Select Committee on Social Security Minutes of Evidence


Supplementary Memorandum submitted by Disability Alliance (DLA 12)

BENEFITS INTEGRITY PROJECTSTATISTICS

  Figures are taken from the 31 January 1998 DSS statistics.

  DSS statistics: As usually presented the DSS figures are confusing. This is because they include renewal cases as well as those covered by BIP. They also include double counting where claimants have had reductions in both their mobility and care components. The DSS figures do not include exempted cases though they do give a total number of exempt cases�.

  Renewal cases: The inclusion of renewal cases is particularly unhelpful in giving an accurate picture of the reliability of current awards. Where a claimant's condition is expected to change they are given a limited time award and at the end of the period of the award are asked to complete a renewal form—which is similar to the BIP form and the ordinary claim form. A high proportion of renewal claims result therefore in a change of award㬬 per cent according the DSS more detailed breakdown of figures. This is as it should be and is not an indication that there is a problem with the integrity of the benefit.

  In order to get a picture of the integrity of the benefit and the real size of any incorrectness problem it is necessary to focus on the BIP caseload, ignore double counting and take account of exempt cases. Exempt cases include tetraplegics, paraplegics, people who are both deaf and blind, double amputees, terminally ill people and those with severe mental impairment. They are exempt because the DSS accepts that there is no problem with the integrity of their awards.

  These statistics have been prepared with the information available from the DSS to date. As a fully detailed breakdown is not available an assumption has been made that all exempt cases would have been included in the visiting programme (rather than as part of the postal process).

  BIP figures for visited cases (higher rate mobility with higher rate care components) including exempt cases. This gives 19,685 visit BIP cases. Of these:

    1.8 per cent had their mobility component disallowed;

    2.6 per cent had their care component disallowed;

    0.17 per cent had their mobility component reduced;

    4.6 per cent had their care component reduced.

  Note: There is no scope for increases as these are all awards at the maximum rate. These percentages may reduce once those whose benefit is restored on review or appeal are taken into account.

  BIP figures for postal cases (higher rate mobility with middle rate care components). Thirty-two thousand three hundred and forty-five cases have been dealt with by post under BIP. Of these:

    6.4 per cent had their mobility component disallowed;

    9.3 per cent had their care component disallowed;

    0.5 per cent had their mobility component reduced to a lower rate;

    4 per cent had their care component reduced to a lower rate;

    3 per cent had their care component increased to the highest rate.

  Note: These percentages may reduce once those whose benefit is restored on review or appeal are taken into account.

REVIEWS AND APPEALS

  The DSS figures indicate that two-thirds of people whose benefit has been reduced ask for a review of the decision. Of those 25 per cent had their benefit restored.

  Very few cases have gone through the appeal process so no statistics are available as yet.

Lorna Reith

Disability Alliance for the Disability Benefits Consortium


 
previous page contents

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries

© Parliamentary copyright 1998
Prepared 30 April 1998