Conservative Party Conference

The annual Conservative party conference makes its presence felt by pronouncements about benefit claimants, and this year has been no exception.

We've heard from George Osbourne, Chancellor [1], Iain Duncan Smith, Secretary of State for Social Security, and David Cameron (briefly). The first two focused mainly on jobseekers (i.e. claimants on Jobseeker's Allowance and, in some cases, Universal Credit). 

Osbourne and 'Help to Work'

Osbourne's full comments on this are as follows [2]:

"But what about the long term unemployed? Let us pledge here: We will not abandon them, as previous governments did. Today I can tell you about a new approach we’re calling Help to Work. For the first time, all long term unemployed people who are capable of work will be required to do something in return for their benefits, and to help them find work. They will do useful work putting something back into their community. Making meals for the elderly, clearing up litter, working for a local charity. Others will be made to attend the job centre every working day. And for those with underlying problems, like drug addiction and illiteracy, there will be an intensive regime of support. No one will be ignored or left without help. But no one will get something for nothing. Help to work – and in return work for the dole. Because a fair welfare system is fair to those who need it and fair to those who pay for it too."

The relevant DWP announcement is here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/help-to-work-scheme-announced-by-the-government

Before we go any further, I'd better contexualise the proposal amongst all the other schemes that currently exist. It's quite confusing...

At the moment, jobseekers are (normally) placed in the 'Work Programme'[3], in which contractors are required to provide a range of measures to help them find work. This programme lasts a maximum of two years. If a claimant does not comply with the requirements of the programme (for example, fails to apply for a job) they can be sanctioned, but they cannot be required to work for nothing. On the other hand claimants can be required to work for nothing as a 'Mandatory Work Activity'[4] for four week placements of up to 30 hours per week: they are 'expected to complete placements which are of benefit to the community, including helping charities or environmental projects'. Finally, in some areas there is also currently something called the 'Community Action Programme' which is in effect, a pilot for what  Osbourne is now talking about, and is also a sort of development of the Mandatory Work Activity but requires 26 week involvement. If you remember the case where a geology graduate was required to work at Poundland it might be helpful to know that she was on the Community Action Programme[5].

Having got that out of the way, we can also note that this isn't actually as new as it's being presented. In  July 2012 the Guardian reported[6] that Chris Grayling, Employment Minister, announced to extend the Community Action Programme across the country, calling it - then -  'support for the very long-term unemployed'.

Leaving aside the value judgements and self-praising included in the speech, what can be said about these proposals?

Jonathan Portes, director of the (left-leaning) National Institute of Economic and Social Research was interviewed on 30th September by Jeremy Vine for his Radio 2 show. His concern was that there was no strong evidential base that could justify the proposal (The scheme is likely to affect about 200,000 jobseekers and will cost £300 million). He noted that the DWP's own research review concluded that there was little evidence that 'workfare' schemes increased the chances of finding work. he also said that the information gained from the Community Action Programme was not supportive. Although some people did move off benefits while on the scheme, after the trial was over they were generally found to be back on benefits, and, indeed, some were now on sickness benefits. He was guardedly positive about the concept of intensive support for people with drug, alcohol, and literacy problems, but noted that any programme of this nature was certain to be expensive and that it was therefore unwise to roll it out without piloting it first. He emphasised that it would only be any use if it improved long-term prospects.

I would largely echo these comments. I also raise the following questions:

• How will clearing up litter, for instance, improve a claimant's chances of finding work?
• How will claimants be able to afford to attend a jobcentre every day, especially in rural areas?
• Which low-paid workers will lose their jobs so that jobseekers can carry out their roles for nothing?

Iain Duncan Smith - Mandatory Attendance Centres

The relevant part of Duncan Smith's speech is as follows [7]

"But today I want to tell you about those who are already showing early signs of not being able to commit to their obligation to work. Prior to the Work Programme we are going to pilot a Mandatory Attendance Centre where selected individuals will receive expert support and supervision while they search and apply for jobs – that is 9 o’clock  to 5 o’clock – 35 hours a week – for up to six months, simulating the working day. These pilots will be targeted at claimants who will benefit from the intensive support - one pilot before the Work  Programme and one for after the Work Programme."

