THIRD REPORT
The Social Security Committee has agreed to the
following Report:
DISABILITY LIVING ALLOWANCE
Introduction
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.
Fraud
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.
Training
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.
Appeals
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]
Take-up
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
|