Funeral Expenses (Hansard, 5 November 1991)

§ Sir John Hunt (Ravensbourne)
I am very glad to have the opportunity to raise a matter that was first brought to my attention at my constituency surgery on 6 July this year. That morning I received a call from Mrs. E. M. Serbey, an elderly widow living in Hayes, in my constituency. She told me of her distress that her claim for a social fund payment to meet the funeral expenses of a Mr. William H. Newlyn had been rejected.
Mr. Newlyn, who was disabled, had been a lodger at Mrs. Serbey's home. When he died, she paid for his funeral out of her own pocket and out of the goodness of her own heart, simply because no one else would take on the responsibility. It therefore came as a great shock to her when she was subsequently informed that her claim for reimbursement of the funeral expenses had been rejected by the Department of Social Security—a decision which, I concede, was later upheld on appeal.
The problem, and the complication, is that, although Mrs. Serbey was in receipt of community charge benefit both before and after the date of the funeral, and continues to be so entitled—and thus eligible for funeral payment—it seems that, owing to an oversight, she failed to complete the reapplication form for the benefit when it was sent to her by Bromley council in August last year. As no form had been received by Bromley council by 11 November, her claim expired.
Mrs. Serbey's benefit payments were then not restored until 14 December. There was thus a gap of approximately a month, during which Mr. Newlyn's funeral took place. The crucial point, as I see it, however, is that Mrs. Serbey remained technically entitled to community charge benefit throughout that period. As far as I am aware, that is not in dispute.
I therefore wrote to the Minister on 9 August, setting out the facts of the case and asking whether, in view of the special and unusual circumstances, a payment to Mrs. Serbey could be authorised to cover the funeral costs. Although my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, who replied, was sympathetic to Mrs. Serbey's predicament, I am afraid that her response was otherwise negative and disappointing. She declined to make the ex gratia payment for which I had been asking.
It was at that point that I decided to pursue Mrs. Serbey's claim by means of an Adjournment debate. In the meantime, she is being pressed for payment by the funeral directors, Messrs. J. and R. Killick, who have shown great patience but who are now understandably anxious for their account in the sum of £803 to be settled.
As a result of an act of kindness, Mrs. Serbey is being subjected to very considerable stress and anxiety. She assures me that she has no other way of raising the sum of money involved. Moreover, she tells me that she is having sleepless nights because of her worries about how the money is to be found. I look to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, whose kindness and consideration in these matters is well known to the House, to redress what I regard as a great unfairness and relieve the anxieties of an elderly widow living in my constituency.

§ The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Sir J. Hunt) for the clear and measured way in which he has set out the case for his constituent. He is well known for his sympathetic attitude to cases such as this, and he has stated Mrs. Serbey's case in a very compelling way. It is an unfortunate case. When these problems arise, they are usually combined with grief and worry for the person concerned. I take this opportunity to extend my sympathy to my hon. Friend's constituent in her bereavement and the subsequent difficulties she has faced.
There is no dispute between my hon. Friend and me as to the facts of the case as he outlined them. There are, however, two important points that I wish to make clear now. First, Mrs. Serbey's claim is still the subject of an appeal that has been adjourned, pending further information which is being obtained from the London borough of Bromley.
Secondly, and in parallel with that, one of the members of staff from the district office of the Benefits Agency who is dealing with Mrs. Serbey visited her recently to see whether it might be possible to help her further immediately. The visit was arranged because Mrs. Serbey's circumstances have changed since her original claim. The final outcome is still not settled, but I can assure my hon. Friend that officials are doing everything that they can to help his constituent in her present difficulties.
I will, if I may, briefly set out the background to the Government's general policy and arrangements for help with the cost of funerals. My hon. Friend will be aware that there has been a series of different arrangements. The original death grant was a fixed sum benefit, introduced in 1949. Only those who had paid the relevant contributions were eligible. The death grant was eventually abolished in 1987. Then there were exceptional needs payments and later single payments to people who received supplementary benefit. The payments made special provision for a small number of low-income households which had responsibility for the funeral of a close relative.
After 1987, those schemes were replaced by the current social fund funeral payments scheme. In my view, it has a number of important and valuable features. It provides a more effective way to target resources than the previous schemes. At the same time, it has extended the range of people on low incomes who are eligible for help. The move to include people on family credit, housing benefit and community charge benefit, as well as those on income support, has meant a significant increase in the number of low-income groups who receive real help with the cost of a funeral. It is a self-indexing scheme. No longer do we have to set an amount and uprate it by some index. Because entitlement is to the cost of a simple funeral, as the cost of funerals rises, the sum to which those people are entitled rises automatically.
The other point, which is of significance in the case of Mrs. Serbey, is that it is a regulated, not a discretionary system. It is not up to adjudication officers to use their discretion. If the regulations are followed, a person who qualifies will receive a funeral payment.
In general, the scheme is working well. There were almost 50,000 awards in the last financial year, costing about £30 million. The average cost per funeral was just over £600. Over a third of these awards went to people 428 who were not on income support but on one of the other benefits, usually housing benefit, but in the case of Mrs. Serbey it was community charge benefit.
No matter how well a scheme works—I believe that the scheme is working in a sensible and sensitive manner—there will always be difficulties for some individuals, and that is the case for my hon. Friend's constituent. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, Mrs. Serbey was not awarded a funeral payment, because she was not receiving a qualifying benefit at the appropriate time—her qualifying benefit was community charge benefit.
As I have said, I regret that there is a limited amount I can say about this case at this time, as there is still an outstanding appeal against the decision of the adjudication officer. It would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail prior to the outcome of that appeal. This appeal has been adjourned until further information is obtained from the borough which is responsible for the award of community charge benefit. As I have already said, our local office is trying its best to see whether there is any other way in which they can help Mrs. Serbey.
The main reason why the problem arose—there is no difference between my hon. Friend and myself on this—is that, for a brief period, Mrs. Serbey did not claim community charge benefit. However, as my hon. Friend said, there was no lack in her underlying entitlement to the benefit. I am always sorry when someone loses by claiming too late, benefit to which they might have been entitled. The Department and the agencies do everything possible, through forms, leaflets, freeline services and other methods, to alert people to the benefits available and the time limits for claiming them. Local social security offices, citizen's advice bureaux and other organisations cooperate with us in trying to achieve that.
However, I think that my hon. Friend will agree that it is for the individual concerned to ensure that they have claimed all the benefits appropriate to their circumstances. In this case, the benefit is administered by the local authority. As I understand it, the authority sent a reminder to Mrs. Serbey to renew her application, but no such renewal application was received.
Our social security system must be tied to precise dates of claim and time limits. If claims were not linked to precise dates or there were no time limits, it would be possible for people to assert their right to a particular benefit some considerable time after the event. In many cases, it would be impossible to decide whether the entitlement conditions had been satisfied. The extra administrative burden involved in deciding such cases could undermine our ability to pay benefit promptly to those making their claims on time.
I am satisfied that the local office is doing its best to assist Mrs. Serbey. I am satisfied that the information available to her is adequate and that she is being closely advised. Until the outcome of that work and the outcome of her appeal are known, there is little more that I can add. I reiterate my understanding of and sympathy for my hon. Friend's constituent in her difficulties and my hope that they will be resolved swiftly.

§ Sir John Hunt
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's sympathetic response. Can he give any indication of when the result of the appeal is likely to be known? This matter has been hanging over Mrs. Serbey for so long that it would be helpful to know when the result is likely to be known.

§ Mr. Scott
I must be careful, because these matters are decided by independent adjudicating authorities. Before the weekend, the local office delivered to Mrs. Serbey a form for a fresh application. It was hoped that she would sign and return it to the person who delivered it. That was 430 not possible. The sooner she can return it, the sooner the matter might be resolved by the adjudicating authorities in, I hope, her favour, but I cannot guarantee that.