Just read the report from the UC Big Ideas meeting. Here's my thoughts...

On childcare its my usual point (broken record I know) but let's not reinvent the wheel, just take the digital infrastructure in place (Childcare Grant Payment Service for Student Finance England) and expand it to the UC system so the model would be you tell UC who your provider is, your provider invoices the UC system etc. Childcare is a key problem with income instability because one month you get the big reimbursement but another month you get nothing because it was August the month prior, the system says you should put this money aside carefully but that doesn't chime with low income realities. Of course the ideal would be a move to such a system being combined with lifting reimbursement from 85% to 100% and a large chunk of childcare costs could be easily subsumed from DWP to DfE if government said they would expand free after-school care in primary schools to everyone on UC (and ideally universally eventually).

The other issue on income instability is being a Masters student. I know my circumstance is niche but its exactly the kind of small scale, easy to fix solution a review like this should be tackling. Masters loans - unlike undergraduate loans which split into maintenance and tuition - are a single loan, UC therefore treats 30% as income upon which your UC should be tapered and assumes the other 70% will be tuition. The reality is that my course (which is not an outlier) aligns with one-year of undergraduate fees (albeit split over 2 years as its a part-time masters) so: £9,975. The loan is £12,858 so 77.6% of the loan pays the university, in other words I'm tapered £495 away from my UC awards (over the 2 year period) for £900 of which isn't income for me, it's paid to my university. There has be a change so that you can send evidence of how much your fees are and only the loan less the fees is tapered or ideally even that should have a small allowance (like the undergraduate maintenance loan does) to reflect course costs (in my case buying equipment for film production).

A 3-month window might give more stability, if it were structured something like an energy bill account where it informs you that your most recent earnings are higher than before so your UC will fall by a certain amount going forward but in terms of dealing with those significant drops in income you might get one month (when summer comes returning university students often sweep up lot of shifts in McDonald's whilst my availability due to childcare is more limited and my self-employed tutoring income almost completely dries up) it's actually quite useful to have the sort of immediate bounce-back support from UC so I would caution against it.

As I noted at a recent Resolution Foundation roundtable (though I suspect it falls outside the remit of this review) the reform of Jobcentre Plus, should in my view follow as such:

Design Jobcentre Plus into regions that map the 33 or so (proposed) mayoral authorities in England and the nations of NI, Scotland and Wales.

Each region could then provide tailored (likely phone or online based) careers support for NHS trained professionals or education trained professionals or those interested in such careers via a wider pool of region-wide staff. There will be other areas like apprenticeships or a career in the civil service etc. where local jobcentre staff will simply never be able to offer the kind of advice a more specialised advisor could.

Local face to face services would continue to operate and indeed would refer people to the regional specialists where appropriate.

It's also crazy (excuse the pun) to me that when I was receiving support via Talking Therapies I was offered tailored job support consisting of 6 phone calls which included reviewing - line-by-line my CV, interview technique tips and other really helpful guidance. This was provided by someone who I assume either works in HR but one day a week works for Talking Therapies or perhaps works for TT full time now but has a HR background. I can't tell you how useful this was and I think frankly it shouldn't require people to acquire PTSD to access it! This kind of offer could easily become the norm offered by Jobcentre Plus on a regional basis and would boost confidence of jobseekers rather than seeming like the tick-box 10 minute appointments I experienced with the Jobcentre.

Much as my preferred (radical) approach to the 5 week wait would involve auto-enrolling every person with a National Insurance number into UC so when their income drops they receive support immediately in the month thereafter (something that would radically improve the lives of the self-employed and also completely wipe out the problem of billions of UC unclaimed by those eligible who don't apply). I suspect that would be a step too far for the government to take at this point. Therefore an alternative my be to pay a fixed lump sum equitable to the Standard Allowance to anyone who applies, if they're eligible for UC this is simply treated as their first payment and not reclaimed, if they're found ineligible for UC it would equally be written off as a sort of government emergency fund that people are entitled to claim if they've fallen on hard times (reducing problem credit) but you could limit access to this to just one claim per annum as a sort of new right, people could apply to UC again if their circumstances had changed but in that same 12 month period they wouldn't get the 5 week wait payment. If someone was found to have clearly made a fraudulent claim (i.e. no reasonable reason for why they would be eligible for UC - i.e. mega high earnings) the money could be reclaimed via a fine.

