Sir Robert Buckland has written the Foreword to a new paper on the Benefits system authored for Policy Exchange by former No 10 SPaD Jean-Andre Prager. Benefit reform is not a luxury option, but an essential prerequisite of any government that is remotely serious. Read the Foreword below.
For far too long, the debate about benefits in the UK has been dominated by the sweeping statement and the grand gesture, with confident claims about the cutting of costs and the reduction in the ever-burgeoning benefits bill. Politicians of all stripes have not prevented their seeming lack of knowledge of the system from telling us that they have solutions. For policymakers looking for solutions, they would be well-advised to start with this excellent paper from Policy Exchange. The proposals sensibly call for a fundamental reform of the Mandatory Reconsideration (MR) process, suggesting it be led by judicial case workers at the Ministry of Justice rather than the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), with powers to order new assessments, correct errors, and use technology like machine learning and ambient voice tools to improve case management.
There is a powerful recommendation that the criteria for Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) should be reviewed every two years to ensure they accurately reflect the extra costs faced by disabled people. A very good example of developing obsolescence is the “planning and following a journey” mobility descriptor, which, due to modern navigation tools is just outdated. An interesting proposal is that the Upper Tribunal be empowered to issue suspended remedies, giving lawmakers a set period to respond to rulings. A joint case management system between DWP and HMCTS is recommended for better tracking and analysis.
Finally, it is proposed that translation services for PIP and ESA tribunals be funded by appellants (except for British Sign Language), arguing that the social contract includes conversing in the national language. With AI translation tools becoming ever more reliable, the use of this assistive technology should become the norm. It is in his plea that Parliament end its practice of legislating on eligibility criteria in a vague and undefined way, and that the discretionary power it has given to judges to interpret the law should be returned to the lawmakers that this paper’s author is at his most compelling.
The subcontraction of decision-making of this nature and scale should concern all of us who care about what should be the proper role of the courts here. Policy Exchange’s report by Jean-André Prager makes a substantial and distinctive contribution to the debate.
I very much hope that it leads to sharper and thresher thinking in an area that absorbs a breathtaking amount of public expenditure and which is clearly unsustainable.
A link to the full report is here:
https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Lapse.of_.Judgment.pdf
