Appendix: Government response
Introduction
1. The Government welcomes the Second Report
of the Work and Pensions Select Committee on Decision making and
appeals in the benefits system. The Department for Work and Pensions
makes tens of millions of decisions on social security benefits
each year. The Government is pleased that the Committee has recognised
that every day the vast majority of our customers are getting
the right benefits. But there is more to do to simplify the benefits
system.
2. The Government believes that the decision
making process for benefits is robust and practical and that it
provides an effective basis to deliver services to customers.
But it is constantly working to make the process even better.
The Department introduced Employment and Support Allowance which
replaces two benefits with one. It is easier for pensioners to
claim Pension Credit, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit
in one free phone call. There are tighter controls on fraud and
error, including mandatory staff training and a new checking regime.
Conclusions and recommendations
1. We note the concerns of some witnesses that
the transfer of responsibility for decision making to the Secretary
of State for Work and Pensions from the Chief Adjudication Officer
has led to a reduction in the independence of decision making
and even a deterioration in the quality of decision making. We
ask DWP to set out how the existing system safeguards objectivity
in the decision making process. (Paragraph 26)
3. The Government does not share this view of
the decision making system. Although decision makers act on behalf
of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, they are required
to make decisions impartially, by applying the relevant law to
the facts of each case. Objectivity is safeguarded through a combination
of decision making training and guidance and the appellate system.
4. Decision makers receive training on the application
of generic decision making principles, as well as training on
the specific benefits on which they work. The Decision Makers
Guide provides a plain English interpretation of the law. Decision
makers also have access to the decisions of Upper Tribunal Judges
and the courts. Case specific advice is available from the Department's
Decision Making and Appeals Division. The aim is to ensure that
decision makers' knowledge and skills keep pace with developments
in the law and its application to benefit entitlements.
5. Under the previous adjudicative system there
was a distinct legal separation of powers between the Secretary
of State and the adjudication officers. In practice the system
did not allow any greater independence than today's decision makers.
The key to good decision making, now as then, is to ensure that
decision makers have the knowledge and tools to make decisions
objectively. Both are in place but, as explained elsewhere, more
work is being done to enhance existing skills.
2. We commend the Department's performance against
its targets for payment accuracy and claim clearance rates for
a number of benefits. However, we were surprised to learn that
the equivalent data for Jobseeker's Allowance, Employment Support
Allowance, Incapacity Benefit or Income Support is not validated
and is therefore not suitable for publication. We ask the Department
to explain why it does not publish data on payment accuracy and
claim clearance rates for these major benefits and recommend that
it begins to do so as soon as possible. (Paragraph 34)
6. The Government notes the recommendation to
publish additional performance data. The Department measures the
accuracy of its benefit processing operations in terms of the
monetary value of fraud and error (MVFE) of DWP benefits (including
those administered by Jobcentre Plus). This is a key mechanism
for the external reporting of the progress the Department is making
in reducing errors. This MVFE data, published as National Statistics,
provides the most consistently reliable estimate of errors in
the Jobcentre Plus benefits system.
7. The Government also publishes claims clearance
rates for all core benefits as one of the key indicators for Departmental
Strategic Objective 6 (DSO6), to pay customers the right benefit
at the right time. The most recent publication containing claims
clearance time data for Jobcentre Plus benefits is the DWP
Autumn Performance Report 2009 (22 December 2009). For 2009-10
there is not a published target for Incapacity Benefit as part
of the transition to Employment and Support Allowance. Performance
will continue to be published to March 2011. Clearance time data
for Employment and Support Allowance will be published from April
2010 and performance will be measured against a published target.
8. National Statistics on fraud and error in
the benefit system are published twice-yearly by the Department.
National Statistics are produced in compliance with the principles
and practices set out by the UK Statistics Authority in the "Code
of Practice for Official Statistics". An accreditation system
has been created by the UK Statistics Authority to ensure that
all National Statistics comply with the Code of Practice. MVFE
performance data is also used by the National Audit Office to
lay before Parliament within the annual DWP Resource Account.
MVFE reduction performance is also provided in the annual Departmental
reports. The Government considers that the current arrangements
are sufficiently robust to ensure the integrity and reliability
of the data which is widely used.
3. We acknowledge the work the Department's agencies
are undertaking to address error, including the appointment of
"Error Champions" in Jobcentre Plus and pre- and post-payment
accuracy checks in the Pension, Disability and Carers Service.
We ask the Department to monitor the impact of these measures
and to ensure that agencies share information about measures that
are successful in reducing levels of official error. (Paragraph
35)
9. The Government welcomes the Committee's endorsement
of its approach to addressing error. Jobcentre Plus has an established
error reduction strategy which entails the continual monitoring
of performance as measured both by MVFE and internal improvement
measures. The outcome of this work is discussed routinely through
the departmental Fraud and Error Stakeholder Engagement Group
as well as at quarterly liaison meetings between expert MVFE practitioners
across both Jobcentre Plus and PDCS.
10. Decision making is an important element of
end to end processing and has an impact on MVFE. For this reason,
the DWP Decision Making Standards Committee has an important role
to play in ensuring the accuracy of benefit payment. The Jobcentre
Plus Standards Committee member shows an on-going and close interest
in Jobcentre Plus processes designed to minimise error.
11. PDCS routinely monitors the impact of the
measures taken to reduce error levels. Teams within the agency
and—to provide independent validation—outside the
agency, measure and report on accuracy through: visiting claimants
at home; monthly sampling of all activity at all processing units;
periodic reviews of random and specific samples of cases; and
periodic scans of the caseload to identify inconsistencies in
data sets. The results of these measurements are used to provide
feedback to individual staff and units. At a generic level the
data informs improvements in training materials, guidance, and
processes. The measurements are also used to specify technology
improvements and to help the agency to decide where to deploy
available resources to best effect.
