Social Security Matters Research Articles

Parliamentary Questions

Parliamentary Questions is a selection of recent written questions from MPs to government ministers in the House of Commons. The answers highlighted in this section focus on social security matters which may be of general interest to readers. Published in daily and weekly editions of Hansard, questions and answers across a range of issues can also now be found online at www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/ cmhansrd.htm.

Parliamentary Questions

Parliamentary Questions is a selection of recent written questions from MPs to government ministers in the House of Commons. The answers highlighted in this section focus on social security matters which may be of general interest to readers. Published in daily and weekly editions of Hansard, questions and answers across a range of issues can also now be found online at www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmhansrd.htm.

Parliamentary Questions

Parliamentary Questions is a selection of recent written questions from MPs to government ministers in the House of Commons. The answers highlighted in this section focus on social security matters which may be of general interest to readers. Published in daily and weekly editions of Hansard, questions and answers across a range of issues can also now be found online at www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmhansrd.htm.

Parliamentary Questions

Parliamentary Questions is a selection of recent written questions from MPs to government ministers in the House of Commons. The answers highlighted in this section focus on social security matters which may be of general interest to readers. Published in daily and weekly editions of Hansard, questions and answers across a range of issues can also now be found online at www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmhansrd.htm.

Ensuring a moral and social economy in Singapore

This article discusses how Singapore does,which has gone beyond old age and certain traditional aspects, in terms of providing social security for its people. While there are no unemployment insurance benefits because of the economic philosophy of the paternalistic government which believes that maintaining a bouyant economy is the best “insurance”, there are many other unique schemes under the Central Provident Fund (CPF) which try to assure socio‐economic welfare. From housing, the CPF schemes have extended to medical, tertiary education and asset enhancement of CPF members. Inter‐generational provisions are also encouraged which strengthen the family as a very crucial social unit. The government hopes on one hand to give the people some self‐determination and self‐destiny of their choice in social security matters. On the other, it does have many means of ensuring that people make the “right” choices. With budget surpluses, the government has also been able to “top‐up” CPF members’ saving in a few ways. All in all, despite the economic inefficiency one may criticise of enforced saving, for the political economy in Singapore, the CPF mechanism appears to have served its purposes. However, some rethinking especially in terms of privatising more schemes may be wanted by the people in time.

The Sürül Judgment: Equal Treatment for Turkish Workers in Matters of Social Security

AbstractNo Abstract

The Implementation of European Community Equality Legislation on Social Security: International Experiences*

Abstract. The article evaluates the EC Equality Directives in matters of social security adopted by the Council in 1978 and 1986. We ask whether these EC Directives are appropriate instruments to reduce manifest disadvantages women face in the national social security systems. In the first part, some features are singled out in the European pension systems which are particularly disadvantageous to women. In the second, the EC Directives are analysed with respect to their material scope and the underlying normative concepts. Thirdly, some problems with respect to the legislative implementation of the Social Security Directives in the UK, the Netherlands and Germany are discussed. It is argued that the Directives, in prescribing equal treatment, do not lead to substantial improvement for women.

Severe disablement allowance: The old dressed up as new?

Abstract The European Community Directive1 obliging member states to “progressively implement the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security”2 came into force on December 22, 1984 after a lengthy six-year implementation period. Partly to secure compliance with the Directive, changes to the British social security system have been made. Some were phased in during the year preceding the Directive's implementation deadline. This set included the important changes to the means tested Supplementary Benefit and Family Income Supplement, removing the automatic bar to married and cohabiting women's entitlement. Restrictions on married women's access to dependency additions, especially with the short term contributory benefits, were also relaxed.3

A Simulation of the Impact of Introducing Equality for Males and Females into Social Security

Section 1(2) of the 1976 Supplementary Benefit Act states that for a married couple only the husband shall be entitled to claim supplementary benefits (henceforth abbreviated to SB). This rule implies that a family with an unemployed husband and a wife in employment may claim benefits but a family with a husband in employment with equally low earning power and an unemployed wife may not. Thus benefits may be payable to supplement a married woman's full-time earnings, if family income is low enough, but not a married man's. The introduction of equality of treatment for the sexes in other areas, specifically pay and employment conditions, serves only to highlight the inadequacy of the treatment of women for SB. This conclusion has been reinforced by legislation in the EEC which in 1976 adopted a directive covering equal treatment in matters of social security including SB schemes. Internal and external pressure to modify the current system has resulted in the directive being implemented in the UK's Social Security Act 1980. Equality of treatment for SB claimants is to be phased in by November 1983. Previous discussion of this issue by the Supplementary Benefits Commission (1976) has indicated considerable concern over the potential costs of the new arrangement. It is the aim of this paper to indicate the number of families not at present claiming SB who may benefit if the wife could claim it under the same conditions currently facing the husband. In effect, we are asking what number of families will find their incentives to work altered. Such information is essential in any evaluation of the costs involved in the prospective change. On the basis of the traditional work-leisure choice model, we simulate the budget constraint facing each family, and from this simulation we can generate estimates of the number of families who may find their utility levels altered if the wife could claim SB. The remainder of the paper is divided into three sections. Section I discusses the theoretical implications of introducing equality. Section II describes our method of budget simulation, and Section III contains a description of the data set used and the results of the simulation.

The Merging of Social Security Tribunals

The Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Bill (apparently destined to be known as HASSASSA) is making its way through Parliament. It was introduced into the House of Lords, and is at the time of writing in the Committee stage in the Commons. Amongst its varied provisions are quite radical changes to the system of adjudication in social security matters, and in particular the organisation of tribunals. Although there is some opposition to these changes, it seems likely that any amendments will be in matters of detail. Therefore, barring the entire loss of the Bill as a result of any early election, its provisions will come into effect in the next few years.

Brussels Pact Permanent Commission

The Consultative Council's eleventh session was held in Paris on November 13, 1951, with Robert Schuman, the French Foreign Minister, serving as chairman. In addition to international questions, the Council considered the relationship to be established between the Brussels Pact organization and the Council of Europe, agreeing on the terms of a letter on this subject to the latter. It examined the results of cooperation among the five members in the political, social and cultural fields and in civil defense affairs. With the entry into force of the three main multilateral social conventions, the Brussels Treaty countries were offering complete reciprocity to one another in social security matters. It was resolved that practical schemes for cultural cooperation, especially in education, were to continue to strengthen European solidarity.