Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120
- 128)
WEDNESDAY 4 FEBRUARY 1998
MR CHRIS
THOMPSON AND
MR GERRY
KEENAN
120. Was that target too ambitious? Should
you have set a more realistic target?
(Mr Thompson) The problem is that if we set a
lower target it is what we aspire to, is a problem here. If we
set a lower target then we are almost accepting that the level
of debt is going to continue to increase.
121. But you would accept that obviously
in a perfect world we would not have any over-payment, but recognising
that it does occur, it is important that that money is recovered
if the system is going to be held with some confidence then we
have to recover those funds?
(Mr Thompson) I agree entirely and that is why
we have set ourselves that target, although I believe that our
real emphasis has to be on getting it right first time. That is
where we really start to make in-roads on the level of debt outstanding.
122. Can I just speak briefly about regularity
and propriety which means that money should be going to those
areas that are written within the rules or within the law. I noticed
that in 1995/96 the NIAO estimated that in ten per cent of new
and renewal claims people were not receiving an award when they
should have received one or it was felt that they should have
received a reward. Similarly with reviews, two per cent were not
receiving. That means that there are a large number of people
who should be in receipt of DLA who are not currently getting
it. What action are you taking to ensure that that does not happen?
(Mr Thompson) In the specific cases that the Audit
Office found we reviewed those specific ones, but that does not
cover the vast majority of the other cases.
123. But it does give a very strong indication
that there are problems here and that there are people who are
not receiving this benefit?
(Mr Thompson) The fact that most people who get
rejected first time round go for review I think shows that we
have the opportunity at that stage to pick up a very high percentage
of cases second time round.
124. Can you give us any assurance of that?
Do you believe that there are no cases out there of people who
are not in receipt?
(Mr Thompson) I could not give you the assurance
that there would be no people, but I do believe with the review
and appeal mechanisms that are in place the likelihood of there
being very significant numbers of people out there who are not
getting the benefit and should be are perhaps much less than might
be the case.
125. Can I then come back now to the original
question which is a reflection of a number of contributions here
today and it is about the future of self- assessment. I understand
what you are saying about the previous experience from those benefits
that preceded DLA, but this Report outlines in a whole series
of ways the difficulties which really stem from the beginning
of the process. You said that you were not questioning the principle
of self-assessment but you did say it has a place in the process,
which did intrigue me. You have already talked about amendments
to the form to shorten it and hopefully simplify it. Are there
any other ways that you are currently investigating of making
the self-assessment system, if we do continue with it, more user-friendly
so that we can overcome a great number of the problems that have
been outlined today and are outlined in this Report?
(Mr Thompson) We do keep the form under review
all of the time and improvements are issued regularly. I think
that we can also work with organisations like Citizens Advice
Bureaux and Disability Action in terms of working together more.
126. Can I perhaps give a lead to you. Have
you given any consideration to any particular disabilities that
may be very difficult to reflect accurately through a form and
that therefore there may be certain categories of disability that
are perfectly adequately dealt with by self-assessment and others
that may be much more adequately and quickly dealt with by a medical
examination?
(Mr Thompson) That could very well be. When I
talked about there being a place in the system, that was the direction
I was going. This is a matter for the policy-makers rather than
for myself.
127. But you have to operate the system
and in having to operate that system that has a big influence
on the policy-makers and the way they draw this up. Is that a
direction that you are moving in?
(Mr Thompson) I think that it makes a lot of sense.
Chairman
128. Thank you very much, Mr Love. Today's
session has been an object lesson in the problems and hazards
of introducing new and changing social security systems. We accept
that. Changes to social security benefits are demanding and complex
and it needs to be fully recognised in the planning introduction
and in providing and training staff to administer them properly.
Mr Thompson, I believe that you have been very straightforward
with us today and I thank you for that. I am sure as a new Accounting
Officer you are seeking to improve the system as it stands. However,
it is not acceptable that the most disadvantaged in our society
have their benefits determined on the sort of hit or miss basis
that we have heard about today. Equally, the taxpayer has a right
to expect that both fraud and over-payment of benefits are minimised.
So I am going to put a question to you. I would like you, not
today but in time, to think carefully about the comments made
to you today and to provide this Committee with a note outlining
your new targets, as particularly Mr Hope talked about, and benchmarks,
a detailed plan of action to achieve those targets and a timetable
for that plan and those targets. [4]I
should tell you that this Committee will monitor that programme
and monitor the achievements of that programme and if it is not
met then we can look forward to a re-match! Is it possible for
you to provide us with such a note?
(Mr Thompson) I think it is possible.
Chairman: Mr Thompson, thank you
very much indeed for your evidence today.
4 Note: See Evidence, Appendix 1, page 17 (PAC 286). Back
| 
