§ Mr. RedmondTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the budget for his Department's district social fund in respect of the Doncaster area 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 reason for refusal; how many applicants have been refused a loan, giving the reasons for refusal; how many applicants refused made an 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 Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 15 March 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) Doncaster District.
Details of the initial budget allocations for the Doncaster 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 28 February 1994, the latest date for which figures are available, was £100,544 for grants and £130,270 for loans.
You asked for 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 28 February 1994 the numbers of grant and loan applications refused were 4,873 and 4,407 respectively. The reasons for refusal are given at Annex A.
The new Social Fund Computer System, introduced to Doncaster in September 1993, provides a more detailed record of the reason each individual item within an application is refused. This was not previously the case. Consequently, statistics from the two systems are not always compatible.
There is no right of appeal against discretionary SF decisions. Applicants dissatisfied with a decision may seek a review of the 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 Department and the Agency. For the period 1 April 1993 to 28 February 1994, 1,503 review applications were received by Doncaster District. These figures include those that requested a review by the IRS. Overall, 370 resulted in a changed decision.
I hope you find this reply helpful.
711W
Annex A Details of grant and loan refusals for the Doncaster District— 1 April 1993 to 28 February 19941 by reason. Reason for refusal Grants Loans Not in receipt of income support (IS) 412 520 In receipt of IS for less than 26 weeks — 1,959 Direction 4 not satisfied 8,694 — Applicant exluded by Direction 1 3 No serious risk to health or safety — 720 Requested amount below minimum allowable 12 100 Repeat application 156 474 Item excluded by Direction 94 158 Alternative item available 8 43 Help available from another source 25 80 Grant awarded on loan request — 567 Savings over £500 meet cost 7 3 Savings over £1,000 meet cost (customer or partner over 60) 3 2 Enough money available to meet crisis — 1 Total debt exceeds £1,000 — 10 Inability to repay — 191 Insufficient priority 13 602 Other reasons 54 137 1 Latest available data
Mr. Robert AinsworthTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what restrictions are currently being imposed on payments from the social fund in Coventry;
(2) what extra provision has been made to meet the extra demand on the social fund as a result of Bosnian refugees taking up residence in Coventry.
§ 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 Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. Robert Ainsworth, dated 15 March 1994:
The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the Social Fund (SF) in Coventry.
Firstly, you asked what restrictions are currently being imposed on payments from the SF in Coventry. It might be helpful if I explain that it is the duty of the Area Social Fund Officer (ASFO) to manage the District SF allocation so that the highest priority needs are consistently met throughout the year. To do this the ASFO issues guidance to Social Fund Officers (SFO) on the high, medium and low priority needs within the District. It must be pointed out that whilst SFOs must take this guidance into account it is not binding on them. As such, a SFO may raise the priority of an application in order to make a payment.
I can inform you the ASFO at Coventry has decided that high and medium priority application can be consistently met from the District allocation. Other than the exclusions mentioned in the Secretary of State directions no restrictions are imposed on any Benefit Agency District with regard to making payments from the SF.
Finally, in answer to your second question, the District has been able to meet the SF expenditure as a result of applications from Bosnian refugees taking up residence in the Coventry area from their existing allocation.
I hope you find this reply helpful.