Tag: benefits

Committee seeks answers to Universal Credit questions

The Work and Pensions Committee publishes the Government response to its report DWP’s response to the coronavirus outbreak.

The report, published in June, made a number of recommendations about supporting those claiming Universal Credit, as well as legacy benefits and those with no recourse to public funds due to their immigration status.

It also made recommendations on the HSE and called on the DWP to develop a strategy for dealing with the effects of the economic downturn.

Committee Chair Stephen Timms MP has now written to the Secretary of State Thérèse Coffey MP to press the Department on a number of points not addressed by the Government response.

Rt Hon Stephen Timms MP, Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, said: “We don’t necessarily expect the Government immediately to accept every recommendation we make. But we do expect that it will at least explain its position. This response to our report leaves many questions unanswered.

“In the course of our inquiry, we heard concerns that the Government’s very welcome increases to some benefit rates would be undermined by the benefit cap. Ministers assured us in April that only a small number of people would be affected. In fact, DWP’s own statistics show that 84,000 households were newly capped between February and May this year.

“The Secretary of State also assured the House in May that she was looking very carefully at what could be done for people who had mistakenly applied for Universal Credit and left themselves worse off as a result. We recommended that the Government act urgently to put this right. It now seems that nothing is going to be done for these people. If that’s the case, the Government should say so clearly, and explain why.

“Just as importantly, there seems to be little acknowledgement of the role of the Department in planning for future pressure on the social security system. There needs to be a firm commitment to analysing how coronavirus has affected levels of poverty and a clear strategy—available for public scrutiny— for coordinating the employment response to the economic downturn.”

New payment for people self-isolating in highest-risk areas

People in England on low incomes who need to self-isolate and are unable to work from home in areas with high incidence of COVID-19 are to benefit from a new payment scheme.

  • Government to implement new payment for people on low incomes in areas with high rates of COVID-19, who need to self-isolate and can’t work from home
  • Payments of up to £182 to be made to people who have tested positive for COVID-19 and their contacts
  • Scheme to start first in Blackburn with Darwen, Pendle, and Oldham

People on low incomes who need to self-isolate and are unable to work from home in areas with high incidence of COVID-19 will benefit from a new payment scheme starting on Tuesday 1 September, the Health Secretary has announced today.

Starting with a trial in Blackburn with Darwen, Pendle and Oldham to ensure the process works, eligible individuals who test positive with the virus will receive £130 for their 10-day period of self-isolation. Other members of their household, who have to self-isolate for 14 days, will be entitled to a payment of £182.

Non-household contacts advised to self-isolate through NHS Test and Trace will also be entitled to a payment of up to £182, tailored to the individual length of their isolation period.

It is designed to support people who are unable to work from home while self-isolating, either after testing positive, or after being identified by NHS Test and Trace as living in the same household as – or coming into contact with – someone who has tested positive. It will be available to people currently receiving either Universal Credit or Working Tax Credit.

UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock said: The British public have already sacrificed a great deal to help slow the spread of the virus. Self-isolating if you have tested positive for COVID-19, or have come into contact with someone who has, remains vital to keeping on top of local outbreaks.

“This new payment scheme will help people on low incomes and who are unable to work from home to continue playing their part in the national fight against this virus.”

Payments will be provided within 48 hours of the eligible individual providing the necessary evidence. Individuals will be asked to provide a notification from NHS Test and Trace and a bank statement.

The local authority can also check the NHS Test and Trace system to confirm the individual has been asked to self-isolate, if the individual is unable to provide this information. The local authority will put in place checks to prevent fraud and ensure compliance through welfare check-ins, phone calls and employment checks.

There will be a rapid review of the scheme in Blackburn with Darwen, Pendle and Oldham to assess the performance consider how effectively vulnerable people have been reached, and consider how far it has helped reduce transmission of the virus in these areas. If the approach is successful, the scheme will be quickly applied in other areas of high COVID-19 incidence.

This will not reduce any other benefits they receive. This payment equates to:

  • £130 if an individual has tested positive for coronavirus and has to self-isolate for 10 days (from the point they first developed symptoms).
  • £182 if a member of an individual’s household has tested positive for coronavirus and they are asked to self-isolate for 14 days (from the point the member of their household first developed symptoms).
  • £13 per day (up to a maximum of £182) if an individual is identified as a non-household contact of another person who has tested positive for coronavirus and is asked to self-isolate up until 14 days after they were most recently in contact with the person who tested positive.

