My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling this important regret Motion, which she introduced with her usual power and precision. All I can do is reinforce some of the points she and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, made emphasising how much this matters for both the well-being of claimants, particularly those in vulnerable circumstances, and transparency and accountability to Parliament.
I have yet to see a convincing justification for the removal of the stage gate, which was introduced to assuage concern raised in both Houses. Two reasons were given by the then Secretary of State in a letter to the chair of the Work and Pensions Committee in May: first, that early lessons and observations were captured during the truncated pilot in Harrogate. We have not been told what those lessons were and, curiously, in oral evidence to the committee in June, the next month, the same Secretary of State said:
“We learned a bit in Harrogate, but not a lot. The main thing we learned in Harrogate is not to do it the way it was done in Harrogate.”
That is all the more reason, one would have thought, for maintaining the piloting approach that Parliament was promised. But, no, apparently UC’s resilience during the pandemic means that a pilot is no longer needed. As my noble friend pointed out, that was a very different exercise involving a very different group of people, almost certainly far fewer in vulnerable circumstances. Instead of the pilot, as we have heard, we have what is called the discovery phase—which sounds so appealing, like a mystery cruise, but has actually reassured no one, particularly the SLSC and SSAC, never mind external stakeholders.
Although ultimately SSAC drew back from recommending that the stage gate be retained, it made clear its concerns at its abolition. Among the points it made was the need to monitor the impact of the declining ratio of staff to claimants during the discovery phase and to publish before the Summer Recess the criteria for scaling up and moving on to the next phase of implementation, yet, to my knowledge, they have still not been published. Why not? Will the Minister give an undertaking today to do so, and to ensure that the declining staff/claimant ratio is monitored?
These and other issues, as we have heard, stem from a concern about the risk to claimants of the whole exercise. When the original regulations were considered, the view was put strongly by SLSC and SSAC that the balance of risk lay too heavily on the claimant. This
was why CPAG, of which I am honorary president—I am grateful for its full briefing—Z2K and disability organisations called for the automatic transfer of migrated claimants, rather than requiring them to make a new claim. I never saw a plausible reason for rejecting that idea, but clearly it will not happen. As my noble friend asked, could the department at least consider the suspension of an existing claim rather than its termination in cases where a new claim is not made in the required period—not least because of the implications for transitional protection?
6.45 pm
It is reassuring up to a point that the Secretary of State has made it clear that for the first group of claimants in this initial phase of discovery, benefits will not be terminated after the proposed three-month period, but instead there will an automatic extension of at least a month. How long will that first phase last and how big is this first group envisaged to be? Why does the one migration notice that I have seen say that a claimant must have good reason for the three months to be extended? This is the longer-term position, but it seems to contradict the Secretary of State’s assurance.
In the longer term, I am worried by the use of “good reason” as a test for exercising discretion to extend the deadline in the absence of any definition of what constitutes a good reason. A previous Work and Pensions Select Committee report on sanctions pointed to how the lack of such a definition leads to inconsistent treatment, and called for
“carefully drafted regulations on what constitutes ‘good reason’”.
At the minimum, there should be a non-exhaustive list. This also has implications for the right to transitional protection, to which I shall return.
As we have heard, the concerns of stakeholders who work with claimants stem in large part from the vulnerable circumstances many of them are in. As we have also heard, nearly half of those to be migrated are currently in receipt of ESA, many of whom are experiencing mental health problems that could well affect their ability to engage with the whole process. The DWP is well aware of the risk to claimants in vulnerable circumstances and says it will identify such claimants and support them through managed migration, but CPAG warns that experience of failure to identify and support claimants with mental health problems does not instil confidence. In June, the then Secretary of State assured the Work and Pensions Committee that benefit payments would not be stopped for vulnerable claimants during the discovery phase, but refused to explain the mechanism to ensure that. As CPAG argues, the safety and well-being of claimants in vulnerable circumstances should not have to depend on vague assurances: they need clear rights set out in regulations. Can the Minister release clarify exactly what the safeguards will be?
It is not clear what will happen after the discovery phase, when, as Z2K points out, hundreds of thousands will be moving each month, making the intensive support promised initially impossible—a concern also raised by SSAC. SSAC warns that the steep scaling phase presents
“the most significant risk … by far. Any oversights or missteps could be to the detriment of very large numbers of claimants”.
There seems to be an assumption that claimants in vulnerable circumstances can be supported by organisations with which they are in touch, but not all will necessarily have that support to hand, and we should not underestimate the pressure under which such organisations are currently working. I understand that the migration notices do not signpost claimants to local advice agencies that might be able to help. Why not?
I know that there is the Help to Claim service provided by Citizens Advice, although as far as I can see, you have to go to the government website to find about it. Moreover, that does not help once a claim is made, but many of those migrated could face problems. For instance, those migrated from ESA must get to grips with monthly payments, having been paid fortnightly in the past—an issue raised by the SLSC. There are all the difficulties associated with Digital by Default for those who struggle for various reasons, including cost, with the digital world. I co-chaired a meeting of the APPG on Poverty last week where we heard from members of the APLE group with lived experience of poverty of the difficulties created by a digital-by-default approach.
According to Z2K, a piece of qualitative research into the experiences of those in vulnerable circumstances who had moved to UC through natural migration has not been published, despite repeated requests, although apparently the Information Commissioner recently decreed that it should be. Can the Minister therefore give us some idea what it found? As it is, this is an example of the lack of transparency associated with the migration exercise, criticised by SSAC not least because of its implications for public confidence.
I have just received some Written Answers to Questions I put down, trying to get more information about what was happening, only to be told that
“learnings and observations from the first phase of discovery process
will be made available “in due course”. What is “in due course”? When will that be? It is one of those Answers we get that means absolutely nothing.
Linked to transparency is the all-important question of parliamentary accountability and scrutiny, which led to the original adoption of the stage gate. In its absence, as my noble friend has noted, SSAC questions the robustness of the Government’s governance arrangements, particularly at the point at which the discovery phase turns into steep scaling up—when, as SSAC points out, accountability to Parliament will be of the greatest importance. It suggests that
“it seems an appropriate and respectful step to report to Parliament”
in the absence of the legislative stage gate.
This is one of a number of recommendations made by SSAC, which has gone to great lengths to propose ways in which the risks to claimants could be reduced and accountability and transparency increased in the absence of the stage gate. The Secretary of State’s response was simply to formally note all the recommendations, leaving no one any wiser as to which, if any, of the recommendations the DWP might accept and act on. This really is not good enough. If I were a member of SSAC, I would be pretty cross at
such a dismissive response. Can the Minister tell us exactly what the response is to each of these recommendations, either now or in writing?
Finally, I will say a few words about transitional protection. As we have heard, the DWP estimates that about 600,000 of those who move to UC under managed migration will be worse off and therefore entitled to transitional protection. This commitment is, of course, welcome, but it does not cover those who have failed to make the transfer within the required timescale. When we asked about this some time ago, pre-pandemic, the response was that we could not leave the process entirely open-ended, so it seems that this is a stick with which to beat people into claiming according to the Government’s timetable. That comes across as punitive and unfair, given that the Government have not assuaged worries about the risks to people in vulnerable circumstances of the whole exercise. Am I right in assuming that this rule will at least not apply during the initial discovery phase, when there will be an automatic extension of the deadline? As I said earlier, it is unclear how long this phase will last.
In addition, CPAG provides a number of examples, with case studies, of how transitional protection can quickly be eroded. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, these include: when someone moves from temporary or specified to mainstream accommodation, for example a woman leaving a refuge; when joint claimants cease to be a couple, including because of death; and where a carer’s health deteriorates and the carer element of UC is replaced by the limited capability for work-related activity element. Moreover, ESA claimants who do permitted work will be worse off at the point of transfer, because UC does not make allowance for permitted work. Their case studies illustrate how we might be talking about a loss of hundreds of pounds a month.
As my noble friend has warned, transitional protection is quickly eroded at a time of high inflation. Assuming that benefits continue to be uprated with the previous September’s inflation rate—the Minister knows how worried I am about rumours that they will not be next year—even if they are uprated only in line with earnings, that will affect transitional protection. It is clearly in the interests of anyone due transitional protection to migrate after the day that the benefits are uprated, rather than in the months immediately before that date, as it could make a big difference to how much benefit they receive over the coming year. Will this be made clear to those due to migrate during this period? Indeed, there may be a case for pausing the exercise prior to any April uprating, to ensure that no one loses out unfairly.
Given the concerns expressed by SSAC, the SLSC and stakeholders about the risks to claimants in vulnerable circumstances and the erosion of accountability to Parliament, I hope that, even at this late date, the DWP will think again and withdraw what, as my noble friend said, are really quite shocking regulations.