Examination of Witnesses (Questions 184
- 199)
MONDAY 17 MAY 1999
MR GARETH
BOTT, MR
PAUL LAUTMAN,
MR BARRY
SHEARING, MR
DAVID GARY,
MR MICHAEL
DURKAN AND
MR NORMAN
MACKENZIE
Mr Keetch
184. Thank you for joining us from the LGA and,
indeed, from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I apologise
that you have been slightly delayed in terms of waiting at the
back because of divisions and other things. Let us move straight
on. Paul, could you just introduce yourself and your colleagues
very quickly and we will then go on and start the questioning.
(Mr Lautman) It is probably better if
I just ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
(Mr Bott) I am Gareth Bott, I am the Head of Revenue
Services from Ashfield District Council. I am representing the
North Nottinghamshire pilot area which is a private/voluntary
sector variant.
(Mr Mackenzie) I am Norman Mackenzie, I am the Social
Inclusion Manager at East Renfrewshire Council. I am here representing
COSLA. We have in Barrhead, which is part of East Renfrewshire,
part of the Clyde Coast and Renfrew basic variant of the Work-Focused
Gateway.
(Mr Shearing) I am Barry Shearing, Deputy Head of
Finance, Chelmsford Borough Council. I am representing the South
East Essex basic model.
(Mr Gary) I am David Gary from Taunton Deane Borough
Council in Somerset. We are going to operate a call centre variant
starting in December.
(Mr Lautman) I am Paul Lautman from the Local Government
Association Secretariat. We are very pleased to provide evidence
to you and to pass on feedback from the models of various variants
from the local authority perspective and to say that we are sorry
we are unable to bring a member perspective to our team but that
is solely due to the timetable for giving evidence and also the
impact of recent elections.
185. I am sure that some of your members have
got other things to do at the moment. We will press very quickly
on if we can because I know some colleagues are going to have
to disappear. We have heard already that there has been some small
discussion about local government's involvement in the Single
Work-Focused Gateway. What is your vision of how the Single Work-Focused
Gateway should actually work?
(Mr Lautman) In terms of the broad concept I think
it is important that we place on record our support for the broad
vision of the Single Work-Focused Gateway, a single point of entry
to the benefits system. I think it is a principle that is very
difficult to argue with. We recognise it as an important part
of the Government's modernisation agenda to which we subscribe
for better, more integrated public services. Indeed, it is in
integrated services in which local authorities can claim some
leadership. Many local authorities have taken the lead in providing
integrated services both with regard to the services they provide
directly and also with regard to services provided by other agencies.
What we are subscribing to is a shared vision of a single point
of entry to public services and, ideally, also to be seamless
throughout.
186. What role has the LGA actually had in developing
the concept of the Single Work-Focused Gateway?
(Mr Lautman) We are contributing through co-ordinating
the flow of information to pilots and also feeding back to Government
the reaction from the various pilots and engaging with leading
Government departments on these issues but it has been very difficult
because we have only been involved at the later stages, we had
no prior notice of the initiative before the Prime Minister's
statement in October. We have had difficulties in understanding
the full weight of the concept before we have had national level
discussions, so we feel like we have been invited to join the
train but the train has left the station and it is a couple of
miles down the track.
187. The departing train leaving the station,
is that a sense that you all feel?
(Mr Bott) Absolutely, yes. We felt that we were engaged
after the major part of the vision had been established and our
ability to influence that has been curtailed to that degree.
(Mr Mackenzie) More or less the same from the Clyde
Coast and Renfrew pilot. I would add that the culture that informed
the way in which decisions have been made and the processes that
have been put forward in bringing the Single Work-Focused Gateway
to our area have been very much the cultures within the Employment
Service and the Benefits Agency. There has been perhaps a view
that local government is a shapeless and easily assimilated way
of running services. There are five local authorities and therefore
seven partners within the development of the Gateway in our area
and sometimes it has been felt that there have only been three
partners. There has been a difficulty over our other partners
understanding the ways in which decisions get made in local government,
that there are different cultures, and also perhaps difficulties
with the fact that we have had national and local elections in
our area and that has delayed our ability to get involved. Nevertheless,
we fully support the vision and I think local government in Scotland
and elsewhere can add value to the quality of experience for local
people.
