Select Committee on Social Security Third Report


The Social Security Committee has agreed to the following Report:—



  1. This Report follows on from our Fourth Report of 1997-98, 'Disability Living Allowance'.[1] In that Report we resolved to revisit Disability Living Allowance (DLA), with specific reference to the Benefit Integrity Project (BIP).[2] The Benefit Integrity Project was formally launched on 28 April 1997.[3] The aim, according to the DSS, was to collect up-to-date information about certain DLA beneficiaries' current care and/or mobility needs through a programme of visits and postal enquiries, with a view to ensuring that DLA is paid at the correct rate and to those who are legally entitled to it.[4] In our previous Report we dealt at some length with the problems and distress that BIP had caused.[5] Since then further improvements have been made to the operation of BIP and the Government has committed itself to the introduction of a new system for checking DLA awards. In this Report we consider both the current operation of the Benefit Integrity Project and the arrangements for a new system of checking of DLA claims.

2. In his statement on 28 October 1998 the Secretary of State for Social Security indicated that the Benefit Integrity Project would be cancelled and replaced by a new system of review:

    "The Benefit Integrity Project, which we inherited from the previous Government, has failed. It caused a lot of anxiety to disabled people so we will cancel it, and in its place we will introduce a new system for reviewing claims to disability living allowance and attendance allowance that is both fairer and more sensitive. It will work in the interests of disabled people."[6]

3. Many believed that BIP had ended with that announcement.[7] The Government, however, has made it clear that the "Benefit Integrity Project will continue until it is replaced by a new system".[8] New cases are being selected for Benefit Integrity Project treatment and will continue to be selected until 31 March 1999.[9] Mr Stephen Timms, the then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Social Security, told the Committee on 2 December that:

    "...we think that the DSS needs to do more to review benefit awards once the award has been made, and so we do not want to be in a position where we stop doing checking work altogether. If we were to say 'Today everything stops' then that means that checking work stops and there will not be anything happening, and we do not think that would be right, and it would be indeed a step in the wrong direction."[10]

4. The Government invited comments on the consultation paper, A new contract for welfare: support for disabled people, by 8 January 1999.[11] Consultation on a new system of review has continued beyond that date through the Disability Benefits Forum which has agreed to convene small working groups to take forward the detailed discussions in this area.[12] The Forum is composed of disability group representatives, and is chaired by the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Social Security. Since we took evidence, the Secretary of State for Social Security has announced that the Benefit Integrity Project "will end on 31 March 1999".[13] From that date no new cases will be selected for the project. We welcome the announcement that initially the new system "will exclude DLA recipients whose cases were examined by the Benefit Integrity Project".[14]

5. There is widespread consensus that it was the lack of consultation with disability groups that led to many of the problems of the original BIP. In our previous Report we argued that the "complete lack of meaningful consultation with those in the relevant field contributed to [the] poor level of preparation."[15] It is essential that any new system of checking of DLA claims is understood by claimants and supported by disability organisations. We welcome the Government's commitment to consultation through the Disability Benefits Forum and "to continue working closely with disabled people and their organisations to make sure that appropriate arrangements are put in place."[16] The Government should consult with as wide a range of disability organisations as possible to ensure that the needs of disabled people are understood fully.

6. The Committee welcomes the improvements that have been made to the operation of the Benefit Integrity Project. Since 5 May 1998 all cases involving a review of a BIP decision to reduce or remove entitlement have been considered more quickly than before. The vast majority — 86 per cent — are now completed within 20 to 25 days.[17] A refresher training programme for BIP visiting officers began on 18 May 1998 and provided each individual with an extra two days training.[18] From 15 June 1998, new letters and a new questionnaire were brought into use. The new questionnaire provides the claimants with a greater opportunity to describe their needs in their own words.[19]

7. We welcome the fact that the new process "will be evaluated after six months of operation and the findings used to continue to improve the process to make it more sensitive to the circumstances of the individual contacted". We recommend that the evaluation of the new process should include consultation with those affected and that its findings should be published.

