Scottish Social Security Consortium

Minutes of meeting 18 June 2002

Present: Christina Bainbridge (Lord Chancellor’s Department), Graham Blount (Scottish Churches Parliamentary Office), Abi Bremner (Citizens Advice Scotland), David Brownlee (Age Concern Scotland), Belinda Crowe (Lord Chancellor’s Department), Susan Drew (Highland Advice And Information Network), Alice McAllister (One Parent Families Scotland), Richard Norris (Scottish Association for Mental Health), Judith Paterson (CPAG), Donald Selmes (Lord Chancellor’s Department), Derek Sinclair (Carers Scotland), Jo Whitfield (The Action Group)

Apologies: Peter Kelly (Poverty Alliance), Nora Rundell (Step Family Scotland), Alice Jarvie (Help the Aged), Bob Burrows (Money Advice Scotland), Maggie Mellon (NCH Scotland), Susan Elsley (Save the Children), Marie Burns (GAMH), Jackie Doyle (East End Community Law Centre), Linda Kerr (Enable), Fiona Pearson (Scottish Refugee Council)

1. TAX CREDIT APPEALS

Three representatives of the Tax Appeal Reform Project, part of the Lord Chancellor’s Department, were present to get the group’s views on the possible shape of the appeals system. Belinda Crowe gave a presentation on the progress of this initiative so far. The Reform Project’s remit was to look at the current system with a view to consolidating procedures and making the necessary adjustments for the introduction of tax credit appeals to the present workload.

The Reform Project had been guided by the following pieces of work:

• The Tax Law Review Committee - which had reported twice on it’s remit
• Tribunals for Users (the Leggatt report) - this report had made many recommendations in relation to the format of tribunals. It’s overarching vision was of a consolidated tribunals system which would see all tribunals dealt with in a ‘tribunals department’ and members who could sit on tribunals dealing with a variety of subjects.
• Their own consultation, in March 2000, which had highlighted a number of things.

The Lord Chancellor’s department representatives were not able to comment in certainty about the future structure of tax appeals tribunals because the matter awaited a ministerial decision, which itself would depend on the results of the next spending review. However, the tax credits legislation had been amended to ensure that tax credit appeals would be handled by The Appeals Service (TAS) until a suitable system was in place. The political intention was that they would come under the control of The Treasury in the future.

The challenge facing the Review Project was to create a system which could meet the needs of those appealing income tax decisions as well as those appealing under the tax credit legislation.

The group was invited to make comments under four headings:

• Structure
• Jurisdiction and process
• Training and Appointments
• IT

1.1 Structure
Belinda Crowe noted that one criticism of the current system was that there was no central administration as with TAS. Appeals to the General Commissioners were handled locally across 430 divisions. Arrangements for hearing venues and paperwork very much depended on local conditions.

• Independence - it was felt that the Tax Appeal Tribunal might not be perceived to be independent (even although it was actually administered by Lord Chancellor’s Department rather than the Inland Revenue). The choice of venue for appeal hearings was an important reflection of independence and should never include eg. tax offices. Belinda assured the group that while the venues currently used were many and various, they never included tax offices. Town halls, hotels and solicitors’ offices were common.
• Access - access difficulties were particularly acute for rural areas such as The Highlands and this acted as an obstacle against a client exercising their right to appeal. Particular issues included
  – Inadequate expenses
  – The importance in small communities of venues which ensured confidentiality
  – Those with disabilities can’t easily travel or use public transport
  Flexibility, including hearings in claimants’ homes were appropriate, would be important.
  
