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:



Friday, 27 March 2015

The Employment and Support Allowance rules are changing (and you won't like it)

An important right is being removed for anyone who makes a new claim for Employment and Support Allowance on or after 30th March. But unless you're in the benefits advice business I bet you haven't heard about it.

This is how things are before 30th March


If you make a new claim for Employment and Support Allowance you normally get paid (nearly) straight away. Provided you are able to give them a 'sick note' (aka a medical certificate) the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) 'treats' you as being unfit for work ('having limited capability for work') from the outset. Once the claim is up and running you are sent a questionnaire to complete, and then - normally - you attend a medical. After this the DWP makes a decision about whether you do, or do not, actually have limited capability for work.

If the DWP decides against you, you can simply make a new claim for Employment and Support Allowance. However, if a capability for work decision has gone against you in the last six months, you are not 'treated' as unfit for work from the outset. You get no money unless and until the assessment process (including the questionnaire, medical, and decision) has been completed in your favour. This is, I suppose, fair enough: otherwise people could keep just making repeat claims and the decisions on fitness for work would become meaningless. Importantly, you can still be treated as unfit for work even if less than 6 months have passed since the last decision if you can provide evidence that you have a new condition, or an existing condition has got significantly worse.

For any new claim for ESA made on 30th March or later...

Everything I've written above remains the same, except for one tiny detail:

You need to replace 'in the last six months' with 'ever'.

If the last decision made under the Employment and Support Allowance rules found you fit for work, and you decide to make a new claim for ESA, you will get no benefit unless and until the DWP assesses you as unfit for work. It doesn't matter if the last decision was made five months, seven months, or seven years ago: you will have to wait until after the questionnaire and after the medical before you even have the chance of receiving any benefit.

The only exceptions to this are these:

  • As previously, if you can convince them that you have a new condition, or that an existing condition has got worse, they can treat you as unfit for work from the outset.
  • If the last decision refused you because you failed to return a questionnaire or failed to attend a medical, you will be treated as unfit for work, and get paid benefit from the outset, provided it is more than 6 months since that decision.
Actually, there's another change I nearly forgot to mention: if a claimant is found fit for work again (having been found fit for work in the past), and appeals this new decision, they will not be entitled to any ESA until and unless the tribunal makes its decision in favour of the person appealing.

The government gives its reasons for the change as follows:

"The Government is committed to supporting those who cannot work because of a health condition or disability. We are making this policy change because we believe that the existing rules encourage claimants to claim ESA, rather than claim JSA and get the help and support they need in order to return to work." [from the report on the proposed changes by the Social Security Advisory Committee, page 2]

I will resist the temptation to comment on this point of view.

Why is this bad?


If  Employment and Support Allowance decision making  worked properly, there shouldn't be a problem. But suppose it doesn't (if you can imagine such a thing)? Imagine a claimant who should meet the rules for getting ESA but is, instead, refused, perhaps as the result of a poorly conducted medical exam. For some clients this mistake will be corrected by a social security tribunal: some claimants will not take their cases to tribunal: others will be refused wrongly at the tribunal itself.

In the government's responses to the Social Security Advisory Committee [page 5], it is noted that of those claimants who submitted a new claim for ESA in 2013 following a negative previous decision, and whose condition was broadly unchanged, 65% were either found fit for work, or withdrew their claims prior to assessment. I suggest turning that statistic on its head: 35% of claimants who had just the same condition as before were found unfit for work, when previously the DWP had made the opposite decision.

For these claimants that negative decision, and its consequences, may remain with them indefinitely. Until this rule change, claimants in this position have been able to console themselves that, after a time on other benefits like Jobseeker's Allowance, they will be able to try again for Employment and Support Allowance. Once the rules have changed, although they will still have this right in principle, in practice they will struggle to exercise it, as they will not be able to receive any benefit payments while the assessment process is going on. This will mean not getting any money for around 13 weeks.

Even if the original decision was correct, the change is likely to result in injustice. Consider claimants who have life-long, intractable, health problems or disabilities: a claimant may experience worsening, or a flare up, of a long-standing condition, but this may not amount to a significant change in the eyes of the DWP. GPs will have to be especially careful in how they complete 'sick notes' - if they don't make it clear that a person is experiencing a substantial worsening of symptoms, and simply write, say 'osteo-arthritis' on the medical certificate, that person is going get no benefit during the assessment process.

