The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1983-1987 Parliament

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Artificial Limb Fitting – 4 March 1987

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Artificial Limb Fitting on 4th March 1987.

    Mr. Hannam Asked the Secretary of State for Social Security what studies his Department has made of the new process of computerised artificial limb fitting developed by University College, London; and if he plans to develop it for use in the artificial limb and appliance centres.

    Mr. Major The work on the computerised artificial limb fitting, carried out by the University College London, has been wholly funded by the Department. The research phase is nearing its end.

    Limb fitting companies have been invited to participate in trials of the new limb fitting system and a pilot scheme is now under way.

    Our officials and the college are seeking a commercial involvement for the manufacture of the system and its supply to the artificial limb and appliance service.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on the Social Security Act 1986 – 4 March 1987

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on the Social Security Act 1986 on 4th March 1987.

    Mr. Eastham Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what net savings will result in the financial years 1986-87 and 1987-88 from the implementation of the Social Security Act 1986.

    Mr. Major The effect of implementing the Social Security Act 1986 will be to increase benefit expenditure slightly in 1986-87 and to save some £75 million in benefit expenditure in 1987-88.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Severe Weather Payments – 3 March 1987

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Severe Weather Payments on 3rd March 1987.

    Mr. Rooker Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what representations he has received on the use of the term householder in question two of his Department’s press advertisements about extra help with fuel bills; and if he will make a statement;
    (2) if he will instruct his officials to reconsider applications for help with fuel costs made on the basis of press advertisements issued by his Department, where the applicant answered no to question two.

    Mr. Major We have received a number of representations and inquiries on this point. The advertisement asks whether the claimant is a householder because this is one of the qualifying conditions for entitlement to an exceptionally cold weather payment.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Women (Pensions) – 3 March 1987

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Women (Pensions) on 3rd March 1987.

    Mr. Hicks Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will state, for each of the past five years, the number of married women who have exercised their right of appeal for back payment of their pension entitlement on reaching the age of 60 years in respect of contributions they made whilst in regular work before 1948.

    Mr. Major I regret that the information requested is not available. Statistics relate to retirement pension generally and are not broken down more fully.

    Mr. Hicks Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate the number of married women who are entitled to a pension in their own right through their insurance contributions whilst in regular work prior to 1948 but who on reaching the age of 60 years did not immediately claim this pension; and what would be the cost of meeting these back payments in full.

    Mr. Major I regret that the information requested is not available.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Attendance Allowance – 3 March 1987

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Attendance Allowance on 3rd March 1987.

    Mr. Ashley Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will introduce a third and higher rate attendance allowance to enable disabled people to pay for the care attendance they need to live outside an institution.

    Mr. Major In general, we do not intend to make significant changes in disability benefits in advance of the review we propose to undertake when we have the results of the current major survey by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys into the numbers, circumstances and needs of disabled people. We are, however, considering with the disability organisations the future arrangements within the income support scheme for payments to severely disabled people, some of whom might otherwise be obliged to live in an institution.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Benefits – 3 March 1987

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Benefits on 3rd March 1987.

    Mr. David Atkinson Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his Department’s estimate of the number of people receiving invalidity benefit who are of retirement age but who do not receive a full state retirement pension; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Major At 31 March 1985, the latest date for which figures are available, there were an estimated 72,000 men aged 65 to 69 years and 12,000 women aged 60 to 64 years receiving invalidity benefit. It is not possible to receive retirement pension in addition to invalidity benefit.

    Mr. Watts Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the Social Security Advisory Committee has completed its review of time limits for claiming benefits and reported; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Major The committee’s report has been received and together with the Government’s response to its various recommendations is contained in a Command Paper (Cm. 100) published today. We are grateful to the committee for its report and to those interested parties who made representations. The recommendations achieve a rational package of measures which, with other changes in the rules governing claims to and payments of benefits, will introduce a considerable simplification in the administration of the benefits system. We propose to incorporate the revised time limits in a common set of claims and payments regulations to be laid later this year and to come into force in April 1988.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Severe Disability Premium – 2 March 1987

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Severe Disability Premium on 2nd March 1987.

