Examination of Witnesses (Questions 260
- 279)
TUESDAY 15 JUNE 1999
RT HON
ANDREW SMITH,
MP, MS ANGELA
EAGLE, MP, MR
CHRIS BARNHAM
AND MR
JEREMY GROOMBRIDGE
Ms Shipley
260. The Social Security Committee visited Lewisham,
which I am sure is a model you are aware of, and it was quite
a small example of a One-stop shop. There were two considerations
that arose out of it. The positive side was clients and personnel
seemed to greatly benefit from it and the whole environment was
so much more positive but the people running it admitted it was
more expensive, does that bother you? The second consideration
was to do with things like the CAB, who could envisage that they
might need to integrate or be encouraged to integrate or even
bid and receive money to integrate and a moral dimension of independence
arose from that. Would you comment on that?
(Ms Eagle) The Lewisham pilot was obviously directly
about the connections between the Benefits Agency and the local
authority with respect to housing benefit and council tax benefit.
What we were trying to do there was focus on whether closer working
could actually deliver a better system. We are waiting for the
absolute final evaluation of the Lewisham project.
261. It looks good.
(Ms Eagle) But, you are quite right, it was extremely
popular with those who used it. It was also popular with staff.
It delivered administration savings, we think, that were quite
substantial. Just one example of the way in which it can deliver
a faster benefit service, it was taking on average nine days I
think to get information in an income support form sent off to
the housing benefit bit of a local authority so they could begin
to put that into payment. This was reduced to half a day. It was
not done with fancy fibre optic electronic cabling, it was actually
done I think with somebody on a bike and a large brown envelope.
So you do not always need super duper IT to do this. It does help
if you have more connections between the staff of one organisation
and the other. They know who they can pick the phone up to and
there is a regular connection established. We are looking to see
whether we can use some of that experience in the ONE pilot. On
expense and how much it costs, I think we have to remember that
if you get a more efficient service you will actually save money
too because you are getting the benefit into payment faster, you
are taking a lot of duplication of effort in trying to reach a
conclusion on an entitlement to a particular claim out of the
system and I regard this as undergrowth that you need to brush
away so you can see what it is you are actually meant to be doing.
We are waiting for the primary evaluations. Even if it costs a
bit more up front, we are waiting to see whether it is actually
cheaper in terms of efficiency in the round.
(Mr Smith) On the resourcing what you can actually
see it has is a shift of resources from duplicationshunting
people from pillar to post and to a certain extent from bureaucracytowards
front line personal advice and support.
Ms Atherton
262. Following on, you have talked about the
guy with his bicycle and brown envelope. Local authorities have
also said that they feel that they have taken quite a major step
backwards, that they are now using paper again instead of new
technology. Do you have a vision of where the technology is going
to be and are you conscious that you have got all these different
agencies and organisations with different IT systems that do not
talk to one another, although, okay, people can pick up the phones,
but where is the vision?
(Mr Smith) The first step is to get the access to
the different systems from within each of the centres, the ONE
centre, the offices, which are dealing with this. Secondly, it
is to get those different systems on the same computer screen.
Thirdly, it is properly to integrate the systems. There is no
doubt that IT is a major challenge with this. It is something
that we cannot afford to get wrong. We do have to proceed very
much in a step by step fashion in order to ensure that the basic
quality of service which is available from the very outset of
the pilots is satisfactory before we are going to be able to get
both the software and the hardware enhancements that are needed
in order to get a fully integrated system. There is a vision there
of full integration and we do have to move carefully step by step.
(Ms Eagle) I think also local authorities tend to
have more sophisticated IT. ES has slightly less but still quite
good IT and BA has the oldest of the IT. That is a quick summary
of it. But, do not ignore the capacity that new browser technology
could give us actually to browse across different IT methods and
to integrate. Our people are working very hard on integrating
some enhancements with the pilots to do that. ITSA is our technology
agency in the DSS, is doing some very interesting work on what
might be possible. We all want a utopian IT system that is stunning
and available to everybody on one tiny little screen but I would
not want to give the impression that we could not make a major
difference even without having that. That is why I used the bike
and brown envelope as an example. A lot of people tend to say
"we will have to wait until we get our perfect IT system
before we can really achieve this". What we are trying to
say is you can achieve significant improvements without whilst
working towards introducing that IT system. It is a question of
knowing that you can make advances at the same time as you are
scrambling to get your IT systems integrated.
263. You will know that there are some of us
on this Committee who are very enthusiastic about the whole concept
of a One-stop Government in the totality. As you write your diaries
late at night
(Ms Eagle) We do not write our diaries.
