Draft Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
† Blenkinsop, Tom (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Champion, Sarah (Rotherham) (Lab)
† Cryer, John (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
† Ellison, Jane (Battersea) (Con)
† Hemming, John (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
† Johnson, Joseph (Orpington) (Con)
† Laing, Mrs Eleanor (Epping Forest) (Con)
† McCann, Mr Michael (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)
† McGuire, Mrs Anne (Stirling) (Lab)
† McVey, Esther (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions)
† Mulholland, Greg (Leeds North West) (LD)
† Nokes, Caroline (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
† O'Donnell, Fiona (East Lothian) (Lab)
Paisley, Ian (North Antrim) (DUP)
† Percy, Andrew (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
† Ruane, Chris (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
† Ruffley, Mr David (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
† Selous, Andrew (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Simon Patrick, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
Twelfth Delegated Legislation Committee
Wednesday 6 February 2013
[Mr David Crausby in the Chair]
Draft Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013
8.55 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Esther McVey): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby.
I am satisfied that this instrument is compatible with the European convention on human rights. The personal independence payment regulations were debated yesterday. This morning we will debate the decisions and appeals regulations, which deal with the provisions that set out the framework for decision making in universal credit, personal independence payment, contributory employment and support allowance and jobseeker’s allowance.
We believe that most of the tried and tested provisions established in the Social Security Act 1998 are still fit for purpose, even in this new world of welfare reform. For UC and PIP to work as we intend, the benefits require a strong underpinning at the initial decision-making stage and where decisions are disputed. I believe that the regulations we are considering today provide that. Although much of the legislation has been brought forward from existing provisions, we have taken the opportunity to simplify and align rules where possible, while safeguarding the claimant’s right of appeal. I will focus on the issues that are both new and significant.
The first is the introduction of mandatory reconsideration, provided for in section 102 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012. Currently, a claimant can ask for a decision to be reconsidered by a decision maker, which may result in a revised decision. In practice, however, many people do not do so and instead make an appeal from the outset. This is more costly for the taxpayer and time-consuming, and we know that the tribunal process can also be stressful for claimants and their families.
Mandatory reconsideration will mean that applying for a revision will become a necessary step in the process before claimants decide whether they still wish to appeal. Another Department for Work and Pensions decision maker will review the original decision, requesting extra information or evidence as required via a telephone discussion, and, if appropriate, correct the decision without the need for an appeal. That is better for the individual and better for the Department.
Claimants will be able to appeal to the tribunal if they still disagree after receiving a letter detailing the outcome of the reconsideration and the reasons for it. Our aim is that, because of the robust nature of the reconsideration and better communication, some claimants will decide that they do not need to pursue an appeal.
We ran a formal 12-week consultation period between February and May 2012, and published the Government response in September 2012, on the issues associated with mandatory reconsideration. We received 154 responses, which included a range of suggestions as to how we could continue to improve decision making across all benefits. A number of respondents suggested that there should be a time limit on the reconsideration process. As set out in the Government's response, we are not making any statutory provision for this. Some cases are more complex and require additional time, particularly, for example, where extra medical evidence may be sought. However, we recognise the concerns, so we are considering the scope for internal performance indicators to enable us to monitor performance in this area.
The mandatory reconsideration process will come into effect at different times for different claimant groups: from April for universal credit and personal independence payment, and from October for all other benefits. Linked to this initiative is the change to all appeals being made directly to Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and not, as now, to this Department. This change brings the DWP in line with other Departments’ appeals processes. This is a positive move that will allow HMCTS to book hearing dates much quicker than is currently possible.
Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab): My local citizens advice bureau has raised concerns about what would happen to someone’s benefits during the process. Would they be reinstated?
Esther McVey: The process will be as it is now under disability living allowance. For PIP and for DLA the benefit would stop for that period, because it is an award that someone would get irrespective of whether they were in work or on benefits. It is exactly the same.
Another important policy change in the regulations is related to the monthly payment of universal credit. Reflecting this monthly payment, the effective date rule for change of circumstances will follow a “whole month” approach. That change will be effective from the start of the monthly assessment period in which it occurs.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): Will the Minister give way?
Esther McVey: I will not at the moment. I will carry on and answer questions later.