And what about claimants whose limitations result from a learning difficulty? Unless they develop additional problems, one snapshot decision about their abilities is likely to come back to haunt them whenever they try to reclaim ESA.

All these considerations make the stakes very high for claimants who are being assessed under the capability for work rules. Completing the ESA50 questionnaire and going to the medical examination are already stressful experiences for claimants: knowing that this is the only chance you're likely to get is only going to add to this. And imagine going to a social security tribunal in the knowledge that the outcome of the hearing is likely to determine the course of your life until you reach retirement age.

What can people do about this?


If you are thinking about making a new claim for Employment and Support Allowance, having previously been found 'not to have a limited capability for work', or know someone else who is
in this position, you need to ask yourself the following questions?

  • Has your condition worsened significantly since the last decision was made? 
  • Or have you got a new medical condition that you didn't have then?

If you can't answer 'yes' to either of these, you need to be realistic: you will not receive any Employment and Support Allowance until the assessment process is complete, and then only if they agree that you meet the rules.

If you can answer 'yes' to either, you now probably need to have a meeting with your GP. You will need to emphasise to your doctor that there must be reference to a worsening, or to a new condition. It will not be sufficient for the sick note to name your long-term health problem or disability.

I have seen an interesting argument on the rightsnet website, which some people might find useful. The new regulation which brings in the changes (The Employment and Support Allowance (Repeat Assessment and Pending Appeal Awards)(Amendment) Regulations 2015 (No. 437)) makes it clear that the new rule kicks in only if the last decision made found that the claimant did not have limited capability for work. However, remember that for those who appeal (at least the first time round) the law allows them to get Employment and Support Allowance payments while the appeal is ongoing: they are 'treated' as unfit for work. If the appeal finally fails the DWP has to end this temporary entitlement: they make a decision not to treat the person as unfit for work. This means that in those circumstances, the last decision does not fit the requirement specified in the new rules: deciding that a person is not to be treated as unfit for work is not the same as deciding whether they are actually not unfit for work. However the DWP are likely to move quickly to close this loophole.

Note: the DWP's responses to the Social Security Advisory Committee appear to suggest that a claimant would be able to carry on receiving Jobseeker's Allowance after making a claim for ESA and while waiting for a decision to be made on their capability for work. This makes no sense to me. However if more information appears about this I will pass it on.

Monday, 23 March 2015

'Time to rethink benefit sanctions'

'Imagine that your income stopped suddenly tomorrow. Perhaps you would cope for a while, living on savings, running down the food in your kitchen cupboards, maybe making a few lifestyle changes that helped you save money. If someone else in your household were earning, you might be able to manage on their income for a while.


But imagine that you’d exhausted all of those options; if you are an adult of working age, you might reasonably expect that you could turn to the benefits system to give you some basic support. But now imagine that the very same benefits system actually brought about such circumstances. Where would you turn then? Is this what you would expect of a benefits system to which we contribute our taxes, to provide basic support for those who have no other form of income?'

The quotation above, and the title of this post, are both from a report published this month, by Church Action on Poverty, The Baptist Union of Great Britain, the United Reformed Church, the Church of Scotland, and the Church in Wales.

You can find the report yourself here:
http://www.church-poverty.org.uk/rethinksanctions/report/reportpdf

I'd strongly encourage you to read it. It's a thorough, well argued and well-researched criticism of the current sanctions regime.

In case you don't get a chance to study it in detail, here's a brief summary of some of the major points covered. This might also encourage you to download the full report.

If you want to know about the sanctions rules for Jobseeker's Allowance in detail, check out the relevant pages on Benefits Owl, which I've just rewritten and expanded: http://www.benefitsowl.info/JSA%20Sanctions.html

Increasing numbers of claimants are being sanctioned


Here's some numbers to conjure with:
  • A million sanctions were imposed in 2014 (this compares to about 300,000 in 2000);
  • 22% of Jobseekers receive at least one sanction during their time on benefit'
  • 100 people a day who are classed as unfit to work due to mental health problems are sanctioned every day

Sanctions are frequently disproportionate to the issues that cause them


The report gives a hypothetical example from the department's own guidance to illustrate this:
'“Audrey attends the JCP [Jobcentre Plus] every other Thursday at 10am to sign a declaration.  On 25.10.12 she fails to attend to sign.  On  1.11.12 she attends to sign at her normal time saying she forgot to sign last week as she got muddled with her dates.  On 6.11.12 the DM [Decision Maker] determines that Audrey failed without good reason to participate in an interview as arranged to sign a declaration.  This is Audrey’s first failure.  A 4 week sanction is imposed.”
[Source: DWP Training Memo DMG 37/12]'
As the authors of the report point out, this is the first time "Audrey" has made a mistake, and was only in breach of her ageement for 7 days, but she loses her benefit for a month.

