text:
SP Paper 459
1st Report, 2014 (Session 4)
Interim Report on the 'Bedroom Tax'
Remit and membership
Executive Summary
The Solution
The Solution
Human Rights
Discretionary Housing Payments
Demand v Supply
Longer Term
Demand v Supply
Longer Term
Other Short-term Solutions
Petition 1468: 'Evictions due to under occupation deductions'
Petition 1496: 'Bedroom Tax Mitigation'
Petition 1468: 'Evictions due to under occupation deductions'
Petition 1496: 'Bedroom Tax Mitigation'
Local Authorities
Annexe A: Extract from minutes of the Welfare Reform Committee
Annexe B: Oral evidence and associated written evidence
To keep under review the passage of the UK Welfare Reform Bill and monitor its implementation as it affects welfare provision in Scotland and to consider relevant Scottish legislation and other consequential arrangements.
Annabelle Ewing
Iain Gray (until 3 September 2013)
Linda Fabiani
Jamie Hepburn (Deputy Convener)
Alex Johnstone
Ken Macintosh (from 3 September 2013)
Michael McMahon (Convener)
Kevin Stewart
Committee Clerking Team:
Clerk to the Committee
Simon Watkins
Assistant Clerk
Rebecca Macfie
Committee Assistant
Kevin Dougan
The Committee reports to the Parliament as follows—
1. The Welfare Reform Committee believes that the under-occupancy charge, also known as the 'bedroom tax' is iniquitous and inhumane and may well breach tenants' human rights.1
2. It is having a real and harmful impact on people's lives, and often the most vulnerable in society – those with disabilities, children in separated families etc.
3. Many people are 'trapped' into paying the 'bedroom tax' in that there are not enough one bedroom properties available to down-size to.
4. Although the 'bedroom tax' will reduce the housing benefit budget, it introduces a number of new costs to tenants, housing associations, local authorities, the Scottish Government and others - the tax may cost more than it saves.
5. The level of Discretionary Housing Payments originally allocated by the Department of Work and Pensions to deal with the transitional problems does not match the scale of the problem.
6. The Welfare Reform Committee therefore welcomes the additional £20 million Discretionary Housing Payments allocated by the Scottish Government for 2013-14 and 2014-15.
7. The Committee calls on the Department of Work and Pensions to confirm its allocation of funds for the next two years.
8. The Committee also calls on the Department of Work and Pensions to increase its Discretionary Housing Payment allocation for Scotland to match the evident need.
9. The Scottish Government should explore further ways to mitigate the impact of the 'bedroom tax' in the short-term.
10. Once the 'bedroom tax' has been operating for a full year in April 2014 it should consider whether £20 million is the appropriate amount to allow full mitigation, or whether there are other avenues to support local authorities and registered social landlords in meeting the challenges of the 'bedroom tax'.
11. Tenants, local authorities, housing associations, local voluntary and other agencies and the Scottish Government have, in many instances, borne the brunt of the problems created by the 'bedroom tax', including the costs. The Committee commends these bodies on their response and in particular in dealing with the rapidly changing situation with regard to Discretionary Housing Payments.
The Solution4
12. The Welfare Reform Committee believes that the only way to deal with the 'bedroom tax' effectively is to abolish it.
13. The Welfare Reform Committee notes that the power to do so remains reserved to Westminster. The Committee therefore calls on the United Kingdom Government to abolish the 'bedroom tax' immediately.
14. If it does not, the Committee believes that the Scottish Parliament should be given the powers and resources to abolish it.
15. The Welfare Reform Act 2012 introduced a charge on under-occupation by working age social tenants receiving Housing Benefit from 1 April 2013. This was estimated by the Scottish Government at May 2013 to affect around 82,000 households in Scotland and cost them an average of £50 a month. 80% of those households included a disabled adult and 15,500 of the total cases consisted of families with children.
16. The Act introduced changes to the amount of housing benefit that will be paid to those working-age claimants who live in social housing and who are deemed to have more bedrooms than their household size needs. Those with one spare bedroom lose 14% of their eligible rent and those with two or more spare bedrooms lose 25%. The charge has been referred to as the 'under occupancy charge', or 'spare room subsidy' but is commonly termed the 'bedroom tax' in Scotland and this is the term that we have used in this report.
17. The Committee has opted to produce an interim report. It wishes to report the evidence that it has heard so far and to make some key points, given the disturbing nature of what it has heard. The situation with regard to the 'bedroom tax' remains dynamic, with the number of tenants affected and arrears levels changing by the month. In addition the impact of appeals judgements is changing the legal context on a similar timescale. The Committee may wish to return to the issue in future therefore.
18. The Committee has taken evidence, primarily over the period from September to December 2013, from a number of organisations with an interest in the issue as well as, crucially, from individuals directly affected by the 'bedroom tax'.
19. The organisations and individuals from whom the committee has received evidence to date are:
Helen Barton - Albyn Housing Society
Alan Miller – Scottish Human Rights Commission
Anne Bradley – Your Say witness5
Scott Wilson – Your Say witness
Lyndsay Ferry – Your Say witness
Lynn Williams – Expert Working Group on Welfare and Constitutional reform
Martyn Evans – Expert Working Group on Welfare and Constitutional reform
Mike Brewer - Expert Working Group on Welfare and Constitutional reform
Margaret Burgess – Minister for Housing and Welfare, Scottish Government
Ann McVie – Scottish Government
Professor Ken Gibb – University of Glasgow
Mike Dailly – Govan Law Centre
Garry Burns – Govan Law Centre
Alistair Sharp – Govan Law Centre
Jim Hayton – Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers
David Bookbinder – Chartered Institute of Housing
David Ogilvie – Scottish Federation of Housing Associations
Councillor Harry McGuigan – COSLA
Michael Cameron – Scottish Housing Regulator
Kirstie Corbett – Scottish Housing Regulator
Annette Finann – South Lanarkshire Council
Cliff Dryburgh – City of Edinburgh Council
Susan Donald – Aberdeenshire Council
Lorna Campbell – Dumfries and Galloway Council
Ewan Fraser – Dunedin Canmore Housing Association
Graeme Russell - Dunedin Canmore Housing Association
Alan Wyllie – No2BedroomTax Campaign
Jack Ferguson – No2BedroomTax Campaign
Their contributions can be found here
20. A number of organisations have asserted that the 'bedroom tax' infringes human rights legislation. The Committee took evidence on the issue and heard evidence, from the Chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, that the Welfare Reform Act 2012 may breach the human rights of those affected:
Iain Gray: Are you, as chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, saying that, in your opinion, the way in which the welfare reform measures have been introduced is—at least in part—not compliant with the Government's human rights obligations, and that they are, in part, likely to breach the human rights of some of the people who are affected?
Professor Miller: Yes.6
21. The Committee also heard evidence from Professor Miller that the 'bedroom tax' is particularly subject to challenge in terms of its impact on human rights and those with disabilities:
Professor Miller: I think that the challenges, which have begun to come forward, will be based on the Equality Act 2010, particularly in relation to discrimination against disabled people and the lack of a proper impact assessment; on the Human Rights Act 1998, with regard to what is called the right to a possession—in this case, a social security entitlement—and discriminatory interference with that right in terms of, for example, the impact on the disabled; and on the European convention on human rights article 8, which covers the right to a private life, a family life and a home. The bedroom tax might well be on the radar for challenges under that article, because it might be argued that such interference is disproportionate and that the potential savings and stated public purpose do not outweigh the impact on individuals or families of having to uproot themselves from the life that they have led and look for alternative accommodation.7
22. The Committee recognises that this issue arises, to some extent, because the Welfare Reform Act 2012 treats public sector accommodation as merely bricks and mortar rather than a home. Many of the people affected by the 'bedroom tax', including those who gave evidence to us, have lived in their properties for decades. The Committee believes that these are clearly homes and the 'bedroom tax' is forcing people out of them.
23. The Welfare Reform Committee believes that the 'bedroom tax' is iniquitous and inhumane and may well breach tenants' human rights.8
24. The Committee has gone out of its way to discover what the impact of the 'bedroom tax' is on those directly affected. Through an initiative, 'Your Say' that it established in 2012, the Committee has received submissions from those directly affected by the 'bedroom tax'. A number of these people have been invited to give evidence directly to the Committee.
25. The Committee has therefore heard at first hand the disastrous impact that the tax is having on those affected and the dilemmas that it is creating for them. We believe that this is an important part of the emerging picture of the impact of the 'bedroom tax' and make no apologies for reproducing much of that evidence here.
26. This evidence from Linda Kennedy from Glasgow reflects the reaction of many tenants to the implementation of the 'bedroom tax':
Linda Kennedy: My name is Linda Kennedy. I am 58 years old. I have not worked for the past eight years. Six of those years, I was a full time carer to my late husband who passed away on 25 February 2011. We were offered help with the care, however, we both decided I would take care of him, giving him the dignity he deserved.
Like many others we always worked. My late husband had a saying 'everybody must put into the pot, if they don't, there will be no pot' (tax and national insurance). I still have those values.
At present, I suffer from anxiety and panic attacks but I am getting help for this. My total income is £72.07 per week (which is my late husband's work pension). The powers that be take £1.07 off as the government says I only need £71 per week to live off.
My problem is that I live in a 3 bedroom house alone. My kids have moved out and into their own homes. I had a visit from my housing officer telling me it will be just under £100 per month extra, but the rent rise in April could take me to just over £100 per month. He informed me I could either take in family members or a lodger(s) to help pay the bedroom tax or move to a smaller house.
I fear what the future holds and question what do I do next, where do I go, where will I end up? I have lost everything, my husband and now potentially my family home.
