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.

Housing crisis is the most important issue effecting us after living crisis. Lots of people are on the waiting list and living inhuman conditions. Other people living in hostel, hotel, lodge etc are also in too bad situation while waiting to get on housing register. So government need to scrutinise the people from the waiting list and provide immediate housing based on their health conditions, age and vulnerability. Also even provide them housing checks its the right home for them for their certain condition, as most of the time they get the home but its not in a living condition.

I’m a good listener and I hope everything goes smoothly for you, congratulations 🥂 to every achievement you have made this year bye 👋.

Hey everyone I saw a news on government thinking about removal of benefits for non British citizens. Especially housing benefits and temporary council accommodation. If housing benefits and support is removed, how will people find where to sleep. Most are people on low paid jobs and can’t afford rent without support. What about people with disability and parents with children with disability. This is going to be a big problem, the council are not helping at all I have been in temporary accommodation for 4 years now not being offered another Christmas 🎄 is there no place to call home 🏠 it very depressing and sad at the same time everyone needs a place to call home, thank you!

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?"