Here is a real example from the report:
'A 40 year old man from Glasgow was sanctioned for missing an appointment. A divorcee, he is a proud father who has worked for most of his life.  He now has no gas or electricity and has been reduced to shoplifting for food. While telling his story, shame, humiliation and desperation reduced him to tears.
[Source: Poverty Truth Commission]'

Sanctions disproportionately affect the most vulnerable


Sanctions are not now just applied to people who are expected to look for work. Claimants on Employment and Support Allowance are also at risk of sanctions, if they are in the work related activity group. As noted above, a hundred of such claimants, who are on ESA due to mental health problems, are sanctioned each day. Data in the report also appears to indicate, worryingly, that claimants with mental health problems form an increasing proportion of those sanctioned.

As the report observes:
'The most common reason for being sanctioned is that a person has been late or not turned up for a Work Programme appointment. For some the symptoms of their illness can be extreme tiredness, a lack of motivation, or an inability to face social situations. It is therefore not surprising that people experiencing these symptoms can find it very difficult to attend Work Programme appointments...Sanctioning such people is not a measured response to wilful misbehaviour. It is effectively punishing a person for the symptom of an illness, equivalent to sanctioning someone with a broken leg for limping.' 

Evidence compiled for the report indicates that sanctions have particularly severe consequences on young people not in education, employment, or training, care leavers, homeless people, single parents, and those experiencing domestic violence, as well as those with long-term health conditions.

It is not just the claimants themselves who suffer. Figures obtained via Freedom of Information requests show that around 100,000 children were affected by sanctions.

The report also argues that the sanctions system deliberately harms health. It refers to DWP guidance in which it is accepted that 'it would be usual for the normal healthy adult to suffer some deterioration in their health if they were without... essential items, such as food, clothing, heating, and accommodation or sufficient money to buy essential items for a period of two weeks' [i.e. due to sanctions]. I'm not sure this quite justifies the reports assertion: however, I think it can safely be said that the DWP is prepared to accept the health of claimants being harmed as a consequence of sanctions.

The provision of hardship payments for those on sanctions is inadequate


Although hardship payments are available, the report highlights a number of problems with these:

  • Most people are unable to apply for them for the first two weeks, and frequently don't receive them for a further two weeks;
  • Under the new Universal Credit rules hardship payments are loaned, recovered later by reducing benefit payments to 60% of normal.
Also (though this is not mentioned in the report) sanctions payments are much lower than normal benefit payments, typically 40% less for a single adult).

There is, in my opinion, an error in the report, as it states that claimants' have to ask friends and relatives for money before being considered for a hardship payment'. DWP Guidance makes it clear that this should not be required:

'Note: It is not considered reasonable to expect claimants to rely upon charities, such as food banks, increase debts by seeking credit or using or extending overdraft facilities, sell or pawn items to obtain cash, find cheaper housing or ask friends and family for help in order to meet their essential needs. Whilst claimants may be prepared to request such help there should be no requirement to do so and claimants should not be denied access to hardship payments if they don’t' [DMG Chapter 35 - Hardship (para 35212), emphasis mine]

Of course what actually happens is another matter.

There is very little evidence that sanctions are effective at getting people into work


'For every 100 sanctions imposed, 42 people will leave benefits but only 7 will enter work. There is not a clear picture of how the remaining 35 who leave benefit manage'

The report also notes that evidence does not show that the longer the sanction is, the better the effect of the claimant's ability to find work. If anything, analysis from the past suggests that longer sanctions results in claimants becoming 'disengaged and less likely to accept help'.

The regime's harshness is not evidence based


It's always interesting, when studying government initiatives, to look at the research and data that - at least notionally - underpins the changes. In this case, the report traces the origins of the changes to a research report by Professor Paul Gregg. The only problem is that the regime proposed by Gregg is manifestly a very different animal from what we actually have. He suggested a maximum sanction of one month (compared with the actual maximum of three years) and expected there to be less than 1000 one month sanctions per year (compare this with the actual figure for 2014 of 880,000).

