Transparency data

Minutes of the meeting held on 10 September 2025

Updated 8 December 2025

Chair:

Dr Stephen Brien

Members:

Les Allamby
Fran Bennett
Bruce Calderwood
Rachel Chiu
Tom Clark
Carl Emmerson
Daphne Hall
Jacob Meagher
Dr Suzy Walton
Professor Sharon Wright

Apologies:

Joanne Cairns
Professor Stephen Hardy
Philip Jones

1. Private session

[Reserved item]

2. The Social Security (Habitual Residence and Past Presence and Temporary Absence Period) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

2.1 The Chair welcomed the following officials to the meeting: Ronan O’Connor (Deputy Director, International Strategy), Megan Isom (International Strategy), William Drummond (International Strategy), Joel Weston (Disability and Health Support Policy), Natalie Matranga (DWP Legal Adviser), Luckjit Sidhu (DWP Legal Adviser), and Richard Ward (Analyst). 

2.2 Introducing the item, Ronan O’Connor reminded the Committee that the Regulations had already been laid, as the Secretary of State had invoked the urgency provision.^{[footnote 1]}

2.3 To help inform the subsequent discussion, Ronan and his team provided an overview of the proposals covering the following topics: 

• Policy intent – To have a general set of crisis response regulations that can be activated in certain generic situations and provide future proofing against future events. This will remain consistent with DWP’s previous approach. The regulations will provide residency test exemptions and continued payments to stranded claimants  

• DWP residence tests – There is an expectation is that people coming to live in the UK should plan how to support themselves without the welfare system. It is normally the case that DWP requires people to live in the UK for a period before they can access benefits. This applies to everyone, including British nationals  

• Aspects of the proposed legislation - There are two significant points to the regulations. Firstly, they will disapply the need for the habitual residence test relating to income-based benefits and the past presence test relating to disability and carer’s benefits. Therefore, it will not matter if the applicant is a British national or non-British national with immigration status that gives recourse to public funds.  Secondly, they aim to support those who have been stranded abroad following official advice from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) to leave the country or territory 

• Timing limitations – The Department has added a six-month sunset clause to the exemption from the residency tests following HM Government advising British nationals to leave a country or territory or arranging the evacuation of British nationals. The exemption from the past presence test remains in place for 130 weeks (for individuals who arrive within six months) to ensure adults can satisfy the past presence test without the aid of an exemption. The extension to the temporary absence periods for claimants stranded abroad is up to a maximum of six months for all benefits 

• Current applications – Following the laying of these regulations those who have fled Israel or Occupied Palestinian territories and those from South Sudan are exempt from the Habitual Residence Test (HRT). The same applies to the Past, Presence Test (PPT) but also includes Niger 

• Operational process and management – There will be specialist crisis teams to process any claims starting immediately and internal guidance for staff can be updated within two days. Updated gov.uk advice for Decision Makers can take two weeks on average but can be expedited if critical 

• Impacts – In summary there is great uncertainty around when a future crisis will occur and the number of individuals who could flee to the UK from a crisis, who will also have an immigration status with recourse to public funds and subsequently register a benefit claim 

• Equality Impact Analysis evidence and findings - Based on the Departments experience, every crisis is different and the impact on protected characteristics depends on the specific circumstances of each crisis. Therefore, the Department feels it cannot assume that the characteristics of people affected by crises in the future will be similar to people affected by crises in the past. The Equality Analysis responds to this challenge by making more qualitative assessments about how different groups may be affected in future crises, as well as using published data on previous crises to inform the Departments assessment.

2.4 The Committee asked the following main questions in discussion:

(a) What would happen in situations that may fall outside of the regulations, for example someone is taken hostage and cannot travel back within six months or someone who is heavily pregnant and may not want to travel immediately before or after giving birth? Also, does the Department foresee a situation where FCDO has not issued travel advice, but the Department feels it should intervene? 

The regulations are designed to cover large numbers and the circumstances faced by them and are intended to provide immediate support. It is worth noting that if the Department needs time to consider further action, the six-month period within the regulations allows for that. The Department would then consider whether a tailored approach was needed to a specific set of circumstances, such as described. It is right the Department look at the facts and tailor a response, as opposed to making policy in the dark.  

The DWP, by working with key Whitehall departments such as the FCDO and the Home Office (HO), has a degree of influence. These departments are aware that their decisions have an impact regarding these regulations. The DWP are not experts on matters overseas and if the FCDO or the Prime Minister decided on a different approach, the Department would need to legislate again.

(b) To what extent has the Department considered future-proofing the regulations? Has the Department considered adding a discretionary clause to cover exceptional circumstances, removing the need to lay further legislation that falls outside of these regulations? 

The Department did consider this but decided against it for a few reasons. Firstly, it creates a risk factor that different groups could ask for discretion to be applied, and challenges why it is not being used. It must be clear in legislation what cohort is covered and adding discretion would break the clear link. The Department wants to show it is being consistent in the way the regulations are applied; discretion could lead to certain groups perceiving it is being used incorrectly. 

Secondly these regulations are designed to replicate previous crises regulations, and in extreme exceptional circumstances, the Department can review individual cases and tailor support as needed that does not require legislating for. It is important not to try and be too clever, the Department believes a stand-alone response which covers generic cases is the best approach, when exceptional circumstances arise the Department can review as needed.

(c) The regulations are clear, and the Department has explained the assurance processes, but what do these processes look like for claimants? For example, a family leaves a few days before an emergency because they are aware of the dangers on the ground, possibly receiving advice from the embassy, what does the assurance look like for those leaving in advance of the official notice from the FCDO. 

The assurance process is essentially what has been implemented in previous crises. The Department identify claimants who could be affected, ensure that clear communications are issued to the Departments decision makers to ensure they are aware of the current situation. Any cases that arise are sent to a specialist team who will consider the circumstances and use the full flexibility within the existing HRT rules, ensuring those that need it can access benefits as soon as possible. Universal Credit (UC) is a welfare benefit, not disaster support, which is led by The Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). Support for returning British nationals, emergency accommodation etc. would be arranged and operated separate to these regulations, the support is all there across wider government.

Addressing the question around early arrivals, the rationale flows directly from HM Government, i.e. people are encouraged to leave and therefore do not have a plan to support themselves on arrival, whereas, if people choose to leave early then that justification does not apply. If the Department were to incorporate what is the justification for that and where does the Department draw the line and what would the permitted time period be? It is difficult and if the Department finds this is a problem it could consider further action to support people, as already alluded to. It is important to note that in previous crises there is no evidence to suggest this is an issue. There may be an element of discretion that can be applied if a family fled a few days early, but if a family arrives ahead of official advice, it may be questioned as to why.

(d) What would happen if a family travelled out on the last commercial flight as opposed to being evacuated by the government. That seems to be asking the family to trust it will be ok, what if something then happens to mean that it is not? Also, for example if a pregnant person decides to leave two weeks in advance, would that be covered as she was thinking about the longer-term position?  

The Department must draw the line, which is immediately before the decision is made by HM Government. This is replicating the previous emergency responses to crises, which have been legislated several times, and no issues have been identified. The Department understands why the Committee are raising the examples but as previously stated, it is something not seen previously. Once there is a line, it needs to be maintained. The FCDO makes the ultimate decision as to when people should leave, the Department cannot be second guessing. Several reasons could then be given as to why someone has arrived in the UK unprepared, when people should be planning on how to support themselves when arriving. The Department would not want to be drawn into individual circumstances, however, the Department has never had legislation to protect those.

(e) If a person has six months to get out of the country, what would be the position if it is only a city or region and that they could move safely to another part of the country before eventually having to leave. With discretion could there be a case to add a discretion clause for the Secretary of State where there is compelling reason to leave, but it is simply not practical? 

Addressing movement within a country, the FCDO do have different advice for different cities or regions but that advice to leave a specific city or region and return to the UK has not been seen, it applies to the whole country, and it is usually done so people can leave on commercial flights and before possible exit routes are closed. The FCDO are not in the business of relocating people to other parts of a country. A British National, should be returning to the UK, not elsewhere, as it likely they would only be eligible to be in the UK or the country they are being asked to leave.  

Regarding discretion, this applies as mentioned earlier within the existing HRT rules. It also just defers the decision that needs to be made anyway, the Committees prompt was to design a general framework to a crisis, putting discretion in legislation does not solve the issues because the Department would need to design a policy document behind this to advise ministers. Which means it is no longer covered by legislation alone.

(f) The Department has indicated that it is replicating past crises regulations and not expecting anything to change in the future. However, when considering a crisis such as the erupting volcano in Bali, the FCDO will not issue advice to leave, given it is a region; therefore, the Department have hamstrung themselves by not allowing for discretion.  

This has already been covered, DWP is not the expert or competent department to decide how the UK responds to crises overseas and cannot act unilaterally. The Department would need to lay additional regulations if the FCDO did issue regional travel advice.  As discussed, these specific regulations are a general framework to replicate past crises. The Department is aware things can change, and the FCDO is unlikely to, but could decide to take a different approach, which the Department would need to mirror to help quickly respond. Ministers are comfortable around laying urgent regulations if this ever happens.  

With regards to Bali, British Nationals who may be on the island on holiday would satisfy any residence test on return due to not being a resident of Bali. The Department has considered what a crisis is, but it is subjective, and people will have differing thoughts, that is why our regulations must be clear, consistent and fair.

(g) The threshold for assets is £16,000. How would the Department deal with someone who has assets overseas which could be higher than this but is unable to access them to bring them to the UK, or in the case of a house or business, do not wish to sell.  

The Department has issued internal guidance on assets, such as it did with the Ukraine crisis. However, the Department agreed that it would answer this specific point outside of the meeting.^{[footnote 2]}  

(h) Is there a different approach from the devolved nations on this? 

There is no different approach, it is just simply a timing issue on when the regulations will be laid.

(i) MHCLG have not given exemptions for homelessness and access to housing for those that have arrived in the UK via the safe and legal immigration route. Does the Department have any concerns about the lack of consistency? 

Each department can make their own decisions. Currently the safe and legal route is future proof because this is already covered under existing regulations, so there is consistency with those. The Department would have no concerns with the Committee writing to MHCLG as suggested, it is a fair question, and they should have a considered answer.  

It is worth noting that DWP are ahead of the MHCLG on this piece of work because the Department started work on this earlier. It is likely that they are working through the issues the Department has already considered. It is more than likely they are just behind on process, not they have decided not to do this, and it may take more time to come to the same conclusions.

(j) Is there an appeals process for individuals who believe they meet the requirements?  

That would be covered under the normal process of appeals, such as mandatory reconsideration etc.

(k) Moving onto the Equality Impact Analysis (EIA) and thinking about those who may gain or lose. There is a lot of discussion around the comparative, for example looking at British Nationals in a particular country at that moment in time. Would it not be more beneficial to be looking at foreign nationals arriving in the UK and what issues they may face. The Committee feels this is the right approach and will lead to the conclusion that woman, children or disabled people may want to leave and are more likely to benefit, is that correct? alternatively if a British National remains in say Israeli or Iranian occupied territories, how would that be relevant in this comparative? 

The Department considered the various starting points. Past regulations, past crises and future ones will all have a different nature and affected groups will also be different. The Department has been hamstrung somewhat by the lack of data on the protected characteristics of those people affected. People arriving register their presence with the FCDO, and the Department have data on how many arrived on government arranged evacuation flights. The Department also collects limited protected characteristics data, such as ethnicity, on arrivals under previous crisis regulations when a person registers for UC. The Department tried to think about what groups are most likely to or want to leave, but it is very subjective. It could have been done in several different ways.

(l) If that is the comparative, then the Department will never have the data on British Nationals in countries they don’t leave. If the Department are looking at making UC easier to claim, should it not be considering that those who arrive might be less likely to be white British than UC claimants more generally. Then consider how this is communicated to work coaches? How does the Department support those who do not speak English? This would cut across religion and ethnicity. Would this not be the better angle to take to ensure there are no pitfalls and the policy lands well with those protected characteristics.  

The Department does say there are certain groups that might find it difficult to leave, such as those who are pregnant, more elderly or disabled. The Department’s duty is to make people aware of claiming benefit and ensuring no one misses out.

(m) The EIA should be of high empirical standard, and the Committee has expressed this over the years. When looking at the EIA, there is a disconnect because it does not express the level of thinking by officials. There is a need to get that thinking fully down on paper. There is evidence that is more widely available that the Department could use to give some more depth, such as news articles, before approaching ministers rather than indicating that there is limited UC data.  

One aspect the Department considered was whether it should go back over previous crises and consider that data. However, there is a need to consider how relevant old data is against future crises because they all differ in terms of the types of who is affected and how many would return to the UK.

(n) An inspiring piece of analysis would be indicating that previous crises had been sampled, and the impact was very different across the piece; therefore, showing that it is difficult to predict. The Department would then be able to say that the impact is likely to be different for those with specific protected characteristics, depending on the crisis at hand.  

That sounds like a good approach and understand the point. The concern would be that the DWP are just part of the process; those benefiting are those the FCDO have evacuated. The Department is then presented with a set of people who will differ from crisis to crisis. The FCDO will be offering support to those it is evacuating and will have the information on that. Local Authorities will also be supporting with housing. There is a question about how much we are just linking in the Explanatory Memorandum. The public sector equality duty is to show consideration that has been made to support the decisions that have been made. The FO is providing evacuation support, getting these people out of the countries and that is the most important element of these regulations. The Department did consider including analysis of the protected characteristics of benefit recipients who arrived under previous crisis regulations (where data availability allowed), but given each crisis is different in nature it was not included in the EIA document. 

(o) The Department is making a choice to provide benefits to people who may not have been entitled under different circumstances. So, the Department needs to demonstrate how it supports these people. It is not the Committee’s intention to create lots of work, it is to say here is the angle, that could be done over a couple days, think smart, tell a story to show it has been thought about. Essentially someone could come along, pick it up, read it and move on, as opposed to reems of data.  

Noted.

(p) The Committee would like to see more consideration of the impacts on a disabled person in the EIA and the support they may need when arriving in the UK. If someone is fleeing a war zone, they may not have their medical documents with them, or they could be in a foreign language. How will the DWP interact with this? It may also need to interact with someone who is suffering trauma. How is it shown in the EIA that this has been considered?  

Noted 

(q) Some quick analysis would make the impact assessment more meaningful, benefiting the DWP and showcasing good practice. Is that something that could be done about these regulations?  

The regulations have already been laid. The Department agreed to reflect further on the need to reconsider the EIA outside of the meeting and following the advice provided by the Committee following their scrutiny.  

(r) Guidelines allow UK Nationals to claim state benefits. Is it correct that non-UK Nationals can claim state benefit, but are excluded from claiming housing benefit?  

No, that is not correct.  

(s) Are people coming to the UK due to the Afghan data breach covered by these regulations? 

Yes, they are covered.

2.5 The Chair thanked officials for attending and for the hard work the Department has undertaken in bringing these regulations into force. He asked the Department to continue to improve the way the EIA has been thought out and presented to the Committee. 

2.6 Following a private discussion by the Committee, it was agreed it would not take the regulations on formal reference. The Chair would, however, write to the Minister for Transformation on issues specifically around the EIA and the lack of discretion within the regulations.

3. Private session

[Reserved item]

4. Next meeting

4.1 The Chair noted that the next meeting was scheduled to take place on 8 October.

Annex A: Attendees

Guests and Officials

Item 2:

Ronan O’ Connor (Deputy Director, International Strategy) 
Megan Isom (International Strategy)
William Drummond (International Strategy)
Joel Weston (Disability and Health Support Policy)
Natalie Matranga (DWP Legal Adviser)
Luckjit Sidhu (DWP Legal Adviser)
Richard Ward (Analyst)

Secretariat:

Denise Whitehead (Committee Secretary) 
Kenneth Ashworth (Assistant Secretary)
Robert Cooper (Assistant Secretary)
Edward Munn (Assistant Secretary)
Lauren Shields (Analyst) 

1. In accordance with section 173(1)(a) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. The Social Security (Habitual Residence, Past Presence and Temporary Absence) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 ↩

2. The Department provided the following information after the meeting: “The Department has business as usual processes for considering assets held abroad: Personal property - Legislation already provides for assets held overseas only to be accounted for on the basis of their market value. Generally, if assets are held abroad that cannot be accessed, or hold an effective nil value, then a decision maker would consider if it is reasonable to disregard in the capital assessment. Conditions overseas preventing realisation of assets should be clearly considered. For example, properties in Ukraine are generally unable to be sold due to the ongoing conflict and are deemed to have nil market value at this time. However, it is not an automatic assumption to be made that any assets for individuals fleeing a humanitarian crisis zone would be of nil value and it is always for a decision maker to determine this on the individual facts of each case. If decision makers are in doubt, there are escalation processes to seek advice from specialist teams. If someone can sell a property, or could liquidate assets but chooses not to, then that is a different matter, and the value may be considered in the capital assessment.  Business assets  - The same self-employment rules would apply for claimants with business assets abroad, including for individuals that have arrived in the UK for humanitarian reasons. This means assets that are used wholly or mainly for the purposes of a claimant’s trade, profession or vocation are disregarded indefinitely whilst the business is still operating. If a person has stopped being involved in a business within the last six months and they are taking reasonable steps to dispose of those assets, then those business assets can be disregarded from the calculation of that person’s capital. In practice, this means that business assets are disregarded but any profit or earnings made from a business, including if disposing of a business (e.g selling), would need to be self-reported in the usual way and would be taken into account when calculating UC entitlement.” ↩