Government must take urgent action to fix Universal Credit

● Have your say: The Editor, The Herald, 200 Renfield Street, Glasgow G2 3QB; e-mail: letters@theherald.co.uk

CONSERVATIVE MSP Annie Wells’s letter (October 24) was both timeous and succinct in her critique of the current state of the operation of Universal Credit in Britain. It is now evident that this policy is transparently not fit for purpose and the proposed roll-out to major cities like Glasgow has somewhat concentrated the mind of those who represent them.

Five years after the initial roll-out of Universal Credit, it is now apparent, even to its architect, Iain Duncan Smith, that it requires urgent and radical reform if it is to support the most vulnerable people in our country described accurately by Ms Wells as “those whom the system set out to support”.

I agree with Ms Wells that Universal Credit may have been created on a sound philosophical basis but a poorly designed and unreliable IT system, significant staff issues at the Department of Work and Pensions, together with dogmatic and unsympathetic administration, has resulted in the present situation wherein Britain’s poorest families and individuals are often penalised by the very scheme that was supposed to help them.

Claiming Universal Credit can be a complex nightmare for individuals and couples; the system is particularly difficult to navigate and the necessity of on-line access can be very challenging and something of a minefield for many claimants. The film I, Daniel Blake was dismissed as fantasy by Government ministers on its release but is far more in touch with the current reality of the situation than they appear to be.

Though there has been some halfhearted tinkering with the system over the last couple of years, mainly thanks to pressure from charities like Citizen’s Advice, there is unambiguous evidence to suggest that the Government must adopt proactive, beneficial changes to Universal Credit as a matter of urgency. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s new analysis which showed almost three million children in Britain were mired in poverty is certainly an attestation to the failure of Universal Credit to meet the needs of the most vulnerable people it was designed to help.

Mr Duncan-smith, Sir John Major and Gordon Brown have all been quoted recently as seeking to urge the Chancellor, Philip Hammond, in his forthcoming Budget, to forego income tax cuts for the better off and pump an extra £2 billion into Universal Credit to try to lift millions out of poverty. Surely this is a moral imperative as well as a practical necessity.

When a Prime Minister vaingloriously boasts that the era of austerity is at an end, our most needy citizens must be furnished with more than merely hope.

Owen Kelly,

8 Dunvegan Drive, Stirling

THE comments from Annie Wells regarding the roll-out of Universal Credits were very welcome and reveals the lady may be for turning from her party’s welfare policies. They say a week is a long time in politics, but I refer to a year ago this month in the House of Commons when an opposition motion calling for the suspension of the roll-out of Universal Credits along with a full review of the policy was supported 299 votes to nil – a vote that saw a Conservative MP (Sara Wollaston) vote with the Opposition, and many other Conservative MPS abstaining. This has been followed by a previous Conservative Prime Minister (Sir John Major) lambasting Universal Credits only this month.

So could we be about to see a U-turn on this disastrous policy which has only brought hardship and misery to so many? I sincerely hope so. Universal Credits while denying so many the basics of life are costing the Exchequer millions in appeals, in excess of £100 million in the last two years. Ms Wells rightly calls on the Chancellor to put measurers in place in Monday’s Budget to reform Universal Credits and halt the roll-out meantime and I would urge her to extend her call to Scottish Conservative MPS, who were not amongst the 299 MPS I referred to above.

Catriona C Clark,

52 Hawthorn Drive, Banknock.

PROVING that the “Nasty Party” never really went away Tory list MSP Michelle Ballantyne praises the two-child benefit cap (having previously claimed child benefit for each of her six offspring) as the new method of contraception for the poor (“Tory: Benefit cap stops poor having too many children”, The Herald, October 25). Ignoring the basic immorality of such a view, Ms Ballantyne overlooks the fact that many of the poor are in fact working poor who can’t make ends meet because of Tory austerity cuts. No doubt she would also seek to justify the basic immorality of tax dodgers and avoiders who continue to prop up what would otherwise be a bankrupt political party.

Turning to reality for a moment, we are continually told by the powers that be that Scotland’s ageing population is now dependent upon those nasty foreigners who keep our health service, farming industry and myriad other low-paid industries operating. How much more dependent will we be upon immigrants when the effects of Tory selective breeding kick in?

Cal Waterson,

37 Crosshill Street, Lennoxtown.

THE talk now is about ending austerity, while at the same time Chancellor Hammond is expected to raise taxes. This makes us ask what austerity actually is, and what money actually is.

It is hard to describe the years between 1997 and 2010 as austere, as the National Debt in that period – the cumulative total of government deficit borrowing – rose from a modest £350 billion, to £900bn. It then continued to rise to its present level of about £1,800 billion. So UK governments have spent £1,450bn that we did not have, over 21 years, to enable us to live beyond our means. Had that money been raised from taxation, or saved by cutbacks, or just not borrowed at all, then that really would have caused serious austerity.

So where did that money come from? The answer of course – as now accepted by the Bank of England – is that it came from thin air. It was created as computer credits by the private banking system, to lend to government in the same way that private banks lend to individuals, so that they can also live beyond their means.

Interest due on the National Debt is about £1bn a week, and for as long as it can be paid, we can borrow more from the banking system.

So the Chancellor is not managing money at all. He is managing debt. The concept of fiscal management or prudence is now a joke. So whatever your idea of austerity is, it could be eased by simply increasing the nation’s debt, and of course that is exactly what will happen. People should understand the appalling financial situation we are in before they bleat about non-existent austerity.

Malcolm Parkin,

Gamekeepers Road, Kinnesswood, Kinross.