  8. In our previous Report we recommended that the needs of people with sensory disabilities should be considered.[20] We welcome the fact that the new letter provides the opportunity for the claimant to tell the Department if there is a need for an interpreter or sign language interpreter.[21] It is also encouraging that DLA claim forms are available in several languages and formats including braille and tape. Less encouraging is the fact that the letter and questionnaire used in the Benefit Integrity Project are unavailable in languages other than English. Instead they are translated or interpreted on a one-off basis.[22] We recommend that the needs of people with sensory disabilities and the needs of people for whom English is an additional language should be addressed in the arrangements for a new system of checking DLA claims.

Exemptions to the Benefit Integrity Project

  9. We welcome the fact that the Government has decided to make two further extensions to the categories of people who will not be contacted as part of the Benefit Integrity Project.[23] Those exempt now include people receiving both components of DLA at the highest rates whose main disabling condition (as recorded by the adjudication officer) is cystic fibrosis, dementia, haemodialysis, hyperkinetic sydrome, motor neurone disease, multiple allergy syndrome or total parenteral nutrition.[24] In addition, people receiving the highest rate of the DLA care component with either the middle or highest rate of the DLA care component whose award pre-dates April 1992 and people receiving both components of DLA at the highest rate whose main disabling condition is recorded as multiple sclerosis, neurological disease, Parkinson's disease or learning difficulty have been exempted from the action of the Benefit Integrity Project from 16 November 1998.[25]

10. In June 1997 there were under 12,000 exemptions from the Benefit Integrity Project.[26] There are now over 300,000 cases exempted from the project.[27] This represents a significant proportion of the total BIP target group, illustrating that the original arrangements were fundamentally flawed. The number of cases in the target group changes over time and so it is not possible to determine the number of the original BIP target group who are exempt.[28] At the outset, there were 415,000 awards which had been in payment for 12 months at the relevant rates of DLA. As each month passes that number changes as does the number of exemptions in that total. The most recent figure is 566,000.[29] The DSS states that "the actual exemptions so far and estimates for the remainder of the cases indicate that the exemptions would account for just over 50 per cent of that total."[30]

11. Mr Timms said that all the existing exemptions might not be carried over into the new process for all claimants:

    "I think there is a good case for saying that these exemptions should carry over into the new arrangements for people on the high rates of the components, which BIP was looking at. But I do not think we would wish to carry these exemptions over automatically into the lower rates of benefit. The biggest group of exemptions was people aged over 65; now people in that age range, on some of the middle and lower rates of benefit, may well be people whose benefit actually ought to be increased. So we would not, automatically, for that reason and others, want to carry these over automatically into the full range of the new arrangements that we are going to introduce."[31]

12. It is logical to reassess claims where the benefit may be increased. One of the problems we highlighted in our previous report, however, was that "BIP has been responsible for introducing an element of fear and anxiety into the important debate on social security reform as it affects disabled people...Rights Now described disabled people as 'living in a climate of fear for future'."[32] Given the anxieties which resulted from the Benefit Integrity Project, it is imperative that the Government is transparent in its intentions in the future system.

Costs and savings

  13. One of the original purposes of the Benefit Integrity Project was to make savings. It was part of the 'Spend to Save' project of the previous government. The most recent estimate of savings in 1998-99 is £30 million, with an administrative cost of £7 million to date.[33] The Government's intention is that the new process will apply to all cases and so result in upward as well as downward revisions to ensure that people are receiving the correct amount of benefit.[34] The Government's stated priority is not to make savings, but to put in place arrangements which will ensure that benefit payments are correct.[35] By looking at underpayments as well as overpayments the net savings can be expected to decline because of the inclusion of lower awards where the incidence of underpayment will be higher than with those awards included in the original scheme. Equally, the fact that the new system of checking will apply to the entire DLA caseload makes it likely that the administration costs will rise. Yet the Treasury is described as being "content with the changes that we are making"[36] and the Government has stated that once the new arrangements have been agreed, estimates of the likely costs and savings will be made.[37] We recommend that once estimates of costs and savings have been made they should be made public, showing the likely reduction in savings and increase in administration costs.


  14. The assumption of savings in the original BIP was based on the presumption of a high level of inaccuracy of DLA awards — specifically a high level of suspected fraud. A Benefit Review of DLA carried out in 1996 and published in February 1997 found that nearly 73 per cent of people receiving DLA were receiving it at the correct rate at the time they were visited.[38] The Review concluded that the headline figure for fraud in DLA was 12.2 per cent: the sum of cases categorised as suspected fraud levels 3 and 4 and confirmed fraud.[39] These findings were extrapolated to provide an estimated annual expenditure loss from overpayments due to fraud of around £499 million.[40] After a year and a half of the project being in operation, there are just 79 cases being investigated for fraud.[41] None have been referred for prosecution.[42] This is a severe indictment of the approach that was taken in the initial stages of the project. We recommend that the Government should make it clear that the new system will not be focussed on fraud. Any future initiative based on suspected fraud in DLA should be separate as far as is practicable from the new arrangements for checking claims.

The 32 weeks assumption

  15. The current estimate of savings is based on the assumption that cases with a changed award of DLA would have remained on their original level of award for 32 weeks. The DSS acknowledges that

    "The 32 weeks assumption is likely to be an overestimate for renewals, a proportion of which would have had their award changed anyway, regardless of BIP activity. But it is likely to be a significant underestimate for non-renewal cases, with the average duration of the benefit of higher rate mobility/middle rate care recipients estimated to be around 5 years and higher rate mobility/higher rate care recipients around 9 years."[43]

The 32 weeks assumption is used by the Benefits Agency (BA) in estimating savings from BA fraud activity.[44] Given the specific nature of DLA and the low incidence of fraud, we recommend that the DSS should consult the National Audit Office to review the methodology and accuracy of their savings estimates in relation to DLA.

Accuracy of decisions

  16. Since 9 February 1998 additional evidence must be provided in cases where reduction or removal of benefit is likely.[45] On 17 June 1998 the Government announced that certain BIP cases that had been decided before the introduction of the additional safeguard on 9 February would be re-examined. Cases affected were those where the decision to reduce or remove benefit was made on the basis of the claimant's statement alone, and where the claimant had not exercised their right to ask for a review of the decision.[46] Up to 15 November 1998, 296 (30 per cent) of those contacted had asked for a review of the BIP decision and 150 claims had been decided. Of these only 37 per cent have had the BIP decision upheld, 59 per cent have had their pre-BIP award re-instated (plus arrears) and the remaining 4 per cent have had their pre-BIP award increased. According to the Department, analysis of these outcomes indicates that around 12 per cent of the decisions were incorrectly made.[47] The Department says that this has subsequently been addressed through training which is on-going within the Benefits Agency.[48] The rest of the adjusted decisions were all influenced by the provision of additional information.[49] The Department concluded that the findings of the reviews of the pre-9 February decisions demonstrate the value and importance of the safeguards introduced in February 1998.[50]

17. The importance of making sure that the award is correct at the outset is reinforced by the findings of the routine checking of ten per cent of the DLA case-load that the Government has introduced.[51] Mr Timms said that "we think that we now have sufficient checks in place, certainly we have seen considerable improvements as a result of these changes, and we do not propose, at this stage, to increase those further."[52] We agree that the checking of all cases where there is going to be a reduction or removal of the benefit is a welcome change.[53] We are concerned, however, that the 10 per cent checking produced an accuracy of just 71 per cent.[54] This figure relates to all DLA decisions, not just BIP.[55] Twenty-nine per cent of DLA decisions are inaccurate according to this checking.[56] This figure for inaccuracy remains unacceptably high. We endorse the Minister's aim of "making certain at the outset that the award is correct and then taking action to ensure that it remains correct."[57]

18. The Chief Adjudication Officer (CAO) announced in his last Annual Report his intention to undertake a detailed exercise to examine the quality of decision making in BIP.[58] According to the DSS, initial findings suggest that more needs to be done to ensure that proper grounds are provided for review and that the appropriate overpayment action is pursued.[59] The exercise will be completed in the New Year and the CAO will report the findings in his Annual Report.[60] It is essential that the findings of the Chief Adjudication Officer's examination of the quality of decision making in BIP are taken account of in the new arrangements for checking DLA claims.


  19. In our opinion, the lack of training for visiting officers was at the heart of the failure of the Benefit Integrity Project. In our previous Report we argued that "much greater and more in-depth training should have been undertaken."[61] We therefore welcome the extra two days training of BIP visiting officers that began on 18 May 1998.[62] This included: full training on the new letters and questionnaire and the procedures to support them; a session on BIP bringing staff up to date; a session on how the information obtained from the claimant at a visit is used in determining whether or not the case should be passed to the Adjudication Officer for consideration of review action; and a session, extending over half a day, delivered by the Disablement Income Group, who were ideally placed to help the visiting officers identify and build on good practice.[63]

20. The Disablement Income Group was commissioned by the Benefits Agency to provide a formal report on the exercise. The report makes five recommendations:

— better recruitment policy would identify staff with the relevant skills for visiting;

— more time should be devoted to training visiting staff in interviewing techniques;

— team leaders of visiting staff should be trained in counselling skills to enable them to provide better support to their staff;

— BIP staff should have impairment awareness training; and

— all DLA adjudication staff should receive the same training as those who adjudicate in the BIP.[64]

21. The Department is committed to using these recommendations in a "comprehensive review of training to ensure that the necessary arrangements are put in place to overcome any remaining administrative weaknesses and, more fundamentally, to support new improved processes which will replace BIP."[65] Mr Timms said that this review will run in parallel with the review of the arrangements for checking DLA claims.[66] On 28 January 1999 the Secretary of State for Social Security announced that staff involved in the new processes would receive full training before commencing this new work.[67] We recommend that the Government should continue to liaise with the Disablement Income Group and with the Disability Benefits Forum on the timetable and content of the new training arrangements. The Government should ask the Disablement Income Group to carry out a review of the new training arrangements once they are in place, and the results of this review should be published.


  22. There remains a significant backlog in the processing of BIP appeals. Of the 5,925 appeals that are registered, 5,016 are awaiting tribunal.[68] The DSS told us that the Benefits Agency has acted to reduce the time taken to prepare cases for appeal and to notify appellants of the outcome.[69] The DSS also told us that the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) has introduced a "Standing Tribunal" system for the most urgent cases and appellants can request an expedited hearing on hardship grounds.[70] Yet we were given no evidence that any BIP appeals have been expedited by ITS on hardship grounds.[71] Mr Timms said that the Independent Tribunal Service "have made considerable efforts to make available additional resources, so that we can speed up the appeals under BIP, and, in the longer term, there will be the new arrangements for dealing with appeals through the new Appeals Agency, that will be responsible to the Secretary of State."[72]

23. Despite the apparent improvements in the arrangements for hearing BIP appeals, we remain very concerned. There is a backlog of over 5,000 cases and the average length of time between a BIP award being registered with the Benefits Agency and the appeal being decided is 160 days.[73] The DSS states that it "will be watching this situation closely and working with ITS to see what more can be done to improve through-put times and to clear the current backlogs."[74] We recognise that the long delays in hearing appeals are not confined to BIP cases. Nevertheless, given the doubts about the accuracy of BIP reviews, particularly in the earlier days of the project, it is vital that those affected have the opportunity to have their case independently examined as soon as possible. This is of particular importance as cases where BIP action has already started will continue to be processed through the remaining stages of adjudication, including review and appeal, in the normal way after 31 March 1999.[75] We recommend that priority should be placed on clearing the backlog of appeals arising from the Benefit Integrity Project as soon as possible.

The principle of checking claims

  24. Much has been learnt from the BIP project. People's circumstances do change over time and those changes can affect people's entitlement to benefit. Many people do not understand properly the basis on which the award to them has been made and therefore are not sure whether or when to report a change. Mr Timms said, "There is not a systematic review to help keep awards in line with people's needs; we think there should be."[76] The new arrangements that the Government wants to put in place "will entail checking on a regular basis for all claims in payment of Disability Living Allowance; we think that is an essential part of the management of the benefit system, in order to ensure that the payments people receive are correct."[77] This is in line with the comment that we made in our previous Report that the Department "needs to be much more active in reviewing the benefit once awarded. The methods of reviewing claims and dealing with changes of circumstances must be reconsidered as a matter of urgency."[78] Following the problems with the Benefit Integrity Project, however, it is essential that the new system is seen to be fair and "sensitive to the circumstances of the individual disabled person."[79]

