Forum Home → Discussion → Covid-19 issues → Thread
DWP response to coronavirus
Some thoughts from Robert Peston:
A huge under-discussed problem relating to the Covid19 potential crisis is how to give confidence to those on low pay, especially the significant numbers on zero hours contracts in retail and hospitality, that if they self-quarantine they won’t suffer extreme hardship.
I understand the DWP is looking at this. But the problem is huge and urgent - because to prevent viral spread it really matters that workers don’t fear they’ll run out of money if they don’t work. Given that older people are especially at risk from the virus, think about the tragic implications if those working in social care don’t self isolate themselves when they are contagious. It seems to me there are three big and urgent problems.
1) encouraging or even obliging companies to remove the requirement for a doctor’s sick note to access statutory sick pay (something shadow health secretary Jon Ashworth mentioned today).
2) making sure universal credit is agile enough to top up the pay of those on zero hours or short term contracts when they cannot work, in an expedited way.
3) finding a way to compensate the many students and young people who aren’t on universal credit and lose all income when they don’t work in coffee shops, restaurants and so on.If the government really wants to contain or delay the spread of Covid19, then it will have to find proper money to compensate those who do the right thing by not working. And also compensate businesses that can’t trade because they lack a sufficient number of virus-free staff. It won’t be cheap.
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1234415365540765697
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-03-02/what-happens-to-those-on-low-pay-if-they-are-quarantined-over-coronavirus-robert-peston-asks/
In relation to the DWP, I am trying to establish via the Operational Stakeholders meeting on March 3rd what their plans are regarding their services such as Contact centres, Job Centres, centralised units such as DBC’s etc.
There may be issues with people needing access to benefits because they are not being paid for example (e.g. people on zero hour or agency contracts) but who are not able to qualify for, or obtain, medical certificates, as they are either laid-off or not unwell themselves. This could also include people being prevented from attending work-focussed interviews (and meeting other claimant commitments), WCA’s, PIP assessments, ID interviews, appeals etc because they are ill or self-isolating or quarantined. Even if people can get benefit awarded, there may then be an issue of accessing their funds or getting essential shopping bought and delivered.
Via Sky News:
Universal Credit claimants who might not be able to work or attend inteviews due to the spread of coronavirus are being urged to contact job centres to ensure they don’t face sanctions ...
Sky News has obtained a copy of the crib sheet sent to job centres by DWP to assist work coaches dealing with questions about coronavirus.
If a claimant were to say they did not want to attend a meeting with a work coach due to feeling ill with flu-like symptoms, the advice states “there is no change to the normal arrangements”.
It goes on to say: “If a customer is unable to attend the job centre because they are unwell, the normal arrangements, for example, around excusing signing, should apply.”
The document also advises that a claimant’s concerns about interacting with other people would not be sufficient grounds for missing an appointment at a job centre and could result in benefits being cut as a result of a sanction.
Response to a question in the Lords from DWP Minister Baroness Stedman-Scott:
Q: What plans does DWP have to deal with the outbreak of coronavirus? For example, can people on zero-hours contracts who cannot go to work get universal credit to support them if they have to isolate themselves at home and are unable to work? In a similar vein, can she guarantee that those on universal credit will not be sanctioned if they cannot go to a job interview, to the jobcentre or fulfil their commitments because they are isolating themselves at home? Will the Government suspend sanctions and advertise universal credit for those affected by isolation patterns?
A: I was not prepared for that one, that is for sure. I know that the Permanent Secretary has a plan to make sure that people get paid and get the help they need. However, I will be really upset if people are sanctioned because of this. I will go back to the department and write to the noble Baroness, to make sure that the issue is understood.
Doesn’t appear to be anything DWP-related in the government’s new ‘Coronavirus action plan’:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-action-plan
... or in the govt’s COVID-19: guidance for employers and businesses, other than re certifying absence from work:
would being told to isolate yourself by PHE (what about the rest of the country?) count as being told to stay away from work due to a notifiable disease and treated as having lcw?
would being told to isolate yourself by PHE (what about the rest of the country?) count as being told to stay away from work due to a notifiable disease and treated as having lcw?
Even if there was a legal notice (as opposed to an employer’s request), for UC, I don’t think the wording of Sch 8 supports that. It needs to be “by reason of it being known or reasonably suspected that the claimant is infected or contaminated by, or has been in contact with a case of, a relevant infection or contamination”, which is not the same thing as “in order to avoid contact”.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2013/9780111531938/schedule/8
Gov’t is saying to those who won’t get paid if they self-isolate (gig economy etc) to claim UC.
But then there is the 5-week wait.
The ‘solution’ to the 5-week wait is to claim an advance.
But you now have to attend a Jobcentre in order to get one.
Gov’t is saying to those who won’t get paid if they self-isolate (gig economy etc) to claim UC.
But then there is the 5-week wait.
The ‘solution’ to the 5-week wait is to claim an advance.
But you now have to attend a Jobcentre in order to get one.
On a new claim for UC if someone, for example, self-isolates for just two weeks by the end of the 1st AP they are likely to be back at work and, therefore, subject to full conditionality [UC Reg.62(b)]. That means if they are self-employed and not in a ‘start up period’ a MIF will apply so could well find their UC entitlement is nil against which they have taken a repayable loan. The only was around that would be for the SSWP to determine that the claimant was not ‘gainfully self-employed’.
would being told to isolate yourself by PHE (what about the rest of the country?) count as being told to stay away from work due to a notifiable disease and treated as having lcw?
