So-net無料ブログ作成

イギリス:Street to Home Annual Report:2009 to 2010 [Social Policy]

日本のHomeless 概念に近い rough sleepers に関する最近の資料を原文のまま提示しておきます.

その中では,2012年までに rough sleepers が2晩以上同じ状態になることが無いようにすると公約しているのがたいへん注目されます.Street to Home はその目標志向を表しています,

多くの民間団体の固有名詞が短縮形で登場しますが,それは無視して,数字の内容やTrend に注目して素読下さい.今回もグラフを取り込めなかったことをお詫びします.

 

Introduction: an overview of the work undertaken with rough sleepers in London

The London Delivery Board has defined an end to rough sleeping:
'By the end of 2012 no one will live on the streets of London, and no individual arriving on the streets will sleep out for a second night.'

2 Key findings
3673 people were seen rough sleeping in 2009/10.
o 1744 (47%) of these people were seen just once
o 358 (10%) were seen more than 10 times
o 2226 (60%) of these people were new to the streets
o Nearly half (46%) were seen rough sleeping in Westminster
Just over half (52%) of those seen rough sleeping were from the UK. 
26% were from Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries that joined the EU in 2004 and 2007.  

The 6% rise in people seen rough sleeping between 2008/09 and 2009/10 is accounted for by people from CEE countries. When this group are excluded
from the figures the number of people seen rough sleeping has gone down by 3%.

The proportion of young people seen rough sleeping remained low throughout the year - 9% were under 25.
Of all those contacted by outreach teams and hostels (including those not seen rough sleeping) 8% were under 25.
Only 3 people under 18 were contacted rough sleeping and no further people under 18 were contacted by outreach teams and hostels in the year but not seen rough sleeping.

Just under a third (32%) of those seen rough sleeping had been in prison at some point in their lives - this is consistent with the last two years.  
A slightly higher proportion of all those contacted by hostels and outreach
teams had spent time in prison (38%)  

The proportion of those of all nationalities who had served in the armed
forces was 6% (or 5% of all those contacted by outreach teams or hostels). Amongst UK nationals 3% (53 people)

EU expansion in 2004 and 2007 enabled people from the following countries to come to the UK to work: Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic, Romania and Bulgaria. 
These are referred to as Central and Eastern European (CEE) Countries in this report. 
People from these countries are subject to various restrictions and most of those rough sleeping from these countries are not entitled to welfare benefits.

Street to Home Annual report:1st April 2009 – 31st March 2010
3 of all those seen rough sleeping in the year had served in the armed forces at some point -this compares with 4% of those seen rough sleeping last year.
While most people are only seen rough sleeping once or twice there is a small group who are 'living on the streets'. For example, 20 people were seen more than 50 times in the year. Two of these people were in accommodation at the end of the year.

In 2009, the Delivery Board created an initiative intended to focus
efforts on getting the most entrenched rough sleepers in London off the streets. This project – called the Rough Sleeping 205 (RS205) project - identified 205 of the most entrenched rough sleepers and sought new and innovative ways to assist them.  
The RS205 project has just been extended so that a further 116 long-term rough
sleepers are included in the project and able to get special assistance and attention.  
Of the 20 people seen more than 50 times in 2009/10, eight are included in the original RS205 group, and a further nine are in the recently extended list.       Two are included in a similar project to assist those who have a history of leaving hostel accommodation for negative reasons.
Outreach teams booked 1712 people into accommodation in 2009/10. This was primarily hostels for single homeless people. 
326 people were assisted to return to a home area or an area where they could access appropriate services.   
More people were booked into long term accommodation with the help of outreach workers this year - 247 compared to 176 last year. Many of these moves were into Private Rented Sector accommodation (108).   
315 people started tenancies in social rented Clearing House properties, which are allocated to people who have a history of rough sleeping in London.

Outreach teams 'reconnected' 326 people to a home area or an area where they would be able to access services.
1352 people arrived in accommodation projects (mainly hostels) reporting to CHAIN in 2009/10 and 1501 people left accommodation projects.

People leaving accommodation were often transferring to another short-term accommodation project such as a hostel or detox facility (38% of moves were transfers). 
The same proportion of moves was for negative reasons, including 5% which were to prison. 
Homeless Link are currently undertaking research in this area and helping organisations pilot new approaches to reducing levels of eviction and abandonment.  
The London Delivery Board also has a subgroup looking into this issue.  
Two years ago the CHAIN research report 'Profiling rough sleepers' revealed that level of abandonment had reduced dramatically over the period of the study (7-10 years) but that less progress had been made in the area of evictions.  
A fifth (21%) of moves from short-term accommodation were to medium or long-term accommodation such as the private rented sector or social housing.
Clearing House or Rough Sleepers Initiative (RSI) properties are Housing Association flats across London, allocated to people with a rough sleeping history. The waiting list and allocation of properties is managed by Broadway. 
Tenancy support is provided to Clearing House tenants via a range of organisations. There are currently 3667 Clearing House Units in London.  
309 people started Clearing House tenancies in 2009/10. This is slightly lower than in 2008/09 but higher than 2006/7. 3% of all Clearing House tenancies ended negatively (due to eviction or abandonment) in 2009/10.

A new CHAIN system was launched in May 2010 – improvements made include improved recording about why people end up rough sleeping, what local connection they have and where they were immediately prior to sleeping rough (e.g. prison or hospital).

It is hoped that this improved intelligence about new (and returning)
rough sleepers will help local authorities and providers of homelessness services better prevent rough sleeping.

 

 


nice!(0)  コメント(0)  トラックバック(0) 
共通テーマ:学問

イギリスにおけるHomeless の推移 [Social Policy]

元の資料ではThe Graph として図示されていた資料について,どうしてもサイズの調整ができませんでしたので,以下では,Graph をTable に置き換えていただくようお願いします,

以下の資料と説明はすべてEngland 限定です.

