§ Mr. Ralph Howellasked the Secretary of State for Social Services, with reference to table 2.18 of the Government expenditure plans 1984–85 to 1986–87, Cmnd. 9143-II, if he will give a breakdown of the major components of the figures for social security from 1978–79 to 1984–85.
§ Mr. WhitneyThe information is as follows:
ii. claimants with a pensioner, child, pregnant woman or chronically sick or disabled person in the family;
iii. claimants with no immediate prospect of employment where they have (or the claimant's partner has) been receiving supplementary benefit continuously for six months;
iv. claimants who have just come out of prison, long-stay hospital or other institution.
Claimants in groups (iii) and (iv) only are also subject to the condition that there is no suitable alternative furnished accommodation available in the area. Under the SBC before 24 November 1980, payments for people moving home could be made, broadly, to people in groups (ii), (iii) and (iv) above — and also to those moving home because of bereavement, divorce or marital breakdown (but not the other categories included in group (i)) — without applying the condition of no suitable alternative furnished accommodation. Other claimants could receive help only if they were prevented by lack of essential items from moving out of accommodation which caused them serious hardship or risk to health, and provided that there was no suitable alternative furnished accommodation.
The current rules therefore apply the condition about alternative furnished accommodation to some fit, childless 359W claimants below pension age to whom it did not apply under the SBC; on the other hand, the payments can now be made, without applying the alternative furnished accommodation condition, to a wider group of claimants whose move is necessary (as in group (i) above).
§ Mr. Fatchettasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will take steps to ensure that single payments for furniture, where a claimant is moving to unfurnished accommodation, are made before or as soon as possible after the move.
§ Mr. WhitneyParagraph 7218 of the S manual (a copy of which is in the Library) already instructs local offices to make every effort to ensure that, prior to removal, a single payment is awarded for all items for which the need can be determined before the move. Local offices are aware of the need to identify such claims and to give them priority.
§ Mr. Cowansasked the Secretary of State for Social Services in what respects the information about single payments for furniture in leaflet SB16 are inaccurate.
§ Mr. NewtonThe leaflet gives a simple and comprehensible guide to the circumstances in which people on supplementary benefit are entitled to lump sum payments for special needs; it makes clear that it is not a full and authoritative statement of the law. We have recently revised the leaflet to improve its clarity and to take account of changes to the rules. The revised leaflet will be published on 26 November and copies will be placed in the Library.
§ Mr. Cowansasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he has taken to ensure that adjudication officers are aware of the rules governing entitlement to single payments for furniture, in view of the low level of knowledge revealed in a survey of supplementary benefit officers by Mr. Richard Berthoud of the Policy Studies Institute.
§ Mr. NewtonIt is for the chief adjudication officer to issue guidance to adjudication officers about the supplementary benefit regulations, and we have no power to intervene. Guidance on the regulations governing entitlement to single payments for furniture is contained in chapter 7 (in particular at paragraphs 7171 to 7227) of the S manual, a copy of which is in the Library. Since the survey was carried out by the Policy Studies Institute further guidance has been issued this year by the chief adjudication officer in circulars S8/84 and S 19/84, copies of which are in the Library. My hon. Friend is at present chairing a review—to which the Policy Studies Institute has presented evidence — which is considering the structure of the supplementary benefit scheme as a whole and ways in which the scheme might be administered more effectively.