To be eligible for the funding, individuals must meet the following criteria:

  • Have tested positive for Covid-19 or received a notification from NHS Test and Trace asking them to self-isolate
  • Have agreed to comply with the notification from NHS Test and Trace and provided contact details to the local authority.
  • Be employed or self-employed. Employed people will be asked to show proof of employment. Self-employed will be required to show evidence of trading income and that their business delivers services which the local authority reasonably judges they are unable to carry out without social contact
  • Be unable to work from home (checks will be undertaken on all applicants) and will lose income a result
  • Be currently receiving Universal Credit or Working Tax Credit.

The TUC says the payment is nothing like enough, however,

Commenting on today’s (Thursday) announcement that the government is piloting payments of £13 a day to people on low incomes who need to self-isolate, TUC General Secretary Frances O’Grady said: “These paltry payments will not make the difference needed.  

“Every worker should have the right to decent sick pay so they can help stop the spread of the virus. Ministers shouldn’t need a trial to know that’s the right thing to do. And sick pay must not become a post code lottery.  

“The sooner government gets on with delivering fair sick pay for everyone, the quicker we will beat this pandemic. 

“It should be at least as much as the real Living Wage – £320 a week – so everyone who needs to self-isolate can afford to.” 

Missing school ‘worse than virus’ for children

Statement from the Chief Medical Officers and Deputy Chief Medical Officers of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales on the evidence of risks and benefits to health from schools and childcare settings reopening:

This is a consensus statement from the Chief Medical Officers and Deputy Chief Medical Officers of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales on the current evidence of risks and benefits to health from schools and childcare settings reopening.

It takes into account UK and international studies, and summaries of the scientific literature from SAGE, the DELVE Group of the Royal Society, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, and data from the Office for National Statistics.

The current global pandemic means that there are no risk-free options, but it is important that parents and teachers understand the balance of risks to achieve the best course of action for their children.

Children

We are confident that multiple sources of evidence show that a lack of schooling increases inequalities, reduces the life chances of children and can exacerbate physical and mental health issues. School improves health, learning, socialisation and opportunities throughout the life course including employment. It has not been possible to reduce societal inequalities through the provision of home-based education alone. School attendance is very important for children and young people.

We are confident in the extensive evidence that there is an exceptionally small risk of children of primary or secondary school age dying from COVID-19. The infection fatality rate (proportion of those who are infected who die) for those aged 5 to 14 is estimated at 14 per million, lower than for most seasonal flu infections. Every death of a child is a tragedy but COVID-19 deaths in children and teenagers are fortunately extremely rare and almost all deaths are in children with significant pre-existing health conditions.

We are confident that there is clear evidence of a very low rate of severe disease in children of primary and secondary school ages compared to adults, even if they catch COVID-19. The percentage of symptomatic cases requiring hospitalisation is estimated to be 0.1% for children aged 0 to 9 and 0.3% among those aged 10 to 19, compared to a hospitalisation rate of over 4% in the UK for the general population. Most of these children make a rapid recovery.

We are confident that there is clear evidence from many studies that the great majority of children and teenagers who catch COVID-19 have mild symptoms or no symptoms at all.

There is reasonable, but not yet conclusive, evidence that primary school age children have a significantly lower rate of infection than adults (they are less likely to catch it).

Evidence that older children and teenagers are at lower risk of catching COVID-19 is mixed. They are either less likely to catch COVID-19 than adults or have the same risk as adults.

Transmission of COVID-19 to children in schools does occur. On current evidence it is probably not a common route of transmission. It may be lower in primary age children than secondary age children.

Control measures such as hand and surface hygiene, cohorting to reduce number of daily contacts, and directional controls to reduce face-to-face contact remain key elements of maintaining COVID-19 secure school environments and minimising risk.

Children and young people who were previously shielding were identified on a precautionary basis at a stage when we had less data on the effects of COVID-19 in children than we do now. Based on our better understanding of COVID-19 the great majority have now been advised they do not need to do so again, and that they should return to school. A small number of children under paediatric care (such as recent transplant or very immunosuppressed children) have been or will be given individual advice about any ongoing need to avoid infection.

Our overall consensus is that, compared to adults, children may have a lower risk of catching COVID-19 (lowest in younger children), definitely have a much lower rate of hospitalisation and severe disease, and an exceptionally low risk of dying from COVID-19. Very few, if any, children or teenagers will come to long-term harm from COVID-19 due solely to attending school. This has to be set against a certainty of long-term harm to many children and young people from not attending school.

Teachers, other school staff and parents

Data from the UK (Office for National Statistics (ONS)) suggest teachers are not at increased risk of dying from COVID-19 compared to the general working-age population. ONS data identifies teaching as a lower risk profession (no profession is zero risk). International data support this.

Transmission of COVID-19 to staff members in school does occur, and data from UK and international studies suggest it may largely be staff to staff (like other workplaces) rather than pupil to staff. This reinforces the need to maintain social distancing and good infection control inside and outside classroom settings, particularly between staff members and between older children and adults.

