The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Author: admin

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Pensions (Investor Protection) – 10 April 1987

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Pensions (Investor Protection) on 10th April 1987.

    Mr. McCrindle Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now announced the investor protection arrangements for occupational and personal pensions.

    Mr. Major I have published today a paper setting out our proposals for the investor protection arrangements that will apply to personal pensions and contracted out money purchase occupational pension schemes under the Social Security Act 1986. Copies are available in the Library. The paper is being given a wide circulation to interested parties, and comments are invited by 11 May.

    The investor protection proposals confirm that the Government intend to rely wherever practicable on the extensive investor protection regulatory framework provided by the Financial Services Act 1986. The marketing and selling of personal pensions will be subject to rules made under the Act, though separate arrangements are proposed for those types of pension scheme that do not fall within the scope of the Act. Administrative charges for personal pensions will not be controlled, at least for the time being, in the expectation that charges will stabilise at acceptable levels as a result of competition and disclosure.

    For completeness, the paper also sets out the Government’s proposals on investment controls and disclosure of information. Draft regulations on these subjects have already been published for comment.

    In preparing the investor protection framework our aim has been to strike a balance between the need to safeguard scheme members’ interests on the one hand and the necessity of ensuring that effective competition between pension providers is not hampered by over-regulation. We believe the balance is right, and I am glad to acknowledge the invaluable assistance we have received from members of the group convened by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to advise us on these matters.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Blindness – 10 April 1987

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Blindness on 10th April 1987.

    Mr. Galley Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has taken any decision on the proposals to revise and simplify the form BD8 used for certifying blindness and partial sight.

    Mr. Major I am now able to announce the outcome of the Department’s consultation exercise on the revision of the BD8 form. We have decided that the form should be revised along the lines originally proposed by the Department, that is restricted to a simple certificate of blindness/partial sight containing no clinical information. A separate anonymised epidemiological return will be made to central Government.

    In reaching this decision we are well aware of the concern of those responsible for follow-up and rehabilitation services for visually handicapped people – particularly social services departments – that they should not be deprived of information through lack of cooperation between the agencies concerned. Detailed inquiries made by the Department in several areas of the country have suggested that co-ordination between local agencies at the critical time when someone is certified as blind or partially sighted, is often not as close as it might be.

    In order to improve this situation, and to ensure that service providers receive adequate information, we have decided to establish a working group at national level to consider the principles of collaboration and communication to be observed between the various agencies involved in the provision of rehabilitation services to visually handicapped people. The working group will be chaired by a senior official from the Department, and representatives from health, social services, voluntary and consumer interests will shortly be invited to take part.
    While the group will not be considering the content of the BD8 itself, its work will form the basis of guidance to accompany the revised form. The objective of this will be to encourage more effective co-operation between agencies over the way visual handicap is established and follow-up/ rehabilitation services are triggered off. The group will be asked to consider what the resource implications of their recommendations might be.

    The chairman will be asked to make his report within 6-9 months of the working group being set up. The current BD8 will be discontinued as soon as the working group’s guidelines have been disseminated and the recommended procedures can be brought into effect.

    The effect of those changes should be to ensure that medical confidentiality is not breached, but that social services departments and other service providers are nevertheless able to obtain the specific information they need in order to provide their respective services in the most effective way.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Maternity Payments – 10 April 1987

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Maternity Payments on 10th April 1987.

    Mr. Lambie Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women in Cunninghame South claimed the maternity grant in the last year for which figures are available.

    Mr. Major Information is not available in the form requested. The Cunninghame South constituency is covered by the Department’s local office at Irvine although its boundaries are not conterminous with the constituency. The number of claims for maternity grant received at the Irvine local office during the 1986 calendar year was 1,451.

    Mr. Lambie Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women in Cunninghame South received maternity allowance in the last year for which figures are available.

    Mr. Major Information is not available in the form requested. But in the 12 months ending April 1986, the latest year for which figures are available, 1,113 claims to maternity allowance were made at the Department’s office in Irvine which covers the constituency although the boundaries are not conterminous.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Board and Lodging Changes – 9 April 1987

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Board and Lodging Changes on 9th April 1987.

    Mr. Norris Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will be changing the arrangements for paying benefit to people in lodgings following the issue of the consultative document “Help with Board and Lodging Charges for People on Low Incomes”; and whether he will make a statement.

    Mr. Major The consultative document proposed that from April 1988 unemployed people in lodgings should be eligible for housing benefit to meet their accommodation costs and income support for their other needs. This change would replace existing provision whereby supplementary benefit meets both housing and living costs.

