The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Author: admin

  • Mr Major’s Parliamentary Answer on Maternity Benefit – 28 January 1986

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Parliamentary Answer on Maternity Benefit on 28th January 1986.

    Mr. Nellist Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women he estimates will be affected annually by the changes in the payment of maternity benefit proposed in his White Paper.

    Mr. Major Provisional estimates are that an additional 5,000 to 10,000 women will qualify for maternity allowance for the first time. About 75,000 to 85,000 women will no longer qualify because they were not working when their pregnancies began. However, many of those women will be eligible for some sickness benefit as a result of their previous national insurance contributions. As to maternity grant, the abolition of the £25 lump sum will affect an estimated 750,000 women, but this will be replaced by a payment of about £75 to low income families.

    Mr. Nellist Given that the Tories are the party of family, why is it that The Times estimated last year that 500,000 women would lose entitlement to maternity grant, and that the new payment, which will go to 220,000 785 women, is about £62.88 less than they would have received had the Government increased the grant to the equivalent of its 1969 level? How much does the Minister estimate is the cost of essentials for a new baby? Does he agree with the estimate made by The Mirror last year that the cost is about £450, not the miserable £75 which the Government propose?

    Mr. Major I rarely agree with The Mirror. In this instance, to restore the maternity grant to the 1969 level  – I am bound to say that it was not restored adequately by the Labour Government – would mean providing a grant of £125, at a cost of about £70 million to the Exchequer.

    Mr. Favell Far from the Tories not being the party of the family, would it not be far better, as the Minister for Health suggested earlier, for families to look after their own fathers and mothers, to look after their own children and to provide for their own maternity?

    Mr. Major My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. It might be worth drawing to the attention of the House the fact that our changes in maternity benefits have several important features that will benefit mothers. For the first time, pregnant widows will receive the statutory maternity allowance as well as the widow’s allowance.

    Ms. Richardson Does the Minister realise from the figures that he read out that many women will lose altogether? Does he know that more than 1 million families live on or below the poverty line and that an increasing number of children are born into low-income families? With the changes that the Government propose in the Social Security Bill, more pregnant women will suffer stress and will have to go, with a begging bowl in their hands, to the social fund, but will get nothing. That, together with the cut in child benefit, will lead to a worsening of family support.

    Mr. Major I cannot agree with the hon. Lady. The reality is that most of the families of whom she speaks, and for whom she cares a great deal, will be entitled to the £75 maternity grant from the social fund, which is triple the sum presently paid.

  • Mr Major’s Parliamentary Answer on Private Residential Care (Elderly People) – 28 January 1986

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Parliamentary Answer on Private Residential Care (Elderly People) on 28th January 1986.

    Mrs. Clwyd Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he last visited a private residential care home for the elderly.

    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Major) Such visits are made from time to time by Ministers. Most recently I visited such a home in Southampton on 15 January 1986.

    Mrs. Clwyd I am sure that the Minister will agree about not only the physical but the emotional needs of elderly patients. Therefore, what plans does he have to improve social work training for careers in those homes, given the present abysmal level, where less than 10 per cent. have any social training qualification at all?

    Mr. Major The hon. Lady makes an interesting and useful point. She will know that the registration of homes is the responsibility of social service departments. They must satisfy themselves about the level, adequacy and nature of staffing provided in those homes. They are fully aware of the hon. Lady’s point.

    Mrs. Currie May I invite my hon. Friend to visit a private residential care establishment for the elderly in my constituency, where he will find that the standards are first-class? They could be copied throughout the rest of the country. Does he agree that, sooner or later, we will need some form of assessment system for people entering private residential care, to ensure that the large sums of public money being spent are being allocated appropriately?

    Mr. Major My hon. Friend has extended an enticing invitation, which I shall bear in mind. I entirely agree with her observation.

    Mr. Meadowcroft Is the Minister aware that the inflexible restrictions on supplementary benefit payments for residential care are causing great distress and tend to hit the nursing element of care? If the Social Security Commissioner upholds the decision of the local tribunal in Leicester of 3 December, which declared that the restrictions were unlawful, will the Minister undertake immediately to withdraw those restrictions?

    Mr. Major I cannot anticipate that result. We have considered the levels in the Ernst and Whinney report, which we expect shortly. We are committed to a review of residential and nursing home limits within 12 months of their implementation. That is not far away now.

