SSAC raises concerns that some claimants are being excluded from their full entitlement to benefit for indefinite periods due to suspension of face-to-face assessments

DWP and Department for Communities must establish maximum time periods during which face-to-face assessments and decisions will take place, says Committee

The Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) has raised concerns that some claimants are being excluded from their full entitlement to benefit for indefinite periods due to the suspension of face-to-face assessments during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

In an occasional paper, A review of the COVID-19 temporary measures, published today, the SSAC acknowledges the impressive response of the DWP, the Department for Communities (DfC) in Northern Ireland and HMRC to support social security and tax credit claimants during the pandemic.

However, while acknowledging that the response – both in terms of policy design and operational delivery – has been impressive, particularly as it necessarily had to be developed and delivered at considerable pace -  the Committee says that -

'Given that some temporary measures are being revised and extended in duration, we wanted to take the opportunity to review the effectiveness of the measures that have been introduced.

We also wished to explore the degree to which they could be refined further, or improved, as Ministers consider transitioning some of them into a longer-term or permanent approach.'

To this end, the Committee identifies six areas for consideration - 

• conditionality and the unwinding of the easements - SSAC questions how conditionality would work where local lockdowns could affect childcare, work availability and accessibility as well as the increased risks of COVID-19 for those with, or living with someone who has, underlying health conditions, and it recommends - 

'... the Departments provide further support to work coaches to allow them to proactively identify the circumstances that will impact on whether a claimant can work, including circumstances that may be more difficult to manage under the pandemic. This will require government to provide and publish strategic policy guidance on what the appropriate flexibilities should be that work coaches can then implement through local discretion.'

• communication with claimants and stakeholders - while there was evidence of good practice by the DWP and DfC in communicating with advisers on a regular basis about the COVID-19 related changes, this was not consistent across the UK, and claimants also described how stressful it was when communications were not effective. As a result, SSAC recommends - 

'... DWP and DfC continue to work on providing timely updates to claimants and support organisations on the COVID-19 related changes that are being made. This includes developing a communications strategy, and tracking its outcomes, to help identify whether or why individuals may be disengaging with, or dropping out of, the social security system.'

• determinations in an environment of social distancing - SSAC observes that with the inevitable cancelling of face-to-face assessments there have been delays and backlogs in decision making, and it particularly raises concerns that more complex cases that are unsuitable for either paper-based or telephone assessments are facing considerable delay, potentially excluding claimants from their full entitlement for indefinite periods. Noting also that the lack of any evaluation by the DWP and DfC has made it impossible to understand the impact that assessment changes have had, SSAC recommends - 

'... the DWP and DfC act now to evaluate the outcomes and experiences for claimants as a critical early element of that research, and for this evaluation to be published... We recommend also that DWP and DfC  establish maximum time periods during which face-to-face assessments and decisions will take place.'

• clarifications to rules and easements - SSAC welcomes the continued suspension of the Minimum Income Floor (MIF) and the introduction of the Self-Employed Income Support Scheme (SEISS), but raises concerns around how claimants will manage if the UC uplift is removed and how SEISS payments can affect universal credit due to inconsistency over whether payments are treated as capital or earnings. The Committee recommends that - 

'... a plan is developed to phase [the MIF's] re-introduction, and that potentially affected claimants are given plenty of advance notice – of 1 month at the very least – of its return. We also recommend that universal credit eligibility is aligned with the point at which the claimant becomes redundant to deal with any delays in making a claim.

Clarity is needed on how SEISS payments (and any replacement scheme) interact with universal credit and clarity is also required on the Departments’ policy for the recovery of overpayments and debt during the pandemic, with guidance on exemptions to overpayment recovery that would be appropriate during the pandemic.'

• housing exemptions - in the absence of the Departments implementing the Committee's previous recommendation to increase or remove the benefit cap to help avoid the risk of homelessness, the SSAC puts forward an alternative recommendation - 

'There is an existing exemption that provides a 9 month grace period before the cap is applied. This is for those who earn above the earnings threshold in every month for the previous 12 months. We recommend that this exemption is made more generous as continuously earning above the threshold will have been more difficult for many in recent months.

We also recommend expanding the exemption to [the shared accommodation rate for under-35s] for emergency accommodation to include housing in the private rented sector. We recommend that these measures are retained for the duration of the pandemic. Local Housing Allowance rates should continue to be related to local rent levels beyond the pandemic.'

• other issues, including eligibility and award values - while welcoming the £20 per week increase to universal credit, the SSAC notes that there has been an absence of consideration of how informal care has been supported, either though the carer premium (in legacy benefits) or carer’s allowance, and it recommends that -

'... the positive impact of the £20 per week uplift for universal credit is considered when deciding whether to extend or end this uplift. The DWP and DfC should review the support available to carers in recognition of the increased necessity and role of informal caring as a public health service.

Finally, we recommend the government considers whether temporary access to universal credit could be granted to extend eligibility during the pandemic for domestic violence victims who have no recourse to public funds and 16 to 17 year olds whose access to traineeships has been delayed by the pandemic.'

For more information, see A review of the COVID-19 temporary measures: occasional paper 24 from gov.uk