Showing posts with label disabled people. Show all posts
Showing posts with label disabled people. Show all posts

Tuesday, 18 October 2016

The beginning of the end for appeal hearings - CONSULTATION EXTENDED

In 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: http://benefitsowl.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/the-beginning-of-end-of-appeal-hearings.html) if it doesn't appear just below this one.

In that post I said that the deadline to submit responses to the consultation was 27th October.

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:

  • 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 10th November;
  • For the constitution of appeal tribunals, the deadline is now 24th November.

For more information, and to access the new consultations, go to:

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-our-courts-and-tribunals/


If you haven't made your own opinions clear yet, or want to add improve your previous thoughts, you've got more time!


The 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?

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 27th October. If some of the proposals become law, it will be even harder for benefit claimants to get justice when they are wrongly refused benefit.

You can find the consultation documents (and enter your own responses) here:
https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-our-courts-and-tribunals/

If the proposals become law:

  • 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.
  • The tribunal administration process will be entirely digital, and will need to be accessed online.
  • Disability and capability for work tribunals will not have to include medically qualified members or disability members.
The government's stated aims of the proposals are to create a system that is just, proportionate, and accessible. 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 less just, and less accessible.

Here are a small selection of the reasons why I am worried, and angry:
  • The evidence is clear that not having a hearing that you attend (an 'oral' hearing) reduces your chances of a successful appeal. For example,  The Guardian 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'. 
  • 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:
    •  the parties are not  equal: a individual is in dispute with a government department;
    • 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. 
    • 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 quid pro quo presumably being that the DWP has to pay them more money than they would like to pay (which I imagine is nothing).
  • 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? 
  • 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 Impact Assessment: Assisted Digital].)
  • 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. 
Whatever the motivations behind these proposals, what they seem 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.




You can find the consultation document here:
https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-our-courts-and-tribunals/supporting_documents/consultationpaper.pdf

You can also read an excellent article in the Guardian here:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/oct/12/online-benefits-appeals-tribunals-disabled


(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?).

Tuesday, 2 February 2016

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

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.



Friday, 24 April 2015

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.



(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: