Bedroom 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: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/27/appeal-court-rules-bedroom-tax-discriminatory-in-two-cases

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.

You can see the full text of the Court of Appeal decision here: www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/29.html

What are the two cases about?

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 sanctuary scheme 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%.

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%.

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.

What were the legal issues the court of appeal had to consider?

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.

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.

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 couldn't be justified.

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.

The judges also had to consider two other court of appeal decisions about the bedroom tax

• 'The Burnip case' (www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/629.html) : this is the one I referred to in earlier posts (for example: benefitsowl.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/disabled-people-and-bedroom-tax-update.html). This was the case that ruled that the bedroom tax should not be imposed when, for example, a disabled child needed their own bedroom.
• The 'MA' case (www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/13.html): 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.

What did the court decide?

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 Burnip 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.

However...

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. 

What does this all mean for claimants now?

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, or any of the people in the MA case, to protect your position in case the Supreme Court rules in favour of cases like yours. 

This is a list of the situations of all the claimants whose cases will be heard by the Supreme Court:

• A female claimant who, as someone supported by a sanctuary scheme, has a  'panic room';
• A family with a disabled child, for whom overnight carers need a bedroom;
• A disabled adult who needs a special, hospital-type, bed, and whose partner therefore needs to sleep in a separate room;
• 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;
• A claimant with mental health problems, as a result of which most of the rooms in his home are filled with clutter;
• 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;
• 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.

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.

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.

Chancellor's Autumn Statement - first the good news...

Let's look at the most talked about issue first: tax credits

Newspaper headlines excitedly reported the chancellor's annoucement in words like these: 'Tax credit cuts SCRAPPED in victory for working families' (www.mirror.co.uk, for example). Unfortunately the news, while good, is not that good (in fairness, later media consideration was more nuanced).

So what proposals has the chancellor reversed?

In my post of 13th July, I set out the proposed changes to tax credits as follows:

Changes to tax credits for new and current claimants 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%); 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; 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); 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; The powers available to HMRC to recover overpayments will be widened. Changes to tax credits for new claimants only 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).

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.

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:

• 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.
• Entitlement calculations will still not take acount of any children born from April 2017 onwards
• 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
• The powers to recover overpayments will still be widened.

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.

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.

And, even for those famous 'hard-working families', there is another problem on the horizon...

Universal Credit 

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 not being reversed.

In the Universal Credit system, the amount a claimant can earn before their Universal Credit is affected is called their 'work allowance'.  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.

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.

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.

(all payment figures are per week)	TC system March 2016	TC system April 2016 before U-turn	TC system April 2016 now	UC system March 2016	UC system April 2016
Net earnings	£219	£230	£230	£219	£230
Child Benefit	£48	£48	£48	£48	£48
Working Tax Credit	£49	£6	£39
Child Tax Credit	£170	£170	£170
Universal Credit				£233	£184
Total Income	£485	£455	£488	£490	£462
Compared with first column		-6%	+1%	+1%	-5%
Out of work benefits	£333	£333	£333	£333	£333

And finally, more bad news for tenants of social landlords...

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

I couldn't possibly comment.

Additional Information

If you want to check out the Autumn Statement yourself, you can find it here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/spending-review-and-autumn-statement-2015-documents/spending-review-and-autumn-statement-2015#security-and-opportunity-for-families

For more information about Universal Credit, see  www.benefitsowl.info/universal%20credit.html

*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

The figures in the table were drawn from the spreadsheet of which the figure below is a screen grab.

A question about contributory benefits

Although I can't (and don't) give specific advice to individuals via www.benefitsowl.info, 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).

"Dear Benefits Owl

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.

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?

Ms A"

I've had to think quite hard about this, as there's more to this than meets the eye. Here's my response.

First, I need to confirm that Ms A's understanding of the facts is correct: sadly for her, it is.

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.

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).

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.

So, secondly, I need to look at the actual question: "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?"

The simple answer is: because they can. But of course it’s actually a bit more complicated than that.

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).

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.

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:

1. 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. 
2. 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.

Sometimes laws are challenged because both types of reason apply.

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.

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 that transition and not later ones.

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.

Where does this leave someone in this position?

• 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.
• 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.

Are there any lessons from all this? Possibly...

• 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.
• 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...

To Ms A, and anyone else with a similar problem, I am sorry I can't paint a more encouraging picture.

Election Manifestos - what they have to say for benefit claimants

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.

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...)

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.

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:

• 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
• 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).
• 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.
• If parties are simply committing to continue something that's already in place, I've normally left it out.
• 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.

It's been a challenge to decide which parties to include. In the end the list is:

=Conservatives:

=Labour:

=Liberal Democrats:

=UKIP:

=Green:

=SNP:

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.

As I said before, this is not an opinion piece, but I will offer you some advice to help you form your opinion:

• 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?
• 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!
• Be suspicious of vagueness

The manifestos can be accessed via the links below, if you want to check things out for yourself.

