New figures reveal for the first time the impact on Scots from George Osborne's cuts to in-work benefits through the new Universal Credit.
Critics have accused the Chancellor of attempting to resurrect his scrapped tax credit cuts by the back door.
Analysis shows that the average Scottish single mother-of-two working full time on the new National Living Wage would be £3,321 a year worse off by 2021.
The research by the House of Commons Library emphasizes the difference between those who remain on tax credits and those on Universal Credit, currently being phased in across Scotland.
Next year a single mother of two in Scotland working full time on the minimum wage would be an average of £2,981 a year worse off if they are on Universal Credit than someone in identical circumstances on tax credits.
Ian Murray, the shadow Scottish secretary, who asked the Library to calculate the Scottish figures, said: "This new research highlights the full and devastating impact that this Government's policies will have on some single parent working families in Scotland.
“Thanks to George Osborne's determination to fix the deficit on the backs of working people, many Scottish families on Universal Credit face the prospect of being significantly worse off."
He also accused ministers of creating a “perverse postcode lottery” of in-work support.
“This will leave families in some parts of Scotland far worse off than those in others,” he said.
The Conservative Government is currently rolling out Universal Credit across Scotland.
In Glasgow more than 3,600 households have already been transferred to the new benefit, compared to just 33 in Dundee and none at all in East Dunbartonshire and Moray.
Universal Credit is the brainchild of the Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith.
He has argued that too many people are trapped in a life on benefits and pledged to ensure that “work always pays”.
But the Chancellor surprised many with unexpected cuts to the in-work part of Universal Credit in his Budget.
Before Christmas the government’s own advisers warned Mr Osborne that he risked destroying the incentive to work and urged a U-turn.
The Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission called on ministers to implement Mr Duncan Smith's original 2009 plan, under which those on Universal Credit would keep 45p of every extra £1 they earn.
Under the government's current plans, the Commission warned, that figure has fallen to 35p.
Universal Credit is designed to integrate six benefits, including in-work tax credits.
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) accused Labour of scaremongering.
The department claims that the UC cannot be compared to tax credits because the two systems are "fundamentally different".
Under Universal Credit, it argues, people are entitled to more generous childcare and "in-work progression support".
The system also avoid the "cliff edge" cuts to benefits if claimants take on extra work that exists under tax credits.
A DWP spokesman said: “This kind of scaremongering completely fails to recognise those who gain significantly under Universal Credit, and the fact that claimants are moving into work faster and earning more than under the old system.
“Universal Credit is fundamentally different to tax credits, and includes a wide range of additional support – including more generous childcare - that is not offered under the old system.”
Last month the DWP admitted that people on low pay would lose out under the Universal Credit system and suggested make up the money by working an extra 200 hours a year.
An official government response said: "We expect many claimants to respond to the changes announced in the summer budget by actively seeking more work, and we will support them with this.
"For example, someone could recoup the loss from the work allowance changes by working three to four additional hours a week at the national living wage to which they are entitled."
By 2020 2.6 million working families on Universal Credit are estimated to be on average £1,600 a year worse off due to the cuts to the work allowance in the benefit.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel