Session 2009/2010

Third Report

Social Development Committee

Report on the
Welfare Reform Bill
NIA 61/09/10R

TOGETHER WITH THE MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS, OF THE COMMITTEE RELATING TO THE REPORT AND THE MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

Ordered by The Committee for Social development to be printed 3 June 2010

Report: NIA 61/09/10R Social Development Committee

This document is available in a range of alternative formats.
For more information please contact the
Northern Ireland Assembly, Printed Paper Office,
Parliament Buildings, Stormont, Belfast, BT4 3XX
Tel: 028 9052 1078

Membership and Powers

The Committee for Social Development is a Statutory Departmental Committee established in accordance with paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Belfast Agreement, section 29 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and under Standing Order 48.

The Committee has power to:

consider and advise on Departmental budgets and annual plans in the context of the overall budget allocation;
consider relevant secondary legislation and take the Committee stage of primary legislation;
call for persons and papers;
initiate inquires and make reports; and
consider and advise on any matters brought to the Committee by the Minister for Social Development.

The Committee has 11 members including a Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson and a quorum of 5.

The membership of the Committee since 9 May 2007 has been as follows:

Mr Simon Hamilton (Chairperson)2, 5
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín (Deputy Chairperson)1, 8

Mr Billy Armstrong3 Mrs Mary Bradley4
Mr Mickey Brady Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr Alex Easton6 Mr Tommy Gallagher9
Mr David Hilditch7 Ms Anna Lo
Mr Fra McCann

1 With effect from 20 May 2008 Ms Carál Ní Chuilín replaced Mrs Claire McGill

2 With effect from 9 June 2008 Mr David Simpson MP MLA replaced Mr Gregory Campbell MP MLA as Chairperson of the Social Development Committee

3 With effect from 29 September 2008 Mr Billy Armstrong replaced Mr Fred Cobain

4 With effect from 29 June 2009 Mrs Mary Bradley replaced Mr Alban Maginness

5 With effect from 4 July 2009 Mr Simon Hamilton replaced Mr David Simpson MP MLA as Chairperson of the Social Development Committee

6 With effect from 14 September 2009 Mr Alex Easton replaced Miss Michelle McIlveen

7 On 12th April 2010 Mr David Hilditch ceased to be Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development

8 On 12th April 2010 Ms Carál Ní Chuilín was appointed as Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development

9 With effect from 24 May 2010 Mr Tommy Gallagher replaced Mr Thomas Burns

List of Abbreviations used in the Report

AA Attendance Allowance

ACE Action for Community Employment

AGM Annual General Meeting

ADHD Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

ADI Adult Dependency Increases

AME Annually Managed Expenditure

APAC Assisting People and Communities

ASA Advice Services Alliance

BEST Business Employment Services Limited

BSL British Sign Language

CA Carers Allowance

CAB Citizens Advice Bureau

CAS Citizens Advice Scotland

CASE Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion

CiNi Children in Northern Ireland

CMO Chief Medical Officer

CPAG Child Poverty Action Group

CPD Central Procurement Directorate

CRESR Centre for Regional and Economic Social Research

CV Curriculum Vitae

DC District of Columbia

DEA Disability Employment Advisers

DEL Department for Employment and Learning

DETI Department for Enterprise Trade and Industry

DFP Department of Finance and Personnel

DHSSPS Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety

DLA Disability Living Allowance

DOENI Department of the Environment

DSD Department for Social Development

DUP Democratic Unionist Party

DWP Department for Work and Pensions

ECHR European Convention on Human Rights

EEA European Economic Area

EQIA Equality Impact Assessment

ERINI Economic Research Institute of Northern Ireland

ESA Employment Support Allowance

ETSS Employment, Training and Skills Service

NMW National Minimum Wage

EU European Union

FND Flexible New Deal

GB Great Britain

GP General Practitioner

HB Housing Benefit

HMRC Her Majesties Revenue and Customs

HSC Health and Social Care

IB Incapacity Benefit

ICT Information and Communication Technology

IIDB Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefits

ISL Irish Sign Language

IT Information Technology

IS Income Support

JBO Jobs Benefit Office

JCP Job Centre Plus

JS Job Seekers

JSA Job Seekers Allowance

LASFE Local Authority Self-Financed Expenditure

LFS Labour Force Survey

MIDAS Minibus Driver Awareness Scheme

MLA Member of the Legislative Assembly

MP Member of Parliament

NAO National Audit Office

NAS National Autistic Society

NDLP New Deal for Lone Parents

NEETS Not in Employment Education or Training

NI Northern Ireland

NIA Northern Ireland Assembly

NIACRO Northern Ireland Assoc for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders

NIAO Northern Ireland Audit Office

NICCY Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People

NICVA Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action

NIE Northern Ireland Electricity

NIHE Northern Ireland Housing Executive

NIPSA Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance

NIUSE Northern Ireland Union of Supported Employment

NMW National Minimum Wage

NVQ National Vocational Qualification

OFMDFM Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister

OFSTED Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills

PA Personal Adviser

PCS Public and Commercial Services Union

PES Public Employment Service

PRWORA Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act

PSA Public Service Agreement

RNID The Royal National Institute for Deaf People

RPA Review of Public Administration

SDA Severe Disability Allowance

SPC State Pension Credit

SSA Social Security Agency

SSAC Social Security Advisory Committee

SSC & B (NI) Act 92 Social Security Contributions & Benefit (Northern Ireland) Act 1992

SSFA (NI) 2001 Social Security Fraud Act (Northern Ireland) 2001

SSO Social Security Office

TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

UNCRC United Nations Convention Rights of the Child

US United States

USA United States of America

WCA Work Capability Assessment

WCRP Women’s Centre’s Regional Partnership

WFHRA Work Focused Health Related Assessment

WFI Work Focused Interviews

WRA Welfare Reform Act

YMCA Young Men’s Christian Association

YTP Youth Training Programme

Executive Summary

The overall purpose of the Welfare Reform Bill is to amend the existing legislative framework in respect of social security and certain other related areas. The Bill contains the following elements:

The phased complete migration of Income Support claimants to Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) and Employment and Support Allowance (ESA);
The introduction of “Work for your benefit" schemes;
The requirement for certain lone parents and partners of benefit recipients to undertake action planning and work-related activity as a condition for the continued receipt of benefits;
The requirement for certain Employment and Support Allowance claimants to undertake specific work-related activity;
The requirement for new claimants for contributory ESA and JSA to have made 26 weeks of National Insurance contributions in the previous 2 years prior to a claim;
The extension of certain DLA payments to the visually impaired;
The abolition of adult dependency increases for maternity allowance and carer’s allowance;
The payment of community care grants in certain circumstances directly to a supplier of goods and services;
The introduction of payments on account for benefit claimants;
The introduction of benefit sanctions for fraudsters; claimants convicted or cautioned for violence against benefits staff and claimants failing to attend certain mandatory interviews;
The introduction of exemptions from jobseeking conditions for victims of domestic violence;
The requirement for benefits staff to have consideration for the well-being of children in the development of an action plan;
The contracting-out of certain social security matters which are the responsibility of the Department for Employment and Learning;
The phased introduction of work-focused interviews for claimants aged 60-65; and
Other measures relating to the sharing of social security and child maintenance information.

The Committee undertook extensive consideration of the clauses and schedules of the Welfare Reform Bill.

The Committee set out its reservations in respect of the mandatory nature of “work for your benefit" schemes and their impact on vulnerable claimants.

The Committee secured assurances from the Department particularly in respect of:

alternative benefit provisions for carers prior to the abolition of Income Support;
amended guidance to benefit advisers relating to exemptions from sanctions etc. for vulnerable claimants;
the extension of good cause provisions to include claimants with childcare problems, mental illness; a learning disability or other caring responsibilities;
the extension of the interpretation of domestic violence to include psychological, financial as well as physical issues;
the granting of exemptions from JSA agreements for up to 24 weeks in total for victims of domestic violence; and
best procurement practice and further Committee review for the new arrangements for Community Care Grants.

Following debate and a number of divisions, the majority of Committee Members agreed that owing to parity considerations there was limited opportunity to amend the clauses of the Bill. Following a further division, the Committee therefore agreed that it was content with all the clauses and schedules of the Bill as drafted.

Delegated Powers

The Committee noted the introduction of a large number of regulation-making powers in relation to the clauses of the Bill. The Committee looks forward to receiving and scrutinizing proposals for these regulations in due course.

Introduction

1. The Welfare Reform Bill (NIA 13/09) (the Bill) was referred to the Committee for consideration in accordance with Standing Order 33(1) on completion of the Second Stage of the Bill on 20 April 2010.

2. The Minister for Social Development made the following statement under section 9 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998:

“In my view the Welfare Reform Bill would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

3. The Bill makes provision for Northern Ireland corresponding to provisions contained in the Welfare Reform Act 2009. The Bill largely relates to the ongoing process of reform of the social security benefit system.

4. The Bill as drafted contains 37 clauses and 4 schedules:

Clause 1 – Schemes for assisting persons to obtain employment: “work for your benefit" schemes etc.

Clause 1 permits the Department to introduce mandatory “Work for your benefit" schemes which will give long-term jobseekers the opportunity to develop their work skills through undertaking full time work-experience. “Work for your benefit" schemes are designed to enable jobseekers to benefit from the opportunity to develop work habits and routines that they may not have experienced for some time. The clause exempts jobseekers from “work for your benefit" schemes if they are not already required to meet jobseeking conditions. The clause will allow the Department to bring forward regulations to determine eligibility for participation in the schemes.

The clause allows for regulations to withhold benefit payments (for 1 or more weeks but fewer than 26 weeks) where a claimant does not show good cause for failure to participate in a ‘work for your benefit’ scheme. Provisions are also made for hardship payments for non-compliant claimants and for appeals against the withdrawal of benefits.

The clause includes provisions relating to the practical operation of schemes including contracting-out arrangements.

The clause includes provisions relating to the treatment of income earned by claimants on the schemes.

Clause 2 – Work-related activity: income support claimants and partners of claimants

Clause 2 allows the Department to require certain Income Support claimants and their partners to undertake work-related activity as a condition for continued receipt of benefit.

The clause also sets out categories of benefit recipients for whom the Department (or DEL or DEL’s contracted staff) is required to develop an employment action plan which may include particulars of work-related activity. The clause requires that consideration be given to the well-being of a child of a claimant in developing an employment action plan.

The clause sets out certain conditions relating to directions which the Department may make to persons in respect of work-related activity. The clause identifies certain exemptions from compliance with work-related activity regulations.

The clause sets out sanctions where a person required to undertake work-related activity has failed, without good cause, to comply with the requirement. The regulations will prescribe which matters are, or are not, to be taken into account by the Department or DEL when determining good cause for such failure. Where a sanction is imposed, the regulations will make provision for benefit to be reduced and will prescribe the amount and period of the reduction.

Clause 3 – Lone parents

Clause 3 identifies lone parents with a child under the age of 7 as eligible for Income Support.

Clause 3 exempts lone parents on Income Support with a child under 1 years of age from work-focused interviews and where they have a child under 3 years of age from work-related activity.

Clause 3 also sets out a regulation-making power for lone parents who are benefit claimants to allow them to restrict the times for which they are available for work-related activity.

Clause 4 – Entitlement to jobseeker’s allowance without seeking employment etc.

Clause 4 identifies certain categories of Income Support claimant as eligible for income-based jobseeker’s allowance. It also ensures that lone parents with a child under seven are a prescribed category of person.

The clause sets out jobseeker’s allowance entitlement where a person is a member of more than one couple. This would apply, for example, to someone in a polygamous marriage.

Clause 5 – Couples where at least one member is capable of work

Clause 5 removes entitlement to income support and income-related employment and support allowance for couples where one member is capable of work. This will mean that the only route to income-related support for such couples will be through income-based jobseeker’s allowance and the member of the couple who is work-ready will be required to fulfil the jobseeking requirements.

Regulations will prescribe the circumstances in which a member of a couple will not be treated as being capable of work, for example, he or she has claimed or is receiving employment and support allowance or he or she is in receipt of carer’s allowance.

Clause 6 – Statutory Sick Pay and Employment and Support Allowance

This clause creates a regulation-making power to allow people who are receiving statutory sick pay to claim income-related employment and support allowance, instead of income support. Currently people may receive income support in addition to statutory sick pay. In order to abolish income support, alternative provision needs to be made for this group of people.

Clause 7 – Transitional provisions relating to sections 4 to 6

Clause 7 makes provision for the transition of people who move from income support to employment and support allowance or jobseeker’s allowance. This includes stopping awards of income support or employment and support allowance, where it is appropriate. A transitional allowance can be paid for a time and an amount prescribed in regulations.

Clause 8 – Assembly procedure: regulations imposing work-related activity requirements on lone parents of children under 7

Clause 8 provides that regulations made within five years of the passing of the Welfare Reform Bill and which impose a requirement on a lone parent of a child under 7 to undertake work-related activity will be subject to the confirmatory procedure of the Assembly.

Clause 9 – Abolition of Income Support

Clause 9 allows the Department, through secondary legislation subject to confirmatory resolution, to terminate eligibility for any category of persons for Income Support. The clause includes scope for the provision of transitional protections.

Clause 10 – Power to direct claimants to undertake specific work-related activity

Clause 10 extends provisions to permit the Department or DEL to direct Employment and Support Allowance claimants to undertake specific work-related activity in certain circumstances. The clause is intended to stop claimants seeking to satisfy the requirement to undertake work-related activity by undertaking activity considered inappropriate for their circumstances. Failure to undertake the specified activity without showing good cause for this within the allowed time would be sanctionable.

Clause 11 – Conditions for contributory Jobseeker’s Allowance

Clause 11 amends the contribution conditions for jobseeker’s allowance. New claimants will normally need to have paid national insurance contributions for at least 26 weeks in one of the last two tax years prior to the claim.

A regulation-making power is included which will be used to set out the detail of the calculation to determine whether a person has paid contributions on enough earnings to be entitled to the contributory benefit and to set out alternative criteria for satisfying contribution conditions.

Clause 12 – Conditions for contributory Employment and Support Allowance

Clause 12 amends the contribution conditions for Employment and Support Allowance. New claimants will normally need to have paid national insurance contributions for at least 26 weeks in one of the last two tax years prior to the claim.

As with clause 11, a regulation-making power is included which will be used to set out the detail of the calculation to determine whether a person has paid contributions on enough earnings to be entitled to the contributory benefit and to set out alternative criteria for satisfying contribution conditions.

Clause 13 – Mobility Component

Clause 13 amends the entitlement conditions to the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance so as to allow entitlement to people with a prescribed severe visual impairment.

Clause 14 – Maternity allowance and carer’s allowance

Clause 14 removes adult dependency increases for new claims for maternity allowance and carer’s allowance. Existing recipients for carer’s allowance will have their adult dependency increases phased out by 2020.

Clause 15 - Community Care Grants relating to specified goods and services

Clause 15 allows Social Fund community care grants to be made to a third party who is to provide specified goods or services to the claimant.

Clause 16 – Community care grants: reviews and information

Clause 16 allows the Department to provide information relating to a community care grant to a specified provider of goods and services. The clause also requires the provider to make relevant information available to the Department in respect of the delivery of the goods and services. There is also a provision for a criminal offence for unauthorised disclosure.

The clause will allow an appropriate officer to reject a request for a review by an applicant who rejects goods or services provided in response to an application for a community care grant.

Clause 17 – Regulations relating to information: Assembly control

Clause 17 provides that regulations about the unauthorised disclosure of information in relation to community care grants will be subject to the confirmatory procedure where the regulations create new offences or increase penalties.

Clause 18 – Payments on account

Clause 18 allows the Department to make regulations to allow payments in advance of any benefits to claimants where they are in need and also make provisions for the recovery of such payments against future benefits.

Clause 19 – Loss of benefit provisions

The clause introduces a new benefit sanction to apply after the first conviction for benefit fraud – the sanction applies for up to 4 weeks – the disqualification period. The clause identifies sanctionable benefits. The clause also identifies disqualifying benefit to which benefit offences can apply.

Where such an offence of benefit fraud comes to light, the offender may be prosecuted, agree to an administrative penalty as an alternative to prosecution; or agree to be given a caution.

The clause sets out the amounts by which - sanctionable benefits - income support, jobseeker’s allowance, state pension credit, employment and support allowance or housing benefit are to be reduced will be prescribed in regulations.

Clause 20 – Jobseeker’s allowance: sanctions for violent conduct etc. in connection with a claim

Clause 20 allows the Department to withhold JSA payments where a claimant is convicted or cautioned in respect of an offence involving violence or harassment in a Benefits Office while the offender was pursuing a JSA claim. Payments can be withheld for 1 week – though this can be extended to 6 weeks in total if there is an additional sanction. The clause will also allow the Department to make regulations to permit payment to offenders in certain circumstances during a disqualification period.

The clause includes regulation making powers which are subject to confirmatory resolution.

Clause 21 – Repeal of sections 53 to 57 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act (NI) 2000

Clause 21 repeals other legislation relating to the withholding of benefits.

Clause 22 – Period for which pilot schemes have effect etc.

This clause amends arrangements for the piloting of regulations – extending the piloting period to 36 months.

Clause 23: Exemption from jobseeking conditions for victims of domestic violence

Clause 23 includes provisions that will require the Department to bring forward confirmatory resolution regulations to provide that victims of domestic violence will, for a period of 13 weeks, be able to start or continue a claim to jobseeker’s allowance without: being available for employment; having entered into a jobseeker’s agreement; or actively seeking employment.

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

Clause 24 provides that where the Department brings forward regulation-making powers relating to good cause for failing to undertake mandatory activities, the regulations must expressly state that availability of childcare and the claimant’s physical or mental health or condition will always be considered.

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

Clause 25 introduces a requirement that the well-being of the child should be taken into account when agreeing the activities that a parent will undertake as part of an action plan or jobseeker’s agreement.

Clause 26: Contracting out functions under Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995

Clause 26 provides a general provision to allow the contracting out of certain functions of the Department or the Department for Employment and Learning relating to jobseekers.

Clause 27: Attendance in connection with jobseeker’s allowance: sanctions

This clause allows regulations to be made providing for entitlement to jobseeker’s allowance to cease for between one and five days if the claimant fails to attend a mandatory interview without showing good cause. In addition, regulations will provide that if a person fails to attend a mandatory interview for the second or subsequent time, a fixed sanction of two weeks will be applied whilst keeping the claim open.

This clause also allows regulations to provide that if the claimant fails to make contact with the Social Security Office or Jobs and Benefits Office within the prescribed period of five working days from the failure to attend, his or her claim would be closed.

Clause 28: Social security information and employment or training information

This clause broadens the definition of social security information to include information not just related to work-focused interviews, but information shared for related purposes. The clause enhances data-sharing powers.

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

Clause 29 allows regulations to be made requiring a person who is under pensionable age who is claiming any one of a number of specified benefits to take part in a work-focused interview, as a condition of continuing to receive the full amount of that benefit.

Clause 30: Minor amendments

Clause 30 includes minor amendments to child dependency increases etc.

Clause 31: Payments of child support maintenance

Clause 31 extends the provisions which may be made by regulations in relation to payments of child support maintenance including determining the total amount of maintenance payments due in a reference period (1 year) and determining the frequency of payment.

Clause 32: Child support maintenance: offences relating to information

Clause 32 extends the offence of failing to provide child maintenance information to include the failure to report other changes of circumstances - to be specified in regulations. The time limit for prosecutions relating to such failures is extended to 12 months.

Clause 33: Consequential amendments of orders and regulations

This clause enables the Department to amend or revoke by way of regulations any statutory rules made under other enactments before this Bill receives Royal Assent.

Clause 34: Repeals

This clause gives effect to the repeals and revocations in Schedule 4.

Clause 35: Interpretation

Clause 35 sets out standard definitions of terms used in the Bill.

Clause 36: Commencement

Clause 36 provides that sections 1 and 2, 8, 14, 22, 28, 30, 33, 34(2) and (3) and Part 2 of Schedule 4, so far as relating to the repeals and revocations, mentioned in section 34(2) and section 35 and 37, will come into operation on Royal Assent (as will section 36).

The remaining provisions will be brought into operation by means of commencement orders made by the Department. The orders may appoint different days and purposes and make necessary transitory, transitional or savings provisions.

Clause 37: Short title

Clause 37 gives the short title of the Bill.

Schedule 1 - Amendments connected to section 4

Schedule 1 contains the following:

provisions whereby certain jobseekers rather than those who have moved from income support, are required to attend an interview and provide information and evidence of their availability for employment etc.
provisions for regulations to be made which would require people who are not required to meet the jobseeking conditions, and who are not a member of a joint-claim couple, to undertake work-focused interviews. This provision will not apply to lone parents with a child aged under the age of one.
details of provisions to sanction people who fail to comply and do not take part in a work-focused interview without having good cause and regulations to require matters to be considered as relevant in determining whether a person has shown good cause;
provisions for the requirement to undertake a work-focused interview to be waived if it is not considered appropriate for the claimant;
provisions to require a person, in prescribed circumstances, to be provided with an action plan. In preparing this the well-being of any child which may be affected by it is to be taken into consideration;
provisions for jobseeker’s directions to require the claimant to take part in any activity, particularly some form of activity related to finding employment and for the direction to be suspended in certain circumstances;
provisions to allow for regulations to require those on Jobseeker’s Allowance who do not have to meet the jobseeking conditions to undertake work-related activity as a condition of continuing to receive their full amount of benefit. Lone Parents with a child under the age of 3 will not be required to undertake work-related activity;
provisions which will allow lone parents (subject to meeting any prescribed conditions) to restrict the hours they are required to undertake work-related activity. This will enable lone parents to restrict the activities they will undertake to their child’s hours of schooling and formal childcare; and
provisions that, in circumstances prescribed in regulations, only a specific activity is to be regarded as a work-related activity.

The schedule also contains definition of the circumstances in which claimants may be sanctioned for failing to satisfy conditionality requirements – e.g. where a claimant without good cause: refuses or fails to carry out a direction; when a claimant fails to attend a training scheme or is in breach of an employment programme requirement. These sanctions will apply to claimants who are not necessarily required to satisfy jobseeking conditions.

The schedule sets out the following:

provisions that allow the Department to provide JSA to 16 to 17 year olds on grounds of hardship, and withdraw the payment if the person is seen to have failed to avail himself or herself of a place on a training scheme, or has lost that place, without demonstrating good cause for doing so;
conditions in which a member of a joint-claim couple may be sanctioned;
provisions relating to the payment of jobseeker’s allowance to a person involved in a trades dispute;
provisions to allow regulations to be made to ensure that in some circumstances a person who has limited capability for work can claim jobseeker’s allowance.. For example, a disabled lone parent who has a child under seven years of age could claim either employment and support allowance, and be subject to full Employment and Support Allowance conditionality, or he or she could claim jobseeker’s allowance without the jobseeking conditions. The regulations will give these groups a choice as to which benefit they would prefer to claim; and
provisions for regulations to prescribe circumstances in which a person who is in relevant education and who is not required to meet the jobseeking conditions may claim jobseeker’s allowance.

Schedule 2 - Abolition of income support: consequential amendments

Schedule 2 makes consequential amendments that are required for the abolition of income support. It amends references to income support in a number of Acts and Orders and where appropriate, inserts a new reference to jobseeker’s allowance instead.

Schedule 3 - Loss of benefit provisions: further amendments

Schedule 3 makes further consequential amendments to social security fraud legislation.

Schedule 4 – Repeals

This Schedule provides for repeals consequential on the provisions in the Bill.

5. On referral of the Bill to the Committee after Second Stage, the Committee wrote to key stakeholders. On 15 April 2010 2009 advertisements were inserted in the Belfast Telegraph, News Letter and Irish News seeking written evidence on the Bill. In addition, the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA) notified its members that the Committee was seeking written evidence on the Bill.

6. During the period covered by this Report, the Committee considered the Bill and related issues at 5 meetings – on 11, 13, 18, 20 and 25 May 2010. The relevant extracts from the Minutes of Proceedings for these meetings are included at Appendix 1.

7. The Committee had before it the Welfare Reform Bill (NIA 13/09) and the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum that accompanied the Bill.

8. A total of 22 organisations responded to the request for written evidence and a copy of the submissions received by the Committee is included at Appendix 3.

9. On 11 May 2010, the Committee took oral evidence from Departmental officials on the purpose and main provisions of the proposed Bill. The Committee also took oral evidence from: Advice NI on 11 May 2010; Law Centre (NI), Citizens Advice Bureau and Gingerbread NI on 13 May 2010; Mencap NI, National Autistic Society (NI) on 18 May 2010 and Age NI on 20 May 2010. The Minutes of Evidence are included at Appendix 2.

10. The Committee began its clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill on 20 May 2010 and concluded this on 25 May 2010 – see Appendix 2.

Extension of Committee Stage of the Bill

11. On 11 May 2010, the Assembly agreed to extend the Committee Stage of the Bill to 17 June 2010.

Consideration of the Bill

12. Members considered and commented on the Green Paper and White Paper for the Westminster Welfare Reform Bill during the Social Development Committee meetings on the following dates: 16 October 2008, 23 October 2008, 22 January 2009 and 2 April 2009 – see Appendix 2.

13. The Committee also commented on the draft Welfare Reform Bill and the associated Equality Impact Assessment during the Committee meetings on the following dates: 2 July 2009, 3 December 2009 and 28 January 2010 – see Appendix 2.

14. Following the Second Stage of the Bill, the Committee took further evidence from the Department on 11 May 2010. Departmental officials provided more details on the main provisions of the Bill - see Appendix 2.

Evidence from Advice NI

15. On 11 May 2010, the Committee took oral evidence from Advice NI – see Appendix 2. Advice NI set out its concerns in respect of the provisions of the Bill which it believed were intended to integrate certain “hard to help" categories of benefit claimants into the labour market without the advantage of adequate local provision of childcare. Advice NI also argued that as the delay to the introduction of the Bill established a precedent of disparity with the rest of the UK in respect of social security matters, the Committee should consider wide-ranging changes to the benefit delivery system in Northern Ireland.

Advice NI’s evidence may be summarised as follows:

“Work for your benefit" schemes

Advice NI highlighted concerns that “work for your benefit" schemes may lead to job displacement and the undercutting of the minimum wage. Advice NI suggested that cost-benefit analyses were required for all such schemes and that the Bill should set out the training and educational support to be provided for participants.

Work-related activity

Advice NI indicated its opposition to the extension of the requirement for benefit claimants to undertake work-related activity citing the absence of childcare infrastructure and poor co-ordination between the Department for Social Development and the Department for Employment and Learning as the main reasons why this provision could not be enforced fairly or consistently. Advice NI also argued that if work-related activity was to be imposed on the over-60s that Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance entitlement should also be extended to this group.

Abolition of Income Support

Advice NI commented that the abolition of Income Support could lead to certain groups – particularly carers – being excluded from benefit provision. Advice NI recommended additional protections for carers and parents and exemptions from sanctions following their transfer from Income Support. Advice NI also commented on the need for adequate transitional arrangements prior to the abolition of Income Support.

Maternity allowance and carer’s allowance

Advice NI highlighted how the current arrangements for maternity and carer’s allowance may represent a breach in parity with the rest of the UK and how the planned removal of adult dependency allowances may adversely affect claimants in Northern Ireland.

Community Care Grants

Advice NI suggested that the provisions within the Bill to provide goods and services rather than grants may stigmatise claimants; lead to a reduction in quality and increased administration costs.

Sanctions

Advice NI argued that benefit sanctions may adversely and disproportionately affect vulnerable groups and particularly the children of claimants. Advice NI suggested that there should be a lower limit below which a claimant’s income should not drop and that decision-making in this regard should be subject to review at an appropriate level.

Well-being of children

Advice NI argued that the provisions which require benefit officers to consider the well-being of children in the development of jobseekers’ agreements, should be extended to all of those provisions which refer to reductions in benefit levels.

“Contracting-out"

Advice NI commented that “contracting out" may lead to a focus on the easiest to help groups; a reduction in resources; a lessening of transparency and departmental accountability and a loss of geographical coverage. Advice NI argued that any employment service functions which are “contracted-out" should be subject to a resource review and detailed delivery and satisfaction monitoring.

