§ Ms RuddockTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the budget for the Lewisham district office social fund for the current year as set at 1 April 1992; if he will state(a) whether the budget was subsequently increased, (b) how much remains in the budget, (c) how many applicants have been refused a grant giving the reasons for refusal, (d) how many applicants have been 424W refused a loan giving the reason for refusal and (e) how many applicants refused went on to appeal and how many of these appeals were successful.
§ Mr. ScottThe administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. he will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.
Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 18 March 1993:
As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking what was the budget for Lewisham District Office Social Fund for the current year as set at 1 April 1992; if he will state (a) whether the budget was subsequently increased, (b) how much remains in the budget, (c) how many applicants have been refused a grant giving the reasons for refusal, (d) how many applicants have been refused a loan giving reasons for refusal and (e) how many applicants refused went onto appeal and how many of these appeals were successful.Details of the initial and subsequent budget allocations for Lewisham and Brixton District for the 1992–93 financial year are in the Library. The balance outstanding at 28 February 1993, the latest date for which figures are availabe, was £116,683 for grants and £304,374 for loans.Information on the Social fund is not kept by Social Fund applicant, but rather by Social Fund application. Details of the numbers of grant and loan applications refused and of reasons for refusal are given at Appendix A.There is no right of appeal against discretionary Social Fund decisions. Dissatisfied applicants may apply for a review of the decision, initially conducted within the District. During the period 1 April 1992 to 28 February 1993, 4,482 review applications were received by Lewisham and Brixton District, of which 1,053 resulted in a changed decision.I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this leter will appear in the Official Report. Copies are also being placed in the Library.
APPENDIX A Details of grant and loan refusals for the Lewisham and Brixton District—1 April 1992–28 February 1993 latest available data) Reason for refusal Grants Loans Not in receipt of Income Support (IS) 631 619 In receipt of IS for less than 26 weeks — 1,448 Direction 4 not satisfied 5,600 — Applicant excluded by Direction 4 17 No serious risk to health or safety — 940 Requested amount below minimum allowable 19 86 Repeat application 434 505 Item excluded by Direction 312 376 Alternative item available 7 98 Help available from another source 23 160 Grant awarded on loan request — 198 Savings over £500 meet cost 8 6 Savings over £1,000 meet cost (customer or partner over 60) 3 1 Enough money available to meet crisis — 29 Total debt exceeds £1,000 — 54 Inability to repay — 586 Insufficient priority 927 2,305 Other reasons 50 319 Totals 8,018 7,747