§ Mrs. Beckettasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many reviews of attendance allowance during the currency of an award in 1984 and 1985, nationally and in each of the social security regions, were instituted (a) by the Secretary of State and (b) by the claimant: what. in each case, was the number and proportion in which (i) the allowance was withdrawn, (ii) the existing award was retained, (iii) the higher rate decreased to the lower rate and (iv) the lower rate increased to the higher rate; and what was the breakdown of these reviews into (y) ones because of dissatisfaction with an earlier decision and (z) ones because of a change in the need for attention or supervision.
§ Mr. NewtonFor information relating to 1984 I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on 26 March 1985 at columns174–76. The available information for 1985 is given in the following tables and relates to decisions given, not to applications made in that year.
435W
Reviews instituted at request of Secretary of State after award Great Britain* Number Per cent. Total number of reviews after award 141 — Award withdrawn 312 41.8 Award maintained 361 48.3 Award reduced from higher to lower rate 40 5.4 Award increased from lower to higher rate 35 4.5 * It is not possible to provide a breakdown by Region.
§ Mrs. Beckettasked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many people made initial applications for attendance allowance in 1984 and 1985 nationally and in each social security region; and in each case how many and what proportion (a) were awarded: (i) the higher rate and (ii) the lower rate, on initial application, (b) requested a review after: (x) refusal of the allowance and (y) award of the lower rate and (c) upon review: (1) were awarded
Table 1 Attendance Allowance—Initial Decisions 1985 Region (a) Number of Decisions Higher Rate A wards Lower Rale Awards Number Percent Number Percent Northern 2,262 618 27.3 1,092 48.3 Yorks and Humberside 36.824 8,815 23.9 15,360 41.7 East Midlands 592 156 26.3 326 55.1 East Anglia 96 25 26.1 58 60.4 South East (GLC) 9,620 3,115 32.4 4,459 46.3 South East (Remainder) 58,595 16,680 28.4 30,095 51.4 South West 21,309 6,115 28.7 11,557 54.2 West Midlands 44,730 11,177 25.0 20,627 46.1 North West 36,287 9,416 25.9 17,306 47.7 Wales 20,997 5,385 25.7 8,029 33.2 Scotland 23,813 4,716 19.8 9,472 39.8 Great Britain 255,125 66,218 26.0 118,381 46.4 (a) Standard Regions
Table 2 Attendance allowance—Renewal Decisions 1985 Region (a) Number of Decisions Higher Rale Awards Lower Rate A wards Number Percent. Number Percent. North Eastern 3,219 1,082 33.6 1,145 34.8 Midlands 5,632 1,921 34.1 2,279 40.4 London North 3,318 1,328 40.0 1,748 52.7 London South 3,692 1,300 35.2 1,665 45.1 South West 1,602 527 32.9 767 47.9 North West (Manchester) 1,601 616 38.5 770 48.1 North West (Merseyside) 1,894 689 36.4 861 45.5 Scotland 1,773 578 32.6 775 43.7 Wales 2,046 826 40.4 741 36.2 North Fylde Central Office 31,527 11,356 36.0 20,171 64.0 Great Britain 56,230 20,223 36.0 31,222 55.5 (a) The regions are Senior Medical Officer commands and do not conform precisely to social security or standard regions.
436W
Table 3 Attendance Allowance—Reviews 1985* Region Requests for review† Result of review (where decision is altered) After refusal of award After award‡ Awards made after disallowance || Award increased from lower to higher rate Award reduced or withdrawn¶ Number Percentage of all decisions Number Percentage of all decisions Number Percentage of all decisions Number Percentage of all decisions Number Percentage of all decisions North Eastern 2,874 6.8 3,512 8.4 1,690 4.0 2,735 6.5 123 0.3 Midlands 2,609 6.2 4,431 10.6 1,627 3.9 3,509 8.4 178 0.4 the lower rate, (2) were awarded the higher rate, (3) had the lower rate increased to the higher rate and (4) had the lower rate withdrawn;
(2) how many people made renewal applications for attendance allowance in 1984 and 1985 nationally and in each of the social security regions; and in each case how many and what proportion were (a) awarded: (i) the higher rate and (ii) the lower rate on initial application, (b) requested a review after: (x) refusal of the allowance and (y) award of the lower rate and (c) upon review: (1) were awarded the lower rate, (2) awarded the higher rate, (3) had the lower rate increased to the higher rate and (4) had the lower rate withdrawn.
§ Mr. NewtonFor information relating to 1984 I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on 26 March 1985 at columns171–73. The available information for 1985 is given in the following tables and relates to decisions made and not to applications in that year.
437W
Region Requests for review† Result of review (where decision is altered) After refusal of award After award‡ Awards made after disallowance|| Award increased from lower to higher rate Award reduced or withdrawn ¶ Number Percentage of all decisions Number Percentage of all decisions Number Percentage of all decisions Number Percentage of all decisions Number Percentage of all decisions London North 1,727 4.1 2,861 6.8 1,100 2.6 2,270 5.4 121 0.3 London South 1,622 3.9 4,055 9.7 1,057 2.5 3,207 7.6 142 0.3 South Western 850 2.0 2,704 6.4 587 1.4 2,182 5.2 85 0.2 North West (Merseyside) 1,251 3.0 1,973 4.7 701 1.7 1,569 3.7 83 0.2 North West (Manchester) 1,101 2.6 1,899 4.5 674 1.6 1,521 3.6 51 0.1 Scotland 2,487 5.9 2,135 5.1 1,425 3.4 1,631 3.9 64 0.2 Wales 1,830 4.4 2,074 4.9 1,125 2.8 1,642 3.9 95 0.2 Great Britain 16,351 38.9 25,644 61.1 9,986 23.8 20,266 48.3 942 2.2 * It is not possible to distinguish between reviews on initial claims and reviews on renewal claims. † Details are of reviews because of dissatisfaction with the award or because of a change in the need for attention or supervision. It is not possible to provide separate figures for lower rate awards. || It is not possible to distinguish between lower and higher rate awards. ¶ It is not possible to distinguish between reviews which led to withdrawal from those which resulted in a lower rate award. These percentages are overstated to an extent because some decisions on renewal claims are taken at North Fylde Central Office. (See table 2.)
Regions are Senior Medical Officer commands and do not conform precisely to social security regions.