Evidence from the Citizens Advice Bureau

16. On 13 May 2010, the Committee took oral evidence from the Citizens Advice Bureau – see Appendix 2.

Citizens Advice Bureau’s evidence may be summarised as follows:

“Work for your benefit" schemes

Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) commented that although “work for your benefit" schemes may be of value to some claimants who need to improve employability skills, the evidence from similar schemes in other jurisdictions suggests that only limited numbers of participants will subsequently secure full-time employment. CAB also suggested that the clause be amended to require remuneration for participants to be equivalent to the National Minimum Wage.

Work-related activity

CAB commented that although it believed that some Income Support recipients might benefit from undertaking work-related activity, the provision and its enforcement would be overly oppressive and likely to be applied to those who would not benefit from work-related activity.

Lone parents

CAB indicated opposition to the provisions of the Bill which would see the eligibility for Income Support for lone parents changing such that the age of the youngest child would be reduced from 10 to 7.

Abolition of Income Support

CAB asserted that it would not support the abolition of Income Support as JSA was not a suitable alternative benefit for lone parents. CAB argued that the abolition of Income Support would not lead to an increase in employment for lone parents and that a programme of phased and tapered benefit reduction for those who have secured employment would be more effective.

Payments on account

CAB indicated its support for the introduction of payments on account for benefit claimants and suggested that coupled with enhanced eligibility for Social Fund grants and loans, this may lead to a reduction in poverty for benefit claimants.

Sanctions

CAB indicated its opposition to the “one-strike policy" for benefit fraud suggesting that this provision was overly harsh and likely to generate additional work for the Social Security Agency. CAB also indicated that a 1-2 week loss of benefit for failure to attend an interview followed by the closure of a claim will cause extreme hardship for claimants and will be counter-productive as this will again generate further work for benefits staff.

Evidence from the Law Centre (NI)

17. On 13 May 2010, the Committee took oral evidence from the Law Centre (NI) – see Appendix 2.

The Law Centre asserted that different arrangements for the delivery of benefits in Northern Ireland should be adopted to reflect local economic and social circumstances. The Law Centre argued that the failure to implement guarantees for jobs and training in Northern Ireland established a precedent for breaking parity with the rest of the UK in social security matters.

The Law Centre’s evidence may be summarised as follows:

“Work for your benefit" schemes

The Law Centre suggested that local pilot “work for your benefit" schemes would be required to properly evaluate the benefits or otherwise of the proposed schemes. The Law Centre expressed concerns in relation to the schemes applying to lone parents with children over 7 unless childcare provision and payments are guaranteed. The Law Centre also expressed concerns in respect of job displacement and the possibility of claimants having to leave another training scheme to order to participate in a mandatory “work for your benefit" programme.

Work-related activity

The Law Centre suggested that as with certain ESA claimants participating in work-focused interviews, Income Support claimants should receive a premium payment for participation rather than sanctions for non-compliance. The Law Centre also suggested that 3rd party providers of employment support services may be incentivised to focus on claimants for whom it is easier to find employment while disregarding harder to help claimants – thus defeating the purpose of employment support.

Lone parents

The Law Centre indicated its opposition to the use of sanctions for lone parents with children under the age of 7 who do not actively seek work. The Law Centre highlighted that in the absence of childcare infrastructure, an extension of the sanction regime for lone parents would be unfair and would lead to an adverse impact for the children of claimants.

Entitlement to JSA

The Law Centre suggested that careful consideration was needed in respect of the transfer of certain groups from Income Support to JSA. The Law Centre argued that the Bill should explicitly provide safeguards such that those in receipt of carers’ benefit would not be expected to comply with back-to-work activities.

The Law Centre also highlighted concerns in relation to the requirement for couples where one member is capable of work for work-related activity to be undertaken. The Law Centre suggested that there may be circumstances where carers (not in receipt) of carers’ benefits may be adversely affected. The Law Centre highlighted the importance of the Committee’s scrutiny of related regulations to ensure that carers are not disadvantaged.

Abolition of Income Support

The Law Centre argued that Income Support should not be abolished until an adequate and tested replacement – capable of dealing with complex claims – has been consulted upon and was in place.

Contributory ESA and JSA

The Law Centre argued that the provisions of the Bill will require claimants for contributory ESA and JSA to have worked for 6 months regardless of the amount of National Insurance contributions paid. The Law Centre suggested that these provisions will make it more difficult for seasonal workers to claim contributory JSA or ESA.

Community Care Grants

The Law Centre expressed concerns about the reduction in choice for individuals claiming Community Care Grants who will be required to accept goods and services from suppliers specified by the Department. The Law Centre suggested that this provision will stigmatise claimants and may lead to declining quality and rising costs for the good supplied.

Sanctions

The Law Centre indicated that sanctions are particularly inappropriate for claimants with disabilities, illnesses or mental health issues. The Law Centre also suggested that the use of sanctions will disproportionately affect the children of claimants and as such their increased use is inconsistent with the findings of the OFMDFM review of child poverty.

The Law Centre argued that benefit sanctions for those convicted by a court or accepting a caution for benefit fraud are disproportionate and are probably unnecessary given the relatively low levels of fraud in Northern Ireland.

The Law Centre also argued against sanctions for claimants threatening or cautioned for violent behaviour in connection with some claims. The Law Centre suggested that violent conduct is a criminal matter best left to the courts. The Law Centre pointed out that aggressive claimants in tax offices are not subject to similar sanctions.

The Law Centre further argued that the application of sanctions for failure to comply with a direction or attend an interview is inappropriate as studies in other jurisdictions show that claimants often do not understand the reason for a sanction and are therefore unlikely to change their behaviour in response.

Domestic Violence

The Law Centre suggested that exemptions from jobseeking conditions for victims of domestic violence be extended beyond the additional 13 weeks set out in the Bill and that an alternative system is required for the assessment of domestic violence victims which does not rely on the discretion of benefits staff.

Good Cause for non-compliance

The Law Centre argued for stronger safeguards within the Bill for claimants with mental health issues so as to avoid inappropriate and unfair sanctions. The Law Centre again suggested that an alternative system of assessment was required which relied less on the discretion of benefits staff.

Evidence from Gingerbread (NI)

18. On 13 May 2010, the Committee took oral evidence from Gingerbread (NI) – see Appendix 2.

Gingerbread’s evidence may be summarised as follows:

“Work for your benefit" Schemes

Gingerbread indicated its opposition to mandatory “work for your benefit“ schemes for lone parents with children over the age of 7. Gingerbread suggested that lone parents who are compelled to participate in such schemes may find that as a consequence they are unable to take advantage of other existing employment support schemes.

Work-related activity

Gingerbread suggested that lone parents required to undertake work-related activity should not be subject to sanctions but should – like certain ESA claimants – receive a premium payment for participation.

Lone Parents

Gingerbread argued that the requirement for lone parents with children to seek work is discriminatory and unworkable in Northern Ireland owing to: low levels of childcare infrastructure; the different finishing times for primary schools and the long school summer holidays. Gingerbread argued that these local issues prevent lone parents from making work commitments. Gingerbread suggested that in place of sanctions, support should be provided to lone parents to assist their return to work.

Community Care Grants

Gingerbread indicated that the replacement of Community Care Grants with goods and services will serve to reduce the choice for individual claimants. Gingerbread argued that the provision was a further and unwarranted barrier to access to Social Fund support which would particularly affect lone parent families.

Sanctions

Gingerbread indicated its opposition to provisions which would extend the benefit sanction regime arguing that sanctions will have a significant, detrimental and unwarranted impact on the children of claimants.

Domestic Violence

Gingerbread suggested that exemptions from jobseeking conditions for victims of domestic violence be extended beyond the additional 13 weeks set out in the Bill and that an alternative system is required for the assessment of domestic violence victims which does not rely on the discretion of benefits staff.

Good Cause for non-compliance

Gingerbread argued for stronger safeguards within the Bill for claimants with mental health issues so as to avoid inappropriate and unfair sanctions. Gingerbread indicated that the issue was of particular concern as stress-related mental health issues disproportionately affect lone mothers.

Evidence from the National Autistic Society (NI)

19. On 18 May 2010, the Committee took oral evidence from the National Autistic Society (NI) – see Appendix 2.

NAS’s evidence may be summarised as follows:

“Work for your benefit" Schemes

NAS asserted that these provisions would disproportionately affect people with autism as they generally have poor employment records. NAS also highlighted concerns that these provisions would be the cause of considerable distress for adults with autism.

NAS proposed the following amendments:

that jobseekers who are required to participate in a “work for your benefit" scheme be subject to a full assessment to determine if such a scheme is appropriate;
that records be kept of the impairments / disabilities of participants in “work for your benefit" schemes to determine whether the schemes are beneficial or detrimental;
that specialist support be offered to people with autism required to participate in “work for your benefit" schemes; and
that “work for your benefit" scheme providers be required to show how they will support people with particular disabilities.

Work-related activity

NAS highlighted concerns that mandatory directions from an adviser unfamiliar with autism could be the cause of considerable distress for adults with autism.

NAS proposed the following amendment:

that all claimants should have the right to have a direction to undertake work-related activity reconsidered by a 3rd party.

Sanctions

NAS advised that the application of sanctions in respect of e.g. missing an interview would have a disproportionate impact on adults with autism owing to their tendency to have difficulties managing their time or their mail or having limited social skills.

NAS NI proposed the following amendment:

that claimants receive a written warning detailing the implications of non-compliance following their first sanctionable offence rather than a benefit cut.

Evidence from Mencap NI

20. On 18 May 2010, the Committee took oral evidence from Mencap NI – see Appendix 2.

Mencap NI argued that the Bill should include safeguards for claimants with learning disabilities rather than only for mental illness and highlighted the need to ensure appropriate support for claimants with a learning disability.

Mencap’s evidence may be summarised as follows

Work-related activity

Mencap argued that the conditions relating to the requirement to undertake work-related activity should recognise the additional needs of people with a learning disability and family carers. Mencap argued that the “good cause" provisions should specifically recognise these groups of claimants. Mencap suggested that additional support including information in alternative formats or specialist support should be guaranteed for vulnerable groups as part of the delivery of the work-related activity provisions of the Bill.

Lone Parents

Mencap argued that where the Bill references lone parents with children over the age of 7, amendments should be made to specifically reflect the additional burdens for families with lifelong caring responsibilities. Mencap suggested that the Bill should recognise the distinct circumstances for parents of disabled children or those caring for vulnerable family members.

Sanctions

Mencap contended that the Bill should be amended such that sanctions are not applied unless due consideration is given to a claimant’s learning disability and / or family caring responsibility.

Contracting-out

Mencap suggested that mainstream funding for specialist provision of employment services by voluntary organisations is preferable to contracting out to the private sector. Mencap suggested that appropriate targets linked to providing support for vulnerable claimants e.g. with a learning disability be included in the new contracts for employment support services. Mencap urged the Committee to monitor the impact of contracting-out on both the voluntary sector and rural areas.

Evidence from Age NI

21. On 20 May 2010, the Committee took oral evidence from Age NI – see Appendix 2.

Age NI’s evidence may be summarised as follows:

Automatic Payment of State Pension Credit

Age NI commented that the failure to include powers to allow a pilot exercise on the automatic payment of state pension credit in Northern Ireland (as is currently being prepared in England, Scotland and Wales) may result in the automatic payment of pension credit being implemented across Great Britain and not in Northern Ireland. Age NI advised that the percentage of pensioners living in poverty in Northern Ireland is higher than the UK average.

Age NI proposed that the Bill be amended to allow a pilot exercise to be undertaken which would be used to increase benefit uptake and should target older, single, female pensioners who currently experience the highest levels of poverty.

Work-focused Interviews for the over 50s

Age NI commented on the introduction of additional conditionality for Jobseeker’s Allowance for people over the age of 50. Age NI indicated that the application of sanctions was inappropriate for this age group owing to the current economic climate and the difficulties older people experience in finding employment.

Evidence from other Statutory Committees

22. The Committee noted written evidence from the Northern Ireland Assembly Committee for Employment and Learning in respect of the “work for your benefit" provisions and the impact of the Bill on carers and from the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister in respect of benefit uptake and tax credit issues.

Clause-by-Clause Scrutiny of the Bill

23. The Committee undertook its formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill on 20 and 25 May 2010.

Related Departmental submissions are included at Appendix 4.

24. Following representations from the Committee, the Department provided an assurance in respect of the clauses of the Bill - specifically that both DSD and DEL would review and amend their guidance to benefits advisors so as to require them to give additional and appropriate consideration to claimants who have: child-caring difficulties; mental illness; a learning disability; domestic violence issues or other caring responsibilities.

25. The Committee agreed to seek confirmation from the Minister at Consideration Stage in respect of DSD’s and DEL’s guidance to benefit advisors.

Clause 1 – Schemes for assisting persons to obtain employment: ‘Work for your benefit’ schemes etc.

26. The Committee considered a wide range of concerns in respect of mandatory “Work for your benefit" schemes particularly: their possible inappropriate application to school leavers who may be classed as Not in Employment, Education or Training (NEETs); the absence of local pilot schemes or sunset provisions; the possible sanctioning and disproportionate impact on claimants with a learning disability or mental illness including autism; job displacement from the local employment market and the perception that the schemes would undermine the National Minimum Wage.

27. The Committee noted the Department’s assurance that the relevant policy intention is to provide suitable training and support for the long-term unemployed who have lost “employment habits". The Department also provided assurances that “work for your benefit schemes" will not be operated in Northern Ireland until pilots have been completed in Great Britain. The timescale for introduction of the schemes is therefore expected to be post 2011. The Department also indicated that the details in respect of the types of support provided to participants; the monitoring regime for participants and schemes and the arrangements in respect of allowing participants to look for work or undertake other training can not be given until the pilots have been completed and evaluated. The Department advised that the eligibility or exemption for participants will be the subject of regulations which the Assembly will consider.

28. The Committee also noted the Department’s assertion that the introduction of the “work for your benefit" schemes is dependent on DEL having sufficient resources to support their implementation.

29. The Committee expressed concerns in respect of the dearth of detail on the proposed “work for your benefit" schemes and the absence of planned Northern Ireland-based pilot schemes. Committee Members expressed particular disquiet with regard to the mandatory nature of the schemes; their possible adverse impact on low paid employment and their application to vulnerable young people who may be categorised as NEETs.

30. A majority of Members indicated that the maintenance of parity with the rest of the United Kingdom in respect of social security matters is generally beneficial for Northern Ireland. Thus although Members felt that the provisions in question were not satisfactory, they indicated that the clause should be agreed so as not to endanger the benefits of parity with the rest of the United Kingdom in social security matters.

31. The Committee agreed that Members’ reservations in respect of this clause would be clearly set out during Consideration Stage.

32. Following a division, the Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 1 as drafted.

Clause 2 – Work-related activity: income support claimants and partners of claimants

33. The Committee considered comments on this clause from stakeholders in relation to the absence of childcare infrastructure; the need for better training on disability awareness for advisers; the suggestion that additional support was required to incentivise lone parents into employment as opposed to applying sanctions and that blanket exemptions should apply in respect of either sanctions for lone parents or participation in work-related activity for parents with children in receipt of Disability Living Allowance (DLA).

34. The Committee noted assurances from the Department that the clause would not apply to lone parents with children under the age of 3 or parents with children in receipt of middle and high rate DLA. The Department also advised the Committee that advisers would take into consideration the absence of childcare support when considering sanctions associated with non-compliance. The Department indicated that lone parents would be able to claim childcare costs associated with participation. The Committee also noted assurances that appropriate disability training and guidance would be provided to benefits staff.

35. Committee Members expressed concerns in respect of how this clause may affect lone parents and claimants with a learning disability or with autism. Members were also concerned how in the absence of childcare infrastructure the clause might lead to the unfair and disproportionate sanctioning of lone parents.

36. As with Clause 1, a majority of Members indicated that the maintenance of parity with the rest of the United Kingdom in respect of social security matters is generally beneficial for Northern Ireland. Thus although Members felt that the provisions in question were not satisfactory, they indicated that the clause should be agreed so as not to endanger the benefits of parity with the rest of the United Kingdom in social security matters.

37. Following a division, the Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 2 as drafted.

Clause 3 – Lone Parents

38. The Committee considered evidence relating to changes in the prescription of lone parents as being eligible for Income Support where their youngest child is aged 7 rather than 10. The Committee noted suggestions from witnesses that further conditionality for lone parents should not be introduced until appropriate childcare infrastructure and supporting legislation is in place for Northern Ireland. The Committee also noted suggestions that in considering eligibility for Income Support, there be an automatic recognition of the distinct circumstances for adults who are the parents of disabled children (of any age) or who have lifelong caring responsibilities.

39. The Committee noted the submission from the Department to the effect that the clause is to remove the existing requirement for lone parents to attend work focused interviews on a periodic basis and as such will ease rather than increase conditionality.

40. As with clauses 1 and 2, a majority of Members indicated that the maintenance of parity with the rest of the United Kingdom in respect of social security matters is generally beneficial for Northern Ireland. Thus although Members felt that the provisions in question were not satisfactory, they indicated that the clause should be agreed so as not to endanger the benefits of parity with the rest of the United Kingdom in social security matters.

41. Following a division, the Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 3 as drafted.

Clause 4 – Entitlement to Jobseeker’s allowance without seeking employment etc.

42. The Committee noted assurances from the Department that the requirement for claimants to transfer from Income Support to JSA will not apply to claimants who have caring responsibilities whether or not they are in receipt of Carer’s Allowance or other relevant benefits.

43. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 4 as drafted.

Clause 5 – Couples where at least one member capable of work

44. The Committee noted concerns that as with clause 4, these provisions may lead to claimants with caring responsibilities being denied access to ESA and its specialist work-related activity support and additional payments regime.

45. The Committee noted assurances from the Department that account will be taken of caring responsibilities whether or not the claimant is in receipt of Carer’s Allowance or other relevant benefits.

46. The Committee agreed to seek confirmation from the Minister at Consideration Stage in respect of access to ESA and Income Support for claimants who are carers.

47. Subject to the above, the Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 5 as drafted.

Clause 6 – Statutory sick pay and employment and support allowance

48. The Committee expressed concerns in respect of how this clause will affect people who receive Income Support in addition to Statutory Sick Pay. The Committee noted assurances from the Department that existing rules relating to the “passporting" of claimants receiving Income Support and Statutory Sick Pay onto other benefits would continue.

49. The Committee agreed to seek assurances from the Minister at Consideration Stage in respect of the maintenance of the aforementioned “passporting" arrangements.

50. Subject to the above, the Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 6 as drafted.

Clause 7 – Transitional provision relating to sections 4 to 6

51. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 7 as drafted.

Clause 8 – Assembly procedure: regulations imposing work-related activity requirements on lone parents with children under 7

52. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 8 as drafted.

Clause 9 – Abolition of income support

53. The Committee noted suggestions that Income Support should not be abolished until alternatives had been identified for all claimant groups and that guarantees should be given that claimants would not be worse off under any new arrangements.

54. The Committee noted the Department’s assurances that Income Support would not be abolished until alternatives which include provisions for carers had been developed.

55. The Committee agreed to seek assurances from the Minister at Consideration Stage in respect of the impact of the abolition of Income Support for carers and for other vulnerable claimant groups.

56. Subject to the above, the Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 9 as drafted.

Clause 10 – Power to direct claimant to undertake specific work-related activity

57. The Committee noted concerns that work-related directions, in the absence of joined-up employment support services, may be of limited benefit to claimants particularly those with mental health issues. The Committee also noted concerns expressed by stakeholders that benefits staff may not be appropriately trained to deal with the particular needs of vulnerable claimant groups.

58. The Committee noted the Department’s earlier assurance in respect of training for DEL and DSD benefits staff and a further assurance in relation to the involvement of key voluntary disability organisations in the review and improvement of customer services to benefit claimants.

59. The Committee agreed to seek assurances from the Minister at Consideration Stage in respect of training and guidance for DSD and DEL staff and the involvement of voluntary disability organisations in the development of guidance for advisers.

60. Subject to the above, the Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 10 as drafted.

Clause 11 – Conditions for contributory jobseeker’s allowance

61. The Committee noted that the provision will require a minimum contribution period rather than an amount of National Insurance contributions to be made to qualify for contributory JSA. The Committee considered stakeholders’ concerns that the clause could adversely affect seasonal workers.

62. The Committee agreed that owing to parity considerations there was limited scope to amend this clause.

63. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 11 as drafted.

Clause 12 – Conditions for contributory employment and support allowance

64. As with Clause 11, the Committee noted that the provision will require a minimum contribution period rather than an amount of National Insurance contributions to be made to qualify for contributory ESA. The Committee also considered stakeholders’ concerns that the clause could adversely affect seasonal workers.

65. The Committee agreed that owing to parity considerations there was limited scope to amend this clause.

66. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 12 as drafted.

Clause 13 – Mobility component

67. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 13 as drafted.

Clause 14 - Maternity allowance and carer’s allowance

68. The Committee noted submissions from stakeholders which suggested that carers or those on maternity leave who have not worked sufficiently long enough to claim statutory maternity pay may be penalised by this clause where they have a partner who is also not working.

69. The Committee agreed that owing to parity considerations there was limited scope to amend this clause.

70. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 14 as drafted.

Clause 15 - Community care grants relating to specified goods or services

71. The Committee noted concerns that that the proposal to provide goods and services in place of grants would: stigmatise claimants by the removal of choice; lead to additional administrative costs and poor product quality and undermine price and quality competition for the goods provided. The Committee also noted suggestions that the new arrangements would require a clear and well defined monitoring system and should be piloted in Northern Ireland prior to roll-out.

72. Members expressed concerns that claimants could as a consequence of this clause receive poor or sub-standard goods in place of a grant.

73. The Committee also noted submissions from the Department which indicated that the Clause is intended to benefit recipients as, rather than receive an allowance which does not cover the full cost of a specialised product, they will receive a product which is tailored to their specific needs.

74. The Department provided assurances that the procurement of goods and services in connection with the Clause will be subject to the best procurement practice and that the Committee’s views will be sought at the contract-making stage.

75. The Committee agreed to seek confirmation of assurances from the Minister at Consideration Stage in respect of procurement practice for the contracts associated with this Clause and further Committee involvement in the relevant contracting process.

76. Subject to the above, the Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 15 as drafted.

Clause 16 – Community care grants: review and information

77. Members expressed similar concerns to those associated with Clause 15.

78. Subject to the assurances associated with Clause 15, the Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 16 as drafted.

Clause 17 - Regulations relating to information: Assembly control

79. Members expressed similar concerns to those associated with Clause 15.

80. Subject to the assurances associated with Clause 15, the Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 17 as drafted.

Clause 18 - Payments on account

81. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 18 as drafted.

Clause 19 – Loss of benefit provision

82. The Committee noted submissions from stakeholders which suggested that this clause: would lead to claimants being punished twice for benefit fraud and would have a disproportionately adverse and unfair impact on the children of claimants. The Committee considered suggestions relating to additional safeguards and less discretion for benefits advisors in respect of the application of the so-called “one strike" sanction.

83. The Department provided an assurance that although claimants responsible for benefit fraud would be sanctioned, the provisions of the Bill would ensure that the families of claimants would not be disadvantaged

84. Members expressed serious reservations in respect of the appropriateness of the “one strike" sanction and its impact on the families of claimants.

85. The Committee agreed that Members’ reservations in respect of this clause would be clearly set out during Consideration Stage.

86. Following a division, the Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 19 as drafted.

Clause 20 – Jobseeker’s allowance: sanctions for violent conduct etc. in connection with claim

87. The Committee noted submissions from stakeholders which suggested that this clause would have a disproportionately adverse and unfair impact on the children of claimants where their parents are cautioned for, or convicted of violent conduct related to a claim.

88. Members indicated that although they supported measures to protect benefits staff from violence or the threat of violence, the provisions within the Bill were inappropriate and would lead to inconsistency of treatment between staff and claimants in the Social Security Agency and staff and claimants of other government offices e.g. HMRC tax office.

89. A majority of Members indicated their support for this clause either because it was felt that the measures in the clause provided appropriate safeguards for benefits staff or because of parity considerations.

90. The Committee agreed that Members’ reservations in respect of this clause would be clearly set out during Consideration Stage.

91. Following a division, the Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 20 as drafted.

Clause 21 – Repeal of sanctions 53 to 57 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act (Northern Ireland) 2000

92. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 21 as drafted.

Clause 22 – Period for which pilot schemes have effect etc.

93. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 22 as drafted.

Clause 23 – Exemption from jobseeking conditions for victims of domestic violence

94. The Committee accepted assurances from the Department that benefit advisers would interpret domestic violence to include psychological, financial and physical violence in considering exemptions from JSA conditions. The Department confirmed that this interpretation would be clearly set out in the relevant guidance to benefits advisers.

95. The Committee also accepted assurances from the Department that the 13 week exemption set out in the clause was in addition to an existing 11 week exemption. Members felt that the total exemption of some 24 weeks was in-line with the suggestions made by stakeholders.

96. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 23 as drafted.

Clause 24 – Good cause for failure to comply with regulations etc.

97. The Committee considered a fuller and more prescriptive definition of the good cause provisions and restrictions on their interpretation by benefit advisers.

98. The Committee noted assurances from the Department that the good cause provisions would specifically reference: childcare issues; mental illness; learning disability and other caring responsibilities. The Committee also noted the Department’s assurance that further discretion for benefits advisers would allow them to consider additional good cause scenarios.

99. The Committee agreed to seek confirmation of Departmental assurances from the Minister at Consideration Stage in respect of the good cause provisions.

100. Subject to the above, the Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 24 as drafted.

Clause 25 – Jobseekers’ agreements and action plans: well being of children

101. The Committee considered a fuller and more prescriptive definition of the well being of children provisions and restrictions on their interpretation by benefit advisers.

102. The Committee noted assurances from the Department that discretion in respect of the well being of children provisions would allow benefit advisers the necessary scope to consider a range of scenarios beyond those envisaged in the proposed amendments.

103. The Committee agreed to seek confirmation of Departmental assurances from the Minister at Consideration Stage in respect of guidance to advisers on the well being of children.

104. Subject to the above, the Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 25 as drafted.

Clause 26 – Contracting out functions under Jobseeker’s (Northern Ireland) Order 1995

105. The Committee noted comments from stakeholders that contracting-out of employment support services may lead to: increased administrative costs; a loss of service for hard-to-help and rural groups; a loss of accountability and the need for additional transparency safeguards.

106. The Committee noted assurances from the Department that it had no further plans to contract-out any of its benefit-related functions.

107. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 26 as drafted

Clause 27 – Attendance in connection with jobseeker’s allowance: sanctions

108. The Committee considered evidence which suggested that the application of sanctions and the related closure of claims would have a disproportionately adverse affect on: the children of claimants; claimants with mental illnesses including autism; claimants with a learning disability or claimants experiencing a family emergency. The Committee also noted evidence from other jurisdictions which suggested that claimants are often unaware they have been sanctioned or do not understand the reasons for the sanction.

109. The Committee noted assurances from the Department that clear guidance would be given to all claimants in respect of the consequence of failure to comply with JSA directions or attend JSA interviews. The Committee also noted assurances from the Department that guidance to benefit advisers would clearly set out the good cause provisions – including those pertaining to vulnerable claimants – which could be taken under review when sanctions are considered.

110. Following a division, the Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 27 as drafted.

Clause 28 – Social security information and employment or training information

111. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 28 as drafted.

Clause 29 – Persons under pensionable age to take part in work-focused interviews etc.

112. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 29 as drafted.

Clause 30 – Minor amendments

113. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 30 as drafted.

Clause 31 – Payments of child support maintenance

114. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 31 as drafted.

Clause 32 – Child support maintenance: offences relating to information

115. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 32 as drafted.

Clause 33 – Consequential amendments of orders and regulations

116. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 33 as drafted.

Clause 34 – Repeals

117. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 34 as drafted.

Clause 35 – Interpretation

118. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 35 as drafted.

Clause 36 – Commencement

119. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 36 as drafted.

Clause 37 – Short title of the Bill

120. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 37 as drafted.

Schedule 1 – Amendments connected to section 4

121. The Committee agreed that it was content with Schedule 1 as drafted.

Schedule 2 – Abolition of income support: consequential amendments

122. The Committee agreed that it was content with Schedule 2 as drafted.

Schedule 3 – Loss of benefit provisions: further amendments

123. The Committee agreed that it was content with Schedule 3 as drafted.

Schedule 4 – Repeals

124. The Committee agreed that it was content with Schedule 4 as drafted.

Additional Amendment – Automatic payment of state pension credit

125. The Committee considered an amendment which would introduce powers to allow the Department to undertake a pilot scheme for the automatic payment of State Pension Credit.

