§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people claimed supplementary benefit in Denton and Reddish and Gorton and Stockport, North constituencies in (a) 1979 and (b) 1985; what percentage change that represents; and what was the percentage change in (i) staff handling supplementary benefit and (ii) all staff at his Department's local offices for the same period.
§ Mr. MajorDenton and Reddish constituency is covered by four of the Department's offices, Hyde, Stockport, South, Stockport, North and Ashton under Lyne. Stockport, North constituency is covered by Stockport, South and Stockport, North and Gorton constituency is covered by the offices at Rusholme, Longsight and Openshaw. In each case the boundaries of the offices are not conterminous with the boundary of the constituency.
Comprehensive figures are not available before 1982–83 and information on the number of individuals who claimed supplementary benefit is not available in the form requested.
Information that is available is as follows:
287W
Supplementary benefit staff All staff Ashton under Lyne +36.1 +2.9 Longsight +15.2 +2.3 Rusholme +6.1 -6.2 Openshaw -1.4 -13.6 Direct comparisons between numbers of staff and claims are misleading as work loads vary considerably by type and duration of claim and the action that has to be taken. All these factors vary over time as a result of legislative, policy and procedural changes. Examples of such changes are the introduction of housing benefit and postal claim forms.
§ Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what was the percentage change in (a) staff handling supplementary benefit and (b) all staff at his Department's local offices in Sheffield between 1979 and 1985, inclusive;
(2) how many people claimed supplementary benefit in the Sheffield, Hillsborough constituency in (a) 1979 and (b) 1985; and what percentage change that represents.
§ Mr. MajorSheffield, Hillsborough is covered by two of the Department's offices, Sheffield north-east and Sheffield north-west but their boundaries are not conterminous with the boundary of the constituency.
Comprehensive figures are not available before 1982–83 and information on the number of individuals who claimed supplementary benefit is not available in the form requested. Information that is available is as follows:
Number of new and repeat claims to supplementary benefit (including unsuccessful) Sheffield North-East North-West 1982–83 17,472 23,784 1985–86 15 748 19,962 Percentage change -9.9 -16.1 Number of people receiving supplementary benefit* 1982–83 18,560 16,293 1985–86 19,806 18,418 Percentage change +6.7 +13.0
Number of new and repeal claims to supplementary benefit* Number of people receiving supplementary benefit† Percentage change in complement 1982–83 to 1985–86 1982–83 1985–86 Percentage change 1982–83 1985–86 Percentage change Supplementary benefit staff All staff Salford North 16,828 13,573 -19.3 14,566 16,079 +10.4 +12.0 -5.7 Salford South 11,506 10,202 -12.8 12,111 12,611 +4.1 +9.2 -9.0 * Including unsuccessful. † Based on a 100 per cent. count of cases in action at February. Direct comparisons between numbers of staff and claims are misleading as work loads vary considerably by type and duration of claim and the action that has to be taken. All these factors vary over time as a result of legislative, policy and procedural changes. Examples of such changes are the introduction of Housing Benefit and postal claim forms.
§ Mr. Pikeasked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many people claimed supplementary benefit in the Hyndburn constituency in (a) 1979 and (b) 1985; what percentage change that represents; and what was the percentage change in (i) staff handling supplementary benefit and (ii) all staff at his Department's local offices;
(2) how many people claimed supplementary benefit in the Rossendale constituency in (a) 1979 and (b) 1985;
288W
* Based on a 100 per cent, count of cases in action at February. Sheffield is covered by the two offices above, and the offices at Sheffield south-east and Sheffield south-west. The percentage change in complement for these offices 1982–83—1985–86 is as follows:
Supplementary benefit staff All staff Sheffield South-East +22.0 +2.9 Sheffield South-West +8.7 -4.7 Sheffield North-East +22.2 +7.8 Sheffield North-West +18.2 -1.1 Direct comparisons between numbers of staff and claims are misleading as work loads vary considerably by type and duration of claim and the action that has to be taken. All these factors vary over time as a result of legislative, policy and procedural changes. Examples of such changes are the introduction of housing benefit and postal claim forms.
