tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-43520114190584036682024-02-19T10:44:56.498-08:00Benefits OwlUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4352011419058403668.post-52393282921938923972017-05-30T14:46:00.001-07:002017-05-30T15:00:55.893-07:002017 Election Manifestos - what they have to say for benefit claimantsOh dear, here we are again...<br />
<br />
Part of me feels that manifestos aren't worth the computer memory they occupy: a bundle of policies designed to increase votes but which can be jettisoned later if they become inconvenient. But it is possible to become too cynical: manifestos do show us what parties care about, and where their priorities lie. Perhaps it's also useful to keep these promises on record, so that we can call parties to account if they back track on their undertakings later.<br />
<br />
This post attempts to summarise the different parties' commitments regarding welfare benefits. It also looks at commitments that are not directly related to benefits, but are relevant to benefit claimants, the low paid (who can also be benefit claimants, of course), and other vulnerable people.<br />
<br />
<b>The post is sorted by subject, not by party: this is so you can easily compare what different parties say about the same thing (or if they say nothing at all about it - the gaps may say more than what <i>is</i> said...)</b><br />
<br />
Even though there are no quotation marks, all the comments have been lifted directly from the manifestos, apart for a few changes to ensure grammatical clarity. If I haven't been able to find anything in a particular party's manifesto about an issue, I've left their space blank. This post only includes promises made in the manifestos, so you won't find assertions made by party members in the media that are not in their manifesto. There is also some unavoidable repetition, when something applies to more than one category<br />
<br />
This is not an opinion post (despite the temptation). However, as I've had to select and digest, there is inevitably going to be some subjectivity and judgement calls:<br />
<ul>
<li>I've generally, but not always, avoided vague promises that include words like 'review', 'consider', 'explore', 'examine', as these don't generally amount to much of a commitment. The exceptions are where they appear to relate to a clear and concrete plan of action. </li>
<li>I've also not included </li>
<ul>
<li>Undertakings that are planned to take more than one parliament to follow through to completion.</li>
<li>Stuff that might have an impact on benefits provision because of competing budgetary demands: otherwise I'd have to include everything.</li>
<li>If parties are simply committing to continue something that's already in place, I've normally left it out.</li>
<li>I've not included anything about general equalities issues, or social care.</li>
<li>Much as I've been tempted to, I have not included anything about immigration issues, except insofar as they touch on the world of social security benefits.</li>
</ul>
</ul>
<div>
It's been a challenge to decide which parties to include. In the end the list is:</div>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives: <a href="https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto" target="_blank">https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto</a></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour: <a href="http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/manifesto2017" target="_blank">http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/manifesto2017</a></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">=</span></span>Liberal Democrats: <a href="http://www.libdems.org.uk/manifesto" target="_blank">http://www.libdems.org.uk/manifesto</a></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP: <a href="http://www.ukip.org/manifesto2017" target="_blank">http://www.ukip.org/manifesto2017</a></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green: <a href="https://www.greenparty.org.uk/green-guarantee/" target="_blank">https://www.greenparty.org.uk/green-guarantee/</a></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">=</span></span>SNP: <a href="https://www.snp.org/manifesto" target="_blank">https://www.snp.org/manifesto</a></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
I apologise to the parties that have been left out, but I had to balance the need for inclusion with that of getting this finished in time to be useful.<br />
<br />
(A note on manifesto accessibility: Labour, The Lib Dems, and the Green Party provide a wide range of different formats, including Braille, BSL, and audio. As of 29th May the Conservative Party, the SNP, and UKIP both offer no alternatives to a standard pdf (The Conservative sites asks for your details so that it can release information about accessible versions 'when they are released', and the SNP says that they are working on them, as of 30th May). )</div>
</div>
</div>
<br />
As I said before, this is not an opinion piece, but I will offer you some advice to help you form <i>your</i> opinion:<br />
<ul>
<li>Be wary of 'weasel words' (e.g. 'we will help the jobless back to work' and 'we won't allow the sick to languish on benefits'). Always ask: what does this really mean?</li>
<li>Don't be too excited by very positive sounding pledges from smaller parties: the less likely a party is to form part of a government, the less likely it is that it will have to bear responsibility for not keeping to its pledges!</li>
<li>Be suspicious of vagueness</li>
</ul>
<br />
I have tried to be fair and thorough, but<i> if you think I've left something substantive out, please let me know via the comments section</i>.<br />
<b><i><br /></i></b><b><i>To jump directly to any specific subject, click on the relevant link below:</i></b><br />
<h3>
Commitments that are directly related to benefits</h3>
<h4>
<a href="#young">
Young people</a></h4>
<h4>
<a href="#health">
Claimants with health problems and/or disabilities</a></h4>
<h4>
<a href="#carers">
Carers</a></h4>
<div>
<h4>
<a href="#workseek">
Work-seeking claimants, and those in low-paid work</a></h4>
</div>
<div>
<h4>
<a href="#families">
Families with children</a></h4>
</div>
<div>
<h4>
<a href="#older">
Older people</a></h4>
</div>
<div>
<h4>
<a href="#hben">
Housing benefit</a></h4>
</div>
<div>
<h4>
<a href="#misc">
Miscellaneous</a></h4>
</div>
<h3>
Commitments that are relevant to the vulnerable, including benefit claimants</h3>
<h4>
<a href="#minwage">
Minimum wage and living wage</a></h4>
<div>
<h4>
<a href="#zero">
Zero-hours contracts, agency work, and related issues</a></h4>
</div>
<div>
<h4>
<a href="#house">
Housing</a></h4>
</div>
<div>
<h4>
<a href="#home">
Homelessness</a></h4>
</div>
<div>
<h4>
<a href="#child">
Childcare</a></h4>
</div>
<div>
<h4>
<a href="#trib">
Social security and employment tribunals</a></h4>
</div>
<div>
<h4>
<a href="#advice">
Support for advice services</a></h4>
</div>
<br />
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
Commitments that are directly related to benefits </h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
<a name="young">
Young people</a></h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives:<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour:<br />
<ul>
<li>We will reinstate Housing Benefit for under-21s</li>
</ul>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">=</span></span>Liberal Democrats:<br />
<ul>
<li>We will help young people in need by reversing cuts to housing benefit for 18-21-year-olds and increase the rates of Jobseeker’s Allowance and Universal Credit for those aged 18-24 at the same rate as minimum wages.</li>
</ul>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP:<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green:<br />
<ul>
<li>We will protect young people’s housing needs by reinstating housing benefit for under 21s and reverse housing benefits cuts.</li>
</ul>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">=</span></span>SNP:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>SNP MPs will support restoration of housing support for 18 to 21 year olds across the UK.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<h4>
<a name="health">
Claimants with health problems and/or disabilities</a></h4>
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives:<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour<br />
<ul>
<li>We will increase Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) by £30 per week for those in the work-related activity group, and repeal cuts in the UC limited capacity for work element.</li>
<li>We will implement the court decision on Personal Independence Payment (PIP) so that there is real parity of esteem between those with physical and mental-health conditions.</li>
<li>We will end the pointless stress of reassessments for people with severe long-term conditions.</li>
<li>We will change how Jobcentre Plus staff are performance-managed.</li>
</ul>
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">=</span></span>Liberal Democrats:<br />
<ul>
<li>We will reverse cuts to Employment Support Allowance to those in the work-related activity group.</li>
<li>We will scrap the discredited Work Capability Assessment and replace it with a new system, run by local authorities according to national rules, including a ‘real world’ test that is based on the local labour market.</li>
<li>We will improve links between Jobcentres and Work Programme providers and the local NHS to ensure all those in receipt of health-related benefits are getting the care and support to which they are entitled.</li>
</ul>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP:<br />
<ul>
<li>The current Work Capability Assessments are not fit for purpose. We will reform them in consultation with disabled people and disability charities. </li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green:</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">=</span></span>SNP:<br />
<ul>
<li>Under the Tories, from April this year, disabled and ill people assessed as not fit for work have lost out on £29 per week from their Employment and Support Allowance. SNP MPs will support reversal of this cut.</li>
<li>SNP MPs will call for the current work capability assessment to be halted, and a new system to be put in place which treats everyone with fairness and respect, helping people into employment rather than crisis.</li>
<li>SNP MPs will urge the UK government to follow the lead of the Scottish Government to review Personal Independence Payments, ensuring assessments, descriptors and award times are appropriate and rooted in respect and dignity.</li>
<li>To stop the revolving door of disability assessments and reintroduce long term awards for those with long term conditions we have established a Disability Benefits Assessment Commission to provide recommendations and guidance on eligibility and conditions [Scotland only].</li>
</ul>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<h4>
<a name="carers">
Carers</a></h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives:</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour:<br />
<ul>
<li>We will increase Carer’s Allowance by £11 to the level of Jobseekers’ Allowance.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">=</span></span>Liberal Democrats:<br />
<ul>
<li>We will raise the amount people can earn before losing Carer’s Allowance from £110 to £150 a week, and reduce the number of hours’ care per week required to qualify.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP:<br />
<ul>
<li>We recommit to giving carers an extra five days’ paid holiday each year, and increasing Carer’s Allowance from £62.70 per week to £73.10 a week, to match the higher level of Job Seeker’s Allowance.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green:</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">=</span></span>SNP:<br />
<ul>
<li>The SNP will increase Carer’s Allowance to the level of Jobseekers Allowance.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br />
<br /></div>
<h4>
<a name="workseek">
Work-seeking claimants, and those in low-paid work</a></h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives:<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour:<br />
<ul>
<li>The cuts to work allowances in Universal Credit (UC), and the decision to limit tax credit and UC payments to the first two children in a family, are an attack on low-income families and will increase child poverty. Labour will reform and redesign UC, ending six-week delays in payment and the ‘rape clause’.</li>
</ul>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;"><br /></span></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">=</span></span>Liberal Democrats:</div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<ul>
<li>We will separate employment support from benefits administration – making Jobcentres places of training and support into work.</li>
<li>We will encourage people into work by reversing the cuts to Work Allowances in Universal Credit, enabling people to work for longer before their benefits are cut.</li>
</ul>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP:<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green:<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">=</span></span>SNP:</div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<h4>
<a name="families">
Families with children</a></h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives:<br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour:<br />
<ul>
<li>The cuts to work allowances in Universal Credit (UC), and the decision to limit tax credit and UC payments to the first two children in a family, are an attack on low-income families and will increase child poverty. Labour will reform and redesign UC, ending six-week delays in payment and the ‘rape clause’.</li>
</ul>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">=</span></span>Liberal Democrats:<br />
<ul>
<li>We will take 13,000 children out of poverty by letting both parents earn before their Universal Credit is cut and also reverse cuts to the Family Element.</li>
<li>Abandon the two-child policy on family benefits and abolish the Conservatives’ ‘rape clause’ where a woman has to declare children that are born as a result of rape in order to access benefits.</li>
</ul>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP:<br />
<ul>
<li>We will limit child benefit to two children for new claimants.</li>
</ul>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green:<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">=</span></span>SNP:<br />
<ul>
<li>The SNP strongly opposes the cap that restricts Child Tax Credits to the first two children and the removal of the family element of Universal Credit</li>
<li>We oppose the ruthless and inhumane Rape Clause which forces women to relive the ordeal of rape in order to claim tax credits for third or subsequent children</li>
<li>We will extend the eligibility to Winter Fuel Payment to families with severely disabled children.</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="font-family: times;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<h4>
<a name="older">
Older people</a></h4>
<h4>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-weight: normal; margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives:<br />
<ul>
<li>We will keep our promise to maintain the Triple Lock until 2020, and when it expires we will introduce a new Double Lock, meaning that pensions will rise in line with the earnings that pay for them, or in line with inflation – whichever is highest. </li>
<li>We will also ensure that the state pension age reflects increases in life expectancy, while protecting each generation fairly.</li>
<li>We will means-test Winter Fuel Payments, focusing assistance on the least well-off pensioners, who are most at risk of fuel poverty. </li>
<li>We will maintain all other pensioner benefits, including free bus passes, eye tests, prescriptions and TV licences, for the duration of this parliament.</li>
</ul>
<br /></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour:<br />
<ul>
<li>Labour will guarantee the state pension ‘triple lock’ throughout the next Parliament. It will rise by at least 2.5 per cent a year or be increased to keep pace with inflation or earnings, whichever is higher.</li>
<li>The Winter Fuel Allowance and free bus passes will also be guaranteed as universal benefits.</li>
<li>Labour will legislate so that accrued rights to the basic state pension cannot be changed, but future benefits can.</li>
<li>The pension age is due to rise to 66 by the end of 2020. Labour rejects the Conservatives’ proposal to increase the state pension age even further. We will commission a new review of the pension age, specifically tasked with developing a flexible retirement policy to reflect both the contributions made by people, the wide variations in life expectancy, and the arduous conditions of some work.</li>
</ul>
<br /></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">=</span></span>Liberal Democrats:<br />
<ul>
<li>We will maintain the ‘triple lock’ of increasing the state pension each year by the highest of earnings growth, prices growth or 2.5% for the next parliament</li>
<li>We will withdraw eligibility for the Winter Fuel Payment from pensioners who pay tax at the higher rate (40%). We will retain the free bus pass for all pensioners.</li>
</ul>
<br /></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP:<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green:<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="font-weight: normal;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">=</span></span>SNP:</div>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-weight: normal;">We will vote to protect the Triple Lock, ensuring that pensions continue to rise by inflation, earnings or 2.5 per cent - whatever is the highest.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-weight: normal;">SNP MPs will oppose plans to increase the State Pension Age beyond 66. </span></li>
<li><span style="font-weight: normal;">We will protect the Winter Fuel Payment.</span></li>
</ul>
</div>
</h4>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<h4>
<a name="hben">
Housing benefit</a></h4>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives:</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour:<br />
<ul>
<li>We will scrap the Bedroom Tax.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">=</span></span>Liberal Democrats:<br />
<ul>
<li>We will increase Local Housing Allowance (LHA) in line with average rents in an area, ensuring that LHA is enough for a family to pay their housing costs no matter where they live.</li>
<li>We will scrap the ‘bedroom tax’, while seeking to achieve the aim of making best use of the housing supply through incentivising local authorities to help tenants ‘downsize’.</li>
</ul>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP: </div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<ul>
<li>We will scrap the bedroom tax.</li>
<li>We will give tenants the right to request Housing Benefit is paid direct to their landlords, whatever benefit scheme they are on</li>
</ul>
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green: </div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<ul>
<li>We will abolish the cruel and unfair bedroom tax.</li>
</ul>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">=</span></span>SNP:<br />
<ul>
<li>SNP MPs will continue to demand that the Bedroom Tax is scrapped across the UK.</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<br />
<h4>
<a name="misc">
Miscellaneous</a></h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives:<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour:<br />
<ul>
<li>We will scrap the punitive sanctions regime</li>
<li>We will scrap cuts to Bereavement Support Payment</li>
</ul>
<div class="p1">
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">=</span></span>Liberal Democrats:<br />
<ul>
<li>We will uprate working-age benefits at least in line with inflation.</li>
</ul>
<div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP:<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green:<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">=</span></span>SNP:<br />
<ul>
<li></li>
<li>We will call for the end of the cash freeze that the Tories have imposed on many benefits, leaving families struggling as the cost of living rises. Instead, we will support the annual uprating of all benefits by at least CPI inflation.</li>
<li>The SNP will continue to call for the current sanction regime to be scrapped.</li>
<li>SNP MPs will continue to argue for a complete halt to the roll out of Universal Credit until it is designed to treat everyone with fairness and respect, and will continue to call for it to be fully devolved to Scotland.</li>
<li>SNP MPs will continue to fight for an end to premium-rate telephone charges faced by those seeking advice on or claiming benefits from the DWP.</li>
<li>SNP MPs will support the reversal of the cuts to Bereavement Payments and Widowed Parents’ Allowance. </li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
</div>
</div>
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<h3>
Commitments that are relevant to the vulnerable, including benefit claimants</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
<a name="minwage">
Minimum wage and living wage</a></h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives:<br />
<ul>
<li>A new Conservative government will continue to increase the National Living Wage to 60 per cent of median earnings by 2020 and then by the rate of median earnings,</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour:<br />
<ul>
<li>We will Raise the Minimum Wage to the level of the Living Wage (expected to be at least £10 per hour by 2020) – for all workers aged 18 or over, so that work pays.</li>
</ul>
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">=</span></span>Liberal Democrats:<br />
<ul>
<li>We will establish an independent review to consult on how to set a genuine living wage across all sectors. We will pay this living wage in all central government departments and their agencies, and encourage other public-sector employers to do likewise.</li>
</ul>
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP:<br />
<ul>
<li>We will enforce the minimum and living wage and reverse government cuts to the number of minimum wage inspectors in England and Wales</li>
</ul>
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green:<br />
<ul>
<li>We will create a fairer working world for young people by scrapping age- related wage bands and raising the national minimum wage to living wage levels for all.</li>
</ul>
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">=</span></span>SNP:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>We will support moves over the next Parliament to increase the Minimum Wage to the level of the real Living Wage.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
<a name="zero">
Zero-hours contracts, agency work, and related issues</a></h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour:<br />
<ul>
<li>We will ban zero hours contracts – so that every worker gets a guaranteed number of hours each week.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">=</span></span>Liberal Democrats:<br />
<ul>
<li>We will stamp out abuse of zero-hours contracts. We will create a formal right to request a fixed contract and consult on introducing a right to make regular patterns of work contractual after a period of time.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP:<br />
<ul>
<li>We will significantly tighten up rules on zero hours contracts and severely limit their use.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green:</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">=</span></span>SNP:<br />
<ul>
<li>The SNP will press the UK government to ban exploitative zero-hours contracts, and ensure that workers have appropriate rights and protections, including holiday and sick pay.</li>
</ul>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<h4>
<a name="house">
Housing</a></h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<ul>
<li>We will meet our 2015 commitment to deliver a million homes by the end of 2020 and we will deliver half a million more by the end of 2022.</li>
<li>We will enter into new Council Housing Deals with ambitious, pro-development, local authorities to help them build more social housing.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour:</div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<ul>
<li>By the end of the next Parliament we will be building at least 100,000 council and housing association homes a year for genuinely affordable rent or sale.</li>
<li>Labour will make new three-year tenancies the norm, with an inflation cap on rent rises. </li>
<li>We will legislate to ban letting agency fees for tenants.</li>
<li>The Labour government would introduce new legal minimum standards to ensure properties are unfit for human habitation’ and empower tenants to take action if their rented homes are sub-standard.</li>
<li>We will remove government restrictions that stop councils building homes and begin the biggest council building programme for at least 30 years. </li>
<li>We will ditch the Conservatives’ ban on long-term council tenancies to give council tenants security in their homes.</li>
<li>Labour will suspend the right-to-buy policy to protect affordable homes for local people, with councils only able to resume sales if they can prove they have a plan to replace homes sold like-for-like.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">=</span></span>Liberal Democrats:<br />
<ul>
<li>We will help people who cannot afford a deposit by introducing a new Rent to Own model where rent payments give tenants an increasing stake in the property, owning it outright after 30 years.</li>
<li>We will improve renting by banning lettings fees for tenants, capping upfront deposits and increasing minimum standards in rented homes.</li>
<li>We will help young people into the rental market by establishing a new Help to Rent scheme to provide government-backed tenancy deposit loans for all first-time renters under 30.</li>
<li>We will ensure that all local authorities have at least one provider of the Housing First model of provision for long-term, entrenched homeless people.</li>
<li>We will promote longer tenancies of three years or more with an inflation-linked annual rent increase built in, to give tenants security and limit rent hikes. </li>
<li>We will improve protections against rogue landlords through mandatory licensing and</li>
<li>allow access for tenants to the database of rogue landlords and property</li>
<li>agents.</li>
<li>We will end the Voluntary Right to Buy pilots that sell off housing association homes and the associated high value asset levy. </li>
<li>We will lift the borrowing cap on local authorities and increase the borrowing capacity of housing associations so that they can build council and social housing. </li>
<li>We will scrap exemptions on smaller housing development schemes from their obligation to provide affordable homes, and strengthen the hand of local government to prevent large developers reneging on their commitments. </li>
<li>We will require local plans to take into account at least 15 years of future housing need – focusing on long-term development and community needs.</li>
<li>We will enable local authorities to: levy up to 200% council tax on second homes and ‘buy to leave empty’ investments from overseas; enforce housebuilding on unwanted public sector land; penalise excessive land-banking when builders with planning permission have failed to build after three years; and end the Right to Buy if they choose.</li>
<li>Work with local authorities to deliver a significant increase in social and affordable housing in rural areas.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP:<br />
<ul>
<li>We will roll out high quality, low cost factory- built modular (FBM) homes, affordable on the national average wage of £26,000. Homes constructed will be sold on a freehold basis to first time buyers up to the age of 40 who are British citizens and who have a 10 per cent deposit.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green:<br />
<ul>
<li>We will introduce a living rent for all through rent controls and more secure tenancies for private renters, an end to letting fees and the introduction of mandatory licensing for all landlords.</li>
<li>We will give tenants a voice by supporting the development of renters’ unions.</li>
<li>We will introduce a major programme to build affordable, zero carbon homes, including 100,000 social rented homes each year by 2022.</li>
<li>We will end mass council house sales and scrap Right to Buy at discounted prices.</li>
<li>We will take action on empty homes to bring them back into use and a trial of a Land Value Tax to encourage the use of vacant land and reduce speculation.</li>
<li>We will help first-time buyers by aiming for house price stability - axing buy-to-let tax breaks, and backing community-led approaches to building affordable homes.</li>
<li>We will significantly improve housing choice for deaf, disabled and older people by requiring all councils to appropriately plan for their housing needs and significantly increase the numbers of homes built to lifetime home and mobility standards over the next 5 years.</li>
</ul>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">=</span></span>SNP:</div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br />
<br />
<h4>
<a name="home">
Homelessness</a></h4>
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives:<br />
<ul>
<li>We will continue to combat homelessness and rough sleeping including through full implementation of the Homelessness Reduction Act. Our aim will be to halve rough sleeping over the course of the parliament and eliminate it altogether by 2027. To achieve this we will set up a new homelessness reduction taskforce that will focus on prevention and affordable housing, and we will pilot a Housing First approach to tackle rough sleeping.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour:<br />
<ul>
<li>We will set out a new national plan to end rough sleeping within the next Parliament, starting by making available 4,000 additional homes reserved for people with a history of rough sleeping. </li>
<li>We will also take action to tackle the root causes of homelessness, including safeguarding homeless hostels and other supported housing.</li>
</ul>
<div>
<span style="color: #f1c232; font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;">=</span>Liberal Democrats:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>We will end the scandal of rough sleeping by increasing support for homelessness prevention and adequately funding age-appropriate emergency accommodation and supported housing,</li>
<li>We will ensure that all local authorities have at least one provider of the Housing First model of provision for long-term, entrenched homeless people.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<br />
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green:</div>
<ul>
<li>We will stop declaring people as ‘intentionally homeless’ and give Local Authorities the same duties towards single people and childless couples as to families.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<h4>
</h4>
<h4>
<a name="child">
Childcare</a></h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives:<br />
<ul>
<li>We will introduce, this year, thirty hours of free childcare for three and four-year-olds for working parents who find it difficult to manage the costs of childcare. </li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour:<br />
<ul>
<li>We will overhaul the existing childcare system in which subsidies are given directly to parents who often struggle to use them, and transition to a system of high-quality childcare places in mixed environments with direct government subsidy.</li>
<li>Maintain current commitments on free hours and make significant capital investment during our first two years of government, to ensure that the places exist to meet demand.</li>
<li>Phase in subsidised provision on top of free-hour entitlements, to ensure that everyone has access to affordable childcare, no matter their working pattern.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">=</span></span>Liberal Democrats:<br />
<ul>
<li>Provide 15 hours a week of free childcare to the parents of all two-year-olds in England. We will then prioritise 15 hours’ free childcare for all working parents in England with children aged between nine months and two years.</li>
<li>Commit to an ambitious long-term goal of 30 hours’ free childcare a week for all parents in England with children aged from two to four years, and all working parents from the end of paid parental leave to two years. This will not only help parents afford to work, but will also help all children start school confident, happy and ready to learn.</li>
</ul>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP:<br />
<ul>
<li>UKIP will allow parents to use their free childcare entitlements to access a greater choice of childcare providers by removing restrictions limiting them only to Ofsted-registered childcare providers. </li>
<li>We will extend the primary school day by offering wrap-around childcare from 8am to 6pm during term time</li>
<li>We will require local authorities to keep a register of childcare providers willing to provide emergency childcare cover at short notice</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green:<br />
<ul>
<li>We will provide free universal early education and childcare for all children, with formal education starting at age 7.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">=</span></span>SNP:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>By 2021 we will increase the provision of free early years education and childcare to 30 hours [Scotland only]</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<h4>
<a name="trib">
Social security and employment tribunals</a></h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives:<br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour:<br />
<ul>
<li>We will abolish employment tribunal fees – so that people have access to justice.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;"><br /></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">=</span></span>Liberal Democrats:<br />
<ul>
<li>We will strengthen enforcement of employment rights, including by bringing together relevant enforcement agencies and scrapping employment tribunal fees.</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP:</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green:</div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;"><br /></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">=</span></span>SNP:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>SNP MPs will call for the UK government to follow the lead of the Scottish Government by abolishing fees for Employment Tribunals.</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<br />
<br /></div>
<h4>
<a name="advice">
Support for advice services</a></h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives:<br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour:<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">=</span></span>Liberal Democrats:</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP:</div>
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;"><br /></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green:<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
</div>
</div>
<br />
<div style="font-family: times; margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "webdings"; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">=</span></span>SNP:</div>
</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4352011419058403668.post-72144588152418582792017-04-07T08:24:00.000-07:002017-04-12T03:33:12.639-07:00April benefit changes (mostly reductions...)April is the month that changes to benefit rules announced in budgets and autumn statements usually take effect. This includes everything from major structural changes to annual inflationary increases. It won't surprise anyone, I think, that almost all the changes this April are negative ones...<br />
<br />
<h4>
Annual uprating</h4>
<br />
In the 2015 budget the then chancellor announced a freeze on the main working age benefits: there would be no inflationary increase in 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019. There is no freeze on benefit rates for claimants who are old enough to receive a state pension.<br />
<br />
For working age claimants, it is easiest to list which rates are going up:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Bereavement benefits (although see below in this post for bad news for some bereaved claimants);</li>
<li>Disability Living Allowance and Personal Independence Payment </li>
<li>Carer’s Allowance ;</li>
<li>Disability and carer related premiums that form part of means-tested benefits (for example, a single claimant who is on income-based JSA and is also in receipt of Personal Independence Payment their basic personal allowance will remain the same as previously (£73.10 per week) but the additional disability premium they should be getting will rise (from £32.25 to £32.55 per week); </li>