His comments have been accompanied by a DWP press release:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/claimants-required-to-undertake-supervised-jobsearch-at-new-centres

Note that what is being proposed is a pilot, though no doubt it will be eventually rolled out across the country irrespective of whether it turns out to be helpful or not.

Note also that claimants will be required to attend 5 full days a week for up to six months: again, how will claimants afford the accompanying transport costs?

Duncan Smith was asked about the transport cost issue on Radio 4's the World at One on 01/10/2013. His response was that, firstly, claimants could seek help from the flexible support fund (the FSF)(although they couldn't guarantee that they would all be helped), and that, secondly, the Attendance Centres would be close to where claimants lived. There doesn't seem to be much information available about the FSF, including how big it is, as a Parliamentary Briefing note plaintively observes [8], but I'll be very surprised if the majority of claimants who incur travel costs get them met. And we don't have any details on how close is 'close'.

Actually I have some sympathy with the concept here. It is based on the understanding that jobseekers are not all the same. Some have no experience of the world of work: of coming in at the same time, day after day, of being subject to authority, of not being able to call your time your own. And without this experience, forcing them to take jobs is likely to be futile. And I accept that there are difficult questions about failure to engage, and about whether and how compulsion is appropriate. But in order for this kind of scheme to work, and not simply to be a way to remove people from benefit, the balance between support and compulsion would have to be vastly different from what it is almost certain to be.

David Cameron - young people

These comments[9] were brief, in a long speech, and are not linked to any proposals: but they suggest some worrying (though not totally surprising) changes are on the horizon. 


"There are still over a million young people not in education, employment, or training. Today it is still possible to leave school, sign on, find a flat, start claiming housing benefit and opt for a life on benefits.
It’s time for bold action here. We should ask, as we write our next manifesto, if that option should really exist at all. Instead we should give young people a clear, positive choice: Go to school. Go to college. Do an apprenticeship. Get a job. But just choose the dole? We’ve got to offer them something better than that. And let no one paint ideas like this as callous. Think about it: with your children, would you dream of just leaving them to their own devices, not getting a job, not training, nothing?  
No – you’d nag and push and guide and do anything to get them on their way… and so must we. 
So this is what we want to see: everyone under 25 – earning or learning."


A few years ago young people and their advocates learned that Housing Benefit was to be restricted for people under 25. It looks like soon we'll be thinking of that as the good old days, as it appears that the government's intention is to remove all benefit entitlement to young people who are not in employment, education, or training.

A briefing to journalists after the speech made it clear that removal of Housing Benefit will be in the next Tory manifesto, and removal of other benefits may be in the manifesto.

I think no-one would disagree that an aspiration for all young people to be in work or learning is a positive one. The problem here is reality: what if there are no jobs; no suitable training? What if a young person has behavioural or attitudinal problems as a result of their upbringing?

I also don't accept Cameron's analogy: yes, a good parent would 'nag and push and guide', but if it didn't work out would a good parent throw their child out the door, without money, food, clothes?

Concluding thoughts

This isn't an original observation, but under all the data, proposals, and schemes what really disturbs me is the underlying world view. It is one in which there is a clear distinction between those who take from the community and those who contribute to it; between 'those who need it' and 'those who pay for it';  between the deserving and undeserving poor.

What about the bloke who has done the same kind of manual work for decades but is made redundant when the company closes down, and has none of the skills needed for the jobs available? Is he a shirker?

What about the young woman who spent her childhood caring for her disabled mother?  Perhaps her mother is in a home now, or dead. Is she just a freeloader?

And what about the young single mother with a one-year-old baby?

The bottom line, of course, is that although the rhetoric is about helping people and improving society, the reality is about balancing the government's books by targeting the most vulnerable rather than sharing the burden more fairly. And caricaturing claimants as people who want something for nothing sets them up against everyone else.

