Invalidity Benefit (Hansard, 28 April 1994)

§ Mr. Scott

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's discretion to take account of extreme hardship in deciding whether to impose or lift suspension of benefit is exercised on his behalf by Benefits Agency staff. Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, will write to the hon. Member with further information.

Letter from Michael Bichard to Dr. Norman Godman, dated 27 April 1994: 286W The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about women in receipt of Invalidity Benefit (IVB), who at age 60 have had part of their IVB suspended. You will be aware from the reply of 3 March to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Volume 238, column 821, that the Benefits Agency (BA) routinely notifies women who are entitled to an increase of IVB as a result of the Social Security Commissioner's (SSC) decision in the Graham case. It is explained that the payment of the increase is suspended by the Secretary of State. Customers are also advised that they will be paid in full if the Commissioner's decision against which the Secretary of State is appealing is upheld; and that if they have difficulty managing they should contact their local BA office. All local offices are issued with guidelines in relation to the lifting of the suspension of payment of IVB. The Secretary of State has the discretion not to suspend if it would be inappropriate to do so, for example if it would cause exceptional hardship in an individual case. There are no set criteria for lifting suspensions. Each case is considered in relation to the personal circumstances of the customer. However, the Agency, conscious of the requirement to treat all customers fairly, issued guidelines on the question of hardship to all local offices. They stress that cases have to be looked at individually and that, while it is not possible to state in hard and fast terms what constitutes exceptional hardship, a number of factors need to be borne in mind by staff considering hardship applications. These include the fact that hardship will arise only in exceptional circumstances; that prior to the Commissioner's decision, IVB would have been reduced to the rate of the Retirement Pension that would otherwise have been payable; that Income Support and Social Fund are available to meet financial hardship; and that the onus is on the customer to prove that hardship exists rather than for the Agency to disprove hardship. The guidance also gives two examples of circumstances in which exceptional hardship might be considered. These are:

1. where it is already known or suspected that a customer has a terminal illness and is likely to die before the outcome of the appeal is known; and
2. where the customer has been led to believe that benefit will continue at the higher rate and has entered into a financial commitment on that basis.

It is not inevitable that exceptional hardship would be found to exist in these sort of situations, nor are they the only situations in which exceptional hardship would be considered. They are provided to give examples of what "exceptional hardship" might mean and indicate that such cases can be expected to arise only rarely. I hope you find this reply helpful.