× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Universal credit administration  →  Thread

Economic Affairs Committee inquiry into economics of universal credit

Stuart
Administrator

rightsnet editor

Send message

Total Posts: 890

Joined: 21 March 2016

Minutes of the Economic Affairs Committee oral evidence session on 25 February have been published this week. They include discussion of whether universal credit needs profound change or a series of tweaks to make it ‘the bedrock of social security for the next 30 years’ (quoting UC Director General Neil Couling).

Highlights include Committee member Lord Fox asking one of the witnesses, Professor of Social Policy at the LSE Professor Sir John Hills -

‘For clarity, using the bedrock analogy, are you agreed that if it is to be the bedrock it needs to be more stable? Without going into what seem like tweaks, are there fundamentals that need to be done to make it more stable, or do a lot of tweaks or a small number need to be done? In other words, how profound is the multiplication required to create something that is possibly not stable now and make it stable enough for the future?

Responding, Sir John says -

‘It is covering up some of the sink-holes in that bedrock. We have mentioned some of them. We have talked about the delays in payment, the frequency of payment and the easier ability to have payments split to cope with different situations for couples.’

Later, Committee member Viscount Chandos says -

‘You have identified a number of issues, such as eggs in one basket [referring to universal credit replacing several legacy benefits with associated risks if things go wrong] and stigma. What worries me is that it is very difficult to see how those are addressed by tweaking. While I can see the powerful argument about not having a fundamental redesign, it sounds as though, if you do not redesign it, the consequence is that you are locked for a generation into a system that has fundamental flaws that are not tweakable.’

… to which Sir John replies -

‘We have problems in whichever direction we go… Even if managed migration was never to happen, or did not go beyond the very small numbers that have so far happened, the numbers on universal credit will continue to grow and, therefore, the number of people who need support if they are tenants or are particularly vulnerable must continue to grow.’

Returning to the bedrock analogy, and concerns from witnesses that universal credit will have to adapt to the changing labour market. Committee Chair, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean says -

‘I do not want to be unkind. I have never met Mr Couling and am looking forward to seeing him, but to my mind it almost reeks of, “This is the project we’re going to go ahead with”, whereas should we not be looking at it from the point of view of the people who are in receipt of these benefits, and the labour market as it exists, as opposed to what our project is?’

... and finally, some Scottish play references in relation to changing the system from Sir John -

‘... perhaps I may quote “Macbeth”.... We may now be in a situation, and it is certainly the view of civil servants, where we are so far stepped in that “Returning were as tedious as go o’er”.
The Chair: “Stepped in blood”.
Professor Sir John Hills: I did not want to mention that we were stepped in blood.’

 

 

 

[ Edited: 6 Mar 2020 at 01:32 pm by Stuart ]