126. The Committee noted assurances from the Department that following the successful piloting of these measures in Great Britain, the automatic payment of state pension credit would be rolled-out to Northern Ireland.

127. The Committee agreed to seek confirmation of these assurances from the Minister at Consideration Stage.

128. Subject to the above, the Committee agreed that it would not pursue this amendment.

Additional Amendment – Parents with children on DLA

129. The Committee considered an amendment which would introduce an exemption from jobseeking requirements for all parents with children in receipt of DLA.

130. The Committee noted assurances from the Department that guidance to advisers would set out safeguards for parents in receipt of JSA who have disabled children.

131. The Committee agreed that it would not pursue this amendment.

Additional Amendment – Well-being of children

132. The Committee considered an amendment which would prescribe the meaning of the well-being of children and require its consideration for all the provisions of the Bill.

133. The Committee noted assurances from the Department that guidance to advisers would exceed the prescriptions set out in the proposed amendment.

134. The Committee agreed that it would not pursue this amendment.

Delegated Powers

135. The Committee considered the delegated powers associated with the Bill.

136. The Committee agreed that it was content with the delegated powers as set out in the Bill.

Long Title

137. Following a division, the Committee agreed that subject to the confirmation of assurances at Consideration Stage, it was content with the Welfare Reform Bill as drafted.

138. The Committee agreed the Long Title of the Welfare Reform Bill.

Report on the Welfare Reform Bill

139. At its meeting of 3 June 2010, the Committee agreed its report on the Bill and agreed that it should be printed.

Appendix 1

Minutes of Proceedings
of the Committee
Relating to the Report

List of Proceedings Relating to the Report

Thursday, 16 October 2008

Thursday, 23 October 2008

Thursday, 22 January 2009

Thursday, 2 April 2009

Thursday, 2 July 2009

Thursday, 3 December 2009

Thursday, 28 January 2010

Tuesday, 11 May 2010

Thursday, 13 May 2010

Tuesday, 18 May 2010

Thursday, 20 May 2010

Tuesday, 25 May 2010

Thursday, 3 June 2010

Thursday, 16 October 2008
Council Chamber, Strabane Council Office

Present: Mr David Simpson MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong MLA
Mr Mickey Brady MLA
Mr Fra McCann MLA
Miss Michelle McIlveen MLA
Mr Alban Maginness MLA

In Attendance: Mr Peter McCallion (Assembly Clerk)
Mr Damien Martin (Clerk Assistant)
Mrs Clairita Frazer (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Joy Hamilton (Clerical Supervisor)
Mrs Sheila Mawhinney (Clerical Supervisor)
Mrs Lorraine McFarland (Clerical Officer)

14.00 pm The meeting opened at in public session.

5. Departmental briefing on the Welfare Reform Green Paper

14.10 pm Officials joined the meeting.

Departmental officials briefed the Committee on the Welfare Reform Green Paper.

The Chairperson thanked the officials for their briefing.

14.47 pm The officials left the meeting.

Action: It was agreed that the Committee would write to the Department to request a short extension to the consultation deadline.

Thursday, 23rd October 2008
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr David Simpson MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong MLA
Mr Micky Brady MLA
Mr Jonathan Craig MLA
Mr David Hilditch MLA
Ms Anna Lo MLA
Mr Alban Maginness MLA
Mr Fra McCann MLA
Miss Michelle McIlveen MLA
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín MLA

In Attendance: Mr John Torney (Principal Clerk)
Mr Peter McCallion (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Hilary Bogle (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Joy Hamilton (Clerical Supervisor)
Mrs Sheila Mawhinney (Clerical Supervisor)
Mrs Lorraine McFarland (Clerical Officer)

Apology: Mr Thomas Burns MLA

10.32 am The meeting commenced in public session.

11.55 am Ms Ní Chuilín left the meeting

9. Briefing by the Law Centre (NI) on the Welfare Reform Green Paper

Members took evidence from Mr Les Allamby, Director, Law Centre (NI)

12.05 pm Mr Hilditch returned to the meeting

12.05 pm Ms Lo left the meeting

12.10 pm Ms Lo returned to the meeting

12.30 pm The Chairperson thanked the witness for attending.

Agreed: It was agreed that the Clerk prepare a response to the consultation on the Welfare Reform Green Paper and that, due to time constraints, it should be approved by the Chairperson on behalf of the Committee and submitted to the Department.

Thursday, 22 January 2009
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr David Simpson MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong MLA
Mr Thomas Burns MLA
Mr David Hilditch MLA
Mr Jonathan Craig MLA
Ms Anna Lo MLA
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín MLA
Mr Alban Maginness MLA
Mr Fra McCann MLA
Miss Michelle McIlveen MLA

In Attendance: Mr Peter McCallion (Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Clairita Frazer (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Joy Hamilton (Clerical Supervisor)
Mrs Sheila Mawhinney (Clerical Supervisor)
Mrs Lorraine McFarland (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Mr Mickey Brady MLA

10.33 am The meeting began in public session.

10.42 am Mr Armstrong left the meeting.

6. Department for Work and Pensions White Paper – Welfare Reform.

10.50 am Mr Burns left the meeting.

The Clerk briefed the Committee on the key points of the Department for Work and Pension’s White Paper on welfare reform.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to write to the Minister asking her to keep the Committee informed of the equivalent Assembly Bill and the programme for its enactment. The Clerk was directed to explore the possibility of the Law Centre doing some work on this paper in advance of further Committee scrutiny.

Thursday, 2 April 2009
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr David Simpson MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Mickey Brady MLA
Mr David Hilditch MLA
Ms Anna Lo MLA
Mr Alban Maginness MLA
Mr Fra McCann MLA
Miss Michelle McIlveen MLA
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín MLA

In Attendance: Mr Peter McCallion (Assembly Clerk)
Mr John Devlin (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Joy Hamilton (Clerical Supervisor)
Mrs Sheila Mawhinney (Clerical Supervisor)

Apologies: Mr Billy Armstrong MLA
Mr Thomas Burns MLA
Mr Jonathan Craig MLA

11.10am The meeting began in public session.

4. Welfare Reform Bill – Law Centre (NI) briefing

11.17 am The following representatives of Law Centre (NI) joined the meeting:

Les Allamby – Director, Law Centre (NI);

Laure Niwa – Law Centre (NI).

The representatives briefed the Committee on the Welfare Reform Bill.

11.46 am Mr Alban Maginness left the meeting

The Chairperson thanked the representatives for their briefing.

11.55 am The representatives left the meeting.

5. Social Security Advisory Committee - briefing

11.56 am The following member of the Social Security Advisory Committee joined the meeting at:

Sir Richard Tilt – Chairperson, Social Security Advisory Committee.

Sir Richard briefed the Committee on the role of the Social Security Advisory Committee, the Welfare Reform Bill and aspects of the Social Fund.

The Chairperson thanked Sir Richard for his briefing.

12.17 pm Sir Richard left the meeting

Thursday, 2 July 2009
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr David Hilditch MLA (Deputy Chairperson)
Mrs Mary Bradley MLA
Mr Mickey Brady MLA
Mr Thomas Burns MLA
Mr Jonathan Craig MLA
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín MLA
Ms Anna Lo MLA
Mr Fra McCann MLA
Miss Michelle McIlveen MLA

In Attendance: Mr Peter McCallion (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Claire McCanny (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr John Devlin (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Joy Hamilton (Clerical Supervisor)
Mrs Sheila Mawhinney (Clerical Supervisor)
Miss Allison Ferguson (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Mr Billy Armstrong MLA
Mr David Simpson MLA (Chairperson)

11.03 am The meeting began in public session.

1.18 pm Ms Michelle McIlveen left the meeting

1.18 pm Mr Jonathan Craig left the meeting

10. Welfare Reform Bill – Departmental briefing

1:18 pm The Deputy Chairperson welcomed the following Departmental officials:

Anne McCleary – Director, Social Policy and Legislation Division, DSD;

Margaret Sisk – Social Policy and Legislation Division;

Gerry McCann – DSD; and

Janis Creane – DSD.

The officials briefed the Committee on the Welfare Reform Bill.

1.28 pm Ms Anna Lo left the meeting

The Deputy Chairperson thanked the officials for their briefing.

1:38 pm The officials left the meeting.

Agreed: It was agreed that the Department should be invited to return in September with a summary of the findings from the EQIA consultation.

Thursday 3 December 2009
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Simon Hamilton MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong MLA
Mrs Mary Bradley MLA
Mr Mickey Brady MLA
Mr Jonathan Craig MLA
Mr Alex Easton MLA
Mr David Hilditch MLA
Ms Anna Lo MLA
Mr Fra McCann MLA
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín MLA

In Attendance: Mr Peter McCallion (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Claire McCanny (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Joy Hamilton (Clerical Supervisor)
Ms Allison Ferguson (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:

10.03 am The meeting began in public session.

10:42 am Mr Mickey Brady left the meeting.

11:50 am Mr Jonathan Craig left the meeting

12:07 pm The meeting was temporarily adjourned

12:07 pm Mrs Mary Bradley, Mr Fra McCann and Mr David Hilditch left the meeting

12:11 pm The meeting resumed

12:12 pm Mr Fra McCann rejoined the meeting

11. Welfare Reform Bill Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA) consultation - Departmental briefing

12:12 pm The following Departmental officials joined the meeting.

Anne McCleary Director, Social Security Policy and Legislation, DSD;

Margaret Sisk Social Policy and Legislation Division, DSD; and

Colm McLaughlin Social Policy and Legislation Division, DSD.

The officials provided a briefing on the consultation on the Welfare Reform Bill EQIA. This was followed by a question and answer session.

12:20 pm Mr David Hilditch rejoined the meeting

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the Clerk should submit a response on behalf of the Committee to the consultation expressing the Committee’s views on the Welfare Reform Bill EQIA.

12:35 pm The officials left the meeting

Thursday 28 January 2010
Room 135, Parliament Buildings, Stormont

Present: Mr Simon Hamilton MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong MLA
Mrs Mary Bradley MLA
Mr Mickey Brady MLA
Mr Thomas Burns MLA
Mr Jonathan Craig MLA
Mr Alex Easton MLA
Mr David Hilditch MLA
Ms Anna Lo MLA
Mr Fra McCann MLA
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín MLA

In Attendance: Mr Peter McCallion (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Claire McCanny (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Joy Hamilton (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Darren McStravick (Clerical Supervisor)

Apologies: None

10:04am The meeting began in public session.

7. Welfare Reform Bill – Departmental Briefing.

11:10 am The following officials joined the meeting:

Anne McCleary Director, Social Security Policy and Legislation Division, DSD; and

Margaret Sisk Deputy Director, Social Security Policy and Legislation Division, DSD.

11:22 am Mr Billy Armstrong left the meeting.

11:35 am Mr Thomas Burns left the meeting.

The officials provided a briefing on the next steps for the Welfare Reform Bill. This was followed by a question and answer session.

The Chairperson thanked the officials for the briefing

11:46 am The officials left the meeting.

Agreed: It was agreed that the Chairperson would write to the Minister: to express the Committee’s concerns in relation to the delayed introduction of the Welfare Reform Bill; to request information on the implications of the anticipated disparity with Great Britain in respect of social security arrangements and to seek an update on the Department’s exchanges with the Department for Work and Pensions in relation to the anticipated disparity.

Agreed: The Committee further agreed that, as with the recent housing legislation, it would extend the fullest co-operation to the Department during the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill.

Tuesday 11 May 2010
Room 144, Parliament Buildings, Stormont

Present: Mr Simon Hamilton MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Mickey Brady MLA
Mr Alex Easton MLA
Ms Anna Lo MLA
Mr Fra McCann MLA
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín MLA

In Attendance: Mr Peter McCallion (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Claire McCanny (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Ms Allison Ferguson (Clerical Officer)
Ms Leanne Johnston (Clerical Supervisor)

Apologies: Mr Billy Armstrong MLA
Mrs Mary Bradley MLA
Mr Thomas Burns MLA
Mr Jonathan Craig MLA
Mr David Hilditch MLA

The meeting began in public session at 2.04pm.

4. Matters Arising

4.1 Welfare Reform Bill – Committee Stage

Agreed: The Committee agreed a motion to seek an extension to the Committee Stage of the Welfare Reform Bill to 17 June 2010.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the Delegated Powers Memorandum of the Welfare Reform Bill be forwarded to the Examiner of Statutory Rules for his consideration.

5. Welfare Reform Bill Evidence Session – briefing by the Department for Social Development

The following Departmental officials joined the meeting at 2.09pm:

Ms Anne McCleary Director, Social Security Policy and Legislation Division, DSD;

Ms Margaret Sisk Assistant Director, Social Security Policy and Legislation Division, DSD;

and

Mr Colm McLaughlin Social Security Policy and Legislation Division, DSD.

The officials gave a briefing on the clauses and delegated powers of the Welfare Reform Bill and provided responses to questions raised by the Committee.

3.48pm Mr Alex Easton left the meeting.

The Chairperson thanked the officials for the oral evidence.

Noted: The Committee noted Ms Carál Ní Chuilín’s concerns about the potential exploitation of school leavers described as Not in Education, Employment or Training (NEETs) following the introduction of the proposed “work for your benefits" schemes.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the Clerk should write to the Department seeking more information on:

the areas in the UK which are to be included in the pilot of the “work for your benefits" schemes;
the contractual and other controls to be put in place by the Department for Work and Pensions to regulate third party contractors; and
the definition of “domestic violence" to be used by jobseekers allowance advisers; and
the conditions which need to be met to qualify as good cause for non-compliance with a jobseeker’s direction..

3.57pm The officials left the meeting.

3.57pm The meeting was temporarily adjourned.

4.03pm The meeting resumed.

4.03pm Mr Alex Easton rejoined the meeting.

6. Welfare Reform Bill Evidence Session – briefing by Advice NI.

The following representative from Advice NI joined the meeting at 4.03pm:

Mr Kevin Higgins Head of Policy and Research, Advice NI.

The representative gave oral evidence on the Welfare Reform Bill concentrating in particular on: “work for your benefits" schemes; community care grants and the contracting-out of employment support services. This was followed by a question and answer session.

The Chairperson thanked the representative for the oral evidence.

4:35pm The representative left the meeting.

7. Welfare Reform Bill Evidence Session – briefing by Citizens Advice Bureau

The Committee agreed that Agenda Item 7 (Welfare Reform Bill- Briefing by Citizens Advice Bureau) be deferred.

Thursday 13 May 2010
Room 135, Parliament Buildings, Stormont

Present: Mr Simon Hamilton MLA (Chairperson)
Mrs Mary Bradley MLA
Mr Mickey Brady MLA
Mr David Hilditch MLA
Ms Anna Lo MLA
Mr Fra McCann MLA

In Attendance: Mr Peter McCallion (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Claire McCanny (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Ms Allison Ferguson (Clerical Officer)
Ms Leanne Johnston (Clerical Supervisor)

Apologies: Mr Billy Armstrong MLA
Mr Thomas Burns MLA
Mr Jonathan Craig MLA
Mr Alex Easton MLA
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín MLA

9.37am The meeting began in public session.

4. Welfare Reform Bill Evidence Session - briefing by Citizens Advice Bureau

9.44am The following representatives from Citizens Advice Bureau joined the meeting:

Mr Paul Herink Director of Information Services, Citizens Advice Bureau; and

Ms Lauren Kerr Information and Policy Officer, Citizens Advice Bureau.

The representatives provided oral evidence on the Welfare Reform Bill focusing in particular on the abolition of Income Support and the extension of work-related activity conditionality. This was followed by a question and answer session.

The Chairperson thanked the representatives for the oral evidence.

10.12am The representatives left the meeting.

5. Welfare Reform Bill Evidence Session – briefing by the Law Centre NI.

10.13am The following representatives from the Law Centre NI joined the meeting:

Mr Les Allamby Director, Law Centre NI; and

Ms Laura Niwa Policy Officer, Law Centre NI

The representatives gave oral evidence on the Welfare Reform Bill concentrating in particular on the issue of parity, the Equality Impact Assessment for the Welfare Reform Bill and the proposals relating to the introduction of sanctions. This was followed by a question and answer session.

The Chairperson thanked the representatives for the oral evidence.

11:10am The representatives left the meeting.

6. Welfare Reform Bill Evidence Session – briefing by Gingerbread NI

11.11am The following representative from Gingerbread NI joined the meeting:

Ms Marie Cavanagh Director, Gingerbread NI.

The representative gave oral evidence on the Welfare Reform Bill concentrating in particular on the impact of the Bill on lone parents and child poverty in Northern Ireland. This was followed by a question and answer session.

The Chairperson thanked the representative for the oral evidence.

11:42am The representative left the meeting.

11.43am Mr David Hilditch left the meeting.

11.43am The meeting was temporarily adjourned.

11.54am The meeting resumed.

Tuesday 18 May 2010
Room 135, Parliament Buildings, Stormont

Present: Mr Simon Hamilton MLA (Chairperson)
Mrs Mary Bradley MLA
Mr Mickey Brady MLA
Mr Thomas Burns MLA
Mr Jonathan Craig MLA
Mr Alex Easton MLA
Mr David Hilditch MLA
Ms Anna Lo MLA
Mr Fra McCann MLA

In Attendance: Mr Peter McCallion (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Claire McCanny (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Ms Allison Ferguson (Clerical Officer)
Ms Leanne Johnston (Clerical Supervisor)

Apologies: Mr Billy Armstrong MLA

2.02pm The meeting began in public session.

3. Matters Arising

3.1 Law Centre Briefing Paper

Noted: The Committee noted a paper from the Law Centre on Social Security Parity and the Welfare Reform Bill.

3.2 Motion of Extension

Noted: The Committee noted that the motion to extend the Committee Stage of the Welfare Reform Bill is expected to come to plenary on Monday 24 May 2010.

4. Welfare Reform Bill Evidence Session - briefing by the National Autistic Society (NI)

The following representatives from the National Autistic Society (NI) joined the meeting at 2.10pm:

Ms Shirelle Stewart Northern Ireland Director (Joint), National Autistic Society (NI); and

Ms Regina Cox Northern Ireland Director (Joint), National Autistic Society (NI).

The representatives provided oral evidence on the Welfare Reform Bill. This was followed by a question and answer session.

The Chairperson thanked the representatives for the oral evidence.

2.33pm Mr David Hilditch joined the meeting.

2.35pm The representatives left the meeting.

5. Welfare Reform Bill Evidence Session – briefing by Mencap NI.

2.36pm The following representatives from Mencap NI joined the meeting:

Ms Paschal McKeown Policy and Information Manager, Mencap NI;

Mr Paul McGowan Disability and Equality Officer, Mencap NI; and

Ms Teresa Hazzard Employment Services Manager, Mencap NI.

The representatives gave oral evidence on the Welfare Reform Bill. This was followed by a question and answer session.

3.04pm Mrs Mary Bradley joined the meeting.

3.08pm Mr Thomas Burns left the meeting.

The Chairperson thanked the representatives for the oral evidence.

3:09pm The representatives left the meeting.

6. Welfare Reform Bill Evidence Session – briefing by the Department for Social Development

3.10pm The following Departmental officials joined the meeting:

Ms Anne McCleary Director, Social Security Policy and Legislation Division, DSD;

Ms Margaret Sisk Assistant Director, Social Security Policy and Legislation Division, DSD; and

Mr Colm McLaughlin Social Security Policy and Legislation Division, DSD.

The officials provided a Departmental response to the issues raised by stakeholders during the oral evidence sessions on the Welfare Reform Bill. This was followed by a question and answer session.

3.31pm Mr David Hilditch left the meeting.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the Clerk should write to the Department to seek assurances that DSD and DEL would revise the existing staff guidance to ensure that the special needs of certain groups of claimants are properly recognised and managed during the claims process and that specialist advocacy bodies would have an input into staff training to raise awareness of the issues facing claimants with specific needs.

The Chairperson thanked the officials for their briefing.

3:48pm The officials left the meeting.

Thursday 20 May 2010
Room 135, Parliament Buildings, Stormont

Present: Mr Simon Hamilton MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mrs Mary Bradley MLA
Mr Mickey Brady MLA
Mr Jonathan Craig MLA
Mr Alex Easton MLA
Mr David Hilditch MLA
Ms Anna Lo MLA
Mr Fra McCann MLA
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín MLA

In Attendance: Mr Peter McCallion (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Claire McCanny (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Ms Clarita Frazer (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Ms Allison Ferguson (Clerical Officer)
Ms Patricia Casey (Bill Clerk) – agenda item 7 only

Apologies: None

10.03am The meeting began in public session.

6. Welfare Reform Bill Evidence Session - briefing by Age NI

10.08am The following representatives from Age NI joined the meeting:

Ms Elaine Campbell Head of Policy, Age NI; and

Ms Amy Veale Policy Officer, Age NI.

The representatives provided oral evidence on the Welfare Reform Bill. This was followed by a question and answer session.

The Chairperson thanked the representatives for the oral evidence.

10.28am Mr Billy Armstrong joined the meeting.

10.30am The representatives left the meeting.

7. Welfare Reform Bill– Clause-by-clause scrutiny.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the evidence sessions were now complete and that formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Welfare Reform Bill should commence.

10.31am The following Departmental officials joined the meeting:

Ms Anne McCleary Director, Social Security Policy and Legislation Division, DSD;

Ms Margaret Sisk Assistant Director, Social Security Policy and Legislation Division, DSD; and

Mr Colm McLaughlin Social Security Policy and Legislation Division, DSD.

The Department indicated that it could unequivocally assure the Committee that both DSD and DEL would review and amend their guidance to benefits advisors so as to require them to give additional and appropriate consideration to claimants who have: child-caring difficulties; mental illness; a learning disability; domestic violence issues or other caring responsibilities.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to seek confirmation in respect of DSD and DEL guidance to benefit advisors from the Minister at Consideration Stage.

Clause 1: Schemes for assisting persons to obtain employment: ‘Work for your benefit’ schemes etc.

As a consensus could not be reached on Clause 1 as drafted, the Committee divided on the proposal that:

“Subject to the Examiner’s Report or other consequential amendment, the Committee is content with Clause 1 as drafted".

The Committee divided: Ayes 7; Noes 3; Abstentions 0.

AYES

Mr Simon Hamilton
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mrs Mary Bradley
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr Alex Easton
Mr David Hilditch
Ms Anna Lo

NOES

Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Fra McCann
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín

ABSTENTIONS

None

The motion was carried.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that its reservations in relation to Clause 1 in respect of the mandatory aspects of the proposed ‘work for your benefit’ schemes and the absence of confirmation that pilots would be undertaken in Northern Ireland would be expressed in the Bill Report and during Consideration Stage of the Bill.

Clause 2: Work-related activity: income support claimants and partners of claimants.

As a consensus could not be reached on Clause 2 as drafted, the Committee divided on the proposal that:

“Subject to the Examiner’s Report or other consequential amendment, the Committee is content with Clause 2 as drafted".

The Committee divided: Ayes 7; Noes 3; Abstentions 0.

AYES

Mr Simon Hamilton
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mrs Mary Bradley
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr Alex Easton
Mr David Hilditch
Ms Anna Lo

NOES

Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Fra McCann
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín

ABSTENTIONS

None

The motion was carried.

Clause 3: Lone parents

As a consensus could not be reached on Clause 3 as drafted, the Committee divided on the proposal that:

“Subject to the Examiner’s Report or other consequential amendment, the Committee is content with Clause 3 as drafted".

The Committee divided: Ayes 7; Noes 3; Abstentions 0.

AYES

Mr Simon Hamilton
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mrs Mary Bradley
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr Alex Easton
Mr David Hilditch
Ms Anna Lo

NOES

Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Fra McCann
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín

ABSTENTIONS

None

The motion was carried.

Clause 4: Entitlement to jobseeker’s allowance without seeking employment etc.

“Question: That subject to the Examiner’s Report or other consequential amendment, the Committee is content with Clause 4 as drafted, put and agreed to."

Clause 5: Couples where are at least one member capable of work.

The Department provided assurances that caring responsibilities will be taken into consideration when assessing eligibility for Jobseekers Allowance and that carers will not need to be in receipt of benefits, such as Carer’s Allowance, to prove that they have caring responsibilities.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to seek confirmation in respect of assurances relating to carers and JSA from the Minister at Consideration Stage.

“Question: That subject to the Examiner’s Report or other consequential amendment, the Committee is content with Clause 5 as drafted, put and agreed to."

Clause 6: Statutory sick pay and employment and support allowance.

The Department provided assurances that alternative provision is to be made for people who currently receive Income Support in addition to statutory sick pay and that existing passporting provisions to other benefits will still apply.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to seek confirmation in respect of assurances relating to Income Support, sick pay and passporting from the Minister at Consideration Stage.

“Question: That subject to the Examiner’s Report or other consequential amendment, the Committee is content with Clause 6 as drafted, put and agreed to."

11.30am Mr David Hilditch left the meeting.

Clause 7: Transitional provision relating to sections 4 to 6.

“Question: That subject to the Examiner’s Report or other consequential amendment, the Committee is content with Clause 7 as drafted, put and agreed to."

Clause 8: Assembly procedure: regulations imposing work-related activity requirements on lone parents with children under 7.

“Question: That subject to the Examiner’s Report or other consequential amendment, the Committee is content with Clause 8 as drafted, put and agreed to."

Clause 9: Abolition of income support.

The Department provided assurances that Income Support will not be abolished until a suitable alternative provision is identified for vulnerable claimant groups.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to seek confirmation from the Minister at Consideration Stage in respect of the abolition of Income Support and alternative provision for vulnerable groups.

“Question: That subject to the Examiner’s Report or other consequential amendment, the Committee is content with Clause 9 as drafted, put and agreed to."

Clause 10: Power to direct claimant to undertake specific work-related activity.

The Department provided assurances that both DEL and DSD staff will receive appropriate training to deal with the specific needs of vulnerable groups of claimants required to undertake work-related activity.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to seek confirmation from the Minister at Consideration Stage in relation to assurances relating to the training of DSD and DEL staff in respect of the treatment of vulnerable claimants.

“Question: That subject to the Examiner’s Report or other consequential amendment, the Committee is content with Clause 10 as drafted, put and agreed to."

Clause 11: Conditions for contributory jobseeker’s allowance.

“Question: That subject to the Examiner’s Report or other consequential amendment, the Committee is content with Clause 11 as drafted, put and agreed to."

Clause 12: Conditions for contributory employment and support allowance.

“Question: That subject to the Examiner’s Report or other consequential amendment, the Committee is content with Clause 12 as drafted, put and agreed to."

Clause 13: Mobility component.

“Question: That subject to the Examiner’s Report or other consequential amendment, the Committee is content with Clause 13 as drafted, put and agreed to."

Clause 14: Maternity allowance and carer’s allowance.

11.43am Mr Jonathan Craig left the meeting.

“Question: That subject to the Examiner’s Report or other consequential amendment, the Committee is content with Clause 14 as drafted, put and agreed to."

Clause 15: Community Care Grants relating to specific goods or services.

11.49am Mr Jonathan Craig rejoined the meeting.

11.50am Mr Billy Armstrong left the meeting.

The Department provided assurances that the provision of services relating to Community Care Grants would be subject to procurement best practice and that the Committee would have an input to the relevant contracting process.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to seek confirmation from the Minister at Consideration Stage in respect of assurances pertaining to procurement best practice for services relating to Community Care Grants and further Committee review during the relevant contracting process.

“Question: That subject to the Examiner’s Report or other consequential amendment, the Committee is content with Clause 15 as drafted, put and agreed to."

Clause 16: Community care grants: reviews and information.

“Question: That subject to the Examiner’s Report or other consequential amendment, the Committee is content with Clause 16 as drafted, put and agreed to."

Clause 17: Regulations relating to information: Assembly control.

“Question: That subject to the Examiner’s Report or other consequential amendment, the Committee is content with clause 17 as drafted, put and agreed to."

Agreed: The Committee agreed that it would continue formal clause-by-clause scrutiny at the next meeting of the Social Development Committee on Tuesday 25 May 2010.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the reservations expressed by Members in relation to the clauses considered would be set out in the Bill Report and during Consideration Stage of the Bill.

