HC Deb 19 June 1995 vol 262 cc11-2
13. Mr. Ainger

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants have had their benefit reduced as a result of adjudication officers ruling that they are not available for work because their homes are remote from work opportunities. [27612]

Mr. Roger Evans

None in the terms of the question asked. Benefit can be refused if a person imposes restrictions on his or her availability for work and has no reasonable prospect of securing employment. That is a different situation from a person being in circumstances that impose their own restrictions. No one should be refused benefit purely on the grounds of where he or she lives.

Mr. Ainger

That answer runs contrary to the evidence from my constituent in Rhosfach near Maenclochog, whose income support was suspended at the beginning of this year. The reason given in its evidence by the Department of Employment to the appeal tribunal was: Unless she moves to a less remote area or obtains her own transport it is difficult to see what work she could take. That is contrary to what the Minister has just told the House. Is it not true that the way in which the rules are being applied discriminates against people in remote areas where there is virtually no public transport and against those who do not have their own personal transport?

Mr. Evans

No. The rules have remained unchanged since 1955. I am aware of the case of another constituent of the hon. Gentleman, in respect of whom he has written to me. A review has taken place and it has been agreed that benefits should be payable. I have had no specific notice of the particular constituent whom the hon. Gentleman now mentions, but I can assure him that the guidance that has been issued to adjudicating officers has been clear and in the same terms for some considerable period. If people impose conditions, that is their own choice. If the adjudicating officer is satisfied that they have done so, there may be grounds for refusing benefit, but no one is to be denied benefit simply because he or she happens to live in a beautiful, rural and remote part of the hon. Gentleman's lovely constituency.

Sir Donald Thompson

Will my hon. Friend ask the adjudicating officers to examine the case of two of my constituents who live in a beautiful part of Todmorden? They went to a remote area of the United States for 11 months and returned to find themselves totally out of benefit.

Mr. Evans

As far as I can recall, my hon. Friend has not given me details of that particular case. It sounds as though the difficulty would seem to be the issue of habitual residence, which is a different matter.