If teachers, other school staff, parents or wider family catch COVID-19 their risks of severe illness are similar to those of other adults of the same age, ethnicity and health status. Younger adults have a much lower risk of severe COVID-19 than older adults. The greatest risk is to those over 80 years old.

Current international evidence suggests transmission of COVID-19 from children of school age to parents or other adult family members is relatively rare compared to transmission from adults, but this evidence is weak. Teenagers may be more likely to transmit to adults than younger children.

Children and young people should be engaged in the process of establishing COVID-19 secure measures as key participants and promoters of safe communities to help protect their wider families, teachers and other school staff and other social networks. This will help reduce the risk of school outbreaks.

Impact of opening schools on wider transmission (R)

Because schools connect households it is likely opening schools will put some upward pressure on transmission more widely and therefore increase R. We have confidence in the current evidence that schools are much less important in the transmission of COVID-19 than for influenza or some other respiratory infections. Other work and social environments also increase risk and are likely to be more important for transmission of COVID-19.

The international real-world evidence suggests that reopening of schools has usually not been followed by a surge of COVID-19 in a timescale that implies schools are the principal reason for the surge. There has, however, not been sufficient time to say this with confidence.

On the other hand, a local or national surge in transmission in the community may lead to an increased risk of school outbreaks occurring.

Opening schools may be as important in linking households indirectly as through direct transmission in school. For example allowing parents to go back to work, or meeting at the school gates, on public transport or in shared private vehicles, via after school social or sport activities or wrap-around care may be as important as what happens within the school.

It is possible that opening schools will provide enough upward pressure on R that it goes above 1 having previously been below it, at least in some local areas. This will require local action and could mean societal choices that weigh up the implications of imposing limitations on different parts of the community and the economy.

Early identification and quickly managing outbreaks of COVID-19 in schools is essential as part of a local response to COVID-19. Clear advice for pupils and staff not to attend school with symptoms, and prompt availability of testing, appropriate isolation advice, and careful public health surveillance and monitoring of educational establishments are key to support the safe return to schools.

From:

  • Prof Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer, England
  • Dr Michael McBride, Chief Medical Officer, Northern Ireland
  • Dr Gregor Smith, Chief Medical Officer, Scotland
  • Dr Frank Atherton, Chief Medical Officer, Wales
  • Dr Lourda Geoghegan, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Northern Ireland
  • Dr Nicola Steedman, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Scotland
  • Prof Jonathan Van Tam, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, England
  • Dr Jenny Harries, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, England
  • Prof Chris Jones, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Wales
  • Dr Naresh Chada, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Northern Ireland
  • Dr Aidan Fowler, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, England
  • Prof Marion Bain, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Scotland

Social security net is failing during the Covid-19 crisis

The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed our benefits system to be unfit for purpose. It now needs a radical transformation

The failings of the UK’s social security system have been exposed as workers whose income has been hit by the Covid-19 crisis have sought to rely on the safety net, and in many cases promptly fallen through its holes (writes TUC’s ANJUM KLAIR).

This is the result of years of deliberate attacks on the social security system, with around £34 billion of cuts made to social security since 2010.

Over a decade of austerity, including benefit caps and freezes, a punitive sanctions regime and the introduction of the five-week wait in universal credit, has pushed working families into debt and poverty.

What has the current crisis exposed?

Claimants seeking financial support since the start of the pandemic are now experiencing the inadequacy of benefit rates: if you become unemployed, the basic rate of universal credit is £94 a week. This is around a sixth of average weekly pay.  

The inability of the welfare system to cushion the financial fall for new claimants can be seen in the soaring demand on food banks during April: distribution of food parcels increased by 89 per cent compared to the same period in 2019 and for children there was a 107 per cent rise.

A survey on people’s experiences of the benefit system during the pandemic found 75 per cent of those claiming universal credit felt it would not stretch to cover their bills.

New universal credit claimants must wait five weeks for their first payment. Therefore, the system fails to support people when they are at their most vulnerable, and adds to the turbulence of their finances.

Advance loans are available, but these must be paid back out of future meagre benefit payments. People who have been reluctant to claim cite the fear of falling into debt.

Harsh and unfair rules

Callous rules have been introduced since 2010 to reduce eligibility and save money. 

The benefit cap limits the sums that can be received in social security payments, without reference to household need. Analysis by the Child Poverty Action group, predicts that up to 40,000 households are likely to be affected by the benefit cap as a result of the pandemic, the vast majority of whom will be families with children.