<li>The extra amount of Employment and Support Allowance and Universal Credit paid to claimants in the 'support group' - there is <u><i>no</i></u> increase to extra amount paid to claimants in the 'work-related activity group' (and see below for other changes for new claimants);</li>
<li>Incapacity Benefit (for the few claimants who are still getting this);</li>
<li>Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit, and related benefits;</li>
<li>Maternity Allowance;</li>
<li>Statutory Sick Pay, Maternity Pay, Paternity Pay, and Adoption Pay;</li>
<li>Adult dependancy increases for some benefits (rare).</li>
</ul>
<br />
There's also a (very) small positive change to Universal Credit. The taper rate is being reduced from 65% to 63%. This means that any relevant earnings received by a claimant reduces their benefit by 63p in the pound rather than 65p. This does not, though, come close to redressing the reductions in 2016 of the work allowances (the amount claimants can earn without their benefit being affected).<br />
<br />
<h4>
Employment and Support Allowance (and Universal Credit for claimants who are not fit for work)</h4>
<br />
This is a real stinker (in my opinion).<br />
<br />
Some background first. Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) is a benefit for claimants who are not fit for work (or, in government-speak, have a 'limited capability for work'). Claimants on this benefit are assessed under the work capability assessment. Those who satisfy this test are then divided into two groups: the work-related activity group (who are expected to participate in activities to help them become more able to move into work) and the support group (who are judged to be too ill or disabled to undertake any activities). Until April, claimants who were placed in the work-related activity group were paid an extra £29.05 (the 'work-related activity component') as well as their standard £73.10 per week: claimants in the support group were paid an extra £36.20 (or, sometimes £51.95).<br />
<br />
From April this year <i><u>new</u></i> claimants who are placed in the work-related activity group will no longer be entitled to that extra £29.05 (existing claimants will not be affected). The government's justification, insofar as I understand it, is that giving claimants this money encourages them to stay 'on the sick' rather than look for work, and that it's not fair to give them more money than claimants who are on Jobseeker's Allowance and looking for work.<br />
<br />
This is not the place for a lengthy critique of this position, but I will make the following observations. Firstly, most claimants of ESA - in my experience - do not choose to be unfit for work, and are not realistically able to comply with all the requirements placed on jobseekers. Secondly, those claimants who really should be looking for work will generally find it hard to stay on ESA: it's hard enough for claimants who definitely shouldn't be looking for work. Thirdly, the extra amount was included in the original rules because it was thought that people with health problems and disabilities generally have additional expenses that the healthy and able-bodied do not have.<br />
<br />
And finally, there's a very obvious injustice. Claimants on Jobseeker's Allowance who are also in receipt of Disability Living Allowance or Personal Independence Payment are entitled to an extra £32.55* per week: this is called the 'disability premium'. This was left out when the rules for ESA were drawn up, presumably because the extra amounts paid to claimants in the work-related activity and support groups dealt with this. The work-related activity component has been removed, but the disability premium hasn't been put back in. So a claimant on ESA who also gets Disability Living Allowance or Personal Independence Payment will get £32.25* per week less than if they were on JSA. How can this be fair?<br />
<br />
For claimants in the Universal Credit system, there are equivalent changes that have roughly the same effect.<br />
<br />
*For couples this figure is £46.40.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Changes to Child Tax Credit (CTC) (and to how children are treated by Universal Credit)</h4>
<br />
There are two major changes here:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>New claims for CTC from 6th April will not include the 'family element' - previously £545 per year in the award.</li>
<li>There will be no extra amounts paid in respect for third or further children born on or after 6th April. This applies to both new and existing claims.</li>
</ol>
<div>
People who are in the Universal Credit system will also no longer receive extra amounts for third or further children.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Clearly a key concern here, among others, is that of the impact on these changes on 'non-consensual conception', or what many of us might call 'rape'. Although the law does provide that a claimant will not be affected by this change in these circumstances, this puts a female claimant in the potential position of having to prove that they were raped. This raises all sorts of questions about privacy, dignity, and burdens of proof. The Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) expressed these concerns in a letter to the Minister of State for Employment, but he did not change the rules to address these concerns. You can read the SSAC's letter here: <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/590932/ssac-to-damian-hinds-2-child-exceptions.pdf" target="_blank">www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/590932/ssac-to-damian-hinds-2-child-exceptions.pdf</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>And finally...</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<h4>
Bereavement Benefits</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
These have been completely redesigned. The information that follows is a very brief summary of the main points.<br />
<br />
Hitherto claimants could apply for a Bereavement Payment - a one off amount of £2,000 - and either:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Widowed Parent's Allowance - the claimant must be responsible for at least one child , or</li>
<li>Bereavement Allowance - but this is only payable for 52 weeks, and the claimant must have been 45 years old or more when their spouse died.</li>
</ul>
<div>
All these benefits are dependent on the deceased having paid enough National Insurance contributions. In both cases the amount payable is usually £113.70 per week (but can be less, depending on NI contributions).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
From 6th April these are all abolished for new claimants, and replaced by <b>Bereavement Support Payments</b>. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Claimants who are getting Child Benefit (or pregnant) are entitled to monthly payments of £350 for 18 months, and an additional first payment of £3,500 in the first month.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Other claimants are entitled to monthly payments of £100 for 18 months, and an additional first payment of £2,500 in the first month.</div>
<br />
There are some advantages to the new scheme: payment is no longer dependent on the deceased spouse's NI contributions, and claimants do not have to be at least 45 years old when they were bereaved.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, the ongoing payments are much less (roughly equivalent to £80.77 and £23.08 per week), and the payments to claimants with children are now time limited. Under the previous scheme, a claimant who was bereaved 10 years before their final child grew up might be entitled to Widowed Parent's Allowance totalling very roughly £60,000 over that time. Under the new rules the same person would only get £9,800 (including the initial extra payment of £3,500).<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4352011419058403668.post-45601860984054002752016-10-18T14:46:00.002-07:002016-10-26T12:58:03.374-07:00The beginning of the end for appeal hearings - CONSULTATION EXTENDEDIn my last post, published on 18th October, I talked about worrying proposals that threaten to restrict claimants' access to justice if they have to appeal benefits decisions (you can look at that post here: <a href="http://benefitsowl.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/the-beginning-of-end-of-appeal-hearings.html" target="_blank">http://benefitsowl.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/the-beginning-of-end-of-appeal-hearings.html</a>) if it doesn't appear just below this one.<br />
<br />
In that post I said that the deadline to submit responses to the consultation was 27th October.<br />
<br />
Well, it seems that the Ministry of Justice didn't give us all the right documents to look at. They have therefore closed that consultation early and split the matter into different consultations, and giving new deadlines for each one:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>For the assisted digital strategy (in which the stuff about restrictions in the right to oral hearings is located (if you look hard enough)) the deadline is now <b>10th November</b>;</li>
<li>For the constitution of appeal tribunals, the deadline is now <b>24th November</b>.</li>
</ul>
<br />
For more information, and to access the new consultations, go to:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-our-courts-and-tribunals/" target="_blank">https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-our-courts-and-tribunals/</a><br />
<br />
<br />
If you haven't made your own opinions clear yet, or want to add improve your previous thoughts, you've got more time!<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4352011419058403668.post-45262344181149966172016-10-18T14:46:00.000-07:002016-10-18T14:51:19.592-07:00The beginning of the end for appeal hearings?Did you know the government is currently consulting on wide-ranging proposals to reform the UK's justice system?<br />
<br />
If not, you could easily be forgiven: the consultation began just a month ago, on 15th September without much of a blaze of publicity. And it closes in not much more than a week's time, on <b>27th October</b>. If some of the proposals become law, it will be even harder for benefit claimants to get justice when they are wrongly refused benefit.<br />
<br />
You can find the consultation documents (and enter your own responses) here:<br />
<a href="https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-our-courts-and-tribunals/" target="_blank">https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-our-courts-and-tribunals/</a><br />
<br />
If the proposals become law:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>It will no longer be normal to have a tribunal hearing that you can attend, if you are refused benefit. Many people appealing decisions will have their cases decided by judges just looking at the documents they have received. Others will have their cases heard on the phone, or by videolink. Much of the work involved in dealing with cases will not be undertaken by qualified judges, but by case officers. Appellants will be encouraged to resolve their cases by agreement with the DWP through mediation.</li>
<li>The tribunal administration process will be entirely digital, and will need to be accessed online.</li>
<li>Disability and capability for work tribunals will not have to include medically qualified members or disability members.</li>
</ul>
<div>
The government's stated aims of the proposals are to create a system that is <b>just</b>, <b>proportionate</b>, and <b>accessible</b>. I think the key word here is 'proportionate', which I read as 'cheaper'. I see no evidence that the new system will be anything other than <i>less</i> just, and <i>less</i> accessible.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Here are a small selection of the reasons why I am worried, and angry:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>The evidence is clear that not having a hearing that you attend (an 'oral' hearing) reduces your chances of a successful appeal. For example, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/oct/12/online-benefits-appeals-tribunals-disabled" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> cites research by University College London that showed that people appealing against adverse Disability Living Allowance (DLA) decisions were almost three times more likely to succeed at oral hearings than if there cases were heard 'on the papers'. </li>
<li>Mediation does not appear to be appropriate to this arena. Mediation is valuable when two, roughly equal, parties need help to resolve an emotionally charged dispute where compromise is a crucial to achieving a satisfactory outcome. But in a benefit appeal:</li>
<ul>
<li> the parties are not equal: a individual is in dispute with a government department;</li>
<li>The only emotional content in the dispute is probably the dispute itself: and there is presumably no emotional involvement on the part of the DWP. </li>
<li>Most importantly, compromise is neither appropriate or desirable. The purpose of a benefit tribunal is to decide whether a specific benefit, or rate of benefit, should be awarded or not (or, sometimes, whether an overpayment is recoverable or not). This is a matter to be decided on the facts. A compromise can only mean an outcome in which the appellant gets less than what they are entitled to, the <i>quid pro quo</i> presumably being that the DWP has to pay them more money than they would like to pay (which I imagine is nothing).</li>
</ul>
<li>How will video/phone appeals work in the real world? What if the client has no phone credit, or a bad internet connection. What if they have to call from a busy flat, accompanied by barking dog and crying baby? </li>
<li>More generally, how will a process that is entirely digitally mediated work for those claimants who cannot easily access the internet, whether through ability or resource limitations? The consultation document accepts that the proportion of the population who are 'digital excluded' may be disproportionately represented in those involved in benefit appeals, but doesn't go on to propose quantified solutions to this. (Ominously, though, it does suggest that 'legal service providers' may judge there is a sufficient demand for a paid-for digital service as a means to generating profit' [From Paragraph 37 of <a href="https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-our-courts-and-tribunals/supporting_documents/assisteddigitalia.PDF" target="_blank">Impact Assessment: Assisted Digital</a>].)</li>
<li>The proposals regarding 'lay members' of tribunals look a bit weasel-wordy to me. They talk about giving the tribunal service flexibility to chose where best to direct the resource of medical and disability experts. Translated, I think this means that the service will not have enough experts to cover all the tribunals, so will have to make difficult decisions about how to ration them out. </li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
Whatever the motivations behind these proposals, what they <i>seem</i> to be saying to those who need to appeal benefit decisions is this: You are a nuisance. You have come to believe that you are entitled to your day in court, but you are wrong. You are not worth the state paying for a judge to hear your case in an oral hearing, or for medical experts to help the judge make an informed decision. The courts are for important people discussing important things: you should not be there.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
You can find the consultation document here:<br />
<a href="https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-our-courts-and-tribunals/supporting_documents/consultationpaper.pdf" target="_blank">https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-our-courts-and-tribunals/supporting_documents/consultationpaper.pdf</a><br />
<br />
You can also read an excellent article in the Guardian here:<br />
<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/oct/12/online-benefits-appeals-tribunals-disabled" target="_blank">https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/oct/12/online-benefits-appeals-tribunals-disabled</a><br />
<br />
<br />
(NB If you want to participate in the consultation (and I really hope you do) beware. If you look for a consultation question about the reduced role of oral hearings you won't find it. I've shoehorned my comments into the two questions on Assisted Digital (and, by the way, does anyone else think there Q1 in this section is almost completely meaningless?).Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4352011419058403668.post-51813541263321868842016-02-02T11:02:00.001-08:002016-02-02T11:02:42.632-08:00Bedroom Tax - what do the recent appeal decisions mean?On Wednesday last week, the media reported on two successful appeals in the Court of Appeal against the bedroom tax (or, strictly speaking, the 'Housing benefit size criteria restrictions for working age claimants in the social rented sector from April 2013'). The Guardian's report on it is here: <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/27/appeal-court-rules-bedroom-tax-discriminatory-in-two-cases" target="_blank">http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/27/appeal-court-rules-bedroom-tax-discriminatory-in-two-cases</a><br />
<br />
However, it's important not to get too excited - firstly, because the court judgement only applies to two specific situations; and secondly, because the government has been granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.<br />
<br />
You can see the full text of the Court of Appeal decision here: <a href="http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/29.html" target="_blank">www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/29.html</a><br />
<br />
<h4>
What are the two cases about?</h4>
<br />
One case concerns a women ('A') whose previous partner was extremely violent towards her (and is currently serving a sentence for attempted murder). A multi-agency initiative called a <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sanctuary-schemes-for-households-at-risk-of-domestic-violence-guide-for-agencies" target="_blank">sanctuary scheme</a> enables her to live in her own home with her son. The home has three bedrooms, one of which has been converted into a secure 'panic room'. This means that under the current rules she has one room too many, and as a result her housing benefit was reduced by 14%.<br />
<br />
The other case is about a woman ('SR') who (with her husband) cares for her severely disabled grandson. Respite carers stay overnight twice a week to enable the couple to have two nights a week when they don't have to be ready to intervene. Once the bedroom tax came in they were found to be underoccupying, and their housing benefit was reduced by 14%.<br />
<br />
In both cases the local authorities have awarded Discretionary Housing Payments ('DHP's)to cover the shortfall so far, but there is - by definition - no guarantee that these payments will continue.<br />
<br />
<h4>
What were the legal issues the court of appeal had to consider?</h4>
<br />
The main issue in both cases was one of discrimination. The lawyers for A and SR argued that the rules discriminated against their A on the grounds of gender (because women are more likely to be victims of domestic violence) and against SR on the grounds of disability: if her grandson were not disabled there would have been no need for an extra room.<br />
<br />
<i>Note: this means that if you do not have a panic room, or need your extra room for overnight carers, this case does not help you.</i><br />
<br />
Unfortunately, it was not enough for the lawyers to prove that women and disabled people are discriminated against: everyone, including the government, agrees that they are. What they had to show was the discrimination in these cases <i>couldn't be justified</i>.<br />
<br />
The position of the DWP, who represented the government in these cases, was (basically) that the discrimination can be justified because DHPs were available to meet the shortfall.<br />
<br />
The judges also had to consider two other court of appeal decisions about the bedroom tax<br />
<ul>
<li>'The <i>Burnip</i> case' (<a href="http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/629.html" target="_blank">www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/629.html</a>) : this is the one I referred to in earlier posts (for example: <a href="http://benefitsowl.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/disabled-people-and-bedroom-tax-update.html" target="_blank">benefitsowl.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/disabled-people-and-bedroom-tax-update.html</a>). This was the case that ruled that the bedroom tax should not be imposed when, for example, a disabled child needed their own bedroom.</li>
<li>The '<i>MA</i>' case (<a href="http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/13.html" target="_blank">www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/13.html</a>): this case found against the five claimants whose cases were heard, but is due to be heard by the Supreme Court in March this year.</li>
</ul>
<h4>
What did the court decide?</h4>
<div>
<br />
The judges decided that in neither A's nor SR's cases was the discrimination justified. In both cases they thought that the reasons that the <i>Burnip</i> case was successful applied to A and to SR as well. It was not enough for the DWP to say that DHPs were available to fill the gap: there was no guarantee that the claimants would be able to keep getting them.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
However...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
They also gave permission for the DWP to appeal to the Supreme Court. This appeal is likely to happen soon: the judges in the A and SR appeal noted that the Supreme Court might here these cases together with the MA case, which is due to be heard in March. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
What does this all mean for claimants now?</h4>
<div>
<br />
For most people, very little. We need to wait for the Supreme Court to look at these issues. But if you have recently had a Housing Benefit decision which includes a reduction due to the bedroom tax, you should appeal, if your situation is similar to the A's, or SR's, <u>or any of the people in the <i>MA</i> case</u>, to protect your position in case the Supreme Court rules in favour of cases like yours. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
This is a list of the situations of all the claimants whose cases will be heard by the Supreme Court:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>A female claimant who, as someone supported by a sanctuary scheme, has a 'panic room';</li>
<li>A family with a disabled child, for whom overnight carers need a bedroom;</li>
<li>A disabled adult who needs a special, hospital-type, bed, and whose partner therefore needs to sleep in a separate room;</li>
<li>A disabled adult who shares their home with another disabled person who is a student and therefore lives elsewhere some of the time, where one room in their home is used to store disability-related equipment;</li>
<li>A claimant with mental health problems, as a result of which most of the rooms in his home are filled with clutter;</li>
<li>A claimant who lives with, and cares for, his disabled daughter, and whose home (which has one 'extra' bedroom) has been extensively adapted to meet her needs;</li>
<li>A claimant with a disabled son, who spend most of his time with his mother (the claimant's ex-partner) but sometimes stays with the claimant in an otherwise spare bedroom.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
In fact, it might be a good idea to appeal even if you don't fit these categories, just in case the outcome of the hearing affects you.<br />
<br />
I've been careful to keep my opinions out of this post, and just state the facts. But let's not forget that this is about real people. Many of them save the state massive amounts of money by choosing to care for family members, with very little appreciation or financial support. If you want to earth all this in real people's stories and circumstances, I suggest you read the 'annex' of the MA case, which describes the claimants' situations in more detail.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4352011419058403668.post-32278559685041259282016-01-04T12:24:00.000-08:002016-01-04T12:24:26.584-08:00A question about tax creditsI recently received this query about tax credits and self-employment. With the person's agreement I have answered his questions as this public post. Both the person's name and some non-relevant information have been changed.<br />
<br />
<i>'I was receiving Self Employed Working Tax Credits for 3 years after claiming Jobseeker's allowance before that. I was earning an insufficient amount to make my situation sustainable so I moved onto Universal Credit in June. In December I received a letter from HMRC re my tax credits award for the tax year 2014-15 with a 30 part questionnaire. I am nervous about how exactly I should answer some of these questions. </i><i>If unhappy with my level of activity are HMRC likely to claim all my Tax Credits back? </i><i>Are HMRC likely to charge me an additional penalty if they consider my activity does not constitute 30 hrs of work and I had not informed them? </i><i>I know that HMRC changed their approach to Self Employed Tax Credits in April, but I thought this was for new and current claims</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>"Bill W"'</i><br />
<br />
There's quite a few issues hidden inside this query: I'm going to tease these out and deal with them individually.<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>How does self-employment fit into the tax credit rules (and how did this change in April 2015)?</li>
<li>What powers does Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs ('HMRC') have regarding tax credits paid for previous years?</li>
<li>What should I do if I get a letter from HMRC's compliance team?</li>
<li>What rights do you have if they ask you to pay money back from previous years? </li>
</ol>
<br />
<h3>
1. How does self-employment fit into the tax credit rules (and how did this change in April 2015)?</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
To be entitled to Working Tax Credit you need to be in 'qualifying remunerative work'[1]. The work can be as an employee or as self-employed, but must be done 'for payment or in expectation of payment', and you must normally work at least 30 hours per week, or, for some people, 16 hours per week (for more details about this see <a href="http://www.benefitsowl.info/tax%20credits.html" target="_blank">www.benefitsowl.info/tax credits.html</a>).<br />
<br />
For employed earners showing this is easy enough: clearly for self-employed people it's a bit trickier: it may be hard to show that you're doing work for payment or in expectation of payment if you've only just started. It can also be hard to show how many hours you work.<br />
<br />
<u>All the above requirements have been in place since tax credits were invented.</u><br />
<br />
Now let's look at what changed in April 2015.<br />
<br />
The main change[2] was to add some wording to Regulation 2 of the Working Tax Credit (Entitlement and Maximum Rate) Regulations 2002. Regulation 2 is a long list of definitions used in the rest of the regulations. The change was to add some words to the definition of 'self-employed'.<br />
<ul>
<li>Before April 2015 it said '"self-employed" means engaged in carrying on a trade, profession or vocation;'</li>
<li>Now it says: '"self-employed" means engaged in carrying on a trade, profession or vocation <i>on a commercial basis and with a view to the realisation of profits, either on one’s own account or as a member of a business partnership and the trade, profession or vocation is organised and regular;</i>'</li>
</ul>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
Who would fit the rules before April 2015 but not afterwards? This would need to be someone who was carrying out a trade, profession, or vocation, and receiving or expecting payment, <i>but wasn't aiming to ever make a profit.</i> For example, someone who was employed for 29 hours per week and then spent an hour each week making and selling jam as a hobby probably wouldn't be able to use the jam-making to bring the hours up to 30.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
I suppose the use of the words 'commercial basis' is to rule out cases where there was a profit, but it was never expected to be more than a trivial amount.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
Note that you don't have to be making a profit to fit these rules: you just need to satisfy the authorities that you are aiming to make a profit eventually. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
As far as I can work out the change <i>cannot</i> be applied retrospectively (in other words, your activity shouldn't have to satisfy these rules before the rule change came in), although if someone was on Working Tax Credit before April 2015 they would have to meet the extra requirements from April 2015 onwards. If HMRC does try to apply the change retrospectively that decision should certainly be challenged (see below).</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
If you want to know more about the change, you might want to look at what the tax credit decision makers' manual has to say about it: <a href="http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/tctmanual/tctm02415.htm" target="_blank">http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/tctmanual/tctm02415.htm</a>. (Note that when it says 'you' it means the decision maker, not you!). You could also look at the following page on the gov.uk website: <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/revenue-and-customs-brief-7-2015-new-rules-for-the-self-employed-claiming-working-tax-credit/revenue-and-customs-brief-7-2015-new-rules-for-the-self-employed-claiming-working-tax-credit" target="_blank">www.gov.uk/government/publications/revenue-and-customs-brief-7-2015-new-rules-for-the-self-employed-claiming-working-tax-credit</a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<h3>
2. What powers does HMRC have regarding tax credits paid for previous years?</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As you probably know, tax credits are assessed on an annual basis. After the end of the tax year in early April, HMRC ask you for finalised information about your income for that year: they then issue a final decision: this is technically called a <b>Section 18 decision</b>[3]. As a result of this decision you may find that you have been overpaid, or underpaid, or paid just the right amount, for that - completed - tax year. Normally a Section 18 decision is the end of the matter.</div>
<br />
However there are two scenarios in which HMRC can re-assess finalised decisions:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>It has the power to open an enquiry and revise a final decision up to <i>one year</i> after the deadline for the annual review, if it thinks it is necessary[4]; </li>
<li>It can revise a final decision up to <i>five years</i> from the end of the tax year in question, <i>if</i> the decision was wrong due to fraud or neglect on the part of the claimant, or if a person's income liability was revised[5].</li>
</ul>
<br />
(The deadline for the annual review depends on a range of factors, but cannot normally be later than the first 31st January after the tax year in question ended.)<br />
<br />
Unless they suspect fraud or neglect they can only look at the most recent year. If, of course, the investigations into that year suggest that there has been fraud or neglect they can then extend the investigation backwards.<br />
<br />
The words 'fraud' and 'neglect' mean aren't defined in the rules: however the former is going to cover deliberate lies and omissions, and the latter is likely to come into play when a claimant simply can't be bothered to inform HMRC of changes, for example.<br />
<br />
In practice, these exercises are normally carried out by the infamous <b>compliance</b> department. It's worth bearing in mind that just because an enquiry is started it does not mean that the compliance team are necessarily expecting to find something wrong.<br />
<br />
So, if they compliance team ask you for information about the previous tax year, and you provide it (or their deadline to you expires) they could decide that everything checks out OK, in which case that's the end of the story.<br />
<br />
Alternatively, they could decide that the Section 18 decision was wrong, and issue a new decision replacing it. This new decision could reduce your award for that year, remove it completely, or increase it (unlikely!). They also have the following options:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>If they reduce or remove your award, this will have the effect of creating an overpayment which they will ask you to pay back;</li>
<li>If they think you have acted fraudulently or negligently, they can also: </li>
<ul>
<li>impose a penalty of up to £3,000[6];</li>
<li>open up the enquiry to cover previous years, up to the five year maximum.</li>
</ul>
</ul>
<div>
They may decide that you were not actually in 'qualifying remunerative work', but also that you've not done anything wrong enough to count as fraud or neglect. If this is what they decide they cannot issue a penalty or investigate previous years. </div>
<br />
<br />
<h3>
3. What should I do if I get a letter from HMRC's compliance team?</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
The obvious answer to this question is just to say that you need to respond to it, giving them any information they ask for. But there are some other things worth saying.<br />
<br />
If you don't respond to the request for the information, or miss their deadline, you will still have opportunities to pass on information in the future. They will make a decision based on what they do know, but you will then have the write to ask them to look into the matter again (see below) and if that doesn't work you will have the right to take the case to an independent tribunal (ditto).<br />
<br />
So if you're really struggling to give some information, or are reluctant to do so, that's OK. On the other hand, if there is information or documentation that supports your position, send it.<br />
<br />
Here's some more guidelines:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>You'll probably notice that some of the things they are for in the letter are not relevant to you (it might ask for P45s, which will be irrelevant if you've not worked as an employee): this is not surprising as the letter you're sent is likely to be a generic one. Remember that, for all they know, you <i>were</i>, say, an employee for part of the time, but didn't tell them.</li>
<li>If there is information you think might be helpful but they haven't asked for, by all means include this. For example, you could talk about difficulties you faced in your self-employment, and explain how you came to your decision to move from tax credits to Universal Credit.</li>
<li>Whatever you do don't guess, or even worse, invent, information, just to get your reply complete.</li>
</ul>
<br />
Once you send your reply in, they may send you further requests for information before they make their final decision. If you're worried this is going to drag on and you have nothing else to say, reply to them saying this, and asking them to make a decision. If they fail to do this, complain.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
4. What rights do you have if they ask you to pay money back from previous years? </h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<ul>
<li>If HMRC makes a decision that you were previously awarded the wrong amount, you have the right to challenge that decision. </li>
<li>If HMRC decided to impose a penalty, you have the right to challenge that decision (against both the existence and the size of the penalty).</li>
<li>You don't have the right to challenge the overpayment itself, but this doesn't matter because the overpayment is dependent on the decision changing the amount of the award, and this can be challenged.</li>
</ul>
<br />
If you want to challenge either a new entitlement decision or a penalty decision, or both, there is a two stage process:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>You must first ask HMRC to look again at their decision: this is called 'asking for a mandatory reconsideration'.</li>
<li>If this does not resolve the matter, you have the right to appeal to an independent tribunal.</li>
</ol>
<div>
For more details about how to do these, check out <a href="http://www.benefitsowl.info/TCopay4.html" target="_blank">http://www.benefitsowl.info/TCopay4.html</a>.</div>
<br />
<br />
