Interim response from the government to the report ‘Decision making and mandatory reconsideration'
Updated 30 March 2017
© Crown copyright 2017
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-response-ssac-report-on-decision-making-and-mandatory-reconsideration/15aea0b9-f5ab-4366-b76c-cc6cf67446f5
This is the text of a letter dated 15 December 2016 from Penny Mordaunt MP, Minister of State for Disabled People, Health and Work to Paul Gray CB, Chairman of the Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC).
The letter is the government’s interim response to the SSAC report Decision making and mandatory reconsideration.
SSAC report on mandatory reconsideration
I am writing to update you on the department’s response to your report into the Mandatory Reconsideration (MR) process. I apologise for the delay in my reply.
I should say immediately that we welcome the report. As with any major reform, it is always helpful to have an early independent view on the effectiveness of its implementation and your detailed scrutiny has given the department plenty to reflect on.
I read your report with interest and I value its scale of stakeholder engagement with welfare rights groups. It is acknowledged that, as far as possible, any changes we make must reflect the views of stakeholders. I have noted that your recommendations are mostly focussed on the effectiveness of delivering MR rather than its policy intent – which I also welcome.
MR was introduced to make the system as fair and accessible as possible for those going through it, so the perception that it acts as an additional bureaucratic stage in the appeals process is disappointing. This is not the intention and so we need to more to make the journey from initial decision, through MR and to appeal easier to understand. The ultimate goal is to improve the quality of our decisions, both at the initial and at the MR stage, such that appealing is not required. The work to do in response to your recommendations will help us achieve that. And on this, I intend to formally respond to each of your recommendations in the New Year.
The work coming out of your report will become a key aspect of the Decision Making and Improvement Plan that the department is drawing up. This will bring together your report and other separate improvements that are being considered.
As a key element of our Appeal Reforms, it is critical that MR works and that claimants and stakeholders have confidence in its effectiveness. I do think that MR works, but your report in highlighting its flaws gives us the opportunity to ensure that it becomes the truly effective policy reform we expected.