Amid the frenzy surrounding the introduction of the bedroom tax as part of the UK Government's welfare reform measures, may I remind the majority of readers who may take no more than a passing interest in the housing sector that there is more to come ("Warning of confusion over changes to welfare system", The Herald, April 3).

One measure looks set to have an even greater impact on the management and supply of social housing in our country. From October all new benefit claimants will receive all their benefits in one monthly payment to be known as Universal Credit. This will include any and all benefits to which they are entitled, including housing benefit, which will no longer be paid direct to the landlord. This measure is designed, we are told, to encourage budgeting skills and make the move from life on benefits to one where a single payment (salary) is the norm and therefore less stressful when claimants move from benefit to employment. It does not take a huge leap in imagination to foresee the unintended effects of such a measure, yet the Government seems singularly unable or unwilling to make the connection and the effects will be chaotic.

Here's the scenario, based on today's figures. By the time Universal Credit has migrated to all claimants an amount in the region of £600 million, previously passed directly to councils and registered social landlords in the form of housing benefit credit, will have to be physically collected on an annual basis. This will be labour intensive, adding to landlords' management costs and inevitably, given that claimants are already living on the economic margins, families will be faced with conflicting and competing priorities and the effect will be that arrears will rise, thus putting tenancies at risk.

The preceding statement is less conjecture and more an objective conclusion based on UK-wide pilot studies – including one in Edinburgh – where, without exception, the levels of arrears rose dramatically. So, bad enough for tenants but there are also clearly signposted stages in these new arrangements which are being ignored by Government and are ominous for the provision of the new housing supply.

If our efficiency at collecting rent is threatened – which it clearly is – it is highly likely that funders, on whom we rely for private finance to assist us in new housing provision, will form a less benevolent view of risk in considering the margins at which to lend. The consequence of that will be to increase the costs of borrowing which will, as night follows day, mean an increase in rents. With 60% of social housing tenants in Scotland claiming full or partial benefit depending on their employment status, this will inevitably have the effect of increasing the overall housing benefit bill, which is where we came in.

As a result, the issues and dilemmas faced by tenants and landlords as a result of the bedroom tax will pale into insignificance by the time Universal Credit takes effect, unless something can be done to persuade the Government to consider the effects, not only on tenants but the housing sector, before continuing the next stage of its one-dimensional journey of welfare reform.

Mike Bruce,

Chief executive, Weslo Housing Management, 66 North Bridge Street, Bathgate.

Today we are being fed a steady narrative from the Government about its attempts at fairness by removing the poor from a welfare system that traps them in poverty. Being poor and being disabled have become practically sinful. Choosing to be either or both is positively unforgivable and no longer to be tolerated. What better motivation than to punish these parasites further with a breathtaking array of cuts and penalties, all predicated on the notion that entitlement has to be earned?

The logic is simple: families are living in overcrowded houses while others have rooms to spare. The roots of the housing shortage are buried in the Thatcher Government's sale of the desirable social housing stock, followed by several decades' embargo on building social housing in Scotland. How is an ill-thought out strategy, punishing those with the temerity to have remained in the family home beyond the family's requirements, to resolve this situation?

It ignores the subtle difference between a house and a home with its social infrastructure built from neighbourhood, familiarity, established roots and sense of permanence. By adopting a default approach of clawing back a hitherto unrecognised "subsidy", the Government has revealed its continuing disdain for those born poor or who end up in poverty.

Further, the cost to local authorities in setting up systems to manage these new penalty payments (aka subsidy repayments), and the inevitable evictions, has yet to be assessed and is likely to cancel out any projected gains. This is clearly not about saving money; the agenda is darker and reeks of a heartless administration sharpening its teeth on the most vulnerable. There is nowhere to go and no jobs to fund a different journey for those willing and able to leave their good-for-nothing, skiving lives behind them.

Might there be a better way to free up this required housing? Might some individuals welcome the chance to move if the circumstances were attractive enough? What might incentivise such a house swap? Those in such situations have been denied the courtesy of being approached about their situation and, in any case, the resources required to sustain a less painful widescale social mobility programme are probably beyond imagining.

There is no quick solution to the housing shortage, which was predicted during Mrs Thatcher's eagerness to promote the right to buy but the Government's relentless attack on those least able to fight back reflects a shift into dangerous and heartless times. Why focus such energy on a project doomed to failure? What is the imperative to discredit, denigrate and deprive those with least, yet most, to lose? I fear for those who find themselves at the mercy of these changes. I think back to my early career in local authority social work when we were working in the best interests of those who needed support and protection, amid chaos and deprivation. The welfare state underpinned all our activities, generally ensuring that destitution was kept at bay. Where will such folk find that protection now?

Dr Brenda Gillies, Former social worker and retired social work academic, 12 Victoria Street, Newport on Tay, Fife.

The possibility that UK Government ministers are advocating no increase to the minimum wage makes no economic sense. Even modest increases would provide a boost to sales and the retail sector. Resulting increases in revenues from VAT would aid the Treasury. People on the lowest incomes would be recognised as those requiring the greatest help in society.

Labour, who introduced the minimum wage, now promotes the living wage. This turning away from the needs of all low-income employees to a hit-or-miss approach dependent on employers' disposition is shameful. It is indicative of the upper-class attitudes of the Labour leadership.

Remarkably the LibDem Employment Minister Jo Swinson cautioned against rises in the minimum wage in a confusing statement in February: "The level of employment is now above its pre-recession peak, but the employment rate is below the pre-recession peak."

The LibDems have worked hard in Government to increase the level of income on which tax is paid. The resultant £700 per year bonus is a benefit to low-income families. The fairness promised by LibDems and their focus on social justice would be best served by campaigning for the minimum wage to be one on which people can live.

Finlay Craig,

Rossarden, Shore Road, Cove.

I am sometimes accused by my wife of not paying attention, so I must have missed the explosion of anger, press comment and street demonstrations which surely followed the UK Poverty and Social Inclusion survey, published last week ("Claim poverty levels are worst in 30 years", The Herald, March 29).

This showed the number of "Britons" who do not have a dry and warm home, cannot clothe and feed themselves decently, and are now being denied somewhere for visiting family or friends to sleep is increasing. The academics quoted were in no doubt the situation is very bleak and set to get worse. The Better Together campaign has some brass neck telling Scots to stick with breadline Britain. It is broken, and won't be fixed in our children's lifetimes.

David Roche,

1 Alder Grove, Scone.