I commend the Gregg report to you (I've attached a link below). It's thoughtful, carefully argued, and evidence based. Reading it is, however, a melancholy activity, given the differences between what it proposed and what is inflicted on claimants today.

And finally...


The report addresses a number of what it generously refers to as 'misunderstandings' about sanctions - assertions made by those who support the regime - and rebuts the assertions on a point by point basis.

I've done my best to give you a brief taster of what's included, but if you want to know more I highly recommend this authoritative, informed, and timely commentary.



If you want to know more about sanctions...


I've just given my pages on Jobseeker's Allowance sanctions an extensive rewrite: the information is now (certainly) more thorough and (possibly) clearer. Here it is: http://www.benefitsowl.info/JSA%20Sanctions.html


You might also want to look at some of the information sources of the report, as well as the report itself.

The report - "Time to rethink benefit sanctions" - can be found here:
http://www.church-poverty.org.uk/rethinksanctions/report/reportpdf
Church Action on Poverty: http://www.church-poverty.org.uk/

The source for a lot of the raw data in the report is here: http://www.methodist.org.uk/media/1440216/mental_health_and_sanctions_data_set.xlsx

The report also references the a briefing on sanctions statistics by the Child Poverty Action Group:
http://www.cpag.org.uk/sites/default/files/uploads/CPAG-14-11-Sanctions-Stats-Briefing-D-Webster-Nov-2014_0.pdf

The Gregg Report: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130128102031/http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/realisingpotential.pdf


Monday, 16 February 2015

Local Welfare Provision- a tiny bit of good news?

Good news in welfare rights has been rather scarce over the last few years. Any little scraps we find are therefore grabbed eagerly, even if they aren't very good quality.

Do you remember Community Care Grants and Crisis Loans? Well, if you do, well done, because they were abolished in April 2013, after which local authorities have had the responsibility of meeting this kind of need through local welfare assistance schemes. From the outset these weren't as good as the old system, not least because local authorities are not placed under any duty to provide any particular level of support or to ring-fence the money involved. As the government puts it, 'local authorities could spend as much or as little of the funding as they wanted, depending on their own local priorities'[1]. Mmm...

Anyway, at least it was funded. Central government allocated local authorities a total of about £175 million for 2013-2014, and about £172 million for 2014-2015.

However in December 2013 government announced - unexpectedly - that they would give local authorities no money at all from the beginning of tax year 2015-2016 for these purposes.

To say this was bad news is clearly an understatement, particularly in the context of the appalling extent of funding cuts to the poorest local authorities. According figures recently released in the Independent, between 2010/11 and 2015/16 the ten local authorities with the highest levels of health deprivation and disability have seen their spending power per head fall by an average of £275.69, compared with £23.19 in the ten local authorities with the lowest levels of health deprivation and disability[2]. The government's own figures, quoted by the Child Poverty Action Group's policy note on local welfare assistance schemes, show that in the final year of the old-style social fund, 32.4% of the money used to pay Community Care Grants was paid to people with disabilities[3]. It is hard to see how the poorer local authorities, in particular, would be able to fund any kind of local welfare assistance in these circumstances.

The decision to remove this funding was challenged by judicial review. The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), an 'intervener' in the case, pointed out that there was no indication in Parliamentary debates that the support for the schemes would be temporary, and also noted that although the DWP had committed to reviewing the schemes in 2014/15 to 'help inform future funding levels', they hadn't actually done this[4].

The case was settled when the government agreed to carry out a consultation. Their initial response to the consultation was not encouraging: They argued that there was already money allocated for this kind of thing in general grant funding to local authorities totalling about £130 million for the year 2015-2016[5]. 

However, on 3rd February Kris Hopkins, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, announced that the government was, after all, going to fund the scheme again[6]. Unfortunately, they have only agreed to provide £74 million, which still amounts to a cut of about 57% compared with the previous year. 

As the Chief Executive of CPAG, Alison Garnham, observed, in her response [7]:
"It’s obviously disappointing that despite all the evidence ministers are still insisting on a cut targeted at the poorest in their moment of greatest need but the £74m announced today may help preserve the foundations of local welfare assistance schemes which are a crucial last resort for people in acute need".

Finally, and crucially, there are two other problems with the local welfare assistance schemes: there is no new statutory duty for local authorities to provide anything; nor is the money provided by central government ring-fenced[8]. Combining these with the punitive pattern of general funding cuts to local authorities we have the worst possible kind of post-code lottery: areas of high deprivation are going to have larger numbers of people approaching them for help, and less assistance - if any - to offer them.


