§ Mr. Frank FieldTo ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what sanctions have been applied against claimants over 24 on the Government's New Deal programme; and if he will make a statement. [67725]
§ Mr. Nicholas BrownUp to March 2002, we estimate that around 17,979 sanctions1 had been applied to people aged over 24 on the New Deal programme. This represents the number of sanctions applied, not the number of people sanctioned as some people will have been sanctioned more than once.
1 This information has been collected by undertaking a special exercise and is based on a combination of IT-generated statistics and information supplied clerically. The figure is therefore an estimate and should be treated as a guide to the number of sanctions applied only.
§ Mr. Frank FieldTo ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many claimants there were to whom deductions in their income support or income based jobseeker's allowance would have been made on their refusal to co-operate with the Department but where the sanctions were not applied because(a) their application would put the claimant or their children at risk of harm and (b) the claimant was in receipt of the disabled premium, disability premium, or a higher pensioner premium, in the latest year for which figures are available; [66727]
(2) how many claimants there were have had deductions of benefit on the grounds of their refusal to co-operate with the Child Support Agency; what sanctions have been applied; and for what average length of time the sanctions have been applied. [66726]
§ Malcolm Wicks[holding answer 4 July 2002]: Every child has a right to a decent start in life whether their parents live together or apart. Children are entitled to care and support and both parents are responsible for providing it. It is reasonable to expect that the parent with care should co-operate with the Child Support Agency unless there are reasonable grounds for believing there would be a risk of harm or undue distress to the parent or any child living with them. If a parent with care refuses, without 1025W good cause, to co-operate with the agency, their benefit may be reduced by up to 40 per cent. of the income support personal allowance for a person aged 25 or over.
The available information is in the tables. Following the introduction in April 1998 of face-to-face interviews with parents with care claiming benefits, there has been a sharp rise in compliance and a corresponding fall in the number of reduced benefit directions issued. These interviews provide the opportunity to explain to parents with care the advantages of co-operating with the agency as well as the good cause rules.
Reduced benefit directions issued in respect of parents with care who have failed to co-operate with the Child Support Agency Benefit Income support/jobseeker's Allowance Family credit 1997–98 55,115 19,165 1998–99 36,251 13,437 1999–2000 22,115 6,164 2000–01 13,338 84 2001–02 8,163 6 Notes:
- 1. Figures are not available before April 1997.
- 2. Family credit was superseded by working families tax credit in October 1999. Decisions were made on a few residual cases after this date.
- 3. Data are not held on the average length of time the directions are in place.
Source:
Child Support agency Performance Monitoring Team.
Cases where a reduced benefit direction was not issued because the parent with care could show good cause for not co-operating with the Child Support Agency—2001–02 Reason good cause accepted Number Risk of physical or mental harm to the parent with care or child 14,393 Other 3,118 Note:
Other reasons include risk of sexual abuse, rape or incest.
Source:
Child Support Agency Performance Monitoring Team.
Reduced benefit direction exemptions—1999–2000 Benefit Number Income support/jobseeker's allowance 2,028 Family credit 403 Notes:
1. A parent with care receiving a disability premium, disabled child's premium or higher pensioner premium is exempt from a reduced benefit direction.
2. Figures have not been collated centrally since 1999–2000.
Source:
Child Support Agency Performance Monitoring Team.
§ Mr. LepperTo ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for how many people in each of the last five years in(a) the UK, and (b) the (i) Brighton Pavilion, (ii) Brighton Kemptown and (iii) Hove constituencies (A) the sanction of loss of benefits for up to 26 weeks has been applied and (B) benefit has been restored following a review or an appeal. [63527]
§ Malcolm WicksThe available information is in the tables.
1026W
Unemployment benefit and jobseeker"s sanctions applied in Great Britian. Year Sanctions applied 1997–98 195,343 1998–99 153,420 1999–2000 158,531 2000–01 164,516 2001–02 160,200 Notes:
- 1. Figures for 1997–98 include 93 sanctions applied against residual Unemployment Benefit cases.
- 2. Data on the number of cases where benefit was reinstated following review or appeal are not available.
- 3. Social Security matters in Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Source:
Employment Service Labour Market Statistics, Analysis of Adjudication Officers' Decisions/Sector Decision Making, for years ending 31 March 1998 to 31 March 2002
Jobseeker"s allowance sanctions applied in the Brighton and Hove area. Year Sanctions applied 2000–01 1,160 Notes:
- 1. Information is not available by parliamentary constituency.
- 2. The Brighton and Hove area comprises the area covered by the Brighton Phonenix, Brighton Pavilion, Brighton Regent and Hove Jobcentre Plus offices.
- 3. Due to a computer failure local information is limited to 2000–01.
- 4. Data on the number of cases where benefit was reinstated following review or appeal are not available.
Source:
Employment Service Labour Market Statistics for year ending 31 March 2001.