6 per cent.).

Helpline Operators

Mr. Willetts: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will place in the Library the script followed by operators on each of the Department's helplines; [95237]

(2) if he will place the scripts followed by operators on each of the Department's helplines in the Library. [102991]

Mr. McCartney: Most of the Department's helpline staff do not follow rigid scripts. Some parts of their conversations with customers may be scripted (for instance the manner in which customers are first greeted or the questions required to establish the caller's identity), and staff may be guided by a series of prompts to ask questions about particular topics, but the large bulk of conversations with customers are not scripted as such. I would be happy to arrange for the hon. Member to visit one of our centres or to sit in on a training session for these staff to help him appreciate the nature of the work done and why it is not feasible to place scripts in the Library. However, a script is used by the Direct Payment centre and a copy has been placed in the Library.

24 Mar 2003 : Column 102W

Housing Benefit (Rent Restrictions)

Ms Buck: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of housing benefit recipients in private regulated and deregulated tenancies were subject to reduced rent determinations in each region in England in each year since 1996 as consequence of (a) pre-1996 restrictions and (b) post-1996 restrictions. [91687]

Malcolm Wicks: Rents for tenancies in the regulated private rented sector are subject to regulatory controls through the Rent Service and Rent Assessment committees as well as subsidy controls within housing benefit. Decisions on restrictions on the amount of benefit paid in these cases are made by local authorities and no information is collected on the number of restrictions that are applied.

Claims from tenants in the deregulated private rented sector are generally referred to the rent officer for a determination. Housing Benefit Management Information System data provided by local authorities show the numbers of these tenants whose claims to housing benefit are assessed under the local reference rent and single room rent schemes. These data do not distinguish between cases where rent is restricted following a rent officer determination and those where it is not (for example because the actual rent is sufficiently low, or the person claiming has transitional protection).

However, using information from rent officer statistics, it is possible to e estimate the proportion of deregulated private rented sector cases referred by local authorities where housing benefit would be restricted if the overall claim was successful. Estimates are in the table.

Estimated proportions of deregulated private rented sector cases referred to the rent officer which would be subject to reduced rent determinations under pre-1996 and post-1996 restrictions if the housing benefit claim was successful, by English Government Office Region.

Percentage

	1996–97		1997–98		1998–99		1999–00		2000–01
Government Office Region	Pre-1996	Post 1996	Pre-1996	Post 1996	Pre-1996	Post 1996	Pre-1996	Post 1996	Pre-1996	Post 1996
London	23	47	19	49	19	48	19	44	21	39
North West	19	49	25	50	26	50	30	48	34	43
West Midlands	19	45	22	45	21	46	21	44	21	40
North East	31	41	33	43	35	41	38	37	46	30
Yorkshire and Humberside	27	42	24	49	25	48	26	47	28	44
East Midlands	31	41	27	48	28	47	26	46	26	43
Eastern	15	49	11	56	11	56	10	57	10	52
South East	18	44	15	52	16	50	17	46	19	43
South West	21	44	16	52	15	52	16	47	21	42
Total	22	45	21	50	21	49	22	46	26	41

Note:

1. The data refer to households claiming Housing Benefit (HB), which may be a single person, a couple or a family. More than one benefit household can live in one property, for example two or more adults in a flat or house share arrangement.

2. Pre-1996 reduced rent determinations apply to cases where the accommodation is deemed to be too large for the household or where the rent is exceptionally high for the accommodation.

3. Post-1996 reduced rent determinations include restrictions under the local reference rent (LRR) and single room rent (SRR) schemes only. The LRR was introduced in January 1996 and a revised scheme introduced in October 1997. The SRR was introduced in October 1996.

4. Cases subject to reduced rent determinations as a consequence of both pre-1996 and post-1996 restrictions have been included under the restriction that reduces the rent to the lowest amount.

5. Estimates assume that all cases are subject to all determinations in place at the time. In practice, some cases will have transitional protection from the post-1996 restrictions, so will not have their actual rent restricted. This will be particularly likely in the early years when more cases would have transitional protection.

6. The data relate to all referrals made over a year. They will differ from the HB caseload in that some claims will not be successful (for example, because the person's income is too high) and because some people may claim more often than others (for example, because they move house, or leave and then return to benefit). The figures will therefore over-rep resent short duration claims.

7. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

Source:

Rent Officer data (England and Wales) for April to March of each year.

24 Mar 2003 : Column 103W

Ms Buck: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of housing benefit claimants in the private rented sector were subject to restrictions as a result of rent officer determinations that the rent was (a) above the local reference rent but below the reasonable market rent, (b) above the reasonable market rent and (c) over-large for the occupying household, for each English region, in the most recent year for which figures are available. [91688]

Malcolm Wicks: Housing Benefit Management Information System data provided by local authorities show the numbers of tenants in the deregulated private rented sector whose claims to housing benefit are assessed under the local reference rent and single room rent schemes. These data do not distinguish between cases where rent is restricted following a rent officer determination and those where it is not (for example because the actual rent is sufficiently low, or the person claiming has transitional protection).

However, using information from rent officer statistics, it is possible to estimate the proportion of deregulated private rented sector cases referred by local authorities where housing benefit would be restricted if the overall claim was successful. The latest available estimates are in the table.

Estimated proportions of deregulated private rented sector cases referred to the rent officer which would be subject to reduced rent determinations if the housing benefit claim was successful, by types of restriction, by English Government Office Region in 2000–01.

Percentage

	Rent above local reference rent and single room rent but below reasonable market rent	Rent above reasonable market rent	Over large accommodation
London	14	38	8
North West	13	46	19
West Midlands	19	23	19
North West	8	36	32
Yorks and Humber	14	32	26
East Midlands	17	26	26
Eastern	23	20	19
South East	16	31	14
South West	15	31	16
Total	15	34	18

Notes:

1. The data refer to households claiming housing benefit (HB), which may be a single person, a couple or a family. More than one benefit household can live in one property, for example two or more adults in a flat or house share arrangement.

2. Where a HB claim was first made before October 1997, or October 1996 for SRR cases, the case will have transitional protection from LRR and SRR restrictions. Rent officer data do not distinguish between these cases, and the estimates therefore represent the proportion of referrals where the rent would be restricted assuming that all referrals were liable to such restriction.

3. The data relate to all referrals made over a year. They will differ from the HB case load in that some claims will not be successful (for example, because the person's income is too high) and because some people may claim more often than others, for example, because they move house, or leave and then return to benefit. The figures will therefore over-represent short duration claims.

4. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

Source:

Rent Officer data (England and Wales) for April 2000 to March 2001.

24 Mar 2003 : Column 104W

---