Gateways to DLA

  25. The Government accepts that there is a strong case for looking at the gateways to DLA.[80] We addressed this issue in our previous Report.[81] We welcome the Government's willingness to look at an alternative approach to establishing entitlement to DLA. In our previous Report we highlighted the DLAAB's support for an 'All Living Test'.[82] Mr Timms told us:

    "...that is something that we are pursuing with the Disability Benefits Forum, and my impression from the discussions that we have had there is that, on the whole, there is a growing view amongst the disability organisations that something along those lines, the Forum is now using the term 'activities for management of life', AMLs, some sort of points type system, may well, in the longer term, be a better system for establishing entitlement to this benefit than the current system..."[83]

The claim stage

  26. The DSS memorandum states that at the claim stage the intention is to:

— get the appropriate information more effectively and give people a better understanding of how their benefit entitlement is determined; and

— make better use of alternative methods of information gathering, rather than relying too much on impersonal forms.[84]

27. Self-reporting will remain the basis of the claim process.[85] The Government is looking into ways of improving the accuracy at the claim stage, the need for which is clearly illustrated by the Benefit Integrity Project. Greater scope for gathering information by telephone and through visits are options.[86] In the case of visits, the key question is who does the visiting. We welcome Mr Timms' statement that "one of the discussions we had at the last meeting of the Disability Benefits Forum was about the possibility of involving people in this process who have not been involved before. I think the suggestion that was made at the meeting was people who work with the Independent Living Fund, who, routinely, a large part of their job is visiting people and making assessments of their circumstances..."[87] Mr Timms outlined the kind of process he envisaged:

    "If we can get the form that is completed, perhaps some extra information though talking to the person claiming over the phone, perhaps a visit by someone who is trained in assessing people's disabilities, then adjudication officers will have a much firmer basis on which to make these decisions than has been the case in the past."[88]

This corresponds with the Government's commitment in the consultation document, A new contract for welfare: support for disabled people, in which the Government said that it planned to "explore the best ways of obtaining information about the disabled person's needs from a combination of claim forms, information from GPs and other heath professionals, and medical examinations."[89] The Secretary of State for Social Security confirmed on 28 January 1999 that the review process would involve gathering information by postal inquiry and home visits and that these methods of approach would be applied across a range of people on all rates and components of DLA contacted to help identify the best means of approach in individual cases.[90]

BAMS examinations

  28. We have some concerns about the role of the Benefit Agency Medical Service (BAMS) in providing additional information in connection with a DLA claim. The allegation is often made that the examination is cursory.[91] Mr Timms said "that concern has largely been raised, not exclusively but largely, in connection with the All Work Test for Incapacity Benefit, and it certainly is something that we are aware of. I think it has been raised much less in cases of DLA."[92] The Benefits Agency Medical Service has been contracted out to Sema for a period of five years, with an estimated saving of 10 per cent over current costs.[93] In our previous Report we said that "we will keep the development of BAMS under review."[94] The quality of the work of the Benefits Agency Medical Service is an important topic to which we may return.

The role of GPs

  29. The role of GPs in DLA is two-fold. They may provide a corroborative statement which includes a diagnosis and prognosis and they may also be asked by the Benefits Agency to provide a factual report.[95] A statement from their GP or consultant is one way in which claimants are able to challenge the refusal or reduction of DLA by the DSS. The ability to challenge initial DLA decisions by providing additional information is important if the Government's aim of getting claims right is to be met. Our concern is that increasingly charges are being levied by GPs and that there is a very big range in these charges.[96] The Department of Social Security has not been involved in any specific discussions about GP charges to claimants.[97] We recommend that the Government, in conjunction with the Disability Benefits Forum, should hold discussions with the BMA about the levels of fees for consultations with GPs in connection with DLA.

