Law Centre Response

March 2010

1.  Introduction

Law Centre (NI) is pleased to respond to SSAC’s request for evidence relating to the DWP’s proposals regarding the Income Support and Employment and Support Allowance (Work-Focused Interviews, Work-Related Activity, etc) (Lone Parents and Partners) Regulations 2010 (the Regulations).  This response addresses some UK-wide matters arising from the proposals and also focuses on specific Northern Ireland issues.

Law Centre (NI) is a public interest law non-governmental organisation.  We work to promote social justice and provide specialist legal services to advice organisations and disadvantaged individuals through our advice line and our casework services from our two regional offices in Northern Ireland.  It provides a specialist legal service (advice, representation, training, information and policy comment) in five areas of law: social security, mental health, immigration, community care and employment.  Law Centre services are provided to over 450 member agencies in Northern Ireland. 

2.  Northern Ireland Circumstances

As Northern Ireland is not referred to in the Department’s proposals, it seems fair to assume that that the circumstances in Northern Ireland have not informed these proposals.  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 into two government departments: the Department for Social Development (DSD) is responsible for social security benefits including benefit sanctions whereas the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) is responsible for training and employment programmes. This is in contrast to GB, where both areas are handled through the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).  Moreover, the programmes operated by DEL are significantly different with the Steps to Work programme being implemented rather than the current Job Guarantee Fund and other arrangements being applied in Britain.   

3.  Recommendations

We make a few key recommendations in this response they are summarised as follows.  Further detail on the recommendations can be found in the paragraphs in brackets.

• If sanctions are not to be removed for lone parents across the board consideration should be given to not introducing sanctions in Northern Ireland and that the impact of this different approach is monitored and evaluated as a comparator (4.2.1)
• Given the risks of non-compliance for many people with mental health issues consideration should be given an explicit exemption from sanctions for people with recognisable mental health conditions (4.4)
• The Department needs to be more radical and pro-active in its approach to people with disabilities.  We would welcome the pilots or more generous earnings disregards being extended to Northern Ireland as soon as possible (4.6.1) 

4.  Key Issues

We note that although provision for mandatory work-related activity has been included in the Welfare Reform Act 2009 (the Act), these regulations also rely on powers that were not contained in that Act.  We welcome a number of proposals within the explanatory memorandum but have also highlighted a number of areas of concern in regards to the proposals.  These are detailed below.

4.1       Overview of the Progression to Work Pathfinders

We welcome the decision to initially run Progression to Work as pathfinders in certain districts only as opposed to rolling out the model nationally.  The Progression to Work programme is substantially different to what current customers are used to and it is important that the impact of such enhanced conditionality is measured prior to any wider rollout.  While we appreciate the administration in Northern Ireland will be well aware of the impact of the pathfinders it is unfortunate that as far as we know it is unlikely that pathfinders will operate in Northern Ireland.  We believe it is important that such significant changes to the welfare system are trialled here to ensure that the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland are taken into account.  It is important that there is a firm evidence base to assess the practical implications of Progression to Work conditionality before national implementation.  We are particularly cognisant of the lack of independent research undertaken into the impact of various welfare to work programmes in Northern Ireland. 

4.2       Changes to the Work Focused Interview regime

4.2.1   Income Support Lone Parent Customers

We note the pathfinders will introduce new conditionality and support requiring customers to attend more frequent Work Focused Interviews (WFI) and undertake Work-Related Activity (WRA) between each WFI and that the current intention is for WFIs to be quarterly.  This is not a new concept, current ESA claimants who receive the ‘work related activity’ component receive an additional premium of £24 above the Jobseeker’s Allowance rate, for participating in a series of Work Focused Interviews. It is of note that the Act offers no additional premium for lone parents in receipt of Income Support who take part in work related activity.  The Act instead imposes a range of sanctions on lone parents if she/he does not undertake sufficient work related activity. We would welcome further information regarding whether the regulations will seek to address this inequality in any way.

