§ Dr. Godmanasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list, by type of client group, the number and amount of single payments paid in each of the past four years.
Persons over pension age Unemployed Others Year Number of single payments (000s) Amount £ million Number of single payments (000s) Amount £ million Number of single payments (000s) Amount £ million 1982 301 10 701 41 594 37 1983 187 12 966 73 721 57 1984 268 18 1,452 110 1,129 89 1985 442 25 2,007 155 1,670 129
§ Dr. Godmanasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what were the number and amount of single payments by client group type for Strathclyde, Scotland and Great Britain; what were the reasons for payment by regulation and item for the above areas by client group for the years 1983, 1984 and 1985; and what was the average amount paid by type of item generally for the above areas and periods.
§ Mr. MajorThe information requested is available only for Great Britain. The most recent detailed data about the number and amount of single payments by client group and the reasons for payment are available in tables 19.2 and 19.3 of the "Supplementary Benefit Annual Statistical Enquiry 1983", a copy of which is in the Library.
§ Dr. Godmanasked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what mechanism he intends to use to implement his proposals for cuts in single payments; and if he will make a statement;
(2) when he intends to implement his proposed cuts in single payment awards.
§ Mr. NewtonProposals for changes to the single payments regulations are currently the subject of consultations with the Social Security Advisory Committee in the normal way. Final decisions on content and timing of changes will be taken in the light of the outcome of the consultation. Changes to the rules on single payments require amending regulations to be laid before Parliament.
§ Dr. Godmanasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what assessment he has made of the effect of his proposals for cuts in single payments on the number of single payment cases going to appeal; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. NewtonIt is not feasible to quantify the effect which our proposals to change the rules for single payments might have on the number of appeals.
§ Dr. Godmanasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what changes he intends to make in the arrangements for assessing the level of single payments, in the light of the decision of the Social Security Commission in allowing the appeal in the case R(SB) 30/85; and if he intends to establish standard sums and a national price list.
78W
§ Mr. NewtonIn September 1985 the Chief Adjudication Officer and the Department jointly issued circular S36/85 on the pricing of single payment awards, part of which followed the commissioner's decision in R(SB) 30/85; a copy of the circular is in the Library. I have since announced, in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) on 24 February at columns476–78, our proposals for changing the rules on single payments which are currently with the Social Security Advisory Committee for consultation; these provide for a national price list for items of essential furniture and household equipment.
§ Dr. Godmanasked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what criteria he will use to determine the proportional share that each region will be expected to cut from single payment awards;
(2) what will be the proportional loss to Scotland of his proposed cut in single payments; and how much this will correspond to in cash terms.
§ Mr. NewtonThere is no question of DHSS offices in Scotland being expected to make any particular cut in money terms. They will simply be expected to apply the revised regulations to the circumstances of any claims which are made. The aim of the proposals nationally is to bring expenditure on single payments back to around 1984 levels.
§ Ms. Harmanasked the Secretary of State for Social Services to what specific factors he attributes the increase in single payments since 1981.
§ Mr. Major[pursuant to his reply, 10 March 1986, c. 380.]: In 1981, the first full year of the regulated scheme, there was a short-term decline in the number and costs of single payments. Factors in the immediate subsequent increase are likely to be increasing awareness of the new basis and rules of help and changes in the claimant population. The continued rapid expansion in more recent years is less readily explainable. Between 1983 and 1985 the numbers, real cost, and rates of payment for each thousand claimants on benefit at the relevant date broadly doubled. In the light of continuing evidence of disparities between individual offices, different parts of the country and groups of claimants, the Government consider that a particular factor in the continued expansion is the relatively open-ended nature of certain of the qualifying conditions.
79W
§ Ms. Harmanasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his policy towards the use by local authority of publicity campaigns to increase applications for single payments.
§ Mr. Major[pursuant to his reply, 10 March 1986 c. 380]: Our general policy on the use by local authorities of publicity campaigns is to ensure so far as possible they are targetted towards those who are most likely to be entitled to benefit and are planned with the co-operation of our local or regional staff to ensure that the normal work of local offices is not disrupted to the disadvantage of other claimants.
§ Ms. Harmanasked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he has evidence of an increase in fraudulent claims for single payments in (a) Southwark and (b) the country as a whole;
(2) if he has conducted an investigation of fraudulent claims for single payments;
(3) what is his estimate of the amount fraudulently claimed in (a) single payments and (b) all other benefits.
§ Mr. Major[pursuant to his reply, 10 March 1986 c. 380]: By its nature, it is not possible to make a reliable estimate of the extent of benefit fraud either locally or nationally. Evidence given in support of single payments claims can be difficult to verify or challenge but we are aware of examples of claims where there must be considerable doubt about the facts presented.