National Audit Office report on Universal Credit

Year of Publication: 

The National Audit Office has published a report looking at the roll-out of Universal Credit. It casts doubt on whether the new benefit is offering value for money and recognises the hardships that many claimants are experiencing.


Content and scope of the report

In order to assess the value for money of the Department’s introduction of Universal Credit, we consider:

  • how the Department’s plans for Universal Credit have evolved (Part One);
  • whether its adaptive and incremental approach is ensuring Universal Credit works for claimants and the organisations supporting them (Part Two); and
  • ultimately, the prospects for Universal Credit achieving its aims (Part Three).


Report conclusions

We think that there is no practical alternative to continuing with Universal Credit. We recognise the determination and single-mindedness with which the Department has driven the programme forward to date, through many problems. However, throughout the introduction of Universal Credit local and national organisations that represent and support claimants have raised a number of issues about the way Universal Credit works in practice. The Department has responded to simple ideas to improve the digital system but defended itself from those that it viewed as being opposed to the policy in principle. It does not accept that Universal Credit has caused hardship among claimants, because it makes advances available, and believes that if claimants take up these opportunities hardship should not occur. This has led it to often dismiss evidence of claimants’ difficulties and hardship instead of working with these bodies to establish an evidence base for what is actually happening. The result has been a dialogue of claim and counter-claim and gives the unhelpful impression of a Department that is unsympathetic to claimants.

The Department has now got a better grip of the programme in many areas. However, we cannot judge the value for money on the current state of programme management alone. Both we, and the Department, doubt it will ever be possible for the Department to measure whether the economic goal of increasing employment has been achieved. This, the extended timescales and the cost of running Universal Credit compared to the benefits it replaces cause us to conclude that the project is not value for money now, and that its future value for money is unproven.