(Mr Shearing) We were first invited to a meeting in
Sheffield which was for local authority members' representatives
only and then to a meeting in Leeds which was ES and BA in November/December
of last year. Those from my office who went got the distinct impression
that the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency had held earlier
meetings and we were more or less invited along as—dare
I say it—an afterthought. Suffice it to say, in South Essex
the arrangement is working well and possibly this reflects the
previous good relationships which we have had with the Benefits
Agency and the Employment Service where we have held regular liaison
meetings over a number of years anyway. We are certainly helping
on low level issues. The impression we get is we are having to
rely on the Employment Service, not so much as big brother but
as the senior partner in the arrangement.
(Mr Gary) I would like to go along with that. I went
to the same meeting that my colleague here went to in Sheffield.
However, I would like to say that I think we have caught up tremendously
in Somerset with the partners of the ES and BA. We are working
exceptionally well together although there is this terrible culture
clash where the local authority cannot automatically run along
with what Central Government wants it to do, I have to have deference
to the people who put money in my pocket, which is my council
members at this point in time, and they have just changed and
that has not made life easy.
188. So with this idea of the train leaving
the station, the idea that there was not as much consultation
as there could have been but now you are beginning to catch up,
do you therefore feel that when the pilots come in you are going
to be able to take this up and run with it? Clearly it is our
hope that local government should be involved as much as possible.
(Mr Lautman) Certainly local authorities will be running
with it and contributing as best they can but it would be wrong
to give the impression that we feel on our side that we have been
equal partners in shaping the delivery on the ground. We inevitably
see where the direction is going, we know the timetable is immovable
and local authorities are being very pragmatic and are working
towards those deadlines and contributing as best they can but
there are many constraints and no doubt we will explore those
further as we carry on today.
Mr Keetch: If I can just explain to you, we
have a slight problem in that we have had to move from being a
joint meeting with the Social Security Committee into being a
meeting of the Employment Sub-committee alone.
Ms Atherton
189. You are not very happy with the way in
which you have been involved, that is quite clear. I think we
would be interested to know exactly how you would have liked to
have been involved earlier. What have the financial implications
been for you as local authorities? Are you getting recompense?
Finally, are members of your staff applying to be involved in
an equal measure? There are three questions there.
(Mr Lautman) The first one in terms of when would
we have liked to have been consulted, we would have liked to have
been consulted before the announcement was made so that our views
could have been taken into account in terms of determining the
timetable and determining funding issues.
190. Do you want to expand on the timetabling
and funding?
(Mr Lautman) On both issues they have been presented
as a fait accompli to local authorities.
191. What would your ideal have been?
(Mr Lautman) That we were involved in discussions
before those matters were determined which was before the announcement
was made. I am happy to go into the details.
192. I think that would be useful. That is what
I am trying to say.
(Mr Lautman) On funding issues, we have been told
that a certain amount of money has been provided and that has
got to cover all related costs, including both for the Benefits
Agency and the Employment Service as well as local authorities.
The difficulty for local authorities, as I am sure you understand,
is that they are very heavily constrained. Authorities have to
have regard to capping and other pressures. They are accountable
to their members for expenditure spent, but we have had no firm
information from the Department as to what the criteria may be
and the upper limits of expenditure. Colleagues can comment on
individual aspects. For example, authorities' implementation costs
have not been fully covered. On funding for the ongoing costs
once the models are up and running, we have indicated that we
anticipate some additional costs that do not appear to be recognised
and the departments are saying, "Well, we will look at those
issues once the pilots are up and running and we will consider
it then, but it has got to be met within the overall provision
that has been made," which may be satisfactory from the Department's
point of view but is not a very practical one for local authorities
who have got to live within existing budgets and have the difficulty
of having to say to their members, "Well, we have been asked
to be party to this pilot; it has some additional costs, but we
cannot be sure whether these costs will be funded."
193. It sounds more like a shotgun marriage
than a partnership to me. You are being forced to respond, are
you not?
(Mr Lautman) I am surrounded by colleagues who are
going up the altar so they might want to comment!
(Mr Shearing) We had not anticipated that it would
take so much time and cost. My housing benefits officer assessed
that she was working 20 per cent of her time on the Gateway originally
and in bringing it in. She is currently working 80 per cent of
her time and having to engage somebody else to assist with some
training that we are trying to put in place in the future not
just for our own staff but for the ES/BA people because we appreciate
they need to know as much as they can about Housing Benefit and
Council Tax benefit. There will be additional costs as soon as
it starts in telephones charges, faxing information if people
come to the local authority rather than to the main Gateway which
is located elsewhere. We are also looking at the IT. Obviously
we would like an IT link rather than having the old courier system
of people transporting bits of paper. There is a cost to all of
that. I do not doubt that ultimately there may well be savings,
but at the moment we are looking at a budget which was very different
to the current financial climate. We were faced with additional
costs and we had to make cuts to get the budget to balance.
