| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Child Support Agency
Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the average length of time is for the Independent Case Examiner of the Child Support Agency to investigate a claim once it has been filed. [153938]
Angela Eagle: The current average clearance time for cases referred to the office of the Independent Case Examiner at February 2001 is 32.3 weeks. When a case is received, an initial review is carried out before a full investigation can begin. Once the initial review has been undertaken, cases currently wait around 16 weeks for the full investigation to start.
Revenue Savings
Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the revenue savings from reducing the period during which a jobseeker's allowance claimant can turn down a job without losing benefit to eight weeks. [151546]
Angela Eagle: No such estimate has been made.
Minimum Income Guarantee
Mrs. Ellman: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the number of pensioners who would qualify for (a) Housing Benefit, (b) Income Support and (c) Council Tax Benefit for the first time as a result of the increase in the Minimum Income Guarantee in April. [153746]
20 Mar 2001 : Column: 203W
Mr. Rooker: The information is in the table and gives the number of additional pensioners floating on to the main Income Related benefits in 2001-02 resulting from the increase to the applicable amount. This includes all the measures announced in the November 2000 pre-Budget report; aligning the different pensioner premiums, protecting the Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) in line with the increases to the basic State pension in 2001 and earnings uprating. It also includes the increase to the capital limits announced in Budget 2000.
These figures are not additive because people may be entitled to more than one of these benefits.
| Thousand | |
|---|---|
| 2001-02 | |
| MIG | 140 |
| Housing Benefit | 30 |
| Council Tax Benefit | 50 |
Notes
1. The assumption used is that the costs of the MIG have been calculated over and above the cost of uprating the MIG by Rossi.
2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10,000 cases.
3. The number of floaters has been calculated using the Policy Simulation Model for Income Related Benefits. This models the benefit system in 2001-02 and is based on data from the Family Resource Survey (FRS) for 1997-98, uprated to 2001 prices. Figures for floaters are calibrated to historical take up assumptions and therefore do not reflect behavioural changes due to recent initiatives.
Disability Living Allowance
Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what the (a) target and (b) actual clearance times were for Disability Living Allowance (i) initial applications, (ii) renewal claims, (iii) reviews and (iv) appeals in each quarter from 1996 to October 1999 and monthly from November 1999 to date; [152023]
- (2) what the (a) target and (b) actual clearance times were for Disability Living Allowance (i) revisions and (ii) supersessions in each month from November 1999 to date. [152026]
Mr. Bayley: The administration of Disability Living Allowance is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to the right hon. Member.
Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Dafydd Wigley, dated 16 March 2001:
- The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking what the (a) target and (b) actual clearance times were for disability living allowance (a) revisions and (b) supersessions in each month form November 1999 to date. Also what the (a) target and (b) actual clearance times
20 Mar 2001 : Column: 204W
- were for disability living allowance (i) initial applications, (ii) renewal claims, (iii) reviews and (iv) appeals in each quarter from 1996 to October 1999 and monthly from November 1999 to date.
- The information you require is as follows:
| Primary | Secondary | |
|---|---|---|
| April 1996 to March 1997 | ||
| Initial applications | 65% in 30 days | 85% in 53 days |
| Renewal claims | 65% in 30 days | 85% in 55 days |
| Reviews | 60% in 55 days | 80% in 75 days |
| Appeals | 60% in 30 days | 90% in 60 days |
| April 1997 to March 1999 | ||
| Initial applications | 62% in 30 days | 85% in 53 days |
| Renewal claims | 65% in 30 days | 85% in 55 days |
| Reviews | 60% in 55 days | 80% in 75 days |
| Appeals | 60% in 30 days | 90% in 60 days |
From April 1999, the Benefits Agency changed the format for reporting performance to a single-tier target.
| Target | |
|---|---|
| April 1999 to March 2000 | |
| Initial applications | 85% in 53 days |
| Renewal claims | 85% in 55 days |
| Reviews | 80% in 75 days |
| Appeals | 90% in 60 days |
| April 2000 to March 2001 | |
| Initial applications | 95% in 53 days |
| Renewal claims | 95% in 84 days |
| Reviews | 95% in 99 days |
| Appeals | 95% in 99 days |
It should be noted that 'reviews' includes in-time and out-of-time reviews prior to October 1999, and both reconsiderations and supersessions after that date.
