APPENDIX 25
Memorandum by Kirklees Community Law Centre
The Single Gateway: Promise and problem
Preamble
I support the single gateway proposals. If they are
implemented they could significantly improve the current situations
of many of our clients. The slogan "making the system serve
the user, not the user serve the system" offers a change
in culture which, if evidenced to current users and their advisers,
will cause astonishment. With the workplace now expected to be
the primary provider of the financial support to the socially
excluded, the implications of failure are dire.
The scale of the task the government has set itself
is enormous. The demolition of three bureaucracies and their reformation
into a new user-centred system will give clients a powerful ally
if properly focused; if it doesn't work however you will have
created a machine which will have the power to almost completely
control clients' lives, remove from them the possibility of effective
and timely challenge and exact profound social and financial costs
from the socially excluded who cannot or will not bend to meet
the system's needs.
A great deal of work is being done internally reorganising
departments at senior management and policy level. As yet, the
question of user involvement in the direction of the new scheme
has not been addressed. A clear understanding of people's alienation
from the frustration with current practise can set an agenda for
the proposed changes which will greatly enhance the chances of
successful implementation. Without that voice and control the
basic problem at the user-system interface will remain.
Macro-Problems
As a practitioner, my view of the culture of the
current system is that it is overwhelmingly determined by the
shift over the past couple of decades from a system based on clearly
defined rights, to a managed system based on qualitative decisions
made against a background of fiscal stringency over which neither
desk officers nor users have any control or influence.
The Government makes wide-ranging changes, heavily
influenced by the exigencies of the economy and the treasury.
These are passed for implementation to departments and agencies
which increasingly see themselves as corporate units in UK plc.
Targets are determined and passed down their own businesses in
tightly managed waves which, by the time they reach the front
desks, could be said to have more to do with internal need for
measurable outputs than getting the "customer" what
they want.
Officers' success in saving money—easiest done
by refusing claims—or by shifting people to "customers"
of another department of UK plc means they meet their targets
and keep their bosses quiet and any difficulties caused to users
are left for they themselves to resolve.
Current research at the Lord Chancellor's department
of users needs from the advice and legal sector shows that large
numbers of people have problems at work and with money. Many of
them seek advice and support in resolving them with differing
levels of satisfaction with the outcomes. One of the new tasks
the single gateway has taken on is providing assistance and support
to users at the R&O interview stage.
User-level Visions
Work: One issue the current
pilot has yet to address is security at work. The treatment some
employers dole out to their employees is unacceptable. It is frustrating
that many clients have no redress because of the limitations in
the current system. It is more frustrating that their inability
to challenge can and does result in them being penalised or stigmatised
when they approach the DSS and ES.
Issues like zero hours contracts, now used in larger
organisations; short-term contracts; earlier lay-offs in response
to variations in trade and the continuing move to individuals
having to go through job after job is said by the Equal Opportunities
and Low Pay Commission among others to be responsible for the
current economic slow down. People will not move house or spend
in shops if they don't think they're going to be able to afford
Xmas presents.
The R&O advisers will have to advise on possible
challenges to unfair dismissal from previous employment. They
will certainly have to have the authority to overrule the current
penalties, if, in their professional opinion, the user has a case.
The Government could help by setting out clearly
what we can expect in terms of rights at work. Removing unacceptable
employers from ES registers may be a symbolic gesture which would
send a powerful message to users. ACAS, the new Minimum Wage Commission
and the Health and Safety Executive, among other agencies, might
have valuable contributions to make.
Access to the system:
The pilot committees are doing a great deal of work on the technology
for telephone access and training for staff who will run it.
The current experience of users and advisers with
accessing services from the DSS, ES and council benefits systems
as well as other government agencies (eg CSA and immigration and
nationality departments) do not inspire confidence. The burden
of making it work must fall on the single gateway. Users and advisers
can point out the current problems and reflect the experiences
with other departments.
There is a lot of talk about "wow" factors
in this project, which I understand to mean elements which surprise.