Even if there was a legal notice (as opposed to an employer’s request), for UC, I don’t think the wording of Sch 8 supports that. It needs to be “by reason of it being known or reasonably suspected that the claimant is infected or contaminated by, or has been in contact with a case of, a relevant infection or contamination”, which is not the same thing as “in order to avoid contact”.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2013/9780111531938/schedule/8
PHE says:
‘Self-isolation is about protecting others and stopping the spread of COVID-19. It is very important that anyone who has or might have been exposed to the virus limits the number of people they come into contact with for 14 days. This is the most effective way of preventing the coronavirus from spreading.’
Arguable that the person in this situation is ‘reasonably suspected’ to be ‘contaminated’?
Actually yes, I think you’re right, it does look at least arguable. I retract my comment!
Matt Hancock this afternoon in the Commons ...
- it is ‘absolutely’ the govt’s intention that claimants will not face benefit sanctions if choosing to self-isolate.
- for those who need to self-isolate for medical reasons to protect others, that counts as being off sick.
- we have a robust statutory sick pay system in this country and the govt is keeping the system under review.
- there’s work ‘ongoing’ in relation to the period of self-certification being shorter than that of self-isolation.
- will take up the issue of MPs having access to internal DWP guidance with the Work and Pensions Secretary.
- govt is ‘absolutely willing’ to look at using healthcare professionals currently carrying out DWP assessments at the coronavirus frontline
would being told to isolate yourself by PHE (what about the rest of the country?) count as being told to stay away from work due to a notifiable disease and treated as having lcw?
Just now from @faisalislam
NEW/ Exclusive: Government has just told BBC that Coronavirus/COVID19 is to be formally registered as a “notifiable disease” ...
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1234992398863761409
DWP has issued (I think) its first tweets re CV:
https://twitter.com/DWP/status/1235129148831604738
https://twitter.com/dwppressoffice/status/1235129148798119937
PM has just announced changes to the SSP rules:
Just now from @faisalislam
NEW/ Exclusive: Government has just told BBC that Coronavirus/COVID19 is to be formally registered as a “notifiable disease” ...
Of course, already notifiable in Scotland and Northern Ireland:
https://www.gov.scot/news/coronavirus-becomes-notifiable-disease-in-scotland
https://www.health-ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/health/HSS%28MD%29-9-2020.pdf
SSP to take effect from day one.
They are going to have to do something about the ESA waiting days also - ?
Matt Hancock this afternoon in the Commons ...
- govt is ‘absolutely willing’ to look at using healthcare professionals currently carrying out DWP assessments at the coronavirus frontline
It will be interesting to see how that works out. “You are fit for work, you score 0 points on the coronavirus capability test… erm, actually, sorry, Wrong job!”
Govt has now added that: “The [SSP] change will be a temporary measure to respond to the outbreak and will lapse when it is no longer required ...”
The DWP has added some coronavirus-related info to its Universal Credit pages:
https://www.understandinguniversalcredit.gov.uk/coronavirus/
Government may also wish to address how our fraudster friends will try to exploit people on benefits:
‘Need help getting sick pay or a free government loan?’ etc…..
Notifiable status confirmed in England:
At 6.15pm on 5 March 2020, a statutory instrument was made into law that adds COVID-19 to the list of notifiable diseases ...
This change was made by adding them to the Health Protection (Notification) Regulations 2010.
This change in law requires GPs to report all cases of COVID-19 to Public Health England.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/coronavirus-covid-19-listed-as-a-notifiable-disease
In a (corrected) written answer on Friday, Mims Davies gave update on self-isolation and conditionality -
Claimants who are self-isolating as a result of Covid-19 will have their mandatory work search and work availability requirements switched off during that period.
Any work-related requirements outside of this will be tailored to take into consideration the claimant’s capability and circumstances, can be conducted over the phone or through digital formats and ensure they are realistic and achievable.
So, given that self-isolation appears to a be a judgement and a choice…
In a (corrected) written answer on Friday, Mims Davies gave update on self-isolation and conditionality -
Claimants who are self-isolating as a result of Covid-19 will have their mandatory work search and work availability requirements switched off during that period.
Any work-related requirements outside of this will be tailored to take into consideration the claimant’s capability and circumstances, can be conducted over the phone or through digital formats and ensure they are realistic and achievable.
Which presumably means that for a self employed claimant the MIF must not be applied as the MIF can only apply if the claimant would be subject to full conditionality if it were not for the MIF.
Sounds like they’ll be using powers under Reg. 99 to remove conditionality, and that doesn’t help for the MIF, unfortunately.
Sounds like they’ll be using powers under Reg. 99 to remove conditionality, and that doesn’t help for the MIF, unfortunately.
Thanks, Charles. Which has the consequence that SE may not be able to afford to self-isolate.
Statement from the Work and Pensions Secretary:
[ Edited: 16 Mar 2020 at 10:44 pm by shawn mach ]“‘nobody should be penalised for doing the right thing’.
Aha, more comedy with no insight into the irony.
Quite an inadequate statement in many ways, and rather cold.
Why on earth are they even faintly considering sanctioning anyone?
Anyone who has been told to self-isolate will very likely be a very worried person; shouldn’t government be considering supporting them, not which work-related activity to stick them with? ‘I sanctioned this person because when I phoned up all they wanted to talk about was being scared of dying. I wanted them to look at jobs websites. They didn’t engage.’
Perhaps they think they’re helping - ‘two weeks with nowt to do but twiddle their thumbs, we’ll keep ‘em busy….’
We also need an explanation of what they are going to do about the ESA claim process, the 7-day wait and advance payments; the statement makes it sound too easy.
As for UC, see above for problems with the MIF etc etc. Are people going to be treated as having LCW and will this help?
Not to mention a legacy of debt because people have had to take repayable advances.
‘Exceptional circumstances’ require an exceptional response, and this isn’t one.