We are very concerned by the proposals that require lone parents with children aged under seven years of age to actively seek work as a condition of JSA.  While we support a policy of positively encouraging lone parent into paid work at an appropriate time efforts to move lone parents back to work should be through measures tailored to support and encourage lone parents rather than through sanctions.  The proposals set out in the explanatory memorandum appear to have moved away from the Gregg report approach of tailoring support to the individual needs and circumstances of lone parents to one where ‘one size fits all’

We foresee a number of difficulties in introducing legislative powers for this purpose in Northern Ireland.  The childcare infrastructure in Northern Ireland to underpin these proposals is not in place and there is no lead Department responsible for developing a childcare strategy and appropriate provision.  Further, with unemployment still rising in Northern Ireland the current economic climate may make it difficult for lone parents to secure jobs that allow them to combine their work and family life.  Finally, there is a potentially adverse impact on child poverty if lone parents are exposed to the risk of benefit sanctions.

Taking into account the differences in Northern Ireland we think that if sanctions are not to be removed for lone parents across the board consideration should be given to not introducing sanctions in Northern Ireland and that the impact of this different approach is monitored and evaluated as a comparator. 

4.2.2   Partners of customers in receipt of IS/ESA (IR)

The Act introduces powers so that a person in receipt of income support (IS), or the partner of a person receiving IS, income-based JSA or income related employment and support allowance (ESA), must undertake work-related activity as a condition of continuing to receive the full amount of benefit.  WRA is defined loosely in the Bill as ‘activity which makes it more likely that the person will obtain or remain in work or be able to do so’. Claimants who do not participate in work related activity will receive a benefit sanction.  These proposals impact not only on lone parents but also those partners living with a sick or disabled person.  The memorandum makes little reference to the impact upon these customers.  While we accept the value of encouraging partners to seek work where appropriate, a sanctions driven approach is neither helpful nor beneficial. 

4.3       Work Related Activity

We welcome the confirmation that WRA will encompass a range of possible activity and that it will be flexible and tailored to meet an individual customer’s needs.  The removal of the requirement for customers to apply for or take up a job, to undertake medical treatment or to carry out WRA when no suitable childcare is available is a positive step.  As stated in our comments in paragraph 4.2.1 the lack of suitable childcare is a particular issue in Northern Ireland which needs to be considered by the administration here.  

We note the exceptions to the requirement to undertake the WRA provisions for foster parents, those with children for whom any rate of the care component of DLA is payable and those claiming Carer’s Allowance or carer’s premium.  This is a welcome step in recognising the particular needs of these customers and the need for flexibility in the requirements placed upon them. 

4.4       Application of the escalating sanctions regime

We note that regulations will impose a new escalating sanctions regime to give ‘customers more opportunities to comply’.  We are concerned by the continued focus by the DWP on the use of sanctions in its changes to the welfare system in the UK.  The proposed increased use of sanctions could have substantial cost implications given the potential associated rise in appeals. The use of sanctions is likely to have substantial adverse implications for dependents as well as claimants.

The imposition of conditionality and sanctions as part of the conversion scheme may have a negative effect on the relationship between a claimant and his/her Personal Adviser.  Further, given the risks of non-compliance for many people with mental health issues consideration should be given an explicit exemption from sanctions for people with recognisable mental health conditions.

We note the escalating sanctions regime detailed in the memorandum.  While we are aware the aim is to introduce a more progressive sanctions regime designed to provide customers with more opportunities to comply with the requirements for receipt of benefits we are concerned by the responsibility it places upon Jobcentre staff to determine when a sanction should be imposed.  The regime is complicated requires considerable administration and relies heavily on the discretion of Jobcentre staff to understand a customer’s personal circumstances. 

4.5       How Jobcentre Plus will deliver the changes

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.  Considerable training will need to be available to Personal Advisers prior to any roll out of the new scheme.  We have particular concern about the training available to Personal Advisers to deal with customers with mental health issues.  Consideration needs to be given to the allocation of resources for this purpose and training should be informed and/or delivered by those with mental health issues.  It is vital that Personal Advisers working with people with mental health issues have a good understanding of the particular difficulties they may face and of the possible impact on their health of enforced participation in this new scheme. 

