Universal Credit Claims and Payments (Scotland) Regulations: consultation responses

Other issues

In addition to the areas covered within the analysis of comments at Questions 1 and 2, a small number of other issues were raised by respondents. The issues covered here were those which did not relate specifically to either of the two questions posed.

Split payments

The main other issue raised by respondents concerned the absence of any draft Regulations or other information about split payments of UC between two individuals in a single household. It was suggested that there could be clear reasons for it being in the best interests of the claimant and their family that the payments be split, and that the Scottish Government should consider using their powers to introduce such a provision.

Splitting payments was seen as allowing for increased gender equality, particularly for women in relation to access to resources. It was noted that women are more likely to be subject to financial and other abuse and that flexibility within UC payments will be important for the equality of women and children.

For example, one Campaign Body or Third Sector organisation respondent suggested that the Scottish Government's pledge that the new social security powers will be underpinned by "dignity and respect" will be undermined if social security cannot be accessed equally by women.

More broadly, this Campaign Body or Third Sector respondent also called for the Scottish Government to develop a strategy for its UC flexibilities, and within that strategy consider how the two UC flexibilities covered by the draft Regulations will apply to split payments.

Other Issues

Other issues raised included:

• The importance of language was highlighted. In particular, a Campaign Body or Third Sector organisation respondent noted that the Regulations rely on the world 'claimant' through, but that that analysis of the responses to its social security consultation highlighted words that respondents felt stigmatised those in receipt of social security, including the word 'claimant'.
• Another Campaign Body or Third Sector organisation respondent noted that the Regulations do not address the issue of what should happen where joint UC claimants disagree on whether they should receive twice monthly payments and/or whether payments should be made directly to their landlord.