Speeches made during Parliamentary debates are recorded in Hansard. For ease of browsing we have grouped debates into individual, departmental and legislative categories.
e-Petitions are administered by Parliament and allow members of the public to express support for a particular issue.
If an e-petition reaches 10,000 signatures the Government will issue a written response.
If an e-petition reaches 100,000 signatures the petition becomes eligible for a Parliamentary debate (usually Monday 4.30pm in Westminster Hall).
Improve Maternal Mortality Rates and Health Care for Black Women in the U.K.
Gov Responded - 25 Jun 2020 Debated on - 19 Apr 2021 View 's petition debate contributionsBlack Women in the U.K. are 5 times more likely to die during pregnancy and after childbirth compared to White Women (MBRRACE, 2019). We need more research done into why this is happening and recommendations to improve health care for Black Women as urgent action is needed to address this disparity.
Implement sanctions against the Nigerian Government and officials
Gov Responded - 11 Nov 2020 Debated on - 23 Nov 2020 View 's petition debate contributionsThe Government should explore using the new sanctions regime that allows individuals and entities that violate human rights around the world to be targeted, to impose sanctions on members of the Nigerian government and police force involved in any human rights abuses by the Nigerian police.
These initiatives were driven by Kate Osamor, and are more likely to reflect personal policy preferences.
MPs who are act as Ministers or Shadow Ministers are generally restricted from performing Commons initiatives other than Urgent Questions.
Kate Osamor has not been granted any Urgent Questions
Kate Osamor has not been granted any Adjournment Debates
A Bill to set training standards for NHS 111 service operators; to require NHS 111 services to be overseen by clinical advisors; and for connected purposes.
National Eye Health Strategy Bill 2022-23
Sponsor - Marsha De Cordova (Lab)
Co-operatives (Permanent Shares) Bill 2022-23
Sponsor - Gareth Thomas (LAB)
Child Criminal Exploitation Bill 2021-22
Sponsor - Lyn Brown (Lab)
Business Standards Bill 2019-21
Sponsor - John McDonnell (Lab)
Freehold Properties (Management Charges) Bill 2017-19
Sponsor - Preet Kaur Gill (LAB)
On 14 June, the Prime Minister announced a new Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities. The Commission will drive forward work to understand why disparities exist, what works to address disparities and what does not, and will present recommendations for action across Government and other public bodies, bridging the gap between data and policy. It will report by the end of the year. The aim of the Commission is to set out a new, positive agenda for change - balancing the needs of individuals, communities and society, maximising opportunities and ensuring fairness for all. The terms of reference, and names of the chair and commission members will be published in due course.
The All in, All together campaign is a unique and unprecedented partnership with the newspaper industry. It has been deliberately structured to support smaller regional and local titles by providing an equal amount of funding to that of national titles. As part of this, we have utilised advertising and paid for editorial in over 600 national, regional, local and community titles across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
All of the titles within the partnership have been selected independently by our media planning and buying agency, OmniGOV. Individual titles are selected by OmniGOV based on their ability to communicate with key audiences in a measurable and effective way.
The Government is committed to supporting disabled people affected by the COVID-19 outbreak. Government Departments are working to ensure that the needs of disabled people are considered in the UK Government’s response to COVID-19. The Government will publish a National Strategy for Disabled People this year taking into account the impacts of the pandemic on disabled people. The strategy will focus on the issues that disabled people say affect them the most in all aspects and phases of life.
The Disability Unit sits in the new Equality Hub in the Cabinet Office, alongside the Government Equalities Office, the Race Disparity Unit and, from 1 April, the sponsorship of, and secretariat to, the Social Mobility Commission. Together they will be better equipped to drive meaningful progress on equality. The Equality Hub has a particular focus on improving the quality of evidence and data about disparities and the types of barriers different people face, ensuring that fairness is at the heart of everything we do.
Decisions on the closure of customer service points are an operational matter for Royal Mail, provided they meet Ofcom’s regulatory requirement on Royal Mail, as the Designated Universal Service Provider, to provide access points for the universal service.
Whilst the Government has no role in Royal Mail’s operational decisions, I understand that Royal Mail has completed the first stage of its review of customer service points and decided to maintain the current estate.
As the Government explores possible approaches to consumer protection from 2024, it is working with disability organisations, considering the costs for disabled people and assessing the need for specific support for disabled people using medical equipment in the home.
While energy prices are falling our Energy Price Guarantee remains in place to protect people until April next year. The Help for Households campaign includes numerous cost-of-living support schemes in 2023/2024, such as the Winter Fuel Payment, Warm Home Discount, Disability Cost of Living Payment and the Cost-of-Living Payment for those on means tested benefits which has increased from up to £650 in 2022/2023 to £900 in 2023/2024.
The Government continues to monitor the situation and will keep options under review, including with respect to the most vulnerable households.
Ministers and Officials in the Department have had numerous discussions with a variety of stakeholders, including charities supporting disabled people, on this very important issue.
We recognise the cost-of-living challenges families, including those with disabled family members, are facing and in response last winter we launched a package of support for households and businesses, spending £40 billion and paying around half a typical household’s energy bill last winter.
Since last winter, the outlook for energy prices has improved significantly. The Q4 2023 price cap of £1,834 has more than halved compared to the Q1 2023 price cap which stood at a high of £4,279. The Energy Price Guarantee will remain in place as a safety net until the end of March 2024, should energy prices increase significantly during this period.
Additionally, the Government is providing further cost of living support to vulnerable households, including a £900 payment for those on means-tested benefits and an extra £150 for people on an eligible disability benefit.
The Energy Bill Relief Scheme is set out in legislation and will be applied in a uniform way by all licensed suppliers. The regulations include a robust compliance and enforcement regime to ensure requirements are being met. Suppliers are also required to inform customers about the details of support, including the amount of the discount and discounted supply price.
The Government is fully committed to supporting businesses and creating the best conditions for enterprise so that everyone, whatever their background, has the means and know-how to start and grow a business.
We are supporting early-stage entrepreneurs from all backgrounds through the Start-Up Loans Company which provides funding and intensive support to new entrepreneurs.
Since 2012, 40% of Start Up Loans have gone to women, worth over £344m and 20% of loans worth 187m have gone to Black, Asian, and Ethnic-minority businesses.
332 SMEs in Edmonton have received Start Up Loans to the value of £2,407,357 as of November 2022.
BEIS publishes information on the number of households in receipt of ECO measures by Parliamentary Constituency in Table 4.5 accompanying the latest Household Energy Efficiency Statistics release.
BEIS estimates that in Edmonton constituency there have been no Green Deal projects either completed (all measures installed and paid off), or live (all measures installed but not yet paid off).
Data covers the period from May 2013 to October 2022.
The Department estimates that the average Government contribution per successful household application to the Green Homes Grant voucher scheme in Edmonton constituency was £6,110 for the main scheme and £7,050 for the low-income scheme.
Information on the number of applications by application stage for Green Homes Grant voucher (GHGV) scheme by parliamentary constituency can be found in table 4.4 accompanying the latest release (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/green-homes-grant-voucher-release-october-2022).
An evaluation of the effectiveness of the voucher scheme, including analysis of scheme outcomes and evidence collected from scheme applicants and other stakeholders, is being undertaken by an independent research organisation. The evaluation includes an assessment of the effect of the Green Homes Grant Voucher Scheme on jobs, with findings available in Summer 2023.
There were 9 homes retrofitted in Edmonton through the Local Authority Delivery Scheme. This data is available in Table 13 of the December HULA Statistics release.
Information on the number of homes retrofitted by parliamentary constituency through the Green Homes Grant Voucher Scheme can be found in Table 4.4 accompanying the latest release.
The Government is committed to improving the energy performance of homes across the country, including Edmonton.
The Government is investing £6.6 billion in decarbonising heat and energy efficiency measures. In addition, the Energy Company Obligation Scheme is in its fourth iteration which will run until 2026 with a value of £4 billion. ECO + has also been announced, worth £1 billion and will run from Spring 2023 to March 2026.
£6 billion of additional Government funding towards supporting energy efficiency improvements will be made available from 2025 to 2028
Grant funding for renewable innovation or community-based renewable schemes is open for both local authorities and private investors to bid on. The Contract for Difference scheme, the Government’s main mechanism for supporting low carbon generation, is awarded through a competitive process, ensuring that the most cost-effective projects are supported regardless of their location.
The 2019 Conservative Manifesto committed to a £3.8bn Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund (SHDF) over a 10-year period. The SHDF Demonstrator and Wave 1 awarded a combined total of around £240m of grant funding to Local Authorities, with data held on local authority-led projects rather than at a constituency level. The SHDF Wave 2.1 competition, which closed on 18th November 2022, will allocate up to £800m of grant funding, with successful projects likely to be notified in March 2023.
Businesses in Edmonton will have benefitted from the Government’s reversal of the National Insurance rise, which will save SMEs approximately £4,200 on average, cut to fuel duty for 12 months and the Energy Bill Relief Scheme, to protect small businesses from high energy costs over the winter. In addition, the Recovery Loan Scheme is available to SMEs across the UK.
Our Recovery Loan Scheme offers loans to help small businesses access the finance, in addition to existing support through our Help to Grow schemes all supporting businesses to grow, invest and thrive.
332 SMEs in Edmonton have received Start Up Loans to the value of £2,407,357 as of November 2022.
The Government recognises the impact rising prices are having on businesses, including those in Edmonton and is engaging with businesses across the UK to understand these challenges and explore ways to mitigate them.
The Government has reversed the National Insurance rise, saving SMEs £4,200 on average; cut fuel duty for 12 months; raised the Employment Allowance to £5,000 and introduced the Energy Bill Relief Scheme which is shielding businesses across the country from soaring energy prices, saving some around half of their wholesale energy costs.
We have also announced £13.6 billion of support for businesses over the next five years, reducing the burden of business rates for SMEs.
The 2019 Conservative Manifesto committed to a £3.8bn Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund (SHDF) over a 10-year period. The SHDF Demonstrator and Wave 1 awarded a combined total of around £240m of grant funding to Local Authorities, with data held on local authority-led projects rather than at a constituency level. The SHDF Wave 2.1 competition, which closed on 18th November 2022, will allocate up to £800m of grant funding, with successful projects likely to be notified in March 2023.
The carefully regulated use of animals in scientific research remains necessary to protect humans and the wider environment. The Government's current approach is to ensure that the UK has a robust regulatory system for licensing animal studies and enforcing legal standards and to actively support and fund the development and dissemination of techniques that replace, reduce and refine the use of animals in research (the 3Rs). This is achieved primarily through funding from UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) for the National Centre for the 3Rs (NC3Rs). Since the NC3Rs was launched in 2004, it has committed £100 million in research to develop 3Rs technologies.
My Rt. Hon. Friend the Secretary of State has regular conversations with Cabinet colleagues on a range of issues.
The Energy Bill Relief Scheme (EBRS) provides a price reduction to ensure that all eligible businesses and other non-domestic customers. The price reduction will run initially for 6 months covering energy use from 1 October 2022 until 31 March 2023. Non-domestic customers such as postmasters and sub-postmasters do not need to take action or apply to the scheme – support will automatically be applied to eligible bills.
An HM Treasury-led review of the EBRS will determine support for non-domestic energy consumers, excluding public sector organisations, beyond 31 March 2023. The Government has published terms of reference for the review, with the findings to be published by 31 December 2022.
The Heat and Buildings Strategy sets out how the Government will decarbonise homes, commercial, industrial, and public sector buildings, as part a path to achieving the Government’s net zero commitment by 2050.
Alongside the strategy, the Government announced £3.9 billion of new funding for decarbonising heat and buildings. This will fund the next three years of investment through schemes including the Home Upgrade Grant scheme and the Boiler Upgrade Scheme. This takes the financial commitment to decarbonising buildings in this Parliament to £6.6billion.
The Government is prioritising the most vulnerable in society for support and is committed to achieving its statutory fuel poverty target: that as many fuel poverty households as reasonably practicable achieve a minimum energy efficiency rating of a Band C by 2030’.
In addition, the Government is working with lenders to catalyse the market for green finance. This is a priority for Government to help support homeowners not eligible for grants with the upfront costs of improvement.
Throughout the pandemic, the Government has recognised the need to provide businesses, workers and the public with as much notice as possible of any changes to COVID-19 measures.
We published our Autumn and Winter plan for managing COVID-19 last September, including details of Plan B measures should they be required. Plan B measures are now in place to slow the spread of the virus and ease pressure on the NHS, whilst minimising the impact on lives and livelihoods. My Rt. Hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 5 January that Plan B will be in place for another 3 weeks, with a further review before the regulations expire on 26 January. We will provide businesses and the public with as much notice as possible of any changes to COVID-19 measures.
Throughout the pandemic, the Government has recognised the need to provide businesses, workers and the public with as much notice as possible of any changes to COVID-19 restrictions.
We published our Autumn and Winter plan for managing COVID-19 last September, including details of Plan B measures should they be required. Plan B measures are now in place to slow the spread of the virus and ease pressure on the NHS, while minimising the impact on lives and livelihoods. My Rt. Hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 5 January that they will be in place for another 3 weeks, with a further review before the regulations expire on 26 January. We will provide businesses and the public with as much notice as possible of any changes to COVID-19 restrictions.
Despite the unprecedented package of support provided by this Government, some employers will need to offer different terms and conditions to their employees in order to ensure the sustainability of their business and avoid redundancies.
However, using threats about firing and re-hiring as a negotiating tactic is unacceptable. In addition, if the employer changes any of the terms without the employee’s agreement, the employee may be entitled to seek legal redress. Laws are in place to ensure that there is fair procedure in redundancy and dismissal matters as well as contractual terms and conditions cannot discriminate unlawfully.
The Department has engaged Acas to look into fire and rehire practises and they are talking to business and employee representatives, to gather evidence of how fire and rehire has been used.
There is clearly a risk of greater transmission in close proximity services. That is why we have had to phase their introduction. We had to make difficult choices to keep the R rate below 1.
We’ve now provided close contact services like Soft Tissue Therapists in England, except Leicester, with the certainty they need to reopen from Monday 13 July, subject to them following the COVID-secure guidelines.
As a self-financing public corporation, under its current ownership model, Channel 4 is publicly-owned but commercially run.
Following an extensive public consultation, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has come to a decision that although Channel 4 as a business is currently performing well, public ownership is holding it back in the face of a rapidly-changing and competitive media landscape.
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has consulted with Cabinet colleagues on that decision. The Government will publish its consultation response shortly, and set out the future plan for Channel 4 in a White Paper.
As a self-financing public corporation, under its current ownership model, Channel 4 is publicly-owned but commercially run.
Following an extensive public consultation, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has come to a decision that although Channel 4 as a business is currently performing well, public ownership is holding it back in the face of a rapidly-changing and competitive media landscape.
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has consulted with Cabinet colleagues on that decision. The Government will publish its consultation response shortly, and set out the future plan for Channel 4 in a White Paper.
As a self-financing public corporation, under its current ownership model, Channel 4 is publicly-owned but commercially run.
Following an extensive public consultation, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has come to a decision that although Channel 4 as a business is currently performing well, public ownership is holding it back in the face of a rapidly-changing and competitive media landscape.
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has consulted with Cabinet colleagues on that decision. The Government will publish its consultation response shortly, and set out the future plan for Channel 4 in a White Paper.
This £30m for the Culture Recovery Fund being made newly available for organisations will be used to increase the budget for the relaunched Emergency Resource Support strand of CRF in order to meet the demand from across the cultural sector.
Freelancers are supported through the Culture Recovery Fund by ensuring the venues and organisations which support them have survived the pandemic.
The Government announced on 23rd December that it has also provided an immediate £1.5 million to support freelancers affected by the pandemic, underpinning a further £1.35 million funding from the theatre sector. The Government, via Arts Council England, is providing grants of £650,000 each to charities Theatre Artists Fund and Help Musicians, and £200,000 to a-n, The Artist Information Company, a charity for visual artists, to give a much needed helping hand to freelancers over the coming weeks.
The government is committed to the success and sustainability of public service broadcasting, including the continuing success of Channel 4, and preserving its unique and vital role in UK broadcasting.
We have publicly consulted on the best ownership model to support Channel 4 into the future and have welcomed responses from all stakeholders. We are carefully considering all the views and evidence received to inform the government’s policy-making and final decision.
Linear TV broadcasting is facing increasing and unprecedented pressure from competition for viewers from high spending streaming giants, and there is growing pressure on TV advertising revenues too. Ofcom have recognised these challenges in their latest recommendations to the government on the future of public service media, published on 15 July.
Channel 4 is uniquely constrained in its ability to meet these challenges while it remains under public ownership. In comparison to other public service broadcasters, its access to capital is highly constrained. By virtue of the publisher-broadcaster restriction and borrowing restrictions placed upon it, its ability to diversify its income streams is also limited. These factors restrict Channel 4’s ability to respond to changing market dynamics now and into the future.
Recognising this challenge, we are looking at reform to protect Channel 4's long term future so it can continue to be a valued public service broadcaster, serving audiences with great public service content for years to come.
We have consulted on the best model to ensure Channel 4’s sustainability. We are analysing all the responses to ensure evidence feeds into the government’s policy-making and final decision.
As set out in our consultation document, we are seeking views on the best model to ensure Channel 4’s sustainability in an ever-changing and competitive landscape, and we continue to remain open to all options to address this. We are currently analysing the views and evidence we have received from a broad range of stakeholders to inform the government’s policy-making and final decision.
The government appreciates the significant impact that the collapse of the novel gambling product Football Index had on former customers. Administration proceedings for BetIndex, the company which operated Football Index, are continuing. These are looking at the assets and liabilities of the operator and what is owed to customers. It is likely that this process will result in some amounts being reimbursed to creditors.
The Gambling Commission has revoked BetIndex’s operating licence and the Personal Management Licences held by senior members of the company have been surrendered. The Commission has also referred the company to the Insolvency Service to ask that they consider whether the actions of the directors prior to administration breached insolvency or fraud laws.
This Government recognises the importance of the UK’s thriving cultural industries, and that is why it pushed for ambitious arrangements to make it easier for performers and artists to perform across Europe as part of the negotiations on our future relationship with the EU.
This Government proposed to the EU that musicians, and their technical staff, be added to the list of permitted activities for short-term business visitors in the entry and temporary stay chapter of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement. This would have allowed musicians and their staff to travel and perform in the EU more easily, without needing work-permits. These proposals were rejected by the EU.
As with legal text shared in confidence with trading partners, elaborating on discussions between departments related to the development of legal text for trade agreements would not be appropriate as these discussions took place in confidence.
The Government recognises the importance of international touring for UK cultural and creative practitioners, and their support staff.
We know that while leaving the EU will bring changes and new processes to touring and working in the EU, it will also bring new opportunities.
Leaving the EU has always meant that there would be changes to how practitioners operate in the EU. DCMS has engaged with the sector extensively throughout negotiations and since the announcement of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement to understand the diverse circumstances of companies, organisations and individual practitioners and how they may need to adapt as they plan activity across the European Union.
Going forward we will continue to work closely with the sector, including with representative organisations, to assess the impact and to ensure businesses and individuals have the advice and guidance they need to meet new requirements. This includes the creation of a DCMS-led working group to bring together sector leads and other government departments to address technical questions from the sector in more detail.
The department does not collect data on how many children with an education, health and care plan or statement of special educational needs are waiting for school places in mainstream education.
Each January, the department collects data from local authorities, covering the number of children and young people and the type of provision attended. This includes mainstream schools, special schools, alternative provision, pupils educated elsewhere, and those ‘awaiting provision’. This is the provision set out in their education, health and care (EHC) plan. This is published annually and details can be found at: https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/education-health-and-care-plans.
The department does not collect data about the specific circumstances of the children and young people ‘awaiting provision’. The department knows that this category includes children and young people in a wide range of circumstances, including some who are in an education setting, but awaiting provision in another setting, and some who have only recently moved into the area.
Local authorities must also have a Fair Access Protocol, agreed with the majority of the mainstream state-funded schools in its area, to ensure that, for in year admissions, unplaced children without an EHC Plan, especially the most vulnerable, are offered a place at a suitable school as quickly as possible.
The statutory duty to provide sufficient school places, including places for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), sits with local authorities.
To support local authorities in fulfilling their statutory duties, the department is investing £2.6 billion between 2022 and 2025 to help deliver new places and improve existing provision for children and young people with SEND, or who require alternative provision. This represents a significant, transformational investment in new high needs provision. It will support local authorities to deliver new places in mainstream and special schools, as well as other specialist settings, and will also be used to improve the suitability and accessibility of existing buildings.
As part of this commitment, in March 2022 the department announced High Needs Provision Capital Allocations amounting to over £1.4 billion of new investment, focused on academic years 2023/24 and 2024/25. The borough of Enfield received a total of just over £6.1 million through the allocations announced in March 2022, and over £1.3 million through previous allocations announced in April 2021 (to deliver new places for the 2022/23 academic year). As funding is allocated at a local authority level, the department cannot provide data on funding for the Edmonton constituency.
Local authorities within both inner and outer London collectively received a total of just under £305.6 million through the allocations announced in March 2022. Prior to that, the regions received a combined total of just under £75.9 million through the funding announced in April 2021.
Local authorities can use this funding to work with any school or institution in their area, including mainstream and special schools. It is ultimately up to local authorities to determine how to best prioritise their funding to address their local priorities.
From Summer 2023, the department will be collecting data from local authorities on the physical capacity of special schools and special educational needs units/resourced provision in mainstream schools, as well as corresponding forecasts of demand for specialist places. We expect this to be an annual data collection, forming part of the existing School Capacity Survey.
The department is investing £2.6 billion between 2022 and 2025 to support local authorities in delivering new school places and improving existing provision for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), or who require alternative provision. This represents a significant, transformational investment in new high needs provision. It will support local authorities to deliver new places in both mainstream and special schools, as well as other specialist settings, and will also be used to improve the suitability and accessibility of existing buildings.
As part of this commitment, in March 2022 the department announced High Needs Provision Capital Allocations amounting to over £1.4 billion of new investment, focused on the 2023/24 and 2024/25 academic years. Local authorities can use this funding to work with any school or institution in their area, and the department encourages them to consider prioritising projects that increase available placements for children and young people with education, health and care plans in mainstream settings, including new SEN units or resourced provisions. However, it is ultimately up to local authorities to determine how to best use their funding to address their local priorities.
Sexual abuse, sexual violence and sexual harassment in any form is unacceptable. It is essential that children are protected, and that allegations are dealt with appropriately.
In March 2021, the former Secretary of State for Education commissioned Ofsted to undertake an immediate review of sexual abuse in schools and colleges, including primary schools. The review was published on 10 June 2021 and the department accepted the findings of the review in full, committing to go further than its recommendations.
Harmful sexual behaviours exist on a continuum. It is, therefore, vital to stem and prevent misogyny and sexual harassment as early as possible, preventing the escalation of behaviours, and entrenchment of unacceptable views.
For this reason, the department is developing further support to help build teachers’ confidence in educating on matters of sexual abuse and harassment. In March 2022, the department ran expert-led webinars on the subjects identified by teachers as most challenging to teach. Alongside this, the department is developing new non-statutory guidance for schools, covering specific topics mentioned by the Ofsted review. This will build on existing Relationships, Sex and Health Education guidance, providing more detail on when specific content regarding harassment and abuse should be taught. It will aid primary school teachers’ knowledge of what is appropriate to teach, and when.
Additionally, the department has recently consulted on proposed changes to ‘Keeping Children Safe in Education’ (KCSIE) which includes embedding the standalone sexual violence and sexual harassment advice into KCSIE, to give it the prominence it deserves in statutory guidance. The consultation launched on 11 January 2022 and closed on 11 March 2022. Revised guidance will be published in May and come into force in September 2022. This strengthened guidance will better support schools to prevent abuse and appropriately respond when reported, specifically highlighting the importance of acknowledging and understanding the scale of harassment and abuse.
In November and December 2021, the department held a series of events with statutory safeguarding partners and schools to identify emerging practice and barriers to effective working. This will form part of a broader piece of work to improve how teachers and professionals work together to support children and young people.
In addition, the department is developing a new online hub for designated safeguarding leads (DSLs) to provide information/support for DSLs in schools and colleges. Resources will be co-developed with DSLs and subject matter experts.
