R(IS) 1/02

Mr. R. J. C. Angus 	CIS/5251/1999
3.8.00 	
Funeral payment - four immediate family members of whom only one is not in receipt of qualifying benefit - whether claimant disentitled
The claimant accepted responsibility for his mother’s funeral and made a claim for a social fund payment in relation to its cost. The claimant and three of his sisters were all in receipt of qualifying benefits within the terms of regulation 7(1)(a) of the Social Fund Maternity and Funeral Expenses (General) Regulations 1987. He also had a fourth sister who was not in receipt of benefit and one brother who was estranged from his mother. The claim was refused on the grounds that it was not reasonable for the claimant to accept responsibility for the funeral expenses “as there was an immediate family member [the claimant’s fourth sister] who was not estranged from the deceased and was not in receipt of a qualifying benefit”. The tribunal rejected an argument by the claimant that regulation 7(3)(b) of the 1987 Regulations operated to disentitle him to a funeral payment only if none of his sisters had been awarded a qualifying benefit. The claimant appealed to the Commissioner.
Held, dismissing the appeal, that:
a person was not entitled to a funeral payment if there was at least one other immediate family member who was not estranged from the deceased and neither that member nor the member's partner was in receipt of a qualifying benefit.

DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

1.	The decision of the social security appeal tribunal dated 7 May 1999 is erroneous in law.
2.	The claimant appeals, with the leave of a social security Commissioner, against the tribunal’s decision that the claimant is not entitled to a funeral payment under regulation 7 of the Social Fund Maternity and Funeral Expenses (General) Regulations 1987 in respect of her late mother because she is excluded from such entitlement by virtue of paragraph (3)(b) of that regulation.
3.	The history of the claim is as follows:
(1)	The claimant’s mother died on 6 January 1999 in a nursing home. The claimant made a claim for a social fund payment in relation to the cost of his mother’s funeral and completed form SF200 on which he listed his four sisters as his late mother’s other close relatives.
(2)	Three of the four sisters were receiving benefits specified in paragraph (1)(a) of regulation 7 of the 1987 Regulations. The fourth sister (“Mrs. F”) was not. There was also a brother who had not seen his mother for six years. 
(3)	On 15 February 1999 the adjudication officer refused the claim on the grounds that it was not reasonable for the claimant to accept responsibility for the funeral expenses “as there is an immediate family member who was not estranged from the deceased and is not in receipt of a qualifying benefit.”
(4)	The claimant appealed to the social security appeal tribunal against the adjudication officer’s decision.
(5)	On 7 May 1999 the tribunal unanimously rejected the claimant’s appeal and confirmed the adjudication officer’s decision. The claimant was represented at the hearing.
4.	Regulation 7(3) of the 1987 Regulations is in the following terms:
“Subject to paragraph (4), the responsible person shall not be entitled to a funeral payment where he is an immediate family member ... of the deceased and
(a)	there are one or more immediate family members of the deceased (not including any immediate family members who were children at the date of the death of the deceased);
(b)	neither those immediate family members nor their partners have been awarded a benefit to which paragraph (1)(a) refers; and
(c)	any of the immediate family members to which sub-paragraph (b) above refers was not estranged from the deceased at the date of his death.”
5.	In the statement of the tribunal’s findings in fact and reasons for decision it is recorded that the interpretation of regulation 7(3)(b) put forward by the claimant’s representative was that “if any of the deceased’s immediate family members had been awarded a benefit paragraph 3 does not apply”. The tribunal’s view, based on what it saw as the intention of the legislation, was that (3)(b) provided that if any immediate family member was not in receipt of benefit and was not estranged from the deceased, the claimant would not be entitled to a social fund payment. As Mrs. F was such a person, the claimant’s appeal failed.
6.	The claimant’s grounds for appealing the tribunal’s decision are set out in form OSSC1 dated 16 August 1999 and are that the tribunal was wrong to interpret regulation 7(3)(b) by reference to what it understood to be the legislative intention as that approach to interpretation is only permissible where the provision is in ambiguous terms. Where a provision’s meaning is clear, as here, it has to be interpreted literally even if the result may be contrary to what was intended.
7.	The functions of the adjudication officer have been transferred to the Secretary of State by section 1 of the Social Security Act 1998. His representative, in his submission to the Commissioner dated 7 January 2000, does not support the claimant’s appeal. In that representative’s view, the meaning of regulation 7(3) is clear and is as stated by the Commissioner who in deciding CIS/2288/1998 said:
“A person is not entitled to a funeral payment if there is at least one other immediate family member who was not estranged from the deceased and neither that member nor the member’s partner is in receipt of a qualifying benefit.”
8.	The claimant’s representative’s observations on the submission for the Secretary of State are:
“1.	In paragraph 7 it is stated “ …  The claimant has not stated how be believes regulation 7(3)(b) of the SFMFE Regulations should be interpreted”. Unfortunately the record of proceedings does not record the arguments presented by the claimant’s representative, although those arguments were heard and fully considered by the social security appeal tribunal in its full written decision (on page 26 of the bundle).
For the sake of the Secretary of State, I shall repeat those arguments. Paragraph 3(b) of regulation 7 only operates to disentitle the appellant to a funeral payment if none of the other immediate family members are in receipt of a qualifying benefit. Paragraph 3(b) does not say “neither all those immediate family members nor all their partners have been awarded a benefit to which paragraph (1)(a) refers”. Therefore, if any of them has been awarded a benefit, paragraph 3 does not apply. If “neither  …   Nor” were substituted by a negative verbal equivalent, the meaning would be the same but clearer. The sentence would then read “Those immediate family members or their partners have not been awarded a benefit to which paragraph (1)(a) refers”. So, if such a benefit is awarded, a benefit is awarded to just one of those immediate family members (or partners) the responsible person is not disentitled to a funeral payment, as it does not say all those immediate family members (or partners) have not been awarded a benefit.
2.	In paragraph 7 it is stated “Commissioners decision CIS/2288/1998 is of relevance. In paragraph 11 of that decision the Commissioner stated ‘Read as a whole, the meaning of regulation 7(3) is clear’. The Commissioner fails to expand on this point, but if sub-paragraph (c) is read in conjunction with sub-paragraph (b), the interpretation given to sub-paragraph (b) in (1) above would render sub-paragraph (c) meaningless as sub-paragraph (c) only applies to those immediate family members referred to in sub-paragraph (b) – i.e. those not in receipt of a qualifying benefit. Sub-paragraph (c) and the question of estrangement would never come into play if by virtue of one immediate family member (or partner) being in receipt of a qualifying benefit all other immediate family members would not disentitle the responsible person from a funeral payment regardless of whether each one was in receipt of a qualifying benefit or not”.
9.	I prefer the Secretary of State’s representative’s and the tribunal’s interpretation of regulation 7(3)(b) despite the difficulties of interpretation to which the claimant’s representative draws attention. The effect of the interpretation argued for by the claimant’s representative would be that a claimant for a funeral payment with one sibling would be excluded from entitlement if that sibling was not in receipt of one of the benefits specified in paragraph (1)(a) but a claimant with four siblings would qualify for a payment if one of those siblings was in receipt of one of the specified benefits. That would produce the absurd result that although a family of two siblings can obtain no assistance with funeral costs from the social fund if one of them is not in receipt of an income related benefit a family of five siblings with three members not in receipt of income related benefit would be able to leave responsibility for a parent’s funeral with a member who is in receipt of such benefit and, through her, to public funds instead of sharing the cost among themselves. Legislation is not to be interpreted literally if to do so produces an absurdity (Grey v. Pearson (1857 HL Cas 61)). I respectfully agree with the author of CIS/2288/1998 that paragraph (3)(b) obviously excludes a funeral payment where one of the immediate members of the deceased’s family is not in receipt of a relevant benefit and is not estranged from the deceased.

