Fears over universal credit demand action
Paul Ennals
Tuesday, November 28, 2017
The impact on poor people of the rollout of universal credit - the minimum six-week delay in receiving the first payment, the reduced amount that most claimants receive, the frequent slide into debt - is well known. But its impact on child protection has been largely overlooked.
First, we are seeing early evidence of an increase in tensions between parents, leading in many cases to domestic abuse. Why? In the past, child benefit has been paid to the mother, so even if the father receives most of the family money, at least some has gone direct to the parent who normally manages the family shopping. Universal credit gathers together several previous benefits into one monthly payment, instead of weekly as previously, including the element to cover rent, and all to one applicant. In our region this results in all the month's money normally going direct to the father.
Neglect is by far the main reason why children in the North East are placed on child protection plans. It most often occurs when one of the parents (normally the father) has alcohol or drug problems, and much of the family income goes on feeding their habit. Before universal credit the rent was normally deducted before payment, and the recipient picked up just one week's money. Now the rental component is included, and four weeks' money comes at once, meaning claimants may receive several hundred pounds in one payment.
The result is a rapid rise in council rent arrears, in money being spent on drugs or gambling, in drunkenness, in coercion by the father over the mother, and in police reports of domestic violence where children are present.
Second, during the period of your application for universal credit, you are not entitled to free school meals (FSM) for your children. Even if you are eventually successful in your application, the right to FSM is not backdated. So there is a minimum of six weeks (and in practice frequently 12 weeks) when children are not entitled to FSM. If schools decide to over-ride these bureaucratic nonsenses they have to pay for it out of reducing school budgets.
Good local authorities, such as those in my area, are planning for the worst aspects as the programme expands to cover all families on benefits. Schools are being asked to agree to cover the costs of FSM - and are generally doing so. Schools are putting over their computer rooms to help claimants who are not digitally literate to apply online. Food Banks are being asked to prepare for a 25 per cent upturn in requests from families. Councils are increasing their debt advice services, and rolling out measures to prevent the rapid rise in loan sharks which they have seen on the poorer estates.
In my view, local safeguarding children boards have a duty to ensure that arrangements are in place to mitigate the worst damage meted out by the universal credit rollout.
Sir Paul Ennals is independent chair of three local safeguarding children boards