The department has also worked with the Home Office on developing and launching the Harmful Sexual Behaviour Support Service to assist professionals in identifying and tackling harmful sexual behaviours.
The Department’s guidance on face coverings can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/face-coverings-in-education/face-coverings-in-education.
As the guidance outlines, during national lockdown, in schools and colleges where Year 7 and above are taught, face coverings should be worn by adults (staff and visitors), pupils and students when moving around indoors, outside of classrooms and other teaching situations, such as in corridors and communal areas where social distancing is difficult to maintain.
Based on current evidence and the measures that schools and colleges are already putting in place, such as the system of controls and consistent bubbles, face coverings will not generally be necessary in the classroom.
Children in primary schools do not need to wear a face covering.
Some individuals are exempt from wearing face coverings. This includes people who cannot put on, wear or remove a face covering because of a physical or mental illness or impairment, or disability, or if you are speaking to or providing assistance to someone who relies on lip reading, clear sound or facial expressions to communicate. The same legal exemptions that apply to the wearing of face coverings in shops and on public transport also apply in schools and colleges.
Face coverings can make it more difficult to communicate with pupils and students with additional needs or those who many rely on lip reading or facial expressions for understanding. We expect staff to be sensitive to these needs when teaching and interacting with pupils and students.
We continue to provide information to the sector on our guidance, and any changes to it, through regular departmental communications. We also continue to work with the sector to understand the impact of the system of controls on staff, pupils and parents.
We continue to support providers through the COVID-19 outbreak, and the testing programme that has been successfully stood up for colleges and secondary schools will continue to be used to support teachers, vulnerable children and children of critical workers and to prepare for wider re-opening.
We will continue to pay grant-funded providers their scheduled monthly profiled payments for 2020/21 academic year. We are currently reviewing the end of year grant funded AEB reconciliation position for 2020 to 2021 in recognition of the difficulties and uncertainties many providers are facing. We will communicate any changes to the published arrangements through our Update publication in the coming weeks.
Where applicable, providers were able to apply to the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) Post 16 and ESFA provider relief schemes for support.
For colleges in significant financial difficulties, the existing support arrangements remain in place, including short-term emergency funding.
During the COVID-19 outbreak, we have put in place a package of support to help the further education (FE) sector build their capacity to deliver digitally. This includes flexibilities to secure devices and connectivity through the 16-19 bursary funding and through changes to the adult education budget funding rules for the 2020/21 academic year.
In order to support colleges to respond to current challenge, including developing new ways of working, we adapted the College Collaboration Fund. This will see investment in new high-quality digital curriculum content, including funding for 7 projects that will develop hundreds of hours of new digital content for a wide range of vocational subjects, as well as PSHE and English and Maths.
We are also investing in FE practitioner online teaching skills through funding the Education and Training Foundation to support teachers to develop their online teaching skills, and we recently announced 80 new grants of £1,000 to FE providers across England to provide additional training and support for mentors and coaches specialising in assisting teachers with remote education.
We continue to support providers through the COVID-19 outbreak, and the testing programme that has been successfully stood up for colleges and secondary schools will continue to be used to support teachers, vulnerable children and children of critical workers and to prepare for wider re-opening.
We will continue to pay grant-funded providers their scheduled monthly profiled payments for 2020/21 academic year. We are currently reviewing the end of year grant funded AEB reconciliation position for 2020 to 2021 in recognition of the difficulties and uncertainties many providers are facing. We will communicate any changes to the published arrangements through our Update publication in the coming weeks.
Where applicable, providers were able to apply to the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) Post 16 and ESFA provider relief schemes for support.
For colleges in significant financial difficulties, the existing support arrangements remain in place, including short-term emergency funding.
During the COVID-19 outbreak, we have put in place a package of support to help the further education (FE) sector build their capacity to deliver digitally. This includes flexibilities to secure devices and connectivity through the 16-19 bursary funding and through changes to the adult education budget funding rules for the 2020/21 academic year.
In order to support colleges to respond to current challenge, including developing new ways of working, we adapted the College Collaboration Fund. This will see investment in new high-quality digital curriculum content, including funding for 7 projects that will develop hundreds of hours of new digital content for a wide range of vocational subjects, as well as PSHE and English and Maths.
We are also investing in FE practitioner online teaching skills through funding the Education and Training Foundation to support teachers to develop their online teaching skills, and we recently announced 80 new grants of £1,000 to FE providers across England to provide additional training and support for mentors and coaches specialising in assisting teachers with remote education.
We continue to support providers through the COVID-19 outbreak, and the testing programme that has been successfully stood up for colleges and secondary schools will continue to be used to support teachers, vulnerable children and children of critical workers and to prepare for wider re-opening.
We will continue to pay grant-funded providers their scheduled monthly profiled payments for 2020/21 academic year. We are currently reviewing the end of year grant funded AEB reconciliation position for 2020 to 2021 in recognition of the difficulties and uncertainties many providers are facing. We will communicate any changes to the published arrangements through our Update publication in the coming weeks.
Where applicable, providers were able to apply to the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) Post 16 and ESFA provider relief schemes for support.
For colleges in significant financial difficulties, the existing support arrangements remain in place, including short-term emergency funding.
During the COVID-19 outbreak, we have put in place a package of support to help the further education (FE) sector build their capacity to deliver digitally. This includes flexibilities to secure devices and connectivity through the 16-19 bursary funding and through changes to the adult education budget funding rules for the 2020/21 academic year.
In order to support colleges to respond to current challenge, including developing new ways of working, we adapted the College Collaboration Fund. This will see investment in new high-quality digital curriculum content, including funding for 7 projects that will develop hundreds of hours of new digital content for a wide range of vocational subjects, as well as PSHE and English and Maths.
We are also investing in FE practitioner online teaching skills through funding the Education and Training Foundation to support teachers to develop their online teaching skills, and we recently announced 80 new grants of £1,000 to FE providers across England to provide additional training and support for mentors and coaches specialising in assisting teachers with remote education.
As we address the challenges presented by COVID-19 and prepare to seize the opportunities offered up by leaving the European Union, it is vital that we support adults, including those working in sectors directly affected by COVID-19, to attain the skills that will be needed in the economy of the future.
Starting this year, the Government is investing £2.5 billion (£3 billion when including Barnett funding for devolved administrations) in the national skills fund. This is a significant investment and has the potential to deliver new opportunities to generations of adults who may have been previously left behind.
My right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced £375 million for the national skills fund at the Spending Review in November 2020. This includes £95 million funding for a new level 3 adult offer and £43 million for skills bootcamps. Investment in skills through the national skills fund is vital, ensuring adults have the opportunity to progress into higher wage employment and to support those who need to retrain at different points throughout their lives.
From April 2021, we will be supporting any adult aged 24 and over who wants to achieve their first full Level 3 qualification – equivalent to two A-Levels, or a technical certificate or diploma – to access nearly 400 fully funded courses.
Complementing the Level 3 adult offer, the skills bootcamps offer free, flexible courses of up to 16 weeks, giving people the opportunity to build up sector-specific skills and fast-track to an interview with a local employer. skills bootcamps have the potential to transform the skills landscape for adults and employers.
The Government plans to consult on the national skills fund in spring 2021 to ensure that we develop a fund that helps adults learn valuable skills and prepares them for the economy of the future.
Through our lifelong loan entitlement, we will also make it easier for adults and young people to study more flexibly. This will allow them to space out their studies across their lifetimes, transfer credits between colleges and universities, and enable more part-time study.
We are also continuing to invest in education and skills training for adults through the adult education budget (AEB) (£1.34 billion in 2020/21). The AEB fully funds or co-funds skills provision for eligible adults aged 19 and above from pre-entry to Level 3, to support adults to gain the skills they need for work, an apprenticeship or further learning.
In April we introduced the skills toolkit, an online platform providing free courses to help individuals build the skills that are most sought after by employers. We have recently expanded the platform so that people can now choose from over 70 courses, covering digital, adult numeracy, employability and work readiness skills, which have been identified as the skills employers need the most. These courses will help people stay in work, or take up new jobs and opportunities.
In July last year the Plan for Jobs was announced by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which includes incentives for employers to take on new apprentices, including those over 25, and an additional £17 million to increase the number of Sector-based work academy programme placements in 2020/21.
On 26 August, the Department revised its guidance on face coverings in schools following a new statement by the World Health Organisation on 21 August, which advised that “children aged 12 and over should wear face coverings under the same condition as adults, particularly when they cannot guarantee at least a one metre distance from others and there is widespread transmission in the area”. The guidance can be found here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/face-coverings-in-education/face-coverings-in-education.
As the guidance outlines, in areas of national government intervention, face coverings should be worn by staff, visitors and pupils in secondary schools when moving around indoors, such as in corridors in communal areas where social distancing is difficult to maintain. Otherwise, the Government is not recommending that face coverings are necessary in schools. All schools, including primary schools, have the discretion to require the use of face coverings for adults and pupils in year 7 and above in indoor communal areas where social distancing cannot be safely managed, if they believe that it is right in their particular circumstances. Children in primary school do not need to wear a face covering.
During the COVID-19 outbreak we are temporarily extending free school meals eligibility to include some groups who have no recourse to public funds. We do not currently hold estimates for the cost of permanently extending eligibility on this basis.
The Department does not currently collect data regarding the take up of free school meals from children of families who are subject to a no recourse to public funds condition.
The Department has engaged in discussion with Home Office colleagues throughout the policy-making process.
During the COVID-19 outbreak we are temporarily extending free school meals eligibility to include some groups who have no recourse to public funds. We do not currently hold estimates for the cost of permanently extending eligibility on this basis.
The Department does not currently collect data regarding the take up of free school meals from children of families who are subject to a no recourse to public funds condition.
The Department has engaged in discussion with Home Office colleagues throughout the policy-making process.
During the COVID-19 outbreak we are temporarily extending free school meals eligibility to include some groups who have no recourse to public funds. We do not currently hold estimates for the cost of permanently extending eligibility on this basis.
The Department does not currently collect data regarding the take up of free school meals from children of families who are subject to a no recourse to public funds condition.
The Department has engaged in discussion with Home Office colleagues throughout the policy-making process.
During the COVID-19 outbreak we are temporarily extending free school meals eligibility to include some groups who have no recourse to public funds. We do not currently hold estimates for the cost of permanently extending eligibility on this basis.
The Department does not currently collect data regarding the take up of free school meals from children of families who are subject to a no recourse to public funds condition.
The Department has engaged in discussion with Home Office colleagues throughout the policy-making process.
We have temporarily extended our eligibility for free school meals during the COVID-19 outbreak to include children of Zambrano carers, families with leave to remain under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, families receiving section 17 support who also have a no recourse to public funds condition and to families receiving section 4 support.
This extension was implemented urgently and our consultation was limited to other government departments in the time available. No formal consultation was undertaken beyond this.
As a result of the huge efforts everyone has made to adhere to strict social distancing measures, the transmission rate of COVID-19 has decreased and the Government’s five tests have been met. Based on all the evidence, the Department asked primary schools to welcome back children in nursery, reception, year 1 and year 6, alongside priority groups (vulnerable children and children of critical workers), from 1 June. From 15 June, secondary schools can invite year 10 and 12 pupils (years 10 and 11 for alternative provision schools) back into school for some face-to-face support with their teachers, to supplement their remote education, which will remain the predominant mode of education for these pupils this term. Priority groups can continue to attend full-time.
To support schools the Department has published guidance on GOV.UK:
The guidance makes clear that we expect all mainstream schools, including independent schools, to follow the same approach.
Both officials and ministers are in frequent contact with the Independent Schools Council about the wider opening of schools.
As both my right hon. Friends, the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer, have made clear, the government will do whatever it takes to support people affected by COVID-19.
Our latest guidance for schools is set out below:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/coronavirus-covid-19-guidance-for-schools-and-other-educational-settings.
Provision for free school meals is ordinarily term time only. However, during the Easter holidays the department met the costs of offering free school meals to eligible pupils not attending school during term time weeks. This was in recognition of the unprecedented levels of disruption and uncertainty for schools during this time. Whether or not such a measure continues to be appropriate in future holiday periods will be confirmed in due course.
These are rapidly developing circumstances. We continue to keep the situation under review and will keep Parliament updated accordingly.
Guidance for schools regarding the temporary provision of free school meals for children from certain groups of families with no recourse to public funds is currently available online here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-free-school-meals-guidance/guidance-for-the-temporary-extension-of-free-school-meals-eligibility-to-nrpf-groups.
We will place the guidance in the Libraries of both Houses.
The Department collects pupil forecasts, existing school capacities, and plans to deliver additional school places from each local authority via the annual school capacity survey which can be found at the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/statistics-school-capacity.
The Department only collects data at local authority and planning area level, and so do not hold constituency level data. Over 5,000 new school places have been created in Enfield local authority since 2010.
Table 1: Secondary capacity in Enfield since 2010
Academic Year | 2009/10 | 2010/11 | 2011/12 | 2012/13 | 2013/14 | 2014/15 | 2015/16 | 2016/17 | 2017/18 |
Enfield | 23,914 | 24,585 | 24,615 | 24,000 | 28,230 | 27,901 | 28,533 | 28,717 | 29,394 |
The statutory duty to provide sufficient school places sits with local authorities. We provide basic need funding for every place that is needed, based on local authorities’ own data on pupil forecasts. They can use this funding to provide places in new schools or through expansions of existing schools, and can work with any school in their local area, including academies and free schools. Enfield has been allocated £122.7 million to provide new school places from 2011-2021.
The Department for Education is encouraging schools, as well as suppliers of goods and services to schools, to reduce their consumption of single-use plastics throughout the supply chain. Further information regarding this can be found at the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/schools-challenged-to-go-single-use-plastic-free-by-2022.
We urge schools to consider finding reusable alternatives wherever possible.
As part of the science curriculum, children are taught about the scientific concepts that relate to the environment. At key stage 2, pupils should explore examples of the human impact on environments, which can include the negative impact of litter. This is built upon in key stage 3 chemistry where pupils are taught about the efficacy of recycling.
I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bolton South East, Yasmin Qureshi, on 13 October 2023, UIN 201679.
We recognise it is possible that dogs may on occasion pick up and follow the scent of live foxes during a trail hunt. Failure to prevent dogs from chasing or killing a fox may be taken as intent to break the law. Enforcement of the Hunting Act is an operational matter for the police.
The Government has made a manifesto commitment not to change the Hunting Act.
We recognise it is possible that dogs may on occasion pick up and follow the scent of live foxes during a trail hunt. Failure to prevent dogs from chasing or killing a fox may be taken as intent to break the law. Enforcement of the Hunting Act is an operational matter for the police.
The Government has made a manifesto commitment not to change the Hunting Act.
Both the interim and long term targets published within the Environmental Improvement Plan 2023 were informed by extensive modelling undertaken by internationally recognised experts. The modelling to inform the long term PM2.5 targets is set out on the UK Air website.
Defra remains committed to providing support for local authorities to tackle air pollution through the air quality grant. Since 2018 we have awarded over £35 million to a range of projects. This includes £10.7 million in funding awarded to 44 local authorities this year that will benefit schools, businesses and communities, and reduce the impact of polluted air on people’s health.
The value of funding committed to the grant is reviewed annually. The budget available for the next round of funding will be announced in summer 2023.
The Local Adaptation Advisory Panel is an official-level forum in which Defra senior and working-level officials are actively engaged. Defra Ministers do not participate in the group.
The delivery of the Environment Act 2021 statutory targets does not place a specific burden on local authorities but will require a shared endeavour from government, local authorities, business and the individual decisions we all make. Through the Environment Act 2021 we have ensured a robust legal framework to hold current and future governments to account, protecting nature for generations to come.
We continue to engage with local authorities on specific targets and to assess any support they need in their delivery.
Following the Surface Water Flooding in London in summer 2021 it was recognised that basements in London are particularly vulnerable to surface water flooding impacts. The Environment Agency supported the Greater London Authority to provide extra information on flood risk and flood preparedness to people living in basement properties. A leaflet was produced and delivered to 40,000 basement properties in London. The Environment Agency also contributed to London Flood Awareness week in November 2021: London Flood Awareness Week 2021 | London City Hall.
The Environment Agency recommend residents check their flood risk: Check for flooding - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk).
Homes at risk of flooding are urged to sign up to Flood Warnings: What to do in a flood - Check for flooding - GOV.UK (check-for-flooding.service.gov.uk) and weather alerts: UK weather warnings - Met Office.
The Government published the third UK Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA3) in January 2022 which included findings from the ‘Monetary Valuation of Risks and Opportunities in CCRA3’ report which provides a synthesis of existing evidence estimating the economic costs of climate impacts. The CCRA informs decisions taken across the country to adapt to climate change impacts, both for central and local government.
Defra, alongside DLUHC, continue to work with local government partners to better understand climate impacts at a local level and to support their plans to deliver greater climate resilience.
Departments across Government worked to respond to heatwave of 2022, including as part of the UK Health Security Agency’s (UKHSA) Heatwave Plan for England. What we have learned from these events will form a key part of the underpinning evidence for the next CCRA, the development of the UKHSA Single Adverse Weather and Health Plan, and the UK’s third National Adaptation Programme which is due for publication this year.
The Local Government Finance Settlement for 2023/24 makes available up to £59.7 billion for local government in England, an increase in Core Spending Power of up to £5.1 billion or 9.4% in cash terms on 2022/23.
The majority of the funding is un-ringfenced in recognition of local authorities being best placed to understand local priorities.
To assess the amount of funding required for local government ahead of fiscal events, we estimate the additional resource required to fund the expenditure needs of local authorities. Government uses a range of forecasts and indices to estimate demographic and unit cost pressures facing local government. We ensure the assumptions underlying our modelling are robust by holding in-depth financial conversations with local authorities and regular conversations with treasurer societies.
I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 6 December to PQ 99926.
Antibiotics are an essential part of veterinary medicine. Failing to use antibiotics in animals which need them compromises animal health and welfare. The Government’s position is that we must reduce the unnecessary use of antibiotics in animals while making sure they can still be used when they are truly needed, to reduce antimicrobial resistance. In the UK, the use of antibiotics in food producing animals has reduced by 55% between 2014 and 2021, and in 2021 we recorded the lowest antibiotic use to date.
Defra is a co-signatory with the Department of Health and Social Care of the UK's Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) 5 year National Action Plan (2019-2024) and the UK's 20 year Vision to Contain and Control AMR by 2040. The UK is considered a global leader on AMR.
The UK takes a One Health, holistic approach, working together to control the emergence and spread of resistant bacteria (also known as superbugs), by reducing antibiotic use in humans and animals and limiting the spread of resistant bacteria through the environment. In the UK, the use of antibiotics in food producing animals has reduced by 55% between 2014 and 2021, and in 2021 we recorded the lowest antibiotic use to date. Over the same period, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) have reported an overall trend of decreasing antimicrobial resistance in bacteria from animals.
The UK Government funded the Pathogen Surveillance in Agriculture, Food and the Environment (PATHSAFE) programme last year, which brings together partners to better understand AMR and gather tracking and monitoring data. Over the years the government has supported several stewardship programmes to encourage the responsible use of antibiotics in humans and animals. Defra also coordinated the Annual Health and Welfare Review which is the first step farmers can take on the government's Animal Health and Welfare Pathway introducing a vet visit for farmers on a yearly basis. These programmes aim to reduce the amount of medicine used on endemic diseases in the long term, helping in the fight against superbugs.
Defra does not support the routine or predictable use of antibiotics, including where antibiotics are used to compensate for inadequate farming practices.We have been consistent that the focus of tackling antimicrobial resistance must be on reducing all unnecessary use of antibiotics, because resistance is promoted whenever an antibiotic is used, regardless of the reason.
We have been engaging closely with external partners over the past few months to inform policy development across a range of chemicals issues. This builds on the commitment in the 25 Year Environment Plan to set out our strategy to tackle chemicals of concern. No publication date for a Chemicals Strategy has yet been set.
Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) represent a group of thousands of chemicals, with hundreds used commercially across many sectors of industry and society. There is increasing evidence of the occurrence of PFAS in the environment and, once in the environment, PFAS are persistent. There is also growing concern regarding the risks to human health. Action has already been taken to ban or highly restrict specific PFAS both domestically and internationally, including perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). However, PFAS represent a very diverse group of chemicals with a wide range of uses for which safer and more sustainable alternatives are not yet available - making this a very challenging issue to tackle.
Work is underway across government to help us assess levels of PFAS occurring in the environment, their sources and potential risks to inform future policy and regulatory approaches. In the UK REACH Work Programme for 2021-22, Defra asked the EA and HSE to examine the risks posed by PFAS and develop a 'Regulatory Management Options Analysis' (RMOA). The RMOA will be published in early 2023 and will make recommendations for risk management measures, building on the commitment in the 25 Year Environment Plan to tackle chemicals of concern. Defra and the Devolved Administrations will carefully consider its recommendations to inform future PFAS policy.
We are committed to leading efforts to protect the marine environment and counter marine pollution. The UK Marine Strategy Programme of Measures sets out a comprehensive list of actions that HM Government is taking to reduce pollution in the marine environment and move us towards Good Environmental Status in our seas.
Now we have left the EU, the Government is able to explore potential action in relation to animal fur. We are reviewing the evidence gathered both from our Call for Evidence and wider engagement with the fur trade and stakeholders, and a summary of responses will be published soon.
The Government has made clear that the production of foie gras from ducks or geese using force feeding raises serious welfare concerns. We do not allow its production in the UK. We are now able to consider any further steps that could be taken in relation to foie gras that is produced overseas using force feeding practices, such as restrictions on import and sale. We are gathering information and will continue to speak to a range of interested parties about the issues involved. This is in line with the Government's commitment to improving animal welfare standards as set out in the Action Plan for Animal Welfare.
Now we have left the EU, the Government is able to explore potential action in relation to animal fur. We are reviewing the evidence gathered both from our Call for Evidence and wider engagement with the fur trade and stakeholders, and a summary of responses will be published soon.
The Government has made clear that the production of foie gras from ducks or geese using force feeding raises serious welfare concerns. We do not allow its production in the UK. We are now able to consider any further steps that could be taken in relation to foie gras that is produced overseas using force feeding practices, such as restrictions on import and sale. We are gathering information and will continue to speak to a range of interested parties about the issues involved. This is in line with the Government's commitment to improving animal welfare standards as set out in the Action Plan for Animal Welfare.
The Government considers that the best way of addressing the online sale of animals by unlicensed breeders and private individuals is to work closely with the Pet Advertising Advisory Group (PAAG). PAAG was created to combat growing concerns about the irresponsible advertising of pets for sale, rehoming and exchange, including through social media platforms. PAAG has developed a set of Minimum Standards which several of the UK’s largest classified websites have agreed to meet.
In addition my Department maintains a national communications campaign (Petfished) to raise awareness of issues associated with low-welfare and illegal supply of pets. This includes providing clear signposting to where responsible breeders and rehoming centres can be found and encouraging prospective buyers to research the seller thoroughly before they visit and decide to purchase. The campaign provides a list of red flags for buyers to look out for when searching for a pet online.
All dogs and all pet horses, ponies and other equines in England are already required to be microchipped. In December 2021 we announced that we will introduce compulsory microchipping of all owned cats in line with our manifesto commitment. We plan to introduce the necessary legislation in 2022. We have no plans to introduce compulsory microchipping of other pets.
The neutering of pets is a decision for owners and we have no plans to make this mandatory. We support animal welfare charities and rehoming establishments in their work to encourage people to neuter their cats and dogs when they are not intended for breeding purposes. Owners should consult their vets for advice about neutering and breeding control.
This is a devolved matter and this response relates to the situation applying in England.
The Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill was introduced in Parliament on 8 June and completed committee on 18 November. The Bill allows us to protect the welfare of pets by introducing restrictions to crack down on the low welfare movements of pets into Great Britain and includes powers to introduce new restrictions on pet travel and the commercial import of pets on welfare grounds, via secondary legislation.