• Consolidation - representatives from the Lord Chancellor’s Department raised concerns that some consolidation of venues would be necessary in order to administer the system properly and get consistency and quality in decision-making. The group suggested that good central administration could achieve this even across a variety of venues.
• Representation - the Lord Chancellor’s Department also noted that having a large number of venues might affect the ability of welfare rights organisations to represent clients. The group noted that, especially with community-based organisations like CABx, representatives lived in the same communities as those they were representing so more localised venues would benefit them too.
• ‘Grouping’ cases - several members noted that TAS presently had arrangements in place to group together cases involving the same representative so that they were heard in the same venue. This prevented problems with a representative being unable to represent a client because they had hearings at different venues scheduled on the same day.
• The general feeling was that something in-between would be the ideal - with a greater diversity of venues that TAS so that it was more accessible, but consolidating venues in areas of high population so that representatives only had to travel to one venue.
• Scheduling - one member noted that, in remoter areas where venues were not in use every day, TAS gave them advance notice of what days tribunals would sit. They did not necessarily know what cases would be called, but they were at least able to keep their diaries free on those dates. This was particularly important for those organisations that relied on the availability of volunteers to provide representation.
• ‘Users’ groups - the feedback was that these did exist, in relation to the Highland Tribunal service and possibly in Glasgow as well but it was not clear whether they existed in every locality. Members did, however, feel that users groups were a good way of getting feedback about the service.
• Administration - the group discussed a centralised administration system for tax credit appeals. It was noted that this would provide uniformity, rather than having a selection of different forms for different areas (as happened with Council Tax/Housing Benefit forms at the moment). It would also allow good practice to be spread and would make the service easier to publicise. However, it was also noted that a local contact point could make customers feel more comfortable with, and confident in, the system. It was also important that clerks were able to make devolved decisions suitable for local conditions as they currently did in TAS.

1.2 Jurisdiction and Process

• Second tier - the group stressed the importance of a second tier level to the tax credit appeal system. Advantages of this were:
  – It provided an accessible, cost free level at which to test a decision
  – Especially when new benefits were introduced, the second tier played an important role in clarifying the law and aiding consolidation of decisions
• Lay representation - it was felt that the rules of procedure should make it clear that lay representatives had a right to appear on behalf of clients
  Social Security Commissioners - it was suggested that the second tier appeal could be to the Social Security Commissioners to bring all benefits-related decisions under the same umbrella. However, representatives from the Lord Chancellor’s Department noted that it was the current intention that tax credits should remain with the Treasury, which already had a specialist tier in the Special Commissioners. Nevertheless, Leggatt had recommended a unified second tier, hearing cases from across the spectrum of tribunals, which might be the way that things developed in the longterm.
• Expertise - there was concern among members of the group that, because most tax appeals would not necessarily relate to tax credits, commissioners would not develop expertise in handling this sort of case. The value of a legally qualified tribunal member (although not necessarily sitting as chair) in interpreting unfamiliar legislation was stressed.
• Disability issues - the group agreed that, as many cases would not touch on tax credit issues, it should not be necessary to have a disability member sitting on every tribunal. However, it was stressed that disability issues would arise and a disability member should be available on request. Issues such as venue accessibility, signers etc. also required to be considered. The group recommended training on disability issues for all involved in the tax appeal process.
• Overpayments - it was felt that overpayments and challenges to income calculations would also be a big area for tax credit appeals: therefore, legally qualified members or accountants would be useful.
• Process - the importance of an inquisitorial approach from commissioners was stressed. As this did not seem to be the case with procedures at present, it was suggested that training would be necessary for existing commissioners. Representatives from the Lord Chancellor’s Department noted that the process was quasi-inquisitorial at present: however, appellants rarely turned up in person at tax tribunals, meaning that there was no one to question. The department recognised the need to address this issue.
• Child care - in the context of the above, it was noted that child care facilities/creche/play area were important to enable parents to attend hearings.
• Backdating - it was noted that procedures needed to be in place to allow late appeals and backdating of benefits, especially in relation to those with mental health problems, who could go through specific periods of time when they were totally incapable of dealing with their own affairs.
• ‘Good reason’ provisions - it was felt that the current ‘good reason’ provisions for late appeals to TAS could be restrictive. The legislation says very little about what might be appropriate in relation to illness so it is very much up to the tribunal chairman to interpret this.
• Time limits - it was also noted that the one month time limit to apply to TAS could be problematic for clients, making the system more difficult to access.