=Conservatives: https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf

=Labour: http://b.3cdn.net/labouruk/e1d45da42456423b8c_vwm6brbvb.pdf

=Liberal Democrats: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/libdems/pages/8907/attachments/original/1429028133/Liberal_Democrat_General_Election_Manifesto_2015.pdf

=UKIP: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ukipdev/pages/1103/attachments/original/1429295050/UKIPManifesto2015.pdf

=Green: https://www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/manifesto/Green_Party_2015_General_Election_Manifesto_Searchable.pdf

=SNP: http://votesnp.com/docs/manifesto.pdf

(The SNP wins my prize for the cleanest web address...)

I have tried to be fair and thorough, but if you think I've left something substantive out, please let me know via the comments section.

Commitments that are directly related to benefits 

Overall welfare spending

=Conservatives:

- 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

=Labour:
- we will cap structural social security spending as part of each spending review,

=Liberal Democrats:
- 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

=UKIP:

=Green:
- 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

=SNP:

Claimant benefit cap

=Conservatives:
- 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.
- We will continue to have exemptions from the cap for those receiving Disability Living Allowance or the Personal Independence Payment

=Labour:
- We will keep the household benefit cap and ask the Social Security Advisory Committee to examine if it should be lower in some areas.

=Liberal Democrats:
- 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.

=UKIP:
- Supporting a lower cap on benefits

=Green:

=SNP: 

General benefit payment rates 

=Conservatives: 

- 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.

=Labour:
- we will not cut tax credits,  ???
- 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 ??

=Liberal Democrats:

=UKIP:

=Green:
- Restore the link between state benefits and earnings; ensure state benefits rise as fast as prices or wages, whichever of those grows more.
- 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

=SNP:
- we will vote to increase benefits at least in line with CPI inflation,

Benefits for claimants with health problems and/or disabilities

=Conservatives:
- We will help you back into work if you have a long-term yet treatable condition

- 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.
- 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.

=Labour:
- 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.
- And we will introduce a specialist support programme to ensure that disabled people who can work get more tailored help

=Liberal Democrats:
- 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 Invest to clear any backlog in assessments for Disability Living Allowance and Personal Independence Payment.
- Simplify and streamline back-to-work support for people with disabilities, mental or physical health problems.
- 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.
- 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.

=UKIP:

- 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
 - 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’
- Remove ‘tick-box’ and quota arrangements from sickness and disability assessments

=Green:
- Cancel the Department for Work and Pensions contracts with the private sector for benefit entitlement assessment

=SNP:
- We will vote to block plans to cut Disability Living Allowance by £3 billion across the UK by 2017-18

Benefits for work-seeking claimants 

=Conservatives:

=Labour:
- 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

- 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.
- 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

=Liberal Democrats:
- Deliver a reformed and improved Work Programme in partnership with English local government, and the national governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland
- We will improve incentives for Jobcentre staff and Work Programme providers to ensure there is real help for those furthest from the labour market

=UKIP:

=Green:
- End work-for-benefits programmes, or workfare
- 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

=SNP:

Benefits sanctions & conditionality

=Conservatives:

=Labour:

=Liberal Democrats: 

- 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. 

- 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

=UKIP:

=Green:

=SNP: 

- We will demand an urgent review of the conditionality and sanctions regime

Benefits for young people

=Conservatives:
- 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.
- So we will ensure that 18-21 year-olds on Jobseeker’s Allowance will no longer have an automatic entitlement to Housing Benefit.

=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.

=Liberal Democrats:

=UKIP:

=Green:

=SNP:

Benefits for carers

=Conservatives:

=Labour:

=Liberal Democrats:

- Develop a package of specialist support for carers seeking parttime work or a return to full-time employment

=UKIP:

=Green:

=SNP: 

- We will also support an increase in Carer’s Allowance so that it matches Jobseekers' Allowance

Housing benefit and council tax reduction - general

=Conservatives:

=Labour:

=Liberal Democrats: 

- Encourage landlords to lower their rent by paying them Housing Benefit directly, with tenants’ consent, in return for a fixed reduction.

- 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

=UKIP: 

- Give tenants the right to request Housing Benefit is paid direct to their landlords, whatever benefit scheme they are on

=Green: 

- Restore Council Tax Benefit at the equivalent of 2012–13 levels for low-income householders, costing around £500 million a year

=SNP:

Bedroom tax/spare room subsidy/housing benefit size criteria restrictions

=Conservatives:

=Labour: The Bedroom Tax is cruel and we will abolish it

=Liberal Democrats: o 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.

=UKIP: Scrap the ‘bedroom tax’

=Green:

=SNP: We will vote for the immediate abolition of the unfair Bedroom Tax

Universal credit

=Conservatives:

=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

=Liberal Democrats:
- 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

=UKIP:

=Green:
- 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.

