Examination of Witnesses (Questions 380
- 386)
MONDAY 18 JUNE 2007
JAMES PLASKITT
MP AND BRENDAN
O'GORMAN
Q380 Natascha Engel: How does that
differ from what we have at the moment; do we not have a single
system?
Mr Plaskitt: The whole reason
why I think that you are having this inquiry and why we are having
so much work done on the process of simplification is that, at
the moment, yes, there is a family of benefits but they do not
fit well together necessarily; that is the whole point. That is
why we are looking at all the things which are on the agenda of
the Simplification Unit, and it is why we subject every reform
that we are taking forward to the test is it contributing towards
simplification, precisely to try to bring the system into greater
coherence than it has at the moment; that is what informs this
whole process.
Q381 Natascha Engel: The point about
the single working-age benefit, which has been resurrected by
Freud, what studies or research is the DWP doing into the feasibility
of that, and, I will come back to the question, at what level
would you set it?
Mr Plaskitt: Freud has also talked
about creating the system of benefits, and I think it is very
important to be clear as to the distinction between a single system
and a single working-age benefit, they are two very, very different
things. In terms of how we are responding to that, I am afraid,
again, I have got to say, if you wait until our response to the
Freud report, that will be a document which I think you will want
to see and it will contain some of the answers; but I cannot anticipate
it.
Q382 Natascha Engel: The proposal
which I am interested in is the single working-age benefit which
Freud has outlined; will the DWP response to Freud also include
that, or will it talk about just the idea of a single system?
Mr Plaskitt: The response to Freud
will answer the questions that you are asking.
Q383 Natascha Engel: That has helped.
Mr Plaskitt: I cannot anticipate
what we are going to say in the Freud report; the response will
pick up the arguments that Freud has put to us about the next
stages, the long-term programme of welfare reform.
Q384 Natascha Engel: The reason why
this is concerning me is that it does feel that these are arguments
which have been had, certainly the single working-age benefit,
and there have been quite a few responses, and certainly we have
had a lot of evidence. I was just wondering where the DWP stood
on this now, and you will say I will have to wait for the report?
Mr Plaskitt: I think you do need
to await what we publish in our response to Freud. I think you
will it very helpful with all of the questions you are asking
in this regard.
Q385 Michael Jabez Foster: You said
you cannot park the system and start with some brand-new system
weeks later, and I understand that, but do you have in your mind
what that system would be, if you could park the system? It may
not be practical but what I think we are seeking to ask is does
the Government actually know what it would want to have if it
could start again? There will be compromises when you come to
it, but do you know, do you have a template, do you have a firmness
and clearness and clarity of view about where you would want the
system to be, should you have that luxury?
Mr Plaskitt: I think that starting
again is not helpful, I think you and I would agree about that.
The other important thing to say is there is no end to this journey.
The problem I have with that question is that you are kind of
tempting me to say what is the definition of a simple benefits
system. We will have several years' worth of reform work in front
of us, which will advance considerably the process of simplification.
As I have said before, when that work is completed you still will
not be at a simple benefits system, more work will need to be
done, because, again, the circumstances of the people we are serving
will have moved on, customer expectations will have moved on.
It is easier to answer your question in respect of the negative,
what it is we are trying to take out. The things that we do recognise
as complexity and are identified as complexity, where that no
longer has any justification, our programme is about taking that
out, removing unnecessary and unjustified complexity from the
system. The positive side of it, as I have said, is making the
family of benefits fit together so that they are more coherent
and more cohesive. The other big test of simplification is what
is it like for our customers engaging with the system, are they
finding it easier to do that, getting the response they want,
is the response timely, are the benefits paid on time, is the
process easy and user-friendly; that is a test. Another test is
the ability of our staff to administer this system, and it is
a question of constantly applying those tests, as we go through,
to know whether we are achieving greater simplicity in the system.
There is no one, single, `off the shelf' portrait of a simple,
the simplified, `for all time' benefits system; to some extent,
that is an illusion, you will not get there. What we do know is
we can make, and are making, the present system simpler and less
complex and easier to operate and easier for our customers to
use, and that is going to be an ongoing process; but it has a
lot more momentum behind it now, thanks to the commitment we made
to do this and the existence of the Unit, which constantly challenges
us to keep up to the mark on this objective.
Q386 Chairman: Thank you very much.
Can I just make an observation; I do not want or expect an answer.
On the letters, which the Department has produced, the idea of
benefit sanctions is to change behaviour. The research which the
DWP has done, and many others, shows that most people who are
sanctioned do not know they are being sanctioned; those who do
know they are being sanctioned often do not know why and do not
know what they need to do to put it right. I think, in your review
of the types of letters which do not, you might look at that,
and I am thinking particularly of the recent news which came out
that 44,000 more parents have been sanctioned for not attending
the second work-focused interview, and that just cannot be right.
There must be something wrong there. I will ask you just to bear
that in mind.
Mr Plaskitt: I am aware of that
problem and it is part of the consideration I am giving to all
of the letters as we review them. I have got that very much on
board already.
Chairman: Thank you very much.
|