The point about when the rent is due is true. Most companies allow you to decide when your direct debit comes out so it surely must not be beyond the capabilities of government to redesign their payments systems to allow for a bespoke UC payment date where people want to align it with their rent day. However I have to say, in terms of income instability, my biggest gripe is that we still get Child Benefit paid 13 x 4 weeks and UC is paid on the 1st of each of the 12 months. It would be very helpful to have Child Benefit changed to a 12 monthly, 1st of the month payment aligned with UC.

With the savings threshold this has always seemed odd to me that it discourages savings. I have a friend who put savings from her break-up into Premium Bonds for her children, in their names, however was told by UC (I think wrongly) that because she could access the money if she wanted to it must count towards her savings and therefore she was ineligible for UC because it exceeded £16,000. At the very least there should be clarity on this matter. More fundamentally it would make sense to me that when there is an annual £20,000 annual tax-free savings option via ISAs that government could use a similar model for UC i.e. savings in excess of say £6,000 a year might incur tapering because if you've got £500 to put away on average over 12 months then yes you perhaps don't need as much UC as you're getting (for whatever reason) but the total amount of savings be raised significantly to say £50,000 otherwise the system is essentially saying that inheritance you received or big insurance pay out or big unfair dismissal claim - you should live off that rather than use it to pay down debts for example, put aside savings or - heaven forbid - apply for a mortgage (which of course would reduce government payouts on housing element of UC because mortgages aren't covered by UC).

On that note, another of my broken record regular gripes. Boris Johnson promised UC housing element would be extended to mortgage repayments (not just interest via a loan scheme). The idea (rational I must say) was that this might allow some UC claimants to be able to secure a mortgage (as their declared income for applications could safely include the LHA minus tapering), it could reduce the chance of repossessions for those with a mortgage, it could even lower the cost of mortgages overall because it would in effect act as a sort of default mortgage insurance thus allowing government to consider banning mortgage lenders from requiring mortgage insurance but most importantly for government is that though it would increase government spending on UC housing element initially, long term mortgages are paid off so the amount government pays would reduce over time so the more UC claimants moving from private rent to home ownership the better). Naturally the other point is that getting more people into social housing reduces the housing element bill significantly so the move from Brighton Council (and others I believe) to actively buying up housing stock to convert into social housing should be expanded (I realise this is well beyond the remit of this review but it could be incentivised through a 100% CGT relief for landlords with a UC claimant tenant who is willing to sell their property either to the tenant or Homes England/a housing association/the local council with government banking the lower housing element outlay).

On interactions with employment I would just say that the system needs to be better set up for the nature of modern work. Many of us on low income will be supplementing whatever we can get from paid work with more than one job and the system seems to somehow struggle with multiple PAYE data, any issues with this causing overpayments (certainly of less than say £200) should not result in the individual having money reclaimed from future payments. Equally many will take on some self-employed work but again I was passed from the main team to a self-employment team in the Jobcentre and then back again when they realised my income from self-employment would not be my main income - each time resulting in multiple meetings in-person never for more than 15 minutes at the Jobcentre. There must be a better understanding built in that people will need tailored self-employment support AND be getting their main income for the first few years from a PAYE system (again tailored local self-employment start-up support could be better handled by regional Jobcentres perhaps even with volunteer mentors who are experienced entrepreneurs). My experience is particularly hard for DWP because I have two paid PAYE jobs, self-employment income and a student loan! Yet these are the realities of low-income life, the system must be flexible enough to handle them.

The other point about trust is that if you get stuck in a traffic jam and are late for a DWP appointment its treated as a sanctionable offence. Jobcentre staff deserve protection but being greeted by effectively bouncers on the door makes them seem a threatening place to visit, like a high-security GP surgery. There should be more leeway and a welcoming feel designed into the local Jobcentres and the meeting system.