§ Mr. Carter-Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people claimed supplementary benefit in the Eccles constituency in (a) 1979 and (b) 1985; what percentage change that represents; and what was the percentage change in (i) staff handling supplementary benefit and (ii) all staff at this Department's offices for the same period.
§ Mr. MajorEccles is covered by two of the Department's offices, Salford, North and Salford, South, but their boundaries are not conterminous with the boundary of the constituency.
Comprehensive figures are not available before 1982–83 and information on the number of individuals who claimed supplementary benefit is not available in the form requested.
Information that is available is as follows:
what percentage change that represents; and what was the percentage change in (i) staff handling supplementary benefit and (ii) all staff at his Department's local offices;
(3) how many people claimed supplementary benefit in the Burnley constituency in (a) 1979 and (b) 1985; what percentage change that represents; and what was the percentage change in (i) staff handling supplementary benefit and (ii) all staff at his Department's local offices for the same period.
§ Mr. MajorHyndburn constituency is covered by one of the Department's offices, Accrington. Rossendale and Darwen is covered by two offices, Rossendale and Blackburn and the Burnley constituency is covered by Burnley office. In all of these cases, the offices' boundaries are not conterminous with the boundary of the constituency.
289WComprehensive figures are not available before 1982–83 and information on the number of individuals who claimed supplementary benefit is not available in the form requested.
Information that is available is as follows:
Number of new and repeat claims to supplementary benefit (including unsuccessful) 1982–83 1985–86 Percentage change Accrington 11,305 11,160 -1.3 Rossendale 6,568 6,596 +0.4 Blackburn 18,646 19,970 +7.1 Burnley 21,257 19,531 -8.1
Number of people receiving supplementary benefits* 1982–83 1985–86 Percentage change Accrington 7,526 7,794 +3.6 Rossendale 5,345 5,066 -5.2 Blackburn 14,069 14,945 +6.2 Burnley 15,561 16,463 +5.8 * Based on a 100 per cent. count of cases in action at February.
Percentage change in complement 1982–83 to 1985–86 Supplementary benefit staff All staff Accrington +14.6 -6.4 Rossendale +8.3 -10.4 Blackburn +11.7 -4.5 Burnley +19.8 -5.4 Direct comparisons between numbers of staff and claims are misleading as workloads vary considerably by type and duration of claim and the action that has to be
Number of new and repeat claims to supplementary benefit (inc. unsuccessful) Number of people receiving supplementary benefit* 1982–83 1985–86 Per cent. change 1982–83 1985–86 Per cent. change Farnworth 11,114 11,600 +4.4 9,167 9,946 +8.5 Leigh 12,539 11,552 -7.9 9,386 10,580 +12.7 Salford South 11,506 10,202 -11.3 12,111 12,611 +4.1 * Based on a 100 per cent. count of cases in action at February
Percentage change in complement for the above offices and Salford North 1982–83—1985–86: Supplementary benefit staff All Staff Farnworth (Market Street) +24.1 - 2.6 Leigh (Windermere Road) +28.3 - 1.4 Salford South (Baskerville House) +9.2 -90.0 Salford North (Davenport House) +12.0 -5.7 Direct comparisons between numbers of staff and claims are misleading as work loads vary considerably by type and duration of claim and the action that has to be taken. All these factors vary over time as a result of legislative, policy and procedural changes. Examples of such changes are the introduction of housing benefit and postal claim forms.
290Wtaken. All these factors vary over time as a result of legislative, policy and procedural changes. Examples of such changes are the introduction of housing benefit and postal claim forms.
§ Mr. Terry Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many people claimed supplementary benefit in the Worsley constituency in (a) 1979 and (b) 1985; and what percentage change that represents;
(2) what was the percentage change in (a) staff handling supplementary benefit and (b) all staff at his Department's local office at Market street, Farnworth between 1979 and 1985;
(3) what was the percentage change in (a) staff handling supplementary benefit and (b) all staff at his Department's local office at Windermere road, Leigh between 1979 and 1985;
(4) what was the percentage change in (a) staff handling supplementary benefit and (b) all staff at his Department's local office at Davenport house. Salford between 1979 and 1985;
(5) what was the percentage change in (a) staff handling supplementary benefit and (b) all staff at his Department's local office at Baskerville house, Salford between 1979 and 1985.
§ Mr. MajorWorsley is covered by three of the Department's offices, Farnsworth, Leigh and Salford South, but their boundaries are not conterminous with the boundary of the constituency.
Comprehensive figures are not available before 1982–83 and information on the number of individuals who claimed supplementary benefit is not available in the form requested.
Information that is available is as follows:
§ Mr. Concannonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many people claimed supplementary benefit in the Mansfield constituency in (a) 1979 and (b) 1985; and what percentage change that represents;
(2) what was the percentage change in (a) staff handling supplementary benefit and (b) all staff at the Mansfield offices of his Department over the period 1979 to 1985.
§ Mr. MajorMansfield is covered by one of the Department's offices, Mansfield, but the office's boundary is not conterminous with the boundary of the constituency. Comprehensive figures are not available before 1980–81 and information on the number of individuals who claimed supplementary benefit is not available in the form requested.
Information that is available for the office is as follows:
291W
1980–81 1985–86 Percentage change Number of new and repeat claims to supplementary benefit (including unsuccessful) 15,326 16,230 +5.9 Number of people receiving supplementary benefit* 7,669 13,590 +77.2 * Based on a 100 per cent. count of cases in action at February
Percentage change in complement 1980–81 to 1985–86 Change Supplementary benefit staff +40.3 All staff -12.0 Direct comparisons between numbers of staff and claims are misleading as work loads vary considerably by type and duration of claim and the action that has to be taken. All these factors vary over time as a result of legislative, policy and procedural changes. Examples of such changes are the introduction of Housing Benefit and postal claim forms.
§ Miss Boothroydasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the number of claimants receiving supplementary benefit in West Bromwich, Wednesbury and Tipton in the years 1979 and 1985; and what is the percentage change which the figures represent.
§ Mr. MajorWest Bromwich, Wednesbury and Tipton are covered by the Department's office at West Bromwich, but its boundaries are not conterminous with those towns.
The number of people receiving supplementary benefit from this office in May 1979 and 1985 and the percentage change which the figures represent were:
1979 1985 Percentage change 10,639 21,214 99.4 Source: 100 per cent. count of cases in action.
§ Mr. Ron Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people claimed supplementary benefit in the Carlisle constituency in 1979 and 1985; what percentage change that represents; and what was the percentage change in (a) staff handling supplementary benefit and (b) all staff at the local offices of his Department for the same period.
§ Mr. MajorCarlisle constituency is covered by one of the Department's offices, Carlisle, and the office's boundary is conterminous with the boundary of the constituency.
Comprehensive figures are not available before 1982–83 and information on the number of individuals who claimed supplementary benefit is not available in the form requested.
Information that is available for the office is as follows:
292W
Number of new and repeat claims to supplementary benefit (including unsuccessful) Number of people receiving supplementary benefit* 1982–83 12,387 8,440 1985–86 11,819 8,125 Percentage change -4.8 -3.7 * Based on a 100 per cent. count of cases in action at February.
Percentage change in complement 1982–83—1985–86 Per cent. Supplementary benefit staff +8.8 All staff -5.1 Direct comparisons between numbers of staff and claims are misleading as work loads vary considerably by type and duration of claim and the action that has to be taken. All these factors vary over time as a result of legislative, policy and procedural changes. Examples of such changes are the introduction of Housing Benefit and postal claim forms.