4. However, we believe that the cost of official
error due to overpayments of benefits is still far too high at
£800 million in 2008-09, and we are concerned that this figure
has risen significantly since 2000-01. We are equally concerned
by the increase in the total amount of underpayments resulting
from official error since 2004-05. In light of the 1998 reforms
of the decision making and appeals system, which were designed
to improve decision making, we ask the Department to explain why
levels of official error have risen since 2000-01. (Paragraph
36)
12. The rise in both overpayments and underpayments
due to official error since 2000-01 is due to a combination of
factors. In addition to the acknowledged complexity of the benefit
system and the constraints of legacy IT systems, the Department
carried through unprecedented wide scale restructuring in the
creation, and subsequent reorganisation, of both Jobcentre Plus
and the Pension, Disability and Carers Service. At the same time
changes were introduced to the design of the benefits system through
the transfer of child provision from income related benefits to
Child Tax Credits and the introduction, and focus on take up of,
Pension Credit.
13. The measurement methodology used to derive
estimates for some benefits for 2000-01 to 2004-05 differ from
the period 2005-06 onwards. It is not, therefore, meaningful to
compare current estimates with anything earlier than 2005-06.
The latest estimates show both the cash value (£800 million)
and the proportion (0.6%) of official error overpayments to be
at their lowest reported level since 2005-06 when meaningful comparisons
can be made. This has been achieved against a background of significantly
increased workloads resulting from the economic downturn.
5. It is unacceptable that, despite the Government
committing to publishing a report by the Secretary of State on
the Department's decision making standards "annually or as
near to each year as possible" the most recent report was
published in 2006 and only covered the 2002-03 period. The failure
of the Secretary of State to provide an assessment of decision
making in the last six years means the Department is not fulfilling
promises made by the Government during the passage of the Social
Security Act 1998. We ask the Secretary of State to explain why
the Government's commitment to publishing an annual report on
decision making standards has not been fulfilled and to announce
when reports will be published for the six years since 2003. (Paragraph
41)
6. We note with concern that the Comptroller and
Auditor General was unable to confirm that a substantial part
of the information set out in the last report by the Secretary
of State was "fair and balanced". We are further dismayed
by his conclusion that the information within it would be of "limited
utility as a measure of the Department's success in improving
the accuracy of decision making". Reliable data are crucial
to ensuring that decision making accuracy is measured effectively
and the Department's failure to collect this information reduces
the likelihood of appropriate improvements being made to the system.
We also ask the Secretary of State to provide evidence to demonstrate
that data collection on decision making and appeals has improved
since the last report was published. (Paragraph 42)
14. The Government accepts this criticism and
apologises for the delays in publication of the reports.
15. Section 81 of the Social Security Act 1998
requires the Secretary of State to report annually on the standards
of decision making. It had been agreed in the debates on the Social
Security Bill that the National Audit Office (NAO) would be involved
in the preparation of the Reports. The first such Secretary of
State Report for the period 2000 and 2001 was published in July
2003 and the second, for the years 2002 and 2003, in July 2006.
The considerable delays in publishing the second Report were caused
by a change in the underpinning methodology and discussions with
the NAO about their concerns relating to the validation of some
of the data used for the Report. Unfortunately, it has not proved
possible to allay those concerns. The ongoing discussions have
contributed to a delay in publication of further Reports.
16. The Department has produced a Report to cover
the period from 1 January 2004 to 31 March 2007, which will be
published shortly.
17. Because of changes in the resources available
to the DWP Performance Measurement team, the Department does not
now have the resources to produce the data for reports from 1
April 2007 on the same basis as those previously published. The
Department has concluded that the best approach for those Reports
would be to use the Department's Monetary Value of Error figures
as a proxy measure of decision making quality. The MVE figures
are a subset of the MVFE data described in paragraph 6 above.
18. The Department currently produces annual
estimates of the amount of fraud, customer error and official
error present across the benefit system using sample surveys drawn
from live load cases where benefit is currently in payment. That
does include cases on which no decision has been made for a few
years but where payment is still being made. The sampled cases
are fully checked to ensure that the evidence exists to support
the payment that was made, with errors attributed to official
error, customer mistake or fraud.
19. An analysis by the Department's Information
Directorate of a sample period showed that MVE official error
accuracy results and decision making accuracy were highly correlated
and the results of the two checks agreed in over 90% of cases,
that is, if the Performance Management check identified an official
error then it would be very likely that the DMA check would result
in an error and vice versa. In other words the MVE official error
check does include a quality check of the decision. Indeed, given
that the MVE sample sizes are much larger than those used in the
old-style reports arguably they will give a better picture of
the quality of decision making. The Department considers, therefore,
that MVE is a credible proxy for decision making standards.
7. We are surprised and disappointed to learn
that the President of the First-tier of the Social Entitlement
Chamber had seen no evidence that the Department has listened
to the feedback provided in the annual reports of the President
of Appeal Tribunals. We recommend that the new Senior President
of Tribunals should continue to produce an annual report on standards
of decision making and that the Secretary of State should undertake
to publish a response to it within two months of its publication.
(Paragraph 47)
20. The Government welcomes the Committee's support
for the continuation of an annual report by the Senior President
of Tribunals on the standards of decision making reached by the
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and the Child Maintenance
and Enforcement Commission. This was made a statutory requirement
by the insertion of section 15A into the Social Security Act 1998.
21. Every year, as part of the report's publication
procedures, the President has been sent a copy of the actions
the Department has taken to improve its decision making. The Department
considers that this is more effective than a formal published
response. The Department recognises the value of additional, effective
feedback from the judiciary and is in discussion with the Chamber
President on how to achieve this.
8. The Standards Committee was established to
monitor decision making within the Department and we believe that
this important role should be more formally recognised. We recommend
that "Decision Making" should be reinstated in its title
to ensure that its main purpose is clear, both to internal and
external stakeholders. We also recommend that the Department publish
a response to the Standards Committee's recommendations within
two months of the publication of a report of the Committee. (Paragraph
54)
9. The change in format of the Standards Committee's
annual report has resulted in an esoteric document, which we found
less accessible than previous reports. It is important that the
Standards Committee's conclusions and recommendations are clear
and readily understandable. We ask the Standards Committee to
reintroduce a summary of how the Department has responded to the
previous year's recommendations. (Paragraph 55)
22. The Committee was established as the Department
for Work and Pensions Decision Making Standards Committee and
this title is used in its terms of reference. The Committee is
responsible for the format of its annual reports, which it has
agreed with Jobcentre Plus and the Pension, Disability and Carers
Service. The annual report contains a response from the Department
to all the Committee's recommendations. The Committee has agreed
to reintroduce a summary of the Department's responses to the
recommendations.
