The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1983-1987 Parliament

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on the Restart Scheme – 6 November 1986

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on the Restart Scheme on 6th November 1986.

    Mr. Deakins Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many of the persons who left the unemployed count by September 1986 following invitation to a restart counselling interview or attendance at such an interview now receive supplementary benefit.

    Mr. Major Up to 11 September 1986, the number of people who had left the unemployment count as a result of restart but continued to receive supplementary benefit without being required to be available for employment was 55. In addition, 3,857 people had returned to the unemployment count having previously left following an invitation to, or attendance at, a restart counselling interview. Of these, the majority will be in receipt of supplementary benefit.

    Mr. Dewar Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people in Scotland have had their unemployment benefit disallowed as a result of failing to attend an interview for the restart scheme.

    Mr. Major Up to 9 September 1986, the latest date for which figures are available for the national restart scheme, a total of 1,133 people in Scotland had their benefit disallowed as a result of failing to attend an interview. Of these, 21 received only unemployment benefit. The other 1,112 either had supplementary benefit of a combination of both benefits. A further breakdown of the figures is not available.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Benefits and Allowances – 6 November 1986

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Benefits and Allowances on 6th November 1986.

    Mr. Thurnham Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people had their mobility allowance renewal applications refused during (a) the 12-month period prior to the House of Lords’ decision Leeds v. Secretary of State for Social Services on 25 April 1985 and (b) the 12-month period since that date; how many of those in (b) above were refused because: (i) their condition had changed and (ii) they were adjudged differently from their original successful claims in the light of the Leeds decision; and how many of those in (b) above were (i) severely mentally handicapped, (ii) severely behaviourally disturbed and (iii) with other severe disabilities.

    Mr. Major In the 12 months up to 25 April 1985, 4,360 renewal claims for mobility allowance (16.7 per cent. of the renewal claims decided in that period) were disallowed at the initial stage. The figures for the 12 months after that date were 4,250 and 15.7 per cent. respectively. I regret that records are not maintained of the reasons for disallowance of renewal claims or of the nature of the disability of unsuccessful claimants.

    Mr. Thurnham Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people had their original mobility allowance applications refused during (a) the 12-month period prior to the House of Lords’ decision Leeds v. Secretary of State for Social Services on 25 April 1985 and (b) the 12-month period since that date; and of these how many were (i) severely mentally handicapped, (ii) severely behaviourally disturbed and (iii) blind with other severe disabilities.

    Mr. Major In the 12 months up to 25 April 1985, 33,500 initial claims for mobility allowance (30.7 per cent. of the initial claims decided in that period) were disallowed. The figures for the 12 months after that date were 43,600 and 34.8 per cent. respectively.

    I regret that records are not maintained of the nature of the disability of unsuccessful claimants.

    Mr. Wigley Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if local offices of his Department can identify every person receiving supplementary benefit or supplementary pension, who has a dependent child under the age of two years, or is over the age of 65 years, or is in receipt of attendance allowance and mobility allowance.

    Mr. Major The Department’s local offices do not keep these statistics. To mount a special exercise to identify every person within these groups would be disproportionately costly.

    Mr. Ashdown Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many extra civil servants he has employed in dealing with outstanding claims for invalid care allowance in respect of married women; and when he anticipates the backlog will be brought down to a similar level of outstanding claims as those pertaining to men and single women.

    Mr. Major The Department has engaged an additional 320 staff to deal with claims for invalid care allowance from married women. Experience with the cases processed so far indicates that the majority of these claims should be cleared by early in the new year.

    Mrs. Beckett Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many workers in the Midlands social security region have claimed disablement benefit during the last 10 years; and how many of those were claiming for injuries assessed at between 1 per cent, and 14 per cent.

    Mr. Major Information is not available in the form requested, as the Midland social security region was only formed on 12 April 1982.

    Between then and 23 September 1986, 95,097 claims for disablement benefit were made. We do not have a regional breakdown either of successful claims or of how many were for disablement below 14 per cent.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Personal Incomes – 6 November 1986

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Personal Incomes on 6th November 1986.

    Mr. Leighton Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many full-time employees earn less than the state minimum benefit level.

    Mr. Major In 1983, the latest date for which information is available, the number of assessment units (as defined for supplementary benefit purposes) headed by a person in full-time employment whose net resources (net earnings, after housing and work expenses) were below their supplementary benefit scale rate was around 130,000. If all the in-work income-related benefits to which they were entitled were claimed and if those ineligible for supplementary benefit are excluded (because they have capital in excess of £3,000), this number would fall to around 90,000.