Tomorrow the benefit claimant could be me. Or you. Although, probably not Osbourne, Duncan Smith, or Cameron

Sources

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/30/george-osborne-jobless-benefit-conservatives
[2] http://www.conservativepartyconference.org.uk/Speeches/2013_George_Osborne.aspx
[3] http://www.dwp.gov.uk/supplying-dwp/what-we-buy/welfare-to-work-services/provider-guidance/work-programme-provider.shtml
[4] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/220276/eia-mandatory-work-activity.pdf
[5] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/governments-flagship-work-scheme-in-crisis-after-poundland-slavery-case-ruling-8492346.html
[6] http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/jul/29/long-term-unemployed-unpaid-work
[7] http://www.conservativepartyconference.org.uk/Speeches/2013_Iain_Duncan_Smith.aspx
[8] http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06079
[9] http://www.conservativepartyconference.org.uk/Speeches/2013_David_Cameron.aspx

Bedroom Tax - another update...

Further to my last post, there have been two new developments.

Firstly, another tribunal has ruled in favour of a claimant. In this case the claimant lives in London, rents a housing association flat in Westminster, and is blind. He uses one of the 'bedrooms' to store equipment he needs in his life and work because of his blindness. He maintained that this room could not be treated as a bedroom and the judge agreed, noting in his decision notice:

"The term 'bedroom' is nowhere defined [in the relevant regulations]. I apply the ordinary English meaning. The room in question cannot be so defined."

You can read more about this case here: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/26/bedroom-tax-westminster-council-defeat

The argument used by this claimant is similar to that used in one of the Scotland case (see previous post) in which a physically disabled claimant needed a room to store his wheelchair.

In the Guardian's report it is stated that Westminster Council will not be attempting to challenge the decision but that the DWP may do so. It is not surprising to me that the council don't want to take the case further: as I said in my last post, local authorities don't want tenants to be caught by the bedroom tax any more than the tenants do. Frankly I don't see how the DWP can appeal this decision: they are not a party in the case. 

Legally speaking this is all a bit unsatisfactory, as none of these new cases are - technically - legal precedent, and if none of the local authorities appeal these decisions no actual case law on the point is going to emerge. Judges will therefore be making decisions on an ad hoc basis, though undoubtedly they will take account what has happened already. Oddly, it might be really helpful if a judge refused a claimants appeal on a case like these, so that the claimant could take it to the Upper Tribunal for some authoritative comment on the matter.

Secondly, there has been some progress in a ten key test cases. 

In July ten claimants took their cases to the High Court in July, arguing that the bedroom tax rules were discriminatory, but the Court ruled against them (I wrote about this in my post on 17th July). 

However an appeal judge has just given them permission to take their cases further, to the Court of Appeal.

This case has been reported here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10336077/Legal-challenge-over-benefit-reform-dubbed-bedroom-tax-by-Labour.html

The judge who granted leave to appeal, Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Aikens, in his reasons*, stated that 

 “[the cases] raise issues of public importance concerning the amended housing benefit scheme and the needs of disabled/ young people and so should be considered by the Court of Appeal.” He also went on to say, “Further, the points raised in the grounds of appeal and the proposed ‘skeleton’ argument have a reasonable prospect of success…” 

The last point is quite encouraging, obviously.


*Source: http://www.leighday.co.uk/News/2013/September-2013/Bedroom-Tax-to-be-challenged-in-the-Court-of-Appea (yes, the last 'l' is supposed to be missing)

Bedroom Tax - an important development...

Govan Law Centre in Glasgow has been very active in fighting for its clients - and for the wider good - with regards to the Bedroom Tax (or, as the government would have it, the 'Spare Room Subsidy'). This work seems to have borne fruit.