[1] Local welfare provision in 2015-16: Consultation Summary of responses, paragraph 1
[2] "Most deprived English councils suffer biggest cuts in spending power", Independent
[3] CPAG Policy Note 1: Local Welfare Schemes (May 2014) - Section 4: who benefits from LWAS?
[4] CPAG Policy Note 1: Local Welfare Schemes (May 2014) - Section 5: the future of LWAS?
[5] Local welfare provision in 2015-16: Consultation Summary of responses, paragraph 4
[6] Hansard - written statements 3rd February 2015
[7] CPAG responds to local welfare decision, CPAG, 3rd February 2015
[8] Local welfare provision in 2015-16: Consultation Summary of responses, paragraph 1

Friday, 28 November 2014

Universal Credit expands to include some people with children...

...but don't get too excited.

Until now, only claimants without without children were able to claim  Universal Credit (and even then not in all places in the UK). This is no longer the case.

From 24th November, some claimants with children will be able to claim Universal Credit.

However, this will only apply to people who claim in the some districts of Chester, the Wirral, and Warrington. The actual postcode areas included* are:

  • Chester: CH41, CH42, CH43, CH44, CH45, CH46, CH47, CH48, CH49, CH60, CH61, CH62 0 to CH62 9, and CH63.
  • Warrington: WA1 and WA2; WA3 4 to WA3 7; WA4 and WA5; WA13 0; WA13 9.


Even in these areas, not all claimants with children or young people will be able to claim  Universal Credit. The main exceptions are claimants who are responsible for any children or young people get Disability Living Allowance or Personal Independence Payment, or are registered blind, or partially sighted.

All the other restrictions on who will be transferred from the 'old' to the UC systems still apply**.

For example, new claims for Universal Credit can only be made by people who are looking for work; in other words, people who would otherwise be claiming Jobseeker's Allowance. So single parents of children under 5 will still not be included (they are able to claim Income Support); nor will claimants who have a limited capability for work (they will still be claiming Employment and Support Allowance).

Another key exclusion is that people currently in receipt of tax credits will not be included. In practice, as far as I can see, this means that anyone who have had children for a while won't be affected, as - almost certainly - they will be getting Child Tax Credit already.

Putting all this together (and there are quite a few other restrictions I haven't touched on) the only people who will be moving onto the Universal Credit as a result of this new change are parents who have just had their first child, where one of the parents is just about to start looking for work. Who live in Chester, the Wirral, or Chester.

Having said all that, once a claimant is in the Universal Credit system they stay in the Universal Credit system, whatever their changes in circumstances.

In other Universal Credit news, the National Audit Office has published another critical report. The Independent notes that the NAO declined to agree with Iain Duncan Smith's assertion that the Universal Credit project is providing value for money.


"The National Audit Office has concluded that it is too early to determine if the Department for Work & Pensions will achieve value for money in its implementation of the Universal Credit programme.

The Department set out to transform the benefits system with Universal Credit and suffered early setbacks. Since the reset in early 2013, it has reduced the delivery risks by significantly extending its timetable for introducing Universal Credit and choosing a more expensive twin-track approach: the roll-out of its ‘live service’ (which uses pre-2013 IT assets), while at the same time developing its new ‘digital service’.

The DWP believes the additional costs of this approach are justified because it expects Universal Credit to achieve substantial benefits for society sooner and more safely. However, such potential benefits do not mean Universal Credit will be value for money regardless of how it is implemented and the cost of doing so."


The Independent also notes that the project "will not now be fully implemented by the end of 2019". As of a year ago, Duncan Smith was still insisting that the everything would be complete by 2017 (see, for example, my post from about a year ago: http://benefitsowl.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/universal-credit-another-update.html).

In the meantime, I'll continue to do my best to keep you informed of progress.




*I've extracted this information (with some difficulty) from the following sources:
The Welfare Reform Act 2012 (Commencement No. 9, 11, 13 14, 16, 17 and 19 and Transitional and Transitory Provisions (Amendment)) Order 2014
The Welfare Reform Act 2012 (Commencement No. 17 and Transitional and Transitory Provisions) Order 2014
(Goodness me: if nothing else Universal Credit is providing plenty of employment for drafters of legislation. Universal Credit  has created an astonishing cobweb of legislative instruments.)

**For full details of these see https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/377732/uc-families-questions-answers.pdf