Introducing the two-child limit for social security also breaks the fundamental link between need and what a family receives. A quarter of a million households containing 911,000 children have been affected by the policy since its introduction. It is estimated that 60,000 families could be affected as a result of the Covid-19 crisis.

Harsh and unfair rules on conditionality and sanctions have been justified to motivate people to engage with job centre support and take active steps to move closer to work. However, the evidence of the effectiveness of this policy is limited.

The UK government has ended a three-month pause on the requirement for people receiving universal credit to prove that they are looking for work. However, the job market has shrunk dramatically, and as the job retention scheme winds up the challenges of finding work will be enormous.

The current crisis has highlighted the unfortunate situation of those living in the UK under the ‘No Recourse to Public Funds’ policy (NRPF), introduced in 2012. It is not right that those with the legal right to live and work in the UK and pay taxes are not entitled to access the vast proportion of social security needed in times of crisis.   

NRPF restrictions have pushed working families into poverty, forcing them into unsustainable debt and into homelessness or unsafe, overcrowded, insecure housing. Since the Covid-19 outbreak, their situation has worsened considerably; they have had to choose between their own health, public health, and the financial wellbeing of their household.

We need to transform and revitalise our safety net.

Many people need to rely on the social security system at some point in their lives. Illness and unemployment can strike anyone at any time, as the pandemic has shown. And when this happens we should be able to turn to social security to help us.

We urgently need a political commitment to protect the vulnerable.

The cost of adequately funding the social security budget is small compared to the cost of not acting, which includes both the deep social costs of inequality, and the impact of millions of families with less spending power.

Making our social security system fit for purpose requires fundamental changes, including scrapping universal credit.

The immediate priority, however, is for the government to devise an urgent plan to provide financial support and security to those who need it most.

Immediate steps to fix our social safety net

Universal credit and other benefits must be substantially reformed, by:

  • Raising the basic level of universal credit and legacy benefits, including jobs seekers allowance and employment and support allowance, to at least 80 per cent of the national living wage (£260 per week).
  • Ending the five-week wait for first payment of universal credit by converting emergency payment loans to grants.
  • Removing the savings rules in universal credit, allowing more people to access it.
  • Significantly increasing benefit payments to children and removing the two-child limit within universal credit and working tax credit.
  • Ensuring no-one loses out on any increases in social security by removing the arbitrary benefit cap. In addition, no one on legacy benefits should lose the protection of the managed transition to universal credit as part of this change.
  • The suspension on conditionality requirements for universal credit needs to remain.  

Sick pay must cover the basic costs of living

  • Statutory sick pay must be sufficient to cover basic living costs. Weekly payments must rise from £95.85 to the equivalent of a week’s pay at the Real Living Wage – around £320 a week.
  • The lower earnings limit for qualification for sick pay must be removed to ensure everyone can access it, no matter how much they earn.

Wider package of financial support for households

  • The NPRF restrictions need to be removed permanently.  Everyone living in the UK must have access to public funds.
  • Introduce a wider package of support for households, by increasing the hardship fund delivered by local authorities. A hardship fund should not just be there for the current crisis; government should put in place a fund that provides a permanent source of grants to support those facing hardship. 

Substantial reform of Universal Credit needed, says Lords report

The House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee report ‘Universal Credit isn’t working: proposals for reform‘, calls on the UK Government to make substantial changes to universal credit in order to protect the most vulnerable.

Universal Credit is failing millions of people, particularly the most vulnerable. The Economic Affairs Committee agrees with the original aim of Universal Credit but blames the scheme’s design for soaring rent arrears and the use of food banks.

Cuts to social security budgets over the last decade is causing widespread poverty and hardship. Universal Credit needs urgent investment to catch up and provide claimants with adequate income. The temporary increase in the standard allowance in response to the Covid-19 pandemic shows that the previous level of awards was too low. The increase should be made permanent.

The Government is using Universal Credit to recover debt, mostly £6 billion of historic tax credit debt. Deductions of up to 30% of the standard allowance, and in some cases more, can be taken from claimants. This has left many households with less money than they are entitled, often at no fault of their own. Tax credit debt should be written off as it is unlikely to be repaid.

The five-week wait for the first Universal Credit payment is the main cause of insecurity. This wait entrenches debt, increases extreme poverty and harms vulnerable groups disproportionately. The Government should introduce a non-repayable two-week grant to all claimants.

The way payments are calculated can result in large fluctuations in income month-to-month, making it extremely difficult for claimants to budget. The level of awards should be fixed at the same level for three months. There should be a mechanism to enable claimants to have an early reassessment if their circumstances change.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, Chair of the Economic Affairs Committee, said: “Most people, including our Committee, broadly agree with the original aims and objectives of Universal Credit. However, in its current form it fails to provide a dependable safety net. It has led to an unprecedented number of people relying on foodbanks and not being able to pay their rent.