The biggest issue with perceptions of UC is that its for unemployed people. I think expanding free school meals to all UC claimants will be quite transformative not just for our incomes but for visibility. Suddenly significant numbers of children will be taking up free school meals and it will become more apparent in communities about the number of families receiving UC. I am worried this might increase stigma and division considering the 'Budget for Benefit Street' rhetoric that has filtered through to communities recently. Hopefully my fears are misplaced. I think what would be useful is more widely linking UC with support for children, the Pupil Premium won't be extended to all those now eligible to FSM but there could be an acknowledgement at least within schools that children receiving FSM but not on PP should also get additional focus and support in class and perhaps greater leeway with things like school trip costs etc. Almost like a PP Tier 1 and PP Tier 2, one that comes with a greater level of support and cash from government and another with no cash attached by raising awareness and perhaps some entitlements in-school.

Finally, another thing about interactions with work. Student loan repayments are de facto a tax. Income tax and employee NICs are deducted from gross income before the taper kicks in on the remaining balance, yet student loan repayments (9%) are not discounted for the purposes of the taper so for example someone earning an extra £100 in a month would lose £28 in tax/NICs and then be tapered £39.60 from their UC income - net income: £32.40 (not a great work incentive to take on a few extra shifts or pursue the promotion to supervisor I have to say but I imagine slashing the taper rate or lifting the Work Allowance are taboo for the review). Someone earning £100 extra a month WITH A STUDENT LOAN would would lose £37 in tax/NICs/student loan repayments and then be tapered £39.60 from their UC income - net income: £23.40. The group of workers most likely to be able to increase their income (graduates) are given LESS work incentive to do so than those who face structural challenges like less qualifications and 'degree-holders only' job pathways. It's worth remembering that Masters graduates pay an additional 6% student loan repayments on top so the calculation becomes: lose £43 in tax/NICs/student loan repayments/masters loans repayments and then be tapered £39.60 from their UC income - net income £3.40. Considering student loan thresholds are being frozen and graduate employment rates are dropping currently this is going to become less and less a niche issue and more a structural one. Changing student loans to a tax within the UC context would save graduates £4.95 in tapering charges for every extra £100 they earn or £8.25 for Masters graduates.

I'm buzzing the government are scrapping the 2 child limit even though it doesn't affect me I hope this encourages more people to have more children or be comfortable around the idea of having as many kids as they want and not feel restricted in a financial way. I'm looking forward to a decrease in energy bills in northern ireland we pay by metre so a lot of our money is planned after these bills are covered to see what we are left with for food and other bills etc.

Hey everyone, we are okay but is very cold 🥶 this day and we were not ready for winter this year. I hope everyone is keeping warm out there.

Hi, how are you? Good evening, thanks very much for the big question of the week. So sorry, I'm responding late. This is ... to, you know, 11 or so. So as far as a situation, I think it's a huge crisis because, like, myself in just a very small room and it's so children at the moment and it's somehow difficult because I have a shared kitchen, but not shaving, bathroom and toilet bowl.

I have a lot of friends as experiencing such a thing. So I think this kind of room should be for maybe a single person without a child and also I have experienced a situation whereby. I have someone staying in an apartment where the kitchen area is tilde living room. So I think it should be canceled for people that has kids because it's not ideal for their safety.

Purpose. And also the use of says, it should be considered for people that are that doesn't have kids, except if there is going to be a lift, which we are very sure about that. I would it won't have any kind of issues and future. So I yeah, those are the things. I think I want to see having a studio flat, having a little space, should be for single person without children. Having

It says, without lived before single without her children, but people will children either with any disabilities or not. They should be considered as, you know, every area for them and especially the living room aspect. If you don't, the kitchen shouldn't be with the living room. So I'll be very happy and grateful if something is being done and there should be House for everyone.

Thank you very much for the big question. I look forward to answer more questions in future.

Today's Budget was the best piece of comedy I have seen in a long time! But on a serious note both the Labour and Conservative party are playing into the hands of reform and the Greens. It is great that the two child limit is being scrapped for those claiming Universal Credit, but with other tax increases it is hard to see how much better off families will actually be. Once again there was only mention of working families / people, with no mention of help for sick or disabled people, especially those like myself who are still living on legacy benefits despite being classed as claiming UC. There has not been an increase in my benefits for over eight years and will not increase again in April, meaning another year of cutbacks and further hardship. Labour only want to be seen to be helping people who are able to work and the Conservatives want to cut benefits further for those who can’t work. There was also no mention of continuing help and support for people living in poverty over the coming years. There is so much more work to be done in order to make a fair future for all citizens of the UK.

