HC Deb 10 February 1998 vol 306 cc186-8W
Mr. Swinney

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what requirements are placed on assessment officers involved in the Benefits Integrity Project in respect of informing claimants of the possibility of(a) benefit loss and (b) appeal against that loss arising out of interviews as part of the project; what steps have been taken to ensure that assessment officers engaged in the Benefits Integrity Project make clear their involvement in this project when making home visits; and if she will make a statement; [27861]

(2) what is the number of assessment officers involved in the Benefits Integrity Project by (a) region and (b) parliamentary constituency in Scotland; [27862]

(3) if she will place in the Library a copy of the guidelines issued to assessment officers involved in the Benefits Integrity Project; [27863]

(4) what are her criteria for assessing suitability or availability for work under the Benefits Integrity Project; [27864]

(5) how many terminally ill recipients of disability living allowance have had their benefit (a) set aside, (b) reduced and (c) increased as a result of the Benefits Integrity Project; and if she will make a statement; [27865]

(6) pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) of 30 January 1998, Official Report,columns 420–21,how many people with multiple sclerosis have had their benefits reviewed under the Benefits Integrity Project; how many of these had payments (a) set aside, (b) reduced and (c) increased; and if she will make a statement; [27907]

(7) in how many cases reductions in benefit as a result of the Benefits Integrity Project have been advised against in writing to (i) the assessment officer and (ii) the appeals officer by a qualified medical practitioner; in how many of these cases the reduction was confirmed; and if she will make a statement. [27909]

Mr. Denham

One of our key aims is to rebuild integrity in, and public support for, the Social Security system and the way in which public money is spent. Benefits should go to those who are properly entitled to benefit. This is why we have continued with the Benefits Integrity Project.

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 Peter Mathison to Mr. John Swinney, dated 9 February 1998: The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to respond to recent Parliamentary Questions regarding the Benefit Integrity Project (BIP). As announced by the Secretary of State today, it is important that decisions about benefit entitlement are made fairly and are seen to be fair. In future, no decision made by the project resulting in reduction or removal of entitlement to Disability Living Allowance (DLA) will be made solely on the evidence provided by the claimant—there will always be additional evidence to support the decision. We have been liaising closely with organisations of and for disabled people from the early stages of the Project. This new initiative underlines our determination to act properly to get the benefit right and to listen and act upon any concerns. We will continue to involve these groups in the evaluation of the Project as it develops. This project continues to operate under the normal assessment and adjudication rules that are applied to all DLA cases. Adjudication Officers (AOs) who are responsible for assessing cases referred to them under the BIP follow exactly the same guidelines as those applying to all other DLA cases. No special guidance has been issued to AOs involved in the BIP. A copy of the AOs Guide, which provides general information about legislation affecting DLA, is held in the Library. To minimise unnecessary distress to individuals receiving DLA and to avoid nugatory enquiries people with certain conditions will not be contacted directly by the BIP. This includes recipients of DLA who are terminally ill, defined in DLA legislation as having a life expectancy of less than six months. The BIP visiting officers are required to explain to customers, at the time of the visit, that the purpose of gathering the information contained in the questionnaire, is to ensure that the correct amount of benefit is in payment. They also explain the length of time it is likely to take for a decision to be made on their case. When the decision is notified, the customer is given information about how to request a review or appeal against the decision should they wish to do so. The customer should request a review within three months of the decision. All cases are sent to Blackpool for adjudication where the cases are dealt with on an alphabetical basis in chronological order, by approximately 80 AOs. The information is not available broken down into regions or parliamentary constituencies. At present, there are 139 visiting officers employed nationally on the BIP of which 14 are based in Scotland. The criteria used to determine entitlement to DLA relate to the mobility and care needs arising from a person's disability; their ability to, or suitability for work is not relevant. People in receipt of DLA can work without it having an effect on their entitlement. A special exercise was conducted to identify customers suffering from multiple sclerosis whose awards were looked at under the BIP. Of the 1,706 cases examined, 22 awards have been set aside, 114 reduced, 59 increased and 1,511 remain unchanged. The information is not available for the number of medical practitioners who have written to assessment and appeals officers. It may help if I explain. AOs decide on entitlement to benefit taking into account the information before them. They can request information from any source if they think it necessary to enable them to make the correct decision. The AOs may ask for information from qualified medical practitioners which they will take into account when making their decision but the medical practitioners do not give advice about whether or not benefit should be awarded. I hope you find the reply helpful.

Mrs. Ewing

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people assessed to date will receive(a) increased, (b) unchanged and (c) lower levels of benefit as a result of the Benefits Integrity Project; and if she will make a statement; [27535]

(2) if she will provide a breakdown by benefit category of the change in the number of people in receipt of each benefit as a result of the Benefits Integrity Project; and if she will make a statement; [27536]

(3) how many appeals are in progress following benefit re-assessments under the Benefits Integrity Project; and if she will make a statement; [27537]

(4) if she will estimate the savings achieved (a) in total and (b) by benefit category, as a result of the Benefits Integrity Project; and if she will make a statement. [27538]

Mr. Denham

One of our key aims is to rebuild integrity in, and public support for, the Social Security system and the way in which public money is spent. Benefits should go to those who are properly entitled to benefit. This is why we have continued with Benefits Integrity Project.

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 Peter Mathison to Mrs. Margaret Ewing, dated 9 February 1998: The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions regarding the Benefit Integrity Project (BIP). The figures provided represent the position as at 31 December 1997. A total of 40,615 cases, have been examined as part of the BIP. Of the total cases dealt with 978 have had their benefit increased, 31,920 have been unchanged and 7,717 have had their benefit reduced/or stopped. These include 7,462 renewal cases of which 242 have had their benefit increased, 3,868 remain unchanged and 3,352 have had their benefit reduced or stopped. The project is looking again at DLA awards. The two categories are those awards of the higher rate for the mobility component combined with either the highest or middle rate of the care component. 10,960 claims, with the higher rate mobility component combined with the highest rate of care component, have been examined of which 8,676 were unchanged and 2,284 were reduced. There is no scope for increase in these awards. 29,655 claims, with the higher rate of the mobility component combined with the middle rate of the care component, cases, have been examined of which 978 were increased, 23,244 were unchanged, and 5,433 were reduced. 311 appeals have been received following re-assessment under the BIP. Using the Benefits Agency's standard method of calculating savings, the amount of savings attributable to the BIP, after taking into account increases in benefit, in this financial year is £15,798,836.60. The amount attributable to awards of the higher rate of mobility combined with the highest rate of care is £5,025,665.60 and to awards of the higher rate of mobility linked to the middle rate of care is £10,773,171.00. I hope you find the reply helpful.