10. Complexity in the benefits system remains
a significant challenge for claimants, their representatives and
the Department itself. We note the concerns raised to us in evidence
that errors in decision making are inevitable if the social security
system is too complex. We urge the Department to re-examine the
conclusions of our report on Benefits Simplification with a view
to simplification of the system. (Paragraph 61)
23. The Government has recognised the adverse
effects which can be caused by the number of different benefits
and the complexity of benefit rules. These effects include the
risk of incorrect or inconsistent decisions by benefits staff,
with the possible consequence of an increase in appeals.
24. Since the publication of the Committee's
Report on Benefits Simplification (HC 463-1, 26 July 2007) the
Government has put fundamental simplification of the whole system
at the heart of its welfare reform programme. It is the only way
to ensure that people receive benefits to which they are entitled,
to maximise incentives and to ensure a smoother transition into
work.
25. The Government's stated ambition is to move
to a simpler system potentially based on just one working age
benefit. This was reaffirmed in the White Paper Building Britain's
Recovery—Achieving Full Employment (Cm 7751, 15 December
2009). But this will take time. For example, in the Welfare Reform
Act 2009, Parliament legislated to abolish Income Support, but
the Government will not do this until it is certain that satisfactory
alternative provision is in place for the various client groups.
26. In the meantime, the Department has embarked
on a major Change Programme, which is transforming the delivery
of benefits and radically improving the customer experience as
well as making the Department more efficient. Main features include:
- transferring all the various
Departmental internet services to Directgov, the main public services
website. Customers can now get advice on what to claim on the
Benefit Adviser and track the progress of claims via the secure
Benefit Enquiry service;
- Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) Online launched in
August 2009, enabling people claiming contribution-based JSA to
do so on the internet. The service is expected to become available
to all JSA customers during 2010;
- State Pension Online launched in February
2010. The first phase includes people invited by the Department
to claim online using the new Identity Verification process. The
initiative recognises that more and more people approaching pension
age are comfortable using the Internet and prefer it, though conventional
ways of claiming will still be available;
- The In and Out of Work Project, specifically
designed to reduce the perceived risks in benefits disruption
of taking short-term work. This collects the information needed
at one point instead of three, with Jobcentre Plus sharing information
with Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and local authorities.
Roll-out is more than half way through and on track to be completed
during 2010;
- The Information Capture Tool (ICT), a simple
piece of software providing staff with an easy way to update a
customer's details and share the information, saving the customer
time and money by only needing to make one call instead of, on
average, five. Since its launch in February 2009 the ICT has been
used over 7 million times; and,
- The new DWP Enquiry Service, a restructuring
of telephony so that the top 80% of the Department's annual 30
million customer enquiries can be answered in one call—regardless
of the number and type of benefits received—preventing customers
being passed around to different staff.
11. In order for decisions to be timely and accurate,
decision makers must have access to as much information as possible,
relevant to a person's claim. If claim forms are long and complex,
which would appear inevitable in an excessively complex benefit
system, the likelihood increases that errors or omissions will
occur in the initial application process which may, in turn, affect
the quality of decisions. We welcome the work the Department is
undertaking to improve benefit claim forms but we acknowledge
the scale of this task given the complexity of the system. However,
we believe more work is required to tackle this problem and to
address the persistent concerns of claimants and their representative
groups. (Paragraph 66)
27. The Department already has a programme of
activity underway to rationalise claim forms. This is intended
to review the information sought from customers and to ensure
consistency of response.
28. The Department uses a Lean approach to reviewing
processes and making them simpler for customers to access.
[1]
Examples of this work in Jobcentre Plus include work to expedite
reclaims to Jobseeker's Allowance, particularly in those cases
where little time has elapsed since the previous award of benefit
and circumstances remain essentially unchanged. Jobcentre Plus
has used a telephone process for new claims since 2001. This was
further developed in 2006 so that a new claim process is based
around a single telephone call made by the customer. An on-line
new claim process for Jobseeker's Allowance was introduced in
August 2009.
29. Whenever an area for such simplification
is identified, arrangements exist across the Department to develop
processes, forms and systems to implement changes as promptly
as cost-effectiveness will allow.
30. The Pension, Disability and Carers Service
(PDCS) has, over the last five years, introduced a cycle of continuous
improvement in the enhancement and development of Disability Living
Allowance (DLA) and Attendance Allowance (AA) claim forms. Feedback
and ideas are sought from the PDCS Advisory Forum, customer representative
groups and staff.
31. PDCS has engaged directly with impairment
specific groups such as MIND for the DLA adult claim form development.
The PDCS Advisory Forum, PDCS Family and Carers Group (including
Contact a Family and the National Autistic Society) have worked
with the Customer Case Management project to design, develop and
test a new style child claim form. Evaluation is due later this
year on the claim form, new medical guidance and revised specialist
processes.
32. PDCS is committed to a rollout of an improved
shortened renewals claim form and a complementary revised process.
The agency is evaluating the current version and lessons learned
from that will be taken forward into the rollout of the shortened
claim pack. The revised process includes decision makers talking
directly to the customer and tailoring questions specific to their
needs, enabling them to make an appropriate decision.
12. We received many complaints about the medical
assessment process ranging from dissatisfaction from claimants
who felt they were treated badly to criticisms of the computerised
assessment process. We appreciate that DWP must strike a balance
between providing a personalised service and ensuring a consistent
approach to medical assessments but it is crucial that claimants'
responses are recorded accurately. We ask the Department to investigate
the concerns raised to us with Atos Healthcare and inform the
Committee of the outcome. (Paragraph 72)
33. The Government notes this recommendation.
The Department takes issues of complaint and dissatisfaction extremely
seriously. It insists that ATOS Healthcare has robust systems
in place to deal with complaints, and that these systems are set
out in the contract for medical services.
34. The Work Capability Assessment is carried
out by specifically trained healthcare professionals who are able
to provide independent and robust advice to decision makers regarding
the customer's functional capability. Recruitment standards, training
and stringent quality checks ensure that assessments are consistent,
accurate and fair.
35. All healthcare professionals must be approved
by the Chief Medical Adviser (CMA) of the Department. The CMA
will not appoint health care professionals until they have successfully
completed mandatory comprehensive training and demonstrated that
their work meets the required quality standards. This training
includes communication and customer awareness skills and professional
standards.
