Universal Credit: When will the government listen to the evidence?

The stench of smoke, pockmarked cushioned chairs decaying against the walls, grimy windows and an overwhelming sense of despair, were the things that put me off spending any time trying to claim benefit when I was an unemployed teenager.

It was a post-school, pre university time and going to the dole office to get a bit of extra cash seemed like a sensible thing to do. But, in that wretched, gloomy, room, on an upper floor of an anonymous building in Nottingham, it was hard to bear. Whether my circumstances allowed me even to claim, I have no idea but, fortunately for me, I had a home and family to go back to and I didn’t need to wait to find out.

This brief episode – it probably lasted under a minute – was illuminated in my mind as I listened to witnesses before the Work and Pensions Committee on Wednesday discussing their experiences with Universal Credit. None had the security to walk away from the system and all were trapped within the labyrinthine chaos of the government’s flagship benefits programme.

On the face of it, the justification for the UC system is hard to question. Replacing six benefit systems for one payment appears to be a logical simplification of a bureaucratic, perplexing, minefield.

When unveiled by the then Work and Pensions Secretary in 2010, Iain Duncan Smith proclaimed it would restore ‘fairness and simplicity’ to the welfare system. Recipients would receive a monthly payment and they would be encouraged back into work through coaching. As they started to earn, the regular payments would taper off as salaries increased.

Addressing that year’s Conservative Party conference, Mr Duncan Smith said:

‘We will break down the barriers to work and ensure work pays but in return, we have the right to insist that when work is available you take that work and work hard to keep that job. For those who want to choose not to work, under this government this will no longer be an option.’

And yet, on Wednesday, the Work and Pensions Select Committee heard witness after witness recount horror stories when dealing with the system. One mother told the committee that, although offered a well-paying job, she felt she had to refuse it and was still locked out of work as she faced losing all her benefits, at the same time as dealing with all her bills, including very high childcare bills, which would have left her with just with just £60 a month to live on. On the face of it, this story suggests even the core purpose of UC - to get people back into work - was not fulfilled.

Administrator Vikki Waterman, a mother of two girls, told the committee she was presented with a £1,300 upfront nursery bill before returning to work from maternity leave. And once she was fined £50 by the nursery because her Universal Credit came through late and she had been unable to pay her bill on time. All the MPs and experts in the committee were at a loss as whether she would be entitled to compensation for this bureaucratic mess-up.

The most glaring aspect of the whole hearing was the sheer scale of bureaucracy people on UC were expected to shoulder. Throughout the process, the lists of what is required to prove eligibility, and that applicants are fulfilling their many obligations, are frequent and long.

And, while nothing particularly unexpected appears amongst the numerous demands for information, the lists are dotted with officious reminders that any mistakes 'might affect when you get paid or how much you get paid’.

Once claimants have safely navigated through that process, assuming they are not looking after babies, they will be expected to look for work and prove that they are doing so. A CV must be written and if jobs are not immediately available applicants must go on training courses. And they will have to inform the authorities of any change in circumstances 'straight away' via the online portal via their personal ‘journals’.  Yet another trip to the library for those without reliable internet access at home.

All this may sound perfectly reasonable, but, the online system itself is riddled with flaws and leaves people struggling to cope. Dalia Ben-Galim, the director of policy at Gingerbread, the charity for single parents, told MPs:

'Journals are not working for every claimant on Universal Credit. There's a lack of information a lack of alerts. There are too many teething problems to allow them to work well.

'No one is going to check every day in case there's a message asking them something. Not all the information is accessible and viewable. It requires quite big amounts of data to access all of the documents, and not everyone has wifi at home.

'The system of journals is potentially great, but it's still got teething problems.'

This IT failure is further compounded by reports from staff that they are often not alerted to messages from claimants. Every missed message could lead to a suspension of benefits payments and yet more hardship. It’s impossible to count the number of stories which have appeared where someone on UC has been penalised because of a computer glitch.

It isn't just those seeking benefits who are struggling to cope; those tasked with 'coaching' them find the process confusing and exhausting. One employment coach contacted me and said:

'Too much of my limited time with clients is spent helping them complete/maintain Universal Credit claims. I have an MA and often struggle - a lot of my clients have learning difficulties.'

This is not, of course, a new issue. The failures of the system have been very well documented since Iain Duncan Smith's scheme first materialised. Yet the government still persists, seemingly wilfully ignoring the huge flaws in the system and the terrible hardships it is causing.  And today (26/10/18) sees the publication of another scathing report from MPs.

This time, it's from the Public Accounts Committee which specifically accuses the Department for Work and Pensions of turning a 'deaf ear' to concerns and adopting a 'fortress mentality'.

'The introduction of Universal Credit is causing unacceptable hardship and difficulties for many of the claimants it was designed to help.

'The department's systemic culture of denial and defensiveness in the face of any adverse evidence presented by others is a significant risk to the programme.'

Chair of the committee Meg Hillier added:

'A department in denial cannot learn from its mistakes and take the action necessary to address the desperate hardship suffered by many Universal Credit claimants.'

Of course, there could be another reason for this refusal to recognise the huge problems with the system.

Ms Ben-Galim made the interesting suggestion that it was a deliberate ideological decision to make it so onerous, citing, as evidence, how parents not receiving benefit only needed to provide proof their child is registered with a care provider to receive tax-free childcare support while someone on Universal Credit must provide a receipt for every single payment.

'I think that is ideological, that is an active decision that has been made about how people depending on where they are on the income scale are treated. I would argue it's a real inequity and real difference in how you prove what childcare you're using.'

And chairman of the committee, Frank Field, made the point the system 'would work really well if it was for the middle class' as its structure was built around regular monthly salaries and didn’t have the flexibility to work for those surviving on weekly or daily wage packets.

My inclination is that it is a step too far to claim that it is an ideological decision to create such an unwieldy, difficult system. It is instead, surely, a staggering failure of empathy towards those who may lead less easily structured lives and face greater challenges in everyday life.

Just as I cannot claim to understand or appreciate the multifarious hurdles and obstacles those needing benefit face, it would be unreasonable to expect all MPs to have the personal life experiences that can equip them to face every terrible case that came before them.

But there is no excuse to consciously ignore the vast quantities of evidence showing thousands of people are being severely punished, through no fault of their own, by a failing system on a daily basis. 

MPs do have a responsibility to listen to evidence, which has been drawn from the whole gamut of problems: human failures; software inadequacies; endless delays; the loss of homes; the lack of food; and a host of other challenging consequences of this deficient system too numerous to list here.  But, as is so often the case, the loss of empathy may underlie the principal failures of policy.