Category: 1983-1987 Parliament

Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Family Income Supplement on 24th March 1987.

Mr. Ashley Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations have been received urging the Department not to appeal against the decision of the tribunal which adjudicated on 16 December that the child care costs incurred by a working mother with a child and no husband could be set aside in the calculation of the amount of family income supplement due to her; what decision the Department has taken on the question of an appeal; and what reply was sent to those who made representations.

Mr. Major The matter of an appeal to the Social Security Commissioner against a decision by a social security appeal tribunal is one for the independent adjudication officer and not for the Department. I understand that the adjudication officer applied to the Commissioner on 26 February for leave to appeal to him against the tribunal’s decision. As far as we are aware, no representations urging against such an appeal have been received.

Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on the Mobility Allowance on 24th March 1987.

Ms. Harman Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many children in the London borough of Southwark are in receipt of mobility allowance.

Mr. Major I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Ashley Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects a reply will be sent to the letter from the Disablement Income Group to the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled, dated 11 December 1986 relating to mobility allowance.

Mr. Major I wrote to the Disablement Income Group on 3 February.

Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Prison Visits on 24th March 1987.

Mr. Coombs Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the cost of providing support for visits to prisoners by their fiancées in line with that given to spouses.

Mr. Major As well as assisting spouses. the prison visiting scheme also enables payments to be made to common-law spouses where the couple had lived together as man and wife for a substantial period or where they have a child. As information about the relationship between prisoners and those wishing to visit them is not collected centrally, it is not possible to estimate the cost of extending this assistance to fiancées.

Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Benefits (Claimants) on 24th March 1987.

Ms. Harman Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many claims were received by Peckham, Camberwell, Southwark and Kennington Department of Health and Social Security supplementary benefit offices for single payments in respect of the exceptionally severe weather in January 1987; how many of these claims have been processed; and how many are outstanding.

Mr. Major Information is not available in the form requested. However, up to 24 February 1987 – the latest date for which figures are available – the number of exceptionally cold weather £5 payments made and the number of claims refused by the Peckham, Camberwell, Southwark. Kennington and Oval offices were as follows:

Local office | Number of payments | Number refused

Peckham | 2,006 | 266
Camberwell | 1,854 | 157
Southwark | 3,162 | 311
Kennington Park | 2,988 | 440
Kennington (Oval) | 1,136 | 244

Ms. Harman Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of claimants at the Peckham, Southwark, Camberwell and Kennington Department of Health and Social Security supplementary benefit offices who were entitled to severe weather payments actually claimed for the payments in January of this year.

Mr. Major This information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on National Insurance on 23rd March 1987.

Mr. Austin Mitchell Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate (i) the revenue effect to the National Insurance Fund of abolition of the upper earnings limit and (ii) the loss to the fund of counting personal allowances for income tax purposes against the employee’s liability to contributions.

Mr. Major [pursuant to his reply, 12 March 1987, c. 294–95]: If the upper earnings limit for employees’ class 1 contributions were removed, but retained for the contracted out rebate, then the National Insurance Fund’s income from National Insurance contributions would have been £690 million higher in 1986-87.

If all personal tax allowances, including the married man’s allowance, counted against the employee’s liability for National Insurance contributions, then the National Insurance Fund’s contribution income would have been about £3.75 billion lower in 1986-87.

Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Severe Weather Payments on 23rd March 1987.

Mr. Gordon Brown Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the numbers in Dunfermline and Kirkcaldy district social security offices who have received exceptionally severe weather allowances in the current year.

Mr. Major [pursuant to his reply, 20 March 1987, c. 667]: Up to 10 March 1987, the latest date for which information is available, the Department’s local office in Dunfermline had made 1,913 exceptionally cold weather payments, and the Kirkcaldy office had made 2,929.

Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Income Support on 23rd March 1987.

Mr. McCrindle Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received concerning the identification of an element equal to a person’s rates payment within income support; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Major We have received a number of representations on the effect on income support recipients of the proposal that people should pay a proportion of their general rates. Final decisions about the level of income support have not yet been taken.

Mr. McCrindle Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what discussions he has had with local authority associations concerning the calculation of net income of people on income support; to what effect; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Major The housing benefit standing committee, which consists of representatives of the local authority associations and officials of the Department meets regularly. The committee commissioned a sub-group of its members to examine approaches to the calculation of net income for people receiving housing benefit under the reformed scheme. The sub-group met five times and produced a report setting out options for the treatment of net income. Draft regulations for the reformed scheme taking into account the majority preference for an actual net income approach, were issued to the local authority associations for formal consultation at the beginning of the year. The associations’ responses are being considered at present.

Mr. McCrindle Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many representations he has received from local authorities seeking 100 per cent, assistance with rates for those who will receive income support, where the authorities meet spending targets set by the Government; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Major I am not aware of any representations specifically making this point. People whose local authorities keep spending down will benefit from having to make a lower contribution towards rates. An arrangement such as that set out in my hon. Friend’s question would not be in keeping with our objectives of greater accountability of local authorities to their electorates, equity between people on and off income support or living in different parts of the country, and operational simplicity.

Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Attendance Allowance on 23rd March 1987.

Mrs. Beckett Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what categories of disabled people his counsel informed the Court of Appeal might be able to claim attendance allowance as a result of the judgment of the court in the Moran case.

Mr. Major In his address to the Court of Appeal following delivery of the judgment in the Moran case, counsel for the Secretary of State indicated that the judgment could affect the attendance allowance entitlement of people who suffer from epilepsy, diabetes, haemophilia, heart attacks and angina, or multi-sensory handicaps; elderly people who suffer attacks of confusion; and children who are mentally handicapped or hyperactive, or who suffer from asthma or cystic fibrosis.

How the judgment might be applied is a matter for the independent Attendance Allowance Board, taking account of the references in the judgment to the importance of the facts of the individual case. We shall be considering our response to the judgment in the light of advice from the Board.

Mrs. Beckett Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to ensure that disabled people who may be entitled to attendance allowance or to the higher rate of attendance allowance in the light of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the Moran case receive the allowance to which they are entitled, and that arrears are paid in respect of any underpayment resulting from the interpretation of the law prior to that judgment.

Mr. Major The application of the judgment is a matter for the independent Attendance Allowance Board who will be issuing guidelines to delegated medical practitioners. We are considering the questions which the hon. Member raises.

Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Diet Costs on 23rd March 1987.

Mr. Hume Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement regarding the calculation of the additional expense of whole diet costs in “S Manual” clause 4736 from 1980 onwards, indicating from what data base within the 1979 “Family Expenditure Survey” the indications on average expenditure on food for different age groups used in the calculations was derived.

Mr. Major These figures are provided by the Chief Adjudication Officer as part of his guidance to the independent adjudication officers. I understand that the original figure of £9 quoted in 1981 as the average expenditure on food for an adult was derived from unpublished data from the 1979 “Family Expenditure Survey” in respect of single pensioners, married couple pensioners and single adults under 65 in the lowest 20 per cent, household income bracket.

The figures in respect of children were based on a percentage of the relevant scale rates similar to that for adults. The figures have been increased in subsequent guidance in line with the food element of the retail prices index. They were last increased in November 1985 and will be increased again next month to coincide with the general uprating of benefits.