I know I am only the tenant, however, I class this house as my home with many great memories. I know my neighbours and they know me. Ultimately, I feel safe here.9
27. The Committee also heard from Scott Wilson of Biggar, who is disabled, on the impact that the 'bedroom tax' was having on him and his also disabled son:
Scott Wilson: My name is Scott Wilson. I am 46 years old and was diagnosed with young-onset Parkinson's five years ago. I had always worked hard since I was 16 but, because of Parkinson's, I had to give up the successful gardening business that I had built up over many years and my decade of service as a reserved fire-fighter in South Lanarkshire where I live.
One of my Parkinson's symptoms is a very severe tremor that got worse over time and did not respond to medication. I had to have brain surgery, which has helped to control the tremors, but I still have other Parkinson's symptoms. As Parkinson's is a progressive condition, my condition will inevitably deteriorate and stress makes my symptoms much worse.
When I gave up my business, I had to apply for benefits to help support myself and my family. I have a 17-year old daughter and a 10-year old son, who has a severe long-term medical condition. The last thing that I wanted was to have to rely on Government benefits, but I felt that at least I had worked hard and had contributed to the system before I became ill. I had lots of support from the money matters advice service in Lanark, which made sure that I claimed the benefits to which I was entitled, including incapacity benefit, income support and an indefinite disability living allowance award. Although life was not easy and although I knew that, because of my health, I had an uncertain future, the knowledge that I could stay in my home and had some money that I could depend on made it much easier to cope.
However, since the Welfare Reform Act 2012 came in, I feel stressed and anxious at the thought that someone with no knowledge of my condition might reassess my benefits and determine that I am fit for work or that I am not affected by Parkinson's and I should lose the benefits that I depend on. I was broken-hearted to give up my business and would love to be well enough to work, but my Parkinson's makes that impossible.
I also recently separated from my partner of nearly 20 years, partly because of the stress that Parkinson's has put on my family life and relationships. Although it has been a very difficult time for all of us, we have maintained regular contact and my ex-partner and I continue to share the parenting of our children. Things have been made worse by the fact that I have had to apply for some different benefits and in particular by the under-occupancy charge—the bedroom tax—that came into force in April.
I have lived in my home for 25 years, but I had to sell it back to the council because of financial hardship. I was shocked when a council employee phoned and told me that my housing benefit would be cut to the equivalent of that for a one-bedroom home and that I would have to find the additional money from my benefits to pay for two bedrooms. I was stressed enough about how I was going to pay for my heating, food, transport and other necessities and that information floored me.
When I asked for more information, the council employee told me that I had three options. First, the council could look at rehoming me in a one-bedroom flat. Given that there are very few of those flats in my home town, I could be relocated somewhere else many miles away. That would take me away from my support system, which includes not only my friends and family but the health centre where my day-to-day health needs are dealt with and where the staff know me and are able to give me the help that I need. I might not even be able to access a one-bedroom flat in another town as there are many more people needing one-bedroom homes than there are flats available. Secondly, the council could also look at me house sharing with someone else on benefits. That would mean me sharing my home with a stranger whose background I did not know and possibly exposing my children and me to risks. Lastly, if I chose to stay in my house, I would have to find the shortfall in the rent myself from my other benefits.10
28. The Committee also took evidence from Anne Bradley from central Glasgow, whose landlord had been able to find a smaller property for her, but which was still creating problems for her:
Anne Bradley: I read an article in the Evening Times about the bedroom tax and I believed then, as I do now, that the tax is a breach of everyone's human rights and should be dumped.
I rented a two-bedroom flat from Queens Cross Housing Association and letters were delivered from the housing office with advice on the bedroom tax, cost and payment methods. The letters informed me that the tax would cost £43.64 a month. That went up to £47.64 a month. The amount will rise with each rent increase.
I contacted the housing association to request to be moved to a smaller property and to make it aware that I wished to stay in the same area. The housing association submitted a completed transfer application for a move and an application form for discretionary housing payment. I was advised by the housing association that it did not know when I would be likely to secure a transfer as there were no smaller properties available in the area in which I wished to live It was suggested that I could take in a lodger, but I informed the housing association that that was not something that I would ever consider and that I would never take a stranger into my home. If I were to have taken in a lodger, the housing benefit would have been reduced even further because I had someone living with me. That would have affected my employment and support allowance and created a further struggle as, after paying direct debits, there is not much of the ESA left.
I believed that I should not have to pay this tax as I was willing to move but was unable to do so because there were no smaller properties available. The struggle will become much worse when the universal credit is introduced. The payments for rent and the benefits are to be paid into one bank account and it will be left to the claimant to pay the rent.
I believe that I was forced out of my home and prevented from having a family life as I shall be unable to have family members stay overnight or at weekends. As there were no smaller properties in Glasgow, I believed that I would be forced to look further afield to find a suitable smaller property to rent and that I would have to apply for a private let, which would have created even more of a problem.
The bedroom tax is unjust and, because I believed that I would have to move to where I could get a smaller property to rent, it has separated me from my family.
In July, I viewed a smaller property, still in the area in which I wished to live. I was given one night to decide whether to accept or decline the offer. I was advise that, if I declined the offer, it was unlikely that I would be granted DHP a second time. Having been advised of that, I believed that I had no choice—I feel that I was forced to accept the property. Accepting the property created a further struggle as I was not in a good financial position to pay for a move within the 28 days given. Had it not been for my family, I would have been unable to move. I now owe my family a lot of money.
Since moving into the property, I have become isolated. At my previous property, I spoke to and met neighbours every day. Since moving to the new address, I never speak to or meet anyone. I am not happy in the new flat, as it is a deck-access property and people pass my door at all times, day and night, which makes me uncomfortable. I cannot get used to it. The property is so small that it could fit inside my previous flat. I am not happy with the property, as it is not as enclosed as my previous flat was. Although my previous flat was 12 floors up, I would not have moved but for the bedroom tax. I do not believe that I will be able to settle in the new flat.11
29. These submissions reflect many of the main criticisms of the 'bedroom tax':
30. The 'bedroom tax' does seem to disproportionately affect those with disabilities. The Scottish Government estimates that of the 82,000 households in Scotland affected by the 'bedroom tax' at May 2013, fully 80% included a disabled adult.12 All three of those witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee on the 'bedroom tax' also have some form of disability.
31. The 'bedroom tax' is having a real and harmful impact on people's lives, and often the most vulnerable in society – people with disabilities, their carers, children in separated families etc.13
32. One of the issues that emerged even before the implementation of the 'bedroom tax' is whether there are enough properties for those who wish to, to downsize. Many social housing providers have traditionally focussed on the development of family homes, which can provide long-term accommodation for growing households and many of them have relatively few smaller properties in which to rehouse people affected by the legislation.
33. In June 2013, the Committee commissioned research on the impact of the 'bedroom tax' in Scotland from Kenneth Gibb, Professor in Housing Economics and Director of the Centre for Public Policy at the University of Glasgow.
34. As well as examining the numbers involved, the Committee was particularly keen to examine the extent to which tenants who were liable for the 'bedroom tax' are able to downsize, as was intended by the legislation.
35. Professor Gibb found that in many ways it was too early to make a definitive judgement on the situation. However, he was able to review the statistical evidence that had emerged:
In Scotland, the principal evidence assembled since the launch of the under-occupancy charge came from a survey of Scottish local authorities by COSLA and a survey and follow-up survey by the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations. The COSLA/Scottish Government survey provides a snapshot of under-occupation across all social rented housing for 30 of 32 local authorities (98% of working age households receiving Housing Benefit in social rented housing). They found that 82,500 households as of May 2013 were estimated to be incurring the under-occupation charge (68,500 were under-occupying one bedroom, 47,500 were council tenants and 35,000 were housing association tenants).14
The SFHA early impacts study (June 2013) involved a sample survey of 63 member housing associations, incorporating 52% of all housing association stock in Scotland. Key findings were that 9% of tenants from responding organisations were under-occupying (7% one bed and 2% more than one bed). About a tenth of the stock is available to let each year. Just over a quarter of the respondents' stock was of one bedroom size and only an eighth (12%) of one bed properties became available through turnover each year. As a proportion of the total that is newly let, about 35% of turnover was of one bed size.15
A follow up SFHA study, Serpa (2013), found that downsizing would be a slow and long term solution. [The study] reports the above Scottish Government findings that, 60,000 households would need to move to a one bedroom property to avoid the charge. 'Yet, just 20,000 one bedroom homes for social rent became available each year.' (p.12). [The report] goes on to point out that according to a recent FoI request, just 'one of the 18 local authorities in Scotland …reported under-occupying households outnumbered available smaller council properties by more than ten to one'. Based on the situation at the beginning of August 2013, there is a considerable shortage of smaller council properties becoming vacant in the 18 councils represented by the FoI request. However, this is a measure at a point in time and it is difficult to assess what the annual flow of one bed properties would be relative to the stock of those under-occupying by one bed.16
Within a survey of 13 housing associations, Serpa also found that between 1-16% only of under-occupying households would be able to downsize with in a four month period (Serpa, 2013, p.13) Serpa (2013) argues that smaller housing associations have been more successful at rehousing people into smaller homes but in general it will be difficult for Scottish housing associations to match the levels of turnover expected by the Chartered Institute of Housing prior to the introduction of the under occupancy charge (20% per annum) or by DWP (that 25% should be able to downsize).17
36. The situation is also exacerbated by the fact that in Scotland, under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, local authorities have a statutory responsibility to rehouse homeless people. Many of these people require the single bedroom properties that are also being sought by those seeking to downsize.
37. In order to take the analysis one stage further, Professor Gibb analysed the SCORE (Scottish Continuous Scoring System) data for registered social landlord housing by local authority area. Whilst excluding local authority housing, for which the data does not currently exist, the analysis does provide a picture of how challenging it will be for people to downsize in the registered social landlord sector.
38. Professor Gibb found that:
there were 9,645 one-bed room lettings in 2011-12 in contrast to 29,047 one bed under-occupiers from the 30 councils areas recorded in the COSLA survey. As an upper bound this implies more than three years to address the down-sizing backlog – if these are typical years in both cases.
