Funeral Expense Assistance regulations: consultation analysis

General Perceptions of the Regulations

Policy Intentions

In delivering FEA, it is the intention of the Scottish Government to improve the experience of bereaved families by providing those on low incomes benefits with a contribution towards funeral costs. The intention is that this will help both in the short term to alleviate immediate money concerns as well as removing long term negative effects from unsustainable debt which may otherwise result from having to pay for a funeral. This is often referred to as ‘funeral poverty’.

Q1. Do you think that the draft regulations (Annex A) are likely to meet the policy intent set out in this document?

	Number	Percentage
Yes	29	71%
No	5	12%
No response	7	17%
Total	41	100%

The majority of respondents indicated that the regulations were likely to meet the policy intentions as set out. Only five respondents suggested that they may not.

The main counter view expressed was that, while the draft regulations did go some considerable way to meeting the specified policy intentions, the set payment amount was not adequate when considered alongside the actual costs for cremation or burial. Respondents indicated that the proposed £700 one-off flat rate part of the payment was inadequate and that there would still be a gap between the FEA and the actual costs incurred by most families. Many also highlighted that this had been frozen since 2003. The real term value should be increased, it was suggested, or provisions made for an uplift in real-terms value:

“Broadly, we welcome the introduction of the Funeral Expense Assistance Payment, and particularly welcome the commitment to annually uprating the payment, to the widened eligibility, and to the more efficient and less intrusive process for claimants that is being proposed…We do, however, have some concerns that - while there is a welcome commitment to annual uprating - the current payment of £700 has been frozen since 2003 and is therefore not reflective of current funeral costs. If the payment is not sufficient, this would mean the policy intent as set out is not fully met.”

One respondent noted that a review currently being undertaken by HM Inspector of Funeral Directors was yet to conclude and that the findings from this review may provide more evidence around the actual cost implications of burial and cremation for the bereaved, and which might provide a clearer evidence base on which the Scottish Government could adjust its flat rate payment amount. The same respondent also felt that opportunities had been missed to consider other funding streams to support FEA, including recouping money from inheritance taxes and other public services (although this was a lone view).

Others commented that while FEA provided a suitable solution for addressing funeral poverty, it was reactive in its approach and the Scottish Government could be more pro-active in addressing the root causes of funeral poverty, to remove or alleviate the need for such assistance:

“These draft regulations only begin to reach Funeral Affordability whereas the opportunity was there to do so much more and better.”

Indeed, comments were made throughout that the draft regulations did nothing to reduce the proportion of people living in poverty in Scotland and that this was perhaps an opportunity missed. Such efforts needed to be made in conjunction with those working in the funeral industry (funeral directors, local authorities and private operators) in order to succeed. Specifically, it was suggested that it would be ineffectual if charges by these parties rose as a direct response to the new support being put in place and that some means of monitoring, regulating or controlling increases in prices in the industry was required. If funeral costs continue to increase over time, FEA alone will be insufficient to address funeral poverty, it was suggested. Indeed, one respondent indicated that FEA may be perceived to demonstrate an acceptance of authorities’ “often unjustified increases to fees” rather than the regulations including something to challenge the costs.

The granting of FEA could also be counterproductive and lead to increased stress, it was suggested by one respondent, if there was any uncertainty in the minds of those who applied for the assistance around whether or not it would be granted:

“…the draft regulations do not address our key concern, namely, that the current system causes additional distress to bereaved families by requiring them to undertake financial commitments without information on whether they will receive an award. The £700 funeral expenses cap, despite the commitment to an annual uprating, remains inadequate to pay for the full costs of a funeral.”

While the Scottish Government’s commitment to develop clear communications to make it easier for all parties to better understand eligibility criteria was welcomed, there remained concerns that some vulnerable families may still enter into contracts with funeral directors and their application be subsequently denied, adding significant stress and resulting in debt for families at what is already a very difficult time:

“A better system needs to be put into place to screen applicants for their eligibility prior to entering into a contract with a funeral director. This would reduce the number of refusals, the unexpected debt faced by bereaved people and the bad debt experienced by the funeral sector.”

One organisation also noted that, while the policy intention was clear and strong, it was not clear if the new Social Security Agency would have the necessary and ongoing capacity and culture to deliver fully and consistently on that intention.

On the whole, however, respondents noted that FEA was an improvement on the current DWP benefit and welcomed that more people would be eligible to receive FEA than currently receive Social Fund Funeral Expenses Payments (FEP). Most also felt that the draft regulations were a significant step in the right direction towards achieving the intentions set out, although one respondent suggested that only time would tell.

Q2. Can you identify any potential unintended consequences of the regulations?

	Number	Percentage
Yes	15	37%
No	20	48%
No response	6	15%
Total	41	100%

Over a third of respondents indicated that there may be potential unintended consequences that may arise from the regulations.

In several cases, respondents echoed earlier comments made that the £700 flat rate part of the payment would be insufficient and not negate pressures on bereaved families unless the gap between the level of payment and funeral costs was closed. Stress and debt would continue to affect low income families unless this was addressed, it was suggested.

Other specific concerns included potential for arguments to arise among surviving family members regarding the payment and risks that no-one in a family would apply, leaving local authorities having to arrange more funerals as a result, and without means to recover the costs.

Similarly, it was suggested that the proposals did not take sufficient account of discrepancies which might occur between initial quotes for costs of funerals and final accounts, since clients may change plans between the point of engaging service providers and the final service taking place. This may mean that costs are higher than originally expected and that original applications may not cover the final costs. The fact that applications were likely to occur long after the cremation/burial also means that some families will not know for certain if they qualify for FEA. Therefore, arrangements may be curtailed or affected negatively by remaining fears, either on behalf of the organising family or service providers, that monies will not be available to pay.

