Comment : Social Fund Commissioner
(April 2007)
Sir Richard Tilt is the Social Fund Commissioner for Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As Commissioner, Sir Richard is responsible for the Social Fund Inspectors in the Independent Review Service. The Social Fund Inspectors provide the independent grievance process by means of a review, for applicants who are dissatisfied with Jobcentre Plus decisions on their applications to the discretionary Social Fund. Sir Richard speaks about his work.
1. What is the background to the role of the Social Fund Commissioner?
In 1985, the Government of the day set out its proposals for the Social Fund to replace the existing scheme of single payments and urgent needs payments, which it said had become "unacceptably cumbersome and expensive". The proposed Social Fund scheme consisted of two distinct elements; a regulated element covering funeral and maternity payments and a discretionary element comprising community care grants and interest free budgeting and crisis loans. Whilst the regulated part of the scheme would be subject to independent appeal to the Social Security Appeal Tribunal, the discretionary element would not. Instead the Government proposed an internal local review through the normal line management chain. The Government argued that decisions based on whether it was reasonable to pay in an individual case were much less suitable for the normal appeal process and that therefore an internal review by local management was more appropriate.
The absence of an independent appeal mechanism was strongly criticised, not least by the Council on Tribunals, the Social Security Advisory Committee and the Social Security Consortium. Ministers acknowledged during the Committee stage that the proposed internal review might not be fair or be seen to be sufficiently fair and introduced provision for an external review of decisions by independent Social Fund Inspectors. In response to parliamentary pressure, particularly in the House of Lords, the role of the Social Fund Commissioner was created "in order to entrench the independence of Social Fund Inspectors."
2. How is your role different to that of a tribunal or ombudsman?
Unlike a tribunal chair the Commissioner has no decision-making powers in relation to the cases that are subject to the Inspector's review. Nor does the role involve investigating complaints of maladministration. The Commissioner's statutory duties and powers are to:
- Appoint Social Fund Inspectors and other staff
- Monitor the quality of Inspectors' decisions and give advice, as he thinks fit, to improve the standards of their decisions
- Arrange training, as he considers appropriate for Inspectors
- Report annually to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the standard of Inspectors' reviews.
The Inspector's review is a two stage one. The first stage involves a procedural examination of the decision, akin to that undertaken on a judicial review. The second stage involves consideration of the merits of the case, taking account of relevant changes in circumstances and new evidence to determine whether the decision was the right one in all the circumstances. On review, the Inspector has the power to confirm the decision under review, to replace it with his own or to refer the matter to the decision maker at Jobcentre Plus to make a fresh decision.
There is no statutory requirement for an oral hearing. The Inspector's jurisdiction is inquisitorial, and before undertaking his review, the Inspector writes to the applicant setting out the relevant facts of the case, the issues to be decided and asks any questions necessary to establish the relevant facts. The applicant is invited to reply in writing or by telephoning the Inspector. Increasingly many are choosing to respond by telephone which we welcome.
3. How do you provide feedback from the decisions of the inspectors to Social Fund Officers?
In the course of our work we record on our systems data about every case reviewed, including the key issues on which the case turns and whether the decision maker dealt with those issues correctly as well as information about the time taken to deal with the application at each stage.
We collate and analyse the data and provide feedback by means of quarterly and annual reports, which show by district, region and nationally the results achieved. The annual reports provide a detailed narrative about the issues for each district both in terms of the standards of decision making and the operational issues identified. These reports form the basis for discussion at the annual meeting I have with senior managers in each region.
4. What are the main ways to improve the quality of Social Fund Inspectors' decisions?
Like many organisations we do our best to foster a culture of continuous improvement. We set clear standards for our Inspectors and have in place a system of regular quality checks by way of case-reading randomly selected cases and measuring them against these standards. The case-reading is carried out by myself, the senior managers and a small group of experienced Inspectors. Where a serious flaw is discovered the case will be referred back to a different Inspector for reconsideration. We also conduct a rolling survey by post of 5% of our applicants. Finally we deal with a small number of complaints each year and we regularly review these to see if there are any general lessons to be learnt. In this context I have established a small external panel of people from other organisations to give us an independent view of how we are handling complaints.
5. In 2005-2006 Inspectors changed 54.3% of the decisions they reviewed. Do you consider this to be a very high rate? Does this indicate a problem with initial decision making?
Yes, I do think the rate is high and indicates problems with the initial decision making. The IRS sees only a small proportion of decisions that are refused by Jobcentre Plus and it could be argued that these may not be representative of the standards achieved at the initial stage. However, all the evidence, including the recent reports of the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee show that there are significant problems with the standard of initial decision making. At the request of some district offices we have undertaken some case audits of decisions that were not subject to IRS review and these revealed error rates similar to those found on the cases Inspectors review.
6. What are your key messages to the Department for Work and Pensions based on your findings in the 2005-2006 period?
Given the findings on the quality of decision making, the priority for the Department must be to set clear quality standards, ensure good quality training and a robust quality checking regime. This needs to be supported by close management to ensure the findings of the quality checking and other feedback are acted upon and remedial training provided as necessary. In the wider context, the Department's programme of centralisation and preference for dealing with people by telephone has created barriers for some people. I consider the Department needs to take urgent action to ensure people have easy access to the Social Fund and that, in appropriate cases, applications can be made in writing or face to face.
7. Are the Social Fund Inspectors obliged to act on your recommendations?
As the purpose of my statutory duty to give advice to Inspectors is to improve the standards of their decision-making, it is implicit that Inspectors must act on that advice. I should perhaps say that I do not generally give advice on individual cases. Instead my advice focuses on the principles and approach to take in relation to matters such as interpretation of the law and evaluation of evidence. However if I see a case when case-reading that I think has been unsatisfactorily handled I will refer it back to another Inspector for a fresh review.
8. What is your role in increasing awareness of the citizen's right to independent review?
I have taken an active role in raising the citizen's awareness of our existence and their rights to use our service. This is particularly important because of the evidence of poor standards of decision-making at the earlier stages. Some years ago my predecessor arranged for an IRS leaflet to be issued with each review decision made by Jobcentre Plus. I have recently secured agreement that the right of independent review be covered in the Social Fund application forms. We also provide leaflet and poster packs to a wide range of advocacy organisations and places that potential review applicants may visit. I have an extensive programme of meetings with advocacy organisations. I have been especially concerned about the low take up of Social Fund and independent review by pensioners. Whilst there are a number of reasons for this, research indicates that one of these is lack of awareness. With the agreement of the Chief Executives of Jobcentre Plus and The Pension Service I have embarked on a joint pilot exercise in the Gateshead area with The Pension Service aimed at raising pensioner awareness.
9. What aspect of your role brings you the most/least satisfaction?
I take satisfaction from ensuring the organisation delivers a good service promptly. I regard it as particularly important to remember that our applicants are vulnerable people with very few financial resources but often very considerable needs. It is also important to me to do what I can to influence the standard of delivery that Jobcentre Plus provides. I am on record as indicating that this often falls below what might reasonably be expected.
10. What are the benefits to the IRS from participating in social policy research?
I hope we provide some benefit to researchers because of our detailed knowledge about the discretionary Social Fund based on the cases we handle. For us I believe it is important for our Inspectors to be generally aware of wider policy issues and involvement in both the conduct and promulgation of research helps with this.
11. How similar is your role to that of the Independent Case Examiner?
Not at all, the roles of the Social Fund Commissioner and the Independent Case Examiner are quite different. The Commissioner's role is to head up the organisation that provides the independent statutory grievance process for discretionary Social Fund decisions. The Inspectors examine the judicial aspects of decisions and their decisions are legally binding in the individual case. The only recourse from an Inspector's decision is to the High Court by way of judicial review. In contrast the Independent Case Examiner has a non-statutory role and is specifically prevented from considering matters governed by legislation. The role is concerned with complaints of maladministration. The decisions are not legally binding on the Agency, although I understand there is a mutual agreement that the Agency will act on the recommendations made.
12. In what ways might the appeals system for other DWP benefits learn lessons from the system of feedback from the IRS to Social Fund staff i.e. Job Centre Plus?
I think it is important to identify at the outset what information needs to be drawn from the casework in order to provide meaningful feedback. It is also helpful to develop an IT system for recording data as this makes collation of statistical data much easier.
Feedback is likely to have greater impact if followed up by some face-to-face discussion.
I am aware that there have been concerns that such a system might cast doubt on the independence of the grievance process. In order to maintain the integrity and independence of the review, I have a small, dedicated team of experienced people who are not involved in the statutory review, who prepare the feedback reports and undertake all our other external work with Jobcentre Plus and advocacy organisations, such as delivering training and undertaking case audits.