    Over 170 responses were received. There was widespread acceptance of the principle that any differences between benefits payable to boarders not in work and other claimants should be based on actual differences in their circumstances. Most who commented recognised that change on the lines proposed was logical but a number of practical concerns were raised. The local authority associations, in particular, argued strongly that the change should not be made in April 1988 when local authorities will be fully occupied in starting to administer the new housing benefit scheme.

    The Government accept the force of this argument, and have decided to implement the change from April 1989, one year later than originally proposed. In the run-up to the new system, detailed arrangements for the transition will be worked out with local authorities, especially those in areas with high concentrations of boarder claimants. Discussions will also continue with local authority and other interests on the position of boarders in supported lodging schemes, on whose behalf it has been argued that similar considerations arise to those affecting hostels. As indicated in the consultative document, the Government intend to defer a final decision on arrangements for hostels in order to set them in the context of the current work on related aspects of community care. The position of people in supported lodgings will also be considered in this context.

    There is clear research evidence that the lifestyle and circumstances of boarders are close to those of the far larger number living in other multiply occupied dwellings. Paying higher rates of income support to some or all boarders, as some have suggested, would simply perpetuate the distortions our proposals are designed to rectify. The Government have therefore decided that, from April 1989, the generality of people not in work in ordinary board and lodgings should qualify for income support and housing benefit in the same way as everyone else. For ease of administration and certainty for claimants, deductions from housing benefit in respect of meals provided will be fixed at standard rates. This is the course preferred by local authorities. On the basis of current information about food costs, the deduction for breakfasts only would be of the order of £1, and for full board £11.50.

    During the interim period from April 1988, boarders will continue to receive benefit on broadly the same lines as now with some adjustments to align these provisions with the new structure of income support. Time limits will continue to apply to benefit for younger boarders until the new system is introduced.

    The Government remain committed to provision for boarders which will enable real needs to be met while keeping expenditure under control and curbing abuse. The system to be introduced from April 1989 will not only achieve those ends, but remove a source of distortion in the housing market and secure equity between boarders in and out of work, and income support claimants in all types of tenure.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Attendance Allowance Board – 9 April 1987

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Attendance Allowance Board on 9th April 1987.

    Mr. Frank Field Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to begin publishing the guidance and instructions of the Attendance Allowance Board.

    Mr. Major The Attendance Allowance Board intends to publish in the summer a full revision of the handbook for its delegated medical practitioners.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Children’s Allowances – 9 April 1987

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Children’s Allowances on 9th April 1987.

    Mr. Gordon Brown Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy to maintain the real value of all children’s allowances; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Major We have no plans to alter the existing flexible arrangements for the up-rating of children’s allowances. The main children’s allowances were increased in line with the percentage increase in the appropriate index from 6 April, demonstrating the Government’s commitment to continuing support for families with children.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Pensions and Benefits – 9 April 1987

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Pensions and Benefits on 9th April 1987.

    Mr. Gordon Brown Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will express (a) the basic pension and (b) the single person’s supplementary benefit level if unemployed as a percentage of average earnings in (i) 1957, (ii) 1979 and (iii) 1987.

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

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Maternity Payments – 9 April 1987

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Maternity Payments on 9th April 1987.

    Mrs. Renée Short Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women in the Wolverhampton North-East constituency claimed maternity grant in the latest year for which figures are available.

    Mr. Major Information is not available in the form requested.

    The Wolverhampton North-East constituency is covered by the Department’s local offices at Wolverhampton North and Wolverhampton South although their boundaries are not conterminous with the constituency. The numbers of claims for maternity grant received at these two offices during the 1986 calendar year were as follows:

    Area | Number
    Wolverhampton North | 2,066
    Wolverhampton South | 2,072

    Mr. Wallace Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women in (a) Orkney and (b) Shetland claimed the maternity grant in the last year for which figures are available.

    Mr. Major The numbers of claims for maternity grant received during the 1986 calendar year at the Department’s local offices at Kirkwall and Lerwick, which cover the constituency, were 216 and 356 respectively.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Deaf People – 9 April 1987

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Deaf People on 9th April 1987.

    Mr. Dewar Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the support given by his Department to the Council for Advancement of Communication for Deaf People in each of the last three years and specify what part of each sum has been given specifically for training and administrative expenses.

    Mr. Major In each of the last three years we have granted the council a total of £40,000 as a contribution towards central administration expenses.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Bed and Breakfast Accommodation – 9 April 1987

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Bed and Breakfast Accommodation on 9th April 1987.

    Ms. Richardson Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the number of people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation paid for by his Department in (a) Ilford, North, (b) Ilford, South, (c) Barking and (d) Dagenham; and what is the cost in each case over the last 12 months.

    Mr. Major I regret that the information requested is not collected by individual local offices and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.