新規のHomeless は2003年の202,000をピークに,2009年にはそのほぼ1/4,58,000に減少しています.                                                        過半数は児童のいない世帯ですが,半数近くが児童のいる世帯です.この区分の重要性は,後者がPriority を認められるからです.

London で事態は深刻ですが,Homeless はイングランド全般に広がっています.

あとは,訳が不可能なので,原文のまま掲載します.                              By far the biggest reason for becoming homeless is loss of accommodation provided by relatives or friends (two-fifths of those deemed 'in priority need'), with a further fifth being due to relationship breakdown.

A quarter of those accepted as homeless and in priority need by English local authorities are from ethnic minorities.  This means that ethnic minority households are, overall, around three times as likely to become homeless as the majority White population.                                                      

Many of those who are effectively homeless live in concealed households - households which neither own nor rent the property that they are living in.  Most of these people do not have dependent children.

少し説明しますと,イギリスでは同居者との関係崩壊が,Homeless の最大の理由とされています.日本でいうホームレスは,とかく屋根のない生活者を指すようですが,それはほぼ rough sleepers に置き換えられる人たちです.

 

In temporary accommodation

  • The number of homeless households in temporary accommodation can be seen as a measure of the capacity of local authorities to meet the needs of those homeless households whom they have a duty to accommodate.  In the first quarter of 2010, there were around 65,000 homeless households in temporary accommodation in Great Britain.  Whilst this number is similar to a decade ago, it is well below the peak of 110,000 in 2005.
  • The number of households in temporary accommodation is an order of magnitude greater in London than elsewhere: at more than 1% of all households, it is around ten times the level in the rest of the south of England and more than twenty times the level in the North and Midlands.  As a result. London has three-quarters of all households in temporary accommodation.
  • 30% of households leaving temporary accommodation in 2009 had stayed there for a year or more, and the majority of these had been there for two years or more.  It is a moot point whether stays of such a long duration can properly be described as 'temporary', or indeed whether 'temporary accommodation' is appropriate for such long stays.                     

2年以上居住する者が多いのに,'temporary accommodation' と呼ぶのが適当かどうかは議論のあるところだそうです.                                               数の上では,2005年の110,000から漸減しており,2010年第四半期で約65,000世帯となっています.なかではとりわけロンドンの世帯数の約1%(England他地域の10~20倍)が temporary accommodation に居住しているのが注目されます.

                                                                                                      

 

Homelessness

Key points

Newly recognised homeless households

  • All the statistics below relate to England only.  This is because the data for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is not comparable.  See the Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland indicators for the equivalent analyses for each of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
  • 58,000 households (excluding the intentionally homeless) in England were officially recognised as newly homeless by their local authorities in 2009.
  • The number of newly homeless households has fallen sharply each year since 2003 and the 2009 figure of 60,000 households is only just over a quarter of the 2003 number (202,000).
  • Just over half of the households officially recognised as newly homeless do not contain dependent children.  The distinction between with, and without children, is important because many of the latter do not qualify for accommodation (i.e. they are considered 'not to be in priority need').
  • Although most prevalent in London and the West Midlands, homelessness is to be found throughout the country.
  • By far the biggest reason for becoming homeless is loss of accommodation provided by relatives or friends (two-fifths of those deemed 'in priority need'), with a further fifth being due to relationship breakdown.
  • A quarter of those accepted as homeless and in priority need by English local authorities are from ethnic minorities.  This means that ethnic minority households are, overall, around three times as likely to become homeless as the majority White population.
  • Many of those who are effectively homeless live in concealed households - households which neither own nor rent the property that they are living in.  Most of these people do not have dependent children.

In temporary accommodation

  • The number of homeless households in temporary accommodation can be seen as a measure of the capacity of local authorities to meet the needs of those homeless households whom they have a duty to accommodate.  In the first quarter of 2010, there were around 65,000 homeless households in temporary accommodation in Great Britain.  Whilst this number is similar to a decade ago, it is well below the peak of 110,000 in 2005.
  • The number of households in temporary accommodation is an order of magnitude greater in London than elsewhere: at more than 1% of all households, it is around ten times the level in the rest of the south of England and more than twenty times the level in the North and Midlands.  As a result. London has three-quarters of all households in temporary accommodation.
  • 30% of households leaving temporary accommodation in 2009 had stayed there for a year or more, and the majority of these had been there for two years or more.  It is a moot point whether stays of such a long duration can properly be described as 'temporary', or indeed whether 'temporary accommodation' is appropriate for such long stays.

The numbers

Graph 1

Thousands
Year Households with dependent children Households without dependent children
1997 59101
1998 6299
1999 6298
2000 6598
2001 67105
2002 67117
2003 69134
2004 65126
2005 5297
2006 4269
2007 3752
2008 3441
2009 2434

Graph 2

East 0.2%
East Midlands 0.2%
London 0.5%
North East 0.3%
North West 0.3%
South East 0.2%
South West 0.2%
West Midlands 0.5%
Yorkshire and The Humber 0.3%

Graph 3

Loss of accommodation with relatives/friends 36%
Relationship breakdown 20%
Loss of tenancy 16%
Mortgage/rent arrears 6%
Other reasons 22%

Graph 4

White 71%
Black / Black British 15%
Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi 6%
Other ethnic origin 7%

Graph 5

Thousands
1997 45K
1998 52K
1999 61K
2000 70K
2001 80K
2002 85K
2003 96K
2004 106K
2005 111K
2006 107K
2007 99K
2008 89K
2009 76K
2010 64K