36. Random and targeted audit checks are in place,
and the contract between the Department and ATOS Healthcare includes
quality and accuracy targets. Senior medical auditors from ATOS
Healthcare and the Department validate the quality of the medical
assessments. Any reports identified by the Department that are
not fit for purpose should be sent back to ATOS to be redone.
37. There is also a robust complaints procedure
in place should any customer consider they have not been treated
with respect, or that something they said at their assessment
was not recorded properly. The Department sets and monitors performance
against targets for the number of complaints against healthcare
professionals and claimant satisfaction rates.
38. LiMA, the computer system that supports healthcare
professions, has been designed to improve the consistency, quality
and legibility of reports. The use of standard phrases, which
can be customised by the user, is not mandated and healthcare
professionals are encouraged to use free text whenever necessary
so that the report is an accurate reflection of the assessment.
39. A seminar was held on 9 March at the instigation
of the Minister for Disabled People (Jonathan Shaw) to enable
Members of Parliament and Peers to meet and discuss medical quality
issues relating to benefit entitlement with officials from the
Department for Work and Pensions and its contractor, ATOS Healthcare.
13. We were concerned to hear that 50% of one
provider's Pathways to Work caseload have been in the programme
for 14 weeks, despite not yet having received the result of their
WCA. It is unacceptable that terminally ill claimants or those
undertaking treatment that affects their work capability should
be expected to undertake mandatory work focused interviews. We
call on the Department, as a matter of urgency, to ensure that
arrangements are made to ensure that terminally ill claimants
are fast-tracked to the Employment and Support Allowance support
group. (Paragraph 75)
40. The Department is in the process of reviewing
the support available to disabled customers and customers with
a health condition. The Government will bring forward its proposals
in a forthcoming Command Paper.
41. The Government's policy is that those customers
with a terminal illness are automatically treated as having limited
capability for work related activity without having to undergo
a face to face Work Capability Assessment, and are fast-tracked
into the support group.
42. Both Ministers and officials have met with
Macmillan's representatives to discuss concerns on the operation
of fast-tracking, outlined in their report Failed by the System—Why
the Employment and Support Allowance isn't working for people
living with cancer (November 2009). The Department agrees
that this function needs to operate with speed and efficiency.
The Department has agreed to work with Macmillan and Citizens
Advice to consider how to address their concerns.
43. The Department has taken steps to address
the broader issue of some customers being asked to attend interviews
with Pathways to Work providers when the outcome of their assessment
is not known. From 15 March 2010 customers will only be required
to attend the second and subsequent four mandatory work-focused
interviews once they have been placed in the Work Related Activity
Group.
14. We ask the Department to confirm when it intends
to publish the findings of its internal review of the Work Capability
Assessment (WCA). We note the concerns raised by some organisations
that are contributing to the review. We urge our successor Committee
in the next Parliament to examine carefully whether these concerns
have been addressed and to maintain close scrutiny of the operation
of the WCA. (Paragraph 81)
44. The Department-led review of the Work Capability
Assessment is continuing, and aims to ensure that it accurately
identifies individuals for the most appropriate support taking
account of any adaptation they have been able to make. This technical
review commenced in 2009, working with medical experts and representative
groups to produce a series of recommendations. A finalised report
is expected later this year, after the Department has given full
consideration to the points raised by those groups that helped
with the review.
45. In order to achieve the aims of the Departmental
review it is important to engage with a range of stakeholders.
The participation of representative groups was sought as a means
to provide insight into the experiences of individuals with disabilities
and health conditions, and to bring an understanding of the day
to day challenges faced by these individuals. The independent
medical experts involved in the review undertook case analysis
since their particular expertise provided the medical context
for the assessment.
46. The Government is also committed to conducting
a statutory independent review of the Work Capability Assessment
every year for the first five years of operation. The independent
review is distinct from the Department-led review in that it will
evaluate the operation of the assessments of limited capability
for work and limited capability for work-related activity. This
review is currently being commissioned and will report its first
findings later in 2010. Thereafter the independent review will
continue to evaluate the operation of the WCA for the following
four years.
15. Migration of existing claimants from Incapacity
Benefit to Employment and Support Allowance, subject to a Work
Capability Assessment, will be trialled from October 2010 with
a view to being rolled out for all customers from February 2011.
We recommend that this process should not commence before the
review of the WCA has been completed and its recommendations considered.
(Paragraph 82)
47. The reviews of the Work Capability Assessment
will enable the Department to improve it to ensure that it achieves
the highest levels of accuracy. The Work Capability Assessment
was always intended to be dynamic in this way, irrespective of
the need for migration.
48. The Government considers that migration is
necessary, to ensure that existing customers are not left behind
even if they have been receiving benefit for a number of years.
The latter customers are among those who need the most support
and this is what Employment and Support Allowance can provide.
The Government's plan to migrate people from Incapacity Benefit
and Income Support paid on incapacity grounds to Employment and
Support Allowance will ensure that over time new and existing
customers are treated equally and receive the same financial help
and support to return to work. The Work Capability Assessment
is a key tool in this process, which also helps to identify the
more severely disabled customers for additional financial support.
49. Any recommendations that may be taken forward
from the reviews of the Work Capability Assessment will take time
to implement. It would not be fair for those receiving Incapacity
Benefit if this delayed the more active and individualised support
that would be available to them through Employment and Support
Allowance. The Department will begin activity to migrate existing
Incapacity Benefit customers from October 2010. This will involve
a pilot exercise to test aspects of the process and customer experience.
Full migration will start in April 2011, completing in 2014.
16. We note widespread concerns that decision
makers appear to give excessive weight to the conclusions of DWP
medical assessments over other evidence claimants may provide.
If a claimant is able to provide statements from specialists,
who have regular contact with them, this evidence should be given
due consideration. Furthermore, if a decision maker does not award
a benefit based on the recommendation of a DWP medical assessment,
despite the fact that this conflicts with the conclusions of expert
evidence provided by the claimant, DWP should ensure that claimants
are given a clear and full explanation of the basis for this decision.
(Paragraph 87)
50. The Government notes this recommendation.
Decision makers are trained to consider and take account of all
available evidence, including medical expert evidence, before
making decisions on benefit entitlement. Decision makers weigh
all of the evidence and where necessary will request more, which
may be from the customer, their carer or medical professional.