At both stages, it's important to be clear about what you are disagreeing with, being careful to match this with the decision you are seeking to challenge:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>If HMRC hasn't accused you of fraud or neglect but is simply saying that what you were doing doesn't count as qualifying remunerative work, don't waste time saying you haven't been fraudulent or neglectful, instead say why what you were doing should count;</li>
<li>If they are accusing you of fraud or neglect, look exactly at their reasons for saying this (if they give clear enough reasons), and respond to these point by point;</li>
<li>If they are imposing a penalty, make sure you make clear that you are challenging this as well.</li>
</ul>
<div>
I said earlier in this post that I didn't see how they could apply the April 2015 change to previous years. If they do try this, make sure you make it clear at both stages that you believe that this is unlawful. (If they are trying to do this, this should be clear because the words from the change should appear somewhere (i.e. '<i>on a commercial basis and with a view to the realisation of profits, either on one’s own account or as a member of a business partnership and the trade, profession or vocation is organised and regular'</i>).)</div>
<br />
<br />
HMRC may propose to you that you agree some settlement with you: I have previously seen letters which seemed to be urging claimants against taking their cases to tribunals. Be very careful about accepting such proposals. You ultimately have the right to have your case heard by an independent body if that is what you want. If you have difficulty getting them to issue a formal response to your request for a mandatory reconsideration you should complain.<br />
<br />
Ultimately, cases like this are decided 'on the balance of probability'. It may not be possible for you to prove you were in qualifying remunerative work: but it may also not be possible for HMRC to prove that you <i>weren't</i>. A tribunal will need to consider and weigh all the evidence, including your testimony and how you come across at tribunal.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
Summary</h3>
<br />
To be entitled to working tax credit you need to be in 'qualifying remunerative work': this normally means working enough hours, and as well as this, for self-employed people, you need to be means engaged in carrying on a trade, profession or vocation.<br />
<br />
Since April 2015 self-employed claimants will need also need to show that the work is on a commercial basis and with a view to the realisation of profits.<br />
<br />
It is hard to see how the April 2015 change can be applied to tax credits paid before April 2015.<br />
<br />
HMRC have the right to re-open tax credits award up to one year after the deadline for the final review.<br />
<br />
HMRC have the right to change decisions going back up to five years in cases of fraud or neglect.<br />
<br />
If their compliance team writes to you, you should respond, but be aware that you will have the opportunity to supply further information if you need to challenge their decision.<br />
<br />
You have the right to challenge an HMRC decision to reduce an award, or to impose a penalty. You need to ask HMRC to look at their decision themselves first (mandatory reconsideration) but if that does not succeed you have the right to take your case to an independent tribunal (appeal).<br />
<br />
If HMRC does not progress your case properly you have the right to complain.<br />
<br />
Ultimately your case must be decided on the balance or probability. Just because you cannot provide conclusive proof of something it doesn't mean that you are not telling the truth, and HMRC and the tribunal need to take this into account when they consider your case.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
Information sources</h3>
<b><br /></b>
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">[1] Regulation 4 of the The Working Tax Credit (Entitlement and Maximum Rate) Regulations 2002: </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;"><a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/2005/regulation/4/made" target="_blank">http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/2005/regulation/4/made</a></span></b><br />
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">[2] </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;"><a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/605/made" target="_blank">The Working Tax Credit (Entitlement and Maximum Rate) (Amendment) Regulations 2015</a></span></b><br />
[3] Tax Credit Act Section 18: <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/21/section/18" target="_blank">http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/21/section/18</a><br />
[4] Tax Credit Act Section 19: <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/21/section/19" target="_blank">http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/21/section/19</a><br />
<div>
[5] Tax Credit Act Section 20: <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/21/section/20" target="_blank">http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/21/section/20</a><br />
[6] Tax Credit Act Section 31: <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/21/section/31" target="_blank">http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/21/section/31</a><br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4352011419058403668.post-20318112819350221852015-11-27T12:55:00.000-08:002015-11-27T12:56:28.115-08:00Chancellor's Autumn Statement - first the good news...<h3>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Let's look at the most talked about issue first: tax credits</span></h3>
<br />
Newspaper headlines excitedly reported the chancellor's annoucement in words like these: <i>'Tax credit cuts SCRAPPED in victory for working families'</i> (<a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/money/autumn-statement-2015-tax-credit-6897938" target="_blank">www.mirror.co.uk</a>, for example). Unfortunately the news, while good, is not <i>that</i> good (in fairness, later media consideration was more nuanced).<br />
<br />
So what proposals <i>has</i> the chancellor reversed?<br />
<br />
In <a href="http://benefitsowl.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/the-budget-and-benefits-part-1-changes.html" target="_blank">my post of 13th July</a>, I set out the proposed changes to tax credits as follows:<br />
<br />
<table border="1" style="width: 100%;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><br />
<div style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<b><i>Changes to tax credits for new and current claimants</i></b></div>
<div style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<ul style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px;">
<li><i>The income taper will be increased from 41% to 48% of gross income: in other words, for every pound over the threshold figure the claimant's tax credits will be reduced by 48p, rather than 41p (before 2011-12 it was 39%);</i></li>
<li><i>The threshold figure (see previous bullet point) will go down from £6,420 to £3,850: this means that any income over £3,850 will be taken into account now;</i></li>
<li><i>The income rise disregard will be reduced from £5,000 to £2,500 (at present, a claimant's income can rise by up to £5,000 during a tax year without affecting amount of tax credits paid for that year - this will change to £2,500);</i></li>
<li><i>No child element will be paid in respect to third (or additional) children born after April 2017. There will be exceptions for multiple births and disabled children. Compared to 2015-16 figures, this will reduce the maximum annual entitlement by £2,780 per child;</i></li>
<li><i>The powers available to HMRC to recover overpayments will be widened.</i></li>
</ul>
<div style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<b><i>Changes to tax credits for new claimants only</i></b></div>
<div style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<ul style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px;">
<li><i>The family element (currently worth £545) will no longer be included for families whose first baby is born in April 2017 or later (I suppose this could also apply to existing claimants of Working Tax Credits only, but who don't start a family until April 2017).</i></li>
</ul>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
The U-turn is in respect of the first two bullet points only. The income a claimant* can receive before their tax credits is reduced will stay at £6,420, and any income they have above that figure will reduce entitlement by 41p in the pound, not 48p as was proposed.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That's great, and I don't want to poo-poo the acheivements of everybody, including myself (and the House of Lords) in effecting this change. But the other provisions remain:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>The amount a claimant's income can rise before their tax credits are affected is still being reduced by £2,500 compared to the current disregard: this could result in a claimant being £1025 worse off over a year compared to their position under the old rules.</li>
<li>Entitlement calculations will still not take acount of any children born from April 2017 onwards</li>
<li>The family element, curently worth £545 per year, which is currently included in the calculation or all clients will families, is still being removed for new claimants from April 2017 onwards</li>
<li>The powers to recover overpayments will still be widened.</li>
</ul>
<div>
Furthermore, tax credits payment rates, like those of most other social security benefits, were frozen in the budget: There will be no inflationary increase in April 2016, April 2017, April 2018, and April 2019. The Autumn Statement reports at Section 2.2 that earnings are currently rising at about 3% and are expected to reach 3.9% by 2020. Clearly this is good news for those who are working, and, if their benefit income becomes a smaller proportion of their overall income over time, this looks like meeting the stated aim of the tax credit changes.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
However tax credits are not just paid to people who are working: anyone who has children of school age or younger relies on Child Tax Credit if they have a low income. For these claimants there is no good news here.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And, even for those famous 'hard-working families', there is another problem on the horizon...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<h3>
<b>Universal Credit </b></h3>
</div>
<div>
<br />
It's not happening as fast as Iain Duncan-Smith planned, but Universal Credit is inexorably spreading across the land. It is designed to replace all the means-tested benefits (except Council Tax Support) including tax credits. This means that gradually more and more people with children (for example) will be getting Universal Credit, not Tax Credits. And the changes that the Chancellor announced in the Budget are <i>not</i> being reversed.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In the Universal Credit system, the amount a claimant can earn before their Universal Credit is affected is called their <b>'work allowance'</b>. It therefore parallels the 'threshold figure' in the tax credit system. It differs in that only earned income is ignored, and in that there is a range of different work allowances according to different specific circumstances. In the budget many of these allowances were reduced. Let's see how this might pan out.<br />
<br />
If you read my 13th July post, you'll remember Alex and Hilary. They have three children. Alex works 35 hours per week, and earns the national minimum wage (which becomes the national living wage from April 2016). To keep things simple, they've got no housing costs - perhaps they live in a relatives house.<br />
<br />
As you can see from the table below, they benefit from the chancellor's u-turn if they're in the Tax Credit system: in fact their overall income rises slightly because of the national living wage, But if they're in the Universal Credit system things are very different. Because the work allowance was reduced in the Budget (for a couple who are both fit for work and have children, it changes from £123 to £91 per week), they see a reduction close to the one they would have faced had they been getting Tax Credits and the Chancellor hadn't changed his mind.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<table border="1" style="width: 100%;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>(all payment figures <br />
are per week)</td>
<td>TC system<br />
March 2016</td>
<td>TC system<br />
April 2016<br />
before U-turn</td>
<td>TC system<br />
April 2016<br />
now</td>
<td>UC system<br />
March 2016</td>
<td>UC system<br />
April 2016</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Net earnings</td>
<td>£219</td>
<td>£230</td>
<td>£230</td>
<td>£219</td>
<td>£230</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Child Benefit</td>
<td>£48</td>
<td>£48</td>
<td>£48</td>
<td>£48</td>
<td>£48</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Working Tax Credit</td>
<td>£49</td>
<td>£6</td>
<td>£39</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Child Tax Credit</td>
<td>£170</td>
<td>£170</td>
<td>£170</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Universal Credit </td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>£233</td>
<td>£184</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>Total Income</b></td>
<td><b>£485</b></td>
<td><b>£455</b></td>
<td><b>£488</b></td>
<td><b>£490</b></td>
<td><b>£462</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Compared with first column</td>
<td></td>
<td>-6%</td><td>+1%</td>
<td>+1%</td>
<td>-5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Out of work benefits</td>
<td>£333</td>
<td>£333</td>
<td>£333</td>
<td>£333</td>
<td>£333</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<h3>
And finally, more bad news for tenants of social landlords...</h3>
<br />
In the Autumn Statement the chancellor a change to Housing Benefit for these people. From 1st April 2018, Housing Benefit payments will be capped in the same way that they are for tenants in the private sector.<br />
<br />
Perhaps this needs some explanation. Currently, if you rent from a social landlord, the maximum Housing Benefit you can get is equal to the rent your landlord charges you (minus the bedroom tax, of course, if you are considered to have more bedrooms than you need). However, if you rent privately, The maximum Housing Benefit you can get is not related to the rent the landlord charges, but to a set of figures set locally, dependent on your age, the size of your household, and the location. From April 2018 this same principle will apply to social housing tenants who took out their tenancies on or after 1st April 2016.<br />
<br />
You might say, as Osbourne does, that this move levels the playing field for private tenants versus those of social landlords. Well yes, that's true, although it's a pity - though not surprising - that the field has been levelled by digging into the high side...<br />
<br />
Alternatively, you might also say if you are a bit more cynical) that this change simply completes the work that the bedroom tax started, in reducing the security for tenants of social housing.<br />
<br />
If you were even more cynical, you might see this move as consistent with other changes, such as allowing the right to buy, that indicate a doctrinaire opposition to the concept of social housing.<br />
<br />
I couldn't possibly comment.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
Additional Information</h3>
</div>
<div>
<br />
If you want to check out the Autumn Statement yourself, you can find it here:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/spending-review-and-autumn-statement-2015-documents/spending-review-and-autumn-statement-2015#security-and-opportunity-for-families" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/spending-review-and-autumn-statement-2015-documents/spending-review-and-autumn-statement-2015#security-and-opportunity-for-families</a><br />
<br />
For more information about Universal Credit, see <a href="http://www.benefitsowl.info/universal%20credit.html" target="_blank"> www.benefitsowl.info/universal%20credit.html</a><br />
<br />
*For a joint claim this should be read as 'claimants' here and elsewhere: the two memebers of a couple don't have separate income allocations<br />
<br />
The figures in the table were drawn from the spreadsheet of which the figure below is a screen grab.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiDIhR10s6XcsXtNonjRUDsr3QnfQHZ4RT8zfgnqEnThlosaJ41jk8K6SBC_bxhWSb_94OpSqxTGUu_N33k8N-sJjEHM-MGwZcyGt8c6wgoveGRfRFl0MxpJ9yMtwgkNMC81BeLFZkNFk/s1600/AutumnStatementCalc.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="476" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiDIhR10s6XcsXtNonjRUDsr3QnfQHZ4RT8zfgnqEnThlosaJ41jk8K6SBC_bxhWSb_94OpSqxTGUu_N33k8N-sJjEHM-MGwZcyGt8c6wgoveGRfRFl0MxpJ9yMtwgkNMC81BeLFZkNFk/s640/AutumnStatementCalc.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4352011419058403668.post-27645478777782561502015-08-14T06:46:00.000-07:002015-08-14T06:46:10.704-07:00How to solve EU benefits problem: punish the young?<br />
If you've kept your eye on recent developments in the benefits world, you'll know that two groups of people are having a hard time: European migrants to the UK; and young people. So it may or may not come as surprise that, if the BBC is correct, the government is currently considering plans that resolve its need to appear tough on migrants by punishing British young people. Its either a scheme of floundering desperation or breathtaking cynicism. Or possibly both.<br />
<br />
Here's the article, if you want to look at it yourself: <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33850247" target="_blank">EU migrant benefit plan 'could hit thousands of young Britons'</a><br />
<br />
Here's the proposal in a nutshell. The government wants to prevent people from Europe from getting any child benefit or tax credits (and, possibly, housing benefit) until they've been in the UK for at least four years. But to meet EU equality rules, these restrictions will also have to be applied to British nationals (and foreign nationals who are settled in the UK). As children cannot get benefits in their own right, the four years start ticking when British people are old enough to claim benefits in their own right. So a young person would be unable to claim these benefits until he or she reaches the age of 22.<br />
<br />
Before I comment further, I should reassure you: this is, as far as I can tell, just a proposal: it's not going to affect anything anytime soon. And note that we're only talking about child benefit and tax credits here, not other benefits (yet). But it's still disturbing.<br />
<br />
It's important to understand the context here.<br />
<br />
The government wants to restrict benefits for EU migrants. The Labour government started the restrictions, by introducing a 'right to reside' test into the rules for many means-tested benefits. Since then there has been a progressive tightening of the rules, with the overall effect that, if you are an EU migrant, you are likely to find it very hard to get any help from the state unless you are actually working or in a short period of job-seeking (for more info about the introduction and development of right to reside rules, have a look at <a href="http://www.benefitsowl.info/abroad-eea-history.html" target="_blank">www.benefitsowl.info/abroad-eea-history.html</a>, for information about how this pans out in practice, check out <a href="http://www.benefitsowl.info/abroad-eea-cit.html" target="_blank">www.benefitsowl.info/abroad-eea-cit.html</a>)<br />
<br />
But it's hard to restrict entitlement further. One of the basic principles of the European Union is that it is a free market: there must be no restriction to the movement of goods, services, and labour between member states. This means that no country can make it harder for people from another EU state to work than its own citizens. David Cameron, and others, have made a lot of noise about renegotiating the treaty rules to change this, but it's hard to see how this can happen: logically it defeats the object of the EU, and practically many other countries object strongly to any restriction of this kind.<br />
<br />
So, unsurprisingly, lawyers have advised the government that making EU citizens wait until they have been in the UK for four years would be unlawful: 'Imposing additional requirements on EU workers that do not apply to a member state's own workers constitutes direct discrimination which is prohibited under current EU law'.<br />
<br />
According to the BBC, the government has responded to this by proposing making everyone wait four years before they can claim child benefit and tax credits.<br />
<br />
The frustrating thing about all this is that this isn't really about a rational response to a real problem: the evidence is that migrants bring more money into the country than they take in benefits (see, for example, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/05/eu-migrants-uk-gains-20bn-ucl-study" target="_blank">http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/05/eu-migrants-uk-gains-20bn-ucl-study</a>). Instead it's about political manoeuvring and pandering to UKIP and some elements of the press. This new proposal seems almost purpose built to divide and rule - set young British people against EU migrants. I hope, and believe, that this won't happen, and even dare to hope that it has the opposite effect.<br />
<br />
An odd thing that is missing here, either in the government's thinking or the BBC's reporting of it, is Universal Credit (UC). By the time any change of this sort came into force UC would have presumably replaced tax credits for new claimants anyway. I presume that the child-related parts of Universal Credit would be removed for the first four years. But I cannot be sure.<br />
<br />
If these changes were to go through, the young people who would suffer would be the ones with children. How would they cope, or be expected to cope? Who knows? And what about the children: how does this proposal square with the proclaimed intention to reduce child poverty?<br />
<br />
A government spokeswoman approached by the BBC declined to speculate on the matters raised. But, at the risk of pushing the boat of my opinion a bit too far out, I ask this: what have young people done, for the government to be apparently willing to sacrifice their wellbeing to satisfy the imagined needs of bigots and xenophobes?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4352011419058403668.post-54734392623957544032015-07-31T08:36:00.000-07:002015-07-31T08:36:22.498-07:00The Budget and Benefit: Part 2 - some thoughtsIn my last post, I laid out the basic information about the proposed changes. In this post I try to flesh out some of detail. I will look at the impact on some claimants, and express some opinions.<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 19px; font-weight: bold;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 19px; font-weight: bold;">Some concrete examples</span><br />
<br />
First of all, let's look at some concrete examples of how the changes might affect people. I'm not going to express any opinions here: the figures speak for themselves.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Low-paid workers with children, and out of work couples with children</h4>
Alex and Hilary have three children. It's March 2016. Alex works 35 hours per week, and earns the national minimum wage, 6.70 per hour (it is already scheduled to increase from £6.50 in November 2015. They would also normally receive £48.10 per week Child Benefit (which isn't going to rise for four years).<br />
<br />
Let's look at how Alex and Hilary's situation develops:<br />
<ul>
<li>In April 2016 Alex starts to receive the national minimum wage of £7.20 per hour: however the income threshold for the tax credit calculation is reduced from £6420 to £3850, and the rate at which income exceeding the threshold is increased from 41% to 48%;</li>
<li>In April 2017 the national living wage is increased: from the budget statement this looks likely to be to about £7.75.</li>
</ul>
Here's a summary of how the changes pan out. (the full calculations are available at the end of this post, in case you're interested, as are the assumptions I've used). I have also included the equivalent out of work benefit payable for comparison. For simplicity, I've not included rent or mortgage costs, and all amounts are rounded to the nearest pound.<br />
<br />
<table border="1" style="width: 100%;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><br /></td>
<td><b>March 2016</b></td>
<td><b>April 2016</b></td>
<td><b>April 2017</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Net earnings</td>
<td>£219</td>
<td>£230</td>
<td>£243</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Child Benefit</td>
<td>£48</td>
<td>£48</td>
<td>£48</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Working Tax Credit</td>
<td>£46</td>
<td>£6</td>
<td>£0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Child Tax Credit</td>
<td>£170</td>
<td>£170</td>
<td>£168</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>Total income</b></td>
<td><b>£483</b></td>
<td><b>£455</b></td>
<td><b>£460</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Change </td>
<td><br /></td>
<td>- 6%</td>
<td>-5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Out of work benefits</td>
<td>£333</td>
<td>£333</td>
<td>£333</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Now let's look at two other couples:<br />
<ul>
<li>Jo and Jean situation is the same as that of Alex and Hilary, in every way except one: their third child is born after the start of April 2017.</li>
<li>Ali and Jay do not make any claim for tax credits until after the start of April 2017</li>
</ul>
Here's a comparison of what each couple are likely to get in April 2017:<br />
<br />
<table border="1" style="width: 100%;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><br /></td>
<td><b>Alex and Hilary</b></td>
<td><b>Jo and Jean</b></td>
<td><b>Ali and Jay</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Net earnings</td>
<td>£243</td>
<td>£243</td>
<td>£243</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Child Benefit</td>
<td>£48</td>
<td>£48</td>
<td>£48</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Working Tax Credit</td>
<td>£0</td>
<td>£0</td>
<td>£0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Child Tax Credit</td>
<td>£168</td>
<td>£115</td>
<td>£105</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>Total income</b></td>
<td><b>£460</b></td>
<td><b>£406</b></td>
<td><b>£396</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Out of work benefits</td>
<td>£333</td>
<td>£280</td>
<td>£270</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br />
<br />
So if, for example, your third child is due to born in March 2017 but actually emerges in April you stand to lose about £54 per week (about £2800 per year). <br />
<br />
You will also notice that an out of work couple with three children who make their first claim for benefits after the start of April 2017 will receive more than £60 less than an equivalent couple would have got before the rules changed, a reduction of around 20%, or £3,276 per year<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Low paid worker without children, Universal Credit system</span><br />
<br />
Ahmed single, has no children, and is looking for work. He is on Universal Credit.<br />
<br />
Remember that one of the selling points of Universal Credit was that it made the transition into work easier, and made it more worthwhile working. A person on income based Jobseeker's Allowance is, at best, £5 per week better off, no matter how much they earn. If they were on Universal Credit, a specified amount of earnings are ignored: any earnings that exceed this reduce Universal Credit payments by 65p in the pound.<br />
<br />
The problem is that, although the amount of earnings ignored for a single, childless, adult, is £111 per month (about £25.54 per week), from April next year it will be zero.<br />
<br />
So this is what things look like for someone like Ahmed...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiHjIFbPl2yGHdIDqcjWEBVeIFjBkYdNPJ8PLhyt8znaW9DowUFpdQccTzgNcxQNsFxTeuWjia-vUf2nXIUicGHB6nSj27plGbTIsnbomTNY5PnU8DwOkfbmddYV1sz0nq3m3iav_eSaA/s1600/budget2015-UC.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="390" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiHjIFbPl2yGHdIDqcjWEBVeIFjBkYdNPJ8PLhyt8znaW9DowUFpdQccTzgNcxQNsFxTeuWjia-vUf2nXIUicGHB6nSj27plGbTIsnbomTNY5PnU8DwOkfbmddYV1sz0nq3m3iav_eSaA/s640/budget2015-UC.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Mmm...<br />
As you can see, for earnings up to about £25 per week, and above around £100 per week, the changes remove any real advantage gained by introducing Universal Credit in the first place. Between those figures the post-budget version of UC effectively splits the difference. The maximum difference between the JSA rules and the post-budget UC rules is about £21 (and applies to earned income of £80).<br />
<br />
Now here's the thing. The earnings disregard has been around for quite a while: Income Support - on which the rules for income based JSA and income related ESA are based - was invented in 1987, and the disregard was £5 then. It hasn't moved. If it had increased in line with inflation it would now be about £12.56. So the best that Universal Credit can offer compared to Income Support at its inception is an £8 per week increase.<br />
<br />
For a wider analysis of the financial impacts of the changes, I strongly recommend the following (pdf) presentation by the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS): <a href="http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/budgets/Budgets%202015/Summer/Hood_distributional_analysis.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/budgets/Budgets%202015/Summer/Hood_distributional_analysis.pdf</a>.<br />
<br />
The IFS predicts, amongst other changes, that changes to the tax credit work allowances will result in 'just over 3m families losing an average of just over £1,000 per year'. It also notes that the freeze in benefit rates will result in a cut in real terms of 8% between 2013 and 2020. And if you are in any doubt of the regressive impact of this and the previous government's policies, check out the graphs on the impact of government policy by income (copyrighted, so not here, but there about half way through).<br />
<h3>
Other observations</h3>
This is where I start to let my opinions show a bit more.<br />
<h4>
The 'National Living Wage'</h4>
The introduction by the government of an official 'National Living Wage' (NLW) is, from one perspective, a stroke of genius. By appropriating the term 'Living Wage' the ground is taken from under the feet of campaigner for a living wage: we've got it now, haven't we?<br />
<br />
Well: have we? Not quite. The NLW is set at £7.20 for the year April 2016. <a href="http://www.livingwage.org.uk/calculation" target="_blank">The Living Wage Foundation</a> sets the following rates for the previous year (i.e. this year) at £7.85 outside London, and £9.15 within London. So the NLW is less than the campaign's living wage: considerably less if you live in London.<br />
<br />
The <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/443232/50325_Summer_Budget_15_Web_Accessible.pdf" target="_blank">budget statement</a> has a graph (on page 33) showing how the NLW is projected to increase compared with what the minimum wage would have been if it had continued. However it is a bit misleading, as it employs that ever useful trick, the non-zero y-axis. So here's my version...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfHdE2roGbIx01DPEqAWsEKlHXPQynW_NZ2AyQCpa1-71uWSLR4pj1Yy75-SueDZfnuSlQ0njnPfH20TZn70wPdTp9yGd8qbFT0vY5flpaf8CUxUDrrJxpk1vhAAn6XgY41T8SntJ8ghM/s1600/NMW+v+NLW.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="386" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfHdE2roGbIx01DPEqAWsEKlHXPQynW_NZ2AyQCpa1-71uWSLR4pj1Yy75-SueDZfnuSlQ0njnPfH20TZn70wPdTp9yGd8qbFT0vY5flpaf8CUxUDrrJxpk1vhAAn6XgY41T8SntJ8ghM/s640/NMW+v+NLW.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
I don't know about you, but that doesn't really look like a game changer to me.<br />
<br />
And, if you're not yet 25, you don't benefit from it at all.<br />
<br />
So that's why I put it in 'scare quotes': it's not really a living wage at all, just a rebadged and slightly increased minimum wage.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Removal of extra help for third and subsequent children</h4>
I've already discussed this at length in my previous post, <a href="http://benefitsowl.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/possible-reductions-to-tax-credits.html" target="_blank">possible-reductions-to-tax-credits</a>, and I haven't got much to add here.<br />
<br />
However, there's one little detail that needs noting. At paragraph 2.103 of the budget statement, the chancellor says: '<i>The Department for Work and Pensions and HMRC will develop protections for women who have a third child as the result of rape, or other exceptional circumstances'</i>.<br />
<br />
There's clearly a problem here: a woman who has a child as the result of rape will need to prove that she has been raped in order not to be penalised for having the extra child. How will she do that? <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/09/government-third-child-tax-credits-proposal-budget-rape" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> notes that Alison Thewliss, SNP MP for Glasgow, has raised this matter, asking, for example: <i>'How are you going to prove it? What if there is no conviction [for the rape] as happens in a lot of cases?...What happens if it becomes known in the local community that a woman is receiving tax credits for a third child? What assumptions will be made about that woman and her children?'</i><br />
<br />
Keir Starmer raises a wider question (as <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/29/tax-credits-rape-test-third-child-chilling-way-to-save-money" target="_blank">comment in The Guardian</a>): <i>'What about mothers who have a third child because of ongoing abuse within the relationship?'</i> As he goes on to note:<i> 'Power lies at the heart of most domestic abuse, and that includes power over sex, when to have children and how many'</i>.<br />
<br />
As it happens, I'm not completely unsympathetic to the government's wish to disincentive large families. However any change needs to be brought in via a much subtler tool than this one, and one that doesn't produce such problematic consequences.<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Young people</span><br />
<br />
What have young people done to deserve their treatment by the Chancellor? They will normally now not be entitled to any help with rent between the ages of 18 and 21, and will have extensive extra requirements placed on them if they want to carry on getting Jobseeker's Allowance or Universal Credit. They will be expected to participate in 'an extensive regime of support' from the outset of their claim: obviously 'support' here is a weasel word, which translated means 'hurdles, obstacles, meaningless check-box exercises, and opportunities for losing benefit'.<br />
<br />
I can only assume that they are being targeted because, as generalisation, and as a result of disenchantment with conventional politics, they are relatively unlikely to vote. If the young start ever voting in significantly greater numbers, the government better beware!<br />
<br />
<h4>
And finally, that 'Merry-go-round'...</h4>
<br />
Before the budget was unveiled, the BBC reported the Chancellor as saying that 'the low paid would be compensated by tax cuts in an effort to end the "merry-go-round on which people pay their taxes and then get back benefits" and firms would be encouraged to pay higher wages'.<br />
<br />
There are two different issues conflated here.<br />
<br />
The first is the assertion that claimants are being taxed on the one hand, and then receiving tax credits and benefits on the other, and that this is ridiculous. This argument is disingenuous: a person on the NLW will be receiving paying very little tax anyway. There is no 'merry-go-round' here, except insofar that richer people pay tax which then helps poorer people: I may be naive but I regard that as a Good Thing.<br />
<br />
The second issue is the - legitimate - concern that tax credits are, in effect, subsidising employers. However the implication that, by reducing tax credits, employers will increase wages to balance this, is unconvincing. So unconvincing that the government never quite says this.<br />
<br />
So the working poor will see their income reduced, and the wealthy will be able to carry on making money. And as for the non-working poor: who cares what happens to them? You do. I do. But who else?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
