Hardship Protection

2. What this proposal does — and does not do

• The consequence: A person may lose the USI only after a fair decision that they refused a reasonable participation requirement without good reason.
• The protection: Essential support remains available where the loss of USI would otherwise create hunger, homelessness, loss of heat or another serious welfare risk.
• Not an automatic punishment: Illness, disability, caring duties, domestic abuse, bereavement, emergencies, access barriers and other good reasons must be considered first.
• Not the loss of every entitlement: A USI decision should not automatically remove unrelated disability support, child support, housing help, healthcare or other protected entitlements.

3. What counts as reasonable participation?

• Capability: The activity must fit the person’s assessed health, functional capacity and realistic hours under Policy 29.
• Availability: A real placement, course, vacancy or contribution route must exist. A person cannot refuse an imaginary opportunity.
• Accessibility: Travel, childcare, digital access, communication support and reasonable adjustments must be addressed.
• Suitability: The requirement must respect skills, caring responsibilities, safety, location and the person’s agreed pathway.
• Clarity: The person must receive an accessible written explanation of what is expected, by when and what help is available.
• Support first: Work coaching, treatment-compatible preparation, training and practical assistance should precede enforcement.

4. A fair decision pathway

1. 01Agree a personalised participation plan: Record suitable activities, limitations, support needs, review dates and the consequences of non-participation.
2. 02Make early contact: A missed activity should trigger prompt, accessible contact rather than an assumption of refusal.
3. 03Consider good reason and vulnerability: Review health, disability, caring, bereavement, domestic abuse, emergencies, access failures and new evidence.
4. 04Offer support and a written warning: Correct barriers, restate expectations and give a realistic opportunity to re-engage.
5. 05Use an independent decision: A trained decision-maker should provide reasons, evidence, duration and a clear route to challenge.
6. 06Assess hardship automatically: Before the USI is stopped, check risks to food, energy, housing, health, children and dependants.
7. 07Restore support promptly: End the consequence when the person re-engages, the requirement changes or the decision is overturned.

5. The Hardship Support Scheme

• Food and hygiene: Supermarket vouchers, emergency food support and essential hygiene items, including nappies where needed.
• Energy and water: Direct payments or emergency credit to prevent disconnection and keep a home safely heated and supplied.
• Housing protection: Rent intervention, homelessness prevention and rapid liaison with landlords, councils and housing services.
• Children and dependants: Protected support for food, warmth, housing and essential care, regardless of an adult’s participation decision.
• Health and safety: Urgent referrals where deprivation could worsen illness, create safeguarding risks or interrupt essential treatment.
• Essential participation costs: Travel, communication, clothing or childcare needed to comply and re-enter the participation pathway.
• Local coordination: A single referral route linking national administration, local authorities and appropriate voluntary organisations.
• Accessible delivery: Telephone, face-to-face, assisted-digital and representative applications, with same-day emergency decisions where necessary.

6. Safeguards against extreme deprivation

• Pre-decision check: No loss of USI until good reason, vulnerability, dependant impact and access barriers have been considered.
• Written reasons: State the evidence, the finding of refusal, the duration, the route back and the help immediately available.
• Independent challenge: Provide rapid reconsideration, advocacy and appeal, with urgent protection where serious harm is alleged.
• Time limits and review: Every consequence should be proportionate, reviewed and capable of ending quickly when participation resumes.
• No double punishment: Avoid automatically removing housing, child, disability or healthcare support because the USI has been lost.
• Published accountability: Report decisions, reversals, hardship awards, response times, repeat cases, homelessness risk and safeguarding outcomes.

7. Questions for scrutiny

1. 01Which forms of work, training, caring, volunteering or community contribution should count as participation?
2. 02How should “capable of work”, “reasonable participation” and “refusal without good reason” be defined in law?
3. 03What evidence should decision-makers obtain before concluding that a person refused rather than faced a barrier?
4. 04Should a warning and second opportunity always be required before USI is removed, except in proven fraud or deliberate abuse?
5. 05Which groups should receive automatic hardship protection, and which circumstances should pause enforcement entirely?
6. 06Should core hardship support be non-repayable, partly recoverable or structured differently according to need?
7. 07How quickly must food, energy and housing help be delivered, and who is accountable when support fails?
8. 08How should the system protect partners, children and other dependants from a decision involving one adult?
9. 09What should end a loss of USI: re-engagement, completion of a compliance step, a time limit or a successful challenge?
10. 10What independent outcomes should be published on employment, re-engagement, poverty, debt, health, homelessness and administrative cost?
11. 11What pilot design would test whether the policy improves participation without increasing extreme hardship?

8. Core commitment

9. The proposed direction