§ Mr. Hillasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate how many householders with 18 to 20-year-olds on supplementary benefit are not receiving housing benefit and yet will be affected by the withdrawal of the £3.10 non-householders contribution; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. NewtonI refer my hon. Friend to the reply to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 19 December 1983, at column53.
§ Mr. Arnoldasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what would be the cost of the extra expenditure incurred in a further relaxation of the full-time work rule to allow the whole of the first month in work to be covered by normal supplementary benefit.
§ Dr. BoysonSufficient reliable data are not available to enable a precise calculation to be made, but it is estimated that the additional cost would be of the order of £9 million a year.
§ Mr. Meacherasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the latest estimates for supplementary benefit take-up, including the total likely to be entitled at any one time, the percentage receiving benefit at that time, the number eligible but not receiving benefit, the estimated benefits unclaimed, and the average weekly amount unclaimed, for, respectively, pensioners, sick and disabled, unemployed one-parent families not included in the previous two categories, and in total.
§ Mr. NewtonThe latest estimates are for 1981. I refer the hon. Member to my hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) on 30 November 1983 at columns539–40.
§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Social Services why a decision has been taken not to report the decision of the social security commissioners in the Tracey McCormick case, which led to the proposed changes in the supplementary benefit regulations concerning the 15-hour rule.
§ Dr. BoysonThe decision whether or not to report a decision is one for the chief social security commissioner alone. In this case the acting chief commissioner, nine other commissioners and four legal assistants did not consider that the case should be reported. The social security commissioner who decided the case did not express an opinion.
§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the date of the McCormick case before the social security commissioners; and what was the name of the commissioner who heard it.
§ Dr. BoysonThe date of issue of the decision was 30 December 1983. The social security commissioner who decided the case was Mr. E. Roderick Bowen QC.
§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many families will lose supplementary benefit under the proposed regulations change affecting school leavers who are treated as dependents but who are nevertheless in full-time work; and what is his best estimate of the public expenditure savings in (a) 1983–84 and (b) 1984–85.
§ Dr. BoysonIt is estimated that the proposed change will affect some 10,000 young persons in a full year. As116W the change is not to come into operation until NOvember 1984 no significant public expenditure savings will arise until the summer vacation in 1985. It is estimated that the savings in 1985–86 will be £1.6 million. It is intended to use just over £1 million of this sum to finance changes in the housing benefit rules which will achieve consistency between the two schemes in the treatment of school leavers.
§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Social Services on what date it is intended to (a) lay before Parliament and (b) bring into force the amendments to the Supplementary Benefit Regulations currently with the Social Security Advisory Committee for consultation.
§ Dr. BoysonIt is intended that the supplementary benefit amendment regulations, the proposals for which were referred to the social security advisory committee on 2 April for consultation, should be laid before the summer recess and that they should generally come into operation in August. The exceptions to this will be those proposals set out in paragraphs 4, 7, 12, 23, 32 and 45 of the note about the proposals which, as indicated in my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) on 2 April, at columns415–16, has been placed in the Vote Office; these are to come into effect in November to coincide with the supplementary benefit uprating.
§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many young people studying in their first three months of unemployment have been denied supplementary benefit because their weekly hours of study have exceeded 15 since August 1982; how many of them have appealed to a tribunal and how many to a Commissioner; and in each case how many have won;
(2) following the decision by the social security commissioners in the case of Tracey McCormick, if he will seek to contact all those young people who have been refused supplementary benefit on the grounds that they have been studying for more than 15 hours a week so that their cases may be reviewed;
(3) if he will issue instructions to local offices of his Department informing them of the decision by the social security commissioner in the case of Tracey McCormick and the effects it has on claims for supplementary benefit by young people who study in their first three months on benefits; and if he will publicise the change;
(4) what is the effect of the decision by the social security commissioner in the case of Tracey McCormick on the claims for supplementary benefit of young people who are studying part-time for between 15 and 21 hours a week if those claims were made (a) before the date of the McCormick decision and (b) after that date.
§ Dr. BoysonI shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.
§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Social Services under what circumstances decisions by a social security commissioner are binding on (a) supplementary benefit officers, (b) tribunals and (c) other commissioners; and whether the fact that a case is reported or not reported has any effect on whether they are binding.
§ Dr. BoysonThe circumstances in which a commissioner's decision is binding are set out in a reported decision of a tribunal of commissioners R(i) 12/75, a copy of which is in the Library. The hon. Member may also 117W wish to refer to the practice direction of the chief social security commissioner dated 28 October 1982 which appears in the 1980–1982 bound volume of "Commissioners' Decisions" at pages ix and x, a copy of which is also in the Library.
§ Mr. Foulkesasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many applications for designation have been made under paragraph 6, schedule 4 of the Supplementary Benefit Requirements Regulations 1983, governing heating systems which are disproportionately expensive to run; how many applications have been refused and on what grounds; and whether any estates have been refused designation because the heating system is too expensive to operate and is therefore not in use.
§ Dr. BoysonA total of 336 formal submissions by local social security offices for estates or groups of estates to be designated as having heating systems which are disproportionately expensive to run have been dealt with, and my right hon. Friend has issued 244 certificates. Because records are not kept of the number of estates covered by individual submissions, it is not possible to say how many estates have not been given a certificate. Records are not kept centrally of the reasons why certificates have not been given in particular cases. But, so far as can be ascertained, a certificate has never been refused solely because the estate's heating system was too expensive to operate and was therefore not in use.
§ Mr. Foulkesasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the single payments paid to claimants under Regulation 26 of the Supplementary Benefit (Single Payments) Regulations relating to severe weather in 1982 and 1983.
§ Dr. BoysonI refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) on 13 February at column95.
North Eastern £ Midlands £ London North £ London South £ Single payment amounts Pensioners 1,673,625 1,827,616 1,606,358 1,220,071 Unemployed 14,157,715 11,063,616 7,106,881 5,333,599 Others 9,200,730 7,937,184 6,975,880 6,046,096 Total 25,032,070 20,828,416 15,689,119 12,599,766
Wales and South Western £ North Western £ Scotland £ National £ Pensioners 1,362,623 1,527,910 2,811,407 12,029,610 Unemployed 7,086,335 11,950,174 17,305,017 74,003,337 Others 5,962,941 8,578,281 12,620,994 57,322,106 Total 14,411,899 22,056,365 32,737,418 143,355,053 Source: 100 per cent. count
§ Mr. Ernie Rossasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to publish his Policy Inspectorate's report on single payments for furniture.
§ Mr. NewtonWe expect to receive the report of the Social Security Policy Inspectorate in the near future and we will then take decisions about its publication.
118W
§ Mr. Durantasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what effect payments of earnings, holiday pay and payments in lieu of notice received on termination of employment have on a person's entitlement to supplementary benefit; and if he will make a statement.
§ Dr. BoysonIt has been our long-standing policy and that of the former Supplementary Benefit Commission to disqualify claimants from supplementary benefit for the consecutive periods covered by earnings, holiday pay and payments in lieu of notice received on termination of employment. The intention was to incorporate this policy in the regulated supplementary benefit scheme introduced in 1980. A tribunal of social security commissioners has, however, recently held that the current regulations do not in fact support the policy intention and that the periods covered by such payments should run concurrently rather than consecutively. I understand that the chief supplementary benefit officer will be seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the commissioners' decision. I have meanwhile today laid before Parliament the Supplementary Benefit (Conditions of Entitlement) Amendment Regulations so as to restore the original policy intention at the earliest possible opportunity. The regulations will come into effect on 10 April 1984.