| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
WORK AND PENSIONS
Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (Rossendale Borough Council)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. James Plaskitt): On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the BFI inspection report on Rossendale borough council was published today and copies have been placed in the Library.
In 2003–04, Rossendale borough council administered some £10 million in housing benefits, about 55 per cent. of its gross revenue expenditure. The council was not at standard in any of the seven functional areas of performance standards. However, since August 2003 it had made and sustained improvements in a number of areas. It had processed claims faster, improved the standard of verification of claims, prosecuted fraudsters and publicised its counter-fraud efforts.
However, there were significant weaknesses in strategic management, project management and planning arrangements, management of counter-fraud operations, and the recovery of overpayments.
Inspectors found errors in recording the time taken to process new claims that caused performance to be understated. Claims were in fact being processed in 46 days on average between April and December 2004 compared with the council's previously reported performance of 55 days. Performance had improved to the extent that for the month of December 2004 claims were processed within an average of 36 days.
29 Jun 2005 : Column 62WS
Internal auditors and the Audit Commission had previously identified some of the weaknesses described in the BFI report. However, the council had not implemented their recommendations and audit findings were not reported to members and senior officers.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and may ask the council for its proposals in response to the BFI's findings.
Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (South Cambridgeshire District Council)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. James Plaskitt): On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the BFI inspection report on South Cambridgeshire district council was published today and copies have been placed in the Library.
In 2002–03, South Cambridgeshire district council administered some £15.5 million in housing benefits, about 21 per cent. of its gross revenue expenditure. BFI assessed the council against the performance standards for counter-fraud and the internal and external audit elements of strategic management and found that the council was not at standard. Strategically there were some areas of good practice, including a clear corporate vision, but this was not fully reflected in operational plans, policies or local targets.
The council gave a high priority to combating benefit fraud. The fraud team was well trained and experienced and had been successful in securing several high profile prosecutions.
However, the report notes serious concerns over some of the council's working practices, including weaknesses in management checking and failure to use management information. Authorised officers' powers were used routinely to obtain information from third parties, but no monitoring of these activities was undertaken to ensure compliance with legislation, and several breaches of these powers were identified.
There were also breaches of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in several of the interviews under caution that BFI examined. Other evidence indicated that the council was not fully complying with the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the Data Protection Act 1998.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and may ask the council for its proposals in response to the BFI's findings.
Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (Hart District Council)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (James Plaskitt): On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the BFI inspection report on Hart district council was published today and copies have been placed in the Library.
In 2003–04 Hart district council administered some £7.8 million in housing benefits, about 34 per cent. of its gross revenue expenditure. The BFI's follow-up inspection found that the council was not at standard in any of the seven functional areas of performance standards and was providing a poor level of service overall.
29 Jun 2005 : Column 63WS
The council had failed to fully implement over 80 per cent. of the recommendations made following the first BFI inspection in 2000. This failure led to weak performance in key areas including customer services and overpayments in particular.
The council's service to its customers was poor, due mainly to a limited telephone service, an out of date housing benefits claim form and confusing and inaccurate decision letters. While the council was reporting that it was processing new claims for housing benefits in 23 days, against the standard of 36 days, some claims were being decided with insufficient evidence.
A lack of management checks and insufficient overpayments training meant that the council unnecessarily created overpayments. It also incorrectly claimed subsidy for overpayments caused by local authority error and only recovered 14 per cent. of overpayments in 2003–04.
This inspection found a number of improvements in the council's counter-fraud work, including correctly applying sanctions in line with the council's policies.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and may ask the council for its proposals in response to the BFI's findings
Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (Mid-Suffolk District Council)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. James Plaskitt): On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the BFI inspection report on mid-Suffolk district council was published today and copies have been placed in the Library.
In 2003–04, mid-Suffolk district council administered some £6.6 million in housing benefits, about 29 per cent. of its gross revenue expenditure. In the final quarter of 2003–04 the council was taking 96 days on average to process new claims for housing benefits against the standard of 36 days. This placed it in the bottom 15 per cent. of local authorities for reported performance.
BFI found that during 2003–04 the council had introduced a new benefits IT system, recruited benefits managers and addressed other resourcing issues in the benefits service. Reported claims processing performance dipped in the period following the introduction of the new benefits IT system. However, a recovery plan was agreed and the backlog of work was managed impressively and cleared between April and October 2004.
29 Jun 2005 : Column 64WS
This was reflected in a dramatic improvement in the speed of processing new claims, to 29 days by October 2004. Verification of claims was also being undertaken to a high standard. The council acknowledged that the improved performance was achieved at the expense of management assurance and indicated that it intended to implement improvements in assurance as a priority. Mid-Suffolk district council also needs to develop procedural guidance and structure its approach to training staff.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and may ask the council for its proposals in response to the BFI's findings.
Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (Gosport Borough Council)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. James Plaskitt): On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the BFI inspection report on Gosport borough council was published today and copies have been placed in the Library.
In 2003–04 Gosport borough council administered some £15.1 million in housing benefits, about 34 per cent. of its gross revenue expenditure.
Gosport borough council had made significant improvements in the time taken to process new claims and was now taking an average of 25 days although to some extent this improvement had been achieved at the expense of quality.
Weaknesses in management checking and poor reporting of performance failed to provide Members or senior officers with adequate assurance about true levels of performance. This was compounded by a failure to monitor the implementation of audit recommendations.
Poor publicity and failure to assess the needs of working customers and ethnic minority groups limited access to the service. The requirements of race relations legislation had not been fully met. Failure to record all customer complaints was a particular concern.
The council's classification of overpayments was incorrect in some instances and this calls into question the accuracy and validity of the 2004–05 subsidy claim.
An effective counter-fraud team used an intelligence-led system that maximised the time, training and expertise of its investigators and led to an increase in the volume of sanctions administered. However, BFI were concerned by the limited adherence to guidance in the council's own prosecution policy when a sanction was administered.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and may ask the council for its proposals in response to the BFI's findings.