HC Deb 21 July 1986 vol 102 cc80-9W
Mr. Tony Lloyd

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people claimed supplementary benefit in Stretford constituency in (a) 1979 and (b) 1985; what percentage change that represents; and what was the percentage change in (i) staff handling supplementary benefit and (ii) all staff at his Department's local offices for the same period.

Mr. Major

Stretford is covered by three of the Department's offices, Rusholme, Chorlton and Sale, but their boundaries are not conterminous with the boundary of the constituency.

Comprehensive figures are not available before 1982–83 and information on the number of individuals who claimed supplementary benefit is not available in the form requested.

Information that is available is as follows:

of supplementary benefit level, classified by employment status; whether they were in one or two parent families in 1983 on the latest basis and on a basis comparable with 1981 and 1979; and what proportion these children made up the total number of children;

(2) if he can estimate, following the publication of the low income family tables for 1983, to what level (a) family income supplement and (b) child benefit would need to be raised to ensure that all working families with children have an income above the supplementary benefit entitlement, on the same basis as his reply of 30 July l984 to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), Official Report, column 109.

Mr. Major

I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) on 8 July at column157. When the tables are published, I will then be in a position to reply to the hon. Member's questions.

Ms. Clare Short

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people claimed supplementary benefit in the Birmingham, Ladywood constituency in (a) 1979 and (b) 1985; what percentage change that represents; and what was the percentage change in (i) staff handling supplementary benefit and (ii) all staff at his Department's local offices for the same period.

Number of new and repeat claims to supplementary benefit (inc. unsuccessful) Number of people receiving supplementary benefit*
1980–81 1985–86 per cent. change 1980–81 1985–86 per cent. change
Edgbaston 16,820 16,426 -2.3 10,668 18,116 +69.8
Handsworth 24,512 16,522 -32.6 17,274 20,137 +16.6
Ladywood 11,328 9,815 -13.4 7,795 12.163 +56.0

Percentage change in complement 1980–81—1985–86
Supplementary benefit staff All staff
Edgbaston +42.9 +14.5
Handsworth +16.4 -8.3
Ladywood +13.6 +12.9

* Based on a 100 per cent. count of cases in action in February.

Direct comparisons between numbers of staff and claims are misleading as work loads vary considerably by type and duration of claim and the action that has to be taken. All these factors vary over time as a result of legislative, policy and procedural changes. Examples of such changes are the introduction of housing benefit and postal claim forms.

Mr. Home Robertson

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people claimed supplementary benefit in East Lothian constituency in (a) 1979 and (b) 1985; what percentage change that represents; and what was the percentage change in (i) staff handling supplementary benefit and (ii) all staff at the Edinburgh East office of his Department for the same period.

Mr. Major

East Lothian is covered by one of the Department's offices, Edinburgh, East, but the office's boundary is not conterminous with the boundary of the constituency.

Information on the number of individuals who claimed supplementary benefit is not available in the form requested.

Information that is available for the office is as follows:

Number of new and repeat claims to supplementary benefit (inc. unsuccessful) Number of people receiving supplementary benefit*
1979–80 12,294 6,459
1985–86 11,808 10,542
Percentage change -4.0 +63.2

Percentage change in complement 1979–80 to 1985–86
Change
Supplementary benefit staff +37.3
All staff +1.3

*Based on a 100 per cent. count of cases in action in February.

Mr. Major

Birmingham, Ladywood is covered by three of the Department's offices, Edgbaston, Handsworth and Ladywood, but their boundaries are not conterminous with the boundary of the constituency.

Comprehensive figures are not available before 1980–81 and information on the number of individuals who claimed supplementary benefit is not available in the form requested.

Information that is available is as follows:

Direct comparisons between numbers of staff and claims are misleading as work loads vary considerably by type and duration of claim and the action that has to be taken. All these factors vary over time as a result of legislative, policy and procedural changes. Examples of such changes are the introduction of housing benefit and postal claim forms.

Mr. Robert Edwards

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people claimed supplementary benefit in the Wolverhampton, South-East constituency in (a) 1979 and (b) 1985; what percentage change that represents; and what was the percentage change in: (i) staff handling supplementary benefit and (ii) all staff at the local offices of his Department for the same period.

Mr. Major

Wolverhampton, South-East is covered by two of the Department's offices, Wolverhampton, North and Wolverhampton, South, but their boundaries are not conterminous with the boundary of the constituency.

Comprehensive figures are not available before 1980–81 and information on the number of individuals who claimed supplementary benefit is not available in the form requested. Information that is available for the offices is as follows:

Wolverhampton, North Wolverhampton, South
Number of new and repeal claims to supplementary benefit (including unsuccessful)
1980–81 16,843 15,966
1985–86 16,655 16,872
Percentage change -1.1 +5.7
Number of people receiving supplementary benefit*
1981–82 11,659 10,823
1985–86 18,964 19,339
Percentage change +62.7 +78.7
*Based on a 100 per cent, count of cases in action at February.

