A discussion paper for Dept for Employment & Learning Best Practice Thematic Working Group
June 2009

Introduction

This is an initial discussion paper looking at how to deal with the needs of those migrant workers who fall through the gaps in welfare and financial provision after losing temporary employment or other substantial change in circumstances.

The development of the migrant workers strategy led by the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) and signed off by the Northern Ireland Executive in 2008 was a significant step forward in offering better planning and protection of migrant workers in Northern Ireland.

A driver to develop the strategy had been the tragic case of Oksana Sukhanova a young Ukranian woman on a work permit who lost her job, tied accommodation and legal status in December 2004. As a result, she had no entitlement to housing or social security support and after ten days in a local hotel she ended up sleeping rough, contracting frostbit and having to have her legs amputated from below the knee. There was a significant public outcry. The cause of this tragedy was a design rather than systems failure. If the young woman had sought help from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive or the Social Security Agency, her need could not have been effectively and lawfully been met by either organisation. Social services could have offered some very limited emergency support.

Over five years later we cannot be confident a similar tragedy could not occur. Information provision has improved (though service providers understanding of the various rights and entitlements available to migrant workers in their differing circumstances remains patchy to say the least). The working group convened by DEL to produce the action plan identified and acknowledged the need to address the lack of access to welfare support for migrant workers who temporarily or otherwise lose work. A major barrier to bringing forward concrete proposals was the sense that access to welfare state services for Accession State nationals and others was driven by a broader UK wide political imperative namely to discourage migrants coming to the UK to seek social security and other support. In effect, this driver is reflected in legislative provision on access to services and income. This applies in spite of many of the welfare provisions being transferred rather than reserved matters.

There has been no evidence of migrant workers arriving solely to access the welfare state. In fact, the reverse appears to hold true with Home Office registered A8 nationals often failing to claim entitlement to tax credits and other benefits.

The Current Position

The numbers arriving in Northern Ireland from the A8 countries (Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovak Republic and Slovenia) and A2 countries (Bulgaria and Romania) is declining.  The figures on numbers seeking to register in the first quarter of 2009 was the lowest since the A8 and A2 countries joined the European Union in May 2004 and January 2007 respectively. No doubt the economic downturn in the United Kingdom and elsewhere has played a substantial role in the changing pattern of economic migration.  Nonetheless, the economic downturn has still left many migrant workers vulnerable (both the relatively settled and the newly arrived).

The government recently announced the extension of restrictions on access to social security benefits to 30 April 2011 for A8 nationals and for a further period for A2 nationals. The extension for A8 nationals cannot be renewed beyond 30 April 2011 though for A2 nationals an extension of restrictions through to 31 December 2013 can be granted.

There are a variety of circumstances in which migrant workers lose employment and are particularly vulnerable not having access to social security and other types of support. These include:

• losing employment before the requirement to be registered under the Home Office scheme for twelve months without interruption for more than thirty days is fulfilled. Temporary and seasonal workers are particularly vulnerable to falling into this group;
• failure to satisfy the A8 and A2 registration requirements. This can vary from technical breaches, for example, failure to register a change of employment within thirty days of starting a new job through to more fundamental breaches, such as not registering in the first place;
• change in personal circumstances for example, family breakdown, domestic violence or other circumstances. Women are often reliant on the worker registration status of male partners for access to support and a breakdown in a relationship has severe consequences often during a period when most needed;
• others who are undocumented for example, many Roma working in Northern Ireland appear to fall into this category.

This is not an exhaustive list but covers typical circumstances affecting A8, A2 and migrant workers from elsewhere.  A typical case study is set out below:

A is from Poland.  She arrived in July 2005, found work picking mushrooms straight away and registered her employment through the Workers Registration Scheme (WRS).  Six months later the seasonal work ended and within three weeks she was employed by an employment agency and was provided with regular work. The change of employment was not registered by A. The employment agency did not advise her to do so. Her daughter aged 3 and partner arrived from Poland in March 2006. In July 2006 following domestic violence she left her accommodation and stayed with a friend before moving to Women’s Aid. She had to give up her job due to lack of childcare. She also discovered she was pregnant. Her claim for benefit was refused although as she had worked for 12 months without interruption of more than thirty days, she had not registered her change of employment.

She challenged this decision unsuccessfully and Women’s Aid provided her with accommodation free of charge and social services provided some financial support. In early 2008 she found part time work and the Law Centre brokered an agreement with social services to pay for childcare support while a tax credits claim was made and the new employment registered. After almost two years in Women’s Aid she was able to obtain independent accommodation of her own.

The case study illustrates the role the voluntary sector has often been pushed into playing. The Law Centre has a number of similar examples covering Women’s Aid, the Simon Community and other voluntary sector housing providers. Depending on where a person lives, St Vincent de Paul, other church groups, and other organisations have all provided some level of assistance. Social services has also played a role in providing emergency and ongoing financial support. Other migrant workers have not been able to access support and have ended up sleeping on the streets. Access to financial and other support is piecemeal and inconsistent. Many migrant workers losing a job have little or no savings so even a temporary interruption in employment can have devastating consequences.

There are also broader unexplored consequences of a lack of access to welfare services. In Craigavon there has been a difficulty in getting Roma families and their children registered with General Practitioners. Without a GP a child cannot receive MMR and other essential vaccinations. Bringing these and other gaps in provision to attention often depends on the determination of individual staff within statutory organisations. There is no effective audit of gaps in welfare provision and their social and financial consequences.

The Way Ahead

There is a need for both short term, and immediate interventions and a longer term strategy.

Short Term Interventions

• Create a government support fund which can be accessed by voluntary organisations on a grant aid basis to provide accommodation support and other services and assistance. The fund could be run outside of government departments through for example the Community Foundation Northern Ireland. It could allow voluntary sector organisations to provide accommodation, and other groups to provide bridging assistance including temporary financial support which may prevent homelessness.
• Commission action research to audit the extent of the gaps in welfare provision and look at how such gaps may be effectively plugged. The action research could look at how existing statutory and voluntary sector services could be more effectively supported in the long term. The cost of this research could be a partnership between government and a charitable trust/foundation.
• an immediate stock take could look at legislative and other options to statutory providers of assistance.  In Scotland nationals from A8 member states have the same rights to housing and homeless assistance as nationals from long-standing European Economic Area states. This is different from England, Wales and Northern Ireland where regulations have been passed to disallow people from A8 member states from receiving assistance unless they satisfy certain conditions. This illustrates that devolution and the transfer of powers can allow for some flexibility in spite of the UK government’s overall policy direction.

I would suggest two working groups are set up. The first would work on the logistics of how a fund could be set up to support immediate emergency and preventative interventions to bolster support for migrant workers who lose work. I would recommend approaching Avila Kilmurray at CFNI to engage either her or a colleague to be involved in the working group alongside representatives from government and statutory agencies.

A second working group would look at developing an action research outline and undertake the immediate stock take of what can be done to boast existing interventions and ensure a more coherent and consistent approach to service delivery while removing short term barriers to access to services.

Les Allamby, Law Centre (NI)