Decision makers act on behalf of the Secretary of State and he/she decides any claims for benefits (S8(1) Social Security Act 1998).

David Blunkett resigned as Secretary of State this morning and until someone else has been appointed we have no Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Does this mean that any benefit decisions made during this short period are invalid?!

Is there some legal provision which means that upon resignation the Secretary of State's powers and duties are held by someone else?

It's not just a moot point.

I don't know if this is of any help Neil but it would appear that there remains a sort of group responsibility within each department that comes under the auspices of any particular SoS (direct gov website):

'Ministerial responsibility refers both to the collective responsibility for government policy and actions which ministers share, and to ministers' individual responsibility for the work of their own departments.

Collective responsibility means that all ministers unanimously support government policy once it has been settled. The policy of departmental ministers must agree with the policy of the Government as a whole.'

On that basis, it would appear that the removal of Blunkett does not hamper the operation of departments under his previous management.

I had to chuckle at the last paragraph on this page which notes that:

'On taking up office, ministers resign directorships in private and public companies, and must ensure that there is no conflict between their public duties and private interests. Detailed guidance on handling ministers' financial interests is set out in a ministerial code.'

Thanks Paul - I wonder if there's any legal basis to this? Anyone want to try this argument in appeals against any overpayment or IB cut-off decisions issued today?

As regards Mr B, I found the double standards about failure to disclose interesting. The PM thinks it's OK for the SoS to fail to disclose a material fact and he could thus continue to receive payment, but if a claimant fails to disclose a material fact, they get the book thrown at them.

Presumably there is some sort of document delegating his decision making powers to officers in JC+, etc offices. There certainly used to be a document appointing the holders of certain DSS posts to be AOs in the (good?) old days.

It's clear that not all DWP employees have decision making powers, so presumably there is some formal delegation. I would guess that survives the individual SofS and remains in force during both the interregnum and once the new SofS takes office? Or do they reissue whatever delegation there might be every time the SofS changes?

Failing that I suspect that one of the junior ministers inherits the role of SofS until a new bod comes in.

i don't know about that Keith. AO at one time AOs were formally given their 'powers' by the CAO's office, but the formalities started to wither away post 1980 supp ben act, and tended to go with the job. decisions were unaffected by the comings and goings of SoSs. Now that independent AO's have been abolished, i'm not sure where representatives of the SoS stand, when there is no SoS. Do they have 'Acting Secretaries of State'?

looks like neil gets the creative technical argument of the day award.
: )

jj

Is it not the case that the office of 'Secretary of State' is a separate 'legal personality' to the actual person who holds that office? So, regardless of whether someone is actually in post decisions can be validly made?

A 'legal personality' in law is a body which has legal rights and duties. It is sort of a fictitious personality that can exist independantly of the human personalities you may be dealing with. So, for example, you would sue a limited company or a Local Authority rather than the shareholders or Councillors as these have their own 'legal personality' which is separate and exists alongside the actual human legal personalities.

If someone were bringing an action against the Sec of State and the person holding the position changed, you would not expect the action to be affected because it is against the 'office' of Sec of State rather than the particular individual. The legal personality will be the same even if there is temporarily no one in post.

The legal personality has to be created somehow and I guess in this case it would be by statute. However, i am not sure which one, or how else the legal personality in this case would have been created (not without research ayway)

As John Hutton was appointed the same day is it only decisions made for the couple of hours in between that you might have a problem with Neil?

I don't reckon this one is going anywhere but it is worth a chuckle.

Yes - it was one of those semi-serious queries and the sort of tactic one resorts to in cases of utter desperation!