HC Deb 09 February 1994 vol 237 cc367-70W
Mr. Alfred Morris

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is his present estimate of the number of people now receiving invalidity benefit who will not qualify for the benefit by which it is being replaced;

(2) what estimate he has made of the number of people now receiving invalidity benefit who will not qualify for the proposed new incapacity benefit and who, being unable to work full time, will have to seek income support.

Mr. Scott

Our current estimate is that around 200,000 people receiving invalidity benefit in April 1995 may be excluded from receiving incapacity benefit by the proposed new medical test during the first two years. It is not possible to give an accurate assessment of how many will have to seek income support.

Mr. Alfred Morris

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has had from national organisations of and for disabled people about his proposal to discontinue invalidity benefit; what replies he has sent; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Scott

We have received a large number of comments on our proposals, mainly in response to the consultation document on the proposed new medical incapacity test. We will be publishing a report on the outcome of the consultation exercise, which ends on 11 February. The national disability organisations which have responded include the following:

  • Cancer Relief Macmillan Fund
  • The Churches Council for Health and Healing
  • The Disabled Living Foundation
  • The Disability Alliance
  • The Disability Benefits Consortium
  • The Disablement Income Group
  • Ileostomy Association of Great Britain and Ireland
  • The Mental Health Foundation
  • Mobility Trust
  • The Multiple Sclerosis Society of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  • Pensioners and Disabled Alliance
  • National Back Pain Association
  • National Schizophrenia Fellowship
  • National Advisory Council on Employment of People with Disabilities
  • National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux
  • The Neurofibromatosis Association
  • The Pain Society
  • Scottish Association for Mental Health
  • The Stroke Association

Mr. Ron Davies

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) for each of the administrative regions of the Benefits Agency in the United Kingdom, how many women have(a) had an increase of invalidity benefit suspended, (b) applied for that suspension to be lifted and (c) had the suspension lifted;

(2) for each of the Benefits Agency district offices in Wales, how many women have (a) had an increase of invalidity benefit suspended, (b) applied for that suspension to be lifted and (c) had the suspension lifted.

Mr. Scott

This is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Ron Davies, dated 8 February 1994: The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about women in receipt of invalidity Benefit (IVB) in the United Kingdom, and more specifically Wales, who, at age 60, have had an increase of IVB suspended. The information is not available in the exact format requested. This is because the statistics provided are for Great Britain rather than the United Kingdom (the United Kingdom including Northern Ireland). I have therefore appended the information that is available for the United Kingdom which has been collated into Benefits Agency Area Directorates, within which there are a number of District and Benefit Offices. The information for Wales has been broken down by Benefit Agency District, each District comprising of a District Office and one or more Benefit Offices. The information given is that available at the last working day of August 1993, the last for which detailed information is, at present, held.

Benefits Agency Scotland and Northern Territory
Benefits Agency area directorate Number of IVB cases suspended Applications for suspension to be lifted Number of cases where suspension lifted
Tyne Tees 3,237 258 230
South Yorkshire and Humberside 997 33 29
North and West Yorkshire 1,604 28 20
Scotland and Northern 2,585 37 1
North, Central and West Scotland 4,151 267 218
East of Scotland 1,630 18 12
Totals 14,204 641 510

Benefits Agency Wales and Central Territory
Benefits Agency area directorate Number of IVB cases suspended Applications for suspension to be lifted Number of cases where suspension lifted
East Midlands 855 28 18
Midlands South West 637 9 3
West Mercia 1,843 20 7
Wales 2,906 44 19
Merseyside 1,779 81 71
Greater Manchester 1,590 63 18
Lancashire and Cumbria 2,244 34 21
Totals 11,854 279 157

Benefits Agency southern territory
Benefits Agency area directorate Number of IVB cases suspended Applications for suspension to be lifted Number of cases where suspension lifted
Anglia 580 16 8
Chilterns 1,146 12 7
South London and West Sussex 658 16 12
West Country 811 31 9
East London and Essex 508 3 1
South East 548 20 10
Wessex 960 5 0
TOTALS 5,211 103 47

Wales area directorate
District Number of IVB cases suspended Applications for suspension to be lifted Number of cases where suspension lifted
Gwyneddigion 176 9 5
North Wales Coast 307 13 3
Mid Wales and Maelor 9 2 1
West Wales 0 0 0
Swansea 0 0 0
Ogwr Afan Nedd 405 4 0
South Glamorgan 434 6 1
South Gwent and Islwyn 254 8 8
Cynon, Merthyr and Rhymney Valley 687 0 0
Taff Rhonda 282 1 0
North Gwent and Brecon 352 1 1
TOTALS 2,906 44 19

Mr. Ron Davies

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) on what basis he will assess extreme hardship in individual cases of women over 60 years whose invalidity benefit increase is being suspended;

(2) what discretion he has to lift the suspension of invalidity benefit increase for women over 60 years in Wales in cases of extreme hardship; and what are the limits on the lifting of the suspension in terms of the income of the women concerned.

Mr. Scott

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's discretion to take account of extreme hardship in deciding whether to impose or lift suspension of benefit is exercised on his behalf by Benefits Agency staff. Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency will write to the hon. Member with further information.

Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Ron Davies, dated 8 February 1994: The Secretary of State for Social Services has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about women in receipt of Invalidity Benefit (IVB), who at age 60 have had an increase of IVB suspended. Regulation 37A of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations provides that where a decision by a Social Security Commissioner is being appealed to the Courts, payment of benefit in any cases affected by the decision may be suspended by the Secretary of State (SoS) pending the outcome of the appeal. Payments of Invalidity Benefit to women over 60 are currently being suspended under this regulation pending the resolution of a case which is before the Court of Appeal. The power to suspend is discretionary. The SoS therefore also has discretion not to susped if it would be inappropriate to do so, for example if it would cause exceptional hardship in an individual case. This discretion is exercised on the SoS's behalf by Benefits Agency (BA) staff. There are no set criteria for lifting suspensions. Each case is considered in relation to the personal circumstances of the customer. However, the BA, conscious of the requirement to treat all customers fairly, has recently issued guidelines on the question of hardship to all local offices. They stress that cases have to be looked at individually and that, while it is not possible to state in hard and fast terms what constitutes exceptional hardship, a number of factors need to be borne in mind by staff considering hardship applications. These include the fact that hardship will arise only in exceptional circumstancses; that prior to the Commissioner's decision IVB would have been reduced to the rate of the Retirement Pension that would otherwise have been payable; that Income Support and Social Fund are available to meet financial hardship; and that the onus is on the customer to prove that hardship exists rather than on the Agency Department to disprove hardship. The guidance also gives two examples of circumstances in which exceptional hardship might be considered. These are:—

  1. (i.) where it is already known or suspected that a customer has a terminal illness and is likely to die before the outcome of the appeal is known; and
  2. (ii.) where the customer has been led to believe that benefit will continue at the higher rate and has entered into a financial commitment on that basis.

It is not inevitable that exceptional hardship would be found to exist in these sort of situations. Nor are they the only situations in which exceptional hardships would be considered. Nevertheless they provide examples of what "exceptional hardship" might mean and indicate that such cases can be expected to arise only rarely.I hope you find this reply helpful.