§ Mr. Clayasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people claimed supplementary benefit in Sunderland, North constituency in (a) 1979 and (b) 1985; and what percentage change that represents; and what was the percentage change in (i) staff handling supplementary benefit and (ii) all staff at the local offices of his Department for the same period.
§ Mr. MajorSunderland, North is covered by two of the Department's offices, Sunderland, north and Sunderland, south, but their boundaries are not conterminous with the boundary of the constituency. Comprehensive figures are not available before 1982–83 and information on the number of individuals who claimed supplementary benefit is not available in the form requested.
Information that is available is as follows:
Sunderland North South Number of new and repeat claims to supplementary benefit (including unsuccessful) 1982–83 20,088 15,922 1985–86 21,064 13,925 Percentage change +4.9 -12.5 Number of people receiving supplementary benefit 1982–83 19,43 15,271 1985–86 21,545 16,529 Percentage change +13.1 +8.2 * Based on a 100 per cent, count of cases in action at February.
Percentage change in complement 1982–83—1985–86 Supplementary benefit staff All staff Sunderland North +14.7 -1.3 Sunderland South 0 -8.4 Direct comparisons between numbers of staff and claims are misleading as workloads vary considerably by type and duration of claim and the action that has to be taken. All these factors vary over time as a result of legislative, policy and procedural changes. Examples of such changes are the introduction of housing benefit and postal claim forms.
§ Mr. Andersonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people claimed supplementary benefit 293W in the Swansea East constituency in (a) 1979 and (b) 1985; what percentage change that represents; and what was the percentage change in (i) staff handling supplementary benefit and (ii) all staff at the local offices of his Department over the same period.
§ Mr. MajorSwansea, East is covered by two of the Department's offices, Swansea and Morriston, but their boundaries are not conterminous with the boundary of the constituency.
Comprehensive figures are not available before 1981–82 and information on the number of individuals who claimed supplementary benefit is not available in the form requested.
Information that is available for the above offices is as follows:
Number of new and repeat claims to supplementary benefit (including unsuccessful) Swansea Morriston 1981–82 21,082 8,828 1985–86 20.128 9,146 Percentage change -4.5 +3.6 Number of people receiving supplementary benefit 1981–82 15,246 6,750 1985–86 20,429 8,935 Percentage change +340 +32.4 * Based on a 100 per cent. count of cases in action at February.
Number of new and repeat claims to supplementary benefit (inc. unsuccessful) Number of people receiving supplementary benefit* 1979/80 1985/86 Per cent. change 1979/80 1985/86 Per cent. change Coatbridge 7,637 7,889 +3.3 3,947 6,871 +74.1 Cumbernauld 11,883 14,631 +23.1 4,681 10,294 +119.9 Springburn 10,838 9,334 -13 9 6,484 10,730 +65.5 * Based on a 100 per cent. count of cases in action at February
Percentage change in complement 1979180–1985/86: Supplementary benefit staff All staff Coatbridge AO* +56.5 +56.5 Cumbernauld +92.2 +17.1 Springburn AO* +51.4 +51.4 Coatbridge NIO Not applicable -38.9 Springburn NIO Not applicable -53.7 * Deals only with supplementary benefit. Direct comparisons between numbers of staff and claims are misleading as workloads vary considerably by type and duration of claim and the action that has to be taken. All these factors vary over time as a result of legislative, policy and procedural changes. Examples of such changes are the introduction of housing benefit and postal claim forms.
§ Mr. Corbynasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people in the Islington, North constituency claimed supplementary benefit in 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985 and in 1986, January to June.
294W
Percentage change in complement 1981–82—1985–86 Supplementary benefit staff All staff Swansea +20.0 -0.5 Morriston +21.8 -4.3 Direct comparisons between numbers of staff and claims are misleading as workloads vary considerably by type and duration of claim and the action that has to be taken. All these factors vary over time as a result of legislative, policy and procedural changes. Examples of such changes are the introduction of housing benefit and postal claim forms.
