The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Benefits

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Benefits – 1 April 1987

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Benefits on 1st April 1987.

    Mr. Ralph Howell Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the total amount paid out in state benefits, including mortgage interest relief, to people earning more than (a) the national average wage and (b) two thirds of the national average wage at the latest date for which figures are available.

    Mr. Major In 1985-86, the estimated cost of mortgage interest relief in the United Kingdom to people with taxable incomes above two thirds average gross adult male full-time earnings (£130) was £4 billion. About £3 billion of this was to people with taxable incomes above average earnings (£195). On the same income basis, the corresponding social security expenditures in Great Britain were £7.2 billion and £3.9 billion in 1985.

    Mr. David Atkinson Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to raise the level of the amount of charitable income that can be disregarded for supplementary benefit purposes.

    Mr. Major We have no plans to raise the level of the amount of charitable income that can be disregarded for supplementary benefit purposes. However, we shall be putting forward proposals to increase the amount of any voluntary or charitable payment that can be disregarded in the new income support scheme from April 1988 from £4 to £5 a week. The disregard level will apply also to the new housing benefit and family credit schemes.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Benefits – 23 March 1987

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Benefits on 23rd March 1987.

    Mr. Frank Field Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what would be the cost of doubling child benefit (a) if the increase was offset against all other child additions for which claimants drawing social security benefits were entitled, (b) if it was offset, additionally, where the increase was larger than any child addition entitlement, against any supplementary benefit entitlement, (c) if it was further offset against any entitlement to national insurance benefits and (d) if the increase was taxed (i) at the rate for higher rate taxpayers at their marginal rate of tax and (ii) at the standard rate where this was applicable.

    Mr. Major Based on benefit rates coming into effect in April 1987, the approximate cost, in Great Britain, would be as follows:

    £ million

    (a) 3,850
    (b) 3,600
    (c) 3,500
    (d) (i) 3,350
    (d) (ii) 2,400

    These figures assume the accumulative effect of the offset measures specified. In addition there would be very substantial administrative costs.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Benefits – 16 March 1987

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Benefits on 16th March 1987.

    Mr. O’Brien Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what will be the total income allowed for a 15-year-old child after 6 April 1987 to a family dependent on supplementary benefit.

    Mr. Major Normally £15.60.

    Mr. O’Brien Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what will be the total supplementary benefit paid to a 16-year-old child after 6 April 1987.

    Mr. Major The requirements of a supplementary benefit claimant depend on his or her individual circumstances; the amount of benefit payable is the amount by which those requirements exceed the claimant’s income, subject to certain disregards. The majority of 16-year-old claimants will get benefit as follows:

    Circumstances and normal weekly requirements

    (a) A member of someone else’s household. £18.75.
    (b) As (a) but with a dependent child. £24.35 plus £10.40 for the child.
    (c) A householder. £30.40 plus appropriate housing costs.
    (d) A boarder. For limited periods which are subject to certain exceptions, an amount for the board and lodging charge plus any meals not included in the charge (subject to certain limits) and £10 for personal expenses. Claimants remaining in the same board and lodging accommodation after the limited period has run out would be paid as in (a).

    In certain circumstances, additional benefit can be paid to meet extra needs such as a special diet.

    Mr. Frank Field asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will make a statement on changes to regulations in the position of young people leaving school at Easter who claim supplementary benefit;
    (2) when he will publish new regulations governing the position of young people leaving school this Easter who wish to claim supplementary benefit.

    Mr. Major [pursuant to his reply, 12 March 1987, c. 297]: We have today laid before the House the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee, and our response, together with regulations giving effect to our proposals. The main purpose of the regulations is to treat local authority custodianship allowances equally favourably with adoption allowances for supplementary benefit purposes; to restore the Government’s policy that supplementary benefit should not be paid to school leavers entered for examinations; to ensure that supplementary benefit is not paid to children who have left school before they may legally do so; and to add to the group of young people who may receive supplementary benefit while they remain at school.

