HC Deb 26 November 1987 vol 123 cc327-8W
Mrs. Beckett

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he or the chief adjudication officer has taken or intends to take to ensure that adjudication officers comply with the Social Security Commissioner's direction in decision no. R(U) 4/87 that they should abandon their old habit of virtually automatically imposing the maximum period of disqualification when a person has been ruled to have left or refused employment without good cause.

Mr. Portillo

On 23 September 1987 the chief adjudication officer issued a memorandum to adjudication officers (RAO 65/86) which drew attention to the increase in the maximum period of disqualification from six weeks to 13 weeks. Among other things the memorandum stated3. This increase in the maximum penalty for voluntary unemployment means that it is now particularly important that AOs should exercise a proper judicial discretion when deciding the appropriate period of disqualification, and should be able to justify that decision in the event of an appeal to the SSAT. The guidelines laid down in R(U) 8/74 should continue to be applied, ie:

  1. (a) The statutory authorities have a complete unfettered discretion, provided it is exercised judicially, no matter which part of Sec 20(1) is under consideration.
  2. (b) It is wrong to say that the only two possible approaches to deciding the period of disqualification are by starting at the maximum and working down, or by starting at the minimum and working up.
    3. 328
  3. (c) It is not correct to say that the maximum period should be imposed unless the claimant proves that there are mitigating circumstances. R(U) 17/54, and any other decision adopting the same line, should not be followed in this respect. (This point should be borne in mind when reading Commissioners' decisions which predate R(U) 8/74.)
  4. (d) The correct approach is to regard each case as one in which a sensible discretion has to be exercised in such manner as the justice of the case requires. All the circumstances must be taken into account."
The duration of periods of disqualification is covered in paragraph 89023 of the adjudication officers' guide and this paragraph is in the process of being amended to refer to commissioner's decision R(U) 4/87. Copies of the reported decision, including the headnotes, will be issued to adjudication officers as soon as it has been published. Training courses for adjudication officers include reference to the subject.

Mrs. Beckett

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, under the proposed income support regulations, adjudication officers will still have the power to disregard the value of a claimant's former home for such period as is necessary for the completion of its sale.

Mr. Portillo

In income support the value of a property occupied by a claimant as his home will continue to be disregarded whether or not it is for sale. However, in the context of such a scheme, it is not considered appropriate to continue to disregard a substantial capital asset in the form of a property which a claimant owns but does not occupy as his home. We consider that a person should look to raise a loan against the equity of the property from a bank or other commercial source rather than have recourse to state benefit.