To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the main disabling conditions of people who have been assessed by the Benefit Integrity Project and have had their disability living allowance (a) maintained, (b) reduced, (c) increased and (d) withdrawn. [34100]
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 this programme 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. Archy Kirkwood, dated 16 March 1998:
The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter Mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about listing the main disabling conditions of people who have been assessed by the Benefit Integrity Project (BIP) and have had their Disability Living Allowance (DLA) (a) maintained, (b) reduced, (c) increased and (d) withdrawn. As Mr. Mathison is away from the office on leave, I am replying.
The information is not available in the format requested. Of the 54,839 people whose cases have been assessed by the BIP, 20,027 are recorded as having two main disabling conditions. The figures provided relate only to those cases where one main disabling condition applies.
At the time an award of DLA is made, the Adjudication Officer records the main disabling condition on the DLA computer system. However the system allows for different conditions to be recorded
Disability
| Maintained
| Reduced
| Increased
| Withdrawn
| Total
|
| Arthritis | 7,336 | 1,445 | 261 | 814 | 9,856 |
| Cerebrovascular disease | 2,486 | 632 | 88 | 187 | 3,393 |
| Disease of muscles/bones/joints | 1,860 | 471 | 57 | 332 | 2,720 |
| Heart disease | 1,921 | 400 | 67 | 291 | 2,679 |
| Spondylosis | 1,560 | 437 | 55 | 314 | 2,366 |
| Chest disease | 1,579 | 185 | 34 | 99 | 1,897 |
| Multiple sclerosis | 1,345 | 106 | 51 | 28 | 1,530 |
| Back pain | 890 | 300 | 31 | 302 | 1,523 |
| Neurological diseases | 1,122 | 175 | 33 | 106 | 1,436 |
| Malignant disease | 450 | 126 | 22 | 190 | 788 |
| Mental subnormality | 625 | 92 | 21 | 8 | 746 |
| Asthma | 439 | 96 | 20 | 107 | 662 |
| Trauma to limbs | 353 | 155 | 10 | 110 | 628 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 450 | 91 | 15 | 46 | 602 |
| Parkinson's disease | 384 | 19 | 24 | 6 | 433 |
| Major trauma | 235 | 104 | 5 | 75 | 419 |
| Epilepsy | 235 | 61 | 10 | 38 | 344 |
| Chronic fatigue syndromes | 178 | 60 | 10 | 95 | 343 |
| Peripheral vascular disease | 217 | 46 | 9 | 22 | 294 |
| Renal disorders | 167 | 50 | 4 | 48 | 269 |
| Bowel and stomach disease | 96 | 31 | 5 | 55 | 187 |
| Blindness | 151 | 24 | 4 | 3 | 182 |
| Psychoneurosis | 100 | 42 | 7 | 30 | 179 |
| Psychosis | 79 | 33 | 2 | 18 | 132 |
| Multi system disorders | 96 | 19 | 0 | 14 | 129 |
| Paraplegia/tetraplegia | 83 | 25 | 2 | 7 | 117 |
| Inflammatory bowel disease | 60 | 15 | 3 | 3I | 109 |
| AIDS | 68 | 5 | 2 | 28 | 103 |
| Blood disorders | 60 | 14 | 1 | 25 | 100 |
| Cystic fibrosis | 70 | 13 | 3 | 7 | 93 |
| Alcohol abuse | 58 | 11 | 1 | 8 | 78 |
| Skin disease | 44 | 17 | 1 | 10 | 72 |
| Dementia | 60 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 70 |
| Motor neurone disease | 49 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 53 |
| Frailty—senility | 39 | 7 | 1 | 6 | 53 |
| Severely mentally impaired | 41 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 48 |
| Metabolic disease | 30 | 4 | 2 | 8 | 44 |
| Deafness | 23 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 31 |
| Behavioural disorder | 18 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 27 |
| Haemophilia | 16 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 22 |
| Personality disorder | 8 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 14 |
| Terminally ill | 10 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 12 |
| Total parental nutrition | 5 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 10 |
| Double amputee | 5 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 8 |
| Deaf/blind | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| Multiple allergy syndrome | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Haemodialysis | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Hyperkinetic syndrome | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Sub-total
| 25,110 | 5,344 | 872 | 3,486 | 34,812 |
| Cases with two disabling conditions | 17,620 | 1,540 | 427 | 440 | 20,027 |
Total
| 42,730 | 6,884 | 1,299 | 3,926 | 54,839 |
Notes:
1. Terminally ill cases are not necessarily paid under the Special Rules.
2. All figures are as at 31 January and are subject to change.
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people who have been assessed by the Benefit Integrity Project had their initial claim decided (a) on the basis of the claim pack alone, (b) with a general practitioner's factual report and (c) by medical
in respect of the care and the mobility components. This usually arises when they are awarded at different times. The number of cases for which there are two conditions recorded is identified separately. The BIP database does not allow such cases to be analysed further.
The information available is set out in the table
I hope you find this reply helpful.
examination; and how many of those people in each case have had their disability living allowance (i) maintained, (ii) reduced, (iii) increased and (iv) withdrawn; [34102]
(2) how many people who have been assessed by the Benefit Integrity Project have had their disability living
allowance reduced or withdrawn (a) as a result of a lessening of the need or b) where the need was unchanged but equipment was or could be used to meet that need. [34103]
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 and 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 the hon. Member.
Letter from David Riggs to Mr. Archy Kirkwood, dated 16 March 1998:
The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter Mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions concerning the Benefits Integrity Project (BIP). As Mr. Mathison is away from the office on leave, I am replying.