    Mr. Alfred Morris Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will define the term household for the purposes of eligibility for the severe disability premium; and if the presence of (a) an adult lodger or (b) an adult subtenant of the claimant will disqualify the claimant from the premium;
    (2) if a disabled person receiving attendance allowance will be eligible for the severe disability premium if the only other adult member of the household is unable to provide assistance to that person on account of age or disability;
    (3) if a disabled person receiving attendance allowance will be eligible for the severe disability premium for weeks in which the only other adult member of the household is absent from home;
    (4) if the presence in the household of a student over 18 years in full-time education for whom no non-dependent deduction from housing benefit is currently made will disqualify a disabled person in receipt of attendance allowance from the severe disability premium;
    (5) if a disabled person receiving attendance allowance will be eligible for the severe disability premium for weeks in which the only other adult member of the household has an infectious illness and would endanger the life of the disabled person if he or she provided the care and assistance required by that person.

    Mr. Major [pursuant to his reply, 22 January 1987, c. 711–12]: The intention is that the severe disability premium would not be payable if, among other conditions, the claimant had a partner or a non-dependant over the age of 18 living in the same household. The only exception to this would be where the other person was receiving attendance allowance. The circumstances or age of the non-dependant or partner would not otherwise be relevant. It would also not be subject to whether or not a housing benefit non-dependant deduction was actually made, so the presence in the household of a student over 18 treated as a non-dependant would normally debar someone from receiving the premium. In deciding whether or not someone was to be regarded as a non-dependant, either for housing benefit purposes or in order to determine eligibility for the severe disability premium, it would be necessary to establish whether he or she was a member of the same household as the claimant. Where they did not reside together because, for example, one was a sub-tenant living in self-contained accommodation (including separate cooking but not necessarily separate bathroom facilities) they would not be regarded as being members of the same household, and one would not therefore be classified as a non-dependant in relation to the other. Where they did reside together, as might, for example, be the case with a lodger, they would normally be treated as members of the same household unless the arrangement between them was on a purely commercial basis and they were not close relatives.

    People would normally be regarded as still members of the same household during short absences, particularly if there was an intention to return. Where this was not the case, the claim would be reassessed.

    Finally, a person employed by a charity or other organisation (but not a local authority) who lived with the claimant in order to care for him or his partner would not be regarded as a non-dependent where a charge was made for the service by the organisation concerned.

    We intend that the draft housing benefit regulations which have been issued to the local authority associations for consultation will be amended to make these points clear.

    We are separately assessing alternative proposals to the severe disability premium put to us by organisations representing disabled people.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Family Income Supplement – 2 March 1987

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Family Income Supplement on 2nd March 1987.

    Mr. Kirkwood Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will outline the present arrangements for gathering proof of earnings for the purpose of family income supplement claims and indicate what changes will be made to these procedures with the implementation of family credit.

    Mr. Major Under the present family income supplement scheme, claimants are asked to supply wage slips in support of their claim, normally for the five pay weeks preceding the date of claim or two months in the case of the monthly paid. Where wage slips are not supplied or the information on them is inadequate, information is sought from the employer. In practice, most claimants fail to provide wage slips, or the correct ones. The White Paper, “Reform of Social Security”, Cmnd. 9691, indicated that the Government had decided that evidence of normal earnings in family credit cases will be sought direct from employers. We are still considering whether this will be necessary on every claim.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on the Mobility Allowance – 2 March 1987

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on the Mobility Allowance on 2nd March 1987.

    Mr. Nicholls Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received about the qualifications for receipt of mobility allowance; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Major We regularly receive representations about the various aspects of the qualifying conditions for mobility allowance. Recently, a large proportion has been in support of extending the medical eligibility criteria to include disabled people who can walk but who are not independently mobile. Many of these representations have referred to deaf-blind people in particular.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Maternity Payments – 2 March 1987

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Maternity Payments on 2nd March 1987.

