Law Centre (NI) briefing

May 2010

1.   INTRODUCTION

The proposals within the Welfare Reform Bill raise considerable concerns for a number of specialist organisations who work with individuals who will be greatly impacted by the introduction of the Bill as it currently stands.  This briefing highlights particular areas of concern and recommendations regarding the implementation of the Bill.  Where possible this response refers to the specific clauses in the Bill for ease of reference.

This briefing first highlights the potential impact of these proposals on certain groups: lone parents (and women in particular), children and older people.  It then sets out our concerns about particular proposals in the Bill.

This response has been endorsed by the following organisations:

Law Centre (NI)

Gingerbread NI
Women’s Resource and Development Agency

Save the Children

Age NI

Council for the Homeless NI

2.   LONE PARENTS

• Section 1: Schemes for assisting persons to obtain employment: “work for your benefit” schemes etc.

The vast majority of lone parents wish to work providing the work meets their family commitments and needs.  We would welcome voluntary support and encouragement to assist lone parents and others.  This Bill with its emphasis on compulsion and sanctions does not meet this aim.

We have reservations about such a scheme applying to lone parents with children over seven without childcare provision and payments being guaranteed.  We are concerned by the possibilities of job displacement as a result of this scheme and the possibility of lone parents and others having to leave existing training schemes to undertake such work.  There are precious few details about the type or quality of work that will be available.  The pilots to be introduced in Britain suggest that sanctions can be applied for up to 26 weeks.

Notwithstanding the above concerns, we are unaware of any evidence to show that ‘workfare’ type schemes are successful in moving long term unemployed people into work.  Moving people without work into a job where a least the minimum wage applies would be much more supportive and appropriate.  ‘Work for your Benefit’ is a particularly inappropriate scheme in the midst of an economic downturn and a contracting labour market.

• Section 2: Work-related activity: income support claimants and partners of claimants

The legislation builds on the recommendations made in the conditionality review by Paul Gregg to create a ‘progression to work’ group of claimants.  It is of note that the Bill offers no additional premium for lone parents in receipt of Income Support who take part in work related activity.  The Bill instead imposes a range of sanctions on lone parents if he/she does not undertake sufficient work related activity. Both Government and Gingerbread NI’s research indicated that while 56% of lone parents are currently working outside the home, over 90% of lone parents have indicated that they wish to work outside the home.  Research also shows that many lone parents have to rely on part-time work to enable them to meet their caring responsibilities.  This inevitably leads to them being low paid.   It is disappointing that the proposals in the Bill 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. 

• Section 3: Lone Parents

We are very concerned by the proposals to require lone parents with children aged under seven years of age to actively seek work as a condition of JSA.  Northern Ireland has the lowest level of childcare provision in Britain and Ireland which means that many lone parents will only be able to access work during children’s school times.  Gingerbread NI’s research with lone parents has highlighted the practice of primary schools having different finishing times for classes as an issue specific to Northern Ireland.  This practice makes is difficult for lone parents to co-ordinate work time.  The long summer school holiday also causes lone parents to have to take extended periods of unpaid leave to meet their caring commitments during this period. 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.  We would recommend such powers are not taken until the impact of the arrangements for lone parents with children aged 7 or under have been properly assessed.

3.   WOMEN

This legislation has significant gender implications.  As the vast majority of lone parents in NI are women (90%) the proposals relating to lone parents will have a disproportionate impact on women.  Women continue to shoulder the vast majority of caring responsibilities in this society and without appropriate support in place such as accessible, affordable and flexible childcare provision, lone parents will find it particularly difficult to meet jobseeking criteria and take up work (where it is available).  We also have major concerns that this legislation is being implemented in the midst of an economic recession where the claimant count in this region has risen by over 25% in the last year. [1]  In this situation, where the supply of workers outstrips the demand by employers, opportunities for lone parents (with their increased caring responsibilities) to enter the mainstream labour market are greatly diminished.  We are also greatly concerned that enforcing benefit sanctions on lone parent families will lead to great financial complications. 

In addition to our comments regarding lone parents we are also concerned by the potential impact on women of section 23 in the Bill.

• Section 23: Exemption from jobseeking conditions for victims of domestic violence

This is a concession made during the passage of the Welfare Reform Act 2009 in Britain.  We welcome the recognition by the Government of the extreme stress and difficulty faced by victims of domestic violence and the inclusion of a 13 week ‘grace’ period for such victims.  This is a positive move although we would urge for the ability for discretion in such cases to be applied beyond the agreed 13 week period, as for some victims of domestic violence 13 weeks will not be a sufficient time period for them to be fit to engage in work or work seeking activity. An alternate system may need to be considered that does not rely on the use of discretion in such sensitive cases.

