The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1983-1987 Parliament

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Maternity Payments – 11 March 1987

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Maternity Payments on 11th March 1987.

    Mr. Michie Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether any of the items previously considered essential under the Department of Health and Social Security single payment regulations will not be included in the new maternity payment.

    Mr. Major I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) on 25 February at column 322.

    Mr. Michie Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many single payments for maternity items were made to women in Sheffield, Heeley; in the last year for which figures are available.

    Mr. Lyell The information requested is not collected by individual local offices and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

    Dr. Bray Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women in Motherwell, South claimed the maternity grant in the last year for which figures are available.

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

    The Motherwell, South constituency is covered by the Department’s local offices at Motherwell, Hamilton and Wishaw, although their boundaries are not conterminous with the constituency. The numbers of claims for maternity grant received at those local offices during the 1986 calendar year were as follows:

    Area | Number
    Motherwell | 944
    Hamilton | 1,868
    Wishaw | 792

    Mr. Stuart Holland Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women in Lambeth claimed the maternity grant in the last year for which figures are available.233W

    Mr. Major I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) on 23 February at columns 119-20.

    Mr Stuart Holland Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women in Lambeth received maternity allowance in the last year for which figures are available.

    Mr. Major I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) on 23 February at column 120.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Benefits – 11 March 1987

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Benefits on 11th March 1987.

    Mr. Alfred Morris Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the level of spending on social security benefits for sick and disabled people in each of the years 1978-79 and 1986-87; how this expenditure breaks down between the different social security benefits for sick and disabled people; what was the average annual increase in expenditure for the period 1979-80 to 1986-87 inclusive in real terms; how much of that increase in real terms was attributable to (a) increases in the real value of the social security benefits concerned and (b) increases in the number of people claiming each of the benefits; and what was the average annual increase in such expenditure in real terms for the period 1974-75 to 1978-79 inclusive.

    Mr. Major Over the period 1979-80 to 1986-87, real expenditure on social security benefits for sick and disabled people increased by an average of £230 million a year (at 1986-87 prices): roughly 70 per cent. of the increase was due to increases in the number of recipients and the remainder to increases in the average amount paid. The average annual real increase over the period 1974-75 to 1978-79 was £195 million (at 1986-87 prices). A breakdown of total expenditure among individual benefits is given in the table.

    Expenditure on social security benefits paid to sick and disabled people | 1978-79 | 1986-87 (in £ million)

    Sickness benefit | 700 | 160
    Invalidity benefit | 840 | 2,610
    Industrial disablement benefit | 220 | 430
    Attendance allowance | 170 | 780
    Invalid care allowance | 5 | 190
    NCIP/Severe disablement allowance | 70 | 260
    Mobility allowance | 50 | 510
    War disablement pension | 220 | 380
    Supplementary benefit | 170 | 460
    Housing benefit | 50 | 470
    Christmas Bonus | 10 | 20
    Other industrial injuries benefits | 5 | 5
    Total | 2,500 | 6,260

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Supplementary Benefit – 10 March 1987

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Supplementary Benefit on 10th March 1987.

    Mr. Holt Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he proposes to make any changes in the Supplementary Benefit (Requirements) Regulations.

    Mr. Major We propose to make three small changes in the Supplementary Benefit (Requirements) Regulations dealing with claimants in residential care and nursing homes.

    Since the beginning of the supplementary benefit scheme the policy has been that all charges levied by nursing and residential care home owners or proprietors should be treated together as the board and lodging charge. Recent legal advice has however cast doubts on this long-standing interpretation. We propose, therefore, to amend the regulations to give clear effect to the original policy intention that people in residential care and nursing homes should not be entitled to additional requirements which relate to items which normal charges may be expected to cover, such as heating, extra baths and laundry. At the same time we propose to amend the regulations to ensure that charges for these items can be included with the board and lodging charge. For claimants who are currently getting these additional requirements there will be transitional protection to safeguard their overall benefit entitlement.

    Secondly, we propose to correct an unintended effect in regulation 9(18) of the requirements regulations. This regulation allows transitionally protected claimants an increase in benefit of up to a maximum of £10 to help meet any increase in fees since April 1985. As currently drafted the regulation would allow some claimants to get an increase of more than £10 at the next up-rating. However, at future up-ratings the same claimants would lose that increase and the amount of benefit in payment to them would be reduced. The proposed amendment would restore the original policy intention.

    Thirdly, we propose to clarify the supplementary benefit provisions governing local authority residential accommodation set up under the National Health Service Act 1977 so that it more accurately reflects the diversity of provision that local authorities are now making. Regulations will make it clear that the part III rate should only apply to residential accommodation provided by local authorities where full board is available and which is not a hostel.

    The social security advisory committee has agreed that the proposed amendments do not need to be referred to them. These amendments will be included in the uprating regulations for the supplementary benefit residential care and nursing home limits which will be laid before the House shortly.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Artificial Limbs and Appliances – 10 March 1987

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Artificial Limbs and Appliances on 10th March 1987.

    Mr. Ashley Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the current cost of artificial limb and appliance centres; and for how many people they provide appliances.

