§ Mr. ChaytorTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals in Bury, North have been contacted as part of the Benefit Integrity Project; how many of them have had their benefit reduced; and how many appeals have been made against these decisions. [28700]
§ Mr. DenhamOne 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 Benefit Integrity Project.
303WThe administration of this programme is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend with further details.
Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. David Chaytor, dated 24 February 1998:
The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary Question regarding how many individuals in Bury North have been contacted as part of the Benefits Integrity Project (BIP) and how many of them have had their benefit reduced; and how many appeals have been made against these decisions.The information is not available in the format requested. The comprehensive database of casework has not been designed to extract information geographically during the project. To do so would necessitate high cost and disruption to the processing of ongoing casework. Once the casework has been completed a full evaluation of the data is planned to provide a variety of trend analyses, including geographical, to inform any change to the benefit which may be considered necessary at that time.However, as at 31 December 1997, a total 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/stopped. The total includes 7,462 renewal cases; of which 242 had their benefit increased, 3,868 remain unchanged and 3,352 have had their benefit decreased.A total of 311 appeals have been received.A brief monthly statistical report is produced and a copy of the report for December 1997 and subsequent months can be found in the House of Commons Library.I hope you find the reply helpful.
§ Mr. SwinneyTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer of 9 February 1998,Official Report, columns 75–76, on the Benefit Integrity Project, if it is her policy to re-examine all benefit reductions made to date under the Benefit Integrity Project on the basis of evidence provided solely by the claimant; if she will require the additional evidence to support a decision to include an independent medical test where requested; and if she will make a statement. [29759]
§ Mr. Denham[holding answer 16 February 1998]: On 9 February the Secretary of State announced that we have taken action to improve the quality of decisions made by the Project which involve a reduction or removal of benefit. No decision resulting in reduction or removal of entitlement to DLA will be made solely on the evidence provided by the claimant—there will always be additional evidence to support the decision.
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 Benefit 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 24 February 1998:
The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question in pursuant to her Answer of 9 February, Official Report, columns 75–76, on the Benefit Integrity Project (BIP) and, if it is the policy to re-examine all benefit reductions made to date under the BIP on the basis of evidence provided solely by the claimant; if she will require the additional evidence to support a decision to include an independent medical test where requested.304WDLA is a complex benefit. It is not compensation for disability. Entitlement is determined by the effect of a disability on a person's need for help with personal care and getting around and even awards made "for life" are conditional on continuing to meet the eligibility criteria for that award. If any customer disagrees with a DLA decision that has been made, a review or appeal can be requested.From 9 February, no case likely to result in the reduction or removal of benefit will be passed to an Adjudication Officer (AO) for review without further evidence in addition to that supplied by the customer on the BIP questionnaire. This extra safeguard is to improve confidence in the decisions made by the BIP and to help safeguard the position of severely disabled people.There is no reason to believe that previous decisions are incorrect therefore, there are no plans to re-examine all benefit reductions made to date under the BIP. However in cases which have been reviewed as a part of the BIP, if the decision was reached solely on the basis of what the customer told us on the BIP questionnaire, additional further evidence will be required before the case is passed to the AO for a decision.Further evidence to seek amplification of a customer's care and mobility needs may include factual medical evidence from a GP or hospital, a full examination or information from carers. the source of the additional evidence will be determined by the individual circumstances of the case.I hope you find the reply helpful.