Memorandum submitted by Child Poverty
Action Group (CPAG) (PC 19)
PENSION CREDIT AND JOINT TEAMS
We understand that the Committee are taking
evidence on the introduction of Pension Credit and the administration
of that benefit by the Pension Service. We also understand that
this will include the issue of Joint Teams comprised of local
authority and Pension Service staff. We are writing in order to
give our views on that.
Child Poverty Action Group is a national charity
that campaigns for the abolition of poverty among children in
the UK and for the improvement of the lives of low-income families.
We conduct and publish research, lobby government, lead and support
campaigns, provide up to date information and advice on social
security and tax credits (for example, the Welfare Benefits and
Tax Credits Handbook) and undertake test-cases to extend the interpretation
of law in favour of claimants. We are a membership organisation
and are a leading provider of second tier advice, training and
support to welfare rights advisers throughout the country. As
such, our work brings us into contact with large numbers of such
workers in a variety of organisations.
CPAG are primarily a second-tier organisation,
and as such would have no direct involvement in Joint Teams. However,
the advent of Joint Teams is of interest to CPAG because it relates
to the delivery of welfare rights advice, and raises questions
about take-up, advocacy and independence as part of such work,
all of which are of direct interest to our work. In particular,
although some recipients of pension credit have children, should
Joint Teams be extended to other agencies of the Department then
even more claimants, including more of those with children, would
be affected.
SUMMARY
CPAG would like to express serious concern about
Joint Teams in their current form. We believe that there are some
valuable principles underlying the work of such teams; but that
current arrangements will not result in a satisfactory welfare
benefits service to claimants.
We believe that, in principle, co-working between
local authorities and the Pension Service does have the potential
significantly to increase the take up of welfare benefits and
tax credits. We welcome that. We also endorse the principle of
a "one-stop" service in which older people can get initial
help with community care, benefits etc, in one visit and from
one person.
However, we also believe that insufficient attention
has been paid to issues of welfare rights advocacy and independence
in the work of Joint Teams. Further, we are concerned that, alongside
that deficiency, the advent of Joint Teams could lead to the erosion
of independent welfare rights advocacy from welfare rights advisers
working outside the Joint Teams.
As a result of these concerns, we are not satisfied
that under current arrangements Joint Teams are able to provide
a proper welfare rights service to claimants. We hope that the
principle of closer working between the Pension Service and welfare
rights agencies, which we endorse, can be implemented without
impairment to the provision of such a service.
TAKE-UP
AND A
"ONE-STOP"
SERVICE
CPAG welcome the attempt to increase take up
of Pension Credit and of other benefits via home visits to older
people, and provision of help with community care, benefits and
other welfare services at that visit.
However, we would add that, at least in terms
of provision of a welfare rights service, such work can only be
part of a wider service. In particular, some claimants are more
likely to be attracted by take-up campaigns done outside the Joint
Team, some claimants may need specialist advice (for example,
where they have complicated care arrangements and/or an already
complicated history of benefit claims), and some may want to appeal,
question or otherwise dispute the resulting service and decision
they get on their benefit claim.
We do not believe that Joint Teams can deliver
such a service. Firstly, they cannot deliver genuinely independent
advocacy. We are concerned that the presence of the Department
in the take-up process could deter some claimants who would be
more attracted by a campaign by, for example, the local authority
welfare rights unit or the local Citizens Advice Bureau. Also,
such agencies may well be better place to potential claimants
who are not likely to be targeted by Joint Teams at present, eg,
those who do not have a referral for a community care assessment.
We believe that there are likely to be many older people in that
position.
Secondly, social security and tax credit law
is a complex field, and although Joint Teams staff may be competent
in delivering an initial benefits check and assisting with the
initial stages of a claim, complex issues, disputes and complaints
will often need the attention of someone more specialized. Even
basic, initial-stage work, such as completing a benefit claim
form, can be difficult and time consuming. With that in mind,
we are concerned at reports from some welfare rights advisers
that some Joint Teams are already withdrawing from the task of
form completion for Attendance Allowance/Disability Living Allowance
claims.
In summary, we believe that although Joint Teams
have the capacity to increase take-up, it would not be satisfactory
to assign all responsibility for such work to them. They should
act as a complement to existing welfare rights services, not a
replacement.
INDEPENDENCE AND
ADVOCACY
One of our most serious concerns is that the
Joint Teams cannot deliver genuinely independent advice and advocacy.
This is particularly so in cases of dispute. Whatever the goodwill
of the individuals involved, the fact remains that the Department
have a significant presence in the Joint Team. In our view, that
alone is enough to create a reasonable apprehension that the Team
could not provide independent advocacy.
In our view, it would be reasonable for any
claimant who seeks to appeal against or otherwise dispute their
benefit decision not to want to seek further advice or help from
the Joint Team. At the very least, they might reasonably wonder
how it is that a team in which the organisation that made the
decision with which they are unhappy is actively involved can
advocate for them in an independent way. It strains credibility,
for example, that a case in which the Departmental interpretation
of the meaning or purpose of the legislation was disputed could
be advocated by a member of a Joint Team. Such cases occur frequently,
especially regarding benefits like Disability Living Allowance
where decision-making is notoriously inconsistent, there is a
body of difficult case-law and appeal success rates are very high.
We are very concerned that little or no thought
seems to have been given to this problem. The "Link-Age"
document contains no proposals on it, and we understand the Pension
Service view to be that as the Joint Teams do not make decisions
then there is no difficulty. We do not agree. We believe that
the only way to protect independence is to ensure that, alongside
and outside of the Joint Teams, there is a separate and independent
welfare rights service that can deal with complex cases, complaints
and disputes. To ensure such a service would necessarily involve
ensuring that it is adequately staffed and funded, and that claimants
contacted by the Joint Teams were made aware of seeking advice
from it.
With that in mind, we are concerned at the possibility
that the growth of Joint Teams could lead to the erosion of independent
welfare rights services. Some welfare rights advisors in Joint
Team areas have expressed concern to us that their service is
under review. There is a possibility that fund-holders, overly-impressed
by figures showing an increase in take-up, might conclude that
Joint Teams diminished the need for independent welfare rights
provision by local authority welfare rights units and voluntary
sector organisations. That would be to mistake increased take-up
from one part of the potential claimant group (ie, those referred
for a community care assessment) with a proper welfare rights
service that can offer independent specialized advice and advocacy.
Those roles can only be carried out by offices and organisations
completely distinct from Joint Teams.
Child Poverty Action Group
30 November 2004
| 
