§ Mr. OatenTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of those who will no longer be eligible for(a) severe disablement allowance and (b) incapacity benefit have savings of (i) over £8,000 and (ii) between £3,000 and £8,000. [73512]
§ Mr. BayleyNo information is available on the capital assets of potential future claimants of Incapacity Benefits.
Some of those who in future will be ineligible for Incapacity Benefit (IB) or Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA) will also be unable to receive Income Support (IS) because of the level of their income and/or capital. However, at least 70 per cent. of those who do not qualify for SDA and 70 per cent. of those who do not qualify for IB because of changes to the contribution conditions are expected to be entitled to IS.
§ Helen JacksonTo ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the overpayments of disability living allowance and other benefits, which have come to light as a result of benefit reviews; and if he will make a statement. [74164]
§ Mr. BayleyThe need to ensure that the amount of benefit paid to claimants is correct at the outset, and remains correct, is an important element in our programme of welfare reform. This requires systems of review which are fair, sensitive and appropriate to the individual circumstances of the claimant.
These requirements are particularly important where the claimant is a severely disabled person. Accordingly, on 28 January 1999, Official Report, column 321, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced that the existing, unsatisfactory system of review of entitlement to Disability Living Allowance—the Benefit Integrity Project (BIP)—would end on 31 March, to be replaced in April by a new, fairer system of periodic review.
461WThere is however an outstanding issue which has arisen from the operation of BIP. This is where because of the claimant's condition, or a change in that condition, entitlement to DLA reduces or ceases altogether. This might be because of an improvement in their physical or mental condition or because the disability proves not to be as severe as was originally thought. Guidance from the Chief Adjudication Officer on this question has indicated that any such changes to entitlement would, to comply with the law, need to be backdated to the point where the change in the condition had actually occurred, or where an erroneous statement had been made on the basis of which the entitlement was awarded. This means that, in any such case, an overpayment is created, which in the normal course of events we would need to take steps to recover.
In the context of DLA, this situation has the potential to cause severe hardship and exceptional difficulty for many severely disabled claimants. For example, a successful operation, the purchase of special aids or equipment, or gradual rehabilitation from a crippling injury can all constitute a change which potentially affects entitlement. Often, the claimants will be quite unaware that this is the case; or even that his or her needs have actually changed. Moreover, because no system of reviewing DLA entitlement existed until 1997, such a change may have gone unnoticed for months or years, resulting in the need to recover sums of money which can amount to many thousands of pounds, often from very vulnerable people who had no idea that this was likely to happen to them.
We regard this situation as unacceptable, and are not prepared to seek recovery in such cases. We have therefore decided to act swiftly, and in the interests of fairness, in two ways.
First, we intend to deal with existing cases, and those which will continue to arise until the arrangements for determining DLA overpayments can be changed in line with our new system of periodic review. We have issued a Direction to the Accounting Officer to ensure that no recovery action is taken in such cases. Thereafter, we intend to seek Parliamentary approval for this approach by taking powers through the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, currently before this House.
Second, we want to make sure that this situation cannot recur in the future, and that in the longer-term, our approach to overpayments of DLA, and also Attendance Allowance (AA) for severely disabled elderly people, is in line with our proposals for a new, fairer review system for these benefits. We therefore intend to lay regulations as soon as possible. These will provide for a fairer system of review and recovery more closely based on the claimant's understanding of his or her condition, and more regularly and sensitively reviewed, to minimise the scope for large overpayments to accrue, but also to ensure that public money is protected and that fraud and abuse does not pay.
These measures will apply not only to DLA and AA, but also to overpayments of other benefits which have arisen as a consequence of a review of DLA or AA.
462WIt is, however, important to be clear that they will apply only to those cases where a review is made in respect of factors directly related to the disability of the claimant. In particular, they will not apply to overpayments created by any fraudulent claims for DLA and AA; or to the much larger number of cases where an overpayment results from changes in the claimant's situation where it was clear that entitlement might be affected and notification required—for example, change of address, going abroad or into hospital.
Although this situation has arisen in the context of DLA, there are potentially similar issues for other benefits such as Incapacity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance. We therefore intend to extend the new arrangements to clarify that people do have a duty to report changes which they know could affect their entitlement to these benefits. At the same time we will ensure that when entitlement is reviewed, this is done in a fair and sensitive way.