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.

'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

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

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

The EU and David Cameron - some observations

On 20th October David Cameron was visiting the Ford motor plant in Dagenham, and said this:

'What we need in Britain is a renegotiation of our relationship with the EU and then a referendum where the British people decide do we stay in this reformed organisation or do we leave it.

'That’s what I will pursue, that’s what I will deliver, and at the heart of that renegotiation we need to address people’s concerns about immigration. I’m very clear about who the boss is, about who I answer to and it’s the British people. They want this issue fixed, they are not being unreasonable about it, and I will fix it.'
(Source: The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/20/eu-leaders-conservative-plan-free-movement-cap-migrants-barroso)

This statement, and others like it, left me angry, but also perplexed. On many of the matters raised, Cameron is either being disingenuous, or he is deluded.

So instead of a tiresome rant, I'm going to try to look, calmly, at the facts.

Firstly, an encouraging fact: at least for me. According to a recent IPSOS-MORI poll, support for staying in the EU is currently at its highest level since 1991: 56% of Britons are in favour of staying in the EU, against 36% who want to leave.

Of course, this doesn't ncessesarily mean that all of the 56% who want to stay are completely happy with the status quo, but it does suggest that the image presented by Cameron of an angry majority demanding radical reform is exaggerated.


Next, let's look at this issue of 'renegotiation of our relationship with the EU'.

For once, I agree with Nigel Farage:
'It is impossible to change the free movement of peoples within Europe without a fundamental treaty change with 27 other European countries. Nobody wants it, nobody is interested, and the prime minister knows it's not possible.'
(Source: The BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29642604)

Freedom of movement for workers, and those seeking work, is a fundamental principle of the European Union. It was part of the original treaty of Rome that set up the (then) EEC in the first place, and can now be found as Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). This is what it says:

1. Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Union.
2. Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment.

3. It shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health:
(a) to accept offers of employment actually made;
(b) to move freely within the territory of Member States for this purpose;
(c) to stay in a Member State for the purpose of employment in accordance with the provisions governing the employment of nationals of that State laid down by law, regulation or administrative action;
(d) to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that State, subject to conditions which shall be embodied in regulations to be drawn up by the Commission.

Note that this gives freedom of movement, not just to people who are actually working, but those who move to another member state in order to look for work.

The only room for manoeuvre available to the government, as far as I can see, is provided by the qualifier at the beginning of paragraph 3: 'subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health'. However, it is not clear that this allows sweeping restrictions that act against the spirit of the Article as a whole. This position appears to be supported by the fact that in the resultant legislation, the government uses the phrase quoted in a way that is clearly intended to refer to individuals (see, for example, Regulation 21 in The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006).

There is a strange doctrinal conflict in the opposition to the principle of free movement. The most strident arguments against the principle seem to come from the conservative end of the political spectrum. As a rough generalisation, right wing thinkers tend to favour a free market, 'laissez faire', economic system. It is arguable that the EU is a textbook example of a this philosophy in action. And yet the proponents of this approach don't seem to like it so much when it doesn't work the way they want it to. If the free market is so great, why is it not appropriate to apply it to individuals looking for work?



However, whatever position you adopt on the matter, it's undeniable that there is net migration from other EU countries to the UK. But even here, the facts aren't quite how they are portrayed.

Here's a typical recent headline:
'One million MORE migrants will flood Britain before EU vote, warns Farage'
(Source: The Express: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/524125/EXCLUSIVE-One-million-MORE-migrants-will-flood-Britain-before-EU-vote-warns-Farage)

The argument seems plausible. The report states that net migration is currently 243,000 people per year. The referendum is due in three years' time. It follows from this that at that point the number of additional migrants will reach... 729,000. OK, that's not a million, but we won't quibble about the odd 271,000.

The figure quoted by Farage is correct, and comes from the Migration Statistics Quarterly Report, August 2014, from the Office of National Statistics. However it needs a bit of unpicking. Firstly, the figure quoted is for all migration, not just that from the EU, which accounts for 131,000 of the total.

Secondly, we need to ask: is the figure of 131,000 typical for recent years? Is it part of a trend? And if it is, where is the trend going? These are tricky questions to answer, partly because the figures from the ONS have a high (but specified) degree of uncertainty*. Here's a chart showing net EU migration over the last ten years.

(The error bars are based on the ONS data: according to their analysis, there is a 95% probability that the actual figure lies within the range.)

