§ Mr. BurstowTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer of 23 February 1998, Official Report, columns 124–25, concerning the sampling of Adjudication Officer decisions in respect of disability living allowance, what special arrangements have been made to check decisions under the Benefit Integrity Project; and what proportion of the sample of disability living allowance decisions have resulted in (a) overpayment and (b) underpayment of benefit in each of the last three years. [31884]
§ Mr. Denham[holding answer 2 March 1998]: The Benefit Integrity Project is designed to ensure correct payments of Disability Living Allowance (DLA). While it is right to ensure that people who are in receipt of benefit are entitled, we are determined that those checks should be undertaken as sensitively as possible, and that where a check indicates a change in entitlement, that we should get it right. The new safeguard introduced from 9 February, which ensures that no decision to remove or reduce entitlement made as part of the Project will be based solely on the claimant's evidence, will help ensure we get the decisions right and restore confidence.
The administration of this programme is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with further details.
Letter from David Riggs to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 9 March 1998:
The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter Mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking pursuant to her Answer of 24th February concerning the sampling of Adjudication Officer's decisions in respect of Disability Living Allowance (DLA), what special arrangements have been made to 92W check decisions under the Benefits Integrity Project (BIP); and what proportion of the sample of DLA decisions have resulted in (a) overpayment and (b) underpayment of benefit in each of the last three years. As Mr Mathison is away from the office on leave, I am replying.The BIP operates according to the normal DLA adjudication rules. Therefore, BIP cases are subject to the same checking procedures applied to all other DLA cases. As part of an ongoing process designed to maintain adjudication standards, a statistically valid sample of all Adjudication Officer decisions is checked by the Adjudication Checking and Advice Team (ACAT), who report their findings to Benefit Agency managers and the Chief Adjudication Officer. In the same way, this team checks a statistically valid sample of BIP cases, which are kept separate for project evaluation purposes.The information relating to overpayments and underpayments is not available in the format requested. Data for all DLA/Attendance Allowance cases is only available from April 1996. These are as shown:
Total Overpayments Underpayments 96/97 7145 198 323 97/98 to 28/2/98 5241 215 214 97/98(BIP) 355 17 23 Note:
Data is provisional and subject to change.
As part of the quality control mechanism, decisions relating to both overpayments and underpayments are taken into account and reported to Managers. Any trends identified are highlighted to the relevant Manager for consideration of any action which may be necessary.
ACAT report on a monthly basis, an analysis of all the reports will be prepared with a view to identifying and recommending any areas for improvement.
I hope you find this reply helpful.
§ Mrs. MayTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) on what date the Benefit Integrity Project came into operation; [33500]
(2) pursuant to the oral statement of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), of 4 March 1998, Official Report, column 686, what changes have been made to the design of the Benefit Integrity Project since 1 May. [33501]
§ Mr. DenhamThe Benefit Integrity Project was implemented on 28 April 1997, when the first postal inquiry cases were selected and previewed. The first questionnaires were issued on 6 May 1997.
Measures taken since 1 May include:
introducing regular meetings with representatives from organisations of, and for, disabled people to discuss their concerns about the Project and to share information as the work progresses;agreeing that certain groups of DLA recipients would not be contacted directly as part of the Project. Namely people paid under DLA Special Rules, double amputees, paraplegics, quadriplegics, people who are blind and deaf and those within our definition of severe mental impairment;inviting and acted upon suggestions for improving the letters that would be used to arrange visits;delaying the home visiting programme, due to start in July, until August to enable a session on disability awareness to be included in the training programme for all visiting staff;93Wopening communication channels, for example, emerging findings from the operation of the Project were discussed at a meeting with a wide ranging group of organisations of, and for, disabled people in mid-November and an information pack was subsequently issued for their use in newsletters and other publications.On 9 February 1998, we introduced an additional safeguard to improve confidence in decision making and to reassure disabled people. From that date, no decision made as part of the Project to reduce or remove someone's benefit will be made on the basis of the claimant's statement alone—there will always be additional evidence to support the decision.