A/HRC/41/39/Add.1 49. For years the Government has responded to criticism by pointing to its “test and learn” approach, but there seems to be an unacknowledged risk that this approach could treat vulnerable people like guinea pigs and wreak havoc in real peoples’ lives. It is eminently reasonable to change a programme based on feedback, but “test and learn” cannot be a decade-long excuse for failing to properly design a system that is meant to guarantee the social security of so many. 50. When asked about these problems by the Special Rapporteur, government ministers were almost entirely dismissive, blaming political opponents for trying to sabotage their work, suggesting that the media did not fully comprehend the system, and claiming UC was unfairly maligned for problems caused by the previous benefits system. Ministers described UC as a nearly unmitigated success. 51. Reforms are urgent and should go well beyond tinkering. While surveys indicate positive experiences for some UC claimants – and the Special Rapporteur heard high praise for some work coaches and other officials – the bottom line is that a system supposedly designed to bring major and much-needed improvements is fast falling into Universal Discredit. A. Improving the social protection system 52. The UC system is designed with a perverse and catastrophic five-week delay built in between when people file a claim and when they receive benefits. This “waiting period”, which in practice can actually stretch up to 12 weeks, pushes many who may already be in crisis into debt, rent arrears and serious hardship. 61 In response to persistent community pressure, the Government points to the availability of “advance payments and claims that ‘no one needs to wait for their money’”.62 But this is misleading, since the loans, as well as debt to third parties, can be deducted from already meagre UC payments, potentially rendering people destitute.63 The bottom line remains horrendous. As a routine matter, 40 per cent of the standard allowance portion of the payment can be deducted (set to change to 30 per cent later in 2019), and additional clawbacks can be made for rent, gas and electricity arrears. In reality, at least a whopping 60 per cent of a person’s UC standard allowance can be deducted to cover debt before the payment is even disbursed, and advance payment clawbacks are exempted from the 40 per cent cap. 64 53. The rationale offered for the delay – that in analogous employment contexts wages are only paid at the end of the period – is illusory and relies on a set of false assumptions about the real world.65 54. The default payment structure and rigid system of assessment stand in sharp contrast to the Government’s message that the benefit is always carefully tailored to an individual’s needs and circumstances. Because eligibility for and the amount of UC are calculated using a rigid monthly assessment period, claimants can endure huge fluctuations month-to-month merely because their paydays and assessment periods do not coincide. It also looks exclusively to a claimant’s circumstances on the last day of the monthly assessment period, which can result in troubling underpayment.66 The difficulty of arranging payments more frequently than once per month often causes hardship. And UC childcare support requires 61 62 63 64 65 66 12 Mandy Cheetham, Suzanne Moffatt and Michelle Addison, “‘It’s hitting people that can least afford it the hardest’: the impact of the roll out of Universal Credit in two North East England localities; a qualitative study”, November 2018, p. 3. Parliament, “Engagements”, 5 December 2018, vol. 650. Fitzpatrick, Destitution in the UK 2018, p. 31. David Webster, “Briefings on benefit sanctions”, Child Poverty Action Group, 13 December 2018, p. 18. Mike Bewer, David Finch and Daniel Tomlinson, Universal Remedy: Ensuring Universal Credit is Fit for Purpose, Resolution Foundation, 31 October 2018. Josephine Tucker and Dan Norris, “Rough justice”, Child Poverty Action Group, August 2018, pp. 5– 6 and 21–22.