Agenda item

Members will consider the Executive Decision relating to the Welfare Advice Services Review.

 

A minute extract from the meeting of the Neighbourhood Services and Community Involvement Scrutiny Commission held on 9 March 2015, which asked for this matter to be considered, is also attached for information.

The Committee received details of the decision taken by the City Mayor to approve proposals for a review of the Welfare Advice Service.

 

The Chair introduced this item, outlining three main areas of concern about the impact of the review:-

 

·           One of the reasons given for the review of the service was that welfare rights advisors were expensive, due to reliance on experienced staff.  The service was accredited by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which created additional administrative tasks, (for example, opening files and sending regular written updates to service users).  It was proposed that this service would be replaced with Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) volunteers;

 

·           The service currently found approximately £5 million in benefits for the city’s residents; and

 

·           The welfare rights advisors undertook significant background work for claimants.

 

At the invitation of the Chair, Councillor Aqbany addressed the Committee, explaining that he was a former welfare rights worker, having worked with St Peter’s Tenants Association for 13 years and in a private capacity for a further four.  He currently worked with a high number of people in his ward on welfare rights issues. 

 

He then made the following points:-

 

o    Cases dealt with by welfare advice workers were often complex and the in-house service were best equipped  to deal with these because of their expertise.

 

o    The Council sign-posted people to other providers for guidance and advice, but this could be difficult to do, as other advice providers were overburdened with work;

 

o    Recent welfare reforms meant that a lot of benefit recipients needed specialist help.  This could also impact on their ability to pay rent and Council tax; and

 

o    If the changes proposed were made, the Council would be in a position of picking and choosing who was helped.

 

At the invitation of the Chair, Gaynor Garner of Unison addressed the Committee.  She drew attention to comments on the decision from Unison, which had been circulated before the meeting.  Details of two case studies submitted by Unison were tabled at the meeting and are attached at the end of these minutes for information.

 

Gaynor Garner explained that Unison was concerned about the proposal to move to CAB volunteers providing advice and away from Council staff doing this.  She noted that the report stated that there currently was a duplication of services, but what was meant by this was not explained.  In summary, it appeared that the review was budget driven, not service driven, and would impact on the most vulnerable in the city.

 

The following comments were made in discussion and responded to by Councillor Russell, Assistant Mayor (Neighbourhood Services):-

 

§   The Council had, for many years, supported the welfare advice service.  This helped ensure that people received what they were entitled to, as it was known that many benefits went unclaimed every year in the city.  It was recognised that savings needed to be made in services, but there was continuing and increasing concern about changes to welfare benefits, including the imminent introduction of universal credit.

 

§   The business case for reducing this service had not been made, with no evidence having been provided that £200,000 could be saved from the service without reducing current levels of service delivery, or where the cuts in service would be made to achieve these savings.  The report also did not identify how service delivery would be monitored.

 

Response from the Assistant Mayor:

This service had been included in the list of service reviews drawn to the attention of the Neighbourhood Services and Community Involvement Scrutiny Commission at the start of the 2014/15 Council year.

 

There were many advice providers in the city and they were invited to participate in the Social Welfare Advice Partnership.  It was ensured that participants had the quality standards mark for advice, to ensure that the same quality of advice was given around the city.

 

During the initial stage of this review, a risk analysis of the implications of the introduction of universal credit had been undertaken with other advice providers through the Partnership.  This had included what changes were likely to arise in advice that would be needed.

 

It would be determined whether the minutes of Partnership meetings could be circulated to Members.  These did not just record general discussions, but included in-depth analysis of issues faced by the social welfare sector, such as changes being proposed, (for example, the introduction of universal credit), the number of sanctions being issued, cases being presented and difficulties with these, as well as the success of challenges.

 

At present, the welfare rights team covered all three tiers of work, but they were specialists who needed to concentrate on Tier 3 work, (the most complex).  It was important that these specialist skills were retained, but if only Tier 3 work was done, fewer staff would be needed, so achieving the savings identified.

 

§   At present, it appeared that approximately £200,000 would be left in the service after the proposed cuts, but there would be virtually no workers.

 

§   Benefit claims were complicated, so people needed to get specialist advice on them.  As such, the Council should be making more investment to help people access benefits, find work and receive the correct advice.

 

§   It was proposed that CAB volunteers would “triage” cases, instead of this being done by paid staff as at present, but there was concern that CAB volunteers would not have the training to do this.  Moving the service away from Council officers, whose salaries were not particularly high, and proposing to replace them with volunteers could be seen as a lack of respect for their experience.  Any “triage” process should be undertaken by appropriately qualified and experienced staff, as the increasingly complex nature of benefits meant that untrained front line workers could miss things that resulted in the claimant suffering.

 

Response from the Assistant Mayor:

Welfare rights staff were greatly valued, but it was important that they were able to focus on Tier 3 work, (for example, the most complex cases, or issuing challenges).  Tier 1 work was the most basic level of advice and Tier 2 work involved the completion of forms.  Welfare rights officers currently did all three tiers of work, instead of tiers one and two being delivered through commissioned services as provided for under the commissioned services contract.  Experienced staff therefore would continue to have a crucial role in the provision of welfare advice.

 

CAB volunteers would be trained to undertake the work that the CAB would be taking on.

 

The commissioned services contract was designed to recognise that the service had capacity to develop over time.  The target for year 1 for Tier 1work was 12,000 cases per year, but this had been exceeded.  The targets in years 2 and 3 were 17,000 and 19,000 respectively.  The target this year for Tier 2 cases was 6,000, although just over 7,000 cases had been dealt with. 

