Decision details

Universal Credits – Stop and Reverse

In moving the motion, Councillor Lizzie Kelly highlighted the plight of residents affected by the introduction of Universal Credit (UC). She indicated that the introduction of UC appeared to have been driven by ideological reasons and she felt it was unfortunate that the Government had not published the Impact Assessment on UC. Councillor Kelly mentioned that the government had ignored warnings of the potential of UC and that UC was having a negative impact on claimants. Councillor Kelly stated that the government should consider scrapping UC instead of trying to fix the system.

In seconding the motion, Councillor John Gardner indicated that UC was likely to increase inequality and could potentially destroy the welfare system. Councillor Gardner stated that UC was driving claimants into poverty and this could force some people to turn to crime.

The Leader of Council pointed out that after conducting pilots for UC, the Local Government Association (LGA) submitted a report highlighting the following flaws of the system:

·         Delays in initial payments were likely to lead to rent arrears

·         Some claimants would not prioritise rent paying

·         Online only application arrangements were not feasible in view of limited internet access, for some claimants

·         Daily reporting would be costly – particularly for those relying on public transport

·         The punitive UC sanctions regime

·         Constant reporting of change of circumstances could result in payment discrepancies

The Leader of the Opposition acknowledged that the system was beset with problems. However, Opposition Members agreed with UC in principle because it was aimed at encouraging people to work rather than relying on benefits. The Leader of the Opposition was not prepared to support the motion, due to what he considered to be inflammatory language used in parts of the motion.

Other points raised in the debate included:

·         It was a fallacy that UC was a good idea in principle

·         Single-parent families were in the majority of those affected by UC

·         UC affected more female claimants than males

·         UC was driving a lot of families to rely on food bank donations

·         UC was not fully funded and fully resourced as envisaged in the Dynamic Benefit Report

·         UC appeared to have been designed to fit into the Government’s austerity agenda

An amendment was moved by Councillor Robin Parker CC and seconded by Councillor Andy McGuinness as follows:

·         Deletion of the third and fourth sentences of the first paragraph of the motion, from the words “that underpinning the Act …” to “… welfare since the 1930s”;

·         Deletion of the first and second bullet points under “Council believes”; and

·         Deletion in the third bullet point under “Council believes” of the words “an entirely new” and their replacement with “a review of the …”

Upon being put to the vote, this amendment was lost.

Upon the substantive motion being put to the vote, it was RESOLVED:

That Council notes:

That Universal Credit, the Government’s flagship social security programme, has been beset by flaws in its design and delivery. It is causing immense hardship for many people wherever it is rolled out. That Universal Credit was designed as an integral part of the Welfare Reform Act brought in by the Coalition Government following their election in 2010. That underpinning the Act has been an ideological drive to make being on Welfare Benefits as degrading and punishing as possible with the intention of forcing as many claimants off benefits as possible. Welfare Reform including the introduction of UC was accompanied with the rhetoric of benefit dependency, skivers and strivers, cheats and malingerers as a way of winning public support for pushing through the biggest changes in welfare since the 1930s. UC is just one part of these reforms which include the discredited and hated Work Capability Assessments, the change from DLA to PIP with a 20% budget reduction target and cuts to the Access to Work programme.

These changes are interconnected and form the core of the Conservatives’ making work pay programme.

Council believes:

·         Universal Credit is a vehicle for cuts: cuts in support for families with a disabled child; cuts in support for disabled people in work and cuts in support for lone parents bringing up children.

·         That UC cannot be fixed.

·         That Universal Credit should not have been rolled out in Stevenage, and that this should be reversed. That, as with the Work Capability Assessments, an entirely new scheme needs to be created making sure that Disabled People’s Organisations and other groups affected are included at the heart of how these schemes are designed.

Council resolves:

·         To write to the local MP and call on him to condemn the cruelty inflicted on local UC claimants

·         To write to the Secretary of State and demand they halt the roll-out in Stevenage and nationally

·         To support the opposition motion to demand the government publish its analysis of the impact of UC on people’s incomes and debt

That under no circumstances will tenants in rent arrears due to waiting times for receipt of Universal Credit be evicted.