264. No diaries. As you think about the future
and the manifestos of say two Parliaments' time, where do you
see this going? Is this the first step to One-stop Government
or is this an entity in itself? Is this the starting ground to
something like what they have in Australia but much further integrated?
Where do you see it going?
(Ms Eagle) Firstly, I do not know how Barbara Castle
ever did it. My admiration for her grows all the time. I am too
exhausted to write a diary. I think, again, I will give you my
view of that in a minute but we have to be careful to limit what
we are doing to what is possible now before we get all grandiose
about what it is going to be like in a couple of Parliaments'
time. I do think also that when you look at IT there are new things
happening all the time. The integration of the telephone and the
TV and computer implies that in not too many years probably some
kind of digital two-way flow of information will be possible in
the corner of somebody's room. That gives you enormous possibilities.
Actually boring old electronic claim forms would transform our
service from the point of view of BA. You have to keep your eye
on two levels, what have we got now and how can we procure in
a reasonable way on time to some kind of IT that will enable you
to give a much, much better service, such as the Lewisham pilot
demonstrated was possible. Then there is this other new digital
flow concept that is going to be not too far away. That gives
you a shape of how Government services might be. Certainly accessible
in different ways. There are going to be face-to-face aspects
of it but we have to make sure it is accessible maybe over the
telephone and in other ways too so that people can have access
to it at their convenience rather than at our convenience.
(Mr Smith) To a certain extent the progress of the
pilots and what we learn from them will actually give some useful
indicators of what seems desirable and possible for the future
seeing that it is going to be a dynamic process. For example,
the involvement of the call centres at the Registration and Orientation
stage, that may well have some useful lessons to teach us about
how more generally it might make sense to at least have the option
of doing things over the telephone. We have to see how it works
out first.
Ms Shipley
265. If I can bring you back to the personal
advisers. Both of you in the early part of the session referred
again and again and again to the importance of personal advisers
and I am certain you are right. A good personal adviser is going
to be key to making the most of this work. There are a number
of things about that. Training: I understand that there are going
to be two major core pieces of training for personal advisers.
How will they be recruited in the first place? Are they going
to come from existing staff or are you going to look for different
levels of skills from people as well as training them in the skills
necessary for the job? Caseloads are going to be very important.
It has been suggested that a social worker's average caseload
is around 40 and a New Deal Personal Adviser's is going to be
30. What sort of caseload will personal advisers be expected to
carry? It seems to me that they are going to have a very, very
wide ranging role in this. Caseloads tend, I have been advised,
to take around 40 per cent of administrative time. If you are
an adviser, then 40 per cent of your time is going to be administrative
rather than face-to-face. How do you see this being dealt with?
(Mr Smith) First of allincidentallyyou
are right they are going to be a key, I have no doubt, to the
success of this, as indeed they have proved in the New Deal. There
is a great buzz of excitement in the pilot areas that are getting
ready to do this because, as was said earlier, this is the sort
of work that people in many cases joined the service to do. They
will be recruited from the existing services; the Benefits Agency,
the Employment Service, local authorities and officials from the
CSA will have the chance to apply for jobs as well. Recruitment
has already taken place for pilots that start on 28 June. In assessing
the suitability of applicants of course account is taken of the
relevant experience that they have got and a good number of people
have been working on the New Deal or New Deal for Lone Parents
or have particular expertise in housing and council tax benefit
and obviously have a claim to the jobs but it is appointments
on merit from within those existing services. In terms of the
training this is, and obviously has to be, very much tailored
to the individual members of staff, taking account of their previous
experience and competencies. In terms of the amount of training
which is being made available, it varies between around 42 hours
to around 300 hours with a median of something like 180. In terms
of the average caseload that we expect, I do not have the figure
to hand at the moment. Rather than making a guestimate I think
it is best if I let the Committee know that separately.[3]
Dr Naysmith
266. I agree absolutely with Andrew that the
training is crucial and the quality of the people who are going
to be personal advisers is crucial. It is clear that the success
of the New Deal depends a lot on the change in culture that seems
to have taken place and the quality of some of the staff. Initially
when we were talking about ONE, when it was the Single gateway,
there was a lot of talk about the Registration and Orientation
phase and this was going to be very important, that the personnel
who make first contact with the client would be very important
so training for that was clearly crucial as well. We understand
on the Committee, particularly when we visited Yorkshire, there
is a suggestion that this is going to be downgraded now and the
talk was of a 40 minute interview to start with but the suggestion
is now that it is going to be less than 20 minutes. I wonder whether
this does reflect some sort of downgrading? Someone suggested
in the voluntary sector that these people will be seen just as
receptionists and maybe it would be better if the first contact
was with the personal adviser right away. What is the thinking
on this now? Do you think it will still add special value to the
whole system to have this kind of phase right at the start?