However, the number of one-bed lets needs to be reduced according to the volume of those vacancies that were given over to homelessness and other nominations, as well as other priority allocations and a small number of specialist housing lettings within the data from within the stock. It is generally recognised that a disproportionate number of homeless lettings are for single people so the proportion is likely to be greater than one third (the overall proportion for all lettings). Half of the recorded lettings might be a reasonable guesstimate i.e. 3,300 to 5,000 lettings might be genuinely available for the general needs population to potentially downsize. This implies a period of approximately 6-9 years to clear the downsizing backlog as a result of the under occupancy charge. But to be clear this would only be an upper bound with considerable margin of error.18
Table 1: Housing Association Lettings bedsit/one bed/all lettings 2011-12 by local authority area
Local Authority
Bedsit Properties
One Bedroom Properties
All Properties
COSLA 2013 survey RSL one bed under-occupiers
Aberdeen City
Argyll & Bute
Dumfries & Galloway
Dundee City
East Ayrshire
East Dunbartonshire
East Lothian
East Renfrewshire
Edinburgh, City of
Eilean Siar
Glasgow City
North Ayrshire
North Lanarkshire
Perth & Kinross
Scottish Borders, The
South Ayrshire
South Lanarkshire
West Dunbartonshire
West Lothian
Source: SCORE
39. The national picture of lack of supply painted by Professor Gibb's research is supported by the evidence that the Committee took from individual local authorities. Lorna Campbell from Dumfries and Galloway reported:
Lorna Campbell (Dumfries and Galloway Council): RSLs in our area have a significant lack of one-bedroom properties. When someone applies for DHP, one of the big issues is that there is no opportunity to move.19
40. The situation is similar in South Lanarkshire, where Annette Finnan from the Council outlined:
Annette Finnan: South Lanarkshire, one-bedroom properties make up only 25 per cent of our stock. The percentage turnover has been slightly higher in the past three years—there has been turnover of between 33 and 36 per cent of one-bedroom properties. However, that in no way equates to the number of tenants who are affected by the under occupancy charge and who, if they wanted to, would not be able to downsize, not only because of availability but because of location.20
41. It therefore appears that if everyone who is subject to the 'bedroom tax' wishes to downsize, it will not be possible to achieve this with the current social housing stock, certainly in the short-term. On this basis it appears that, for some years to come, many people are likely to be trapped into paying the 'bedroom tax' whether they wish to downsize or not.
42. As Councillor Harry McGuigan put it on behalf of COSLA:
Cllr Harry McGuigan (COSLA): Analysis of housing stock availability in Scotland and COSLA's sampling show that, for many tenants, moving is not an option. There is simply nowhere for them to go. The situation that they are facing is dreadful; they cannot pay and they cannot stay.21
43. Many people are 'trapped' into paying the 'bedroom tax' in that there are not enough one bedroom properties available to down-size to.22
44. This problem can be intensified in remoter rural areas where housing providers may have properties available, but a hundred miles away from their tenant's current location and away from their family, friend and support structure. This is the problem facing Scott Wilson, who gave evidence to the Committee.
45. The specific issues that arise in remoter areas were outlined to the Committee as long ago as November 2012 by Helen Barton of the Albyn Housing Society, which operates in the Highlands:
Helen Barton (Albyn Housing Society): The geographic context brings me to my first point, which is that the under-occupation issue is a particular concern for rural associations such as ours. As I said, our level of benefit claimants is relatively low—about 50 per cent of our tenants receive full or partial housing benefit but we are exposed to the under-occupancy rules, because a high proportion of our tenants under-occupancy properties.
Most of our stock is two or three-bedroom properties; only a quarter is one-bedroom or bedsit properties. The rules will be applied retrospectively, and a high proportion of our tenants already under-occupy homes, for a wide variety of reasons. One reason is that we were encouraged to and wanted to build in our communities properties that had at least two bedrooms, to provide more flexibility, especially in smaller areas, where the opportunities for moving when circumstances change are more limited. We have older stock—as I said, our association is coming up to being 40 years old—that people entered with families. When family circumstances have changed, people have been left in family houses. A high proportion of the people on our housing list—more than half—are single people. If we did not allow them to apply for two-bedroom properties, we would be unable to meet needs. If we were to make all our smaller properties available to deal with under-occupation and for the transfer of people from under-occupied properties it would undoubtedly have a severe impact on our ability as a partner to the Highland housing register to meet homelessness need across the Highlands. There is a shared concern among all the landlords there.23
46. In July 2013 the Department of Work and Pensions announced additional resources for Discretionary Housing Payments in remoter rural areas and a further £3.4m has been made available for 2013-14 for Scotland. The Committee welcomes this contribution.
47. Whilst the 'bedroom tax' is resulting in a reduction in the DWP's housing benefit budget, it is generating a number of other costs, as has been investigated by both Cosla and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations.24
48. It is estimated that 80% of households that are affected by the under-occupancy charge contain a disabled adult. A significant proportion of these properties will have been adapted to accommodate these disabilities. If the occupant is forced to move the landlord will normally be faced with having to repeat these adaptations on another property. This is a significant additional cost for the landlord.
49. Under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, local authorities are obliged in many circumstances to house those who are homeless. Should the under-occupancy charge result in arrears and ultimately eviction by a local authority or registered social landlord, the local authority would still require to meet the costs of rehousing. Mike Dailly of Govan Law Centre gave the Committee a theoretical example.
Mike Dailly (Govan Law Centre): Mr and Mrs Reid accrue £50 a month of rent arrears for a second bedroom that Mr Reid needs to use because of ill health. They are told that they do not qualify for discretionary housing payment because of their disability benefits. If we fast-forward to April next year, they will then be £600 in rent arrears. If their landlord evicts them, it will cost the landlord an average of £6,000. If they lose their house, the cost to the council and the national health service will be, on average, £24,000. Here is the absolute lunacy of the situation: they will be entitled to get a new Scottish secured tenancy by applying as homeless to the council. They are highly unlikely to be deemed as intentionally homeless if they cannot move to a smaller property. I am presenting the reality of the situation. We believe that there is a powerful economic case for not evicting tenants solely for the bedroom tax.25
50. The third main source of new costs relates to rent arrears. The Scottish Housing Regulator has investigated the situation with regard to increasing rent arrears as ultimately it could affect the viability of housing landlords.
51. The Housing Regulator's research, published in October, estimated the following26:
52. It appears therefore that the level of arrears is significantly increasing in the social housing sector. This will not all be due to the 'bedroom tax' of course, but many landlords are reporting an increase in arrears since the introduction of the tax in April 2013 and amongst tenants who have not previously been in arrears. This will affect these bodies cash flow and their finances. Allied to changes that are foreseen with Universal Credit, when housing benefit will be paid direct to tenants rather than landlords, this could ultimately threaten borrowing by social landlords, or indeed the cost of borrowing.
53. The Chief Executive of Dunedin-Canmore, which has been running the Universal Credit direct payments pilot in Scotland reported to the Committee that :
Ewan Fraser: However, the change has brought a degree of nervousness to financial institutions that could invest in housing associations, so I am finding things a little bit more difficult when I speak to the banks.27
54. Although the 'bedroom tax' will reduce the housing benefit budget, it introduces a number of new costs to tenants, housing associations, local authorities, the Scottish Government and others - the tax may cost more than it saves.28
55. The role of Discretionary Housing Payments has been revolutionised since the Welfare Reform Act 2012. Prior to the act they were only used in exceptional circumstances, but that situation has now changed radically. As Graeme Russell of Dunedin Canmore Housing reported to the Committee in November 2013, their welfare rights officer had helped 101 tenants to access Discretionary Housing Payments during 2013 compared to "a handful" in previous years.
56. The Committee has examined the situation with Discretionary Housing Payments – a rapidly changing picture – through taking evidence from four local authorities representing a range of local circumstances and political control: Aberdeenshire Council: City of Edinburgh Council; Dumfries and Galloway Council; South Lanarkshire Council.
57. The Committee was surprised at the very rapid increase in Discretionary Housing Payment applications from 2012–13 to 2013–14. These amounted to 425% for South Lanarkshire, 458% for South Lanarkshire, just over 500% for the City of Edinburgh and an astonishing 900% for Dumfries and Galloway. According to South Lanarkshire Council, 80% of this increase is due to the 'bedroom tax' and for the City of Edinburgh the figure is 90%.
58. The increase in applications partly reflects the increased resources that have been made available for Discretionary Housing Payments. Across Great Britain these have increased from £20m in 2010-11 to £160m in 2013-14.29 Although the intention is that Discretionary Housing Payments cover more than just 'bedroom tax' issues, the figures from South Lanarkshire and Edinburgh indicate that this is what they are primarily being directed towards.
59. There have been a series of rapid changes to the amount of Discretionary Housing Payments resources available to local authorities.
60. In January 2013 the original DHP allocation for Scotland for 2013-14, was announced at £10.1m.
61. The DWP made an error with six Scottish local authorities receiving a higher allocation than they were entitled to. However, this error is being honoured for this year. It also underpaid some authorities. This error was dealt with in July.
Table 2: Discretionary Housing Payment Allocations 2013-4
Scottish Govt.
January 2013
Original DWP Allocation (contained errors)
July 2013
Revised DWP Allocation correcting errors and additional rural uplift of £3.4m
Transitional in-year funding
September 2013
Scottish Government allocation
*this includes £0.794m overpayments which will be honoured for 2013-4. The main allocation is £13.47m which is used to calculate the maximum that local authorities can top up by i.e. 1.5 times this amount.
*this includes £0.794m overpayments which will be honoured for 2013-4. The main allocation is £13.47m which is used to calculate the maximum that local authorities can top up by i.e. 1.5 times this amount.
62. In July 2013, the DWP announced that a further £3.4m of new 'rural uplift' DHP funding would be made available for a number of rural authorities in Scotland for to assist them in dealing with their particular problems. It also adjusted the figures to cater for the original underpayments.
63. In July 2013 the Department of Work and Pensions also announced £988,000 of "transitional" in-year funding which could be used for DHPs or other purposes.
64. The DWP has also allocated £20m across Great Britain to a Bid Fund which local authorities can apply for if they can demonstrate that they are managing their DHP allocation in a 'robust, fair and appropriate manner'.
65. On the 11 September 2013, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance announced that the Scottish Government would distribute an additional £20m to local authorities' 2013-14 Discretionary Housing Payments budgets to help those affected by the social sector size criteria. This brings the total available to Scottish local authorities for Discretionary Housing Payments in 2013-14 to £35.2m. The maximum that Discretionary Housing Payments can be 'topped up' by local authorities/the Scottish Government is 1.5 times the Department of Work and Pensions core contribution. The current 'top up' is therefore very close to the maximum permitted by legislation.
66. The way in which these increases – some of them in-year – have impacted on local authorities is reflected in the case of South Lanarkshire Council.
67. South Lanarkshire Council's initial Department of Work and Pensions contribution for 2013/14 was £413,967. However, the Council subsequently received additional funding as part of the government's revised calculation in July 2013, which increased the annual budget to £492,570. The Council was advised on 2 October 2013 that it would receive an additional £731,422 from the £20m funding being provided by the Scottish Government. This funding is being used to top-up the Council's Discretionary Housing Payments budget to the maximum. The Council has also submitted a bid for additional funding to the value of £250,000 from the DWP £20m fund.
68. The allocation of the additional resources appears to have had three impacts. Firstly it has allowed more applications to be funded (all authorities), secondly it has allowed for longer awards (e.g. South Lanarkshire moving from 6 to 12 month awards for disabled people in adapted properties) and thirdly it has allowed for higher awards (e.g. Aberdeenshire moving from 25%, 50%, 80%, 100% awards to 80% and 100%).
69. This increased activity has required additional staffing in all cases though. The situation of Edinburgh is typical:
Cliff Dryburgh (City of Edinburgh Council): In April this year we set up a dedicated team to deal with DHP, in order to ensure fairness and uniformity of decision making. It was a team of four at the time and I have had to increase it to 10 to deal with the review of the existing awards and in anticipation of the doubling of the number of awards between now and the end of the financial year.30
70. Some of the authorities have calculated the costs of this. South Lanarkshire Council estimates that its 'Benefits are Changing' team costs £300,000 per year and its Discretionary Housing Payment processing team a further £100,000. Dumfries and Galloway Council calculates that its Discretionary Housing Payment team, which has increased by five, costs and additional £140,000 per year and that other additional costs take the total to £250,000 per year.
71. There are therefore significant additional costs in managing the Discretionary Housing Payment system which fall on local authorities, and offset savings from housing benefit awards.
Demand v Supply
72. Some of the local authorities from whom the committee took evidence had calculated the relevant levels of supply and demand for Discretionary Housing Payments after the initial Department of Work and Pensions allocation.
73. Aberdeenshire Council calculated as follows:
Susan Donald (Aberdeenshire Council): At the start of 2013, our discretionary housing payment budget was expected to be £401,738, of which the council contributed £241,043. That budget was less than half the estimated reduction in housing benefit that would arise from the introduction of the size criteria in the social rented sector and the benefit cap.31
74. Dumfries & Galloway had made a similar calculation
Lorna Campbell (Dumfries & Galloway Council): At the time, we did some estimates of the impact of welfare reform in Dumfries and Galloway. That incorporated size criteria restrictions and the impact of the benefit cap, increased non-dependant deductions and the change to the local housing allowance. We estimated that the impact on our tenants in the region would be around £1.1 million, so our DHP fund would not meet the overall demand.32
75. The level of Discretionary Housing Payments originally allocated by the Department of Work and Pensions to deal with the transitional problems does not match the scale of the problem.33
76. However the additional resources that have now been allocated appear to have made a significant difference:
Lorna Campbell (Dumfries and Galloway Council): With the announcement of the increased funding from the DWP in July—Dumfries and Galloway was fortunate enough to have a rural uplift of £488,000—and then the Scottish Government announcement of £970,000, the DHP fund for the area has been substantially increased. That has meant that we have twice revised our DHP policy and procedures for size criteria. We originally estimated a shortfall of £900,000 given the number of people impacted in Dumfries and Galloway. The fund means that we can now potentially meet the full need due to size criteria in Dumfries and Galloway.34
77. It is very difficult to assess at this midyear point, and with a variety of circumstances affecting different local authorities, to what extent the level of resources that have been allocated this financial year are sufficient to meet demand overall. It does appear to be the case that, in some areas of Scotland at least that have received rural uplift, the combined resources which are now allocated to Discretionary Housing Payments may be enough to meet demand in the short-term.
78. This is not to say that they do not remain significant issues on the ground. For instance, both the City of Edinburgh and South Lanarkshire councils reported that fully 50% of tenants affected by the 'bedroom tax' have yet to make applications for Discretionary Housing Payments.
79. However, the additional input of funding by the Scottish Government does appear to have markedly improved the situation.
80. The Welfare Reform Committee therefore welcomes the additional £20 million Discretionary Housing Payments allocated by the Scottish Government for 2013-14 and 2014-15.35
81. On 21 January the Scottish Government published figures for the allocation of DHP by local authorities up to the end of November 2013.36
Table 3: Applications, Determinations, Awards and Total Award Value from 1 April to 30 November 2013
Figures rounded to the nearest pound.
Note 1:The number of determinations is unavailable for East Renfrewshire.
Note 2: The number of awards may be greater than the number of determinations in the year to 2013/14 as a result of applications being pre-decided in advance of 1 April 2013.
Note 3: The number of applications includes 319 applications received prior to 1st April 2013.
82. The figures showed that local authorities have allocated 46% of the funds available at a point which is 67% through the financial year. However, as the report points out, the additional Scottish Government funds only became available in October 2013, one might expect an accelerated allocation in the latter part of the financial year. On this basis, local authorities have spent 94% of what one might expect at this point. Table 4 shows the pattern by local authority.
Table 4: Actual Spend compared with Estimated Spend – Local Authorities
83. Other noteable features of DHP allocation are:
Longer Term
84. These figures present an interesting and useful picture at this point in time however, the Committee also suggests that at the end of the financial year the Scottish Government and Cosla undertake a thorough analysis of levels of supply and demand for Discretionary Housing Payments with a view to examining the adequacy of the current level of resources being allocated. Given the ceiling on additional contributions to Discretionary Housing Payments created by the Department of Work and Pensions formula (1.5 times the DWP contribution), more imaginative methods of dealing with the issue may be required (see Other short-term solutions below).
85. As the submission from South Lanarkshire Council put it:
The extent and nature of DHP payments has changed significantly in terms of assisting tenants affected by welfare reform. As well as the substantial increase in budget and applications in 2013/14, what was previously mainly a short-term measure to assist people in receipt of Housing Benefit in meeting housing costs is now seen as a way of assisting people over a longer period, in some instances until their circumstances change.
With DHP playing a significant role in assisting tenants affected by financial hardship and in the management of rent arrears, a key issue is the uncertainty around the continuity of this funding in the longer term.37
86. Local authorities are aware of the possibility that Discretionary Housing Payments may be reduced by 10% or more in 2014-5. In the current circumstances it is essential that the Department of Work and Pensions increases its current level of support.
87. The Committee calls on the Department of Work and Pensions to confirm its allocation of funds for Discretionary Housing Payments for the next two years.38
88. The Committee also calls on the Department of Work and Pensions to increase its Discretionary Housing Payment allocation for Scotland to match the evident need.39
89. The Committee has been invited to consider further options for mitigating the impact of the 'bedroom tax' through two petitions that it has received. The Committee believes that there is merit in exploring other intermediate solutions to the problems created by the 'bedroom tax' and has been happy to examine these issues.
Petition 1468: 'Evictions due to under occupation deductions'
90. Petition 1468: 'Evictions due to under occupation deductions', lodged on 16 March 2013 calls on the Scottish Parliament to "urge the Scottish Government to amend Section 16 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 to prevent social landlords from using rent arrears caused by under occupation housing benefit deductions in eviction actions, and instead requiring such under occupation arrears to be pursued as an ordinary debt." The Committee considered this petition on 12 November 2013.
91. The arguments for and against the approach suggested in PE 1468 were examined by the Committee. On the one hand the proposal would appear to guarantee a freedom from eviction for those generating 'bedroom tax' arrears and is supported by Cosla, the main landlord affected by the changes. On the other hand the proposal does appear to go further than the 'no eviction' policies introduced by individual local authorities in that most of these require the tenant to be 'engaging' with the local authority to be protected from eviction. It is also opposed by the other main landlord representative body – the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations – as well as housing professionals via the Chartered Institute of Housing. In addition Prof Gibb urged caution on the proposal.
92. Cosla's view was that:
Councillor Harry McGuigan (Cosla): …..it would be unfair to take eviction action against the victims of a policy that is unprincipled, unfair and unjust. Cosla leaders have agreed to support the proposal in the petition that the law be amended to remove that fear of eviction.40
93. However, other organisations representing landlords were firmly against the proposal:
David Ogilvie (Scottish Federation of Housing Associations): However, we are deeply concerned about the terms of the petition and the proposed bill. … I think that the petition and the accompanying bill, which is out for consultation, could bind the hands of housing associations and take away their ability to adopt a flexible approach that is tailored to tenants' individual circumstances. I would have expected the Scottish Housing Regulator to be quite alarmed by that.41
94. The Committee is mindful of the plight of tenants affected by the 'bedroom tax' and believes that there is merit in providing guarantees of non-eviction. However, it is important that this is not achieved in a way that creates contagion in terms of other arrears and thus threatens the viability of social sector housing as a whole.
95. The value of the proposal may depend upon how local authorities no evictions policies translate into practice and how far Discretionary Housing Payments are able to meet the demands of those affected by the 'bedroom tax'. This will only become apparent over the coming months. The Committee will therefore return to this issue when it considers the Member's Bill proposal to which it has given rise.
Petition 1496: 'Bedroom Tax Mitigation'
96. Petition 1496: 'Bedroom Tax Mitigation', lodged on 3 October 2013, calls on the Scottish Parliament to "urge the Scottish Government to make approximately £50 million available to mitigate all effects of the bedroom tax in Scotland."
97. The Committee has examined this petition. The issue has been at the heart of its consideration of the role of Discretionary Housing Payments and the evidence contained in the section above is therefore very relevant.
98. In the current financial year £35.2 million is now available for local authorities to allocate in Discretionary Housing Payments to mitigate the impact of the 'bedroom tax', of which £20 million is provided by the Scottish Government. The petitioner requests that this figure be increased to £50 million. The origin of the £50 million figure appears to be the committee's own research, commissioned from Sheffield Hallam University, which measured the impact on Scotland of the various elements of welfare reform.
99. The petitioner, on behalf of the No2Bedroom Tax Campaign, seeks the following:
Alan Wyllie (petitioner): What can we do? We cannot repeal the policy—not here, anyway—so we need to mitigate the effects of the policy. Our petition presents the argument that the Scottish Government should fund the bedroom tax shortfall through a temporary funding measure that would ultimately protect tenants from eviction and debt. It would also protect the income streams of registered social landlords.
We do not specify a mechanism to distribute the funds, although we accept that DHP funding is at its maximum level. There could be a mechanism whereby the temporary funding measure could be distributed as a supplement to registered social landlords' revenue. That would instantly negate the massive problems that are being experienced in getting people to apply for DHP.42
100. There is a ceiling on the amount of assistance that can be given through Discretionary Housing Payments, which is 1.5 times the core Department of Work and Pensions contribution.43 The £33.5 million total for 2013-2014 is therefore very close to the maximum allowable.
101. However, some local authorities are already diverting funds that they would have allocated to Discretionary Housing Payments to homelessness funds and other initiatives which will also mitigate bedroom tax problems. In theory therefore it may be possible the Scottish Government to contribute to this activity through grants to local authorities.
102. However, it was suggested by others that there may be significant practical problems with seeking to mitigate entirely the 'bedroom tax':
David Ogilvie (Scottish Federation of Housing Associations): On the broad principle, we and members of the SFHA clearly want to see a long-term resolution of the situation. That is a given.
We have not yet progressed to the point at which a mechanism for administering money has been designed or at which anybody has come to us with a mechanism that is absolutely foolproof. There are suggestions that there are ways round the issues by transferring resources to landlords, but I have yet to see evidence that would allow us to make a definitive statement in favour of or against that, so I will not go there—I simply cannot. However, the broad principle is that we need to do whatever we can to identify a mechanism.44
103. It would appear to be worthwhile for the Scottish Government to examine whether there are routes for it to support mitigation measures other than Discretionary Housing Payments. This will be particularly important if the Department of Work and Pensions reduces its Discretionary Housing Payment contribution in 2014-2015.
104. However, as the discussion of Discretionary Housing Payments above shows, it is very difficult at this point in time to determine the exact figure which will entirely mitigate the impact of the 'bedroom tax' and there are significant practical difficulties to be overcome. The research commissioned by the Committee from Professor Gibb also makes the point that it will be very difficult to make this assessment until a full year's figures are available, i.e. in April 2014.
105. The prudent way forward therefore would seem to be for the Scottish Government to make an assessment as soon as possible after 1 April 2014 of the amount of resources necessary to mitigate the 'bedroom tax', as well as examining non-Discretionary Housing Payment routes for support.
106. Whilst the Committee is clear that the 'bedroom tax' should be abolished, it does see the value in short-term mitigating measures and it welcomes the proposals that have come forward through petitions. It believes that there is merit in the Scottish Government considering its options, given that this is a dynamic situation.
107. The Committee believes that the Scottish Government should explore further ways to mitigate the impact of the 'bedroom tax' in the short-term.45
108. Once the 'bedroom tax' has been operating for a full year in April 2014 it should consider whether £20 million is the appropriate amount to allow full mitigation, or whether there are other avenues to support local authorities and registered social landlords in meeting the challenges of the 'bedroom tax'.46
109. Tenants, local authorities, housing associations, local voluntary and other agencies and the Scottish Government have in many ways borne the brunt of welfare reform changes and in particular the impact of the 'bedroom tax'. As Councillor Harry McGuigan put it:
Cllr Harry McGuigan (COSLA): As COSLA predicted, any saving to the UK Government is being passed on in the form of increased rent arrears to councils and registered social landlords and increased distress, pain, anxiety, worry and any other terrible word we could use for the people at the sharp end who are experiencing the imposition of this dreadful tax.47
110. Local authorities have been impacted by the 'bedroom tax' in the number of ways:
111. The potential for increasing arrears has aroused the concern of the Scottish Housing Regulator, who has undertaken some initial research on this topic.
112. Scottish local authorities also face the prospect of having to meet their responsibilities to rehouse the homeless under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 with tenants who have lost their homes due to the 'bedroom tax' and other welfare changes, even potentially those they have themselves evicted.
113. In addition local authority staff have had to cope with a greatly increased workload in handling Discretionary Housing Payments, and with the amount of resources available changing through the year. As Lorna Campbell of Dumfries and Galloway Council reported: "Historically, benefit staff are used to change because there is constant change in the benefits world. However, the level of change this year has been unprecedented."48
114. At the same time council housing benefit staff are having to work under the assumption that the jobs will no longer exist once Universal Credit is introduced.
115. In the circumstances local authorities have acquitted themselves very well and are to be commended on their ability to respond to a very difficult situation.
116. Tenants, local authorities, housing associations, local voluntary and other agencies and the Scottish Government have, in many instances, borne the brunt of the problems created by the 'bedroom tax', including the costs. The Committee commends these bodies on their response and in particular in dealing with the rapidly changing situation with regard to Discretionary Housing Payments.49
117. The 'bedroom tax' is not popular in Scotland. Many organisations that have given evidence to the Committee have outlined their opposition to the legislation including those that are most directly affected.
118. The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations in its original submission on petition PE1468 reported:
In common with other housing bodies across the UK, we opposed and lobbied against proposals to restrict tenants' eligibility for Housing Benefit relative to house size. We did so because the proposals are unfair and incompetent, not least due to the structural mismatch between the profile of stock and households which means there simply are not enough smaller houses.50
119. Jim Hayton on behalf of the Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers, in evidence to the Committee said:
Jim Hayton (Association of Local Chief Housing Officers): … many people in the room are well aware of the damaging impact of the underoccupation penalty or bedroom tax. ALACHO is no exception; our members are housing officers and senior housing officers who work in councils and see and experience the policy's damaging impact every day.51
120. Similarly the Convention of Scottish local authorities is clear in its view:
Cllr Harry McGuigan (COSLA): COSLA is firmly opposed to the bedroom tax, which it considers to be ill conceived, ill-informed and unfair. We believe that it is unworkable and should be abolished. It will do nothing to increase the supply of housing in Scotland and the UK Government has not carried out an effective or credible impact analysis on its impact either up here or in other parts of the UK.52
121. Mike Dailly on behalf of Govan Law Centre reflected the views of many:
Mike Dailly (Govan Law Centre): I believe that there is general consensus in Scotland that the bedroom tax is a flawed and broken policy that is bereft of any redeeming qualities.53
122. Much has been done to ameliorate and mitigate the impact of the 'bedroom tax' in Scotland. This work – by individuals, groups, local authorities, charities, the third sector and the Scottish Government – is very much welcomed by the committee and has had real and positive outcomes. However, it has required considerable work and resources and necessary bureaucracy.
123. The 'bedroom tax' remains bad law. It is directed at those least able to pay. It attacks one of their basic human rights. It traps many in a situation where they cannot pay but cannot move. It is entirely possible that it will cost more to implement than it saves in public expenditure.
124. The Welfare Reform Committee believes that the only way to deal with the 'bedroom tax' effectively is to abolish it.54
125. The Welfare Reform Committee notes that the power to do so remains reserved to Westminster. The Committee therefore calls on the United Kingdom Government to abolish the 'bedroom tax' immediately.55
126. If it does not, the Committee believes that the Scottish Parliament should be given the powers and resources to abolish it.56
13th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4)
Tuesday 13 November 2012
Universal Credit - housing issues: The Committee took evidence on housing
issues arising from the introduction of Universal Credit from—
Ken Milroy MBE, Chief Executive, Aberdeen Foyer;
Helen Barton, Customer Services Director, Albyn Housing Society;
Ian Ballantyne, Chief Executive, Scottish Veterans Housing Association.
10th Meeting, 2013 (Session 4)
Tuesday 28 May 2013
Scottish Human Rights Commission: The Committee took evidence from—
Alan Miller, Chair, Scottish Human Rights Commission.
12th Meeting, 2013 (Session 4)
Tuesday 10 September 2013
Your Say - 'Bedroom Tax': The Committee took evidence from—
Anne Bradley;
Lyndsay Ferry;
Scott Wilson.
14th Meeting, 2013 (Session 4)
Tuesday 1 October 2013
Expert Working Group on Welfare and Constitutional Reform: The Committee took evidence from—
Lynn Williams, Policy Officer, SCVO, Martyn Evans, Chief Executive Officer, Carnegie UK Trust, and Mike Brewer, Professor of Economics, ISER, University of Essex, Expert Working Group on Welfare and Constitional Reform;
Merlin Kemp, Secretariat to Expert Working Group on Welfare and team leader of the Welfare and Constitutional Reform Team, and Susan Anton, Economist - Welfare Analysis, Scottish Government.
The Expert Working Group on Welfare and Constitutional Reform agreed to provide the Committee with further information in relation to the 2nd phase of their work.
16th Meeting, 2013 (Session 4)
Tuesday 29 October 2013
Scottish Government's Welfare Reform (Further Provision) (Scotland) Act 2012 Initial Report - 2013 and the Gender Impact of Welfare Reform: The Committee took evidence from—
Margaret Burgess, Minister for Housing and Welfare, Ann McVie, Team Leader, Welfare Division, and Susan Anton, Economist - Welfare Analysis, Scottish Government.
The Minister for Housing and Welfare made a commitment to provide the Committee with further information supplementary to the reports.
17th Meeting, 2013 (Session 4)
Tuesday 5 November 2013
The 'Bedroom Tax' in Scotland: The Committee took evidence on research it commissioned on the impact of the 'Bedroom tax' in Scotland from—
Professor Ken Gibb, Professor in Housing Economics and Director for Public Policy, University of Glasgow.
18th Meeting, 2013 (Session 4)
Tuesday 12 November 2013
Public petitions: PE01468 The Committee took evidence on the following petition- PE01468 by Mike Dailly, on Evictions due to under occupation deductions from—
Mike Dailly, Principal Solicitor, Garry Burns, Prevention of Homelessness Caseworker, and Alistair Sharp, Prevention of Homelessness Manager/senior Coordinator, Govan Law Centre;
Jim Hayton, Policy Manager, Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers;
David Bookbinder, Head of Policy and Public Affairs, Chartered Institute of Housing;
David Ogilvie, Policy Manager, Scottish Federation of Housing Associations;
Councillor Harry McGuigan, Spokesperson Community Wellbeing, COSLA.
19th Meeting, 2013 (Session 4)
Tuesday 19 November 2013
Early impacts of Welfare Reform on rent arrears: The Committee took evidence on a research report produced by the Scottish Housing Regulator from—
Michael Cameron, Chief Executive, and Kirstie Corbett, Analysis and Research Manager, Scottish Housing Regulator.
Discretionary Housing Payments: The Committee took evidence from—
Annette Finnan, Head of Area Services (Housing), South Lanarkshire Council;
Cliff Dryburgh, Benefits Manager, City of Edinburgh Council;
Susan Donald, Benefits Manager, Aberdeenshire Council;
Lorna Campbell, Service Manager Revenues and Benefits, Dumfries and Galloway Council.
Public petitions: PE01468 The Committee considered what action to take on PE01468 by Mike Dailly on behalf of the Govan Law Centre, on evictions due to under occupation deductions. The Committee disagreed (by division: For 2, Against 5, Abstentions 0) to write to the Scottish Government regarding the petition. The Committee agreed (by division: For 5, Against 2, Abstentions 0) to a proposal that, given the prospect of a Member's Bill on this proposal, the Welfare Reform Committee takes no further action on petition 01468 and closes its consideration of it.
20th Meeting, 2013 (Session 4)
Tuesday 3 December 2013
Decision on taking business in private: The Committee agreed to take consideration of a draft report on the bedroom tax/under-occupancy charge in private at future meetings.
Dunedin Canmore Housing Association: The Committee took evidence from—
Ewan Fraser, Chief Executive, and Graeme Russell, Housing Services Director, Dunedin Canmore Housing Ltd.
The witnesses agreed to provide further information on issues raised during the meeting. The Committee agreed to seek further information on whether the status of any Housing Associations had been downgraded due to welfare reforms.
Public petitions: PE1496 The Committee considered its approach to PE1496 by Alan Wyllie on behalf of No2BedroomTax Campaign, on Bedroom Tax Mitigation. The Committee agreed to write to a number of organisations to seek their views on the Petition and will consider responses at a future meeting.
1st Meeting, 2014 (Session 4)
Tuesday 14 January 2014
'Bedroom Tax' (in private): The Committee considered a draft interim report. Various changes were agreed to, and the Committee agreed to consider a revised draft, in private, at its next meeting.
2nd Meeting, 2014 (Session 4)
Tuesday 28 January 2014
Public petitions: PE01496 The Committee considered the following petition-
PE01496 by Alan Wyllie, on Bedroom Tax Mitigation and took evidence from
Alan Wyllie, No2BedroomTax Campaign, and Jack Ferguson, Unite Scotland Community Coordinator, No2BedroomTax Campaign;
Jim Hayton, Policy Manager, Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers.
Alan Wyllie agreed to provide the Committee with further written information on the differences in local authorities use of Discretionary Housing Payments.
'Bedroom Tax' (in private): The Committee considered and agreed its interim report.
13th Meeting, 2012 (Session 4) Tuesday 13 November 2012
Oral Evidence
Albyn Housing Society
Aberdeen Foyer
Scottish Veterans Housing Association
10th Meeting, 2013 (Session 4) Tuesday 28 May 2013
Written Evidence
Scottish Human Rights Commission
12th Meeting, 2013 (Session 4) Tuesday 10 September 2013
Your Say submission – Anne Bradley
Your Say submission – Scott Wilson
Your Say submission – Linda Kennedy
Anne Bradley
Scott Wilson
Lyndsay Ferry
14th Meeting, 2013 (Session 4) Tuesday 1 October 2013
Expert Working Group on Welfare and Constitutional Reform
16th Meeting, 2013 (Session 4) Tuesday 29 October 2013
Scottish Government
17th Meeting, 2013 (Session 4) Tuesday 5 November 2013
Professor Gibb
18th Meeting, 2013 (Session 4) Tuesday 12 November 2013
Govan Law Centre
Govan Law Centre
Supplementary Written Evidence
Govan Law Centre
19th Meeting, 2013 (Session 4) Tuesday 19 November 2013
Written evidence
Scottish Housing Regulator
South Lanarkshire Council
Scottish Housing Regulator
South Lanarkshire Council
City of Edinburgh Council
Aberdeenshire Council
Dumfries and Galloway Council
20th Meeting, 2013 (Session 4) Tuesday 3 December 2013
Dunedin Canmore Housing Association
2nd Meeting, 2014 (Session 4) Tuesday 28 January 2014
No2BedroomTax Campaign
1 Alex Johnstone notes his dissent from this paragraph.
2 Alex Johnstone notes his dissent from the paragraphs in this section.
3 Alex Johnstone notes his dissent from the paragraphs in this section.
4 Alex Johnstone notes his dissent from the paragraphs in this section.
5 'Your Say' is an initiative started by the Welfare Reform Committee to encourage those directly affected by welfare reform to share their experiences with the Committee, including given oral evidence at committee meetings.
6 Scottish Parliament Welfare Reform Committee. Official Report, 28 May 2013, Col 789.
7 Scottish Parliament Welfare Reform Committee. Official Report, 28 May 2013, Col 788.
8 Alex Johnstone notes his dissent from this paragraph.
9 Scottish Parliament Welfare Reform Committee. Official Report, 10 September 2013, Col 836.
10 Scottish Parliament Welfare Reform Committee. Official Report, 10 September 2013, Col 837-838
11 Scottish Parliament Welfare Reform Committee. Official Report, 10 September 2013, Col 839-840
12 Scottish Government, Updated Evidence on the Number of Households Affected by the Housing Benefit Under Occupation Penalty, paras 5&8
13 Alex Johnstone notes his dissent from this paragraph.
14 The 'Bedroom Tax' in Scotland report, Professor Gibb, 19 Oct 2013, Para 26.
15 The 'Bedroom Tax' in Scotland report, Professor Gibb, 19 Oct 2013, Para 27.
16 The 'Bedroom Tax' in Scotland report, Professor Gibb, 19 Oct 2013, Para 28.
17 The 'Bedroom Tax' in Scotland report, Professor Gibb, 19 Oct 2013, Para 29.
18 The 'Bedroom Tax' in Scotland report, Professor Gibb, 19 Oct 2013, Para 52.
19 Scottish Parliament Welfare Reform Committee. Official Report, 19 November 2013, Col 1136
20 Scottish Parliament Welfare Reform Committee. Official Report, 19 November 2013, Col 1137
21 Scottish Parliament Welfare Reform Committee. Official Report, 12 November 2013, Col 1080
22 Alex Johnstone notes his dissent from this paragraph.
23 Scottish Parliament Welfare Reform Committee. Official Report, 13 November 2012, Col 316-317
24 http://www.cosla.gov.uk/news/2013/11/bedroom-tax-costing-more-it-will-save and http://www.sfha.co.uk/
25 Scottish Parliament Welfare Reform Committee. Official Report, 12 November 2013, Col 1063
26 Early impacts of Welfare Reform on rent arrears, Scottish Housing Regulator, October 2013, p4
27 Scottish Parliament Welfare Reform Committee. Official Report, 3 December 2013, Col 1172
28 Alex Johnstone notes his dissent from this paragraph.
29 The figures are for Great Britain as social security is devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and the 'bedroom tax' has not yet been introduced there.
30 Scottish Parliament Welfare Reform Committee. Official Report, 19 November 2013, Col 1129
31 Scottish Parliament Welfare Reform Committee. Official Report, 19 November 2013, Col 1127
32 Scottish Parliament Welfare Reform Committee. Official Report, 19 November 2013, Col 1126
33 Alex Johnstone notes his dissent from this paragraph.
34 Scottish Parliament Welfare Reform Committee. Official Report, 19 November 2013, Col 1126
35 Alex Johnstone notes his dissent from this paragraph.
36 Discretionary Housing Payments in Scotland: 1 April to 30 November 2013 - An Experimental Statistics Publication for Scotland, Scottish Government, 21 January 2014.
37 South Lanarkshire Council written submission, November 2013, section 7.
38 Alex Johnstone notes his dissent from this paragraph.
39 Alex Johnstone notes his dissent from this paragraph.
40 Scottish Parliament Welfare Reform Committee. Official Report, 12 November 2013, Col 1080
41 Scottish Parliament Welfare Reform Committee. Official Report, 12 November 2013, Col 1081
42 Scottish Parliament Welfare Reform Committee. Official Report, 28 January 2014, Col 1201
43 See paragraph 65 above
44 Scottish Parliament Welfare Reform Committee. Official Report, 28 January 2014, Col 1225
45 Alex Johnstone notes his dissent from this paragraph.
46 Alex Johnstone notes his dissent from this paragraph.
47 Scottish Parliament Welfare Reform Committee. Official Report, 12 November 2013, Col 1079
48 Scottish Parliament Welfare Reform Committee. Official Report, 19 November 2013, Col 1140-1
49 Alex Johnstone notes his dissent from this paragraph.
50 SFHA written submission, November 2013, para 2.1-2.2
51 Scottish Parliament Welfare Reform Committee. Official Report, 12 November 2013, Col 1078
52 Scottish Parliament Welfare Reform Committee. Official Report, 12 November 2013, Col 1079
53 Scottish Parliament Welfare Reform Committee. Official Report, 12 November 2013, Col 1063
54 Alex Johnstone notes his dissent from this paragraph.
55 Alex Johnstone notes his dissent from this paragraph.
56 Alex Johnstone notes his dissent from this paragraph.
Back to top


text:
In addition to the research that is being undertaken by Activmob around nutrition and healthy eating, we also have further Big Lottery Funded research over the next month (to early November), finding out people's views on their neighbourhood and services for families of children from pregnancy to a child's fourth birthday.
This community insight is being led by Britain's largest independent social research agency NatCen Social Research, with fieldwork being carried out by expert provider Public Knowledge. This independent research will help inform the Better Start partnership on local views about how local services can be improved to better help children and families in the Southend area. The research is following on from the successful pilot survey of 40 interviews that took place in August.
Interviewers will canvass families in all six A Better Start wards of Kursaal, Milton, Shoeburyness, Victoria, Westborough and West Shoebury. The confidential interviews take around 20 minutes, with participation voluntary for families, though those taking part will be remunerated with a £5 voucher. Families will also be given an information sheet about the A Better Start Southend programme during the course of their interview.
If you have any questions about the NatCen surveys or would like to find out more please contact firstname.lastname@example.com or call the A Better Start team on 01702 356050.
Article published October 2017

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Recent Election Updates
November 14, 2017
Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.
Email This Story
This week, multiple elections across the United States resulted in firsts for minority legislators. While the 2016 presidential election echoed the wants of the white working class, the most recent elections have shown a rise in a likely alliance among minorities.
Among the winners were Vietnamese, Latina, and transgender women who were elected to state legislatures, a black transgender woman who was placed on the Minneapolis City Council, two black candidates who were elected to the position of lieutenant governor in Virginia and New Jersey, and a Sikh man, Hispanic woman, and Liberian refugee whom were all elected as mayors across the United States.
These results might indicate a Democratic resistance to the Republican controlled government.
Locally, two pieces of tax legislation were not passed in the special election: Proposition 1 for Columbia, and Proposition U for Booneville. According to the Missourian, "Proposition 1 is a ballot issue that would raise the hotel and motel lodging tax to 5 percent from 4 percent. The proposition was put on the ballot by a May vote of the Columbia City Council, and revenues would help finance a new terminal at Columbia Regional Airport." Proposition U on the ballot of Boone County stated the county would "impose a tax on out-of-state purchases at the same rate as the total local sales tax rate, provided that if the local sales tax rate is reduced or raised by voter approval, the local use tax rate shall also be reduced or raised by the same action."


text:
I am back from hell…AKA Austin, TX….I didn't get the good news I had been hoping for. There will not be physical therapy at this time.
Let me take you back in time.
In 1982 I had my first surgery for scoliosis, a Harrington Rod was used to correct the curvature of my spine.
In 1996 it was removed as the rod had broken.
I lived without any hardware in my body from 1996 until June 2009.
In December 2009 another revision was done which included more hardware. The images above were taken this morning, you can see all the screws that are holding me together. I'm sorta Bionic, but not really.
This reminds me of the image on the right. (the bottom screws)


text:
Research (Published online: 30-09-2016)
21. Comparative evaluation of polymerase chain reaction assay with microscopy for detection of asymptomatic carrier state of theileriosis in a herd of crossbred cattle - Gaurav Charaya, N. K. Rakha, Sushila Maan, Aman Kumar, Tarun Kumar and Ricky Jhambh
Veterinary World, 9(9): 1039-1042
doi: 10.14202/vetworld.2016.1039-1042
Aim: This study aims to develop and to standardize a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay that will diagnose clinical as well as carrier state of the disease and to compare the results with conventional microscopy technique.
Materials and Methods: A herd of crossbred cattle with the previous history of theileriosis in village Lahli, district Rohtak, Haryana, was selected for this study. A total of 29 blood samples were collected randomly from cows including five clinically ill cattle. Blood smears from all animals and lymph node biopsy smears from animal with swollen lymph nodes were examined microscopically after conventional Giemsa staining. Phenol chloroform isoamyl alcohol method was used for extracting DNA from blood. Previously published primers targeting cytochrome b gene sequence of Theileria annulata were used in the PCR assay that was standardized to use in the laboratory.
Results: Out of 29 samples tested,18 (62.06%) were found positive for theileriosis by PCR assay, whereas only 10 (34.48%) samples were detected positive by conventional microscopic technique using Giemsa staining method.
Conclusions: On the basis results of comparative studies, it can be concluded that PCR assay is a more sensitive than microscopic examination for detection of theileriosis. This can be attributed to the ability of PCR assay to detect small amounts of genomic DNA of T. annulata or low parasitemia in cows. Therefore, PCR assay can serve as a more sensitive tool to detect Theileria for detection of theileriosis even in asymptomatic carrier cattle which is important for the implementation of successful control programs.
Keywords: Carrier state, cytochrome b, Giemsa staining, polymerase chain reaction assay, theileriosis, Theileria annulata.


text:
Price: £5.49
Lossy Download / MP3
BUY the MP3 release of Anguish, the new release by Will Brooks, Mike Mare (dälek), Mats Gustafsson, Andreas Werliin (Fire! Orchestra) and Hans Joachim Irmler (Faust). Anguish is the nexus where Hip-Hop, Krautrock and Freejazz meet to find perfect ecstatic balance. Download Links will be sent to you immediately after payment


text:
Emmitsburg, Md. – The Retriever men's and women's cross country teams opened their 2018 campaigns in steamy conditions at the Mount St. Mary's 5k Duals. The meets were scored in dual meet format.
The men led off the proceedings and UMBC had five runners cross the line before any other team. The Retrievers defeated host Mount St. Mary's (28-29) and Franklin Pierce (18-45), tied Johns Hopkins (28-28) and narrowly fell to team champion George Washington (23-34).
The ladies posted victories over host Mount St. Mary's (26-33) and Franklin Pierce (17-46), fell by the slimmest of margins to Maryland (28-29) and also were defeated by GW (15-46) and Johns Hopkins (15-48).
UMBC junior Brian Cave (Sykesville, Md./South Carroll) turned in the best performance of his career, leading the Retrievers with an impressive sixth-place finish. Cave nearly bested the 16-minute mark, posting a time of 16:01.89.
A pair of freshmen placed 1-3 for the women, including newcomer Morgan Casey (Silver Spring, Md./Montgomery-Blair), who crossed the tape in 14th position overall in a time of 19:50.91.
Worth Noting
- Like his classmate, Miles Smith (La Plata, Md./La Plata) turned in his best collegiate effort. He placed 11th overall in a time of 16:13.25. It was Smith's third trek across the turf in Emmitsburg, but also his third varsity appearance overall.
- Freshman Hugh O'Connor (Severna Park, Md./Severna Park) produced an outstanding debut, coming in fourth place for UMBC and leading three consecutive UMBC runners across the tape in 16th position. O'Connor turned in a time of 16:13.55.
- Senior Kelsey Ponton (Laurel, Md./Reservoir) and freshman Emmy Beyer (Ellicott City, Md./Mount Hebron) placed 20th and 21st respectively in times of 20:02.32 and 20:03.67. Ponton knocked 36 seconds off her time from a year ago and improved her standing by 49 positions.
- Juniors Briana Roberts (Pennsauken, N.J.) and Kaya Knake (Canton, Mich.) placed fourth and fifth respectively for UMBC. Roberts placed 34th and Knake 39th of 84 total competitors.
- Both squads will next compete at the Navy Invitational on Saturday, Sept. 15.
Men's Scores
George Washington 17, Franklin Pierce 40
George Washington 24, Johns Hopkins 31
George Washington 25, Mount St. Mary's 30
George Washington 23, UMBC 34
Mount St. Mary's 27, Johns Hopkins 28
Mount St. Mary's 17, Franklin Pierce 44
UMBC 18, Franklin Pierce 45
UMBC 28, Mount St. Mary's 29
Johns Hopkins 28, UMBC 28
Johns Hopkins 18, Franklin Pierce 43
Records: George Washington (4-0), UMBC (2-1-1), Mount St. Mary's (2-2), Johns Hopkins (1-2-1), Franklin Pierce (0-4)
Women's Scores
George Washington 15, Franklin Pierce 49
George Washington 18, Mount St. Mary's 44
George Washington 15, UMBC 46
George Washington 24, Johns Hopkins 31
George Washington 16, Maryland 45
Johns Hopkins 16, Maryland 45
Johns Hopkins 19, Mount St. Mary's 44
Johns Hopkins 15, UMBC 48
Johns Hopkins 15, Franklin Pierce 50
Maryland 18, Franklin Pierce 45
Maryland 25, Mount St. Mary's 33
Maryland 28, UMBC 29
UMBC 26, Mount St. Mary's 33
UMBC 17, Franklin Pierce 46
Mount St. Mary's 19, Franklin Pierce 39
Records: George Washington (5-0), Johns Hopkins (4-1), Maryland (3-2), UMBC (2-3), Mount St. Mary's (1-4), Franklin Pierce (0-5)


text:
Poor performance, or does air leak out of the intake air filter while the unit is running? This is probably the problem. Damaged/sticking valves is a common issue when you have low compression, and can also cause the motor/engine to stall and too much pressure in the pump's crankcase. Be sure to clean the head and cylinder very well so as to remove all of the old gasket material and build-up (carbon and rust) when re-installing.