Life awards

  30. In our previous Report we highlighted the problems around "life awards".[98] These awards are the cause of much confusion and misunderstanding. Life awards are made "where a disabled person is considered likely to continue to satisfy the qualifying criteria".[99] Yet such awards do not necessarily apply for life. Evidence of a change of circumstances in DLA cases results in a 'life award' being reviewed in the normal way and benefit may increase or decrease.[100] The Department acknowledges that "there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the term 'life award'."[101] In their evidence to the Committee in March 1998, the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board suggested that, because circumstances do change, life awards should be the exception rather than the rule.[102] This is not currently the case. Seventy-four per cent of the existing DLA awards are for life. The percentage of new awards which are for life is 50.1 per cent, according to a 5 per cent sample for the quarter ending 31 May 1998.[103] In our previous inquiry we heard that, as of 30 November 1997, 51 per cent of awards were made for life.[104] So the proportion of new awards which are life awards has changed little. Given the continuing high number of life awards, we welcome the Government's intention "to amend the legislation so that the term 'life award' does not appear in the future, once the changes are in place."[105]


  31. We remain concerned about the low level of take-up of DLA. The Disability follow-up to the Family Resources Survey, published in March 1998, noted that the take-up of the care component of DLA ranged from 30 to 50 per cent and of the mobility component from 50 to 70 per cent.[106] Baroness Hollis told the Committee on 7 April 1998 that "we need to look at why people are not claiming. When we have found out why they are not claiming we can then in discussion with the organisations come forward with proposals as to how to encourage appropriate take up."[107] Mr Timms told the Committee on 2 December 1998 that "the level of take-up of DLA does continue to rise".[108] Mr Timms went on to say that the Government is reluctant to have a "big push" on take-up on the grounds that this may lead to a lot of applications from people who turned out not to be entitled to benefit, and that it would be preferable to make progress with clarifying the gateways before a campaign of that sort.[109] We believe that the Government's commitment to ensuring that the right level of benefit is being paid demands that the low take-up of DLA should be addressed. In evidence we heard that "the Department is doing some very interesting work at the moment on take-up of Income Support among pensioners".[110] We recommend that the Government should consider extending the work on take-up of Income Support among pensioners to Disability Living Allowance and that different approaches to take-up should be discussed with the Disability Benefits Forum.

1   Fourth Report from the Social Security Committee, Session 1997-98, Disability Living Allowance, HC 641. Back

2   Ibid., para 71. Back

3   Ibid., Q 318. Back

4   Ibid., Ev.p.56, para 28. Back

5   Ibid., para 46-73. Back

6   HC Deb 28 October 1998 vol. 318 col. 341. Back

7   see, for example, HL Deb 8 December 1998 col. 801. Back

8   HC Deb 3 November 1998 vol.318 col.550w. Back

9   Q 4. HC Deb 28 January 1999 vol. 324 col. 321w. Back

10   Q 8. Back

11   A new contract for welfare: support for disabled people, Cm 4103, p.7. Back

12   Ev.p.4, para 26. Back

13   HC Deb 28 January 1999 vol. 324 col. 321w. Back

14   Ibid. Back

15   Fourth Report from the Social Security Committee, Session 1997-98, Disability Living Allowance, HC 641, para.60, see also para 50. Back

16   Q 2. Back

17   Ev. p.1, para 4. Back

18   Ev. p.2, para 7. Back

19   Ev. p.1, para 6. Back

20   Fourth Report from the Social Security Committee, Session 1997-98, Disability Living Allowance, HC 641, para. 38. Back

21   Ev. p.1, para 6(a). Back

22   Q 42. Back

23   Q 2 and Ev. p.3, para 17. Back

24   Ev. p.3, para 18. Back

25   Ev. p.5, Annex B. Back

26   Ev. p.5, Annex B. Back

27   Ev. p.5, Annex B. Back

28   Q 33. Back

29   Q 33. Back

30   Q 33. Back

31   Q 29. Back

32   Fourth Report from the Social Security Committee, Session 1997-98, Disability Living Allowance, HC 641, para.72. Back

33   Ev. p.5, Annex B para 1,2. Back

34   Ev. p.3, para 21. Back

35   Q 12. Back

36   Q 13. Back

37   HC Deb 3 November 1998 vol. 318 col.550w. Back

38   Fourth Report from the Social Security Committee, Session 1997-98, Disability Living Allowance, HC 641, Ev.p.64, Annex D, para 4. Back