(Mr Smith) There has certainly been no downgrading
of the Registration and Orientation phase, the level, quality
and commitment required from the staff there. Apart from anything
else this is the very first contact people have with the ONE service.
As we all know in service delivery that critically shapes people's
perception of the system, how well it is meeting their needs.
In terms of the time that it is going to take, that does depend
very much on the nature of the applications and the queries which
people are making. Certainly one thing we want to do is at the
earliest opportunity possible to draw people's attention to the
availability of job opportunities where they are in a position
to take them and are relatively job ready. Where we want to get
to is to be able to point them towards jobs at that initial stage.
I certainly see the Registration and Orientation work as very
responsible and indeed integral to the success of the whole project.
(Ms Eagle) It is particularly important from the point
of view of making the application for benefits as well. The ideal
is to get that out of the way before the work-focused interview
so that the individual does not have to worry about the application
being made or put in properly. That is another important aspect
of the initial interview.
267. So where does the 40 minutes reduced to
less than 20 come from? Is it a rumour or is there anything underlying
that suggestion that we have picked up quite clearly?
(Mr Smith) I know of no basis for saying that so I
would describe it as a rumour, an unfounded one.[4]
268. I will move on now to something slightly
different which is the question that does involve advisers as
well. The proposals at the moment would exclude people once they
move into work of more than 16 hours a week, even though they
may still be claiming housing benefit and Working Families Tax
Credit and that sort of thing. Would it not be a good idea to
keep people in contact with personal advisers when they are in
that situation of still claiming benefit even though they are
in work?
(Ms Eagle) I do not think we would expect the personal
advisers to be completely debarred from ever talking to them again.
I think one of the strengths of the New Deal has been that relationship
between the personal adviser and in some cases it has almost been
a mentoring relationship. We do expect personal advisers, if that
is appropriate, to keep in touch or certainly be at the end of
the telephone if somebody wants further advice. They would not
just be withdrawn, when they went into 16½ hours all of a
sudden the whole service would be completely withdrawn. We would
expect there to be some sort of contact.
269. It would relate a little bit also to caseload,
would it not? If people were under pressure then there would be
pressure to move people off their caseloads?
(Mr Smith) I think this very much falls into the category
of the sorts of developments that we might well expect to see
in the future, not least on the basis of the evidence of the experience
of the work being done in the New Deal for Young People on retention.
We have got a sub-committee of the Advisory Task Force that is
very actively investigating and looking at different ways of working
with employers to encourage the retention of employees, especially
those who are hardest to help. There will be lessons coming through
all the time from that sort of work and from other aspects of
the New Deal and that is something that not only would I not want
to rule out being applied in the ONE service, I would want to
encourage it having a role to play where appropriate. Again we
are back to this issue. As I said it is a very powerful idea and
the temptation is to say "can you not do this as well"
and before you know where you are you have got a very overstretched
staff who are being expected to run before they can walk. That
is why we take it in a measured way. I think there are exciting
possibilities there.
Mr Dismore
270. Can I come back to the points Andrew made
earlier on about the timetable? We have got the pilots coming
in next month or later this month, is that correct?
(Ms Eagle) Yes.
271. And the compulsion will kick in next April.
(Ms Eagle) Yes.
272. How will that actually affect how the pilots
will operate bearing in mind that they do not have this compulsory
power to start? How will they get people involved and participating
on a voluntary basis? When you come to evaluate the pilots as
they develop, to what extent will that affect the validity of
the pilots or the lessons that can be learned from the pilots
when you try to operate the pilot on a compulsory system?
(Ms Eagle) The first thing to say is that it will
enable us to compare the voluntary approach to the compulsory
one. A lot of people have been saying "why bother with the
compulsory one, it will all be much better if it is voluntary".
The way the pilots are, they allow us to assess both of those
and to see whether there are lessons in moving from one approach
to the other. Initially obviously people will be attracted to
the service partially by its reputation, by persuasion at the
beginning, by its ability to deliver a better service than they
would get elsewhere. Those who live in the pilot areas will certainly
have to go through the service but not, I suppose, if they do
not want to attend the interview to begin with. When I started
I was getting people coming to my surgery demanding to be let
on to the New Deal although they were not eligible for it, because
they had heard so much about it. I think it is somewhere around
there that we would want to create a buzz about it that would
enable people not to see the work-focused interview as a threat
but as a helpful intervention. Then we will have to look at how
many people take up this opportunity in the voluntary phase and
compare it with what happens during the compulsory phase. It does
give us a chance to directly compare the two approaches.