The Chairperson thanked the officials for their attendance.

11.59am The officials left the meeting.

Tuesday 25 May 2010
Room 135, Parliament Buildings, Stormont

Present: Mr Simon Hamilton MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong MLA
Mrs Mary Bradley MLA
Mr Mickey Brady MLA
Mr Jonathan Craig MLA
Mr Alex Easton MLA
Mr Tommy Gallagher MLA
Mr David Hilditch MLA
Ms Anna Lo MLA
Mr Fra McCann MLA
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín MLA

In Attendance: Mr Peter McCallion (Assembly Clerk)
Mr Trevor Allen (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Stewart Kennedy (Clerical Supervisor)
Ms Allison Ferguson (Clerical Officer)
Ms Patricia Casey (Bill Clerk) – agenda item 4 only

Apologies: None

2.03pm The meeting began in public session.

4. Welfare Reform Bill

2.06pm The following Departmental officials joined the meeting:

Ms Anne McCleary Director, Social Security Policy and Legislation Division, DSD;

Ms Margaret Sisk Assistant Director, Social Security Policy and Legislation Division, DSD; and

Mr Colm McLaughlin Social Security Policy and Legislation Division, DSD.

2.07pm Mrs Mary Bradley joined the meeting.

2.08pm Mr Alex Easton joined the meeting.

2.11pm Mr David Hilditch joined the meeting.

2.11pm Ms Carál Ní Chuilín joined the meeting.

4.1 Examiner of Statutory Rules Report on the Delegated Powers Memorandum

The Committee noted a report from the Examiner of Statutory Rules into the delegated powers of the Welfare Reform Bill.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that it would not reconsider the clauses of the Bill in light of the Examiner’s findings.

4.2 Law Centre (NI) Submission on suggested amendments

The Committee noted a submission from the Law Centre (NI) that included suggested amendments to the Welfare Reform Bill.

4.3 Clause-by-Clause Scrutiny

The Committee continued its formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Welfare Reform Bill.

Clause 18: Payments on account

“Question: That subject to consequential amendment, the Committee is content with Clause 18, as drafted, put and agreed to."

Clause 19: Loss of benefit provision

As a consensus could not be reached on Clause 19 as drafted, the Committee divided on the proposal that:

“Subject to consequential amendment, the Committee is content with Clause 19 as drafted".

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 3; Abstentions 1.

AYES

Mr Simon Hamilton
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mrs Mary Bradley
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr Alex Easton
Mr David Hilditch

NOES

Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Fra McCann
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín

ABSTENTIONS

Ms Anna Lo

The motion was carried.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that its reservations in relation to Clause 19 in respect of the loss of benefit provision in the event of benefit fraud would be expressed in the Bill Report and during Consideration Stage of the Bill.

Clause 20: Jobseeker’s allowance: sanctions for violent conduct etc. in connection with claim

As a consensus could not be reached on Clause 20 as drafted, the Committee divided on the proposal that:

“Subject to consequential amendment, the Committee is content with Clause 20 as drafted".

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 3; Abstentions 1.

AYES

Mr Simon Hamilton
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mrs Mary Bradley
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr Alex Easton
Mr David Hilditch

NOES

Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Fra McCann
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín

ABSTENTIONS

Ms Anna Lo

The motion was carried.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that Members’ reservations in relation to Clause 20 in respect of sanctions for JSA claimants convicted or cautioned for behaving violently or threatening violence to benefits staff would be expressed in the Bill Report and during Consideration Stage of the Bill.

Clause 21: Repeal of sanctions 53 to 57 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act (Northern Ireland) 2000

“Question: That subject to consequential amendment, the Committee is content with Clause 21, as drafted, put and agreed to."

Clause 22: Period for which pilot schemes have effect etc.

“Question: That subject to consequential amendment, the Committee is content with Clause 22, as drafted, put and agreed to."

Clause 23: Exemption from jobseeker conditions for victims of domestic violence

The Committee noted assurances from the Department that the definition of domestic violence would include psychological, financial and physical issues and that the 13 week exemption period was in addition to an existing 11 week exemption.

“Question: That subject to consequential amendment, the Committee is content with Clause 23, as drafted, put and agreed to."

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

The Department provided assurances that good cause provisions would extend to mental health; learning disability; child care issues and other caring responsibilities. T

Agreed: The Committee agreed to seek confirmation of assurances from the Minister at Consideration Stage in respect of good cause provisions.

“Question: That subject to consequential amendment, the Committee is content with Clause 24, as drafted, put and agreed to."

Clause 25: Jobseeker’s agreements and action plans: well being of children

The Department provided assurances that benefit advisers would consider a wide range of scenarios in assessing the well-being of the children of claimants.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to seek confirmation of assurances from the Minister at Consideration Stage in respect of the provisions relating to well-being of children.

“Question: That subject to consequential amendment, the Committee is content with Clause 25, as drafted, put and agreed to."

2.52pm Mr Alex Easton left the meeting.

Clause 26: Contracting out functions under Jobseeker (Northern Ireland) Order 1995

“Question: That subject to consequential amendment, the Committee is content with Clause 26, as drafted, put and agreed to."

Clauses 30 to 36: Minor amendments; Payments of child support maintenance; Child support maintenance: offences relating to information; Consequential amendments of orders and regulations; Repeals; Interpretation; and Commencement

“Question: That subject to consequential amendment, the Committee is content with Clauses 30 to 36, as drafted, put and agreed to."

Clause 37: Short title

“Question: That subject to consequential amendment, the Committee is content with Clause 37, as drafted, put and agreed to."

Schedules 1 to 4: Amendments connected to section 4; Abolition of income support: consequential amendments; Loss of benefit provisions: further amendments; Repeals

“Question: That subject to consequential amendment, the Committee is content with Schedules 1 to 4, as drafted, put and agreed to."

2.56pm The meeting was temporarily adjourned.

Mrs Mary Bradley, Mr David Hilditch, Ms Anna Lo and Ms Carál Ní Chuilín left the meeting.

3.48pm The meeting resumed in open session.

Clause 27: Attendance in connection with jobseeker’s allowance: sanctions

As a consensus could not be reached on Clause 27 as drafted, the Committee divided on the proposal that:

“Subject to consequential amendment, the Committee is content with Clause 27 as drafted".

The Committee divided: Ayes 4; Noes 2.

AYES

Mr Simon Hamilton
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr Alex Easton

NOES

Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Fra McCann

The motion was carried.

Clause 28: Social security information and employment or training information

4.02pm Mr David Hilditch rejoined the meeting.

“Question: That subject to consequential amendment, the Committee is content with Clause 28, as drafted, put and agreed to."

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

“Question: That subject to consequential amendment, the Committee is content with Clause 29, as drafted, put and agreed to."

4.07pm Mr Tommy Gallagher joined the meeting.

Additional Amendments

State Pension Credit

The Committee considered a proposal to amend the Bill to include a provision for the undertaking of a pilot scheme for the automatic payment of state pension credit.

The Committee noted assurances from the Department that in the event of a successful pilot for the automatic payment of state pension credit, a general roll-out of the scheme would extend to Northern Ireland.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to seek confirmation of assurances from the Minister at Consideration Stage in respect of the roll-out of the automatic payment of state pension credit.

Agreed: The Committee further agreed not to pursue the proposed amendment.

The Chairperson formally welcomed Mr Tommy Gallagher to the Committee and thanked Mr Thomas Burns for his contribution during his time as a Member of the Committee.

Parents with children in receipt of Disability Living Allowance (DLA)

The Committee considered a proposal to amend the Bill to include an exemption from work-related conditionality provisions for all parents with children in receipt of DLA.

The Committee noted assurances from the Department that guidance for benefits advisers would set out the safeguards for JSA claimants who were also the parents of disabled children.

Agreed: The Committee agreed not to pursue the proposed amendment.

Additional amendment in respect of well-being of children

The Committee considered a proposal from the Law Centre to amend the Bill to include a requirement for the Department to have statutory regard for the well-being of children in the discharge of all of the clauses of the Bill.

The Committee noted assurances from the Department that the well being of children would be adequately addressed in the relevant guidance and that advisers’ discretion would exceed the prescriptions proposed by the Law Centre.

Agreed: The Committee agreed not to pursue the proposed amendment.

Conclusion of clause-by-clause scrutiny

“Question: That the Committee is content with the Long Title of the Welfare Reform Bill, as drafted, put and agreed to."

As a consensus could not be reached on the Welfare Reform Bill, as drafted, the Committee divided on the proposal that:

“Subject to the assurances requested, the Committee is content with the Welfare Reform Bill, as drafted".

The Committee divided: Ayes 5; Noes 2; Abstentions 1.

AYES

Mr Simon Hamilton
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr Alex Easton
Mr David Hilditch

NOES

Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Fra McCann

ABSTENTIONS

Mr Tommy Gallagher

The motion was carried.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that it was content to conclude clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Welfare Reform Bill.

The Chairperson thanked the officials for their attendance.

4.25pm The officials left the meeting.

Thursday 3 June 2010
Room 135 Parliament Buildings

In Attendance: Mr Peter McCallion (Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Clairita Frazer (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Stewart Kennedy (Clerical Supervisor)
Ms Allison Ferguson (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: None

10.02am The meeting began in public session.

10.11am Mr Hilditch joined the meeting.

5. Consideration of Draft Welfare Reform Bill Report

The Committee considered a draft Report on the Committee Stage of the Welfare Reform Bill.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the Chairperson would make appropriate reference at Consideration Stage to the nature of the divisions at the Committee Stage of the Bill.

The Committee agreed the main body of the report:

Executive Summary, read and agreed

Introduction, read and agreed

Consideration of the Bill, read and agreed

and

Clause-by-Clause Scrutiny of the Bill, read and agreed.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that it was content for the Report to be printed as the Third Report of the Committee for Social Development for session 2009/2010.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the relevant extract from the draft minutes of the proceedings of 3 June 2010 would be included in the Committee’s report.

Appendix 2

Minutes of Evidence

List of Minutes of Evidence

16 October 2008

23 October 2008

22 January 2009

2 April 2009

2 July 2009

3 December 2009

28 January 2010

11 May 2010

13 May 2010

18 May 2010

20 May 2010

25 May 2010

3 June 2010

16 October 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr David Simpson (Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Fra McCann
Miss Michelle McIlveen
Mr Alban Maginness

Witnesses:

Mr Gerry McCann
Mr John O’Neil
Ms Doreen Roy
Ms Margaret Sisk

Department for Social Development

1. The Chairperson (Mr Simpson): We have with us today John O’Neill, Margaret Sisk, Doreen Roy and Gerry McCann. They will brief us on the Welfare Reform Bill Green Paper. Members, in their papers, have a copy of the quick-read version of the Green Paper, ‘No-one Written Off: Reforming Welfare to Reward Responsibility’, and a briefing paper from the Law Centre on the proposals within. The Green Paper will lead to the introduction of quite a lot of parity-based legislation.

2. The Committee wrote to the Minister on 15 May asking that Green and White Papers be made available to the Committee in good time. This was to allow the Committee the opportunity to undertake appropriate and timely scrutiny of parity-based legislation. Although the Department has indicated that the paper was sent before the summer, Committee staff did not receive it. I do not know what happened in relation to communication. It is hoped that the Department will work more closely with the Committee and its staff in future to ensure that the scrutiny role of the Committee is properly facilitated. I would like the officials to take that back to the Minister. As the officials will know, we had the same difficulty in the monitoring rounds, and we spoke with officials then — we do not want that to happen again. The documents must be provided to the Committee and its staff in good time so that the Committee can undertake its scrutinising role.

3. In order to save time, will you address some questions while you are giving your briefing? After the briefing, other members may have questions. Does the Department endorse the proposals in the Green Paper? Is the Department participating in, or co-ordinating, the Green Paper consultation? Will the Department include the Committee’s comments at this meeting as part of the consultation on the Green Paper? Can the Committee make additional submissions to the consultation, and when will the consultation exercise conclude?

4. Mr John O’Neill (Department for Social Development): Thank you Chairperson. The Welfare Reform Green Paper, ‘No-one Written Off: Reforming Welfare to Reward Responsibility’ was published by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) on 21 July 2008. On 22 July, the Department for Social Development (DSD) issued the paper for consultation in Northern Ireland to over 100 interested parties; for example, Disability Action and Advice Northern Ireland.

5. The Committee was invited to comment on those proposals, in line with its earlier discussions with the Minister.

6. The Chairperson: John, I know that you are excited but can you slow down a bit. The Assistant Committee Clerk is trying to take notes, and members are looking confused.

7. Mr J O’Neill: Sorry, I appreciate that this is a familiar field for me, but not for the Committee. I may make some comment later about the problems that we have had in this exercise.

8. Perhaps I should begin by reiterating that this is a Green Paper from the Department for Work and Pensions. It has been issued for consultation in Northern Ireland in line with the long-standing policy of parity in social security matters. That consultation will give people here the opportunity to make their views known, and to have those views taken fully into consideration. Some of the proposals in the Green Paper relate to matters other than social security, and as the paper makes clear, it will be for the Executive to consider the most appropriate arrangements for Northern Ireland. Our Minister has not yet endorsed any of the proposals; we are not here to advocate or defend individual proposals; rather, we hope to assist the Committee in its consideration of the proposals.

9. The Green Paper is a further step in the ongoing process of welfare reform. There are three key principles underpinning the Green Paper. First, people should be in control of their own lives, and take personal responsibility for making the most of the opportunities available. Secondly, people should be supported by an active and caring welfare state to build their capacity. Thirdly, people should be aware of the contribution expected from them in return for help and support through the welfare system.

10. The aim of the proposals is to ensure that no one is forced to live their lives on benefit if they can be helped and supported into work. No one should be written off simply because they have been out of work for a long time, either because they have a disability or a medical condition. The goal, therefore, is to help everyone who can work, to work, and, crucially, to ensure that the necessary support is in place for those people who cannot work. The goal is to provide support, tailored to each person’s needs, and to give everyone the opportunity to develop the necessary skills to enable them to find, or return to, work.

11. The proposals set out a range of options to reduce welfare dependency and to support more people into work. The aim is to provide support to everyone who needs it, while promoting the values of self-reliance and social responsibility. It is considered that suitable work can have a positive affect on health and well-being, and enables people to support themselves and their families. It is widely acknowledged that work is the best route to greater financial security, and that paid work is the most sustainable route out of poverty.

12. One of the key themes of the Green Paper, therefore, is that everyone who is able to work should do so. To that end, the paper proposes a number of measures, including pilot schemes that require the long-term unemployed to engage in a programme of full-time community-based work experience; the power to require those ignoring back-to-work support to undertake full-time activity in return for their benefits; new measures on skills, including skill checks; and piloting a requirement for lone parents and people on incapacity benefit to undertake work-related training.

13. As part of supporting people on incapacity benefits to return to work, or to prepare to return to work, the Green Paper endorses personalised programmes of support for all new and existing claimants, increased financial provision to fund workplace adjustments, and increased supported employment provision. The paper proposes measures to promote a cultural change; just because a person has a disability or medical condition, it does not mean that they cannot play an active and fulfilling roll in the world of work. For most people, therefore, incapacity benefits should be temporary benefits. The work capability assessment will be used to ensure that existing beneficiaries are receiving the right benefit, and that their particular personal needs and abilities are identified.

14. The paper proposes measures to tackle child poverty, including a full disregard of child maintenance and income-related benefits, and a requirement for partners of benefit recipients, except full-time carers and parents of young children, to seek work under the jobseeker’s regime.

15. Members are all aware of the complexity of the current social security system. The benefits system deals with many thousands of people, all with individual needs and circumstances, and it is very complex for claimants to understand and for staff to administer. Streamlining the benefits system is not a new idea. In designing a simpler system, it still must be recognised that people’s needs are individual and varied. However, a simplified system would give staff more time to help claimants to understand their entitlement and the support that is on offer. It would also reduce the potential for fraud and error.

16. The Green Paper proposes the abolition of income support and favours a simplified structure of two main benefits: jobseeker’s allowance and the employment and support allowance. A considerable amount of detailed work remains to be done, and I suspect that that proposal might be for the longer term. The Green Paper also seeks views on whether the current structure of support in cases of bereavement and industrial injury could be improved in order to help people to adjust better to their new circumstances.

17. As I said at the outset, a considerable number of the proposals in Northern Ireland fall to other Departments. For example, the work-related proposals fall primarily to the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL). The proposal for individual budgets for disabled people is primarily a matter for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS), and those for joint birth registration are a matter for the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP). The Green Paper is with those Departments for consideration.

18. The overall aim of the measures is to continue to reduce welfare dependency and to promote responsibility through a simplified, modernised and more flexible benefits system. The Green Paper presents challenges, which are not underestimated. However, the proposals aim to give people an alternative to a life on benefits, while ensuring that the benefits system provides the best possible support for those who cannot work.

19. The proposals open up the debate on the future of welfare reform. The Committee’s response to the consultation paper, along with other responses received by the Department, will be shared with the Department for Work and Pensions. A White Paper is expected in due course after the consultation exercise, leading to a Bill, probably next year.

20. The Chairperson: What about the questions that I asked earlier? You did not answer any of them.

21. Mr J O’Neill: I said that the Department did not endorse the proposals in the Green Paper. The Minister, when she came to the Committee, said that she would like the Committee’s views. Many of the measures have parity, and there might, therefore, be a presumption that we will follow suit. However, the Minister wants to hear the views of the Committee, and of others in Northern Ireland, and that is why the Green Paper has gone out for consultation to as varied a range of organisations as we have on our list of people to consult.

22. The Department is co-ordinating the consultation exercise for Northern Ireland. That has been the arrangement in the past, on the basis that we have a better idea of interested bodies in Northern Ireland. Therefore, we circulate the papers in Northern Ireland, receive the comments, and pass them to DWP. The Northern Ireland comments are then considered as part of the overall consultation exercise.

23. We analyse the comments in Northern Ireland in order that we can give the Minister an idea of what people said about the consultation papers. The comments are fed into the DWP consideration process to ensure that the Northern Ireland comments are taken fully into account.

24. The Chairperson: Was the Green Paper sent to other Committees?

25. Mr J O’Neill: It has gone to the other Departments. The Health Department is involved, as are DEL and DFP. I am not sure whether we have received their comments yet. The consultation ends on 22 October 2008, which is next week. However, if the Committee gets its comments to the Department as soon as possible, we will make every effort to get them taken fully into account by DWP.

26. The Chairperson: Is that date flexible, because it is a very tight timescale?

27. Mr J O’Neill: I appreciate that. DWP said that the quicker that comments are submitted to it, the better. It is up against a timetable, and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions wants to issue a White Paper before Christmas. Therefore, DWP has limited time available. If the Committee gets its comments submitted within a few days or a week of the closing date, there is still the potential for them to be taken into consideration.

28. The Chairperson: So, there is a little leeway.

29. Mr J O’Neill: Yes, but not a month or six weeks.

30. The Chairperson: I appreciate that, especially if the Secretary of State wants to issue a White Paper before Christmas.

31. Mr Brady: The Green Paper’s title, “No-one Written Off: Reforming Welfare to Reward Responsibility", seems slightly euphemistic, to say the least.

32. The Law Centre’s briefing paper encapsulates the problems with the Green Paper. Benefit sanctions are the main thrust. For instance, the Law Centre states that it has “significant reservations" about proposals to move some lone parents onto jobseeker’s allowance. It goes on to state:

“There is an opportunity to develop proposals to encourage claimants back to work that recognise local conditions".

33. Five years ago, a survey found that, in relation to registered childminders, my constituency had the worst childcare provision in western Europe. How will those people with young children who are invited, or forced, to return to work cope? The American model “workfare" is mentioned in the Law Society’s briefing paper. When the “actively seeking employment" requirement was introduced, it was felt that workfare would be introduced. There appears to be a return to that thinking, which is more of a stick-and-stick approach than a carrot-and-stick approach. The carrot has been removed from the equation.

34. May I have the witness’s views on that?

35. Mr J O’Neill: I am at a disadvantage because I have not seen the Law Centre’s report. It was not sent to the Department. However, I suspected that the centre would hold those views.

36. Proposals in relation to lone parents will emerge later this year, and there are further proposals in the Green Paper. The main point is that the proposals are based on a future two-benefit system — jobseeker’s allowance and employment support allowance. Therefore, some means must be found of moving people currently on income support onto the two new benefits. Due to working family tax credit, the number of people who receive income support has declined. That benefit is paid only to certain categories of people, such as lone parents, carers, and a few others. I accept that the existing jobseeker’s and employment support allowances will not easily accommodate those people. There must be some variation in jobseeker’s allowance and employment support allowance in order that they assume the income support workload.

37. Sanctions are part of the benefits system. However, the Green Paper is not sanction-based. Its thrust is that it must be accepted that people on incapacity benefit have been largely abandoned over the years. They have simply been put on incapacity benefit, with very little done to help to get them off that benefit and back into work. The thrust of the Green Paper is that, with help, many people who, at present, receive incapacity benefit can work. The Department accepts that there will always be some people with mental-health, physical or disability conditions who will not be able to work. An element of the employment support allowance is designed to deal with that. However, with help, many people who are on incapacity benefit at the moment can be brought back into productive work, which helps them out of poverty and contributes to the economy.

38. The measures to be introduced will ensure that fewer people will be abandoned to a life on benefits. They will be encouraged back into work.

39. Ms Margaret Sisk (Department for Social Development): If John does not mind, I will address the issue of childcare that was raised by Mr Brady.

40. The Department recognises that there is a shortage of childcare in Northern Ireland. The Minister has been pressing that issue with the Executive as one that must be addressed. There is no question of forcing anybody back to work if he or she cannot find suitable work or appropriate childcare. That simply will not happen.

41. The objective is to give lone parents with older children an opportunity to receive training and to investigate employment opportunities, provided that they can find suitable childcare that enables them to do that. I can assure members that there is absolutely no question of people being forced.

42. Mr Brady: I will make a couple of points to finish on that issue. The whole thrust of working tax credit was to encourage lone parents to return to work. However, claimants can access the childcare element only if the childminder is registered.

43. Ms Sisk: I understand that, yes.

44. Mr Brady: That is not a viable, in particular, here in the North. Mr O’Neill mentioned working tax credit as a means of encouraging people back to work, especially lone parents. The working tax credit system is a total and absolute shambles that has not been dealt with because it was a Gordon Brown initiative. It must be dealt with because it is not encouraging people back to work.

45. It is probably the worst time to introduce this legislation when unemployment figures are starting to rocket. I was going to say that the Department does not have a crystal ball to look into, but sometimes I wonder. It is a bad time to introduce such legislation, but that is not your fault, nor is it the fault of the Department.

46. Finally, the Law Centre has rightly highlighted the issue of mental-health problems among people with drug additions. Indeed, if those people do not take treatment or rehabilitation, they are often subject to benefit sanctions. Therefore, the Department must factor in how those people are affected by mental-health problems; something that has not been addressed in the Green Paper.

47. Mr J O’Neill: Firstly, sanctions are relatively rarely used in practice. Furthermore, I have to answer for many things — thankfully; the tax credit system is not one of those.

48. There are difficulties in relation to drug abuse and the provision of rehabilitation, etc. The Green Paper recognises those difficulties and how people can be brought into rehabilitation programmes. It will be interesting to hear the comments of the organisations that work in that field and to see what proposals emerge from the consultation.

49. Mr Brady: You have stated that sanctions are rarely used. I have worked in this area for 30 years and that has not been my experience. There is perhaps a local-office variation that also must be addressed.

50. Ms McIlveen: The Chairperson has commented on the timescales given by the Department. This Green Paper was released in July. I assume that departmental officials have done quite a bit of work and that the Minister has made comment on it. Will those deliberations on DWP issues be included in the outcomes of what the Minister is likely to respond to?

51. Mr J O’Neill: I do not believe that the Minister will be sending her views on it. The arrangement made with the Committee was that the Department would circulate the paper in Northern Ireland, and that the Committee would be involved in that exercise and would makes its views known on the proposals. The Minister will take those views into account when deciding what the outcome of the proposals will be in Northern Ireland.

52. We have sent the Green Paper to a representative list of organisations and we have received some comments on it. Furthermore, we have been dialoguing and corresponding with some people about various aspects of the proposals.

53. We sent the Green Paper to the Committee at the same time, and I cannot explain why it was not received. What we do know is that it was received by many of the other organisations on the list. We know that because we have received various enquiries about the proposals from various people on the list.

54. The Chairperson: As a result of the tight timescale, will there be any chance of consultation on the White Paper when it is published?

55. Mr J O’Neill: I am not sure that there will be any consultation. The White Paper will represent the proposals that the Westminster Government wish to include in the legislation. Until last week, we were not aware that the Green Paper had not reached the Committee and we had assumed that there was work going on in the Committee to deal with the proposals contained in the paper. It was only this week that the Department was made aware of that discrepancy. Since that discovery, we have been working with the Committee Clerk to get as much material as possible to the Committee.

56. Mr F McCann: Some of my points have been covered by Mr Brady. Like him, I have worked in advice centres over the years and I have dealt with benefit sanctions that have been brought against people. Such sanctions are far more widely used than you have said. Furthermore, there seems to be a discrepancy between how the sanctions are used at a local level and what people of your level in the Department believe.

57. Throughout the consultation on the Welfare Reform Bill Green Paper, the Committee has voiced its concerns about the ability of people in the Department to deal with people with mental illnesses of any kind. Indeed, the failure of the Green Paper to deal with mental illness as a result of drug abuse adds to that concern. Furthermore, the Department is undertaking painful cuts to make efficiency savings. One of the gravest concerns of the Committee is that that will have a further direct impact on the Department’s ability to deal with people with mental illnesses.

58. I raised the point at last week’s meeting — and I raise it again: we must take a week to go through this hugely important document that will change the lives of many people. The situation is terrible. I place great store on what the Law Centre says. It is a professional organisation, and it has been in existence for a long time. However, many other advice services will have to bear the brunt of dealing with this situation. I would have liked to have been able to study what they have to say about the document.

59. One element is that community work can be taken up. What would that entail?

60. Mr J O’Neill: I will begin by addressing the issue of staff. The new employment support allowance comes into effect on 27 October 2008. We will then be dealing with people who leave work due to illness or disability as employment support allowance customers, rather than providing them with incapacity benefit. The existing incapacity benefit caseload will not start transferring to the employment support allowance for at least a couple of years. Therefore, there will be two years to test the new arrangements for getting people back into work.

61. Staff in the Social Security Agency and DEL will not be expected to be able to treat people for mental illness or disability; rather, access to programmes that will deal with those issues will be available when they are eventually set up. The staff in the agency will be trained to recognise that there are mental-health and disability problems, and they will have access to medical advice from within the Department. They will be able to direct people to the programmes most appropriate for dealing with their problems. The staff will not be trained counsellors, but they will know where to direct people as part of the process.

62. Mr F McCann: We live in a time when there is grave concern right across the community about suicide and self-harm. It is also widely recognised that there is a whole category of different statutory organisations with the ability to deal with, or identify, people thinking about suicide or self-harm. I am worried that people suffering from severe mental illness might be refused benefits for some reason. No one has the ability to deal with those people, and it could hoist them over the precipice.

63. Mr J O’Neill: If they are existing incapacity benefit recipients, they will not be subject to the new regime until we start transferring the caseload in about two years’ time. The only people who will be subject to the new regime will be new customers from the end of this month onwards.

64. An array of arrangements is available to treat people, such as cognitive behavioural therapy and similar treatments. Those programmes will be developed and will be available when we start moving the caseload. It is a long and complex process. However, we will have had two years to deal with new cases. There will be refinement of the workplace capability assessment over that period to ensure that when we start moving the existing caseload, it will be a good means of identifying what work a person is capable of, or what training or help will be needed to bring that person to the stage where he or she can consider returning to the workplace.

65. Mr A Maginness: My first point is that the nature of the Green Paper is premised on a society in full employment, otherwise the proposals will not work. We are moving into a much more difficult employment situation where many people will be unemployed through no fault of their own as businesses go bankrupt, etc. The document is doomed to fail if it is viewed in that context and the proposals are put into practice.

66. Secondly, although our benefits regime is based on parity, the administrative machinery does not necessarily have to follow what is done in Britain. There is an opportunity to consider ways and means of trying to encourage people back to work, perhaps by having a more localised administrative framework. That should be considered locally.

