Social Security Tribunal

HC Deb 11 June 1993 vol 226 cc349-50W

Mr. Austin-Walker

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give his reasons for exercising his power under regulation 37 of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 not to carry out a decision of the social security tribunal in the case of a Woolwich constituent, NI. No. NA 46 48 05 A.

Mr. Burt

The administration of family credit is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. John Austin-Walker, dated 11 June 1993: As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking if he will give his reasons for exercising his power under Regulation 37 of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 not to carry out a decision of the Social Security Tribunal in the case of a Woolwich constituent, NI No. NA 46 48 05 A. As you will be aware, your constituent made a claim to Family Credit on 25 February 1992 which was subsequently disallowed by the Adjudication Officer, and was the subject of three independent tribunal hearings between 29 July 1992 and 7 April 1993; the result of which was that the Tribunal ruled that your constituent was to be treated as an agent of the Post Office. This was contrary to a Commissioner's Decision (RFC 1/93) which ruled that sub-postmasters are to be treated as employees of the Post Office. The Adjudication Officer considered that the Tribunal had erred in law by not taking account of the Commissioner's decision and therefore exercised his right under Regulation 37 of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 by seeking further advice from the office of the Central Adjudication Services with a view to ascertaining if any aspects of the Tribunal decision could give rise to a further appeal to the Commissioner. In this case however, the Central Adjudication Services (CAS) considered that the Tribunal had erred in law, but that the circumstances of the case were the same as the existing Commissioner's Decision and there was therefore no need to seek further leave to appeal, and the Tribunal decision is to be implemented. I shall write to you separately and in greater detail about this matter. I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.