Income Support (Hansard, 19 June 1995)

§ Mr. Roger Evans

The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Ian Magee, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

Letter from Ian Magee to Mr. Keith Bradley, dated 15 June 1995: The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking about the outcome of 96W the audit of the administration of Income Support discretionary severe hardship payments to persons aged 16 and 17 years. Prior to 3 May 1994, all decisions on claims for Income Support from 16/17 year olds, under the severe hardship provision, were made by the Severe Hardship Claims Unit (SHCU) in Glasgow. These decisions, with the exception of likely nil and complex decisions, were devolved during April 1994 to the District Offices. I have attached, at Annex A, a list of the cases that are now referred to SHCU. During May 1994, the Benefits Agency Internal Audit carried out a review of the procedures for dealing with claims for Income Support from 16/17 year olds under the severe hardship provision. Their report was produced in July 1994. Annex B outlines the main findings. As a result of the report the Benefits Agency has introduced one procedural change involving the introduction of a register of officers 97W who are authorised by the Secretary of State to make decisions under the severe hardship provisions. We have also reminded staff of previously issued advice on best practices to follow in administrating claims from 16/17 year olds. I hope you find this reply helpful.

ANNEX A

Cases to be referred to SHCU for decision

1. Likely nil decisions
2. Likely revocations
3. Where a care order is currently in force
4. Partner cases
5. If payment is not appropriate from the date of claim
6. If backdating because of good cause is appropriate
7. If severe hardship payments have been made for 16 weeks continuously
8. All cases if an authorised officer is unavailable
9. If a young person has not registered for Youth Training after a short term direction has expired

ANNEX B

Findings of the Benefit Agency Internal Audit Report on Income Support for 16/17 year olds

1. Development of decision making in the pilot exercise was extremely successful and there is no reason to doubt effective national devolution.
2. From the sample of cases examined, the average time from receipt of claim to interview was 2.74 days. This delay was compounded by the number of claims which were not identified on receipt.
3. Audit established a payment accuracy rate of 93.17 per cent. from the cases examined which was in line with Agency targets despite the devolution of some of the decision making from the Severe Hardship Claims Unit (SHCU).
4. Development of decision making has produced an administrative saving for the Agency.

Changes in the proportion of lone mothers in employment 1977–79 to 1991–93
Percentage
	1977–79	1979–81	1981–83	1983–85	1985–87	1987–89	1989–91	1991–93
Working full—time	22	23	19	17	18	17	18	17
Working part-time	24	25	23	22	24	23	24	23
All working	47	49	42	39	42	40	43	41

Notes:

Part-time work is defined as work for less than 30 hours per week.

Source:

1. Table 5.9 General Household Survey 1993.

2. Policy Studies Institute, "Changes in Lone Parenthood 1989 to 1993" (awaiting publication). General Household Survey 1977–79 and 1991–93.