Decision makers take account of all the evidence provided by the
customer. Each piece of evidence is fully considered in the light
of their training and the guidance provided. Jobcentre Plus will
further develop its standard templates to ensure that decision
makers explain the basis of their decisions and refer specifically
to the effect on that decision of any expert evidence provided
by the customer.
51. Customers are provided with further information
and an explanation of decisions on request.
17. We welcome Jobcentre Plus' decision to review
its training provision for decision makers and the DWP Standards
Committee's commitment to examining the training available to
decision makers in the Pensions Disability and Carers Service.
(Paragraph 92)
52. The Government welcomes the Committee's recognition
of the training of decision makers as an essential factor in continually
improving performance and quality. This principle underpins recent
developments including the February 2010 launch of the Department's
DMA Accreditation Programme. The Department will continue to work
with the support of the DWP Decision Making Standards Committee
to continue to improve learning and development arrangements for
decision makers.
18. We are encouraged by the positive responses
to the introduction of the Professionalism in Decision Making
Accreditation (PiDMA). However, with only 200 decision makers
accredited at a cost of £300,000 per year, this is an expensive
diploma to deliver. We ask DWP to publish the internal evaluation
of PiDMA once the report is finalised. (Paragraph 96)
53. The Government agrees this recommendation
and expects to publish the internal evaluation of the Professionalism
in Decision Making and Appeals programme before the
summer of 2010.
54. The programme leads to a Higher Education
Certificate level qualification. The £300,000 figure
includes the cost of delivering the work based learning programme
in partnership with the University of Chester and the notional
cost of working time for staff participating in the programme.
19. Speaking to a claimant directly is an effective
means of ensuring that decisions are based on accurate evidence.
We ask the Department to explain what actions it has taken in
response to the DWP Standards Committee's conclusion that decision
makers would benefit from a better understanding of claimants'
viewpoints. (Paragraph 101)
55. The Government agrees with the conclusion
reached by the DWP Decision Making Standards Committee. The Government
view is that customers' direct evidence is often very important
in determining a claim to DLA/AA, particularly where further information
or clarification about care and/or mobility needs is required.
Customer Case Management and the Standard Operating Model make
it clear that the best source of such information and clarification
is the customer themselves and/or their carers. Their evidence
is weighed alongside all the other evidence in the case. But it
may well be that the customers' own viewpoint is outweighed by
other evidence in the case.
56. PDCS is focused on this area and has existing
strategies to improve compliance. Customer Case Management guidance
has a fundamental principle that decision makers manage the relationships
with their customers through telephone calls. Whilst existing
systems do not routinely enable monitoring the use of telephony
by individual decision makers, the agency monitors compliance
through local and independent checking.
57. Data derived from recent enhancements to
the DLA computer system is now routinely used in the business,
both in front line operations and by technical checking teams
in support areas to identify cases where guidance may not have
been followed, or where decisions seem out of line with the expectations
raised by the recorded disability code. This data indicates possible
non-compliance with Customer Case Management guidance and it is
being used increasingly to drive checking both locally and nationally.
20. We recommend that the Department should pilot
a scheme whereby claimants who proceed to a reconsideration of
their claim or appeal against a decision are allocated an individual
decision maker and are given a direct telephone number on which
to contact them. We recognise that this will place an additional
burden on decision makers, but we believe that it is justified
on the grounds of fairness to claimants. We believe that it could
also reduce costs in the system by reducing the number of cases
that go to appeal. (Paragraph 102)
58. The Government agrees to run a small pilot
within Jobcentre Plus to identify the costs and benefits of giving
customers a direct telephone number on which to contact staff
dealing with their request or appeal. The trial will investigate
the costs and benefits of such an approach. The extent to which
such processes are able to reduce costs and improve customers'
understanding of the process will continue to be important elements
in the Department's evaluation of the pilot.
21. We are disappointed to hear that computer-generated
notification letters continue to make it difficult for some claimants
to understand how a decision on their benefit claim has been reached.
Both this Committee and the National Audit Office have raised
the issue of incomprehensible written communications from DWP
in the past and yet this continues to be a problem. We ask the
Department to outline what work it is undertaking to improve its
notification letters and to ensure that decisions are properly
explained and easily understood by claimants. We believe that
better explanation of the rationale behind decisions could reduce
the number of appeals and requests for reconsideration that are
brought forward, delivering savings elsewhere in the system. (Paragraph
109)
59. The Government agrees that decision notices
need to be improved to support clarity and cost effectiveness.
For these reasons, an element of the Department's longer term
Change Programme is the Transforming Letters initiative which
is implementing an internationally regarded software product,
HP Exstream. This will enable the production of letters to be
moved out of ageing legacy systems and allow future letters to
be changed and produced considerably faster and more cheaply than
is currently the case.
60. The first legacy system to be targeted produces
letters for Income Support and Pension Credit customers. As a
result the six key problem letters, including the claim decision
notice, have been reduced to three new letters which will be sent
to 18 million customers a year. The project enlisted external
expertise from the University of Reading Simplification Centre
who provided expertise in writing clearly for people with low
functional literacy levels. Early customer testing of these new
letters has elicited a wholly positive response.
61. The Department expects these letters to go
live in the summer of 2010 followed by a rolling programme through
2010 and 2011 which will include Jobseeker's Allowance, State
Pension, Employment and Support Allowance and Incapacity Benefit
customers. By the end of 2011 more than three quarters of the
system generated letter caseload will be on the new IT platform,
accounting for more than 90 million letters annually.
62. In the short term, the Department will consider
the contribution to be made by deploying small computer systems
in Jobcentre Plus to improve the way some more complex decisions
are explained to customers. Jobcentre Plus is confident that in
the short to medium term, improvements to some notifications can
be made clerically with little or no extra staff time involved.
63. PDCS acknowledges that legacy computer generated
decision notices do not provide enough detail for customers.
The agency has developed an electronic template that allows
decision makers to create a new improved personalised entitlement
letter for 96% of DLA adult customers. Evaluation shows that,
since its introduction in 2008, evaluation shows that customers
feel better informed. A further improved version of the template
is due in May 2010.