A 1st Tier tribunal judge has made decisions on a number of cases brought by them on behalf of clients, and has made some important findings. It is important to note that, unlike decisions issued by the (higher) Upper Tribunal, or, say, the Court of Appeal, these decisions do not have the force of legal precedent (this also means that we cannot ask to see the written reasons for the decisions). Nonetheless they are still valuable, as other judges will now be aware of them.

Apart from being a horrid piece of legislation, the Bedroom Tax, or, to give it its official name, the ‘Housing benefit size criteria restrictions for working age claimants in the social rented sector from April 2013’, has a fundamental failing: it does not actually say what a bedroom is. Hitherto the number of bedrooms in a property has been whatever the landlord said it was. The judge wasn't happy with this, and said that whether a particular room is a bedroom has to decided on the facts of the case.

He also made some very useful findings when he looked at specific cases:

• He noted that, under overcrowding legislation, a bedroom for one adult need to be at least 70 square feet in area, so a claimant whose spare room was only 66 square feet should not have that room classed as a bedroom (he also noted that a room smaller than 50 square feet is not even suitable under overcrowding legislation for a child under 10);
• He argued that if a room was being reasonably used for something else, it should not count as a bedroom. So in one case, a claimant who stored his wheelchair in one room, and, because of the layout of his home, could not store it anywhere else, won his appeal as the room could not be classed as a bedroom. On the other hand, another claimant who stored his gardening equipment in a room lost his appeal, as the judge didn't find this to be reasonable.

Paradoxically, it would probably be good if the local authority against whom these appeals were made did appeal these decisions to the Upper Tribunal, as it might enable useful precedent to be set, as his arguments appear (at least to me, and especially regarding room size) to be sound. However they may not do so, as the decisions in claimants' favour are in their interests too, as they don't want their tenants to be falling into rent arrears any more than the tenants do.

If you're affected by the bedroom tax yourself, or are helping anyone who is, it's really important that you take action urgently. Measure all the rooms in the house, consider what rooms are used for, and appeal if appropriate. Many claimants will be outside the one month time limit for appealing but it is still worth trying. No claimant will yet be outside the final 13 month limit, but the longer a claimant delays the less likely it is that the tribunal will admit their appeal.

I have updated BenefitsOwl. info accordingly:

http://www.benefitsowl.info/bedroom%20tax.html

Sources:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b039yp0m (at about the 19 minute mark)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24066864

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/tribunal-may-pave-way-for-bedroom-tax-appeals-1-3085350

Govan Law Centre haven't yet updated their blog, but for when they do, here's a link to them:

http://govanlc.blogspot.co.uk/

The Bedroom Tax - Human Rights Commissioner comments

Grant Shapps, Conservative Party Chairman, is not happy.

United Nations Special Rapporteur on housing, Raquel Rolnik, has issued a press release following an investigation into housing problems in the UK. It was the 'bedroom tax' that particularly concerned her: this, in turn, was what angered Mr Shapps.

You can find her full press release here:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13707&LangID=E

It's quite a short statement, and is worth reading in full. The full report will presented to the Human Rights Council in March next year.

If you are interested in social welfare in the UK it's unlikely that anything she says will be news to you. What matters here is not so much what is being said but who is saying it. Having said that, I will now quote her...

'The so-called bedroom tax has already had impacts on some of the most vulnerable members of society. During these days of my visit, the dramatic testimonies of people with disabilities, grand-mothers who are carers for their families, and others affected by this policy, clearly point to a measure that appears to have been taken without the human component in mind.'

It was not just the bedroom tax that concerned her. She was also disturbed by conditions in the private rented sector, particularly given that more people are being forced into this sector by the shortage of social housing.

It appears that Mr Shapps was especially annoyed, firstly, by her not meeting with members of the government, and, secondly, by referring to the measure as the bedroom tax and not by its 'proper name' of the 'spare room subsidy' (source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24046094 (the embedded interview).

