§ 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 1993; whether the budget was subsequently increased; how much remains in the budget; how many applicants have been refused a grant, giving the reasons for refusal; how many applicants have been refused a loan, giving the reason for refusal; 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.
Letter from Michael Bichard to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 1 February 1994:
The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Social Fund (SF) in the Benefits Agency's (BA) Lewisham and Brixton District.Details of the initial budget allocations for Lewisham and Brixton District for the 1993–94 financial year are in the Library. There has not been any subsequent additional budget allocation this year. The balance outstanding as at 31 December 1993, the latest date for which figures are available, was £252,848 for grants and £778,676 for loans.With regard to the number of applicants refused a grant or loan in the District, information on the SF is not kept by SF applicant but by SF application. At 31 December 1993 the numbers of grant and loan applications refused were 6,714 and 5,589 respectively. The reasons for refusal are given at Annex A.The new Social Fund Computer System (SFCS), introduced to Lewisham and Brixton in July 1993, collects additional statistics which were not collected under the old system. Many statistical items are collected differently and are not directly comparable with previous years. The old system recorded reasons for refusal per application whereas SFCS records reasons for refusal per item requested. In cases where a partial award is made a reason for refusal will also be appropriate. Therefore, the sum of all reasons for refusal will not equal the number of application refusals.There is no right of appeal against discretionary SF decisions. Applicants dissatisfied with a decision may seek a review of the 730W decision and this is initially conducted within the District. If still dissatisfied, the applicant can ask for a review by the Independent Review Service (IRS) which is independent of the BA. For the period 1 April 1993 to 31 December 1993, 3,014 review applications were received by Lewisham and Brixton District. These figures include those that requested a review by the IRS. Overall, 873 resulted in a changed decision.I hope that you find this reply helpful.
Appendix A Details of grant and loan refusals for the Lewisham and Brixton District 1 April 1993 to 31 December 1993 (latest available data) Reason for refusal Grants Loans Not in receipt of Income Support (IS) 1,541 1,385 In receipt of IS for less than 26 weeks — 3,316 Direction 4 not satisfied 15,553 — Applicant excluded by Direction — 19 No serious risk to health or safety — 1,400 Requested amount below minimum allowable 9 162 Repeat allocation 381 389 Item excluded by Direction 239 999 Alternative item available 17 164 Help available from another source 43 247 Grant awarded on loan request — 862 Savings over £500 meet cost 5 2 Savings over £1000 meet cost (customer or partner over 60) 7 1 Enough money available to meet crisis — 17 Total debt exceeds £1000 — 57 Inability to repay — 998 Insufficient priority 385 938 Other reasons 50 319