    Mr. Gordon Brown Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will provide a regional breakdown for England and Wales using “Low Income Tables” for 1979 and 1983, of the numbers of people who fall below the supplementary benefit level, who are on supplementary be and up to 140 per cent. of supplementary benefit, broken down by economic status, and family type, showing what proportion each group makes up of the particular region’s population.

    Mr. Major I regret that the statistics cannot be broken down reliably in the manner requested.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Artificial Limbs (Review) – 4 November 1986

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Artificial Limbs (Review) on 4th November 1986.

    Sir David Price Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to respond to the detailed recommendations of the McColl Committee on its review of the artificial limbs and appliances services; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Major I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on 29 October 1986 at column 187.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Training Programmes – 3 November 1986

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Training Programmes on 3rd November 1986.

    Mr. Ron Davies Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if attendance on or completion of a course relating to the Government’s restart programme or the proposed six-month training programme for the long-term unemployed under 25 years will affect entitlement to supplementary benefit, and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Major [pursuant to his reply, 23 October, c. 984]: Attendance on or completion of a restart course does not affect entitlement to supplementary benefit. The new six-month training course will be experimental and will be run on a pilot basis in nine areas. As participation during these pilots will be voluntary, benefit sanctions will not apply to persons who do not accept offers or who leave courses prematurely.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on the Social Security Act 1986 – 3 November 1986

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on the Social Security Act 1986 on 3rd November 1986.

    Mr. Frank Field Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, following the passing of the Social Security Act 1986, how many people have so far been affected or excluded from benefit as a result of (a) the ending of industrial disablement benefit for disablement below 14 per cent., (b) paying industrial disablement benefit of between 14 per cent. and 19 per cent. at the 20 per cent. rate, (c) the abolition of reduced rate unemployment and sickness benefit and maternity allowance for new claimants, (d) the extension of voluntary unemployment disqualification from six weeks to 13 weeks and (e) ending dependency additions in respect of dependants who are on strike.

    Mr. Major I regret that this information is not available. The effects of the changes to the industrial injuries scheme and the extension of voluntary unemployment disqualification will be monitored, but no figures are yet available.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Benefits – 3 November 1986

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Benefits on 3rd November 1986.

    Mr. Kirkwood Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to review existing procedures whereby interim financial assistance is not available to claimants in financial difficulties caused by administrative delay in processing benefits due to them; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Major The interim payment provisions have been reviewed and the scope for such payments is being extended under section 51(1) of the Social Security Act 1986.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Benefit Claimants – 3 November 1986

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Benefit Claimants on 3rd November 1986.

    Ms. Clare Short Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish information showing the number of claimants who have had their benefit (a) reduced or (b) withdrawn in connection with the restart scheme, the average duration of benefit withdrawal or reduction and the average loss and the numbers resulting from (i) failure to attend an interview, (ii) lack of interest in restart options and (iii) other reasons.

    Mr. Major Up to 9 October 1986, the latest date for which figures are available for the national restart scheme and by which time 522,668 people had been invited to interview, 10,842 decisions to disallow benefit or credits had been made. Of these, 9,757 were as a result of a failure to attend an interview without good cause 1,029 were on the grounds of non-availability for work and 56 resulted from a refusal of suitable employment. No information is available on the duration of benefit withdrawal or the average loss of benefit but where disallowance is the result of failure to attend for interview benefit is reinstated as soon as the person does attend or makes acceptable arrangements to be interviewed.

    Only the disqualifications resulting from a refusal of suitable employment would lead to a reduction in benefit by the imposition of a voluntary unemployment deduction, under regulation 8 of the Supplementary Benefit (Requirement) Regulations 1983. No information on this small number of cases is available. In the other circumstances benefit is withdrawn, though some claimants may then become entitled to payments under the Supplementary Benefit (Urgent Cases) Regulations. No information is available about payments made in these cases under these urgency provisions.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Family Income Supplement – 3 November 1986

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Family Income Supplement on 3rd November 1986.

    Ms. Clare Short Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish the most recent estimate of the proportion of recipients of family income supplement who are liable to income tax.

    Mr. Major At April 1986, the latest date for which information is available, the proportion of family income supplement recipients whose declared income, at the time their claim was made, exceeded the level of income above which income tax is payable was 70 per cent.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Benefits – 31 October 1986

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Benefits on 31st October 1986.

    Mr. Marlow Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will introduce legislation to place a limit on the amount of supplementary benefit that can be paid to foreigners, compatible with the respective levels available in their own countries; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Major No. Entitlement to supplementary benefit depends upon immigration status and there is no nationality test. In those circumstances where benefit is payable to a person from abroad, it is at the rate appropriate to the person’s requirements and resources in this country and has no regard to levels of social assistance available in other countries where different costs of living apply.