Graph 6

East 0.11%
East Midlands 0.04%
London 1.23%
North East 0.02%
North West 0.03%
South East 0.10%
South West 0.10%
West Midlands 0.06%
Yorkshire and The Humber 0.04%

Graph 7

Under six months 56%
6 to 12 months 14%
1 to 2 years 11%
More than 2 years 19%

Graph 8

Groups of people who are effectively homeless (thousands at any point in time)
With dependent children Without dependent children Total
Rough sleepers   0.5
Bed-and-breakfast and other board accommodation 33033
In non-permanent supported housing 53338
Aged 25+ in concealed households in overcrowded accommodation 33130163
Aged 25+ in concealed households in non-overcrowded accommodation but where the owner/renter is dissatisfied 34144

続きを読む


nice!(0)  コメント(0)  トラックバック(0) 
共通テーマ:学問

イギリスの新年度予算あれこれ [Social Policy]

イギリスの新年度予算が決まりましたので,そのうち広義にSocial Policyに関わる項目を拾ってみました,

前に紹介したUniveersal Credit が既に顔を出しています.複雑で難解な6つのCredit を統合して,簡素化し,分かりやすくしようという目標はよいのですが,例えば,Housing Benefit がUniversal Credit に統合されて,総て本人への直接給付に変わると,Housing Association などが不払いに悩んで撤退を迫られるのではないかといった問題点が,供給者側から提起されています.

そもそも正確に訳すことは困難なので,いちいち日本訳しませんが,ご自由にご渉猟下さって,大意をくみ取っていただければ幸いです.

 

 

Budget 2011: Glossary

Explaining the budget buzzwords and the areas that could be targeted

 

 

Child benefit

A tax-free payment, every four weeks, paid to parents of children under 16, or older if they are in training. Currently, £20.30 a week for the first child, and £13.40 for other offspring. In last year's budget, Osborne froze child benefit for three years. Higher rate taxpayers are going to lose the payment altogether from 2013.

 

Child tax credits

Available to people who are responsible for at least one child or qualifying young person. It consists of two parts: a family element worth up to £545 a year, and a child element worth up to £2,235 for each child, which rises to £5,015 if the child is disabled. Osborne announced last year that the child element of the tax credit will rise by £150 above CPI inflation from this April, and in April 2012 by £60 above indexation. But the income limit on child tax credit is falling from £50,000 to £40,000 from 6 April 2011.

 

 

Housing benefit

Last year the government announced caps on housing benefit, of £250 a week for a one bedroom property, £290 for a two bedroom property, £340 for a three bedroom and £400 for a four bedroom. They kick in in April, but existing claimants have until January 2012.

 

Income tax

Changes announced in last June's budget mean that, from April, income tax will only be paid on earnings over £7,475, at the basic rate of 20%. This rises to 40% for earnings above £42,475, and 50% for earnings over £150,000.

 

Pensioners

Individual savings accounts (ISAs)

ISAs let individuals save tax free, and can be made up of cash, shares and life assurance policies. The annual limit was recently raised to £10,200, of which £5,100 can be saved in cash.

 

Inheritance tax

Osborne is expected to announce a wide-ranging shake-up of inheritance tax, having seen a sharp fall in the revenue it generates.

Currently it is charged at 40% on estates following their owner's death, and on assets transferred in the preceding seven years. It only applies to estates worth more than £325,000 – the nil-rate band. This band can be transferred to the surviving spouse, creating a combined tax-free allowance of £650,000. Darling froze this threshold for four years in March 2010's budget.

 

National insurance

VAT rise

Will Osborne throw his weight behind proposals to merge national insurance with income tax?

Levied on individuals, including the self-employed, and companies, although those who earn less than £110 a week are exempt. Workers earning up to £844 a week pay 11% of their earnings, but this is already set to rise to 12% in April. There is an extra 1% charge on those earning more, which is rising to 2%.

Employers pay 12.8% of their employee's earnings, which is rising to 13.8%.

 

 

Pension credit

Designed to allow pensioners on modest incomes a guaranteed income without penalising them for having small amounts of savings. Today, single pensioners receive at least £132.60 a week, while couples are guaranteed to receive at least £202.40. This measure rises in line with the retail prices index.

 

Pension tax relief

This allows a pension provider to claim back the tax that was levied on pension contributions, which means savers can put money aside for their pension "tax free" (although the annuity is then taxed when the pension matures). Last year Osborne cut the maximum limit of tax-free income that can be put into a pension, from £255,000 to £50,000.

In the 2009 budget, Darling announced the gradual reduction in pension tax relief for top earners, so that they will eventually only be able to reclaim the basic 20% rate rather than the full rate at which their gross income was taxed. This will affect the top 1.5% of pension savers – with a "floor" protecting those earning up to £130,000.

 

 

Universal credit

 

Iain Duncan Smith's big idea is to create a single benefits payment, replacing income-related jobseeker's allowance, housing benefit, child tax credit, working tax credit, income support and income-related employment support allowance.

The government says it will be structured so that people are always better off working than on benefits. Labour, though, is concerned that people with savings of £16,000 would be debarred from universal credit. The welfare bill, which passed its second reading this month, lays out that the universal credit would come in over the next two parliaments.

 

VAT

Charged on much consumer spending. The standard rate is now 20%, having been raised from 17.5% in January. There is also a reduced rate of 5% for goods such as domestic fuel, and a zero rate for items including food, books and children's clothes and shoes.

