The new report, ‘Personal Independence Payment user-centred design: Strand 1 report‘, presents the findings of the first in a series of research studies, conducted between 2011 and 2012, examining users’/potential users’ views in relation to a specific aspect of the claims process.

The first strand of the research focused on exploring how the application process for PIP – which is to replace disability living allowance (DLA) for working age claimants from 2013 – could be designed to meet the needs of existing DLA claimants, as well as potential PIP claimants, and consisted of 21 focus groups and 46 face-to-face in-depth interviews, conducted in September and October 2011.

The report highlights the following key themes that emerged affecting how individuals felt about the new benefit -

• there is an expectation that claimants will not be treated well by the DWP;
• there is a commonly-held perception that the outcome of the benefits application process is ‘a lottery’, i.e. strongly subject to an element of chance;
• misunderstandings about who DLA is intended to help are commonplace; and
• current DLA claimants do not see any logic in having to make a new claim for PIP.

The report sets out the findings of its research in detail before concluding that -

‘It is clear that the majority of current DLA claimants do not feel that they have been treated particularly well in the past, within the application and renewal process and, as a result, they do not expect that they will be treated well when applying for PIP. With expectations at a low level, the introduction of PIP presents an opportunity to signal a break with perceived poor treatment in the past and to develop processes and procedures that deliver a better claimant experience.’

The report goes on to suggest structural considerations that could help to ensure a significantly more positive application experience under PIP, including -

• a better institutional memory of claimants’ requirements and needs – claimants want to feel that the information they provide the DWP with is being recorded and taken into account so that they do not have to provide the same information on multiple occasions;
• tailoring of the process to customer needs – claimants ideally want the application process to include some tailoring to their circumstances;
• building in review phases – so that claimants can check and amend/accept the details they have provided (and perhaps what has been written about them); and
• clear response to all evidence provided – for individuals to have faith that their case has been properly assessed, it is critical for them to feel that all the evidence that they have provided has been considered.

Personal Independence Payment user-centred design: Strand 1 report is available from the DWP website.

In new figures, placed in the House of Commons library, HMRC says that, on 1 April 2012, 203,000 families, with 449,000 children, were working between 16 and 24 hours per week.

Highlighting that, under rules introduced on 6 April 2012, the couples working hours requirement for working tax credit has increased to 24 hours, shopworker’s union USDAW says that the HMRC figures show that less than 5% of the 212,000 couples with children who were affected by the change have been able to find additional hours of work, or alternative employment with longer hours, so as to avoid the cut to working tax credit.

Commenting on the figures, Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) Chief Executive Alison Garnham said -

‘This is an absolute calamity that plunges nearly half a million children deep below the poverty line. Many of these parents will now have less money in work than if they just claimed benefits. It runs directly against the consensus on the importance of making work pay and the government’s duties on child poverty.

The Chancellor should have announced at the Budget he would keep these working families afloat and in work, but they were cut loose whilst taxes for corporations and the super-rich were cut instead.

The policy was designed in 2010 when the economy was predicted to be in strong growth by now. But with an economy returning to recession, Ministers should have taken responsible action and put the policy on hold until employers could provide the additional hours of work these families need.’

NB – in an open letter to Prime Minister David Cameron on 5 March 2102, USDAW and a number of charities, including CPAG, warned the government that employers would not be able to offer the extra hours needed for claimants to meet the new working hours requirement.

For more information, see More than 200,000 working couples with children plunged into poverty by tax credit cuts from usdaw.org.uk

Despite suffering eight defeats in the House of Lords as the proposed legislation passed through Parliament, the new Act will, amongst other measures, provide for the removal of a number of areas of social welfare law, including welfare benefits, from the scope of legal aid.

NB – during the passage of the Bill, legal aid was however retained for welfare benefit appeals to the upper tribunal and higher courts, and for the first-tier tribunal on ‘points of law’.

As the Bill completed its progress through Parliament, Justice for All - a coalition of almost 4,000 charities, legal and advice agencies, politicians, trade unions, community groups and members of the public – said -

‘A year and a half since the proposals first emerged, and after passionate and dedicated campaigning by Justice for All members and many others, the Bill is certainly better than when it began.

Our very warmest thanks for all your efforts in writing to your MPs and Peers, organising rallies and marches and stalls, signing petitions and attending events. The campaign against this Bill has driven by your expertise and your passion.

But it will still leave hundreds of thousands of people without access to legal aid from next April, and advice agencies and legal aid solicitors battling to keep supporting people who need advice and representation.’

For more information see -

• Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill 2010-12 from the Parliament website
• Legal Aid Bill gets Royal Assent from the Legal Services Commission website
• Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 from the Ministry of Justice website.

We will publish a link to the Act on it becoming available online.

