My view of Universal Credit is shaped mainly by the fact that, as a person with No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF), I am not allowed to claim it. This makes me feel the system is closed off to me, regardless of my circumstances. My understanding comes from advisers, community organisations, and others with NRPF, which reinforces the feeling that welfare support is tied more to immigration status than to need.

What effect does this have on my engagement with the social security system?

Because I know I am excluded from Universal Credit, I tend to avoid engaging with the social security system unless necessary. I worry about the impact on my immigration status, so I rely on charities or advisers for guidance. Overall, NRPF makes me cautious and limits how much I interact with the system.

My perception of UC is shaped by opinions and experiences of people around me. Most of my friends have positive experiences with UC, such as receiving payments on time and getting good support. Hearing positive experiences makes me feel more confident and comfortable using the social security system, and I believe it that they can support me when I need it.

However, sometimes I also hear negative experiences, and those can affect me too. When I hear that someone faced difficulties or had their request rejected, it creates some doubt and worry.

My perception of UC is mainly shaped by my personal experience. The payments are made regularly and on time every month, and this positive experience has made me feel optimistic about the social security system and has increased my trust in it.

However, in some cases, other people’s opinions and experiences also influence my view. For example, one of my friends urgently needed money in the middle of the month and requested an advance payment from UC, but his request was rejected. The reason given was that paying bills and daily expenses is not considered a sufficient justification for receiving an advance.

Experiences like this sometimes make it difficult to fully trust the social security system.

My view on universal credit is informed by the impact the amount of money received leaves after being availed. Does the money cover most debts or meet the living expenses? Universal credit does affect social security more broadly because of the cap placed on amount received from UC and other benefits. This impacts negatively on the working class, the minimal wage earners and the middle class. In other instances, it depletes rather than augments income hence driving recipients into poverty rather than eliminating poverty.

What informs my view/perception of Universal Credit is my personal experience. I went through a difficult and drawn-out application process, followed by an unacceptably long wait for a decision. This delay pushed me into financial crisis, forcing me into debt just to keep my children fed. My interactions with work coaches only deepened this negative perception, they were dismissive, unsympathetic, and treated my personal circumstances as an inconvenience. I was made to feel like a burden a “scrounger” rather than someone seeking support I was entitled to. From the initial application right through to dealing with work coaches, my experience of Universal Credit has been nothing less than demoralising and dehumanising. Another thing that informs my perception of Universal Credit is the experiences of others across the United Kingdom. I have heard countless stories that echo the same difficulties, delays, and traumas people struggling to access essential support, fearing that any change in their lives might prevent them from meeting the rigid requirements imposed on them. The constant threat of sanctions creates an environment of anxiety and fear rather than one of support and stability.

Because of these experiences, I do everything I can to avoid engaging with the social security system. For me and for many families across the country, Universal Credit and the social security system is not a safety net but a system that often exacerbates hardship rather than alleviating it. Instead of providing security in times of need, it can feel punitive, stressful, and unpredictable, making engagement something to avoid unless unavoidable.

I belong to a small women's social group of ethnic minorities here in Glasgow called Sharpen Her. We do meet once a while and I have heard over time some of the women complain about being stressed and sometimes missing out, with so much paper work and time consuming tasks in the process of assessing benefits, most especially the single parents with children with special educational needs, where they have to collect reports from the GP, school, hospital, etc.

If there could, there should be a digital platform all across Scotland for parents or individuals, where one can log in or upload a child diagnoses with supporting evidences and the system automatically updates itself, and you can view what benefits they are eligible to, what benefits they are currently on and when any new benefits are introduced.

I won't go on about my usual bug bear but everyone knows my views on the childcare element (i.e. it should be 100% but failing that it should be like the Childcare Grant Scheme from Student Finance England where the provider invoices UC for the 85% and we only pay 15% up front).

Beyond that almost every element of UC needs reform.

The increase in the Standard element is welcome but it still falls far short of value the £20 Covid era uplift which the party of government (when in opposition at the time) fiercely called for being made permanent.

The housing element is not reflective of real rents. I challenge you to find many 2-beds for rent in Newbury lower than £1,200 which I pay but now my rent is covered by LHA...because I'm entitled to the 3-bed rate of £1,200. There is nowhere with 3 beds in Newbury for that price. So LHA needs to be raised to its original 50% percentile level at least.

The other reform I'd like to see isn't actually to do with UC but would be a positive and cost-free change for government that would make financial planning easier for UC claimants with children. I'd like to see Child Benefit stop being paid 13 times a year every four weeks and instead moved to the 1st of the month 12 times a year so it's aligned with UC.

Ideally the taper rate would be cut significantly to make extra hours actually feel worthwhile.

Another change I'd like to see is Student Loan repayments treated as tax. Income tax and employee NICs are deducted from pay and then the post-tax amount is what the taper is applied to but Student Loan repayments (despite in design being essentially another tax) are not treated in the same way so for example:

If you earn an extra £100

£20 goes in income tax

£8 goes in NICs

£9 goes in Student Loan Repayments

You only see £63 in your bank account after this

The taper of 55p for a £ is applied to £72 post-tax

So £39.60 is deducted from your UC amount (ultimately leaving you with £23.40 (a 76.6% tax rate) whereas if Student Loans were treated the same as tax only £34.65 would be deducted from your UC amount, leaving you with £28.35 (still a 72.65% tax rate).

If I could ask the Prime Minister one question about the Child Poverty Strategy, I would ask: How will the government ensure that the strategy provides real, long-term solutions that address the root causes of child poverty—such as low wages, unaffordable housing, and barriers to accessing childcare—rather than relying on short-term measures?"

I’m not currently able to access Universal Credit because my immigration status includes a condition of No Recourse to Public Funds. This means I’m not eligible to claim most forms of social security or government financial support. It’s been challenging, as this restriction limits access to safety nets that could help with basic living costs, especially during periods of low income or instability. I’ve had to rely on community organisations, local charities, and informal support networks instead, which can be difficult and inconsistent.

One of the challenges of single parent life is trying to keep up with the detail of news that affects you and your family. Hearing the news - in the Autumn Statement - that the Universal Credit standard allowance would be raised above inflation every year until 2029 seemed like a total win but then I reflected on this more and realised that it still falls short of where UC would be if the £20 a week uplift introduced during Covid had never abolished (which was something Labour opposed in opposition but don't mention nowadays in office!). Furthermore a helpful explainer of the policy in the Independent demonstrated what this looks like in practice from this April coming:

Single, under 25: £316.98 pcm to £336.63 pcm (+£19.65)

Single, over 25: £400.14 pcm to £424.95 (+£24.81)

Partners, both under 25: £497.55 pcm to £528.40 (+£30.85)

Partners, one or both over 25: £628.10 pcm to £667.04 (+£38.94)

Note my point that none of these sums comes close to the +£80ish a £20 a week uplift would look like. However, my latest contention is that by focusing on the Standard Allowance what the government have ended up doing is delivering a significantly higher boost to the household income of couples compared to single parent families like mine. I stand to gain £24.81 a month - nothing to sniff at but I could do with the additional £14.13 going to couples.

For me, it's been a tough term, honestly. We've had a few family health issues to deal with, especially with the winter gradually creeping in and electricity bills are so expensive. However, we're taking it one day at a time.

This week was quite busy for me cos the kids were off school and I was also off college, with lots of assignment to do as well as taking the kids out to places to reduce school stress and spend quality time with them. There are always more expenses to pay, and more supervision of them - especially when you have more than one.