67. Although unemployment levels are fairly low here, the problem is that the level of income that people derive from work is low. This is a low-wage economy, which makes it more difficult to encourage people back to work. That fundamental problem must be addressed, and it cannot be addressed simply through the social security regime. If the main thrust of the document is to try to encourage people back to work, as opposed to forcing them back to work through a sanctions regime, there is more chance of that ambitious project working. A sanctions regime, however, will not work in our local circumstances.

68. The Chairperson: Alban Maginness has hit on the point that the Green Paper has come at a difficult time, with the unemployment level across GB heading towards two million. That will get worse, and, without predicting doom and gloom, it will make the situation difficult.

69. Mr J O’Neill: I accept the point about the current economic circumstances, but the Green Paper plans for the long term, and any policy would not come into effect for at least two years. It will take that length of time to set up the programmes and the systems.

70. I accept the need to consider a local version of the policy. However, the exercise is computer-processed, and we use the same computer systems as DWP for reasons of economy and efficiency. It is not possible to set up our system to administer that. Therefore, with the best will in the world, it is difficult to have a Northern Ireland variation on some aspects of the benefit system.

71. Northern Ireland has good levels of employment. Jobs are needed to put people into, and we will have to see what happens with the economy. Around 111,000 people are on incapacity benefit, and one must accept that a good many of those could, with help, be in work. The Green Paper emphasises encouragement, rather than sanctions. It encourages people to believe that they can get back to work. That may not be the work that they had been doing originally, but with training and help, they can conceive of getting back to work.

72. The system must accept that some of those 111,000 people will not be able to go back to work, even part-time work, because of the nature of their illness or disability. Sanctions are a last resort, and various types of encouragement, such as back-to-work arrangements, will be given to get people back to work. Evidence from work that has been carried out on workplace health, with which I have been involved, shows that people who are maintained in work with, for example, a back problem stay in work and do not go on to claiming benefits.

73. Some large organisations in Northern Ireland employ in-house physiotherapists to treat people with back injuries to keep them in work rather than have them go on to the benefits system. That is common in large organisations, but that facility is not there in some small-and-medium-sized enterprises. Whether more can be done to help organisations to take on people with illnesses must be explored.

74. Small-and-medium-sized enterprises also have difficulties in placing people with mental-health problems. Large organisations tend to be better at coping with those people. Work must be done with employers’ organisations and others to ensure that the environment is right for people who have mental-health problems or learning difficulties to get back to work.

75. That takes a long time, and I am not saying that it will be successful in 100% of cases. However, over the years, a proportion of those 111,000 people have simply been abandoned to exist on benefit.

76. Someone who does not come off incapacity benefit within 12 or 18 months is more likely to die or to retire on incapacity benefit than to get back to work. Therefore, the first two years that someone is on an employment and support allowance is a critical period. It is during that period that we need to establish what the problem is and what can be done to get the person back into work. If we get even a percentage of those 111,000 people into work, we will have contributed to the betterment of lives. We will also have contributed to improving the Northern Ireland economy and reducing poverty levels.

77. Mr Brady: You have mentioned that 111,000 people here receive incapacity benefit. The statistics that we have been given by the Department show that 43·5% of those people presented with mental-health behaviour problems. Therefore, statistically, we have a much higher degree of mental-ill-health due to the nature of our society.

78. You also referred to forms of treatment, such as cognitive behavioural therapy, which is recognised as one of the better treatments because it has measurable outcomes. In the area that I represent — Newry and Armagh — the difficulty is that cognitive behavioural therapy is not available on the National Health Service; it is only available privately. Therefore, people on benefits cannot afford a treatment that would probably benefit them. Factors such as that must be taken into account when we consider how people with mental-health problems can secure particular types of employment.

79. Mr F McCann: I would like clarification on what qualifies as community work.

80. Mr J O’Neill: The two main causes for someone’s being on incapacity benefit are musculo-skeletal disorders, which are essentially back problems, and mental-health problems, a lot of which are stress rather than anything else. Those two main causes need to be tackled. Many organisations deal with the musculo-skeletal disorders through physiotherapy, and so on.

81. A high-level mental-health and employment strategy steering group in GB — chaired by Dame Carol Black, the National Director for Health and Work — is bringing business, medical and academic stakeholders together to develop the necessary programmes for dealing with the employment problems faced by people with mental-ill-health.

82. Ms Sisk: To answer Mr McCann’s question, I do not know whether anyone has specified what qualifies as community work. One could speculate on the matter, but I have not a seen concrete definition of what is considered as community work.

83. Mr F McCann: We could be sanctioned for speculating on the matter.

84. Ms Sisk: I do not think that speculation would lead to sanctions.

85. The Chairperson: Does the Department intend to refer claimants of jobseeker’s allowance to private- and voluntary-sector providers after a period of 12 months, for example? If so, what safeguards will the Department implement to protect long-term, vulnerable unemployed claimants?

86. Ms Sisk: That is a matter for the Department for Employment and Learning rather than for the Department for Social Development. Some of the issues that have been raised, such as referring people for sanctions, will largely be dependent on whether employees of the Department for Employment and Learning think that an individual has satisfied his or her jobseeker’s agreement. I suspect that DEL does not intend to refer claimants to private- and voluntary-sector providers, but members would need to check that with DEL.

87. The Chairperson: Members have listened to the departmental briefing and asked questions. Now, we must establish how the matter can be progressed. The papers that have been provided for the Committee include the Law Centre’s offer to give an oral briefing; I think that we should accept that offer. Can that be arranged for the next meeting?

88. The Committee Clerk: Indeed we can, Chairperson. Members will agree that there is quite a lot to consider in the Green Paper. The Law Centre can give us an alternative perspective. I will make arrangements for its representatives to brief the Committee.

89. If members are content, I will speak to my departmental colleagues to determine how much more time we can take to prepare our response. That will give us a little bit more time to think about things. If time is against us, we can fit that briefing into next week’s meeting. However, if we can gain a little more flexibility, the briefing will have to be postponed until a later meeting. The Committee is due to receive a ministerial briefing next week and there will be quite a lot to talk about. It might be beneficial to have a little bit longer to think about the issues in hand, and also to inform other Committees, particularly the Committee for Employment and Learning, and to verify whether they are aware of what is happening.

90. The Chairperson: Are members content with that course of action?

Members indicated assent.

23 October 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr David Simpson (Chairperson)
Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Jonathan Craig
Ms Anna Lo
Mr Fra McCann
Miss Michelle McIlveen
Mr Alban Maginness

Witnesses:

Mr Les Allamby

The Law Centre

91. The Chairperson (Mr Simpson): First, I wish to advise members that the consultation on the Department for Work and Pensions’ Welfare Reform Bill Green Paper has finally closed. However, members who attended the Strabane meeting will know that the Department has given us some leeway on the matter, and we hope that it will take on board our comments. Hopefully, we will have that information as soon as possible.

92. I welcome Les Allamby, who is the director of the Law Centre. I would be grateful if you could give us a brief presentation, and then we will have a question-and-answer session.

93. Mr Les Allamby (The Law Centre): I thank the Committee for the opportunity to come here this morning. I will briefly provide some background to the Law Centre’s interest in the matter.

94. The Law Centre is a voluntary organisation, which, in effect, is a legal resource for the voluntary sector and for advisers who deal with the issues that lawyers in private practice tend not to address. For instance, we consider issues around social security, community care, the non-childcare end of social services, employment, immigration and mental health. We have around 500 members, including local citizens advice bureaux — a provider of independent advice — political parties, constituency associations, trade unions, the Probation Service and social services. We are also involved in the important issue of welfare reform and its impact on people. As well as providing representation and advice on casework, we are involved in policy, training, information and publications work. That is a little bit of the background to our organisation.

95. I will give members the headlines, and we will also provide the reasons why we urge the Committee to take on board our recommendations. We urge the Committee to recommend that the Department does not adopt the Green Paper. The Department for Social Development (DSD) did not apply the Green Paper that was issued in the summer of 2007, as it did not think that it was appropriate for Northern Ireland.

96. The 2008 Green Paper builds on the 2007 Green Paper, but it makes sense to adopt what I call “a Northern Ireland approach", tailored to Northern Irish needs. I will come back to why we think that a different approach is needed here.

97. Since the Green Paper was issued in July, circumstances have changed dramatically, and there has been a downturn in the economy. For example, the latest unemployment figure for the UK was 1·8 million, which was the largest quarterly rise in the past 17 years. The corresponding figure for Northern Ireland also rose. Those figures are for the period up until August, and we know that the situation will get worse before it gets better. That shoots a hole in the waterline below some of the premises on which the Green Paper is based.

98. In essence, much of the Green Paper’s content is based on the Government strategy to increase the employment rate for couples, lone parents, people with disabilities and carers. The Government have employment rate targets of 80% for couples and 70% for lone parents. The argument is that child poverty will be more effectively tackled if more people are moved into employment. Although we accept part of that premise, the difficulty is that the Government appear to assume that child poverty will be eradicated if people are moved into work. All the research on the issue shows that parents who move into work increase their children’s chances of moving out of child poverty. However, there are some people who move from out-of-work poverty to in-work poverty, which is a problem that is not recognised in the Green Paper and is one of its flaws.

99. More importantly, much of the Green Paper’s content is underpinned by what happens in other provision, particularly in childcare. I know that the Committee will be dealing with lone parents in a couple of weeks, but that is significant for the Green Paper. In Britain — and there are considerable changes happening in the other devolved Administrations — there is a childcare strategy and a statutory duty on local authorities to secure sufficient childcare. There is a promise to have wrap-around childcare — childcare that is available in schools from 8.00 am to 6.00 pm — across Britain by 2010. The idea of moving lone parents and others into work is underpinned by the notion that any parent will be able to place his or her child in school from 8.00 am until 6.00 pm, which will leave him or her free to work in nine-to-five employment.

100. Alongside that key component of the strategy is the idea that there will be carrots as well as sticks. We are positive about some of the carrots, but the sticks are a considerable addition to the sanctions that exist for those who do not engage. I will explain later what that means in practice and outline our concerns.

101. The Green Paper intends to create those sanctions by making considerable changes to flexible New Deal and moving larger numbers of people off income support — where a claimant does not have to actively seek work — onto jobseeker’s allowance. That builds on what has been done in Britain and Northern Ireland over the past five years. However, that is also a real step change; there are measures for lone parents and about stated ambitions to get carers more actively seeking work. The new employment and support allowance for people with disabilities, which will be introduced later this month, is another example of that. The greater conditionality — although we prefer the term “sanctions" — in the Green Paper means that those who do not actively engage will be sanctioned. There are also some proposals for social engineering, the most obvious of which is the idea that someone with an addiction who does not engage in the compulsory drug-rehabilitation programmes will lose his or her benefits. I will return to our concerns about that.

102. The idea is that, after two years, people will be required to have found full-time work or be moved into what is called “work-related activity" — euphemistically known as workfare in the United States — which means being moved into compulsory work.

103. Contribution conditions for certain benefits, particularly the employment and support allowance, will be tightened. That will give disabled people more control over managing their budgets. It is an extension of the direct payments scheme, of which members are probably familiar, which operates in social services, with much greater involvement of the private and voluntary sector in the delivery of those programmes.

104. Those are the key headlines. In fairness, the Green Paper builds on work that has been done to date, but represents a significant step change. The first reason for that is the idea of getting more people back into work. The Law Centre has no difficulty with that concept. We support the idea of encouraging people, through positive incentives, to go back to work. Our difficulty is the compulsory nature of that.

105. You need to be aware that something will have to give. The economy is, effectively, worsening and fewer jobs are available, yet the Green Paper says that it will increase the number of people who actively seek and find work. If people do not find work, they will be sanctioned. Those two issues are not compatible. The proposals for lone parents are likely to result in another 8,000 lone parents being expected to actively seek and find work, without commensurate childcare arrangements.

106. There are almost 50,000 carers, not all of whom are on income support. If larger numbers of them are encouraged to be more actively engaged in work — which is a longer-term ambition — in a more compulsory way, many people will enter the labour market at a time when jobs are not available for them. With the best will in the world, people who genuinely wish to work will find it difficult to do so.

107. The Chairperson: I must cut across you. Although you acknowledge in your briefing paper that the Green Paper represents parity with GB, you say that it should be administered differently in Northern Ireland. Can you explain why that should be done differently and how you propose that that will keep in line with parity?

108. Mr Allamby: As I said at the outset, the 2007 Green Paper was not adopted here. Therefore, some proposals will be difficult to move away from if contribution conditions are tightened to benefits in Britain under parity arrangements. In view of some of the IT issues that occur, which members will be familiar with and about which they will have been prayed in aid by the Department — on a regular basis, I suspect — it will be difficult to move away from that.

109. As regards how programmes are administered on who should actively seek work and on what should be done in those circumstances, there is scope for that to be done differently in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, we could, therefore, decide to either extend that to lone parents, for example, to a much lesser extent than in Britain, or that the sanctions approach will be different. One obvious reason to do so is that if wraparound childcare is not provided by 2010 — which, everyone admits, it will not — how on earth can lone parents be expected to find the sort of work that requires them to have their children looked after in childcare?

110. We can do things differently. We can see how it works in Britain. We are strongly in favour of the idea of a lead Department for childcare. We recognise that, at present, childcare provision is, frankly, pass the parcel: no Department wants it because, effectively, resources are needed to take on that role. From where will those resources come? If you want to go down that road, childcare issues must be tackled. At present, they are not being addressed. Therefore, that approach does not fit.

111. I do not consider that to be a departure from core parity principles. We are dealing with the matter differently. The Department for Employment and Learning and DSD already administer those programmes. Therefore, two Departments already do that here. Only one Department — the Department for Work and Pensions — and Jobcentre Plus do it in Britain. Matters are already treated differently here in a whole variety of ways. Therefore, that concept is not new.

112. I hope that I have answered your question.

113. The Chairperson: That is OK. I am sure that we will return to the issue at some stage.

114. Mr Allamby: Essentially, we welcome the idea of positive incentives and encouragement. Lone parents, carers and people with disabilities who want to get back into the labour market should be encouraged to do so. However, it should happen on a voluntary basis rather than on a compulsory one, using a one-size-fits-all homogeneous approach, which assumes that everyone is in similar circumstances.

115. People’s disabilities range from mental-health problems to physical problems, and some disabilities are more serious than others. A one-size-fits-all approach simply cannot be adopted. However, that is what the Green Paper suggests.

116. The Green Paper will not work in its current form, but the Pathways to Work pilot has shown that intensive work with claimants can improve their chances of getting back to work. In fact, between 4% and 8% of claimants who were on the pilot programme went back to work. However, thus far, the Pathways to Work programme has only worked for recently unemployed people and for those who are almost camera-ready for the labour market. The programme has worked for people who are relatively easy to work with.

117. The Green Paper envisages working with people who need more intensive support, such as people who have been out of work for many years, and people who have deep-seated mental-health problems. That will mean working in a more intensive way, yet a results-driven process is envisaged in the Green Paper. It effectively says that the voluntary and private sectors in Britain should deliver the service. However, on the basis of initial contracting, the private sector is more likely to be involved than the voluntary sector.

118. There will be tension, because, on the one hand, a results-driven process is envisaged, but, on the other hand, the Green Paper envisages targeting the people who are the most difficult to deal with, and that does not fit very well with a results-driven approach.

119. The other backdrop to the issue is the fact that there will be fewer civil servants in the Department at a time when the work is becoming more intense, with staff dealing with people who have been unemployed for long periods. Once again, there is no fit there between reducing staff numbers and their workload becoming more intense.

120. The Green Paper is incredibly vague about identifying the budgets over which people with disabilities will have more control, and about how that will work in practice. We have some experience of how not to do things in Northern Ireland. For example, the direct payments scheme allowed people to buy their own care, but it was announced 12 months prior to its introduction. No resources were invested in it, and there was no support infrastructure. It was simply landed on social services, and they were unhappy with the way in which it was dealt. There was no enthusiasm for it, and, therefore, very few people took up the idea of managing their own budget.

121. In principle, the idea of people managing their own budget is good, provided that they are given a genuine choice in the matter. People who are comfortable with the idea can manage their own budget, but those who are uncomfortable with it should not, in any way, be pushed down that road. However, going down that road means that people will become employers, and a support infrastructure is necessary to make that happen.

122. We have a small independent learning centre, which does a very good job, but there are ramifications of paying for someone to provide your care as opposed to the social services. There is a lot of detail to be considered; for example, if someone goes off sick, the situation must be managed. Again, planning and thought must be given to how the situation might be managed.

123. The idea of people with drug addictions facing a loss in benefit if they do not get treatment is wrong in principle. However, some members may beg to differ on that point. I understand that, but the problem with the Green Paper is that so much of it is not evidence-based, and it simply does not work.

124. I will quote from piece of research examining that issue, which is called ‘The use of legal coercion in the treatment of substance abusers: an overview and critical analysis of 30 years of research’. Its conclusion was:

“Regrettably, three decades of research into the effectiveness of compulsory treatment have yielded a mixed, inconsistent and inconclusive pattern of results, calling into question the evidence-based claims made by numerous researchers that compulsory treatment is effective in the rehabilitation of substance users."

125. Compare the idea of taking away people’s benefits in that manner with what I might call social engineering; that is, imposing sanctions if people do not engage in compulsory treatment. For example, if it is found that smokers cost more to the National Health Service and smokers are told that if they do not go into a compulsory programme to stop them smoking their taxes will be increased, people would immediately say that that is madness. However, we seem to find it appropriate to do that to benefit claimants. The Law Centre’s view is that that form of social engineering does not work and is wrong in principle. The taxation system is not manipulated to force people into certain behaviour; we do not believe that the benefit system should be manipulated either.

126. Instead of doing that, we believe that an approach that is tailored to suit Northern Ireland can be taken. The opportunity exists to build on some of the work that has been done to encourage people back to work, such as work-focused interviews. That can be done on a voluntary basis. The childcare side of the equation must be dealt with at the same time. We do not agree that it is right to take a sanctions-based approach. Lone parents should not be told that they are going to face a sanction if they do not do certain things.

127. I will give an example in relation to the lone parent provision. If a lone parent has a child with a disability and is getting disability living allowance — that is, the lower level of care — they are going to move into the new regime in Britain. There are many children who must have injections during the day. If one of their parents decides that they do not want to rely on a childminder to administer that injection while they are at work, is it reasonable to tell that person that they face a sanction for deciding not to work? That type of situation is being created by the expansion of sanctions.

128. We do not believe that the sanctions-based approach works. The evidence of the success of sanctions is very mixed. Many people only realise that they have been sanctioned after it has happened. Our benefit system is so complex that often people do not understand that; for example, people only realise the ramification of their failure to attend a particular interview after the event. Some quite useful ideas can be taken from the Green Paper, but they should be adapted to suit a Northern Ireland-focused approach. That is our proposal and we urge the Committee to consider recommending that.

129. Mr Brady: I thank you for your presentation and I commend the Law Centre for the work that it has done over many years; I have benefited greatly from its advice and support. The proposed changes to the legislation that are outlined in the Green Paper seem to target vulnerable people. For example, I understand that 43% of the people who are claiming incapacity here have mental-health problems.

130. There are also issues in relation to lone parents, and you raised the issue of childcare. Five years ago, I was involved in welfare rights and we did a survey of childcare provision in the constituency that I now represent. We found that, in relation to the number of registered childminders that were available, the level of childcare provision in that area was one of the worst in western Europe. The fact that the working tax credit has become a shambles does not seem to have been factored in. A parent can only benefit from the childcare element of that if their child is being looked after by a registered childminder; however, if there are only five registered childminders in the Newry area, for example, that immediately creates problems.

131. You also raised the point, which has been raised before in Committee, that a major change is being made to the welfare system yet, last year, we were told by the Minister that the Social Security Agency could lose between 40% and 60% of its staff. Who will administer those changes, given that the agency may lose some of its most experienced staff?

132. The other point on the changes here, as opposed to Britain, is the fact that we cannot change the legislation, but we can impose changes on its administration. The Committee has put that argument forward, particularly in relation to disability living allowance. That is an important point that can be applied to a lot of parity legislation.

133. Not only has the Law Centre requested changes to the Green Paper, but the Social Security Advisory Committee is unhappy. There is a consensus between the people who know most about the benefits sector and the people who claim benefit in that they say that changes must be made, as opposed to the welfare reform being imposed by Government. That is an important issue, which the Committee must address.

134. Mr Allamby: You mentioned people with mental-health problems. The Green Paper is strong on saying that people with mental-health problems must be treated with great sensitivity and with great care. It acknowledges that people with mental-health problems who are unemployed have specific needs. There is enormous overlap between people who suffer from drug addiction and mental health. With a strange juxtaposition, it is not acknowledged that drug addiction has a mental-health component for many people. One the one hand is the idea that people must be treated sensitively, yet other proposals simply do not make sense when that overlap is considered.

135. The legislation can be administered differently. For example, it could be decided that it will only apply to lone parents when their youngest child reaches 12 years of age. The Green Paper will consult on whether to encourage people to actively seek work when the child is five years old, but it does not say that the idea of doing that when the child is 12, 10 or seven should be tested. If would be perfectly acceptable if we decided to administer the legislation differently here to have an impact. The administration of the legislation provides for considerable flexibility if we decide that the Green Paper is not the right road for Northern Ireland.

136. The Chairperson: You are not advocating the breaking of parity, but the legislation could be delivered differently through the administration side.

137. Mr Allamby: Yes, I am not suggesting that different levels of benefit be paid from Britain. If the contribution conditions were changed for certain benefits, there would be real problems. That would be a retrograde step. Much of what is contained in the Green Paper is not at that level; it is at the level of considering how existing schemes are administered and expanded and how that is done. We do not have flexible New Deal here, but we have something that is broadly equivalent. There are already many examples if how things are being done differently.

138. Mr Brady: When the all-work test was introduced, the Government said that they were going to get 70% of people off incapacity benefit. Sanctions simply do not work, and issues around that have not been addressed over the years.

139. Carers who are in receipt of carer’s allowance are credited with a contribution. If carers are moved into work, and they then earn above the lower earnings limit, they would be contributing. Therefore, the Government will save on their contributions. If one were being cynical, one would say that the most vulnerable people are being targeted. As you have accepted, sanctions do not work, they have not worked, and they probably will never work. That message does not seem to have got through.

140. Mr Allamby: The one other point that I would make about sanctions is that a lot of the Green Paper is not evidence-based. The evidence for sanctions is mixed, and the Department in Britain accepts that privately. In a sense, it has prejudged the position by setting up the Gregg Review in order to examine the whole issue of the efficiency and effectiveness of sanctions.

141. That review has not yet reported, yet they are talking about a considerable extension of sanctions. I have never seen this cart-before-the-horse approach to saying: “This is what we are going to do, and we will now gather some evidence about whether it actually works." To be quite frank, that is not the normal way to make policy, which is another reason why it would make a great deal of sense for us not to apply some of that until we have seen whether it really does work, and until we see the outcome of the Gregg Review. At that point, we would be in a much better position to make an informed view, whether it is a reformed view that the Law Centre or others like. However, at least it would be an informed view. What we do not have here is an informed view.

142. The Chairperson: Do you sit on the Law Centre’s scrutiny committee?

143. Mr Allamby: I am the Northern Ireland member on the Social Security Advisory Committee. The committee supports the underlying principle of encouraging people back to work. Its submission made clear that it finds the level of compulsion associated with the Green Paper unsustainable and not evidence-based. The committee has serious concerns about that.

144. Mr A Maginness: Your document is a thorough critique of what is proposed in the Green Paper. I agree with many of its detailed criticisms with regard to, for example, drug users and lone parents. At the end of the day, however, we have a problem here. We have an awful lot of people on incapacity benefit in particular. It is a chronic situation, endemic in certain communities, and we must do something about it.

145. As a general proposition, the Green Paper is based on a buoyant economy in which people can get employment opportunities. Such employment opportunities, particularly here, will be scarce in the immediate future. There must be a financial incentive in order to encourage people off benefit and into work, and there is not sufficient financial incentive in our economy, which is, in many respects, a low-wage economy. I do not know how one can create a situation whereby people can come off benefit and still feel financially secure and better off. That is a fundamental problem and one that is difficult to address.

146. Mr Allamby: You are right in what you say. There are ways in which that can be done, and which are not addressed in the Green Paper.

147. Mr A Maginness: The situation here is different from Britain, because many areas of Britain have a high-wage economy.

148. Mr Allamby: One of the underlying problems, which is not unique to Northern Ireland, is that the way that the social security system treats earnings is problematic for people who are on benefit. Considerable numbers of people want to get off incapacity benefit and, no doubt, will want to get off the employment and support allowance.

149. The difficulty that we have, and which will be even tougher in tough economic times, is that a lot of people who, depending on their disability, are sometimes capable of working full time some of the time and not working at other times. There are other people who are capable of working small numbers of hours each week, but who are not capable of working full time. The social security system does not fit the needs of people who have disabilities, who can do some work but who are not in the position of someone who can regularly work nine to five every day. In a strong economy, employers would still be interested in people in those circumstances if they had particular skills.

150. If you are single, you can keep the first £5 of what you earn without it affecting your benefit. If you earn the national minimum wage, once you have worked more than an hour, you start to lose benefit. That is not a great encouragement for you to even try to get work. If you are on incapacity benefit, the rules — which are now more generous than they were — are incredibly labyrinthine: virtually no one understands them, and that puts people off.

151. People ask whether, if they leave benefit and try work, they be able to go back onto benefit if it does not work out. Due to their fear that they may not be able do so, they do not look for work in the first place. It is a high risk for someone who has had mental-health problems in the past: if he finds a job, he may be unsure as to whether he can keep it.

152. We need to look much more effectively at work trials and earnings that carry the message, in simple and straightforward ways, that people can try out working. I suspect that that will have more impact in getting people back into work than anything that is in the Green Paper. That is the problem: we are tackling this from the wrong end. You can move people back into work by recognising their limitations in work. Doing that will get much tougher because of the way the economy is going.

153. The Chairperson: Is there anything in the Green Paper that you like?

154. Mr Allamby: Yes. There are more generous rules that allow people to stay on and study. That seems to make sense. In-work credits are among the measures mentioned in the Green Paper. They are not new; but they are being brought in to encourage people to work. They allow you to keep an additional sum of money, which makes sense.

155. There are a number of things the Government have done. The problem with the Green Paper is that the Government know that they are in a difficult situation because they are not meeting their child-poverty target. They have alighted on the idea of getting people back into work. They have put a considerable sum of money into tax credits. Putting aside the very substantial administrative problems, tax credits are extremely generous compared to their predecessors.

156. However, the idea that you can move people into work straightforwardly and kick them if they are down makes no sense. On the child-poverty issue, if you sanction someone who has children, you are not just sanctioning the claimant; you sanction the children and dependants as well. That makes no sense with respect to child-poverty.

157. The Chairperson: Thank you very much indeed. We appreciate your contribution and members will discuss how to take it forward.

158. Mr Brady: Les said that the review of sanctions is putting the cart before the horse — (Inaudible due to mobile phone interference.) In my experience, sanctions — (Inaudible due to mobile phone interference.)

159. The main point about the Green Paper is that it is not evidence-based. Another point, something that we have discussed previously, is that there is no break with parity. Any issue that can be dealt with here does not go against the legislation: it deals with it in a more sensitive and humane way.

160. The Chairperson: Although the Committee recognises that the parity legislation exists, it should consider how it can be administered differently and to the greater benefit of the people. Is that the consensus?

161. Ms Lo: We should try to make the process more compassionate.

162. The Chairperson: That is a nice word, Anna. It is not often that one hears the word “compassionate" in Government circles. It is a word that we should underline.

163. Are members content that the Committee Clerk assesses the general consensus?

164. The Committee Clerk: I will need to push that because the consultation period is officially closed.

165. The Chairperson: The Department has allowed us some leeway on that.

166. The Committee Clerk: If members are content, I will take the comments made today, and the helpful summary that the Chairperson has made, and make the submission directly to the Department for Social Development.

167. The Chairperson: Are members content?

168. Ms Lo: Mr Allamby made several valid points.

169. The Chairperson: We will emphasise the word “compassionate".

170. The Committee Clerk: I will bring the final version to the Chairperson for his approval before it goes to the Department for Social Development.

22 January 2009

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr David Simpson (Chairperson)
Mr David Hilditch (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mr Thomas Burns
Mr Jonathan Craig
Ms Anna Lo
Mr Fra McCann
Miss Michelle McIlveen
Mr Alban Maginness
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín

171. The Chairperson (Mr Simpson): We will move now to the Department for Work and Pensions’ White Paper on welfare reform. The Committee Clerk will take us through the key issues outlined in a briefing paper that he has prepared for the Committee.

172. The Committee Clerk: The members’ information packs contain a copy of the White Paper, and a lengthy briefing paper. I intend, for members’ information, to touch on just the key points that it contains.

173. Members will recall that the Committee considered the Green Paper on welfare reform in October 2008. Following that consultation, the White Paper has been published. It contains a long list of new measures. The Welfare Reform Bill will, of course, be subject to amendment during its passage through Westminster.

174. A Northern Ireland version of the Bill is expected to come before the Assembly in the autumn. The Department for Social Development may come to brief the Committee on that next month. I intend, for members’ information only, to cover some of the key points in the White Paper. The reason for that is because some of the issues in the White Paper will appear in the media; therefore, this briefing is to inform members’ understanding, and I hope that it will be helpful.

175. The White Paper is organised into chapters. The first chapter that I shall deal with is about benefit reform. The Department for Work and Pensions ultimately wants one working-age benefit. For the present, however, there will continue to be two benefits: jobseeker’s allowance, and the employment and support allowance. Income support is to be phased out, except for carers. That is a change from the Green Paper: carers will be largely exempt from these reforms. There is to be a wide-ranging review of housing benefit, and there is no more detail available on that at the moment. There is a long list of other changes, which I have laid out in my briefing paper.

176. The second key issue concerns devolving control of the welfare state. The Department for Work and Pensions believes that control of the welfare state can be devolved to service providers and to the regions. The implications for parity and for Northern Ireland are unclear, because the White Paper makes no mention of Northern Ireland. It is intended to allow private employment service providers to devise and provide more employment services in what are called pathfinder regions. Private employment service providers could, I believe, also mean voluntary and community groups providing employment and such services.

177. In response to the Gregg Review, there will be a new Pathways to Work programme; trials of a new discretionary authority for job centre advisers; and sanctions for lone parents with children aged between three and six years old. In addition, there will be trials in what are called trailblazing public bodies, which will allow disabled claimants more control over their benefits and services.

178. The next key area is entitled ‘Personalised conditionality and support’. Again, in response to the Gregg Review, the Department for Work and Pensions has set out a new categorisation of benefit claimants. Category 1 are those who are “work ready" — that is, who are just out of work and who might experience sanctions if they do not go looking for work. Category 2 is the “progression to work" group — those who will need support and who will be sanctioned if they do not undertake work-related activity. Work-related activity means, for example, individuals dealing with any health problems that might prevent them from taking up employment, dealing with childcare issues, or looking for work itself. The third category, to which the Department has not given a name, will be for those for whom work-related activity would be optional. I take that to mean carers, lone parents with children under a year old, and those in the employment and support allowance support group, as it is called.

179. The next chapter of the White Paper is entitled ‘No one written off’. The Department for Work and Pensions believes that, in the 1980s, people became detached from work, and thus became unemployable. Therefore, it intends to introduce a programme of interviews at regular intervals, skills health checks, work capability assessments and work-focused health checks. The White Paper states that declared or suspected drug users will be required to undertake treatment, and additional support measures will be provided for people with fluctuating mental-health problems in order to help them back to work.

180. The last chapter of the White Paper to which I shall refer is entitled ‘More support, higher expectations’. The Department for Work and Pensions is to introduce work-for-your-benefit schemes in pilot areas. The schemes will be full time and mandatory for those who have been unemployed for a long time. Sanctions for not attending mandatory appointments will begin with a minimum of two weeks’ loss of benefit, which is a change from the present situation when sanctions can entail losing one or two days’ benefit. There will also be harsher sanctions for fraud, and sanctions will be introduced for behaving violently towards job centre and benefits office staff.

181. The Department for Social Development has not yet set out its views on those proposals. The Committee may wish to question the Department on that when its officials come to brief members in February. The Department has indicated informally that a Northern Ireland version of the Bill could be expected in the autumn, which might be very different, bearing in mind that the current Bill will have to go through Westminster.

182. The Chairperson: A lot of amendments are, obviously, expected to the Bill because it contains a lot of radical change.

183. Mr F McCann: That Bill will, obviously, have a dramatic impact on claimants across the board, regardless of their mental state or ability to work. The Committee had the Law Centre do some work for it recently, some of which contradicted much of what the Department was saying. Would the Committee be jumping the gun if it were to ask the Law Centre to do some work with regard to the issues outlined in this briefing paper in order that we are forewarned about some of the major pitfalls that we might encounter?

184. The Chairperson: I do not think that the Committee would be jumping the gun in doing that. I believe that we could definitely get the Law Centre to carry out some research.

185. Ms Ní Chuilín: The Committee should avail itself of as much advice and assistance as possible in order to help it to respond to the issues in the White Paper. As the Committee Clerk said, there is absolutely no reference in the White Paper to here. I, too, suspect that parts of the Welfare Reform Bill will be amended because of the ongoing increases in unemployment figures.

186. I know that the Department for Employment and Learning received correspondence about the steps to work programme. However, when one hears reference to involving the community and voluntary sector, that pushes buttons with us, and one thinks that that is a good thing, but, obviously, not at the expense of public service being eroded. However, what happens in such cases is that work is contracted out and people from Australia and America come over and bid for the contracts. However, that not only undermines any kind of community response, but undermines our own public services.

187. With regard to the talk about sanctions, or potential sanctions: if they are going to employ sanctions here, they are going to have to employ parity in its true form, which means that childcare and other such issues definitely need to be explored. Therefore, the Committee’s preparation would be helped by getting advice on such issues.

188. The Chairperson: Are members content that the Committee tries to get the Law Centre to do some work on this matter in order to provide us with more in-depth knowledge?

189. The Committee Clerk: If I may suggest that the Committee waits for the Department to come before it in February, because the Bill will have been amended at Westminster. I think that the Department will want the Bill to have at least a Second Reading before it comes before the Committee, because parts of the Bill about which members might be concerned might very well drop off. That being the case, if members are content, perhaps we should wait until nearer the time when departmental officials are due to come before the Committee before we approach the Law Centre.

190. The Chairperson: That is a valid point and a good idea, because parts of the Bill could have dropped off by then.

191. Ms Lo: Just to be clear, will this Bill require accelerated passage in order for parity to be attained? The Assembly has so often been pushed into that process.

192. The Chairperson: Accelerated passage probably will be sought.

193. Ms Lo: At this stage, therefore, we need to exert as much influence as possible on the legislation as it goes through Westminster in order that we can include issues that are relevant to Northern Ireland.

194. The Chairperson: However, are you happy enough about the approach: the Committee waiting until the Second Reading of the Bill before getting departmental officials in for a briefing, and then getting some work done by the Law Centre?

195. Ms Lo: Yes, I am happy with that.

196. Mr A Maginness: When will the Bill get its Second Reading?

197. The Chairperson: I understand that it will be in early February. Therefore, are members content with the approach outlined?

198. Members indicated assent.

199. The Committee Clerk: Is the Committee also content for the Committee Clerk to write to the Minister to ask her to keep the Committee informed about the equivalent Assembly Bill and the programme for its enactment?

200. Members indicated assent.

201. The Chairperson: OK, and I take it that all members will have read the White Paper in time for that meeting so that they can ask questions on it. I know that you will sit up all night to have a go at it.

2 April 2009

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr David Simpson (Chairperson)
Mr David Hilditch (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Mickey Brady
Ms Anna Lo
Mr Fra McCann
Miss Michelle McIlveen
Mr Alban Maginness
Ms Cáral Ní Chuilín

Witnesses:

Mr Les Allamby
Ms Laura Niwa

The Law Centre

Sir Richard Tilt

Social Security
Advisory Committee

202. The Chairperson (Mr Simpson): The first briefing is from the Law Centre (NI). The Welfare Reform Bill is currently progressing through the House of Lords. Its First Reading was on 18 March 2009. Northern Ireland’s version of the Bill is expected to be introduced to the Assembly this autumn. Representatives from the Law Centre, Les Allamby and Laura Niwa, will, of course, brief the Committee. Members have been given the Clerk’s covering note, a copy of the Assembly Research Services paper on the Welfare Reform Bill and a copy of the Law Centre’s briefing papers.

203. You are very welcome. I believe that Les has attended the Committee previously, although I am not sure about Laura. You will find that we are a happy bunch — at times. We have our moments, I must say. We are very glad that you are present. I ask you to deliver your briefing, after which members will ask questions.

204. Mr Les Allamby (The Law Centre (NI)): Thank you, Chairman. You are all in your usual cheery form.

205. The Chairperson: Well, it is early; it is only 11.15 am.

206. Mr Allamby: This morning, my presentation will be a canter through the Bill, which will, hopefully, encapsulate its key elements. I will cover the social-security elements and the proposals for giving disabled people greater control over money and access to services. I will then hand over to Laura, who will deal with one of the key provisions that we have discussed with you previously — the post-Gregg Review expansion into dealing with lone parents and getting them into work. There will be two parts to the presentation.

207. In effect, the Welfare Reform Bill is four separate pieces of legislation that are stitched rather uneasily together. I will concentrate on the first two parts: social security and the rights of disabled people to control services.

208. The Welfare Reform Bill contains provisions for joint birth registration, which I understand will not be implemented in Northern Ireland or Scotland, so I will not talk about those. There are also some child-support provisions, which are primarily designed to overturn a defeat that the Government suffered in the courts, about how to push fathers, mainly, into paying child support through the removal of their passports and driving licenses. I will not go into that either.

209. My initial thoughts are that there is a lack of really important detail in the Bill, because much of that detail will be contained in regulations. As this Committee knows better than most, the important items are often in the regulations. Fairly unusually, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has yet to publish the regulations in Britain, so we cannot really see the sort of detail in practice. We do not know entirely what their thinking is, although we can make an educated guess.

210. The Welfare Reform Bill contains only around half of the proposals that are found in the White Paper. Therefore, when reading the Welfare Reform Bill, you really need to have the White Paper next to it. That is because many of the powers to introduce the White Paper’s provisions are already included in previous Welfare Reform Acts, so this is very much an evolutionary process. It is important to bear in mind that the White Paper is still quite important: it has not left the stage because of the Bill.

211. As regards the importance of the delegated regulations, the sort of information that is not yet available is the detail of how rules on work-for-your-benefit schemes will operate in practice. We are missing the sort of detail that explains when someone will be exempted from the requirement to undertake such a scheme, or what the arrangements will be for lone parents, for example, if they are pushed into the scheme. We do not know the detail of the powers that will be delegated by the Secretary of State in Britain — and, potentially, by the Minister in Northern Ireland — to the voluntary and private sectors, short of decision-making in implementing training and encouraging people back into work. Those are pretty important points.

212. We do not know what sort of exemptions there will be around creeping conditionality in a number of areas; they may look exactly like the existing scheme, but we will not know until we see the regulations. So, important things are still going on, and as a result, you will get a fairly broad review at the moment, rather than a very technical one.

213. The first key issue is that the Bill contains a proposal to abolish income support. It is very radical; it is part of Government’s aspiration to create a single working-age benefit. However, in our view, the DWP is going about it in the wrong way. It seems to be very premature, because the DWP is setting out an aspiration without a map, route plan or timetable and, frankly, without even a clear destination. That does not make a great deal of sense.

214. There are some advantages in having a single working-age benefit, particularly in reducing complexity, but there are also some potential downsides. As ever, the devil is in the detail. One will need to see how certain types of people who are in receipt of income support, such as those who are unable to work due to family or caring commitments or disability, will be dealt with under any single working-age benefit.

215. In fairness to the Government, they have said that they will not implement the benefit and apply it to carers, for instance, until they are clear about how carers will sit in the benefit system. It is clear that it is a long-term, rather than a short-term, ambition. In our view, it would be better to set out the detail, to consult on it, and, subsequently, to legislate; not the other way round. Therefore we have concerns about starting from the wrong position, with regard to the abolition of income support.

216. Another part of the Bill relates to the tightening of contribution conditions for employment support allowance (ESA) and contributory jobseeker’s allowance (JSA). Currently, potential claimants have to earn a certain level of income in contribution years in order to qualify for contributory ESA or contributory JSA. The Welfare Reform Bill proposes moving to a system in which the claimant will have to have worked 26 weeks in each of the two tax years before the year of the claim.

217. By way of providing a rationale for that proposal, the Department for Work and Pensions said that it had concerns about a small number of people who can earn large sums of money when working for a small number of weeks and who then qualify for contributory benefits. That may happen. However, the Bill would exclude a larger number of people here who do not work for 26 weeks in the year because they work seasonally, or because they can work only occasionally due to their health or they work for short periods due to the current labour market situation. Those people tend to be at the lower-earnings end of the labour market. Those people will find it more difficult to get the insurance and contributory benefits.

218. The Beveridge vision of an insurance-based scheme has long withered on the vine, and it continues to do so. That is unlikely to be reversed by the current Government — or even by another Government, if there is a change in the near future. Nonetheless, we think that the insurance principle is important, and an erosion of that is a retrograde step.

219. The other part of the Bill contains some provisions to withdraw dependency additions, which are paid to the partner, from maternity allowance. They also propose to take the adult dependant addition away from carers’ allowance. There will be some transitional protection over a number of years. It will save money, but people who have been in work for only a short time will not qualify for statutory maternity pay. Those people are vulnerable because of their income and they have to rely on maternity allowance. The benefit is protected because, if the claimant’s adult dependent is working, he or she will not get that additional allowance. If the person in receipt of maternity allowance lives with another adult who is not working, taking away an adult dependent addition is penny-pinching, and it has social-need implications.

220. Another important aspect relates to changes to the work capabilities assessment, which is part of the employment support allowance. I have spent a lot of time looking at it; it is barely bedded down, and DWP is talking about changes. It envisages a significant increase in disallowances and appeals. We think that it is likely to hit people who have mental-health problems and those who have lower level — but nonetheless significant and, perhaps, debilitating — physical health problems, in particular. Those people will be moved to jobseeker’s allowance, and that is the inevitable corollary of coming off employment support allowance. Subsequently, they will be moved into the new conditionality-type regime about looking for work.

221. We wonder about those provisions on two fronts. First, the Department for Employment and Learning and the Social Security Agency have done some work to gear themselves up to work with people with mental-health problems, but they are still a long way short of recognising fully the extent of the work needed to be done for those people. Many mental-health illnesses have a fluctuating and unpredictable nature, and the challenge to get that group of people into work is quite formidable.

222. Secondly, it is not just a matter of getting people into work, is it about how they retain work. The White Paper and the Bill do not really address the significant issue, which is not just finding work for people, but ensuring that that work is sustainable, so that people do not go from benefits to short-term work and back on to benefits, with all the difficulties of adjusting to work and then adjusting to being out of work again. That is a major concern.

223. The extent of the creeping conditionality has been raised. Mind, Rethink, the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health and the Royal College of Psychiatrists issued a joint statement in which they highlighted the danger of a compulsion-and-sanctions based approach to the matter. While the Government say that they want to encourage people into work, there is a stick-and-carrot approach, and there is a real concern, not only for people with mental-health problems, but for others, about the sanctions-based approach to encouraging people into work at a time of economic downturn.

224. Another element of the Bill is the linking of drug treatment to receipt of benefit for crack cocaine and heroine addicts. Interestingly, powers have been taken in the Bill to extend that to people with alcohol problems, although, in the short term, I understand, there is no desire to introduce it for alcohol issues.

225. We are not a great fan of what I call social engineering in the benefits system. We do not social engineer people’s behaviour in the tax system, so we wonder why it should be done in the benefit system. In practical terms, there are fewer than 260 registered addicts in Northern Ireland. We understand that there may be other people who are not registered and who have fallen through the system, but we are talking about a very small number of people. In practice, we think that the approach to drug rehabilitation should be about recovery and health, and not about the idea of using the benefit system to try to compel people to seek treatment. People with serious addiction problems will not change their behaviour about benefits. In reality, they will become ever more desperate to find money elsewhere, and that is where they will focus their attention. We do not think that those provisions will work and, therefore, we do not think that they make a great deal of sense.

226. The Government propose a work-for-your-benefit scheme. They do not call it workfare, which is the American system. However, it is mandatory unpaid work experience. If anyone can tell me the difference between mandatory unpaid work experience and the workfare system, I would be delighted to know it. It sounds like the same thing to me. However, that may reflect my cynicism and my jaundiced view of life.

227. We would need to have a lot more detail about the scheme. How do people avoid the stigma of being landed in mandatory unpaid work experience after they have been unemployed for two years? In effect, at the current jobseeker allowance rate, they would be working for £1·73 an hour for a 35-hour week. How would job displacement be avoided, particularly at a time of economic downturn? What would happen to lone parents, childcare provision, and the payments that would be available for lone parents if they have to go down that route? We need to know a lot more detail before we can comment meaningfully on the effectiveness of the proposal.

228. There are two main social fund changes. One is to outsource the loans scheme to external providers, which seems to mean credit unions. It is strange, because there is no national credit-union infrastructure in Britain. Arguably, in Northern Ireland, we are closer to that, because we have a cross-community set of credit-union institutions. Our preliminary soundings indicate that there is no sense of enthusiasm among credit unions to embrace the social fund and start providing loans, particularly given that the Government have ruled out — quite rightly — the idea of charging interest of those loans.

229. That leaves the Government stating that there will be another social fund review, but they still have ambitions to do something with those proposals that have taken those powers. We do not see that working in practice and wonder how it will work in effect.

230. The second part is a proposal to pay community-care grants to third parties, which, I understand, is intended to allow the Department in Britain to enter into block-purchase arrangements with providers of white goods, furniture and so on, in order to save money. We have two issues with that. First, the idea that, for example, people with disabilities should be able to control their budgets and services goes against the grain of other provisions in the Bill. Secondly, the lack of review powers for the social fund inspector — in order to safeguard against wrong or capricious decisions — is a significant gap in that proposal.

231. The final issue concerns the rights of people with disabilities to control and spend money on the services that they receive. It is almost impossible to disagree with that in principle, particularly when an individual can choose whether to embrace it. However, that really falls back on the introduction of the direct payments scheme in Northern Ireland.

232. We remember how that scheme was introduced about 10 years ago. It was first introduced in Britain and then foisted on social services in Northern Ireland without any extra resources being provided — the social services were told to implement it by the beginning of the next financial year, about nine months later. Nobody was prepared for that; there was no consultation. The scheme was introduced, and there was virtually no take-up. That has changed slightly — I am not familiar with the present take-up figures — but there is still no significant take-up.

233. If these proposals are to be implemented, they must be implemented properly, with resources to support organisations that can assist people with disabilities, if they choose to take up the scheme, to manage the process.

234. The scheme must be publicised and introduced in a structured and proper process; not simply enacted through legislation that lands it on the authorities, who are told to go ahead and set it up. The scheme will not work if that is how it is brought in. If it is going to be introduced in Northern Ireland, there must be interdepartmental co-ordination among the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and others, together with resources that will ensure that the scheme works in practice.

235. I will stop there. I have a short conclusion, but I will now hand over to Laura.

236. The Chairperson: Will you keep that brief, because time is of the essence. I understand that there is a lot of detail involved in the Welfare Reform Bill and that there are also a lot of matters that members wish to raise. The Committee is not completely restricted for time, but it must try to keep the discussion as precise as possible.

237. Before members hear from Laura, you have just presented the outline of the legislation from the Law Centre’s point of view. I know that the Law Centre has been involved in the Welfare Reform Bill in Britain. Have the details that you have outlined to the Committee been forwarded to the Minister?

238. Mr Allamby: The Committee has our briefing.

239. The Chairperson: I know that the Committee has your briefing, but has the Law Centre forwarded it to the Minister?

240. Mr Allamby: Not yet, but we will.

241. Ms Niwa (The Law Centre (NI)): I will be as quick as I can; I appreciate the lack of time.

242. Les has given a very broad overview; I will pick up on a couple of issues, particularly the issue of lone parents, about which we have previously spoken. We have identified that as being an issue that is specific to Northern Ireland. There is particular concern in relation to childcare issues here.

243. Much of the work in the Bill that has been commented on that is to do with conditionality and with lone parents is a result of Prof Paul Gregg’s review, which recommended that conditionality should be based on encouragement, co-operation and co-ownership. The Gregg Review also recognised that sometimes conditionality must be stepped up when people consistently failed to engage effectively with the support regime. We feel that the Bill takes too much of a slant on conditionality, to the detriment of the encouragement, co-operation and co-ownership that Gregg pointed out, particularly in relation to the imposition of sanctions on lone parents.

244. We are very concerned by the proposals in the Bill and the White Paper that require lone parents with children aged under seven to actively seek work as a condition of receiving jobseekers allowance. We are aware that a recent change to the lone-parents regulations has moved that condition to lone parents with children aged under 12. Those regulations are in the process of coming into force, and we believe it is a step too far to recommend further changes when we have not seen the impact of what has happened as a result of the current changes in respect of lone parents with children under 12. Those changes have not been evaluated, and we feel that it would be prudent and important to wait for that to happen before further reductions were made.

245. The Department spoke to the Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) at its December meeting, and it reported that the current levels of childcare provision are manageable for the reductions for children under 12 years of age, but that provision does not exist to cover the further downfall for children under 10 and the proposals in the Welfare Reform Bill for children under seven. At that meeting, the Department stated that it was not confident that, by October 2009, Northern Ireland would be ready for the changes in childcare provision for lone parents with children aged 10 and under. Despite that, such a Bill will introduce at a further step that will apply to children aged seven and under.

246. We foresee a number of difficulties in introducing legislative powers for that purpose in Northern Ireland, because the childcare infrastructure that is required to underpin the proposals is simply not in place. As the Committee will know, there is no lead Department that is responsible for developing the strategy and the appropriate provision.

247. The current economic climate may make it even more difficult for lone parents to secure jobs that allow them to combine their work and family life. If lone parents are exposed to the risks of benefits sanctions, that will have the potential to adversely impact on child poverty. Although we accept that benefit rules must, to some degree, be backed up by sanctions, every extension of conditionality should only be agreed after the likely impact of benefit withdrawal on child poverty and social exclusion has been taken into account to ensure that any potentially negative impact is kept to a minimum. We urge that that happens here.

248. Recent research on childcare provision in Northern Ireland has found that it remains woefully inadequate. Surveys have found that nearly a quarter of employed mothers experienced childcare problems that restricted the hours that they worked. GingerbreadNI estimates that 30,000 extra childcare places would have to be provided in Northern Ireland to support the delivery of the UK Government’s target to have 70% of lone parents in employment by 2010. However, between 2002 and 2007, the overall number of day care places in Northern Ireland has actually fallen.

249. In England and Wales, greater strides have been made towards developing comprehensive, wraparound childcare than in Northern Ireland. In recent years, significant investment has been made in England, and we have some way to go to improve the access to high-quality, affordable childcare. As we know, the Government structures in Northern Ireland are very different to those in the rest of the UK, particularly in the area of service support and delivery. Local authorities in Northern Ireland are under no obligation to assess or meet local childcare needs as are required by the Childcare Act 2006, which applies to England and Wales.

250. We are encouraged by the fact that an interdepartmental group has been established. We understand that a paper on childcare provision is in preparation. We will certainly look at that with interest, and we will be able to provide more comment on that when we receive it. However, particularly in Northern Ireland, the issue must be treated with caution.

251. To move forward with the Westminster Bill and White Paper as they stand would be to open up avenues that would particularly impact on child poverty, which is a key area in which many of the Departments and Committees in Northern Ireland are taking an interest. The Department for Social Development must set out its own procedures and policies before moving forward. A full debate on the practical consequences for Northern Ireland should take place.

252. The Chairperson: Laura, which Department takes the lead on childcare?

253. Ms Niwa: No Department does; responsibility is split across four Departments: the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Department for Employment and Learning, the Department for Social Development and the Department of Education.

254. The Chairperson: Which Department takes the lead in the review?

255. Ms Niwa: No Department takes the lead at present.

256. The Chairperson: Is no Department talking about it?

257. Mr Allamby: OFMDFM is in the lead because it has responsibility for the Executive’s targets on child poverty. There is no strategy with a lead Department.

258. The Chairperson: Surely that needs to be rectified.

259. Mr Allamby: OFMDFM’s work is to try to move to a situation in which someone takes responsibility.

260. We want the Department for Social Development to set out its stall on its approach to the White Paper and the Westminster Welfare Reform Bill. We think that it should reference how those will be tailored to the particular needs and circumstances of Northern Ireland. I know that that brings us into the parity debate, which is why we have written a paper on parity.

261. Frankly, much of what is contained in the Bill does not have to apply to Northern Ireland in the same way, without necessarily having to get into the concerns about parity of provision. It does have to apply in some parts, but much of the current Bill could be tailored for Northern Ireland to recognise our particular circumstances.

262. The Chairperson: The Committee values the Law Centre’s perspective on the matter. The majority of members feel that parity is to the benefit of Northern Ireland. Having said that, our role is one of scrutiny and challenge, and, in that spirit, we are interested to learn more about how the Bill could be recast for a Northern Ireland context without breaking parity. Will you briefly set out the aspects of the Bill that could be implemented differently in Northern Ireland without breaking parity?

263. Mr Allamby: I will give some examples. Northern Ireland has its own strategy for dealing with drug rehabilitation. Therefore, one could legitimately say that social security provisions should look to the Northern Ireland drug strategy and not simply to the strategy in Britain, which is slightly different in emphasis. There is no need to implement a social security provision in line with Britain if the financial implications of not doing so are nugatory.

264. Childcare is another example. Where we have a very different set of childcare arrangements in Northern Ireland, social security provisions need to be tailored to those arrangements. Therefore, part of devolution involves the recognition that there are areas in which we differ in broader policy terms. Much of what is contained in the Bill impacts on all sorts of other policy areas, and that should be the prism through which one looks. Those are just two examples.

265. Our organisation recognises some of the financial advantages of parity, and they are very substantial. By the same token, we understand that there are different contribution conditions for benefits: for example, the removal of the dependants’ additions would have a very different impact with regard to parity, because one is then moving into the level of benefit paid, and that is a very different situation. Therefore, it is about making that distinction. There is breathing space in the Bill to do things that make sense for Northern Ireland.

266. Ms Ní Chuilín: If the Bill were implemented, would it be in breach of section 75, in relation to lone parents in particular?

267. Mr Allamby: The issue is that some parts of the Bill would have an adverse effect on lone parents, particularly as regards compulsion, conditionality and possible reduction of benefit. From a departmental point of view, the question then is whether one can justify the basis for those adverse impacts objectively. I do not think that anybody will argue that those will not have an adverse impact. Then one gets into the legal issue about whether one can objectively justify doing it, and on what basis one is doing it. It becomes much harder to justify in a recession, and one issue about the Bill is that it does not seem to have passed through recession proofing, which is one of its weaknesses. The Government argue that the recession is temporary, but that remains to be seen.

268. Ms Ní Chuilín: What I am trying to extract is there is no obligation. It is not like local councils in Britain: local councils here do not provide childcare places, so that is a gap. Even under new RPA arrangements, childcare is not being transferred: that is a gap. Lone parents who have childcare needs, with no Government provision, are going to be forced to work, and, if they do not work, the whole family will be penalised: that is a gap. I am asking you to say whether, if the Bill is passed, it have an adverse impact on lone parents. Will they experience equality?

269. Mr Allamby: You do not have to work too hard to extract from me that it will have an adverse impact and that that has section 75 implications that need to be addressed.

270. Ms Ní Chuilín: In that case, could breaking parity be justified? It is not a like for like situation.

271. Mr Allamby: That would lead us into a more nuanced argument about whether section 75 protections are a justification for breaking parity. The argument is more political than legal. I would not put my house on winning a legal argument in court, but an argument undoubtedly exists.

272. Mr Brady: Thank you for your presentation. Les, I am sure that you share my jaundiced views and my cynicism when it comes to social security. I have a couple of points to make. The issue of parity has already been touched on. The concept of parity is about implementing like for like. We have two Departments to look after social security and employment, so we cannot have a like-for- like situation in that sense. That is an area that could be examined without necessarily affecting the block grant.

273. The second point that I want to make is about tax credits for lone parents. If the Welfare Reform Bill is going to force lone parents into work, then childcare provision has to be looked at, as well as the childcare aspect of tax credits. That was designed to help lone parents get back into work, which has not happened. A few years ago, a Welfare Rights Centre survey showed that Newry and Mourne had some of the worst childcare provision in western Europe.

274. You touched on the old issue of capability for work. A personal capability assessment does not deal, in any shape or form, with an individual’s ability to work — it measures whether an individual can sit, stand, bend, kneel and so on. That issue must be addressed in any Welfare Reform Bill.

275. You also mentioned front line staff and the training that they will need in order to deal with people who have serious mental-health problems. The Minister has been asked about that, but no satisfactory answer has been given as to the level of training that front line staff will receive, particularly in employment and learning, and especially when it comes to interviewing people and in the whole back-to-work concept.

276. Mr Allamby: The transition to work and childcare provision are crucial issues. Let us assume that a lone parent has access to childcare; it is likely to be financed through the tax credit system. The difficulty is that if it takes three or four weeks for a lone parent to receive tax credits, where does that person find the money in the interim if a childcare organisation asks to be paid upfront on a weekly basis?

277. There are issues around transitions to work: if a person is to be paid monthly, then benefits are not paid at the same time, and the person would have to wait for their money. If anyone around this table were told that they would be experiencing a short drop in income, but that it would be recouped in a month’s time, we could probably manage; we would either have savings or access to other funds. People who have been on benefits for some time and have no savings would not have the luxury of being able to find money for the next three or four weeks until the next tax credit comes through. Also, they might not be able to ask the childcare provider to wait a month to get paid, or even another month if the tax credit does not come through.

278. That is the reality one faces when it comes to moving people from unemployment into work. There are other issues to be addressed if one is serious about moving people back into work effectively. The Department for Work and Pensions is doing some work on that, but that is still at an early stage. Some parts of that work, including the Bill, are moving ahead. In some senses, we are running before we can walk.

279. Mr F McCann: I want to pick up on the issue that Mickey raised. Will training sessions for client advisers equip them to deal with people with mental-health illnesses?

280. Mr Allamby: I am not fully conversant with what DEL is doing in respect of training. Wearing my other hat as a member of the Social Security Advisory Committee, I hope that we will find out a bit more about that as part of our visit. I know that DEL has put some training in place.

281. The focus is moving away from the Pathways to Work pilot approach, which tended to help people who were relatively close to getting back to work, to a different stage whereby client advisers help people who have been out of the labour market for a long period of time. That poses different challenges from those arising from working with people who have been out of work for a relatively short time. I am not sure whether client advisors are geared up for that yet; I do not know enough about the level of the training that has been provided. My sense is that DEL is not fully aware of how much of a challenge it will be.

282. Mr F McCann: In the briefing paper, it states that the purpose of the Welfare Reform Bill is to simplify the benefits system. What is your reaction to that?

283. Mr Allamby: A single working-age benefit would probably simplify the social security system, depending on how it is implemented. This Bill does not simplify the social security system; in fact, the system has become more and more complex, because one has to try to work out where the conditionality is.

284. The focus is moving to partners of people who are unemployed, because they will have conditionality attached to their entitlement to benefit, as will lone parents, and certain people on employment support allowance in certain circumstances. That has become much more complex. Therefore, I do not think this Bill simplifies the social security system.

285. Mr F McCann: In the past, the system has not recognised people who are either long-term unemployed, or unemployed and unable to get a job, and who do community work instead. Are there any proposals for the new system to recognise the work that such people do?

286. Mr Allamby: Nothing in the Bill addresses voluntary commitments or other commitments. The benefits system has done one or two things at the margins to encourage volunteering, but there is no equivalent of the old Action for Community Employment (ACE) schemes for people to join. There is nothing like that on the horizon. The Bill is about gearing up training to get people back into work. I cannot see an ACE-type scheme on the horizon, and I do not think that is what envisaged with this “workfare-type arrangement".

287. Ms Lo: I understand that the principle of the Bill is to get a large number of people who are economically inactive back to work. That seems so harsh — it is like waving a big stick at people. A lot of people want to go to work. It is not that they do not want a job: most people want a job, but cannot get one. Perhaps we are doing this in the wrong way.

288. You mentioned the issue of training. We need to put the emphasis on people gaining qualifications, so that they can get a job. We need to break down barriers so that the unemployed can get a job. We should not be pushing them to get a job when they cannot get one, particularly during an economic downturn. There are not enough jobs. If we do that, we will simply be disadvantaging already disadvantaged groups.

289. Mr Allamby: I absolutely agree. The Department recently commissioned research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which found that lone parents who get back to work end up being materially and financially better off and, in some cases, quite significantly so. The downside of that is that their health and social well-being is often affected. Therefore, this is also a quality of life issue. It is not simply about finance.

290. There is a notion that work is good for you: by and large, work is good for you. Good work is good for you. However, poorly paid work, and long and unsocial hours are not necessarily good for you. Getting people into work is not just about getting them a job, it is about the type of work that they do, how secure it is, and how well they are treated. Therefore, we need to look at that, and not just at getting people into work. The quality of the work is also important.

291. The Chairperson: Thank you very much. I remind members that the Department will shortly be updating the Committee on the progress of the Bill at Westminster. I believe that the intention is for that to happen in the autumn, and it should be part of our forward work programme, to which we will come soon.

292. We will now move straight into our next briefing, which is from Sir Richard Tilt, chairman of the Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC), on the role of the SSAC and on the Welfare Reform Bill. Members will find the Committee Clerk’s cover note and a copy of the SSAC briefing paper in their information packs. I assume that there will be a degree of overlap between this part of the session and the previous one. Sir Richard, some questions might be repeated, so, I hope that you will not get bored. We have special tea bags. [Laughter.] That is a special joke that we have, but we will not go into that today. We will explain that at another meeting.

293. Ms Lo: I shall take a new cup of tea. [Laughter.]

294. The Chairperson: Sir Richard, you are very welcome, as are SSAC members who are in the public gallery. We will ask you to go straight into your briefing, which will, of course, be followed by questions, and, hopefully, good answers.

295. Sir Richard Tilt (Social Security Advisory Committee): Thank you for your welcome. Let me check timing with you. How are we doing for time?

296. The Chairperson: You just keep going. I will not cut you off in your prime, but it will be close to it.

297. Sir Richard Tilt: Les and Laura covered quite a lot of stuff on the Welfare Reform Bill, and I will not go over that. I agree with much of what they said. I need to start by saying something about the Social Security Advisory Committee.

298. The Chairperson: Did you say that you agreed with most of what they said?

299. Sir Richard Tilt: Well, in broad terms I am in agreement with what has been said.

300. The Social Security Advisory Committee is currently visiting Northern Ireland. We visit as a Committee every two or three years in order to keep in touch with what is happening here. The SSAC is an independent statutory body, which has been in place for about 30 years. Its function is to provide advice to the Secretary of State on matters of social security, and it has a function to do the same for Northern Ireland, in the sense that there could be different social security legislation.

301. That function is discharged in two ways; and uniquely, I think, as an advisory body, we have a statutory position in respect of secondary legislation ? that is, regulations. Therefore, if the Government wishes to lay regulations under social security primary legislation, it has to consult the Committee about those regulations. Much of that consultation takes place on an informal basis, whereby we deal directly with officials, and the regulations are often amended in some way as a result of those discussions.

302. However, there remains what is known as the formal referral procedure, such that if we feel that we have significant concerns about some regulations, we ask for those to be formally referred to us. We then conduct a public consultation on those regulations and give the Secretary of State our formal position in respect of those regulations, and he has statutorily to publish those comments from us together with his own response. That, which is known as a report from the Social Security Advisory Committee, is used, I think, quite extensively when regulations are discussed in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. It is, therefore, quite a useful piece of information for Members of Parliament.

303. We also have a remit to provide advice to the Secretary of State on any social security matter on which we wish to do so. Therefore, we do, from time to time, publish papers on particular issues. One such issue in the past year or two has been, for instance, on the use of sanctions ? and there are many others like that. All of that can be found on our website if members of this Committee are interested in those.

304. I will give the Committee a list of formal referrals that we have dealt with during the past year, just to give members a flavour of the sort of concerns that we have and, hence, why we have taken the step of formal referral and reporting to the Secretary of State.

305. The first relates to the proposals to move lone parents from income support to jobseeker’s allowance. As you have heard the detail of that from the previous two witnesses, I will not go through it all: suffice it to say that the SSAC’s recommendation is that the Secretary of State should not proceed with those proposals. We have serious concerns about them; principally, around the question that parents, in trying to do their best for their children, will not always be satisfied that the childcare that is available is acceptable. It is about allowing parents to have that choice. In practice, of course, well over half of lone parents work. It is not a huge issue. However, a significant number of parents choose not to work for various reasons; many of which, we believe, relate to childcare.

306. We also made a particular comment with regard to Northern Ireland, because we are aware that the childcare infrastructure here is significantly less well developed than in the rest of the UK. Therefore, we have particular concerns about Northern Ireland and general concerns about the policy of moving lone parents in that way, with increased conditionality, to jobseeker’s allowance. Shortly, we will offer advice to the Secretary of State that he might consider not proceeding with the next phase in October 2009.

307. Again, part of that stems from our uncertainty about whether childcare arrangements are as good in GB as they ought to be. It also relates to the recession: the situation is becoming increasingly difficult. There is emerging evidence that the rate of lone parents in employment is beginning to fall because of the recession. We need to test that out. All of those issues seem to us to be reasons why it might be sensible to hold fire — generally, across the whole of the UK. There are further and, if you like, stronger reasons because of the lack of availability of childcare. That remains a problem.

308. Secondly, we have reported on Flexible New Deal in GB, which is the sweeping up of all existing New Deal arrangements for getting people into work with conditionality. It provides a considerable role for the private sector in offering job placements. We have expressed a great deal of concern about that. You might want to look at our report on the Flexible New Deal, because issues, although they relate to a particular set of regulations, go beyond that. Some of our comments about the extent to which that can be made to work during a recession are pertinent.

309. Thirdly, we have reported on what is known in the trade as “periodicity" — the Department and the agency’s move to pay all benefits two weeks in arrears and tied to a specific date that is linked to a person’s National Insurance number. That is going ahead and is due to start around now. Although the policy is probably quite good, we have concerns about the transition arrangements that are in place as regards the loans that are available to people. The Secretary of State accepted our recommendations. As a result, the loan position has been improved.

310. Fourthly, we are presently out to consultation on mortgage interest support. The Government have introduced specific emergency measures to deal with the current recession and possible housing repossessions, which provide for increasing the capital amount and reducing the waiting time before someone can claim mortgage interest support. However, as part of that package, they are introducing a two-year time limit. We have concerns about that limit, although we have not yet fully bottomed what they mean by it. We are out to consultation on the matter. The two-year time limit causes concern; not the other parts of the package, which are pretty sensible.

311. The Chairperson: Recently, during the past few weeks, statutory rules were passed on a number of the issues that you have spoken about.

312. Sir Richard Tilt: We have reported on a small issue — small, because the number of people affected by it is not large — which is the capping of the local housing allowance at the five-bedroom rate. It relates to a number of cases, which occurred mostly in the London area, where huge sums —

313. The Chairperson: We are not guilty of that one. [Laughter.]

314. Sir Richard Tilt: No. We do not think that what was proposed was sensible.

315. During the year, we have also reported on the Government’s proposals, which have now come in, for reducing the backdating arrangements for claiming housing benefit and council tax benefit. We thought that those, in particular, were disadvantageous to older people, especially those over 70 years of age, who had had a right to claim up to 12 months back. The Government intended to reduce that to three months, but on the basis of our recommendations, that period has been set at six months. They intend to move to three months next year. We believe that quite a lot of older people on pension credit in particular will lose out as a result of that.

316. That is the business as it is at the moment. I do not want to take up time talking. As some of you will know, I am the Social Fund Commissioner for GB and for Northern Ireland. Les covered the social fund issues in relation to the Welfare Reform Bill, but I am happy to take any questions on social fund issues.

317. The Chairperson: It seems that the Committee should keep in with you, because the Secretary of State and others have paid attention to the points that you have put to them. It would be a good thing to meet you every week to get our points across to the Government. [Laughter.]

318. I thank you for the reports and for the guidance that the Social Security Advisory Committee has provided on social security matters. I want to put on record that our Committee has found your Committee’s perspective to be invaluable in our consideration of those matters.

319. Sir Richard Tilt: Thank you.

320. The Chairperson: Does the SSAC advise the Department for Work and Pensions on its obligation to parity?

321. Sir Richard Tilt: No. We are well aware of the current parity policy and its history. As Les said, we are conscious of the financial benefits that accrue to Northern Ireland through the parity arrangements. It is not strictly an issue for us. We have not made any recommendations in my time about significant policy departures in Northern Ireland that would breach parity. As Les was hinting, there may be some scope, when policies are being phased in, to do that phasing differently in Northern Ireland. I am not in a position to say whether or not that is a breach of parity, but no doubt your officials will give you advice on that. I do not think that it represents a major breach of parity.

322. The Chairperson: You will be aware that the Department for Social Development wants to enhance telephony use here for benefit claimants. What is your Committee’s view on that?

323. Sir Richard Tilt: We have always accepted that the spread of telephony for dealing with social security claims is a natural step. All of us deal with things on the telephone now that we did not do 10, 15 or 20 years ago. Insurance is one of the most obvious examples; most insurance deals are now done over the telephone and the application is taken over the telephone. That is a principle that can be applied perfectly well to social security. However, my Committee has always said that there are some important principles to remember when introducing telephony. The first is to ensure that people who are vulnerable and short of money do not have to pay for the telephone call. It has proved extremely difficult to deliver that. The Department for Work and Pensions has signed up to the principle of people not paying, but getting the telephony and mechanisms to deliver that is quite difficult.

324. Mobile phones are a huge complication in all of that, because there are significantly higher tariffs on mobile phones, and a lot of people who are on social security use mobile phones; they no longer have landlines. There are, therefore, real technical problems. However, we think that telephony is bound to be the future for social security, but that requires good telephone systems and messaging, and enough staff to answer calls — it is no good putting in telephone systems if people cannot get through.

325. I just give the example of the social fund, although delivery of the social fund in Northern Ireland has remained at a pretty good level compared with that in GB. GB agencies went significantly across to contact centres and telephones, but they did not have enough people to answer the telephones. Therefore, two or three years ago in England, if you were trying to get a crisis loan, you simply could not get through on the telephone. People were, literally, spending days and days trying to get through. That has been much improved by putting in many more staff. Staff numbers had to be doubled, perhaps, to meet the need.

326. I am sure that the Social Security Agency here will be moving in that direction. I would be very surprised if it was not. The key thing is for the agency to make sure that it has enough staff. There is quite a lot to be learned from the experience in GB that would be very useful to the agency here.

327. The Chairperson: It is almost as difficult to get an appointment with the Health Service at the minute. I had to wait nearly a week to get one. You would be standing in a queue for a long time there, too.

328. Mr Brady: Thank you very much for the presentation. I would be interested in your views, as the Social Fund Commissioner, on the proposed changes to the social fund, particularly in relation to third parties paying. I know that the issue about interest seems to have been resolved for the present. Secondly, I know that you and your predecessor were interested in the social fund uptake, particularly in relation to second-stage reviews. In our area, there was a very low uptake with regard to the second stage. Do you think that that has improved?

329. Sir Richard Tilt: I will answer your second question first, Mickey. The uptake has improved slightly. I think that it has been driven by the recession as much as anything else, but the workload in the office here in Belfast has probably almost doubled in the past 12 months. However, a lot of that is, I think, to do with the recession.

330. With regard to the other proposed changes, I do not have very strong feelings about the contracting out of loans. I think that the problem with that is that there is not a natural, national way of doing it. As Les Allamby said, you might be better placed to do it here than in GB. Credit unions are going to administer loans only if they can charge interest or if someone pays them to do it, and do not see much point in doing that. The Government does it at the moment, and that seems to me to be a reasonable way of doing it. However, if you want to get other financial institutions involved, then someone has to pay for that in one way or another — either through the users or through interest — and I do not think that it is right that people on means-tested benefits should be paying interest on social loans. So, it is quite difficult.

331. Introducing financial advice as part of the package is a good idea, and I would support that. Providing advances to people coming onto benefits, rather than having them claim a crisis loan, is a good suggestion, and I hope that that comes in relatively quickly. As regards the white goods scheme, on the whole, I support the purchase of white goods, only because it will release some money. It will save a bit of money, and that money can be reinvested in community-care grants. The community-care grants system is seriously underfunded.

332. Mr Brady: I have spoken to local credit unions about the proposals that they may become the involved third parties. It is very much as you said: they will not do it for free. They need to be reimbursed, because they are sorely pressed.

333. Sir Richard Tilt: That is right, and the reimbursement usually involves interest charges of about 25%.

334. The Chairperson: What is the Social Security Advisory Committee’s view on the aspects control of the welfare state going to third-party organisations? Would that be problematic or advantageous?

335. Sir Richard Tilt: I cannot outline an overall committee view on that issue, because there are a range of opinions therein. Insofar as we have discussed it, we have no objection, in principle, to using the private sector. We are concerned about the payment conditions in the contract and the extent to which they will encourage bad practice: I mean the practices often referred to as “parking and creaming". The private sector may be more interested in —

336. The Chairperson: It would never be guilty of creaming. [Laughter.]

337. Sir Richard Tilt: The private sector may be interested in dealing with some customers more than others. That leaves vulnerable people and those who are less easy to place with poor service. We want to protect those groups. However, we have no objection, in principle, to contracting out.

338. The Chairperson: Do you agree that the measures that relate to drug users will be effective?

339. Sir Richard Tilt: No; we do not agree. You deal with much smaller numbers here, but even in GB it will not work. The proposal is that people will be sanctioned if they do not attend a first meeting with a provider to discuss their problems. It is not about joining a drug-treatment programme. We do not believe that that approach will be effective, because it is too cumbersome and bureaucratic to try to get a few people involved.

340. In my own experience of dealing with drug users, it is extraordinarily difficult to motivate people to come off drugs. Some people manage to do it, but they will not be greatly encouraged by a one- or two-week benefit sanction — that is small beer. Serious drug users spend a large amount of money and will not be hugely influenced by a one- or two-week benefits sanction.

341. The Chairperson: Thank you, Sir Richard. I remind members that the Committee will receive a briefing from the Department before the summer recess on the Bill’s progress in Westminster. A Northern Ireland version of the Bill is expected to be introduced to the Assembly — possibly under accelerated passage — in the autumn. Members should carefully consider their views on any aspects of the Bill with which they have difficulties. I thank you again, Sir Richard, and members of your committee, for attending today.

342. Members who want to ask questions but have insufficient time during the meeting can relay those questions — including those about briefing notes — to the Committee Clerk, who will ensure that they are answered. Questions will definitely be forwarded, and all relevant information will be sought, because the issue is important.

2 July 2009

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr David Hilditch (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Mickey Brady
Mrs Mary Bradley
Mr Thomas Burns
Ms Anna Lo
Mr Fra McCann
Ms Caral Ní Chuilín

Witnesses:

Ms Janis Creane
Mr Gerry McCann
Ms Anne McCleary
Ms Margaret Sisk

Department for Social Development

343. The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Hilditch): We welcome Ms Anne McCleary, who is a director in the Department for Social Development, Ms Margaret Sisk, from the social security policy and legislation division, and departmental representatives Mr Gerry McCann and Ms Janis Creane, to brief the Committee on the forthcoming Welfare Reform Bill.

344. Members will find in their meeting packs a cover note from the Committee Clerk, the Department’s briefing paper, the briefing paper from the Law Centre Northern Ireland, which was considered by the Committee on 2 April 2009, and the briefing paper from Assembly Research and Library Services, which was also considered by the Committee on 2 April. The equality impact assessment consultation document relating to the Bill has also been tabled in members’ papers.

345. The Committee welcomes Anne McCleary as the new director of the social security policy and legislation division of DSD — she has replaced John O’Neill. I pass over to you to give the Committee an outline and briefing, which will be followed by questions and answers. I ask everyone to ensure that all mobile phones are switched off.

346. Ms Margaret Sisk (Department for Social Development): I am leading the presentation today because Ms McCleary is still fairly new in post. Hopefully, this will be my swansong as John O’Neill’s temporary replacement. I will try to keep the presentation as short as possible, as I realise that the Committee has had a fairly long meeting.

347. The key aims of the draft Welfare Reform Bill are to further reform the benefits system, to improve support and incentives for people to move from benefits into work, to simplify the benefits system, and to provide additional powers for the enforcement of child maintenance arrears. There are other measures, such as the extension of the higher-rate mobility component of the disability living allowance to blind or severely visually impaired people, and some changes to the social fund.

348. The Great Britain Welfare Reform Bill is going through the parliamentary process at Westminster. It is currently in Committee in the House of Lords, which means that it is possible that there could still be changes to the measures that we have outlined in the table that we provided for members. We expect the Bill to receive Royal Assent in the autumn, probably in November.

349. As I am sure that you have noticed, there are a number of measures in the Great Britain Bill that are not due to be replicated in the equivalent Northern Ireland legislation. Part 2 of the Great Britain Bill, which concerns the right to control provision of services, will not appear in the Northern Ireland Bill. The purpose of Part 2 is to enable disabled people who are aged 18 or over to exercise greater choice and control over the way in which certain services are provided for them by public authorities. There has been no consultation with interested groups in Northern Ireland or with the various authorities responsible for administering the services, and, as responsibility for the relevant services rests with a number of Departments and bodies, the issue of ownership needs to be resolved. Since it is not a social security matter, it is not considered necessary or feasible to include that measure in the proposed Bill.

350. Part 4 of the Bill provides for birth registration, which is the responsibility here of the Department of Finance and Personnel. The Department has decided that it does not want to legislate to require unmarried parents here to register the birth of their child jointly.

351. In addition, the Minister has decided that she does not wish to make arrangements for external providers to provide social loans here. She does not wish to mirror the Great Britain provisions that would allow for the introduction of a new regime to identify problem drug users, that is, people who are dependent on heroin or crack cocaine, nor does she wish to provide for the administrative withdrawal of passports from non-resident parents who refuse to pay child maintenance. In Northern Ireland, that will remain a court-based process.

352. I will briefly go through the main points of the proposed measures to be included in the Northern Ireland legislation. Many of the proposals are drawn from a report by Professor Paul Gregg, which is entitled ‘Realising Potential: A Vision for Personalised Conditionality and Support’. That was published alongside the welfare reform White Paper in September 2008. Professor Gregg recommended a system of personalised conditionality, matched by personalised support, with virtually everyone on working-age benefits being expected to take active steps to work.

353. The report identified three broad customer groups. The first group is a work-ready group for people who would be considered to be immediately job ready. The requirements for that group would be largely based on the jobseeker’s allowance regime. The second group is a progression-to-work group, which would be aimed at people for whom an immediate return to work is not appropriate but is a genuine possibility with time, encouragement and support; for example, lone parents and partners of benefit recipients with children who are under the age of seven. The third group is a no-conditionality group, which would be made up of people who will not be required to undertake work-related activity or take steps back to work. That group would include carers, the employment and support allowance support component group and lone parents of very young children.

354. The proposals for the work-ready group are designed to find a system of support that is most suitable for the circumstances of each individual. It is envisaged that an action plan would be agreed between the claimant and the advisor that would help the claimant prepare for work and move closer to the labour market. It would be possible for an adviser to direct a claimant to a mandatory work-related activity where necessary. The schemes will be piloted in Great Britain and evaluated to test their effectiveness before being rolled out nationally.

355. People in the progression-to-work group will only be expected to undertake work-related activity that is clearly appropriate to their particular circumstances. In doing that, consideration will need to be given to issues such as the availability of childcare and fluctuating medical conditions. Again, the schemes will be piloted in Great Britain for two years to test their effectiveness.

356. There are some new powers to apply benefit sanctions. There is a new provision to remove or reduce benefit entitlement for four weeks for all first offences of benefit fraud. The aim is to deter people from committing benefit fraud in the first place by making the benefit system more active and tougher on people who do not play by the rules. There will also be a loss of benefit sanction for job seeker’s allowance customers who commit acts of violence or use threatening behaviour against staff. There is also a new one-week benefit sanction for job seeker’s allowance customers who have failed to attend their mandatory appointments without good cause.

357. The Bill also contains a number of measures that support the goal of simplifying the benefit system. For example, it will allow claimants who currently claim income support to move to job seeker’s allowance with the same conditionality as income support. Those customers will not be required to meet the conditions of actively seeking and being available for work. The Bill will also allow for the aligning of the contribution conditions for ESA and JSA and for people who are not entitled to the full amount of statutory sick pay to claim ESA. The eventual goal is to abolish income support and to transfer claimants to JSA or ESA. There is no set date for the abolition of income support, but it is intended that it will gradually wither away as groups of claimants are transferred gradually to those other benefits. That could take a considerable amount of time. It will be done only as resources allow and it is clear how that change will fit others that are already under way.

358. A key proposal around the enforcement of child maintenance is the introduction of the power to administratively withdraw a driving licence from a non-resident parent who refuses to pay arrears. It is intended that the proposal will be piloted in Great Britain for two years to test its effectiveness and to ensure that it does not result in unintended adverse consequences. If it is decided that it should be rolled out nationally, we intend to introduce that measure here.

359. As I have said, the Bill would also extend entitlement to claim the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance to prescribed categories of blind or visually impaired people.

360. The social fund change to which I referred will allow for successful community care grant applicants to be provided with the item that they have applied for, rather than money. The objective is to ensure that applicants receive value for money from their grants.

361. Members will be interested in the position on the Assembly process for the Bill in Northern Ireland. The Minister has not yet been asked to decide whether she wishes to seek approval for accelerated passage for the Northern Ireland Bill. As a first step, departmental officials must look at the implementation dates for the Bill in relation to the Great Britain Bill, and consider its impact on operational matters here. The Committee is also aware of the parity issue that we have spoken about many times, so I will not labour that point.

362. In conclusion, the purpose of the proposed changes is to support and encourage people, when possible, to move back into work. We consider paid work to be the best route out of poverty. The benefits of work are not just financial: there are health benefits, benefits to the individual’s self-esteem and the benefits associated with creating role models for children and families.

363. The Department recognises that it will face issues in implementing the proposals here, not least in the area of the availability of childcare and the resources that are available to Ministers to administer those changes, particularly in the Department for Employment and Learning. The Department also recognises that there is an economic downturn, but it does not believe that that should prevent preparing people for the move back to work when the situation changes.

364. The Deputy Chairperson: I thank Ms Sisk. The Committee has been briefed a number of times on the draft Welfare Reform Bill’s provisions. To some members, it is like the curate’s egg — a mixture of the good and the bad — but they are very interested in what will unfold. The fact that the Minister has not made her mind up on whether to seek accelerated passage has been referred to, which brings the Committee to its present consideration of what steps lie ahead. The Committee would like to develop some of the arguments and may want to debate them at a wider forum.

365. Ms Sisk: I absolutely understand that. The position is that the Department’s officials have not yet sought the Minister’s approval or decision on how she wants to move the Bill forward. Therefore, that is all that we can say at this stage, because it is entirely the Minister’s decision to make. She must then approach the Executive and the Committee. At present, it is too early in the process for us to approach her about that issue.

366. All that we are doing today is talking the Committee through the proposals that we expect to see in the Bill and that are covered in the equality impact assessment that is out to consultation until the end of September.

367. Ms Ní Chuilín: Ms Sisk has answered the question that I was going to ask about accelerated passage. I am keen that that does not happen.

368. However, on an issue that we have raised before and that has been brought up in Assembly debates; given the absence of childcare arrangements here, is the Department minded to amend the Bill to ensure that lone parents will not be sanctioned? In Britain, local councils are responsible for childcare provision, but that is not the case here.

369. Ms Sisk: I understand Ms Ní Chuilín’s point, and we have rehearsed that matter over the lone parent regulations that have been passed by the Assembly. During that debate, the Minister made it clear that she had built in extra operational flexibility to ensure that lone parents who cannot find childcare in Northern Ireland will not be sanctioned.

