§ Mr. John Grantasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much money was paid in unemployment benefit from his Department's offices covering the London borough of Islington in each of the years from 1979 to 1982, inclusive; and what is the percentage increase or decrease involved between 1979 and 1982 inclusive in both cash and real terms.
§ Mr. NewtonThis information can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
§ Mr. McTaggartasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the number of people claiming supplementary benefit in Glasgow in each of the past five years.
§ Mr. NewtonThe numbers of supplementary benefit cases in action in Glasgow local offices for each of the last five years were as follows:
February thousands 1979 77.5 1980 76.3 1981 84.5 1982 97.9 1983 118.9 Source: 100 per cent count of cases in action.
§ Mr. Higginsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services why questions 12 and 13 on form CH 126 must be answered if the persons concerned have been continuously present in the United Kingdom but not if they have been abroad for one day.
§ Mr. NewtonPersons who receive this form are required to answer questions 12 and 13 only if they have not been continuously present in Great Britain since the date stated on the form.
95W
§ Mr. Higginsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services under what circumstances a member of the Civil Service is qualified or disqualified for child benefit when a person not a civil servant in the same circumstances would be disqualified or qualified; and what the relevance of the Department of the Civil Service is to child benefit entitlement.
§ Mr. NewtonProvided that circumstances, such as liability to United Kingdom income tax, are the same, a member of the Civil Service and a person who is not a civil servant have equal entitlement to child benefit. The question on form CH 126 about a civil servant's Department provides a check that the civil servant has not been seconded, for example, to another Government or comparable international organisation and may obviate the need for further inquiries about liability to United Kingdom income tax.
§ Mr. Higginsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services under what circumstances a person who has been domiciled and resident in the United Kingdom since birth and has paid in full all taxes and national insurance contributions is not entitled to child benefit because they have been abroad for any period.
§ Mr. NewtonIf a person responsible for a child and entitled to child benefit is absent abroad temporarily, or for less than 26 weeks, then child benefit may continue in payment. In the case of a longer absence, entitlement may be reinstated immediately on return to Great Britain if the absence was for not more than three years or if the person or that person's spouse becomes employed or self-employed. Otherwise entitlement may be reinstated after being in Great Britain for at least 182 days in the preceding 52 weeks.
Child benefit is not payable if a child is absent abroad from Great Britain for more than 182 days in the preceding 52 weeks, and had not been receiving full-time education abroad in a continuous period of up to three years, or is not being treated for illness.
The rules are complex and if my right hon. Friend has a particular case in mind, I shall gladly look into it if the details are provided.
§ Mr. Higginsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether a foreign national who has never paid any taxes or social security contributions is entitled to child benefit if they have been continuously present in Great Britain since 10 October 1981; and if they are not why they have only to answer the first question on form CH 126.
§ Mr. NewtonYes, provided that his children also satisfy the conditions for presence in Great Britain. Child benefit would not, however, be payable if the tax exempt income of that person or his spouse were to exceed the total income chargeable to tax in the United Kingdom.
§ Mr. Higginsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether form CH 126 issued by his Department is intended only for immigrants.
§ Mr. NewtonNo. It is issued to all claimants who have indicated that they have not been continuously present in Great Britain during the 53 weeks preceding their claim.
§ Mr. Austin Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Social Services, further to his reply dated 14 March, 96W Official Report, c. 50–51, concerning the cost of extending unemployment benefits, whether he will provide in each case the net benefit cost and the savings in other benefits.
§ Mr. RossiWith regard to the abolition of the one-year limit on entitlement to unemployment benefit, the estimated cost to the national insurance fund of £1,650 million in 1982–83 would have been offset by estimated savings in other benefits of about £1,200 million. The net cost would therefore have been about £450 million An up-to-date estimate of savings in 1983–84 is not immediately available, but I shall let the hon. Member have an estimate as soon as possible.
It is not possible to provide a reliable estimate of the savings on other benefits if earnings related supplement were restored, as there is no information available on the amounts of the supplement for which those presently receiving supplementary benefit would become eligible.