Funeral Expense Assistance regulations: consultation analysis

Impact Assessment

In developing the draft regulations, both an equalities impact assessment (EQIA) and a child rights and wellbeing impact assessment (CRWIA) were developed and all respondents were invited to comment on any aspects of the proposals which they felt may impact on individuals differentially as a result of their demographic characteristics and which had not been adequately covered by these assessments.

Q13. Do you have any additional evidence or impacts which are not covered in the EQIA or CRWIA?

Twelve respondents said that they had no additional evidence or impacts that were not covered in the EQIA or CRWIA and a further 13 gave no response. Across the 16 who did note additional evidence impacts, the topics and issues discussed were varied.

It was noted that a number of groups could be excluded or face additional barriers to access. These groups and barriers (typically identified by one or two respondents each) included:

• asylum seekers who were considered to be more likely to identify as BME and be subject to immigration controls, and therefore more likely to be disqualified from the FEA;
• those with learning disabilities who may face additional challenges in applying for qualifying DWP benefits which could restrict their FEA entitlement;
• people who have beliefs that mean that they do not use ‘typical arrangements’ were felt to be disadvantaged, because if the ceremony costs are included in the burial/cremation fee then it is eligible in the uncapped element, but if a cheaper burial/cremation fee is paid then the extra expenses of a venue/celebrant of a suitable faith/belief are not covered;
• homeless people, both where the nearest relative is homeless, and where the deceased was homeless and arrangements are being made by a landlord or similar; and
• those living in communities where uptake is low due to stigma attached to claiming FEA (or any benefits).

Four respondents indicated that disabled and elderly applicants with mobility limitations could face multiple challenges. Firstly, it was felt they could be placed at a disadvantage due to the increased costs of travel for these individuals. As the FEA only pays for one return trip to either arrange or attend the funeral this could deter these individuals from making a second journey and/or could place a disproportionate financial burden on those who choose to make arrangements in person rather than over the telephone. Reasonable travel costs for these individuals are likely to be higher than for those who can easily walk short distances or use public transport. Secondly, it was identified that they may be subject to additional charges when disabled guests attend funerals, such as the need to lay planks to the graveside for wheelchair users, and respondents sought assurances that these costs would be met by FEA.

Similarly, another respondent was concerned that, for FEA to be truly accessible, it must take into account potential barriers older people may face in making claims, such as those living with long term conditions and, or disabilities. They felt it was essential to recognise that those who are appointees or who have Power of Attorney have the authority to act on behalf of the claimant, in an efficient manner. It was considered that information regarding claiming FEA should be accessible and provided in a variety of different languages and formats, such as BSL, audio, braille, and easy read versions. Other respondents also highlighted the more general importance of removing any language and communication barriers.

One respondent also felt that, while the provision of an independent advocacy service to anyone who, because of a disability, needs additional support to engage fully with the Scottish Social Security system was welcomed, they felt the remit needed to be expanded to support claimants engaging fully with the UK social security system as it relates to entitlement for devolved Scottish benefits, alongside support for those making direct claims for devolved benefits. This was considered necessary due to FEA eligibility being linked to applicant’s evidencing that they are in receipt of a qualifying DWP benefit.

Two respondents discussed impacts unique to women. While they focused on issues external to the FEA (such as financial impacts as a result of changes to the age at which women are eligible to collect a pension, the gender pay gap, and career breaks to have children, etc.) they were also keen to stress the need for a financial study to prove assumptions and to avoid discrimination of women within FEA.

It was noted by one respondent that subsection (7) from the Burial and Cremation (Scotland) Act 2016 has been omitted when determining the eligible relative, i.e. ‘a person's relationship with the adult is to be left out of account if (a) immediately before the adult's death the person was under 16 years of age, (b) the person does not wish or is unable to make arrangements for the remains to be buried or cremated, or (c) it is not reasonably practicable to communicate with the person in the time available.’ They noted that the reason for this omission was not explained.

While not identifying issues as missing currently from the EQIA or CRWIA, or indeed as an issue for FEA more generally, one respondent highlighted the importance of ensuring that inclusive forms of address are used by the FEA process, and that a sensitive and inclusive manner was required when recording those who have had their gender reassigned. They also felt it was important to ensure that the policy/process in no way discriminates on grounds of sexual orientation. Another, meanwhile, simply stressed the need to ensure the FEA is not unintentionally discriminatory.

Finally, one respondent indicated that Social Security Scotland’s FEA Advisors have an invaluable opportunity to act as a point for further support, and should be able to signpost people to services such as bereavement charities, and information and advice services.

Q14. Do you have any additional evidence or impacts which are not covered in the draft BRIA?

A partial Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (BRIA) also accompanied the draft regulations and comments were sought any anything which may have been overlooked in this assessment.

Sixteen respondents said that they had no additional evidence or impacts that were not covered in the draft BRIA and a further 17 gave no response. Across the eight who did note additional evidence impacts, the main issue discussed was around the need to increase the £700 flat-rate contribution towards ‘other costs’:

“As long as there is such a significant shortfall faced by people struggling to pay for a funeral then it will be difficult, despite its best efforts, for the FEA to meet the policy objectives hoped for by the Scottish Government.”

As discussed in response to earlier questions, while the proposed annual uplifts in the value of the ‘other costs’ to be paid as part of the FEA was welcomed, several respondents stressed that the initial rate of £700 needed to be raised from the outset to take account of the fact that this figure had been frozen since 2003. The annual uplift was considered helpful in ensuring that this funding element means it will not continue to ‘lose value’, but without an initial increase in this amount, it was felt that the FEA would continue to provide a shortfall in terms of covering funeral costs:

“…an above-inflation real-terms uplift would be the most effective way for the Scottish Government to meet their policy objective of 'improving the outcomes for bereaved families or friends by reducing the burden of debt they may face when paying for a funeral'.”

Some respondents highlighted the impact that funeral costs, and in particular debts accrued as a result of funeral costs, can have on both bereaved families and on funeral directors, as well as potentially other suppliers. For families, impacts included both the stress of managing the costs, as well as, in some cases, utilising high cost short term credit to cover costs. It was stated that families are in the midst of grief, which is a debilitating condition in which both physical and mental impairment are common, and where emotional resilience is lowered. Two respondents highlighted that funeral costs can impact on their ability to grieve and affect their mental health, where financial pressures take precedence and where guilt is common for those forced to plan a simpler funeral than they wish. It was said that the impact can be long lasting, and can lead to long term impairment. As such, it was felt that the Scottish Government must continue to increase provision of, and support for, bereavement advice and care to mitigate these effects.

Meanwhile, it was also noted that funeral directors often pay upfront fees for the services of third-party suppliers, such as florists, musicians, celebrants, as well as burial or crematoria charges and the costs of venue hire for both the service and the wake. This means that funeral directors carry significant financial risk, and the current inadequacy of the flat-rate payment was said to often leave families struggling to meet costs and for funeral directors to have to manage debt on behalf of clients for longer, thus impacting directly on their business and on the wider local economy. Respondents noted that such difficulties can lead to funeral directors withdrawing from offering such services/cover, or requiring the provision of surety deposits, which were considered unhelpful and inappropriate at a time when families will be distressed. Any continued shortfall between the FEA and the true cost of arranging a funeral was seen to perpetuate these difficulties.

Other comments made by just one respondent each included:

• that the provision of a coffin was essential in almost all cases of a burial or cremation, and as such they felt that the costs for this item should be included in the first component of the payment along with the costs of burial/cremation and required transport;
• making clear throughout the process of implementation that the FEA is a payment and not a loan;
• those living in rural communities face lack of competition among service providers which can mean disproportionately high costs for even a basic funeral;
• that certain faith groups have funeral rites which may require additional costs; and
• that the draft regulations do nothing to address the post code lottery of burial and cremation fees charged - there remains a wide price disparity in costs across Scotland.

One respondent gave a view that the present system is untenable and remains a trying process for many families. They felt that, if it was necessary for a funding gap to remain, then the biggest improvement possible would be to give the bereaved family (and the funeral director) certainty as soon as possible, as understanding the situation and any financial limitations/constraints as soon after the date of death as possible will allow professionals to provide the best care and advice, and ultimately reduce the anxiety and pain for the bereaved.

Finally, one respondent expressed encouragement for the Scottish Government to continue to collaborate with the industry in order to deliver the FEA and to ensure that it operates effectively.