---

SOCIAL SECURITY

North Staffordshire Services

Ms Walley: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what provision his Department and its agencies currently make in north Staffordshire for (a) review visits, (b) provision of social fund money advice, (c) local customer surveys, (d) public caller offices, (e) district information officers, (f) non-technical training, (g) out-of-hours service and (h) freeline advice service; and if he will give in each case the location and staff establishment providing each of the services. [38]

Mr. Roger Evans: This is a matter for Peter Mathison, chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

Letter from Peter Mathison to Ms Joan Walley, dated 7 November 1996:

The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the provision made in North Staffordshire for (a) review visits, (b) provision of Social Fund money advice, (c) local customer surveys, (d) public caller

11 Nov 1996 : Column: 84

offices, (e) district information officers, (f) non technical training, (g) out of hours service and (h) freeline advice service; and in each case the location and staff establishment providing each of the services.
The BA District of North Staffordshire has offices at Hanley, Longton and Newcastle (Staffs). As with other Districts, North Staffordshire is required to review the services it provides to ensure that the most effective service is given within the resources available.
Targeted Reviews are conducted on existing claims by visit, post, and telephone. There are 8 visiting officers based at the Hanley Benefit Offices who also complete visits on New and Repeat claims.

The Agency conducted an internal review into the Social Fund money advice provided by its Districts. This showed that formal money advice was offered very rarely. In view of this and in the context of our commitment to focus resources on our priorities, Social Fund sections ceased to provide money advice from 1 April 1996.
A customer Survey was completed in May 1995 by North Staffordshire District. There are no plans at present to conduct another one.
North Staffordshire District have carried out a review of public caller facilities and fully consulted with interested parties. As a result public caller offices in Leek, Biddulph and Cheadle have been closed. The District continues to offer a full range of advice and information from its offices at Hanley, Longton and Newcastle.
There is one full time District Information Officer serving the North Staffordshire area based at Hanley office.
Non-technical training is provided for North Staffordshire District by an outside contractor. This is an Area contract which provides a comprehensive programme of training courses.
The Out of Hours Service (OOHS) operates in the North Staffordshire District on week days from 5 pm to 9 pm, on Saturdays from 8 am to 5 pm and on Sundays from 8 am to 4 pm. The public have direct access to an answering machine and are contacted within 15 minutes. North Staffordshire is part of a larger area for out of hours services and up to 15 staff are available for duty on a rota basis. There are 4 duty officers based in North Staffordshire with one on duty at the relevant times and the others available if needed.
A national review of the OOHS is currently underway. A consultation exercise with representatives from the Department of Health, Local Authorities and welfare agencies to assess the impact of reduction or withdrawal of OOHS has recently been completed and a decision is expected to be made by the end of the year.
North Staffordshire District does not have a freeline advice service. However staff are able to respond to enquiries with direct access to customers records and are able to provide a more personal advice and information service.
I hope you find this reply helpful.

Expenditure

Sir Ralph Howell: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish in the Official Report the undated letter produced by his Department referred to in his answer of 19 July 1995, Official Report, column 1487. [2001]

Mr. Roger Evans: Yes.

The letter reads as follows:

You recently tabled a Parliamentary Question asking what would be the estimated reduction in expenditure on Social Security benefits and on welfare foods and free school meals for Social Security benefit recipients if everybody between the ages of 16 to 65 years who was fit and able to work earned (a) £120 per week gross of tax and national insurance contributions, (b) £140 per week gross and (c) £160 per week gross. At the time I was unable to reply and promised to write.

11 Nov 1996 : Column: 85

The estimated savings are shown in the table. These estimates assume that the level of earnings received would involve working 16 hours a week or more, thus excluding entitlement to Income Support. Earnings have also been calculated individually, so that at £120 a week each a couple would be deemed to be earning £240, providing they were both fit for work.
Savings do not increase proportionately to the increase in assumed earnings since earnings of £120 are already sufficient to extinguish income-related entitlement for most claimants.

