CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Some complexity in the benefits system results from
seeking to meet the needs of people in a wide range of circumstances,
in line with the Department's policy objectives. There is, however,
a balance to be struck in making the system detailed enough to
meet the varied needs, while keeping it straightforward enough
to be run efficiently. This equilibrium has not yet been reached
and we recommend a number of further actions to reverse the drift
towards greater complexity.
Reducing complexity
1. The Department intends to explore the scope
for further benefit simplification, but not as a top-level objective.
The Department needs
to make its intentions clearer, and its 2006 Annual Report would
be an opportunity to start to do this, for example, by specifying
what actions it will take to chip away at difficult regulations,
harmonise administrative rules and manage complexity through better
use of IT. Progress in achieving simplification should be considered
regularly by the Department's senior management board and also
reviewed independently by the Audit Committee as part of its consideration
of the department's accounts.
2. Actions being taken to tackle complexity
point the way forward, but they are piecemeal and do not amount
to a strategy. The Department
should have a strategy for simplification which covers the system
as a whole. It should be supported by specific targets for removing
particularly problematic regulations which lead to confusion amongst
citizens and staff.
3. A simplification team is a step in the
right direction and could act as a counterweight to growing complexity
if it has sufficient influence.
The unit should help develop the simplification strategy, and
be able to challenge policy proposals constructively on grounds
of complexity. The involvement of a departmental board member
as team champion is valuable, but should not lead to simplification
being seen as the responsibility of that person alone, rather
than the whole board. An annual summary of the unit's activities
and accomplishments should be published.
Managing complexity
4. The Department cannot manage the complexity
of the system without having skilled staff. Even
if 6.5 days of training per person per year was adequate in the
past, it will not be in future, especially if staff need to know
about linkages between benefits and take on more demanding work.
The reduction in the size of its workforce by 30,000 by 2008 is
an opportunity to increase the amount of training per head in
order to enhance productivity and improve standards of customer
service.
5. Some customers do not get enough help to
deal with the benefits system, especially where they need to know
about more than one benefit.
Staff should be helped to give complete and accurate factual information.
Our recent report on the Social Fund said staff should routinely
draw attention to benefits where claimants are not aware of them,[2]
especially where there are linkages between benefits, so that
those entitled to one ought to be eligible for another. The Department
should consider introducing a statutory duty to advise claimants.
The Department's 'mystery shopping' programmes should test staff
knowledge of linkages between benefits, which should also be an
important feature of staff training.
6. Insufficient work has been done to improve
the standard of the Department's written communication with customers.
Despite past promises
on improving written communication following our report on Improving
Service Quality: Action in Response to the Inherited SERPS Problem,
unintelligible letters are still produced.[3]
The Department should set a timetable to eliminate all written
communications which do not meet Plain English standards.
Assessing complexity
7. The Department is committed to reporting
annually on progress in tackling complexity, but there are no
ways of measuring it objectively.
The new simplification unit should develop an agreed set of measures
of progress for publication in its 2007 Annual Report. The measure
of complexity needs to be easy to understand, and might take account
of the length of regulations, and the extent to which a regulation
is connected to others. Measures could also focus on the effects
of complexity, for instance on error, benefit take-up, and accessibility
of information.
8. Currently, the scrutiny of new legislation
does little to prevent increasing complexity, or to assess the
wider consequences of new pieces of legislation on the system
as a whole. The Department
should provide more information to Parliament on the impact of
legislative proposals, covering costs, benefits and effects on
the system as a whole. Such assessments should include the likely
costs for customers, employers, local authorities and the voluntary
sector, and the results should be published, following the example
of Regulatory Impact Assessments.
2 12th Report from the Committee of Public Accounts,
Helping those in financial hardship: the running of the Social
Fund (HC 601, Session 2005-06) Back
3
36th Report from the Committee of Public Accounts,
Improving service quality: Action in response to the Inherited
SERPS problem (HC 616, Session 2002-03) Back
| 
