The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Category: 1983-1987 Parliament

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on the Supplementary Benefits Handbook – 26 February 1986

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on the Supplementary Benefits Handbook on 26th February 1986.

    Mr. Frank Field Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to publish the November 1985 “Supplementary Benefit Handbook”; and if this will include an up to date guide to the Government’s board and lodging policy.

    Mr. Major I refer the hon. Member to my hon. Friend’s reply the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) on 12 February, at column 496.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Form F1D – 26 February 1986

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Form F1D on 26th February 1986.

    Mr. Weetch Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) whether he will consider redesigning and simplifying the form F1D;

    (2) what is the average length of time taken to process the form F1D from when it is received by the local social security office to its despatch to patient and dentist.

    Mr. Major We are considering how best to redesign and simplify form F1D in connection with the social security review changes.

    Statistics are not kept routinely on the average length of time taken by local offices to process this form, so that this information could be obtained only by means of a special exercise, which would be disproportionately expensive. However, a recent survey of 20 offices has shown that 80 per cent. of claims for all agency benefits were processed within three weeks.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on the Pensioners’ Charter – 25 February 1986

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on the Pensioners’ Charter on 25th February 1986.

    Mr. Livsey Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received from the National Federation of Retirement Pensioners Associations on the pensioners’ charter, a copy of which has been sent to him.

    Mr. Major We have received a substantial number of representations from individual members of the National Federation of Retirement Pensioners, both directly and through hon. Members. My right hon. Friend expects shortly to meet a delegation from the national executive of the federation in order to discuss the pensioners’ charter and other issues.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on the Family Income Supplement (Leicester) – 25 February 1986

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on the Family Income Supplement (Leicester) on 25th February 1986.

    Mr. Janner Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many recipients of family income supplement there were in the years 1980 to 1985 from the office of his Department in (i) Lower Hill street, Leicester and (ii) Yeoman street, Leicester.

    Mr. Major I regret that this information is not available. Family income supplement claims are dealt with by one centre at Blackpool and no information is maintained about claims from particular local areas.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on the State Pension – 25 February 1986

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on the State Pension on 25th February 1986.

    Mr. Kirkwood Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has any plans to uprate the state basic pension to bring it more into line with the increase in earnings.

    Mr. Major I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend’s statement to the House yesterday at columns 680-81, on the subject of the uprating of social security benefits.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Resettlement Units – 25 February 1986

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Resettlement Units on 25th February 1986.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what progress is being made in the consultation on the replacement of resettlement units; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Major In each of the Department’s seven social security regions review teams have been set up to consider future resettlement provision for the single homeless and rootless. The teams, with members from both statutory and voluntary organisations as well as the Department, are looking at the existing network of services and the level of demand and will make recommendations on the type and range of facilities that should replace the 15 resettlement units outside London. Five regions have produced interim reports dealing with the proposals they have received to date: local authority housing departments have been involved in most of the larger urban areas and several have expressed an interest in providing direct access hostels. In general voluntary agencies are concentrating on second stage hostels.

    Officials have asked review teams to report substantively by the spring, when it is hoped to mount a national conference at which nominees from the review teams and representatives of local authority associations and national agencies dealing with the single homeless will discuss the reports and the national framework for resettlement which they suggest. Ministers will consider the recommendations arising from the exercise later this year.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Residential Care Homes – 25 February 1986

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Residential Care Homes on 25th February 1986.

    Mr. Corbyn Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of residents in private or voluntary care homes for the elderly are physically disabled.

    Mr. Major I regret that the information is not currently available. However, the Department is engaged in discussions with the local authorities with a view to introducing an improved data collection system. This will provide information on the number of persons in residential care by disability as well as by age.

  • Mr Major’s Parliamentary Answer on Housing Benefit – 25 February 1986

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Parliamentary Answer on Housing Benefit on 25th February 1986.

    Mr. Favell Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of the domestic ratepayers in (a) Liverpool, (b) Manchester, (c) Stockport and (d) England and Wales as a whole receive housing benefit.

    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Major) We estimate that in 1984-85 the proportion of ratepayers receiving a rate rebate in the four areas was approximately 50 per cent., 57 per cent., 31 per cent. and 35 per cent. respectively.

    Mr. Favell Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures demonstrate the desirability of a reform of the rating system on the lines outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment?

    Mr. Major I concur with that point, as housing benefit now goes a long way up the income scale and many of us feel that it goes an undesirably long way up that scale.

    Mr. Eastham Do those figures project an idea to the Minister of the sheer poverty that is being experienced in some major cities? Is it not about time that there was a complete review of the benefits and subsidies that are a burden on the ratepayer? Ought they not to be a burden on the Government?

    Mr. Major The figures show that housing benefit now goes to one household in three, and that is a remarkable statistic. The benefit has doubled in real terms over the past five years and is still a substantial amount of money.

    Mr. Tony Lloyd The Minister said that 57 per cent. of ratepayers in Manchester receive housing benefit. Is that not, even for this Government, a shocking indictment showing the poverty level of wages in Manchester and the number of people who are dependent on state benefits and who have to claim housing benefit? Should not the Government be doing something about poverty in the urban areas?

    Mr. Major I am not sure to what extent the hon. Gentleman’s point arises directly from the main question. However, what clearly arises from the hon. Gentleman’s question and the answer is the extent to which housing benefit exists to help those people.

    Mrs. Beckett Does the Minister’s answer not show, first, how rents and poverty have increased under this Government; secondly, that the only way for someone to get housing benefit reasonably high up the income scale is if their rent is well above average; and, thirdly, how much damage will be caused by the proposal to make all such people pay 20 per cent. of their rates?

    Mr. Major I do not believe that any of those propositions is correct. Even after the changes in housing benefit, expenditure is still above the 1979 levels. Future proposals for local government finance are still under consultation and we must wait to see what emerges from them.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Benefits (Claimants) – 24 February 1986

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Benefits (Claimants) on 24th February 1986.

    Mr. Wigley Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many persons, registered for social security purposes as having no fixed address, and claiming benefits from local offices of his Department in (a) Cardiff and (b) Swansea, respectively, are former inpatients at mental hospitals.

    Mr. Major I regret that no information is available centrally on the number of persons claiming social security benefits at Cardiff and Swansea local offices who had no fixed address and were former in-patients at mental hospitals.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Benefit Payments – 21 February 1986

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Benefit Payments on 21st February 1986.

    Mr. David Marshall Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people in Scotland without full contribution records have received reduced national insurance benefit payments for each of the last five years; and what was the average payment for each year.

    Mr. Major The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.