| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Statutory Sick Pay
Mr. Pond:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate the cost to (a) employers and (b) the Exchequer of extending entitlement to statutory sick pay to employees with earnings below the lower earnings limit for national insurance contributions assuming that (i) entitlement is at the standard rate of SSP
29 Jul 1997 : Column: 248
and (ii) entitlement is limited to a replacement of normal earnings, giving figures (1) gross and (2) net of any savings in other benefits. [8197]
Mr. Denham:
The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.
We aim to ensure a measure of financial help for people during short periods of sickness; to support employers, particularly small businesses, in their administration of the statutory sick pay scheme; and to secure value for taxpayers' money.
Based upon Government Actuary's Department best estimates of SSP case load, it is estimated that providing sickness cover to employees earning below the lower earnings limit equivalent to the standard rate of SSP would cost approximately £120 million at 1996-97 levels.
Mr. Pond:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate the effect on Government revenues in a full year of a 1 per cent. change in the employers' standard recovery rate for statutory maternity pay. [8200]
Mr. Denham:
We aim to help women balance their careers and family responsibilities; to support employers, particularly small businesses, in their administration of the statutory maternity pay scheme; and to ensure value for taxpayers' money.
The standard recovery rate of SMP for large employers is 92 per cent. It is estimated that a 1 per cent. adjustment in the standard rate would lead to a change in Government revenues of £5 million in 1998-99. Small businesses are able to recover SMP costs in full.
Mr. Forth:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will give for the review of regulations restricting the eligibility of single claimants other than young people to accommodation costs (a) the expected completion date and (b) the cost of conducting the review.[8255]
Mr. Keith Bradley:
The decision to revoke the regulations, which would have restricted housing benefit for single claimants aged 25 to 59, was announced on 18 June by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
The draft regulations to bring about the change were referred, in accordance with the statutory requirement to do so, on 11 July to the social security advisory committee and the local authority associations for their consideration. Subject to their views, the regulations will be made and laid as soon as possible.
The review was conducted as part of the Government's overall review of the package of measures we inherited from the previous Administration. It was an internal review, carried out as part of the Government's day-to-day business. I am therefore unable to give a cost which relates specifically to this issue.
29 Jul 1997 : Column: 249
Ms Walley:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much her Department spent on stationery provision in respect of paper items in each of the last five years. [8868]
Mr. Field:
Information is not available in the format requested.
Details of departmental expenditure on printing and stationery in the last five years are as follows:
Mr. Gordon Marsden:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are currently claiming housing benefit in Blackpool. [8681]
Mr. Keith Bradley:
At the end of November 1996, there were 14,910 recipients of housing benefit in Blackpool. A recipient may be a single person or a couple.
Mr. Brady:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to vary benefit disregards for the disabled. [8909]
Mr. Keith Bradley:
We are committed to a review with the objective of reducing poverty and welfare dependency and promoting work incentives. Provision for disabled people will form part of that review.
Mr. Healey:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to review the Social Security (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1997 as they relate to the backdating of industrial injuries disablement benefit, with particular references to the award of benefit to claimants suffering industrial injury from asbestosis or mesothelioma; and if she will make a statement. [8933]
Mr. Denham:
In our manifesto we promised to build a modern welfare state. The publication of the Social Security Bill on 10 July 1997 was a key step towards this aim.
We are determined that making a claim should be a straightforward matter for those entitled to benefit. The Social Security Bill provides for equal treatment when claiming social security benefits, including industrial injuries disablement benefit, with entitlement for a past
29 Jul 1997 : Column: 250
period restricted to one month. Those suffering from asbestos related diseases have benefited from improvements to the rules that came into force from 9 April 1997, which include the removal of the 90-day waiting period for sufferers from mesothelioma and the widening of the range of occupations covered for this disease.
Miss McIntosh:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will give an undertaking that the value of SERPS will be uprated in exact line with prices during the lifetime of the present Parliament. [8991]
Mr. Denham:
We have announced a wide-ranging review of all aspects of pensions. Our long-term objective is to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to build up an adequate pension to guarantee security in retirement. We will retain SERPS for those who wish to remain in it and introduce a citizenship pension to help people who lose out on pension entitlements because they assume responsibility as carers.
We aim to build a society in which there is a wide consensus on the future for pensions, both now and tomorrow, and to provide dignity in retirement for the whole nation.
The Government have no plans to bring forward in the review proposals to change the uprating of SERPS.
Mr. Webb:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate the cost of raising the addition to the basic state pension for those aged 80 years or over from 25p to (a) £3 per week and (b) £5 per week, assuming no change in the thresholds for means-tested benefits. [9320]
Mr. Denham:
We believe that all pensioners should share fairly in rising national prosperity and are committed to examine the means of delivering more help to the poorest pensioners--many of whom are over 80. We will retain the basic state pension as the foundation of pension provision, increasing it at least in line with prices.
The estimated net cost of increasing the 25p age addition paid to those pensioners aged 80 years and over is £200 million and £350 million a year respectively.
Mr. Denham:
We have announced a wide-ranging review of all aspects of pensions. Our long-term objective is to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to build up an adequate pension to guarantee security in retirement.
29 Jul 1997 : Column: 251
We aim to build a society in which there is a wide consensus on the future for pensions, both now and tomorrow, and to provide dignity in retirement for the whole nation.
1992-93: £45,405,909
1993-94: £53,417,645
1994-95: £53,741,136
1995-96: £64,162,566
1996-97: £58,229,968.
Notes:
1. Departmental expenditure on printing of forms, leaflets etc. and procurement of desk top equipment such as staplers, pens, calculators and paper is brought to account against one general heading of "printing and stationery".
2. The production costs of instruments of payment--such as order books and girocheques--are not included as a general printing and stationery expense.
Source:
Housing Benefit Management Information System, quarterly 100 per cent. case load count with and without income support taken at the end of November 1996.
Note:
Figures are rounded to the nearest £10 million.
Source:
Mr. Garnier:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost of the extra 25p to pensioners over the age of 80 years; what was the cost of its administration in each year since 1992; and what estimate she has made of the cost of each in each of the next five financial years. [11072]
Gross costs provided by Government Actuary's Department. Net costs taking account of income related benefit offsets have been calculated by the Department of Social Security Analytical Services Division.
| Year | Estimated expenditure on age addition £ million |
|---|---|
| 1992-93 | 29 |
| 1993-94 | 30 |
| 1994-95 | 31 |
| 1995-96 | 31 |
| 1996-97 | 32 |
| 1997-98 | 32 |
| 1998-99 | 31 |
| 1999-00 | 31 |
| 2000-01 | 32 |
| 2001-02 | 33 |
1. Estimates have been prepared by the Government Actuary's Department. Recipients of retirement pension, non-contributory retirement pension and industrial industries death benefit are included. Estimates for past years are based on the actual numbers over 80 on each benefit in question.
2. Estimates are in cash prices and rounded to the nearest £1 million. They relate to the gross cost of the addition, i.e. any income-related benefit effects of not paying the addition are not taken into account.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |