When Iain Duncan Smith, the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, gave his introductory speech on Universal Credit, he claimed that the UK social security system was deeply flawed and that Universal Credit was a ‘fundamental welfare reform’ that would reduce poverty (Duncan Smith, 2010). Given longstanding issues with the legacy benefits system, the ideas behind Universal Credit, and specifically the aims to simplify the benefits system and make work pay, initially received widespread support (for example, Sainsbury, 2010; Citizens Advice, 2011; Work and Pensions Committee, 2012). However, as the phased roll-out of Universal Credit has gathered pace, it has come under increasing criticism (for example, National Audit Office, 2018; Alston, 2019). As an Economic Affairs Committee report published in 2020 notes, the design and delivery of Universal Credit give rise to harm. There is mounting evidence that attests to the multiple ways in which Universal Credit can cause significant hardship to those claiming it (Wright et al, 2018; Cheetham et al, 2019; Patrick and Simpson, 2020; Robertson et al, 2020; Wickham et al, 2020). This is particularly problematic given that Universal Credit is a far-reaching new social security benefit: in 2018 it was estimated that when fully implemented, Universal Credit will affect just under seven million households (Kennedy and Keen, 2018).

One aspect of Universal Credit policy which has attracted criticism is the new conditionality regime for main carers of children (termed ‘lead carers’ in the government literature).