Silly us. We thought there was an unemployment problem but Minister for the Disabled Maria Miller (Guardian letters 17th February) wants people to know ‘there are around 476,000 job vacancies out there’. So therefore the ‘problem’ is either people ‘trapped by benefits’ into not working or lacking the skills, which can be solved by the Work Programme.
Sorry Maria – before the recession there were typically around 700,000 job centre advertised vacancies at any one time. There are always – even in recession – vacancies due to natural turnover (people retiring, falling sick, moving into education, into other jobs).
But just now there are fewer.
And the number of people not working and looking for work – the ‘unemployment’ figure – is up.
That’s not to say that training opportunities aren’t important, but the Work Programme doesn’t create jobs (except maybe for ‘job advisers’). It may help some people get the chance of some of the jobs that are ‘out there’, which might otherwise have gone to someone who has been unemployed for less time so not on the Work Programme. That’s good news for the successful jobseeker – not so good for all of the others.
So here’s just one idea – how about investing in building more affordable homes, creating an asset, putting building workers back to work, providing apprenticeships and helping boost demand in local economies? Oh and it will help cut the Housing Benefit Bill too by reducing the need for poor people to be pushed into the private rented sector.
Last year I wrote about a proposal the Coalition government had which would take away part of housing benefit for council and housing association tenants who were living in houses with ‘spare bedrooms’. Then the House of Lords stepped in and said this should not apply where there was only one spare bedroom and that even in cases with 2 or more spare bedrooms the tenant would only have benefit reduced if he or she refused a reasonable offer of an alternative house.
Writing this in early February 2012 I have to report that the Coalition Government has succeeded in overturning the House of Lords.
The Government has claimed this is more about easing the shortage of larger houses for families by getting other people to move to smaller houses. But in most areas the smaller houses aren’t easily available and it would take years to achieve all the necessary moves. In the meantime people losing their jobs and forced to claim benefit will be penalised until they are able to move. And anyway why should tenants be forced to move from their own homes – homes they may have decorated and furnished? Why should they leave their neighbourhoods where they may well have friends and family or work? Many tenants too may have a need for a spare room for family who visit, to allow grandchildren to stay the night, for an occasional carer to stay over . Many MPs as well as Peers argued all of this but the Government refused to give way. Whenever Housing Benefit ‘reforms’ are debated the Government seeks to justify them by talking about the high level of some private sector rents, especially in London. But this proposal applies to the much cheaper council and housing association sector and to places where even private rents are nothing like the levels seen in London.
Of course if all tenants affected successfully ‘downsized’ there would be no saving in the benefit bill.
So what does this mean?
1) the new rules don’t come in until 2013
2) the new rules only apply to people of working age, not those over pension age
3) councils do have some extra funding called ‘Discretionary Housing Payments’ which they could choose to use to help some people out at least for a time. But the total of these payments is much less than the total amount being cut from housing benefit. Tenants affected next year should however ask about this.
4) Councils could make it easier for those who want to move to do so by giving extra priority to those affected – but even with priority turnover in some areas is very limited.
5) Already I understand the Council is warning new single person or couple applicants considering accepting a 2 bed house that if they claim housing benefit they would lose money next year. The trouble is that one of the reasons that the Council has over many years allowed single people to move into 2 bedroom houses is that there are more 2 bed houses and flats available. So people looking to be housed may end up waiting even longer than now.
This week Labour peers in the House of Lords stood up for hard working savers and dealt a blow to the Government’s unfair welfare changes.
The coalition wants to stop or reduce Contributory Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) after one year from those with savings over £6000 or a partner in any form of work (ESA is currently replacing the old Incapacity Benefit). This will affect people who have saved for their retirement but who, through no fault of their own, fall ill or have an accident and have to stop working for a period.
On Wednesday Labour peers and independents passed amendments to remove these provisions from the Government’s controversial Welfare Reform Bill.
Unfortunately ministers have since said that they will attempt to overturn the Lords’ amendments.
If the Government wins out then the people affected will likely be in their 40s, 50s or early 60s. They’ll have done what we always hear we should be doing – putting something away for retirement. They’ll have suffered from their illness or injury. They’ll have suffered again from losing their job and a drop in income. To then be forced to dig deep into their savings after a year would be a cruel final blow.
These changes are also storing up trouble for the future by discouraging people from saving, meaning the state will likely have to pick up the tab when they retire.
The Government’s plans punish hard working people who have to take time out of work through no fault of their own. I call on ministers to listen to the Lords and accept their amendments.
This article was first published in the Edinburgh Evening News on Saturday 14 January 2012.
