Law Centre (NI) Briefing for the Social Development
Committee of the Assembly
October 2008

Background

The Green Paper ‘No one written off’ builds on an earlier Green Paper ‘Ready for Work : Full Employment in our Generation’ published by the Department for Work and Pensions in July 2007.  The Department for Social Development (DSD) did not adopt the 2007 Green Paper and we understand that DSD has yet to decide whether to apply the 2008 Green Paper to Northern Ireland.  The Law Centre recommends that the Green Paper is not adopted in Northern Ireland. This briefing sets out the rationale for that recommendation and sets out our approach to the key proposals in the Green Paper.  The Law Centre suggests that an approach tailored to the needs of Northern Ireland is adopted towards getting people back into work.

Some Key Differences in Approach

There are a number of key differences in the current approach applied to arrangements to getting people back to work in Northern Ireland.

First, the approach to social security and training and employment programmes is divided between two government departments.  DSD is responsible for social security benefits and the implementation of benefit sanctions and the Department for Employment and Learning takes responsibility for training and employment programmes.  In Britain, both areas are handled through the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

Secondly, a centrepiece of the proposals in both Green Papers is an expanded, more centralised Flexible New Deal (FND) with much greater involvement with the private sector and voluntary sector (for example, the 2008 Green Paper proposes to refer claimants on Jobseeker’s Allowance after 12 months to an external private sector or voluntary sector provider).  In Britain, the external providers will be paid on the basis of results under agreed contracts.  In Northern Ireland, the extensive use of private and voluntary sector has not been proposed to date.  In light of changing economic conditions we have serious concerns around how a results driven contract culture will work when dealing with long term unemployed claimants who may be a long way from being readily able to resume work.  As a result, we support the Department’s current position on use of voluntary and private sector external providers.

Thirdly, DEL is not applying Flexible New Deal in Northern Ireland, though similar provision is contemplated under the Steps to Work programme which was introduced in September 2008.

Fourthly, DSD is considering a modified approach to forthcoming regulations to transfer lone parents from Income Support to Jobseeker’s Allowance.  This is an issue currently under consideration by the minister at DSD in consultation with other ministerial colleagues.

The principle of parity applies to the level of payment of social security benefits and much of the actual legislative arrangements.  Nonetheless, there are differences in a number of areas covering regulations, delivery and administration and the Law Centre believes it is appropriate to tailor a Northern Ireland approach to the issues being addressed in the Green Paper.  A Northern Ireland approach in key areas would not cause undue problems with the current IT link maintained with the DWP or the principle of parity.

Key Issues

1. Getting people back to work

The Law Centre shares the Green Paper’s desire to increase the employment rate and provide individual tailored support for people who have been out of work for a substantial period.   However, we have real doubts about the ambitious targets set by government.  This concern is shared by researchers Fothergill and Wilson (2007)¹ who have suggested that the reduction in the numbers of claimants on incapacity benefit will be half a million by 2015 rather than the one million target set by government.  Getting the long term unemployed back to work is a formidable challenge entailing working with claimants who may lack skills, educational attainment, have mental and physical health problems and need confidence building.  The government’s approach is to offer a mix of carrots and sticks to improve the overall employment rate.  The former includes the introduction of a ‘in work credit’ paying £40 a week for the first 52 weeks in a new job.  The latter includes a substantial increase in the introduction of benefit sanctions for failing to engage in work seeking activities.

The Green Paper proposes an increase in benefit sanctions for claimants who fail to attend a job centre interview, claiming drug addicts who do not enter treatment programmes and for claimants who are potentially violent.

The problem with benefit sanctions is that they do not actually work effectively.  The aim of sanctions is to deter and change behaviour.  The Social Security Advisory Committee published an occasional paper, ‘Sanctions in the benefit system : Evidence review of JSA, IS and IB sanctions’ in 2006.
The paper noted that the evidence including the Department’s own research suggested that a significant proportion of claimants did not know they had been sanctioned until after benefit had been stopped or reduced and that the impact of sanctions on behaviour was limited.

The proposals to sanction drug addicted claimants who do not attend a treatment programme is wrong in principle and will not work in practice.  The Green Paper offers no evidence that tying benefit entitlement to compulsory treatment works.  There is a considerable overlap between drug addiction and mental health problems.  The Green paper recognises the particular needs of claimants with mental health problems elsewhere in the Green Paper, yet displays no awareness of this dimension in its drug treatment proposals.  The proposals are likely to affect particularly vulnerable claimants with a knock-on impact on family members who are part of any claim from an addicted claimant.  Our understanding is that research suggests that voluntary engagement with drug addicts is far more successful than compulsory treatment programmes.

A recent example of how ‘social engineering’ of this kind doesn’t work is the DWP’s recent decision to revoke regulations linking benefit sanctions for non-compliance with community sentences in England and Wales.  In 2001, pilots were introduced applying benefit sanctions to offenders in England and Wales who did not fulfil their community sentence responsibilities.  The pilots were unsuccessful and the regulations were withdrawn in October 2008.  The pilots were not extended to Northern Ireland and the Law Centre view is that the compulsory drug treatment proposals should also not be introduced.