Claimants will be expected to report any changes within the assessment period in which the change occurred. Where this is not possible—for instance, if the change occurred at the end of an assessment period or if there were special circumstances which caused a delay—the regulations will allow the decision maker discretion, pursuant to an application, to extend the time and to treat the late report as having been made in time. That policy reflects the universal credit principle that claimants, like those in work, are paid at the end of that month according to their needs for the month ahead.
We are aware of concerns that some claimants will find the move to monthly payments a significant change and may struggle to adjust to budgeting for the month ahead. That is why we have developed a package of support to help claimants with that transition to monthly payments. More details will be announced about that valuable support in the coming weeks, and it will be covered in the debate next week on the UC regulations.
Members will be interested in the decision notices that will be issued to claimants, which were developed taking on board claimant insight and stakeholder feedback. The decision notice will clearly set out a claimant’s monthly award, and break down how the award was calculated. In the long run, and in the majority of cases, we intend that claimants should be notified of decisions relating to their universal credit award through the online channel.
I turn to the guidance that is being drafted to support these and other regulations. I know that some Members are concerned about this issue, which was raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Members will be pleased to learn that guidance has been placed in the Library, and guidance is available specifically on the regulations on revising decisions at any time and the handling of late notification of a change of circumstances.
Given that we debated PIP yesterday, I have focused on universal credit. However, I want to highlight one of the positive changes we have made in these regulations, which affects PIP. We have clarified the position for claimants whose health condition improves, but where a dispute arises about when they should have realised that and informed the Department. This situation is often far from straightforward for claimants, so we have decided that where there is uncertainty the effective date will be the day the actual decision is made. There will be no retrospective decision making with the possibility of a recoverable overpayment being generated.
I turn to employment and support allowance and jobseeker’s allowance. Regarding decision making on these benefits and how the regulations affect them, very little has changed. All I will say is that the work in response to Professor Harrington’s recommendation on the quality of decision making continues apace, and we continue to work closely with HMCTS to improve appeals clearance times.
Finally, it should be noted that the regulations were referred to the independent Social Security Advisory Committee, which decided not to refer them for formal consultation but invited informal comments. The comments it received related to the time limit for mandatory reconsideration and the whole month approach, both of which I have already covered.
I commend the regulations to the Committee.
9.4 am
Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab): I thank the Minister for her opening comments. I also wish to put on record my thanks to the organisations that provided Committee members with briefings, including Citizens Advice, the Child Poverty Action Group and the National Housing Federation.
We accept the basis for the regulations and the need for changes in the appeals and decision making framework. Paragraph 7.3 in part 7 of the explanatory memorandum
explains that many of the existing regulations have been effectively transferred where appropriate. Obviously, new benefits need new regulations.It is unfortunate that we did not receive timeous notice of the guidance. I do not know when the Minister or her officials placed the guidance in the Library, but it should have been sent out to us with the Committee papers. Indeed, her Department circulated the guidance available for yesterday’s delegation legislation Committee, so that we had at least four chapters in front of us when we were considering those regulations. Perhaps her officials could take that into account. As you know, Mr Crausby, sometimes it is difficult to make judgments on regulations because they are part of a wider framework that includes the guidance.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab): Has the Department or the Minister offered any explanation for the late delivery?
Mrs McGuire: I am not sure. Perhaps the Minister will address that.
The Minister will not be surprised at the points I am about to make: on the time limits for the reconsideration of decisions, and on benefits being paid while the reconsideration is being undertaken. There is one other point that I will raise later, and I am sure other members of the Committee will have comments to make.
Under the current system, decision makers already have the power to revise a decision prior to the determination of an appeal under section 9(1) of the Social Security Act 1998. That power is regularly and automatically used by decision makers, so it is not clear why we need a new statutory process. Claimants can apply for a revision before they appeal. The Minister is putting into the current process a mandatory extra step that could complicate the process for claimants. The extra step has a strict legal time limit, which means there are now two time limits within the system, rather than one.
Under the new regulations, someone who receives a decision they disagree with will have one month from the date of the decision to ask for a reconsideration. When the claimant receives the result of the reconsideration, they will have one month from the date of the new decision to appeal. Both of these will have strict legal time limits, and a late reconsideration or appeal will be accepted only if it meets the conditions set out in regulation 6.
Chris Ruane: Advice surgeries in my constituency—the citizens advice bureau, the welfare benefits shop and the welfare rights unit—give excellent advice. There is so much change coming through at the moment, and so much more to come after 1 April. Advice surgeries are already inundated and their budgets have been cut. Is a month long enough to ask for and be given advice, given that such organisations are so financially stretched?
Mrs McGuire: There is an issue, as my hon. Friend has pointed out. Individuals—and indeed Jobcentre Plus and the benefits agency in its general sense—are very dependent on the advocacy and advice support systems in the voluntary sector. Organisations in my constituency that offer advice to people who are in the
new system are overstretched in staffing and financial terms. Will the Minister consider how the new complexity and the different time limits sit with the explanatory memorandum? Paragraph 7.2 states that the system is already complex, and that to have amalgamated changes without any overall review would have resulted in“substantial additional complexity in an already complex policy area.”
Perhaps the Minister has gone against her own policy objective by setting time limits in different regulations.
I am also concerned that the creation of unnecessary new bureaucracy will lead to a slow and complex process for revision before appeal. According to the DWP’s own impact assessment for the Welfare Reform Bill, it will also increase costs for the Department:
“IT systems would need to be changed to handle the new processes, and these changes would have the biggest financial cost. Decision notices would need to be changed to explain to customers that they needed to request a revision and be informed of the outcome before being able to appeal. Other leaflets describing the appeals process would also need to be changed. There would also be a cost to amending guidance for decision makers.”
Will the Minister tell us how the new system will differ, not in regulation but in practice, from the existing system, under which revisions are possible and, indeed, commonplace prior to appeals? What are the cost implications to the Department of ensuring that the new processes do not become more complicated and confusing for claimants than the current process?
The most important issue of all is that of vulnerable claimants who will be lost from the system: what will happen to them? Under the current system, advisers already too often see claimants who are no longer able to appeal a decision they disagree with because they have missed the time limit. Having two strict time limits within the new system is likely to result in a considerable increase in vulnerable people being lost from the system.
There are time limits on the customer, yet DWP Ministers appear to be reluctant to place time limits on the processes carried out by their own Department. The Secretary of State has rejected a time limit for decision makers undertaking revisions. I accept the Minister’s argument that there are instances where gathering evidence may be complex; however, I suggest that it is not beyond the bounds of reason to come up with a time limit that could allow for that.
It would clearly be unacceptable for claimants to be left waiting for indeterminate and excessive periods. There should be clear standards of good practice—I will come back to that issue—including guidance for decision makers, and for claimants, on how long a revision should be expected to take. Departmental guidance should also include standards on how long it should take to process cases and progress them to appeal where a claimant wishes to do so following a revision. Clear and timely information should be given to claimants in that respect, as well. As the Minister knows full well, appeals relating to all benefits issues are taking longer than 20 weeks on average; indeed, in some cases they are taking up to nine, 10 or 11 months.
My questions to the Minister are therefore as follows: what does she envisage the standard length of time being, as good practice, for a revision prior to appeal? Will customers be told how long they should expect to
wait? How will they be informed? What action can they take if they are left to wait longer? Will the Department monitor and publish statistics on waiting times for revisions prior to appeal? What progress does the Department intend to make in bringing down the time an appeal to the tribunal service typically takes? I accept that the Minister is not responsible for the tribunal service—that is the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice—but as her Department is taking the initial decisions, she and it have a responsibility to make sure that the Ministry of Justice does not park people for months at a time while they await the outcome of benefit appeals.I turn now to the issue of entitlement to benefits while a revision is pending. I trust that the Minister will accept that people must be able to survive financially while waiting for social security decisions, revisions and appeals. As she knows, a high number of appeals are decided in favour of appellants—some 38% of employment and support allowance appeals, and the figure for DLA appeals is even higher. It is surely unjust and unfair for appellants and their families to be left without benefit while they are waiting for their appeals to be heard. In many cases, people waiting for the outcomes of appeals are now being referred to advice and advocacy services, and, indeed, to food banks.
In the case of ESA, it is currently possible to appeal directly and receive ESA pending the appeal, albeit at the assessment phase rate, but the new regulations would not allow even that. Ministers have stated that such claimants should apply for JSA in the interim. However, that is costly and complicated for both the claimant and the DWP. It also seems a rather pointless exercise and does not chime with the Government’s avowed intention to make the system more efficient.
The assessment phase rates for ESA correspond to the JSA rates. The only difference is the conditionality to which an individual is subjected. There is potentially a major problem, not just in financial terms but because some claimants would be forced to undertake conditionality that is not appropriate for them and may in fact be detrimental to their health.
There are also types of appeal where claiming another benefit is not an alternative. In the case of appeals relating to housing costs, delays could result in rent or mortgage arrears at best and repossession proceedings or even homelessness at worst. In the case of appeals relating to personal allowances for claimants or their children, that could result in severe hardship; I am sure that the Minister does not need me to sketch out the extent of that.
The then Minister stated in the Committee on the Welfare Reform Bill that providing payment pending appeal would create an incentive for everyone to appeal and overpayments where appeals were unsuccessful. However, there is an argument to be made that providing payment pending appeal would create an incentive for both the DWP and the Ministry of Justice to ensure that appeals are determined quicker than they currently are.
If there is no system of payment on account, families will be in great danger of being pushed toward payday and doorstep lenders with extortionate rates of interest, and of getting into arrears. Are those the outcomes the Minister imagines when she examines the regulations?
The Government have identified debt as a major cause of child poverty, so how does the Department intend to prevent such problems?Does the Minister intend that claimants will be able to seek support from local authorities, which are taking over key elements of the social fund? What discussions has she had with the organisations that represent local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales?
Finally, I turn to the lack of scrutiny of the standard of decision making, and the adequacy of training and processes. The Minister indicated in her opening remarks that there would be internal performance standards. Until 2010, there was a non-executive body of the DWP called the decision-making and appeals standards committee, which the Secretary of State wound up in December 2010 despite its being low-cost and having potential financial benefit to the public purse by reducing overpayments due to error. Dare I say it? The decision was speedy and ill thought-through, similar to the one that the Secretary of State made on the disability living allowance advisory board.
As the Minister has already indicated, this period is one of major change in the welfare and benefits system. We should ensure that those major changes are made to the processes and are externally and independently scrutinised. Organisations such as the decision-making and appeals standards committee should have been left in place to ensure there is accuracy and fairness in people’s decision making.
In the Lords Grand Committee, the noble Lord de Mauley, a former Under-Secretary of State at the DWP, recognised the need for scrutiny. He said:
“Alongside implementation of this power, we intend to make further improvements to the reconsideration process, which will include suitable arrangements for monitoring and, where appropriate, improving the speed of the process.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 November 2011; Vol. 732, c. GC456.]
However, he confirmed that the scrutiny would not be independent monitoring, which is a matter of regret. Will the Minister confirm what further improvements have been made or are planned to be made as per the commitment given by Lord de Mauley? Will there be any form of annual reporting on the standards of decision making, as per section 81 of the Social Security Act 1998, which requires the Secretary of State to report annually on the standards of decision making?
Given the complexity and number of the changes to benefits, both the Committee and the general public are entitled to know what sort of standards are in place, how they are being monitored, and how people who have to rely on the benefits system for a whole range of reasons are being treated.
9.20 am
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby.
Delegated Legislation Committees are an interesting process, but we are lumbered with having to have such a process for such detailed regulations. One challenge is how people can be lobbied, and we are finding that there is a big rush to send out e-mails. I advise those who are trying to lobby Delegated Legislation Committees by sending very long briefings that people like myself—yesterday I was preparing evidence for a Select Committee presentation later in the day—cannot read them. They need to send short pieces of information.
There are important issues here, and I have much sympathy for the Minister and the civil servants in trying to get these things right. Take the issue of whether someone should be paid while an appeal is pending. If there is a habitual residency claim and someone is paid pending an appeal, there are no habitual residence rules, because by the time the appeal has been heard that person will have become habitually resident. These things are very complex. There are circumstances in which people should be paid pending an appeal and circumstances in which they should not. It will take several processes to get it right.
I happen to sit on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, where we see the complexities of these processes. I have sympathy with Members’ views, but we need to get it right. It will be complex, but we cannot just take the simplistic approach of always paying pending appeal.
9.21 am
John Cryer: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby.
I shall briefly reiterate some of the points made by my hon. Friends. The most vexed question in the regulations is whether payments will still be made pending reconsideration and appeal. Will the Minister confirm that under no circumstances will anybody be paid any benefits pending reconsideration? That is a key point. Bearing it in mind that there is no deadline for decisions to be made on reconsideration, people could wait for months in the more complex cases without any payments. They would then have to wait a further period for the appeal and then, after months and months of waiting for a decision and then a further decision to be made, they could end up winning the appeal and getting the benefits. By then, they will have to have survived for many months without any benefits. I do not see how many of the people whom I and other hon. Members on both sides of the Committee represent will be able to survive under those circumstances.
The deadline for applying for reconsideration and then for appeal is in both cases one month. That is extremely tight. It means that the people we represent have a very tight deadline in which to apply for reconsideration and then appeal, but that the DWP is not bound by any such deadline. As in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd, all my local advocacy services have been cut, whether they are funded by the council or not.
Chris Ruane: Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the people who will be affected by this are functionally illiterate? They will not be able to read the forms, especially if they are complicated, and they will need expert advice on the issues behind them. The one-month time scale is too tight.
John Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as I was about to come to that point. Not only are many people who have to fill in the forms unable to read and write to the level needed to complete them, but they are vulnerable in other ways. Many people will not have the wherewithal to realise that a one-month deadline is coming up. Advocacy services such as the CAB are all facing cuts
and will not be in a position to help those people. I do my best, as we all do, to meet as many people as possible. I hold six or seven advice surgeries a month, among other activities. However, there is no way that an MP serving about 70,000 constituents can get around to everybody who needs that sort of representation.I represent some of the poorest and most deprived wards in London, which means some of the most deprived wards in the whole United Kingdom, with a high proportion of people dependent on benefits who will lose out through the new system. I hope that I am wrong, but I predict that in a few months from now I will be dealing with people saying to me, “I missed the one-month deadline”, “I missed applying for the reconsideration” or, “I’m having to survive without benefits. I’ve got absolutely nothing coming in and I don’t know what I’m going to do. I’m absolutely desperate.”
The Cabinet Office changed the rules on consultation a few months ago. The consultation, particularly on such an important, complex set of regulations, should have been longer and better publicised, so that more organisations could have made submissions, although many key organisations submitted their views. There should have been more time in which to consider the impact of the regulations, and perhaps a longer pilot.
Fiona O'Donnell: Does my hon. Friend think that the charge made by general practitioners when someone requires a letter from the doctor in support of their appeal must also be considered? I am seeing an increasing number of people who do not have the means to pay for that, once their benefits have been stopped.
John Cryer: I agree. I have always had grave doubts about whether GPs should be charging for such letters, which are often needed by poorer people and those who are vulnerable and do not have the resources to pay. I have heard some disturbing stories about the treatment meted out by GPs to people, including making demands for money from people who visit them to ask, perfectly reasonably, for a letter of support when applying for a benefit.
I reiterate what I said about the consultation period: it should have been longer. The statutory period of consultation, which has been changed by the Cabinet Office, should have been kept and even lengthened, in some cases, compared with what it is now.
9.27 am
Esther McVey: The purpose of the regulations is to make things simpler and smoother—to make the process easier. All too often, at the moment, people questioning a decision will automatically go to appeal and go for a legal route, whereas more information needs to be gathered and an admin process gone through.
Most of the overturns on appeal in the tribunal court happen because new information comes to light on the day. The regulations will make the whole process smoother, getting the information up front so that the decision is got right first time, thereby not putting the claimant under the stress of a long appeal process. It will also and safeguarding the tax-paying public. We want more disputes resolved in a much simpler way during the
reconsideration process. It is correct to say that a claimant can already ask for a reconsideration, but that does not happen in practice.We are aiming for simplification of the process. The one-month standard for reconsideration was introduced under the Social Security Act 1998. That period can be extended to a year where there is good reason to do so, and obviously consideration is given to the individual’s circumstances. The appeal process is long once an individual goes into it, and many of the conditions applied before will remain the same. For example, people have lost their benefit during the reconsideration or appeal process, and nothing is changing in that regard. We want to get it done in a shorter period and get it right first time, and to make it as simple as possible.
It makes sense to have automatic reconsideration. Why change to a legal route when really what we are dealing with is an administration route? Professor Harrington said, particularly when he was reviewing the ESA, that the key thing that needed to be done was to gather and examine feedback on why overturns were occurring. He said that most of them happened because new information came to light, which should not have been the case. Cases could therefore have been sorted much quicker and much earlier. He also said that we should provide more personalised, plain-English justification for the decision and capture information about the claimant more effectively. That is what we are seeking to do. It is about getting it right, and getting it right first time.
On the cost implications that have been mentioned, the regulations are intended to lessen them by making the process smoother and getting the costs down. Most of what we are introducing is already in place, but the changes would be deemed practical and progressive ones that will make the claimant’s journey smoother.
Mrs McGuire: It was not my assertion that there would be additional costs. In fact, that was in the Department’s impact assessment for the Welfare Reform Bill, which identified a series of additional costs. Can the Minister give us any indication of what those additional costs will be?
Esther McVey: At present, there will not be a foreseen extra cost. We currently have people going through a legal appeal process when we believe that they should have gone through a reconsideration to get things right. In effect, things should be smoother and simpler, and should take less time, rather than add to the financial burden.
Mrs McGuire: Perhaps the answer is flying over to the Minister. The DWP impact assessment identified that the information on the additional processes—the leaflets, the changes of letters, and so on—which I clearly identified, would have an additional cost. It said that that would be the biggest additional cost. Can the Minister give us any facts and figures on exactly what those costs are?
Esther McVey: I understand now what the right hon. Lady is talking about. Of course there are costs in reaching out and getting things right first time. The savings will come from HMCTS, because people have
been going to court when a judicial process has been totally unnecessary. If people get the information first and then go through a reconsideration process, we will address not only the problem of cost but that of the claimant going through an unnecessary, stressful appeals process.I thank Members for this informative and lively debate. The regulations are technical and not easily digestible, even in their reformed state, but I think that Members have understood the key issues, and I thank them for raising them and giving me the opportunity to set out the Government’s thinking. As I explained, the regulations are very much a replication of existing decision and appeal provisions, but just as the welfare reform agenda has provided an opportunity to reduce the complex range of income-related benefits through the introduction of UC, it has also provided an opportunity to rationalise the rules governing the administration of these new benefits. This consolidated set of regulations does that by ensuring that appeals rights and the rules underpinning decisions are clearer and more accessible, benefiting both claimants and the Department.
As discussed, we will be monitoring decision making closely during the early stages of implementation. Mandatory reconsideration is a key stage, and separate from internal monitoring. We will work with HMCTS to evaluate any effect that the new measures have on appeal values. By implementing a more robust request for additional evidence from the claimant in the reconsideration process, we hope to resolve concerns at the earliest opportunity and thereby prevent appeals. We will also consider the scope for internal performance indicators to enable us to monitor performance.
Of course, disputes and appeals arise because claimants believe that we have made mistakes. The challenge, as it has always been, is to get it right first time. Quality decision making must remain at the forefront of our thinking. To that end, we will continue to implement Professor Harrington’s recommendations to improve the standard of decision making. His recommendations are focused on ESA, but they read across to all the benefits, and we will learn accordingly.
There will be different challenges for PIP and UC, as both staff and claimants adjust to the changed environment. We will, of course, introduce comprehensive training on the benefits for decision makers, to ensure that staff have all the necessary tools to make right decisions. We will also monitor appeal volumes more broadly, particularly for the new benefits, UC and PIP. We will review and amend the advice and guidance to decision makers, and if we find that the regulations are at fault, there is the
option of amending them. The reforms are necessary, and we will not lose sight of the overarching policy drivers, but we will listen and learn.Finally, I hope that hon. Members will leave the Committee believing that the Department’s decision-making and appeals structure is robust, fit for purpose, and ready for the introduction of UC and PIP.
Mrs McGuire: I will not detain the Committee but, with the greatest respect to the Minister, I asked a series of specific questions and they have not been answered. I do not wish to detain her longer than necessary, so after considering my questions perhaps she will respond to them and put the responses in the Library, or circulate them to all members of the Committee. Delegated legislation can cover detailed issues, and frankly they have not been addressed this morning. I will not detain the Committee and we will not press the matter to a Division, but some of my detailed questions should have been answered.
John Hemming: May I take up a point made by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead about GPs charging for medical evidence? If people do not have a lot of money, it is difficult for them to get it to get the evidence to get the reassessment. The hon. Gentleman made a good point, and we should take it into account.
Esther McVey: On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley, if extra information is required, it will be obtained by the decision maker. We are not asking any claimant to seek extra information at their cost. We will do that as part of the decision-making process.
Mrs McGuire: I wonder whether we could have a response to my questions, and whether the detailed answers could be circulated to the Committee.
Esther McVey: They will indeed.
That the Committee has considered the draft Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013.