=SNP:
- 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

Benefits for children

=Conservatives:

=Labour: cap child benefit rises for two years

=Liberal Democrats:

=UKIP: Limiting child benefit to two children for new claimants

=Green:
- 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.
- Abolish childcare tax credits and tax reliefs in the light of our proposals for free universal early education and childcare

=SNP:

Benefits for older people

=Conservatives:
- 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

=Labour:
- We will keep the triple-lock so that the state pension increases by inflation, earnings, or 2.5 per cent, whichever is highest
- We have taken the tough choice to restrict Winter Fuel Payments for the richest five per cent of pensioners
- we will guarantee that there will be no additional changes to the Winter Fuel Payments, free TV licences or bus passes for pensioners

=Liberal Democrats:
- 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%
- 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.

=UKIP:

=Green:
- We would introduce a Citizens Pension in 2016. It will pay £180 a week to a single pensioner or £310 for a couple

=SNP:
- 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
- We will oppose the abolition of Savings Credit
- We will support a single-tier pension of £160 per week

Commitments that are relevant to the vulnerable, including benefit claimants

Minimum wage and living wage

=Conservatives:

=Labour:
- 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
- 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

=Liberal Democrats:
- 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

=UKIP:

=Green:
- Raise the minimum wage

=SNP:
- We will vote to increase the minimum wage to £8.70 by 2020.
- We will also support measures to extend the Living Wage across the UK

Zero-hours contracts, agency work, and related issues

=Conservatives:

=Labour: 

- 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.

- We will abolish the loophole that allows firms to undercut permanent staff by using agency workers on lower pay

=Liberal Democrats: 

- 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.

- We will ensure employers cannot avoid giving their staff rights or paying the minimum wage by wrongly classifying them as workers or self-employed.

- 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

=UKIP:

- We will introduce a legally binding Code of Conduct stipulating the following:

-- 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

-- There must be no exclusivity clauses in any zero-hours contract

-- 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

=Green:

- outlaw exploitative zero-hours contracts

=SNP:

Housing

=Conservatives: 

- 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.

=Labour:

- 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

- We will ensure that private renters get a fairer deal.

=Liberal Democrats:

- Improve protections against rogue landlords and encourage a new multi-year tenancy with an agreed inflation-linked annual rent increase built in.

- 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.

- 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.

- Introduce a new Help to Rent scheme to provide government backed tenancy deposit loans for all first-time renters under 30.

=UKIP:

- 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. 

=Green:

- Introduce the right to rent (where local councils step in to help those in difficulty with their mortgage to rent their home). 

- 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.

- 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.

- End mass council house sales and the Right to Buy at a discounted price.

- 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’. 

- Oppose new arm’s length management organisations and ensure genuine tenant participation in existing ones

=SNP:

Childcare

=Conservatives:

- we will give families where all parents are working an entitlement to 30 hours of free childcare for their three and four year-olds

=Labour:

- 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.

- 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

=Liberal Democrats:

- 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.

- 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

=UKIP: 

- 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.

- 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.

- UKIP is committed to bringing forward a full, open review of all childcare and child protection services in Britain.

=Green:

- 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.

- 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. 

- 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. 

- Abolish childcare tax credits and tax reliefs in the light of our proposals for free universal early education and childcare

=SNP:

- we will support an increase in free childcare to 30 hours per week by 2020.

Income tax and national insurance

=Conservatives:
- Will raise the tax-free Personal Allowance so that those working 30 hours on the Minimum Wage pay no Income Tax at all
- Will cut income tax for 30 million people, taking everyone who earns less than £12,500 out of Income Tax altogether [I think these two points may amount to the same, but I'm open to being corrected: Benefits Owl]

=Labour:
- 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

=Liberal Democrats:
- 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

=UKIP:
- Raise the personal allowance to at least £13,000

=Green:

=SNP
- We support increases in the personal tax allowance

Courts and tribunals

=Conservatives:

=Labour:

- We will abolish the Government’s employment tribunal fee system

=Liberal Democrats:

- Improve the enforcement of employment rights, reviewing Employment Tribunal fees to ensure they are not a barrier

=UKIP:

- We will remove ourselves from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights

- We will also repeal Labour’s Human Rights legislation

=Green:

=SNP:

Support for advice services

=Conservatives:

=Labour:

=Liberal Democrats:

- 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

=UKIP:

- Will train and fund 800 advisers to work in 800 foodbanks

=Green:

=SNP:

Immigration/Benefits related

=Conservatives:

- 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

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

=Labour:

- 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.

=Liberal Democrats:

=UKIP:

- 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.

- 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

- Will Stop child benefit being paid to children who don’t live in the UK 

- 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.

=Green:

=SNP:

Miscellaneous

=Conservatives:

=Labour: 

- We will help with household bills freezing energy prices until 2017

- 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

=Liberal Democrats:

=UKIP:

=Green:

=SNP: