Category: 1983-1987 Parliament

Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on JE Hanger & Co on 18th December 1986.

---

Mr. Wigley Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what discussions he has had with the management of J. E. Hanger and Co. Ltd. of Roehampton to try and resolve the recent dismissal of 300 people by that company: and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Major I met the managing director of J. E. Hanger and Co. Ltd. on 26 November 1986, as I reported to the House on that day at column 330. He confirmed that the company is taking all possible steps to maintain its services to patients which remains our prime concern in this dispute.

The Government, who are not a party to the dispute, have urged both parties to avail themselves of ACAS, and have been encouraged that a series of talks have taken place. Both sides are remaining in contact with ACAS and it is hoped that a speedy settlement to the dispute will be reached.

Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Funeral and Maternity Payments on 17th December 1986.

---

Mr. Andrew MacKay Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he will announce the arrangement for the introduction of funeral and maternity payments under the social fund.

Mr. Major We have laid before Parliament regulations which provide for payments to be made from the social fund to people on low incomes – whether in or out of work – for maternity and funeral expenses.

The regulations replace the existing provisions for maternity and funeral expenses made by the maternity and death grants of £25 and £30 respectively and the relevant supplementary benefit single payments for maternity and funeral needs. The new arrangements extend entitlement to people in low paid work as well as supplementary benefit claimants. Under these arrangements a maternity payment of £80 will be made for each new or adopted baby if the claimant or his/her partner is in receipt of supplementary benefit or family income supplement. For funerals, the full cost of a reasonable funeral will be paid if the claimant or his/her partner is in receipt of supplementary benefit, family income supplement, or housing benefit.

As with the existing supplementary benefit single payments scheme, any savings of over £500 held by the claimant or his family will be taken into account for both types of payment, the excess being offset against the amount paid. For funerals, provision is also made to take account of any of the assets of the deceased which are available to the claimant, when calculating the amount of any sum due. Any contribution made by another towards the cost of the funeral will also be taken into account. From April 1988, when a lump sum of £1,000 for widows will replace widows’ allowance, amended regulations will ensure that this sum is disregarded for recent widows who need to claim either a maternity or funeral payment.

These regulations, the Social Fund Maternity and Funeral Expenses (General) Regulations 1986 and the Social Fund Maternity and Funeral Expenses (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1986, are made under sections 32(2) and 51(1) of the Social Security Act 1986 and will take effect from 6 April 1987. They include a number of consequential amendments to other regulations which arise out of these provisions. The regulations have not been referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee since, by virtue of section 61(5) of the Act, reference is not necessary for regulations made within twelve months of the Act coming into force.

Claim forms incorporating explanatory notes will be available to the public in the normal way from the middle of March 1987 onwards.

Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on the Mobility Allowance on 17th December 1986.

---

Mr. Kirkwood Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people aged over 70 years currently receive mobility allowance; and how many presently in receipt of such benefit will lose it in 1989 as a result of their age.

Mr. Major At 10 December 1986, there were 15,335 recipients of mobility allowance who were age 70 or over. Of this number, 9,345 qualified under eligibility criteria which include the upper limit of age 75 for the payment of the allowance. Recipients are due to reach this limit from 29 November 1989 onwards, but I regret that the number due to reach it in 1989 cannot be identified separately.

Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Boarders on 17th December 1986.

---

Mr. Squire Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals he is considering for boarders under the reformed social security scheme; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Major In accordance with the undertaking that I gave to the House on 9 July at column 352, I am today issuing a consultative paper on the future benefit arrangements under the reformed social security scheme for the small minority of supplementary benefit claimants (about 2 per cent.) receiving ordinary board and lodging allowances. Copies of the document are available in the Vote Office.

Many of the difficulties which have arisen in this area stem from differences between the benefit arrangements for supplementary benefit boarders and other claimants which tend to create perverse incentives for landlords and claimants. Recent measures to tighten up the system have brought about improvements which could if necessary enable arrangements to continue on very similar lines into the future. However, the advent of the new income support scheme in April 1988 provides an opportunity to examine the scope for creating a simpler, more coherent framework for benefits to boarders while tackling effectively the problems of incentives and maintaining proper financial controls.

The consultative document seeks views on the possibility that boarders as a group should no longer receive special higher rates but should instead be eligible for help with living costs from income support, including the premiums for family responsibilities, lone parenthood, old age and disability, in exactly the same way as other claimants.

Supplementary benefit boarders, like boarders in work and people paying rent, would thus get help with housing costs through housing benefit where it is already proposed to extend and strengthen the financial controls. If, subject to consultation, these proposals were implemented, whether from April 1988 or a later date, the present form of benefit limits would cease, but my Department would continue to apply special fraud and claims control procedures where appropriate. As local authorities are already responsible for help with accommodation costs for boarders in work, the proposals would not create a new responsibility. Nevertheless, the Government remain anxious to minimise the operational effects on authorities and are particularly anxious to take full account of the views of the local authority associations on these points.