§ Mr. Tom Clarkeasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people claimed supplementary benefit in the Monklands, West constituency in (a) 1979 and (b) 1985; what percentage change that represents; and what was the percentage change in (i) staff handling supplementary benfit and (ii) all staff at the local offices of his Department over the same period.
§ Mr. MajorMonklands, West is covered by five of the Department's offices, Cumbernauld, Coatbridge Area Office, Coatbridge national insurance office, Glasgow Springburn AO and Glasgow Springburn NIO. Their boundaries are not conterminous with the boundary of the constituency. The national insurance offices do not deal with supplementary benefit.
Information on the number of individuals who claimed supplementary benefit is not available in the form requested.
Information that is available for the offices is as follows:
§ Mr. MajorIslington, North constituency is covered by three of the Department's offices Hoxton, Finsbury Park and Highgate but their boundaries are not conterminous with those of the constituency.
Information is available only in relation to the number of new and repeat claims processed by local offices arid figures are collected for the period April to April each year. No details are available for years before 1982–83.
The total numbers of claims processed by these three offices for the years 1982–83, 1983–84, 1984–85, 1985–86 and the numbers to date for 1986 were as follows:
Year Number 1982–83 50,023 1983–84 55,545 1984–85 51,790 1985–86 54,272 *1986 9,541 Source: 100 per cent. count of cases in action. * Period 9 April—1 July.
§ Mr. McCartneyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people claimed supplementary benefit 295W in the Clydebank and Milngavie constituency in (a) 1979 and (b) 1985; what percentage change that represents; and what was the percentage change in (a) staff handling supplementary benefit and (b) all staff at the local offices of his Department for the same period.
§ Mr. MajorClydebank and Milngavie is covered by two of the Department's offices, Clydebank and Glasgow (Maryhill). Their boundaries are not conterminous with the boundary of the constituency.
Information on the number of individuals who claimed supplementary benefit is not available in the form requested. Information that is available for the offices is as follows:
Number of new and repeat claims to Supplementary benefit (including unsuccessful) Year Clydebank Maryhill 1979–80 8,082 12,384 1985–86 7,932 13,770 Percentage change -1.9 +11.2 Number of people receiving supplementary benefit* 1979–80 3,922 8,274 1985–86 6,313 12,179 Percentage change +61.0 +47.2 * Based on a 100 per cent. count of cases in action at February.
Percentage change in complement 1979–80—1985–86 Supplementary benefit staff All staff Clydebank +52.3 +5.9 Maryhill +46.9 +6.3 Direct comparisons between number of staff and claims are misleading as workloads vary considerably by type and duration of claim and the action that has to be taken. All these factors vary over time as a result of legislative, policy and procedural changes. Examples of such changes are the introduction of housing benefit and postal claim forms.
§ Mr. Ron Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has had any representations on the limits on supplementary benefit payments made to maintain physically or mentally handicapped individuals in residential or nursing homes.
§ Mr. NewtonSince April last year, when the present arrangements where introduced, we have received representations from many organisations with an interest in the provision of residential and nursing care for the physically and mentally handicapped. We have also received representations from some interested individuals. Such representations have been taken into account in the changes made in the supplementary benefit limits in November 1985, and those coming into force on 28 July.
§ Mr. Wigleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to ensure that social security offices are empowered, in circumstances where they are satisfied that a real and urgent need exists, to provide first time single householders, without dependants, who are in receipt of supplementary benefit, with financial assistance through his single payments system towards the cost of obtaining those basic items of furnishing and household equipment needed to enable them to live independently in their own homes.
§ Mr. NewtonUnder the revised rules contained in the Supplementary Benefit (Miscellaneous Amendments)296W Regulations 1986 laid before the House on 21 July, single childless householders setting up home for the first time will be eligible for furniture and bedding payments, including the flat rate payment for miscellaneous needs in the following circumstances; moving for a reason specified in regulation 13(1) (payment of removal expenses); leaving prison, hospital after one year, or young person leaving local authority care; moving as part of a planned programme of resettlement or rehabilitation from a resettlement unit or special care hostel or group home; and refugees from abroad. In other circumstances, elderly and disabled claimants will be able to get help without time limits for the revised list of specified furniture items other than the miscellaneous needs payments. Payment for specified furniture items subject to the same exception can also be considered under regulation 30 where the adjudication officer considers such a payment is the only means by which serious damage or serious risk to health or safety can be avoided.
I understand that the Chief Adjudication Officer will shortly be issuing guidance on the revised rules. A copy will be placed in the Library.
§ Mr. Forresterasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people claimed supplementary benefit in Stoke-on-Trent, North constituency in (a) 1979 and (b) 1985; what percentage change that represents; what was the percentage change in (i) staff handling supplementary benefit and (ii) all staff at local offices of his Department over the same period.
§ Mr. MajorStoke-on-Trent, North is covered by one one of the Department's offices, Stoke North ILO but the office's boundary is not conterminous with the boundary of the constituency.
Comprehensive figures are not available before 1980–81 and no information is available on the number of individuals who claimed supplementary benefit throughout the year.
Information that is available is as follows:
Number of new and repeat claims to supplementary benefit (inc unsuccessful) Number of people receiving supplementary benefit* 1980–81 24,476 13,805 1985–86 19,366 18.192 Percentage change -20.9 +31.8 * Based on a 100 per cent. count of cases in action at Febuary.
Percentage change in complement 1980–81–1985–86 Change Supplementary benefit staff +24.3 All staff -7.4 Direct comparisons between numbers of staff and claims are misleading as work loads vary considerably by type and duration of claim and the action that has to be taken. All these factors vary over time as a result of legislative, policy and procedural changes. Examples of such changes are the introduction of housing benefit and postal claim forms.
§ Mr. Barronasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people claimed supplementary benefit in the Rother Valley constituency in (a) 1979 and (b) 1985; what percentage change this represents; and what 297W was the percentage change in (i) staff handling supplementary benefit and (ii) all staff at the local offices of his Department for the same period.
§ Mr. MajorRother Valley is covered by two of the Department's offices, Rotherham North and Rotherham South, but their boundaries are not conterminous with the boundary of the constituency.
Comprehensive figures are not available before 1982–83 and information on the number of individuals who claimed supplementary benefit is not available in the form requested.
Information that is available is as follows:
Rotherham North South Number of new and repeat claims to supplementary benefit (including unsuccessful) 1982–83 5,619 17,991 1985–86 5,571 20,327 Percentage change -0.9 +13.0 Number of people receiving supplementary benefit* 1982–83 5,291 16,713 1985–86 5,520 18,890 Percentage change +4.3 +13.0 * Based on a 100 per cent. count of cases in action at February. The percentage change in complement for these offices 1982–83 to 1985–86 is as follows:
Supplementary benefit staff All staff Rotherham North +22.2 -6.8 Rotherham South +16.5 -4.9 Direct comparisons between numbers of staff and claims are misleading as work loads vary considerably by type and duration of claim and the action that has to be
£ million Rate Rebate Rate Rebates Rent Allowances 1985–86 1986–87 1985–86 1986–87 1985–86 1986–87 Burnley BC 1.4 1.7 3.2 3.4 0.9 1.2 Pendle BC 1.2 1.5 2.8 3.0 0.5 0.6 Hyndburn BC 1.3 1.4 2.4 2.6 0.7 0.8 Rossendale BC 1.1 1.1 2.7 2.9 0.4 0.6 These figures are based on the Councils' estimated expenditure and are subject to revision following submission of their final subsidy claims.