The information requested is not available. The BIP is looking again at some existing awards of DLA. Recipients of the higher rate mobility component combined with the highest or middle rate of the care component are being contacted by post or at a visit to obtain an up to date picture of their circumstances. Cases are selected by a random monthly scan of the DLA computer system.
The DLA computer system does not record the evidence on which the initial award was made. Neither has the BIP extracted this information from clerical records.
Any changes made to a person's benefit reflect the decision of an Adjudication Officer (AO) that the needs arising from that person's disability have changed.
The reasons underlying the change in a person's needs may include an improvement in their condition or their adaptation to the effects of their disability, for example through the use of aids and equipment or through changes to their living accommodation. In some other cases, the award may be changed because the AO has decided that the initial award was incorrect, that is there was a mistake concerning some material fact when the AO made the decision. The BIP database does not maintain a level of detail that enables me to identify cases where the award was changed because of the availability of equipment which was or could be used to meet that need.
Sorry I cannot be more helpful.
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people who have been assessed by the Benefit Integrity Project had made their first claim before 1992; and how many of those people have had their disability living allowance (a) maintained, (b) reduced, (c) increased and (d) withdrawn. [34101]
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 and 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 the hon Member.
Letter from David Riggs to Mr. Archy Kirkwood, dated 16 March 1998:
The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter Mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning how many people who have been assessed by the Benefit Integrity Project (BIP) has made their first claim before 1992; and how many of those people have had their Disability Living Allowance (DLA) (a) maintained, (b) reduced, (c) increased and (d) withdrawn. As Mr. Mathison is away from the office on leave, I am replying.
The number of cases looked at by the BIP who made their first claim before 6 April 1992, the date of commencement of the DLA, is 24,415. Of these, 21,140 have had their award maintained, 2,079 have had their awards reduced, 575 have had their award increased and 621 have had their award withdrawn.
I hope you find this reply helpful.
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is her Department's current estimate of funds needed to run the Benefit Integrity Project over the next financial year; what has been the cost of the project since 1 May 1997; how many staff are allocated to the project; and if she will make a statement on the current running costs of the project. [34593]
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 and 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, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
Letter from David Riggs to Mrs. Theresa May, dated 16 March 1998:
The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking about the estimate of funding and staffing for the Benefits Integrity Project (BIP). As Mr. Mathison is away from the office on leave, I am replying.
It is estimated that the BIP will cost £11.954m for the financial year 1998/9. However this is currently under review following the changes announced on 9 February 1998. On that date the Secretary of State announced that no case likely to result in the reduction or removal of benefit will be passed to an Adjudication Officer for review without further evidence being obtained in addition to that supplied by the customer on the BIP questionnaire.
The forecast cost of BIP for the year 1997/8 is £8.189m.
The total number of staff involved in the BIP is 441. This is made up of 280 staff based in Blackpool and 161 Visiting Officers around the country, based in 11 Disability Benefit Centres.
I hope you find this reply helpful.
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer of 3 March 1998, Official Report, columns 609–10, concerning the adequacy of publicity for the right of disability living allowance claimants to request copies of previous DLA forms, if she will require (a) BIP questionnaires and (b) letters notifying DLA claimants of a BIP interview to include a clear statement about the right to see previous claim forms. [33355]
[holding answer 9 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 and 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 the hon. Member with further details.
Letter from David Riggs to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 16 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 3rd March, concerning the adequacy of publicity for the rights of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) claimants to request copies of previous DLA forms, if she will require (a) Benefit Integrity Project (BIP) questionnaires and (b) letters notifying DLA claimants of a BIP interview to include a clear statement about the rights to see previous claim forms. As Mr. Mathison is away from the office on leave, I am replying.
It is normal practice to give customers, on request, copies of previously completed DLA claim packs. This has always been the case and is not specific to the BIP.
A review of all forms including questionnaires and notifications relating, not only to BIP but DLA/Attendance Allowance as a whole, is currently being undertaken and this will form part of that review.
I hope you find this reply helpful.
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer of 3 March 1998, Official Report, column 610, relating to disability living allowance claimants, if she will supply the equivalent information for claimants who have had their DLA reduced as set out in the letter from Peter Mathison dated 18 February (Ref.31888). [33348]
[holding answer 9 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 and 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 the hon. Member with further details.
Letter from David Riggs to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 16 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 3rd March, relating to Disability Living Allowance (DLA) claimants, if she will supply the equivalent information for claimants who have had their DLA reduced as set out in the letter from Peter Mathison dated 18th February (Ref: 31888). As Mr. Mathison is away from the office on leave, I am replying.
The information requested is contained in the attached tables.
I hope you find this reply helpful.
The total number of postal and interview enquiries carried out by the Benefit Integrity Project to date
| |
Postal cases as at 31 December 1997
| Number
|
| No. of cases reduced | 2,346 |
| No. of cases reviewed | 502 |
| Review decision maintained | 1378 |
| Restored to a higher rate on review | 11 |
| Restored to a lower rate on review | 238 |
| Restored to original award on review | 75 |
| Total number of cases restored on review | 124 |
| Total number of Postal Cases looked at = | 25,638 |
1This figure includes 10 decisions where the level of award has been maintained but the period has been extended on review. | |
2Including 14 completely disallowed. | |
Note:
These figures include all combinations of awards resulting from a reduction.
Visit cases as at 31 December 1997
| Number
|
| No. of cases reduced | 692 |
| No. of cases reviewed | 53 |
| Review decision maintained | 40 |
| Restored to a higher rate on review | 0 |
| Restored to a lower rate on review | 4 |
| Restored to original award on review | 9 |
| Total number of cases restored on review | 13 |
| Total number of BIP interviews | 7,515 |
Note:
These figures include all combinations of awards resulting from a reduction.