64. As part of the Pensions Transformation Programme,
PDCS has introduced simplified and tailored decision and entitlement
notices for State Pension and Pension Credit new claims and State
Pension customers reporting a change of circumstance. PDCS are
planning to introduce simplified and tailored decision and entitlement
notices from October 2010 for Pension Credit customers reporting
a change of circumstance. These products have been subject to
customer testing events with different pensioner groups to ensure
that these new products are fit for purpose.
22. We recommend that DWP formalise the expectation
that reconsiderations should be completed in five days by introducing
this as a target for decision makers against which performance
is measured. (Paragraph 114)
65. The Government is not able to agree to introduce
a target for completing reconsideration of a disputed decision.
In the face of competing priorities to improve service, the Government
does not agree that reducing clearance times should be the primary
focus. While customers do value speed of service, this is only
one aspect of performance and the Government prefers to continue
to prioritise the correctness of the outcome. The preferred current
approach is to use Lean methods to pursue continuous improvement
of the decision making process. This offers the best opportunity
for minimising the risk of inaccurate decisions, inadequate understanding
of customers' circumstances and failure to properly explain decisions.
From a practical perspective, the recommended target is not consistent
with the need, in some cases, to obtain additional evidence, including
medical evidence. However the Government agrees the need to develop
further the reconsideration process to fulfil its potential to
be a cost effective and simpler approach to put decisions right
at the earliest opportunity.
66. In PDCS the current internal management target
for reconsideration is 35 working days. The average year to date
performance (January 2010) for Disability Living Allowance is
30.3 days and for Attendance Allowance 23.6 days. Setting a five
day target would entail a very significant step change in performance
levels, which would be extremely ambitious.
23. We are not convinced by the evidence that
the reconsideration process is working well in respect of claims
for DLA and AA. We are more inclined to believe that the quality
of the initial decision making in respect of these benefits is
a cause for concern. This does not reflect a particular criticism
of DLA and AA decision makers, but rather concern that the "self-assessment"
claim forms are misunderstood by many claimants. We commend the
Pension, Disability and Carers Service on its efforts to improve
the claim forms for DLA and to make them more tailored towards
the needs of specific groups. However, given the nature of our
generic concerns, we recommend that the Standards Committee should
examine decision making in respect of these benefits as a matter
of urgency. (Paragraph 121)
67. The Government notes the Committee's recommendation
and welcomes the DWP Decision Making Standards Committee's involvement
on this issue. The Department is discussing with the Standards
Committee how this work can be accommodated in the work programme
for 2010-11.
24. Many DLA and AA claimants are unaware of the
welfare rights advice that is available. We recommend that the
Pension, Disability and Carers Service should pilot a scheme whereby
it works with welfare rights advisers and representative groups
to prepare a leaflet detailing sources of local advice which should
be included with the claim pack for these benefits. (Paragraph
122)
68. The Government does not agree with the recommendation
to pilot a local advice leaflet in PDCS. The main obstacles are
the practicalities of keeping any local level leaflets and local
reference literature up to date. This would generate very high
costs and the Department would incur high administrative costs
to keep materials current or guarantee that the right leaflet
would always be in the right claim pack.
69. The Government's preferred approach is to
invest more effort and resource in PDCS developing local partnerships
to ensure the development of strong relations, referral processes
and join-up communications to reach out and deliver respective
services to customers more effectively. A Partnerships and External
Relations Strategy was published in January 2010. Its key objectives
are to engage effectively with external stakeholders and partners,
resolve service issues raised by them, help to identify vulnerable
customers and to join up services where appropriate. To actively
manage the work there are two small central teams focusing on
partnership development, external stakeholder engagement and consultation
management.
70. Implementing the partnership strategy will
mean dedicated resources to build more effective partnerships
and referral arrangements, and include specific focus on building
partnerships with local organisations serving the most vulnerable
customers.
71. The agency also plans to test specific partnership
outreach initiatives targeted at disabled children and people
with mental health difficulties during 2010-11.
25. We were disappointed to learn that Jobcentre
Plus could not provide us with detailed statistics on the reconsideration
process. If Jobcentre Plus is not collecting this data it is impossible
for either the Committee, or the agency itself, to assess performance
in this area. We call on Jobcentre Plus to start collecting and
publishing data on reconsiderations as a matter of urgency. We
hope that, once these statistics are available, our successor
Committee will be able to re-visit this issue and conduct the
examination of the reconsideration process for Jobcentre Plus
benefits that we were unable to complete. (Paragraph 125)
72. The Government agrees the need to further
develop the robustness and validity of existing informal sources
of management information on decision making. Jobcentre Plus does
not currently have externally validated data relating to the clearance
of reconsideration work. The costs and benefits of making such
validated data available are not yet understood, hence the need
to undertake one or more Lean scrutinies of this work.
73. Jobcentre Plus currently deploys a system
to support specialist areas of its decision making process. This
system is known as DMACR (Decision Making and Appeals Case Recorder)
and will be further developed to gather improved internal management
information relating to the reconsideration process in particular.
The proposed reviews of the reconsideration process will also
explore plans for commissioning the further development of an
improved and more robust management information suite for this
aspect of the decision making process.
74. When this data becomes available, the Department
will consider the costs and benefits of further developing available
management information to meet the standards required of externally
published statistics.
26. For some benefits, the reconsideration process
appears to be ineffective. Anecdotal evidence suggests that disputed
IB and ESA decisions are not being reviewed properly by decision
makers and, as a result, some welfare rights advisers are advising
claimants to bypass this stage and pursue an appeal. We believe
that they may be right to advise their clients to pursue this
course, although without more detailed statistics, this is impossible
to prove. (Paragraph 129)
27. Many claimants will be deterred from an appeal
by an unsuccessful request for a reconsideration. Our greatest
concern is that, if this reconsideration is not being conducted
thoroughly, they may miss out on the benefits to which they should
be entitled. (Paragraph 130)
28. The reconsideration process should provide
a quick and efficient way of reviewing decisions which provides
a swift resolution for claimants and reduces the caseload of the
tribunals. It is also intended to be a stage at which a decision
maker has the opportunity to consider new evidence. However, the
current operation of the reconsideration process is a missed opportunity.