Percentage change in complement 1980–81 to 1985–86*
Supplementary benefit staff All staff
Wolverhampton, North +31.4 +83.3
Wolverhampton, South +53.8 -11.7
*In February 1981 some contributory benefit work and staff were transferred from Wolverhampton, South to Wolverhampton, North.

Direct comparisons between numbers of staff and claims are misleading as work loads vary considerably by type and duration of claim and the action that has to be taken. All these factors vary over time as a result of legislative, policy and procedural changes. Examples of such changes are the introduction of housing benefit and postal claim forms.

Mr. Eadie

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people claimed supplementary benefit in the Midlothian constituency in (a) 1979 and (b) 1985; what percentage change that represents; and what was the percentage change in (i) staff handling supplementary benefit and (ii) all staff at the local offices of his Department for the same period.

Mr. Major

Midlothian is covered by one of the Department's offices, Edinburgh, South, but the office's boundary is not conterminous with the boundary of the constituency.

Information on the number of individuals who claimed supplementary benefit is not available in the form requested.

Information that is available for the office is as follows:

1978–80 1985–86 Percentage change
Number of new and repeat claims to supplementary benefit (including unsuccessful) 14,960 15,376 +2.8
Number of people receiving supplementary benefit* 5,413 10,397 +92.1
*Based on a 100 per cent. count of cases in action at February.

Percentage change in complement 1979–80 to 1985–86
Percentage change
Supplementary benefit staff +50.7
All staff +0.7

Direct comparisons between numbers of staff and claims are misleading as work loads vary considerably by type and duration of claim and the action that has to be taken. All these factors vary over time as a result of legislative, policy and procedural changes. Examples of such changes are the introduction of housing benefit and postal claim forms.

Mr. Redmond

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people claimed supplementary benefit in Don Valley constituency in (a) 1979 and (b) 1985; what percentage change that represents; and what was the percentage change in (i) staff handling supplementary benefit and (ii) all staff at his Department's local offices for the same period.

Mr. Major

Don Valley is covered by four of the Department's offices, Doncaster, East, Doncaster, West, Wath on Dearne and Mexborough. Mexborough is a national insurance office and does not deal with supplementary benefit. Their boundaries are not conterminous with the boundary of the constituency.

Comprehensive figures are not available before 1982–83 and information on the number of individuals who claimed supplementary benefit is not available in the form requested. Information that is available is as follows:

Number of new and repeat claims to supplementary benefit (including unsuccessful)
1982–83 1985–86 Percentage change
Doncaster, East 15,115 13,703 -9.3
Doncaster, West 17,290 17,650 +2.1
Wath on Dearne 9,350 9,393 +0.5

Number of people receiving supplementary benefit*
1982–83 1985–86 Percentage change
Doncaster, East 10,111 11,617 +14.9
Doncaster, West 12,543 14,422 +15.0
Wath on Dearne 6,958 8,174 +17.5
*Based on a 100 per cent. count of cases in action at February.

Percentage change in complement 1982–83 to 1985–86
Supplementary benefit staff All staff
Doncaster, East +26.0 -0.7
Doncaster, West +12.7 -10.3
Wath on Dearne* +17.9 +17.9
Mexborough † -32.1
*Deals only with supplementary benefit.
†Not applicable.

Direct comparisons between numbers of staff and claims are misleading as work loads vary considerably by type and duration of claim and the action that has to be taken. All these factors vary over time as a result of legislative, policy and procedural changes. Examples of such changes are the introduction of housing benefit and postal claim forms.

Mr. Frank Cook

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people claimed supplementary benefit in Stockton, North constituency in (a) 1979 and (b) 1985; what percentage change that represents; and what was the Department's percentage change in (i) staff handling supplementary benefit and (ii) all staff at his local offices for the same period.

Mr. Major

Stockton, North is covered by one of the Department's offices, Stockton, but the office's boundary is not conterminous with the boundary of the constituency.

Comprehensive figures are not available before 1982–83 and information on the number of individuals who claimed supplementary benefit is not available in the form requested. Information that is available for the office is as follows:

Number of new and repeat claims to supplementary benefit (inc. unsuccessful) Number of people receiving supplementary benefit*
1982–83 21,223 18,894
1985–86 21,915 21,928
Percentage change +3.3 +16.1

Percentage change in complement 1982–83 to 1985–86:
Change
Supplementary benefit staff +18.4
All staff +2.6

*Based on a 100 per cent. count of cases in action at February.

