HL Deb 15 January 1992 vol 534 cc255-7
The Countess of Mar

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they can confirm that there are some 3,500 cases waiting hearing by the Independent Tribunal Service in Birmingham for claims for income support severe disability premium for the period from April 1988 to October 1989, and how many cases are waiting hearing in other regions.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley)

My Lords, on 31st December 1991, 1,407 appeals involving the severe disability premium were awaiting hearing by the Independent Tribunal Service in Birmingham. Some of those cases may have received payment of arrears due for the period April 1988 to October 1989, but it is not possible to identify precisely how many. Nationally, some 16,758 such appeals were then waiting to be heard.

The Countess of Mar

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. In view of the fact that we disagree on the number of cases—I gather that countrywide there are far more cases than the noble Lord says—and that there has been a commissioner decision which accepts that payments may be made for 12 months (in other words, back to October 1988), would it not be better if adjudication officers were allowed to arrange for payment directly to the clients and if appeals were placed just for that six-month period instead of for the whole block?

Lord Henley

My Lords, I suspect that we might be talking at cross purposes here. As I said, there is that number of cases in Birmingham and there are some 16,000 or 17,000 cases nationally awaiting consideration by the independent appeal tribunal. As the noble Countess suggests, there may be considerably more cases which are waiting on the decision to which the noble Countess referred as the "commissioner decision" and by which I suspect she means the Foster decision. That decision was made by the commissioner and was reversed on appeal by the Court of Appeal. The matter has now gone to this House and we are awaiting a decision as a result of the deliberations of this House. Obviously, no post-October 1989 payments can be made until a decision is made in that case. As regards any pre-October 1989 payments —those from April 1988 to October 1989—it is quite possible for those to be decided by the tribunal and paid by my department.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, will the Minister say, following the narrowing of eligibility for severe disability premium in October 1989, how many severely disabled adults lost their right to that benefit and what saving, net of any transitional arrangements, there has been to the DSS as a result?

Lord Henley

My Lords, in October 1989 we made certain changes to bring the eligibility for severe disability premium back to the criteria as set out in 1986. Those criteria were made clear by my noble friends Lord Whitelaw and Lady Trumpington in this House and by my right honourable friend Mr. Newton in another place. At the time they said that some 10,000 people would be entitled to severe disability premium. I am advised that at present some 62,000 people are entitled to and receive that premium.

Lord Ennals

My Lords, was the purpose of that change in eligibility to save the department's funds or has it meant that more money has been paid out to severely disabled people?

Lord Henley

My Lords, I can only repeat what I have said. The change in October 1989 was to bring the criteria for eligibility back to those set out in the Act, as explained when the Bill went through Parliament, and as understood by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, at that time. I can quote the noble Lord's words on that occasion if he so wishes.

Lord Ennals

My Lords, I am sure that the House would not wish to be bored by my repeating my words, but perhaps the Minister will answer my question: was there a saving to the department's funds as a result of the change in eligibility?

Lord Henley

My Lords, obviously, if we had not made that change there would have been a dramatic growth in eligibility for severe disability premium in a manner that was not originally intended. We intended to bring the eligibility for the premium back to the criteria as laid out in the original enactment.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, perhaps I may trouble the Minister again. Following appeals through the courts, was not the interpretation of the previous criteria for eligibility widened in ways that were understood by the Law Lords to embody the spirit of that Act? As a result, did not the Government deliberately change the Act in October 1989 to reduce eligibility in ways that may perhaps have related to the original Act, but were certainly not consistent with Court of Appeal interpretations?

Lord Henley

My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Baroness is totally incorrect. The change in October 1989 was made in anticipation of a decision made by the commissioners some time in May 1990. The only case that has gone to the House of Lords is that of Foster. We are still awaiting a decision on that case, but it has been to the Court of Appeal where the department won.