Memorandum by The Local Government Association
and The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities
SINGLE WORK FOCUSED GATEWAY
The Local Government Association was formed
by the merger of the Assocation of County Councils, the Association
of District Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities
on 1 April 1997. The LGA has just over 500 members. The membership
now includes every local authority in England and Wales. In addition,
the LGA represents fire authorities and passenger transport authorities
and works with police authorities (as the Association of Police
Authorities) The LGA provides the national voice for local communities
in England and Wales; its members represent over 50 million people,
employ more than 2 million staff and spend over £65 billion
on local services.
The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities
is an association of local authorities in Scotland established
in 1975. The objectives of COSLA are to promote the welfare and
good government of the people of Scotland and to advance and maintain
principles and values of local democracy.
SUMMARY
— LGA and COSLA support the broad objectives
of a single point of entry to the benefit system and the provision
of active advice and assistance on employment;
— Most pilot authorities are supportive
of the project, but are concerned over the extremely tight timetable
for implementation. Local authorities have been expected to respond
immediately to the initiative and this is difficult when they
are themselves responding to a wide ranging agenda of local government
reform;
— LGA and COSLA have established a
national liaison group with DfEE and DSS to discuss issues of
major concern to local authority pilots;
— LGA and COSLA are concerned that
pilot authorities' actual costs are not being fully funded and
point out that continuing uncertainty over funding is hampering
some local authority involvement—this is a national pilot
and should not be funded by the council tax payer;
— LGA and COSLA have reservations about
the principle of compulsion as a pre-requisite for benefit entitlement.
It will be particularly important that the Gateway is operated
sensitively having regard to the particular circumstances of claimants;
— It is vital that personal advisers
are fully trained in understanding the complex and diverse needs
of claimants;
— It is important that local government
is fully involved in evaluating pilots and in the future development
of the initiative.
THE OBJECTIVES
OF THE
SWFG
1. LGA and COSLA support the broad objectives
of the single point of entry to the benefit system and the provision
of active advice and assistance on employment. It builds on the
general concept of "one stop shops" which a number of
local authorities have implemented for their own local services.
In some of these initiatives local authorities have also sought
to include other organisations, such as the Benefits Agency. The
SWFG provides the potential to access advice, benefits and local
government services in a much easier way than previously and should
result in a step improvement in public service provision.
THE TIMETABLE
FOR PILOTS
2. There was no consultation with local
government on implementing the timetable for the pilot SWFG schemes.
Accordingly, whereas the Employment Service and Benefit agency
have had time to gear up to the initiative, local authorities
have had to respond immediately and work to a timetable which
has been set without full consideration of their requirements.
3. Local authorities are currently responding
to a wide agenda of change embracing Best Value and Democratic
Renewal. Local authorities' benefit services in particular have
been subject to numerous year on year changes to the housing benefit
scheme and at present many—including some pilot SWFGs—are
involved in implementing the Verification Framework. This is a
set of new checking procedures to prevent fraud entering the system
and entails a considerable change in working arrangements. It
is therefore a credit to local government that so many authorities
have responded positively to involvement in SWFG pilots.
4. However, the tight timetable for implementation
has meant that many authorities have had difficulties in contributing
as much as they would like to the various development stages of
this project. This has also been severely hampered by lack of
clarity over financial support for local authority participation
which is discussed below in more detail. As a result, many pilot
local authorities feel that the objective for an equal partnership
between local authorities and Employment Service/Benefit Agency
in developing the pilots is not being achieved. The LGA view is
that not sufficient thought was given at the outset as to how
Government could best achieve the engagement and involvement of
local government having regard to the small size of many authorities'
housing benefit teams and the other pressures on local government.
5. The short timescale is also likely to
mitigate against the private/voluntary sector's ability to innovate
in the private/voluntary sector variant.
6. To bring about greater local authority
influence on some of the key operational issues being addressed,
LGA and COSLA have established a national liaison group with the
DSS and DfEE. This has now been meeting monthly and is proving
to be a useful forum. LGA and COSLA have also accepted an invitation
to be represented on the relevant Departmental Project Board and
this is welcomed. However, there is major concern from pilot local
authorities at the time it takes to get decisions on key operational
issues and that at this late stage many still do not have a clear
view as to how the Gateway will operate in their areas.