To be fair to the Euro-sceptics, and even allowing for the uncertainty in the data values, there is an apparent upwards trend over the last couple of years. The last three data points suggest that this increase has stabilised, but at around 130,000. The trend doesn't coincide with any of the big changes in access to the UK market: The last major change before then was April 2011, when the A8 countries (The Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia) were given full access to the UK labour market.

On the other hand, a Europhile might argue that it's not possible to extrapolate a clear trend from this data, and would also note that the mean migration rate over both the first five years and the second five years is almost identical, at about 87,000.

In fact you could make either argument from the figures: the truth is we don't know. But I'd be reluctant to embark on major treaty reform on the basis on these figures.

It's also important to look at the bigger picture, that of the overall population growth of the UK. Again, according to the ONS (this time the Annual Mid-year Population Estimates, 2013, published in June 2014), the UK population reached 64.1 million by mid-2013, an increase of 401,000 since mid-2012.

Based on the mean EU migration rate quoted above, it follows that entire net EU migration over the last ten years represents just 1.4% of the current population.

But let's look breakdown the population growth into categories.

The majority of the increase is accounted for by natural change (births minus deaths). EU migration accounts for just over a quarter of the total. It's worth noting, also, that half of the EU migration is accounted for by citizens of the pre-enlargement EU states.

So, yes, EU migration does contribute to the pressure on our housing stock, transport infrastructure, and other resources, but not as much we contribute ourselves.

Conclusions

• Firstly, the majority of British citizens appear to want to stay in the EU.
• Secondly, the concept of renegotiating our relationship with the EU so as to restrict access to the UK for EU nationals doesn't seem to have any connection with reality.
• Thirdly, although there is net UK migration into the UK, the actual figures are complex, open to misreading, and provisional.
• Fourthly, EU migration accounts for only about a quarter of recent population growth (assuming the figures for year ending June 2013 are typical. 

I have not considered two other issues at all. One is the reality of the restrictions currently faced by EU migrants in the UK: if you want more information about this, have a look at my website - http://www.benefitsowl.info/abroad-eea-cit.html

The other is a question that is rarely considered at all: why is it a given that net migration from the EU is necessarily bad?

I'll leave that hanging in the air.


*The raw migration data (which I've used for this post) is available from a link within the Migration Report, and also here: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/migration1/migration-statistics-quarterly-report/august-2014/rft-table-1---provisional-estimates.xls

Universal Credit : list of roll-out dates

Universal Credit is rolling out a bit further this autumn. The current expansion seems to be filling in the gaps in the previous roll-outs in the northwest, and so mainly affects the big cities and towns. The postcode areas covered are therefore:

• BB (Blackburn)
• BL (Bolton)
• CA (Carlisle)
• CH (Chester)
• CW (Crewe)
• FY (Blackpool)
• L (Liverpool)
• LA (Lancaster)
• M (Manchester)
• OL (Oldham)
• PR (Preston)
• SK (Stockport)
• WA (Warrington)
• WN (Wigan)

Note that, at the moment, claims are only being accepted from single people and couples without children who would otherwise be claiming Jobseeker's Allowance - those unable to work will still be claiming Employment and Support Allowance, and carers will still be claiming Income Support. 

The list of which postcode areas are affected and when is provided by a DWP memo: 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/351530/adm16-14.pdf

The memo (and the underlying legislation) group the data by dates, so it is quite hard to see clearly how things develop in any one city or town. However, you don't need to worry about this, as I've re-arranged the data for you here.

Note that 'BB9 7' means (for example) any postcode in the format BB9 7xx, such as BB9 7AA.
If the postcode you are interested in doesn't feature here, the likelihood is that it has already been included (for example, L20 postcodes already operate Universal Credit, as the local authority involved is Sefton, not Liverpool.

The latest threat to the Bedroom Tax?

The bedroom tax has been a frequent visitor to this blog; unsurprisingly, given the impact it has had on many benefit claimants. In my last post I looked at the government's own report on it, which found, amongst other things, that only 41% of claimants had paid the full shortfall, and that only 4.5% of tenants have actually downsized as a result of the shortfall.

However there are signs that the days of the bedroom tax, as we currently know it, are numbered. The most recent development comes in the form of a private member's bill that has been brought to Parliament. The bill's sponsor is Liberal Democrat MP Andrew George: at its second reading on 5th September 2014 MPs voted 306 to 231 in favour, and it has now awaiting scrutiny by the Public Bill Committee.

(If you want to see who voted in favour of the bill, and who didn't, check out http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2014-09-05a.603.0)

What is the bill intended to do?

(If you want to check out the details of the bill yourself, you can find it here: 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2014-2015/0013/cbill_2014-20150013_en_2.htm)

Let's be clear: the bill is not designed to end the bedroom tax (the 'housing benefit size criteria restrictions' to give it its official name).  However it is intended to address some of the most problematic issues.

Remember that the main effect of the bedroom tax is to reduce the maximum Housing Benefit available by 14% if a claimant has one 'too many' bedrooms, or by 25% if they have more than one. For more details see my website: http://www.benefitsowl.info/bedroom%20tax.html.

The bill addresses situations where the claimant, their partner, or a close relative is disabled. Under the current rules many people in this situation will be expected to share a room: couples, for example, are normally only entitled to one room, and some children will be expected to share. At the moment, therefore, people in this situation will have to chose between sharing where it is not appropriate, and having a 14% reduction in their maximum Housing Benefit.

If the bill were accepted there would be no reduction for a claimant in this situation, provided the disabled person was getting any component or any rate of Personal Independence Payment or Disability Living Allowance, and provided that the local authority was satisfied that it was reasonable for the disabled person to need a separate room.

Note that, in the scenario described above, a claimant would still be subject to reduction in their maximum Housing Benefit if there were additional bedrooms not needed to accommodate the disabled person. For example, if a family is currently treated as having two spare bedrooms, even though a disabled person is actually using one of them, there would still be a reduction, although it would now be 14% rather than 25%.

However, there is another provision in the bill that specifies that there should be no reduction at all, irrespective of how many bedrooms there are, if the home has been adapted to meet a disability need of the claimant, their partner, or a close relative, provided the cost of the adaptation exceeds a certain amount (the last proviso presumably existing to prevent a person making minimal changes to a property, that could easily be replicated elsewhere, in order to benefit from the rule).

The bill also addresses another very common scenario: what if there is no alternative accommodation available? Currently, if a claimant is 'under-occupying', and is willing to move to a smaller home, they are still subject to the bedroom tax even if they can find nowhere smaller to move to.

If the bill were accepted, no reduction would be made if the claimant's landlord and the local authority are not able to make a 'reasonable offer of alternative accommodation'.

Finally, the bill does something that will not affect individual claimants, but may assist tenants in the future. It proposes a review of the availability affordable and 'intermediate' housing, to assess: the extent of the need; what progress has been made to meet the need; and the availability of resources to meet the need. It also empowers the government to contribute to any solution. I doubt that this proposal will find its way into any final bill, but would be happy to be proved wrong: it would be nice to have policy that was evidence-based rather than inspired by dogma or political expediency. 

How does the bill compare to repealing the bedroom tax legislation?

For people who need an extra bedroom because of disability, and for people who would downsize if they could, the bill would be great news if it became law. However the bill does not help people who maintain that they need an extra room for other reasons (including disabled people who use the 'spare' room to store disability-related items). It also does not directly help people who are affected by the bedroom tax now, but need to stay in the same property because their children are getting older and so will need additional bedrooms soon, although it is possible that claimants in that position might be able to argue that alternative accommodation is not 'reasonable'. 

The bill also does not resolve the thorny question of what constitutes a bedroom in this context. The legislation that created the bedroom tax (the Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2012) does not define what a bedroom is, which has caused problems for claimants and for tribunals alike. In a previous post I noted a tribunal judge who used overcrowding regulations as a guide, but as this was a 1st Tier tribunal his findings do not set a precedent. If the bill became law this confusion would still exist.

On the other hand, the bill may satisfy those MPs who are unhappy about the affects of the bedroom tax on disabled constituents and those for whom alternative accommodation is not available, but nonetheless sympathise with the government's stated aim of increasing availability of homes for larger families.

If Labour win an outright majority at the next general election, they have undertaken to abolish the bedroom tax. The most recent statement I have from the Liberal Democrats is a commitment to reform the legislation: these proposals look very similar to the contents of the bill. And the Conservative party want to keep the bedroom tax (or, as they call it, the spare room subsidy) unchanged (for details of all these see my last post).


When I have more news about the bill, I'll let you know.