10.	The foregoing is sufficient reason, I think, for not accepting the claimant’s representative’s interpretation of paragraph (3)(b) but if I needed any support for my view other than CIS/2288/1998 I would find it in the relevant report of the Social Security Advisory Committee. It has for long been accepted that Commissioners can have recourse to that Committee’s reports when there is difficulty about the interpretation of social security regulations (R(G) 3/58, R(M) 1/83, R(SB) 6/86 and CIS/5177/1997). The current version of regulation 7 was enacted in the Social Security (Social Fund and Claims and Payments) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1997. The Advisory Committee’s report is published in Command Paper 3585 of March 1997.
11.	Appendix 2 to the Command Paper is a note for the Advisory Committee in which the Department of Social Security explains the provisions which the Secretary of State proposed to include in the 1997 Amendment Regulations. Paragraph 14 of that note includes the following sentence:
“Where there is no surviving partner, there will be no entitlement to a funeral payment where an immediate family member (parent [including an absent parent], son or daughter) of the deceased exists and neither they nor their partner were awarded a qualifying benefit.”
“They” and “their” in that sentence I read as ungrammatical shorthand for “he or she” and “his or her” and I read the whole sentence as a statement of the Secretary of State’s intention that where there is one immediate member of the deceased’s family who is not in receipt of a qualifying benefit there will be no entitlement to a funeral payment even although there are other immediate members of the family who are in receipt of such a benefit. The literal interpretation of paragraph (3)(b) urged on behalf of the claimant would, therefore, be contrary to the intention of the legislation and not to be adopted.
12.	My conclusion is, therefore, that the tribunal correctly applied regulation 7(3)(b) in this case and that the Secretary of State is right to rely on CIS/2288/1998 as authority for the tribunal’s interpretation of that provision.
13.	For the foregoing reasons the claimant’s appeal fails and my decision is in paragraph 1 above.

Date: 3 August 2000	 (signed) Mr. R. J. C. Angus
	Commissioner