In addition the paper invites comments on the future benefit treatment of people living in hostels. The current rules recognise the special nature of these establishments, and it is for consideration whether residents should continue to receive benefit on the same basis in future, or should be aligned with ordinary boarders or people in homes, in the light of the studies currently under way.

The Government will take careful account of the comments and representations received from the local authority associations and others by 20 February 1987 before reaching any final conclusions.

Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Heating Costs on 16th December 1986.

---

Mr. Raynsford Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many single payments were made by his Department in respect of the extra heating costs incurred by recipients of supplementary benefit during last winter’s exceptionally cold weather.

Mr. Major Final returns are still awaited from a number of local offices, but latest figures show that a total of 493,000 payments have been made.

Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Arts and Disabled People on 16th December 1986.

---

Mr. Alfred Morris Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received from the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust concerning the recommendations of “Arts and Disabled People”, the report of a committee of inquiry under the chairmanship of Sir Richard Attenborough; what action he has taken or will be taking; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Major My predecessor as Minister for the Disabled met representatives of the Carnegie council in January to discuss what action could be taken on those recommendations that related to the Department’s responsibilities. It was agreed at that meeting that there should be further discussions at official level with the council and other interested bodies. A meeting was held in June between the Department, the council and the arts therapy associations to discuss the development of art therapy in the National Health Service. A further meeting is to be held with the council in January to discuss wider questions about the role of the arts in hospitals.

Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on National Insurance Cards on 16th December 1986.

---

Mr. Holt Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans his Department has to reintroduce national insurance cards.

Mr. Major The Department currently issues plastic national insurance number cards and, for self-employed people and voluntary contributors who pay national insurance contributions weekly, national insurance stamp cards. There are no plans to introduce other cards.

Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Disabled People on 15th December 1986.

---

Mr. Dobson Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when it is intended that the survey of disability presently under way will be completed; when the proposed subsequent review of social security provisions for disabled people is planned to start and to finish; when the results of that review will be presented to Parliament; and when the subsequent new arrangements are expected to come into force.

Mr. Major Publication by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys of the results of its current survey of disabled people is expected in 1988. It is too early to give a timetable for the review of social security benefits for disabled people and for subsequent action.

Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on the Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme on 15th December 1986.

---

Mr. Dobson Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was his Department’s original estimate of the savings to be made by the introduction of the time limit on the vaccine damage payments scheme.

Mr. Major None. The six-year time limit on claims was included in the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 because of the difficulty of considering claims older than this. But the time limit was not brought into effect until 9 May 1984 in order to give everyone who had suffered vaccine damage since 1948 the opportunity of making a claim.

Mr. Dobson Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give, for each year since the introduction of the vaccine damage payments scheme, the number of awards given under the scheme; and what was the number of claims rejected each year.

Mr. Major The information requested is set out in the following table:

Year | Awards | Rejections

1979 | 349 | 2,199
1980 | 255 | 150
1981 | 74 | 71
1982 | 43 | 54
1983 | 42 | 107
1984 | 29 | 124
1985 | 26 | 75
1986 (1) | 14 | 64

Total | (2) 832 | (2) 2,838

(1) To 14 November.
(2) Includes 432 cases originally rejected but subsequently awarded by a Vaccine Damage Tribunal.

Mr. Dobson Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his Department’s estimate of the total number of people severely disabled within the meaning of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act; and what is the estimate for the number less severely damaged as a result of vaccination.

Mr. Major 832 awards have been made on the basis that vaccine damage resulted in severe disablement and there have also been 14 claims involving vaccine damage which were rejected because disablement was not severe. A further 1,637 claims involved severe disablement but were rejected because disablement was not a result of vaccine damage, and in a further 326 rejected claims the cause of disablement was not investigated because disablement was substantially less than severe.

Mr. Dobson Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his Department’s estimate of the additional cost of making payments available, on a sliding scale, to everyone disabled as a result of vaccination.

Mr. Major I regret there is insufficient information for any reliable estimates to be made.

Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Lung Cancer (Report) on 12th December 1986.

---

Mr. Norris Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council’s report on occupational lung cancer is to be published; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Major The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council’s report on occupational lung cancer is published today. It recommends the prescription of lung cancer in three groups of workers, namelythose exposed to a chemical known as bis (chloromethyl) ether (BCME) produced during the manufacture of chloromethyl methyl ether (CMME) those exposed to the dust of zinc chromate, calcium chomate and strontium chromate tin miners

The Government accept the council’s recommendations, and regulations will be laid to bring them into operation next year.