Social Security Experience Panels: Universal Credit Scottish choices

Respondents' Views on Split Payments

Whether payments should be split

Respondents were asked their views on whether payments made to couples should be split between them, or paid to one individual.

Three in five (60 per cent) respondents said that all Universal Credit payments should be split between the couple and paid as two separate payments – 53 people responded to this question. The reasons given for this included the need for fairness, and to protect children or partners in cases of abusive or controlling relationships.

Less than ten suggested other options for splitting payments, including allowing the couple to decide, and the suggestion that the housing payment should be shared whilst the rest would be split.

"Each partner should receive some money into their account. It should be fairly split as most couples have money commitments and bills to pay. If one partner was controlling all the money and spent it on addiction or their own needs, the other members of the family may have to do without necessities for a whole month."

A third (34 per cent) said that all Universal Credit payments should go to one individual in the couple.

Among those who felt that payments should not be split, reasons included the view that payments should always be made to individuals and should not be awarded to couples. This was a reoccurring theme in relation to questions about whether and how payments should be split between couples. However, it should be noted that the Scottish Government is unable to amend the rules of Universal Credit which requires couples who live together to claim jointly.

"I have never claimed "as a couple" and am not in that situation now. However, I believe all social security payments should be based "on the individual" as the "basic unit" of society - there should not be special treatment for "couples" in a society that is re-orienting to being based on "individual living" (which is the fairest arrangement because every person is entitled to equal respect)."

"The payments should be based on individuals, not as couples."

"Everyone should be assessed as an individual basis. Not all family homes split everything."

Others felt that split payments make things more complicated or that the award is awarded to a household so shouldn't be split.

"I don't think split payments are a good idea at all! It just creates the need for more complicated data in the system and more admin costs. It also doesn't encourage couples to work together with their finances."

How payments should be split

Respondents were asked whether they thought that payments should be split equally or split based on individual circumstances (e.g. the person who has caring responsibilities for a child would get the child element of the Universal Credit award). 50 people responded to this question

Three quarters (76 per cent) of respondents felt that payments should be split based on individual circumstance such as responsibility for a child. Almost a quarter (24 per cent) of respondents felt that payments should be split equally between the couple.

The reasons given for these views included the importance of prioritising parental responsibility in looking at individual circumstances.

"Kids come first"

"I feel this is best as I am a mother and I would always be in charge of providing for my children even in a relationship"

"I believe that the carer should have access to the benefits as a priority, as they live with the responsibility of being the carer to the children and should not have to rely on someone else (partner), to decide how much is needed on a daily basis."

Other reasons included concerns about protecting income for people who might be in an abusive relationship and ensuring that everyone has financial independence:

"I believe that although UC is not a salary for a person's mental wellbeing they should receive the UC payment which most reflects their role in the household as well as their individual self-worth. Important to the individual to feel that they too are contributing to the overall family income even if it is to be put together jointly. It's important for the individual to be viewed in their own right."

Of those who felt that payments should be split equally between a couple, reasons included allowing the couple to agree different responsibilities between themselves.

"Both people would then have an equal amount to share or pool as necessary, or to agree different responsibilities in looking after the children without having to arrange money transfers etc... Useful if a couple do not have a joint account. This of course should be offered to the couple to decide and agree as a payment method."

Option to say no to split payments

Respondents were asked whether if Universal Credit payments were automatically split between a couple, they would like a way to be able to say no to this and get a single payment instead. 52 people responded to this question.

More than three in five (63 per cent) respondents said that they would like a way to be able to say no to this and get a single payment instead. Less than ten said that they would not want this option, and one in five (21 per cent) said that they were not sure.

Among those who said that they would like to be able to say no, a key reason given was that respondents fundamentally felt that payments should be calculated for individuals, and not couples. This seemed to be the critical factor for many of these respondents, rather than an opposition to split payments specifically. As noted above, the requirement for co-habiting couple to apply jointly is not an area where Scottish Government has the power to implement change.

Others were in favour of the option to say no to the split payment due to concerns about circumstances where one of the couple may be ill, have a learning disability or act as the primary carer for the other. Some felt it was important to have choice.

"If I am too ill to care for myself it would make it hard to access my account as we don't have joint accounts"

"All couples deal with finances in their own way. If one partner has addiction problems, for instance, it could be disastrous if that person has control of the budget."

Reasons for not wanting the option to say no to split payments between a couple included:

• that separate payments make sure that both of the couple have access to money and prevents one person having control;
• individuals having responsibility for their own income;
• concerns over the potential for this option to be abused in situations of domestic abuse; and
• the importance of the main carer of children having access to the payment.

Some pointed out that if couples want the money in one place they can arrange a transfer to the relevant account.

"If a couple want the money together they can transfer it to a joint account. Separate payments make sure both people have access to money that nobody else has control over"

"Situations may arise, spousal abuse for example, If anyone is in that situation they need to have the means to change their situation...one person controlling the money would prevent that..."

"No one in a couple should be dependent on the other for financial security."

Among those who weren't sure if they would want this option, reasons included that the situation wouldn't apply to them, or that it would depend on the individual circumstances. Some felt that there were circumstances where there shouldn't be a choice offered, for example in instances of domestic abuse.

Managing household income with split payments

Respondents were asked whether split payments would help them to better manage their household income. 53 people responded to this question. More than two in five (43 per cent) respondents felt that split payments would help them to manage their household income better, two in five (40 per cent) did not, and less than 10 said that they weren't sure.

Among those who said that split payments would help them to manage their household income better, reasons included having independence and would protect against abusive relationships:

"We should all have the freedom to buy an ice cream..."

"Helps avoid coercive control, and just because you are part of a couple does not mean you lose your right to individual control over finances"

"I wouldn't have to ask for money."

Some commented that this option would allow couples to share responsibility for finances:

"If you have a smaller amount to budget with, it allows you to manage exactly which out goings as a couple one individual is responsible for, and which they may jointly have to contribute to. I believe this would help individuals within a household to manage their finances better, making them less likely to run up debt and therefore ceasing the need for payday loans with their horrendous rates of interest."

A small number of responses suggested that some respondents had misunderstood what was meant by "split payments" and had interpreted this to mean twice monthly payments. Their comments on twice monthly payment options have been included in the relevant section above.

Among those who did not think that split payments would help to manage their household income, reasons included that they were single so didn't feel that this applied to them. Others had concerns about split payments meaning that one of the couple could spend their share and not contribute towards household bills, or concerns that the split payment could lead to debt or arguments.

"What happens the one is in a bad relationship and can't get out, the other has the same money but not helping towards the household, that's putting the household at a risk in debt"

"It's still the same amount of money but now it's running the risk of one person blowing it on something."

Among those who weren't sure, the main reason given was that the respondent didn't feel the situation would apply to them.