Examination of Witnesses (Questions 286
- 299)
MONDAY 18 JUNE 2007
JAMES PLASKITT
MP AND BRENDAN
O'GORMAN
Q286 Chairman: Good afternoon, Minister;
it is good to see you. Welcome, everybody, to this our final evidence
session on Benefit Simplification, although I am sure the debate
will go on. If I can kick off, how does simplification fit into
the DWP's priorities; where is it?
Mr Plaskitt: It is pretty central,
which is why we set up the Benefit Simplification Unit, which
Mr O'Gorman heads; it is why we now have an Annual Report from
the Department, which includes statements of progress in terms
of achieving benefit simplification; it is why the Unit reports
quarterly to Ministers. It is why, on all the submissions which
come to us, as Ministers, there is a statement saying whether
the proposal contributes to simplification or not, and, if so,
how. It is why any proposal which is coming towards us, as Ministers,
first of all has to go through the Unit, which can act as a kind
of policeman, if you like, and send back proposals which they
do not think will be acceptable to us, as Ministers, who are trying
to achieve simplification. There are pretty rigorous processes
in place to support our drive towards simplifying the benefits
system, and since the Unit was set up there is discernible progress
also in terms of achieving measures of simplification, which probably
we will have a chance to explore during the course of the session.
Q287 Chairman: Would it not be better
if benefit simplification, welfare reform and better regulation
were all under one Minister?
Mr Plaskitt: No, because all of
us in the Department, all of us, as Ministers, are trying to achieve
simplification and, as responsibility for the various sections
of the welfare system within the Department is divided between
a number of Ministers, it is important that all Ministers are
engaged in the process of achieving simplification in respect
of the benefits for which we each have responsibility. It falls
just to me to have the overall view, if you like, of simplification
across the whole Department, but every single Minister in the
Department is engaged in the process.
Q288 Chairman: Several witnesses
have said to us that the Benefit Simplification Unit is a good
concept but it has no teeth. Can you give us any concrete examples
of things which have happened because of the BSU which would refute
that?
Mr Plaskitt: Yes, I can. First
of all, in terms of `no teeth', let me just reiterate what I said
about the process that we have now within the Department, whereby
any submission which is on a journey towards a Minister has to
go through the filter of the Benefit Simplification Unit, whose
staff are perfectly adept at rejecting a submission at that stage
and saying "That cannot go to a Minister." I think they
have sent back over 30, saying "That's not going to contribute
towards simplification; it can't go any further down the process,"
so I would reject the notion that it has no teeth. If you will
bear with me, I can take you through some of the steps that we
have taken, which have been as a result of the work of the Unit.
You will know that we seconded Sue Royston, I think who has given
evidence to your Committee.
Q289 Chairman: I am not looking for
process, I am looking for outcome. Are there specific actions
which have been taken because of the BSU which have simplified
the system in some way?
Mr Plaskitt: Yes. I will give
you some outcomes. Thanks to the work which was initiated by the
BSU undertaking a programme of rationalising all of the literature
and leaflets which the Department issues, there were 245, we are
down to 178, I think the target is to get it down to 100; we are
trying to secure Plain English Campaign accreditation for every
single one. Thanks to the assessment of the Department, we have
the Best Practice Simplification Guide, which I have reissued
just recently after a year in operation, which informs all officials
throughout the Department as they are working on proposals. In
October of last year we did an alignment across the benefits system
in the way that charitable, voluntary and personal injury payments
are made; that came out of the consideration by the Unit. The
biggest achievement to date perhaps are the measures which were
contained in the Budget 2007 statement, which contained a whole
group of steps that we are going to take in the short term to
achieve benefit simplification. We are also about to embark on
a review of all the computer-generated letters which come out
of Jobcentre Plus, which I think has been flagged up to your Committee
in evidence, we are onto that, and that is about to get a thorough-going
review. We are extending the Lean process which we have been piloting
in a number of areas. One specific measure which is scheduled
to come in later this year, in October, is ignoring the different
forms of compensation payment which individuals receive in their
final pay packet. That was a specific proposal which came up from
staff, I think, in fact, to the Simplification Unit, taken up
by ourselves, as Ministers, and that will be put into effect in
October. It will cut out the need for 1.7 million inquiries the
Department has to make at the moment to employers, so it will
save us time, it will save employers' time, it will reduce the
employer burden; it is a definite contribution towards simplification
of the system. Next year we will be simplifying the treatment
of income from sub-tenants, right across the benefits system,
to a standard, flat-rate £20 disregard; that is an outcome
again of thinking about the work which has come through the Unit.
A very, very large change already pencilled in for 2009 and announced
in the Pre-Budget is the move towards paying all working-age benefits
two-weekly in arrears. You can see a whole series of measures,
some taken, some in the process of being taken, some pencilled
in for the near future, which is the outcome, the consequence,
of having the Simplification Unit in the Department.
Q290 Chairman: I am interested that
you said the proposal about final payments came from staff. When
Leigh Lewis was before the PAC, he said that the BSU would not
be an organisation which was buried away, it would be open and
up front. We met both operational and managerial staff in Leeds
last month who said they had no contact with the Unit whatsoever
and they had no opportunity to input: how would you respond to
that?
