Universal Credit

Baroness Drake Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

My Lords, the rollout of universal credit must be rooted in the claimants’ real world of squeezed wages, job insecurity and household incomes under pressure. Evidence consistently identifies people’s low financial resilience and rising indebtedness: 17.3 million working-age adults do not have £100 saved; £200 billion is owed in consumer credit, excluding mortgages; and 4.1 million people have failed to pay domestic bills or meet credit commitments in three or more of the last six months.

The majority of universal credit claimants arrive with pre-existing debt and no financial resilience. As the Secretary of State said: “We are able to make an estimate” of a UC payment “particularly given that it is likely that a lot of those people seeking advances will not have any alternative income over that first assessment period”. Citizens Advice confirms that claimants risk serious debt from delayed payments, that 79% have priority debts such as rent or council tax and that two in five have no money to pay creditors. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, it is not the concept of universal credit but the compromise on the essential design feature that it will make work pay that is the fundamental concern here.

The accumulation of benefit cuts is a major drag on the living standards of families on low and middle incomes. The Rowntree Foundation predicts that the four-year benefit freeze will increase poverty more than any other policy.

Universal credit was designed to focus on reducing worklessness, which is now at an all-time low. In-work poverty is now the increasing challenge. The wait of six weeks or more from claim to payment is a design flaw baked into the system and can be punitive, however nice the jobcentre staff are. Over 50% of claimants claim an advance because they simply cannot cope with that delay. Its stated purpose—to reflect a world of work where wages are paid monthly in arrears—does not reflect the world of the claimants. As has been said, they are paid weekly or fortnightly. As rollout increases, identified problems just become more pervasive and extensive.

The Government look to mitigate by increasing take-up of advance payments, asserting that such a system is the best way of spreading out their income. In reality, it has limited efficiency. The six weeks is still unmanageable for the majority without incurring debt to the state or a private lender. An advance has to be paid back in six months when claimants also face deductions for debts from council tax, utility bills and rent arrears. For the Government to rely so heavily on advance payments defers the problem and embeds debt as the default for claimants as a matter of public policy. It would be far better if the six-week period were reduced and the benefit freeze reappraised. The Government need to pause the rollout and reassess.

Finally, the Government introduced the two-child limit on the payment of child tax credit and the child element of universal credit to deter people from having more children and to reflect carefully on their readiness to support an additional child. Noble Lords argued that this limit should not apply to kinship carers—who often have their own children—who take on the care of vulnerable children to whom they have not given birth. There are more than 200,000 such children, saving the taxpayer the £40,000 cost of placing each child in foster care. The two-child limit was a non sequitur for kinship carers. The need was not for them to reflect carefully on their readiness to support a vulnerable child; the need was to support their readiness to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Freud, reflected and accepted this, stating:

“I am pleased to announce … that in recognition of the important role which family and close friends can play in caring long term for children who are unable to live with their parents and could otherwise be at risk of entering the care system, we are in favour of an exemption for children in such circumstances”.—[Official Report, 27/1/16; col. 1295.]


That concession is, shamefully, not being honoured. It is applied only if kinship carers had their own birth children before taking on the kinship children. If they take on the care first, then have a birth child, the exemption does not apply. Alyssa Vessey, who was 18 when her mother died suddenly, went to social services and told them she would raise her three young siblings on her own, to protect them from going into care. Four years later she had a partner, and had her own birth child. Alyssa was refused tax credits and a Sure Start maternity grant because she had breached the two-child limit. The DWP is reported as saying that the decision ensured fairness between the claimants and taxpayers. I say that Alyssa saved the taxpayer around £40,000 for each child not going into the care system— £120,000 per annum—plus £25,000 of care proceedings costs, together with the miserable saving of not paying her a maternity grant. A similarly affected pregnant kinship carer was advised by her local office that if she gave up caring for the kinship children, had her baby, then took them back at a later date, she would be eligible for benefits for both her birth child and the cared-for children. On any analysis of public policy, that is not honourable.