---

16 Jul 2003 : Column 360W—continued

Fires

Matthew Taylor: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many malicious car fires were started by individuals under the age of 18 in each year since 1997. [125205]

16 Jul 2003 : Column 361W

Phil Hope: The information requested is in the following table. 2001 is the most recent year for which data are available.

Malicious primary car fires started by persons under 18, UK, 1997–2001

	Number
1997	9,098
1998	10,030
1999	14,352
2000	15,437
2001	18,841

Notes:

1. Figures for 2001 are provisional.

2. Primary fires are those which cause damage to property or involve casualties.

Homelessness

Mr. Paul Marsden: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what (a) the avarage waiting time and (b) the longest waiting time for homeless families in priority need before being placed in permanent accommodation was in the last year for which figures are available; and what the range of waiting times was in each local authority. [124680]

Keith Hill: Under the homelessness legislation (Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 as amended by the Homelessness Act 2002), local housing authorities have a duty to secure accommodation for applicants who are eligible for assistance, unintentionally homeless and who fall within a priority need group (the main homelessness duty). The duty applies until a settled housing solution becomes available (for example, an allocation of housing made under Part 6 of the 1996 Act as amended by the 2002 Act) or some other circumstance brings the duty to an end (for example, the applicant voluntarily quits temporary accommodation secured for him or here by the authority). Data supplied by local authorities in England shows that, overall, in 2002/03 almost three-quarters of households owed the main homelessness duty and provided with temporary accommodation received an offer of some form of settled accommodation; for the remainder, the duty was brought to an end as a result of some other circumstance.

Information on the length of time that households which were owed the main homelessness duty have stayed in temporary accommodation (including any period pending a decision on their application) before the homelessness duty is brought to an end is collected in six-monthly time bands ("under six months", "six months to one year", etc to "two years or more"). It is therefore not possible to provide an average waiting time. However, it is estimated that just over half of the households who were owed a main homelessness duty, placed in temporary accommodation and subsequently received an offer of settled accommodation during 2002/03 (either an offer made under Part 6 of the 1996 Act or some other form of offer) had waited less than six months before receiving the offer. By comparison, only 10 per cent. had been in temporary accommodation for more than two years before receiving such an offer.

Only two-thirds of local authorities were able to provide a comprehensive analysis of time spent in temporary accommodation and, due to concerns about

16 Jul 2003 : Column 362W

the data quality, comparisons between authorities are not advisable. Available information suggests that, in around a quarter of local authorities, 90 per cent. of the households offered accommodation received the offer within six months.

Housing (Wandsworth)

Tom Cox: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many dwellings have been completed in the London Borough of Wandsworth in each of the last three years that were (a) for private residential use and (b) for local authority use. [125502]

Keith Hill: Tom Cox: Details of Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) and private completions are listed below. From the information available, there have been no local authority dwelling completions for the last three years.

	Private	RSL
2000–01	209	90
2001–02	336	51
2002–03	637	(29)41

Sources:P2 Return from local authorities to ODPM (data based on building control inspection

RSL Figures: Housing Investment Programme Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix

Housing Revenue Account

Mr. Blizzard: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 3 July 2003, Official Report, column 461W, on housing revenue account, whether housing revenue account money may be used to fund the administration of anti-social behaviour orders served on people who do not live in local authority housing. [124939]

Keith Hill: No.

National Tenancy Deposit Scheme

Ms Oona King: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his written ministerial statement of 16 June 2003, Official Report, column 3WS, what assessment he made of the option using the interest generated on tenancy deposits held on a single custodial deposit scheme to cover the costs of independent adjudication where disputes occur. [126046]

Keith Hill: The consultation paper "Tenancy Money: probity and protection" provided an assessment in paragraph 35 of the Regulatory Impact Assessment at Annex 1. It noted that if £790 million, the amount estimated to be currently held in deposits, were held in a single custodial deposit scheme for a year, it would raise £31.6 million in interest (calculated at the Bank of England's then current base-rate). This is income that currently accrues to the landlord or, if so specified in the tenancy agreement, the tenant.

Ms Oona King: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the number of disputed cases that would ultimately require adjudication under a national tenancy deposit scheme. [126043]

16 Jul 2003 : Column 363W

Keith Hill: There is a statistical analysis in paragraphs 8–14 of the Regulatory Impact Assessment at Annex 1 of the consultation paper on Tenancy Money. This noted that according to the Survey of English Housing (SEH) some 20 per cent. of tenants said that their deposits had been unreasonably withheld in the last three years. However for the purposes of calculating the maximum number of disputed cases an SEH figure was used that showed that of the 905,000 tenancies that finished in 2001–02 some 127,000 of these (14 per cent.) involved, in the tenant's view, an unjustified retention of all or part of the deposit.

Ms Oona King: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place copies of the public responses to Tenancy Money: probity and protection in the Library. [126041]

Keith Hill: The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will do so when detailed proposals that will take account of Law Commission proposals for tenure reform are published. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister hopes this will be later this year.

Ms Oona King: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his written ministerial statement of 16 June 2003, Official Report, column 3WS, which paragraph in Tenancy Money: probity and protection indicated that there is not a robust case for legislating to compel the protection of tenancy monies in third party schemes. [126042]

Keith Hill: Chapter 3, paragraph 35, of the consultation paper stated that an independent evaluation of the pilot by York University was inconclusive as to the need for legislation, as the pilot had provided insufficient evidence to assess fully the nature and extent of the problem. A more detailed report published alongside (but summarised in Annex 9 of) the consultation paper concluded that there is no clear evidence that the actual incidence of tenants losing their deposits is so high as to require legislative intervention. In Annex 1 of the consultation paper the balance of costs and benefits, as estimated for the Regulatory Impact Assessment, were shown to be roughly equal.

Ms Oona King: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his written ministerial statement of 16 June 2003, Official Report, column 3WS, what estimated percentage of disputed cases going to adjudication he used to calculate that the annual adjudication costs of a national tenancy deposit scheme would be £19 million. [126044]

Keith Hill: There is a statistical analysis in paragraphs 8–14 and 29 of the Regulatory Impact Assessment at Annex 1 of the consultation paper on Tenancy Money. This was based on the figures in the Survey of English Housing that of the 905,000 tenancies that finished each year approximately 127,000 tenants (or 14 per cent. of that total) felt that none or a lesser sum of the deposit should have been withheld. It further assumed, having regard to evidence from the pilot tenancy deposit scheme, that the average cost of adjudications would be £150.

16 Jul 2003 : Column 364W

Ms Oona King: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will estimate the annual adjudication costs of the custodial option for a national tenancy deposit scheme if only 2.5 per cent. of disputed cases require adjudication. [126045]

Keith Hill: There is a tentative statistical analysis in the Regulatory Impact Assessment at Annex 1 of the consultation paper on Tenancy Money. It suggested that the maximum number of tenants who might feel they had a case to go to adjudication was 127,000. Assuming that (i) only a custodial option was in place (ii) only 2.5 per cent of 127,000 (3,175) sought adjudication and (iii) the average cost of adjudication under the pilot of £150 applied—the cost would be £476,250. Although the figure of 2.5 per cent. is closer to the proportion of tenancies in the pilot that resulted in adjudication a mandatory requirement for safeguarding tenancy monies would probably result in a much higher proportion requiring adjudication.

---