New approach will ensure dignity, fairness and respect
There will be no DWP- style assessments to access disability assistance under the new Scottish social security system, says Social Security Minister Shirley-Anne Somerville.
Decisions will be made using information gathered through the applications process including from health care providers
Should more detail be required to make decisions on an application for the new Adult Disability Payment, it will be gathered through a consultation which will be based on a conversation between a healthcare professional employed by the Scottish Government and the client. There will be no private sector involvement in this process.
Most consultations will be by phone but can be face to face in a GP practice or even at home, whatever works best for the person applying. No-one will be asked to carry out tasks in order to prove the impact of their disability or health condition.
Cabinet Secretary for Social Security and Older People, Shirley-Anne Somerville, said: “Two of our principles enshrined in law is that social security is a public service and an investment in people – it is there for all of us when and where we need it. So no one should ever experience stress when accessing the support they are entitled to.
“People who require disability assistance will already face a number of challenges and interacting with a benefit system shouldn’t become another one. That is why I am pleased to set out plans for Scotland’s new system – plans that will make sure that people are treated with dignity, fairness and respect.
“We want people to feel that they have been treated well and fairly at every stage – from having an application form that is clear and easy to use right through to how we make sure someone is still able to access money when they want to appeal our decisions.
“Getting rid of degrading assessments that our Experience Panels told us were ‘traumatic and intrusive’ is the right thing to do. It is an obvious change but one that will make a massive difference to people.
“I’d like to thank the people who have worked with us to design this service – the volunteers on our Experience Panels and stakeholders. Together we will deliver a markedly different benefit system and create a public service that we can all be truly proud of.”
A starter payment should be made to people claiming Universal Credit (UC) for the first time to ensure that everyone has enough money for basics such as food and heating during the wait for their initial monthly payment, the Work and Pensions Committee says.
The Committee’s report on Universal Credit: the wait for a first payment finds that the current wait of at least five weeks causes difficulties for some households. While the existing system of Advance pay-ments for those in need can provide a valuable financial lifeline, the Committee is concerned that some people are unable to afford the required repayments.
The Committee warns that this leaves people with a difficult choice: five weeks with no income, or the risk of debt and hardship later.
The report concludes that the introduction of a new payment – equivalent to three weeks of the standard allowance – would be a simple way of ensuring that new claimants had the money they needed for basic living essentials. For people moving from existing benefits, DWP should make the move seamless wherever possible—and pay a starter payment in other cases.
Advances should still be available for people who need further support to get by, but they should be renamed ‘new claim loans’ to make clear that they will need to be repaid. The DWP should also recognise that a request for a loan is a clear indication that someone is struggling and offer support as early as possible.
Reflecting evidence from Sir Iain Duncan Smith, among others, the Committee has also called for changes to the way that historic tax credit is clawed back from people when they move to Universal Credit—and for DWP’s debt collection to follow best practice in the private sector.
In addition, the Committee calls on the Government to make permanent the £20 per week increase in the standard UC allowance announced in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
Rt Hon Stephen Timms, Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, said: “There is a growing body of evidence that moving to Universal Credit leaves many reliant on food banks, falling seriously behind with their rent, and even experiencing increased levels of psychological distress.
“The Government’s response is that there is no proof that Universal Credit—and in particular the wait for a first payment—is the direct cause of those difficulties. So DWP needs to commission research, and quickly, to find out what lies behind these deeply worrying findings.
“Our social security system should not be leaving people without the money they need for food and heating.
“In the meantime, the Government must face up to the fact that its current system of Advance loans simply isn’t working. They leave people facing the toughest of choices: go without income for at least five weeks, or have repayments subtracted from their future UC payments—which are already barely enough to get by on.
“We cannot understand why people who are already claiming benefits need to wait for at least five weeks when they move to Universal Credit—especially when nothing in their lives has changed. Their move should be seamless.
“For people claiming benefits for the first time, or people who’ve faced a significant change in their circumstances, the Government should provide starter payments. Doing so would both cut down on the need for Advance loans and ensure that nobody is forced into debt just to be able to afford to eat and keep a roof over their heads.
“UC is a highly automated system. That has been a real strength over the last few months, with the huge influx of new claims caused by the coronavirus pandemic. But it can also be a major weakness, leaving people without the tailored support they need, and Ministers unable to make the changes they want to see.
“There is much the Government can do without completely dismantling the UC system: we hope that our proposals, taken together, offer practical solutions for making Universal Credit work for everyone who needs it.”
Key report findings and recommendations
Starter payments
All first-time claimants of UC should receive a starter payment equivalent to three weeks of the Standard Allowance.
