§ Mr. ÖpikTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of disability living allowance have had their claims(a) increased and (b) decreased as a result of the Benefit Integrity Project since August 1997; and if she will make a statement. [31604]
§ Mr. DenhamThe administration of the Benefit Integrity Project is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
Letter from David Riggs to Mr. Lembit Öpik, dated 10 March 1998:
The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter Mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the number of claimants of Disability Living Allowance who have had their claims (a) increased and (b) decreased as a result of the Benefit Integrity Project since August 1997. As Mr Mathison is away from the office on leave, I am replying.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 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 this reply helpful.
§ Mr. BurstowTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer of 13 February 1998,Official Report, columns 429–30, concerning disability 243W living allowance claimants mistakenly included in the Benefit Integrity Project, how many of those mistakenly contacted to date have (a) had their disability living allowance reduced, (b) had their disability living allowance stopped, (c) had no change made to their disability living allowance and (d) had their disability living allowance increased; and of those in (a) and (b) how many have sought a review of the Adjudicating Officer's decision and with what result. [31886]
§ Mr. Denham[holding answer 2 March 1998]: The Benefit Integrity Project aims to ensure that those in receipt of DLA are entitled to it. While it is right to check that people are receiving the correct amount of benefit, we are determined that those checks should be undertaken as sensitively as possible. Also, that we should ensure all decisions taken as a result of the project are right. We have, therefore, acted to introduce an extra safeguard to improve the quality of, and confidence in, benefit decisions made by the Project.
The administration of the Benefit Integrity Project is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
Letter from David Riggs to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 10 March 1998:
The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter Mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question, pursuant to her Answer of 13th February, Official Report, columns 429-30, concerning Disability Living Allowance (DLA) claimants mistakenly included in the Benefits Integrity Project (BIP), how many of those mistakenly contacted to date have (a) had their DLA reduced, (b) had their DLA stopped, (c) had no change made to their DLA and (d) had their DLA increased: and of those in (a) and (b) how many have sought a review of the Adjudicating Officer's (AO's) decision and with what result. As Mr. Mathison is away from the office on leave, I am replying.Where it is possible to identify from DLA records people who are in the exempt categories, these people are not visited or sent postal enquiry forms. The Benefits Agency has, however, acknowledged from the outset that some people in exempt categories will not be identified. That is because the main disabling condition which leads to an award is recorded using a numerical code, input at the time DLA is awarded. There are instances where the code alone will not always identify exempt groups. Paper files are also scrutinised by clerical staff in case there is further information available. Sometimes, especially where people have more than one disabling condition, it may not be clear that they are in one of the exempt groups and they may, therefore, be contacted.If the customer does not bring relevant information to the attention of the visiting officer the Agency does not expect visiting officers to judge if a customer is in one of the categories we agreed not to contact directly. Many disabled people are helped by the use of aids which can disguise the extent of their disability and some conditions require clinical diagnosis. Visiting officers are clerical staff trained to gather data from customers in a sensitive way. They have no medical training.Visits are terminated if the interview is causing distress to the customer. The Agency may need to re-visit or, alternatively, obtain the information another way. The visiting officer would also terminate enquiries if it appears clear that the person really needs someone to act for them. If the person refused to participate because they claimed to be in a category we have agreed not to contact directly, the visiting officer would withdraw from the interview and make further enquiries.If BIP enquiries are abandoned before any information has been gathered on a case involving someone in an exempt category, no further action is taken on the case. The position is different, however, if the customer completes the postal questionnaire or provides information to the visiting officer which indicates that 244W benefit may need to be adjusted. Such evidence cannot be ignored but must be referred to the adjudication officer to decide whether a review is appropriate and, if it is, to determine benefit entitlement.At 31 December 1997, 403 people in exempt categories have been contacted as part of the Project. Of these, no further action has been taken in 350 cases and benefit continues unchanged. Of the remainder, 4 awards have been increased, 34 awards have been reduced and 15 have been disallowed completely.Of the 34 people whose benefit has been reduced, 16 have asked for a review of their entitlement: in 2 cases benefit has been restored to the previous rate and 14 cases are still under reconsideration. Of the 15 people whose benefit has been disallowed, 14 have asked for a review of entitlement; in 3 cases, benefit has been awarded at a lower rate than the previous award and 11 cases are under reconsideration.I hope you find this reply helpful.
