Examination of Witnesses (Questions 240 - 259)
WEDNESDAY 1 APRIL 1998
MR JOHN
LUTTON, MS
URSULA BRENNAN
and MR BILL
FARRELL
240. Nowhere in Richmond House was there an internal
target?
(Mr Lutton) No. There was a savings assumption
that out of this process will come less incorrectness.
241. I am not quite sure what the difference between
a target and a savings assumption is.
(Ms Brennan) There is a big difference. An assumption
gets revised if you get it wrong, whereas with a target you beat
the people up to try and meet it. That is a significant difference.
242. What was the savings assumption?
(Mr Lutton) It is £27 million, £40 million,
£35 million over the next three years.
Chairman
243. Saving?
(Mr Lutton) Savings. Less incorrectness in other
words.
Mr Wicks
244. So I must not call it a target, it is a savings
assumption.
(Mr Lutton) It does make a big difference in operational
terms and in terms of the behaviour of our managers and staff.
245. Are you happy with the home visits that are being
undertaken?
(Mr Lutton) We have had some difficulty. The process
is that we should be giving it at least a week's notice and that
was felt to be reasonable at the time. We are looking again at
whether that continues to be a reasonable period of notice. We
have had some instances of short notice that you may have heard
evidence on. We had six complaints ourselves up until November
last year of short notice, people arriving within the minimum
of five days. We changed our procedures then. We made sure we
sent out notification by first class post. We introduced earlier
scanning. We have not had any specific complaints since then of
short notice and if there are specific complaints we would want
to hear of them and investigate them.
246. Are you happy with the quality of decision making?
(Mr Lutton) The quality of decision making goes
back to an extent to the point Ursula was making earlier. I think
we do have some difficulty with the quality of decision making
across the area generally and we have evidence that suggests that
there is something inherently difficult in the benefit, I think
that is part of the explanation I gave in my earlier comments,
and that is one of the reasons why the Government has asked us
to look at the gateways, to look at the evidence requirements
and we will need to continue to take those issues forward. The
quality of decision making within the BIP has been no different
to the general DLA decision-making process in that respect.
247. Which worries us, I think. We met people with very
serious disabilities last week. I am thinking particularly of
one woman with very serious breathing difficulties. She needed
some mechanical aid before the Committee with her breathing. She
had had her DLA withdrawn, as I recall, and later reinstated.
We are not experts on this Committee, but we could not understand
how someone with such a serious disability could have her DLA
withdrawn. What do you think is going on?
(Mr Lutton) I would not be able to comment on
the individual case. There have been some cases like that that
are apparently not understandable. It is sometimes a matter of
the evidence not being sufficient at the time the adjudication
officer's decision was taken and further evidence produced thereafter.
It is sometimes a matter of us not picking up evidence that we
perhaps should have picked up. As to the individual case, we would
obviously want to look at that and give specific comments on it.
Ms Buck
248. I think that lady made the point that when she won
the benefit back on appeal it became clear that large chunks of
the questionnaire had simply not been filled in, that a line had
been put through them and the words "N/A" applied to
the questions. Do you ask people to go through the entire questionnaire
answering every question? Do they do it? If they do not do it,
how on earth are you establishing a quality control on the assumptions
of people who in some cases have had three hours disability awareness
training so that they are not actually making their own assumptions
about the relevance of parts of that questioning?
(Mr Lutton) We do ask people to go through the
form in detail.
(Mr Farrell) In the case of a questionnaire which
is sent to a customer by post, clearly the completion of the questionnaire
as we get it back would be as the customer with their advisers
or family or friends has chosen to complete it. Therefore, in
the case of a questionnaire which came back with significant questions——
249. This was a home visit.
(Mr Farrell) If it was a home visit the requirement
for the visiting officer is to ensure that they gather the totality
of data. We expect the visiting officer to ensure, by talking
to the customer at the end of the visit, that they have all the
data and we would expect the visiting officer to review the form
with the customer and the customer would sign it to confirm that
it has been completed with their information. However, I share
the concern that I think is evident in the Committee. When we
met the disability consortium with Baroness Hollis on 23 March
there was a suggestion that in some way we should ensure that
the customer who completed a form at the visit was given a copy
of the information that they had given and an opportunity after
the visit officer has gone to say, "I have had the visit.
This is a copy of what I completed. I think I may have under-estimated,
misrepresented, not answered properly" and to add to that
evidence. I am keen to see something like that and we will be
engaging members of the disability organisations imminently to
work out a procedure to do that. There have been a number of suggestions
made ranging from could the form be carbonized and you could keep
a carbon copy on the way through. At the end of the interview,
after the customer has reviewed and signed it, we could then take
20 minutes, half an hour and copy it out for the customer and
leave a copy. When we return it, do we photocopy it and send it
back? How do we need to fix it? As for the principle, we are committed
in my department to doing something to meet that anxiety.
Mr Wicks
250. Mr Farrell, have you been on a home visit?
(Mr Farrell) I have not been on a home visit,
no.
251. You are the Project Manager, are you not?
(Mr Farrell) I am the Project Manager responsible
for delivery of the operation generally.
252. Mr Lutton, have you been on a home visit?
(Mr Lutton) Not on this particular project. I
have been on home visits in the past.
253. Ms Brennan, have you?
(Ms Brennan) No.
254. Have any policy makers in Richmond House been on
a home visit?
(Ms Brennan) I would doubt that. No, I do not
believe so.
Mr Wicks: Is this a satisfactory state of affairs?
Mr Roy
255. I have still got some points I would like to clear
up regarding the concern about BIP. Your memorandum says in paragraph
38: "To address these concerns the Secretary of State announced
on 9 February an extra safeguard to the BIP process. This involves
obtaining additional evidence to that provided by the claimant
in cases where reduction or removal of benefit entitlement is
likely, before reference to the Adjudication Officer for a review."
That is for people after February 9th. What about the people who
have had their benefit reduced before February 9th, what has been
done for them?
(Mr Lutton) Ministers have asked us to look at
that. We are currently considering proposals to put to ministers.
256. What is the time-span? Is it short term or long
term?
(Mr Lutton) Imminent.
(Mr Farrell) We understand there are about 3,500
people whose benefit was adjusted without further evidence other
than the evidence that they had given themselves, but 2,500 of
those chose not to apply for a review having been notified of
a decision and their rights of a review.
257. That can be 2,500 people who thought it was just
a lost cause and the decision was taken and there was nothing
else they could do.
(Mr Farrell) That may be your view.
258. When do you expect to get back to ministers on this?
Obviously we have all got constituents who have been waiting a
long time, even since last May and June.
(Mr Lutton) Within weeks. We are not working to
a date that I could give you right now, but the Minister is very
keen that we come up with proposals on this soon.
259. Still on the general point of concessions. We know
that was one concession that was given. We have heard in the last
few days, I have been speaking to various Parliamentary colleagues,
that other concessions have been given. Could you enlighten us
on those?
(Mr Farrell) At the beginning of the project when
Baroness Hollis met members of organisations representing disabled
people there was a list of conditions where we agreed we would
not involve people suffering from those conditions in the Benefit
Integrity Project. That list remained as it was until the meeting
between Baroness Hollis and the consortium on the twenty-third
when she agreed that people over 65 would no longer be contacted.
| 