2. Working for benefits

The Green Paper proposes that claimants who are capable of work but, who have not found a job within two years will be required to work full-time, or undertake full time work related activity in return for benefit.

This amounts to a form of workfare.  The Green Paper makes reference to its own research due for publication shortly.  That research by Crisp and Fletcher is now available.²  The research questions the effectiveness of ‘work for benefits’ in reducing claimant numbers, improving employment outcomes or helping claimants with multiple problems back to work.

In an economic climate which is likely to become more difficult in the immediate future there is a potential for ‘work for benefit’ to displace real employment while stigmatising the long term unemployed.

3. A more active regime for partners / lone parents

The Green Paper envisages a greater engagement for partners of claimants in looking for work and undergoing training.  An approach which seeks to actively engage partners of claimants on a voluntary basis is welcome.  The tone of the Green Paper suggests a more compulsory element to the proposals.  In Northern Ireland where the provision of affordable childcare is patchy the partners of claimants, for example grandparents often play an important childcare role.  The proposals are likely to impact partners of claimants aged 50 and over.  The whole question of available and affordable childcare needs to be addressed in Northern Ireland before such proposals are implemented.

The Green Paper also outlines a desire to build further on the 2007 Green Paper’s proposals to move lone parents from JSA to Income Support.  The government is introducing regulations to progressively transfer lone parents to JSA when the youngest child reaches 12 (from November 2008) to when the youngest child reaches 7 years of age by January 2011.  The regulations also increase benefit sanctions for non-compliance.  The Green Paper trails the option of transferring lone parents on to JSA and encouraging more active work engagement when a youngest child reaches 5 years of age.

We have significant reservations with the proposed regulations and we understand that some of these concerns are shared within DSD.  As a result, modified arrangements may be put in place from those envisaged in England and Wales.  Any different approach in Northern Ireland will be in recognition that the essential ingredients underpinning the proposals in England and Wales do not apply here.  In England the government has committed itself to providing ‘wrap around childcare’ from 8.00am-6.00pm in schools and elsewhere by 2010, a statutory duty has been placed on local authorities under the Childcare Act 2006 to secure sufficient childcare for working parents and a child care strategy shared across government is in place.

The Social Security Advisory Committee in its report on the lone parent regulations noted:  ‘The child care position in Northern Ireland is still evolving and we do not believe it is possible at this point for DSD to attempt to replicate the GB provisions’.³

Further, the proposal to extend engagement of lone parents with a youngest child aged 5 is being suggested before the impact of the forthcoming regulations has been monitored and evaluated.

Until a childcare strategy with a lead Department is in place and the recommendations in the recent OFMDFM committees report is implemented we think it is inappropriate for such arrangements to be introduced in Northern Ireland.⁴

4. Carers

The Law Centre has doubts about the wisdom of moving carers from Income Support to a modified JSA regime.  Again, the Law Centre welcomes a voluntary approach to engaging with carers who wish to look for work or take up training opportunities.  In effect, many carers already work full time in their role as carers.  The proposals in the Green Paper send out a message that is incompatible with other policy messages provided to carers for example through the Northern Ireland Carers Strategy.  There is therefore a need for a more considered approach in Northern Ireland.

5. Giving people with disability more control of budgets for individual services

The proposals contained in the Green Paper on giving greater control over combined budgets for support are vague and undefined.  No detail is provided about which funding streams would be transferred to a ‘direct payments’ type system for people with disabilities or which services would be covered.  The direct payments scheme in Northern Ireland where individuals can manage their own budgets for care services has not developed to a significant sense.  In part, this was because of a lack of initial planning and limited support for individuals wishing to take up this option.  The setting up of an Independent Living Centre is Belfast was welcome albeit belatedly so.

The Law Centre welcomes the principle of providing people with disabilities a meaningful choice on managing and buying services if desired.  However, any move should be properly planned with the necessary support and back up when things go awry.  The legal requirements associated with becoming an employer should not be underestimated.  Once again the approach to this area needs to take account of our own particular circumstances.

6. Tightening contribution conditions

The Green Paper flags up changes to contribution conditions for Employment and Support Allowance which will make it harder for applicants to qualify for the contributory element of ESA.  The national insurance contributory principle is an important part of the social security system.  The principle has been slowly and consistently eroded over many years in favour of a means-tested approach to benefits.  In our view, tightening ESA contributory conditions is a retrograde step.

7. Studying on benefit

Extending current provision allowing young people to continue to study until age 21 is welcome.  The provision in Britain allowing study of up to 16 hours of study do not apply in Northern Ireland where study is normally related to a course being part time rather than hours studied.  As a result, we would argue that this proposal is extended to the modified Northern Ireland arrangements.

Conclusion

There is an opportunity to develop proposals to encourage claimants back to work that recognise local conditions, circumstances and social security administrative arrangements.  It would also allow Northern Ireland to follow developments in Britain, adapting provision that works and avoiding the pitfalls associated with arrangements that do not.  In particular, the Law Centre’s strong view is that proposals to get claimants back to work should focus on positive engagement and not compulsion backed by benefit sanctions.  The latter has not worked effectively in the past and the Green Paper offers no evidence that it will do so in the future.