Original print version of the Social Security Benefit (Computation of Earnings) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/2745)

Does anyone know how I can get hold of the original print PDF of this SI?

I think there may be a typo in the version on legislation.gov.uk, specifically here.

Basically, DWP guidance and forms all suggest that care costs in respect of the disabled person being cared for can only be deducted if they are necessary due to the work being undertaken.

The legislation above, however, suggests that this is only the case for care costs for (other) children of the claimant, whereas care costs for the disabled person seem to be allowable even if they are not due to the work being undertaken.

I am worried though that this is a typo, and the words beginning “because the claimant is unable to care…” are supposed to be full-out words on a new line, referring back to both subparas. (a) and (b).

Any ideas?

This is the text as found on our Social Security Law Cd-Rom library.  This would pre-date the legislation.gov website and may have been taken from the printed version - but not the queen’s printer’s copy.

SCHEDULE 3: Regulations 10(3) and 13(3)

CARE CHARGES TO BE DEDUCTED IN THE CALCULATION OF EARNINGS FOR ENTITLEMENT TO CARER’S ALLOWANCE
1. This Schedule applies where a claimant is–
(a) entitled to carer’s allowance under section 70 of the Contributions and Benefits Act; and
(b) incurring relevant care charges.
2. In this Schedule–
“close relative” means a parent, son, daughter, brother, sister or partner;
“relevant care charges” means the charges paid by the claimant for care which is provided by a person, who is not a close relative of either the severely disabled person or the claimant, for–
(a) the severely disabled person; or
(b) any child aged under 16 on the date on which the benefit week begins in respect of whom the claimant or his partner is entitled to child benefit under section 141 of the Contributions and Benefits Act because the claimant is unable to care for any of those persons because he is carrying out duties in connection with his employment;
“severely disabled person” means the severely disabled person in respect of whom entitlement to invalid care allowance arises.

So it is the subtle difference between:

“relevant care charges” means the charges paid by the claimant for care which is provided by a person, who is not a close relative of either the severely disabled person or the claimant, for—

  (a)the severely disabled person; or

  (b)any child aged under 16 on the date on which the benefit week begins in respect of whom the claimant or his partner is entitled to child benefit under section 141 of the Contributions and Benefits Act because the claimant is unable to care for any of those persons because he is carrying out duties in connection with his employment;

and

“relevant care charges” means the charges paid by the claimant for care which is provided by a person, who is not a close relative of either the severely disabled person or the claimant, for—

  (a)the severely disabled person; or

  (b)any child aged under 16 on the date on which the benefit week begins in respect of whom the claimant or his partner is entitled to child benefit under section 141 of the Contributions and Benefits Act

because the claimant is unable to care for any of those persons because he is carrying out duties in connection with his employment;

And your interest is less in the words used and more in the way that the paragraph is formatted. The natural reading in the former is that the care charges needing to have been incurred due to work commitments only matters in connection with a child whereas in the latter this would be necessary for care charges incurred whether in relation to a child or disabled adult.

It does not appear to be a point picked up in Sweet and Maxwell, which uses the same formatting as legislation.gov.uk, although the authors did pick up on the incongruous continued use of “invalid care allowance” in the definition of ‘severely disabled person’ below.

It is surely relevant that the equivalent provision for Northern Ireland does use the second formulation.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/1996/520/schedule/3/made

That suggests you are right that it is a typo - as does the use of the word “persons” which seems rather odd if the provision were talking exclusively about children.

If your curiosity justifies spending a tenner, you can get an official copy from the stationery office:
https://www.tsoshop.co.uk/product/9780110632063/The-Social-Security-Benefit-Computation-of-Earnings-Regulations-1996

Otherwise you could get a copy from the National Archives although it is (bizarrely) asserted to be closed and not available for public viewing without an FOI request: https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C16916670

Thanks both.

This is actually relevant to a case I have, and isn’t just curiosity!

I had also thought the use of the word “persons” suggested it was a typo. I hadn’t seen the NI Regs - that is very persuasive. Thanks!

I’ve submitted a FOI request to the National Archives.

You need a QP copy to be sure whether it’s a typo or not.