§ Mr. MeacherTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a breakdown of the saving or cost of each measure announced in his uprating statement on 25 October,Official Report, columns 841–54, indicating where and to what extent the cost is due to uprating in line with the retail prices index, or Rossi index where appropriate, to September 1989.
§ Mr. NewtonAs a result of all the increases in social security benefits I announced on 25 October, expenditure on my Department's programme will be some £2.8 billion higher in 1990–91 than if these were to be left unchanged. Increases in rates for contributory and non-contributory benefits generally were with reference to the September 1988 to September 1989 increase in the retail prices index (RPI) and for income-related benefits with reference to the increase in that index less housing costs (the Rossi index).
Changes going beyond what is statutorily or conventionally undertaken by reference to one of these indices were as follows:
£ million Additional increase in the higher rate of Invalidity Allowance +1 Additional increase of 50p in the family premiums for income related benefits +33 Additional increase of £1 in the Family Credit adult credit +16 Additional increase in the Housing Benefit and Community Charge Benefit lone parent premium +2 Additional increase in the allowance for personal expenses for Income Support claimants in hospital +1 Additional increases in war widows age allowances +3 Additional increase in the adult disability premiums in income-related benefits +18 More than doubling of the disability premium for families with disabled children on income-related benefits +8 Additional increase in the Therapeutic Earnings Limit (less than £1 million see below) In addition I made increases in certain payments and limits for which there is no statutory uprating requirement or established uprating convention:
664W
£ million Increases in Income Support limits for residential care and nursing homes +100 £15 increase in the Social Fund Maternity Payment +3 £5 increase in the War Pensioner's disregard in income-related benefits +4 Increase of £8 in the Invalid Care Allowance earnings limit (less than £1 million see below I also announced various structural changes to help the less-well-off, over and above increases in the benefit rates. The costs of these in the first full year (1991–92) are as follows:
£ million New higher limit on the amount lone parents not on Income Support receiving Housing Benefit or Community Charge Benefit can earn without affecting benefit +11 New higher Social Fund capital rule of £1,000 for elderly people on Income Support +2 £10 Carer's premium in the income-related benefits +15 Extension of Attendance Allowance to the terminally ill without a six month waiting period with consequent extension of Invalid Care Allowance +28 Extension of Attendance Allowance for children under 2 years old with consequent extensions of Invalid Care Allowance + Extension of Mobility Allowance to the deaf-blind +5 Extension of Invalidity Benefit to those on Employment Rehabilitation Courses 1— Additional funds for the Independent Living Fund (1990–91) +19 1 Estimated at a cost less than £1 million together with the additional increase in the invalid care allowance earnings limit and the therapeutic earnings limit mentioned above. I also took account, in deciding on my proposals, of two major improvements which took effect in October in advance of the uprating but entailing substantiallly increased social security expenditure in 1990–91. These were:
1989–90 £ million 1990–91 £ million Abolition of the pensioners' earnings rule +190 +375 Help for poorer pensioners who are disabled or over 75 +85 +199 I also announced increases in statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay. The lower rates will increase in real terms, as will the statutory sick pay standard rate threshold. There will be a lower increase in the statutory sick pay standard rate. Overall, these changes will increase expenditure by some £70 million to £80 million less than raising both rates and thresholds in line with the RPI. Had I decided to increase child benefit in line with the RPI, this would have cost some £250 million net of savings on other benefits.
§ Mr. BattleTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families are currently unable to claim either family credit or income support due to the difficulty of deciding when a pattern of working over 24 hours a week is established; how long on average these families have been awaiting an outstanding claim for either income support or family credit; and how he proposes to ensure that the risk of failing to qualify for either family credit or income support, in such cases, be minimised.
§ Mrs. Gillian ShephardAvailable information suggests that only a few hundred families are unable to qualify for either income support or family credit because the claimant or partner is working for 24 hours or more a week at the time of the claim, but cannot be regarded as normally engaged in such work for family credit purposes because it is casual or short-term. Claims from people in this situation have been dealt with, and decisions issued, as 665W and when they have arisen. We propose to lay regulations shortly to amend the definition of normally engaged in the family credit legislation so as to enable more such families to qualify for benefit.
§ Mr. MaclennanTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether for the purpose of calculating claimants' entitlement to family credit, depreciation is an allowable business expense of which account should be taken to determine the annual net profit of self-employed persons and their average weekly earnings.
§ Mrs. Gillian ShephardNo. Paragraph 22(5)(b) of the Family Credit (General) Regulations provides that in calculating net profit for family credit purposes no deduction shall be made in respect of the depreciation of any capital asset.
§ Mr. Ronnie CampbellTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the latest available figures for the number of families in receipt of family credit in Blyth Valley.
§ Mrs. Gillian ShephardAt the latest available date, the number of families receiving family credit who at the time of their award were living in the area covered by the Blyth local social security office was 700.