§ Helen JonesTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people(a) in the North-West and (b) in Warrington, North have (i) been disallowed benefit and (ii) received increased benefits as a result of the Benefit Integrity Project. [33636]
§ Mr. DenhamThe Benefit Integrity Project aims to ensure that those in receipt of DLA are entitled to it. While it is right to check that people are receiving the correct amount of benefit, we are determined that those checks should be undertaken as sensitively as possible. Also, that we should ensure all decisions taken as a result of the project are right. We have, therefore, acted to introduce an extra safeguard to improve the quality of, and confidence in, benefit decisions made by the Project.
The 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 David Riggs to Helen Jones, dated 10 March 1998:
The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter Mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning how many people (a) in the North West and (b) in Warrington North have (i) been disallowed benefit and (ii) received increased benefits as a result of the Benefit Integrity Project. As Mr. Mathison is away from the office on leave, I am replying.The information is not available in the format requested. The 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. However, once the casework has been completed a full evaluation of the data is planned to provide a geographical analysis.As at 31 January 1998, 54,839 cases nationally have been examined as part of the BIP. Of the total cases dealt with 1,299 have had their benefit increased, 42,730 have been unchanged, 6,884 have had their benefit reduced and 3,926 have had their benefit stopped. The total includes 10,811 renewal cases; of which 334 had their benefit increased, 5,601 remain unchanged, 2,907 have had their benefit reduced and 1,969 have had their benefit decreased.A monthly statistical report can be found in the House of Commons library.I hope you find this reply helpful.
§ Helen JonesTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases involving people who are terminally ill have been reviewed by the Benefit Integrity Project(a) in Warrington, North and (b) nationally. [33637]
§ Mr. DenhamThe administration of the Benefit Integrity Project is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend with further details.
245WLetter from David Riggs to Helen Jones, dated 10 March 1998:
The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter Mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about how many cases involving people who are terminally ill have been reviewed by the Benefit Integrity Project (a) in Warrington and (b) nationally. As Mr. Mathison is away from the office on leave, I am replying.The information cannot be provided in the format requested. Information is not routinely provided on a geographical basis because of the disproportionately high costs and the disruption to the processing of current casework.People in certain groups are not being contacted directly under the Benefit Integrity Project (BIP), provided that it is possible to identify them from their records. They include those paid under the Special Rules arrangements for people who are terminally ill. All such cases can be identified from computer records and no-one in this group has been, or will be, visited or sent a postal enquiry form.The Special Rules arrangements apply to people who may not live longer than six months because of an illness, although it is, of course, impossible to say exactly how long someone will live. Claims expressly made on these grounds are dealt with more quickly and people are paid the highest rate of the DLA care component immediately, without having to wait three months and without having to establish that they satisfy the disability criteria for that award. These arrangements do not apply to the mobility component.There are, however, a number of people who are terminally ill but who do not come within the Special Rules definition. Their claims are dealt with in the normal way; entitlement depends on the extent of help they need with personal care and getting around and they are also subject to the three months qualifying and six month prospective tests. People in this situation who are receiving the higher rate of the DLA mobility component with either the middle or higher rate of the care component will be contacted by the BIP.There are other people receiving these rates of benefit who claimed DLA under normal rules some time ago who are now terminally ill and may come within the Special Rules definition. They would not be identified initially and a postal enquiry form would be issued or a visit made. Visits are, however, concluded if the interview is causing distress to the customer or if the customer maintains that they are terminally ill. The Benefits Agency might need to re-visit or to consider obtaining the information in some other way.During the course of BIP enquiries, it may become apparent that a customer now comes within the Special Rules definition. If a review could lead to an increase in benefit, they are advised of the evidence required to support a review on those grounds.I hope you find this reply helpful.