4.6       Impacts

4.6.1   Diversity and Equality Impact

Lone Parents

We note the figures provided in the Diversity and Equality Impact Assessment.  If the regulations were to eventually be introduced in Northern Ireland there can be no doubt that implementing these changes will have a detrimental effect on lone parents.  As stated in a recent DSD consultation document on the Equality Impact Assessment for the Welfare Reform Bill 2009 in Northern Ireland 98.18% of lone parents on Income Support with a child under 7 are women.  These measures will impact significantly more on women than men and need to be carefully considered before implementation in Northern Ireland.

We note that the introduction of these measures will only be considered in Northern Ireland following a full evaluation of pilot schemes in GB.  Northern Ireland is very differently placed from GB in relation to childcare provision.  Since there are no pilots running in Northern Ireland, the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland are unlikely to be taken into account in the evaluation of the changes.  In terms of offering an effective insight into the operation of the scheme we therefore consider that a pilot should be established in Northern Ireland. An evaluation of the implementation of the first stage of The Social Security (Lone Parents and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2008 would be a useful starting point. [1]

People with disabilities

Almost 44% of individuals in receipt of Incapacity Benefit have mental or behavioural disorders in Northern Ireland.  Research highlights considerable problems with the use of sanctions.[2] An increased use in sanctions is likely to have substantial adverse implications for claimants and their dependants and there is clear cause for concern that the proposals in the Bill will have an adverse impact on some persons with a disability.  Given the proposals to move more people back into work we would welcome further comment regarding whether the Government will be increasing funding for access to work programmes as a way to further encourage and support people with disabilities back into work.  If people with disabilities are subject to the same conditionality principles and the Government recognises they do not have the same access to the job market something needs to be done to help correct this inequality and increasing access to work funding would be a step forward to insure greater equality for those with disabilities and those without. 

We also note the recent research that suggests that Pathways to Work has not led to a discernible improvement in getting people back to work.  There has been no equivalent research in Northern Ireland, but, we doubt if the impact will have been markedly different here.  The structure of the means-tested benefits system for those seeking mini jobs or other part time work provides effectively virtually no incentive to try work.  This is precisely the bridge to work that would appeal to many disabled claimants on means tested benefits.  The Department needs to be more radical and pro-active in its approach to this issue.  We would welcome the pilots or more generous earnings disregards being extended to Northern Ireland as soon as possible.

4.6.2   Child Poverty Impact

There are also concerns about the potential impact on child poverty if lone parents are exposed to the risk of benefit sanctions.  Any UK wide welfare reform must take into account the differing standards and level of investment in childcare across the UK.   To mitigate, to an extent, the potential adverse impact on those with dependents, there should be improved investment in childcare provision in Northern Ireland as part of the wider welfare reforms. 

An increased use of sanctions is likely to have substantial adverse implications for dependents as well as claimants. This is inconsistent with the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister’s review on child poverty, which recognises the positive contribution that benefits can make to reducing child poverty.[3] These proposals could potentially result in benefit deprivation, not uptake.

5.  Conclusion

Law Centre (NI) 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. 

[1] See Law Centre briefing to DSD Committee

[2] Social Security Advisory Committee 19^th Report Sanctions in the benefit system: Evidence review of JSA, IS and IB sanctions. This report highlights the fact that claimants do not understand the sanctioning rules, the process is not clearly explained, there is a lack of uniformity in the imposition of sanctions and there is a lack of support for those who have been sanctioned.

[3] Committee for OFMDFM Final report on the Committee’s inquiry into child poverty in Northern Ireland states that ‘the delivery systems for benefits can have a particularly significant impact on levels of severe poverty, as benefit levels are in fact set above the threshold for severe poverty. The Committee is therefore recommending that the Executive should develop a cross-Departmental Benefit Uptake Strategy to assist low income families to obtain their full benefit entitlement’.