4.   CHILDREN

• Section 3: Lone Parents

The childcare infra structure in Northern Ireland required to underpin these proposal is not in place and there is no lead Department responsible for developing a childcare strategy and appropriate provision.  Without this infra structure the clauses contained in the Bill will essentially be null and void.  It is not appropriate to simply transfer these provisions from the Westminster Act to Northern Ireland as the infra structure to implement the proposals while available in Great Britain is not available in Northern Ireland.  Arguments of parity must take into account the equality of opportunity, access and support available within different states.

With high unemployment the current economic climate may make it difficult for lone parents to secure jobs that allow them to combine their work and family life and there is a potentially adverse impact on child poverty if lone parents are exposed to the risk of benefit sanctions.

• Section 24: Good cause for failure to comply with regulations etc.

This clause enables circumstances to be prescribed that constitute good cause for failure to undertake mandatory activities or just cause for leaving employment must always include availability of childcare and claimants physical and mental health as factors to be taken into account.  This confirms the importance of the availability of childcare to a number of the proposals within the Bill.  We reiterate our concerns that Northern Ireland does not have a childcare infra structure in place and the lack of a childcare strategy for Northern Ireland continues to impact upon the introduction of welfare reform in Northern Ireland.  Public bodies in Northern Ireland are under no obligation to assess and meet local childcare needs as is required by the Childcare Act 2006 in England and Wales.  If the infra structure to support the introduction of many of the clauses within the Bill is not in place we would urge the Assembly to first work on developing the infra structure required to support and enable the enactment of the Bill rather than passing the Bill as it stands. 

• Section 25: Jobseekers’ agreements and action plans: well-being of children

We welcome the inclusion of this clause.  The clause highlights the contradiction within the Bill namely to move more people (more parents) into work and to sanction those who fail to comply.  The new arrangements will affect lone parents with young children and those with health problems as a result of more people failing the more stringent Work Capability Assessment as part of ESA entitlement.  The continued pressure on lone parents to move back into work highlights that this will not necessarily meet the well-being of children.  Clarification is required on how the well-being of the child is to be taken into account in practical terms when applying the more rigorous work related conditions applied to benefits. 

• Section 27: Attendance in connection with jobseeker’s allowance: sanctions

This provision allows regulations to be made to provide for sanctions if a claimant fails to attend a mandatory interview.  An increased use of sanctions is likely to have substantial adverse implications for dependants as well as claimants. Indeed, this approach is inconsistent with the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM)’s review on child poverty, which recognises the positive contribution that benefits can make to reducing child poverty and specifically calls for a Benefit Uptake Strategy.[2] These proposals would result in benefit deprivation, not uptake.

 5.   OLDER PEOPLE

We are concerned by the absence of an equivalent to section 27 of the Welfare Reform Act 2009 within the NI Bill.  This section makes provision for the piloting of the automatic payment of state pension credit without the need for a claim.  We support the inclusion of an equivalent clause in the Northern Ireland Bill.  Pensioner poverty in Northern Ireland remains high.  While UK wide figures have decreased in recent years, levels in Northern Ireland have increased.[3]  Furthermore, more than one in five pensioners in Northern Ireland are defined as living in poverty, which is three percent higher than the UK average.          

Benefit uptake campaigns have been the main tool used by government to address pensioner poverty.  These campaigns have had a limited impact on uptake levels.  Age NI research has shown that 29% of older people in Northern Ireland are still not aware of the benefits available to them, whilst 35% would not know how to apply or were to go for help.[4] 

We support Age NI’s recommendation that an innovative approach to benefit uptake is needed.  A pilot exercise would not only inform the administration of an automatic payment system for pension credit, but would also provide an ideal opportunity to raise awareness of entitlement and the claiming process for those targeted. 

• Section 29: Persons under pensionable age to take part in work-focused interviews etc.

This clause provides that both partners in a claim can be required to attend work focused interviews with sanctions being applied for non-compliance.  Our concern is the additional conditionality for people over age 50. In the current economic climate, there are not enough jobs; introducing additional conditionality is not appropriate.

6.   GENERAL COMMENTS

• Equality Impact Assessment and Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998

We note that an Equality Impact Assessment was completed in December 2009 based upon the Welfare Reform Act 2009 in Westminster.  We query the decision to conduct an EQIA based upon the Westminster version of the Welfare Reform Bill and note that there were a limited number of responses to the EQIA perhaps because it was not based upon a NI Bill.  We are concerned therefore, that the potential impact on section 75 groups has not been fully considered and assessed as part of the previous EQIA. 