    Mr. Major The estimated cost in 1986-87 of services provided through the artificial limb and appliance centres is £82.9 million. This includes the cost of artificial limbs and appliances, wheelchairs and administration costs. Artificial limb and appliance centres provide appliances to war pensioners, of whom almost 13,000 currently have an appliance on issue.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Muscular Dystrophy – 10 March 1987

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Muscular Dystrophy on 10th March 1987.

    Mr. Ashley Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average life expectancy of children with muscular dystrophy.

    Mr. Major Muscular dystrophy is not a single disorder and the various types are differentiated by mode of inheritance, age of onset, distribution of weakness and rate of deterioration. While in Duchenne muscular dystrophy, the commonest, death usually occurs from respiratory infection by the age of 20, and in Becker muscular dystrophy death is likely in middle age, average life expectancy does not provide a prognosis in the individual case. There are five other, even less common forms of muscular dystrophy which may present in childhood.

    Mr. Ashley Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many children are currently suffering from muscular dystrophy; and if he has been given any information on the proportion of these whose arms are too weak for them to propel their own wheelchair.

    Mr. Major There is no exact information on the number of children currently suffering from muscular dystrophy. There are probably 1,300 to 1,500 boys and young men with Duchenne muscular dystrophy in England and Wales. By the age of 10-12 most sufferers are using a wheelchair. No information is available as to the proportion of children with muscular dystrophy who are unable to propel their own wheelchairs.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Invalid Care Allowance – 10 March 1987

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Invalid Care Allowance on 10th March 1987.

    Mr. George Robertson Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, following his statement of 23 June 1986 on invalid care allowance, Official Report, column 21, how many successful invalid care allowance claims require recovery action because of the overlapping benefit rule; and, of these, how many involved supplementary benefit.

    Mr. Major None; but to date arrears of invalid care allowance have been abated in some 8,000 cases on account of other social security benefits paid to or for the claimant. In about 800 cases the other benefit was supplementary benefit.

    Mr. George Robertson Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, following his statement of 23 June 1986 on invalid care allowance, Official Report, column 21, how long it will take to clear the backlog of invalid care allowance claims.

    Mr. Major To date about half the invalid care allowance claims received from married women have been decided. We estimate that the remainder will be cleared within the next 18 weeks.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on the Social Fund – 10 March 1987

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on the Social Fund on 10th March 1987.

    Mr. Fatchett Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether those appealing against a refusal of assistance from the social fund will have a right to an oral hearing; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Major Decisions on payments from the social fund for maternity and funeral expenses will be subject to the normal appeal procedures of the social security adjudication system, and claimants wishing to appeal will have a right to an oral hearing by a social security appeal tribunal. Those who are dissatisfied with decisions about other payments from the fund will have a right of review, in the first instance by local management, and will be given the opportunity at that stage of an interview at which to discuss their case.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Disabled Persons (Single Payments) – 10 March 1987

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Disabled Persons (Single Payments) on 10th March 1987.

    Mr. Litherland Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to increase the assistance from single payments for furniture for disabled persons being resettled in the community.

    Mr. Major We have no plans to make changes to the single payments furniture rules which already contain special protection for supplementary benefit claimants who are chronically sick or mentally or physically disabled.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Mortgage Interest Payments – 10 March 1987

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Mortgage Interest Payments on 10th March 1987.

    Mrs. Beckett Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he intends to amend the regulations which restrict payment of mortgage interest in the first weeks of unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Major We are proposing to amend the regulation, which provides for a disregard in supplementary benefit assessments on income received from an insurance policy taken out to protect mortgage interest repayments. Our intention was that one half of any such income should be disregarded, but, as drafted, the regulation provides for the disregard of an amount equivalent to the full interest. This amendment will be included in the uprating regulation for the supplementary benefit residential care and nursing homes limits. We have no plans to make any further changes to the regulations covering the amount of mortgage interest included in supplementary benefit.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Disabled People – 10 March 1987

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Disabled People on 10th March 1987.

    Mr. Wigley Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now state the outcome of the discussions he has held with bodies representing local authorities with regard to the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, and the Government’s latest timetable for the full implementation of the Act.

    Mr. Major I met the local authority associations on 24 February to discuss implementation of the Act. At the meeting it was agreed that sections 9 and 10 will be brought into effect on 1 April. The local authority associations expressed concern about the possible resource implications of sections 4 and 8, and I shall be writing to them shortly about that. I hope that it will be possible to implement those sections too on 1 April. We also expect to implement section 11 during 1987.

    The resource implications of sections 5 and 6 of the Act, which cover disabled school-leavers, were also discussed at the meeting with the associations. It was agreed that urgent discussions between officials from the associations and the Department should take place to estimate those resource implications more accurately with a view to a further meeting between the associations and myself in May.

    It was also agreed that there should be discussions at official level to make more realistic estimates of the costs of sections 3 and 7 of the Act and that progress in these discussions will he reviewed at the meeting in May.

    It is not possible to announce a timetable for full implementation of the Act. The discussions. that are proceeding at official level with the local authority associations will enable us to estimate more precisely the resource implications of the various sections of the Act. This should help to make progress towards establishing such a timetable.