Cathf - I mean this genuinely - I don't know how much you know about UC and benefits so am cantering through the history. Its not meant to be patronising (although I note you assign that view point to others so hey ho)
Iain Duncan Smith (from his days setting up the Centre for Justice think tank) passionately believed that the "old" system was to complex - many many people agreed.
He also believed that 'work should pay' - that the incentive to gain employment, remain in work, proper in work must be greater than the benefits system. Again many many people agreed.
What has happened though is an absolute dogs ear of a new benefit system - you can read various Select Committee and NAO reports on how badly it has been designed and implemented - massively late, not functioning (as an aside I have been in countless meetings when these issues were put to government - not in an attempt to stop the policy but to get them to understand how their approach to implementation was going to have a negative impact).
So now we have a system which has
a) increased levels of sanctions - including 3 strikes and you're out. The problem with such a system is that the application of sanctions must be absolutely applied fairly. It is not, there are multiple examples of sanctions being applied (and not overturned) despite the sanction not being appropriate (for example a client not attending an appointment at DWP because their appendix had burst and they were in emergency surgery).
The sanctions system has been applied in overly stringent manner meaning people are docked benefits unfairly (and there is some evidence that points to DWP staff having targets around sanctions.
- the system is not coping. I have multiple case examples of claimants (often vulnerable) who have supplied the right information, to find DWP have lost it, or have that information but have decided it now needs to be completed on a different form but neglected to tell said claimant.
One case study I had for a research project showed a claimant chasing DWP for about 5/6 months before the right information was located and the claim was backdated. That claimant had an advocate, I dread to think what would have happened without that advocate.
- UC was meant to mimic being in work, so is paid four weeks in arrears - direct to the claimant. However it also includes what was a HB payment which in the past could have been paid (with claimants permission) direct to the landlord.
Now with UC the claimant is in breach of tenancy agreement if they don't pay their rent in advance but won't receive the money until at least 4 weeks later. So they need a 4 week head start on their rent - where does that come from?
Previously most landlords would have been happy to receive the HB in arrears direct from the council as they could see the claim was in progress - with UC they can't do this. Social landlords and tenant groups have argued long and hard that if a tenant is happy for the money to go direct DWP should pay direct but DWP have said no - there are limited specific times when direct payment would be made.
Then relatively recently (and not in the first design of UC) the government introduced a 6 week waiting period for UC. After a threatened revolt by Tory MPs this was reduced down to 5 weeks.
The delay was because the system is so inept that the government argue it can't be done quicker. Yes advance claims can be made but again originally these were to paid off within six months and it was the threatened revolt of Tory MPs that this was extended.
There have always been people without cookers, cooking equipment but a lot of these were supported via crisis grants that were centrally administered but the Welfare Reform Act changed eligibility and decentralised crisis loans/grants to LA's.
Hurrah you may say - LA's can spend based on local need. Well yes and no, in theory yes but in reality the money decentralised was not ring fenced so a council facing severe funding cuts (as most were - really massive cuts) they could utilise anything that wasn't ring fenced to fill gaps elsewhere in services - social care for example.
Plus the money decentralised was based on the annual spend before welfare reform - so didn't take into account the likely need for increased crisis spending.
Sorry - that all sounds like a potted history of the impact of the Welfare Reform Act (I've worked in this field!)
And we are left with a situation in which has tried to create a "better' welfare system (if you agree with IDS at the starting point) but has managed to make a pigs ear of it, reducing welfare spending but in a punitive manner, lack of effective project management of roll out, crisis situations not having the resources they need, sanctions being applied in frankly eyebrow raising ways etc etc and the result is what some on this thread have tried to explain.
Thats not to say that poverty (food, fuel or otherwise) has solely been caused by the WR Act but it hasn't exactly helped.
I'll hit post now and realise I'll have cross posted with a gazillion others..