39   Ibid.. Back

40   Ibid., Ev.p.65, para 5. Back

41   Q 16. Back

42   Q 14. Back

43   Ev. p.5, Annex B, para 3. Back

44   Fourth Report from the Social Security Committee, Session 1997-98, Disability Living Allowance, HC 641, Ev.p.73, Table H5. Also see HC (1997-98) 1021-i p.2, para 12-13. Back

45   Fourth Report from the Social Security Committee, Session 1997-98, Disability Living Allowance, HC 641, Ev.p.57, para 38. Back

46   Ev. p.2, para 11. Back

47   Ev. p.2, para 12. Back

48   Ev. p.2, para 12. Back

49   Ev. p.2, para 12. Back

50   Ev. p.2, para 12. Back

51   Q 38. Back

52   Q 38. Back

53   Q 39. Back

54   Q 39. Back

55   Q 39. Back

56   Q 39/40. Back

57   Q 2. Back

58   Ev. p.3, para 13. Back

59   Ev. p.3, para 13. Back

60   Ev. p.3, para 13. Back

61   Fourth Report from the Social Security Committee, Session 1997-98, Disability Living Allowance, HC 641, para. 67. Back

62   Ev. p.2, para 7. Back

63   Ev. p.2, para 7. Back

64   Ev. p.2, para 9. Back

65   Ev. p.2, para 10. Back

66   Q 48. Back

67   HC Deb 28 January 1999 vol. 324 col. 321w. Back

68   Ev. p.4, Annex A. Back

69   Ev. p.3, para 14. Back

70   Ev. p.3, para 14. Back

71   see. Ev.p.20, Q52. Back

72   Q 52. Back

73   Ev. p.3, para 16. Back

74   Ev. p.3, para 16. Back

75   HC Deb 28 January 1999 vol. 324 col. 321w. Back

76   Q 2, see also Ev. p.4, para 22,23. Back

77   Q 7. Back

78   Fourth Report from the Social Security Committee, Session 1997-98, Disability Living Allowance, HC 641, para 82. Back

79   A new contract for welfare: support for disabled people, Cm 4103, p.13. Back

80   Q 24. Back

81   Fourth Report from the Social Security Committee, Session 1997-98, Disability Living Allowance, HC 641, para 25-35. Back

82   Ibid., para 33. Back

83   Q 24. Back

84   Ev. p.4, para 24. Back

85   Q 60. Back

86   Q 59/60. Back

87   Q 59. Back

88   Q 70. Back

89   A new contract for welfare: support for disabled people, Cm 4103, p.13. Back

90   HC Deb 28 January 1999 vol. 324 col. 321w. Back

91   Q 62. Back

92   Q 62. Back

93   HC Deb 23 March 1998 vol.309 col. 67w. Back

94   Fourth Report from the Social Security Committee, Session 1997-98, Disability Living Allowance, HC 641, para.41. Back

95   Reply by the Government to the Fourth Report of the Select Committee on Disability Living Allowance, Cm 4007, para. 34. Back

96   Q 62. Back

97   Q 62, see also Ev.p.21, Q 62. Back

98   Fourth Report from the Social Security Committee, Session 1997-98, Disability Living Allowance, HC 641, para. 42-45. Back

99   Ibid., Ev.p.59, para 18. Back

100   Ibid., Ev.p.59, para 19. Back

101   Ev. p.4, para 22. Back

102   Ibid., Ev.p.5, para 4.4. Back

103   Q 23. Back

104   Fourth Report from the Social Security Committee, Session 1997-98, Disability Living Allowance, HC 641, Ev.p.69, Table G4. Back

105   Q 20. Back

106   First findings from the Disability follow-up to the Family Resouces Survey, Research Summary No.5, 1998. Back

107   Fourth Report from the Social Security Committee, Session 1997-98, Disability Living Allowance, HC 641, Q 365. Back

108   Q 77. Back

109   Q 77. Back

110   Q 77. Back

previous page contents next page

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

© Parliamentary copyright 1999
Prepared 10 February 1999