Appendix - details of calculations </h3>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrJg3sX7I6V_wI8tAE21KywdMCTFGQ9Zz_sP_vWw_V_UPWz1By3LRe0Uoj8bpEzPUQV2q2l9XAmvc0_WyEUx7Jo0NKbJwIPklGq2PFLDj1V_gjPrtYnPSLZpUbsjKk5gnxhRPTRMkgcAM/s1600/Calculations-detail.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="612" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrJg3sX7I6V_wI8tAE21KywdMCTFGQ9Zz_sP_vWw_V_UPWz1By3LRe0Uoj8bpEzPUQV2q2l9XAmvc0_WyEUx7Jo0NKbJwIPklGq2PFLDj1V_gjPrtYnPSLZpUbsjKk5gnxhRPTRMkgcAM/s640/Calculations-detail.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Bank of England inflation counter: <a href="http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/education/Pages/resources/inflationtools/calculator/flash/default.aspx" target="_blank">http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/education/Pages/resources/inflationtools/calculator/flash/default.aspx</a><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4352011419058403668.post-51346775990068526582015-07-13T09:36:00.001-07:002015-07-13T09:36:39.669-07:00The Budget and Benefits: Part 1 - the changes summarised<br />
In last week's budget social security was centre stage, as reducing benefit expenditure seems to be the government's preferred route for deficit reduction. George Osborne's target is to reduce annual welfare expenditure by £12billion, although his initial target for fulling achieving this of 2017-18 has been delayed to 2018-19.<br />
<br />
But what are the details? It's easy to lose these in all the political and media spin: some changes have been given greater prominence while others have been largely ignored. I've tried to lay out all the main changes here. I've also included some things, such as the 'living wage' and changes to social housing rents, which are not benefits but are likely to have a significant impact on many claimants.<br />
<br />
You can look at the details for yourself. The government has published the Summer Budget 2015 here: <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/443232/50325_Summer_Budget_15_Web_Accessible.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/443232/50325_Summer_Budget_15_Web_Accessible.pdf</a>. Most of the benefit related changes appear in the section headed 'Rewarding work and backing aspiration' (sigh).<br />
<br />
In an attempt to keep this to a manageable length:<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/"></a><br />
<ol>
<li>All changes come into effect in April 2016 except where otherwise specified;</li>
<li>Changes to Universal Credit that simply mirror changes in other benefits are marked '<i>[& UC]</i>'. </li>
</ol>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">General</span><br />
<ul>
<li>There will be <b>no inflationary increase</b> in April 2016, April 2017, April 2018, and April 2019. The following are exempt from this freeze:</li>
<ul>
<li>disability, carer, and pensioner related benefits, elements and premiums;</li>
<li>Statutory sick pay, maternity pay, etc.</li>
</ul>
</ul>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Changes to tax credits for new </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"><i>and current</i></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"> claimants</span><br />
<ul>
<li>The income <b>taper</b> will be increased from 41% to 48% of gross income: in other words, for every pound over the threshold figure the claimant's tax credits will be reduced by 48p, rather than 41p (before 2011-12 it was 39%);</li>
<li>The <b>threshold</b> figure (see previous bullet point) will go down from £6,420 to £3,850: this means that any income over £3,850 will be taken into account now;</li>
<li>The <b>income rise disregard</b> will be reduced from £5,000 to £2,500 (at present, a claimant's income can rise by up to £5,000 during a tax year without affecting amount of tax credits paid for that year - this will change to £2,500);</li>
<li>No <b>child element</b> will be paid in respect to third (or additional) children born after April 2017. There will be exceptions for multiple births and disabled children. Compared to 2015-16 figures, this will reduce the maximum annual entitlement by £2,780 per child; <i>[& UC];</i></li>
<li>The powers available to HMRC to recover <b>overpayments</b> will be widened.</li>
</ul>
<h4>
Changes to tax credits for new claimants only</h4>
<div>
<ul>
<li>The <b>family element</b> (currently worth £545) will no longer be included for families whose first baby is born in April 2017 or later (I suppose this could also apply to existing claimants of Working Tax Credits only, but who don't start a family until April 2017). <i>[& UC]</i></li>
</ul>
</div>
<h4>
Employment and Support Allowance</h4>
<div>
<ul>
<li>For <i>new claimants</i> after April 2017 there will be no <b>work-related activity component</b> (currently £29.05). At present, after the initial assessment period, claimants who are assessed as being potentially able to work in the future will usually receive £102.15 per week. New claimants affected by this rule will only receive £73.10 per week. <i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal;"><i>[& UC]</i></span></i></li>
</ul>
</div>
<h4>
Housing Benefit and social housing rents</h4>
<div>
<ul>
<li><b>Backdating</b> will be limited to a maximum of four weeks (compared with a possible maximum of up to six months currently, in some circumstances);</li>
<li>For new claimants, or current claimants who start a family, there will be no <b>family premium</b> (currently worth £17.45 normally); <i>[& UC]</i></li>
<li>There will be no <b>personal allowances for children</b> amounts in the Housing Benefit calculation to take account of third (or subsequent) children born after April 2017 (the same exceptions apply as for tax credits child elements); <i>[& UC]</i></li>
<li>Social housing rents will decrease by 1% a year for four years;</li>
<li>Social housing tenants whose income exceeds £30,000 (£40,000 in London) will be required to pay a market rent, or near market rent (although as words in this section include 'consult', 'set out the detail', and 'due course', suggest that the timetable for this change is uncertain).</li>
</ul>
</div>
<h4>
Mortgage Help (applicable to most means-tested benefits)</h4>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Claimants will normally have to <b>wait </b>39 weeks before mortgage help begins (in fairness, the current 13 week wait was applied as a recession related provision, and was always intended to be temporary;</li>
<li>From April 2018 mortgage help will become a <b>loan</b>, repayable when the claimant sells the house or begins work.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<h4>
Universal Credit</h4>
<div>
<ul>
<li>The amount people will be able to earn before their benefit is affected (the <b>work allowance</b>) will be reduced: For childless, non-disabled, claimants, the work allowance will go down to zero (currently £111 per month): for other claimants it will go down to £397 per month for those with no housing costs (compared to between £536 and £734 now) and to £192 per month for those with housing costs (compared with between £192 and £263 now);</li>
<li>Various changes are to be made reducing amounts for <b>families with children</b>. These mirror those applied to other benefits<i>;</i></li>
<li>From April 2017 there will no longer be an extra amount payable for claimants who have limited capability for work and are in the <b>work related activity group</b>;</li>
<li>The <b>work-related requirements</b> placed on parents of young children will become stricter from April 2017. This is a bit tricky to explain. For simplicity, imagine you are a single parent of a child:</li>
<ul>
<li>Currently, no requirements are placed on you until your youngest child is one year old. Then, until your child is three, you have to attend work-focused interviews. From the child's third birthday until they are five you also under work-preparation activities as well. Once your child is five, you have to be available for work;</li>
<li>From April 2017 there are no changes until the child is one. However, you will now have to undertake work-preparation activities once the child is two, not three, and will be expected to look for work when they are three, not five.</li>
</ul>
</ul>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Childcare </span><br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>From September 2017, working parents of 3 and 4 year old children will be entitled to 30 hours of <b>free childcare</b> (compared with 15 hours currently).</li>
</ul>
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Benefit Cap</span></div>
<ul>
<li>The <b>Benefit cap</b>, which sets a limit on the total amount of benefits a household can receive, will be reduced from £26,000 to £20,000 per year outside London, and to £23,000 within London. </li>
</ul>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Changes affecting young people </span></div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>From April 2017, 18 - 21 year olds will not normally be entitled to<b> help with their rent </b>(as part of Universal Credit - Housing Benefit is supposed to have been phased out by 2017). There are exceptions, including 'vulnerable' young people, those who may not be able to move back with their parents. Young people who have been working and living independently will also be able to get help with their rent, but only for six months;</li>
<li>From April 2017 18 - 21 year olds on Universal Credit will be expected to participate in 'an intensive regime of support' from the outset of the claim. After six months they will be expected to apply for an apprenticeship or traineeship, go on a work placement, or 'gain work-based skills'. All this is known as the <b>'youth obligation'</b>;</li>
<li>18 - 24 year olds will not be entitled to the 'Living Wage'.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<h4>
The 'Living Wage' (i<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">n my next post I'll justify my use of 'scare quotes' around this term.</span>)</h4>
<ul>
<li>From April 2016, this will be set at £7.20, compared with the £6.50 national minimum wage currently (due to rise to £6.70 in September 2015);</li>
<li>It is intended that it reach at least £9 (60% of median earnings) by 2020.</li>
<li>It will not apply to workers who are younger than 25.</li>
</ul>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
In my next post, due soon, I'll give some examples, and offer some opinions...<br />
<br />
<h4>
Main Sources</h4>
The Summer Budget 2015: <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/443232/50325_Summer_Budget_15_Web_Accessible.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/443232/50325_Summer_Budget_15_Web_Accessible.pdf</a><br />
The resultant Welfare Reform and Work Bill: <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2015-2016/0051/cbill_2015-20160051_en_1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2015-2016/0051/cbill_2015-20160051_en_1.htm</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4352011419058403668.post-42539719463647971392015-06-22T12:47:00.000-07:002015-06-22T12:47:28.498-07:00Possible reductions to tax creditsAn e-mail popped into my inbox today from the campaigning group, 38 Degrees: <a href="https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/m/74c07a50/2d4e9fed/79b0a698/4631f40c/2648811247/VEsD/" target="_blank">George Osborne: No more kids in poverty. Please don't cut child tax credit</a> I decided I need to have closer look.<br />
<br />
The issue has been covered extensively in the media:<br />
<br />
Tory welfare cuts would hit poorest third of UK families, research shows:<br />
<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/14/tory-welfare-cuts-would-hit-poorest-third-of-uk-families-research-shows" target="_blank">http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/14/tory-welfare-cuts-would-hit-poorest-third-of-uk-families-research-shows</a><br />
Cameron to hint at assault on tax credits in welfare speech: <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/jun/22/cameron-hints-at-assault-on-tax-credits-in-welfare-speech" target="_blank">http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/jun/22/cameron-hints-at-assault-on-tax-credits-in-welfare-speech</a><br />
George Osborne considering £5bn cuts to child tax credits: <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33089711" target="_blank">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33089711</a><br />
<h4>
<br /></h4>
<h4>
What is being proposed?</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
The proposal is to 'return the per-child element of child tax credit to its real CPI-adjusted 2003/4 level' [1]. But what does that mean in practice?<br />
<br />
First, some basics.<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Working Tax Credit is available if you are in full time work (as defined by tax credits regulations), provided your income is low enough. </li>
<li>Child Tax Credit is available if you have children, again provided your income is low enough. </li>
<li>If you are in full-time work and have children you are potentially entitled to both. </li>
<li>If you (or your partner) are in full time employment, have at least one child, no child care costs, and provided no-one in the family is disabled, the maximum Working Tax Credit you can normally get is £4,780 (in the tax year 2015-16), and the maximum Child Tax Credit you can get is normally £545 plus £2,780 per child (the 'child' element). </li>
<li>So if you have two children the maximum total tax credit figure is £10,885 (£4,780 plus £545 plus two lots of £2,780)</li>
<li>What you actually receive is then reduced by 41% of any income you have over £6420.</li>
</ul>
<br />
The government is proposing reducing the amounts for children. The figure of £2780 per child would be reduced to about £1935. They get this by taking the actual figure used in 2003-4 and then increasing it in line with the consumer price index (the increases have presumably been higher than the CPI in the past in an attempt to reduce child poverty).<br />
<br />
<h4>
What's the government's rationale? And what do I think about their logic?</h4>
<ol>
<li>If you support workers with in-work benefits you are, in effect, subsidising the businesses that employ them.</li>
<li>This is a Bad Thing</li>
<li>To remove this anomaly you reduce in-work benefits: workers' pay will increase accordingly</li>
<li>The best in-work benefit to cut is the child element of tax credits.</li>
</ol>
<div>
Part (1) is indisputable. Part (2) is arguable either way. </div>
<div>
Part (3) is that bit I, and, I suppose, most of the readers of this post, find particularly unconvincing. Here's some questions that come to mind:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>What will be the drivers of pay increases? Market forces? Strikes? Employer goodwill?</li>
<li>Will there be sanctions for employers who don;t increase their wages? (Of course not)</li>
<li>Will all employers increase their wages, or just some?</li>
<li>How long will it take for the entire employment world to make good the shortfall (if ever)?</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
And what about Part (4)? Why pick on the child element? The likely, and logical, reason is that all the other elements of tax credits have been increased broadly in line with inflation since 2003: only the child element has been increased at a higher rate, presumably with the aim of reducing child poverty.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Of course this leads to an obvious objection: won't reducing the child element risk increasing child poverty? Er... Yes. According to the <a href="http://www.cpag.org.uk/child-poverty-facts-and-figures" target="_blank">Child Poverty Action Group</a> [2] 1.1 million children were lifted out of poverty between 1998/9 and 2011/12. However they also cite research from 2013 that projected that from 2012-13 child poverty would rise, reaching a 600,000 increase by 2015/16. These figures, which are obviously due for verification any time soon, are unlikely to take account of the proposed reduction to the child element, as this has only recently been suggested. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Furthermore, this change would affect all families with children on low incomes, whether they're in work or not (this hasn't been mentioned in the media coverage I've seen so far) A single parent on Income Support with one child under five years old, for example, would see their income reduced by £845 per year too (more than £16 per week). </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Where have they got this idea from?</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The government appears to have taken this proposal for a suggestion made by the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS): <a href="http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7762" target="_blank">Benefit cuts: where might they come from?</a> [3] It's worth taking a look at.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Reducing the child element of Child Tax Credit is only one of the suggestions made by the IFS. It also highlights that it would be likely to increase child poverty by 300,000, and that, '<i>in the absence of much-needed clarity from the government on its child poverty strategy (and in particular its attitude towards the supposedly legally-binding 2020 child poverty targets) it is difficult to assess the coherence of such a policy.</i>' </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
One of the other suggestions they make is to abolish Child Benefit, and increase tax credits and Universal Credit accordingly so that the poorer are not worse off. The majority of families with children would lose about £1000, but it would be the bottom third (in income terms) who would be protected. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Both suggestions would, the IFS estimates, save about the same amount of money: about £5Bn</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I leave you to ponder the reasons for the government preferred choice.</div>
<h4>
<br /></h4>
<h4>
Conclusion</h4>
<div>
<br />
In his speech today (22nd June) David Cameron said[4]: "<i>There is what I would call a merry-go-round. People working on the minimum wage having that money taxed by the government and then the government giving them that money back - and more - in welfare</i>". These look like weasel words to me: a false equivalency is being presented. What is actually happening is that people on the minimum wage are too poor to be paying much tax anyway. But they do benefit from government assistance to bring their income to a liveable level. </div>
<div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Yes, it would - probably - be better if those at the bottom of the pile were earning more, and didn't need government assistance. But they aren't, and I can see no way in which a reduction in tax credits will lead to a prompt and universal increase in earnings. It's not even as if the Conservative party has given more than lip service to the Living Wage.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br />
(The Daily Telegraph has published a surprisingly thoughtful article: <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11690824/Five-ways-David-Cameron-can-cut-tax-credits-without-making-workers-worse-off.html" target="_blank">David Cameron wants to cut in-work tax credits, and wants companies to pay staff more. How can he do it?</a> I don't agree with all their suggestions, but it's a useful contribution to the debate.)</div>
<br />
So, yes, I'm signing the <a href="https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/m/74c07a50/2d4e9fed/79b0a698/4631f40c/2648811247/VEsF/" target="_blank">petition</a>. You might choose to.<br />
<br />
But beware: if this cut doesn't become law, another one will...<br />
<br />
<h4>
References</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
[1] 'George Osborne considering £5bn cuts to child tax credits' <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33089711" target="_blank">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33089711</a><br />
<div>
<br />
[2] Child poverty facts and figures <a href="http://www.cpag.org.uk/child-poverty-facts-and-figures" target="_blank">http://www.cpag.org.uk/child-poverty-facts-and-figures</a></div>
<br />
[3] Benefit cuts: where might they come from? <a href="http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7762" target="_blank">http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7762</a><br />
<br />
[4] Report by independent on David Cameron's speech, 22/06/2015 <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/working-poor-set-to-face-cut-in-tax-credits-as-david-cameron-attacks-merrygoround-welfare-system-10335820.html" target="_blank">http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/working-poor-set-to-face-cut-in-tax-credits-as-david-cameron-attacks-merrygoround-welfare-system-10335820.html</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4352011419058403668.post-23883560337687589252015-05-18T09:35:00.000-07:002015-05-18T09:35:28.096-07:00A question about contributory benefitsAlthough I can't (and don't) give specific advice to individuals via <a href="http://www.benefitsowl.info/" target="_blank">www.benefitsowl.info</a>, or via this blog, I do sometimes get a question from a reader that raises wider issues, and other people might be interested in. Here's one I received recently (I have changed some details to protect the person's confidentiality).<br />
<br />
<i>"Dear Benefits Owl</i><br />
<br />
<i>I started receiving invalidity benefit in the early 1990s. In 1995, Invalidity Benefit was replaced by Incapacity Benefit, and this continued until claimants of Incapacity Benefit were slowly migrated over to Employment Support Allowance. I was transferred to ESA in 2014 and am in the 'support' group of taxable ESA, as mine is contributions based.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>However, it's recently come to my attention that as ESA is a taxable benefit, then it must be included in my annual tax self-assessment. This is unfair, as claimants of invalidity benefit or pre 1995, incapacity benefit, were entitled to tax-free incapacity benefit and until it was transferred to ESA, never had to include this figure in their self-assessment. As I have other income, I now will be effectively paying 20% tax on my ESA, as this new ruling has taken my income over my tax code. How can they suddenly abolish a ruling that has stood for the last 18 years, that claimants of incapacity before 1995, did not have include it as a taxable benefit?</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Ms A"</i><br />
<br />
I've had to think quite hard about this, as there's more to this than meets the eye. Here's my response.<br />
<br />
First, I need to confirm that Ms A's understanding of the facts is correct: sadly for her, it is.<br />
<br />
Invalidity Benefit and Sickness Benefit were both replaced by Incapacity Benefit in 1995. Incapacity Benefit was taxable from the outset. However, having dusted off (literally!) some old handbooks I can confirm that it was not taxable if a claimant was transferred onto it from Invalidity Benefit.<br />
<br />
In 2008 Incapacity Benefit was, in turn, replaced by Employment and Support Allowance. Again, Employment and Support Allowance was (and is) taxable. However this time there was no concession for people whose Incapacity Benefit was not taxable (because they had been transferred from Invalidity Benefit).<br />
<br />
For many people this will not be an issue one way or another, because their total taxable income is less than their Personal Allowance (normally £10,600 per year). But for some people, including Ms A, it is.<br />
<br />
So, secondly, I need to look at the actual question: "<i>How can they suddenly abolish a ruling that has stood for the last 18 years, that claimants of incapacity before 1995, did not have include it as a taxable benefit?"</i><br />
<br />
The simple answer is: because they can. But of course it’s actually a bit more complicated than that.<br />
<br />
When Employment and Support Allowance replaced Incapacity Benefit what actually happened was that the (then Labour) government created and implemented a new set of laws, and removed ('repealed') some of the old ones. It could write these any way it liked, provided it could get them through Parliament (you could say that this is Parliament's main job). <br />
<br />
MPs or Lords could have argued that it was unfair to make Employment and Support Allowance taxable for claimants who had been on Invalidity Benefit: they could even have argued that it shouldn't count as taxable income for anyone. Maybe some did: I don't know. But we do know that if they did they were unsuccessful.<br />
<br />
However, once any new law is enacted, people affected by it may challenge the law in the courts. There are two main types of reasons why laws are challenged:<br />
<ol>
<li>The new law is unclear. For example, in the rules for the mobility part of Disability Living Allowance (originally Mobility Allowance), one of the conditions for the higher rate was that you had to be 'virtually unable to walk', but didn't say what this meant. So over the years there have been lots of rulings from various judges to try to make this clearer. Decision makers have to consider these rulings when they make their decisions about Disability Living Allowance. </li>
<li>The new law conflicts with other laws that have not been repealed. For example, there was a case at the Court of Appeal regarding the 'bedroom tax', in which the judges decided that to refuse to allow an extra bedroom to a disabled child conflicted with the requirements of the Human Rights Act. Local authorities now have to follow this ruling when they consider how much Housing Benefit to award claimants with disabled children.</li>
</ol>
Sometimes laws are challenged because both types of reason apply.<br />
<br />
In your case, type(1) clearly doesn't apply. It's very clear in the way the law is written that Employment and Support Allowance is taxable, and there is nowhere in the law that gives any exceptions from this.<br />
<br />
And sadly type(2) doesn't apply either, as far as I can work out. There is no other law that says that contributory benefits should not be taxable, or that someone who has been transferred from one that wasn't taxable should continue to benefit from this. The laws that created Invalidity Benefit allowed for it to be non-taxable, but these laws only applied to that benefit and have been repealed anyway. The Incapacity Benefit rules had a section which allowed transitional protection for people moving onto it from Invalidity Benefit, but these only apply to <i>that</i> transition and not later ones.<br />
<br />
Ultimately what this all comes down to is that MPs and Lords were not, on the whole, worried about people losing the tax free status of this type of benefit. Or perhaps they were, but were outvoted, or felt the issue was outweighed by the need to balance government expenditure.<br />
<br />
Where does this leave someone in this position?<br />
<ul>
<li>They could campaign to change the law, to make Employment and Support Allowance not taxable for everyone, or for those transferred onto it from Invalidity Benefit via Incapacity Benefit. One problem with this is that there probably many people affected by the taxable nature of Employment and Support Allowance to make sufficient impact, especially if we're only looking at people who were originally on Invalidity Benefit.</li>
<li>If a person had received a demand for tax arrears because they were not informed of the change, they could complain to the DWP. However this would rely on them never having received anything from the DWP that included reference to it being taxable, and normally people are sent year end statements from the DWP specifying how much taxable benefit they have received. And even if a complaint was successful, I am doubtful whether they would receive compensation to make up for the tax lost. And as problems like this are not the fault of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) they may be sympathetic but they're unlikely to write off the tax due.</li>
</ul>
Are there any lessons from all this? Possibly...<br />
<ul>
<li>If the government's thinking of changing, or replacing, a benefit that matters to you, make sure you look into it and let your MP know of any concerns. Find out if other people share your concerns: if they do, think about campaigning. None of this may work, but it's probably your only chance. Once the law has changed it's normally too late to do anything about it.</li>
<li>If you're on a benefit and it 'transitions' to another one, don't assume anything. Changes may sneak through that aren't publicised at all...</li>
</ul>
To Ms A, and anyone else with a similar problem, I am sorry I can't paint a more encouraging picture.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4352011419058403668.post-75632259056544663002015-04-24T08:27:00.000-07:002015-04-24T08:27:06.266-07:00Election Manifestos - what they have to say for benefit claimants<br />
This post attempts to summarise the different parties' commitments regarding welfare benefits. It also looks at commitments that are not directly related to benefits, but are relevant to benefit claimants, the low paid (who can also be benefit claimants, of course), and other vulnerable people.<br />
<br />
<b>The post is sorted by subject, not by party: this is so you can easily compare what different parties say about the same thing (or if they say nothing at all about it...)</b><br />
<br />
Even though there are no quotation marks, all the comments have been lifted directly from the manifestos, apart for a few changes to ensure grammatical clarity. If I haven't been able to find anything in a particular party's manifesto about an issue, I've left their space blank. This post only includes promises made in the manifestos, so you won't find assertions made by party members in the media that are not in their manifesto.<br />
<br />
This is not an opinion post (despite the temptation). However, as I've had to select and digest, there is inevitably going to be some subjectivity and judgement calls:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>I've generally, but not always, avoided promises that include words like 'review', 'consider', 'explore', 'examine', as these don't generally amount to much of a commitment. The exceptions are where they appear to relate to a clear plan of action</li>
<li>I've not included undertakings that are planned to take more than one parliament to follow through to completion (like the Green Party's proposals for radical welfare reform).</li>
<li>I've not considered stuff that might have an impact on benefits provision because of competing budgetary demands: otherwise I'd have to include everything.</li>
<li>If parties are simply committing to continue something that's already in place, I've normally left it out.</li>
<li>Much as I've been tempted to, I have not included anything about immigration issues, except insofar as they touch on the world of social security benefits.</li>
</ul>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It's been a challenge to decide which parties to include. In the end the list is:</div>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives:</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour:</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">=</span></span>Liberal Democrats:</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP:</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green:</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">=</span></span>SNP:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
I've agonised over whether to include the SNP or not: in the end they've got in because it looks like they might take the role of kingmaker. I apologise to the parties that have been left out, but I had to balance the need for inclusion with that of getting this finished in time to be useful.</div>
</div>
</div>
<br />
<br />
As I said before, this is not an opinion piece, but I will offer you some advice to help you form <i>your</i> opinion:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Be wary of 'weasel words' (e.g. 'we will help the jobless back to work' and 'we won't allow the sick to languish on benefits'). Always ask: what does this really mean?</li>
<li>Don't be too excited by very positive sounding pledges from smaller parties: the less likely a party is to form part of a government, the less likely it is that it will have to bear responsibility for not keeping to its pledges!</li>
<li>Be suspicious of vagueness</li>
</ul>
<br />
The manifestos can be accessed via the links below, if you want to check things out for yourself.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives: <a href="https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf" target="_blank">https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf </a></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour: <a href="http://b.3cdn.net/labouruk/e1d45da42456423b8c_vwm6brbvb.pdf" target="_blank">http://b.3cdn.net/labouruk/e1d45da42456423b8c_vwm6brbvb.pdf </a></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">=</span></span>Liberal Democrats: <a href="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/libdems/pages/8907/attachments/original/1429028133/Liberal_Democrat_General_Election_Manifesto_2015.pdf" target="_blank">https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/libdems/pages/8907/attachments/original/1429028133/Liberal_Democrat_General_Election_Manifesto_2015.pdf </a><span id="goog_525084110"></span><span id="goog_525084111"></span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/"></a></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP: <a href="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ukipdev/pages/1103/attachments/original/1429295050/UKIPManifesto2015.pdf" target="_blank">https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ukipdev/pages/1103/attachments/original/1429295050/UKIPManifesto2015.pdf</a></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green: <a href="https://www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/manifesto/Green_Party_2015_General_Election_Manifesto_Searchable.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/manifesto/Green_Party_2015_General_Election_Manifesto_Searchable.pdf </a></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">=</span></span>SNP: <a href="http://votesnp.com/docs/manifesto.pdf" target="_blank">http://votesnp.com/docs/manifesto.pdf </a></div>
</div>
<br />
(The SNP wins my prize for the cleanest web address...)<br />
<br />
I have tried to be fair and thorough, but<i> if you think I've left something substantive out, please let me know via the comments section</i>.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
Commitments that are directly related to benefits </h3>
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
Overall welfare spending</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives:</div>
- Cap overall welfare spending: our overall welfare cap will limit the amount that government can spend on certain social security benefits in the five years from 2015-16<br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:DocumentProperties>
<o:Template>Normal</o:Template>
<o:Revision>0</o:Revision>
<o:TotalTime>0</o:TotalTime>
<o:Pages>1</o:Pages>
<o:Characters>1</o:Characters>
<o:Lines>1</o:Lines>
<o:Paragraphs>1</o:Paragraphs>
<o:CharactersWithSpaces>1</o:CharactersWithSpaces>
<o:Version>11.1282</o:Version>
</o:DocumentProperties>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotShowRevisions/>
<w:DoNotPrintRevisions/>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:UseMarginsForDrawingGridOrigin/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment--><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour:<br />
- we will cap structural social security spending as part of each spending review,<br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:DocumentProperties>
<o:Template>Normal</o:Template>
<o:Revision>0</o:Revision>
<o:TotalTime>0</o:TotalTime>
<o:Pages>1</o:Pages>
<o:Characters>1</o:Characters>
<o:Lines>1</o:Lines>
<o:Paragraphs>1</o:Paragraphs>
<o:CharactersWithSpaces>1</o:CharactersWithSpaces>
<o:Version>11.1282</o:Version>
</o:DocumentProperties>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotShowRevisions/>
<w:DoNotPrintRevisions/>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:UseMarginsForDrawingGridOrigin/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment--><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">=</span></span>Liberal Democrats:<br />
- Introduce a 1% cap on the uprating of working-age benefits until the budget is balanced in 2017/18, after which they will rise with inflation once again. Disability and parental leave benefits will be exempt from this temporary cap<br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:DocumentProperties>
<o:Template>Normal</o:Template>
<o:Revision>0</o:Revision>
<o:TotalTime>0</o:TotalTime>
<o:Pages>1</o:Pages>
<o:Characters>1</o:Characters>
<o:Lines>1</o:Lines>
<o:Paragraphs>1</o:Paragraphs>
<o:CharactersWithSpaces>1</o:CharactersWithSpaces>
<o:Version>11.1282</o:Version>
</o:DocumentProperties>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotShowRevisions/>
<w:DoNotPrintRevisions/>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:UseMarginsForDrawingGridOrigin/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment--><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP:<br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:DocumentProperties>
<o:Template>Normal</o:Template>
<o:Revision>0</o:Revision>
<o:TotalTime>0</o:TotalTime>
<o:Pages>1</o:Pages>
<o:Characters>1</o:Characters>
<o:Lines>1</o:Lines>
<o:Paragraphs>1</o:Paragraphs>
<o:CharactersWithSpaces>1</o:CharactersWithSpaces>
<o:Version>11.1282</o:Version>
</o:DocumentProperties>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotShowRevisions/>
<w:DoNotPrintRevisions/>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:UseMarginsForDrawingGridOrigin/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment--><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green:<br />
- We would be prepared to invest up to £30 billion over the Parliament to reduce the amounts that people lose from their benefits when they move into paid work<br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:DocumentProperties>
<o:Template>Normal</o:Template>
<o:Revision>0</o:Revision>
<o:TotalTime>0</o:TotalTime>
<o:Pages>1</o:Pages>
<o:Characters>1</o:Characters>
<o:Lines>1</o:Lines>
<o:Paragraphs>1</o:Paragraphs>
<o:CharactersWithSpaces>1</o:CharactersWithSpaces>
<o:Version>11.1282</o:Version>
</o:DocumentProperties>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotShowRevisions/>
<w:DoNotPrintRevisions/>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:UseMarginsForDrawingGridOrigin/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment--><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">=</span></span>SNP:<br />
<br />
<br />
<h4>
Claimant benefit cap</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives:<br />
- We will lower the maximum amount that a single household can claim in benefits each year from £26,000 to £23,000, so we reward work.<br />
- We will continue to have exemptions from the cap for those receiving Disability Living Allowance or the Personal Independence Payment<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour:<br />
- We will keep the household benefit cap and ask the Social Security Advisory Committee to examine if it should be lower in some areas.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">=</span></span>Liberal Democrats:<br />
- We will retain the overall cap on a household’s benefits and believe this should continue to be set at around the average family income.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP:<br />
- Supporting a lower cap on benefits<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green:<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">=</span></span>SNP: </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<h4>
General benefit payment rates </h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives: </div>
<div>
- We will freeze working age benefits for two years from April 2016, with exemptions for disability and pensioner benefits – as at present – as well as maternity allowance, statutory maternity pay, statutory paternity pay, statutory adoption pay and statutory sick pay.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour:<br />
- we will not cut tax credits, ???<br />
- we will introduce a higher rate of Job Seekers Allowance for those who have contributed over years. It will be funded by extending the length of time people need to have worked to qualify ??<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">=</span></span>Liberal Democrats:<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP:<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green:<br />
- Restore the link between state benefits and earnings; ensure state benefits rise as fast as prices or wages, whichever of those grows more.<br />
- increasing the disregards for Income Support and Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA). Initially we would increase the income disregarded on JSA for all categories of client to £50 a week, with similar increases for those on Universal Credit<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">=</span></span>SNP:<br />
- we will vote to increase benefits at least in line with CPI inflation,</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<h4>
Benefits for claimants with health problems and/or disabilities</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives:<br />
- We will help you back into work if you have a long-term yet treatable condition</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- We will review how best to support those suffering from long-term yet treatable conditions, such as drug or alcohol addiction, or obesity, back into work. People who might benefit from treatment should get the medical help they need so they can return to work. If they refuse a recommended treatment, we will review whether their benefits should be reduced.<br />
- We will also provide significant new support for mental health, benefiting thousands of people claiming out-of-work benefits or being supported by Fit for Work.</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour:<br />
- We will reform the Work Capability Assessment and focus it on the support disabled people need to get into work. We will give an independent scrutiny group of disabled people a central role in monitoring it.<br />
- And we will introduce a specialist support programme to ensure that disabled people who can work get more tailored help<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">=</span></span>Liberal Democrats:<br />
- Conduct a review of the Work Capability Assessment and Personal Independence Payment assessments to ensure they are fair, accurate and timely and evaluate the merits of a public sector providero<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Invest to clear any backlog in assessments for Disability Living Allowance and Personal Independence Payment.<br />
- Simplify and streamline back-to-work support for people with disabilities, mental or physical health problems.<br />
- Improve the benefits system for disabled people, based on the principle of one assessment, one budget. This will bring together support like Personal Independence Payment, Employment Support Allowance, a replacement for the Independent Living Fund and health and social care entitlements.<br />
- Improve links between Jobcentres and Work Programme providers and the local NHS to ensure all those in receipt of health-related benefits are getting the care and support to which they are entitled. In particular, as we expand access to talking therapies we expect many more people to recover and be able to seek work again.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP:<br />
<br />
- We will end unfair ATOS-style Work Capability Assessments and return assessments to GPs or appropriate specialist consultants, who have full access to patients’ medical records and are likely to know the patient. We believe this makes them the best person to undertake assessments and we will ensure they are adequately funded and resourced to take on this task<br />
- Require GPs/specialists to notify the Department for Work and Pensions when they believe a patient is well enough to return to work, by issuing a ‘fit note’<br />
- Remove ‘tick-box’ and quota arrangements from sickness and disability assessments<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green:<br />
- Cancel the Department for Work and Pensions contracts with the private sector for benefit entitlement assessment<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">=</span></span>SNP:<br />
- We will vote to block plans to cut Disability Living Allowance by £3 billion across the UK by 2017-18</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br />
<br /></div>
<h4>
Benefits for work-seeking claimants </h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives:<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour:<br />
- We will do more to help unemployed people get the skills they need for work, testing jobseekers’ Maths, English and IT skills within six weeks of them claiming benefits. They will be required to take up training where this will improve their chances of getting a job</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- We will introduce a higher rate of Job Seekers Allowance for those who have contributed over years. It will be funded by extending the length of time people need to have worked to qualify.<br />
- And we will commission a replacement for the Work Programme at a more local level, working with local authorities to join up support for the long-term unemployed<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">=</span></span>Liberal Democrats:<br />
- Deliver a reformed and improved Work Programme in partnership with English local government, and the national governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland<br />
- We will improve incentives for Jobcentre staff and Work Programme providers to ensure there is real help for those furthest from the labour market<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP:<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green:<br />
- End work-for-benefits programmes, or workfare<br />
- Ensure that all those on training or work placements as part of the benefits regime are either in college-based training or at work earning at least the minimum wage<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">=</span></span>SNP:</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br />
<br />
<h4>
Benefits sanctions & conditionality</h4>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">=</span></span>Liberal Democrats: </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- Review sanctions procedures in Jobcentres. While sanctions can be a necessary last resort to ensure jobseekers are looking for work, they should not be used to cut benefit expenditure deliberately. Reductions in benefits may not always be the best way to improve claimants’ compliance: those with chaotic lives might be more successful in finding a job if they were directed to targeted support with their problems. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- We will ensure there are no league tables or targets for sanctions issued by Jobcentres and introduce a ‘yellow card’ warning so people are only sanctioned if they deliberately and repeatedly break the rules</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">=</span></span>SNP: </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- We will demand an urgent review of the conditionality and sanctions regime</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<h4>
Benefits for young people</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives:<br />
- We will replace the Jobseeker’s Allowance for 18-21 year-olds with a Youth Allowance that will be time-limited to six months, after which young people will have to take an apprenticeship, a traineeship or do daily community work for their benefits.<br />
- So we will ensure that 18-21 year-olds on Jobseeker’s Allowance will no longer have an automatic entitlement to Housing Benefit.<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour: We will replace out of work benefits for 18 to 21-year-olds with a new Youth Allowance dependent on recipients being in training and targeted at those who need it most. There will be a guaranteed, paid job for all young people who have been out of work for one year, and for all those over 25 years old and out of work for two years. It will be a job that they have to take, or lose their benefits.<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">=</span></span>Liberal Democrats:<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP:<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green:<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">=</span></span>SNP:</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<h4>
Benefits for carers</h4>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">=</span></span>Liberal Democrats:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- Develop a package of specialist support for carers seeking parttime work or a return to full-time employment</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">=</span></span>SNP: </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- We will also support an increase in Carer’s Allowance so that it matches Jobseekers' Allowance</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<h4>
Housing benefit and council tax reduction - general</h4>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">=</span></span>Liberal Democrats: </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- Encourage landlords to lower their rent by paying them Housing Benefit directly, with tenants’ consent, in return for a fixed reduction.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- We will review the way the Shared Accommodation Rate in Local Housing Allowance is set, and review the Broad Rental Market Areas to ensure they fit with realistic travel patterns</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP: </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- Give tenants the right to request Housing Benefit is paid direct to their landlords, whatever benefit scheme they are on</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green: </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- Restore Council Tax Benefit at the equivalent of 2012–13 levels for low-income householders, costing around £500 million a year</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">=</span></span>SNP:</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<h4>
Bedroom tax/spare room subsidy/housing benefit size criteria restrictions</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives:<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour: The Bedroom Tax is cruel and we will abolish it<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">=</span></span>Liberal Democrats: o<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Reform the policy to remove the spare room subsidy. Existing social tenants will not be subject to any housing benefit reduction until they have been offered reasonable alternative accommodation. We will ensure tenants who need an extra bedroom for genuine medical reasons are entitled to one in any assessment of their Housing Benefit needs, and those whose homes are substantially adapted do not have their Housing Benefit reduced.<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP: Scrap the ‘bedroom tax’<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green:<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">=</span></span>SNP: We will vote for the immediate abolition of the unfair Bedroom Tax</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<h4>
Universal credit</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives:<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour: We support the principle behind Universal Credit – that there should be a smooth transition into work – but it must be affordable and fit for purpose, so we will pause and review the programme<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">=</span></span>Liberal Democrats:<br />
- Complete the introduction of Universal Credit (UC), so people are always better off in work. We will review UC to address any issues regarding ‘cliff edges’, and ensure increased working hours are properly incentivised for all claimants<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP:</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green:<br />
- Halt implementation of the Universal Credit programme and carry out a thorough review of its structure and implementation, including the treatment of earned income, and removing conditionality.</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">=</span></span>SNP:<br />
- We will back an increase in the Work Allowance – the amount people are allowed to earn before their benefit is cut – of 20 per cent</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<br />
<h4>
Benefits for children</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives:<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour: cap child benefit rises for two years<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">=</span></span>Liberal Democrats:</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP: Limiting child benefit to two children for new claimants<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green:<br />
- Raise Child Benefit as from 2016 from £20.70 a week for the oldest or only child and £13.70 a week for additional children in 2015–16 to £40 a week for each child.<br />
- Abolish childcare tax credits and tax reliefs in the light of our proposals for free universal early education and childcare<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">=</span></span>SNP:</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br />
<h4>
Benefits for older people</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives:<br />
- Continue to increase the state pension through our triple lock, so that it rises by at least 2.5%, inflation, or earnings, whichever is the highest<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour:<br />
- We will keep the triple-lock so that the state pension increases by inflation, earnings, or 2.5 per cent, whichever is highest<br />
- We have taken the tough choice to restrict Winter Fuel Payments for the richest five per cent of pensioners<br />
- we will guarantee that there will be no additional changes to the Winter Fuel Payments, free TV licences or bus passes for pensioners<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">=</span></span>Liberal Democrats:<br />
- Legislate for the Liberal Democrat ‘triple lock’ of increasing the State Pension each year by the highest of earnings growth, prices growth or 2.5%<br />
- Withdraw eligibility for the Winter Fuel Payment and free TV Licence from pensioners who pay tax at the higher rate (40%). We will retain the free bus pass for all pensioners.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP:<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green:<br />
- We would introduce a Citizens Pension in 2016. It will pay £180 a week to a single pensioner or £310 for a couple<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">=</span></span>SNP:<br />
- We will vote to continue the triple lock, guaranteeing that pensions will always rise by inflation, earnings or 2.5 per cent -whichever is the highest<br />
- We will oppose the abolition of Savings Credit<br />
- We will support a single-tier pension of £160 per week<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br />
<br />
<h3>
Commitments that are relevant to the vulnerable, including benefit claimants</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
Minimum wage and living wage</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour:<br />
- We will improve the security and reward of working life by raising the National Minimum Wage to more than £8 an hour by October 2019<br />
- We will support employers to pay more by using government procurement to promote the Living Wage, alongside wider social impact considerations. Our Make Work Pay contracts will give tax rebates to businesses who sign up to paying the Living Wage in the first year of a Labour Government. Publicly listed companies will be required to report on whether or not they pay the Living Wage<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">=</span></span>Liberal Democrats:<br />
- We will pay this Living Wage in all central government departments and their agencies from April 2016, and encourage other public sector employers to do likewise<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP:<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green:<br />
- Raise the minimum wage<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">=</span></span>SNP:<br />
- We will vote to increase the minimum wage to £8.70 by 2020.<br />
- We will also support measures to extend the Living Wage across the UK<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
Zero-hours contracts, agency work, and related issues</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour: </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- Labour will ban exploitative zero-hours contracts. Those who work regular hours for more than 12 weeks will have a right to a regular contract.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- We will abolish the loophole that allows firms to undercut permanent staff by using agency workers on lower pay</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">=</span></span>Liberal Democrats: </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- We will create a formal right to request a fixed contract and consult on introducing a right to make regular patterns of work contractual after a period of time.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- We will ensure employers cannot avoid giving their staff rights or paying the minimum wage by wrongly classifying them as workers or self-employed.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- Help everyone in work on a low wage step up the career ladder and increase their hours, reducing their need for benefits, with tailored in-work careers and job search advice</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- We will introduce a legally binding Code of Conduct stipulating the following:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
-- Businesses hiring 50 people or more must give workers on zero-hours contracts either a full or part-time secure contract after one year, if the workers involved request it</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
-- There must be no exclusivity clauses in any zero-hours contract</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
-- Workers on zero-hours contracts must be given at least twelve hours advance notice of work. Once notice has been given, they must be paid for the work, regardless of whether or not they are actually needed</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- outlaw exploitative zero-hours contracts</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">=</span></span>SNP:</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<h4>
Housing</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives: </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- We will extend the Right to Buy to tenants in Housing Associations to enable more people to buy a home of their own. It is unfair that they should miss out on a right enjoyed by tenants in local authority homes. We will fund the replacement of properties sold under the extended Right to Buy by requiring local authorities to manage their housing assets more efficiently, with the most expensive properties sold off and replaced as they fall vacant.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- For the 11 million people who rent privately, we will legislate to make three-year tenancies the norm, with a ceiling on excessive rent rises. A ban on unfair letting agent fees will save renters over £600</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- We will ensure that private renters get a fairer deal.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">=</span></span>Liberal Democrats:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- Improve protections against rogue landlords and encourage a new multi-year tenancy with an agreed inflation-linked annual rent increase built in.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- Ban letting agent fees to tenants if the transparency requirements we introduced are not successful in bringing fees down to an affordable level by the end of 2016.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- Extend the use of Rent Repayment Orders to allow tenants to have their rent refunded when a property is found to contain serious risks to health, and withhold rent from landlords who have not carried out court-ordered improvements within a reasonable period of time.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- Introduce a new Help to Rent scheme to provide government backed tenancy deposit loans for all first-time renters under 30.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- We will establish a National Homeless Register to make it easier for those of no fixed abode to claim welfare entitlements; get access to medical and dental services; and enable support services to identify those at risk of physical, psychological and sexual abuse. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- Introduce the right to rent (where local councils step in to help those in difficulty with their mortgage to rent their home). </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- Provide 500,000 social rented homes to high sustainability standards by increasing the social housing budget from £1.5 billion a year to £6 billion a year in the lifetime of the Parliament, removing borrowing caps from local councils.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- Devolve Housing Benefit budgets to councils, so they can design packages that improve access to housing in their local market nd enable them to provide more council housing.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- End mass council house sales and the Right to Buy at a discounted price.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- Provide more rights for homeless people, giving local authorities the same duties with regard to single people and childless couples as to families, and ending the practice of declaring people ‘intentionally homeless’. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- Oppose new arm’s length management organisations and ensure genuine tenant participation in existing ones</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">=</span></span>SNP:</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<h4>
</h4>
<h4>
Childcare</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives:</div>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- we will give families where all parents are working an entitlement to 30 hours of free childcare for their three and four year-olds</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- We will help families by expanding free childcare from 15 to 25 hours per week for working parents of three and four-year-olds, paid for with an increase in the bank levy.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- We will also introduce a legal guarantee for parents of primary school children to access wraparound childcare from 8am to 6pm through their local primary school</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">=</span></span>Liberal Democrats:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- Commit to an ambitious goal of 20 hours’ free childcare a week for all parents with children aged from two to four-years, and all working parents from the end of paid parental leave (nine months) to two years. Start by providing 15 hours a week of free childcare to the parents of all two-year olds. We will then prioritise 15 hours free childcare for all working parents with children aged between nine months and two years.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- Complete the introduction of Tax-Free Childcare, which will provide up to £2,000 of childcare support for each child and include childcare support in Universal Credit, refunding 85% of childcare costs so work pays for low earners</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP: </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- will remove allow parents to use any third-party, non-related child carer they feel comfortable placing their child with, provided the care provided can be proven to be genuine.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- We will place a statutory duty on all primary schools to offer before and after-school care from 8am to 6pm during term time, with the option to extend this to all-day provision throughout the school holidays. Sessions will include breakfast and healthy snacks.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- UKIP is committed to bringing forward a full, open review of all childcare and child protection services in Britain.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- Build a free but voluntary universal early education and childcare service for all children from birth until compulsory education age, which we would raise to 7 years.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- Integrate this into the local education service, run by local education authorities, and build on existing infant schools. Local authorities would be would be given freedom as to how to do so in the light of their local circumstances. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- Ensure that the system includes children’s centres for the very youngest children and their parents, and childcare and early education for children from age 1. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- Abolish childcare tax credits and tax reliefs in the light of our proposals for free universal early education and childcare</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">=</span></span>SNP:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- we will support an increase in free childcare to 30 hours per week by 2020.</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<h4>
Income tax and national insurance</h4>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives:<br />
- Will raise the tax-free Personal Allowance so that those working 30 hours on the Minimum Wage pay no Income Tax at all<br />
- Will cut income tax for 30 million people, taking everyone who earns less than £12,500 out of Income Tax altogether <i>[I think these two points may amount to the same, but I'm open to being corrected: Benefits Owl]</i><br />
<i><br /></i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour:<br />
- We will create a fairer tax system, helping those on middle and lower incomes by introducing a lower 10p starting rate of tax, paid for by ending the Conservatives’ Marriage Tax Allowance<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">=</span></span>Liberal Democrats:<br />
- Raise the tax-free Personal Allowance to at least £12,500 by the end of the next Parliament, putting around £400 back in the pockets of millions of working people and pensioners. We will bring forward the planned increase to an £11,000 allowance to April 2016<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP:<br />
- Raise the personal allowance to at least £13,000<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">=</span></span>SNP<br />
- We support increases in the personal tax allowance</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br />
<br />
<h4>
Courts and tribunals</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives:<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- We will abolish the Government’s employment tribunal fee system</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">=</span></span>Liberal Democrats:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- Improve the enforcement of employment rights, reviewing Employment Tribunal fees to ensure they are not a barrier</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- We will remove ourselves from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- We will also repeal Labour’s Human Rights legislation</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green:</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">=</span></span>SNP:</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<br />
<br /></div>
<h4>
Support for advice services</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives:<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour:</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">=</span></span>Liberal Democrats:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- Develop a strategy that will deliver advice and legal support to help people with everyday problems like personal debt and social welfare issues, working across government and involving nonprofit advice agencies</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- Will train and fund 800 advisers to work in 800 foodbanks</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green:</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">=</span></span>SNP:</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<h4>
Immigration/Benefits related</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- We will insist that EU migrants who want to claim tax credits and child benefit must live here and contribute to our country for a minimum of four years</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- We will introduce a new residency requirement for social housing, so that EU migrants cannot even be considered for a council house unless they have been living in an area for at least four years.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- If an EU migrant’s child is living abroad, then they should receive no child benefit or child tax credit, no matter how long they have worked in the UK and no matter how much tax they have paid.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- We will end the ability of EU jobseekers to claim any job-seeking benefits at all. And if jobseekers have not found a job within six months, they will be required to leave.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- Those who come here will not be able to claim benefits for at least two years, and we will stop child benefit being sent to families living abroad.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">=</span></span>Liberal Democrats:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- we will abolish the EEA family permit scheme and reinstate the primary purpose rule, meaning foreign nationals marrying British citizens will have to prove that the primary purpose of their marriage is not to obtain British residency.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- all new migrants to Britain will have to make tax and national insurance contributions for five consecutive years before they will become eligible to claim UK benefits, or access to more than non-urgent NHS services, save for any exceptions stipulated by the Migration Control Commission</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- Will Stop child benefit being paid to children who don’t live in the UK </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- We will not allow non-British nationals access to the Right to Buy or Help to Buy schemes, unless they have served in Her Majesty’s Armed Forces. All local authorities, social landlords and housing associations will be required to register the nationality of their tenants in order to ensure this policy works in practice.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">=</span></span>SNP:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<br />
<h4>
Miscellaneous</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">=</span></span>Conservatives:<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #cc0000;">=</span></span>Labour: </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- We will help with household bills freezing energy prices until 2017</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
- we will deal with the scourge of household debt by introducing
a new levy on payday lenders, using the funds raised to boost low-cost
alternatives like credit unions</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">=</span></span>Liberal Democrats:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">=</span></span>UKIP:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;">=</span></span>Green:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Webdings; font-size: 16px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">=</span></span>SNP:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4352011419058403668.post-78992817901627035792015-03-27T11:23:00.000-07:002015-03-27T11:23:12.468-07:00The Employment and Support Allowance rules are changing (and you won't like it)An important right is being removed for anyone who makes a new claim for Employment and Support Allowance on or after 30th March. But unless you're in the benefits advice business I bet you haven't heard about it.<br />
<br />
<h3>
This is how things are before 30th March</h3>
<br />
If you make a new claim for Employment and Support Allowance you normally get paid (nearly) straight away. Provided you are able to give them a 'sick note' (aka a medical certificate) the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) 'treats' you as being unfit for work ('having limited capability for work') from the outset. Once the claim is up and running you are sent a questionnaire to complete, and then - normally - you attend a medical. After this the DWP makes a decision about whether you do, or do not, actually have limited capability for work.<br />
<br />
If the DWP decides against you, you can simply make a new claim for Employment and Support Allowance. However, if a capability for work decision has gone against you <i>in the last six months</i>, you are not 'treated' as unfit for work from the outset. You get no money unless and until the assessment process (including the questionnaire, medical, and decision) has been completed in your favour. This is, I suppose, fair enough: otherwise people could keep just making repeat claims and the decisions on fitness for work would become meaningless. Importantly, you can still be treated as unfit for work even if less than 6 months have passed since the last decision if you can provide evidence that you have a new condition, or an existing condition has got significantly worse.<br />
<br />
<h3>
For any new claim for ESA made on 30th March or later...</h3>
Everything I've written above remains the same, except for one tiny detail:<br />
<br />
<b>You need to replace 'in the last six months' with 'ever'.</b><br />
<br />
If the last decision made under the Employment and Support Allowance rules found you fit for work, and you decide to make a new claim for ESA, you will get no benefit unless and until the DWP assesses you as unfit for work. It doesn't matter if the last decision was made five months, seven months, or seven years ago: you will have to wait until after the questionnaire and after the medical before you even have the chance of receiving any benefit.<br />
<br />
The only exceptions to this are these:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>As previously, if you can convince them that you have a new condition, or that an existing condition has got worse, they can treat you as unfit for work from the outset.</li>
<li>If the last decision refused you because you failed to return a questionnaire or failed to attend a medical, you will be treated as unfit for work, and get paid benefit from the outset, provided it is more than 6 months since that decision.</li>
</ul>
Actually, there's another change I nearly forgot to mention: if a claimant is found fit for work again (having been found fit for work in the past), and appeals this new decision, they will not be entitled to any ESA until and unless the tribunal makes its decision in favour of the person appealing.<br />
<br />
The government gives its reasons for the change as follows:<br />
<br />
<i>"The Government is committed to supporting those who cannot work because of a health condition or disability. We are making this policy change because we believe that the existing rules encourage claimants to claim ESA, rather than claim JSA and get the help and support they need in order to return to work." </i>[from the report on the proposed changes by the Social Security Advisory Committee, page 2]<br />
<br />
I will resist the temptation to comment on this point of view.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Why is this bad?</h3>
<br />
If Employment and Support Allowance decision making worked properly, there shouldn't be a problem. But suppose it doesn't (if you can imagine such a thing)? Imagine a claimant who should meet the rules for getting ESA but is, instead, refused, perhaps as the result of a poorly conducted medical exam. For some clients this mistake will be corrected by a social security tribunal: some claimants will not take their cases to tribunal: others will be refused wrongly at the tribunal itself.<br />
<br />
In the government's responses to the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/409456/esa-repeat-assessment-regs-ssac-report-web.pdf" target="_blank">Social Security Advisory Committee</a> [page 5], it is noted that of those claimants who submitted a new claim for ESA in 2013 following a negative previous decision, and whose condition was broadly unchanged, 65% were either found fit for work, or withdrew their claims prior to assessment. I suggest turning that statistic on its head: 35% of claimants who had just the same condition as before were found unfit for work, when previously the DWP had made the opposite decision.<br />
<br />
For these claimants that negative decision, and its consequences, may remain with them indefinitely. Until this rule change, claimants in this position have been able to console themselves that, after a time on other benefits like Jobseeker's Allowance, they will be able to try again for Employment and Support Allowance. Once the rules have changed, although they will still have this right in principle, in practice they will struggle to exercise it, as they will not be able to receive any benefit payments while the assessment process is going on. This will mean not getting any money for around 13 weeks.<br />
<br />
Even if the original decision was correct, the change is likely to result in injustice. Consider claimants who have life-long, intractable, health problems or disabilities: a claimant may experience worsening, or a flare up, of a long-standing condition, but this may not amount to a significant change in the eyes of the DWP. GPs will have to be especially careful in how they complete 'sick notes' - if they don't make it clear that a person is experiencing a substantial worsening of symptoms, and simply write, say 'osteo-arthritis' on the medical certificate, that person is going get no benefit during the assessment process.<br />
<br />
And what about claimants whose limitations result from a learning difficulty? Unless they develop additional problems, one snapshot decision about their abilities is likely to come back to haunt them whenever they try to reclaim ESA.<br />
<br />
All these considerations make the stakes very high for claimants who are being assessed under the capability for work rules. Completing the ESA50 questionnaire and going to the medical examination are already stressful experiences for claimants: knowing that this is the only chance you're likely to get is only going to add to this. And imagine going to a social security tribunal in the knowledge that the outcome of the hearing is likely to determine the course of your life until you reach retirement age.<br />
<br />
<h3>
What can people do about this?</h3>
<br />
If you are thinking about making a new claim for Employment and Support Allowance, having previously been found 'not to have a limited capability for work', or know someone else who is<br />
in this position, you need to ask yourself the following questions?<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Has your condition worsened significantly since the last decision was made? </li>
<li>Or have you got a new medical condition that you didn't have then?</li>
</ul>
<br />
If you can't answer 'yes' to either of these, you need to be realistic: you will not receive any Employment and Support Allowance until the assessment process is complete, and then only if they agree that you meet the rules.<br />
<br />
If you can answer 'yes' to either, you now probably need to have a meeting with your GP. You will need to emphasise to your doctor that there must be reference to a worsening, or to a new condition. It will not be sufficient for the sick note to name your long-term health problem or disability.<br />
<br />
I have seen an interesting argument on the <a href="http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/" target="_blank">rightsnet</a> website, which some people might find useful. The new regulation which brings in the changes (<a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/437/made" target="_blank">The Employment and Support Allowance (Repeat Assessment and Pending Appeal Awards)(Amendment) Regulations 2015 (No. 437)</a>) makes it clear that the new rule kicks in <i>only if the last decision made found that the claimant did not have limited capability for work</i>. However, remember that for those who appeal (at least the first time round) the law allows them to get Employment and Support Allowance payments while the appeal is ongoing: they are 'treated' as unfit for work. If the appeal finally fails the DWP has to end this temporary entitlement: they make a decision not to <i>treat </i>the person as unfit for work. This means that in those circumstances, the last decision does not fit the requirement specified in the new rules: deciding that a person is not to be <i>treated</i> as unfit for work is not the same as deciding whether they are <i>actually</i> not unfit for work. However the DWP are likely to move quickly to close this loophole.<br />
<br />
Note: the DWP's responses to the Social Security Advisory Committee appear to suggest that a claimant would be able to carry on receiving Jobseeker's Allowance after making a claim for ESA and while waiting for a decision to be made on their capability for work. This makes no sense to me. However if more information appears about this I will pass it on.<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4352011419058403668.post-26461447285915221612015-03-23T06:08:00.000-07:002015-03-23T08:49:39.198-07:00'Time to rethink benefit sanctions'<i>'Imagine that your income stopped suddenly tomorrow. Perhaps you would cope for a while, living on savings, running down the food in your kitchen cupboards, maybe making a few lifestyle changes that helped you save money. If someone else in your household were earning, you might be able to manage on their income for a while.</i><br />
<br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>But imagine that you’d exhausted all of those options; if you are an adult of working age, you might reasonably expect that you could turn to the benefits system to give you some basic support. But now imagine that the very same benefits system actually brought about such circumstances. Where would you turn then? Is this what you would expect of a benefits system to which we contribute our taxes, to provide basic support for those who have no other form of income?'</i><br />
<br />
The quotation above, and the title of this post, are both from a report published this month, by Church Action on Poverty, The Baptist Union of Great Britain, the United Reformed Church, the Church of Scotland, and the Church in Wales.<br />
<br />
You can find the report yourself here:<br />
<a href="http://www.church-poverty.org.uk/rethinksanctions/report/reportpdf" target="_blank">http://www.church-poverty.org.uk/rethinksanctions/report/reportpdf</a><br />
<br />
I'd strongly encourage you to read it. It's a thorough, well argued and well-researched criticism of the current sanctions regime.<br />
<br />
In case you don't get a chance to study it in detail, here's a brief summary of some of the major points covered. This might also encourage you to download the full report.<br />
<br />
If you want to know about the sanctions rules for Jobseeker's Allowance in detail, check out the relevant pages on Benefits Owl, which I've just rewritten and expanded: <a href="http://www.benefitsowl.info/JSA%20Sanctions.html" target="_blank">http://www.benefitsowl.info/JSA%20Sanctions.html</a><br />
<h4>
</h4>
<h4>
Increasing numbers of claimants are being sanctioned</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
Here's some numbers to conjure with:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
</div>
<ul>
<li>A million sanctions were imposed in 2014 (this compares to about 300,000 in 2000);</li>
<li>22% of Jobseekers receive at least one sanction during their time on benefit'</li>
<li>100 people a day who are classed as unfit to work due to mental health problems are sanctioned every day</li>
</ul>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<h4>
Sanctions are frequently disproportionate to the issues that cause them</h4>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
The report gives a hypothetical example from the department's own guidance to illustrate this:<br />
<i>'“Audrey attends the JCP [Jobcentre Plus] every other Thursday at 10am to sign a declaration. On 25.10.12 she fails to attend to sign. On 1.11.12 she attends to sign at her normal time saying she forgot to sign last week as she got muddled with her dates. On 6.11.12 the DM [Decision Maker] determines that Audrey failed without good reason to participate in an interview as arranged to sign a declaration. This is Audrey’s first failure. A 4 week sanction is imposed.”</i><br />
<i>[Source: DWP Training Memo DMG 37/12]'</i><br />
As the authors of the report point out, this is the first time "Audrey" has made a mistake, and was only in breach of her ageement for 7 days, but she loses her benefit for a month.<br />
<br />
Here is a real example from the report:<br />
<i>'A 40 year old man from Glasgow was sanctioned for missing an appointment. A divorcee, he is a proud father who has worked for most of his life. He now has no gas or electricity and has been reduced to shoplifting for food. While telling his story, shame, humiliation and desperation reduced him to tears.</i><br />
<i>[Source: Poverty Truth Commission]'</i><br />
<br />
<h4>
Sanctions disproportionately affect the most vulnerable</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
Sanctions are not now just applied to people who are expected to look for work. Claimants on Employment and Support Allowance are also at risk of sanctions, if they are in the <a href="http://www.benefitsowl.info/wrag%20ESA.html" target="_blank">work related activity group</a>. As noted above, a hundred of such claimants, who are on ESA due to mental health problems, are sanctioned each day. Data in the report also appears to indicate, worryingly, that claimants with mental health problems form an <i>increasing</i> proportion of those sanctioned.<br />
<br />
As the report observes:<br />
<i>'The most common reason for being sanctioned is that a person has been late or not turned up for a Work Programme appointment. For some the symptoms of their illness can be extreme tiredness, a lack of motivation, or an inability to face social situations. It is therefore not surprising that people experiencing these symptoms can find it very difficult to attend Work Programme appointments...Sanctioning such people is not a measured response to wilful misbehaviour. It is effectively punishing a person for the symptom of an illness, equivalent to sanctioning someone with a broken leg for limping.' </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
Evidence compiled for the report indicates that sanctions have particularly severe consequences on young people not in education, employment, or training, care leavers, homeless people, single parents, and those experiencing domestic violence, as well as those with long-term health conditions.<br />
<br />
It is not just the claimants themselves who suffer. Figures obtained via Freedom of Information requests show that around 100,000 children were affected by sanctions.<br />
<br />
The report also argues that the sanctions system deliberately harms health. It refers to DWP guidance in which it is accepted that '<i>it would be usual for the normal healthy adult to suffer some deterioration in their health if they were without... essential items, such as food, clothing, heating, and accommodation or sufficient money to buy essential items for a period of two weeks</i>' [i.e. due to sanctions]. I'm not sure this quite justifies the reports assertion: however, I think it can safely be said that the DWP is prepared to accept the health of claimants being harmed as a consequence of sanctions.<br />
<br />
<h4>
The provision of hardship payments for those on sanctions is inadequate</h4>
<br />
Although hardship payments are available, the report highlights a number of problems with these:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Most people are unable to apply for them for the first two weeks, and frequently don't receive them for a further two weeks;</li>
<li>Under the new Universal Credit rules hardship payments are loaned, recovered later by reducing benefit payments to 60% of normal.</li>
</ul>
Also (though this is not mentioned in the report) sanctions payments are much lower than normal benefit payments, typically 40% less for a single adult).<br />
<br />
There is, in my opinion, an error in the report, as it states that claimants' have to ask friends and relatives for money before being considered for a hardship payment'. DWP Guidance makes it clear that this should not be required:<br />
<br />
<i>'Note: It is not considered reasonable to expect claimants to rely upon charities, such as food banks, increase debts by seeking credit or using or extending overdraft facilities, sell or pawn items to obtain cash, find cheaper housing or ask friends and family for help in order to meet their essential needs. Whilst claimants may be prepared to request such help there should be <b>no requirement to do so</b> and <b>claimants should not be denied access to hardship payments if they don’t</b>' </i>[<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/410846/dmgch35.pdf" target="_blank">DMG Chapter 35 - Hardship (para 35212)</a>, emphasis mine]<br />
<br />
Of course what actually happens is another matter.<br />
<br />
<h4>
There is very little evidence that sanctions are effective at getting people into work</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<i>'For every 100 sanctions imposed, 42 people will leave benefits but only 7 will enter work. There is not a clear picture of how the remaining 35 who leave benefit manage'</i><br />
<br />
The report also notes that evidence does not show that the longer the sanction is, the better the effect of the claimant's ability to find work. If anything, analysis from the past suggests that longer sanctions results in claimants becoming 'disengaged and less likely to accept help'.<br />
<br />
<h4>
The regime's harshness is not evidence based</h4>
<br />
It's always interesting, when studying government initiatives, to look at the research and data that - at least notionally - underpins the changes. In this case, the report traces the origins of the changes to a research report by Professor Paul Gregg. The only problem is that the regime proposed by Gregg is manifestly a very different animal from what we actually have. He suggested a maximum sanction of one month (compared with the actual maximum of three years) and expected there to be less than 1000 one month sanctions per year (compare this with the actual figure for 2014 of 880,000). <br />
<br />
I commend the Gregg report to you (I've attached a link below). It's thoughtful, carefully argued, and evidence based. Reading it is, however, a melancholy activity, given the differences between what it proposed and what is inflicted on claimants today.<br />
<h4>
</h4>
<h4>
</h4>
<h4>
And finally...</h4>
<br />
The report addresses a number of what it generously refers to as 'misunderstandings' about sanctions - assertions made by those who support the regime - and rebuts the assertions on a point by point basis.<br />
<br />
I've done my best to give you a brief taster of what's included, but if you want to know more I highly recommend this authoritative, informed, and timely commentary.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<h4>
<i>If you want to know more about sanctions...</i></h4>
<br />
I've just given my pages on Jobseeker's Allowance sanctions an extensive rewrite: the information is now (certainly) more thorough and (possibly) clearer. Here it is: <a href="http://www.benefitsowl.info/JSA%20Sanctions.html" target="_blank">http://www.benefitsowl.info/JSA%20Sanctions.html</a><br />
<br />
<br />
You might also want to look at some of the information sources of the report, as well as the report itself.<br />
<br />
The report - "Time to rethink benefit sanctions" - can be found here:<br />
<a href="http://www.church-poverty.org.uk/rethinksanctions/report/reportpdf">http://www.church-poverty.org.uk/rethinksanctions/report/reportpdf</a><br />
Church Action on Poverty: <a href="http://www.church-poverty.org.uk/" target="_blank">http://www.church-poverty.org.uk/</a><br />
<br />
The source for a lot of the raw data in the report is here: <a href="http://www.methodist.org.uk/media/1440216/mental_health_and_sanctions_data_set.xlsx" target="_blank">http://www.methodist.org.uk/media/1440216/mental_health_and_sanctions_data_set.xlsx</a><br />
<br />
The report also references the a briefing on sanctions statistics by the Child Poverty Action Group:<br />
<a href="http://www.cpag.org.uk/sites/default/files/uploads/CPAG-14-11-Sanctions-Stats-Briefing-D-Webster-Nov-2014_0.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.cpag.org.uk/sites/default/files/uploads/CPAG-14-11-Sanctions-Stats-Briefing-D-Webster-Nov-2014_0.pdf</a><br />
<br />
The Gregg Report: <a href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130128102031/http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/realisingpotential.pdf" target="_blank">http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130128102031/http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/realisingpotential.pdf</a><br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4352011419058403668.post-56613285192971630682015-02-16T07:55:00.000-08:002015-02-16T07:55:45.907-08:00Local Welfare Provision- a tiny bit of good news? Good news in welfare rights has been rather scarce over the last few years. Any little scraps we find are therefore grabbed eagerly, even if they aren't very good quality.<br />
<br />
Do you remember Community Care Grants and Crisis Loans? Well, if you do, well done, because they were abolished in April 2013, after which local authorities have had the responsibility of meeting this kind of need through <b>local welfare assistance schemes</b>. From the outset these weren't as good as the old system, not least because local authorities are not placed under any duty to provide any particular level of support or to ring-fence the money involved. <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/401094/150203_LWP_consultation_summary_and_equalities_statement_FINAL.pdf" target="_blank">As the government puts it</a>, 'local authorities could spend as much or as little of the funding as they wanted, depending on their own local priorities'[1]. Mmm...<br />
<br />
Anyway, at least it was funded. Central government allocated local authorities a total of about £175 million for 2013-2014, and about £172 million for 2014-2015.<br />
<br />
However in December 2013 government announced - unexpectedly - that they would give local authorities no money at all from the beginning of tax year 2015-2016 for these purposes.<br />
<br />
To say this was bad news is clearly an understatement, particularly in the context of the appalling extent of funding cuts to the poorest local authorities. According <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/most-deprived-english-councils-suffer-biggest-cuts-in-spending-power-10045665.html" target="_blank">figures recently released in the Independent</a>, between 2010/11 and 2015/16 the ten local authorities with the highest levels of health deprivation and disability have seen their spending power per head fall by an average of £275.69, compared with £23.19 in the ten local authorities with the lowest levels of health deprivation and disability[2]. The government's own figures, quoted by the Child Poverty Action Group's <a href="http://www.cpag.org.uk/sites/default/files/CPAG%20Local%20Welfare%20Assisitance%20Schemes%20Policy%20Note%20May%202014.pdf" target="_blank">policy note on local welfare assistance schemes</a>, show that in the final year of the old-style social fund, 32.4% of the money used to pay Community Care Grants was paid to people with disabilities[3]. It is hard to see how the poorer local authorities, in particular, would be able to fund any kind of local welfare assistance in these circumstances.
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
The decision to remove this funding was challenged by judicial review. The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), an 'intervener' in the case, pointed out that there was no indication in Parliamentary debates that the support for the schemes would be temporary, and also noted that although the DWP had committed to reviewing the schemes in 2014/15 to 'help inform future funding levels', they hadn't actually done this[4].</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
The case was settled when the government agreed to carry out a consultation. Their initial response to the consultation was not encouraging: They argued that there was already money allocated for this kind of thing in general grant funding to local authorities totalling about £130 million for the year 2015-2016[5]. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
However, on 3rd February Kris Hopkins, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, announced that the government was, after all, going to fund the scheme again[6]. Unfortunately, they have only agreed to provide £74 million, which still amounts to a cut of about 57% compared with the previous year. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
As the Chief Executive of CPAG, Alison Garnham, observed, in <a href="http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/cpag-responds-local-welfare-decision" target="_blank">her response</a> [7]:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<i>"It’s obviously disappointing that despite all the evidence ministers are still insisting on a cut targeted at the poorest in their moment of greatest need but the £74m announced today may help preserve the foundations of local welfare assistance schemes which are a crucial last resort for people in acute need".</i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
Finally, and crucially, there are two other problems with the local welfare assistance schemes: there is no new statutory duty for local authorities to provide anything; nor is the money provided by central government ring-fenced[8]. Combining these with the punitive pattern of general funding cuts to local authorities we have the worst possible kind of post-code lottery: areas of high deprivation are going to have larger numbers of people approaching them for help, and less assistance - if any - to offer them.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
[1] <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/401094/150203_LWP_consultation_summary_and_equalities_statement_FINAL.pdf" target="_blank">Local welfare provision in 2015-16: Consultation Summary of responses</a>, paragraph 1<br />
[2] "<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/most-deprived-english-councils-suffer-biggest-cuts-in-spending-power-10045665.html" target="_blank">Most deprived English councils suffer biggest cuts in spending power</a>", Independent<br />
[3] <a href="http://www.cpag.org.uk/sites/default/files/CPAG%20Local%20Welfare%20Assisitance%20Schemes%20Policy%20Note%20May%202014.pdf" target="_blank">CPAG Policy Note 1: Local Welfare Schemes (May 2014)</a> - Section 4: who benefits from LWAS?<br />
[4] <a href="http://www.cpag.org.uk/sites/default/files/CPAG%20Local%20Welfare%20Assisitance%20Schemes%20Policy%20Note%20May%202014.pdf" target="_blank">CPAG Policy Note 1: Local Welfare Schemes (May 2014)</a> - Section 5: the future of LWAS?<br />
[5] <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/401094/150203_LWP_consultation_summary_and_equalities_statement_FINAL.pdf" target="_blank">Local welfare provision in 2015-16: Consultation Summary of responses</a>, paragraph 4<br />
[6] <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm150203/wmstext/150203m0001.htm" target="_blank">Hansard - written statements 3rd February 2015</a><br />
[7] <a href="http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/cpag-responds-local-welfare-decision" target="_blank">CPAG responds to local welfare decision, CPAG, 3rd February 2015</a><br />
[8] <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/401094/150203_LWP_consultation_summary_and_equalities_statement_FINAL.pdf" target="_blank">Local welfare provision in 2015-16: Consultation Summary of responses</a>, paragraph 1<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4352011419058403668.post-85687890919821671852014-11-28T09:26:00.001-08:002014-11-28T09:26:45.912-08:00Universal Credit expands to include some people with children......but don't get too excited.<br />
<br />
Until now, only claimants without without children were able to claim Universal Credit (and even then not in all places in the UK). This is no longer the case.<br />
<br />
From 24th November, some claimants with children will be able to claim Universal Credit.<br />
<br />
However, this will <i><b>only</b></i> apply to people who claim in the some districts of Chester, the Wirral, and Warrington. The actual postcode areas included* are:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Chester: CH41, CH42, CH43, CH44, CH45, CH46, CH47, CH48, CH49, CH60, CH61, CH62 0 to CH62 9, and CH63.</li>
<li>Warrington: WA1 and WA2; WA3 4 to WA3 7; WA4 and WA5; WA13 0; WA13 9.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
Even in these areas, not all claimants with children or young people will be able to claim Universal Credit. The main exceptions are claimants who are responsible for any children or young people get Disability Living Allowance or Personal Independence Payment, or are registered blind, or partially sighted.<br />
<br />
All the other restrictions on who will be transferred from the 'old' to the UC systems still apply**.<br />
<br />
For example, new claims for Universal Credit can only be made by people who are looking for work; in other words, people who would otherwise be claiming Jobseeker's Allowance. So single parents of children under 5 will still not be included (they are able to claim Income Support); nor will claimants who have a limited capability for work (they will still be claiming Employment and Support Allowance).<br />
<br />
Another key exclusion is that people currently in receipt of tax credits will not be included. In practice, as far as I can see, this means that anyone who have had children for a while won't be affected, as - almost certainly - they will be getting Child Tax Credit already.<br />
<br />
Putting all this together (and there are quite a few other restrictions I haven't touched on) the only people who will be moving onto the Universal Credit as a result of this new change are parents who have just had their first child, where one of the parents is just about to start looking for work. Who live in Chester, the Wirral, or Chester.<br />
<br />
Having said all that, once a claimant is in the Universal Credit system they stay in the Universal Credit system, whatever their changes in circumstances.<br />
<br />
In other Universal Credit news, the National Audit Office has published another critical <a href="ttp://www.nao.org.uk/report/universal-credit-progress-update-2/" target="_blank">report</a>. The <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/universal-credit-is-not-providing-value-for-money-despite-ids-claims-9883002.html" target="_blank">Independent</a> notes that the NAO declined to agree with Iain Duncan Smith's assertion that the Universal Credit project is providing value for money.<br />
<br />
<br />
"The National Audit Office has concluded that it is too early to determine if the Department for Work & Pensions will achieve value for money in its implementation of the Universal Credit programme.<br />
<br />
The Department set out to transform the benefits system with Universal Credit and suffered early setbacks. Since the reset in early 2013, it has reduced the delivery risks by significantly extending its timetable for introducing Universal Credit and choosing a more expensive twin-track approach: the roll-out of its ‘live service’ (which uses pre-2013 IT assets), while at the same time developing its new ‘digital service’.<br />
<br />
The DWP believes the additional costs of this approach are justified because it expects Universal Credit to achieve substantial benefits for society sooner and more safely. However, such potential benefits do not mean Universal Credit will be value for money regardless of how it is implemented and the cost of doing so."<br />
<br />
<br />
The Independent also notes that the project "will not now be fully implemented by the end of 2019". As of a year ago, Duncan Smith was still insisting that the everything would be complete by 2017 (see, for example, my post from about a year ago: <a href="http://benefitsowl.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/universal-credit-another-update.html" target="_blank">http://benefitsowl.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/universal-credit-another-update.html</a>).<br />
<br />
In the meantime, I'll continue to do my best to keep you informed of progress.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
*I've extracted this information (with some difficulty) from the following sources:<br />
<a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/3067/made" target="_blank">The Welfare Reform Act 2012 (Commencement No. 9, 11, 13 14, 16, 17 and 19 and Transitional and Transitory Provisions (Amendment)) Order 2014</a><br />
<a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1583/contents/made" target="_blank">The Welfare Reform Act 2012 (Commencement No. 17 and Transitional and Transitory Provisions) Order 2014</a><br />
(Goodness me: if nothing else Universal Credit is providing plenty of employment for drafters of legislation. Universal Credit has created an astonishing cobweb of legislative instruments.)<br />
<br />
**For full details of these see <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/377732/uc-families-questions-answers.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/377732/uc-families-questions-answers.pdf</a><br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4352011419058403668.post-2232691888462294802014-10-23T07:59:00.000-07:002014-10-23T08:00:03.923-07:00The EU and David Cameron - some observationsOn 20th October David Cameron was visiting the Ford motor plant in Dagenham, and said this:<br />
<br />
<i>'What we need in Britain is a renegotiation of our relationship with the EU and then a referendum where the British people decide do we stay in this reformed organisation or do we leave it.</i><br />
<i><br /></i><i>'That’s what I will pursue, that’s what I will deliver, and at the heart of that renegotiation we need to address people’s concerns about immigration. I’m very clear about who the boss is, about who I answer to and it’s the British people. They want this issue fixed, they are not being unreasonable about it, and I will fix it.'</i><br />
(Source: The Guardian: <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/20/eu-leaders-conservative-plan-free-movement-cap-migrants-barroso" target="_blank">http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/20/eu-leaders-conservative-plan-free-movement-cap-migrants-barroso</a>)<br />
<br />
This statement, and others like it, left me angry, but also perplexed. On many of the matters raised, Cameron is either being disingenuous, or he is deluded.<br />
<br />
So instead of a tiresome rant, I'm going to try to look, calmly, at the facts.<br />
<br />
<b>Firstly, an encouraging fact</b>: at least for me. According to a <a href="https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3463/Support-for-EU-membership-highest-for-23-years-even-as-UKIP-rises-in-the-polls.aspx" target="_blank">recent IPSOS-MORI poll</a>, support for staying in the EU is currently at its highest level since 1991: 56% of Britons are in favour of staying in the EU, against 36% who want to leave.<br />
<br />
Of course, this doesn't ncessesarily mean that all of the 56% who want to stay are completely happy with the status quo, but it does suggest that the image presented by Cameron of an angry majority demanding radical reform is exaggerated.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Next, let's look at this issue of 'renegotiation of our relationship with the EU'.</b><br />
<br />
For once, I agree with Nigel Farage:<br />
'<i>It is impossible to change the free movement of peoples within Europe without a fundamental treaty change with 27 other European countries. Nobody wants it, nobody is interested, and the prime minister knows it's not possible.'</i><br />
(Source: The BBC: <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29642604" target="_blank">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29642604</a>)<br />
<br />
Freedom of movement for workers, and those seeking work, is a fundamental principle of the European Union. It was part of the original treaty of Rome that set up the (then) EEC in the first place, and can now be found as Article 45 of the <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT" target="_blank">Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union</a> (TFEU). This is what it says:<br />
<br />
<div style="display: inline !important;">
<i>1. Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Union.<br />
2. Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment.</i></div>
<i>3. It shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health:</i><br />
<i>(a) to accept offers of employment actually made;</i><br />
<i>(b) to move freely within the territory of Member States for this purpose;</i><br />
<i>(c) to stay in a Member State for the purpose of employment in accordance with the provisions governing the employment of nationals of that State laid down by law, regulation or administrative action;</i><br />
<i>(d) to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that State, subject to conditions which shall be embodied in regulations to be drawn up by the Commission.
</i><br />
<br />
Note that this gives freedom of movement, not just to people who are actually working, but those who move to another member state in order to look for work.
<br />
<br />
The only room for manoeuvre available to the government, as far as I can see, is provided by the qualifier at the beginning of paragraph 3: '<i>subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health'. </i>However, it is not clear that this allows sweeping restrictions that act against the spirit of the Article as a whole. This position appears to be supported by the fact that in the resultant legislation, the government uses the phrase quoted in a way that is clearly intended to refer to individuals (see, for example, Regulation 21 in <a href="http://lawvolumes.dwp.gov.uk/docs/a1-6209.pdf" target="_blank">The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006</a>).<br />
<br />
There is a strange doctrinal conflict in the opposition to the principle of free movement. The most strident arguments against the principle seem to come from the conservative end of the political spectrum. As a rough generalisation, right wing thinkers tend to favour a free market, 'laissez faire', economic system. It is arguable that the EU is a textbook example of a this philosophy in action. And yet the proponents of this approach don't seem to like it so much when it doesn't work the way they want it to. If the free market is so great, why is it not appropriate to apply it to individuals looking for work?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>However, whatever position you adopt on the matter, it's undeniable that there is net migration from other EU countries to the UK. But even here, the facts aren't quite how they are portrayed.</b><br />
<br />
Here's a typical recent headline:<br />
'One million MORE migrants will flood Britain before EU vote, warns Farage'<br />
(Source: The Express: <a href="http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/524125/EXCLUSIVE-One-million-MORE-migrants-will-flood-Britain-before-EU-vote-warns-Farage" target="_blank">http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/524125/EXCLUSIVE-One-million-MORE-migrants-will-flood-Britain-before-EU-vote-warns-Farage</a>)<br />
<br />
The argument seems plausible. The report states that net migration is currently 243,000 people per year. The referendum is due in three years' time. It follows from this that at that point the number of additional migrants will reach... 729,000. OK, that's not a million, but we won't quibble about the odd 271,000.<br />
<br />
The figure quoted by Farage is correct, and comes from the <a href="http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_375307.pdf" target="_blank">Migration Statistics Quarterly Report, August 2014</a>, from the Office of National Statistics. However it needs a bit of unpicking. Firstly, the figure quoted is for all migration, not just that from the EU, which accounts for 131,000 of the total.<br />
<br />
Secondly, we need to ask: is the figure of 131,000 typical for recent years? Is it part of a trend? And if it is, where is the trend going? These are tricky questions to answer, partly because the figures from the ONS have a high (but specified) degree of uncertainty*. Here's a chart showing net EU migration over the last ten years.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi26e2zVV3-ZlkK2aD4WvbtdmEfwJWz0mIvFab_FSRWTXi1EDpvVsbEtGDJ6TnyFeMJ8NfygUMSTUe1cga6ZjOk4YlCmeW-4rEzhPnf4GP9upL6XNlj_68pG7F7WEyui0TRcFt7lwaFj1Y/s1600/Picture+95.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi26e2zVV3-ZlkK2aD4WvbtdmEfwJWz0mIvFab_FSRWTXi1EDpvVsbEtGDJ6TnyFeMJ8NfygUMSTUe1cga6ZjOk4YlCmeW-4rEzhPnf4GP9upL6XNlj_68pG7F7WEyui0TRcFt7lwaFj1Y/s1600/Picture+95.png" height="437" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
(The error bars are based on the ONS data: according to their analysis, there is a 95% probability that the actual figure lies within the range.)<br />
<br />
To be fair to the Euro-sceptics, and even allowing for the uncertainty in the data values, there is an apparent upwards trend over the last couple of years. The last three data points suggest that this increase has stabilised, but at around 130,000. The trend doesn't coincide with any of the big changes in access to the UK market: The last major change before then was April 2011, when the A8 countries (The Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia) were given full access to the UK labour market.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, a Europhile might argue that it's not possible to extrapolate a clear trend from this data, and would also note that the mean migration rate over both the first five years and the second five years is almost identical, at about 87,000.<br />
<br />
In fact you could make either argument from the figures: the truth is we don't know. But I'd be reluctant to embark on major treaty reform on the basis on these figures.<br />
<br />
It's also important to look at the bigger picture, that of the overall population growth of the UK. Again, according to the ONS (this time the <a href="http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_367167.pdf" target="_blank">Annual Mid-year Population Estimates, 2013</a>, published in June 2014), the UK population reached 64.1 million by mid-2013, an increase of 401,000 since mid-2012.<br />
<br />
Based on the mean EU migration rate quoted above, it follows that entire net EU migration over the last ten years represents just 1.4% of the current population.<br />
<br />
But let's look breakdown the population growth into categories.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgW7pp8aB9kLJ6GWn42SBp2R7qio6gKKh1xNMTlCvpBe7ffOwk8pWRNfcd41rLNk_FdN-b7EvjhMyyMJ5_vhOiwJQw5LnuA4o6SMZXq97dJdxE_zAlLnkhIRg9WtlsmJMy-7bs-AiXIDHU/s1600/Picture+93.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgW7pp8aB9kLJ6GWn42SBp2R7qio6gKKh1xNMTlCvpBe7ffOwk8pWRNfcd41rLNk_FdN-b7EvjhMyyMJ5_vhOiwJQw5LnuA4o6SMZXq97dJdxE_zAlLnkhIRg9WtlsmJMy-7bs-AiXIDHU/s1600/Picture+93.png" height="627" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
The majority of the increase is accounted for by natural change (births minus deaths). EU migration accounts for just over a quarter of the total. It's worth noting, also, that half of the EU migration is accounted for by citizens of the pre-enlargement EU states.<br />
<br />
So, yes, EU migration does contribute to the pressure on our housing stock, transport infrastructure, and other resources, but not as much we contribute ourselves.<br />
<br />
<b>Conclusions</b><br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Firstly, the majority of British citizens appear to want to stay in the EU.</li>
<li>Secondly, the concept of renegotiating our relationship with the EU so as to restrict access to the UK for EU nationals doesn't seem to have any connection with reality.</li>
<li>Thirdly, although there is net UK migration into the UK, the actual figures are complex, open to misreading, and provisional.</li>
<li>Fourthly, EU migration accounts for only about a quarter of recent population growth (assuming the figures for year ending June 2013 are typical. </li>
</ul>
<br />
I have not considered two other issues at all. One is the reality of the restrictions currently faced by EU migrants in the UK: if you want more information about this, have a look at my website - <a href="http://www.benefitsowl.info/abroad-eea-cit.html" target="_blank">http://www.benefitsowl.info/abroad-eea-cit.html</a><br />
<br />
The other is a question that is rarely considered at all: why is it a given that net migration from the EU is necessarily bad?<br />
<br />
I'll leave that hanging in the air.<br />
<br />
<br />
*The raw migration data (which I've used for this post) is available from a link within the Migration Report, and also here: <a href="http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/migration1/migration-statistics-quarterly-report/august-2014/rft-table-1---provisional-estimates.xls" target="_blank">http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/migration1/migration-statistics-quarterly-report/august-2014/rft-table-1---provisional-estimates.xls</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4352011419058403668.post-12242179083129357292014-09-29T09:45:00.000-07:002014-09-29T09:45:34.827-07:00Universal Credit : list of roll-out dates<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Universal Credit is rolling out a bit further this autumn. The current expansion seems to be filling in the gaps in the previous roll-outs in the northwest, and so mainly affects the big cities and towns. The postcode areas covered are therefore:</span><br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">BB (Blackburn)</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">BL (Bolton)</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">CA (Carlisle)</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">CH (Chester)</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">CW (Crewe)</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">FY (Blackpool)</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">L (Liverpool)</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">LA (Lancaster)</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">M (Manchester)</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">OL (Oldham)</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">PR (Preston)</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">SK (Stockport)</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">WA (Warrington)</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">WN (Wigan)</span></li>
</ul>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Note that, at the moment, claims are only being accepted from single people and couples without children who would otherwise be claiming Jobseeker's Allowance - those unable to work will still be claiming Employment and Support Allowance, and carers will still be claiming Income Support. </span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The list of which postcode areas are affected and when is provided by a DWP memo: </span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/351530/adm16-14.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/351530/adm16-14.pdf</a></span></div>
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The memo (and the underlying legislation) group the data by dates, so it is quite hard to see clearly how things develop in any one city or town. However, you don't need to worry about this, as I've re-arranged the data for you here.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Note that '</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">BB9 7' means (for example) any postcode in the format BB9 7xx, such as BB9 7AA.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If the postcode you are interested in doesn't feature here, the likelihood is that it has already been included (for example, L20 postcodes already operate Universal Credit, as the local authority involved is Sefton, not Liverpool.</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1ovnTQehOgJpLHLLMrLATiyqWWNQv7Xv7Ihr3nKamob42MNeS13Xvs1r3PFjDm5uyS5t5emXBV1fT5qJ3bGotl3MNLJGrmlpCKFlvGvKT2Ycad-fa7ZX4LCWTDGpuztc26ewxNiX4qeU/s1600/Picture+65.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1ovnTQehOgJpLHLLMrLATiyqWWNQv7Xv7Ihr3nKamob42MNeS13Xvs1r3PFjDm5uyS5t5emXBV1fT5qJ3bGotl3MNLJGrmlpCKFlvGvKT2Ycad-fa7ZX4LCWTDGpuztc26ewxNiX4qeU/s1600/Picture+65.png" height="570" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWBIldJTEsAxIdTn1IeFbuRIbOW-BVQp6Ty4ym3VLR-6iCuTwoJ5q42A0VhIkzTZXGCywH-kgQVZ6WFYxThD6FUpKs9lnEiHKRPyqiCS18hyphenhyphenslzjmWUNYjk1EeT2vABjrU8f4f9isKBlU/s1600/Picture+73.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWBIldJTEsAxIdTn1IeFbuRIbOW-BVQp6Ty4ym3VLR-6iCuTwoJ5q42A0VhIkzTZXGCywH-kgQVZ6WFYxThD6FUpKs9lnEiHKRPyqiCS18hyphenhyphenslzjmWUNYjk1EeT2vABjrU8f4f9isKBlU/s1600/Picture+73.png" height="340" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibkyEA4Q7cUIWfjdywjJ1vLAY_u3yiwJk5OeOHg35SoCJkhEOg5MfBzO6U5WGohLy_R5xVd1j8KSRfBqERh47L8E6aW1FfbB9_hiysF45HXyDvvODQNkEDYeAvygi1vSWsE8-PPAs_ljM/s1600/Picture+74.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibkyEA4Q7cUIWfjdywjJ1vLAY_u3yiwJk5OeOHg35SoCJkhEOg5MfBzO6U5WGohLy_R5xVd1j8KSRfBqERh47L8E6aW1FfbB9_hiysF45HXyDvvODQNkEDYeAvygi1vSWsE8-PPAs_ljM/s1600/Picture+74.png" height="404" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMw_D4POFZ08c6x82jqK6MSq7ZL2a9_Fk5iQ_L_AnyWwYd2MCmwHRof7gm46HF-WvEQPdREW3fFGvleSlFyXNe4t-BPWX0a7RIl1WmxYhtCqNi-Eegr53ASsHHC4IMti4grwsAVcNMsrA/s1600/Picture+75.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMw_D4POFZ08c6x82jqK6MSq7ZL2a9_Fk5iQ_L_AnyWwYd2MCmwHRof7gm46HF-WvEQPdREW3fFGvleSlFyXNe4t-BPWX0a7RIl1WmxYhtCqNi-Eegr53ASsHHC4IMti4grwsAVcNMsrA/s1600/Picture+75.png" height="614" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBzIIYLvT0vTNLqaOWMq8TRqm6gimtrk_4k7nJYbpnAluNG_aKWIOfuuU0eBbPtwyOtMnNU4PQWmwOSdBuS_6jkxs0Nbx3hsWyFvSGxTjyxMU4Hkox_uept_IQ_Yaj-PCk7zs3GGKLe-E/s1600/Picture+77.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBzIIYLvT0vTNLqaOWMq8TRqm6gimtrk_4k7nJYbpnAluNG_aKWIOfuuU0eBbPtwyOtMnNU4PQWmwOSdBuS_6jkxs0Nbx3hsWyFvSGxTjyxMU4Hkox_uept_IQ_Yaj-PCk7zs3GGKLe-E/s1600/Picture+77.png" height="640" width="638" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4352011419058403668.post-35004191187439668832014-09-18T10:24:00.000-07:002014-09-18T10:24:34.548-07:00The latest threat to the Bedroom Tax?<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The bedroom tax has been a frequent visitor to this blog; unsurprisingly, given the impact it has had on many benefit claimants. In my <a href="http://benefitsowl.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/shock-news-bedroom-tax-isnt-working.html" target="_blank">last post</a> I looked at the government's own report on it, which found, amongst other things, that only 41% of claimants had paid the full shortfall, and that only 4.5% of tenants have actually downsized as a result of the shortfall.</span><br />
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">However there are signs that the days of the bedroom tax, as we currently know it, are numbered. The most recent development comes in the form of a private member's bill that has been brought to Parliament. The bill's sponsor is Liberal Democrat MP Andrew George: at its second reading on 5th September 2014 MPs voted 306 to 231 in favour, and it has now awaiting scrutiny by the Public Bill Committee.</span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(If you want to see who voted in favour of the bill, and who didn't, check out <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2014-09-05a.603.0" target="_blank">http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2014-09-05a.603.0</a>)</span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What is the bill intended to do?</span></b></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(If you want to check out the details of the bill yourself, you can find it here: </span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2014-2015/0013/cbill_2014-20150013_en_2.htm" target="_blank">http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2014-2015/0013/cbill_2014-20150013_en_2.htm</a>)</span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Let's be clear: the bill is not designed to end the bedroom tax (the 'housing benefit size criteria restrictions' to give it its official name). However it is intended to address some of the most problematic issues.</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Remember that the main effect of the bedroom tax is to reduce the maximum Housing Benefit available by 14% if a claimant has one 'too many' bedrooms, or by 25% if they have more than one. For more details see my website: <a href="http://www.benefitsowl.info/bedroom%20tax.html" target="_blank">http://www.benefitsowl.info/bedroom%20tax.html</a>.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The bill addresses situations where <b>the claimant, their partner, or a close relative is disabled</b>. Under the current rules many people in this situation will be expected to share a room: couples, for example, are normally only entitled to one room, and some children will be expected to share. At the moment, therefore, people in this situation will have to chose between sharing where it is not appropriate, and having a 14% reduction in their maximum Housing Benefit.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If the bill were accepted there would be no reduction for a claimant in this situation, provided the disabled person was getting any component or any rate of Personal Independence Payment or Disability Living Allowance, and provided that the local authority was satisfied that it was reasonable for the disabled person to need a separate room.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Note that, in the scenario described above, a claimant would still be subject to reduction in their maximum Housing Benefit if there were additional bedrooms not needed to accommodate the disabled person. For example, if a family is currently treated as having <i>two</i> spare bedrooms, even though a disabled person is actually using one of them, there would still be a reduction, although it would now be 14% rather than 25%.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">However, there is another provision in the bill that specifies that there should be <i>no</i> reduction at all, irrespective of how many bedrooms there are, if the home has been adapted to meet a disability need of the claimant, their partner, or a close relative, provided the cost of the adaptation exceeds a certain amount (the last proviso presumably existing to prevent a person making minimal changes to a property, that could easily be replicated elsewhere, in order to benefit from the rule).</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The bill also addresses another very common scenario: what if there is <b>no alternative accommodation available</b>? Currently, if a claimant is 'under-occupying', and is willing to move to a smaller home, they are still subject to the bedroom tax even if they can find nowhere smaller to move to.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If the bill were accepted, <i>no</i> reduction would be made if the claimant's landlord and the local authority are not able to make a 'reasonable offer of alternative accommodation'.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Finally, the bill does something that will not affect individual claimants, but may assist tenants in the future. It proposes a <b>review</b> of the availability affordable and 'intermediate' housing, to assess: the extent of the need; what progress has been made to meet the need; and the availability of resources to meet the need. It also empowers the government to contribute to any solution. I doubt that this proposal will find its way into any final bill, but would be happy to be proved wrong: it would be nice to have policy that was evidence-based rather than inspired by dogma or political expediency. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">How does the bill compare to repealing the bedroom tax legislation?</span></b><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">For people who need an extra bedroom because of disability, and for people who would downsize if they could, the bill would be great news if it became law. However the bill does not help people who maintain that they need an extra room for other reasons (including disabled people who use the 'spare' room to store disability-related items). It also does not directly help people who are affected by the bedroom tax now, but need to stay in the same property because their children are getting older and so will need additional bedrooms soon, although it is possible that claimants in that position might be able to argue that alternative accommodation is not 'reasonable'. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The bill also does not resolve the thorny question of what constitutes a bedroom in this context. The legislation that created the bedroom tax (the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2012/9780111525784/regulation/5" target="_blank">Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2012</a>) does not define what a bedroom is, which has caused problems for claimants and for tribunals alike. In a <a href="http://benefitsowl.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/bedroom-tax-important-development.html" target="_blank">previous post</a> I noted a tribunal judge who used overcrowding regulations as a guide, but as this was a 1st Tier tribunal his findings do not set a precedent. If the bill became law this confusion would still exist.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">On the other hand, the bill may satisfy those MPs who are unhappy about the affects of the bedroom tax on disabled constituents and those for whom alternative accommodation is not available, but nonetheless sympathise with the government's stated aim of increasing availability of homes for larger families.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If Labour win an outright majority at the next general election, they have undertaken to abolish the bedroom tax. The most recent statement I have from the Liberal Democrats is a commitment to reform the legislation: these proposals look very similar to the contents of the bill. And the Conservative party want to keep the bedroom tax (or, as they call it, the spare room subsidy) unchanged (for details of all these see my <a href="http://benefitsowl.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/shock-news-bedroom-tax-isnt-working.html" target="_blank">last post</a>).</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">When I have more news about the bill, I'll let you know.</span><br />
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4352011419058403668.post-9167953939910792542014-07-25T08:58:00.003-07:002014-07-25T08:58:30.574-07:00Shock news: Bedroom Tax isn't working(!)<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:DocumentProperties>
<o:Template>Normal</o:Template>
<o:Revision>0</o:Revision>
<o:TotalTime>0</o:TotalTime>
<o:Pages>1</o:Pages>
<o:Words>1036</o:Words>
<o:Characters>5910</o:Characters>
<o:Lines>49</o:Lines>
<o:Paragraphs>11</o:Paragraphs>
<o:CharactersWithSpaces>7257</o:CharactersWithSpaces>
<o:Version>11.1282</o:Version>
</o:DocumentProperties>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:DoNotShowRevisions/>
<w:DoNotPrintRevisions/>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:UseMarginsForDrawingGridOrigin/>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">I'm
signed up with<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #000cf2;"> <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/announcements?keywords=&announcement_filter_option=all&topics%5B%5D=all&departments%5B%5D=department-for-work-pensions&world_locations%5B%5D=all&from_date=&to_date=" target="_blank">gov.uk</a></span> to receive alerts of any press
releases relating to social security matters: when they publish reports they
are normally keen to let people know straight away. Oddly enough, though, they
made no mention of a report they published on 15th July. The report's name is
'Evaluation of Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy: Interim report'. The 'Spare
room subsidy' is, of course, what other people call the 'Bedroom Tax'.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">You
can see the report yourself here: <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/local-housing-allowance-monitoring-the-impact-of-changes" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/local-housing-allowance-monitoring-the-impact-of-changes</a></span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #000cf2; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The
report is not an opinion document: it just gathers facts and presents them. The
facts, though, are damning. It's not surprising that the government wasn't very
happy about it.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">(Remember,
first, that what the bedroom tax does is this: in effect, it reduces the amount
that counts as rent for Housing Benefit purposes by 14% if you have a 'spare'
bedroom, or by 25% if you have two or more 'spare' bedrooms. If you want more details, check out my information on it at <a href="http://www.benefitsowl.info/bedroom%20tax.html" target="_blank">http://www.benefitsowl.info/bedroom%20tax.html</a>.)</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">The
report found that five months into the scheme, only 41% of tenants had paid the
full shortfall: 39% had paid some, and 20% had paid nothing at all towards the
bedroom tax.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">For
those who did manage to pay some or all of the increase, how did they manage
this?</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-pagination: none; mso-text-indent-alt: -36.0pt; tab-stops: 11.0pt 36.0pt; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -36.0pt;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">57% of claimants reported cutting
back on housing essentials;</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-pagination: none; mso-text-indent-alt: -36.0pt; tab-stops: 11.0pt 36.0pt; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -36.0pt;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">26% said that they had had to
borrow money (mostly from family and friends, but also using credit cards and
payday loans);</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-pagination: none; mso-text-indent-alt: -36.0pt; tab-stops: 11.0pt 36.0pt; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -36.0pt;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">10% had used savings;</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; mso-pagination: none; mso-text-indent-alt: -36.0pt; tab-stops: 11.0pt 36.0pt; text-autospace: none; text-indent: -36.0pt;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">9% had been given money from
family members;</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">Let's
just stop there for a moment, and note, firstly, that you're in trouble if
you've got no family members with spare cash, and, secondly, that those with
savings will soon not have any.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">Moving
on again, what about taking the government's suggested route, downsizing to a
suitable property. Unfortunately, the report records that only 4.5% of affected
tenants have done this. But maybe this is just because people are reluctant to
move? Well, no. It turns out that in local authority areas where only a few
people are affected by the bedroom tax, many more (up to 16%) are able to
downsize. In other words, as the report puts it, 'this suggests that
landlords with the highest proportion of affected tenants will have more
difficulties in meeting the demand for downsizing'.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">Furthermore,
it is reported that although 19% of affected tenants had registered for
downsizing, social landlords said that 'they had not yet been able to
accommodate most of those who wanted to move to a smaller home'.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">Unsurprisingly
(at least to me) only 1.4% had moved to the private rental sector; where the
discrepancy between the rent charged by the landlord and that met by Housing
Benefit tends to be even higher. Don't forget, for example, that single adults
under 35 can only get enough Housing Benefit to cover living in a room in a
shared house.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">Apart
from there being nowhere to move to (as we've now established), why didn't
people want to move? Many of the reasons are easy to imagine, but here's one
that hadn't occurred to me (nor, I imagine, to the government): 'knowing that
they would soon cease to be affected by the [bedroom tax] - for instance
because a child would turn ten or 16 and would require their own room'. Yes. It
makes lots of sense to move to a smaller property when in a year's time you'll
be entitled to the home you've just left...</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">The
report also looked at of Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs), the extra
housing benefit available for claimants with additional needs, who ask for
it, <i>and</i></span><span lang="EN-US"> whose requests are granted by their local authorities. A key
concern raised was that some claimants were refused because disability benefits
they were getting (i.e. Disability Living Allowance, Personal
Independence Payment, etc) were treated as extra income that reduced their need
for help. A further concern was that more than half (56%) of the claimants
surveyed who had not applied for a DHP were unaware of them.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">Finally,
what about the main declared purpose of the bedroom tax (freeing up properties
for large families who needed them)? 41% of social landlords surveyed said that
they were having difficulty filling their larger properties. Landlords and
local authorities also reported that waiting times for smaller properties had
increased: don't forget that many of the people on these waiting lists will be
there precisely because they are trying to do what the government wants them to
do, downsize, and therefore will be forced to pay the bedroom tax for longer.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US"><b>What
do the main political parties want to do about the bedroom tax?</b></span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">The
Conservatives want to keep it, obviously, although even some of their number
are expressing concerns. Somewhat startlingly (to me, anyway), Norman Tebbit
has come out against it. The<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #000cf2;"> <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/03/19/norman-tebbit-bedroom-tax-conservative-party_n_4994203.html" target="_blank">Huffington Post</a></span>, for example, reports his
comments: '<i>I worry about what Labour chooses to call the bedroom tax.
Because so often what is a spare room is in fact a vital part of the looking
after an elderly person. It enables their relatives to come, it enables carers
to be there...I think we introduced that rather without thinking it through
very well, and I think that's costing us</i></span><span lang="EN-US">.'</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">Labour
want to scrap the tax: in fact they have an<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #000cf2;"> <a href="http://action.labour.org.uk/page/s/bedroom-tax-vote?source=14_02_26_bedroomtax_SignOn" target="_blank">online petition</a></span> about it. It's only fair
to point out, though, that the previous labour government brought in the first
bedroom tax, by limiting Housing Benefit to claimants renting in the private
sector according to how many bedrooms they needed (amongst other factors). It
was called the 'local housing allowance', was brought in in 2008, and is still
in force. Furthermore, <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo040119/text/40119w42.htm" target="_blank">Hansard</a> clearly indicates that it was the
Labour government's intention to extend something similar to the social rented
sector.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">The
Liberal Democrats have recently <a href="http://www.libdems.org.uk/lib_dems_commit_to_spare_room_subsidy_reform#" target="_blank">stated</a> that they are committed to reform the
bedroom tax. They say that they plans '<i>will see those already in the social
rented sector only lose their benefit if they are offered a suitable smaller
home and turn it down</i></span><span lang="EN-US">' and '<i>would also permanently exempt disabled adults</i></span><span lang="EN-US">'. This isn't in
line with their previous statements. The <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/17/nick-clegg-bedroom-tax-opposed-defended_n_5594300.html" target="_blank">Huffington Post</a> eloquently illustrates
six opportunities when Nick Clegg could have opposed the bedroom tax but,
instead, defended it. The Lib Dems don't exactly have an perfect record of
keeping pre-election promises. </span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN-US">Take
your pick...</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Times-Roman; font-size: 16.0pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<!--EndFragment--><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4352011419058403668.post-52971391691166029432014-05-05T10:20:00.000-07:002014-05-23T03:59:58.763-07:00Universal Credit expands in the north-west<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">On 29th April the government announced that 'the expansion of the full Universal Credit benefit to the rest of the north west of England will start in June': </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/universal-credit-first-year-of-welfare-transformation-and-north-west-next-steps" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/news/universal-credit-first-year-of-welfare-transformation-and-north-west-next-steps</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But what does that really <i>mean</i>? and who will it affect?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(For detailed information about what Universal Credit is and how it works, check out <a href="http://www.benefitsowl.info/universal%20credit.html" target="_blank">http://www.benefitsowl.info/universal%20credit.html</a></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">.)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>What is the situation <i>now</i>?</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">At the moment, in the north-west of England, Universal Credit only affects people who live in the following local authority areas: Wigan, Warrington, Oldham, and Tameside. These are known as 'pathfinder areas'. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">However, even in these areas, only a fairly small subset of potential claimants need to worry about Universal Credit. <i>Universal Credit is currently only available to single claimants who are between 18 and 60½, are not working, are looking for work, and are not getting any other benefits or tax credits when they make their claim.</i> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What is happening from June?</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">From June this year Universal Credit will expand to cover claimants live in the areas covered by:</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bolton Borough Council</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Bury Borough Council</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Cheshire East Council</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Cheshire West and Chester Council</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Knowsley Borough Council</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Preston City Council</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Salford City Council</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Sefton Borough Council</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">South Ribble Borough Council</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">St Helens Borough Council</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Trafford Borough Council</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Wirral Borough Council</span></li>
</ul>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(You might note that Manchester and Liverpool are missing from this list.)</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">These new areas will only be applying Universal Credit to the same group of claimants as in the earlier pathfinder areas, i.e. single claimants who are between 18 and 60½, are not working, are looking for work, and are not getting any other benefits or tax credits when they make their claim. In effect, therefore, the roll out will initially only have an impact on single jobseekers who are not getting any other benefits at the moment.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">For people living in the existing pathfinder areas - Wigan, Warrington, Oldham, and Tameside - the net will gradually be expanded to include some couples making new claims, according to the government's press release.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">To get an up-to-date list of areas that are included check out <a href="https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit/eligibility" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit/eligibility</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">When you say 'from June'...</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Well...</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There are two important phrases in the government's press release: </span><br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><i><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">'from June more jobcentres across the north west of England will <b>gradually</b> come online each week until the whole region is covered'</span></i></li>
<li><i><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">'We are currently <b>in discussion</b> with the following 12 local authorities to be at the forefront of this next stage of expansion'</span></i></li>
</ul>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In other words this isn't going to happen overnight. But claimants in these areas still need to be ready for when it does.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I've commented on problems with the roll-out of Universal Credit in previous posts so I won't go on about them here. However I will mention that the most recent <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmworpen/1209/120902.htm" target="_blank">report</a> [1] on the matter from Parliament's Work and Pensions Committee notes that as of December 2013 just 4,280 were claiming Universal Credit (<a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmworpen/1209/120905.htm" target="_blank">paragraph 24</a>) of a total estimated target of 7.7 million households (<a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmworpen/1209/120903.htm" target="_blank">summary</a>).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Discussion with local authorities is necessary, in particular, because Universal Credit includes payments for rent and so replaces Housing Benefit - a local authority administered benefit - for the claimants affected. Council Tax Support will continue to be administered by local authorities. So extensive liaison between the DWP and each local authority will plainly be necessary.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">How will Universal Credit affect claimants?</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It's crucial to understand that the introduction of Universal Credit brings with it two, very distinct, kinds of changes: </span><br />
<br />
<ol>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Changes relating to what Universal Credit <b><u><i>is</i></u></b>;</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Changes relating to how Universal Credit is <b><u><i>administered</i></u></b>.</span></li>
</ol>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The first kind of change is largely positive, or at least neutral, in terms of the effect upon claimants (at least in my opinion). For example:</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span id="goog_1888926091"></span><span id="goog_1888926092"></span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/"></a></span><br />
<div>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Claimants with no other income will receive just the same amount of money as they do now;</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Claimants who do have income other than earnings, or who have capital, will find that it is treated in the same way as it was before; </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Claimants who have earned income will find that they will be able to keep much more of their earnings than they could with the 'old' means-tested benefits;</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There will no longer be a cut-off for claimants who work 16 hours or more hours per week.</span></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The second kind of change, on the other hand, is likely to cause a lot of problems for a lot of people. The key changes are these:</span></div>
<div>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Most claimants will have to claim the benefit, and report changes, online;</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Claimants will be paid every calendar month, rather than every two weeks as at present;</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">These monthly payments will include any help with rent, so claimants will normally be responsible for making sure that the right amount of money is passed onto their landlords at the right time..</span></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I don't think you need me to spell out the likely consequences of this disturbing cocktail.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">All this assumes, of course, that the DWP IT systems underlying Universal Credit work properly. The Work and Pensions Committee appears to have serious concerns about this (see their report, <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmworpen/1209/120906.htm" target="_blank">paras 34ff</a>).</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Will this be the end of Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) and Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)?</span></b></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Yes and no.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">income based JSA and income based ESA will be abolished: they, like Housing Benefit, will be replaced by Universal Credit.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">However contribution based JSA and contribution based ESA will remain (they will be renamed - initially - 'new style' JSA and ESA, and eventually just JSA and ESA). Therefore anyone who thinks that they may be entitled to contribution based JSA and is in a Universal Credit area should claim both. When I have a better idea of how this works in practice I will let you know.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In the meantime, if you want to know more about Universal Credit have a look at my website at <a href="http://www.benefitsowl.info/universal%20credit.html" target="_blank">http://www.benefitsowl.info/universal%20credit.html</a></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Main sources and further reading</span></b></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">[1] Work and Pensions Committee - Fifth Report: Universal Credit implementation: monitoring DWP's performance in 2012-13 <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmworpen/1209/120902.htm" target="_blank">http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmworpen/1209/120902.htm</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2013 No. 386 </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/a14-6501.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/a14-6501.pdf</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Advice for decision making: Chapter M1: Pathfinder Group - Claims for UC <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/288079/admm1.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/288079/admm1.pdf</a> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Universal Credit Regulations 2013 No. 376 <a href="http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/a14-6001.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/a14-6001.pdf</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4352011419058403668.post-16856472215779860152014-04-28T09:51:00.000-07:002014-04-28T09:51:07.717-07:00New requirements for jobseekers<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This is a quick post to just flag up the changes: I'll comment on them properly soon.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Changes have been brought in today that affect two different groups of Jobseeker's Allowance claimants: </span><br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">'pre-work programme' claimants: i.e. relatively new claimants, who have not yet attended a work programme;</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">people in 'long-term unemployment': in practice, those who have been unemployed for more than three years.</span></li>
</ul>
<div>
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">'Pre-work programme' claimants</span></b></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(Source: <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/302526/touchbase-apr14.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/302526/touchbase-apr14.pdf</a>)</span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<ul>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Day one conditionality - this will require new claimants to show that they are looking for work from day one. In practice this means that they will need to set up an e-mail address, prepare a CV, and register on the Jobsmatch website. Although the government states that Jobseekers who do not claim online will be helped to do these things by a 'work coach', it is not clear (at least to me) how this will be help to claimants who are not IT literate. This requirement will be rolled out gradually between now and October 2014.</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Mandatory English language requirement - claimants (at first in England only) whose English skills are assessed as being below the required standard will be required to attend training to improve their skills. On the face of it this seems sensible, but only if the resources are available to enable this training to be provided properly.</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Quarterly work search interviews.</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Weekly work search reviews - These will be phased in for 50% of claimants between now and October 2014.</span></li>
</ul>
<div>
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">People who have been unemployed for more than three years</span></b></div>
</div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(Source: <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/help-to-work-nationwide-drive-to-help-the-long-term-unemployed-into-work" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/news/help-to-work-nationwide-drive-to-help-the-long-term-unemployed-into-work</a>)</span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Claimants who are not in work after three years will be required to do one of the following:</span></div>
<div>
<ul>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Attend the Jobcentre every day (normally at their own expense).</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Attend a 'community work placement' - i.e. work as a non-voluntary volunteer (the examples given by the government are 'gardening projects, running community cafes or even restoring historical sites and war memorials') - for 30 hours per week for 6 months (plus 4 hours per week supported jobsearching).</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Intensive Jobcentre support - for claimants with with 'multiple or complex barriers to work'.</span></li>
</ul>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Failure to comply with this will result in an initial sanction of 4 weeks, with a further sanction of 13 weeks for a second failure to comply.</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I've already my opinions clear with regard to daily signing and community work placements in a previous post: <a href="http://benefitsowl.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/conservative-party-conference.html" target="_blank">http://benefitsowl.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/conservative-party-conference.html</a></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Unfortunately for the government, many of the charities who might be expected to provide the community work have boycotted it - <a href="http://keepvolunteeringvoluntary.net/" target="_blank">http://keepvolunteeringvoluntary.net/</a> . The Independent reports:</span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">'The charities have noted that the maximum community service order that someone might receive if they were found guilty of drink-driving or assault is 300 hours, but claimants on six-month workfare schemes will have to work without pay for more than double this time.'</span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jobless-mustsign-on-every-day-government-to-dock-money-from-longterm-unemployed-if-they-do-not-comply-9294586.html" target="_blank">http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jobless-mustsign-on-every-day-government-to-dock-money-from-longterm-unemployed-if-they-do-not-comply-9294586.html</a>)</span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">More on this soon...</span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4352011419058403668.post-37199395034631554072014-03-17T10:13:00.000-07:002014-03-17T10:13:15.968-07:00EEA nationals - the changes summarised<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">You would have to be living in a closed monastic order not to aware of the furore about European migrants over the last few months, apparently precipitated by the removal of restrictions for Bulgarian and Romanian nationals on 1st January 2014. Whether the government was responding to public concern - as expressed in some parts of the media - or opinion was being shaped by a government agenda is not clear, at least to me, but what we can be certain of is that a lot of legal changes have been applied to European citizens in the UK.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I will try and hide my own opinions about all this for this post. My aim, instead, is to summarise the main details of all the different changes, and where all this leaves European Economic Area (EEA) migrants in the UK today when it comes to claiming social security benefits.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">For a more detailed, and possibly more accessible, description, please read my web site pages on this subject, which have been subject to considerable reworking over the last few weeks:</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.benefitsowl.info/abroad-eea-cit.html" target="_blank">http://www.benefitsowl.info/abroad-eea-cit.html</a> for general information about the rules for EEA citizens in the UK</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.benefitsowl.info/abroad-eea-history.html" target="_blank">http://www.benefitsowl.info/abroad-eea-history.html</a> for a brief history lesson covering developments for EEA citizens in the UK up to the present.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The changes I will be looking at are:</span><br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Removal of restrictions for Bulgarian and Romanian nationals</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Three months residence requirement for Jobseeker's Allowance claimants</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Tougher rules for Jobseeker's Allowance claimants for EEA nationals</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Minimum earning threshold for EEA migrants</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Restrictions to Housing Benefit for some Jobseeker's Allowance claimants</span></li>
</ul>
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="font-family: Times; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">First, though, in case you haven't got the time to check out those links, there are two key concepts you need to be aware of:</span></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Times; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
</div>
<ul style="font-family: Times;">
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">'Habitual residence': in essence, if a claimant come to the UK to live, they are generally barred from claiming means-tested benefits until the state is satisfied that they are really intending to stay here, and not just visit. This applies to UK citizens who have lived abroad as well as to EEA nationals. When a person has become habitually resident is decided as a case by case basis, but it normally takes between about one and three months.</span></span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">'Right to reside': Since 2004, the UK government will not regard a person as being habitually resident unless they have a right to reside here. This lets British citizens off the hook, but is a real problem for people from the EEA. The rules setting out who has the right to reside are extraordinarily complex: however it's safe to say that, in general, workers do have this right, as freedom of movement for workers is enshrined in the original treaty setting up the European Union.</span></span></li>
</ul>
<div style="font-family: Times;">
</div>
<div style="font-family: Times; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Note: in the rest of this post, when I write Jobseeker's Allowance you should take this to mean <i>income based</i> Jobseeker's Allowance unless otherwise stated. There are no restrictions on claiming <i>contribution based</i> Jobseeker's Allowance, but in general most recent migrants are not able to get this.</span></span></div>
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Removal of restrictions for Bulgarian and Romanian nationals</span></b><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">When these two countries joined the European Union on 1st January 2007 the UK got a special concession, or derogation, which allowed it to impose extra restrictions on people from these countries. The key right of freedom of movement for workers was, in effect, watered down. Romanians and Bulgarians could come here to work, but only in certain types of work and only in a strictly regulated way. They also were not allowed, in effect, to claim Jobseeker's Allowance and any other benefits that result from that (like Housing Benefit), until they had worked for at least a year (they <i>were</i> allowed to claim appropriate benefits <i>if</i> they were working, such as Child Benefit, Child Tax Credit, and Housing Benefit). </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">EU law does not allow this kind of derogation to continue for more than 7 years, so the British government had no choice but to end the restrictions[1]. They therefore now have the same rights as citizens of other EEA member states.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">From 1st January, therefore, Bulgarians and Romanians can take up any employment that's available, and, if they get a job but later lose it, they will be able to claim Jobseeker's Allowance. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Had there been no other legal changes, they would also be able to claim Jobseeker's Allowance before they found their first job, but this is now not possible for EEA migrants anyway, as you will see.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Three months residence requirement for Jobseeker's Allowance claimants</span></b><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">From 1st January 2014 anyone claiming Jobseeker's Allowance will not be treated as habitually resident, and therefore unable to get Jobseeker's Allowance, until they have been in the UK for three months[2].</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Although this change was presumably brought in as a reaction to the feared 'influx' of Bulgarian and Romanian jobseekers, it applies to all new entrants, including UK citizens who have been abroad for a while.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In practice, the effect of this change is likely to be marginal, as even under the previous rules it was not unusual to have to wait for three months to satisfy the habitual residence test anyway. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Tougher rules for Jobseeker's Allowance claimants for EEA nationals</span></b><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This is where is gets a bit tricky; partly because the underlying legislation is extraordinarily labyrinthine, and partly because (paradoxically) some of the key terms are very poorly defined. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The government describes the changes as follows (from its <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/tough-new-migrant-benefit-rules-come-into-force-tomorrow" target="_blank">press release</a>):</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>'After 3 months </i>[see above]<i>, migrants will also have to take a stronger, more robust test if they want to claim income-based JSA.</i></span><br />
<i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></i>
<i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In order to pass the improved Habitual Residence Test migrants will have to answer more individually tailored questions, provide more detailed answers, and submit more evidence before they will be allowed to make a claim. For the first time, migrants will be asked about what efforts they have made to find work before coming to the UK and whether their English language skills will be a barrier to them finding employment.</span></i><br />
<i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></i>
<i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If they pass the Habitual Residence Test, EEA jobseekers will then only be able to claim JSA for 6 months. After 6 months, only those who have compelling evidence that they have a genuine chance of finding work will be able to continue claiming.'</span></i><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Frustratingly, none of the following aspects of this are laid out in the legislation[1]:</span><br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">details of the 'stronger, more robust,' test;</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">what 'evidence' will be required;</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">what evidence will be required to meet the threshold of 'compelling'. </span></li>
</ul>
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There are also a number of issues related to the distinction between people who are defined as jobseekers and those defined as workers who are 'involuntarily unemployed' (but are also jobseekers), and how people move between these definitions. This feeds into the new rules about Housing Benefit (see below).</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Minimum earning threshold for EEA migrants</span></b><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As stated in a previous post (<a href="http://benefitsowl.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/a-busy-week-for-benefit-watchers-part-2.html" target="_blank">http://benefitsowl.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/a-busy-week-for-benefit-watchers-part-2.html</a>) I actually disagree with some other commentators in that I think this is probably a change for the better. The change may be a useful clarification, and doesn't, <i>as the change is worded</i>, restrict anyone's rights compared to what they were before. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The clarification has not come in the form of any new law, but as a memo added to the Decision Makers Guide (<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/283507/m-1-14.pdf" target="_blank">Memo DMG 1/14</a>). It uses something called the 'minimum earnings threshold', which is, broadly speaking, the amount you need to earn before you have to pay class one National Insurance Contributions (£153 for 2014/15). The guide says that if an employee or a self-employed person has been earning at least this for the three months before a claim for benefit is made they will 'automatically' be considered a worker. If this test is not satisfied, the decision maker 'will need to examine each case as a whole, taking account of all circumstances, to determine whether the EEA national’s activity was genuine and effective'. This second bit is what the DWP was supposed to be doing with all EEA worker claimants anyway, before this memo.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So for people who have been earning above the minimum earnings threshold they can be certain that they will be treated as workers. Those who are earnings less will continue to be assessed as they were before.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Note that this guidance is unlikely to be applicable to people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance, Income Support, or Employment and Support Allowance, as they won't normally fit the rules for these benefits anyway, but will be relevant to claimants of Housing Benefit and Universal Credit.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Restrictions to Housing Benefit for some Jobseeker's Allowance claimants</span></b><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This change comes in later than the others, on 1st April 2014.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The main <i>effect</i> of the new law is that although new EEA arrivals in the UK may be able to get Jobseeker's Allowance after three months, but even then they will not normally be entitled to Housing Benefit. On the other hand, an EEA resident in the UK who has been working, and then loses their job, <i>will</i> be able to get Housing Benefit with their new claim for Jobseeker's Allowance. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">That might seem reasonable enough (or perhaps not). But there is another problem, related to my final comments in the section on 'tougher rules...' above. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The way in which the law preferentially targets newer arrivals is by removing access to Housing Benefit from 'plain' jobseekers, as opposed to workers who have become unemployed. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This needs some explanation. The treaty of Rome, which created the then European Community, gave freedom of movement to workers. It also included the freedom to move between European countries to seek work. However subsequent European directives have made it clear that these two freedoms are not equal. The effect is that EU countries, such as the UK, have more obligations to workers than to work seekers. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Furthermore, the EU requires that workers do not lose their 'worker' status for at least six months if they lose a job, provided that they register as a jobseeker. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The upshot of all this is that people who claim Jobseeker's Allowance and want Housing Benefit will be able to get it if they are regarded as worker, and won't if they aren't.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But here's the thing. Ex-working jobseekers will not be able to have the 'worker' status indefinitely. In accordance with EU law anyone who was employed for less than a year does not have to be treated as worker after they have been off work for six months. They will then become an 'ordinary' jobseeker, and therefore lose the right to Housing Benefit. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And even people who have worked for more than a year in the UK risk losing their right to Housing Benefit after six months unless they can 'provide compelling evidence that [they are] continuing to seek employment and [have] a genuine chance of being engaged'.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So we could be seeing people who have been in the UK a while, have taken up tenancies, and will lose their ability to get Housing Benefit if they are unemployed for too long.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I note that the legislation creating this restriction was neither referred to Parliament's Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC), nor were the proposals sent out to consultation, as 'it appears to [the Secretary of State] that by reason of the urgency of the matter it is inexpedient to do so'. This is disturbing.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Conclusion</span></b><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">You might wonder why most of these changes seem to be targeted as jobseekers (and workers) and nobody else. The reason is simple. Most EEA migrants to the UK who are not in the labour market are not entitled to any income-based benefits already.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">People in the labour market will need to get used to a regime where no benefits are available until they get work, and where they will not be able to rely on retaining benefits for more than six months of unemployment.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Having said that, some of the changes (the initial three month prohibition on claiming Jobseeker's Allowance, for example) are not as significant as they appear: it is hard to escape the feeling that they were introduced to give an impression of action.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Nevertheless the changes do matter, and people will undoubtedly experience hardship and anxiety because of them.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">[1] <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3032/made#f00004" target="_blank">The Immigration (EEA)(Amendment)(No.2) Regulations 2013</a></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">[2] <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3196/pdfs/uksi_20133196_en.pdf" target="_blank">The Jobseeker's Allowance (Habitual Residence) Amendment Regulations 2013</a></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">[3] <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/539/made" target="_blank">The Housing Benefit (Habitual Residence) Amendment Regulations 2014</a></span><br />
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4352011419058403668.post-59082959532740777032014-02-25T07:02:00.000-08:002014-02-25T07:02:19.238-08:00A busy week for benefit watchers... (Part 2)<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In my last post, I looked at developments (mostly bad) with regard to the bedroom tax and the benefit cap.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In this post, I'll look at </span><br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Food poverty</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">ATOS and ESA medicals</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Restrictions for EEA Workers</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Proposed fees for benefit tribunals </span></li>
</ul>
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Food Poverty</span></b><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In my post of 23rd December last year (<a href="http://benefitsowl.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-food-bank-debate.html" target="_blank">http://benefitsowl.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-food-bank-debate.html</a>) I noted that the government has commissioned Warwick University to write a report about food poverty, but had been sitting on the report for months.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The report has finally been published, possibly partly as a result of a campaign by 38 degrees.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Guardian comments on the report's release here: <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/20/food-bank-review-undermines-ministers-claim" target="_blank">www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/20/food-bank-review-undermines-ministers-claim</a></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The report itself is available here: <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/283071/household-food-security-uk-140219.pdf" target="_blank">www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/283071/household-food-security-uk-140219.pdf</a></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">To be honest, the report isn't that earth-shattering, and in fact raises more questions than it answers. Much of the material in the report is based on findings from a Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA), essentially a meta-analysis of more detailed research, often from other countries. However some original work was also done. The writers are frank about the limitations of the project.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The report confirms that providers of food aid report an increased demand, and that this appears to be driven by 'on-going problems of low income, rising food (and other) costs and increasing indebtedness'. It says that 'there is no systematic evidence on the impact of increased supply and hypotheses of its potential effects are not based on robust evidence'. This looks to me like subtle criticism of the argument (advanced by ministers) that more people are using food banks because more food banks are available.</span><br />
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Importantly, the research finds that people access food aid only as a last resort, when all other avenues are exhausted. It also notes that many people, especially many older people, do not access food aid at all.</span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The report also finds that even where good food aid provision is available, this is only a short-term fix, and does not 'address the underlying causes of household food insecurity'. </span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I feel the need to add to this last point myself. The picture given in the media suggests that visiting a food bank - one of the main sources of food aid - is a regular part of some benefit claimants routine. This is nonsense. The main provider of food banks, <a href="http://www.trusselltrust.org/foodbank-projects" target="_blank">the Trussell Trust</a>, can normally only give help to an individual or family three times a year, and each food parcel provides enough for three days food. So even where a person has access to a food bank, only 9 days of food are available each year. </span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As it happens, a report was also commissioned by the Scottish government, which appears to be more detailed than the Warwick report. You can find it here: <a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0044/00440458.pdf" target="_blank">www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0044/00440458.pdf</a></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I haven't had a chance to study it in detail yet, but I do note that it reports that over half of the referrals to the Trussell Trust in Scotland were due to benefit delays, benefit change, or benefit withdrawal, and this was an 11% increase over the previous year.</span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">ATOS and ESA Medicals</span></b></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It turns out that ATOS seems to hate doing work capability assessments almost as much as claimants hate having ATOS assess them. It had just made public the fact that it has been in negotiations since October last year to extract itself from its Employment and Support Allowance contract. It cites as the main reason the amount of abuse inflicted on its staff, including death threats. However it has also been under pressure from the government for the quality of its work.</span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">There'll undoubtedly be a lot of celebrating about the possibility of ATOS leaving early. However I won't be celebrating. Don't get me wrong. I've seen at first hand the damage caused by poor quality medicals conducted by ATOS (these include a one-armed person who was told they could pick up an object with either hand). But I'm not comfortable with anyone being bullied or trolled, even ATOS assessors. And, more pertinently, I don't think it will make much difference.</span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If ATOS is replaced by another company tomorrow, that company will still be applying the same rules. The medical assessors will still be required to complete the same flawed (ESA85) forms, and, crucially, they will still be working under the same set of government priorities. In some respects ATOS has provided a useful smokeshield for the government, obscuring the reality that it is government policy that is the main problem.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">You can read more about this story here: <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26287199" target="_blank">www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26287199</a></span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The problems with ATOS may give some respite to ESA claimants in the short-term, though. The <a href="http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/2645-all-repeat-wca-medicals-to-be-stopped" target="_blank">benefitsandwork.co.uk</a> website reports that the DWP has instructed its staff not to refer any more repeat cases for medical assessments for the time being.</span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Restrictions for EEA Workers</span></b><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The treaty of Rome and subsequent EU directives give freedom of movement to workers. The question this leaves is, of course: what is a worker? Until we have relied on the principle that the work must be 'genuine and effective'. The government has now given DWP offices new guidance as to how this should be determined. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The government's press release on the change says:</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>'Migrants from the European Economic Area (EEA) who claim to have been in work or self-employed in order to gain access to a wider range of benefits will face a more robust test from 1 March 2014'. </i>[<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/minimum-earnings-threshold-for-eea-migrants-introduced" target="_blank">www.gov.uk/government/news/minimum-earnings-threshold-for-eea-migrants-introduced</a>]</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This sounds like another draconian restriction is coming in, but, having looked at the details, I think that it might actually be a useful clarification, and doesn't, <i>as the change is worded</i>, restrict anyone's rights compared to what they were before. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The clarification has not come in the form of any new law, but as a memo added to the Decision Makers Guide (<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/283507/m-1-14.pdf" target="_blank">Memo DMG 1/04</a>). It uses something called the 'minimum earnings threshold', which is, broadly speaking, the amount you need to earn before you have to pay class one National Insurance Contributions (£149 for 2013/14, and £153 for 2014/15). The guide says that if an employee or a self-employed person has been earning at least this for the three months before a claim for benefit is made they will '<i><b>automatically</b></i>' be considered a worker. If this test is not satisfied, the decision maker '<i>will need to examine each case as a whole, taking account of all circumstances, to determine</i></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>whether the EEA national’s activity was genuine and effective</i>'. This second bit is what the DWP was supposed to be doing with all EEA worker claimants anyway, before this memo.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So for people who have been earning above the minimum earnings threshold they can be certain that they will be treated as workers. Those who are earnings less will continue to be assessed as they were before.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Note that this guidance is unlikely to be applicable to people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance, Income Support, or Employment and Support Allowance, as they won't normally fit the rules for these benefits anyway, but will be relevant to claimants of Housing Benefit and Universal Credit.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Proposed fees for benefit tribunals</span></b><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This is only a proposal: so don't get too scared: yet...</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A government document has been leaked in which it is proposed that people refused benefits will have to pay to take the cases to appeal [<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/20/people-stripped-benefits-charged-decision" target="_blank">www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/20/people-stripped-benefits-charged-decision</a>].</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This follows the introduction of charges to take employment cases to tribunal, and a recent high court decision upholding the lawfulness of that change. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Leaving aside the breathtaking cynicism of placing yet another hurdle in front of the most vulnerable in their search for justice, there also seems to have an illogicality at the heart of the proposal. In general, where fees are charged for taking cases to court fee remission is also available for those who cannot afford to pay. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But by their very nature benefit appeals are likely to be submitted by people who are on low incomes. Not always, of course. Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance are not means-tested, so claimants might, in principle, have income high enough not to need fee remission, for example. In general, though, we are looking at people whose main source of income has stopped, and for whom any replacement is likely to be means-tested. So either most of the appellants will have their fees remitted anyway, or a right afforded in most courts will be withheld from benefit cases.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It is my fervent hope that proper research along these lines will lead to these proposals being quietly dropped, on the basis at least of a cost-benefit analysis, if not for humanitarian reasons.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1