The harms of the cost of living crisis are multiplied by the benefit cap and two-child limit, flagship policies of the welfare reform agenda which sharply sever the relationship between need and support provided by our social security system.
The DWP’s research during the discovery phase of managed migration to universal credit (UC) concluded that ‘on the whole households are able to make the move to UC.’ But we are finding that, when issues do arise, the consequences can be serious for claimants causing stress, budgeting difficulties and debt.
This is an important moment for the government to demonstrate how it will support families on a low income. Investing in social security protects those who need it most. This investment is highly cost-effective – reducing child poverty immediately and leading to improved education, employment and health outcomes, including life expectancy.
Several government ministers have churned out a line about work being the best route out of poverty, but does it hold any truth? The evidence submitted to the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Poverty for its report suggests that this is far from the case.
A family’s ability to get universal credit is often based not on their actual circumstances, but on a fictional version of their circumstances. Welfare rights worker Carri Swann explains.
Removing the cap would mean an additional £65 a week, on average, in the pockets of capped households, meaning an average capped couple with 2 children would be £85 below the poverty line.
The government’s new Bill of Rights, or the Rights Removal Bill as some are calling it, will weaken the ability of us all to stand up for the rights of children and their families. This blog describes how two families had their applications for bereavement benefits denied, and how they used the Human Rights Act to challenge this in court with support from CPAG’s legal team.