 

 

Winter fuel allowance

A tax-free payment to those 60 and over to cover heating costs, which can be claimed by 9m households. A year ago, Darling left the payment at £250 for those at least 60, and £400 for the over-80s.


nice!(0)  コメント(0)  トラックバック(0) 
共通テーマ:学問

イギリスの年金制度改革法案 [Social Policy]

イギリスの社会扶助改革案(抜本的簡素化と「勤労が報われるシステムを志向」)については,概要を前のブログで紹介しましたが,2006年から労働党政権下で改革の方向が検討されてきた年金制度の最終改革案が法案化され.今年2月に議会に提案されています.

そのごく要約した概要を紹介する前に,現状をOECDの年報から一言で説明しますと.                                    United Kingdom: Pension system in 2008 The public scheme has two tiers, (a flatrate basic pension and an earningsrelated additional pension), which are complemented by a large voluntary private pension sector. Most employee contributors "contract out" of the state second tier into private pensions of different sorts. An income-related benefit (pension credit) targets extra spending on the poorest pensioners.                                          つまり,公的年金は2段階制:均一の基礎年金+賃金比例制付加年金ですが,大多数の被用者は国の付加年金から "contract out" して相当規模の多様な私的年金に加入しています.そして低年金・低所得者には所得比例のPension Credit(年金受給者向け社会扶助)による補足が行われているという現状があります.

国民との多くの意見交換を重ねて法案化された改革案では,まず,低~中流層向けに,                     Personal Accounts が作られます,                                     intended as a pension plan for lower to middling earners, have been rebranded as Nests. That stands for National Employment Savings Trust – see, they've got rid of that “pensions” word!                                           と,もはやそこでは“pensions”「年金」という用語を使わなくなっています.           Personal accounts will oblige employers to contribute to plans for the very first time. と初めて雇用主の拠出が義務づけられています.

これが There are four main areas of change: の第1点です.
1.Introduction of "Personal Account" pensions 

2.Increase in the State Pension Age                                   by the changes to the state pension retirement age for females as it rises from 2010 to 2020 from 60 to 65.                                     anyone born after 1959 will be affected by further planned increases in the state retirement age(to 66). There is no guarantee, of course, that even the increases already planned will be the last word. この年齢はさらに引き上げられる可能性があります.

3.Changes to the State Pension & Pension Credits                                           ここでは福祉国家イギリスにおける年金制度の実態がいかに空洞化していたかから論じなければなりません.簡単のために,人口はおよそ日本の半分と考えて下さい.                   The government estimates that at least 7 million people are not saving enough for their retirement and that 10 million people aged 22-65 are not participating in a pension scheme that includes an employer contribution of at least 3%.                                                       It's these people that form the target for the majority of the changes that will be introduced - which are aimed at preventing people from being completely dependent on the state pension and benefits when they retire.               この評論の著者は,低所得者は慌てることはないので,普通にお金を使っていって,将来は年金の代わりにミーンズテスト付き給付を受ければよいではないかと忠告しています.

4.Changes to the S2P (SERPS) pension system                          この付加給付部分の変更は未だ先のことですから,またの機会に譲ります.

ここでは個人の評論に加えて,ごく最近のMinister of Department of Work & Pensions の発言を下に付けておきましたから,ご参照下さい.
そのタイトル:”State pension reform to help savers” を見ると,前に書いたアリさんとキリギリスさんの寓話を思い出さずにはおられません.

Speculation では,1ポンド=132円として,                                                 There is speculation the basic state pension could be set at £140 a week.

Mr Duncan's Smith's intervention represents the start of a Coalition drive to replace the existing state pension regime with a "single tier" retirement payment.

Advocates of a single-tier pension say the higher cost could be funded by abolishing a range of secondary retirement measures, including means-tested pension credits, which cost taxpayers £6 billion year.

The current system offers a basic pension of £96 a week for a single person.     A range of "top-ups" are supposed to guarantee a minimum income of £132.60, but the complexity of the rules means many people do not get everything they are entitled to.

Means-tested retirement rules punish private saving and should be scrapped.

などなどが論点となっています.

 

 

 

 

Pension Reform: Personal Accounts & Other Important Changes

What's Happening?

In 2006, the UK government launched their plans for pension reform. They've now confirmed these plans and set out a more detailed timetable for the changes.

These pension reforms are going to result in millions of people seeing changes to their pension and retirement plans - so now is a good time to start learning about the changes, before they go live in a few years' time.

For a start, personal accounts, intended as a pension plan for lower to middling earners, have been rebranded as Nests. That stands for National Employment Savings Trust – see, they've got rid of that “pensions” word!

Personal accounts will oblige employers to contribute to plans for the very first time.

But don't hold your breath yet. They won't be introduced until 2012 at the earliest and as late as 2016 for smaller employers.

There are four main areas of change:

Why All The Changes?

Britain's population is getting older and older - meaning that fewer people are paying tax and National Insurance and more people are being paid state pensions.

On top of this, increasing numbers of Britain's workers have no pension arrangements at all.

The government estimates that at least 7 million people are not saving enough for their retirement and that 10 million people aged 22-65 are not participating in a pension scheme that includes an employer contribution of at least 3%.

It's these people that form the target for the majority of the changes that will be introduced - which are aimed at preventing people from being completely dependent on the state pension and benefits when they retire.

WARNING – Don't be taken in by pensions if you are on a low salary (or are unemployed for any reason) and you are unlikely ever to be a high earner. You might do better spending your money and relying on means tested benefits when you retire.

 

Who Will Be Affected By The Changes?

If you are already receiving a state pension, you won't be seriously affected by any of these changes.

If you are a woman and a bit younger, then you are going to be affected - like it or not - by the changes to the state pension retirement age for females as it rises from 2010 to 2020 from 60 to 65.

And anyone born after 1959 will be affected by further planned increases in the state retirement age. There is no guarantee, of course, that even the increases already planned will be the last word.

