UC Migration - Budget Changes.

[nukecad]

Following yesterdays budget here are a couple of interesting UC Migration points from the Budget Policy Costings.
https://assets.publishing.service.go...stings_PDF.pdf

The costings give a bit more information than the main Budget Statement on UC, (and contradicts it at least once).
https://assets.publishing.service.go...Credit_web.pdf

Starting January 2019 those with UC cannot lose the SDP by being Naturally Migrated.
This was announced earlier, but the costing document now gives a date.

People who receive the Severe Disability Premium (SDP) and who would have naturally migrated to Universal Credit (UC) will now only move to UC when they can receive transitional protection. This measure will be effective from January 2019.

There is no statment yet about backpaying those who have already lost out, that will happen but the amounts of backpay and ongoing TP are still being discussed/argued.

The Managed Migration to UC has been put back yet again.

Policy changes to Universal Credit (UC) have necessitated an update to the schedule for Managed Migration, which is the process by which the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) will move people to UC from the existing benefit system. The process will start in January 2020 and will end in June 2024* rather than September 2022, including a 6-month contingency assumed by the Office for Budget Responsibility.

(*The main Budget Statement says ends in December 2023)

ESA payment will run on for two weeks after you eventually get Migrated to UC.
I'm not sure why this measure isn't starting at the same time as Managed Migration?
One possibility is that, as said above, the process will start in Jan 2020 but that process includes a six month 'early warning' and so no one will actually migrate until July 2020

Income Support, Jobseeker’s Allowance (Income-Based), and Employment Support Allowance (Income-Related) claimants will continue to receive support for a fortnight during their transition to UC. This measure will be effective from July 2020.

[nukecad]

Following the consultation process on the proposed UC Managed Migration regulations and the wide criticism of parts of what was being proposed.

The government is now refusing to say what, if anything, it has changed in these proposed regulations following the consultation.
(Although there were those 3 above announced in the budget).

They are now saying they will not even publish the results of the SSAC (the review body) until the new regulations are laid before parliament for approval.

Talk about how to dig yourself deeper into a Universal hole without realy trying.

("Universal Credit Test & Learn" = 'See what we can get away with and change it when people complain and the courts tell us to').

https://www.parliament.uk/business/c...atement-17-19/

Comment from Work and Pensions Committee Chair Frank Field MP:

“Having got it so disastrously wrong with its first attempt, you’d think that the Government would want to make sure its plans to move vulnerable people onto Universal Credit stood up to robust scrutiny. Instead, it is choosing to push these regulations through Parliament with no chance for MPs to make amendments.

That hardly inspires confidence that it has really made the changes needed to ensure that its actions won’t plunge people deeper into poverty. If its new plans don’t have enough safeguards to protect the vulnerable, then MPs will be left with no option but to vote them down.”

[nukecad]

Well despite them saying they were not going to publish the report of the SSAC review, 3 days later here it is along with their response.
I've not read them yet.

That's not just a U-turn, it's a handbrake turn.

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ment-statement

[nukecad]

The published report and response is quite long, 179 pages, and covers migration from all 6 legacy benefits.

It contains more than one report/response/minutes of meetings/the draft regulations explanatory memo, etc.

There is a lot to read and digest.

The first part is the governments response, mostly propoganda and things that have already been announced.

Here, from my first quick reading, are a few of the main points from that response that relate to migration from ESA and have now been changed:

Remember that these are still only proposals - there may (will) be more changes before they become law.

The one month limit on making a claim for UC before your existing ESA is stopped has been removed.

The revised draft regulations now provide that we must give claimants a minimum of three months in which to make a claim for Universal Credit and sets no maximum period in which a claim must be made.

However they are still insisting that you will have to make a claim for UC, rather than just being automatically transfered.

...the Department believes it will be crucial that new claims are made to Universal Credit because we need to ensure data is as accurate and as up-to-date as possible when claimants move to Universal Credit. This will ensure that any errors will not be migrated from the existing benefit system to Universal Credit.

They then waffle on about the IB-ESA error as if that happened because they didn't insist on people making a new claim. (Total bull of course, they just didn't do their job properly).

You will no longer lose Transitional Protection if your UC claim is not accepted first time because of errors on the form, etc.

We have amended the draft regulations by removing draft regulation 48(2). Consequently, as long as claimants make an effective claim to Universal Credit before their managed migration deadline day and provide any required substantiating evidence, they will be considered as meeting the requirements for managed migration and be eligible for Transitional Protection.

They have backed down on all claims having to be made online, among other measures is:

New Claims by Telephone -Claimants unable to use digital services, for whatever reason, are able to make a new claim to Universal Credit by telephone.

It's disappointing that the goverment response makes no mention of the issue of Transitional Protection for those who have already lost SDP during Natural Migration. (This covers 4 pages of the SSAC report, but there is no response from government).

At least one contributor has made it quite clear that if the government go ahead with their current proposals about this then they will end up in court over them.
That contributor is 'Leigh Day', the law firm that has been behind many recent defeats for the DWP in court, particularly the ruling that got full backpayment and ongoing protection for 2 men who had lost SDP due to Natural Migration, so it's no idle threat.
https://www.leighday.co.uk/News/News...sal-Credit-fin

As drafted, the Regulations, in our view, clearly unlawfully discriminate between those, like our clients, who were in receipt of SDP and prior to the Regulations coming into force have naturally migrated onto Universal Credit and those in receipt of SDP and have not naturally migrated and under the terms of the Regulations will remain on legacy benefits until they are part of the managed migration programme.

If the Regulations come into force as drafted, we consider that there are clear grounds to bring urgent judicial review proceedings challenging the relevant provisions on the basis that they constitute unlawful discrimination contrary to Article 14 read with Article 1 of the First Protocol of the ECHR, on behalf of any affected individual.
Leigh Day

There is also no government response to concerns about how TP could be eroded/ended by future changes of circumstances once on UC.

Again - Remember that these are still only proposals - there may (will) be more changes before they become law.

It will be interesting to see the response now by the big welfare organisations, once they have time to digest the report and response.

[spencer69]

Hi Nuke, Just want to thank you for your precis on the 179 pages of report/response/proposals (knew somebody having a great in depth understanding of this would do something along these lines that you have done). After clicking on link directing to report...saw 179 pages & clicked the 'X' on the page.

As you say, only proposals at this moment and much more could be done (scrapping altogether still a viable and best option...hahaha). Hoping the DWP can be bullied quite a little further down the road to the point of automatic migration!

Again, many many thanks for your hard, labourious task.

[nukecad]

LOL, I did the same last night. I've only skimmed it today.

A clear case of TLDR.

We'll see what the big welfare organisations come up with.

TBH I think thats why the gov didn't want to release the response - they knew it wasn't any way good enough.

[spencer69]

Ha...love it...But 'TLDR'?

[nukecad]

It's a shorthand thing, it used to be used on coding forums when someone posted their whole programme asking for someone to find why it wouldn't work.
(10K plus lines of code asking you to look for one syntax (spelling) mistake).

It's come into general forum usage when someone posts an essay, or when a link or download is just overwhelming.

TLDR = Too long, didn't read. (at least not all of it).