The second point is interesting, and wrong. While it is true that 'bedroom tax' isn't the measure's real name, neither is 'spare room subsidy'. The measure's actual name is:

‘Housing benefit size criteria restrictions for working age claimants in the social rented sector from April 2013’ 

'Spare room subsidy' is just as opinion loaded as 'bedroom tax', and - arguably - more misleading. For example, imagine a home where two sisters, aged 12 and 15, have separate rooms. There is no 'spare room', but as the law now requires these sisters to share a room, their parents would still be facing a reduction of 14% in their maximum Housing Benefit (for more information about this, see http://www.benefitsowl.info/bedroom%20tax.html ). 

Oh, and while we're thinking about children sharing rooms, I can't help mentioning Michael Gove, Education Minister, who, in the context of a discussion about planning changes, said (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/05/michael-gove-comments-bedroom-tax:

'There are children, poor children, who do not have rooms of their own in which to do their homework, in which to achieve their full potential'.

However subsequent interviews suggest that he's either incapable or unwilling to make the obvious connection between this aspiration and the bedroom tax...

Further Reading:
There's a good opinion piece by Zoe Williams on the UN press release:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/11/bedroom-tax-not-policy-bad-bullingdon-weekend
For more information about the bedroom tax check out my website:
http://www.benefitsowl.info/bedroom%20tax.html

National Audit Office reports on Universal Credit

The National Audit Office (NAO) has just published a report on progress of the Universal Credit project. It's fair to say that it's not that impressed.

The Executive Summary can be found here:

http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Executive-Summary.pdf

It will come as no surprise to anyone with their ear to the ground that the Universal Credit  project is struggling. As I've observed previously, October was supposed to see it 'rolled out' across the country, but as it turns out, and if you'll excuse me replacing their imagery with mine, it will actually dribble out like urine from a prostate-obstructed urethra.

What's gone wrong?

The NAO gives the impression of a project where, although everybody knew where they wanted to end up, nobody was exactly clear about how to get there, and where management-speak trumped actual effective management. Crucially, there appears to be no evidence that anybody had learned from previous government experience with large IT projects.

Is that hyperbole? I don't think so. It's unusual, I imagine, to laugh out loud at a report on the progress of a government initiative, but at times I couldn't help myself. For example, the NAO describes how, at the outset, the Department (of Work and Pensions) decided to use what it described as an 'Agile' approach to its management of the project - an approach that it had never used before. According to the NAO, this approach is described as using 'iterative and collaborative project management to develop its IT and policy'. Well, it didn't work. So in January 2012, the Department introduced 'Agile 2.0', a hybrid of the Agile and traditional approaches.

Crucially, the NAO finds that 'throughout the programme the Department has lacked a detailed view of how Universal Credit is meant to work.' I don't know about you, but I would have thought that was rather important. Certainly the NAO seems to think so. It notes that there has never been a clear 'blueprint' for the introduction of Universal Credit, nor for the transition to Universal Credit from existing systems. This was also a concern of the Major Projects Authority, who oversaw a 'reset' of the project between February and May this year. Despite this, the concerns that cause this intervention do not, in the opinion of the NAO, appear to have been addressed.

'The Department recognised that the detailed policy for Universal Credit would not be approved by Parliament until 2012. It estimated that its traditional ‘waterfall’ approach to programme management, whereby systems are developed after policy is set, would lead to roll-out in April 2015. The Department was not able to explain to us how it originally decided on October 2013 or evaluated the feasibility of roll-out by this date.'

IT Problems

Unsurprisingly, IT is a key concern.

The Department does not yet know to what extent its new IT systems will
support national roll-out. Universal Credit pathfinder systems have limited function
and do not allow claimants to change details of their circumstances online as originally
intended. The Department does not yet have an agreed plan for national roll-out and
has been unclear about how far it will build on pathfinder systems or replace them.

The report records that the Department has had to write of £34 million of its new IT assets. This, together with the delayed roll-out, will reduce the expected savings which Universal Credit is supposed to generate. In addition, the NAO believes that 'it is unlikely that Universal Credit will be as simple or cheap to administer as originally intended.'

What are the consequences?