If you are not currently in a pension scheme to which your employer contributes, you will find yourself enrolled in the personal account pension scheme (now renamed NEST) from 2012, although you will be able to opt out.

Finally, anyone who is entitled to the State Second Pension (S2P, formerly SERPS) will see changes to the way this is calculated.

If you're thinking that it all sounds a bit confusing - you're right. There are a lot of changes and some of the rules behind them are pretty complex. The good news is that you don't really need to understand all the ins and outs of the new rules - you just need to know what effect the changes will have on you.

 

State pension reform: £140 a week for everyone

Pensioners are to receive a flat-rate universal retirement payment of £140 a week that will end the injustice of working mothers being penalised for taking a break to raise children, under reforms to be signalled by Iain Duncan Smith today.

Insiders said Mr Duncan's Smith's intervention represents the start of a Coalition drive to replace the existing state pension regime with a 'single tier' retirement payment
Insiders said Mr Duncan's Smith's intervention represents the start of a Coalition drive to replace the existing state pension regime with a 'single tier' retirement payment Photo: REUTERS

The Work and Pensions Secretary will pledge to sweep away a host of complex rules and "fundamentally simplify" the basic state pension.

Insiders said Mr Duncan's Smith's intervention represents the start of a Coalition drive to replace the existing state pension regime with a "single tier" retirement payment.

Official estimates suggest that many women who take time out from work for family reasons are left up to £40 a week worse off by rules that base pension payments on National Insurance contributions.

Charities said a universal pension would "reduce fear for those approaching retirement."

In a speech to charity leaders and pension experts, Mr Duncan Smith will condemn the pension system as a bureaucratic mess that leaves many people confused and puts young people off saving.

The state pension is made up of a basic state pension, based on years of national insurance contributions, and a range of secondary "top-ups", including pension credits.

"The state pension system is so complex that most people have no idea what it will mean for them now and in their retirement," Mr Duncan Smith will say.

Ministers are known to be considering plans for a universal pension of around £140 a week.

The current system offers a basic pension of £96 a week for a single person.

A range of "top-ups" are supposed to guarantee a minimum income of £132.60, but the complexity of the rules means many people do not get everything they are entitled to.

Advocates of a single-tier pension say the higher cost could be funded by abolishing a range of secondary retirement measures, including means-tested pension credits, which cost taxpayers £6 billion year.

Means-tested retirement rules punish private saving and should be scrapped, Mr Duncan Smith will say in a speech to Age UK. "Too many people on low incomes who do the right thing in saving for their retirement find those savings clawed back through means-testing," he will say. "We have to change this."

The Coalition has already made a number of changes to the rules on private retirement savings, abolishing the default retirement age and introducing automatic enrolment for private pensions.

Government sources said attention was now shifting to state-provided retirement schemes, with reform of the state pension the top priority.

"We have to be prepared to look at the other side of the equation," Mr Duncan Smith will say, promising "a state pensions system fit for a 21st century welfare system, which is easy to understand and rewards those who do the right thing and save".

The Treasury is known to be sceptical about the universal pension plan, questioning whether the change could be made without significant increases in public spending.

Mr Duncan Smith will insist that both he and George Osborne, the Chancellor, are backing the move to simplify state pension rules.

"My Department has been working closely with colleagues at the Treasury on options for reform,” he will say. Under existing rules, eligibility for a state pension is based on the number of years of paid work someone does.

Women often fail to qualify for a full pension because they take time out to raise children.

Last month, DWP figures suggested that leaves women an average of £2,000 a year worse off than men in retirement.

Overhauling the state pension is needed to “leave hope and stability for those generations to come,” Mr Duncan Smith will say.

He will warn: “For the first time in more than 30 years, our children are expected to have retirement incomes which will fail to keep up with average earnings in the rest of the economy. It’s no wonder our children are increasingly cynical about saving.

''And they won’t be able to afford a stable and secure retirement unless we do something radically different.”

Michelle Mitchell, Age UK’s director, said the changes signalled by Mr Duncan Smith would be widely welcomed.

“By developing a system that lays out clearly what people can expect, the Government will reduce fear for those approaching retirement,” she said.

Mr Duncan Smith’s speech comes as the Treasury prepares to publish Lord Hutton’s final report on reforming public sector pensions, which is expected to recommend that millions of state workers should pay more for their pensions.

                                                                                                                                                                                                        

State pension reform to help savers, says Duncan Smith

 

Watch: Iain Duncan Smith says the current system is too complex

The government will make it "crystal clear" to young people that it "pays to save" for retirement when it reforms pensions, Iain Duncan Smith has said.

The work and pensions secretary indicated a move towards a flat-rate state pension, removing top-up payments for low earners who do not save.

The government would also ensure fairness for parents who take time off to raise their children, he said.

There is speculation the basic state pension could be set at £140 a week.

Mr Duncan Smith did not set a figure when speaking at an event organised by Age UK, but he said he hoped "in the next three, four or five years ahead to start making the changes".

The current full state pension is £97.65 a week for men and women.

This is topped up for the poorest in society to provide a guaranteed minimum income of £132.60 for a single person, or £202.40 for couples, through the means-tested pensions credit.

In his speech, Mr Duncan Smith said the system was too complex and said means tests discouraged many people from saving anything for retirement.

'Hope and stability'

He argued that the changes would help mothers who currently lose out on their pensions because they took a career break to raise their children.

 

Michelle Mitchell of Age UK welcomes the plans but says it is unclear who the winners and losers would be

The changes - which were not given a target date by Mr Duncan Smith - would be paid for, in part, by savings in administration costs when means testing is scrapped.

Mr Duncan Smith said: "We have to fundamentally simplify the system. And we have to make it crystal clear to young savers that it pays to save."

