| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.53 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hesford) on securing this Adjournment debate on an important matter concerning his constituent. My hon. Friend has made a solid reputation for himself as a powerful advocate here for his constituency and his constituents, and his speech this evening will enhance his reputation. I am glad to have the opportunity to respond to his points.
I have read the files on Mr. Duff's applications for disability living allowance, including the letters submitted by his consultant dermatologist, Professor Friedmann. I recognise that he suffers from a severe condition and, naturally, I sympathise with the difficulties that that causes him and his family.
Before speaking about Mr. Duff's case, it would be helpful to the House if I explained the reasons why disability living allowance is awarded. It is not, and has never been, awarded as compensation for disability. Nor is it awarded because an individual has a particular disabling condition. The level of the award is determined by the effect of a person's condition on his daily life--the level of care that the person needs and the effect of the condition on his mobility.
DLA has two components. One is paid in relation to the need for help with personal care. The other, which concerns us in this case, is paid in relation to mobility needs. The mobility component is paid at two rates. The higher rate, which we are discussing, is paid when an individual is unable, or virtually unable, to walk; or has had both legs amputated at, or above, the ankle; or was born without legs or feet; or is deaf and blind; or is severely mentally impaired and has severe behavioural problems. The lower rate is paid when an individual can walk, but needs someone with him to do so.
Decisions on awards are made by adjudication officers, who are statutory office holders and are required to make impartial decisions by applying the law to the facts of the individual case, based on the evidence before them. The primary source of evidence, in all cases, will always be the evidence provided by the claimant. However, evidence is collected from other sources such as the claimant's personal carer, a school, a physiotherapist or specialists and consultants involved in the claimant's care, as well as the claimant's general practitioner.
When adjudication officers consider an application for DLA, help and guidance are available from a variety of sources--for example, the "Disability Handbook", which is produced by doctors from my Department's medical policy group in close consultation with the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board. It explains the effects of a wide range of medical conditions on a person's everyday life and often suggests where the best corroborative evidence could be sought.
All entitlement decisions carry the right of independent review--my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West raised that point--and, under review, a claim can be looked at afresh by a second adjudication officer, who can request additional evidence if necessary. If, following a review decision, the claimant remains unhappy, he has the right of appeal to an independent appeal tribunal. As the name suggests, that tribunal is entirely independent of the Department of Social Security. It provides a means of redress for people who feel that their case has been decided incorrectly by the Department. The tribunals are independent of the Government, so it is not open to Ministers to interfere with their decisions.
To summarise the benefit generally, DLA is paid not as compensation, but in accordance with the law, which sets out detailed conditions for entitlement. Claimants are provided with every opportunity to support their claim and to challenge decisions that they believe to be incorrect.
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire):
On the general point, and before my hon. Friend the Minister moves on to Mr. Duff's case, he said that one category to which severe disability allowance automatically applies is double amputees; but it did not apply to double amputees a few years ago. I brought to the House the case of one of my constituents, which had many similarities to that of Mr. Duff. My constituent was in severe trouble and was a double amputee. A number of other cases were pressed by hon. Members and an adjustment was made to the law so that it applied to those cases. Mr. Duff may be in a category concerning an unusual area which has not been considered previously. There may need to be an adjustment in the law.
Mr. Bayley:
My hon. Friend makes a useful intervention and, if I have time, I will refer to it later in my speech. The law states that the higher rate mobility component of DLA is paid to people who cannot or virtually cannot walk. Double amputees are covered for that reason.
I now turn to Mr. Duff's case. Mr. Duff had an award of disability living allowance higher rate mobility component, which was due to expire on 15 August 1997,
and he asked for his claim to be renewed. Once the evidence had been studied, the adjudication officer determined that Mr. Duff was no longer entitled to DLA. From the information provided, it looks now as though a mistake was made when Mr. Duff was awarded DLA, and we had to correct that. I recognise that it has caused my hon. Friend's constituent considerable inconvenience and upset, and I apologise for that on behalf of my Department.
I appreciate that the withdrawal of Mr. Duff's DLA has been distressing for him and for his family. I also recognise my hon. Friend's very real concern that the decision in Mr. Duff's case was wrong. I have to say, however, that Mr. Duff's benefit was not withdrawn without proper consideration by the adjudication authorities.
Mr. Hesford:
Will the Minister consider whether some of these adjudication officers are up to the job? Are they fully qualified to recognise what is in front of them?
Mr. Bayley:
The adjudication officers are trained to work according to the law. They and the doctors employed by my Department often anger the people whose cases they consider, particularly when they turn down their applications for benefit. Sometimes, that is a natural reaction, but I accept that, on occasions, the way in which adjudication officers conduct their business, although strictly in accordance with the instructions they have been provided, gives rise to offence. My Department is seeking to improve the position. In consultation with bodies that represent disabled people, we are drawing up new programmes for further and additional training, so that those who deal with claims from disabled people are sensitive to the disability on which they are adjudicating.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover):
May I make a quick suggestion?
Mr. Bayley:
I have only a few minutes left and, in fairness to our hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West, who raised this case, I should reply to his points. If there is time later, I shall certainly give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
Mr. Duff took full advantage of the system of review and appeal which I have just outlined. Two separate adjudication officers and an independent appeal tribunal have agreed that Mr. Duff is not entitled to the mobility component of DLA because he can walk.
There is case law from the Court of Appeal. In 1996, in the case of Diment and Hewitt--two individuals with serious skin conditions in which the ultraviolet rays in sunlight caused blistering, lesions and irritation--the Court of Appeal agreed that the conditions of entitlement relating to the higher rate of the DLA mobility component were not satisfied because the reaction to sunlight was not related to the act of walking. In addition, it found that entitlement arose only when the severe discomfort was as a result of the physical act of walking.
As to the eligibility criteria for DLA, it has long been accepted that the current tests of the need for help with care and mobility reflect the effect of a disability and the associated extra costs. The criteria are based on the findings of research undertaken by the Office for Population, Censuses and Surveys in the 1980s, which led to the development of DLA.
My hon. Friend referred to a possible discrepancy between the 1992 Act and the regulations. I have looked into that, and I do not think that there is a discrepancy. However, he has asked me to review the matter, and I shall do so. I shall write to him on that point.
My hon. Friend expressed concern about the delay that claimants often face between appealing against a decision on benefit entitlement and getting that appeal heard. He is right to do so. Average waiting times are currently running at around seven months, which is clearly unacceptable. In fact, it is one of the main reasons for the Government's root-and-branch overhaul of the adjudication system, which is well on the way to implementation. The Social Security Act 1998 laid the foundations for a new system, and regulations implementing that will soon be presented to the House.
My hon. Friend mentioned the loss of his constituent's letter to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I accept that that happened, and it should not have happened. I also accept that Mr. Duff's case has not been dealt with well by my Department. Mr. Duff has experienced both delay and mismanagement, and I apologise to him for that. I hope that my hon. Friend will pass on my apologies.
This is not the service that a member of the public is entitled to expect--
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |