Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit migration → Thread
Further delay to UC rollout .... and other changes
Just to chuck another issue into the melting pot (and perhaps Mr Couling can answer this one Mike):
Are they planning on compensating anyone who loses their transitional protection as a result of delaying the managed migration process?
I would say that there are likely to be numerous claimants who will be caught by natural migration (ESA claimants found fit for work for one group) who would have been managed migrated if they were on schedule, who will lose out on their transitional protection. Again more likely to affect the sick and disabled.
“test and learn” - no get it right in the first place and listen to the “doomsayers” during consultation who now can quite rightly say “we told you so”. Doesn’t help the claimant on the Clapham omnibus, though.
(apologies for the rant, but this is getting beyond a joke now)
Listening to yesterday in Parliament last night I heard the Secretary of State claim that on average, disabled people will be an average of £110 a month better off. I listened again this morning to check the exact wording.
Surely she didn’t expect such a claim to pass unnoticed?
[ Edited: 16 Oct 2018 at 02:37 pm by Mr Finch ]They keep doing that one - it’s the very specific group of people in the support group who don’t qualify for sdp, only edp.
I know I am being a wee bit picky here but I would point out that no one who is disabled is better off on Universal Credit. To get the LCW or LCWRA element you need to be unfit for work etc.
Under JSA, IS and working tax credit a disabled person qualified for a premium/element if in receipt of a qualifying benefit, usually DLA or PIP [think about your ESA appellants with PIP who claimed JSA during the M/R appeals stage]. These benefits give you nothing on Universal Credit.
If I am wrong please tell me.
As to the issue of natural migrants, pushing back managed migration leads to more and more people losing out as natural migrants get no Transitional protection.
Lee
I can’t see how anyone is better off either.
It’s disappointing that they appear to think that the whole UC situation can be rectified by yet more weasel words and sleight of hand.
What is it about these people that they are so afraid to be honest with us?
I agree with lost in Granite and Chrissum that the ever-lengthening timetable for managed migration is an important factor because of people who are being transferred before then not getting transitional protection. Check out this briefing note from 2012 -
When that policy was developed, the assumption was still that UC would be fully rolled out, including managed migration, by 2017 and so the numbers of people migrating due to a change of circs before managed migration would be relatively small - good argument for looking at the policy again…
Listening to yesterday in Parliament last night I heard the Secretary of State claim that on average, disabled people will be an average of £110 a month better off. I listened again this morning to check the exact wording.
Surely she didn’t expect such a claim to pass unnoticed?
Looks like, amongst the 3 times the £110 figure was mentioned during the debate, Esther McVey upped it to per week:
It will give extra money to the most vulnerable. One million more disabled people will get, on average, £110 more a week.
In getting him to accept the offer I obviously referred to the demands of the NAO and W%PC for DWP to start listening but needed to dangle a carrot as well as a stick. In his acceptance he referred to wanting to come and listen but also to talk about what is going well and his ongoing (and utterly bizarre) view that WRAs are damaging the chances of success of managed migration by being negative and scaring clients. As a response, it displayed the ongoing deafness in all its glory.
Whilst the aim of the day for me is to come out of it with a clear agreement on a GM UC forum and all the items which should form an ongoing agenda and action points it seemed obvious to offer him the carrot of an opportunity to present what he wanted to present. He’s half an hour on what’s going well and a similar length to talk managed migration and the role of WRAs.
Now, whilst we’re all about partnership and positive outcomes I don’t see that, having given him those 2 agenda items, I feel especially obliged to stage manage the outcome.
Incidentally Mr. Fitzpatrick will you be there? I don’t have you on my list.
£110 is a very specific amount and presumably calculated on the basis of some mythic case study. For the life of me though, and I concede it may be my lack of imagination, I can not work it out so can someone tell me what it is?
I mean I can work out the base point,
ESA claimant in Support group with no SDP v UC claimant in LCWRA
but running the scenarios the best I can get is miles short
((37.65 +16.40) *52/12 = 234.22 v 328.32 diff £83.61pm
So what am I getting wrong, please tell me?
Perhaps you’re expecting an accurate calculation. There’s no reason to expect that. No-one I know has seen one. Why would their case studies therefore miraculously be accurate!
I have a day with Mr Couling tomorrow at one of his events talking to stakeholders…
I have a day with Mr Couling tomorrow at one of his events talking to stakeholders…
Not “listening to stakeholders” then!
Is it unreasonable to expect ministers of the crown or their officials to be able to explain how they reached a particular position. This is not a policy question, it is a factual question. What do I/you say to the next service user who walks in your door and asks you why don’t I get the additional £110per week the minister said I would get.
They either believe their numbers and can justify them or don’t and they can’t.
Even if they say the per week figure should have been per month, then it is still based on some kind of case study that I cannot work out and I want to know what it is so I can look out for it amongst my service users.
If it is Naïve to expect accuracy then I am naive