He warned: "There is always more to be done to help the poorest in retirement. However, having worked to put incomes and rights for today's pensioners on a firmer footing, we have to start turning our focus to the next generation."

Mr Duncan Smith added: "Too often we forget that this isn't just a system for those who are currently retired, but also for those who will need it in the years ahead.

"That is why, together, we must make it work not just now but down through the generations, and make sure we leave hope and stability for those generations to come."

The state pension age is already set to be increased in response to people living longer, with the default retirement age being abolished in October.

The government has moved to require employers to enrol staff automatically in private pension schemes from next year to boost individual savings for retirement.

'Vague promises'

But Mr Duncan Smith said: "Auto-enrolment cannot solve the savings challenge on its own, and we have to be prepared to look at the other side of the equation. We now have to look at the state pension.

"The state pension system is so complex that most people have no idea what it will mean for them now and in their retirement.

"And too many people on low incomes who do the right thing in saving for their retirement find those savings clawed back through means-testing. We have to change this.

"We have to send out a clear message across both the welfare and pension systems: you will be better off in work than on benefits, and you will be better off in retirement if you save."

Chancellor George Osborne announced in last autumn's Spending Review that the state pension age for both men and women would rise to 66 by 2020 - six years earlier than had been planned by the Labour government.

For Labour, shadow pensions minister Rachel Reeves said: "Vague promises of jam tomorrow don't do anything for pensioners today. With higher VAT and fuel prices rising, they want help now.

"Labour supports a fairer, simple state pension system. But we want to see the detail - who will be better off and who worse off under this system?"

Maggie Craig, acting director-general of the Association of British Insurers, said: "The current system is complicated, confusing and leaves many people uncertain of the benefits of saving.

"These reforms would be a critical step in helping people plan for their retirement by ensuring it always pays to save and people do not fall into the means-testing trap."


nice!(0)  コメント(0)  トラックバック(0) 
共通テーマ:学問

日本の植民地政策の戦後処理 [Social Policy]

前原外務大臣や管首相が外国人から政治献金を受けていたことが話題になりましたが,そこでいわれた在日韓国人(・朝鮮人)というのが私には引っ掛かっています.

というのは,ここで話題になった71歳の女性は,1940年生まれと思われますが,その時点では日本人として生まれた筈だからです.

植民地化政策:日本国籍の押しつけ                                                   日本は1895年台湾を,1905年には樺太南部を,そして1910年には朝鮮半島を併合しましたが,1.台湾の場合には,日清媾和条約第5条により,「その不動産を売却して大挙するを得べく,右年限の満ちたる時は,未だ当該地方を去らざる住民は日本国の都合により日本国臣民と看做すことあるべし」と定められ,該当者は事実上日本国籍を押しつけられたのです.                    2.樺太の場合は,日ロ媾和条約で,ロシア人の日本国籍取得を認めませんでした.          3.関東州の住民については,日本国籍の当然の取得は認めませんでした.              4.商戦半島の場合は,明文の規定はありませんでしたが,併合条約および併合の際の詔書により,旧韓国人は,すべて日本国籍を取得するモノとされ,事実上もそのように扱われました.つまり日本国籍を押しつけたのです.     
第2次世界大戦中,台湾人,韓国・朝鮮人は日本人として徴兵,徴用,動員さらには強制連行され,線上ではしばしば最前線に立たされ,向上や作業上では差別的労働を強いられたのです.

戦後処理Ⅰ:押しつけた日本国籍の一方的剥奪                                 終戦後,最初の国政選挙が目前に迫った1945年12月,衆議院選挙法改正にあたり,その付則に「戸籍法の適用を受けざる者の選挙権及び被選挙権は,当分の間これを停止す」として,まだ日本国籍を有していた台湾人,韓国・朝鮮人の選挙権を否定しました.

1947年5月2日,日本国憲法施行の前日,最後のポツダム勅令として外国人登録令(勅令207号)が公布施行され,「台湾人及び朝鮮人は,この勅令の適用については,当分の間,これを外国人とみなす」として,かつて押しつけた日本国籍を今度は一方的に否定しました.

単なる「みなす」規定ではなく,公式に日本国籍を剥奪したのは,サンフランシスコ平和条約が1952年4月28日発効するのに先立って,同年4月19日に出された法務府民事局長通達(民事甲438号)でした.そこでは,              
①朝鮮人及び台湾人は,(日本)内地に在住する者も含めてすべて日本国籍を喪失する.
②もと朝鮮人又は台湾人が日本国籍を取得するには,一般の外国人と同様の帰化の手続によること.その場合,朝鮮人及び台湾人は,国籍法にいう「日本国民であった者」及び「日本の国籍を失った者」には該当しない. 
として明らかに一方的に,かつて押しつけた日本国籍を剥奪しました.

これは第2次世界大戦後のイギリスが,旧植民地から独立する国の国民に長期にわたって英連邦市民の地位を認めたこと,また,西ドイツが,オーストリア独立に当たって,国内在住のオーストリア人に国籍選択権を認めたことと対比して,あまりに一方的かつ不当な扱いだったといえます.

1957年の「ポツダム宣言の受諾に伴い発する命令に関する件に基づく外務省関係諸命令の措置に関する法律」(法126)は,1951年の出入国管理令を法律として存続させるものでした.
そこでは台湾人,韓国・朝鮮人について,「別に法律で定めるところによりそのものの在留資格及び在留期間が決定されるまでの間,引き続き在留資格を有することなく,本邦に在留することができる」として,事実上,日本国自らがおよそ58万人もの不法残留者をつくりだすことになったのです. ここでは,法126該当者とその子すなわち法126の子ないし二世の残留を認めたものでしたが,その後新たに生まれる法126の孫ないし三世は,実に1991年まで,文字通り不法残留の地位に置かれることになりました.

