Northern Ireland Context

Northern Ireland presents particular circumstances with regards to welfare and arrangements to move people into employment. In Northern Ireland, the approach to social security, training and employment programmes is divided between two government departments: the Department for Social Development (DSD) is responsible for social security benefits whereas the Department for Employment and Learning is responsible for training and employment programmes. This is in contrast to Great Britain where both areas are handled through the Department for Work and Pensions.

At present there are currently 22,592 claimants in receipt, of Employment and Support Allowance and 56,450 claiming Jobseekers Allowance in Northern Ireland as of February 2010.[1]

Introduction

Law Centre (NI) supports the principle of helping and encouraging people into work. However, we are concerned that strict conditionality and sanctions undermines this principle. We recognise that work experience and work related activity is an important means of developing employability skills and gaining practical work experience. We recommend, however, that due consideration be given to the current economic climate, the capacity of the employment market and local divergences such as availability of childcare provision.

We note the extremely brief time frame in which these regulations will be introduced from April 2011. We are concerned this is a short timescale in which to introduce new schemes, raise awareness and train staff. In particular, we are concerned about the capacity of Jobcentre staff to deal with not only providing more personalised and intensive support to claimants but also to enforce the new sanctions regime.  We support the enhanced training of frontline staff as it is vital that Personal Advisers working with people with disabilities and mental health issues have a good understanding of the particular difficulties they may face and the impact this may have on their health in returning to work. We welcome the intention to develop the personalised support delivered through these regulations. However, given the numbers likely to be affected by the introduction of these new regulations we are doubtful whether this policy intention can be carried through within the timeframe envisaged.

Jobseekers Allowance (Mandatory Work Activity) Regulations 2011

The Law Centre is concerned by the proposal that ‘mandatory placements will be delivered by external contractors on behalf of the Department’. Creating such a chain of responsibilities is likely to weaken the relationship between the state and the individual and lead to the dilution of the state’s responsibilities towards claimants.  Additionally, this raises concern that there may be a potential conflict of interests if contractors receive payment for results which may result in contractors ‘cherry picking’ claimants and seeking to discharge those more difficult and demanding claimants that require more work and support. We would welcome further information about the supervision and monitoring of these activities that will be carried out by the Department to ensure an active system of checks and balances is in place.

We note that the proposed Mandatory Work Activity will differ significantly from the current model, which will allow Jobcentre Plus advisers the option of mandating claimants to undertake a period of work or work related activity, particularly specific claimants who they believe fail to show them that they are fully committed and actively seeking employment. We recommend that a strong set of robust safeguards need to be put in place to take account of the ability of Jobcentre staff to make discretionary decisions in such cases.

This proposal is also subject to Jobseekers Allowance Conditionality and will require claimants to actively seek and be available for employment. We note that the Mandatory Work Activity may extend up to 30 hours a week. We have reservations about dual conditionality being placed on individuals undertaking long hours of work activity. Evidence suggests that full time activity can reduce employment chances by limiting the time available for job search and we would therefore question the effectiveness of introducing 30 hour week work activity placements.

The extension of this scheme to voluntary participation of claimants warrants further investigation as it may be beneficial to accommodate those who may not be  eligible for work experience but who are interested in pursuing work experience options.

Sanctions & Conditionality

The Law Centre is concerned that a significant feature of these regulations will be the application of conditionality. We seriously question the introduction of increased conditionality in a time of economic downturn and growing unemployment. Due consideration should be given to the capacity of the employment market in this current economic climate.  The Northern Ireland rate of unemployment from July to September 2010 was estimated at 7.0%, while Northern Ireland’s working age employment remains well below the UK average and was the lowest of the 12 UK regions.[2] Furthermore, an Ulster Bank report has highlighted divergence between the Northern Ireland and UK economy suggesting a longer time of recovery in Northern Ireland.[3] Additional conditionality without targeted, effective support is not likely to lead to greater success for older or disabled jobseekers in gaining and sustaining employment.

This increased conditionality for claimants will result in the worrying loss of benefit either temporarily or more permanently.  The financial sanctions outlined are moving under Universal Credit to cessation of payment of benefit for thirteen weeks to twenty six weeks for a second omission and to 156 weeks for a third or subsequent offence within a 12 month period. We do not support the introduction of these sanctions. Such sanctions have the potential to harm claimants’ opportunity to enter employment. We instead support the introduction of adequate safeguards to encourage and support claimants rather than penalise claimants. For example, recognition has to be given to the need for jobs to be available, also for those individuals who are further removed from the labour market, i.e. individuals who are long term unemployed, disabled individuals, specialised supports and training is required.  Recent evidence from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation  reveals that ‘equal access to programmes and services does not mean equal quality in those provision, nor does it necessarily lead to equality in outcomes’ and  that ‘sanctioned claimants are less likely to enter sustainable employment or make longer term gains in employment’.[4] Further evidence suggests that sanctions disproportionately impact on specific groups, particularly those with learning disabilities, mental health problems and literacy difficulties.[5] Northern Ireland has a particularly high proportion of people with mental health issues per head of population. It has been estimated that around a quarter more people suffer from mental health disorders in Northern Ireland than in England and Scotland.[6]

A particular unwelcome change to sanctions is the proposals that even where a claimant re-engages with the programme, he or she will, nonetheless, have to continue to serve the full sanction period.  This will clearly make the chances of re-engagement less likely and runs counter to the purpose of the sanction regime in the first place.

Conclusion

The Law Centre welcomes the opportunity to respond to this consultation. We trust you will find our comments helpful. If there is any further way in which we could contribute to this process we would welcome the opportunity to do so.

Footnotes