In August 2021, the Government launched an eight-week consultation on our proposed restrictions to the commercial and non-commercial movement of pets, including rescue pets, into Great Britain. This included proposals to ban the commercial and non-commercial movement into Great Britain of puppies under the age of six months, heavily pregnant dogs and dogs which have been subjected to low welfare practices such as ear cropping or tail docking. We are currently analysing the responses to the consultation and will publish a summary response in due course. This will allow us to take onboard the views of the public and interested groups on puppy smuggling and low welfare imports in order to shape our future policy.
The Government shares the public’s high regard for animal welfare. We are delivering a series of ambitious reforms, as outlined in the Action Plan for Animal Welfare. We wish to improve the welfare of farm animals and are considering the case for introducing further reforms, in areas such as the use of cages for laying hens and farrowing crates for pigs.
In coming to an assessment of the potential merits of banning cages we will wish to consult all interested organisations.
The new energy-from-waste plant will replace the existing facility at Edmonton and has been permitted and assessed based on an environmental impact assessment for a maximum of 700,000 tonnes per year, as opposed to 750,000 tonnes for the existing plant. The permitted capacity is not being increased.
All energy-from-waste plants in England must comply with strict emission limits under the Environmental Permitting Regulations and cannot operate unless issued with a permit by the Environment Agency (EA). The EA assesses the emissions from new plant as part of its permitting process and consults Public Health England on every application it receives.
In the future, if the operator wishes to increase the capacity of the plant, they will need to apply to the EA for a permit variation, including details on any changes to the impact on air quality. The EA would only grant a variation if it was satisfied that the proposed increase in capacity would not have a significant impact on the environment or human health.
Once the plant becomes operational, the EA will perform regular inspections and audits to ensure that the plant is complying with the requirement of its permit. That will include checks of the results of the continuous air emissions monitoring which all energy-from-waste plants must do.
I have no plans to publish this information. However, my Department would be happy to consider any request submitted under the statutory conditions set out in the Freedom of Information Act or Environmental Information Regulations.
Defra has not undertaken any such review.
Local authorities prepare local waste plans in which they consider their area’s waste infrastructure needs. They will need to take account of the Resources and Waste Strategy ambitions and measures in their assumptions around planning future waste infrastructure needs.
In December 2018, the Government published its Resources and Waste Strategy which outlines how we will work towards our ambitions of doubling resource productivity and producing zero avoidable waste by 2050. Introducing the Collection and Packaging Reforms are a key part of the policy measures required to meet the targets set in the Strategy, by helping to recycle more material and increasing the quality of the material being collected for recycling. Due to the combined impacts of consistent recycling collections, Extended Producers Responsibility for packaging and a Deposit Return Scheme for drinks containers, we estimate that we will meet our commitment of a municipal waste recycling rate of 65% by 2035.
In addition, in October 2020 as part of the Circular Economy Package, we legislated through the Environmental (England and Wales) Permitting Regulations 2016 to include a permit condition for landfill and incineration operators, meaning they cannot accept separately collected paper, metal, glass or plastic for landfill or incineration unless it has gone through some form of treatment process first, and post treatment this is deemed to be the best environmental outcome. This is in addition to existing permit measures that already prevent the acceptance of recyclable material.
The above measures will reduce the levels of residual waste needing to be treated through incineration (including with energy recovery) or landfilled.
Defra is working closely with the dairy industry to manage the impact of COVID-19. Demand for milk and some dairy products has increased in supermarkets and the vast majority of Britain’s dairy farmers continue to supply their contracts at the usual price. However, between 5 and 10 per cent of total milk production goes to the service trade, and these farmers have been impacted by the significantly reduced demand.
At the outset of the pandemic, the Government announced a number of emergency measures to support farmers, processors, and retailers. These include designating the food sector as critical to the response, with those working in the production, processing, sale, distribution or delivery of food categorised as “key workers” and granting derogations on drivers’ hours limitations.
In addition, to support milk producers, the Government announced on 17 April a temporary easing of some elements of competition law to make it easier for the dairy industry to come together to maximise production, processing and storage efficiency and ensure as much product as possible can be processed into high quality dairy products. This approach will allow the market for milk to adjust to the change in demand for milk while allowing production to be restored when shops, restaurants and pubs are able to open again. Exempted activities have been developed in conjunction with the dairy industry.
The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) together with Dairy UK are launching a new £1 million campaign to drive consumption of milk and other dairy products. Running over 12 weeks, the campaign will highlight the role that milk and other dairy products play in supporting moments of personal connection during times of crisis. Defra and the devolved administrations are jointly contributing towards the financing of this campaign.
The dairy industry can access various Government backed loan schemes. The COVID-19 Business Interruption Loans scheme is available to farmers, milk buyers and milk processors. In addition, the new Bounce Back Loan scheme, which will apply to businesses including those operating in agriculture, will ensure that the smallest businesses can access up to £50,000 loans.
In recognition of the unprecedented challenges facing this sector, on 6 May 2020, Defra announced a new fund to help support those dairy farmers who have seen decreased demand due to the loss of the food service sector. The new fund will provide support for those most in need. Eligible dairy farmers in England will be entitled to up to £10,000 each, to cover 70% of their lost income during April and May to ensure they can continue to operate and sustain production capacity without impacts on animal welfare.
Public intervention for skimmed milk powder and butter continues to be available. Industry can sell skimmed milk powder and butter into public intervention when the price they would receive on the open market falls below the intervention price. This provides a floor price for dairy products. From 7 May, UK dairy processors are also eligible to apply for EU funded private storage aid in respect of skimmed milk powder, butter and cheese.
The Government is aware that coronavirus represents a very significant challenge, affecting daily life and every part of the economy. The agricultural sector plays a vital role in maintaining the UK’s food security. We are working closely alongside the agricultural industry to ensure that we understand and manage the impacts to the industry.
The department has been in close discussion with banks to ensure the farming sector has access to financial support to ease cashflow problems during this period, including through the HMG backed Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan (CBIL), and the Bounce Back Loan scheme, which was announced on 27 April, and is the latest step in a package of support measures announced by the Chancellor. The Government will provide lenders with a 100% guarantee on each loan, to give lenders the confidence they need to support small businesses. These loans will be from £2,000 up to £50,000, capped at 25% of firms’ turnover, and the Government will cover the first 12 months of interest payments and fees charged to the business by the lender. Almost all UK businesses will be eligible to apply for a loan under the scheme.
In March, Defra worked with BEIS to introduce new measures to support businesses in the food sector keep food supply flowing on to shelves and into homes. These included a temporary relaxation of competition rules to allow supermarkets to work together. The legislation to bring in this change was introduced on 27 March and has a retrospective effect from 1 March.
In April, we temporarily relaxed further elements of competition law to support the dairy sector during this period. Legislation was laid before Parliament on 1 May to enable collaboration between dairy farmers and producers, supporting them to adapt to changes in the supply chain including decreased demand from the hospitality sector. The legislation will apply retrospectively from 1 April 2020.
On 6 May, Defra announced a new fund to support English dairy farmers who have seen decreased demand due to the loss of the food service sector. Dairy farmers access this funding for those qualifying months, with no cap set on the number of farmers who can receive this support or on the total funding available. Eligible dairy farmers who have lost more than 25% of their income over April and May due to coronavirus disruptions will be eligible for funding of up to £10,000 each, to cover around 70% of their lost income during the qualifying months to ensure they can continue to operate and sustain production capacity without impacts on animal welfare. The Welsh Government announced the opening of a similar scheme on 12 May.
The availability of this funding followed the launch on 5 May of a joint Government and Devolved Administrations backed £1 million campaign aiming to boost milk consumption and help producers use their surplus stock. This 12-week campaign is being led by Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) and Dairy UK. This follows a similar on-going campaign led by AHDB and retailers to promote the consumption of beef products.
While the Government has made a wide-ranging package of measures available to businesses to support them through this difficult period, we continue to keep the situation in each sector under review. Legal powers were included in the COVID-19 Bill enabling us to offer further financial support if we believe it is necessary.
Whilst Defra does not directly work with schools to reduce their use of single use plastics, the Government published the Resources and Waste Strategy (RWS) in December 2018, setting out our plans to reduce, reuse and recycle more plastic than we do now. Our target is to eliminate all avoidable plastic waste throughout the life of the 25 Year Environment Plan, but for the most problematic plastics we are going faster - that is why we are committing to work towards all plastic packaging placed on the UK market being recyclable, reusable or compostable by 2025.
Our landmark Environment Bill will enable us to significantly change the way that we manage our waste and take forward a number of the proposals in the RWS. The Bill will enable us to create extended producer responsibility schemes; introduce deposit return schemes; establish greater consistency in the recycling system and charge for single use plastic items, all of which will assist with reducing and dealing with single use plastics in schools.
The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), supported by Defra, works to deliver practical solutions to improve resource efficiency. Through RecycleNow, a national recycling campaign for England, they run an engagement programme targeted towards primary school children and encouraging them to think about recycling and sustainability.
In addition, Keep Britain Tidy runs an England-wide Eco-Schools programme, working with schools to educate young people about the dangers of littering.
UK Export Finance (UKEF) is aware of contracts with estimated supported eligible contracting of over US $750 million having been awarded from the Mozambique LNG project. Those contracts include the manufacture of equipment, subsea installation vessels, and provision of legal and financial advice.
Specific details of individual contracts that are eligible for UKEF support are not published due to commercial confidentiality.
UK Export Finance (UKEF) is aware of contracts with estimated supported eligible contracting of over US $750 million having been awarded from the Mozambique LNG project. Those contracts include the manufacture of equipment, subsea installation vessels, and provision of legal and financial advice.
Specific details of individual contracts that are eligible for UKEF support are not published due to commercial confidentiality.
UK Export Finance (UKEF) is aware of contracts with estimated supported eligible contracting of over US $750 million having been awarded from the Mozambique LNG project. Those contracts include the manufacture of equipment, subsea installation vessels, and provision of legal and financial advice.
Specific details of individual contracts that are eligible for UKEF support are not published due to commercial confidentiality.
Our guidance forms part of the package of support that we offer to all British businesses. HM Government is clear that more trade does not have to come at the expense of our values.
The United Kingdom has a robust export controls regime. All export licence applications are assessed on a case-by-case basis against the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria (the “Consolidated Criteria”).
We have been clear that equipment manufactured in the United Kingdom is used all over the world, and we are equally clear that a licence will not be granted if to do so would be inconsistent with the Consolidated Criteria.
In line with the requirements of the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) Common Approaches (2016) and Equator Principles (2013), UK Export Finance (UKEF) will monitor the ongoing environmental, social and human rights (ESHR) performance of the Mozambique LNG Project to be satisfied that it is being constructed and operated in compliance with applicable local and international laws, and aligns with relevant international ESHR standards, including the International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability. UKEF will be supported in this performance monitoring by an independent ESHR consultant and an independent security consultant. There is also ongoing monitoring of the security threat situation and validation of the Project’s reports and management plans through the UK, US and French Embassies in Mozambique.
The Mozambique LNG Project is committed to following the UN Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, which provide guidance on good international practice in terms of conducting security operations while respecting human rights. The Project has a Community Security Plan in place which is aligned with international standards. The Community Security Plan has recently been updated in light of the dynamic security situation in the region.
While UK Export Finance (UKEF) has been approached by and held initial meetings with the sponsors of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline project (EACOP), it has not engaged in any substantive due diligence on the project and so considers this to be an early-stage enquiry. As such, at this early stage UKEF was not able to make any reliable assessment of whether the transaction might progress or, if so, over what timeframe.
On 12 December 2020, the Prime Minister announced that the British government will no longer provide any new direct financial or promotional support for the fossil fuel energy sector overseas. This policy will be implemented as soon as possible following the conclusion of the consultation process that was also launched on 12 December.
During the consultation period and ahead of the implementation of the new policy, the government will continue to apply current policy for all in-scope activities including proposals for high carbon projects, with consideration of relevant factors including climate change.
I refer the Hon. Member for Edmonton to my responses to the Hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston on 18 November 2020 (UIN: 91998) and 25 November 2020 (UIN: 118072), which listed the fossil fuel related projects that UK Export Finance is currently considering for 2021, their locations, and the type of fossil fuel involved.
The new policy on ending government’s support to fossil fuels overseas announced by the Prime Minister at the Climate Ambition Summit will be implemented as soon as possible following the conclusion of the consultation process that was launched on 12 December.
During the consultation period and ahead of the implementation of the new policy, the government will continue to apply current policy for all in-scope activities including proposals for high carbon projects, with consideration of relevant factors including climate change.
The projects referred to in my response to the Hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston on 18 November 2020 (UIN: 91998) are still under consideration by UK Export Finance, and no decisions have been made. It is our policy not to comment on potential transactions for reasons of commercial sensitivity.
UK Export Finance (UKEF) has been approached on the project referred to, but no decision has been made.
The projects referred to in the response to Question 91998 are still under consideration, and we cannot comment on potential transactions for reasons of commercial confidentiality.
UK Export Finance (UKEF) has a specialist environmental, social, and human rights (ESHR) team that reviews relevant projects for such risks and impacts (including consideration of climate change) prior to UKEF taking a decision on support. ESHR reviews are undertaken in strict alignment with international frameworks for managing such ESHR risks and impacts, namely the OECD Council Recommendation on Common Approaches for Officially Supported Export Credits and Environmental and Social Due Diligence (OECD Common Approaches) and Equator Principles, which was updated in July 2020 to strengthen requirements related to climate change and human rights. The ESHR team undertakes these reviews to be satisfied that relevant projects should comply with applicable local and relevant international laws, and align with international ESHR standards, before support is provided. Where UKEF provides support to such projects it undertakes on-going ESHR monitoring over the period of that support.
Where a relevant project is identified as having a high potential impact on the environment and/or social matters/human rights, UKEF publishes Category A notices to inform stakeholders of its consideration of such a project.
Furthermore, from 1 April 2020, UKEF has committed to consider how it will take account of climate change within its decision-making processes across all its products. This consideration will be proportionate to the risks and impacts associated with the projects and its support.
The projects referred to in the response to Question 91998 are still under consideration by UK Export Finance, and no decisions have been made. It is our policy not to comment on potential transactions for reasons of commercial sensitivity.
UK Export Finance (UKEF) has been approached on the project referred to, and no decision has been made. It is not UKEF policy to comment on potential transactions for reasons of commercial sensitivity.
HM Government takes its arms export responsibilities seriously and assesses export licence applications in accordance with strict licensing criteria.
Through our rigorous process, 87 export licences were granted for military related items to Saudi Arabia, during the period 20th June 2019 to 29th September 2020.
We will not license the export of equipment where to do so would be inconsistent with the Consolidated Criteria; no licences had to be refused on this basis in the aforementioned period.
In line with its regular policy, UK Export Finance (UKEF) has undertaken an environmental, social and human rights (ESHR) review of the Mozambique LNG Project. This was undertaken in strict alignment with international frameworks for managing such ESHR risks and impacts. UKEF’s review was conducted alongside other export credit agencies and the African Development Bank, with the support of an independent ESHR consultant. This review considered all the relevant ESHR documentation provided by the Project sponsors such as ESHR impact assessments, strategies, management and monitoring plans amongst others and included studies undertaken since the publication of the Project’s impact assessment.
UKEF published, in August 2019, a Category A notice of its consideration of the Project which includes a link to an Environmental, Social and Health Impact Assessment (ESHIA) of the Mozambique LNG project and related information. In undertaking its review, UKEF considered the most up-to-date ESHIA. The Category A notice can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/category-a-project-under-consideration-mozambique-lng-project
As Mozambique is progressively emerging from debt distress, UK Export Finance (UKEF) support is subject to meeting the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Sustainable Lending Principles, which include a consideration of the economic and social development benefits of the Project to Mozambique. The Department for International Development provided confirmation that these benefits would be met by the Project.
The Project is directly supported by the African Development Bank. The World Bank and IMF are supportive of the Project. All three of these organisations are leading international financing institutions with developmental mandates and goals.
The Project’s Environmental and Social Impact Assessment presents the direct and indirect (Scope 1 and Scope 2) contribution of the Project to Mozambique’s greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) baseline, which is estimated to account for approximately 6 - 10% of Mozambique’s national GHG emissions. This was estimated in accordance with the GHG Protocol: Corporate Accounting & Reporting Standard developed by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and the World Resources Institute (WRI). The Project’s Scope 3 emissions are produced by the use of the Project’s LNG. Calculating LNG Scope 3 emissions is highly complex and requires details of when, where, how and how much of the Project’s gas volumes will be used. UK Export Finance (UKEF) made some reasonable assumptions about Scope 3 emissions, that it then took into account in its review of the Project. There is scope, however, for the Project to replace / displace more polluting hydrocarbon sources, such as oil and coal, which would result in lower net emissions than using these energy sources.
UKEF considered climate change as part of its review of the Project including considering the potential lock-in risks from the Project. It is not known for certain whether the Project will displace renewable energy potential or lower carbon solutions. However, for Mozambique, the need for financial resources to support the country’s climate resilience is noteworthy and, as per Mozambique’s own Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), UKEF considers that the financial outputs of this Project will act as a catalyst towards enabling the country’s climate change plans to be fulfilled, and thus to allow investment in the renewables sector.
The International Energy Agency notes that demand for energy cannot be met for the
foreseeable future (i.e. up to 2040) without oil and gas. Even under a sustainable
development scenario, gas is expected to account for 24% of global primary energy
demand in 2040. The Paris Agreement (Article 4.1) recognises that the peaking of
greenhouse gases will take longer for developing countries, such as Mozambique, and the Project sits within Mozambique’s longer-term plans to establish strong social and
economic stability.
The support provided by UKEF takes the form of direct loans or loan guarantees, rather than equity funding.
The Project’s Environmental and Social Impact Assessment presents the direct and indirect (Scope 1 and Scope 2) contribution of the Project to Mozambique’s greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) baseline, which is estimated to account for approximately 6 - 10% of Mozambique’s national GHG emissions. This was estimated in accordance with the GHG Protocol: Corporate Accounting & Reporting Standard developed by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and the World Resources Institute (WRI). The Project’s Scope 3 emissions are produced by the use of the Project’s LNG. Calculating LNG Scope 3 emissions is highly complex and requires details of when, where, how and how much of the Project’s gas volumes will be used. UK Export Finance (UKEF) made some reasonable assumptions about Scope 3 emissions, that it then took into account in its review of the Project. There is scope, however, for the Project to replace / displace more polluting hydrocarbon sources, such as oil and coal, which would result in lower net emissions than using these energy sources.
UKEF considered climate change as part of its review of the Project including considering the potential lock-in risks from the Project. It is not known for certain whether the Project will displace renewable energy potential or lower carbon solutions. However, for Mozambique, the need for financial resources to support the country’s climate resilience is noteworthy and, as per Mozambique’s own Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), UKEF considers that the financial outputs of this Project will act as a catalyst towards enabling the country’s climate change plans to be fulfilled, and thus to allow investment in the renewables sector.
The International Energy Agency notes that demand for energy cannot be met for the
foreseeable future (i.e. up to 2040) without oil and gas. Even under a sustainable
development scenario, gas is expected to account for 24% of global primary energy
demand in 2040. The Paris Agreement (Article 4.1) recognises that the peaking of
greenhouse gases will take longer for developing countries, such as Mozambique, and the Project sits within Mozambique’s longer-term plans to establish strong social and
economic stability.
The support provided by UKEF takes the form of direct loans or loan guarantees, rather than equity funding.
The Project’s Environmental and Social Impact Assessment presents the direct and indirect (Scope 1 and Scope 2) contribution of the Project to Mozambique’s greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) baseline, which is estimated to account for approximately 6 - 10% of Mozambique’s national GHG emissions. This was estimated in accordance with the GHG Protocol: Corporate Accounting & Reporting Standard developed by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and the World Resources Institute (WRI). The Project’s Scope 3 emissions are produced by the use of the Project’s LNG. Calculating LNG Scope 3 emissions is highly complex and requires details of when, where, how and how much of the Project’s gas volumes will be used. UK Export Finance (UKEF) made some reasonable assumptions about Scope 3 emissions, that it then took into account in its review of the Project. There is scope, however, for the Project to replace / displace more polluting hydrocarbon sources, such as oil and coal, which would result in lower net emissions than using these energy sources.
UKEF considered climate change as part of its review of the Project including considering the potential lock-in risks from the Project. It is not known for certain whether the Project will displace renewable energy potential or lower carbon solutions. However, for Mozambique, the need for financial resources to support the country’s climate resilience is noteworthy and, as per Mozambique’s own Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), UKEF considers that the financial outputs of this Project will act as a catalyst towards enabling the country’s climate change plans to be fulfilled, and thus to allow investment in the renewables sector.
The International Energy Agency notes that demand for energy cannot be met for the
foreseeable future (i.e. up to 2040) without oil and gas. Even under a sustainable
development scenario, gas is expected to account for 24% of global primary energy
demand in 2040. The Paris Agreement (Article 4.1) recognises that the peaking of
greenhouse gases will take longer for developing countries, such as Mozambique, and the Project sits within Mozambique’s longer-term plans to establish strong social and
economic stability.
The support provided by UKEF takes the form of direct loans or loan guarantees, rather than equity funding.
The Mozambique LNG Project is still under consideration, and we cannot comment on potential transactions for reasons of commercial confidentiality.
UK Export Finance (UKEF) carries out due diligence on all relevant aspects of a project before coming to a decision on whether to provide support.
As the question acknowledges, the Government has already published a Category A notice which includes a link to an Environmental, Social and Health Impact Assessment (ESHR) of the Mozambique LNG project and related information. The Category A Notice is available here:
UKEF has a specialist ESHR team that reviews relevant projects for such risks and impacts prior to UKEF taking a decision on support.
Licences have been granted to both EDO MBM Technology Ltd and other companies for military items for use by the Turkish armed forces.
We continue to monitor the situation in Syria very closely and are considering the licensing position in the light of recent developments. No further export licences to Turkey, for items which might be used in military operations in Syria, will be granted while we do so.
HM Government publishes official statistics (on a quarterly and annual basis) about export licences on gov.uk; these reports contain detailed information on the type of export licences issued, refused or revoked, by destination type (e.g. military, other) and a summary of the items covered by these licences.
Licences have been granted to both EDO MBM Technology Ltd and other companies for military items for use by the Turkish armed forces.
We continue to monitor the situation in Syria very closely and are considering the licensing position in the light of recent developments. No further export licences to Turkey, for items which might be used in military operations in Syria, will be granted while we do so.
HM Government publishes official statistics (on a quarterly and annual basis) about export licences on gov.uk; these reports contain detailed information on the type of export licences issued, refused or revoked, by destination type (e.g. military, other) and a summary of the items covered by these licences.
No derogation was granted to Greater Anglia in relation to the May 2023 train timetable. Operators continue to respond to changing passenger demand levels and travel patterns and it is important they have the flexibility to do so.
No derogation was granted to Greater Anglia in relation to the May 2022 train timetable. Operators continue to respond to changing passenger demand levels and travel patterns and it is important they have the flexibility to do so. We will only be in a position to reintroduce meaningful consultations once demand has stabilised.
The Department does not hold all information relating to the number of trains stopping per hour by train station in 2022 and 2023.
The Department does not hold all information relating to the number of trains stopping per hour by train station in 2022 and 2023.
Detailed decisions about the development of the national rail timetable is for the rail operator and Network Rail. As part of Greater Anglia’s timetable planning process for the May 2023 timetable change, it has concentrated its services on the Lea Valley route. This change is to reduce congestion on the West Anglia route and deliver better, more consistent performance and greater resilience in the event of any disruption. Edmonton Green will continue to have frequent peak and off-peak services provided by London Overground.
Ministers regularly hold meetings with representatives from the train operating companies.
Information on Ministers' meetings with train operating companies is included in the Ministers’ Transparency Publication, issued on a quarterly basis, and is available via this webpage:
Transparency and freedom of information releases - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
Ministers and officials regularly hold meetings with representatives from the train operating companies.
Ministers and officials regularly hold meetings with representatives from the train operating companies.
As stated in Question 104324 the Department meets regularly with representatives from train operating companies to discuss a range of topics as part of its contractual relationships with them.
The Dispute Handling Guide has previously been disclosed in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. A copy of this will also be published on gov.uk shortly.
Ministers and officials regularly hold meetings with representatives from the train operating companies.
The Department is working with industry to ensure that we are taking all possible steps to keep as much of the railway as possible running for passengers and freight, and that passengers and businesses are kept fully informed of the impact of disruption. Network Rail is also working to ensure as many planned engineering works as possible can go ahead in the Christmas period.
Departmental officials are taking part in regular roundtables and bilateral discussions with those industries most disrupted by industrial action so the Department and rail industry can better understand the concerns of businesses and passenger groups.
The Government has provided Transport for London (TfL) with more than £4 billion of support through three extraordinary funding and financing agreements since May 2020. The Department for Transport continues to work closely with TfL to support it onto a sustainable financial footing while ensuring a fair deal for the taxpayer.
The Government currently provides approximately £1 billion per year of funding for capital investment to Transport for London (TfL). This is in addition to the three extraordinary funding and financing agreements since May 2020, worth more than £4 billion. These agreements take steps to place TfL on a financially sustainable footing while offering a fair deal for the taxpayer. In the most recent agreement, of 1 June 2021, the Government has committed to review of options for longer term reform of the funding framework for Transport for London, including governance and oversight. We continue to work with the Mayor and TfL on those options, and it would be inappropriate to comment at this stage.
We are giving careful consideration to the large volume of responses to this consultation and will publish the outcome as soon as possible.
Platform edge tactiles are part of the scope for more than 100 accessible routes due to be installed under our Access for All programme by 2024. In addition, whenever the industry installs, replaces or renews platform infrastructure they are required to install tactiles.
I have asked Network Rail to work up a costed plan for a wider roll out of tactiles for stations where tactiles are not being delivered under another programme.
The Government has published 'Safer Transport' guidance for transport operators and 'Safer Travel' guidance for passengers, as well as specific safety guidance for owners, operators and drivers of taxis and private hire vehicles (PHVs). The Government is developing further guidance on installing protective screens in taxis and PHVs.
In addition, the Government continues to provide £27.3 million per week of Covid-19 Bus Services Support Grant (CBSSG) funding to bus operators and local authorities and will do so until it is agreed that this funding is no longer needed. CBSSG funding allows bus operators to provide up to 100% of pre-Covid service levels in order to accommodate social distancing, while also helping operators to implement safety measures to protect staff and passengers, including protective screens in driver’s cabs and enhanced cleaning of vehicles.
Aviation security remains a priority for the Government. There are currently no plans to lift or increase the levels of liquid currently permitted to be carried by aircraft crew through security. We do however regularly assess our security measures to ensure they are proportionate and effective, including taking advice from the Civil Aviation Authority.
Aviation security remains a priority for the Government. There are currently no plans to lift or increase the levels of liquid currently permitted to be carried by aircraft crew through security. We do however regularly assess our security measures to ensure they are proportionate and effective, including taking advice from the Civil Aviation Authority.
It would not be appropriate to comment on individual discussions. However, we recognise that this will be very distressing news for BA employees and their families, and we stand ready to support them.
The aviation sector is essential to the UK economy, and firms can draw upon the unprecedented package of measures, including: schemes to raise capital, flexibilities with tax bills, and financial support for employees. If airlines find themselves in trouble because of coronavirus, and have exhausted the measures already available to them, the Transport Secretary is clear that the Government is prepared to enter discussions with individual companies seeking bespoke support as a last resort, having exhausted all other options.??Any intervention would need to represent value for money for taxpayers.
A Disability Cost of Living Payment of £150 was paid to eligible claimants in September 2022. A second Disability Cost of Living Payment of £150 was then paid in June 2023. 85% of claimants were also entitled to either £300 Pension Cost of Living Payments and up to £900 means tested benefit Cost of Living Payments.
Further to this, the Energy Price Guarantee was extended from April 2023 until the end of March 2024, meaning a typical household bill will be around £3,000 per year in Great Britain.
Attendance Allowance is currently in the private beta phase of development, where DWP are inviting a limited number of people to use the online claim service, so feedback can be gathered to improve the service. We will look to move from trialling to public beta in due course.
I refer the Hon. Member to the answer given on 9 May to PQ 183412.
The definition of fraud and error is set out in our publication on the Monetary Value of Fraud and Error in the benefits system. It defines benefit fraud as cases where the following three conditions apply:
The ‘background information’ section of our National Statistics publication provides further information.
Fraud and error in the benefit system: financial year 2021 to 2022 estimates - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
Information on the number of claimants convicted of fraud after having their claim suspended by the Department’s Risk Review Team is not readily available and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost.
Since the beginning of December 2022, the Risk Review Team have reinstated 627 cases that were previously suspended.
The Risk Review Team currently have 108,362 cases suspended.
Information on the number of claimants convicted of fraud after having their claim suspended by the Department’s Risk Review Team is not readily available and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost.
Since the beginning of December 2022, the Risk Review Team have reinstated 627 cases that were previously suspended.
The Risk Review Team currently have 108,362 cases suspended.
I refer the Hon. Member to the answer given to PQ 5616.
You ask: whether his Department uses (a) automated or (b) partially automated technologies to (i) investigate benefit claimants or claims.
The department does not use (a) automated or (b) partially automated technologies to (i) investigate benefit claimants or claims.
You further ask: whether his Department uses (a) automated or (b) partially automated technologies to select or refer benefit claimant or claims for possible investigation?
Yes, DWP’s Integrated Risk and Intelligence Service uses automated/partially automated technologies to identify claims that may warrant closer inspection (or may need additional consideration), assisting in the prevention and detection of fraud and error. It is right that we keep up with fraud in today’s digital age so that we can prevent, detect and deter those who would try to exploit the benefit system and more importantly, improve our support for genuine claimants. Any risk of fraud or error identified is reviewed by a trained member of staff and this is only one of a number of verification steps which will have to be cleared before an investigation is begun or before a claim is paid.
A decision to investigate a claimant is always made by a case handler who would take into account all relevant facts and circumstances.
Where automated technologies are used, DWP is always committed to processing data lawfully, proportionately, and ethically, with meaningful human input and safeguards for the protection of individuals.
We do not use automated technologies to replace human judgement to determine or deny a payment to a claimant. A human agent will always make final decisions and Equality and Data Protection Impact Assessments are carried out.
The monthly Universal Credit earnings threshold is based on 16 hours a week at the National Living Wage. The cap is applied to those earning under that level to encourage people into work and reduce long term dependency on benefits.
The Government firmly believes that where possible it is in the best interests of children to be in working households and the benefit cap provides a clear incentive to move into work.
The Government clearly recognises that high childcare costs can affect parents’ decisions to take up paid work or increase their working hours which is why the changes to the UC childcare element announced in the Spring Budget 2023 will provide generous additional financial support to parents moving into work and/or significantly increasing their working hours.
The UC childcare policy aligns with the wider government free childcare offer and the Tax-Free Childcare offer. The current free childcare offer provides 15 hours a week of free childcare in England for all 3- and 4-year old’s and disadvantaged 2-year old's, doubling for working parents of 3- and 4-year-old to 30 hours a week. From April 2024, working parents of 2-year-olds will be able to access 15 hours of free childcare per week. This will be extended to working parents of 9 months to 2-year-olds from September 2024. From September 2025, all eligible working parents of children aged 9 months up to 3 years will be able to access 30 free hours per week.
Universal Credit guidance is available for work coaches and also published in the House of Commons library. The department is committed to refreshing these at regular intervals.
Many claimants who have a health condition choose to work. This is why the department continues to provide support to those claimants not exempt from the benefit cap to help prepare and move into or towards work.
A full range of support is available to claimants, which includes work coach interviews, national and local provision. This support and advice is ongoing and can include, for example, employment support to help them find work, budgeting support, housing advice and signposting to local authorities to access to Discretionary Housing Payments
The Government clearly recognises that high childcare costs can affect parents’ decisions to take up paid work or increase their working hours, which is why the changes to the UC childcare element announced in the Spring Budget 2023 will provide generous additional financial support to parents moving into work and/or significantly increasing their working hours.
Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) and Universal Credit (UC) tribunal decisions are processed in a different team to Personal Independence Payment (PIP) tribunal decisions. Although there is no target for implementing ESA and UC tribunal decisions, the department’s overarching objective is, and always has been, to do so without delay.
Households receiving severe disability benefits and/or entitled to carer benefits are exempt from the benefit cap.
The latest statistics can be found at Benefit cap statistics - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
One of the main aims of the benefit cap is to incentivise behaviours that encourage people into work and reduce long term dependency on benefits. Reflecting that aim there is an associated exception to the cap when a household has earnings of at least £658 a month (£722 from April 2023).
Getting our claimants back into work remains our primary concern and returning to employment will significantly increase the likelihood of a household not being affected by the cap.
All claimants without a specific work coach, for example, have access to support and advice on a voluntary basis. The full range of support is available to claimants, which includes work coach interviews, national and local provision. Work Coaches will ensure that claimants understand how moving into work, progressing in work and earning more will help them financially alongside advising them of the level of earnings they need to have in order to be exempt from the Benefit Cap.
The support and advice is ongoing and can also include, for example, employment support to help them find work, budgeting support, housing advice and signposting to local authorities to access to Discretionary Housing Payments.
Capped households are directed to further information and advice available on Gov.uk via the Universal Credit monthly statement.
There are also multiple local jobs fairs, disability confident events and a wide variety event of training available.
A full range of support is available to claimants, which includes work coach interviews, national and local provision. This support and advice is ongoing and can include, for example, employment support to help them find work, budgeting support, housing advice and signposting to local authorities to access to Discretionary Housing Payments.
People with health conditions and disabilities can access direct support from Disability Employment Advisors in Jobcentres. This is in addition to Additional Work Coach Support which will provide disabled people and people with health conditions with increased one-to-one personalised support. Additional Work Coach Support is already live in one third of jobcentres. It will be available in more jobcentres from spring 2023 and will be available nationally by 2024.
There are also multiple local jobs fairs, disability confident events and a wide variety event of training available.
An assessment has been undertaken and the findings form part of the evaluation of the lower tiered benefit cap which is scheduled to be published in due course.
212 out of 188,119 claimants who have had their cases suspended by the Risk Review Team have appealed the decision (0.11%) with 42 claimants having their appeal allowed, which is 0.02% of the total number of claims suspended.
Personal Independence Payment has a target of 28 days for implementing a tribunal’s decision and is currently averaging around 10 days.
Employment and Support Allowance and Universal Credit do not have an overarching target. Decisions are implemented as quickly as possible, with some exceptions.
For all three benefits, information on the average time to reinstate payments for the period requested is not collated centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
If a decision is not implemented timeously, there is guidance published by HMCTS and available on Gov.UK, entitled ‘How to appeal against a decision made by the Department for Work and Pensions’.
The main reason that a tribunal’s decision might not be implemented timeously, is if the Secretary of State considers that the decision may contain an error of law and suspends payment of the tribunal’s award whilst that is considered. In such a case the claimant must be notified that this is being done. If the claimant is not notified of a reason for the decision not being implemented, then they can contact the department: this can be done by using the telephone numbers on Gov.UK, on the decision letter they received, or by attending a Jobcentre; if it is a UC appeal they can use their journal.
Personal Independence Payment has a target of 28 days for implementing a tribunal’s decision and is currently averaging around 10 days.
Employment and Support Allowance and Universal Credit do not have an overarching target. Decisions are implemented as quickly as possible, with some exceptions.
For all three benefits, information on the average time to reinstate payments for the period requested is not collated centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
If a decision is not implemented timeously, there is guidance published by HMCTS and available on Gov.UK, entitled ‘How to appeal against a decision made by the Department for Work and Pensions’.
The main reason that a tribunal’s decision might not be implemented timeously, is if the Secretary of State considers that the decision may contain an error of law and suspends payment of the tribunal’s award whilst that is considered. In such a case the claimant must be notified that this is being done. If the claimant is not notified of a reason for the decision not being implemented, then they can contact the department: this can be done by using the telephone numbers on Gov.UK, on the decision letter they received, or by attending a Jobcentre; if it is a UC appeal they can use their journal.
Personal Independence Payment has a target of 28 days for implementing a tribunal’s decision and is currently averaging around 10 days.
Employment and Support Allowance and Universal Credit do not have an overarching target. Decisions are implemented as quickly as possible, with some exceptions.
For all three benefits, information on the average time to reinstate payments for the period requested is not collated centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
If a decision is not implemented timeously, there is guidance published by HMCTS and available on Gov.UK, entitled ‘How to appeal against a decision made by the Department for Work and Pensions’.
The main reason that a tribunal’s decision might not be implemented timeously, is if the Secretary of State considers that the decision may contain an error of law and suspends payment of the tribunal’s award whilst that is considered. In such a case the claimant must be notified that this is being done. If the claimant is not notified of a reason for the decision not being implemented, then they can contact the department: this can be done by using the telephone numbers on Gov.UK, on the decision letter they received, or by attending a Jobcentre; if it is a UC appeal they can use their journal.
Under Universal Credit the cap is disapplied if a household has earnings that are equal to or above a prescribed earnings threshold, which is currently £658 /16 hours per week at National living wage.
Getting our claimants back into work remains our primary concern and returning to employment will significantly increase the likelihood of a household not being affected by the cap.
The Benefit Cap provides a strong work incentive and fairness for hard-working taxpaying households, whilst providing a reasonable safety net of support for the most vulnerable.
The Government firmly believes that where possible it is in the best interests of children to be in working households and the benefit cap provides a clear incentive to move into work.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has completed his statutory annual up-rating review and State Pension and benefit rates will increase in line with the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) for the year to September 2022. This means the rate of Universal Credit standard allowance will increase by 10.1% from 10 April 2023.
The Benefit Cap provides a strong work incentive and fairness for hard-working taxpaying households, whilst providing a reasonable safety net of support for the most vulnerable.
The Government firmly believes that where possible it is in the best interests of children to be in working households and the benefit cap provides a clear incentive to move into work.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has completed his statutory annual up-rating review and State Pension and benefit rates will increase in line with the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) for the year to September 2022. This means the rate of Universal Credit standard allowance will increase by 10.1% from 10 April 2023.
A range of employment support and advice is available from Work Coaches in Jobcentres to help people earn enough to be exempt from the cap and start to become less reliant on benefits.
A range of employment support and advice is available from Work Coaches in Jobcentres to help people earn enough to be exempt from the cap and start to become less reliant on benefits.
A range of employment support and advice is available from Work Coaches in Jobcentres to help people earn enough to be exempt from the cap and start to become less reliant on benefits.
The Centre for Health and Disability Assessments (CHDA) conduct Work Capability Assessments (WCAs) on behalf of the Department for Work & Pensions and has their own complaints process. Complaints received by the department, which are solely about the WCA, are redirected to CHDA. For a more in-depth response, I refer the Honourable Member to the answer I gave to her previous question, PQ55085.
The Centre for Health and Disability Assessments (CHDA) conduct Work Capability Assessments (WCAs) on behalf of the Department for Work & Pensions and has their own complaints process. Complaints received by the department, which are solely about the WCA, are redirected to CHDA. For a more in-depth response, I refer the Honourable Member to the answer I gave to her previous question, PQ55085.
As of 11th February 2023, the cumulative total of customer cases reinstated following review by the Risk Review Team is 7,221.
The information requested is not readily available and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost.
As of 11th February 2023, the cumulative total of customer cases suspended by the Risk Review Team is 188,119.
Of these, 71,496 have been closed and 109,402 remain suspended. The remaining 7,221 have been reinstated following review.
As of October 2022, the number of current Personal Independence Payment (PIP) recipients, who received an ongoing award at their initial clearance, is 542,880. The number of these recipients who have had their claims reassessed since 2020 is 16,010, which is 3% of the total. In this figure, a reassessment is defined as either a planned award review or a claimant-initiated change of circumstances.
Source: PIP Atomic Data Store (ADS)
Notes:
The information requested is not readily available and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost.
Information on Personal Independence Payment (PIP) claimants with degenerative conditions is not available. While the department holds data on a range of conditions, these are not collected centrally in a way that defines them as degenerative or not.
Detailed statistics on PIP can be found on Stat-Xplore. In particular, the dataset on PIP clearances lists the disability categories recorded on PIP, as well as the award level for both components at initial decision. Over 500 conditions are covered, but none are grouped or marked in any way as being degenerative. You can also view the disability categories here.
Guidance on how to use Stat-Xplore can be found here. An account is not required to use Stat- Xplore, the ‘Guest Login’ feature gives instant access to the main functions.
Referring to our previous answer to PQ88966, we currently have no plans to publish audit results for Independent Assessment Services (IAS)/Atos and Capita. This includes publishing a breakdown of audit assessment grades given for Personal Independence Payment (PIP) assessments.
Provider performance is measured across a range of service level agreements (SLAs) setting out the department's expectations for service delivery. These include quality, performance delivery targets and customer experience. When requested in Parliamentary Questions and Freedom of Information requests, we do publish all the relevant data available. The monthly quality audit performance against the SLA target for IAS and Capita for the period January 2014 to April 2022 has already been published as part of the answer to PQ26035.
The proportion of Personal Independence Payment assessments carried out by (a) Independent Assessment Services (IAS)/Atos and (b) Capita that were audited by the department in each year since 2018, is shown in the table below:
(a) IAS (ATOS) | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 |
Percentage Audited (%) | 1.6 | 1.7 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 1.6 |
(b) Capita | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 |
Percentage Audited (%) | 2.6 | 2.6 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 2.4 |
Please note
The proportion of Personal Independence Payment assessments carried out by Atos and Capita, that were found to have been of an unacceptable standard, are shown below:
(a) ATOS | (i) Apr-19 - Mar-20 | (ii) Apr-20 - Mar-21 | (iii) Apr-21 - Mar-22 |
U grades Percentage (%) | 3.8% | 3.3% | 3.1% |
|
|
|
|
(b) Capita | (i) Apr-19 - Mar-20 | (ii) Apr-20 - Mar-21 | (iii) Apr-21 - Mar-22 |
U grades Percentage (%) | 4.0% | 3.2% | 3.1% |
Please Note:
Of the 175 RRT cases lodged under the appeals process quoted in PQ110773, 42 were determined by the First tier Tribunal. Of these, 19 upheld the department’s decision either partially (2) or fully (17).
The department is committed to making the right decision as early as possible in the claims process. At mandatory reconsideration, decisions are reviewed, with the existing evidence considered together with any new evidence provided by the claimant. Decisions will be changed if the evidence supports this.
Since 4th July 2022, when collation of mandatory reconsideration figures commenced under the Risk Review process, there have been 499 mandatory reconsiderations.
346 of which have been completed to outcome, with 2 resulting in a change of decision, which includes 1 being partially revised and 1 being fully revised.
From 21 January 2022, when we started collating figures, there have been 175 appeals lodged under the Risk Review Process.
Of those that have reached an outcome, there are 24 (13.7%) that have lapsed and 23 (13.1%) that have been overturned by the tribunal.
The information requested is not available. We have a stringent performance management regime which includes Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) performance managers attending assessment centres; however, data for such visits is not retained.
Provider performance is measured across a range of service level agreements setting out the department's expectations for service delivery. These include quality, performance delivery targets and customer experience.
Independent Audit is one of the department’s tools to measure quality for performance management purposes. It is a self-contained team comprising of experienced health professional assessors who review a sample of assessment reports on a monthly basis to determine their quality. This helps ensure that assessment reports are fit for purpose, clinically justified, and provide sufficient information for the department to make a reasonable decision on entitlement to benefit. It is not an audit of the assessment provider as a whole.
We currently have no plans to publish the last audit results for Capita and Independent Assessment Services (IAS).
Referring to our previous answer to PQ80819, audit refers to a comprehensive check of the elements of the assessment, including the evidence collection, further evidence provided, and the assessment report completed by the health professional. It is not an audit of the assessment provider.
Provider performance is measured across a range of service level agreements (SLA) setting out the department's expectations for service delivery. These include quality, performance delivery targets and customer experience.
The monthly quality audit performance against the SLA target for Capita and IAS has already been published for January 2014 to April 2022 as part of the answer to PQ26035.
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) does not have a contractual obligation to perform regular visits to assessment centres, but does retain the right to visit any assessment centre, at any time, subject to reasonable notice. The department exercises this right, with Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and Work Capability Assessment (WCA) performance managers visiting assessment centres on an informal basis.
The department has set standards for the quality of assessments for all its assessment providers and independent auditors. The department ensures a high standard is maintained by having an independent audit function that continually monitors performance and provides feedback to its providers. Audit refers to a comprehensive check of the elements of the assessment, including the evidence collection, further evidence provided, and the assessment report completed by the health professional.
Although assessment providers share training material between themselves to encourage best practice, we have no plans to publish the training material.
The department introduced a Clinical Governance Quality Standards (CGQS) Framework to ensure that consistent quality standards are applied by all assessment providers. The CGQS Forum has the remit to facilitate embedding of the CGQS Framework across the department and its assessment providers. They share best practice including training and learning from leading national and international organisations, to continuously improve quality.
Personal Independence Payment (PIP) assessment provider audit procedures can be found in sections 3.4 and 3.5 of the PIP assessment guide.
Details relating to the audit procedures for Centre for Health and Disability Assessments can be found in schedule 2.1 section 40 of the Health and Disability Assessment Services contract.
Analysis of unpublished data held by the Department for Work and Pensions provides data on the proportion of tribunals attended by Presenting Officers (PO) where the decision was overturned. This data only covers Employment Support Allowance (ESA) and Personal Independence Payment (PIP) tribunals. To provide information across all other DWP administered benefits or for PIP and ESA prior to April 2016 would incur disproportionate cost.
This data is unpublished. It should be used with caution, and it may be subject to future revision.
Proportion of tribunals attended by Presenting Officers where the decision was overturned, by month from April 2016 – June 2022
| Proportion of appeals overturned where Presenting Officer attended | |
Hearing Date | PIP | ESA |
Apr-16 | 64% | 38% |
May-16 | 63% | 51% |
Jun-16 | 61% | 49% |
Jul-16 | 61% | 42% |
Aug-16 | 58% | 52% |
Sep-16 | 62% | 33% |
Oct-16 | 61% | 52% |
Nov-16 | 61% | 56% |
Dec-16 | 64% | 62% |
Jan-17 | 61% | 61% |
Feb-17 | 63% | 60% |
Mar-17 | 63% | 62% |
Apr-17 | 68% | 58% |
May-17 | 66% | 66% |
Jun-17 | 68% | 71% |
Jul-17 | 67% | 69% |
Aug-17 | 68% | 71% |
Sep-17 | 69% | 67% |
Oct-17 | 68% | 67% |
Nov-17 | 70% | 67% |
Dec-17 | 69% | 70% |
Jan-18 | 71% | 69% |
Feb-18 | 73% | 70% |
Mar-18 | 69% | 71% |
Apr-18 | 73% | 68% |
May-18 | 72% | 71% |
Jun-18 | 71% | 69% |
Jul-18 | 72% | 70% |
Aug-18 | 74% | 67% |
Sep-18 | 74% | 72% |
Oct-18 | 71% | 70% |
Nov-18 | 73% | 68% |
Dec-18 | 73% | 69% |
Jan-19 | 71% | 69% |
Feb-19 | 73% | 65% |
Mar-19 | 73% | 69% |
Apr-19 | 72% | 72% |
May-19 | 73% | 70% |
Jun-19 | 75% | 72% |
Jul-19 | 72% | 70% |
Aug-19 | 72% | 72% |
Sep-19 | 73% | 71% |
Oct-19 | 73% | 76% |
Nov-19 | 74% | 69% |
Dec-19 | 76% | 74% |
Jan-20 | 72% | 65% |
Feb-20 | 74% | 70% |
Mar-20 | 76% | 73% |
Apr-20 | 100% | 20% |
May-20 | 83% | 25% |
Jun-20 | 73% | 69% |
Jul-20 | 78% | 60% |
Aug-20 | 63% | 27% |
Sep-20 | 60% | 53% |
Oct-20 | 64% | 26% |
Nov-20 | 69% | 69% |
Dec-20 | 65% | 40% |
Jan-21 | 62% | 57% |
Feb-21 | 60% | 60% |
Mar-21 | 63% | 56% |
Apr-21 | 70% | 50% |
May-21 | 68% | 52% |
Jun-21 | 68% | 50% |
Jul-21 | 66% | 47% |
Aug-21 | 70% | 55% |
Sep-21 | 70% | 65% |
Oct-21 | 67% | 59% |
Nov-21 | 67% | 63% |
Dec-21 | 70% | 60% |
Jan-22 | 71% | 66% |
Feb-22 | 76% | 71% |
Mar-22 | 77% | 62% |
Apr-22 | 75% | 58% |
May-22 | 72% | 58% |
Jun-22 | 75% | 64% |
Note: Number of overturns where PO attended shown as a percentage of appeals where a decision was made, therefore excluding those not cleared or withdrawn/struck out.
Appeals data is taken from the DWP computer system’s management information. Therefore, this appeal data may differ from that held by His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service for various reasons, such as delays in data recording and other methodological differences in collating and preparing statistics.
We have provided data up to June 2022, in line with published statistics.
Health Professionals (HPs) are subject to a rigorous recruitment process, followed by a comprehensive training programme. Given the high standards expected of HPs, it is anticipated that a number may not meet the required standard during the training and probation period.
All HPs are subject to on-going monitoring of the standard of their assessments. If any issues are identified there is a process in place to support the HPs to improve the quality of their assessments. Where they fall below the required standards and do not improve, processes are in place to revoke their approval to undertake assessments.
The number of HPs employed by assessment providers who have been dismissed as a result of poor performance in the last three years is shown in the table below:
Provider | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 |
Capita (Personal Independence Payment - PIP) | 17 | 30 | 39 |
Independent Assessment Services (IAS) (PIP) | 76 | 61 | 69 |
Centre for Health and Disability Assessments (CHDA) | 1 | 9 | 9 |
Please note
Analysis of unpublished data held by the Department for Work and Pensions provides data on the number of tribunals where Presenting Officers (PO) attended. This data only covers Employment Support Allowance (ESA) and Personal Independence Payment (PIP) tribunals. To provide information across all other DWP administered benefits or for PIP and ESA prior to April 2016 would incur disproportionate cost.
This data is unpublished. It should be used with caution, and it may be subject to future revision.
Tribunals attended by Presenting Officers, by month from April 2016 – June 2022
| Number of PO attendances | |
Hearing Date | PIP | ESA |
Apr-16 | 530 | 130 |
May-16 | 510 | 160 |
Jun-16 | 550 | 150 |
Jul-16 | 620 | 130 |
Aug-16 | 770 | 150 |
Sep-16 | 670 | 140 |
Oct-16 | 690 | 110 |
Nov-16 | 830 | 150 |
Dec-16 | 570 | 140 |
Jan-17 | 620 | 150 |
Feb-17 | 600 | 180 |
Mar-17 | 990 | 290 |
Apr-17 | 1,140 | 410 |
May-17 | 1,900 | 1,280 |
Jun-17 | 2,100 | 1,820 |
Jul-17 | 2,060 | 2,160 |
Aug-17 | 2,040 | 2,120 |
Sep-17 | 2,130 | 1,950 |
Oct-17 | 2,230 | 2,110 |
Nov-17 | 2,380 | 2,470 |
Dec-17 | 1,610 | 1,650 |
Jan-18 | 2,440 | 2,440 |
Feb-18 | 2,010 | 2,240 |
Mar-18 | 1,940 | 1,870 |
Apr-18 | 1,880 | 1,670 |
May-18 | 2,000 | 1,820 |
Jun-18 | 1,640 | 1,870 |
Jul-18 | 1,600 | 1,540 |
Aug-18 | 1,290 | 1,180 |
Sep-18 | 1,000 | 1,230 |
Oct-18 | 1,180 | 1,230 |
Nov-18 | 1,090 | 1,330 |
Dec-18 | 680 | 850 |
Jan-19 | 1,420 | 1,110 |
Feb-19 | 1,360 | 850 |
Mar-19 | 1,500 | 1,260 |
Apr-19 | 1,360 | 1,160 |
May-19 | 1,500 | 1,200 |
Jun-19 | 1,330 | 950 |
Jul-19 | 1,670 | 1,050 |
Aug-19 | 1,580 | 800 |
Sep-19 | 1,350 | 770 |
Oct-19 | 1,540 | 830 |
Nov-19 | 1,610 | 820 |
Dec-19 | 1,290 | 510 |
Jan-20 | 1,970 | 560 |
Feb-20 | 1,690 | 500 |
Mar-20 | 1,150 | 260 |
Apr-20 | 10 | 10 |
May-20 | 20 | 10 |
Jun-20 | 30 | 20 |
Jul-20 | 40 | 30 |
Aug-20 | 50 | 50 |
Sep-20 | 80 | 50 |
Oct-20 | 370 | 50 |
Nov-20 | 490 | 80 |
Dec-20 | 550 | 90 |
Jan-21 | 760 | 130 |
Feb-21 | 750 | 80 |
Mar-21 | 1,380 | 100 |
Apr-21 | 1,440 | 90 |
May-21 | 1,240 | 110 |
Jun-21 | 1,290 | 80 |
Jul-21 | 1,360 | 160 |
Aug-21 | 1,470 | 130 |
Sep-21 | 1,080 | 110 |
Oct-21 | 1,010 | 130 |
Nov-21 | 1,210 | 150 |
Dec-21 | 940 | 130 |
Jan-22 | 980 | 110 |
Feb-22 | 1,130 | 130 |
Mar-22 | 890 | 100 |
Apr-22 | 750 | 140 |
May-22 | 810 | 110 |
Jun-22 | 700 | 70 |
Note:
Appeals data is taken from the DWP computer system’s management information. Therefore, this appeal data may differ from that held by His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service for various reasons, such as delays in data recording and other methodological differences in collating and preparing statistics.
We have provided data up to June 2022, in line with published statistics.
All employers have a legal duty to consult and involve their employees on health and safety matters. For businesses that recognise trade unions, this legal duty will apply under the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 (as amended) and for non-unionised businesses it will apply under the Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996 (as amended).
Both sets of regulations provide a legal framework for employers, trade unions and employees to reach agreement on arrangements for health and safety representatives and health and safety committees to operate in their workplace. The regulations do not determine how many safety representatives should be appointed, as this will depend on a number of factors, such as the size of the business and the number of employees.
When preparing an appeal response, the department will review the original decision, considering both evidence previously submitted to DWP and any new evidence submitted by the claimant in support of their appeal. A decision can be revised and the appeal lapsed on any ground which has the effect of changing the decision in the claimant’s favour.
The aim of lapsing is to ensure that decisions which should be changed are identified at this stage, so that the claimant does not need to proceed to an appeal hearing. Where the change does not award the claimant the maximum they could be awarded by a tribunal, the appeal will only be lapsed with the claimant’s agreement.
We published Shaping future support: The Health and Disability Green Paper last year. This asked for views on ways we can improve the experience people have of our benefits system and set out ways we could make our services easier to access, make our processes simpler and help build people’s trust.
We received over 4,500 responses to the Health and Disability Green Paper consultation and are very grateful to all the individuals and organisations who contributed.
We will respond with a White Paper in the coming months.
Assessment quality is a priority for both the department and the assessment providers. We work continuously with providers to drive improvements in assessment quality through a range of measures, including audit procedures, clinical observations (Personal Independence Payment only), clinical coaching, tailored training and development plans, and providing feedback and support to health professionals. Quality performance is also regularly reviewed through DWP and provider senior governance meetings at a national level, and in each of the provider areas.
Providers share training materials between themselves to encourage best practice, standardise processes and improve the claimant experience. They also regularly engage with medical experts, charities, and relevant stakeholders to strengthen, maintain, and update their training programmes.
The department is currently developing a Health and Disability White Paper, which will include health and disability benefit reform proposals, and improvements to the customer journey, enabling people to live independently and move into work where possible.
The Women’s Health Strategy published by the Department of Health sets out a range of commitments including encouraging employers to implement evidence-based workplace support and introduce workplace menopause policies.
An independent menopause and the workplace report was published and the Government’s response was outlined in July.
The Women’s Health Strategy published by the Department of Health sets out a range of commitments including encouraging employers to implement evidence-based workplace support and introduce workplace menopause policies.
An independent menopause and the workplace report was published and the Government’s response was outlined in July.
DWP cover the administration costs of an Appeal. However, the Department is unable to provide the total government spend on defending appeals.
This is because appeals are a joint process between DWP and HM Courts and Tribunals Service. DWP do not handle tribunals for appeals; the cost of handling appeal tribunals sits with HM Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) and we do not hold their cost information. If this information was required, we would suggest that this element of your request be submitted to HMCTS.
The only DWP staff who attend actual Tribunals (and therefore defend appeals) are Presenting Officers. We do not have information before 2013-14.
The information for the financial years covered by the request are detailed in the tables below:
2013-14 | 2014-15 | 2015-16 | 2016-17 |
|
£3.69m | £5.18m | £4.45m | £5.42m |
|
2017/18 | 2018/19 | 2019/20 | 2020/21 | 2021/22 |
£7.93m | £7.16m | £6.47m | £1.45m | £5.77m |
Cost figures are rounded to the nearest £0.1m
Data Source: ABM
The cost figures quoted are estimated DWP level 1 operating costs, including both direct delivery staff and non-staff costs. Non-staff costs are only those costs incurred in local cost centres, relating to direct delivery staff.
Costs provided are for Presenting Officers only and excludes Admin Support or Decision Making operational staff dealing with the Appeals processing work. Child Maintenance Group figures include Enforcement Presenting Officers.
Please note that the data supplied is from the Departmental Activity Based Models. This data is derived from unpublished management information, which was collected for internal Departmental use only, and has not been quality assured to National Statistics or Official Statistics publication standards. It should therefore be treated with caution. The Departmental Activity Based staffing models are a snapshot of how many people were identified as undertaking specified activities as assigned by line managers.
The data is frequently revised and changes to definitions / benefits / DWP structure effect comparisons over time. It should therefore be treated with caution and must be seen as an indication of cost, rather than the actual cost.
2020/21 figures impacted by COVID
Since 4th July 2022, when collation of Mandatory Reconsideration figures commenced under the Risk Review process, there have been 174 Mandatory Reconsiderations with 1 case being revised.
The information requested is not collated centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
Civil penalties are not applied to Risk Review Cases.
The information requested is not collated centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
When preparing an appeal response the Department will review the decision, considering evidence previously submitted and any new evidence received with the appeal. The grounds for any revision will depend on the specifics of the individual case. Our overarching aim is to ensure that decisions which should be changed and so do not need to proceed to a hearing are changed at this stage. Where the change does not award the claimant the maximum they could be awarded by a tribunal the appeal will only be lapsed with the claimant’s agreement.
When preparing an appeal response the Department will review the decision, considering evidence previously submitted and any new evidence received with the appeal. The grounds for any revision will depend on the specifics of the individual case. Our overarching aim is to ensure that decisions which should be changed and so do not need to proceed to a hearing are changed at this stage. Where the change does not award the claimant the maximum they could be awarded by a tribunal the appeal will only be lapsed with the claimant’s agreement.
From 21st January 2022 when we started collating figures, we have completed 54 appeals. Breaking this figure down, 22 were lapsed and 14 overturned.
The balance is made up of 5 withdrawn appeals, 2 partially upheld appeals and 11 cases where the appeal was refused.
The number of complaints received by Capita and Independent Assessment Services (IAS) relating to the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) assessment process, and the amount of those complaints which were upheld, are shown in the tables below.
The number of complaints received by the assessment providers during this period, equates to less than 1% of the total number of assessments undertaken.
2018
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
Rec’d | 840 | 940 | 810 | 790 | 880 | 780 | 810 | 830 | 710 | 810 | 800 | 610 |
Upheld | 160 | 130 | 190 | 140 | 120 | 140 | 150 | 160 | 170 | 120 | 150 | 150 |
2019
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
Rec’d | 880 | 780 | 860 | 710 | 760 | 720 | 870 | 770 | 720 | 900 | 790 | 560 |
Upheld | 130 | 190 | 160 | 200 | 180 | 150 | 190 | 180 | 160 | 160 | 180 | 160 |
2020
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
Rec’d | 610 | 630 | 560 | 360 | 280 | 290 | 280 | 250 | 270 | 320 | 300 | 260 |
Upheld | 140 | 110 | 130 | 90 | 90 | 60 | 60 | 40 | 50 | 60 | 50 | 70 |
2021
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
Rec’d | 300 | 390 | 410 | 390 | 340 | 350 | 320 | 280 | 300 | 270 | 290 | 230 |
Upheld | 80 | 90 | 150 | 120 | 110 | 110 | 90 | 90 | 100 | 100 | 70 | 90 |
2022
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep |
Rec’d | 270 | 270 | 280 | 220 | 260 | 290 | 250 | 290 | 280 |
Upheld | 70 | 80 | 80 | 60 | 90 | 80 | 120 | 90 | 100 |
Please note
All volumes have been rounded to the nearest 10.
All the above data is derived from contractual management information produced by the assessment providers and may have been derived from a different data set than previously published.
We are unable to provide details of how many of these complaints were subsequently escalated to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO). The PHSO usually only accept a complaint for investigation once it has exhausted the assessment providers complaint process, including the Independent Case Examiner (ICE). Although we cannot provide the number of complaints that are escalated to PHSO, I can confirm that they publish final decisions made on all accepted cases here.
Assessment providers (APs) have their own complaints process to deal with dissatisfaction about the service they provide. Complaints about the health assessment are directed to the provider, unless it is a mixed complaint concerning the service provided by both the department and the AP. Mixed complaints are handled by the department.
The three APs, Capita and Independent Assessment Services (IAS) for Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and Centre for Health and Disability Assessments (CHDA) for Work Capability Assessments (WCA), each have webpages explaining how claimants can contact them directly to make a complaint.
AP complaints are investigated by a customer relations manager or a case officer, who obtains all relevant evidence to inform a balanced and appropriate reply. If deficiencies are identified, they apologise and advise the department where this may have a bearing on the entitlement decision. This is known as a Tier 1 complaint response.
If a claimant is dissatisfied with the investigation and outcome of a Tier 1 complaint this can be looked at afresh by a senior manager who will review the initial investigation and obtain further evidence if appropriate. The outcome is then conveyed to the claimant by the AP and is referred to as a Tier 2 complaint response.
If, following Tier 1 and 2 of the complaints process, the claimant is still dissatisfied, they can contact the Independent Case Examiner (ICE) to look at their complaint.
Information about the processes and actions taken regarding lapsed appeals can be found in the guidance attached.
To confirm: Where a decision is revised, and appeal lapsed, we will notify the claimant or their representative in writing setting out the reasons for the change of decision, and the relevant appeal rights. Where the revised decision does not give the claimant the level of award they were seeking on appeal the appeal will not be lapsed without agreement from the claimant and, where appropriate, their representative, either by telephone or in writing.
The revision (and lapse) can be on any ground which has the effect of changing the decision in the claimant’s favour. Each case is considered on its own merits which of course means that the numbers lapsed will vary over time.
Information about the processes and actions taken regarding lapsed appeals can be found in the guidance attached.
To confirm: Where a decision is revised, and appeal lapsed, we will notify the claimant or their representative in writing setting out the reasons for the change of decision, and the relevant appeal rights. Where the revised decision does not give the claimant the level of award they were seeking on appeal the appeal will not be lapsed without agreement from the claimant and, where appropriate, their representative, either by telephone or in writing.
The revision (and lapse) can be on any ground which has the effect of changing the decision in the claimant’s favour. Each case is considered on its own merits which of course means that the numbers lapsed will vary over time.
Information about the processes and actions taken regarding lapsed appeals can be found in the guidance attached.
To confirm: Where a decision is revised, and appeal lapsed, we will notify the claimant or their representative in writing setting out the reasons for the change of decision, and the relevant appeal rights. Where the revised decision does not give the claimant the level of award they were seeking on appeal the appeal will not be lapsed without agreement from the claimant and, where appropriate, their representative, either by telephone or in writing.
The revision (and lapse) can be on any ground which has the effect of changing the decision in the claimant’s favour. Each case is considered on its own merits which of course means that the numbers lapsed will vary over time.
Information about the processes and actions taken regarding lapsed appeals can be found in the guidance attached.
To confirm: Where a decision is revised, and appeal lapsed, we will notify the claimant or their representative in writing setting out the reasons for the change of decision, and the relevant appeal rights. Where the revised decision does not give the claimant the level of award they were seeking on appeal the appeal will not be lapsed without agreement from the claimant and, where appropriate, their representative, either by telephone or in writing.
The revision (and lapse) can be on any ground which has the effect of changing the decision in the claimant’s favour. Each case is considered on its own merits which of course means that the numbers lapsed will vary over time.
Information about the processes and actions taken regarding lapsed appeals can be found in the guidance attached.
To confirm: Where a decision is revised, and appeal lapsed, we will notify the claimant or their representative in writing setting out the reasons for the change of decision, and the relevant appeal rights. Where the revised decision does not give the claimant the level of award they were seeking on appeal the appeal will not be lapsed without agreement from the claimant and, where appropriate, their representative, either by telephone or in writing.
The revision (and lapse) can be on any ground which has the effect of changing the decision in the claimant’s favour. Each case is considered on its own merits which of course means that the numbers lapsed will vary over time.
Information about the processes and actions taken regarding lapsed appeals can be found in the guidance attached.
To confirm: Where a decision is revised, and appeal lapsed, we will notify the claimant or their representative in writing setting out the reasons for the change of decision, and the relevant appeal rights. Where the revised decision does not give the claimant the level of award they were seeking on appeal the appeal will not be lapsed without agreement from the claimant and, where appropriate, their representative, either by telephone or in writing.
The revision (and lapse) can be on any ground which has the effect of changing the decision in the claimant’s favour. Each case is considered on its own merits which of course means that the numbers lapsed will vary over time.
Information about the processes and actions taken regarding lapsed appeals can be found in the guidance attached.
To confirm: Where a decision is revised, and appeal lapsed, we will notify the claimant or their representative in writing setting out the reasons for the change of decision, and the relevant appeal rights. Where the revised decision does not give the claimant the level of award they were seeking on appeal the appeal will not be lapsed without agreement from the claimant and, where appropriate, their representative, either by telephone or in writing.
The revision (and lapse) can be on any ground which has the effect of changing the decision in the claimant’s favour. Each case is considered on its own merits which of course means that the numbers lapsed will vary over time.
Information about the processes and actions taken regarding lapsed appeals can be found in the guidance attached.
To confirm: Where a decision is revised, and appeal lapsed, we will notify the claimant or their representative in writing setting out the reasons for the change of decision, and the relevant appeal rights. Where the revised decision does not give the claimant the level of award they were seeking on appeal the appeal will not be lapsed without agreement from the claimant and, where appropriate, their representative, either by telephone or in writing.
The revision (and lapse) can be on any ground which has the effect of changing the decision in the claimant’s favour. Each case is considered on its own merits which of course means that the numbers lapsed will vary over time.
Information about the processes and actions taken regarding lapsed appeals can be found in the guidance attached.
To confirm: Where a decision is revised, and appeal lapsed, we will notify the claimant or their representative in writing setting out the reasons for the change of decision, and the relevant appeal rights. Where the revised decision does not give the claimant the level of award they were seeking on appeal the appeal will not be lapsed without agreement from the claimant and, where appropriate, their representative, either by telephone or in writing.
The revision (and lapse) can be on any ground which has the effect of changing the decision in the claimant’s favour. Each case is considered on its own merits which of course means that the numbers lapsed will vary over time.
“I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to Question UIN PQ W 49219”
Details of the value of any financial compensation sought from assessment providers is commercially sensitive.
Provider performance is measured across a range of service level agreements, setting out the department's expectations for service delivery. These include quality, performance delivery targets and customer experience. Contractual remedies are in place if the provider fails to deliver against the agreed service standards. Service credits are applied, where appropriate, in order to recover estimated financial loss to the department.
These performance regimes are published within the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) assessment provider contracts, available on Contracts Finder - GOV.UK.
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) manages the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) contracts robustly, and has a full set of service level agreements setting out our expectations for service delivery. We ensure a high standard is maintained, having an independent audit function that continually monitors performance, and provides feedback to assessment providers. Quality performance is also regularly reviewed through DWP and provider senior governance meetings at a national level, and in each of the provider areas.
The contracts allow us to recover any financial loss caused by poor performance, and we have the right to terminate the contract if there is sustained underperformance.
We are committed to continuously improving the assessment service and have reiterated this in the Shaping Future Support: The Health and Disability Green Paper. During the Green Paper consultation period, we explored ways in which we could improve the current system of assessments, including by:
We are considering all the responses to the Green Paper proposals as we consider what future policy changes might look like, which we will set out in the White Paper later this year.
The department’s Health Transformation Programme (HTP) will deliver improvements to the health and disability benefits system, including proposals that stem from the Green Paper. Our ambition is to make the assessment process simpler, more user-friendly, easier to navigate and more joined-up for claimants, whilst delivering better value for money for taxpayers.
Providers also work continuously to drive improvements in assessment services. They have introduced new management processes to drive performance across their services, including new or enhanced systems of assessment report quality checks, to improve the quality of advice the department receives. In addition, PIP assessment reports have been redesigned to have clearer justifications which support improved benefit decision making.
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) manages the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) contracts robustly, and has a full set of service level agreements setting out our expectations for service delivery. We ensure a high standard is maintained, having an independent audit function that continually monitors performance, and provides feedback to assessment providers. Quality performance is also regularly reviewed through DWP and provider senior governance meetings at a national level, and in each of the provider areas.
The contracts allow us to recover any financial loss caused by poor performance, and we have the right to terminate the contract if there is sustained underperformance.
We are committed to continuously improving the assessment service and have reiterated this in the Shaping Future Support: The Health and Disability Green Paper. During the Green Paper consultation period, we explored ways in which we could improve the current system of assessments, including by:
We are considering all the responses to the Green Paper proposals as we consider what future policy changes might look like, which we will set out in the White Paper later this year.
The department’s Health Transformation Programme (HTP) will deliver improvements to the health and disability benefits system, including proposals that stem from the Green Paper. Our ambition is to make the assessment process simpler, more user-friendly, easier to navigate and more joined-up for claimants, whilst delivering better value for money for taxpayers.
Providers also work continuously to drive improvements in assessment services. They have introduced new management processes to drive performance across their services, including new or enhanced systems of assessment report quality checks, to improve the quality of advice the department receives. In addition, PIP assessment reports have been redesigned to have clearer justifications which support improved benefit decision making.
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) manages the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) contracts robustly, and has a full set of service level agreements setting out our expectations for service delivery. We ensure a high standard is maintained, having an independent audit function that continually monitors performance, and provides feedback to assessment providers. Quality performance is also regularly reviewed through DWP and provider senior governance meetings at a national level, and in each of the provider areas.
The contracts allow us to recover any financial loss caused by poor performance, and we have the right to terminate the contract if there is sustained underperformance.
We are committed to continuously improving the assessment service and have reiterated this in the Shaping Future Support: The Health and Disability Green Paper. During the Green Paper consultation period, we explored ways in which we could improve the current system of assessments, including by:
We are considering all the responses to the Green Paper proposals as we consider what future policy changes might look like, which we will set out in the White Paper later this year.
The department’s Health Transformation Programme (HTP) will deliver improvements to the health and disability benefits system, including proposals that stem from the Green Paper. Our ambition is to make the assessment process simpler, more user-friendly, easier to navigate and more joined-up for claimants, whilst delivering better value for money for taxpayers.
Providers also work continuously to drive improvements in assessment services. They have introduced new management processes to drive performance across their services, including new or enhanced systems of assessment report quality checks, to improve the quality of advice the department receives. In addition, PIP assessment reports have been redesigned to have clearer justifications which support improved benefit decision making.
Details of the value of any financial compensation sought from assessment providers is commercially sensitive.
Provider performance is measured across a range of service level agreements, setting out the department's expectations for service delivery. These include quality, performance delivery targets and customer experience. Contractual remedies are in place if the provider fails to deliver against the agreed service standards. Service credits are applied, where appropriate, in order to recover estimated financial loss to the department.
These performance regimes are published within the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) assessment provider contracts, available on Contracts Finder - GOV.UK.
Details of the value of any financial compensation sought from assessment providers is commercially sensitive.
Provider performance is measured across a range of service level agreements, setting out the department's expectations for service delivery. These include quality, performance delivery targets and customer experience. Contractual remedies are in place if the provider fails to deliver against the agreed service standards. Service credits are applied, where appropriate, in order to recover estimated financial loss to the department.
These performance regimes are published within the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) assessment provider contracts, available on Contracts Finder - GOV.UK.
Referrals are made to the Risk Review Team for customers across the whole country and are not just specific to London.
Monthly statistics are not available.
The current total of customer cases determined by the Risk Review Team as still ineligible is 170,417 cases.
Of these cases some will be subject to review if the customer engages and provides evidence to verify their claim, but at this time, based on current information held, the customer is not entitled.
The cumulative total of customer cases reinstated following review is 7,221 cumulative cases.
The cumulative total of customer cases that have ever been suspended is 177,638 cases.
The above figures are based on internal management information and therefore have not been subject to the same degree of scrutiny and quality assurance as an official statistic.
Monthly statistics are not available.
The current total of customer cases determined by the Risk Review Team as still ineligible is 170,417 cases.
Of these cases some will be subject to review if the customer engages and provides evidence to verify their claim, but at this time, based on current information held, the customer is not entitled.
The cumulative total of customer cases reinstated following review is 7,221 cumulative cases.
The cumulative total of customer cases that have ever been suspended is 177,638 cases.
The above figures are based on internal management information and therefore have not been subject to the same degree of scrutiny and quality assurance as an official statistic.
Monthly statistics are not available.
The current total of customer cases determined by the Risk Review Team as still ineligible is 170,417 cases.
Of these cases some will be subject to review if the customer engages and provides evidence to verify their claim, but at this time, based on current information held, the customer is not entitled.
The cumulative total of customer cases reinstated following review is 7,221 cumulative cases.
The cumulative total of customer cases that have ever been suspended is 177,638 cases.
The above figures are based on internal management information and therefore have not been subject to the same degree of scrutiny and quality assurance as an official statistic.
This data is not available as we do not capture the number of customers by geographical location.
We no longer plan to publish a report on the sanctions evaluation. This is because a sanction acts not only through its imposition on a claimant but importantly also through its effect as a deterrent. We were unable to assess the deterrent effect and therefore this research does not present a comprehensive picture of sanctions. The reason this analysis is unable to assess the deterrent effect is that all claimants in UC intensive regime are subject to mandatory conditions. Given this, it was not possible to assess the current system relative to a non-mandatory system.
The Department considers all available evidence when making decisions regarding new or existing policies. To ensure sanctions are clear, fair and effective in promoting positive behaviours, we keep the operation of conditionality and sanctions policies under continuous review. We routinely undertake Equality Analyses when developing policies. No recent assessment on the impact of benefit sanctions on the behaviour of benefit claimants has been made.
The Department considers all available evidence when making decisions regarding new or existing policies. Conditionality is a long established tool for supporting our claimants into work and we have strong, high-quality UK-specific evidence, gathered through the use of Randomised Control Trials, that conditionality is effective at supporting people into work. It is likely some of the effect might be attributable to the sanctions associated with conditionality, but we cannot be certain on this. We will continue to consider the impact our policies have on our claimants.
Tribunals are independent of the Department and may draw a different conclusion based on the same evidence.
We seek to learn from tribunal outcomes and are continually improving our processes.
Our decision-making processes help to ensure that all relevant evidence is gathered as early as possible in the claim journey. Decision Makers are given additional time to proactively contact claimants if they think additional evidence can support the claim. However, there may be circumstances, for example a change in the claimant’s condition, which result in new written evidence becoming available at the hearing stage.
The new approach was explained to decision makers via a series of local training events which built on existing guidance in the Advice for Decision Makers (ADM) and Decision Makers Guide (DMG) – “Principles of Decision Making and Evidence”:
DMG Chapter 01: Principles of Decision Making and Evidence (publishing.service.gov.uk)
Decision makers are not given a time limit for making a call where they think additional evidence may support the claim. The call will last as long as is needed to ensure that the claimant’s dispute is fully understood and they have had the opportunity to explain why they disagree with the decision and provide any further information.
Tribunals are independent of the Department and may draw a different conclusion based on the same evidence.
We seek to learn from tribunal outcomes and are continually improving our processes.
The department is absolutely committed to ensuring claimants receive high quality, objective and accurate assessments, as part of the suite of evidence the department uses to decide entitlement. There are a range of regular governance and monthly performance meetings to support delivery of the contracts to ensure that where action is required, it can be focused and targeted.
We have a strong and collaborative relationship with all health assessment providers and work closely with them to further improve the quality of assessments, including clinical coaching, feedback, and support available to health professionals. Providers share training materials between themselves to encourage best practice, standardise processes and improve the claimant experience. They also regularly engage with medical experts, charities, and relevant stakeholders to strengthen, maintain, and update their training programmes.
The department is developing a Health and Disability White Paper, which will include health and disability benefit reform proposals, and improvements to the customer journey, enabling people to live independently and move into work where possible.
A lapsed appeal is where DWP changed the decision (in the customer’s favour) after an appeal was lodged but before it was heard at a tribunal hearing.
The information requested for Employment and Support Allowance is not readily available and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost.
The information on the number of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) appeals lapsed between the earliest month October 2013 and the latest available month March 2022 is given below:
Appeal Clearance Month | Number of PIP Appeals Lapsed |
October 2013 | 0 |
November 2013 | 0 |
December 2013 | 10 |
January 2014 | 10 |
February 2014 | 20 |
March 2014 | 30 |
April 2014 | 50 |
May 2014 | 50 |
June 2014 | 50 |
July 2014 | 60 |
August 2014 | 50 |
September 2014 | 70 |
October 2014 | 100 |
November 2014 | 200 |
December 2014 | 210 |
January 2015 | 250 |
February 2015 | 270 |
March 2015 | 370 |
April 2015 | 370 |
May 2015 | 380 |
June 2015 | 430 |
July 2015 | 320 |
August 2015 | 210 |
September 2015 | 240 |
October 2015 | 240 |
November 2015 | 290 |
December 2015 | 250 |
January 2016 | 270 |
February 2016 | 260 |
March 2016 | 220 |
April 2016 | 300 |
May 2016 | 380 |
June 2016 | 360 |
July 2016 | 350 |
August 2016 | 410 |
September 2016 | 410 |
October 2016 | 470 |
November 2016 | 570 |
December 2016 | 510 |
January 2017 | 850 |
February 2017 | 750 |
March 2017 | 930 |
April 2017 | 760 |
May 2017 | 820 |
June 2017 | 840 |
July 2017 | 810 |
August 2017 | 890 |
September 2017 | 810 |
October 2017 | 810 |
November 2017 | 910 |
December 2017 | 790 |
January 2018 | 1190 |
February 2018 | 1190 |
March 2018 | 920 |
April 2018 | 750 |
May 2018 | 930 |
June 2018 | 940 |
July 2018 | 1230 |
August 2018 | 1320 |
September 2018 | 1460 |
October 2018 | 1560 |
November 2018 | 1580 |
December 2018 | 1180 |
January 2019 | 1830 |
February 2019 | 1590 |
March 2019 | 2120 |
April 2019 | 2340 |
May 2019 | 3510 |
June 2019 | 3150 |
July 2019 | 2640 |
August 2019 | 2510 |
September 2019 | 1890 |
October 2019 | 1780 |
November 2019 | 2450 |
December 2019 | 1870 |
January 2020 | 2840 |
February 2020 | 2640 |
March 2020 | 2310 |
April 2020 | 2110 |
May 2020 | 1880 |
June 2020 | 1980 |
July 2020 | 2350 |
August 2020 | 2270 |
September 2020 | 3020 |
October 2020 | 3070 |
November 2020 | 3700 |
December 2020 | 2110 |
January 2021 | 2370 |
February 2021 | 2090 |
March 2021 | 2570 |
April 2021 | 2260 |
May 2021 | 1720 |
June 2021 | 1340 |
July 2021 | 1350 |
August 2021 | 1390 |
September 2021 | 1900 |
October 2021 | 1570 |
November 2021 | 1230 |
December 2021 | 1220 |
January 2022 | 1690 |
February 2022 | 1590 |
March 2022 | 1930 |
Data has been rounded to the nearest 10. Totals are for Great Britain.
PIP appeals data has been taken from the DWP PIP computer system’s management information. Therefore, this data may differ from that held by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service for various reasons such as delays in data recording and other methodological differences in collating and preparing statistics.
The information on the number of Universal Credit (UC) appeals lapsed between the earliest month available of April 2016 and the most recent month available March 2022 is given below:
Appeal Clearance Month | Number of UC Appeals Lapsed |
April 2016 | 60 |
May 2016 | 20 |
June 2016 | 20 |
July 2016 | 20 |
August 2016 | 40 |
September 2016 | 40 |
October 2016 | 30 |
November 2016 | 10 |
December 2016 | 20 |
January 2017 | 10 |
February 2017 | 20 |
March 2017 | 50 |
April 2017 | 40 |
May 2017 | 30 |
June 2017 | 60 |
July 2017 | 40 |
August 2017 | 30 |
September 2017 | 30 |
October 2017 | 50 |
November 2017 | 50 |
December 2017 | 40 |
January 2018 | 60 |
February 2018 | 90 |
March 2018 | 50 |
April 2018 | 30 |
May 2018 | 20 |
June 2018 | 30 |
July 2018 | 20 |
August 2018 | 40 |
September 2018 | 30 |
October 2018 | 20 |
November 2018 | 20 |
December 2018 | 10 |
January 2019 | 30 |
February 2019 | 10 |
March 2019 | 10 |
April 2019 | 10 |
May 2019 | 30 |
June 2019 | 100 |
July 2019 | 130 |
August 2019 | 190 |
September 2019 | 390 |
October 2019 | 520 |
November 2019 | 520 |
December 2019 | 480 |
January 2020 | 610 |
February 2020 | 410 |
March 2020 | 230 |
April 2020 | 200 |
May 2020 | 270 |
June 2020 | 310 |
July 2020 | 430 |
August 2020 | 370 |
September 2020 | 260 |
October 2020 | 230 |
November 2020 | 190 |
December 2020 | 150 |
January 2021 | 240 |
February 2021 | 300 |
March 2021 | 320 |
April 2021 | 200 |
May 2021 | 170 |
June 2021 | 210 |
July 2021 | 170 |
August 2021 | 180 |
September 2021 | 210 |
October 2021 | 180 |
November 2021 | 210 |
December 2021 | 200 |
January 2022 | 230 |
February 2022 | 190 |
March 2022 | 260 |
Data has been rounded to the nearest 10. Totals are for Great Britain.
UC data has been taken from on the Decision Makers and Case recorder dataset (DMACR). Therefore, this data may differ from that held by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service for various reasons such as delays in data recording and other methodological differences in collating and preparing statistics. A significant analytical investment has already been made into understanding and assuring the UC data from this source.
Access to DWP benefits flows from an individual’s immigration status. DWP has no powers to award public funds benefits to an individual whose Home Office immigration status specifies no recourse to public funds (NRPF) including Universal Credit. Those on certain visa routes, including the family and human rights routes, can apply, for free, to have their NRPF condition lifted by making a ‘change of condition’ application if they are destitute or at risk of destitution, if the welfare of their child is at risk due to their low income, or where there are other exceptional financial circumstances.
Those with an immigration status with a NRPFs condition can access contributions-based benefits and the State Pension providing they meet the eligibility criteria; in addition, they can also access Local Authority support.
Local Authorities can provide a safety net of support to an individual, regardless of their immigration status, if there is a genuine care need that does not arise solely from destitution, for example if there are community care needs, they have serious health problems or there is a risk to a child’s wellbeing. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 imposes a general duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of “children in need” in their area. Support provided to a child by local authorities under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 is not dependent on the immigration status of the child or their parent(s). In addition, individuals with no recourse to public funds can also benefit from the Household Support Fund and may be able to receive support in limited circumstances, as determined by Local Authorities. See the link with further guidance on this.
Advice on alternative support available for those who are not eligible for Universal Credit can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit/other-financial-support
Managed migration phase restarted in May 2022. The first phase of this is a Discovery with controlled volumes, where we are working with small numbers of existing benefit claimants to identify how best to ensure people can smoothly transition to Universal Credit.
The Cabinet Office was notified and approved the appointment of a Non-executive Programme Board Chair. The UC Programme Board was not listed in the Public Appointment Order in Council 2019 as the Cabinet Office did not see it as necessary. Therefore, the UCPB is not a body subject to regulation by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.
The position of Chair of the Universal Credit Programme Board was not advertised. Sir Robert Walmsley was appointed on recommendation by the Major Project Authority
(now Infrastructure and Projects Authority).
When a claimant submits an appeal, a DWP decision maker will review their case again including any new evidence submitted and decide whether they think the decision under appeal remains the correct one. If the decision maker makes a new, more advantageous decision then the appeal can lapse.
Entitlement to Employment and Support Allowance and Personal Independence Payment is determined by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) decision makers, based on all the evidence received, including that from the claimant, their health professionals and advice from the assessment providers (APs). The main reasons decisions are overturned on appeal are; tribunals drawing a different conclusion based on the same evidence, cogent oral evidence given by the individual, or new written evidence provided at the hearing. These are complex benefits where evidential issues clearly impact outcomes.
There is a comprehensive performance regime which drives the APs to meet stringent quality standards. Through robust contract management processes and by working in partnership, we continually monitor and work with APs to manage performance and obtain maximum value. If they are unable to meet our expectations, we will work with them to address any issues, whilst seeking any financial compensation as appropriate under the terms of the contract.
Entitlement to Employment and Support Allowance and Personal Independence Payment is determined by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) decision makers, based on all the evidence received, including that from the claimant, their health professionals and advice from the assessment providers (APs). The main reasons decisions are overturned on appeal are; tribunals drawing a different conclusion based on the same evidence, cogent oral evidence given by the individual, or new written evidence provided at the hearing. These are complex benefits where evidential issues clearly impact outcomes.
There is a comprehensive performance regime which drives the APs to meet stringent quality standards. Through robust contract management processes and by working in partnership, we continually monitor and work with APs to manage performance and obtain maximum value. If they are unable to meet our expectations, we will work with them to address any issues, whilst seeking any financial compensation as appropriate under the terms of the contract.
The main reasons that decisions are overturned on appeal are: tribunals drawing a different conclusion based on the same evidence, cogent oral evidence given by the individual, or new written evidence provided at the hearing.
It has always been our aim to make the right decision at the earliest opportunity so that claimants do not have to appeal. Consequently, and learning from tribunal decisions, we have introduced a new approach to decision making at both the initial decision and the Mandatory Reconsideration stage, giving Decision Makers additional time to proactively contact claimants where they think additional evidence may support the claim. A similar approach applies at the appeal stage where new evidence is provided that may alter the decision.
As set out in the Departments Personal Information Charter DWP does not use algorithms to replace human judgement. Risk indicators are determined by DWP agents and where a computer highlights a risk a DWP agent intervenes and reviews the claim. A DWP agent would take into account all circumstances/information before a final decision.
Risk scoring is used to identify Universal Credit claims for potential review by the Risk Review Team. Once the review is completed a DWP agent would decide if a fraud investigation is required.
Six candidates were interviewed for the post of Chair of Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) in July 2020.
The determination was not presented to the Universal Credit Programme Board.
The Universal Credit Programme Board is not listed in the Public Appointments Order in Council 2019 as a body subject to regulation by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, so the appointment of the Chair did not need to meet the requirements of the Governance Code for Public Appointments. The Cabinet Office was notified and approved the appointment of the Universal Credit Programme Board Chair.
The Universal Credit Programme Board is not listed in the Public Appointments Order in Council 2019 as a body subject to regulation by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, so the appointment of the Chair did not need to meet the requirements of the Governance Code for Public Appointments. The Department approached IPA (formally MPA) and reviewed CVs from previous recruitments for suitable candidates, from this a couple of candidates had been invited to apply for the post but did not do so.
Sir Robert Walmsley’s annual remuneration payment between 29 July 2013 to 29 February 2020 was £15,000.
John McGlynn’s annual remuneration payment from 05 August 2021 was £7,500, however he has chosen to waive any payments.
In the period between Sir Robert Walmsley leaving the post and John McGlynn taking it up both Neil Couling and Will Quince MP sat as chairs, they received no payment for this.
DWP’s Integrated Risk and Intelligence Service (IRIS) is developing the use of algorithms to assist in the prevention and detection of fraud in Universal Credit.
Any risk of fraud or error identified is reviewed by a trained member of staff and this is only one of a number of verification steps which will have to be cleared before an investigation is begun or before a claim is paid.
A decision to investigate a claimant is always made by a case handler who would take into account all relevant facts and circumstances.
DWP has partnered with private companies to help with the implementation of its new technology solutions.
Once completed, these systems will be completely managed by DWP staff.
DWP does make use of commercially available data sets on specific initiatives to prevent and detect fraud and error.
DWP does not suspend benefit lightly.
All the 175,826 claims suspended by the Risk Review Team to date have been as a result of suspected fraud.
None have been suspended as the result of error.
The methods used to identify cases reviewed by the Risk Review Team are sensitive and, as such, we are not able to provide the mechanics of how they are identified.
Putting such methods or the guidance in the public domain, would risk undermining the ability of DWP to detect and counter fraudulent threats.
DWP does not suspend benefit payment lightly and our Risk Review Team only do so in cases where intelligence indicates a high risk of fraud.
I can confirm that 1532 Universal Credit claims have being suspended as a result of Risk Review Team activity since January 2022.
The Department’s Risk Review Team (RRT) was established in May 2020, as part of the Department’s response to direct fraud threats that emerged in the early days of the pandemic.
Since the team was established, processes have evolved; as a result detailed records on Habitual Residence Test (HRT) outcomes in cases reviewed by RRT are only available from 5th July 2021.
I can confirm that, since that date, 608 of the 9676 claims reviewed by RRT in that period failed the HRT; this represents just over 6%.
The term of office for the chair of the Universal Credit Programme Board is 18 months with the possibility of an extension. The current chair of the Universal Credit Programme Board took office on 5 August 2021.
The role of chair of the Universal Credit Programme Board was recruited as a direct appointment.
We will place a copy of the job description / person specification for the post of chair of the Universal Credit Programme Board in the Library.
Access to DWP income-related benefits such as Universal Credit flows from an individual’s immigration status. The Department assesses this through the Habitual Residence Test, which has two elements: a legal right to reside test and an objective assessment of factual evidence of habitual residence. Those eligible to claim Universal Credit are required to have established habitual residence in the UK and be exercising a right to reside in the UK which grants eligibility to receive public funds (e.g. Indefinite Leave to Remain or Settled Status under the EU Settlement Scheme).
EU citizens with pre-settled status have the same access to benefits as they did prior to the introduction of the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS). They will satisfy the right to reside element of the Habitual Residence Test and can access benefits if they are exercising a qualifying right to reside, such as a worker or self-employed person, and are habitually resident in the UK.
Guidance on the Habitual Residence Test can be found within Chapter C1: International Issues within the Advice for Decision Makers guide:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/advice-for-decision-making-staff-guide
Those who undertake the Habitual Residence Test will receive a letter explaining the decision, either for a pass or a fail. In respect of Universal Credit, this letter is uploaded to the claimant’s journal. If the claimant does not agree with the decision, and they have additional evidence to support their claim, they have the right to apply for a mandatory reconsideration.
The information relates to criminal fraud investigations conducted between 2015 – 2022.
Risk Review Team interventions are not included in the data.
The information relates to criminal fraud investigations conducted between 2015 – 2022.
Risk Review Team interventions are not included in the data.
The Risk Review Team review all cases referred to them.
Referrals are not identified based on Habitual Residence test status.
If during a review, the Risk Review Team identify any doubt regarding HRT status, they gather relevant information, and refer to an independent decision maker who will determine HRT status.
The independent BBC documentary and the campaign work with the Metro was very successful in improving people’s understanding of Universal Credit, achieving its objectives, and therefore we did not need a further paper.
The high profile ‘Universal Credit Uncovered’ Metro partnership was a key element of the Department’s strategy to tackle negative perceptions and Universal Credit misinformation that were affecting claimant understanding. The Department went to great lengths to ensure factual accuracy by consulting extensively with the ASA throughout the campaign, which was clearly identifiable as an advertising feature from DWP.
The Department was disappointed with the ASA findings; however, to ensure the Department continues to adhere to the highest standards of advertising across all DWP campaigns, a number of steps have been taken. This includes regular senior and operational level engagement with the ASA and their Copy Advice Team on campaign development, combined with internal training sessions on ASA guidelines.
The Risk Review Team only deal with cases where intelligence indicates that there is a high risk of fraud.
In these cases, claims are suspended until such time as claimants can provide the evidence required in order for us to determine their eligibility.
The definition of fraud, as reflected in our annually published statistics on Fraud and error in the Benefits System, can be found here:
Background information: Fraud and error in the benefit system statistics - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
The Risk Review Team’s role forms part of DWP’s increasing focus on stopping such fraud from entering the benefits system.
The information requested is not readily available and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost.
The Risk Review Team only reviews cases where intelligence has identified a high risk of fraud. That may include claimants who don’t satisfy the Habitual Residence Test as they will have been receiving benefit they are not entitled to.
For every overpayment decision made the customer will receive details of the reason for the overpayment.
For every overpayment decision made the customer will receive details of the reason for the overpayment.
Year | Cases of benefit fraud | Criminal convictions |
2015 | 22,000 | 7,100 |
2016 | 24,100 | 6,000 |
2017 | 21,400 | 5,800 |
2018 | 18,900 | 4,400 |
2019 | 21,000 | 2,600 |
2020 | 11,900 | 800 |
2021 | 5,600 | 800 |
2022 YTD | 1,100 | 200 |
The changing nature of fraud investigation work in the 5-year period prior to the Covid pandemic is reflected in the above figures, including an increase in the actual prosecution threshold, which allowed us to generate better returns for the taxpayer by focusing on detecting fraud quicker and enforcing tough Administrative penalties.
This was evidenced in 2019, when we took the decision to temporarily divert fraud resources to tackle UC Advances fraud, an emerging threat at that time. This necessary change to our operational approach led to a corresponding increase in financial penalties, with 10,000 Admin. penalties issued in 2019/20 alone.
In 2020, DWP’s ability to investigate cases, and the courts’ ability to process cases, were significantly impacted by the Covid pandemic, with large numbers of DWP staff redeployed to support the unprecedented demand for financial support, and social distancing measures constraining our ability to carry out face to face Interviews Under Caution.
However, DWP maintained an operational fraud presence throughout and is now looking to resume face to face interviews in DWP premises, whilst making sure that all the necessary safety precautions are in place. We can, as a result, expect to see the level of prosecution cases increasing over the coming months.
More generally, it should be noted that DWP will always look to use penalties proportionally. Prosecuting someone for a relatively minor offence could be inappropriate if it adversely affects their life chances by, for example, reducing their employability. This would run against DWP’s overall objective of encouraging people into work and gaining financial independence. DWP focuses instead on prosecuting the most serious, higher value overpayments, but reserves the right to refer any case for prosecution, dependent on the case.
Note that all figures have been rounded to the nearest 100 and are correct up to 9 March 2022. Data has been sourced from DWP’s main internal IT fraud management information system. The figures do not reflect cases that are currently suspended, cases that were not investigated by our central fraud investigation team, or data held on other DWP systems.
Internal data is only intended to help the Department manage its business. It is not intended for publication and has not been subject to the same quality assurance checks applied to our published official statistics.
The data is not readily available and to provide it would incur disproportionate costs.
The information requested is not readily available and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost.
The Department engages with a wide range of external organisations, including employers, partners, representatives and stakeholders, for varying reasons.
The Risk Review Team will engage with Local Authorities if they have a query regarding a claimant they are supporting. We can share information relating to alternative payment arrangements with all Local Authorities across the UK when acting in a welfare capacity. Claimant consent is, however, required for the initial referral.
The Risk Review Team follows standard disclosure and consent guidelines. Claimants have full access to information held on their account. If claimants feel unable to find the information or understand more complex issues, they may ask a representative to contact DWP on their behalf to obtain the information.
A representative is any person or organisation acting on behalf of or making enquiries for the claimant. This can be at any stage of the claimant’s Universal Credit claim. The customer must provide explicit consent to discuss their personal data with a third party; consent can be given over the phone, in person or through their journal.
The latest published figures show there are 5.6 million people receiving Universal Credit.
As of 17th February 2022, 174,000 claims have been suspended under the Risk Review Process, a percentage of 3.1%. Of the 174,000 claims suspended, Risk Review Team have de-suspended 5,346 claims.
Note: The figures provided have been sourced from internal DWP management information, intended only to help the Department to manage its business and has not been subject to the same quality assurance checks applied to our published official statistics.
No demographic data or protected characteristics are used to determine if a case is referred to the Risk Review Team, therefore no Equality Assessment was required.
The increase in suspensions seen from 2020, particularly in May and June 2020 could be attributed to the rapid increase in claims to UC during the Covid pandemic when there were over 10 times the usual number of claims made. Over 550,000 claims for Universal Credit were made in each week ending 26 March and 2 April 2020 compared to an average of 54,000 claims per week before the first national lockdown.
The requested information is provided in the attached spreadsheet.
The Department has not used any demographic data to influence or determine what cases are referred to the Risk Review Team.
No demographic data has been used to determine if a case is referred to the Risk Review Team, therefore no Equality Assessment was required.
We have been clear in our guidance to DWP Decision Makers that no claim should be suspended due to delays in resolving an application to the EU Settlement Scheme.
The nationality of claimants is not currently recorded on benefit payment systems.
The Department for Work and Pensions does publish annual statistics on “Nationality at point of National Insurance Number registration of DWP working age benefit recipients” and the latest statistics are for November 2020 and available at:
Table 3 in the tables provides a benefit combination breakdown by nationality, however please note that the nationality for Non-UK nationals is recorded at the point of NINo registration and cannot be used as a proxy for current nationality or nationality at birt
Once a customer engages with us, the time taken to complete a review is case specific. It is dependent on the information provided and it may also be necessary to involve independent decision makers. If entitlement is established, any suspension will be lifted and any payments due will be made without delay.
Due to the high risk of fraud associated to the claims identified through this process, and in order to protect the public purse, all claims are suspended pending contact from the claimant, and the provision of any information requested to support a review and decision on entitlement.
Any claimant whose benefit is suspended as a consequence of the Risk Review Team activity is notified by journal, which is a digital means by which messages are exchanged between the Department and a Universal Credit claimant. These messages tell the claimant how they can contact the Department to speak to the agent responsible for that case. Where a customer does contact us in these circumstances, they will have the opportunity to have a one to one conversation with an agent to discuss their specific claim in more detail, and the agent can request any additional information required. With the relaxation of Covid rules, we can arrange for claimants to meet officials by way of a face to face appointment, where they can receive help in understanding what has happened with regards to their claim, and with providing the correct verification information.
At no point should the claimant be unaware as to what is required from them in order to determine their benefit entitlement.
The Risk Review Team only reviews, and therefore suspends, cases where there is a high risk of fraud based on specific intelligence.
The specific methods employed by the Risk Review Team are sensitive and, as such, we are not able to provide the mechanics of how they are identified, or how they are progressed. By putting such methods or the guidance in the public domain, we would risk undermining the ability of DWP to detect and counter fraudulent threats.
The specific methods employed by the Risk Review Team are sensitive and, as such, we are not able to provide the mechanics of how they are identified, or how they are progressed. By putting such methods or the guidance in the public domain, we would risk undermining the ability of DWP to detect and counter fraudulent threats.
The Risk Review Team does not capture demographic data because it is not relevant to the fraud risk identified by our Integrated Risk and Intelligence Service, which uses detection methods that are agnostic of nationality and other demographic data, to identify risk and fraud within the benefits system.
The specific methods employed are sensitive and, as such, we are not able to provide the mechanics of how they are identified. By putting such methods or the guidance in the public domain, we would risk undermining the ability of DWP to detect and counter fraudulent threats.
The Risk Review Team may ask for any information and/or supporting evidence that is required to determine correct benefit entitlement.
The information requested is not readily available and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost.
The information requested is not readily available and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost.
The information on number of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) appeals lapsed during Quarter 2 of 2020 is given below:
Period | Number of PIP appeals lapsed |
April – June 2020 | 5,960 |
Data has been rounded to the nearest 10. Totals are for Great Britain.
PIP appeals data taken from the DWP PIP computer system’s management information. Therefore, this data may differ from that held by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service for various reasons such as delays in data recording and other methodological differences in collating and preparing statistics.
The Department has not stopped collecting data on Universal Credit lapsed appeals. The information provided in the answer to Question 107685 in October 2017 was internal management information.
That information is still available today but to assess the completeness of its recording and quality assure the data, would incur disproportionate costs. This is necessary because this type of information does not form part of the official statistics outputs that are released by the Department in accordance with the UK Statistics Authority’s Code of Practice.
The Department was always clear that the change to the Minimum Income Floor as a result of the coronavirus pandemic was temporary, and that it would be reinstated when appropriate. As the reintroduction of the Minimum Income Floor is a return to an existing policy, the Department does not intend to publish an impact assessment.
The information requested is not readily available and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost.
The information requested is not readily available and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost.
Any decision to suspend a claim to benefit by the Risk Review Team is not made lightly and includes an assessment of a person’s personal circumstances. Suspension of benefit is a last resort and is based on the risk that a person may not be entitled to benefit.
Where a claim is suspended, we are unable to make any alternative payments. In law, there is no right of appeal against a decision to suspend payment of benefit.
If it is determined there is entitlement to Universal Credit, following the receipt of additional information and evidence from the claimant, the suspension would be lifted immediately and we would always aim to pay benefits at the earliest opportunity, including any arrears that may be due.
Where a review determines there is no entitlement to Universal Credit an outcome decision will be made to that effect. This decision can be appealed.
We make all claimants aware of the evidence we need and the consequence of failing to provide it within prescribed timescales. For any Universal Credit claim that is suspended as a consequence of the Risk Review Team activity, the claimant is notified by journal and text messages, along with a means by which they can contact the Department and speak to the agent responsible for that case. At no time should claimants be unaware of the action they need to take and how they may contact us to provide evidence.
The length of time a review may take to complete is largely dependent on the engagement of the claimant and the timely provision of any information requested. Claimants are asked to provide requested information within a 14-day window for digital submissions, extended to 28 days if they have indicated a postal submission. Once a customer engages with us, the time taken to complete a review is case specific, dependant on the information provided. Once entitlement is established, payments are put into payment as soon as possible.
Any decision to suspend a claim to benefit by the Risk Review Team is not made lightly and includes an assessment of a person’s personal circumstances. Suspension of benefit is a last resort and is based on the risk that a person may not be entitled to benefit.
Where a claim is suspended, we are unable to make any alternative payments. In law, there is no right of appeal against a decision to suspend payment of benefit.
If it is determined there is entitlement to Universal Credit, following the receipt of additional information and evidence from the claimant, the suspension would be lifted immediately and we would always aim to pay benefits at the earliest opportunity, including any arrears that may be due.
Where a review determines there is no entitlement to Universal Credit an outcome decision will be made to that effect. This decision can be appealed.
We make all claimants aware of the evidence we need and the consequence of failing to provide it within prescribed timescales. For any Universal Credit claim that is suspended as a consequence of the Risk Review Team activity, the claimant is notified by journal and text messages, along with a means by which they can contact the Department and speak to the agent responsible for that case. At no time should claimants be unaware of the action they need to take and how they may contact us to provide evidence.
The length of time a review may take to complete is largely dependent on the engagement of the claimant and the timely provision of any information requested. Claimants are asked to provide requested information within a 14-day window for digital submissions, extended to 28 days if they have indicated a postal submission. Once a customer engages with us, the time taken to complete a review is case specific, dependant on the information provided. Once entitlement is established, payments are put into payment as soon as possible.
Any decision to suspend a claim to benefit by the Risk Review Team is not made lightly and includes an assessment of a person’s personal circumstances. Suspension of benefit is a last resort and is based on the risk that a person may not be entitled to benefit.
Where a claim is suspended, we are unable to make any alternative payments. In law, there is no right of appeal against a decision to suspend payment of benefit.
If it is determined there is entitlement to Universal Credit, following the receipt of additional information and evidence from the claimant, the suspension would be lifted immediately and we would always aim to pay benefits at the earliest opportunity, including any arrears that may be due.
Where a review determines there is no entitlement to Universal Credit an outcome decision will be made to that effect. This decision can be appealed.
We make all claimants aware of the evidence we need and the consequence of failing to provide it within prescribed timescales. For any Universal Credit claim that is suspended as a consequence of the Risk Review Team activity, the claimant is notified by journal and text messages, along with a means by which they can contact the Department and speak to the agent responsible for that case. At no time should claimants be unaware of the action they need to take and how they may contact us to provide evidence.
The length of time a review may take to complete is largely dependent on the engagement of the claimant and the timely provision of any information requested. Claimants are asked to provide requested information within a 14-day window for digital submissions, extended to 28 days if they have indicated a postal submission. Once a customer engages with us, the time taken to complete a review is case specific, dependant on the information provided. Once entitlement is established, payments are put into payment as soon as possible.
Any decision to suspend a claim to benefit by the Risk Review Team is not made lightly and includes an assessment of a person’s personal circumstances. Suspension of benefit is a last resort and is based on the risk that a person may not be entitled to benefit.
Where a claim is suspended, we are unable to make any alternative payments. In law, there is no right of appeal against a decision to suspend payment of benefit.
If it is determined there is entitlement to Universal Credit, following the receipt of additional information and evidence from the claimant, the suspension would be lifted immediately and we would always aim to pay benefits at the earliest opportunity, including any arrears that may be due.
Where a review determines there is no entitlement to Universal Credit an outcome decision will be made to that effect. This decision can be appealed.
We make all claimants aware of the evidence we need and the consequence of failing to provide it within prescribed timescales. For any Universal Credit claim that is suspended as a consequence of the Risk Review Team activity, the claimant is notified by journal and text messages, along with a means by which they can contact the Department and speak to the agent responsible for that case. At no time should claimants be unaware of the action they need to take and how they may contact us to provide evidence.
The length of time a review may take to complete is largely dependent on the engagement of the claimant and the timely provision of any information requested. Claimants are asked to provide requested information within a 14-day window for digital submissions, extended to 28 days if they have indicated a postal submission. Once a customer engages with us, the time taken to complete a review is case specific, dependant on the information provided. Once entitlement is established, payments are put into payment as soon as possible.
The Risk Review Team does not capture demographic data on any claims they suspend. All claims subject to the Risk Review Process are suspected of fraud. This is not linked to nationality.
The Risk Review Team does not capture demographic data on any claims they suspend. All claims subject to the Risk Review Process are suspected of fraud. This is not linked to nationality.
Since the Risk Review Team was created in May 2020, latest published figures show there have been 3,999,004 claims made to Universal Credit.
As of 24th December 2021, 149,763 have been suspended under the Risk Review Process, a percentage of 3.74%
The table attached gives relevant proportions and volumes of total Universal Credit (UC) claims that failed their Habitual Residency Test (HRT) in each month from June 2015 to September 2021.
The Department currently holds information for HRTs failed by UC claimants from June 2015 to September 2021.
Notes:
Approximately 3% of cases reviewed under the Risk Review Process between May 2020 and the beginning of January 2022 have been re-instated.
The government has put in place support to help individuals to comply with public health advice on self-isolation. This includes extending Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) to those who are sick or self-isolating due to coronavirus. SSP is also payable from the first day of absence, rather than the fourth, where an employee is sick or self-isolating due to coronavirus.
Alongside this we have always made sure there are no financial barriers to self-isolating, by providing the £500 Test and Trace Support Payment which has been extended until the end of March 2022.
The government has put in place support to help individuals to comply with public health advice on self-isolation. This includes extending Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) to those who are sick or self-isolating due to coronavirus. SSP is also payable from the first day of absence, rather than the fourth, where an employee is sick or self-isolating due to coronavirus.
Alongside this we have always made sure there are no financial barriers to self-isolating, by providing the £500 Test and Trace Support Payment which has been extended until the end of March 2022.
We have no plans to change the way that Maternity Allowance is treated in Universal Credit.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) already provides guidance for employers of new or expectant mothers on its web site. HSE’s guidance includes recently updated advice and information, including on risk assessments, welfare rights and relevant workplace safety law. While the guidance is predominantly aimed at employers, it includes a section for new and expectant mothers and the content will be equally helpful to others with responsibilities for workplace health and safety.
Anyone who requires further advice on this topic can contact HSE through their Concerns and Advice service.
The table attached gives numbers of Universal Credit claims issued with a negative decision on the grounds that the claimant failed the Habitual Residence Test in each month from June 2015 to August 2021.
The Department currently holds information for Habitual Residence Tests failed by Universal Credit claimants from June 2015 to August 2021.
Notes:
All claims that have been suspended under the Risk Review Process are done so where there is suspicion of fraud.
The information requested is not readily available and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost.
The information requested is not readily available and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost.
The information requested is not readily available and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost.
The information requested is not readily available and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost.
The methods used to identify cases reviewed by the Risk Review Team are sensitive and, as such, we are not able to provide the mechanics of how they are identified.
By putting such methods or the guidance in the public domain, we would risk undermining the ability of DWP to detect and counter fraudulent threats.
The methods used to identify cases reviewed by the Risk Review Team are sensitive and, as such, we are not able to provide the mechanics of how they are identified.
By putting such methods or the guidance in the public domain, we would risk undermining the ability of DWP to detect and counter fraudulent threats.
The information requested is not readily available and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost.
The information requested is not readily available and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost.
The information requested is not readily available and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost.
Since the Risk Review Team was created in May 2020, there have been 3,761,761 claims made to Universal Credit. Of those,149,057 have been suspended under the Risk Review Process, a percentage of 3.96%.
The Risk Review Team does not capture demographic data on any claims they review.
In law there is no right of appeal against a decision to suspend payment of benefit.
If it is determined there is entitlement to Universal Credit following review by the Risk Review Team, the suspension will be lifted immediately.
If it is determined there is no entitlement, an outcome decision will be made to that effect. This decision can be appealed.
The Risk Review Team (RRT) was created in May 2020 as a direct response to threats identified by the Department’s Integrated Risk and Intelligence Service (IRIS).
IRIS brings together the Department’s Risk and Intelligence Service, our Cyber Resilience Team and our co-ordination of our response to Serious and Organised Crime activity.
Last year, IRIS coordinated the detection of, and response to, fraud risks from organised crime groups seeking to exploit COVID-19, which meant that systematic attacks on the benefit system were detected and shut down. In this way cyber colleagues prevented an attack by organised criminals which would have seen £1.9 billion in benefits being paid to people trying to scam the system.
The role of the RRT is to review and take action on cases identified by IRIS as being a high fraud risk.
The numbers engaged in RRT activity have fluctuated dependant on the numbers of claims identified. However, 165 full time equivalent staff are currently engaged on the RRT.
The methods used to identify cases that are reviewed by the RRT are sensitive and, as such, we are not able to provide the mechanics of how they are identified. By putting such methods – or the guidance to the team – in the public domain, we would risk undermining the ability of DWP to detect and counter fraudulent threats.
The Risk Review Team (RRT) was created in May 2020 as a direct response to threats identified by the Department’s Integrated Risk and Intelligence Service (IRIS).
IRIS brings together the Department’s Risk and Intelligence Service, our Cyber Resilience Team and our co-ordination of our response to Serious and Organised Crime activity.
Last year, IRIS coordinated the detection of, and response to, fraud risks from organised crime groups seeking to exploit COVID-19, which meant that systematic attacks on the benefit system were detected and shut down. In this way cyber colleagues prevented an attack by organised criminals which would have seen £1.9 billion in benefits being paid to people trying to scam the system.
The role of the RRT is to review and take action on cases identified by IRIS as being a high fraud risk.
The numbers engaged in RRT activity have fluctuated dependant on the numbers of claims identified. However, 165 full time equivalent staff are currently engaged on the RRT.
The methods used to identify cases that are reviewed by the RRT are sensitive and, as such, we are not able to provide the mechanics of how they are identified. By putting such methods – or the guidance to the team – in the public domain, we would risk undermining the ability of DWP to detect and counter fraudulent threats.
The Risk Review Team (RRT) was created in May 2020 as a direct response to threats identified by the Department’s Integrated Risk and Intelligence Service (IRIS).
IRIS brings together the Department’s Risk and Intelligence Service, our Cyber Resilience Team and our co-ordination of our response to Serious and Organised Crime activity.
Last year, IRIS coordinated the detection of, and response to, fraud risks from organised crime groups seeking to exploit COVID-19, which meant that systematic attacks on the benefit system were detected and shut down. In this way cyber colleagues prevented an attack by organised criminals which would have seen £1.9 billion in benefits being paid to people trying to scam the system.
The role of the RRT is to review and take action on cases identified by IRIS as being a high fraud risk.
The numbers engaged in RRT activity have fluctuated dependant on the numbers of claims identified. However, 165 full time equivalent staff are currently engaged on the RRT.
The methods used to identify cases that are reviewed by the RRT are sensitive and, as such, we are not able to provide the mechanics of how they are identified. By putting such methods – or the guidance to the team – in the public domain, we would risk undermining the ability of DWP to detect and counter fraudulent threats.
The Risk Review Team (RRT) was created in May 2020 as a direct response to threats identified by the Department’s Integrated Risk and Intelligence Service (IRIS).
IRIS brings together the Department’s Risk and Intelligence Service, our Cyber Resilience Team and our co-ordination of our response to Serious and Organised Crime activity.
Last year, IRIS coordinated the detection of, and response to, fraud risks from organised crime groups seeking to exploit COVID-19, which meant that systematic attacks on the benefit system were detected and shut down. In this way cyber colleagues prevented an attack by organised criminals in which would have seen £1.9 billion in benefits being paid to people trying to scam the system.
The role of the Risk Review Team is to review and take action on cases identified by IRIS as being a high fraud risk.
A monthly breakdown of cases where benefit was re-instated following suspension is not available, however approximately 3% of cases reviewed under the Risk Review Process have been reinstated. All other cases will remain suspended pending investigation or closure.
The average length of claim suspension because of the Risk Review Team activity is not available. However, the length of time that a claim is suspended is largely dependent on the engagement of the claimant and the timely provision of any information requested.
Where a customer does contact us and provides the information requested, we have processes in place to ensure people’s payments are put back into payment as soon as possible.
The Risk Review Team does not capture demographic data on any claims they suspend and, as such, no information can be provided on nationality.
Any Universal Credit claim that is suspended as a consequence of the Risk Review Team activity is notified by journal and text messages, along with a means by which a claimant can contact the Department and speak to the agent responsible for that case.
The Risk Review Team (RRT) was created in May 2020 as a direct response to threats identified by the Department’s Integrated Risk and Intelligence Service (IRIS).
IRIS brings together the Department’s Risk and Intelligence Service, our Cyber Resilience Team and our co-ordination of our response to Serious and Organised Crime activity.
Last year, IRIS coordinated the detection of, and response to, fraud risks from organised crime groups seeking to exploit COVID-19, which meant that systematic attacks on the benefit system were detected and shut down. In this way cyber colleagues prevented an attack by organised criminals in which would have seen £1.9 billion in benefits being paid to people trying to scam the system.
The role of the Risk Review Team is to review and take action on cases identified by IRIS as being a high fraud risk.
A monthly breakdown of cases where benefit was re-instated following suspension is not available, however approximately 3% of cases reviewed under the Risk Review Process have been reinstated. All other cases will remain suspended pending investigation or closure.
The average length of claim suspension because of the Risk Review Team activity is not available. However, the length of time that a claim is suspended is largely dependent on the engagement of the claimant and the timely provision of any information requested.
Where a customer does contact us and provides the information requested, we have processes in place to ensure people’s payments are put back into payment as soon as possible.
The Risk Review Team does not capture demographic data on any claims they suspend and, as such, no information can be provided on nationality.
Any Universal Credit claim that is suspended as a consequence of the Risk Review Team activity is notified by journal and text messages, along with a means by which a claimant can contact the Department and speak to the agent responsible for that case.
The Risk Review Team (RRT) was created in May 2020 as a direct response to threats identified by the Department’s Integrated Risk and Intelligence Service (IRIS).
IRIS brings together the Department’s Risk and Intelligence Service, our Cyber Resilience Team and our co-ordination of our response to Serious and Organised Crime activity.
Last year, IRIS coordinated the detection of, and response to, fraud risks from organised crime groups seeking to exploit COVID-19, which meant that systematic attacks on the benefit system were detected and shut down. In this way cyber colleagues prevented an attack by organised criminals in which would have seen £1.9 billion in benefits being paid to people trying to scam the system.
The role of the Risk Review Team is to review and take action on cases identified by IRIS as being a high fraud risk.
A monthly breakdown of cases where benefit was re-instated following suspension is not available, however approximately 3% of cases reviewed under the Risk Review Process have been reinstated. All other cases will remain suspended pending investigation or closure.
The average length of claim suspension because of the Risk Review Team activity is not available. However, the length of time that a claim is suspended is largely dependent on the engagement of the claimant and the timely provision of any information requested.
Where a customer does contact us and provides the information requested, we have processes in place to ensure people’s payments are put back into payment as soon as possible.
The Risk Review Team does not capture demographic data on any claims they suspend and, as such, no information can be provided on nationality.
Any Universal Credit claim that is suspended as a consequence of the Risk Review Team activity is notified by journal and text messages, along with a means by which a claimant can contact the Department and speak to the agent responsible for that case.
The Risk Review Team (RRT) was created in May 2020 as a direct response to threats identified by the Department’s Integrated Risk and Intelligence Service (IRIS).
IRIS brings together the Department’s Risk and Intelligence Service, our Cyber Resilience Team and our co-ordination of our response to Serious and Organised Crime activity.
Last year, IRIS coordinated the detection of, and response to, fraud risks from organised crime groups seeking to exploit COVID-19, which meant that systematic attacks on the benefit system were detected and shut down. In this way cyber colleagues prevented an attack by organised criminals in which would have seen £1.9 billion in benefits being paid to people trying to scam the system.
The role of the Risk Review Team is to review and take action on cases identified by IRIS as being a high fraud risk.
A monthly breakdown of cases where benefit was re-instated following suspension is not available, however approximately 3% of cases reviewed under the Risk Review Process have been reinstated. All other cases will remain suspended pending investigation or closure.
The average length of claim suspension because of the Risk Review Team activity is not available. However, the length of time that a claim is suspended is largely dependent on the engagement of the claimant and the timely provision of any information requested.
Where a customer does contact us and provides the information requested, we have processes in place to ensure people’s payments are put back into payment as soon as possible.
The Risk Review Team does not capture demographic data on any claims they suspend and, as such, no information can be provided on nationality.
Any Universal Credit claim that is suspended as a consequence of the Risk Review Team activity is notified by journal and text messages, along with a means by which a claimant can contact the Department and speak to the agent responsible for that case.
The information on number of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) appeals lapsed during the requested periods is given below:
Period | Number of PIP appeals lapsed |
January – March 2021 | 7,020 |
April – June 2021 | 5,310 |
Data has been rounded to the nearest 10. Totals are for Great Britain.
PIP appeals data taken from the DWP PIP computer system’s management information. Therefore this data may differ from that held by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service for various reasons such as delays in data recording and other methodological differences in collating and preparing statistics.
The information on number of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) appeals lapsed during the requested periods is given below:
Period | Number of PIP appeals lapsed |
January – March 2021 | 7,020 |
April – June 2021 | 5,310 |
Data has been rounded to the nearest 10. Totals are for Great Britain.
PIP appeals data taken from the DWP PIP computer system’s management information. Therefore this data may differ from that held by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service for various reasons such as delays in data recording and other methodological differences in collating and preparing statistics.
The information requested is not readily available and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost.
The information requested is not readily available and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost.
The information requested is not readily available and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost.
The information requested is not readily available and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost.
No such assessment has been made. Food banks are independent charitable organisations and there is no consistent and accurate measure of food bank usage. We take the issue of food insecurity seriously, which is why we added internationally used food security questions to the Family Resources Survey in 2019/20 and published the data in March this year. We recognise the data limitations in this area, so from April 2021, we have introduced a set of questions to the Family Resources Survey (FRS) on food bank usage. The first results of these questions are expected to be published in March 2023, subject to usual quality assurances.
The Chancellor announced a temporary six-month extension to the £20 per week uplift at the Budget on 3 March to support households affected by the economic shock of Covid-19. Universal Credit has provided a vital safety net for six million people during the pandemic, and the temporary uplift was part of a COVID support package worth a total of £407 billion in 2020-21 and 2021-22.
There have been significant positive developments in the public health situation since the uplift was first introduced. With the success of the vaccine rollout and record job vacancies, it is right that our focus is on helping people back into work. This approach is based on clear evidence about the importance of employment, particularly where it is full-time, in substantially reducing the risks of poverty.
Through our Plan for Jobs, we are targeting tailored support schemes of people of all ages to help them prepare for, get into and progress in work. These include: Kickstart, delivering tens of thousands of six-month work placements for Universal Credit claimants aged 16-24 at risk of unemployment; we have also recruited an additional 13,500 work coaches to provide more intensive support to find a job; and introduced Restart which provides 12 months’ intensive employment support to Universal Credit claimants who are unemployed for a year. Our Plan for Jobs interventions will support more than two million people
This Government is wholly committed to supporting those on low incomes, and continues to do so through many measures, a including by spending over £111 billion on welfare support for people of working age in 2021/22. This government is continuing to take action to support living standards by increasing the National Living Wage to £9.50 effective from 1st April 2022, as well as reducing the taper rate in Universal Credit from 63% to 55% and increasing the value of work allowances by £500 per year, meaning Universal Credit claimants will be able to keep more of their benefit payments when they increase their earnings.
Additionally, we recognise that some people may require extra support over the winter as we enter the final stages of recovery, which is why vulnerable households across the country will now be able to access a new £500 million support fund to help them with essentials. The Household Support Fund will provide £421 million to help vulnerable people in England and allocations to individual local authorities are set out below. The Barnett Formula will apply in the usual way, with the devolved administrations receiving almost £80 million (£41m for the Scottish Government, £25m for the Welsh Government and £14m for the NI Executive), for a total of £500 million.
DWP has a discretionary special payment scheme. The policy and guiding principles can be viewed via this link: Compensation for poor service: staff guide - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
DWP can award consolatory payments to customers where DWP service failure has resulted in a serious impact on an individual’s well-being.
Where an allegation of fraud results in an individual’s benefits being suspended and subsequently reinstated following an investigation, DWP can consider additional financial redress, over and above any arrears that might be due, if DWP has:
The Department does not hold this information. When we suspend benefits due to suspected fraud, we strive to resolve the case quickly, including reinstating benefits as soon as possible if fraud is no longer suspected.
Coroners investigate unnatural deaths and where the cause of death is unknown. There is no requirement for a Coroner to inform the department of the outcome in a former claimant’s inquest, unless the department is named as an Interested Person at that inquest - or the Coroner decides to issue the department with a Prevention of Future Deaths report. The Coroner has responsibility for concluding the cause of death.
We have taken steps to increase staff awareness of the mental health difficulties that may be experienced by our customers, so they can direct them to further support at any stage of the claimant journey. For example, we introduced mental health training for UC Work Coaches in late 2017; this has better equipped them to identify customers’ mental health issues and take appropriate action. We have also made mental health training mandatory for all new Personal Independent Payment and Employment Support Allowance telephony staff.
Every Jobcentre has a complex needs toolkit containing links to local organisations which can help and provide support. The toolkit was developed to support claimants with various complex needs, including by signposting them to appropriate organisations and services. Designated contacts from each jobcentre attended training sessions where they were taught how to use the toolkit. The toolkit is now covered within UC training for all new starters.
The Government has made clear its commitment to safeguard the rights of EEA nationals, and their family members, living in the UK prior to the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020. They have done this though the introduction of the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS).
The scheme opened to the public on 30 March 2019 and the deadline for the scheme for those resident in the UK by the end of the transition period was 30 June 2021. Every day thousands of people are being given status through the EUSS and to date the Home Office have received more than 6 million applications.
There is scope to make a late application based on reasonable grounds for missing the deadline. The Home Office have also released guidance for late applications and reiterated their general approach under the EUSS which is to look to grant status, rather than looking for reasons to refuse. Those covered by the Withdrawal Agreement who submit a late application to the EUSS will also be able to access benefits and services, if they are eligible, from the point their application is validated, and identity has been verified.
From 1 July 2021, the Department has continued to work in collaboration with the HO and HMRC to undertake further engagement activities and give those without status further opportunity to apply to the EUSS. Claimants that fail to make a late application will not have entitlement to benefits unless, and until, they apply. The Department is however taking all reasonable steps to engage claimants and provide them with multiple opportunities to apply before taking compliance action. This includes engaging with relevant customers through scheduled face to face and telephony contact, and Universal Credit (UC) journal prompts. The Department’s visiting service is also available for those customers who are identified as the most vulnerable.
From 1 July 2021, EEA and Swiss Nationals (excluding Irish Nationals) will require immigration status in order to access income related benefits and public services. EEA and Swiss nationals, and their family members, in scope of the Withdrawal Agreement can acquire immigration status through the EU Settlement Scheme. Those currently receiving benefits have not seen their payments stop automatically from 1 July. However, it is important that anyone eligible who hasn’t applied to the EUSS does so quickly to ensure that benefit payments are protected.
We are working very closely with the Home Office and HM Revenue and Customs to identify those who have yet to apply. Letters had been issued to encourage existing benefit recipients to apply to the EUSS to protect their existing rights in the UK. The Home Office will shortly be writing to benefit recipients who have still not applied for a status, giving a further 28 days to apply, after which the departments will be notified of those recipients who have still not applied.
Further information can be found here - https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2020/07/02/media-factsheet-eu-settlement-scheme/
For those that require support making an application to the EU Settlement Scheme we are able to signpost individuals to the Settlement Resolution Centre, which can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/contact-ukvi-inside-outside-uk/y/inside-the-uk/eu-settlement-scheme-settled-and-pre-settled-status-or-service-provider-from-switzerland-visa-applications
A full list of 72 grant funded organisations able to offer help at a local level to vulnerable and at risk EU citizens applying to the EU Settlement Scheme can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/eu-settlement-scheme-community-support-for-vulnerable-citizens
Detailed guidance will be issued through our Advice to Decision Makers in due course - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/advice-for-decision-making-staff-guide
From 1 July 2021, EEA and Swiss Nationals (excluding Irish Nationals) will require immigration status in order to access income related benefits and public services. EEA and Swiss nationals, and their family members, in scope of the Withdrawal Agreement can acquire immigration status through the EU Settlement Scheme. Those currently receiving benefits have not seen their payments stop automatically from 1 July. However, it is important that anyone eligible who hasn’t applied to the EUSS does so quickly to ensure that benefit payments are protected.
We are working very closely with the Home Office and HM Revenue and Customs to identify those who have yet to apply. Letters had been issued to encourage existing benefit recipients to apply to the EUSS to protect their existing rights in the UK. The Home Office will shortly be writing to benefit recipients who have still not applied for a status, giving a further 28 days to apply, after which the departments will be notified of those recipients who have still not applied.
Further information can be found here - https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2020/07/02/media-factsheet-eu-settlement-scheme/
For those that require support making an application to the EU Settlement Scheme we are able to signpost individuals to the Settlement Resolution Centre, which can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/contact-ukvi-inside-outside-uk/y/inside-the-uk/eu-settlement-scheme-settled-and-pre-settled-status-or-service-provider-from-switzerland-visa-applications
A full list of 72 grant funded organisations able to offer help at a local level to vulnerable and at risk EU citizens applying to the EU Settlement Scheme can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/eu-settlement-scheme-community-support-for-vulnerable-citizens
Detailed guidance will be issued through our Advice to Decision Makers in due course - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/advice-for-decision-making-staff-guide
From 1 July 2021, EEA and Swiss Nationals (excluding Irish Nationals) will require immigration status in order to access income related benefits and public services. EEA and Swiss nationals, and their family members, in scope of the Withdrawal Agreement can acquire immigration status through the EU Settlement Scheme. Those currently receiving benefits have not seen their payments stop automatically from 1 July. However, it is important that anyone eligible who hasn’t applied to the EUSS does so quickly to ensure that benefit payments are protected.
We are working very closely with the Home Office and HM Revenue and Customs to identify those who have yet to apply. Letters had been issued to encourage existing benefit recipients to apply to the EUSS to protect their existing rights in the UK. The Home Office will shortly be writing to benefit recipients who have still not applied for a status, giving a further 28 days to apply, after which the departments will be notified of those recipients who have still not applied.
Further information can be found here - https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2020/07/02/media-factsheet-eu-settlement-scheme/
For those that require support making an application to the EU Settlement Scheme we are able to signpost individuals to the Settlement Resolution Centre, which can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/contact-ukvi-inside-outside-uk/y/inside-the-uk/eu-settlement-scheme-settled-and-pre-settled-status-or-service-provider-from-switzerland-visa-applications
A full list of 72 grant funded organisations able to offer help at a local level to vulnerable and at risk EU citizens applying to the EU Settlement Scheme can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/eu-settlement-scheme-community-support-for-vulnerable-citizens
Detailed guidance will be issued through our Advice to Decision Makers in due course - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/advice-for-decision-making-staff-guide
From 1 July 2021, EEA and Swiss Nationals (excluding Irish Nationals) will require immigration status in order to access income related benefits and public services. EEA and Swiss nationals, and their family members, in scope of the Withdrawal Agreement can acquire immigration status through the EU Settlement Scheme. Those currently receiving benefits have not seen their payments stop automatically from 1 July. However, it is important that anyone eligible who hasn’t applied to the EUSS does so quickly to ensure that benefit payments are protected.
We are working very closely with the Home Office and HM Revenue and Customs to identify those who have yet to apply. Letters had been issued to encourage existing benefit recipients to apply to the EUSS to protect their existing rights in the UK. The Home Office will shortly be writing to benefit recipients who have still not applied for a status, giving a further 28 days to apply, after which the departments will be notified of those recipients who have still not applied.
Further information can be found here - https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2020/07/02/media-factsheet-eu-settlement-scheme/
For those that require support making an application to the EU Settlement Scheme we are able to signpost individuals to the Settlement Resolution Centre, which can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/contact-ukvi-inside-outside-uk/y/inside-the-uk/eu-settlement-scheme-settled-and-pre-settled-status-or-service-provider-from-switzerland-visa-applications
A full list of 72 grant funded organisations able to offer help at a local level to vulnerable and at risk EU citizens applying to the EU Settlement Scheme can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/eu-settlement-scheme-community-support-for-vulnerable-citizens
Detailed guidance will be issued through our Advice to Decision Makers in due course - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/advice-for-decision-making-staff-guide
The information is not available. This is because Universal Credit is a unitary concept. Whilst there are different elements in the determination of the gross entitlement, Universal Credit is paid as one single payment. As such it is not possible to describe the benefit cap deduction as a deduction from a particular increase to an element of the Universal Credit award, such as the £20 uplift or the increase in Local Allowance Rates for example.
Food banks are independent charitable organisations and there is no consistent and accurate measure of food bank usage. We take the issue of food insecurity seriously, which is why we added internationally used food security questions to the Family Resources Survey in 19/20 and published the data in March this year.
In addition, from April 2021 we introduced a set of questions into the Family Resources Survey (FRS) on food bank usage. The first results of these questions are expected to be published in March 2023 subject to usual quality assurance.
No assessment has been made.
The £20 per week uplift to Universal Credit and Working Tax Credit was announced by the Chancellor as a temporary measure in March 2020 to support those facing the most financial disruption as a result of the public health emergency. A further 6 month extension announced to the uplift was announced in March at this year’s Spring Budget, and more than £9bn will have been spent on it by the time it ends, well beyond the end of the roadmap.
As the Government has done throughout this pandemic, it will continue to assess how best to support individuals and businesses as the situation develops.
We are committed to supporting families most in need, spending billions more on welfare and planning a long-term route out of poverty by helping people increase their hours in employment or find new work through our Plan for Jobs.
Access to benefits for non-UK nationals depends on their immigration status. EEA and Swiss nationals, and their family members, resident in the UK at the end of the transition period need to apply to the EU Settlement Scheme to maintain entitlement to taxpayer funded benefits.
Those currently receiving benefits will not see their payments stop automatically from 1 July. However, it is important that anyone eligible who hasn’t applied to the EUSS does so quickly to ensure that benefit payments don’t stop.
Further information can be found here - https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2020/07/02/media-factsheet-eu-settlement-scheme/
We are working with the Home Office and HM Revenue and Customs to identify existing benefit claimants who have yet to apply for status under the EUSS. Letters had been issued to encourage existing benefit recipients to apply to the EUSS to protect their existing rights in the UK before the deadline.
The Home Office will shortly be writing to benefit recipients who have still not applied for a status, giving a further 28 days to apply, after which the department will be notified of those recipients who have still not applied.
Detailed guidance will be issued through our Advice to Decision Makers in due course - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/advice-for-decision-making-staff-guide
No such assessment has been undertaken.
The government has focused support on Universal Credit and Working Tax Credit claimants because they are more likely to be affected by the sudden economic shock of COVID-19 than other legacy benefit claimants.
Claimants on legacy benefits can voluntarily make a claim for UC if they believe that they will be better off. Claimants considering making a claim should check carefully their eligibility and entitlements under UC before applying, as legacy benefits will end when claimants submit their UC claim and they will not be able to return to them in the future. For this reason, prospective claimants are signposted to independent benefits calculators on GOV.UK. They can also get help through the government funded Help to Claim scheme as well as the Citizens Advice Bureau and Citizens Advice Scotland.
We are committed to supporting families most in need, spending billions more on welfare and planning a long-term route out of poverty by helping people increase their hours in employment or find new work through our Plan for Jobs.
The Decision Makers Guide, Volume 1, Chapter 03 is titled Revision. As part of their foundation learning, all new decision makers receive the following training on Revision:
Decision Maker Foundation Learning Module 05: Common Decision Maker Subjects Part 2: Revision and supersession. This is a 3-hour session delivered by Learning Delivery Officers. This training aims to provide decision makers with the knowledge and understanding of the revision and supersession processes, the differences between them, what an application for revision or supersession is, and how to record the outcome of an application.
In addition, decision makers who deal with mandatory reconsiderations and appeals undertake the following additional learning:
Mandatory Reconsiderations and Appeals. This is a 12-hour session delivered by Learning Delivery Officers. This training aims to give decision makers the skills to make a mandatory reconsideration decision accurately and write the outcome clearly, addressing all areas disputed by the claimant.
The information requested is not readily available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
The Department works closely with the Advertising Standards Authority on all of its paid media campaigns to ensure they follow industry best practice.
All campaign messaging is shared with the Advertising Standards Authority Copy Advice Team as part of the rigorous approval process which precedes the launch of all DWP campaigns.
The information requested is not readily available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
The Decision Makers Guide, Volume 1, Chapter 03 is titled Revision. As part of their foundation learning, all new decision makers receive the following training on Revision:
In addition, decision makers who deal with mandatory reconsiderations and appeals undertake the following additional learning:
The Department does not routinely place all notes of internal discussions in the Library.
However, to assist with transparency, and since November 2018, the Department has deposited Universal Credit Programme Board papers in twice-yearly batches to the House Library to provide information surrounding governance and key decision-making.
A copy of the guidance will be placed in the library. It includes a step by step approach that must be taken to ensure that claimants fully understand the nature of the call and their rights; it also enables any representative to play a full part in the discussions and the decision to be made.
During the call claimants are told that should the decision be revised and the appeal lapsed, they will have a new right of appeal against the new decision. The decision notification itself includes, as it must in law, details of those appeal rights.
A copy of the guidance will be placed in the library. It includes a step by step approach that must be taken to ensure that claimants fully understand the nature of the call and their rights; it also enables any representative to play a full part in the discussions and the decision to be made.
During the call claimants are told that should the decision be revised and the appeal lapsed, they will have a new right of appeal against the new decision. The decision notification itself includes, as it must in law, details of those appeal rights.
The Department estimates around 1.4 million people currently on legacy benefits would have higher notional entitlement on Universal Credit before including the £20 standard allowance temporary uplift.
The data you have requested is not available.
It might be helpful if I explain that on receipt of a referral, the Healthcare Professional will review each case along with any additional information provided by the claimant. A request may then be made for further medical evidence from a treating medical professional. Once all the information has been received, the Healthcare Professional may be able to provide a paper based assessment or advise on the appropriateness of a telephone assessment.
We are aware that there will be some claimants who are unable to undertake a telephone assessment because of their health condition and we are currently developing ways in which we can support these individuals. We also continue to undertake some video assessments where appropriate.
Claimants who we are unable to assess by telephone or video because of their health condition will be prioritised when we are able to safely resume face to face assessments.
The health and safety of our claimants and staff is our key priority. We suspended all face-to-face assessments for sickness and disability benefits in March 2020. This temporary suspension, brought in to protect people from unnecessary risk of coronavirus at the outset of the pandemic, remains in place, and is being kept under review in line with the latest public health guidance.
Throughout the pandemic we have continued to assess people on paper evidence, using this route whenever possible. We are aware there are some claimants who are unable to undertake a telephone assessment because of their health condition and we are currently developing ways in which we can support these individuals. We also continue to undertake some video assessments where appropriate.
Individuals invited for a telephone assessment are encouraged to inform their assessment provider of any additional requirements they may have, and the provider will endeavour to meet any reasonable requests. This is explained to the individual in the initial invitation letter for all telephone assessments. For example, companions are able to join a telephone assessment, as they could for a face to face assessment.
Where a claimant is unable to undertake a telephone assessment because of their health condition, they remain on their current award until we are able to gather the evidence needed for a recommendation to be made or, in contributory ESA, until their benefit is due to end.
As ever, claimants should get in touch if their health condition has worsened or they are experiencing financial hardship.
The assessment criteria for Personal Independence Payment are very different to those for the Work Capability Assessment (WCA), which assesses whether claimants to Employment and Support Allowance, and Universal Credit have limited capability for work.
We are aware that there are some claimants who are unable to undertake a WCA telephone assessment because of their health condition and we are currently developing ways in which we can support these individuals. We are continuing to assess as many people as we are able to on paper evidence, using this route as often as possible. We are also undertaking some video assessments, where appropriate.
Individuals invited for a telephone assessment are encouraged to inform their assessment provider of any additional requirements they may have, and the provider will endeavour to meet any reasonable requests. This is explained to the individual in the initial invitation letter for all telephone assessments. For example, companions are able to join a telephone assessment, as they could for a face to face assessment.
Claimants who we are unable to assess by telephone or video because of their health condition will be prioritised when we are able to safely resume face-to-face assessments.
The £20 uplift is for everyone on Universal Credit and the Department did not consider excluding existing UC claimants.
The uplift to Universal Credit is available regardless of claimant start date and not only those claiming since the start of the covid-19.
We currently spend over £95 billion a year on working age benefits, including Universal Credit, and remain committed to supporting the most vulnerable in society.
In March 2020, following the outbreak of COVID-19, the Government took unprecedented economic intervention to support jobs and people across the country, which has been supported by additional welfare spending of over £9.3 billion across a number of areas. For example, the uplift for all Universal Credit claimants, as well as Local Housing Allowance rates including the Shared Accommodation element, were increased to cover the lowest 30% of local market rents, benefiting over one million households by £600 a year on average.
All ESA claimants can choose to claim UC If they believe they will be better off, however special arrangements exist for those in receipt of SDP.
The Department has no current plans to commission such research.
Claimants on legacy benefits can make a claim for Universal Credit if they believe that they will be better off. Claimants should check their eligibility before applying to Universal Credit as legacy benefits will end when they submit their claim and they will not be able to return to them in the future. For this reason, prospective claimants are signposted to independent benefits calculators on GOV.UK.
There are special arrangements for those in receipt of the Severe Disability Premium, who will be able to make a new claim to Universal Credit from January 2021.
Individuals making a Universal Credit declaration from 16 March to 23 June stood at 3.2 million (3,240,570)
The Average Speed of Answer for calls to Universal Credit in each week from 6th January 2020 is shown below in the format of hours:minutes:seconds.
Week Commencing -
06/01/2020 0:04:00
13/01/2020 0:03:34
20/01/2020 0:03:06
27/01/2020 0:02:14
03/02/2020 0:03:37
10/02/2020 0:03:31
17/02/2020 0:03:46
24/02/2020 0:02:56
02/03/2020 0:03:12
09/03/2020 0:03:34
16/03/2020 0:16:52
23/03/2020 0:43:08
30/03/2020 0:44:01
06/04/2020 0:29:32
13/04/2020 0:15:17
20/04/2020 0:23:05
27/04/2020 0:21:42
04/05/2020 0:10:30
11/05/2020 0:07:24
18/05/2020 0:04:30
25/05/2020 0:06:20
01/06/2020 0:02:35
08/06/2020 0:01:50
15/06/2020 0:01:44
22/06/2020 0:02:38
29/06/2020 0:03:54
The average waiting times change week on week and is demand led. To manage and improve increased waiting times due to the Coronavirus Pandemic, the Department implemented changes in processes in April and initiated a communication campaign to pro-actively call those with new claims. The Department also redeployed staff from non-business critical areas to front line delivery roles, made use of staff from other Government Departments, has recruited and continues to recruit significant numbers of new staff and has utilised contract and agency staff in certain roles.
Average Speed of Answer measures the average customer wait time from the point of entering a queue to connection to an agent. This excludes any time spent in pre-queue messaging and any wait time for calls ultimately abandoned by callers.
Source: BT Historical Management Information (HMI), Serco, Capita
National Statistics for claimants of Jobseeker’s Allowance, Employment and Support Allowance and Income Support is published quarterly and the latest available information up to November 2019 can be found at:
https://stat-xplore.dwp.gov.uk/
Guidance for users is available at:
https://stat-xplore.dwp.gov.uk/webapi/online-help/Getting-Started.html
The statistics for the number of people claiming these benefits to February 2020 and to May 2020 will be published in August and November 2020 respectively.
Statistics for claimants of Jobseeker’s Allowance is published monthly by the Office for National Statistics on the NOMIS website, and the latest data to May 2020 can be found at:
Guidance for users can be found at:
The Government has taken steps to provide reassurance to and protect the rights of EEA citizens’ resident in the UK by the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020, so that they will be able to continue their lives in the UK much as before. In order to give effect to this, on 30 March 2019, the Home Office fully launched the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS).
By being granted status under the EUSS, EEA citizens living in the UK are able to continue to work, study and access benefits and services in the UK on the same basis as they did before we left the EU.
EU citizens with settled status who demonstrate habitual residence in the UK will pass the Habitual Residence Test (HRT) and be eligible to access tax-payer funded benefits. EEA citizens with pre-settled status are eligible to claim DWP income-related benefits such as Universal Credit if they are exercising a qualifying EU Treaty Right. This includes those with a worker or self-employed status and EEA workers with retained worker status who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.
Government measures to support workers and their families through Covid-19 are also available for EEA citizens with pre-settled status under the EUSS who meet the eligibility criteria. These include the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, the Self-employed Income Support Scheme and Statutory Sick Pay.
We do not have an estimate of the number of claimants of (a) Universal Credit and( b) Legacy benefits who have had a fraudulent claim made in their name in each month in 2020.
If an individual approaches DWP alleging they have had their identity hijacked, we will investigate the matter.
Where a person has had their identity hijacked and their details have been used to make a fraudulent claim for Universal Credit, the Department may consider the reinstatement of legacy benefits where it is clear they played no part in the making of the claim.
Where a claim to Universal Credit was prompted by fraudulent activity, and a claimant is a victim whose details have been used to make a claim, the Department will consider the reinstatement of legacy benefits if there is clear evidence that the claimant had no involvement in the fraud, and where the claimant wishes us to do so.
The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013 (RIDDOR) provides the national reporting framework for responsible persons (usually employers in relation to employees) to report certain cases of injury, occupational disease and dangerous occurrences to the Health and Safety Executive.
In relation to the current outbreak, where an individual has either been exposed to coronavirus (SARS- COV-2) or contracted Covid-19 as a direct result of their work, those instances are reportable under RIDDOR.
The information requested is not available.