Author: admin

Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on National Insurance Contributions on 20th May 1986.

Mr. Meacher Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what would be the gain to the National Insurance Fund or the Exchequer of removing the upper earnings limit from national insurance payments for the self-employed (a) with present tax relief and (b) without it.

Mr. Major [pursuant to his reply, 6 May 1986, c. 78]: If the upper profits limit for class 4 national insurance contributions for the self-employed were removed from 6 April 1986 the full year effect on the national insurance fund including treasury supplement and interest, is estimated to be a gain of £205 million. (This figure is calculated on the same basis as the Report by the Government Actuary on the draft of the Social Security (Contributions, Re-rating) Order 1985, (Cmnd 9672).).

The hon. Gentleman’s question contains alternative assumptions about tax relief on the additional class 4 contributions that would be raised if the upper profits limit were abolished. Tax relief has no effect on the class 4 receipts to the national insurance fund, but does, of course, affect the tax receipts to the Exchequer. If, on the one assumption, tax relief was available on 50 per cent. of the additional class 4 contributions collected above the upper profit limit, the tax forgone would be in the order of £40 million. If, on the other assumption, tax relief was removed entirely, the extra tax collected in respect of 50 per cent. of class 4 contributions below the upper profit limit (currently eligible for relief) would be about £60 million.

Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Local Authority Finance on 20th May 1986.

Mr. Favell Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what increase there has been in the total sum received by local authorities from the Exchequer in the form of rent and rate rebates and housing benefit between the years 1982-83 and 1985-86.

Mr. Major The total sum received by local authorities from the Exchequer in respect of expenditure on rent and rate rebates, rent allowance and housing benefit, either in the form of direct subsidy or taken into account in calculating entitlement to block grant, was for 1982-83 £1,523 million and for 1985-86 £4,521 million.

Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Age Concern England on 20th May 1986.

Mr. Andrew Bowden Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the work of Age Concern England to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

Mr. Major I understand that under procedures agreed by the Services Committee arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 16 June to Friday 20 June 1986.

Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on the Personal Injuries Scheme on 19th May 1986.

Mrs. Beckett Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many persons he expects to be affected by the amendments to (a) articles 23 and 48 and (b) article 25A of the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme 1983, proposed in the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Amendment Scheme 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 628); and what will be the effect on public expenditure of (a) and (b).

Mr. Major The personal injuries (civilians) scheme provides for the payment of pensions and allowances, similar to those made to service men under the war pensions scheme, to civilians who were disabled or died as a result of enemy action during the 1939-45 war. The amendments remove some ambiguities in the legislation that have recently come to light. The number of people affected will be minimal, as will the effect on public expenditure.

Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on the Glasgow Resettlement Unit on 19th May 1986.

Mr. Craigen Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the implications for his policy concerning the Glasgow resettlement unit of the recent report sent to him by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill; and what consideration he is giving to the points raised concerning its provision of services and accommodation for single homeless men.

Mr. Major The report on the Glasgow resettlement unit, which was drawn up by the Council of Civil Service Unions, will be considered in the light of the recommendations made by the regional review team which has been looking at the needs of and provision for single homeless people in Scotland. The outcome of our regional consultation exercise, of which the Scotland review forms a part, will be discussed at a national resettlement conference on 3 June, after which we will decide on the next steps.

Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Claimants (Camden) on 19th May 1986.

Mr. Dobson Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give for the latest available year (a) the number of disqualifications for unemployment benefit and (b) the number of deductions from supplementary benefit experienced by claimants in Camden on the ground of voluntary unemployment.

Mr. Major [pursuant to his reply, 12 May 1986, c. 384-5]: I regret that information on the number of deductions from supplementary benefit experienced by claimants in Camden on the grounds of voluntary unemployment is not available centrally. Statistics are not kept routinely, so that the information could be obtained only by a special exercise which would be disproportionately expensive.
The Department of Employment informs me that in the year ended 31 March 1986, 888 claims for unemployment benefit were disqualified on the grounds of voluntary unemployment at the two Camden unemployment benefit offices.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has concerning the numbers of war widows who are in receipt only of the Department of Health and Social Security pension.

Mr. Major [pursuant to his reply, 14 May 1986, c. 497]: Of the 65,000 widows receiving war widows pension, a small minority also receive a pension from the Ministry of Defence under the armed forces pension scheme.

Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on the Statutory Sick Pay Scheme on 19th May 1986.

Mr. Janner Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans his Department has to review the operation of the statutory sick pay scheme since April 1983 in the light of the criticisms contained in the new report published by the Disability Alliance, ERA, Leicester rights centre and the Leicester city council low pay campaign, copies of which were sent to him; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Major [pursuant to his reply, 9 May 1986, c. 290]: We have kept the operation of the statutory sick pay scheme under continuous review since its introduction in April 1983 and devoted considerable effort to making employers familiar with it. In the first year of the scheme, 85 per cent. of all employers were visited by DHSS inspectors and SSP payments checked. The overall error rate was 15 per cent. but this will have improved as more employers have become accustomed to the rules. Since then we have concentrated our checks on those employers whom we believe to be most likely to make mistakes, either because of our findings on the first phase of visits or because the employer may be less familiar with the SSP arrangements. The error rate is correspondingly high (28 per cent.), made up of 16 per cent. overpayments and 12 per cent. underpayments. These mistakes are discussed with the employer to ensure that he understands the rules for the future. In 1985 we checked 116,000 employee records in this way. We also maintain a random sample check of employers generally. Our monitoring generally is at a level recommended by the Public Accounts Committee.

We expect and wish to achieve lower error rates. We shall keep the operation of the scheme under close scrutiny and seek continued improvement, which I believe will come as all employers gain more experience of SSP. The report to which the hon. and learned Member refers concludes that the transfer of sickness payments to employers has been a failure, but I cannot accept this. The vast majority of employers take their responsibilities in this area seriously. Most of their mistakes have been technical – for example, failure to apply the rule about waiting days – and I am sure that we are right to concentrate our checking efforts on the minority of employers where mistakes persist at an unduly high rate.