“The mechanics of Universal Credit do not reflect the reality of people’s lives. It is designed around an idealised claimant and rigid, inflexible features of the system are harming a range of claimant groups, including women, disabled people and the vulnerable.
 
“Universal Credit needs more money to catch up after 10 years of cuts to the social security budget. It requires substantial reform to its design and implementation, the adequacy of its awards, and how it supports claimants to navigate the system and find work.

“The five-week wait for a first payment must be replaced by a non-repayable two-week grant to all claimants. The monthly payment calculations which can result in big fluctuations to claimants’ incomes should be fixed for three months. Historical tax credit debt needs to be written off.

“The punitive nature of Universal Credit has not worked. It punishes the poorest by taking away their sole source of income for minor infractions. It needs rebalancing, with more carrot and less stick, particularly as large numbers of claimants will have ended up on it because of events completely out of their control.”

The Committee’s other key findings and recommendations include:

  • The Government must prioritise helping people into work, particularly with the increase in unemployment that the Covid-19 pandemic is causing. All claimants should have a work allowance, at a higher rate than now, to allow them to keep more of their award as they move into work.
  • The Government should consider reducing the taper rate to ensure that the poorest in society do not pay higher marginal effective tax rates compared to the richest in society.
  • The conditionality requirements on claimants who can look for, or prepare for work, has been increased significantly over recent years. Less emphasis should be placed on obligations and sanctions. Instead, there should be more support to help coach and train claimants to find jobs or to progress in their current roles. Conditionality should be adapted to accommodate changing labour market conditions, including at the local level, particularly in the light of the economic impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.
  • The UK has some of the most punitive sanctions in the world, but there is limited evidence that they have a positive effect. Removing people’s main source of support for extended periods risks pushing them further into poverty, indebtedness and reliance on food banks. There is a substantial body of evidence which shows that sanctions harm people’s mental health. The Government should evaluate the current length and level of sanctions. It should also expedite its work on introducing a written warning system before the application of a sanction. Sanctions must be a last resort.
  • The Government is doubling the number of work coaches in response to potential levels of high unemployment. This may not be enough to support people to find work in a stagnant labour market with high levels of competition for jobs. A cap should be introduced on the number of cases for which each work coach can be responsible.
  • Paying awards on a monthly basis does not reflect the way many claimants live. It causes unnecessary budget and cash flow problems. All claimants should be able to choose whether to have Universal Credit paid monthly or twice monthly.
  • Including childcare support in Universal Credit was a mistake. Paying costs in arrears has been a barrier to in-work progression and in some cases, it has been a disincentive to work. The Government should remove childcare support from Universal Credit and be made into a new standalone benefit paid in advance.

Councils REDUCE Welfare Fund payments during pandemic, says ECAP

Edinburgh Coalition Against Poverty has denounced Scottish councils for not spending the money given to them by the Scottish Government to disburse to needy people via the Scottish Welfare Fund.

In response to the Covid-19 emergency the Scottish government added £45 million to the Scottish Welfare Fund, more than doubling its funding. But despite this, local councils – who administer the Fund – are actually paying out LESS in grants to needy applicants than they did during the same period last year!

The Scottish Welfare Fund (SWF) supports people in real need, and the government promised that by boosting the fund Councils would have greater flexibility in making SWF payments “ to ensure they can fully support people in financial crisis, including workers in the ‘gig economy’.

But Scottish Government figures reveal that while in April and May 2019 Councils disbursed a total of over £6.5 million in SWF grants, in April and May 2020 less than £6 million was paid out to needy people.

Edinburgh Coalition Against Poverty (ECAP) say: “It’s a disgrace – despite having more than twice as much money to make grants, and despite soaring need, at the height of the pandemic Scottish local authorities have actually REDUCED the SWF grants.”

Shirley Anne-Somerville, Cabinet Secretary for Social Security and Older People, stated in the Scottish Parliament on 27/3/20 that the guidelines normally limiting crisis grants to 3 per year were scrapped.

But an investigation by ECAP has revealed that virtually every Scottish local authority still declares on its website that Crisis Grants are normally restricted to three per year. The Highland Council website even declares : “You should not apply for a Crisis Grant if you have already had three crisis grants or awards made to you in the last 12 months”.

Wrongly Refused

One applicant in Edinburgh, applying for a Crisis Grant during the pandemic, was wrongly told that they could not be awarded a Grant because they had already had three grants in the last 12 months.

When ECAP challenged and denounced this as wrong, the City of Edinburgh Council then did pay the applicant a Crisis Grant.

