Your editorial ( September 14th ) is right to underline the link between access to social housing affordable and childcare as a determinant of child poverty. But by emphasizing the impending removal of the £ 20 per week mark-up, it fails to address two structural issues related to universal credit. , assistance with housing costs is limited People living in rental accommodation - whether they have a salaried job or not - face a ceiling on the amount of rent taken into accounteither under the local housing allowance (for those in the private rental sector) or the "tourist tax" (for those in social housing), any shortfall being made up by the applicants' income.
Second, there is a “benefit cap”. The initial benefit ceiling limits the right to benefits (including assistance with rental costs) to a maximum amount per month and has an impact on large families who do not have paid employment. A more insidious version, the two-child policy, removed the right to all state assistance, except family allowances, for a third and any subsequent child born after April 2017. The policy stalled. applies to families fully dependent on benefits and to those who work. In real terms, this represents a reduction in universal credit of up to £ 237.08 per child per month.
While the £ 20 increase was a lifeline for many, until what the root causes of poverty - access to affordable housing, child care, financial support for children, and work allowances that simply subsidize a low-wage economy as opposed to 'doing work k pay '- are treated adequately, the situation facing many families will worsen.
Farndale, North Yorkshire
It is incumbent on charities and other activist organizations to change the Chancellor's mind on the abolishing the universal credit increase is manifestly unrealistic. Anti-poverty activists, including the Trussell Trust, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Church Action on Poverty are already putting all they can into their efforts to stop the cut, and public opinion, as your editorial makes clear, supports them. If the past 10 years have taught us anything, it's that there is no point in appealing to the best instincts of ideologically motivated conservative social security chancellors. Instead, what is needed is pressure from Rishi Sunak's own backbench MPs - as in 2017, when Philip Hammond was persuaded by a threatened backbench rebellion to 'introduce a £ 1.5bn Universal Credit Assistance Package .
I would strongly recommend that the six former secretaries conservative work and pensions that have s 'est pronounced against the cut uses these late pangs of conscience to stage the revolt of the backbench MPs.
I volunteer at my local food bank and this cut will have a huge impact on the community We have supported hundreds of people every week throughout the pandemic and now that we are emerging from it we must give people a chance to get their lives back on track and not to plunge them into new debt.
We are one of many food banks in a small part of North London. The effect of the reduction in universal credit, as well as the increase in national insurance and the approach of colder weather at a timewhere people are trying to get out of poverty, will have a ripple effect on the ability of individuals and families to get through the fall and winter months.
Instead of removing this support, the £ 20 mark-up should be made permanent and extended to all beneficiaries, so that no one is left out of this lifeline.