The consequence
A person may lose the USI only after a fair decision that they refused a reasonable participation requirement without good reason.
The core idea
The Universal Standard Income is designed as a social contract. People who are able to participate would be expected to meet reasonable, personalised requirements through work, training, education, caring, volunteering or another recognised contribution pathway.
Where somebody has been fairly assessed as capable, has been offered a realistic route to participate and then refuses without good reason, their entitlement to the USI could be suspended or withdrawn. The consequence must be clear enough for participation to matter.
However, losing the USI must never mean deliberate destitution. Hunger, homelessness, untreated illness and the deprivation of children or dependants should not be used as enforcement tools. Proposal 27 therefore creates a Hardship Support Scheme to protect a minimum essentials floor while the participation issue is resolved.
What this proposal does—and does not do
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.
What counts as reasonable participation?
A requirement should be enforceable only where it is specific, available, proportionate and suited to the person’s actual circumstances. The state should carry the burden of showing that a fair opportunity and appropriate support were offered.
Capability
The activity must fit the person’s assessed health, functional capacity and realistic working hours.
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.
A fair decision pathway
- Agree a personalised participation plan Record suitable activities, limitations, support needs, review dates and the consequences of non-participation.
- Make early contact A missed activity should trigger prompt, accessible contact rather than an assumption of refusal.
- Consider good reason and vulnerability Review health, disability, caring, bereavement, domestic abuse, emergencies, access failures and new evidence.
- Offer support and a written warning Correct barriers, restate expectations and provide a realistic opportunity to re-engage.
- Use an independent decision A trained decision-maker should provide the reasons, evidence, duration and a clear route to challenge.
- Assess hardship automatically Before the USI is stopped, check risks involving food, energy, housing, health, children and dependants.
- Restore support promptly End the consequence when the person re-engages, the requirement changes or the decision is overturned.
The Hardship Support Scheme
Hardship protection should be fast, dignified and targeted at essentials. It should not recreate the full value or flexibility of the USI, but it must prevent foreseeable serious harm.
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.
Participation costs
Travel, communication, clothing or childcare needed to comply and re-enter the participation pathway.
Local coordination
A single referral route connecting 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.
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, finding of refusal, duration, 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
Do not automatically remove housing, child, disability or healthcare support because the USI has been lost.
Published accountability
Publish decisions, reversals, hardship awards, response times, repeat cases, homelessness risks and safeguarding outcomes.
Questions for scrutiny
The scheme should be co-designed with benefit claimants, disabled people, work coaches, local authorities, welfare-rights advisers, housing providers, safeguarding specialists and employment-support services.
- Which forms of work, training, caring, volunteering or community contribution should count as participation?
- How should “capable of work”, “reasonable participation” and “refusal without good reason” be defined in law?
- What evidence should be required before concluding that somebody refused rather than encountered a barrier?
- Should a warning and second opportunity normally be required before USI is removed?
- Which circumstances should pause enforcement entirely?
- Should hardship support be non-repayable, recoverable or structured differently according to need?
- How quickly must food, energy and housing support be delivered?
- How should partners, children and other dependants be protected?
- What should trigger the restoration of USI?
- Which outcomes should be independently measured and published?
- How should the proposal be piloted before national implementation?
The proposed direction
Proposal 27 would make the USI conditional for people who are genuinely capable of reasonable participation, while establishing a separate essentials floor for those facing genuine hardship.
Enforcement should be staged, evidence-led, time-limited and reversible. The system must distinguish deliberate refusal from ill health, crisis, misunderstanding and practical barriers.
Detailed rates, eligibility rules, delivery bodies, debt treatment and appeal arrangements remain open. They should be developed through co-design, costed modelling, legal review and a controlled pilot before national implementation.