§ Ms HarmanI have received a great many representations about the benefit integrity project. I have taken action to improve the quality of decision making in the project and am discussing it further with organisations of and for disabled people.
§ Mr. OatenIs the Secretary of State aware that one of the impacts of the benefit integrity project is that each month up to 80 disabled people lose their vehicles and have no means of transport? Does she regret that? Will she step in to stop it taking place?
§ Ms HarmanI very much regret the fact that if it is decided under the benefit integrity project that people are not entitled to higher-rate mobility allowance, their Motability car is taken away, but that if the benefit is restored on review it is by that time too late because the car has gone. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point that disability organisations have raised with us. We are talking to Motability about it and are determined to sort it out.
§ Mr. BlizzardI welcome the extra safeguards that my right hon. Friend has introduced into the benefit integrity project to protect people when it appears that their benefit may be reduced or disappear under the project. Will she consider suggestions made by DIAL, the disablement information and advice line, that would result in fairness for disabled people under the project? For example, where additional evidence is required from a doctor, it suggests that the doctor concerned should interview the disabled person before responding, because doctors often do not know that person as, frequently, disabled people are not ill people.
§ Ms HarmanMy hon. Friend makes an important point. The Government have a responsibility to ensure that, when we pay benefit, those in receipt of it are properly entitled to it. However, we are also concerned that, in checking people's benefits, we do not take benefit away from people who are entitled to it. As I said to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), giving it back later after review or appeal does not sort the situation out. We want to ensure that we get decisions under the benefit integrity project right first time. On 9 February, I introduced an extra safeguard so that no decision to reduce or remove altogether entitlement can be made simply on the evidence of the claimant; we should have a further check. We are always open to suggestions about how to ensure that that happens. It is our duty to ensure that recipients do not receive benefit to which they are not entitled but we must also do all that we can to make certain that we do not take away from disabled people income to which they are entitled and on which they are dependent.
§ Mr. BoswellGiven that the Secretary of State has made much of the new safeguards, how many further such checks have been made and how many cases are outstanding? Is she satisfied that, after the safeguards have been implemented, there will be no more cases of inappropriate withdrawal of benefit?
§ Ms HarmanWe do not yet have a breakdown of cases after 9 February, but I shall let the hon. Gentleman know as soon as we do because of his long-standing interest in the issue. Two thousand cases have been reviewed following a benefit integrity project decision to reduce or altogether remove benefit. Of those, 500 have had benefit instaured. Those figures showed us that too many decisions were going wrong and that we had to put in the extra safeguard. We do not yet have the analysis of the outcome of reviews and the ratio of correct decisions after 9 February but the intention of that change was not only to make things look better or to assuage people's fears but to get a better quality of decision making. If that has happened, the number of people whose benefit is restored under review should fall because we would hope not to have taken away the benefit in the first place.
§ Mr. SwinneyThe House will welcome the 9 February announcement about improving decisions under the benefit integrity project. Before 9 February, many people had their benefit withdrawn and have lost appeals. I met one of those people at my surgery on Saturday in Brechin, a desperate lady who failed to secure an appeal. I suspect that, if her case had been examined after 9 February, she would have been in a much better position. Will the 12 Secretary of State undertake to re-examine all cases considered before 9 February where benefit was reduced? The problem is causing enormous hardship to many vulnerable people.
§ Ms HarmanThe objective of the 9 February change was to make the initial decision under the benefit integrity project more likely to be correct. We are trying to speed up reviews so that people do not have to wait 10 or 20 weeks before their cases are reassessed. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the rule for examining entitlement under the review involves considering legal entitlement and the evidence. The review is a second check. He knows that the appeal system is independent. Hon. Members will agree that we must check that people in receipt of benefit are entitled to it and that their circumstances have not changed in such a way that they are no longer entitled to it. We must ensure that the initial benefit review decision is correct.
§ Dr. IddonI am sure that my right hon. Friend realises that those who are mentally ill and who have the threat of losing benefit hanging over them can experience special problems. Are any special instructions given to the benefit integrity project on the reassessment of people with those special difficulties?
§ Ms HarmanMIND is one of the organisations that have been prepared to talk to us about how we can improve the initial letter that lets people know that there is a review process under way and tells them what their rights are in relation to that. There are clearly difficulties regarding people suffering mental ill health and we want to make sure that we work fairly by them. One of the problems is that, because we wanted the letter not to be alarming and frightening, the original letter notifying people that they were going to be reviewed lulled them into a false sense of security about what the process was about; as a result, people did not always bring forward the necessary information. A balance must be struck between letting people know what the exercise is about and not unduly scaring them. We are grateful to MIND and other organisations for working with us to try to get the situation right.