Written question asked by Lord Willetts (Conservative) on Monday, 28 March 2005, in the House of Commons. It was due for an answer on Thursday, 7 April 2005. It was answered by Chris Pond (Labour) on Thursday, 7 April 2005 on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions.

Dept for Work and Pensions

Question: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment he has made of the implications for the Department for Work and Pensions of the ruling by the Court of Appeal that a separated father on jobseekers allowance with a shared residence order for his children is entitled to claim child-related benefits, even though the mother is also in receipt of those benefits; if he will place in the Library a copy of the advice that he has received on the Court of Appeal's ruling in the case of Hockenjoz v Secretary of State for Social Security.

Answer: Mr. Willetts: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what assessment he has made of the implications for the Department for Work and Pensions of the ruling by the Court of Appeal that a separated father on jobseeker's allowance with a shared residence order for his children is entitled to claim child-related benefits, even though the mother is also in receipt of those benefits; [224666] (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the advice that he has received on the Court of Appeal's ruling in the case of Hockenjos v. Secretary of State for Social Security. [224667] Mr. Pond: The Department has lodged a petition of appeal with the House of Lords in this case. We are therefore unable to comment further at this time.

Secondary information

Type: Written question
Reference: 432 c1689-90W; 224666;224667
Session: 2004-05
Subjects: Child benefit Applications Eligibility Parents Social security benefits Separation
Link: View this Written question on www.publications.parliament.uk