§ Mr. LevittTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many residents of High Peak, within the last 12 months for which records are available or on the last available date,(a) are claiming sickness or disability related benefit, (b) have been investigated by the Benefit Integrity Project, (c) have had their benefits reduced by the Benefit Integrity Project, (d) have had their benefits increased by the Benefit Integrity Project, (e) have appealed against their level of benefit and (f) have won appeals against their level of benefit. [47701]
§ Mr. DenhamThe administration of the Benefit Integrity Project is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.
Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Tom Levitt, dated 3 July 1998:
The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter Mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many residents of High Peak, within the last 12 months for which records are available or on the last available date (a) are claiming sickness or disability related benefit, (b) have been investigated by the Benefit Integrity Project (BIP), (c) have had their benefits reduced by the BIP, (d) have had their Benefits increased by the BIP, (e) have appealed against their level of benefit and (f) have won appeals against their level of benefit. As Mr. Mathison is on annual leave, I am replying.The number of residents in High Peak claiming sickness and disability benefits is shown in the table at Annex 1.The information concerning the BIP is not available in the format requested. To provide geographical information routinely would incur high costs and disrupt processing of ongoing casework. Figures are available on a national basis only.As at 30 April 1998, a total of 172,026 cases, including 27,991 renewal cases have been selected for action under the BIP. At the same date a total of 81,221 cases have been examined. Of the total cases dealt with 1,864 have had their benefit increased, 63,380 have remained unchanged, 10,058 have had their benefit reduced and 5,919 have had their benefit stopped.The total included 16,366 renewal cases of which 505 had their benefit increased, 8,407 have remained unchanged, 4,436 have had their benefit reduced and 3,018 have had their benefit stopped.1,513 requests for an appeal have been received, of these 1,103 have been sent to the Independent Appeals Tribunal (ITS) for action, 61 have been finalised by ITS. Of the 61 cases, 10 had the Benefit Integrity Project decision maintained, 36 were restored to the original award, 7 were awarded at a lower rate than their original award and 8 were awarded at a higher rate than their original award.A monthly statistical report, concerning the BIP, can be found in the House of Commons Library.The number of residents in High Peak who have appealed against their level of benefit and who have won appeals against their level of benefit is shown in the table at Annex 2.I hope you find this reply helpful.
412W
Annex 1: Residents of High Peak in receipt of sickness and disability benefits Benefit Number Disability Living Allowance2 2,641 Attendance Allowance2 1,915 Incapacity Benefit3 2,743
Annex 1: Residents of High Peak in receipt of sickness and disability benefits Benefit Number Severe Disablement Allowance3 452 Income Support claimants in High Peak and Derbyshire Dales 1,000 LA districts with a disability premium4 5 6 1,000 1These figures do not take account of benefit overlap 2Figures relate to 31 May 1998 3Figures relate to 30 November 1997 4Figures relate to 30 November 1995, rounded to nearest thousand 5Information by parliamentary constituency is not available. The figure has been produced by combining information on those Local Authority districts within High Peak. It should be noted that Local Authority districts may contain parts of more than one parliamentary constituency and will therefore also include customers from other constituencies e.g. Derbyshire Dales is found in both High Peak and West Derbyshire Parliamentary Constituency. The figures cannot therefore be taken as actual estimates for Parliamentary Constituencies. 6Disabled are defined as benefit units for whom the Disability premium is in payment 7Figures not available for Council Tax Benefit and Housing Tax Benefit. Source:
1. Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance Analytical Services Division: 100 per cent. data
2. Incapacity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance: 5 per cent. sample of the benefit computer system, which excludes a small number of cases held clerically, a rating factor has been used to account for missing Post Codes
3. Income Support Quarterly Statistical Inquiry: 5 per cent. sample
Annex 2: Residents of High Peak who have appealed against the level of sickness and disability benefit Heard and decided Benefits Lodgements Total In appellant's favour Per cent. Total Benefits 278 149 43 28.9 All sickness and Disability related benefits 174 84 30 35.7 SDA 3 1 — — IIDB 16 1 — — DLA 77 31 9 29.0 DisBen 2 1 — — ICA 2 — — — AA 10 2 1 50.0 IB (not AWT) 5 4 1 25.2 IB (AWT) 40 27 14 51.2 AWT (not IB) 19 17 5 29.4 Note:
1. The information encompasses all appeals lodged with the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) or heard and decided between 1 October 1997 and 31 March 1998.
2. Information on appeals relating to the disability premiums of Income Support, Housing Benefit/Council Tax is unavailable