    The regulations also make a number of other changes which the SSAC either made no comment on or agreed need not be referred to them. We welcome the SSAC’s endorsement of all the proposals we put to them. The changes we are making are designed to be consistent with the Government’s policies for young people. We have always believed that they should be encouraged to finish their studies and take their examinations and should remain dependent on their parents while they do so. Benefit arrangements should not be such as to induce them to leave school early and become unemployed. Where they are disadvantaged, we see it as the Government’s duty to help them complete their schooling. And we want to facilitate as much as possible the absorption into normal family life of children who do not have parents caring for them.

  • 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 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 Benefits – 25 February 1987

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Benefits on 25th February 1987.

    Mr. Carter-Jones Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) whether the supplementary benefit board and lodging allowance for people living in residential care homes includes a specific allocation towards each of the following (i) day care, (ii) purchase of clothing and (iii) holidays;
    (2) if he is planning to introduce any extra financial help to people receiving supplementary board and lodging allowance in residential care homes;
    (3) how any specific allocations within the supplementary benefit board and lodging allowance for people living in residential care homes are determined;
    (4) when he is planning to announce the next increase in supplementary benefit board and lodging allowance for people living in residential care homes.

    Mr. Major The supplementary benefit board and lodging allowance for people in residential care homes contains no specific allocations for particular items of expenditure.

    Proposals for increases in benefits for people in homes were announced in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on 12 February at column 362.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Pensions and Benefits – 11 February 1987

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

    Mr. Ashdown Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will estimate the total amount of pensions and social security benefits unclaimed in the last year by persons entitled to such payments; if he has any information on the part played by inadequate skills of literacy and numeracy in such cases; what steps he has taken to overcome relevant difficulties that may be experienced by potential claimants; and if he will make a statement;
    (2) what information is available to his Department on the number of persons entitled to pension or social security benefit whose skills of literacy and numeracy are inadequate; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Major The Department’s general policy is to allow the public to decide, on the basis of clearly stated advice, whether to claim benefits to which they may be entitled. A document design unit ensures that forms distributed nationally are expressed in a language which people with only limited literacy should understand – a fact recognised by the receipt of a number of Plain English awards. Contacts are maintained with 300 interested organizations – including adult literacy groups – which often provide valuable suggestions on document design.

    On a personal level, local office staff are trained to provide a sympathetic information service. This can be at the office, over the telephone or in the person’s own home. More general benefit advice and information is available through the Department’s freephone, supplemented by regular local media broadcasts.

    The Department spends about £6.5 million on media advice, publicity and leaflets. For child benefit and the major contributory benefits, such as retirement pension, it is thought that virtually everyone who is eligible receives the benefit and take-up of one parent benefit is also high amongst those that stand to gain.

    Respondents to the “Family Expenditure Survey”, from which estimates of unclaimed income-related benefits are obtained, are not asked questions relating to their literacy or numeracy, but there is some evidence to suggest that entitlements are less likely to be claimed when the amount is small. Take-up of supplementary benefit expenditure was 89 per cent. in 1983 implying £615 million was unclaimed. About £35 million in family income supplement went unclaimed in 1981.

    First estimates of housing benefit expenditure take-up and more recent estimates for family income supplement should be available shortly.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Benefits – 5 February 1987

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Benefits on 5th February 1987.

    Mr. Ernie Ross Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy to reinstate entitlement to certificated housing benefit and other passported benefits retrospectively to all past and present trainees under the Dundee pilot scheme who were in training prior to 26 January; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Major It is not possible in law to backdate entitlement to certificated housing benefit for a period when supplementary benefit was not payable in the way suggested. However, I refer the hon. Member to my replies to him on 20 November 1986 at columns 333–335 describing the safeguards made for ensuring that trainees at Dundee and elsewhere would be no worse off as a result of participating in the job training scheme.

  • Mr Major’s Written Parliamentary Answer on Benefits – 26 January 1987

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s written Parliamentary Answer on Benefits on 26th January 1987.

    Mr. Pike Asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate for the most recent possible date (a) the cost of extending long-term supplementary benefit to the long-term unemployed and (b) how many claimants would benefit.

    Mr. Major (a) £540 million; (b) 1.2 million claimants.