1.3 Training and appointments
Training needs already highlighted were:

• Training on disability issues
• Training on inquisitorial procedures

Belinda Crowe highlighted that it was expected that there would be some transfer of staff from the current tax tribunal system to the new one. However, tax commissioners did not currently have to be legally trained and the advertising of positions did not meet the department’s recruitment policy. Some balance between new structures and maintaining the existing pool of experience would have to be found.

1.4 IT
The group highlighted the importance of having access to decisions on the internet in a manner which allowed searching on key words.

2. INFORMATION EXCHANGE

2.1 Minutes of previous meeting
The group considered the minutes from the previous meeting. Judith Paterson reported that the group now had a presence on the internet - at www.cpag.org.uk - go to ‘Where to find us’/Scotland/Scottish Social Security Consortium. She had not been able to contact Mark Neale of the DWP as he was a last minute replacement so she had no contact details. Judith also reported that Citizens Advice Scotland was once more involved in co-ordinating SSSC meetings.

Correction to 3. Social Security Update, 6th bullet point, should begin ‘Abolition of residential allowance’, not ‘Free personal care from July’.

Agreed David Brownlee to forward Age Concern leaflets on basic bank accounts to members of the group.

2.2 Information

• Overpayments of AA - concern had been expressed at the last meeting about the potential for overpayments of AA when free personal care came in. Derek Sinclair noted that guidance to local authorities contained a pro forma form to inform the DWP that free personal care was being received. The guidance suggested that local authority personnel filled this in with customers receiving free personal care.
• Free personal care - several CABx had reported that local authorities were informing clients that they would not be ready to implement free personal care by 1st July. It was noted that the legislation states that councils have to stop charging for personal care services on 1st July. However, this does not benefit people who require an assessment before they can access local authority care services. Age Concern Scotland had produced a leaflet on the right to an assessment, which was available from their website.
• WFTC - Derek Sinclair noted that the change over to tax credits meant that awards of current WFTC were now being made until April 2003. This could affect the advice given to people about the timing of a WFTC claim.
• Highland Advice and Information Network - Susan Drew explained that HAIN was a network which provided second tier support to nine advice agencies in The Highlands, including six CABx. Technical benefits briefings and other information was available from the website (www.hain.org.uk) and could be requested from info@hain.org.uk.
• Measuring Child Poverty - a DWP seminar to discuss the way the Government collates child poverty indicators would be taking place in Scotland on 28th June. More details from Judith Paterson.
• Benefits Take-up - Age Concern Scotland had got funding in order to carry out a series of take-up campaigns. The campaigns themselves would be small scale, but they would trial a variety of different methods to find out which were most effective.
• IS and Tax Credits - Graham Blount noted that many ancillary benefits were tacked on to IS entitlement, such as free school meals. It was not clear what would happen when IS was replaced under the new tax credit regime.

3. ISSUES FOR FUTURE MEETINGS

Agreed Abi Bremner would invite Catherine Brown from the Scottish Executive free personal care implementation team to give a presentation to the group for the September meeting. It was noted that this would overlap with the ‘Supporting People’ initiative which other group members had also expressed interest in.

Agreed Judith Paterson and Danny Phillips would give a presentation on tax credits for the November meeting.

The date of the next meeting is Tuesday 24th September in Glasgow.

Back to the Scottish Social Security Consortium main page

For more information contact:
Judith Paterson
Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland,
Unit 9, Ladywell
94 Duke Street,
Glasgow G4 0UW
0141 552 3303
email jpaterson@cpagscotland.org.uk

Abigail Bremner
Citizens Advice Scotland
Spectrum House
2 Powderhall Road
Edinburgh EH7 4GB
0131 550 1000
email bremnera@cas.org.uk