| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Widowed Mothers
Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the percentage increases in April 1999 in (a) benefits, including child benefit, for the first and subsequent children of widowed mothers and (b) child benefit for two-parent families; and what is the reason for the differences between the percentages in (a) and (b). [59815]
Angela Eagle: The information is set out in the table.
| April 1998 (£) | April 1999 (£) | Increase | Percentage increase | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Widowed mother | ||||
| First child | 21.35 | 24.30 | 2.95 | 13.82 |
| Subsequent children | 20.60 | 20.96 | 0.35 | 1.7 |
| Two parent family | ||||
| First child | 11.45 | 14.40 | 2.95 | 25.76 |
| Subsequent children | 9.30 | 9.60 | 0.30 | 3.2 |
From April 1999 both Child Benefit and the Child Dependency Increases, including those paid to widowed mothers, will be uprated by the Retail Prices Index.
The Child Dependency Increases provide a "top up" to Child Benefit for those who are unable to take up employment. The reason for the difference between the percentages in (a) and (b) is that legislation specifically provides for the rate of Child Benefit to be taken into account when determining the levels of child dependency increases. The method is to calculate what the child
17 Nov 1998 : Column: 525
dependency increase would be if the general uprating percentage were applied, and then to deduct the actual cash increase in Child Benefit. However, from next April, the standard rate of Child Benefit for the eldest child will increase by an additional £2.50, increasing to £2.60 after uprating. To ensure that families on other benefits, including widowed mother's allowance, gain equally from this additional measure they will receive the full £2.60 in addition to the normal uprating.
17 Nov 1998 : Column: 526
Mr. Skinner:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much money has been paid out in (a) industrial injuries benefit, (b) disability living allowance, (c) incapacity benefit, (d) income support and (e) widows pension in each of the last five years for which figures are available at current prices. [59995]
Mr. Timms:
The information is set out in the table.
17 Nov 1998 : Column: 525
| Expenditure (1997-98 prices) | 1992-93 | 1993-94 | 1994-95 | 1995-96 | 1996-97 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industrial Injuries Benefits | 756 | 758 | 769 | 773 | 762 |
| Disability Living Allowance | 2,236 | 3,060 | 3,401 | 4,021 | 4,615 |
| Incapacity Benefit | -- | -- | -- | 8,062 | 7,861 |
| Invalidity/Sickness Benefit | 7,450 | 8,205 | 8,758 | 299 | -- |
| Income Support | 16,761 | 17,784 | 17,836 | 17,654 | 14,820 |
| Widows Benefit | 1,145 | 1,148 | 1,112 | 1,075 | 1,007 |
Notes:
1. Sickness Benefit and Invalidity Benefit were replaced by a single Incapacity Benefit in April 1995.
2. Income Support to the unemployed was replaced by Jobseeker's Allowance (income-based) in October 1996.
Source:
Departmental Report 1998
17 Nov 1998 : Column: 525
Benefit Integrity Project
Mr. Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 10 November 1998, Official Report, column 167, concerning the Benefit Integrity Project, when the special working group will be set up. [60302]
Mr. Timms: At the Disability Benefits Forum meeting on 9 November 1998 it was agreed that a separate working group, comprising a small number of the Forum members and officials, should discuss proposals for a new, active, modern service for Attendance Allowance and Disability Living Allowance; including the replacement of the Benefits Integrity Project. Forum members who expressed an interest have been contacted and the first meeting of the working group, planned for December, is currently being organised.
Residential Living Allowance
Mr. Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 10 November 1998, Official Report, columns 163-64, concerning residential living allowance, when officials were asked to consider whether residential allowance is meeting the objectives of community care, and for what reasons. [60304]
Angela Eagle: Officials began reviewing whether Residential Allowance meets the objectives of community care as part of the comprehensive spending review launched last year. This was in the context of identifying if there were any perverse incentives in the system, and of ensuring that resources are used in the most cost-effective way to produce the best outcomes for adults receiving community care services.
Benefits (Parliamentary Scrutiny)
Mr. Burstow:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to ensure that all
17 Nov 1998 : Column: 526
changes to the eligibility criteria for disability living allowance and attendance allowance are subject to parliamentary scrutiny. [60274]
Mr. Timms:
All legislation is subject to Parliamentary scrutiny. It is already possible to change the eligibility criteria for Disability Living Allowance through regulations which are subject to the negative resolution. We propose to introduce similar powers for Attendance Allowance.
Mr. Burstow:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to extend the mobility component of disability living allowance to children aged under five years; and when such changes will take effect. [60273]
Mr. Timms:
Entitlement to the higher rate mobility component of Disability Living Allowance will be extended to 3 and 4-year-old severely disabled children who have difficulties walking. There is no firm date for implementation, but it is unlikely to be before April 2001.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 22 October 1998, Official Report, column 1182, concerning the absence of revisions to social security expenditure plans since the Comprehensive Spending Reviews, what factors underlie the difference between the social security benefit line in Table 2 of the Comprehensive Spending Review and Table B12 of the pre-Budget report. [60295]
Mr. Darling:
Revisions to the forecasts of Social Security expenditure published in the Pre-Budget Report reflect new information about caseloads and economic assumptions.
17 Nov 1998 : Column: 527
Mr. Steen:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will reinstate the (a) medium rate and (b) high rate of disability living allowance awarded for life on 11 March 1997 to Mr. M. E. Hatcher, 1 Raddicombe Drive, Brixham, Devon; and if he will make a statement on the reasons underlying its withdrawal. [59715]
Mr. Timms:
The administration of Disability Living Allowance is a matter for Mr. Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 16 November 1998:
17 Nov 1998 : Column: 528
The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he will reinstate the (a) medium rate and (b) high rate of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) awarded for life on 11 March 1997 to Mr M.E. Hatcher, 1 Raddicombe Drive, Brixham, Devon: and if he will make a statement on the reasons underlying its withdrawal.
It may be helpful if I explain that entitlement to DLA does not depend on the diagnosis of a condition but on the way in which that condition affects a person on a day to day basis. Decisions are made by Adjudication Officers (AOs) who are statutory office holders. It would be improper for me to comment on, or interfere in their decisions. I can confirm that although an award of DLA may be given for life an AO may reduce or revoke an award on review if the information received indicates that a person's entitlement to DLA has changed.
Mr Hatcher's DLA was reviewed on 29 July 1998 after he requested his care component be uprated to the highest rate. It is for the AO to decide what evidence is required in order to reach a
decision. The evidence used by the AO included the review request, a DLA claim pack received on 19 May 1998, and a report the AO requested from Mr Hatcher's GP. The evidence indicated that Mr Hatcher's care and mobility needs had reduced and he was no longer entitled to benefit.
A further review request provided more information from Mr Hatcher. The AO considered this evidence and decided that he had sufficient night needs for an award of middle rate care only from 2 May 1998 to 1 November 1999 but maintained the decision relating to the mobility component.
Since Mr Hatcher's latest request for a review, the AO decided, with advice from a Benefits Agency Medical Advisor, that a report from the Examining Medical Practitioner should be obtained. Mr Hatcher was invited to attend an examination on 6 November 1998. The doctor who was to carry out the examination has confirmed that the appointment was cancelled on 5 November 1998. A further appointment will not be arranged.
I am sorry I cannot be more conclusive within this reply.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |