When I mention to friends that I have recently visited a Jobcentre, Citizens Advice Bureau, and interviewed the homeless it tends to raise a few eyebrows. However, all these visits and interviews have been fieldwork for the Liberal Democrat Working-age Social Security Working Group which recently published its consultation paper. Chaired by Jenny Willott, and comprised of a cross-section of LD members, our FPC remit has been clear: ‘The group will take evidence and consult widely from both within and outside the party’.
Fieldwork has proven enormously helpful to us in terms of understanding the nuances of the benefits system. For example, interviews with homeless people reveal the difficulties associated with applying for Universal Credit without the benefit of a bank account (needs a permanent address). These problems are not insurmountable but they do introduce additional difficulties which need to be considered when formulating policy.
A recent Jobcentre Plus visit has been particularly illuminating. Universal Credit is currently on a phased rollout, currently mainly available to single people in uncomplicated circumstances, but Jobcentres want full adoption to, “reduce bureaucracy”. Transitioning in and out of our current benefits system is burdensome for benefit claimants (‘customers’ in Jobcentre Plus parlance) on temporary contracts, something Universal Credit addresses. As one Jobcentre Plus manager observed, “you only apply for Universal Credit once”.
Jobcentres explain that they no longer process individual benefit claims, instead these are now dealt with by remote ‘centres’ (e.g. Job Seeker’s Allowance in Preston). Therefore, if customers are refused benefits, Jobcentres can only assist them in following-up with the centre directly. Other support agencies don’t always understand this and try to focus on individual cases in stakeholder meetings which sometimes leads to confrontation. Jobcentre Plus staff are also frustrated about cuts to local bus services, libraries, and IT services in common with other support agencies such as CAB. They recognise that customers cannot sign on without transport or jobsearch, apply for Universal Credit, or access housing benefits and housing lists without computer access. We might expect that Jobcentres should carry a certain amount of clout with local councils but they appear to be as deaf to their appeals for improvements to these local services as they are to those from other agencies.
We have also taken evidence in Parliamentary committee rooms from groups such as Reform, Resolution Foundation and Citizens’ Income Trust. Organisations such as Child Poverty Action Group, Crisis, Joseph Rowntree, Mind, Oxfam and Scope have provided useful insights into how we manage and deliver our benefits system to their various client groups. Representatives from other countries have told us how they manage and deliver theirs.
More broadly, we’re covering the full range of social security benefits (except pensions), including the structure of the benefits system, measuring ‘poverty’, employment support, devolution, and further tax/NI integration. If you want to make your views known and contribute to change, then come to our consultative session at Spring Conference in York (3pm Friday 11th March) or email us. We can’t promise you a free copy of the ‘Big Issue’ but we can promise a free discussion of the big issues which are affecting the very poorest in our society.
* Tony Harris is the Registered Treasurer of the Party and the Chair of the FFRC but in this case he is writing in a personal capacity.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
No, Leave didn't win the Brexit referendum because of Northern working class voters
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Reform under water
Geoffrey Payne
Richard Whelan
David Raw
Tom Reeve
9 Comments
Has the working group considered the matter of Maximus ? A recent report in the Guardian stated :
“The implementation of fitness-to-work tests is performing worse in key areas as costs continue to spiral, a report by the official auditors has disclosed. Maximus took over the contract in March to carry out medical assessments of claimants for employment and support allowance (ESA), the replacement for incapacity benefits.
The National Audit Office (NAO) found that the number of completed assessments are still below target despite an expected doubling of the cost to the taxpayer of the contracts for disability benefit assessments to £579m a year in 2016/17 compared with 2014/15. Auditors said that nearly one in 10 of the reports on disability benefit claimants have been rejected as below standard by the government. This compares with around one in 25 before Atos left its contract. There is also a report of a dreadul case when the DWP told a woman she was not ill enough for benefit on day she died.
The average time to process ESA claims has been cut from 29 to 23 weeks but there remained a backlog of 280,000 in August. The provider is not on track to complete the number expected this year and has missed assessment report quality targets, the NAO said.
Last point : surprised at this sentence at the start of the main article : “When I mention to friends that I have recently visited a Jobcentre, Citizens Advice Bureau, and interviewed the homeless it tends to raise a few eyebrows”. Why ?
David Raw – thoroughly agree with your last paragraph. It reminded me of a Labour MP I met who knew I worked for a dementia charity and thought I worked on the policy side of things. He was visibly perturbed when I explained that I was frontline and actually worked with people with dementia rather than just wrote about them!
Thanks for the comments. Yes, we are aware of the delays with Work Capability Assessments (WCA) and have taken evidence from CAB and other organisations on this matter. There are also other issues associated with how claimants actually get to a WCA centre if there is no local public transport or if they have health issues which require frequent treatments (e.g. four hour dialysis).
If you refer to section 4.2 ‘Disability, Sickness and Carers’ Benefits’ in the consultation document then it makes various points about WCA and raises certain questions for the consultation. Interestingly enough, the support agencies are generally happy with the idea of a WCA but they are concerned about the way it is delivered. There is also a high level of concern about the way that the assessments are structured in that the questions (and points system) appear to have been recast in order to make it more difficult to qualify. It would be nice to visit a WCA ‘centre’ so that we can see this at first hand and speak to staff and claimants. We will continue to see if this could be possible in the future but as you can imagine it is difficult given the bad press.
As to the first paragraph, not all my friends know that I am on a social security policy committee…
Tony, this is excellent
I have been, at different times, both an adviser to clients with these issues as a contractor working for a company delivering support, and in need of help, as a result of a car accident that could have killed my wife and I , and has left a lasting impact.
I , as a member of our party , would like to get involved with this consultation, it is a field I have a lot of experience of and believe there are real flaws in provision and attitudes.
How can I yet contribute to this ?
P.S. David Raw , raises very crucial point
The money spent on Atos , and now even more on Maximus,could be better spent by not being spent in that way at all .It is the removal of trust in the individual record of the client claiming , and the relationship with any services they have needed ,and especially assessment and report by the GP, that robs of dignity as well as wastes money and puts power into the wrong hands.
Lorenzo: Thanks very much for the comments. Please do come to our consultative session at Spring Conference in York (3pm Friday 11th March) or email us using the link in the article. It would be great to hear from you. Tony
I understand that 60% of applicants for PIP win their case on appeal. This has to represent a waste of scarce resources as well as the cruelty of refusing help to people who are in desperate need and who feel tortured by the system.
Tony
Thank you , I appreciate it , I cannot come to Spring conference, but shall e mail .
Sue S: Thanks for the comments but I’m not sure it’s as high as that.
The government has published statistics at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/485784/pip-statistics-to-oct-2015.pdf which show an overall improvement in waiting times and also show the state of appeals or ‘mandatory reconsiderations’ in PIP terms. If I am reading the stats right:
In total, 190,500 MRs (of 1,330,100 original PIP claims – that’s 14% [ED]) for normal rules claims had been cleared by the end of October 2015 (152,100 new claims and 38,400 reassessed DLA claims). Of the new claim MRs cleared, 22,800 (15%) led to a change in the claimant’s award, and 12,200 (32%) reassessed DLA MRs led to a change in award.
I think the bottom line is that the government realises that this area has been a problem and they are applying huge pressure on the providers to sort things out. If the PIP waiting times graphs in the same document are anything to go by then it looks as if this pressure is having an effect. Fingers crossed that this trend continues.
These additional statistics have been pointed out to me. Thanks to Iain at LD HQ Policy Unit. http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2015-09-08/9593/