---

Benefit Fraud

Mr. Swinney: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the level of fraud by (a) number of claimants and (b) value (i) in total and (ii) as a percentage of total benefit payments for each benefit in (1) the UK and (2) Scotland. [124252]

Mr. Rooker: The information requested is available in the last Government Statistical Service report on the Area Benefit Reviews, "Results of the Area Benefit Review April 1998-99 and measurements for the public service agreement", which was published on 28 January. A copy is available in the Library.

Invalid Care Allowance

Mr. Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the (a) cost and (b) number of beneficiaries of extending entitlement to invalid care allowance to people who would otherwise be entitled but (i) earn less than the national insurance lower earnings limit, but whose earnings exceed the earnings limit for ICA, (ii) are aged over 65 years and (iii) are aged over 65 or earn less than the national insurance lower earnings limit in each of the next five years. [124417]

Mr. Bayley: The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

6 Jun 2000 : Column: 224W

Estimated cost of the abolition of the upper age limit for claiming Invalid Care Allowance (ICA)

	Cost (£ million)	Gainers (Thousand)
2001-02	25	40
2002-03	25	40
2003-04	25	40
2004-05	25	40
2005-06	30	40

Notes:

1. Costs are given in cash prices. Costs rounded to the nearest 5 million, gainers to the nearest 10,000.

2. Estimates are based on Family Resources Survey 1997-98 and 1998-99, and caseload forecasts.

3. As estimates are based on survey data, the above will be subject to sampling error. The limitations of modelling entitlement from available survey data on the number of hours that individuals spend providing care mean that the above are subject to a significant margin of error.

4. It is assumed that all existing ICA entitlement rules remain in place after any abolition of the upper age limit for new claims. Costs include the effects on Income Support carer premium.

Mr. Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the (a) cost and (b) number of beneficiaries continuing to pay for invalid care allowance (i) after the person cared for dies, (ii) after the person cared for enters permanent residential care and (iii) after care ends, for (1) four weeks and (2) eight weeks in each of the next five years. [124415]

Mr. Bayley: No information is available on the numbers/costs of an Invalid Care Allowance run-on when the disabled person enters residential care. Information on the other questions is shown in the tables.

The estimated costs and number of gainers from a four week run-on after death of the disabled person

Year	Costs (£ million)	Gainers
2001-02	1	10,000
2002-03	1	10,000
2003-04	1	15,000
2004-05	1	15,000
2005-06	1	15,000

The estimated costs and number of gainers from an eight week run-on after death of the disabled person

Year	Costs (£ million)	Gainers
2001-02	2	10,000
2002-03	2	10,000
2003-04	2	15,000
2004-05	2	15,000
2005-06	2	15,000

The estimated costs and gainers of a four week run-on when care ceases for any reason

Year	Costs (£ million)	Gainers
2001-02	11	50,000
2002-03	12	50,000
2003-04	13	50,000
2004-05	14	55,000
2005-06	15	60,000

6 Jun 2000 : Column: 225W

The estimated costs and gainers from an eight week run-on when care ceases for any reason

Year	Costs (£ million)	Gainers
2001-02	22	50,000
2002-03	24	50,000
2003-04	25	50,000
2004-05	27	55,000
2005-06	29	60,000

Note:

Costs are rounded to the nearest £ million and gainers to the nearest 5,000.

Pensions

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 18 April 2000, Official Report, column 439W, what the national insurance fund balance would be, and how far above the minimum level recommended by the Government Actuary, at the end of each of the years 2002-03 and 2003-04, if the basic

6 Jun 2000 : Column: 226W

pension and linked benefit rates remained at their present level in 2000-01 and were uprated in line with prices thereafter. [124257]

Mr. Rooker: As I said on 23 May 2000, Official Report, column 484W, precise long-term forecasts of any excess on the Fund reserves would be misleading given the sensitivity of the difference between forecasts of receipts and expenditure to the variables involved.

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on 11 April 2000, Official Report, column 144W, if the cost of uprating on the basis of earnings the basic pension shown there, including the cost of uprating the linked benefits on the same basis; and what would be the cost for each year from 1998-99 to 2001-02, if the uprating, including the linked benefits, was based on the average earnings index for the three months to July of the previous year. [124392]

Mr. Rooker: The information is in the table.

6 Jun 2000 : Column: 225W

				£ million
	1997-98	1998-99	1999-2000	2000-01	2001-02
Winter fuel payment (a)	200	200	760	1,380	1,210
Minimum income guarantee (b)	--	--	410	700	1,090
Total (c=a+b)	200	200	1,170	2,080	2,300
Retirement pension earning-uprated since April 1998 (d)	--	160	590	1,610	2,080
Extra spending (c-d)	200	40	580	480	220
Cumulative extra spending	200	240	820	1,300	1,520

Notes:

1. Rounded to the nearest £10 million.

2. Costs are in 1999-2000 terms.

3. Some figures do not appear to sum. This is due to rounding.

4. Average earnings assumptions for both (b) and (d) are based on an average of seasonally adjusted figures for the three months to July of the previous year, as originally published.

6 Jun 2000 : Column: 225W

Benefits Administration

Mr. Swinney: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the annual cost of his Department's administration including its agencies (a) in total and (b) as a percentage of total spending on benefit payments. [124253]

Mr. Rooker: The cost of administration, in total and as a percentage of benefit expenditure for the period 1994-95 to 1999-2000, is shown in figure 41 of the Social Security Departmental Report (Cm 4614).

Winter Fuel Payments

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the estimated cost is in (a) 2000-01 and (b) 2001-02 of extending entitlement to winter fuel payments to men under 65 years; and how much of the cost in each year represents arrears for previous years. [124256]

Angela Eagle: In light of the Taylor ruling by the European Court of Justice in December 1999, we decided to extend eligibility to Winter Fuel Payments to include men aged 60-64. To do so it was also necessary to remove the qualifying benefit as an eligibility condition. This brought some newly eligible women, as well as men, into the scheme.

The estimated additional programme costs of extending the scheme in 2000-01 and 2001-02 are in the table and take into account the increase in the Winter Fuel Payment

6 Jun 2000 : Column: 226W

to £150 for eligible households from winter 2000-01. The cost of payments for past winters go back to the beginning of the scheme in the winter of 1997-98.

		£ million
Additional costs	2000-01	2001-02
Annual costs	130	130
Cost for payments in past winters	150	0

Notes:

1. These costs are based on assumptions about take-up. The precise cost will vary depending on the level of take-up among the client group concerned.

2. Costs are in cash terms and are rounded to the nearest £10 million.

---