Forum Home → Discussion → Work capability issues and ESA → Thread
Benefit Safeguards - policy issues
Today’s House of Lords report on UC includes an interesting section on support for vulnerable people at para.270 onwards: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/2224/documents/20325/default/
Update 12/10/20 : this seemed relevant to the things discussed in the HoL report https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/welfare-rights/news/item/welfare-reform-remains-unfinished-business-says-centre-for-social-justice
[ Edited: 12 Oct 2020 at 03:30 pm by Owen_Stevens ]I particularly like the 2nd part of Para 272.
Me too :)
forum member
Information and advice resources - Age UK
Total Posts: 3211
Joined: 7 January 2016
They’re quite strong on MAC’s as well but I doubt it’s going to make any difference.
. Universal Credit was designed as a working-age benefit; it was not designed with pensioners in mind. While we understand the trade-off which the DWP has had to consider in relation to mixed-age couples, we feel that on balance it has opted for the wrong approach.
147. Including mixed-age couples in Universal Credit has meant that they may lose out financially. The partner who is eligible for a state age pension is treated unfairly compared with single pensioners and couples of state-pension age. The DWP should revert to the previous system in which mixed-age couples were treated as state-pension
age couples for means-tested benefits.
We’re seeing some horrendous cases coming through on a fairly regular basis, where older partner significantly disabled and younger partner caring for them and upon reaching SPA, ESA and HB awards stop and they’ve got to both make UC claims for absolutely no useful purpose at all.
forum member
Macmillan benefits team, Citizens Advice Bristol
Total Posts: 958
Joined: 24 November 2017
Paul_Treloar_AgeUK - 31 July 2020 12:38 PMThey’re quite strong on MAC’s as well but I doubt it’s going to make any difference.
. Universal Credit was designed as a working-age benefit; it was not designed with pensioners in mind. While we understand the trade-off which the DWP has had to consider in relation to mixed-age couples, we feel that on balance it has opted for the wrong approach.
147. Including mixed-age couples in Universal Credit has meant that they may lose out financially. The partner who is eligible for a state age pension is treated unfairly compared with single pensioners and couples of state-pension age. The DWP should revert to the previous system in which mixed-age couples were treated as state-pension
age couples for means-tested benefits.We’re seeing some horrendous cases coming through on a fairly regular basis, where older partner significantly disabled and younger partner caring for them and upon reaching SPA, ESA and HB awards stop and they’ve got to both make UC claims for absolutely no useful purpose at all.
The financial aspect of it could be addressed by including a pensioner element in UC but I think this was previously proposed in the Lords but rejected by the government.
The transcript of the evidence session with the NAO on the topic of the wait for the first UC payment is now up
https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/803/default/
The Rightsnet news story is here: https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/welfare-rights/news/item/universal-credit-it-system-is-designed-for-and-works-well-for-simple-cases-but-less-well-for-those-with-specific-needs-head-of-the-nao-tells-mps
The NAO witness makes the point that the recommendation on vulnerability has now been raised by the NAO in three reports since 2018.
[ Edited: 6 Jan 2023 at 11:40 am by Owen_Stevens ]Contact details for Senior Safeguarding Leaders have been circulated by DWP to OSEF today. Cover letter is attached here.
Rightsnet are circulating the contact details by email. I think that advisers wanting to get hold of the document can request to be added to the mailing list here: https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/15574/P30
[ Edited: 16 Sep 2020 at 11:50 am by Owen_Stevens ]File Attachments
- Senior_Safeguarding_Leaders.pdf (File Size: 350KB - Downloads: 1766)
Owen_Stevens - 25 February 2020 10:27 AMJustin Tomlinson -We are doing everything that we possibly can. There is still more to learn and later this year we will have an opportunity through the Green Paper, which will look at claimant experiece, assessment and trust in the system. The national disability strategy, which is personally supported by the Prime Minister, will also help.
Written answer on the progress of the disability green paper -
Given the necessary focus on the departmental response to COVID-19, we are working to a longer timescale than previously anticipated but we remain committed to publishing in the coming months.