Mr Keetch
194. Is the feeling that we have a useful spread
from Scotland through Leeds, Essex down to Somerset, a cross-national
feeling?
(Mr Mackenzie) Yes.
(Mr Gary) Yes, very much so, Chairman. I am out-sourced
with a private contractor, my benefits division is out-sourced
and I am going to get a bill. It is clearly identifiable and the
bill will be in excess of what I am getting from central government
funding and the council has got to find it from somewhere if we
are to continue.
Ms Atherton
195. Can I ask what your members' reactions
have been?
(Mr Gary) The old ones or the new ones?
196. Both, I think.
(Mr Gary) I do not know what the new ones' reactions
have been. The old ones certainly wanted to run along with it,
but I took a committee report the very first time that we knew
about this reflecting what we had been told at that particular
point and the council agreed to go along with it at no cost. I
am currently going to have to take another committee report which
says that is not quite right, there will be a cost and we do not
know how much it will be and we do not know whether we are going
to be refunded for it and that is a highly dodgy situation to
be in.
(Mr Bott) I have agreed with all of that. In the private
and voluntary sector variant we have got the added problem that
we really do not know what the proposal is going to look like
yet. So in the basic model and in the call centre there are some
ideas and my colleagues to some degree can influence what the
final design on the ground will be and therefore can see the costs
stacking up. We have to sit around for the private and voluntary
sector and wait for the proposals to come forward and they are
being encouraged not to bring in another basic model or another
call centre variant. They are being encouraged to bring in something
innovative and different, yet we will not know what cost impacts
that is going to have until it is in place.
Judy Mallaber
197. This is very interesting as part of my
constituency is actually in the same area as Gareth's and I have
been pressing very heavily for them to get up to speed with local
authority involvement and I had understood there had been some
improvement. One of the difficulties that we face and I think
it is true of all of the pilots, apart from Leeds, is the number
of different local authority areas that we are trying to cover.
Is that something which you regard as a difficulty? Is it a position
that ideally you would not wish to be in? Do you have any comments
about the geographical size and shape and co-ordination that that
involves?
(Mr Lautman) There are some practical issues about
the lack of co-terminosity between local authority and BA boundaries.
(Mr Bott) Certainly from the North Notts perspective,
yes, we have got six or seven authorities involved in the pilot
area. To be quite honest, when we first sat down together to try
and work this out I did have the fears about different authorities
working together in the first place. That has not proved to be
a problem. I think we have worked together very, very well. The
problems have come about because the patch that we are working
to, which is a Benefits Agency patch, cuts across many of our
authorities. There is only one of those authorities that is wholly
contained within the Gateway patch and we will have real problems
in the future in delivering the services to part of a district.
I think there will be people in parts of Ashfield's district who
cannot access the Gateway. If it is successful word of mouth will
get around and they will want to know why they are being denied
access to this sort of service. I think we have got real problems
in delivering the service.
(Mr Lautman) I think there is an ancillary point as
well. We are talking about a more customer focused service. Generally
speaking, benefit recipients are more familiar with the local
authority and know what local authority they come under. If you
ask them what BA district they come under, I think they would
struggle.
198. One of the other issues I am quite interested
in is whether it does cross over. Are any of your authorities,
currently yourself, trying to operate one-stop shops, trying to
bring together services? Is the Single Gateway that we are talking
about here trying to cut across some of your current arrangements,
say, to bring housing and Welfare to Work together or such like?
(Mr Gary) Our district office and our Deane House
is a one-stop shop as far as the council services for the public
are concerned and we see it very much as a chance to build on
that and extend our services based on and using the Gateway as
an additional impetus to that. We would welcome it from that point
of view.
(Mr Lautman) I have a colleague, Michael Durkan, from
Leeds City Council, not at the table but in the back row of the
public gallery, who has an integrated advice neighbourhood arrangement
in his authority.
Judy Mallaber: Bring him forward.
Mr Keetch: Leeds is the only area where it does
not cut across other local government boundaries, is that correct?
Mr Healey
199. Chairman, could he just introduce himself
for the benefit of the record?
(Mr Durkan) My name is Michael Durkan, Leeds City
Council, Advising Benefits Service.
| 