Mr Plaskitt: They do have the
opportunity to input. Bear in mind that the Unit was set up in
January 2006; obviously it takes a little while to disseminate
knowledge of it right across the whole of the DWP, which is a
very, very large organisation, but there is an intranet, which
any member of staff in the Department can access. It takes about
2,000 hits a month from staff, which suggests that there is pretty
wide awareness of it, and at certain points, I think when we issued
the Simplification Guide, which got substantial publicity within
the Department, the number of hits in that month rocketed, way
up. I think knowledge of the existence of the Unit and the means
by which staff can contact it and put information into it is spreading
very widely across the Department. Certainly I promote it when
I am visiting staff, I think all Ministers do, our internal publications
within the Department, which all staff read, promote it, and the
intranet promotes it, so it should be known about pretty widely,
and certainly the evidence from the hit rates suggest it is known
about quite widely.
Q291 Mark Pritchard: Whether private
sector or public sector, clearly the most important capital in
any organisation is its employees. I just wondered, and it may
be already in existence, what incentives there are for staff,
at even the most junior administrative level, to pass on ideas
for benefit simplification, a bit like a `good ideas' box in a
factory, and they are actually rewarded for that; directly into
the Unit, Minister, rather than through a line manager, who might
perhaps, or perhaps might not, pass on an idea, or pass it on
in their own name rather than that junior employee's name?
Mr Plaskitt: I find quite an enthusiasm
amongst the staff to put their suggestions to us and they do not
need a particular incentive to do it. Actually, when we were constructing
some of the core policies for simplification, thinking about setting
up the Unit, I had some discussions with front-line staff in the
Department to pick their brains about how we should set about
doing this, and I found very considerable enthusiasm for doing
it. When you look at the whole issue of complexity in the system,
I think a priority for us is making sure that complexity does
not act as a barrier to any claimant, but I am thinking also about
complexity as seen by our staff who are trying to administer this
system. Most of our staff also think about it in terms of the
customer journey, they have that focus as well, and they say,
"Well, we think it would help our customers to come to us,
establish the correct claim, keep the correct claim in payment,
if we did the following simplification." They are interested
in simplification not just to make their own lives and work easier,
they too are thinking about the customer.
Q292 Mark Pritchard: I accept that,
Minister, but given the focus on this important issue I should
imagine that Mr O'Gorman will have quite readily available the
number of staff ideas which have been forwarded to his Unit. I
just wonder, with the Chairman's permission, how many, for example,
since the start of the Unit, have come forward from those keen,
eager and willing staff?
Mr O'Gorman: You will appreciate
that sometimes the same idea comes forward from a number of people,
that the same area is touched on, but I would think that currently
we are logging over 300 ideas areas which have potential for simplification.
Many of those we will find difficult to process because they will
cost money, for example, in simplifying, so that people receive
more money than they get currently, so there are fewer categories
of payment; that can be quite difficult to arrange so we have
to prioritise. I am not too worried that not every member of staff
in the huge organisations that we have knows about the Benefit
Simplification Unit, because I am confident that all the agencies
which operate on benefits know us very well, I am confident that
we work very closely with them and also we get out and about and
talk to staff in the field. If we organise a workshop for 40 people,
drawn from various regions and Jobcentre Plus, perhaps some of
those 40 people have friends who know about this, they are representative,
they will give us the daily problems and ideas which they are
encountering, and I am pretty confident that we are getting quite
a good feel from the field of where the shoe is pinching.
Q293 Chairman: Does the Department
intend to publish the Sue Royston report?
Mr Plaskitt: It is published.
Q294 Chairman: We think it is an
internal document which has not been published; in fact, we had
to request it because it was not published?
Mr Plaskitt: Okay; but you have
got a copy of it?
Q295 Chairman: We have, but it is
not a public document; that is what I am saying?
Mr Plaskitt: I see what you mean.
I thought you were talking about your right to see it. You should
have it, I think.
Q296 Chairman: We have seen it but
it is not a public document?
Mr Plaskitt: No, because it is
an internal document. We seconded Sue on to the Unit, giving her
a completely free range to look right across the whole field and
to think especially in terms of how it seems in respect of the
customer journey, and that document informs us as to how we should
proceed now in taking forward the whole programme of benefit simplification,
so in that sense it is an internal document. I thought you were
asking about your right to see it. I am perfectly happy for the
Committee to see it and I am pleased you have got it.
Q297 Chairman: Is it likely that
you will take up most of her recommendations, all of them, seven,
or none?
Mr Plaskitt: I think, a pretty
large number, actually, having read it. A very large proportion
of those recommendations I think you will find we will be taking
up; work is in progress on some, and already some are relatively
short-term things I think we can do, some are much longer term.
I think we very much welcomed the suggestions which she made and
are likely to be going forward with a very large number of them.
Q298 Chairman: Is the Department
in any way close to defining a measure of complexity?
Mr Plaskitt: No.
Q299 Chairman: That was a simple
answer. That will do.
Mr Plaskitt: Perhaps I should
explain. I think many people have tried valiantly to define complexity.
I think the National Audit Office had a crack at it and concluded
that they could not do it. It is very difficult. Often what I
say is that you know complexity when you run into it, you recognise
it when you hit it, but standing back and trying to do almost
a sort of abstract definition of what complexity is, in itself
is very, very complex and might not contribute anything to the
process of achieving simplification.
|