One thing which I think would wow users and advisers is a commitment
to put the cheque in the post, once they have provided evidence
of need. The system should take responsibility for the time it
takes to investigate and "prove" the users' situation.
In terms of "joined up government" the single gateway
my wish to investigate the realities of what happens when people
are asked to survive without income. There is a knock on to families,
crime and legal systems, social services, housing departments
etc.
Work vs benefits: When
the personal adviser is making decisions about which route they
will send users down, we expect that "work or training"
is going to be the choice in the majority of cases. As I said
at the outset, I am in favour of this. Most of our clients want
a decent job almost regardless of the system's ability to deliver
one or in some cases their ability to meet the pressures of the
workplace.
A clear statement of what the single gateway means
by "work" and "training" is crucial if confidence
is going to be maintained. Most people think "work"
is a place you go to for most of the week, that you owe a commitment
to and from which you receive an income to cover most of your
and your family's needs. "Training" is a course in a
recognised educational institution or similar from which you receive
a qualification, using which you can quickly go out to work in
a better paid job than you had beforehand. The system does not
use these definitions at the moment and users and advisers know
it. When politicians and senior officials pretend that the system's
definition of work and training is commonly held, they promote
cynicism and alienation. The Family Budget Unit has done years
of research on the real amounts of money people need to live a
decent life. Their research might inform targets and attitudes.
The political decision on welfare-to-work may be
the UK is going to take a European or a US approach to benefit
levels. Currently it seems to being spun as having the sensitivity
of Europe whilst trying to ignore the brutality implied by the
US levels of subsistence proposed.
Special needs groups vs mainstream:
We can expect that for the socially included the single gateway
will be a great improvement. If it lumps them together with the
socially excluded, however, both groups will suffer. A problem
current ES and DSS advisers have is distinguishing between the
two groups. Part of their problem is that their targets demand
easy outputs and the socially excluded have nowhere to address
their petitions. This leads to nonsensical and morally indefensible
decisions: disabled people forced onto work registers or into
inappropriate training with sometimes tragic consequences; battered
women refused benefits because the system uses the assets of the
man from whom they've fled in their calculations; vulnerable young
people bullied to meet standards of social involvement set by
the older settled; non-English speakers expected to deconstruct
concepts like "habitual residence" which even educated
native speakers can't manage.
One way forward may be for clear notice to be given
to users that we want them to identify any problems they may have
and some indication of the support they will receive. Not only
would this make the system more efficient for the included, but
allow clearer and better targets for the excluded to be developed
and the best practise of the best desk officers rewarded. At the
moment people who care within the system can feel as penalised
as their victimised clients.
Support services: The
pilot promises support like education, childcare etc to potential
workers. Again, let users have set out exactly what's on offer
so they can participate in decisions.
The Adviser-free System
The single gateway is going to take over much of
the role currently played by independent advisers. The better—off
calculations, issues in housing and support, addressing special
needs etc are all going to have be made by personal advisers before
deciding on the work or benefits track.
Advice services, already reeling under the changes
proposed by the Community Legal Service, have not yet considered
these implications. It seems to me however that by the time a
dissatisfied user goes to seek advice, the only challenge available
to us will be the way in which the personal advisers decision
is made rather than the content of it. This is completely different
from the situation which pertains today and we need to think it
through clearly. At worst our ability to intervene at the moment
allows proper consideration to be made of some gross mistakes,
at best they lead to policy change. Taking us out of the loop
removes an important source of support for users and a safety
value for the system.
In "joined up government" terms you will
no doubt know that the Legal Aid Board has not yet considered
these changes either. The CLS is also going to be a budget-determined
system. There are already problems with integrating employment
advice into the budget calculations of the rest of the system.
Private practise is largely abandoning day-to-day advice and with
the increasing complexity of work place problems, something needs
to be looked at now in determining that skilled employment advice
remains available and expanded to something like demand, if at
all possible.
In terms of single gateway challenges, judicial reviews
are expensive and have system-wide implications when won. The
LAB will not want to pay for them, you might want to consider
what will happen if there are no challenges at all.
John Richardson
Kirklees Community Law Centre
May 1999
| 