同時に,外国人登録令が新たに外国人登録法に改正され,外国人のうち16歳以上で60日以上の在住者に,3年ごとの指紋押捺義務を課しました.それは1955年から施行され,1958年に1年以上の在住者対象となり,1982年から5年ごとの指紋押捺に,1987年には原則初回のみにそれぞれ改正されました.そして1991年に,ようやく1993年以降は廃止されることになりました.

この法126の在留資格と指紋押捺義務の2点が,長年にわたって日韓関係の重要懸案事項であり続けたのです.

戦後処理Ⅱ:永住の承認と戦後補償問題  
日本の戦後処理問題の歪みは,1952年のサンフランシスコ平和条約に端を発しています.これは,アメリカが日本を第2次世界大戦後の冷戦体制に組み込む狙いを持った条約だったことです.
                                                             この条約には旧連合国側の44か国が参加・署名していますが,主なところでは,当時のソ連,南北朝鮮,中国は招待されていなかったのです.
隣国では,フィリピン,インドネシア,カンボディア,ラオス,ヴィェトナム,セイロン,パキスタン(いずれも当時の国名の平和条約の公式日本語訳)が署名していますが,タイ,インド,ビルマ(当時)は招かれず,マレーシア,シンガポール,パプア・ニューギニアなどは未だ植民地だったので,宗主国によって肩代わりされていました.

現在に至るまで,中国,韓国とは個別に平和条約を締結しましたが,ソ連→ロシア,北朝鮮とは未だに平和条約は締結されていないのです.いわば平和的関係が復活されず,戦争状態が継続しているといっても過言ではありません.                    
アメリカとの関係では,沖縄,小笠原は平和条約締結後も前者は1972年,後者は1968年までアメリカの統治下に置かれ,占領状態が継続されたのです.これは日本がアメリカの冷戦体制に組み込まれた結果以外の何物でもありません.

個別の平和条約は,韓国との間で,1965年の「日韓基本条約」, 
中国との間では,1972年に「日本国政府と中華人民共和国政府の共同声明」,さらに1978年の「日本国と中華人民共和国との間の友好平和条約」によって締結されています.

しかし,前者は韓国政府を朝鮮半島における唯一合法的政府とみなすものでしたから,朝鮮民主主義人民共和国の存在を無視するものでした.同条約と同時に纏められた「日本国に居住する大韓民国国民の法的地位及び待遇に関する日本国と大韓民国との間の協定」,いわゆる日韓法的地位協定によって,韓国人は1971年までに申請すれば協定永住の地位を認められることになりました.これによって約26万人の韓国系朝鮮人が協定永住の地位を得たといわれますが,北朝鮮系朝鮮人はこれに乗らなかったのです.

後者も,中国を唯一合法的な政府とみなしましたから,台湾の存在は無視され,台湾人の日本在留資格には何の変化ももたらしませんでした.

次の転機は,国際条約によってもたらされました.
1979年の国際人権規約(1966年国際連合採択の「経済的,社会的及び文化の権利に関する国際規約=A規約)並びに「市民的及び政治的権利に関する国際規約=B規約)批准に当たって,日本政府は何の対応も取りませんでしたが,1981年10月の「難民の地位に関する条約(1976年国連採択.いわゆる難民条約」批准には対応をせざるを得なくなったのです.同条約の1982年1月1日発効を合せて,出入国管理令が「出入国管理及び難民認定法」に改題,改訂され,上記協定永住の資格を取得しなかった者に,5年間,申請により特例永住資格の取得を認めるものとしました.
難民に新たに永住資格を認めることとバランスを取る必要に迫られたものです.

次の転機は1985年の「女子に対するあらゆる形態の差別の撤廃に関する条約(いわゆる「女子差別撤廃条約」)批准によって,次の改正が行われました.まず従来血統主義のうち父系主義によっていた国籍法が改正され,父母両系主義に転換しました.それを契機に,3年間,遡及して届け出による国籍取得がに認められ,同時に戸籍法改正によって,配偶者や親の「外国姓」をも氏とすることが認められることになりました.これは,それまで民族名を捨てなければ帰化できなかった者にも復姓を認めるものでした.        
さらに,1991年に「日本国との平和条約に基づき日本国籍を離脱した者の出入国管理に関する特例法」が制定されました.           
これによって1952年以来続いてきた,法126,法126の子,不法残留になっていた法126の孫,そして協定永住者と特例永住といった台湾人,韓国・朝鮮人の複雑な在留資格が特別永住に一本化され,指紋押捺義務も1993年以降廃止されたことは前述の通りです.

長くなりましたので,戦後補償問題は別のまたの機会に譲りたいと思いますが,そこでは「原子爆弾被爆者」を別にして,国内在住外国人については,中国および韓国との平和条約等のなかで,一括賠償金を基にその他一切の請求権を両国が放棄したことを根拠として,個人への戦後補償はほとんどまったく否定し続けていることだけを書いておきます.

第1に,戦傷病者戦没者遺族等援護法は,その第11条,14条,31条に日本の国籍喪失により権利が消滅すると規定したほか,付則の②に,念を入れて,戸籍法の適用を受けない者については,当分の間,この法律を適用しないとしました.                                第2に,恩給法第9条は,同じく国籍喪失による権利消滅を規定しました.

これらは明らかに元日本人であった台湾人,韓国・朝鮮人の排除を意図したものというほかはありません.ただ,もし日本に帰化すれば,戦傷病者戦没者等援護法も恩給法もいずれも権利を認めるとしました.戦後補償について明らかな国籍差別が行われたと言うべきです.           

