Mrs. Carol Preston (Hansard, 23 February 1998)

§ Mr. Denham

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. David Winnick, dated 19 February 1998: The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about Mrs. Preston of Stockport and her claim for Disability Living Allowance (DLA). DLA decisions are largely made on the basis of self reporting by the disabled person, that is on the judgment of those best placed to know the practical effects of their disabilities. Entitlement depends not on the fact that a person has a particular disability but on the day to day effects of that condition and the care and mobility needs that arise. Mrs. Preston's claim was looked at again as part of the Benefit Integrity Project (BIP) which is a programme of postal enquiries and home visits to seek up to date information about the care and mobility needs of DLA customers receiving the Higher Rate 126W Mobility Component with either the Middle or Highest Rate Care Component. This sort of enquiry is routine in most benefits. It does not necessarily mean an award will be changed. As Mrs. Preston was in receipt of the highest rates of both components of DLA a visit was arranged and took place on 27 November 1997, where a questionnaire was completed. The information gathered from the visit was passed to an officer acting on behalf of the Secretary of State who felt that there may have been a relevant change in Mrs. Preston's night time needs which could affect entitlement. The case was subsequently passed to an Adjudication Officer (AO) who made a decision to reduce the entitlement on review. It is the responsibility of AOs in each individual case to determine awards. Neither Ministers nor departmental officials can alter or influence an AO's decision. The correct procedures have been followed, therefore disciplinary action is inappropriate. A request for a review of the decision to reduce Mrs. Preston's entitlement to DLA was received on 18 December 1997. In support of the review application, the local CAB provided more detailed information about Mrs. Preston's need benefit, took advice from a Benefits Agency Medical Officer who advised that it was unlikely that Mrs. Preston's needs would have decreased despite what was recorded in the questionnaire completed on 27 November 1997. The AO decided to re-instate benefit from 27 November 1997 on review. On 9 February 1998 Mrs. Preston was notified in person of the revised decision. This step was taken to minimise any delay and anxiety to Mrs. Preston following the further investigation into her case. There are a number of measures in place to ensure that the decisions made by an AO are of a high standard. AOs can seek the advice of medically qualified personnel who can offer advice. A statistically valid sample of AO decisions is checked by an independent discrete team who report their findings to Benefits Agency managers and to the Chief Adjudication Officer. This is part of an ongoing process designed to maintain adjudication standards. Anyone whose benefit is reduced or disallowed is entitled to request a review by another AO, who will consider all available evidence. Customers suffering from certain conditions will not be contacted as part of BIP. These include customers suffering from a terminal illness where life expectancy is likely to be under six months, quadriplegics, paraplegics, people who are both deaf and blind, double amputees and those within the definition of severe mental impairment. All efforts are taken to avoid contact in regard to the BIP exercise with customers in these categories. To improve confidence in decisions on cases made by the BIP, an additional safeguard has been introduced from 9 February 1998. No decision to reduce or remove entitlement as a result of BIP will be taken on the basis of the claimant's statement alone, there will always be additional evidence to support the decision. Further evidence about a customer's care and mobility needs may include factual medical evidence from a General Practitioner or hospital or other health care professional, a full examination by a qualified medical practitioner or information from carers. The source of the additional evidence will be determined by the officer acting on behalf of the Secretary of State in the light of the individual circumstances of the case. I hope you find this reply helpful.