From today, new rules introduced by the Welfare Reform Act 2012 mean that entitlement to contributory ESA for claimants who are not in the support group will be limited to a period of no more than 365 days. With the time-limit also applying retrospectively, those who have already been in receipt of the benefit for a year will lose their entitlement with immediate effect.

Responding to the change, which the DWP expects will impact on 700,000 people by 2015/2016, Neil Coyle, Director of Policy and Campaigns at Disability Rights UK said -

‘Whilst we welcome disabled people being supported to enter and retain work, today’s measure is unlikely to incentivise work, penalises disabled people who have worked and leaves 280,000 disabled people and their families facing extreme poverty and exclusion.’

For more information see the Disability Rights UK press release Disabled people living in poverty to rise as Government time limits support.

In the April 2012 statistical release, ’Employment and Support Allowance: Outcomes of Work Capability Assessments, Great Britain – new claims‘, the DWP sets out figures for the period from June to August 2011, including that outcomes of completed initial assessments, adjusted for appeals, for claims made in that period show -

• 45 per cent of claimants have had decisions made on their claims;
• 39 per cent of claimants had their claim closed before assessment was complete; and
• 16 per cent of claimants were still undergoing assessment.

The statistical release also shows that 47 per cent of claimants with an outcome for their claim were entitled to ESA and that, within this, 19 per cent were placed in the work-related activity group, and  27 per cent in the support group, whilst 53 per cent were assessed as fit for work.

In addition, the DWP says that, to date, 41 per cent of all fit for work decisions have been appealed against and that, of appeals relating to claims made between December 2010 to November 2011, 32 per cent were successfu, which represents a 3 per cent decrease in the number of decisions being overturned compared to the last quarter.

The April 2012 statistical release Employment and Support Allowance: Outcomes of Work Capability Assessments, Great Britain – new claims is available from the DWP website.

In yesterday’s House of Commons debate on amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill introduced by the House of Lords, the government cited ‘financial privilege’ in overturning an amendment which had brought welfare benefits back into the scope of legal aid. The amendment was overturned by 288 votes to 246.

However, Lord Chancellor Kenneth Clarke introduced a further amendment allowing legal aid for welfare benefits cases going to the Upper Tribunal, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.

Mr Clarke also said that the government would consider introducing regulations which would allow legal aid for tribunals that involved ‘a legal issue’, although the number of these would be comparatively small because -

‘… it is not the business of lower tribunals normally to find themselves arguing points of law, as they normally argue points of fact and of regulatory interpretation’.

When questioned as to how it would be determined whether a tribunal involved ‘a legal issue’, Mr Clarke said -

‘In an ordinary welfare case, the question will be whether someone is fit for work or not fit for work, or living or not living at a particular address. When a point of law arises whereby it is not a question of the complexity of the regulations but of the actual meaning of the regulations, somebody like a tribunal judge will know that instantly and think, ‘That is quite an interesting point of law that I’ve not had before; this will go to the Upper Tribunal and I will certify that it would be rather nice to have some guidance.’ In the end, we have to leave it to tribunals themselves to decide on the facts. Some may be blurred, but by and large, in the vast majority of cases, they will be reasonably clear.’

NB – ‘financial privilege‘ is shorthand for the primacy of the House of Commons in matters relating to spending and taxation and it is accepted that, where the Commons reject a Lords amendment on grounds of privilege, it is ‘contrary to convention to send back an amendment which clearly invites the same response’.

The House of Commons debate on the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill is available from Hansard.

With the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill returning to the House of Commons today, the Ministry of Justice is reported to have confirmed that the government will use ‘financial privilege’ – a parliamentary procedure that allows the Commons to make decisions unopposed on bills that have serious financial implications – to overturn 8 of the 11 House of Lords amendments to the Bill, including one keeping welfare benefits within scope.

However, it is thought that the government will accept an amendment retaining legal aid in welfare benefit appeals to the upper courts.

NB – in February 2012, the government invoked ‘financial privilege’ to overturn House of Lords defeats on amendments to the Welfare Reform Bill 2011 in the House of Commons.

Source - Government to invoke controversial rule in bid to squash LASPO changes: legalfutures.co.uk

The government is to consider recovering unpaid truancy fines from child benefit.

In a report, ‘Improving attendance at school’, published today, the government’s ‘Expert Adviser on Behaviour’, Charlie Taylor, makes a number of recommendations including that fines for parents of truanting children should be increased to £60, with a doubled fee of £120 being deducted from child benefit if the fine isn’t paid within 28 days.

Responding to the report, Secretary of State for Education Michael Gove said -

‘We must do everything to improve school attendance so that all children benefit from good teaching. Successive governments have focused overwhelmingly on tackling truancy amongst older children. We now need a fundamental change in approach.

