3 RESPONSIBILITY FOR TACKLING
COMPLEXITY
17. The apparent tendency for the complexity of the
system to increase means it is crucial that there are factors
working in the other direction. Internally, small teams within
the Department have been working on the simplification of areas
of the system, for instance in the Housing Benefit and Pension
Credit areas. Externally, the independent Social Security Advisory
Committee considers and reports on proposals for regulations,
and gives advice to the Secretary of State on social security
issues. It also scrutinises some of the Department's information
products. The Committee's 2004 Annual Report highlighted the effects
of complexity, for instance in making the system opaque to many
customers.[29]
18. The Department has, however, recognised that
it needs to provide more of a counterweight to increasing complexity
and announced it would set up a small benefit simplification unit,
covering all the benefits. It would report to the Director General
of Work, Welfare and Equality, and have a direct reporting line
to a Minister. The team will take into account the experiences
of staff in the front line, but it is not clear how effective
the unit will be given the pressures pushing against simplification
unless it has the ability to constructively challenge policy proposals
from across the Department on grounds of complexity.[30]
19. The Department has agreed to comment in its Annual
Report on action to reduce complexity, and the National Audit
Office will include reference to complexity in its report on the
Department's resource accounts, which will be produced as long
as the Department's accounts are qualified. The Department will
report on the extent of complexity in quantified terms if suitable
measures can be devised. We would also like to see the Department's
audit committees examine the issue regularly.[31]
20. Much complexity arises during the legislative
process. Ambiguous phrasing in legislation has led to complexity
through a substantial overlay of case law interpretation, especially
in Disability Living Allowance (where some flexibility is needed
to describe the applicant's condition), and there are highly complex
regulations to cater for specific groups such as share fishermen,
retained fire fighters and in relation to mortgage support.[32]
The mechanisms for consultation on legislation and for Parliamentary
scrutiny are well-established and offer the chance for constructive
challenge of the consequences of new regulation. Often, though
they provide opportunities for adding complexity through securing
recognition of additional exclusions or exceptions for particular
groups. There is no clear gateway at which questions of complexity
can be considered and complicating measures stopped or reversed.[33]
There is also little or no consideration of the implications of
individual pieces of legislation for the complexity of the system
as a whole.
21. The Regulatory Impact Assessment process could
be better used to assess the effects of proposed changes. Assessments
are intended to ensure that legislation is fair and effective,
necessary, meets the principles of better regulation and imposes
the minimum burden. They are carried out when any legislation
or regulation involving additional cost to the public or private
sector, charities, voluntary bodies or small businesses. Although
some Department for Work and Pensions legislation, such as the
Disability Discrimination Act and subsequent regulations, had
regulatory impact assessments, they are not used for regulations
which the Department considers only affect individuals. This seems
an unnecessary exclusion given the evidence of the effects of
complex benefit regulations on vulnerable individuals and the
costs to third parties who assist them.[34]
22. There is also a procedure for Accounting Officers
to seek a direction from the responsible Minister when they are
asked to implement a course of action against which they have
advised on either value for money or regularity and propriety
grounds. The Department told us this might be helpful in extreme
cases.[35]
29 C&AG's Report, paras 1.15, 4.31-4.33; 17th
Report from the Social Security Advisory Committee (2004) Back
30
Qq 5, 23, 88-91, 96 Back
31
Qq 24, 36 Back
32
Qq 14, 102, 105-106; C&AG's Report, para 2.17 Back
33
Qq 21-23 Back
34
Qq 84-85 Back
35
Q 7 Back
|
