HC Deb 12 June 1984 vol 61 cc446-7W
42. Mr. Patchett

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how his Department advises local offices to assess the value of food parcels which may be received by families on supplementary benefit.

52. Mr. Flannery

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what value his Department has advised local offices to place on gifts of firewood to families on supplementary benefit.

54. Mr. Bermingham

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what advice his Department has recently given concerning gifts or loans to families on supplementary benefit being regarded as income in kind.

55. Mr. Sedgemore

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the definition, that firewood and food parcels count as income in kind, will now be applied not only to those in dispute but to all on supplementary benefit.

Dr. Boyson

The issue of guidance to local adjudication officers is the responsibility of the Chief Adjudication Officer. General guidance on the treatment of income in kind is contained in paragraph 6820 of the "S" manual. Solely by way of clarification of the existing regulations and in response to inquiries from local adjudication officers, the Chief Adjudication Officer has recently issued additional guidance on matters relating to the miners dispute. The guidance does not alter the policy in any way: income in kind has been treated in the same way as cash income since the days of the National Assistance Board. Copies of the "S" manual and this additional guidance are held in the Library.

45. Mr. Evans

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what would be the annual cost of paying the long-term rate of supplementary benefit to all those aged 50 years and over who have been unemployed for over two years.

Dr. Boyson

It is estimated that the cost of extending the supplementary benefit long-term scale rate to unemployed claimants aged 50 and over after they had been in receipt of supplementary benefit for two years would be about £53 million.

48. Mr. Skinner

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now withdraw his Department's guidelines regarding supplementary benefit deduction to miners' families in respect of help with food given by miners' wives, support groups and others; and if he will make a statement.

Dr. Boyson

The issue of guidance to local adjudication officers is a matter for the Chief Adjudication Officer. I understand that he does not propose changing the guidance in the S manual or the additional guidance which has been issued during the miners' dispute, copies of which are in the Library.

56. Mr. Clay

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services in taking account of the value of gifts regarded as income in kind, if his Department will be instituting special checks on the number and frequency of such gifts.

Dr. Boyson

In claiming supplementary benefit it is for the claimant to declare what resources he has, including any income in kind. We have no plans to introduce any special checks.

Ms. Harman

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what increased expenditure there has been in the first quarter since November 1984 compared with the same quarter in 1982–83 and which arose from the amendment of supplementary benefit requirement regulation No. 9.

Dr. Boyson

Information on payments to people in board and lodging accommodation is collected each December in the annual statistical inquiry. Figures for December 1983 are not yet available, so no comparisons can be drawn.

Ms. Harman

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the working group to monitor the impact of changes in supplementary benefit requirement regulation No.9 which was referred to by the Minister for Social Security at a meeting with directors of social services on 29 February is being set up.

Dr. Boyson

I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.

Ms. Harman

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what value for money in services for the elderly has been brought about by the increase in expenditure as a result of changes in supplementary benefit requirement regulation No. 9.

Dr. Boyson

The changes in the supplementary benefit requirements regulation No. 9 were intended to strike a balance between ensuring that claimants were paid enough to enable them to obtain accommodation and care of a suitable standard, and safeguarding public funds. This was done by abolishing the previous open-ended obligation to meet any charge, however high, in certain circumstances and substituting improved arrangements for determining basic entitlement. Consultation on the proposed changes drew criticism that the local limits on the amounts payable had been set unrealistically low in some areas in the past and that this had caused hardship. Care was taken to ensure that the new limits were set at a realistic level and in some areas this resulted in significant increases.

Information on current levels of spending is not yet available. We shall however, pay close attention to data on expenditure as we monitor the impact of the changes and shall be considering whether more could be done to secure value for money.