FUNDING
7. LGA and COSLA are concerned that pilot
authorities' actual costs are not being fully funded and that
lack of certainty over what costs are eligible for reimbursement
is hampering local authority involvement. The LGA would accept
that in the spirit of partnership a degree of senior management
time would not be expected to be reimbursed. However, where significant
staff time and travelling and subsistence costs are involved,
these should be fully reimbursed. Information received from some
pilot authorities indicates that the sums reimbursed to date are
considerably short of the expenses incurred. For example, Taunton
Deane has received £5,000 for implementation compared to
an estimated cost of £15,000 plus, Chelmsford has received
under £3,000 compared to an estimated cost of £15,000
and Ashfield have received £4,000 compared to an estimated
cost of £10,000 (the latter estimate excludes any costs that
may need to be funded for IT upgrades, estates developments, staff
training and back-filling and any other ongoing contract management
costs).
8. LGA and COSLA consider that as the Gateway
is a central government initiative the costs involved should not
be funded by the council tax payer.
THE COMPULSORY
ELEMENT AND
BENEFIT SANCTIONS
9. LGA and COSLA are on record in expressing
reservations about the compulsory element of the Gateway. The
Government has indicated that certain groups of people will be
excluded from interview—for example, people who are terminally
ill. However, the LGA and COSLA believe that there are many other
claimants for whom the SWFG could be inappropriate. These might
include people who have recently had to take on full time care
responsibilities, people with learning disabilities or mental
health problems.
10. LGA and COSLA are also concerned about
the effects of compulsion on people whose first language is not
English, people with literacy difficulties or other special needs.
We wish to avoid a situation where local authority services (for
example social services departments) are put under more pressure
because of certain customers becoming distressed or concerned
about compulsion associated with the Gateway.
11. Experience confirms that often Benefit
Agency and Employment Service staff may not be aware of many of
the issues facing people with learning disabilities or some mental
health problems. It is not uncommon to find people with mild to
moderate learning disabilities claiming Job Seekers Allowance
when in fact their disabilities place them at considerable disadvantages
to others within the labour market. In these instances they should
be claiming Severe Disablement Allowance or Incapacity Benefit,
but BA/ES staff have remained unaware of the person's disabilities.
12. It is recognised that housing and council
tax benefit are expected to be the last benefits to which sanctions
are applied. However, LGA and COSLA are concerned that the potential
consequences on authorities in terms of their landlord role and
responsibilities for homelessness do not appear to have been considered.
TRAINING OF
PERSONAL ADVISERS
13. High quality advice by personal advisers
involved in administering the SWFG is crucial to its success.
Local authority staff have considerable expertise already in many
of the areas where advice is intended to be given—employment
opportunities for people with special needs, in-depth advice across
a range of benefits, proactively identify underlying benefit entitlement,
providing assistance with the claiming process, providing accurate
"better off" calculations, advice on child care and
support with caring responsibilities, as well as a range of local
advice.
14. From what the Associations have established
so far, the proposed training packages from the Employment Service
and Benefits Agency may not adequately deal with these issues
and poor advice will result in additional work for local authority
staff. LGA and COSLA therefore welcomes the recent invitation
for the involvement of their advisers in the preparation of training
packages.
OTHER SPECIFIC
ISSUES
15. Set out below is a list of other specific
issues which have been raised by some pilot authorities with the
Associations:
— on the private/voluntary sector variant,
it would be unfortunate for the residents of a pilot area if an
inferior design were implemented merely for the sake of ensuring
valid comparison testing;
— concern at the SWFG's potential to
create a "two-tier" service as between those inside
and those outside the pilot areas (which often bisect local authority
districts), between claimants who can and who cannot access the
benefits system via the Gateway, and if a call centre is used,
between those who have telephones and those that do not; local
management of the effects of a perceived first and second class
service may be difficult;
— concern that the priorities of a
private sector led Gateway might be more geared towards the job
ready clients (those closest to the labour market) as less effort
would be needed to translate these cases into the measured outputs
by which an element of the funding will, potentially, be earned;
the more disadvantaged clients (eg those with incapacity problems
through poor health or low educational abilities) should receive
equitable, if not higher priority; and
— acceptance that there must be quality
assurance and standards to be met in delivery of the more mechanistic,
process driven aspects of Gateway work such as claim taking, but
concern that it is far less clear what specific expectations will
be laid down, if any, to support the objective of "more people
in sustainable employment . . ."; how will targets be set?
will targets reflect the needs of client groups not immediately
suitable for employment?
THE FUTURE
OF THE
INITIATIVE
16. The LGA and COSLA recognise that the
SWFG is a major part of the Government's welfare reform agenda
and signals very clearly the future direction of benefit delivery.
It is vital that local government is fully involved in evaluating
the pilots and in the future development of the initiative.
4 May 1999
| 
