§ Mrs. BeckettTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether 16 and 17-year-olds who satisfy any one of the conditions of regulation 13(2) of the Income Support (General) Regulations will ever be entitled to income support while in relevant education for longer than the child benefit extension period; and when regulations on these matters will be available.
§ Mr. ScottAmending regulations will be laid before Parliament shortly to ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds who satisfy the conditions of regulation 13(2) (a) to (e) or (h) will be entitled to income support at all times from September 1988.
§ Mrs. BeckettTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the 40 per cent. voluntary unemployment deduction is applied to the income support of those(a) who are not required to be available for work on grounds of severe hardship and (b) who are appealing against a decision that they are not incapable of work; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. PortilloOne of the basic conditions of entitlement to income support is that a person must be available for work unless he or she comes within one of the groups of people who are exempt by regulations from that condition. If a person who is normally required to be available for work is not in fact available, but an adjudication officer is satisfied that refusal of income support would cause hardship to the claimant or his or her family, income support will be paid with a 40 per cent. reduction in the claimant's personal allowance.
If a person who has been sick, and therefore exempt from the availability requirement, is considered by the regional medical officer of the Department of Health and Social Security to be fit for work, and he or she declines to seek suitable work, or places unreasonable restrictions on his or her availability, the adjudication officer may disallow the claim. If the claimant appeals against the decision that he is fit for work, income support can continue to be paid pending the outcome of the appeal. A 40 per cent. reduction in the claimant's personal allowance will be made but there will be no requirement to show hardship in order to receive payment.
In each case the reduction is modified to 20 per cent. if any member of the claimant's family is pregnant or seriously ill and there is less than £200 capital.
§ Mrs. BeckettTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many claimants lost their transitional576W addition because of the change in the Income Support (General) Amendment Regulations 1988 (SI 663) which specified that the disability or higher pension premiums were awarded only if the partner who receives invalidity benefit or severe disablement allowance is the claimant, rather than, as previously, either partner; what was the reason for this change; and what advice was given or is being given to claimant couples in such circumstances.
§ Mr. ScottNo claimants lost their transitional addition as a result of this amendment to the Income Support (General) Amendment Regulations. The amendment affects members of couples, one of whom has been in hospital longer than 52 weeks. In this situation income support no longer treats the couple as members of the same household and requires a separate claim from each partner. However, under the rules governing invalidity pension and severe disablement allowance, any dependency benefit is normally paid to the partner at home. Thus a fully fit person claiming in his or her own right could have qualified for the disability premium by virtue of another person's entitlement to a qualifying benefit.
The change restored the original policy intention. As it was made before 11 April 1988 no claimant lost benefit, and no special advice was or is considered necessary.
§ Mrs. BeckettTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, whether the Government intend to disregard savings or mobility allowance in applying the capital rule for income support; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. ScottNo. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshaw (Mr. Morris) on 17 May 1988 at columns412–13.
§ Mrs. BeckettTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people fail to satisfy the conditions of entitlement to income support because their mobility allowance savings take their capital over the limit allowed; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. ScottI have no knowledge that anyone has failed to satisfy the conditions of entitlement to income support because their savings of mobility allowance exceed £6,000.