HC Deb 27 July 1999 vol 336 cc296-7W
Mr. O'Hara

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the upper and lower capital limit would be for(a) income support, (b) housing benefit and (c) council tax benefit if they had been uprated by (i) prices since introduction, (ii) prices since 1990, (iii) the higher of prices or earnings since introduction and (iv) the higher of prices and earnings since 1990. [93498]

Angela Eagle

The information is in the table.

If Mr. Winter has any further queries about the appeal hearing date, he may wish to contact the PAT office direct. Their telephone number is 0171 936 7033. I hope this is helpful and if you need any further information, I will be happy to assist.

Mr. Chope

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the average time taken to process appeals in respect of claims for war disablement pension; [92967]

(2) what action he has taken in response to the findings and recommendations of the Final report of the Review of the Decision Making and Appeals Process in the War Pensions Agency; [92960]

(3) what is the average time taken to process a claim for war disablement pension. [92961]

Mr. Bayley

The administration of the War Pensions Agency is a matter for its Chief Executive, Mr. Gordon Hextall. I have asked him to write to the hon. Member.

Letter from Gordon Hextall to Mr. Christopher Chope, dated 26 July 1999: The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions relating to war pensions. You asked about the average time taken to process War Disablement Pension (WDP) claims and appeals and what action was being taken in response to the findings and recommendations of the Final Report of the Review of the Decision Making and Appeals Process in the War Pensions Agency (WPA). The latest annual figures available (April 1998 to March 1999) show that the average time taken to process a claim to WDP was 111 days, whilst the average time taken to process an appeal was 278 days. The WPA is committee to reducing the processing times and this was why I commissioned the review of the Decision Making and Appeals Process. Once the report as received, I appointed a Programme Manager and established a programme team, working under PRINCE project management discipline in line with the recommendations about implementation. The team is testing the feasibility, implications, timing and costs of implementing the recommendations. They are specifying and proposing in greater detail what is required to take forward the changes necessary to improve the service we provide. As the Senior Accountable Official, I am chairing a Steering Group which includes the DSS Policy Manager and the Chief Medical Adviser. A meeting has also been arranged with the Presidents of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal (PAT) in August at which the recommendations, particularly those which involve the Lord Chancellors Department, will be discussed. Although it is necessary to test their feasibility, it is clear that some of the recommendations are relatively straightforward and there are some "quick wins" which can be achieved. For example, improvements to the process involving more telephone contact can be made quickly and easily. These improvements are to be piloted in Autumn this year. Some changes, which are IT related, will need more careful consideration, including the funding and business case aspects. Others, in particular those involving matters of policy, will need much wider consultation with stakeholders and interested parties to assess the impact and to canvass opinion. I hope this is helpful and if you need any further information, I will be happy to assist.