Socialities
Testing time custos
It is crucial for voluntary and social workers to understand fully the importance of the Simper case which was heard in the High Court recently. It may mean that two million poor people — many of them old age pensioners — will get up to an extra 50p a week added to their weekly allowance.
Before the Ministry of Social Security Act 1966, claimants might have been given small additions to their weekly allowance to cover such items as a special diet, laundry or the need for extra fuel. These sums amounted to little in cash terms but caused a great deal of work for officials. In 1966 it was decided that all supplementary pensioners would receive immediately a long-term addition; which was also paid to other claimants who were not required to register for work and who had been drawing benefit for two years.
The result was that the Commission automatically set the need for extra heating, laundry or diet against the newly established long-term addition. In Mrs Simper's case the SBC decided to take away a 35p special weekly heating grant as soon as this separated mother qualified for the 50p long-term addition.
Mr Justic Cusack, who gave the Court's unanimous judgement, said that the Commission's practice was illogical. He ruled that the Commission should make sure that there was no overlapping in the needs covered, but it should not automatically deduct one from the other.
The study by Melvin Herman of appeal tribunals shows how members reacted to being told by the Commission that the law required that they make the necessary deduction. In fact the rule was so disliked that Herman reports cases where old people appealed to the tribunal on the grounds that they could not manage. On being told that they must set the long-term addition against any extra awards, some tribunal members went out of their way to list needs which the old person had never mentioned on the appeal papers in order to circumvent the rule.
Mr Justice Cusack's ruling has made this rather devious practice unnecessary. Interested parties with any queries might phone the Child Poverty Action Group (01-405 5942) w h o brought the case to court.
Previous page
