| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
SOCIAL SECURITY
Consultations (Postal Costs)
Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will pay the postal costs of voluntary bodies and registered charities requested to respond to Government consultation documents; and if he will make a statement. [80919]
Mr. Timms: We have received numerous responses to our consultation documents and we are grateful to the many organisations and individuals who have taken the time to let us have their views. We have no plans to pay postal costs incurred by organisations who responded.
PRIME Contract
Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the Accommodation and Office Services project authorised the PRIME contract in 1997; how many bidders were allowed, after the time limit had expired, to modify their bids; if the successful bidder's modified bid was significantly different from his original bid; and what assessment was made of the prospects for the successful bidder's first bid. [81602]
Angela Eagle: Accommodation and Office Services (AOS) consists of post opening and post dispatch, messenger services, stationery, typing, secretarial, reprographics, fleet administration, switchboard, and shuttle bus services.
These services, previously supplied to the Benefits Agency under 48 separate contracts and service level agreements, were tendered in eight large geographical lots. Invitations to tender for AOS were issued on 20 February 1998 to five bidders.
The deadline for bids was 20 March 1998 and five bids were received within this deadline. No bids were received or accepted outside this deadline. The bids were valid for a period of 90 days from date of receipt.
Owing to the complexity and range of the services, the evaluation of bids was not completed until after the 90-day period. This meant that bidders were able to reconsider their bids for specific, identified reasons. One bidder exercised their right to do so. Whilst all other bidders had the same opportunity, none did so.
26 Apr 1999 : Column: 19
There were two successful bidders for the services. Three lots were awarded to one bidder and two lots to the other; the remaining three lots were retained in-house on grounds of best value for money. Neither of the two successful bidders modified their bids.
It would not be proper to comment on the hypothetical status of a bid at any stage of the evaluation process other than the final decision.
Mrs. Fyfe:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he takes to ensure that contracts for work formerly carried out in the public sector are awarded fairly. [81603]
Angela Eagle:
All Departmental Procurement is conducted under Government Procurement Policy guidelines and in accordance with the EC Public Procurement Directives (the Directives). The Directives were developed to ensure that: all potential tenderers get the opportunity to bid; there are clear and common evaluation criteria (the criteria); and the criteria are applied to all suppliers with impartiality.
Where the Directives apply, all contracts are advertised in the Official Journal of the European Community and the business is competitively tendered. Where the Directives do not apply, the rules of competitive tendering are nevertheless followed as this is recognised as best practice.
The criterion adopted for evaluation of tenders for Government business is "the most economically advantageous". This is decided upon using value for money criteria, incorporating quality, delivery and price criteria. Recommendations by evaluation panels for award of contract are subject to scrutiny, validation and audit by independent tender boards.
Mr. Rendel:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what additional financial resources his Department has provided to the Independent Tribunal Service to handle the appeals resulting from the Benefit Integrity Project. [82020]
26 Apr 1999 : Column: 20
Angela Eagle:
The Department has not provided any additional financial resources to the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) specifically to handle appeals resulting from the Benefit Integrity Project. However, additional funding, both this year and in previous years, has been provided in-year on the basis of workload and performance trends, and to a level of maximum productivity in terms of ITS's ability to clear appeals.
Mr. Rendel:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the expected date by which all appeals arising from the Benefit Integrity Project will have been heard. [82024]
Angela Eagle:
It is not possible for the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) to give an expected date by which all appeals arising from the Benefit Integrity Project will have been heard, as these appeals are still being received by ITS. ITS is, however, committed to reducing the time which all appellants must wait for their appeals to be heard.
Mr. Rendel:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security since the commencement of the Benefit Integrity Project, (a) how many people have requested an expedited appeal hearing on the grounds of hardship, (b) how many of these requests have been accepted by the Independent Tribunal Service and (c) what steps have been taken to inform people that they may request an expedited appeal hearing. [82023]
Angela Eagle:
The information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
The Independent Tribunal Service does not routinely advise people that they may request an expedited appeal hearing but will consider any written requests received.
Mr. Rendel:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of appeals decisions made under the Benefit Integrity Project based on (a) postal questionnaires and (b) home visits, have led to benefit being increased or extended for a longer period. [82067]
Angela Eagle:
The information is not available in the format requested as the Independent Tribunal Service does not separately identify Benefit Integrity Project (BIP) appeals cases. Such information as is available is in the table.
26 Apr 1999 : Column: 19
| Postal | Per cent. of postal appeals | Visit | Per cent. of visit appeals | Total | Per cent. of total appeals | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total appeal decisions | 1,223 | -- | 331 | -- | 1,554 | -- |
| Increased from original award | 58 | 4.74 | 0 | 0 | 58 | 3.73 |
| Original award extended | 288 | 23.54 | 99 | 29.90 | 387 | 24.90 |
| Increased from BIP decision | 637 | 52.08 | 193 | 58.30 | 830 | 53.41 |
| BIP award extended | 22 | 1.79 | 10 | 3.02 | 32 | 2.05 |
| Increased from 2nd tier review decision | 627 | 51.26 | 185 | 55.89 | 812 | 52.25 |
| 2nd tier review award extended | 37 | 3.02 | 18 | 5.43 | 55 | 3.53 |
Notes:
1. The figures are up to and including 28 February 1999.
2. The "total" figures include unchanged and decreased awards, so are not the sum of the figures listed below them.
3. Figures provided by the Benefits Agency.
26 Apr 1999 : Column: 19
Mr. Rendel:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what has been the average clearance time for appeals arising from the Benefit Integrity Project since its commencement; [82021]
26 Apr 1999 : Column: 20
26 Apr 1999 : Column: 21
Angela Eagle:
The action taken to reduce average clearance time for appeals arising from the Benefit Integrity Project (BIP) falls into two areas: the preparation of appeals submissions by the Benefits Agency and the processing of the appeal by the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS).
The Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) does not separately measure clearance times for appeals arising from the Benefit Integrity Project and so the information cannot be provided in the format requested.
Benefits Agency statistics indicate that the average clearance time for appeals arising from the Benefit Integrity Project since its commencement is 163.5 days, from receipt of the appeal in the Agency to determination of the appeal by the ITS.
The Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) has raised awareness of BIP appeals among its staff and tribunal members and procedures are in place to expedite these appeals where necessary. ITS is committed to reducing waiting times for all appellants and has a clear strategy for this. An increase in average clearance times will be seen, however, as older cases are resolved although within this, individual appellants will be receiving an improved service. During the second half of 1999, we will introduce changes to the appeals process which are designed to streamline the process and provide a more efficient and speedier service.
Mrs. Fyfe:
To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the amount paid annually in war widows pensions (a) on average to each war widow and (b) in total to all recipients living in Scotland. [81276]
Mr. Bayley:
Questions on operational matters concerning the War Pensions Agency are for the Chief Executive, Mr. Gordon Hextall. I have asked him to write to the hon. Member.
(2) what progress his Department has made in reducing the average clearance time for appeals arising from the Benefit Integrity Project through speeding up the preparation of appeals. [82022]
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |