Debt by Design: Universal Credit, Deductions and Administrative Justice

在英国，工作和养老金部（DWP）可以通过“扣除”计划收回索赔人的债务。债务产生的原因有很多，比如养老保障部多付了钱，或者拖欠第三方的钱（比如燃油费、房租或市政税）。在“扣除”计划下，每周通用信贷的支付可能会减少标准津贴的25%。在这里，索赔人的收入可能低于维持生计的水平，对他们的日常生活产生深远的影响。事实上，英国最大的食物银行运营商发现，近一半的食物银行都欠DWP的债（Trussel Trust, 2022）。虽然也有一些政治问题，但也有轶事证据表明，dwp的决策低于合法行政的标准。因此，扣除方案涉及“行政公正”问题：政府机构是否合法地执行法律。因此，本研究项目将通过行政司法的视角审视养老保险债务的真实经历，并批判性地评估扣除做法。与法律非政府组织合作，。在公法项目中，它将使用这个分析来批判性地评估养老保障部关于扣除的决策实践，并为政策倡导工作和效果变化提供基础。因此，该项目符合安全、冲突和司法途径。它解决了该途径对社会剥夺挑战的关注。更一般地说，它直接涉及正义问题，特别关注扣除决策的行政正义。“行政公正”既涉及政府行政的法律要求，也涉及可以在法律上挑战不公正的手段。因此，该项目将不公正与冲突联系起来，旨在减少这两者。研究方法该研究项目将包括四个主要元素。首先，对扣除方案进行法律分析；这包括对相关立法、判例法的理论分析，以及将人权法应用于扣除结果。其次，它将与福利顾问进行半结构化访谈，以了解决策中的常见问题，顾问如何应对这些问题，以及可能出现的行政司法问题。与这些参与者的接触将通过项目合作伙伴公法项目进行协商。第三，它将与经历过扣减的申请人进行面谈，以了解导致扣减的情况；他们在这个过程中的经历；还有，减税对他们持续福利的影响。第四，在公法项目的帮助下，研究者将对他们的分析进行质询，以达到政策倡导的目的。定性实地考察提出了一些伦理问题。第一，知情同意；参与者必须充分了解研究的目的，参与的要求，以及他们在任何时候退出的能力。其次，在研究索赔人时，一些参与者可能很脆弱。因此，必须小心预测并尽量减少讨论他们的情况可能引起不安的可能性。第三，保密问题至关重要。最后，还有数据管理和安全问题。除非得到大学伦理委员会的适当伦理许可，否则不得进行实地调查。

Project overviewIn the UK, the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) may reclaim a claimant's debtthrough a 'deductions' scheme. Debt can be incurred for a number of reasons, such asoverpayment by the DWP, or falling behind on money owed to third parties (e.g. fuel bills,rent or council tax). Under the 'deductions' scheme, weekly Universal Credit payments maybe reduced by up to 25% of the standard allowance. Here, claimants' income may fall belowsubsistence levels, creating a profound impact on their day-to-day lives.Indeed, the UK'slargest food bank operator found that nearly half of those referred to food banks are in debtto the DWP (Trussel Trust, 2022).Whilst also somewhat politically problematic, there is also anecdotal evidence that the DWPdecision-making falls below the standards of lawful administration. As such, the deductionsscheme engages with questions of 'administrative justice': whether governmental agenciesare lawfully implementing the law. Accordingly, this research project will examine both thelived experiences of DWP debt and critically assess deductions practices through the lens ofadministrative justice. In collaboration with legal NGO,. the Public Law Project, it will use thisanalysis to critically assess DWP decision-making practices around deductions and toground policy advocacy work and effect change.Therefore, this project fits within the Security, Conflict and Justice pathway. It addresses thepathway's focus on the challenge of social deprivation. More generally, it engages squarelywith questions of justice, focusing specifically on the administrative justice of deductionsdecision-making. 'Administrative justice' concerns both the legal requirements of governmentadministration, and the means by which injustice can be legally challenged. This project thusconnects injustice and conflict, aiming to reduce both.Research MethodsThe research project will comprise four main elements. First, it will undertake legal analysisof the deductions scheme; this involves a doctrinal analysis of the relevant legislation, caselaw, and applying human rights law to deductions outcomes. Second, it will undertakesemi-structured interviews with welfare benefits advisers, to understand common problemsin decision-making, how advisers respond to these, and what administrative justice issuesmay arise. Access to such participants will be negotiated via the project partner, the PublicLaw Project. Third, it will undertake interviews with claimants who have experienceddeductions, to understand: the circumstances leading up to the deduction; their experiencesof the process; and, the impact of the deductions on their ongoing welfare.Fourth, with theassistance of the Public Law Project, the researcher will interrogate their analysis for thepurposes of policy advocacy.Qualitative fieldwork raises a number of ethical issues. First, informed consent; participantsmust fully understand the research aims, what participation entails, and their ability towithdraw at any point. Second, when researching claimants, some participants may bevulnerable. Accordingly, care must be taken to anticipate and minimise the possibility thatdiscussing their circumstances may cause upset. Third, the issue of confidentiality is vital.FInally, there is the issue of data management and security. No fieldwork will take place untilappropriate ethical clearance has been given by the University's ethics committee.