| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
18 Apr 2007 : Column 698W—continued
| Severe disablement allowance | ||
| Official error | ||
| Percentage of overspend | Overpaid (£ million) | |
| Note: For severe disablement allowance, only official error has been measured, and only from 2001-02 to 2004-05. | ||
It is important to note that changes were made to the identification of error in 2004-05. This led to the inclusion of types of official error, valued at an estimated £20 million, which were not previously captured by the sampling.
| Fraud | Customer error | Official error | ||||
| Percentage of overspend | Overpaid (£ million) | Percentage of overspend | Overpaid (£ million) | Percentage of overspend | Overpaid (£ million) | |
| Notes: 1. Fraud and error in incapacity benefit is not measured every year. The last full review was in 2000-01. As there has been no measurement in other years, it is assumed that the percentage level of fraud and customer error have remained constant. All of the fraud and customer error estimates are calculated by applying the percentage overpaid in 2000-01 to the annual expenditure on incapacity benefit. 2. Official error in incapacity benefit has been measured in every year since 2000-01. 3. The official error estimates for 2004-05 and 2005-06 differ from those published in the relevant departmental resource accounts, as up-to-date estimates were not available at the time. 4. As the measurement system is based on the examination of a sample of the incapacity benefit case load, the estimates are subject to a degree of statistical uncertainty. For example, the central estimate of official error in 2005-06 is £90 million, but the range in which we can be 95 per cent. sure that the true value lies runs from £70 million to £120 million. | ||||||
| Disability living allowance | ||||||
| Fraud | Customer error | Official error | ||||
| Percentage of overspend | Overpaid (£ million) | Percentage of overspend | Overpaid (£ million) | Percentage of overspend | Overpaid (£ million) | |
| Notes: 1. DLA was last reviewed in 2005. Estimates for 2003-04 onwards, as presented in the Department’s resource accounts are based on the assumption that the proportion of expenditure overpaid has not changed. 2. The 2004-05 DLA National Benefit Review identified cases where the change in customer’s needs has been so gradual that it would be unreasonable to expect them to know at which point their entitlement to DLA might have changed. These cases do not result in a recoverable overpayment as we cannot quantify or define when the customer’s change occurred. Because legislation requires the Secretary of State to prove that entitlement to DLA is incorrect, rather than requiring the customer to inform us that their needs have changed, cases in this subcategory are legally correct. The difference between what claimants in these cases are receiving in DLA and what they would receive if their benefit was reassessed is estimated to be around £600 million a year. 3. Estimates are rounded to the nearest 0.1 per cent. or £10 million. The totals may appear different from the sum of the components due to this rounding. | ||||||
| Council tax benefit | ||||||
| Fraud | Customer error | Official error | ||||
| Percentage of overspend | Overpaid (£ million) | Percentage of overspend | Overpaid (£ million) | Percentage of overspend | Overpaid (£ million) | |
| Note: Fraud and error in council tax benefit is not directly measured. As council tax benefit is similar to housing benefit in both regulations and administration, it is assumed that the proportion of expenditure overpaid is the same as for housing benefit. | ||||||
Social Security Benefits: Acton and Harrow
John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff from the Acton and Harrow transitional offices in (a) clerical and (b) executive grades will be unable to move to benefit delivery centres due to living outside the daily travelling distance; and what measures have been put in place to minimise the resultant skills gap. [131210]
Mrs. McGuire: The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus, Lesley Strathie. I have asked her to provide my hon. Friend with the information requested.
Letter from Lesley Strathie, dated 18 April 2007:
The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question asking how many staff from the Acton and Harrow transitional offices will be unable to move to Benefit Delivery Centres due to living outside the daily travelling distance, and what measures have been put in place to minimise the resultant skills gap. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus.
There are 25 clerical staff (14 from Acton and 11 from Harrow) and 8 executive grade staff (4 from Acton and 4 from Harrow) who are unable to be redeployed to a Benefit Delivery Centre. Our aim is to redeploy all these staff within Jobcentre Plus, the Department for Work and Pensions or another Government Department. We are currently working with those affected to find suitable redeployment opportunities.
The Benefit Delivery Centres are manned by experienced staff from across London. These staff have become available as local benefit processing sites have been closed as part of the Jobcentre Plus roll-out process. In addition the movement of work takes into account any training needs these staff may have, to enable us to have training in place to support the migration.
I hope this is helpful.
Social Security Benefits: Fraud
Grant Shapps:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the number of
fraudulent applications for benefits in each of the last four years; and if he will make a statement. [132089]
Mr. Plaskitt: The information is not available.
| Index | Home Page |