HC Deb 10 December 1993 vol 234 cc378-9W
Mr. Lidington

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what criteria he applies in exercising his discretionary power to suspend benefit under regulation 37 of the Social Security (Claims and Payments Regulations); and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Forsyth

Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. David Lidington, dated 10 December 1993: The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about Regulation 37 of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations. Under Section 37(1)(c) of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations the Secretary of State may direct that payment of benefit due as a result of a decision of a Social Security Appeal Tribunal (SSAT) may be suspended if the adjudication officer considers that a further appeal to a Commissioner may be appropriate. The power to suspend benefit is discretionary and is exercised on behalf of the Secretary of State by my officers. If, following a decision of an SSAT, the adjudication officer wishes to appeal to the Commissioner, my local office is requested not to implement the decision pending a further appeal. An appeal to a Commissioner can only be made on a point of law. The adjudication officer must therefore consider that the decision of the SSAT is wrong in law before making an application for leave to appeal. The most common errors of law are; the misinterpretation of provisions of the Act or regulations; no facts are found, or no reasons are given for the decision; irrelevant considerations have been taken into account; relevant evidence has been ignored; the explanation of the decision discloses faulty reasoning. Although my officers, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, are not bound to comply with the adjudication officer's request to suspend the payment of benefit, my people in my local offices are not specifically trained to interpret Social Security law. They will, therefore, rely on the expertise of the adjudication officer where it is considered that an SSAT may have made an error in law. In practice, this means that benefit is always suspended in these cases unless there are good reasons, specific to the case, for not doing so. I hope this is helpful.

Mr. Hunter

To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the funding for each training and enterprise council in 1993–94, quantifying how much is to be spent on training for work, youth training, local initiative funds, administration and other projects.

Miss Widdecombe

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) on 3 December 1993,Official Report, column 821. This lists the funding for each training and enterprise council, including training for work, youth training, local initiative fund, administration—management fee—and other projects.