The transcript can be found here: https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/963/default/
The sections relating to whether or not the DWP have a duty of care or a statutory safeguarding duty are copied here. Note that I can’t find the letter referred to by Debbie Abrahams on the WPSC webpages - if anybody has a link then feel free to post it.
Q229Debbie Abrahams: [...] Secretary of State, you will recallthe session we had back in July. TheChairman received a response to the letter that he wrote subsequent to that session on 22 July. We received that last night at 7.30, two months after it was sent. Do you think that allows effective scrutiny of the vital points that were made in that letter?
Dr ThérèseCoffey:I am conscious that this letter only arrived yesterday. I can accept responsibility for that. I am conscious that there were a number of ways that I wanted to make sure that we were precise in responding to the questions,but I alsowanteda legal assessment.I am very conscious that what we share with the Committee is important for your understanding. It does have parliamentary privilege, but I am also conscious of other aspects that canfollow from what is set out in the public domain, and Ineed to act accordingly. It was not my intention for the letter to arrive so late, but there was more that I needed to do once I had come to the conclusion on the best way to try to answer.
Q230Debbie Abrahams:I have literally had only a short time to go through this, but can I just pick up on a few points? First, I was heartened, I have to say, in some regards in relation to the session that we had. You seemedto indicate that there was a change in culture in the Department and that you recognised the importance and the way that disabled people and their families had been let down. Yet I notice in the second page of your letter a backtracking on this, when you say, “The Department for Work and Pensionsdoes not have a duty of care or statutory safeguarding duty.” Given that you provide services to vulnerable people, if there is not something in statute, should there be? Shouldn’t there also be a moral obligation on the Government in recognition of the services that they provide to vulnerable people?
Dr ThérèseCoffey:I feltthat the line of questions submitted by the Committee wastaking us down a track that implied we had a statutory duty, and that is why I was being quite careful in trying to point out that we do not. I do not think it is the responsibility of DWP to have that statutory care duty. We are not the local councils, the social services, the doctors and other people who have that.
Q231Debbie Abrahams:But you are providing services, Secretary of State, and that is simply not good enough. You are providing services to vulnerable people, so whether it is in statute or not, do you recognise that this should be something that the Government take most seriously?Dr
ThérèseCoffey:Which is why, Debbie, as was discussed in the session in July, Peter Schofield became the Permanent Secretary and escalated it. When I became Secretary of State,I escalated it even more in what we were doing, making sure that we got on with this. I wanted to be clear that some of theterminology we use in terms of safeguarding, leaders and similar isnot construed by the Committee or by Parliament tomean that we have a legal duty in that regard. This is what I am doing and have done, Debbie, in order to try to accelerate the amount of support that we are doing in working with safeguarding teams, safeguarding boards, usually run by adult or children’s social services, in order to provide the outcome that I think we both agree is about how we can help more. I just wanted to reinforce that.
Q232Chair:I think you will appreciate that we may well want to come back to you on the content of thatletter, given that we have only just received it?
Dr ThérèseCoffey:I understand, yes.Chair:We are a bit against the clock at the moment, but Debbie, yes.
Q233Debbie Abrahams:Certainly in relation to our inquiry that is due to publish, the Secretary of State should be aware of the issues that we identified around the ad hoc way in which the vulnerability of UC claimants has been being recorded by the work coaches. There is no systematic way in which this is recorded. It is done very differently by different work coaches at a local level. Again, I put it to you: does that reflect the change in culture and priority to ensure the safetyof vulnerable people by the Department?
Dr ThérèseCoffey:I think there is information held to try to make sure that we treat everybody individually but—
Q234Debbie Abrahams:But it is not there, Secretary of State, it is not there. That was quite clear in the evidence that we received.
Dr ThérèseCoffey:I would like to saythat I look forward to receiving your report,and I will be able to consider your concerns and suggestions in an appropriate way.
Update - the correspondence referred to by Debbie Abrahams has now been published and can be found here: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/2910/documents/28102/default/
[ Edited: 20 Nov 2020 at 11:10 am by Owen_Stevens ]File Attachments
- correspondence_sept_2020.pdf (File Size: 1437KB - Downloads: 1392)
...and to follow on from the previous post.
The statement that DWP does not have a duty of care can be read alongside previous DWP guidance (now scrapped) which referred to a duty of care, various written answers referring to a duty of care, and claims in Parliament that DWP takes it’s duty of care very seriously.
[ Edited: 6 Jan 2023 at 11:42 am by Owen_Stevens ]The Work and Pensions Select Committee report on the wait for the first UC payment includes sections on Universal Support (which seems to be having a moment in the spotlight - see also HoL report and CSJ report above), identifying and tracking vulnerable claimants, and working with support organisations. It includes the following recommendation:
139. DWP must immediately make improvements to the Universal Credit system to formalise how it identifies and defines vulnerable claimants, as part of its overall approach to safeguarding vulnerable people. This will be a substantial piece of work, and DWP should set out when it expects to achieve this. The new mechanism should, as the Minister for Welfare Delivery suggested, include the ability to identify vulnerable and disadvantaged groups and specific cohorts of people. DWP should gather data to identify whether any such groups are more likely to experience problems during the wait for first payment, delays to their payment, or any other issues throughout their claim. DWP should proactively use this information to expedite claims for these people, ensuring that they do not face further delay, and to provide the additional support that they need.
https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/3069/documents/28787/default/
Update 12/01/2021 Government response:
Where it is identified, either from our own agents or via referrals from local services, that a claimant can’t make or manage their claim online, staff are able to offer support through other channels or refer to specialist provision.
As the Minister for Welfare Delivery made clear when he gave evidence, we are working on how to collect sensitive information from claimants. This will enable UC to provide increasingly tailored support to claimants which is responsive to their needs, whilst also helping us to monitor where and how improvements can assist specific cohorts.
Overall, our approach to vulnerability seeks to identify individuals who have complex user needs and/or require additional support to enable them to access our benefits and services. It is already easy to discretely pin notes/flag ongoing easements to a vulnerable claimant’s account to ensure the continuity of support offered.
[ Edited: 12 Jan 2021 at 12:37 pm by Owen_Stevens ]The Autumn 2020 edition of Poverty, CPAG’s policy journal, has just been published. It contains an article by Gary Vaux (head of the Money Advice Unit at Hertfordshire County Council) titled ‘Safeguarding adults – a safer and more secure future’.
The free version is available here: https://askcpag.org.uk/content/205271/content/205271/safeguarding-adults-a-safer-and-more-secure-future
The (much prettier) PDF is available to AskCPAG subscribers here: https://askcpag.org.uk/publications/-223407/poverty-journal—-issue-167#
[ Edited: 6 Jan 2023 at 11:43 am by Owen_Stevens ]The transcripts are now available for the recent Work and Pensions Select Committee session on DWP’s Annual Report and Accounts for 2019-20
At Q73 - Q81 Debbie Abrahams questions Peter Schofield (Permanent Secretary at DWP) and JP Marks (Director General, Work and Health Services at DWP), on whether or not DWP had a duty of care up until 2016.
https://committees.parliament.uk/event/1975/formal-meeting-oral-evidence-session/
[ Edited: 23 Oct 2020 at 02:58 pm by Owen_Stevens ]The foreword to the Independent Case Examiner’s annual report describes DWP’s handling of vulnerability as ‘an enduring challenge’ and states that ‘This year, following ICE systemic recommendations, we have been told of numerous changes, including: creating a vulnerable customers strategy proposal’.
forum member
Greater Manchester Law Centre
Total Posts: 466
Joined: 22 January 2020
Hi Owen
Is the new safeguarding guidance that was annexed to Dr Coffey’s letter of 29th september in the public domain? I’d be quite keen to look at the document control. I’ve been googling for a while now and cannae find it.