Raising issues on welfare reform

One of the great privileges of being an MP is having the opportunity to raise your concerns directly with the UK Government.

Where there are failures, they must be addressed – and with the 2017 Budget this week, the Government had ample opportunity to put them right.

In the past week I spoke in a debate on Universal Credit.

I raised some of the worst issues my constituents have seen so far with the Government’s welfare reform agenda.

One of the huge design flaws in the system is the deliberate six-week waiting time for a first payment.

That is 42 days with no income, when faced with food bills, rent payments, and all the necessities of life.

It has caused people to run up debts and turn to foodbanks.

So far, the Government have given absurd excuses for this six-week wait – they have said that it reflects the nature of a working salary, which prepares claimants for monthly pay.

However, I don’t know of any job that would make a worker wait more than a month before their first wage was to arrive.

Back in 2013, Iain Duncan Smith was work and pensions secretary.

He was the man driving the welfare reforms that are coming in to force now.

He made the bold claim that he could survive on £53 a week – then the lowest rate of jobseeker’s allowance given to adults under 25.

I wonder if he would say the same under current rules – could Iain Duncan Smith live on nothing but fresh air for six weeks? I highly doubt it. This part of the policy has been widely attacked by MPS since early trials of Universal Credit right through to now, when the full roll-out is beginning in different parts of the country including South Lanarkshire.

It has been trailed in the press that the Uk-government would U-turn on the six-week wait but, as I write this, we are no further forward.

In my time in Parliament I have found that the Government will often try to stifle attempts to bring up issues that might embarrass them into making changes.

They have one of the greatest tools at their disposal to keep critical MPS in check – the clunky, outdated mechanisms of Westminster.

That has been the case with my campaign to reshape the Child Maintenance Service.

For months on end I have been attempting to table a debate on the many problems constituents have brought to me regarding the Child Maintenance Service, and finally last week I was granted an Adjournment Debate on the issue.

I was able to tell the DWP minister face to face exactly how his department was damaging my constituents, and tell him in full the frustrations they face as a result of maladministration and red tape.

One of the biggest issues is the tax on survivors of domestic violence.

In order to use the most secure scheme available through the Child Maintenance Service, the “Collect and Pay” scheme, users are taxed four per cent on the maintenance money to which they are entitled.

This is the only way people who have fled domestic abuse can keep their location safe and ensure they are not contacted by an ex-partner.

The Government waive the Collect and Pay £20 application fee for domestic abuse survivors, so why continue to tax their entitlements?

Worst of all, in letters from the department for work and pensions on this issue, a Minister highlighted their position that the four per cent tax was “miniscule” and, in her interpretation, was not materially impactful.

While this 4 per cent tax may not have a huge effect on the Government’s budget, for families on the breadline, every penny counts.

It is extremely disappointing that the Chancellor has opted not to address the tax on survivors of domestic abuse in this year’s Budget.

I will continue to fight against this tax.

I believe the Government needs to seriously consider who needs the four per cent of child maintenance more – a family who will feel its material impact, or the Treasury, which will not.