§ Mr. McAllionTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims there were for(a) the mobility component and (b) the care component of disability living allowance on the grounds that the applicant suffered from persistent virus disease—myalgic encephalopathy—in each of the past three years; and how many of these claims were upheld. [42339]
§ Mr. Andrew MitchellI will write to the hon. Member shortly.
§ Mr. ClellandTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many blind or partially sighted people have won appeals on the basis of the Halliday/Fairey decision since 14 October 1994; and what is his estimate of the cost of paying the middle rate care component to those blind and partially sighted claimants who have won the entitlement on the basis of the Halliday/Fairey decision since 14 October 1994. [40893]
1024W
Mr. AndrewThe administration of disability living allowance is a matter for Peter Mathison, chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.
Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. David Clelland, dated 7 November 1995:
The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the number of blind/partially sighted people who have won appeals based on the Halliday/Fairey decision and the estimated cost of paying middle rate care component to those blind/partially sighted customers who have won entitlement on this basis since 14 October 1994.To date there have been nine blind/partially sighted Disability Living Allowance customers who have been successful on appeal where the terms of this judgement have contributed to the award of benefit. These are subject to an appeal by the Secretary of State to the Social Security Commissioner.Information as to the estimated additional cost of paying Disability Living Allowance middle rate (MR) care component for blind/partially sighted customers is not available.I can however give some information which may be helpful. Detailed records have been kept from March 1995 to date on the number of cases in which the Halliday/Fairey decision has influenced the award of the MR care component. From March 27 October 1995, the Halliday/Fairey decision has influenced 364 awards. Of these, 269 have been awarded the MR care component as a result of the effects of the Halliday/Fairey decision. These cases have entitlement to the lower rate care component without the effect of the Halliday/Fairey decision and are, therefore, currently receiving this rate. This is because any entitlement due to the Halliday/Fairey decision is subject to suspension by the Secretary of State pending the outcome of the appeal to the House of Lords. The remaining 95 customers have been awarded the MR care component and, as this is entirely due to the Halliday/Fairey decision, they are not currently receiving payment pending the outcome of the appeal.I hope you find this reply helpful.