ECAP say: “ How many applicants are being wrongly refused Grants? And how many people are being put off applying by Councils wrongly stating that the Crisis Grant limits still stand? This denial of support to people in need is unacceptable.”

In a statement, ECAP insist: “ The Councils in Scotland must pay out the extra cash they have been given as grants to people in need. Councils must make clear the 3 Crisis Grants per year limit is scrapped and make payments accordingly.

“And the Scottish Government should tell local authorities they must widely publicise the extra support available, massively increase payments, and implement the new rules ending the restriction on Crisis Grant payments.”

More detailed article at http://edinburghagainstpoverty.org.uk/?p=2783

Appointees should be able to collect benefits on behalf of claimants – but safeguards must be in place, say Holyrood Committee

Holyrood’s Social Security Committee has backed a Bill which would allow adult benefit claimants who consent to nominate an appointee to claim benefits on their behalf. However MSPs have warned that suitable safeguards must be put in place to limit fraud and the exploitation of vulnerable people.

The Committee has recommended the Bill be amended to include safeguarding principles that underpin the detail of how the appointee system will work and protect it from abuse. They have urged the Scottish Government to bring forward detailed guidance which should also be statutory.

The Committee published its Stage 1 report in response to the Social Security Administration and Tribunal Membership (Scotland) Bill which makes changes to the Social Security Act of 2018.

They have also backed a change which would allow health professionals, other than doctors, to verify that a claimant is terminally ill meaning their disability benefit claim would be fast-tracked.

Bob Doris MSP, Convener of the Social Security Committee, said: “The Committee welcomes this legislation and strongly supports the general principles of this Bill including allowing anyone in receipt of benefits to appoint someone to collect benefits on their behalf. 

“However, submissions to the Committee from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and the Law Society of Scotland outlined that without suitable safeguards in the legislation, the appointee system would not be compliant with human rights legislation and could be open to abuse.

“The Scottish Government’s principal safeguard is that consent must be given. However, the legislation should go further and build in additional safeguards such as the ability to challenge appointee decisions, undertake periodic reviews and resolve disputes.

“We are also keen to see amendments brought forward at Stage 2 which would ensure there is a duty to inform people of their eligibility for all top up benefits including the Scottish Child Payment.”

Free School Meals: It’s not too late to claim

FREE SCHOOL MEALS 

information for parents and carers

from GRANTON INFORMATION CENTRE

Families of children from P4 to S6 who receive Free School Meals, and those in P1 to P3 who are entitled to clothing grants, will receive a fortnightly electronic payment during term time and the Easter Holidays equivalent to the cost of a school meal.

Payments are £22.50 per child every fortnight until further notice from 23 March.

All children in primary 1 to 3 receive free school meals if they are attending school, but not free milk or a clothing grant.   In the present circumstances, those families won’t receive the £22.50 fortnightly payment unless they are eligible to get the clothing grant and free milk due to low income.

The criteria is the same as for P4-7s.

IT’s NOT TOO LATE TO CLAIM

Parents may still apply for the current academic year and, if eligible, awards will be backdated to 23 March, the start of school closures. 

The eligibility for free school meals and/or substitute payment (including P1-3s) depends on the family’s income and they need to be in receipt of one of the following benefits:

  • Universal credit (with monthly earnings up to £610)
  • Income Support and Income Based Job seekers Allowance or Employment and Support Allowance
  • Child Tax Credits only with gross income up to £16105
  • Child and Working Tax Credits with gross income up to £6900
  • Support under Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999

Some families will get an automatic award for 2020-21 but others will have to apply when the time comes (they are not receiving applications yet).

Clothing grants applications closed on 31 March but will reopen for the next academic year later.

For more information and keep up to date with possible changes please visit www.edinburgh.gov.uk/schoolgrants

https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/food-clothing/free-school-meals-school-clothing-grants/1

Public Holidays & Benefits Payments: info from GIC

Benefits and Tax Credits payment dates will vary because of the upcoming public holidays in May – here’s what you can expect:

Universal Credit is a monthly welfare payment that replaces six other benefits and is paid once a month, usually on the same date.

Those applying for Universal Credit must wait five weeks for their first payment, consisting of a one-month assessment period in which their circumstances and income are checked, and then another seven days for the money to reach their account.

If your first payment was received on April 8, you would normally receive subsequent amounts on the 8th of every month after that – but pay dates vary if they would end up falling on a weekend or bank holiday.

So your payments of Universal Credit and other benefits will vary because of the May bank holidays getting in the way of regular dates.

Universal Credit – May Bank Holiday payment dates

Universal credit is paid every four weeks on the same date. It will also vary slightly over the two bank holidays of May.

Your normal pay date is determined by when your first payment arrives – but it will be moved in any month where your pay date happens to fall on a weekend or bank holiday.