Now is the best time to buy in bulk. Not only will you save money on shipping and have a backup in case the part breaks in the future, you'll also save 10% with our special quantity discount.
This item fits the following models:
Needed for every air tool!
Industrial Interchange Connector
$3.52 $1.95
Quickest way to drain your tank!
1/4" Ball Valve Drain Cock
$8.64 $6.95
Every shop needs one!
$14.04 $9.95
Master Tool Repair is an authorized re-seller of all products listed throughout our site. Master Tool Repair, is not affiliated with, or sponsored or endorsed by, any of the original equipment manufacturers whose names, logos, and/or trademarks are displayed on this page. Master Tool Repair provides replacement parts that are OEM or compatible with the original products of these manufacturers.
Master Tool Repair sells replacement parts for Husky and Workforce products that we obtain from third parties, and not from the owner of the Husky and Workforce product lines. Master Tool Repair is not affiliated with, or sponsored or endorsed by, the Husky or Workforce product lines or their owner.


text:
ADRIAN, Mich.--Adrian College seventh-year football coach Jim Deere '89 has announced the Bulldogs' captains for the 2016 season, which gets under way on Friday, Sep. 2, at Pacific University in Forest Grove, Ore.
The team's captains are, pictured left to right, sophomore wide receiver D'Angelo Gaines (Eagle Lake, Fla./Winter Haven High School), senior quarterback Stephen Milarch (Fenton/Hartland), junior offensive lineman Travis Myrick (Edwardsburg High School), junior defensive lineman Damon Fuller (Redford/Thurston), junior defensive back Jonathan Scarber (Waterford/Kettering) and junior defensive lineman Trenton Elkins (Oxford/Lake Orion).
The sextet was chosen by their teammates and coaches over the weekend following the Bulldogs' intrasquad scrimmage.
#AdrianBulldogs #GoDawgs #GDTBAB


text:
In 1896, Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius warned that global warming could result from burning fossil fuels. more...
December 13 , 2003 : Saddam Hussein was captured. more...
Learn something new every day
More Info... by email
A certified industrial hygienist, also known as an occupational hygiene specialist, is responsible for identifying and eliminating any physical and environmental risks to employees from a workplace. His or her major responsibilities include looking for biological, chemical, physical, ergonomic and psychosocial problems within an organization. There are many ways to test and measure these issues. Thy hygienist also makes suggestions on ways to correct these problems and improve the working environment.
In order to test the biological well-being of a workplace, there are several tests that a certified industrial hygienist performs. Dust sampling is a common tool used to determine whether there are any germs or diseases being spread throughout a workplace. Performing a walk-through tour and inspecting the overall sanitation level is another common practice.
Chemically, a certified industrial hygienist acts more like a scientist to track down workplace problems. Chemical issues frequently are invisible, so he or she must perform more than a walk-through tour to find problems. Radiation testing equipment, air samples and chemical evaluations are performed frequently to ensure that all areas are at acceptable levels for human interaction. Chemical production plants, nuclear power plants and manufacturing industries frequently require this kind of attention from a hygienist.
Physical and ergonomic issues are very similar responsibilities for a certified industrial hygienist. The hygienist must be well researched on governmental regulations and insurance recommendations regarding both. For example, in a warehouse environment, he or she must monitor how much physical lifting is being performed and whether employees practice proper back support and lifting techniques. Ergonomically, the hygienist can perform assessments of employees to see how they can better position themselves. For example, ensuring that office workers use the proper chairs and keyboards can help avoid cases of carpal tunnel syndrome.
Interviewing subjects and determining the psychosocial layout of a work environment is another task of a certified industrial hygienist. It is important for him or her to learn about employee treatment from management, relationships between peers and the treatment of different sexes. Inadequate psychosocial workplaces where individuals don't feel psychologically secure can impede productivity.
After the industrial hygiene of a workplace has been determined, the hygienist makes his or her recommendation. These can range anywhere from standing straighter when lifting boxes to completely remodeling a factory to avoid chemical contamination. The hygienist frequently will work up risk assessments to present to management, showcasing the current and future risk versus the risk if the issues are resolved.
One of our editors will review your suggestion and make changes if warranted. Note that depending on the number of suggestions we receive, this can take anywhere from a few hours to a few days. Thank you for helping to improve wiseGEEK!


text:
ServeGate makes it possible for an SME to become a sub-contractor to Governments and large industry customers.
Historically, SMEs have relied on receiving work from Tier 1 Prime Contractors via the typical multi-tiered structure of industry supply chains. Gaining access to those larger companies is often very difficult.
For those businesses able to form an alliance they are seldom a part of the face-to-face contract negotiation phase at which they can establish their own brand awareness with Government or Industry customers for future work.
The down side of accessing work via a large prime is that there are multiple level supplier organisations between the Government or Industry customers and the SMEs. Each level charges service fees meaning there is less revenue available at the end of the supply chain.
Having duplicated management, multiple work teams (each with their own self-interest and operating style) and an elongated hire-chain can hinder communication, decision-making and payment of services.
ServeGate removes these barriers by establishing a direct ServeGate/member business-to-Government/Industry relationship.
There are many benefits to joining the ServeGate community:
- ServeGate is a First Response Solution Provider (FRSP)
- Visibility of Government and large industry customer opportunities
- Opportunity for representation with the Government, Defence and large industry and corporates
- Single point of contact with end customer thus eliminating margin on margins
- Opportunities to earn higher revenue – due to not being at "the end of the line" plus access to larger contracts
- Support to Indigenous businesses
- Healthy competition within our membership when responding to RFQs – encouraging SMEs to provide competitive value-for-money solutions
- Open bidding process – all member subcontractors are offered a fair opportunity to represent their capabilities; all compliant responses are submitted to the customer which considers its own evaluation
- Transparency in fees and margins
- No conflict of interest – ServeGate does not compete against its member subcontractors for work
- Support and guidance provided especially for Micro and Small businesses
- Growth to independence or sustenance
- Member subcontractors are able, and encouraged to collaborate with each other to provide collective solutions to customers' requirements
- Contract administration
- Low-cost membership joining fee and contract management margin
- No obligations or restrictions regarding interaction with ServeGate
- No exclusivity clauses in direct interaction with customers or other business activities
- Member subcontractors encouraged to cultivate their own brand awareness with the customers
- Provision of professional indemnity insurance cover for a nominal fee, available in most cases
- Relationships with industry associations
- Maintenance of workforce identity


text:
This is What ACTUALLY Causes Addiction
Ever wonder what causes addiction? It's a unique set of risk factors and influences — some genetic, others environmental. It's rare for one thing to drive a person to addiction. Instead, it's a simmering witch's brew of nature mixed with nurture. Here's how they work together to encourage or discourage addiction.
Nature (Genetics)
1. Dopamine processing
Some people are genetically predisposed to addiction. People with a certain genetic mutation in their dopamine receptors enjoy potentially addictive substances and behaviors more than people without it. That increases the risk for addiction.
2. Instant hangovers
Other genetic mutations can actually decrease the risk for addiction. A common East Asian genetic variation makes it difficult to metabolize alcohol, resulting in classic "hangover" symptoms — headache, dehydration, nerve sensitivity, nausea, and the like — almost immediately after alcohol is consumed. Needless to say, alcoholism is incredibly rare among people with this genetic makeup.
3. Psychological problems and self-medication
Genetics can indirectly affect the risk for addiction. For example, genes factor into numerous psychiatric disorders (depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, etc.), and people who live with these issues often self-medicate with an addictive substance or behavior.
Over time, escapist self-medication can escalate to addiction. In such cases, the important genetic factor is not the proclivity to addiction but the propensity for an underlying vulnerability that can lead to addiction.
Nurture (Environment)
We can't entirely blame addiction on genetics. Environmental factors play an important role.
1. Early-life trauma
Neglect, emotional abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, etc., greatly increase the risk for addictions regardless of genes.
The more times a child is traumatized, the greater the likelihood of addiction and other later-life problems. Survivors of chronic childhood trauma (four or more significant trauma experiences prior to age 18) are:
- 1.8 times as likely to smoke cigarettes
- 1.9 times as likely to become obese
- 2.4 times as likely to experience ongoing anxiety
- 3.6 times as likely to be depressed
- 3.6 times as likely to qualify as promiscuous
- 7.2 times as likely to become alcoholic
- 11.1 times as likely to become an intravenous drug user
2. Early exposure to addictive substances or behavior.
About 41 percent of existing adult sex addicts were using porn before age 12. (Nowadays, thanks to the Internet and its relatively endless supply of easily accessible, mostly free erotic content, the average age of first exposure to porn is 11. The lower the age of first use, the higher the likelihood of addiction — sexual and otherwise. How this will affect the incidence of later-life sexual addiction remains to be seen.)
The cause of addiction isn't nature or nurture. It's how the two factors come together in a person and how they influence his or her behavior.
Related reads:
This article adapted from Sex Addiction 101 by Robert Weiss, copyright HCI Books 2016.
And are you ready to learn more about how to unlock the power of food to heal your body, prevent disease & achieve optimal health? Register now for our FREE web class with nutrition expert Kelly LeVeque.