Richard Exell
A couple of days ago I noted that the Chancellor’s statement on the Spending Review exagerated the amount of social security fraud that takes place. Today the DWP published Tackling fraud and error in the benefit and tax credits systems which suggests that other government ministers are prone to the same mistake.
One mysery is cleared up.
Richard Exell
Lurking in the detail of the Spending Review is a horrid little cut that will stop thousands of disabled people being able to get out of their homes. The plan to remove the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance from people in residential care will save the government £135 million a year by 2015, but at a cost to be paid by some of the most vulnerable people in the country.
Nicola Smith
On last night’s Newsnight Ian Duncan Smith informed viewers that there were just short of half a million vacancies available across the UK’s Jobcentre network. This is simply not true. The number of vacancies notified to Jobcentre Plus in August 2010 (the most recent publicly available data) was 383,344 (and in preceeding months during the same quarter the level was even lower). This is 23 per cent less than the 500,000 cited by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. In addition, 10 per cent of the notified vacancies are ‘self-employed’ jobs, which are likely to provide no guaranteed minimum wage, long hours and limited reward (for example, see the self-employed car valet we featured in the report of our Commission on Vulnerable Employment).
Could the Secretary of State have been thinking of the national vacancy survey – which estimates the total number of vacancies across the economy, not just those notified to Jobcentres? But this survey shows that (as we reported earlier this month in our Labour Market Report) the number of vacancies has now seen three consecutive monthly falls. In September there were 459,000 vacancies across the economy, 30,000 down on the quarter. Since the start of the recession in April 2008 the vacancy level has fallen by 233,000 (34 per cent).
Nicola Smith
Housing costs for low income families have seen some of the Government’s steepest welfare cuts, with the Budget aiming to save £1.7 billion from Housing Benefit (HB) by 2014/15 and another £400 million cut in the CSR (as a result of the benefit cap and the increase in the age limit for the shared room rate). But tonight Nick Clegg has confirmed what many have already pointed out – that the CSR’s decision to allow social landlords to increase rents to close to market rates will place a significant new (and apparently uncosted) pressure on the HB budget – the housing costs of social tenants who are on a low income (ie many of them).
In an interview with the Guardian the Deputy Prime Minister states that (my italics):
“Registered social landlords tell us that what would be the greatest catalyst for them to build homes is to allow rents for new tenants to drift up to something like 80% of market rents. They say that would give them the guaranteed revenue stream in order to invest to build new homes. People on low pay on those new rents will be compensated in full through housing benefit.“
Richard Exell
The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies held their briefing on the Spending Review yesterday. The opening remarks from IFS Acting Director Carl Emmerson make interesting reading.
In one paragraph he explodes the Chancellor’s claim that his plans cut Departmental spending by less than the last government was planning.
Richard Exell
In the Spending Review, the Chancellor announced with a flourish “a total of £2 billion additional funding for social care to protect the most vulnerable.” But it’s likely that social care services will face cuts over the next four years.
The main reason for this is that, overall, central funding for local government (responsible for providing most social care) will fall from £28.5 billion in 2010-11 to £22.9 billion in 2014-15 – a cut of £5.6 billion. At the same time, the controls on how local authorities spend this money are being relaxed: the government plans to remove “ringfencing” (telling councils what they have to spend the money on) from all revenue grants except schools and public health. In addition, the Department for Communities and Local Government will stop monitoring local area agreement targets. Half the extra funding for social care will be in the Personal Social Services grant, which will be “rolled into local government formula grant.”
Why is this important?
Sarah Pearce
Slipping beneath the CSR headlines is a new carbon tax on large companies and public sector organisations.
The CSR has introduced a fundamental change to the way the Carbon Reduction Energy Efficiency Scheme (CRCEES) will run. The CRCEES is basically a cap-and-trade scheme covering approximately 3000 large energy users in the public and private sector. Prior to today, all revenue raised by the annual sale or auction of allowances in the CRCEES, was set to be “recycled” back to scheme participants – a positive incentive to reduce emissions. The more you reduce emissions, the bigger the proportion of the overall revenue raised from the scheme gets handed back to you.
But this is all set to change with revenue raised being handed straight over to the Treasury and used to shore up the public finances. It’s expected to generate £715 million in 2010/11 rising to around £1billion once allowances are capped in April 2013. How much of this will be set aside for investment in environmental measures (if any) is anyone’s guess. No guarantees have been given.
touchstoneblog
Find out what your own household stands to lose from public service cuts with our online cuts calculator.
Nicola Smith
The FBU have produced a round up of cuts in fire and rescue, provided exclusively to Cuts Watch prior to publication in their next journal. Their survey, based on returns from two-thirds of fire and rescue services, shows that cuts, of varied scale and speed, are taking place across the UK.