Early May Bank Holiday Weekend

Due: Friday, May 8 (May Day Bank Holiday/Early May Bank Holiday)
Paid: Thursday, May 7

Due: Saturday, May 9
Paid: Thursday, May 7

Due: Sunday, May 10
Paid: Thursday, May 7

Late May Bank Holiday Weekend

Due: Saturday, May 23
Paid: Friday, May 22

Due: Sunday, May 24
Paid: Friday, May 22

Due: Monday, May 25 (Spring Bank Holiday/Late May Bank Holiday)
Paid: Friday, May 22

PIP – May Bank Holiday payment dates

Personal Independence Payment (PIP) is usually paid every four weeks.

Your original decision letter tells you the date of your first payment and what day of the week you’ll usually be paid. It would never be arranged to fall on a weekend.

But if your payment date is on a bank holiday, you will usually be paid before the bank holiday. After that you’ll continue to get paid as normal.

Early May Bank Holiday

Due: Friday, May 8

Paid: Thursday, May 7

Late May Bank Holiday Weekend

Due: Monday, May 25
Paid: Friday, May 22.

Child Benefit – May Bank Holiday payment dates:

Child benefit is usually paid every four weeks on a Monday or Tuesday (you can get it paid weekly if you’re a single parent or if one of you is claiming other benefits) so it would not be paid on a weekend anyway.

Early May Bank Holiday Weekend

Due: Friday, May 8 (May Day Bank Holiday/Early May Bank Holiday)
Paid: Thursday, May 7

Late May Bank Holiday Weekend

Due: Monday, May 25 (Spring Bank Holiday/Late May Bank Holiday)
Paid: Friday, May 22

Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit – May Bank Holiday payment dates:

Tax credits such as Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit are paid every week or every four weeks. They aren’t arranged to fall on a weekend.

Early May Bank Holiday Weekend

Due: Friday, May 8 (May Day Bank Holiday/Early May Bank Holiday)
Paid: Thursday, May 7

Late May Bank Holiday Weekend

Due: Monday, May 25 (Spring Bank Holiday/Late May Bank Holiday)
Paid: Friday, May 22

Employment Support Allowance (ESA) and Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) – May Bank Holiday payment dates:

These are both usually paid every two weeks. Dates would never fall on a weekend.

Early May Bank Holiday Weekend

Due: Friday, May 8 (May Day Bank Holiday/Early May Bank Holiday)
Paid: Thursday, May 7

Late May Bank Holiday Weekend

Due: Monday, May 25 (Spring Bank Holiday/Late May Bank Holiday)
Paid: Friday, May 22

When does the money go in?

Depending on your bank, funds are available sometime after midnight on the day they are due, usually in the early hours.

Some banks deposit money into your account around 11.30pm so you can withdraw it before midnight on benefit payday. Others will release your funds at midnight or just a few minutes after that.

But in some cases you have to wait until 2am to 3am and others will not let you touch your money until at least 6am on payday.

Granton Information Centre’s office is currently closed to the public due to coronavirus restrictions, but the team is still working. If you need support or advice, telephone 0131 551 2459 or 0131 552 0458.

You can also email info@gic.org.uk and a member of staff will get back to you.

Disability groups call for urgent changes to benefits system

The Disability Benefits Consortium (DBC), a network of over 100 organisations, have written an open letter (below) to Thérèse Coffey, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to call for urgent changes to the benefits system to ensure we protect disabled and seriously unwell people from further physical and financial harm during the covid-19 emergency.

Full details of these proposals can be found in the DBC reports section.

“Dear Secretary of State,

Covid-19 – the Disability Benefits Consortium’s proposals for additional short-term measures to protect disabled people’s incomes

The Disability Benefits Consortium (DBC) is a network of over 100 organisations with an interest in disability and social security. For our full list of members, see https://disabilitybenefitsconsortium.wordpress.com/dbc-members/

Using our combined knowledge, experience and direct contact with millions of disabled individuals, people with long-term health conditions and carers, we seek to ensure that Government policy reflects and meets the needs of all disabled people.

The DBC welcomes the recently announced measures designed to protect the incomes of large numbers of people whose livelihoods have been adversely impacted by the Covid-19 crisis. But we believe that these support measures need to go further.

People living with a disability and those with long-term health conditions tend to have lower real incomes and higher costs than the general population and we are calling on the Government to produce a more comprehensive package of support, to better protect these individuals and their families, at this difficult time.

1. One of the most pressing issues is the current level of demand on the system due to the unprecedented number of new claims. This is causing extremely long waiting times and problems with the digital claims process. We welcome the commitment to expand the Department’s capacity, but the challenge remains considerable. We believe that the Government should give high priority to resolving urgently the technical and capacity issues involved.

Also, clear guidance must be made available (to the public and to staff) regarding the correct process to make both a digital claim for Universal Credit (UC) and a non-digital claim, including how the verification call is to be made – that is, if outbound from the DWP rather than inbound from the claimant.

2. The increase in the UC standard allowance is very welcome, helping to cushion the financial shock, which many will experience. However, other claimants likewise face financial challenges, especially after several years of a benefit freeze. We recommend that the Government should give a corresponding uplift of “legacy” and similar benefits – including, for Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), the restoration of the Work-Related Activity Group (and UC equivalent Limited Capability for Work) addition.

3. We believe that artificial limits that keep many households (mainly with children) below basic benefit levels are particularly inappropriate at this time. We recommend that the Government should suspend the benefit cap and the “two-child policy”.

4. Any Working Tax Credit (WTC) claimant who loses their job over the coming few months will not be able to continue claiming WTC and will have to claim UC instead. This means they will lose Transitional Protection (TP). As you know, this is a temporary top-up payment that would have been added to their UC to offset any losses, when the DWP eventually transferred them from WTC – but it is not payable when you move to UC because of a change of circumstances, such as job loss.

Disabled people in work and parents of disabled children stand to lose far more than most people if they lose TP – sometimes amounting to thousands of pounds a year. This will make it even more difficult for them to recover from the economic shock of the next few months.

The recommendation above to restore the Limited Capability for Work Addition to UC will help, as long as these claimants can retain it in their UC calculation up to and after they return to work.

Also, we recommend that the lower rate of the disabled child element of UC should be restored to its level in the legacy system.

5. New claimants for UC will have to wait at least five weeks until they receive their first payment. We know that this can mean people face a significant reduction in income, leading to worry about how to pay bills and buy food. The DWP offers an “advance payment”, in effect a loan deducted from future payments, which can leave people struggling to make ends meet. We recommend that the Government should make all UC advances for disabled people non-repayable grants.

6. There has been no formal indication that work-related conditionality has been suspended, although it is difficult to see how it could be meaningfully applied in present circumstances. We recommend that the Government should explicitly suspend work-related conditionality and associated sanctions.

7. Currently, 1.3 million claimants have deductions made from their UC payments to pay debts – over half of them losing 20% or more of their basic allowance. We recommend that the Government should suspend all debt repayment deductions from UC, to ease financial hardship for the duration of the current crisis.

8. It is very important that, during this epidemic, people living with a terminal illness have swift access to benefits via the Special Rules for Terminal Illness. It is our understanding that under UC, people with a terminal illness will temporarily be able to apply via the Special Rules without the DWP needing sight of a DS1500 form (a form signed by a medical professional to say that the person has a reasonable expectation of death within six months). If this is the case, then this is a very welcome step. We recommend that the Government should extend this provision to other benefits which can be applied for under the Special Rules: ESA, Personal Independence Payment and Attendance Allowance.

There are further measures that the Government could take that are likely to have an impact on those living with a disability and in need of benefit support at this time, including:

9. As medical professionals come under more pressure over the coming weeks it is unreasonable to expect they will be able to provide medical evidence to support a claimant’s benefit application. We recommend that the Government should extend the time requirements for claimants to return paperwork and to gather medical evidence where necessary.

10. Similar pressures are likely to slow down the Mandatory Reconsideration (MR) process. This will mean people could be receiving less financial support than they are entitled to. We recommend that the Government should pay the basic/ standard rate to claimants whose benefit is suspended pending MR, until the process is completed – and also, fully reinstate a benefit that has been wholly or partly withdrawn and is awaiting MR or an appeal.

11. Help to pay council tax is also crucial at this time of acute financial pressure. We recommend that the Government should encourage Local Authorities to remove features such as the two-child policy and the self-employed claimants’ Minimum Income Floor from their local Council Tax Support/ Reduction schemes. Some have simply copied these rules automatically from DWP benefits, possibly without fully appreciating their adverse impact where claimants are struggling.

We hope that, when something like a normal life returns, the support package as outlined above, which suggests achievable and positive temporary improvements, to be introduced in response to a crisis, might prove a focus for longer-term policy discussion.

Meanwhile, we commend to the Government the above proposals to make immediate changes to complement the emergency measures already taken.

In view of the widespread public interest in the current emergency measures, we shall be releasing these proposals to the media.

Yours sincerely,

Disability Benefits Consortium”

Local help is available if you are experiencing problems with your benefits.

Granton Information Centre provides a free and confidential service. Telephone 0131 551 2459 or 552 0458 or you can email info@gic.org.uk

The office is closed to the public, but the service is very much running!