Social Fund: High Court Judgment (Hansard, 1 March 1990)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley)
My Lords, a letter was sent to all DSS offices on the day of the judgment advising Social Fund officers that the local office budget and the level of priority that might usually be met are only factors to be taken into account in reaching a decision and that the state of the local office budget is not the overriding factor. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State intends to issue revised guidance shortly which will take into account the court's decision.

§ Lord Stallard
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that constructive reply. Does he accept that it does not go anywhere near enough to solve some of the problems? He has not helped and will not be helping the 45,000 claimants whose applications were refused last December and for these desperate people the Social Fund is a last resort. Unless he can say that the Government are introducing some element of retrospection in their directives to the local fund officers, those people will not be helped. Would it not be more honest at this stage to lift the cash limit altogether and to change the directives so that they state that future applications are dealt with on the basis of needs and circumstances, not just on the discretion of a local fund officer?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, the noble Lord asked about retrospection. We are seeking legal advice on this point and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will issue guidance to Social Fund officers shortly.

§ Lord Carter
My Lords, is the Minister aware that essential needs payments, which were running at £400 million a year in 1987, were cut under the Social Fund to only £140 million last year? In that respect it is hard to see how the Social Fund officers were supposed to exercise the flexibility and discretion that the Government required when the total budget for essential needs had been cut by 65 per cent. and the guidance from the department was illegal. Will the Minister inform Social Fund officers that they cannot now withhold payments for essential needs on the grounds that their budget is exhausted or is likely to be exhausted? Will he also confirm that the Government are prepared to pay the compensation to all those who were wrongfully denied help as a result of the illegal guidance from the department?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I have already answered the noble Lord's second point in my second answer to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. I said that we are seeking legal advice on the question of retrospection.
833 On the first point, I refer back to my original answer. The local office budget is not the overriding factor; it is nevertheless a factor that a Social Fund officer must take into account.

§ Lord Mishcon
My Lords, will the noble Lord make clear to the House what he meant by "seeking legal guidance" on the retrospective action that the Minister is to take or not to take following the High Court judgment? Is the legal advice being sought on the basis of how the Minister can make it retrospective because he wants to or is it being taken on whether he has to?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is seeking legal advice on the question of whether there is a retrospective element. I cannot go further than that. The noble Lord might care to glance through the judgment of Lord Justice Woolf, which is some 50 pages long. He will understand that my right honourable friend cannot immediately come to his own judgment on it without taking legal advice.

§ Lord Mishcon
My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord has possibly misunderstood my question. It has nothing to do with the 50-page judgment, which was very clear in what it said. Is he saying that the Minister is seeking a legal opinion because he wants to make it retrospective in sheer justice or is he seeking the legal opinion on the basis of whether he has to?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, perhaps I may make myself perfectly clear. My right honourable friend is seeking legal advice on what the judgment will mean with regard to the question of retrospection.

§ Lord Stallard
My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister a simple question. What will be the position of those people to whom payments have been refused?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I have already answered that question. It is a question of retrospection. My right honourable friend is seeking legal advice on that.