§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Social Services why, in view of the decision of a tribunal of commissioners in R(SB)26/82, local Department of Health and Social Security offices are still instructed to count unsupervised homework when deciding whether a claimant in the first three months on social security is studying for more than 15 hours a week; and if he will arrange for paragraph 1290(2) of the S manual to be amended to take account of that decision.
§ Mr. NewtonThe content of paragraph 1290(2) of the S manual is now a matter for the chief adjudication officer whose guidance it contains. I understand that he does not intend to amend it at present.
The decision of the tribunal of commissioners in R(SB)26/82 was a decision in the supplementary benefit legislation, with particular reference to the 21-hour rule.
The guidance in S1290(2) relates to the child benefit legislation and gives guidance on when a young person is to be treated as receiving relevant education. I refer the hon. Member to my hon. Friend's reply to him of 12 April, at column 378, which dealt with that aspect in more detail.
Although in R(SB)26/82, the tribunal of commissioners considered the effect of provisions of the child benefit legislation relating to full-time education, its actual decision related to a differently worded provision in the supplementary benefit legislation. In 1982, the chief insurance officer decided not to amend his guidance on the strength of the tribunal's obiter observations and I understand that the commissioner, the author of CF/38/83, also did not follow those observations.