The payment should be made two weeks after the initial claim and only once the claimant’s identity has been verified, to guard against fraud.
People claiming legacy benefits should be moved seamlessly to UC, but where they cannot be they should receive a starter payment instead.
The impact of the wait
The Committee received evidence from both organisations and individuals which suggested that a significant proportion of people face financial difficulties during the wait for a first UC payment.
Citizens Advice said that half the people it helps during the wait period are ‘unable to keep up with bills, rent or are forced to go without the essentials such as food and heating’.
The National Audit Office said that the wait for a first payment can exacerbate claimants’ debt and financial difficulties.
DWP must carry out research to develop its understanding of the possible impact of UC, particularly the wait for the first payment, on the use of food banks; on claimants’ levels of rent arrears; and on levels of psychological distress.
Advance payments
Even with starter payments, the Committee anticipates some people claiming will still need to ask for an Advance (a loan to tide them over during the wait).
The DWP risks misleading claimants, and damaging its own credibility, if it insists on denying the obvious fact that these Advances are interest free loans.
Advances should be renamed ‘new claim loans’ so it is clear that they need to be repaid.
The Department should offer support to anyone requesting a substantial Advance, as it would be a clear indication that someone is struggling with the transition to UC.
Tax credit debt
Repayments of tax credit overpayments can compound hardship for people who may already be struggling.
The Committee recommends that recovery of tax credit debt from people claiming UC should begin only when the claimant has repaid their Advance (if they have taken one out).
Repayments of remaining debts should be capped at 10% of UC standard allowance and written off entirely if they have not been pursued for more than six years.
Universal Support and Help to Claim
The DWP must invest in expanding and developing its Help to Claim service so it is closer to its original plans for Universal Support.
The service must go beyond assisting with an initial claim and should include debt advice, support for people struggling with repaying Advances and support for people with complex needs.
The Work Capability Assessment and support for disabled people
The Committee finds it troubling that, because of the time taken to complete a Work Capability Assessment, some disabled people and people with health conditions must wait much longer than five weeks to receive their full UC entitlement.
Four months, on average, is too long to wait and the DWP must work to speed up the process.
Coronavirus measures
In its report DWP’s response to the coronavirus outbreak, the Committee welcomed the decision to increase the standard allowance in UC and the basic element in Working Tax Credit by £20 per week.
The Government should now extend the increase past April 2021 and make the rise permanent.
New legislation to improve the benefits system to help those who need it most has been unanimously passed by the Scottish Parliament.
The Social Security Administration and Tribunal Membership (Scotland) Bill supports the delivery of the new Scottish Child Payment, to provide low-income families with an additional £10 per week, initially for each child aged under six.
The Payment, together with Best Start Grant and Best Start Foods, will provide over £5,200 of financial support for families by the time their first child turns six. For second and subsequent children this will provide over £4,900.
Cabinet Secretary for Social Security and Older People Shirley-Anne Somerville said: “When I brought this Bill forward, the driving force was to have the Scottish Child Payment in place as soon as possible to make an impact on child poverty.
“I am pleased and proud that, in the teeth of a global pandemic, the Scottish Child Payment will open for applications in November with first payments to start from February 2021. Vitally the bill passed today ensures that the Payment will be up-rated every year in line with inflation, from April 2022 onwards.
“This Bill also ensures that there is a duty to inform people of their potential eligibility for benefits such as our Child Payment. Promoting the take-up of Scotland’s social security benefits is a major part of our strategy to make sure people access the financial assistance they are entitled to.”
The Social Security Administration and Tribunal Membership (Scotland) Bill makes a number of improvements to the social security system, and expands the range of judges allowed to sit on Scottish Tribunals.
It allows Ministers to appoint a person to receive benefit payments on someone else’s behalf if the claimant is a child or – in the case of an adult – if the claimant agrees to the appointment.
The Bill also allows appropriately qualified medical professionals other than just doctors to confirm that a person is terminally ill for the purpose of ‘fast tracking’ their benefit claim. The first benefit to which this will apply is the Child Disability Payment.
The Bill applies the rules for dealing with fraud consistently across different kinds of social security.
The Scottish Fiscal Commission estimates that the Scottish Child Payment could support up to 194,000 children this year. This number has increased by 14 per cent since the Scottish Government released forecasts in June 2019, largely due to the increased Universal Credit caseload as a result of COVID-19.
Initially introduced for children under six, the Payment will be rolled out to under 16 year olds, eventually helping up to 499,000 eligible children.
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.”
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.”
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
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.
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.
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.”
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.”