We note the original EQIA consultation documents provided very limited break down or analysis of any potentially adverse effect on the section 75 groups of a number of the proposed changes to the benefit system in Northern Ireland.  As stated above we have considerable concerns that the proposals could have a negative impact on lone parents and those with caring responsibilities, therefore raising concerns of potential inequality between men and women as the majority of lone parent and those with caring responsibilities are women and between persons with dependents and persons without. 

• Ensuring compatibility with the Child Poverty Act 2010

The UK-wide Child Poverty Act obtained Royal Assent 25 March 2010 - it enshrines in law the government’s commitment to eradicate child poverty by 2020.  It applies to all jurisdictions with the Executive obliged to produce a strategy within a year of Royal Assent and report on progress to the Assembly each year.  This target represents a considerable challenge since child poverty remains very high with approx 100,000 children living in poverty in NI. This level of relative poverty is similar across the UK but NI children experience additional risks, especially the scandalously high level of persistent child poverty, which, at 21%, is more than double the GB rate, with concentrations in many areas that are ravaged by generations of poverty and the aftermath of the conflict. Approximately 10% of all children also live in severe child poverty.

Save the Children research in 2008 'Persistent Child Poverty in Northern Ireland' showed that 72% of children in persistent and severe poverty lived with a lone parent. The report pointed out the need for further research to understand the barriers facing parents taking up opportunities and the extent to which opportunities do not exist.  In further research with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in 2009 , 'What can we do to tackle child poverty in Northern Ireland' Save the Children provided further recommendations for tackling child poverty - including tackling the lack of good quality affordable childcare and increasing the threshold for earnings allowed within the benefit system for 'mini-jobs'.

To further demonstrate the inadequacy of a sanctions approach, Save the Children's research into childcare in  'The Caring Jigsaw' describes how education and upskilling opportunities provide the catalyst to encourage parents to return to training or work when their children are young. Yet despite the obvious higher levels of need in NI, key children’s services are seriously under-resourced – for example 2007/08 Treasury figures show that spending on Sure Start was £80 per child in NI compared to nearly £600 in England.[5]

Save the Children has argued that a good benefit uptake campaign would reduce severe child poverty and help enable the Executive to meet its 2012 target to end severe child poverty.  It would seem that DSD should consider its obligations under the Child Poverty Act before it takes forward this welfare reform legislation which would appear to be incompatible with the provisions of the child poverty legislation and Executive commitments to end child poverty in the Programme for Government. The Executive is required to consult low income children and families and to report annually to the Assembly. 

• Pilots

We remain concerned that as with many of the proposals in the Bill pilots will be running in England only, therefore the evaluation of these pilots will be based on a totally different infra structure to that in Northern Ireland.  We query how pilots in England can be properly evaluated for potential impact in Northern Ireland and would recommend that pilots are also run in Northern Ireland prior to any plans to roll out the changes.

• Section 9: Abolition of Income Support

It is not appropriate to take such a wide ranging power without providing any details of how it might be applied.  We welcome the principle of trying to simplify the out-of-work benefit system. However, we are concerned that the proposal to simplify the system by moving all claimants to Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance is simplistic and infeasible. We remain unconvinced that these two forms of benefits alone will be able to offer the flexibility required in more complex circumstances, such as when a claimant qualifies for support under more than one category e.g. a lone parent with caring responsibilities for a disabled child.  This power should not be taken until details of what is intended is provided and consulted on.

• Section 15: Community care grants relating to specified goods or services and section 16: Community care grants: reviews and information

We are concerned by the proposals to reduce choice for individuals and enforce specification of suppliers by DSD.  We believe it is important to maintain a degree of flexibility in the allocation of community care grants to allow for the different circumstances and needs of applicants.  We are concerned that these changes will increase the stigma associated with community care grants as claimants will be identified by suppliers as receiving goods through a community care grant.  This impacts upon a claimants independence and could have an adverse impact upon people’s willingness to claim.  There is also concern regarding the discretion placed upon the third party suppliers regarding the cost or quality of goods supplied through a direct payment of a community care grant.  Further consideration should be given to the potential impact of these clauses prior to introduction.

• Section 20: Jobseeker’s allowance: sanction for violent conduct etc. in connection with claim

We do not support the proposal to use sanctions in response to aggressive claimants. Assault is a criminal matter and should be dealt with by the appropriate law enforcement bodies and not through benefit sanctions.

1. 7.   CONCLUSION

While we welcome the voluntary encouragement and support for lone parents and others to find work we do not think it is appropriate to apply sanctions.  This is reinforced by the current lack of childcare provisions and the perilous state of the economy in Northern Ireland.  Potential wide ranging changes such as Work For Your Benefits should not be passed in the Bill until the outcome of pilots in Britain are known.  Powers to abolish income support should also not be taken until more details are provided as to how the alternative approach to providing social security support is detailed.