    Mr. Meacher Is the Minister aware that tens of thousands of elderly and disabled people risk acute anxiety as a result of the decision not to cover the rising costs of residential care due to inflation, as a result of which they run a real risk of eviction? Is he further aware that elderly and disabled people whose capital has been depleted below the supplementary benefit level since April last year still have no guarantee of security of tenure? Will he give an absolute and unequivocal guarantee that no elderly person will be evicted from residential care because of the DHSS’s failure to cover the full cost of residential charges?

    Mr. Major Even under the Government of which the hon. General was a distinguished luminary, that happy circumstance did not not apply. Handicapped people and those who have been in homes for some time might be entitled to special hardship provision, for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has discretion.

    Mr. Meacher That is not a guarantee.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Fraud Investigators – 27 January 1986

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Fraud Investigators on 27th January 1986.

    Mr. Cohen Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many fraud investigators his Department employs; and what is his estimate of the amount of public money they saved in 1985.

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

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Mr. Salah Abdessalem Ben Rabha – 27 January 1986

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Mr. Salah Abdessalem Ben Rabha on 27th January 1986.

    Mr. Peter Bruinvels Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether Mr. Salah Abdessalem Ben Rabha, a Libyan national resident in Wiltshire, is in receipt of any social security benefits.

    Mr. Major It is the Department’s policy not to give information about any individual without their permission.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Family Income Supplement – 27 January 1986

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Family Income Supplement on 27th January 1986.

    Mr. Madden Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will provide detailed information about the numbers of people, in each of the last three years, living in Bradford, in receipt of family income supplement; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Major I regret that this information is not available. Family income supplement claims are dealt with by one centre at Blackpool and no information is maintained about claims from particular local areas.

    Mr. Marlow Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has as to the number and percentage of teachers in receipt of family income supplement.

    Mr. Major I regret that this information is not available. Teachers are included for family income supplement statistical purposes in a general group which covers administrative, social, professional and technical workers and a breakdown by individual occupation is not possible.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Leeds (Rothwell Office) – 27 January 1986

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Leeds (Rothwell Office) on 27th January 1986.

    Mr. O’Brien Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he will take to prevent additional expense falling on claimants in the Rothwell area of Leeds arising from the need to travel to Leeds, following the closure of the Rothwell office of his Department.

    Mr. Major A caller office will be open for inquiries at Rothwell during normal office hours. For those needing to travel to Leeds, the Department’s standard rules for refunding travelling expenses will apply. Where it would be difficult for a person to travel to Leeds, for instance because of sickness or disability, a home visit may be made.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Housing Benefit – 27 January 1986

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Housing Benefit on 27th January 1986.

    Mrs. Beckett Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the number of local authorities in which more than 50 per cent. of ratepayers are receiving housing benefit which meets 100 per cent. of their rates liability; and if he will name these authorities.

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

    Mr. McCrindle Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services why it has been decided that the whole of the annuity in home income plans is to be treated as income for the purposes of housing benefit entitlement; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Major The current guidance to local authorities, consolidated in a manual issued last summer, reflects the legal advice we have received on how life annuities and home income plans should be treated when assessing entitlement to housing benefit.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on War Disablement Pensions – 27 January 1986

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on War Disablement Pensions on 27th January 1986.

    Dr. McDonald Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many applicants there have been for war disablement pensions arising from exposure to mustard gas in World War 2 since 1975, giving in each case (a) the date of application and (b) when the information concerning exposure to mustard gas became available.

    Mr. Major The information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Supplementary Benefit – 20 January 1986

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Supplementary Benefit on 20th January 1986.

    Mr. Walters Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has received any representations from individuals seeking to reveal the addresses of supplementary benefit claimants for the purpose of private litigation to recover outstanding debts.

    Mr. Major Requests of this kind have been received from time to time. For reasons of preserving confidentiality, addresses of claimants are not provided to other individuals for the purpose of pursuing private litigation in which the Department does not have a direct interest.

    Mr. Walters Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will seek powers to introduce a scheme whereby his Department deducts specific amounts from supplementary benefit claimants who have changed addresses and cannot be traced by individual creditors.

    Mr. Major We have no present plans to do so.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Departmental Local Offices – 23 January 1986

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Departmental Local Offices on 23rd January 1986.

    Mr. Spearing Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will tabulate for each of his offices in Greater London for the years 1980 and 1985 (a) the numbers of staff, (b) persons in receipt of supplementary benefit and (c) the approximate percentage of (b) arising from retirement pensioners and others, respectively.

    Mr. Major [pursuant to his reply, 17 January 1986, c. 740]: The information requested has been placed in the Library.