2. Actual average clearance times are expressed in days and are:
| Initial claims | Renewals | Reviews | Appeals | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| June 1996 | 28.51 | 22.78 | 44.43 | 29.32 |
| September 1996 | 31.21 | 23.90 | 47.33 | 29.90 |
| December 1996 | 32.01 | 23.86 | 48.66 | 30.12 |
| March 1997 | 32.10 | 23.96 | 49.31 | 30.04 |
| June 1997 | 34.20 | 24.46 | 49.50 | 27.95 |
| September 1997 | 36.51 | 28.14 | 53.44 | 31.67 |
| December 1997 | 37.34 | 29.19 | 53.29 | 32.79 |
| March 1998 | 37.23 | 29.79 | 52.28 | 33.20 |
| June 1998 | 31.50 | 34.22 | 46.98 | 32.17 |
| September 1998 | 32.44 | 37.80 | 48.95 | 34.57 |
| December 1998 | 33.93 | 37.78 | 49.47 | 35.08 |
| March 1999 | 35.03 | 37.56 | 49.67 | 36.08 |
| June 1999 | 37.54 | 38.36 | 54.77 | 40.72 |
| September 1999 | 38.72 | 39.48 | 57.25 | 46.38 |
20 Mar 2001 : Column: 203W
20 Mar 2001 : Column: 205W
20 Mar 2001 : Column: 205W
New procedures for assessing claims for DLA/AA were introduced last year to improve the accuracy of decisions on entitlement. Customers can receive clearer explanations of decisions on their benefit entitlement. Initially these changes led to significant increases in the time it took to process each case which, together with a growing caseload, created a temporary, but significant, backlog of work. In addition, the backlog of work caused an increase in the number of enquiries received from customers, resulting in additional work for staff to process. The backlog has been tackled as a priority with a number of improvements being made to processes, forms and the use of IT in order in turn to improve clearance times. However, changes of this order require time for staff to be trained and to become familiar with new processes before they can become fully effective. Decision-makers have become accustomed to the new procedures and the backlog has now been cleared.
I hope this is helpful.
Benefit Fraud
Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of Newcastle City Council. [155013]
Mr. Rooker: The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) report was published today in respect of Newcastle City Council and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.
The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and to improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as its counter fraud activities.
BFI looked at the performance of Newcastle in August 1997 as one of a series of trial inspections during the initial set up of BFI, but the findings were not published.
Inspectors report that Newcastle has responded positively to their 1997 findings and recommendations. The council has a large HB and CTB caseload and a transient population and the BFI was pleased to note that there were no backlogs at the time of their on-site inspection, despite the volume of work.
There have been noticeable improvements in the council's administration. In particular, its claim form, verification and liaison with the Benefits Agency, Rent Service, private sector landlords and Housing Associations.
20 Mar 2001 : Column: 206W
The report also notes that substantial progress has been made in counter fraud work. The council now undertakes its own prosecutions and has introduced a computerised fraud management system.
The report acknowledges a significant improvement has been the development of a joint protocol between Internal Audit and District Audit which ensures both teams are working together to ensure maximum audit coverage and effectiveness.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.
Mr. Bailey: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of Sandwell metropolitan borough council. [155012]
Mr. Rooker: The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) report was published today in respect of Sandwell metropolitan borough council and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.
The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and to improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as its counter fraud activities.
This was a follow-up inspection. The BFI previously reported on Sandwell metropolitan borough council in August 1999. Since then the council has responded very positively to BFI's recommendations and has been particularly active in taking steps to tackle fraud and error, despite a high level of staff turnover and recruitment problems.
Inspectors noted that the council had implemented most of their recommendations and this had led to improvements in its overall administration and counter fraud performance.
Inspectors noted that the council had approved a prosecution policy and together with training for its fraud officers this had led to the council conducting a large number of successful prosecutions. Inspectors found the council had the best performing fraud section of the 30 highest spending local authorities the BFI have inspected to date.
Inspectors also noted that centralising benefit processing has helped the council reduce backlogs and improve clearance times.
20 Mar 2001 : Column: 207W
The report concludes that the council has achieved a lot in a short space of time and this is commendable. However, there is still room for further improvement, in particular through the council implementing the Verification Framework to support the council's counter fraud strategy, and the report makes recommendations for this.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.
20 Mar 2001 : Column: 208W
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |