§ Mr. Craigenasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, pursuant to his reply of 19 April,Official Report,c.43, to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill, he will publish in theOfficial Reporta copy of his hon. Friend's letter of 25 August, on the estimated number of persons eligible for certificates of exemption from prescription charges on low income grounds and if possible indicate(a)how many families the 2½ million people represent,(b)how many of them are single people with or without children, and married with or without children,(c)how many were in families where the breadwinner was employed,(d)if he will publish the figures by age groups and(e)how many were receiving sickness and invalidity benefit; and how soon he expects more up-to-date data to become available.
§ Mr. Newton:I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.
§ Mr. Ernie Rossasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many unemployed people in Dundee have exhausted their entitlement to unemployment benefit; and what percentage of the total unemployed they make up.
§ Mr. Newton:At August 1982 there were 6,100 unemployed claimants in the area covered by the Dundee unemployment benefit offices, including the associated office in Forfar, who had exhausted their entitlement to unemployment benefit. This was 37.2 per cent of the total number of unemployed claimants in that area.
§ Mr. Ernie Rossasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people in Dundee are currently in receipt of supplementary benefit; and how many are(a)pensioners and(b)heads of single-parent families.
124W
§ Mr. Newton:The numbers claiming from the two local offices in Dundee—including people who live outside Dundee itself—at August 1982 are as follows:
Number All supplementary benefit claimants 20,800 Pensioners 7,000 Single-parent families* 2,200 *Excludes some one-parent families in other groups, for example, widows with national insurance benefits and those who are unemployed.
Source:100 per cent. count of claims in action.
§ Mr. Rookerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what would be the net saving in(a)a full year and(b)the financial year 1983–84 if social security benefits, pensions and child benefits were increased by (i) 2 per cent. and (ii) 2.5 per cent. less than the estimated inflation rate in November 1983; and in each case how much of the saving is attributable to each of the individual main weekly social security benefits, making a distinction between ordinary and long-term supplementary benefit.
§ Mr. Newton:The estimated saving using the assumptions in the latest Government Expenditure Plans (Cmnd. 8494 — H, page 50, para. 14), as amended in the Budget Statement, but taking into account the most up-to-date estimates of the numbers of beneficiaries, would be approximately as follows:
£ million (i)(a) full year (i)(b) part year 1983–84 (ii)(a) full year (ii)(b) part year 1983–84 580 210 725 260 and the amounts attributable to the mainbenefits are: Retirement pension 300 105 370 130 Invalidity benefit 32 12 40 15 Unemployment benefit 32 12 40 15 Supplementary benefit long-term rate 25 10 30 25 ordinary rate 50 20 62 12 Child benefit 80 28 100 35 Others 61 23 83 28
§ Mr. Rookerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if Her Majesty's Government have any proposals to increase social security benefits by less than inflation in 1983 to compensate for an over estimate of inflation this November.
§ Mr. Newton:No decision has yet been made as to whether account should be taken in the November 1983 uprating of any overshoot that may occur this year.
§ Mr. Rookerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what would be the loss in cash terms in the November 1983 benefit uprating if the following benefits were increased by(a)2 per cent. and(b)2.5 per cent. less than the estimated rate of inflation: (i) retirement pension for a single person and adult dependant, (ii) invalidity pension for a single person, adult dependant and each child dependant, (iii) unemployment benefit for a single person, adult dependant and each child dependant, (iv) each of the supplementary benefit scale rates and (v) child benefit.
§ Mr. Newton:If the November 1982 rates of the benefits shown as follows were increased in November 125W 1983 by 2 per cent. or 2 .5 per cent. less than the forecast movement in prices used in determining the 1983 uprating, the following would be the difference in cash terms:
(a) 2 per cent. less£ (b) 2.5 per cent. less £ Retirement pension single person 0.65 0.80 adult dependant 0.40 0.50 Invalidity pension single person 0.65 0.80 adult dependant 0.40 0.45 child dependant * * Unemployment benefit single person 0.50 0.65 adult dependant 0.30 0.40 child dependant * * Supplementary benefit ordinary rate: singlr householder 0.50 0.65 couple 0.85 1.05 long-term rate: single householder 0.65 0.80 couple 1.05 1.30 Dependant person Aged 18 and over 0.40 0.50 16-17 0.30 0.40 11-15 0.25 0.35 under 11 0.020 0.20 Child benefit 0.10 0.15 Notes:
*If child dependency additions (CDA) paid with national insurance benefits were uprated by the same method as used since 1980, the cash difference between various rates would depend on the amount by which child benefit is increased since the uprated CDA would be reduced by the amount of that increase.
(1) The foregoing figures have been calculated on the assumption that the existing rates of benefit would be uprated by the same percentage. The differences illustrated by the figures, derived from the November 1982 benefit rates, would apply generally whatever the forecast movement in prices. In a few instances, depending upon the actual forecast, the amounts could vary by 5p because of rounding effects.
(2) Amounts quoted are rounded to the nearest 5p.