    Mr. Garrett Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women in North Tyneside claimed the maternity grant in the last year for which figures are available.

    Mr. Major Information on the number of claimants to maternity grant is not available in the form requested. But in the 12 months ending 31 December 1986 the following numbers of claims to maternity grant were made at the Department’s local offices which cover North Tyneside although the boundaries are not conterminous :

    Area | Numbers
    Newcastle (East) | 1,459
    North Shields | 1,108
    Wallsend | 889

    Mr. Lofthouse Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women in Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley claimed the maternity grant in the last year for which figures are available.

    Mr. Major Information on the number of claimants to maternity grant is not available in the precise form requested.
    Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley are covered by the Department’s local offices at Castleford and Pontefract, although their boundaries are not conterminous with the areas in the question. The numbers of claims to maternity grant received at these two local offices during the 1986 calendar year were as follows :

    Area | Numbers
    Castleford | 1,138
    Pontefract | 958

    Mr. Ashley Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women in Stoke-on-Trent, South claimed the maternity grant in the last year for which figures are available.

    Mr. Major Information on the number of claimants to maternity grant is not available in the precise form requested.

    The Stoke-on-Trent, South constituency is covered by the Department’s offices at Stoke (North), Stoke (South) and Newcastle (Staffs) and their boundaries are not conterminous with the constituency. The numbers of claims received for maternity grant at these local offices during the calendar year 1986 were as follows :

    Area | Numbers
    Stoke (North) | 2,605
    Stoke (South) | 1,807
    Newcastle (Staffs) | 1,572

    Mr. Ashley Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women in Stoke-on-Trent, 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, the following numbers of claims to maternity allowance were made at the Department’s offices which cover Stoke-on-Trent, South although the boundaries are not conterminous :

    Area | Numbers
    Newcastle (Staffs) | 1,265
    Stoke North | 1,640
    Stoke South | 1,661

    Mr. McNamara Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women in the city of Hull and the Kingston upon Hull, North constituency, respectively, claimed the maternity grant in the last year for which figures are available.

    Mr. Major Information on the number of claimants to maternity grant is not available in the precise form requested.

    The city of Hull and the Kingston upon Hull, North constituency are covered by the Department’s local offices at Hull (East) and Hull (West) although their boundaries are not conterminous. The numbers of claims for maternity grant received at the Hull local offices during the 1986 calendar year were as follows :

    Area | Numbers
    Hull (East) | 3,443
    Hull (West) | 2,862

    Mr. McNamara Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women in the city of Hull and the Kingston upon Hull, North constituency, respectively, 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, the following number of claims to maternity allowance were made at the Department’s offices which cover both the City of Hull and the North Hull constituency although the boundaries are not conterminous :

    Area | Numbers
    Hull (East) | 1,929
    Hull (West) | 1,927

    Mr. Sheerman Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many women in Calder Valley received maternity allowance in the last year for which figures are available;
    (2) how many women in Halifax 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, 1,748 claims to maternity allowance were made at Halifax, the Department’s office which covers both Calder Valley and Halifax although the boundaries are not conterminous.

    Mr. Sheerman Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women in Dewsbury 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, the following numbers of claims to maternity allowance were made at the Department’s offices which cover Dewsbury although the boundaries are not conterminous.

    Area | Numbers
    Dewsbury | 1,379
    Huddersfield | 1,678

    Mr. Sheerman Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women in Huddersfield 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, 1,678 claims to maternity allowance were made at the Department’s office at Huddersfield although the boundaries are not conterminous.

    Mr. Sheerman Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women in Calder Valley claimed the maternity grant in the last year for which figures are available.

    Mr. Major I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) on 18 February at column 702.

    Mr. Sheerman Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many women in Batley and Spenborough 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 to which figures are available, 1,379 claims to maternity allowance were made at Dewsbury, the Department’s office which covers Batley and Spenborough although the boundaries are not conterminous.