 

§   In the future, if those giving were untrained, it could lead to a deterioration in service.  Consideration therefore could be given to how any gaps identified in the service could be filled with trained staff.

 

§   The relationship between the CAB and the Council would change when the CAB took over the “triage” process.  Information therefore was needed on what safeguards would be introduced for this.  These would be particularly relevant if problems arose with the “triage” process.

 

Response from the Assistant Mayor:

A number of baselines in the contracts were monitored, such as income raised, and issues were followed up.  Monitoring information could be provided for scrutiny on a regular basis.

 

§   The most significant increase in enquiries had been from Children’s Centres.  It was assumed that this reflected child poverty and changes should not be made that disadvantaged children any further.  The changes in service should not be made until there was clear evidence that the CAB could adequately deal with this part of the service, as cutting welfare advice services would not reduce child poverty.

 

Response from the Assistant Mayor:

The increase in cases from Children’s Centres related to initial welfare checks, made to see if people were entitled to benefits and to ensure that as many people as possible were signed up for the benefits they were entitled to.  This could be done by trained volunteers.

 

§   There had been no consultation on the proposed changes to the services provided, so no action should be taken before relevant groups had been consulted.

 

Response from the Assistant Mayor:

External consultation had been undertaken when commissioned welfare advice services were introduced, as this involved change to the services offered.  It was not being done for this review, as the services being offered were not changing.

 

§   People would want to receive advice in places they could get to without having to travel too far.

 

Response from the Assistant Mayor:

Where people accessed commissioned services was one of the baselines monitored under the contract, as it was recognised that people would want to access services near their home.

 

§   It was not clear if the last recommendation in the report, referring to the Adult Social Care service undertaking the review of the Welfare Rights Service, had been agreed or was a suggestion.  Other issues in that service at present could make it preferable for it not to do the proposed review.

 

Response from the Assistant Mayor:

The review would be carried out by the Adult Social Care service, as the welfare advice service was part of the Adult Social Care service area.  It would be supported by other Council services involved in the provision of welfare advice, but the concerns raised will be taken in to consideration.

 

§   The Council’s welfare advice services team had done excellent work and this level of expertise should be maintained.  Consideration therefore could be given to the current team working in partnership with the voluntary sector, rather than that sector taking over the work.

 

§   Information was requested on how this review would affect the Highfields Advice Centre.

 

Response from the Assistant Mayor:

The advice services offered by the Highfields Advice Centre were not included in this review, but would be included in any future general review of all commissioned advice services.

 

It was understood that the Community Association allocated approximately £45,000 to advice services from the funding it received from the Council.

 

§   The introduction of universal credit would have a great impact on city residents, so losing qualified workers would leave the most vulnerable exposed, as demand for welfare advice services was likely to increase.  Volunteers could be used to supplement qualified workers.

 

Response from the Assistant Mayor:

The review aimed to ensure that a “seamless” service was provided across the city, providing the right level of legal advice and support and ensuring that specialist staff could focus on specialist cases.  The appropriate scrutiny committees were therefore urged to monitor the service on an ongoing basis.

 

The opinion was expressed that enabling the welfare advice officers to focus on Tier 3 work was a sensible option, as the service would remain the same, but would be delivered more efficiently.  However, other Members remained opposed to the proposals.

 

The Committee requested that earlier notice of decisions such as these be given, to enable Members to scrutinise them and request information in good time.  In reply, Councillor Russell reminded Members that the first meeting of the Neighbourhood Services and Community Involvement Scrutiny Commission of the 2014/15 Council year had been presented with a list of spending reviews for that year.  The reviews potentially coming under the remit of that Commission, including this one, had been highlighted.  The situation that had arisen with this decision showed the importance of Members involvement in issues such as these at an early stage.

 

Councillor Russell also confirmed that it had been agreed that the decision taken would not be implemented before it was scrutinised at this meeting.  For this reason, it had not yet been possible to discuss the business case with the staff concerned.

 

In view of the concerns raised by Members, the Committee asked for an assurance that none of the proposals contained in the decision would be implemented until the information requested by the Committee had been received and Members had had chance to consider it.  It was further suggested that, if Members did not feel that the information answered the concerns raised above, the decision should not be implemented and the matter referred to Council.

 

The City Mayor expressed concern that this could severely delay the review, as the forthcoming elections meant that it would be some time before the next meetings of scrutiny committees and Council.  Members recognised that implementation of the decision could not be delayed indefinitely, but stressed that it was important to consider the information requested before that implementation.

 

RESOLVED:

1)    That the Assistant Mayor (Neighbourhood Services) be asked to determine whether the minutes of the Social Welfare Advice Partnership can be circulated to Members and, if they can be, to circulate them to members of this Committee;

 

2)    That, if not covered by resolution 1) above, written details of the risk analysis of the impact of the introduction of universal credit be circulated to Members;

 

3)    That the Assistant Mayor (Neighbourhood Services) be asked to provide monitoring information for the commissioned welfare advice services contract to members of this Committee;

 

4)    That following receipt and consideration of the information requested under resolutions 1), 2) and 3) above, members of this Committee refer the matter to Council for resolution, unless those members feel that the information provided adequately answers the concerns recorded above; and

 

5)    That the Executive be asked to not implement the decision taken on 6 March 2015 by the City Mayor relating to “Spending review programme – Welfare Advice Service” until the outcome of resolution 4) above is agreed, it being noted that the Executive is further asked not to implement the decision if the matter is referred to Council.