§ Mrs. WiseTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list in theOfficial Report the social security offices which received an extra allocation of money for the social fund.
§ Mr. ScottThe information requested is as follows:
London North Region
- Ealing
- Euston
- Highgate
- Paddington
- Poplar
- Tottenham
- Wood Green
- Walthamstow
London South Region
- Ashford
- Brighton
- Camberwell
- Crawley
- Croydon
- Kennington Park
- Oval
- Peckham
- Portsmouth, South
- Southwark
Midlands Region
- Birmingham, Northfield
- Birmingham, Perry Barr
- Birmingham, Washwood Heath
- Chesterfield
- Coventry, East
- Leicester Lower Hill Street
- Mansfield
- Nottingham, Castle Gate
- Nottingham, David Lane
- Nottingham, Shakespeare Street
- Nottingham, Station Street
- Stoke, North
- Stoke, South
North East Region
- Bishop Auckland
57 - Bradford, South
- Dewsbury
- Eston
- Hartlepool
- Hemsworth
- Houghton le Spring
- Huddersfield
- Hull, East
- Keighley
- Leeds, North West
- Middlesbrough
- North Shields
- Peterlee
- Redcar
- Sheffield, South East
- South Shields
- Stockton
- Sunderland, South
- Wakefield
- Wath-on-Dearne
- York
North West Region
- Birkenhead, South
- Blackburn
- Buxton
- Failsworth
- Huyton
- Liverpool, Belle Vale
- Liverpool, Breckfield
- Liverpool, City
- Liverpool, Garston
- Liverpool, Norris Gardens
- Liverpool, West Derby
- Manchester, Central
- Manchester, Longsight
- Manchester, Wythenshawe
- Middleton
- Salford, North
- St. Helens
Scotland Region
- Aberdeen, North
- Arbroath
- Bathgate
- Campbletown
- Clydebank
- Dundee, West
- Glasgow, Anniesland
- Glasgow, Craigton
- Glasgow, Laurieston
- Glasgow, Provan
- Glasgow, Springburn
- Kilmarnock
- Leven
- Peterhead
- Stornoway
- Stranraer
Wales and South West Region
- Aberdare
- Anglesey
- Bargoed
- Barry
- Bridgend
- Bristol, South
- Caerphilly
- Carmarthen
- Chippenham
- Deeside
- Haverfordwest
- Merthyr Tydfil
- Morriston
- Newport (Gwent)
- Port Talbot
- Porth
- Trowbridge
- Truro
58 - Weymouth
- Wrexham (Group)
§ Mr. MeacherTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, following the High Court judgment on the handling of the social fund, he will now remove the budget limit on social fund payments and recompense retrospectively those claimants whom the High Court judgment has now indicated have been deprived of their rights in the past; and if he will now make a full statement on his response to the High Court decision.
§ Mr. Nicholas ScottThe High Court judgment concerned three applications for judicial review relating to different aspects of the social fund. Its essential points were:
- The power to give directions for the control and management of the social fund was confirmed.
- The directions on how social fund inspectors are to review decisions have been confirmed, but the guidance was found not to be consistent with the directions.
- The guidance on how the budget is to be taken into account in making decisions was found to be too prescriptive, and therefore not valid as guidance.
We are consulting the social fund commissioner about the revision of guidance to social fund inspectors in the light of the second point of the judgment.
So far as the third point is concerned, a letter was sent to all Department of Social Security offices by electronic mail 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 factors to be taken into account in reaching a decision and that the state of the local office budget is not the overriding factor. We intend to issue revised guidance shortly, taking account of the court's decision. That revised guidance will also take into account the fact that the requirements of the Social Security Act itself explicitly provide that social fund officers must have regard to the budget, and that the court itself recognised the clear intention of Parliament that the scheme should be subject to strict monetary limits. The revised guidance will be placed in the Library.
We are considering whether further steps may be needed to ensure that the social fund is able to continue operating flexibly in accordance with the requirements of the primary legislation.
In the Government's view a firm budgetary framework is essential to the sensible operation of the fund and nothing in the judgment calls that into question.