Why £20 Universal Credit ‘lifeline’ must be maintained – Lucy Bannister

Social security plays a vital role in our society, whether we’re in a national crisis or in ‘normal’ times. It should protect families from harm. It should help people keep their head above water if they lose their job, if their income is too low or insecure, if they are sick or if their circumstances change.

It should protect people from poverty and bring stability, opening up options and opportunities for them to improve their prospects.

In the years leading up to the Covid-19 pandemic, cuts and freezes to social security had already left many families living with constant insecurity. Unable to meet their everyday needs, they are being pulled deeper into poverty.

In March 2020, as we were faced with the economic fallout from the pandemic, the Government recognised that our social security rates were too low. It did the right thing and increased Universal Credit (UC) and Working Tax Credit by £20 a week.

However, this £20 a week is scheduled to be cut in October, and around six million low-income families will lose £1,040 from their annual income. It would create serious financial hardship and leave 500,000 people to be swept 
into poverty – including 200,000 children.

Around six in 10 of all single-parent families will be affected by this, and despite the Government’s commitment 
to ‘levelling up’, the impact of the cut 
will be the greatest across the North, Wales, the West Midlands and Northern Ireland.

This is why the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and many others are saying 
it would be wrong to go ahead with this cut.

Despite the introduction of the National Living Wage and record employment, poverty among workers and children was rising in the years before the pandemic.

The cuts and freezes to social 
security over those years played a significant part in this. When we entered the pandemic, the main rate of out-of-work support was at its lowest level in real terms since around 1990 and its lowest ever as a proportion of average wages.

It is widely accepted (including by those who were in Government 
at that time) that those cuts went 
too far, and the incomes of the lowest-income families were squeezed too 
much.

The current Government’s decision to increase UC by £20 a week was a recognition that previous levels were no longer adequate. Cutting the system back to those levels and repeating past mistakes would make no sense.

We all need stability and security in order to thrive. It is important to remember that a central role of our 
social security system is to support and protect people who are unable to work due to disability, caring or looking after young children.

In our society we believe in supporting each other when we need help to stay afloat. Plunging these families into poverty cannot be right.

Social security should enable 
families to seize opportunities, to 
return to work and to improve their 
lives. UC has the potential to do that. 
In contrast, struggling to make ends meet, getting into debt and worrying about putting food on the table all add to the currents that pull options out of reach.

The previous six Work and Pensions Secretaries of State, many think-tanks, welfare experts and hundreds of charities have said that going ahead with this cut would be wrong. Select Committees, Lords, MPs, the leaders of the opposition parties, religious leaders, health bodies, community leaders and previous Prime Ministers have all also warned against the cut.

The Government must listen to 
the experts and recognise the need 
to invest in a strong social security 
system we can all depend on. It has a choice: cut support by £20 a week, 
adding to the insecurity people face, or keep this lifeline and the stability families need

* Lucy Bannister is policy campaigns manager at the York-based Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

* Further details on the Keep The Lifeline campaign can be found via https://www.jrf.org.uk/support-keep-the-lifeline-write-to-your-mp