(Mr Smith) As with the New Deal I think some ultimate
credibility will be word of mouth reports from clients of the
standard and quality of service that they are getting. During
the voluntary phase it will be voluntary, people will be encouraged
to take advantage of the opportunity but it would be quite wrong
for there to be any suggestion that they were under an obligation
so to do. One thing we are very clear about is the quality of
experience that people are going to have is going to be altogether
different. I described it some time ago as the "wow factor".
I want people to come in for these interviews and say "wow,
this really is different and better than anything we have had
before". The physical lay out as well as the approach and
training preparation of the personal adviser is enormously important
in shaping people's perceptions. They will be coming into modern,
civilised areas where there is security and privacy and all that
grunge and din and the screens that characterise the worst of
the present offices which are operating will be swept away. It
will give a very powerful signal to clients that this is a collaborative
effort between them, and the agencies, the state if you like,
helping them find a better way forward. In those circumstances
if people are impressed I would expect many of them to want to
take advantage of the voluntary interviews. As Angela has said
we can compare the voluntary and compulsory approaches. The likelihood
is, of course, that with the voluntary interviews you will not
get a fully representative outcome because it will be those who
are most resistant to this sort of help who are least likely to
avail themselves of it, but we shall see.
273. Can I pursue that point into the next stage,
for the non-JSA claimants, the expectation is to have a personalised
action plan and then there is a follow-up interview?
(Ms Eagle) Yes.
274. How are you going to be able to cross that,
or not cross that, very fine dividing line between offering positive
assistance and people who are receiving that assistance feeling
pressurised to do something voluntarily when this system comes
in that they are not required to do? How will you be able to reassure
them?
(Mr Smith) Ask them "would they like another
interview" and if they say "yes" give them one
and if they say "no" do not.
(Ms Eagle) I think also we have to remember that the
Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill does not extend compulsion beyond
attending the interview. What we hope is that the helpful element
of that will be enthusing and it will actually give some jointly
arrived at sense of direction for an individual. As I was saying
earlier, a lot of people's get up and go has got up and gone.
We have to try to help them get more proactive again. That is
what I hope the interview will do. We are not envisaging, certainly
at this stage at all, introducing any other forms of compulsion
other than the attendance. We want the interview to stand on its
own merits as a helpful intervention that people will want to
take account of and take action on subsequently.
275. On the subsequent follow-up interviews
are you going to be saying, therefore, if people do not want to
come they are not going to be under pressure or forced into doing
that?
(Mr Smith) Certainly during the voluntary phase it
is all voluntary. We have provided in the legislation, of course,
for subsequent mandatory interviews at certain trigger points
on which further regulations will be forthcoming and those will
again be mandatory interviews. I thought you were asking about
the voluntary phase and further follow-up interviews and not the
mandatory triggered ones. First of all, I think it is entirely
sensible and in line with what the public would expect that having
an interview ought to be regarded as an integral part of accessing
the benefits system in the first place. I think people do see
it as reasonable. If people's circumstances change in a way that
is likely to affect their employabilitytheir youngest child
has reached five or their youngest child has gone to secondary
school or they have completed a training course or whateverthat
could trigger an interview where they are required to have the
same discussion. As Angela was saying, I believe that the appeal
and effectiveness of the interviews will largely sell themselves
because people will see that this is something which is there
to help them.
Mrs Humble
276. Before probing any further about the needs
of non-JSA claimants can I just go back to this issue of the quality
of service? You have both, quite rightly, pointed out that this
is going to be a much better service than the one that currently
exists and you explained that in terms of the personal interviews.
Of course, one of the sad features of the current system is that
people cannot get through on the telephone, they get unintelligible
letters sent through the post. Is all of that going to change
as well as part of this new ONE service?
(Ms Eagle) That is changing as part of another initiative
really. The changes in decision making and appeals are changing
the notification systems. I agree with you that at the moment
our notification systems are inexplicable to most people and they
cause enormous irritation, frustration and confusion. We are doing
our best to see what we can do to make them more intelligible
under the decision making and appeals changes. Another important
part of all of that is the aspect of decision making and appeals
where the individual claimant can have a discussion with the member
of staff about a particular decision that has been made and if
there has been an error it can be corrected. There is a much more
explanatory system coming into being which I hope will flow into
the general changes. One is a pilot, a series of pilots, this
is happening everywhere. We did change the legislation so that
we could try to make this more intelligible and I hope over time
that all of these things will flow into one glorious approach
to comprehensibility.