Of course this isn't all simply an interesting example of government hubris. Real people will be affected by this. The NAO is plainly worried that if the government persists in its requirement that the transition will be complete by 2017 the final transfer process will be compressed: large numbers of claimants would have to be migrated over a very short period of time.

What's Iain Duncan Smith's spin on all this?

His position (see, for example, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/05/david-cameron-24bn-universal-credit-problems) is that:

• It's not his fault - civil servants are to blame - and in fact he's the hero of the hour for intervening to ensure that problems have been dealt with;
• The programme will be delivered on time and on budget: losses due to the IT problems will be made up elsewhere.

Regarding the first blob, I'm not really in a position to comment, although I do suggest that as the whole thing is his baby the buck should stop with him. He does seem to have been a bit disingenuous with Parliament, though, as he apparently told it in March that the project was 'proceeding exactly in accordance with plans', despite the fact that the whole thing was 'reset' a month earlier. Perhaps he didn't know.

As for being delivered 'on time and on budget'... If by 'on time' he means 'the roll out will be complete by 2017, as planned', it's still possible, although only by having a very rapid final migration, which as noted earlier gives the NAO some concerns. The roll out for new claimants is certainly not 'on time'.

On budget? Only time will tell. But this can only happen if costs are cut from now on. It would be a miracle if this did not result in poorer quality delivery, and, of course, more problems for hard-pressed claimants.

Impact of welfare reforms: a new report

The Local Government Association (LGA) has just published a report, commissioned from the Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion, titled 'The local impacts of welfare reform': it makes interesting reading.

You can download the full report here:

http://www.local.gov.uk/publications

The LGA is a cross-party organisation: it describes its aim as to 'work with councils to support, promote, and improve local government'. The report's main purpose is therefore presumably to help councils deal with the effects of welfare reform, but it also deserves a wider audience.

The report calls into question the rhetoric that sets benefits claimants against 'hard-working families'. It estimates that nearly 60% of the reductions fall on households where someone works, and notes that in fact 'the reductions for working households are greater than the reductions for households where no one works in 314 of the 325 local authorities in this analysis'.

It is also the only report I've seen that makes a serious effort to compare the effects of all the different changes that form part of the current government's welfare reforms. Which changes do you imagine are going to bring in the biggest reductions in government spending? The 'bedroom tax'? The replacement of Disability Living Allowance with Personal Independence Payment? The Benefit Cap? The removal of Council Tax benefit in favour of local Council Tax Support?

In fact all the changes in the paragraph above combined contribute only about 17% to the overall projected savings of  about £14 billion for the year 2015/16 (the famous, and massively disruptive, bedroom tax only contributes about 3%).

The four largest contributors to savings (which together total about 80%) are the following:

1. A collection of largely unnoticed tweaks to tax credits, such as adjustments of the working hours requirements and real-terms reductions in various payments rates and thresholds, for example. These changes contribute about 38% to overall savings.
2. The decision to only uprate benefits by 1% instead of by inflation: this saves about 19% of the total.
3. Restricting contribution based Employment and Support Allowance to one year only: this saves about 12% of the total.
4. Changes to Housing Benefit in the private rented sector - for example, restricting Housing Benefit to the 'shared room rate' for claimants under 35 - save about 12%. 

Of course the changes to Housing Benefit are going to be of particular concern to local authorities, as they are responsible for assessing and paying this, and also have to deal with requests for Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs). The report acknowledges that an extra £155 million has been given to local authorities but predicts that even with this extra help, DHPs will only cover about £1 in every £7 needed overall. This prediction is based in a fairly complex analysis, but in the most likely scenario, only about 23% of claimants will be able to either resolve their rent problems by finding work or by moving home.

Although Universal Credit is not included in the report's analysis for 2015/16, as any effect at this stage will be too small to be worth considering, it does consider how Universal Credit will impact on claimants in the longer term. The report confirms the fear in other quarters that disabled people are likely to see lower awards than under the current system. It also notes that 'most estimates suggest that Universal Credit is unlikely to lead to any significant impact on employment'.

For hard-pressed local authorities the report will make grim reading, as it will for claimants, and those who work with them. Nobody is, I think, likely to be very surprised by the conclusions, but the analysis is clear and well argued, and may provide useful data to anyone intending to campaign against the direction the government is taking.

Zero hours contracts and jobseeking

There's a lot of discussion at the moment about 'zero hour contracts' -  employment contracts where there is no obligation on the employer to provide a guaranteed amount of work, or indeed any work at all, or sick pay or holiday pay. On the other hand, employees are often required to be available for work whenever the employer requires it, either explicitly (for instance at Buckingham Palace, Cineworld, and Sports Direct, according to a recent article in the Independent[1]), or implicitly, by favouring more flexible employees.

This isn't an employment blog, so isn't the place to examine the issues involved from an employment rights point of view.

However, the rise of zero contracts may have consequences for benefits claimants. There are two main areas where problems may arise?

(A) Will claimants be sanctioned if they fail to apply for zero hours jobs? 

Will Jobseeker's Allowance claimants be penalised if they refuse to apply for work, or turn down offers for work, from employers who are offering zero hour contracts only?

According to Hansard, the answer is a reassuring 'no'. In answer to a question put by Lord Greaves on 25th April this year, Lord Freud (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions) said:

'I can confirm that Jobseeker's Allowance claimants are not required to apply for zero hour contract vacancies.' [HL6759]

Well, that is encouraging. And, in general, answers given by DWP ministers normally both reflect, and inform, practice on the ground. 

However, the legal framework is a bit messy.

Until late 2012 it was very clear that there was not a problem. Regulation 72(5)(a) of the Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations 1996 made it explicit that a claimant would not be sanctioned if the position applied for provided less than 24 hours per week (or 16 hours per week in some circumstances). A zero hour contract cannot assure an employee of this, so claimants were clearly protected against having to apply for this kind of work . Unfortunately, from late 2012 onwards, new sanction rules have applied: regulation 72 of the Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations has been through some major surgery, and any reference to a minimum amount of work per week has now disappeared. There is, therefore, no explicit protection in law from being required to take on a zero hours contract. 

Fortunately the lack of clarity works both ways: there is nothing in the rules to say that zero hours contracts are not a good reason for refusing a job. I also note the guidance for DWP decision makers states that they may take into account any restrictions a claimant has been allowed to place on their work search[2]. This means it is very important that claimants try to get a minimum hours restriction included in their job search criteria, as this will make it harder for the Jobcentre Plus to argue with a refusal to work a zero hour contract.

(B) What if an employee is in a zero hours contract and it is unsustainable?

This is a bit more tricky. Again, a claimant has to show 'good reason' for leaving a job to avoid being sanctioned when they try to claim Jobseeker's Allowance. And, again, what counts as a good reason is not made clear.

Guidance to decision makers for the DWP [3] indicates that if a claimant knew about the conditions when they took a job but took it anyway, being unhappy with those conditions will not be a good reason for leaving. However I think it would be worth arguing against this, even if a person knew it was a zero hours contract at the outset, if they had an expectation of a certain amount of work, and this expectation was not satisfied.



At the moment we don't really know how this will develop, as zero hour contracts are a relatively new problem for most areas of the workforce, and also the new sanction rules have been in place for less than a year. If Lord Freud's statement turns out not to reflect how things are on the ground the situation will be deeply worrying: failure to apply for a job, or leaving a job voluntarily, attracts the highest level of sanction, which can be anything from 13 to 156 weeks depending on previous history.

If you have been sanctioned because of these issues, or know someone who has, please let me know.


If you want to know more general advice about Jobseeker's Allowance sanctions, have a look at my main website:

http://www.benefitsowl.info/JSA Sanctions.html




[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/buckingham-palace-employs-summer-staff-on-zerohours-contracts-8739830.html  (31st July 2013)
[2] http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/admk2.pdf (paragraph K2151)
[3]http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/admk2.pdf (paragraph K2233)