Housing rate allowances are not reflective of how much private rentals cost. For example in Cardiff, a two-bed housing rate allowance is £800. If you look on the biggest site where private rentals are advertised, there is one property. Most two beds in Cardiff are between £900 to £1100. That one property also requires a credit check, references from previous landlord or a financial guarantor if you haven't rented before. Therefore, because local housing rate allowances are not reflective of what private rentals cost, tenants on benefits are being pushed into poverty as they are having to make up the rental shortfall.

At present I am having to make up £50.00 per month, as a single parent. Next year when my rent rises I will have a bigger shortfall no doubt to make up. Also the checks that private rentals ask of tenants are difficult. When I rented my flat five years ago, I had to provide a working age guarantor who earned more than £35,000 per year. I had trouble finding someone and in the end I had to ask my brother-in-law. I also had to pay four months rent up front and the bond, undergo a credit check, provide three months worth of bank statements, proof of income and character/work reference and have a zoom interview with the landlord! I was lucky enough to be able to supply all these things, some may not and will find themselves unable to rent privately. A lot of the checks above I had to under go were pretty standard and some private rentals I looked at stipulated no children! All these things I have mentioned are contributing to poverty and increasing the risk of people finding themselves homeless.

Because the cost of housing is so high, we’re simply not able to save for the future and ensure that we could fall back on our own resources in the event of some unexpected thing happening in our lives. We spend a big chunk of our paychecks on rent and don’t have much left over for anything else.

We need fair rent and more affordable ways to become homeowners so that families have a chance to save, advance, and create long-term stability.

Our current housing is not in the best condition. The reason we’ve had to put up with housing that was damp, cold, and potentially dangerous is simply because there was nothing else available, because we had no choice. The effect our present housing has on our health, comfort, and even our peace of mind cannot be ignored. Unfortunately, we have high energy consumption because the insulation in the house isn't adequate increases the cost even further, particularly in the colder seasons. The truth is that we spend much more than we need to simply in order to warm the house.

There has to be a standard quality that landlords need to follow in their premises before they are granted permission and rent out. We need energy efficiency improvements and assistance grants for those in housing in order to properly insulate their dwellings, lower their energy bills, and to avoid penalising those who live in apartment buildings in disrepair.

We’ve been waiting for far too long now in a social housing environment where we don’t even have a stable and permanent shelter in the form of proper housing. Our uncertainty in acquiring the appropriate housing has led our circumstances to seem like we’re in limbo. There needs to be an increased investment in the construction of social housing so that families aren't left waiting and so that they can access safe housing.

Having disabilities in the family means that finding appropriate housing is difficult because most housing does not have the facilities, such as step-free access, wider doorways, and accessible bathrooms. This reduces our options and, in most cases, lands us in accommodation that may not serve our needs appropriately.

What we need now are accessible and adapted homes available in the housing market, where families with disabilities can live safely and comfortably without unnecessary barriers.

There are pressures on housing, and it has become difficult for us to live in the same area and have the help of our relatives for child care. As a result of high-priced rentals in our local area, we have had to move far away, and it has become difficult for our children to spend time with their relatives, who play an important role in their upbringing.

There needs to be available, affordable housing in locally based neighbourhoods so that families stay in the area where they have their network.

My landlord is currently unresponsive and I'm facing unresolved issues making our living conditions difficult and frustrating. We have reported issues such as leaks, broken fixtures, and non-functioning heaters, and nothing has happened. Living in this manner affects our lifestyle. It is disheartening and frustrating when we are forced to pay high rent and our basic repairs remain unattended.

There has to be better regulation and enforcement regarding private landlords, and work needs to happen in terms of regulations and expectations regarding repairs. There has to be accountability, and because there isn't, the problem exists, and people cannot live in safe and clean housing.