The managed migration of Universal Credit claimants risks harming millions of the most vulnerable people, says editor Jeff Mitchell
The Department for Work and Pensions is facing pushback from campaigners on its plans to go ahead with its pre-pandemic plans for the ‘managed migration’ of legacy benefit claimants to Universal Credit.
Former Work and Pensions Secretary Amber Rudd previously applied the brakes slightly, limiting the next phase of claimant transition to 10,000 and campaigners praised a ‘return to evidence based policy-making’ at the DWP. A lot has changed since the pandemic, however, and even before – Thérèse Coffey became Work and Pensions Secretary in 2019.
No doubt, the DWP has been buoyed by UC’s ability to on-board three million new claimants forced on to benefits when the UK went into lockdown and employers shuttered operations. It was a mammoth achievement but not without its challenges: Claimants reported hours of waiting time on helplines and millions were shocked to discover how little they’d have to live on. And that was with the £1,000 a year temporary uplift.
The 3 Bs were conceived: Banking, Budgeting and Being Online. The triple-threat faced by millions then and millions more now
Clearly, the system can manage – but a big chunk of Clean Slate’s operation revolves around what claimants need to do to manage their end. Those still on ‘legacy benefits’ are most likely to be on Employment and Support Allowance. Most of these have limited capacity to work due to health issues and the majority of these have mental health conditions. Already on limited incomes, they are more likely to have limited access to the internet. Having grown accustomed, if not dependent, on payment cycles they face the transition to monthly payments in arrears. They may use entrenched methods for managing their money and face the prospect of changing the facilities they have in place, like a mainstream bank account, and ready access to their balance to track money going in and coming out.
Clean Slate happened to be working in the first ‘pathway areas’ for UC’s initial rollout and our practical response was based on what claimants there told us. The 3 Bs were conceived: Banking, Budgeting and Being Online. The triple-threat faced by millions then and millions more now.
Others affected will be other claimants and low-income workers on Housing Benefit. For landlords, the transition creates a huge risk of arrears, in turn triggering the risk of eviction for tenants. Lumping living allowances together with money to cover rent, when it was previously often paid direct to landlords (especially councils and housing associations), creates a compounded risk of arrears as claimants assume responsibility for making payments. It’s the right step in principle but spelled disaster for many before, now the rollout will primarily affect vulnerable people, often specifically identified as having limited capability to manage as much as others. It’s a massive gamble DWP is embarking on. One with the highest stakes for tenants and their landlords.
The ‘haves’ can manage fine on UC, should they need to. What about the rest? Well, nothing has changed
It is no wonder there is renewed interest in Clean Slate’s 3 Bs money skills workshop for claimants, now also delivered online so accessible anywhere (so long as people can access the internet). Likewise, the Quids in! guides to Universal Credit, managing a food budget, and new tenancies.
On-boarding so many to UC during lockdown is an undoubted testament to the capacity of the system (if not the helplines and other staff-reliant functions). But the policy failure faced by the first UC claimants pre-lockdown, caused by false assumptions about people’s savings buffers, ability to budget and digital capability, generally did not apply to this group. Lockdown claimants were literally the exceptions that proved the rule – that the ‘haves’ can manage fine on UC, should they need to. What about the rest? Well, nothing has changed.
We’re not at odds with DWP over UC per se, but they have to reconsider a mass, unrestrained rollout. Not only were the early stages staggered, the Department also promised to learn ‘dynamically’, and they did, even though it was painful for those whose claims tripped and failed. Not taking a similar approach now risks harm to millions of those already in ill-health and lacking the resilience most of us (but especially the ‘haves’ based in Whitehall) take for granted.