(Mr Smith) All those improvements can and must be
made but the additional key difference that the ONE service will
make is that there is a personal adviser, your personal adviser,
and if you do get some unintelligible communication or something
that you do not understand you can pick up the phone and talk
to them and know that you have not got to go back to square one
in recounting your whole personal history and dealings with the
system in order for them to know where you are. So I think there
will be a big gain in service support and, if you like, back-up
in that respect.
277. Going back to special issues to do with
non-JSA claimants. As I am sure you are aware the disability groups
and lone parents organisations have all expressed concerns that
if all the claimants are going through the personal adviser system
that that personal adviser will not be properly addressing the
particular needs of lone parents, people with disabilities, of
carers. What sorts of reassurances can you give on that?
(Mr Smith) First of all, as I said earlier, people
are being trained especially in the areas where their own personal
experience and competencies do not lie. So there will be a general
level of competence and expertise. I have to say too I think the
first requirements for personal advisers are sympathy, personal
efficiency, commonsense in working with the clients. They are
not after all at the end of the day working alone, they are members
of a team. Obviously nobody is going to perfectly understand all
of the different intricacies of all of the different benefits
that are being covered or all of the provisions of all of the
different programmes or community groups that might be helpful
for the client to be in touch with. The important thing is that
they know who in their team to ask if they themselves are not
certain of some aspect. Can I just say further, as we design this,
and indeed as it is implemented, we are closely involving representatives
of bodies from lone parents organisations, disability organisations,
those dealing with mental health. For example, we are having a
series of seminars where we are taking aspects of the ONE service
and we are trying to test it to destruction against what they
think the problems might be and we are also taking their advice
in the training. All of these sorts of issues are being anticipated,
worked through in the policy and design included in the training
and worked through with those who actually will have to provide
the service.
(Ms Eagle) I think the important thing to remember
as well is that this is meant to be a shift to treating people
as individuals rather than as categories. Whilst we have to have
sympathy and understanding for particular issues or difficulties
that people might haveit might be a mental health problem
in which case they can take an advocate with them or whateverwe
also have to see them as human beings rather than "they are
lone parents" and "that is somebody with a disability".
The Lone parents are a very disparate group of people. Some have
small barriers to work, some have barriers to work that are massive
because they have never been in the labour market. Similarly,
people with disabilities cover a wide range, it is not a generic
category. What we are trying to do with the new service is say
"let us treat people as individuals, let us react to their
particular needs, circumstances, requirements, not as categories".
That is why we are trying to provide a more general sympathetic
approach but with the training that Andrew has described.
278. You both in earlier answers, quite rightly,
emphasised that, for some people who are not job ready or who
may never be job ready there, are lots of other initiatives that
they can get involved in. You did not mention volunteering, voluntary
work. Are you including voluntary work as part of that spectrum?
(Ms Eagle) Yes.
(Mr Smith) Very much so.
279. One of the issues that was certainly raised
during the Committee Stage of the Welfare Reform Bill was the
problem of people on incapacity benefit who are coming forward
and claiming incapacity benefit and are saying that they are incapable
of work but on the other hand they are getting involved in a work-focused
system. Is there a danger for those peopleagain, I am seeking
reassurances herethat by responding positively to a work-focused
interview they will be disallowed incapacity benefit?
(Mr Smith) The personal capability assessment provided
for in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill is done separately
and independently from the ONE interview. The other thing I would
say is that the ONE interview is exploring the barriers to work
and ways in which people might move forward in overcoming those
barriers. It very much depends on the individual circumstances.
I think we all know, and it is one of the great problems in the
way in which disability benefits are structured at the moment,
that the reality for very many people is not that they can all
do all sorts of work or they can do no work at all, it is a question
of what sort of work they might be able to do and for what periods
and how they might vary with changes in their condition. I see
value early on, right at the beginning of the claim as part of
the work-focused interview, of sensitively discussing how people
might be helped to overcome those barriers. For some, of course,
the barriers may be so extreme that it is not meaningful to have
the work-focused interview at that time or maybe not even to have
it at all. I would say this is the spirit of the whole project,
that it is inclusive and that as many people as possible have
the interview but we make sure that it is sensitively tailored
to their circumstances rather than to start erecting arbitrary
walls around the ONE project and saying that certain categories
of people are not going through it, because we are then back to
this problem of labelling people in advance, which the whole thing
is trying to get away from.
(Ms Eagle) I think possibly the reassurance you are
seeking is that if somebody goes to a work-focused interview it
will not be used in evidence against them in their incapacity
claim.
3 See Ev. p.118. Back
4
See Ev. p.118. Back
|