We do not believe that the reconsideration process is currently
operating in the best interests of the claimant. We urge the Department
to examine the operation of this process as a matter of urgency,
and we hope that our successor Committee in the next Parliament
keeps the matter under close scrutiny. (Paragraph 131)
75. The Government views the reconsideration
process as the best way to ensure the Department responds promptly
and cost effectively to any concerns the customer has about decisions
affecting their benefit.
76. For this reason, Jobcentre Plus will use
Lean methodology to review the reconsideration process. The development
of more robust quality assurance measures and internal management
information are likely to emerge from this review.
77. The Government is not complacent, and works
on the principle that continuous improvement is possible. Specialist
teams dedicated to supporting operational staff to improve decision
making effectiveness are in place for all benefits. Their role
is to challenge, support, and report on decision making performance.
In addition, the Government uses other internal and external scrutiny
mechanisms to assess decision making effectiveness.
78. For pension benefits, there is a centralised
appeals team which scrutinises all appeals for State Pension and
Pension Credit. All PDCS decisions are thoroughly reconsidered
before an appeal is submitted to the First-tier Tribunal.
29. We recommend that DWP and the Tribunals Service
should improve co-ordination of their guidance documents. We agree
with the President of the First tier of the Social Entitlement
Chamber that DWP should signpost claimants to the Tribunals Service
guidance in its decision letters. Decision letters should also
advise claimants where they can go to obtain representation. (Paragraph
134)
79. The Government agrees that the Department
and Tribunals Service will work together to consider any further
improvements needed to information provided to customers.
80. However the Government disagrees with the
proposals to add further information to decision notices, as recommended.
In the decision notice issued by the Department, the customer
is told that if he does not understand the decision, he can contact
the office that made the decision or consult an advice agency,
such as Citizens Advice. The customer is also advised to ask for
the Department's leaflet GL24 If you think our decision is wrong.
As the decision notice states, this leaflet tells him more about
the decisions and appeals process. It explains the decision making
process and what happens should he decide to appeal; it also directs
the customer to advice centres and to the Tribunals Service's
own leaflet. Moreover, it includes a form on which an appeal can
be written.
30. Access to welfare rights advice can be a crucial
resource for those who require expert guidance and support in
preparation for an appeal. We note with concern reports that there
have been cuts in welfare rights provision. We call on DWP to
work with the Tribunals Service, local authorities and welfare
rights organisations to try to identify solutions to regional
gaps in service provision. (Paragraph 138)
81. The Government recognises that the availability
of free independent impartial advice is important for customers,
particularly those who are vulnerable or have communication difficulties.
Currently, between the three largest national sources of advice
on social security issues in England, Scotland and Wales, there
is a very comprehensive geographical coverage of advice services
available to customers. For example:
- Citizens Advice has 96% geographical
coverage in England and Wales, and, including Scotland, it has
3,500 outlets in all but five local authority areas. The service
in Scotland is supplemented by Citizens Advice Direct, a service
available by phone and online, and there are plans to roll this
out in England and Wales;
- the vast majority of unitary local authorities
have welfare rights units; and,
- Community Legal Advice is setting up centres
and networks in the UK, supplemented by a helpline.
82. In addition, there are many smaller Third
Sector organisations that offer valuable advice to customers.
There may be some small gaps across Great Britain in advice provision,
but these are few and far between. The Government considers that
there may be a need to improve awareness of these sources of free,
independent, impartial advice. To take this forward, the Department
will work with colleagues in Directgov, in the Tribunals Service,
and in the advice sector.
83. The Government announced in the Pre-Budget
Report in November 2008 additional funding of £10 million
for Citizens Advice Bureaux in England and Wales to extend bureaux
opening hours for the period up to and including March 2010 to
meet anticipated increased demand in the current economic climate.
It was estimated that this funding would enable bureaux to open
for an additional five hours per week to meet the demands of an
extra 335,000 clients. Consequential funding under the Barnett
Formula was similarly allocated by the Scottish Government
for bureaux in Scotland. An extension to that funding of £5
million was announced in the December 2009 Pre-Budget Report and
will be allocated to both bureaux in England and Wales and to
bureaux in Scotland (Barnett consequential funding not having
applied this time). Extended funding will be provided by
the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
31. We note that DWP and the Tribunals Service
are looking at ways to reduce the time it takes DWP to submit
its response to an appeal. It is unfair that claimants are expected
to lodge an appeal within a month but may face a delay as they
wait for DWP to prepare its papers. We recommend that DWP be subject
to a one month time limit, with exceptions permitted only with
the approval of the Tribunal Chair, for submitting its responses
to the Tribunal Service. (Paragraph 144)
84. The Government acknowledges that the time
it takes to prepare responses can vary, but does not agree that
imposing a time limit of one month to prepare an appeal response
would improve the situation.
85. As the Committee has recognised, the Department
and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs are already working closely
with the Tribunals Service and the Tribunal Procedure Committee
to review the time limit for appeal responses. The Government
considers that this combined evidence-based approach is the best
way forward and will lead to informed and achievable time limits
being set.
32. We believe that appellants should be able
to track the progress of their appeal from the time it is lodged
to the point it is heard. We recommend that DWP and the Tribunals
Service examine how they can improve data sharing to ensure that
individuals can ascertain how long they can expect their appeal
to take. (Paragraph 147)
86. The Government accepts this recommendation.
87. Both Jobcentre Plus and PDCS already have
close liaison with the Tribunals Service and will continue to
work together to explore arrangements to improve the flow of data
between the two organisations. The Department will consider how
best it can support the Tribunals Service by ensuring key messages
about timescales and process are communicated to appellants.
33. We note with interest the increased probability
of success for appellants who opt for an oral hearing on appeal.
We agree with the President of the First tier of the Social Entitlement
Chamber that, by engaging with the appellant face-to-face, the
tribunal judge has more opportunity to test the evidence. We ask
DWP to ensure claimants are made aware of the increased chances
of success if they attend an oral hearing. (Paragraph 150)
88. The Government accepts this recommendation.
Appeal literature issued by the Department since 1999 has always
encouraged appellants to ask for and attend an oral hearing of
their appeal. Leaflet GL24 If you think our decision is wrong
says "People who attend their hearing usually do better than
those who don't." This sentence will be in bold print when
the leaflet is reprinted in April 2010.
34. We welcome the efforts the Tribunals Service
has made to ensure that user feedback is systematically obtained
and used to improve appellants' experience of the tribunal. (Paragraph
157)
89. The Government welcomes the Committee's comments
and will ensure that the Tribunals Service continues to obtain
user feedback and use to improve the appellant's experience of
the tribunal.
35. However, there is evidence that some groups
of claimants still feel that "reasonable adjustments"
could be made to the appeals process which would help them to
engage with tribunals. We call on the Office for Disability Issues
to work with the Tribunals Service in this area. (Paragraph 158)
90. The Government accepts this recommendation
and fully recognises the need for appellants to engage with tribunals.
The Tribunals Service will consider any suggestions for "reasonable
adjustments" in connection with the tribunal appeal process
and has made contact with the Office for Disability Issues to
agree how to move forward together.
91. Work is already underway to produce a "Reasonable
Adjustments Guide" for staff working with customers, and
the Tribunals Service is implementing a log to record all customer
requests for reasonable adjustments and any actions taken. Changes
have already been made to the customer service complaints process
to capture complaints relating to the provision of reasonable
adjustments. The log, together with any complaints, will be regularly
reviewed to inform future service. Finally on the suggestion of
the Office of Disability Issues, the Tribunals Service has been
invited to join the Ministry of Justice forum called the "Disability
Equality Duty Group" which discusses progress towards disability
equality across Government.
36. The increase in Employment and Support Allowance
(ESA) appeals has put a considerable strain on the Tribunals Service's
resources. We welcome the budget transfer of £8,600,000 from
DWP but this is a short-term solution. We ask DWP to confirm what
action it is undertaking in response to this increase. (Paragraph
162)
92. The Government recognises the impact that
the increasing workload is having on the current appeals system
across the whole end to end process. Joint work is underway across
the Department and the Tribunals Service to mitigate the increased
volumes by focussing on four areas:
- streamlining processes within
both the Department and the Tribunals Service—including
an end to end review of the appeals process;
- reducing the number of appeals—through
looking at the messaging the Department uses to manage customers'
expectations and in particular the language in the disallowance
letter;
- increasing capacity in the Tribunals Service—through
increasing administrative, judicial and medical resources, so
that it can hear more appeals; and,
- strengthening the working relationship between
the Department and the Tribunals Service.
93. The Government will continue to monitor,
assess and improve processes to ensure the provision of an efficient
service to customers.
37. We are concerned that tribunal judges believe
their neutrality is often compromised because DWP is so rarely
represented at oral hearings. We ask DWP to explain why there
has been a significant reduction in the rate of attendance of
Presenting Officers at tribunal hearings and how it intends to
address the criticisms raised by the President of the First tier
of the Social Entitlement Chamber. (Paragraph 165)
94. The Government does not accept the view that
failure to attend a hearing compromises the independence of the
tribunal. It does, however, accept that the attendance of a departmental
presenting officer is important in some appeals and it already
makes arrangements for this to happen for example in certain complex
cases and when directed to do so by a Judge. The Government acknowledges
however that its attendance rate falls short of the expectations
of tribunal judges. The Department needs to consider whether the
costs of deploying scarce and expensive specialist decision making
resource to present appeals can be off-set by commensurate advantages
to the Jobcentre Plus and PDCS business and their customers. It
would not be in customers' interests if making more presenting
officers available resulted in longer claims clearance times.
95. From a practical perspective the proposed
presenting officer levels are not consistent with current processing
capability. The Government cannot assume that future resource
levels will in any way enhance this capability although it is
committed to improving overall outcomes for customers.
38. We call upon DWP to confirm what mechanisms
are in place to ensure that individual decision makers in Jobcentre
Plus and the Pension, Disability and Carers Service receive feedback
on any decisions they make which progress to an appeal (Paragraph
169)
96. The Government notes the Committee's interest
in this issue. One of the difficulties is that the tribunal decision
notice does not include the reasons for a decision. Where a tribunal's
decision suggests that there might be grounds for the Secretary
of State to appeal it to the Upper Tribunal, the Department will
request a full Written Statement of Reasons.
97. In Jobcentre Plus IT support is already available
to enable individual decision makers access to the outcomes of
their decisions considered by tribunals. There is no similar provision
within PDCS. The Department met with the Chamber President and
the Tribunals Service in September 2009 to discuss options for
improving feedback from the tribunal.
39. We welcome the attempt made by DWP and the
Tribunals Service to reduce the number of decisions reaching a
tribunal through the development of the Alternative Resolution
Pilot. We have heard that the early evaluation suggests the results
of the pilot were mixed. We strongly believe that the best way
to reduce the number of decisions being appealed is to improve
the frontline decision making. We look forward to hearing DWP's
response to our recommendations on how this might best be achieved.
(Paragraph 173)
98. The Government agrees that the best way to
reduce the number of appeals is to improve frontline decision
making, including an effective reconsideration process.
99. It further believes that the responses to
this report are evidence of its commitment to drive up the quality
and accuracy of decision making and thereby reduce the number
of appeals. In particular, the further deployment of IT support,
Lean scrutiny and improved learning and development for staff
will make a major contribution to improving front line decision
making.
40. We reiterate a previous recommendation of
this Committee, that the Government should establish a Welfare
Commission to examine the existing benefits system and model possible
alternative structures with the aim of creating a fair but simpler
system that claimants and their representatives are able to understand
more easily and DWP staff are able to administer more accurately.
(Paragraph 181)
100. As explained in response to recommendation
10, the Government is working to reduce complexity in the system
and agrees with the importance of a fairer and simpler system,
provided that any simplification retains the flexibility to provide
for groups with different levels of need. The Government remains
attracted to the idea of a single working age benefit and continues
to explore whether, over the longer term, this is the right approach
for its aims for the social security system. Since the Committee's
report Benefits Simplification a number of external commentators
have put forward models to varying degrees of detail, which illustrate
the range of options available, though there are detailed issues
to resolve; but the Government does not believe that a Welfare
Commission would add to the process at this stage.
1 Lean is the application of a set of behaviours and
techniques to improve the Department's benefit administration.
By using Lean ways of working and a set of techniques to make
the most of staff knowledge and experience, Lean reduces "waste",
engages staff and improves efficiency. Back
| 