Benefit	Gross weekly earnings (Deemed)
	£120	£140	£160
	Estimated savings (£ billion)
Income Support	12.08	12.08	12.09
Housing Benefit	4.92	5.33	5.7
Family Credit	-1.36	-0.53	0.24
Council Tax Benefit	1.06	1.08	1.09
Unemployment Benefit	1.28	1.28	1.28
Total	17.98	19.24	20.39




Notes:

(i) Based on data from the 1991/92/93 Family Expenditure Surveys and the Income Support 1994 Quarterly Statistical Enquiry modelled at 1995/96 prices and benefit levels

(ii) Figures have been rounded to the nearest £10 million. Due to rounding figures may not add up to the total.

(iii) Positive figures are savings, negative figures are costs.

(iv) Income Support figures include free school meals and welfare foods.

Benefits Agency

Ms Walley: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received regarding his proposals to close the Benefits Agency out-of-hours service; and if he will make a statement. [2116]

Mr. Roger Evans: Representations have been received from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, hon. Members, the Association of Directors of Social Services, individual social service departments, local authorities, women and children's aid groups, the Bishop of Bath and Wells and members of the public.

The Benefits Agency has also held meetings with the Department of Health, local authorities, the Scottish Office and welfare agencies. Further meetings to assess financial implications have been arranged with Department of Health, Department of Environment and the Scottish office.

Jobseeker's Allowance

Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received concerning the Income-related Benefits and Jobseeker's Allowance (Personal Allowances for Children and Young Persons) (Amendment) Regulations 1996; if he will place copies of such representations in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [2128]

Mr. Roger Evans: Since the changes were announced, a small number of letters from hon. Members and the public have been received. Representations were also made to the Social Security Advisory Committee during the period of public consultation on the proposals. The committee's report, and the Government's response to it, were published with the regulations on 11 October and copies were placed in the Library.

11 Nov 1996 : Column: 86

Fraud

Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his campaign against fraud in social security will include parents with care of children receiving income from a current partner in receipt of benefit; and if he will make a statement. [2450]

Mr. Heald: We are concerned to tackle all types of fraud against the social security system, including, where relevant, the non-disclosure of income by benefit recipients.

Mr. Stott: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what criteria were used to select the areas of Britain to be singled out for investigation by the Benefits Agency special fraud teams. [3381]

Mr. Heald: The choice of areas for the Spotlight campaigns is mainly based on the ready availability of the necessary DSS and other resources.

Compactness of the locality is also taken into account.

Mr. Stott: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost to (a) his Department and (b) the Benefits Agency of the current investigation by the Benefits Agency's special fraud teams. [3382]

Mr. Heald: The Department has set aside £3,500,000 for the total costs of the programme of "Spotlight on Benefit Cheats" campaigns. This makes allowance for the costs incurred by the Benefits Agency and other DSS agencies.

Appeals Procedures

Sir David Steel: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations he received during the consultations process in support of the changes of appeals procedures for benefits outlined in "Improving Decision Making and Appeals in Social Security", Cm 3328. [2381]

Mr. Roger Evans: The period for consultation ended on 18 October and we are currently in the process of analysing all the responses received--currently 440. I cannot yet provide the information requested by the hon. Member but will write separately to him once the information becomes available.

Sir David Steel: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the decision to implement changes of appeal procedures for benefits under the Social Security (Adjudication) and Child Support Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1996 before the end of the consultation procedure set out in "Improving Decision Making and Appeals in Social Security", Cm 3328. [2382]

Mr. Evans: When my right hon. Friend the Security of State announced his intention to make these changes on 23 July, he said that he was consulting the Council on Tribunals on the proposals and that, subject to that consultation, regulations would be laid during the recess to take effect in the autumn. This has been done. The changes are intended to improve the appeals process and there is no reason to delay them.

11 Nov 1996 : Column: 87

---