 

 

 

 


nice!(0)  コメント(0)  トラックバック(0) 
共通テーマ:学問

US:予算削減を巡る財政危機 [Social Policy]

アメリカも昨年の中間選挙で,不人気のObama 民主党の相次ぐ落選で,アメリカ下院は共和党が多数を占め,1/3だけが改選された上院では民主党が辛うじて僅かな差で多数派を維持しました.

この下院の共和党の新顔1年生議員(任期は,カラ管さんがしがみつく4年ではなく,2年)が予算カットに使命感を感じていて,Obama のcut は不十分だとして,予算を承認しないので,アメリカ連邦政府機能がストップする可能性が高まっています.

カラ菅さんは幸い衆議院で,当時の小澤幹事長のお蔭で,300議席を超えていますから,まだ予算だけは年度内に自然成立しますが,不可解なことに予算関連法案を同時に衆議院本会議に提案しませんでしたから,そのうち特例公債法が成立しないと,予算の執行が行き詰まる可能性があります.

アメリカでは暫定予算に続いて「つなぎ予算」が可決されて,3月中旬までは大丈夫ですが,その後は不透明で,政府機能が停止する可能性があります.

実例としては Bill Clinton 大統領の時に,the brief November 1995 shutdown, which was followed by a three-week closure of many agencies. という前例があり,その時には世論調査はClinton を支持したということがあります.

日本は大統領制ではありませんから,本来なら直近の民意が示された参議院選挙で敗退した後に,時間をおかずに,カラ管が衆議院選挙をやっていれば,まだ民主党政権の正当性が確保されたでしょうが,まだまだ4年の任期の折り返し点が近いと居座るカラ管さんの政権しがみつきようは凄いですね!

日本でももっと世論調査を活用するとよいのではないでしょうか? 

 

Poll: Blame for possible government shutdown is divided

Federal employees and contractors at L'Enfant Plaza and Federal Triangle express their opinions and perspectives on the potential government shutdown.

Divided blame on possible government shutdown

Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 1, 2011; 12:24 AM

 

Americans are divided over who would be to blame for a potential government shutdown, with large numbers saying Republicans and President Obama are playing politics with the issue, according to a new Washington Post poll.

This Story

Obama and congressional leaders are on the verge of passing an interim spending bill to keep federal agencies open through March 18, giving themselves an extra two weeks to try to craft a longer-term bill that would fund the government for the remainder of fiscal 2011. The poll results suggest that neither side would likely have much to gain politically in the near term from allowing the government to close.

The new numbers contrast with a Post-ABC poll taken just before the brief November 1995 shutdown, which was followed by a three-week closure of many agencies. There are similarities between then and now: In both cases, a new Republican-led Congress clashed with a Democratic president who was in the second half of his first term.

But in 1995, when Bill Clinton was president, 46 percent said they would blame House Speaker Newt Gingrich and congressional Republicans for the impending stoppage, compared with 27 percent who said Clinton would be at fault.

If there is a government shutdown, the decisive group to watch would be independent voters, who form the bulk of those who said they had not decided who would be to blame. On the question of blame, conducted jointly by The Post and the Pew Research Center, about three-quarters of conservative Republicans fault Obama; a similar proportion of liberal Democrats blame the GOP. Independents tilt marginally toward blaming Obama, 37 to 32 percent.

The chances of a shutdown later this week are waningas Democrats have increasingly embraced the House Republican proposal of providing two weeks of funding at current levels in exchange for $4 billion worth of budget cuts.

White House press secretary Jay Carney said Monday the administration was "pleased" with progress on Capitol Hill toward the stopgap measure, but warned against the prospect of keeping the government open for business by continuing to pass short-term funding resolutions through the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30.

"If we keep returning to this process every couple of weeks, that will be bad for the economy because of the uncertainty it creates," Carney said in a briefing with reporters.

House Republicans expect to approve the interim measure Tuesday, sending it to the Senate for likely passage before the Friday deadline to keep the government functioning through the weekend and beyond. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) called it "really good news" that Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) has signaled his support for the $4 billion in cuts. But Cantor talked tough on the longer-term negotiation involving the rest of 2011 funding, saying that House Republicans still stood behind their legislation that would cut $61 billion in federal agency funding, to return to 2008 spending levels.

"We are where we are, we're at '08 levels," Cantor said, suggesting Reid needs to make the next move.

Democrats pointed to a new report Monday from Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics, which found that the Republican plan would cost 700,000 jobs through 2012, giving fresh ammunition to Democrats seeking to block the proposed GOP cuts. Zandi's report comes after a similar analysis last week by the investment bank Goldman Sachs, which predicted the cuts would do even greater damage to the economy.

Republicans have dismissed both reports as flawed. They cited Stanford University economist John B. Taylor, who argued that the macroeconomic models employed by Zandi and many other independent forecasters - including the Congressional Budget Office - overstate the economic impact of government spending.

This Story
  • If the interim spending plan is signed into law by Friday, as expected, that puts the next potential showdown in mid-March. According to the Post poll, Obama does have some advantages over Republicans.

Like Clinton did in 1995, Obama has an edge over the GOP when it comes to public assessments about whether each side is making a real effort to keep the government open. A third of all Americans say Republicans are trying to resolve the budget battle. For Obama, that number is 10 percentage points higher. Still, 50 percent say the president is just playing politics; 59 percent say so of the GOP.

Democrats and Republicans alike overwhelmingly see the other side as not working to resolve the budget impasse. Among independents, 63 percent say the Republicans are politicking the issue, and a similarly large percentage, 61 percent, say the same about Obama.

The telephone poll was conducted Feb. 24 to 27 among a random national sample of 1,009 adults. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.


nice!(0)  コメント(0)  トラックバック(0) 
共通テーマ:学問