A question was raised around how cases would be handled where people had chosen to have funerals very far from home which would incur very high travel costs. As such, it was suggested that the uncapped element for fees/transport in the proposed regulations may be subject to misuse. One organisation recommended that the uncapped element be extended to include all of the cremation/burial fees, lair cost, internment cost, transport over 80km and (the new element) ceremony venue costs. Increasing travel payments would help those living in rural communities, in particular.

The complexity of family relationships had also not been fully explored, it was suggested, and some situations may arise where eligibility was denied but families were still much in need of support (e.g. for non-biological parents/carers, non-married partners, families living disparately in other parts of the UK, etc.) Many families who were not eligible but may still struggle to meet funeral costs had perhaps been overlooked, it was suggested. Indeed, a number of other potential unintended consequences were identified relating to eligibility, covering entitlement for students, asylum seekers, migrants, claimants subject to DWP sanctions, offenders serving custodial sentences, specific religious groups, claimants with learning disabilities, claimants who have transitioned away from benefits, and workers on temporary contracts who have relocated to Scotland from other parts of the UK. These are discussed in more detail in the following chapters.

At the organised event, comments were made that the award of FEA may deter some other family members from making a contribution to the costs which they may otherwise have done. This may have the unintended consequence of meaning that less funds were available collectively to provide the funeral desired. This may apply in some communities more than others including, for example, the Chinese community where help/support by donations was common. Similarly, it was queried whether such donations would impact on whether or not an individual could apply for FEA.

There was also some discussion around funeral insurance among delegates at the event, specifically in cases where a policy is taken out to pay for the majority of the burial/cremation, would applicants then be able to apply for FEA to pay for the remainder. Again, this was seen as more relevant to some communities than others, with the Chinese community perhaps more likely to take out funeral insurance policies compared to others.

One organisation stressed that FEA needed to be tested fully before it becomes operational and welcomed the Scottish Government’s proposals to do so. This testing should be done collaboratively, it was suggested, with the funeral industry sector to ensure that the application process is as efficient as possible, and that systems and processes are aligned, wherever possible:

“Working closely with the funeral industry on the design of the payment/invoicing system will ensure that payments can be made as quickly and efficiently as possible.”

Again, one respondent noted that unintended consequences would only become clear following implementation.

Q3. Can you identify any gaps in the regulations?

	Number	Percentage
Yes	17	41.5%
No	17	41.5%
No response	7	17%
Total	41	100%

Half of those who provided a written response to this question offered suggestions for gaps in the regulations.

Again, many respondents stressed that one of the gaps was the Scottish Government’s failure to raise the FEA flat rate payment, despite committing to increase payments with inflation:

“Whilst an increase to the flat rate payment in order to protect against inflation is most welcome, there remains a question mark over the value of the basic flat rate payment. It is highly questionable whether this provides for a satisfactorily dignified funeral. It is of vital importance that the calculation of the payment is reviewed regularly.”

One respondent suggested that a new element should be introduced into the cremation/burial fees element to cover some ceremony costs where this is not included within the cremation/burial fees. This may need to be capped (e.g. £200), similar to other elements.

One respondent also suggested that opportunities had been missed in the regulations to guarantee that funeral directors could be paid directly, to ensure that debts were not being left with them (discussed more below). While others agreed with this sentiment (here and in response to other consultation questions), it was also noted that the introduction of any such direct payment without client consent would need to be closely monitored so that it was not abused by funeral directors:

“It makes sense for the default payment to be to funeral directors unless otherwise specified. However, some funeral directors are known (anecdotally) to charge more where FEA is expected to be drawn down to ensure that maximum available funds are drawn down without costing the client any more. There should be a system within the regulations that funeral directors found guilty of such misconduct around the Funeral Expenses Payments would become ineligible to receive payments directly.”

Several comments were also made for further widening eligibility including:

• Council Tax Reduction (CTR) could be included as a qualifying entitlement. This would provide some protection for those who miss out on UK entitlement due to application of the two Child Policy not also losing out on Funeral Expense Assistance, it was suggested;
• Carers Allowance could be included as a qualifying benefit, as not all carers receive Income Support. This would help to cover situations in which the applicant for FEA will have been receiving Carers Allowance up to the death of the cared-for person but neither they or the person who has died was receiving any of the qualifying benefits;
• low-income students, in full-time higher education, many of whom are not eligible for most of the qualifying benefits. Entitlement to FEA for full-time students, who are in receipt of the higher SAAS bursary rate, should be considered; and
• provision for those who are not in receipt of benefits, for example, those in work, and who are in receipt of a low wage. Measuring poverty in terms of receipt of benefits could exclude the working poor and increase poverty, it was suggested.

The other main gaps were themed around communication. One respondent suggested that there was insufficient detail around how potential applicants would be made aware of FEA and two others questioned how people would be directed towards applying. Questions were also asked around who would hold the application forms. The success of FEA would be dependent on people finding out about it, and so the regulations needed to more clearly state how this would be achieved. Similarly, more detail was needed on how communications would be handled with local authorities and funeral directors, to make clear to them how much money claimants may receive and allow them to manage fees accordingly.

Other specific gaps highlighted by just one respondent each included:

• the potential for claimants to received payment directly into Post Office accounts, instead of bank or credit union accounts only. This would make the payment accessible to a wider group, it was suggested;
• that the definition of residence does not appear to take account of an applicant who is homeless;
• that the habitually resident clause may exclude people who move to provide care for a family member who dies, and who may be equally or even more likely to experience funeral poverty, especially if they are not entitled to other benefits or other forms of support; and
• that a coffin be viewed as an ‘essential’ cost rather than an ‘additional’ cost.

Finally, one respondent reiterated that gaps would only become clear following implementation.