latest ssac minutes

includes stuff on -

- Universal Credit Evaluation

- DWP’s short-term, interim and long-term solutions to UC passporting

- the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Schemes for Assisting Persons to Obtain Employment) (Amendment) Regulations 2013 which will add two further schemes to the regulations, namely the Community Action Programme which would be targeted at claimants who return to Jobcentre Plus after the Work Programme, and Traineeships which are for young people aged 16 up to 24 (and for young people with Learning Difficulty Assessments up to the end of the academic year in which they turned 25) who needed extra help to secure an apprenticeship or a job.

- the abolition of the existing rule whereby a non-EEA migrant can receive benefit for up to 42 days where there is a disruption to the funds from abroad that they would otherwise rely upon

- new provisions to enable a claimant who had made a written claim for benefit to amend it by telephoning the relevant office of the DWP before it had been determined.

- the Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) and Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2013 (including an update on emerging plans for exempt accommodation)

http://ssac.independent.gov.uk/pdf/minutes/minutes-07-08-13.pdf

The answers on Universal Credit seem to indicate they are going very, very slowly, which would be no bad thing but they don’t seem to have any real answers to the committee’s questions, especially about dealing with vulnerable claimants.

I went to a ‘stakeholder’ meeting recently and it was all relentless optimism and good news. No detail, no apparent grip on detail. See above.

And - I’m not having my best afternoon here and may have missed something, but the Schemes for Assisting (&c.) regulations don’t seem to mention the Community Action Programme, but the committee discussion does. When I asked DWP about the CAP they seemed very confused. So am I. Have we got one or have we not?

I note the DWP misled the SSAC (I am sure unintentionally) about the existence of a 42 day rule for PSIC people with temporary disruption of funds to get ESA:

Here is what they said:

(d) The Department was of the view that the provision was not used, but there must have been a rationale for it being instigated originally. If the provision was not being used, then it was not costing any money to the Department, so what was the rationale for removing it now?
The provision was not present in the Employment and Support Allowance regulations. It was considered when drawing up those regulations and the decision was taken then not to include it. It was also not brought forward into the Universal Credit regulations. So there was currently a lack of consistency across the regulations.

[my emphasis]

The provision was present.