Direct comparisons between numbers of staff and claims are misleading as work loads vary considerably by type and duration of claim and the action that has to be taken. All these factors vary over time as a result of legislative, policy and procedural changes. Examples of such changes are the introduction of housing benefit and postal claim forms.

Mrs. Beckett

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people claimed supplementary benefit in Derby, South constituency in (a) 1979 and (b) 1985; what percentage change that represents; and what was the

Number of new and repeal claims to supplementary benefit (inc. unsuccessful) Number of people receiving supplementary benefit*
1980–81 1985–86 percentage change 1980–81 1985–86 percentage change
Beckett Street 13,703 14,207 -3.7 8,452 13,240 +56.6
London Road 14,451 15,049 +4.1 9,579 14,688 +53.3

Percentage change in complement 1980–81—1985–86
Supplementary benefit staff All staff
Beckett Street +17.3 -8.1
London Road +26.5 -3.5

*Based on a 100 per cent, count in action in February.

Direct comparisons between numbers of staff and claims are misleading as work loads vary considerably by type and duration of claim and the action that has to be taken. All these factors vary over time as a result of legislative, policy and procedural changes. Examples of such changes are the introduction of housing benefit and postal claim forms.

Number of new and repeat claims to supplementary benefit (inc. unsuccessful) Number of people receiving supplementary benefit*
1981–82 1985–86 percentage change 1981–82 1985–86 percentage change
Pontypridd 7,891 8,992 +14.0 6,152 7,639 +24.2
Aberdare 7,236 7,101 -1.9 5,581 6,840 +22.6

Percentage change in complement 1981–82—1985–86
Supplementary benefit staff All staff
Pontypridd -2.0 -14.2
Aberdare +8.7 -10.5

*Based on a 100 per cent, count of cases in action at February.

Direct comparisons between numbers of staff and claims are misleading as work loads vary considerably by type and duration of claim and the action that has to be taken. All these factors vary over time as a result of legislative, policy and procedural changes. Examples of such changes are the introduction of housing benefit and postal claim forms.

Mr. Spearing

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many staff were dealing with percentage change in (i) staff handling supplementary benefit and (ii) all staff at his Department's local offices for the same period.

Mr. Major

Derby, South is covered by two of the Department's offices, Derby Beckett Street, and London Road, but their boundaries are not conterminous with the boundary of the constituency. Comprehensive figures are not available before 1980–81 and information on the number of individuals who claimed supplementary benefit is not available in the form requested. Information that is available is as follows:

Mrs. Clwyd

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people claimed supplementary benefit in the Cynon Valley constituency in (a) 1979 and (b) 1985; what was the percentage change; and what was the percentage change in (i) staff handling supplementary benefit and (ii) all staff at the local office of his Department for the same period.

Mr. Major

Cynon Valley is covered by two of the Department's offices, Pontypridd and Aberdare, but their boundaries are not conterminous with the boundary of the constituency. Comprehensive figures are not available before 1981–82 and information on the number of individuals who claimed supplementary benefit is not available in the form requested. Information that is available for the above offices is as follows:

supplementary benefits at the Canning Town and Plaistow social security offices in 1979 and 1985, respectively; what was the percentage change; and if will also give the comparable figures of changes in staff numbers for all purposes over the same year;

(2) if he will state, or estimate, the number of persons claiming supplementary benefits at the Canning Town and Plaistow social security offices in 1979 and 1985., and the respective percentage increases.

Mr. Major

Comprehensive figures are not available before 1982–83 and information on the number of individuals who claimed supplementary benefit is not available in the form requested. Information that is available is as follows:

Number of new and repeat claims to supplementary benefit (inc. unsuccessful) Number of people receiving supplementary benefits*
1982–83 1985–86 percentage change 1982–83 1985–86 percentage change
Canning Town 5,218 4,250 -18.6 5,471 5,997 +9.6
Plaistow 9,460 9,790 +3.5 8,779 10,464 +19.2
*Based on a 100 per cent. count of cases in action at February.

Change in complement 1982–83 to 1985–86
Supplementary benefit staff All staff
Canning Town Plaistow Canning Town Plaistow
1982–83 49 68 72 114
1985–86 57 73 71 102
Percentage change +16.3 +7.4 -1.4 -10.5

Direct comparisons between numbers of staff and claims are misleading as work loads vary considerably by type and duration of claim and the action that has to be taken. All these factors vary over time as a result of legislative, policy and procedural changes. Examples of such changes are the introduction of housing benefit and postal claim forms.

Mr. Stan Thorne

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many people claimed supplementary benefit in Preston in(a) 1979 and (b) 1985; and what percentage change that represents;

(2) what was the percentage change in (a) staff handling supplementary benefit and (b) all staff at the local offices of his Department between 1979 and 1985.