Improving the attendance of younger children at primary school will reduce the number who develop truancy problems when they are older.

We must also equip schools to tackle the minority of parents who do not heed that message. Sanctions are most likely to work if their effect is immediate and if they are simple to administer. I agree that the current penalty notice scheme should be simplified. I will work with my colleagues in the government to explore ways to make the payment of penalty notices swift and certain.’

The Taylor report on school attendance is available from education.gov.uk

Explaining his decision in a Mind blog, posted today, Mr Farmer says that he joined the WCA Scrutiny Panel, which was set up to oversee the work of Professor Harrington’s WCA Independent Review team, in July 2010 with the remit of providing advice and criticism regarding the areas Professor Harrington was looking at and the changes being recommended.

However, Mr Farmer says that, whilst the DWP has committed to making some changes arising from the Independent Review, these will take time, and some fundamental changes required haven’t even started to be addressed.

Meanwhile, Mr Farmer says, tens of thousands of people are being reassessed using a test which is still not fit for purpose -

Around 50 per cent of people are appealing against the decision, and a remarkable half of those appeals are being upheld, meaning that as many as one in four tests are wrong. The cost to the taxpayer of the tribunal system alone is £50m, around a half of the £100m a year being spent on reassessment.’

Mr Farmer goes on to say that he has taken the decision to leave Scrutiny Group because -‘As our concerns about the reality of the WCA have become stronger, there is insufficient recognition of the need to change the approach, and the need to do so quickly, before more and more people are subjected to a process which isn’t working.’ 

The Mind Chief Executive’s blog post, Why the WCA isn’t working, is available from the mind.org.uk

Introducing ‘Universal Credit:the impact on passported benefits’, published today, SSAC says that, in May 2011, it was commissioned by Minister for Welfare Reform Lord Freud to undertake an independent review of the current system of passported benefits and to provide advice on the possible approaches to the provision of these benefits when UC is introduced in 2013.

The Committee also highlights the government brief that such approaches should neither involve a net increase in expenditure nor compromise the key objectives of welfare reform – simplification of the benefits and tax credits systems and making work pay.

Having gathered evidence from a wide range of sources, the Committee makes a number of key findings including -

• all passported benefits fulfil important needs, are highly valued by those who receive them, and make a significant contribution to children’s health and wellbeing and their educational and emotional development; the health, wellbeing and quality of life for adults and families who are out of work or living on a low income; and reducing child poverty, health inequalities and social exclusion;
• benefits-in-kind are generally regarded as particularly beneficial in helping low-income families and there was little support from review respondents for cashing these up within UC;
• there is no rigorous research evidence to show that the provision of passported benefits acts as a work disincentive: when people take decisions about moving into work or increasing working hours, they take a range of factors into account;
• the loss of out-of-work passported benefits when people take a job can create an unhelpful cliff-edge and reduce the apparent gains to work;
• as the number of passported benefits has increased, so to has the complexity in the system and greater simplicity and better coordination of passported benefits is essential: this should reduce administration costs, render passporting more effective and efficient, improve awareness, understanding and take-up, and ensure better targeting;
• options for the future should not undermine the policy objectives of individual passported benefits, nor undermine the overarching principle that people should be better off in work than they are on benefits;
• it is unlikely that one approach will suit all passported benefits in future, and more radical options will need further consideration and may require additional expenditure; and
• the constraint of cost-neutrality creates tensions which will need to be balanced.

Responding to the SSAC review, the government says that the introduction of UC represents not only a challenge for Departments and organisations with responsibility for passported benefits, but also a unique opportunity to consider more fundamental reform to simplify and streamline some passported benefits in future.

The government goes on to say that it recognises that, given the legislative and administrative change that would be required, radical reform of passported benefits may not be achievable for the initial stages of UC, and that the first challenge will be for Departments and organisations to review their entitlement criteria for 2013.

However, the government says that, in the longer term, its aspiration is to explore further welfare reform by offering a generic approach for the current suite of passported benefits -

‘This could mean that people would be able to claim their usual UC award, but with added components for a range of other suitable benefits and public services. Claimants would be able to self-certify they have, or will, make payment from their UC from a list of agreed services. The total award, including the additional component would then be withdrawn gradually as income rises. The government will consider this alongside other priorities for the next Spending Review.’

The government says that this approach could ‘underpin the clear advantages of UC’ and that a streamlined one-stop service is more likely to deliver a better service to claimants.

In addition, the government says that this approach has potential to encourage claimants to make greater use of public services, and that benefits and services would be made available to more people without impacting on overall cost because those claimants whose UC award is subject to the taper would be part funding the cost of the service from other income.

The SSAC review of passported benefits under UC and the government response are available from the DWP website.