§ Mr. Pawseyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his Department's latest estimate of the cost of providing partial incapacity benefit; and how many disabled people are likely to qualify for it.
§ Mr. Rossi:There is a number of ways in which people who are partially incapacitated might be helped if resources were available. One such approach might be a partial incapacity benefit, but the latest estimate by officials of the cost is around £100 million a year. This is necessarily speculative because it is difficult to estimate the number of invalidity pensioners who would take up part-time work and the number of people who would switch from full-time to part-time work. These groups would qualify for a partial incapacity benefit in addition to some 100,000 disabled people already in part-time work.
§ Mr. Richard Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the maximum amount or proportion of benefit which can be deducted at source in order to meet payments for heating and lighting purposes; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. Newton:There is no specified maximum amount or proportion of benefit which can be deducted for fuel bills. Deductions from supplementary benefit for fuel are made 378W up of two parts, an amount towards outstanding arrears and an amount to cover the cost of current consumption. The deduction for arrears is normally fixed at £2.35 a week where the claimant is paying for one fuel debt or £1.20 a week for each fuel if he has both gas and electricity debts. If a claimant has disregarded income, up to half of the amount disregarded may also be deducted, subjected to an overall limit of £3.60. The deduction for weekly current consumption is based upon actual consumption over the previous year. A total deduction for fuel of over 25 per cent. of a claimant's weekly supplementary benefit normal requirements can be made only if he agrees.
§ Mr. Fosterasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many unemployed people in the area covered by the Bishop Auckland constituency have exhausted their entitlement to unemployment benefit; and what percentage of the total unemployed they make up.
§ Mr. Newton:Information is not available in relation specifically to the hon. Member's constituency; but I can give him figures for the Bishop Auckland and Newton Aycliffe unemployment benefit offices, as an approximation. At August 1982, there were 1,500 unemployed claimants at those two offices who had exhausted their entitlement to unemployment benefit. This was 42.8 per cent. of the total number of unemployed claimants at those offices.
§ Mr. Fosterasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people in the area covered by the Bishop Auckland constituency are currently in receipt of supplementary benefit; and how many are(a)pensioners and(b)heads of single-parent families.
§ Mr. Newton:Information is not available in the precise form requested. The numbers claiming from the Department's local office in Bishop Auckland at August 1982 are as follows, rounded to the nearest hundred:
No. All supplementary benefit claimants 12,900 Pensioners 5,100 Single-parent families* 1,000 *Excludes some single-parent families counted under different headings, eg those receiving national insurance benefits and those who are unemployed. Source:
100 per cent. count of claims in action.
§ Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people of employment age are currently in receipt of supplementary benefit in the Keighley area; and what percentage increase since May 1979 this number represents.
§ Mr. Newton:Information is not available in the form requested. However, the numbers of registered unemployed claiming supplementary benefit from the Keighley local office in May 1979 and August 1982—the latest available dates—are as follows, rounded to the nearest hundred.
May 1979 August 1982 Percentage increase 900 3,200 256 Source:
100 per cent. count of claims in action in local offices.
379W
§ 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[pursuant to his reply, 19 October 1982, c. 125]:The text of my letter of 25 August to the hon. Member on the estimated number of persons eligible for certificates of exemption from prescription charges on low income grounds is reproduced below:
In my reply to your question of 19 April about the numbers of people receiving or qualifying for certain means-tested benefits I promised to write to you when I had obtained an estimate of the number of persons eligible for certificates of exemption from prescription charges on low income grounds.An estimate has now been made based on the DHSS analysis of Family Expenditure Survey data for 1979 and is that there were on average about 2½ million people in families in Great Britain whose income at interview was low enough to qualify for free prescriptions. This estimate excludes those who were receiving benefits which carry automatic title to free prescriptions and those who were otherwise exempt from prescription charges.There are various qualifications which must be made about the estimate. First, it is subject to sampling error and, second, it relates only to people living in private households. I should also make clear that the estimate includes within it a number of families who may be entitled to a means-tested benefit but who do not claim it. Any such people who would be entitled either to supplementary benefit or family income supplement would of course have a simultaneous 'passport' entitlement to free prescriptions. However we also estimate that about 230,000 of the 2.5m people apparently entitled to free prescriptions would lose that entitlement were they to take up housing rebates.Finally, entitlement to free prescriptions is, of course, a quite separate matter from having an illness or disability requiring medication. Many of the people within the 2.5m estimate will be in normal good health".The further information requested is as follows, but is subject to the following qualifications:
- (i)The estimates are based on a DHSS analysis of the 1979 family expenditure survey data and are subject to sampling error.
- (ii)They relate only to the population living in private households: persons living in institutions are excluded from the survey.
- (iii)They are based on the family's income in the normal employment situation of the family head.
- (iv)The figures have been rounded to the nearest 10,000 and the totals may not always equal the sum of the component parts.
- (a)The 2½ million people whose income at interview in 1979 was low enough to qualify for free prescriptions were living in 2 million families.
- (b)The numbers in the specified types of families were as follows:
- Single persons with children, 110,000.
- Single persons without children, 1,310,000.
- Married couples with children, 420,000.
- Married couples without children, 170,000.
- (c)About two-thirds of the 21/2 million people were in families where the bread-winner was employed.
380 - (d)The 2 million families were headed by persons in the following age groups:
- 25 and under, 210,000
- 26 to 35, 770,000
- 36 to 45, 440,000
- 46 to 55, 360,000
- 56 to 64, 220,000
- (e)About 100,000 families contained a person receiving sickness or invalidity benefit.
It is hoped that data from an analysis of the 1981 family expenditure survey will become available in late 1983.
§ Mr. Bestasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether there are circumstances in which supplementary benefit can include the extra cost of home help where a charge is made by social services.
§ Mr. Newton:No. Local authorities may reduce or waive charges for home helps, and we have made clear our view that they should not charge people who receive supplementary benefit.