Mr. John Smith

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people claimed supplementary benefit in the Monklands, East constituency in (a) 1979 and (b) 1985; what percentage change that represents; and what was the percentage change in (i) staff handling supplementary benefit and (ii) all staff at the local offices of his Department over the same period.

Mr. Fatchett

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what was the percentage change in individual Department of Health and Social Security offices in Leeds of (a) staff handling supplementary benefit and (b) all staff at the Leeds Department of Health and Social Security offices;

(2) how many people claimed supplementary benefit in Leeds, Central constituency in (a) 1979 and (b) 1985; and what percentage change that represents.

Number of new and repeat claims to supplementary benefit (inc. unsuccessful) Number of people receiving supplementary benefits*
1982–83 1985–86 percentage change 1982–83 1985–86 percentage change
Bootle 14,782 12,252 -17.1 11,967 13,577 +13.5
Crosby 10,766 10,325 -4.3 9,777 11,131 +13.8

Percentage change in complement 1982–83—1985–86:
Supplementary benefit staff All staff
Bootle† -11.3 -21.4
Crosby +11.5 + 1.0

Mr. Frank Cook

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will give figures, relating to the administration of supplementary benefits, for (a) the staffing complement, (b) the number of staff in post and (c) the live caseload at 1 June 1984, 1985 and 1986, for each of the Department of Health and Social Security offices of Middlesbrough, Stockton, Hartlepool, Redcar and Eston;

(2) how many extra staff have been deployed in the Department of Health and Social Security ILOs of Middlesbrough, Stockton, Hartlepool, Redcar and Eston in order to deal with work generated by the Cleveland county council benefits take-up campaign.

Mr. McKelvey

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people claimed supplementary benefit in the Kilmarnock and Loudoun constituency in (a) 1979 and (b) 1985; what percentage change that represents; and what was the percentage change in (a) staff handling supplementary benefit and (b) all staff at the local offices of his Department for the same period.

Mr. Major

I shall let the right hon. and hon. Members have replies as soon as possible.

Mr. Allan Roberts

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people claimed supplementary benefit in the Bootle constituency in (a) 1979 and (b) 1985; what percentage change that represents; what was the percentage change in: (a) staff handling supplementary benefit and (b) all staff at the local offices of his Department over the same period.

Mr. Major

Bootle is covered by two of the Department's offices, Bootle and Crosby, but their boundaries are not conterminous with the boundary of the constituency.

Comprehensive figures are not available before 1982–83 and information on the number of individuals who claimed supplementary benefit is not available in the form requested.

Information that is available is as follows:

*Based on a 100 per cent. count of cases in action at February.

†In January 1983 30 posts were transferred from Bootle following a boundary change.

Direct comparisons between numbers of staff and claims are misleading as work loads vary considerably by type and duration of claim and the action that has to be taken. All these factors vary over time as a result of legislative, policy and procedural changes. Examples of such changes are the introduction of housing benefit and postal claim forms.

Mr. Freeson

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many people claimed supplementary benefit in the parliamentary constituency of Brent, East in (a) 1979 and (b) 1985; and what percentage change that represents; (2) how many staff there were in his Department's offices in the Brent, East constituency in (a) 1979 and

Number of new and repeat claims to supplementary benefit (inc. unsuccessful) Number of people receiving supplementary benefits*
1982–83 1985–86 percentage change 1982–83 1985–86 percentage change
Cricklewood 8,957 8,217 -8.3 7,637 9,257 +21.2
Neasden 16,504 16,840 +2.0 10,681 12,343 +15.6
Harlesden 13,225 14,914 +12.7 9,508 10,994 +15.6
*Based on a 100 per cent. count of cases in action at February.

Change in complement 1982–83 to 1985–86:
Supplementary benefit staff All staff
1982–83 1985–86 percentage change 1982–83 1985–86 percentage change
Cricklewood 60 68 +13.3 94 90 -4.3
Neasden 84 100 +19.0 162 147 -9.3
Harlesden 78 98 +25.6 134 135 +0.7

Direct comparisons between numbers of staff and claims are misleading as work loads vary considerably by type and duration of claim and the action that has to be taken. All these factors vary over time as a result of legislative, policy and procedural changes. Examples of such changes are the introduction of housing benefit and postal claim forms.

Mr. Chris Smith

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has received the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee on the proposed reductions in supplementary benefit payments for mortgage interest; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Newton

No.

Mr. Gordon Brown

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people in Scotland in 1983 were (i) below, (ii) at and (iii) up to 140 per cent. of the supplementary benefit level on the latest basis and on a basis comparable with 1979 and 1981; what percentage of the total population they represent in each case; what his estimate is of the number of children living in such households in each case; and what percentage of total children they represent in each case.

Mr. Major

I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.