370. The Department’s policy is to use sanctions only as an absolute last resort in any case, whether a lone parent or any other person who is claiming welfare benefits.

371. The vast majority of the proposals in the Bill will be piloted for a considerable length of time in 10 or 12 regions of Great Britain before it is decided whether to roll them out. That will help to ascertain whether the use of sanctions is an effective mechanism. We will examine what emerges from the pilots before making any decisions about how the system will be designed here. We will have to engage with the Department for Employment and Learning, which will have a big part to play. I can assure you that no lone parent will be sanctioned if they cannot access affordable childcare.

372. Ms Ní Chuilín: By the time the Bill comes before us, it is introduced and becomes an Act. Therefore, would it not make sense to seek an amendment to the Bill? A lot of childcare is funded through the community and voluntary sector, the funds of which are also stretched. Such an amendment could make it totally clear that no lone parent will be sanctioned.

373. Ms Sisk: It is entirely up to any Member to table an amendment to the Bill when it is going through its process. Even if we ask the Committee to grant the Bill accelerated passage, you can still table an amendment at any time.

374. Mr Brady: Thank you for the presentation. As someone once famously, or infamously, said, it is like déjà vu all over again. If I expressed all my misgivings about the draft Welfare Reform Bill, we would probably not get a recess; so I will try to make my comments relatively brief.

375. One of the major issues is the abolition of income support, which will have a major effect on my constituency. The Minister has told us that income support will be based in Newry and that the jobs and benefits office will be in Dungannon. Jobs will wither away if income support withers away, and that office may wither away eventually. It is a relatively new facility; I think that it was opened only in 2001. Presumably, DEL will not wither away, and, hopefully, it will flourish.

376. The system of having two benefit offices, such as the ESA and jobs and benefits in Dungannon, is not flexible enough to include the people who do not come under those two benefits. Indeed, the ESA has already caused tremendous difficulties, as it is centralised in contravention of the Bain report; that all needs to be addressed. Cáral mentioned the huge issue of childcare provision. That highlights the rationale that parity can be changed or moved when it suits, but is imposed when it does not suit.

377. There has also been mention of the sanctions that are imposed for fraud or alleged fraud. In my experience, there is fraud. That has to be condemned, but a lot of the sanctions result from wilful intent. Someone might ring up to report their neighbour for painting their door the wrong colour or for doing something else totally innocuous. I have difficulty with the fact that those people can face sanctions in the form of their benefits being suspended while the matter is investigated.

378. The Minister effectively chose not to take the Green Paper on board. Is consideration being taken of the White Paper? Carál mentioned that a lone parent who has a child as young as seven will now be expected to work. It is laudable to encourage people to go to work, but I come across the problems with working tax credits and chidcare, day in and day out. That issue has to be looked at, and not merely in isolation. I will not hold my breath, but I hope that the issues that affect the most vulnerable will be properly addressed in the next round.

379. I am not saying that you are coming out with platitudes but, as someone who has listened to them for the past 30-odd years, I must say that one can become highly sceptical and cynical. When I said “déjà vu all over again", I meant it. It is simply a rehash of what has been coming out since at least 1988, when supplementary benefit was abolished and income support was introduced. We were told that the social fund would be wonderful and that it would offer interest-free loans and community-care grants. That simply has not happened.

380. Social engineering, unfortunately, as has happened in the past, can go dramatically and drastically wrong. Unless we, in which I include the Department, the Committee and the Assembly, address the issues now, things will simply chug along, and people at the bottom will continue to suffer. We must be cognisant of that.

381. Ms Sisk: You mentioned a huge number of benefit packages.

382. Mr Brady: I do not expect you to address all of them.

383. Ms Sisk: I will start with income support, because something occurred to me as you were talking about it. The potential abolition of income support is a long way down the road. There will be no particular date on which someone will declare that it has been abolished. Through time, the groups of people who claim income support will be moved on to other benefits. That relates to what you said about the strategic business review and the siting of jobs. The Department will have to consider what would happen should jobs no longer be available in, for example, the Newry office to handle income support.

384. When talking about sanctions for fraud, it is not exactly the same. Fraud is the deliberate intent to steal money from the benefits system, and clear evidence would have to exist before anyone could be sanctioned. I hear what you are saying about childcare, and we have been through that on numerous occasions previously.

385. The real test of the proposals will be how they are implemented. We want to see what happens when the GB pilot schemes are run, because it will be a couple of years before anything emerges from those. Only then will we see what happens to the group of people that is progressing towards work. Regulations will have to be made to implement the proposals. The vast majority of the regulations will be subject to the ministerial code and to the confirmation procedure in the Assembly. We will, therefore, have to come back you, Mr Brady, with all the details.

386. Mr Brady: I cannot wait to live in Utopia.

387. Ms Sisk: I am sure that you cannot wait.

388. Mr Brady: It is just round the corner.

389. The Chairperson: In the meantime, thank you very much for the briefing. It has been very useful.

3 December 2009

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Simon Hamilton (Chairperson)
Mr David Hilditch (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mr Alex Easton
Ms Anna Lo
Mr Fra McCann
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín

Witnesses:

Ms Anne McCleary
Mr Colm McLaughlin
Ms Margaret Sisk

Department for Social Development

390. The Chairperson (Mr Hamilton): We will now receive a briefing on the responses to the equality impact assessment (EQIA) on the proposed welfare reform Bill. I welcome Ms Anne McCleary, the director of social security policy and legislation in the Department’s social policy and legislation division, and Ms Margaret Sisk and Mr Colm McLaughlin from the social policy and legislation division. The Department hopes that the Committee will be able to share its views on the EQIA at the end of the briefing.

391. Ms Ann McCleary (Department for Social Development): I thank the Chairperson and Committee members for affording us the opportunity to explain the outcome of the consultation and the EQIA on the proposed welfare reform Bill.

392. I will begin by making a few comments about the proposed Bill. It is a significant piece of legislation, which has the policy aim of supporting and encouraging unemployed people to move closer to the workplace and, even in the prevailing economic climate, to return to the labour market as soon as possible. The Bill’s aim is to ensure that the welfare system gives people the opportunity to prepare for the working environment by improving their skills and providing other kinds of practical support. It is also about providing personalised support in parallel with personal responsibility. As an aside, the proposed Bill is not connected to the recent Green Paper on care and support; the two are entirely separate.

393. I will provide some background to the consultation. As members will be aware, the GB Welfare Reform Bill received Royal Assent at- Westminster last month. We are now moving ahead with our Bill. Copies of the EQIA were issued to 57 interested parties, and it was brought to the attention of political representatives such as MLAs and MPs, and others. We received six responses, but our offer to meet those respondents was taken up only by the representatives of the Law Centre (NI), with whom we had a very useful discussion.

394. The closing date for the responses was late November, but we had a late request for an easy-read version of the EQIA, and consequently, the deadline for consultation was extended to early December.

395. The Committee has a copy of the Department’s response to the consultation. Therefore, I will simply highlight the key issues that have arisen. Margaret Sisk, Colm McLaughlin and I will be happy to deal with any questions that you may have at the end.

396. The key issues, which are generally policy issues about the Bill’s content, are Work for Your Benefit schemes; work-related activity as required by the employment and support allowance; lone parents, which I will mention later; sanctions for violent conduct and loss of benefit; the abolition of income support; the abolition of adult dependency increases; and general issues relating to the recession and resources.

397. There are a number of cross-cutting themes in the Department’s response to those issues. Many of the proposed changes are being initiated first in GB as pilot schemes, and we will wait to see how those pilot schemes pan out. They relate specifically to working for benefit, to work-related activity as required by the employment and support allowance and to lone parents.

398. A theme has emerged not just concerning this legislation but with previous legislation, as I am sure the Committee is aware. The key factor is that we will be taking account of the circumstances in each lone parent case, and we are well aware of the difficulties with childcare provision in Northern Ireland. That aspect of the legislation has been recognised and is in the draft Bill. That shows the importance of the issue as it was originally proposed that it would appear in the ensuing regulations.

399. Many of the Department’s proposals are personalised. I said at the outset that the legislation is about providing personalised support and conditionality. We take into account the facts of each case, and that will be a key factor throughout all the legislation and its outworkings.

400. The final cross-cutting theme deals with the training of the folk who were involved in implementing the scheme on the ground.

401. Ms Ní Chuilín: Will accelerated passage be sought for the Bill?

402. Ms McCleary: We have yet to take the Minister’s mind on that. However, we expect to talk to her about it in the next couple of weeks.

403. Ms Ní Chuilín: My mind and that of my party is that we would not support the use of the accelerated passage procedure.

404. Ms McCleary: We will be looking at that in the near future.

405. Ms Lo: A couple of weeks ago, I hosted a question and answer session for several women’s groups. Those groups were mainly concerned with the lone parent issue. In the absence of a childcare strategy and given the fact that we do not have quality, accessible or affordable childcare in Northern Ireland, the legislation should not be applicable to Northern Ireland. What is your answer to that?

406. Ms McCleary: In practice, the fact that there is no available and affordable childcare in a particular circumstance will be taken into account, and that person will not be forced to do anything if childcare is not available or affordable.

407. Ms Lo: Therefore, each case will be looked at individually.

408. Mc McCleary: Yes.

409. Ms Margaret Sisk (Department for Social Development): If I may add to that, Anne mentioned the lone parent regulations that are already in place. We appeared before the Committee, and Ms Ní Chuilín is well aware of the background to those regulations. However, the proposed Bill will include a requirement that the personal adviser to a lone parent of a child who is already subject to the jobseeker’s allowance (JSA) requirement must take account of the availability of childcare and must also look at the well-being of the child when any personal agreement is drawn up.

410. Therefore, the Bill will strengthen the safeguards that are in place for lone parents, which are already part of the JSA regime. The new Bill will introduce work-related activity for other lone parents. Parents of children who are younger than seven years of age will not be forced to go to work. The idea is that those people will be helped to access training to polish up their CVs so that they will be ready to access the labour market when their child reaches the age of seven or 10. I do not know whether that reassures you.

411. Ms Lo: During the debate, there was a great deal of confusion about what age a child would be before a mother was asked to go to work. I understand that a child would be seven or eight years old. Some people said that you are planning to introduce measures for when the child is one year old. Is that correct?

412. Ms Sisk: There are different requirements, depending on the age of the child. Lone parents with children under the age of one are currently expected to attend work-focused interviews. The Bill will remove that requirement, so it will ease the requirements for lone parents with the youngest children. The parents of children who are between the ages of two and three will be required to attend work-focused interviews.

413. In the case of children between the ages of three and six, parents who are benefit recipients and their partners will receive help to take part in work-related activity. The idea is that they should be able to access training, improve their skills and polish up their CVs, because the concern is that, the longer that women are away from the labour market, the more they lose confidence and the more difficult it is for them to get back into work.

414. The requirement for parents of children of ages seven and above to move from income support to jobseeker’s allowance already exists, and it was done by the lone parent regulations that we made in December 2008. The Bill will put in place the safeguard that I mentioned, under which the personal adviser must take account of the child’s well-being and of issues such as the availability of childcare. That safeguard is currently dealt with under regulations, but it will be included in primary legislation, thus making the Bill much stronger. When we briefed the Committee on the Bill, Ms Ní Chuilín said that she wanted that safeguard to be included in the Bill. That is a move in the direction of providing more safeguards.

415. Ms Lo: Women have many concerns about this matter, and I empathise with them. Many women say that they want to stay at home and look after the children. What about their right to choose to do that? They are contributing to society by raising their children.

416. Ms Sisk: We do not disagree with that, but the vast majority of children who live in poverty come from lone parent families. The purpose of the legislation is to try to move those people out of poverty. It is not to make life more difficult for them but to try to help them and their children to move above the poverty line. People who live on benefit will never be very well off, and the best opportunity that they have is to move into work and move up once they get into work.

417. Ms Lo: The training aspect is important, because, for many people, there is no point in having a job that is not well paid, because the money that they earn is used to pay the childminder.

418. Ms Sisk: I understand the point that jobs must be sustainable and well paid. Unfortunately, the Department for Social Development does not have any great control over that.

419. The Chairperson: Obviously, we will await sight of the actual legislation. You said that that safeguard will be in the Bill, and the fact that the position that is set out in the regulations and guidance will be strengthened is to be welcomed. Is the proposed safeguard comparable to the GB legislation?

420. Ms Sisk: Yes, the measure is contained in the GB Act.

421. Ms McCleary: A Government amendment to include that was made.

422. The Chairperson: Was that amendment made in the House of Lords?

423. Ms Sisk: Yes, that is correct.

424. The Chairperson: In that case, I give the House of Lords a vote of confidence.

425. Mr F McCann: You can thank Wallace Browne and Maurice Morrow.

426. Ms Sisk: It may also have had to do with the change of Secretary of State at the Department for Work and Pensions from James Purnell to Yvette Cooper. The fact that that post is now held by a lady may have made a difference.

427. The Chairperson: That is very good. I shall wait and see what the Bill says. That is interesting.

428. Mr F McCann: Who determines what childcare provision is available? In any area, one will find that most childcare must be paid for and is totally out of reach of someone who is on benefits. When that provision is removed from an area, little affordable childcare is left.

429. My second question relates to JSA sanctions. In a number of cases, people have legitimately forgotten their signing-on day. I know that that is probably not an excuse. However, it results in the loss of two weeks’ benefits. When they phone up, they are told that they could, after three weeks, apply for a crisis loan. However, their benefits have been suspended only for two weeks. That has a knock-on effect for the wider family unit, which depends on someone to pay the way in the household. Not only is that person penalised but so is the entire family unit.

430. A while ago, during discussion on the now Welfare Reform Act 2007, I asked whether community-based work would qualify under Work for Your Benefit schemes. Many areas depend on local voluntary community workers, who also draw benefits. At present, they are penalised for so doing.

431. Ms Sisk: To start with childcare provision, in practice, our policy is that it is a woman’s decision as to whether accessible and affordable childcare is available to allow her to work, unless it were obvious that it is and she is not accessing it; if, say, there is a nursery school in the area of which everyone is aware. As far as I understand it, however, the normal course of events is that staff in jobs and benefits offices do not counter-argue with a woman who says that she cannot access childcare.

432. Moreover, tax credits are available for childcare. It is not as though no money is available for it. However, all those matters must be taken into account. The regime is not intended to be punitive by any manner or means. It is intended to be encouraging and empowering. Therefore, no one will force a woman into work when it is obvious that no childcare is available to her. That is not the process that we want at all. It is not our policy intention.

433. Mr F McCann: In current circumstances, and probably in the near future and the longer term, no jobs will be available. Surely that makes a bit of a nonsense of the suggestion. People have to be working in order to obtain tax credits.

434. Ms Sisk: That is correct. The Department recognises, as does the Department for Work and Pensions, that, at present, there is an economic recession and no work is available. However, our point is that just because there is a recession does not mean that people cannot be prepared and made ready for work when it becomes available.

435. We hark back to a previous recession during the 1980s, when generations of people were simply left to languish on the dole or incapacity benefit. That is not sustainable, nor is it the right thing to do for people. We want people to be given training, support and encouragement to get them ready for work. Clearly, they cannot be forced out to work if there are no jobs available. That is obviously not the intention. That would make no sense at all.

436. Mr F McCann: Will their children be provided for while they are training?

437. Ms Sisk: Yes. They will still receive benefits while they are training.

438. Mr F McCann: They will be out of the parental home. What will happen to their children then?

439. Ms Sisk: The availability of childcare would have to be taken account of not only when those people are working but during the training process. Childcare would have to be available during the work-related activity.

440. Ms McCleary: That is why it is a cross-cutting issue.

441. Ms Lo: Will those people be given money or benefit?

442. Ms Sisk: Yes, if necessary. That is one of the reasons why we have said that there are resource implications not only for us but for the Department for Employment and Learning, which provides the funding for a lot of those things.

443. The situation with regard to sanctions is that, if somebody does not attend for a job interview, they are given a chance to explain why they did not attend. They cannot be sanctioned simply because they did not turn up. If they have good cause, that is taken into account before any sanction is applied. However, I cannot comment on specific circumstances.

444. Mr F McCann: People say that honesty is the best policy, but, if people are honest and say that they forgot to sign on, they are sanctioned right away because they should remember their signing-on day.

445. Ms Sisk: I cannot say whether that happens.

446. Mr F McCann: It is a fact.

447. Ms Sisk: All that I can really say on the matter is that good cause must be taken into account.

448. As Anne said, the work for your benefit programme will run as a pilot programme in Great Britain for two years from the passing of the Bill there. At this stage, it is difficult for us to say exactly how the programme will work, because the Government have not started running it yet. However, if someone has been on jobseeker’s allowance for a long time, they will have become detached from the labour market, and the idea is to help them to get closer to getting back into work. The purpose is to personalise work that will help people to move back into the workplace. Nothing has been set down in respect of what that work will be, but people will still be able to take part in voluntary activity, as long as they are available for work. In order to qualify for jobseeker’s allowance, they must be available for work.

449. Mr F McCann: Some people have been told that they cannot work voluntarily for a residents’ association or a community association because doing so means that they are not available for work. Therefore, that is a grey area. Those people have told staff at the jobs and benefits office that they are available for work and are working voluntarily with organisations that are doing good work on the ground. More times than enough, those people are told that they cannot do that.

450. Ms Sisk: Yes, because the condition for receipt of jobseeker’s allowance is that people are actively seeking and are available for work.

451. Mr F McCann: Does that mean that they cannot do voluntary work?

452. Ms Sisk: They cannot do voluntary work if they are on jobseeker’s allowance. They cannot say that they are unable to take a job because they are doing voluntary work.

453. Mr F McCann: Will voluntary work be recognised under the work for your benefit programme?

454. Ms Sisk: No, because it is not recognised in jobseeker’s allowance at present.

455. The Chairperson: In respect of the proposals on work-related activity, can you confirm how many ESA claimants in Northern Ireland will be affected by the pilot schemes?

456. Ms Sisk: The pilot schemes will not affect anybody to start off with, because it is not our intention at this stage to run any. However, having said that, I cannot rule it out completely, because some of the input to decision-making on that rests with the Department for Employment and Learning.

457. The Chairperson: That is the point that I was getting at.

458. Ms Sisk: To be honest, at this stage, I am not aware of the Department’s intentions to do anything like that, but I cannot say that it will not run a pilot scheme. The Department wants to look at what is happening in GB to see whether there is any benefit in running a similar pilot scheme in Northern Ireland or any necessity to do so. That is a decision for the Department.

459. The Chairperson: Have you done any work on the number of people involved and the programme’s resource implications?

460. Ms Sisk: No. We will have to revisit that issue when we know more about the pilot schemes. Clearly, there could be resource implications, particularly for the Department for Employment and Learning, which will have to put in place a lot of the work programmes. Therefore, some things will be dependent on the availability of resources in the longer term, but it is much too early to say what those are likely to be.

461. The Chairperson: You wanted the Committee’s view on the EQIA, so we will send that to you for your consideration and response. Some issues have been raised, but the majority of members are in favour of parity. Thank you.

462. Ms Sisk: Thank you.

28 January 2010

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Simon Hamilton (Chairperson)
Mr David Hilditch (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mrs Mary Bradley
Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Thomas Burns
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr Alex Easton
Ms Anna Lo
Mr Fra McCann
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín

Witnesses:

Ms Anne McCleary
Ms Margaret Sisk

Department for Social Development

463. The Chairperson (Mr Hamilton): Joining us this morning are Anne McCleary, the director of social policy and legislation division in the Department for Social Development (DSD), and Margaret Sisk, who is the deputy director. You are both very welcome.

464. The Welfare Reform Bill received Royal Assent in November 2009. At its meeting on 3 December 2009, the Committee received a departmental briefing on the outcome of the consultation on the equality impact assessment (EQIA) of the provisions of the proposed Bill. On 18 January 2010, the Department wrote to the Committee indicating that the Minister would not be seeking accelerated passage for the proposed welfare reform Bill.

465. Given the nature of the briefing, the session is being reported by Hansard. Anne, I ask you to please make some introductory remarks, and after that, I will open the floor to members for questions.

466. Ms Anne McCleary (Department for Social Development): Thank you for the invitation to attend the meeting today, Chairperson. The proposed welfare reform Bill is a significant piece of legislation that will play an important role in bringing those who are out of work closer to the workplace. It mirrors the GB Welfare Reform Bill, which received Royal Assent in November, and it is important for the maintenance of parity across the social security systems in Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

467. As we confirmed in correspondence with the Committee Clerk on 18 January, the decision has been made not to seek accelerated passage. I understand that members are interested in knowing, among other things, the impact of purdah, what happens next and the implications for parity. Without wishing to pre-empt any questions that members may have, it may be helpful if I deal with those specific issues at the outset.

468. First, we do not anticipate that the period of purdah that will be associated with the Westminster elections will have an impact on the Bill. Secondly, we will move to introduce the Bill as soon as we have received Executive approval. The speed of progress will depend on the Committee and the Assembly. However, the Bill is unlikely to be passed in time to maintain parity of timing. Thirdly, depending on legislative progress, there will be disparity between Northern Ireland and Great Britain for a period of time. Margaret will be able to give you more detailed information on the more specific differences, if that would be helpful.

469. The Chairperson: Thank you, Anne. The nub of the matter is that we find ourselves in a peculiar position. No Committee would argue for accelerated passage. What is the point in having a Committee if Bills do not go through a Committee Stage? That scrutiny is an important function of Committees. I welcome being given the opportunity to have a Committee Stage, because the proposed Bill is a significant piece of legislation and because it is only right that proper attention and scrutiny is given to it.

470. I, and I am sure the Committee members who have been in the Assembly for longer, have been told ad infinitum that the maintenance of parity is absolutely paramount, particularly for social security legislation. The situation appears to be that timing will result in a breach of parity. That causes me some concern. I do not know how many times I have heard the Minister talk in the House about parity when amendments to pieces of legislation have been sought or moved. The argument has always been that we cannot have a breach of parity.

471. I received correspondence from the Minister before Christmas off the back of a debate on employment support allowance (ESA). Again, both a letter and an annex to it clearly referred to parity. Parity in that instance relates not just to the level of payment of benefit but to its administration. We even have correspondence from the Department that dates back to 2008 that states:

“Indeed without parity in the associated funding, the Northern Ireland social security system would probably be unsustainable. Any departure from parity which would endanger the continuation of this funding, needs to be the subject of long and detailed consideration."

472. I am sure that other members will have similar questions to mine, but what is the extent of that breach of parity? What is its impact?

473. Ultimately, it does not matter to me whether our statute book is different from another; what matters is the impact that that might have on the recipients of benefits. That is what we have been told for years, and that is what all of us are, or should be, concerned about. Given that the most efficient Committee Stage ever and the quickest possible passage through the House would not give enough time, why was accelerated passage not sought? Furthermore, what discussion has the Department for Social Development had with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and/or others in Whitehall about the impact of the breach of parity?

474. Ms McCleary: You are right. There will be a period during which there will be a degree of disparity, because there will be disparity of timing. However, once the Bill receives Royal Assent, the situation will return to one of parity, subject to whatever happens in the legislative process. The proposed Bill is important, and it will make a difference to people.

475. I am sure that members are more familiar than I am with how the Bill would have an impact on people who receive benefit and who are concerned about what will happen next. The purpose of the Bill is to help those people to move closer to the workplace. It will also simplify the benefits system and introduce provisions that provide enforcement powers on child maintenance arrears. Given its importance, the Bill must be given detailed consideration.

476. Margaret Sisk will provide the Committee with more precise details of the impact of what will, it is hoped, be a short period of disparity. We are looking at all the implications of the Bill, which we will introduce as soon as it receives the Executive’s approval.

477. Ms Margaret Sisk (Department for Social Development): It is clear to us, and probably to the Committee, that there is no possibility of meeting the April 2010 deadlines that have been set in the GB Act. I will run through what will become operational in April 2010.

478. The first changes that will come into operation in Great Britain in April 2010 will be in areas of what I call protections for people. Those are the measures that I spoke to Anna Lo about when I addressed the Committee previously. They include provisions to remove the requirement for lone parents who are on income support or ESA and who have children under the age of one to have a work-focused interview. That requirement will be removed in Great Britain from April 2010.

479. Victims of domestic violence or who have been under threat of domestic violence in the previous six months will be able to claim, or continue to claim, jobseeker’s allowance without being subject to the conditionality of the jobseeker’s regime for 13 weeks, in addition to the 11 weeks that are allowed at present.

480. From April 2010, the Act will allow the “availability of childcare" or:

“the person’s physical or mental health or condition"

481. to be considered in deciding whether a person has good cause for failing to undertake a mandatory activity for the purpose of jobseeker’s allowance or employment and support allowance. That is also due to be introduced in April 2010, but we will not be able to meet that date.

482. In preparing a jobseeker’s agreement, someone’s personal adviser must have regard to the impact of that jobseeker’s agreement on the well-being of any child. That protection will also come into effect in April 2010, but we will not be able to mirror it straight away.

483. Other things will tighten conditionality. One is the abolition of adult dependency increases for carers allowance and maternity allowance. They will be abolished for new claims from April 2010. There are also various sanctions against people who have been violent, people who have committed benefit fraud and people who have failed to attend. In Britain, those sanctions come into operation in April 2010, so we will be unable to match those dates.

484. As Anne said, it is our intention to introduce those provisions as fast as we can, but that will depend on the length of time that it takes for the Bill to proceed through the Committee and the Assembly.

485. The Chairperson: Proposed changes to the Bill will affect people who are visually impaired. Is that impacted in any way?

486. Ms Sisk: No. That is not due to become operational until 2011, so we should be OK on that. There is another set of dates in October, and if we cannot manage to get the Bill through by then, an impact could be felt. People will be able to make advanced claims in October 2010 to allow enough time to process their application for 2011. If we do not manage the October date, it is possible that there will be an impact. At this stage, we are not suggesting that we cannot do that.

487. The Chairperson: I am probably more concerned now, having heard that list. Given all that, why was accelerated passage not sought? This could open the floodgates, and goodness only knows what could happen then. What discussions have you had with DWP, the Treasury or anyone else to tell them that you will be in breach of parity and that there will be consequences? There may be no consequences, but there could be. There is a consequence to the constant argument that parity is most important. You can make a fantastic argument about why something should be changed, but when the old bludgeon of parity is brought out, the argument is over. That argument has gone, and there could be an impact on the passage of the Bill through the House.

488. Ms McCleary: Any decision on accelerated passage should not be taken lightly; it will have been a finely balanced decision. The Bill is a parity piece of legislation, meaning that it has little scope for variation from the Welfare Reform Bill, which, as you know, received Royal Assent in November. However, bearing that in mind, we are always mindful of the important role of the Committee. That is why we are where we are.

489. The Chairperson: Perhaps you cannot answer this question, but was the Minister advised to seek accelerated passage?

490. Ms McCleary: That is one matter that comes under the description of advice to the Minister.

491. The Chairperson: I understand that. I had to put the question, but I knew the answer. What communication have you had with DWP?

492. Ms McCleary: We have been in touch with DWP, so it is aware of the situation.

493. The Chairperson: Has it expressed a view?

494. Ms McCleary: No. I will be having meetings with DWP next week or the following week, and we will discuss this in more detail.

495. The Chairperson: The Committee will be keen to know the outcome of those discussions.

496. I have hogged enough of the time, so I invite members to ask questions.

497. Ms Ní Chuilín: Chairperson, some of your questions covered what I want to know, especially where advice is concerned. The other area about which we have concerns — we are on record as having these worries — relates to the nuances on parity. My understanding is that parity is like for like. We are not getting like for like, and lone parents in particular are getting far from like for like.

498. Ms McCleary: I was just going to mention that. Parity is about achieving the same result as far as possible. In the past, we have had to take into account the different scenarios that exist in some areas of Northern Ireland, such as issues relating to the administrative withdrawal of passports and drug issues. Therefore, the two will not always be exactly the same, but, hopefully, the end result will be the same.

499. Ms Ní Chuilín: Given the concerns that have been raised, will people lose out on benefits as a result of the proposed Bill?

500. Ms McCleary: No.

501. Ms Ní Chuilín: Even if the welfare reform Bill were enacted tomorrow, could the Department and the Minister still implement it with local nuances and operational flexibility?

502. Ms McCleary: Yes.

503. Ms Ní Chuilín: The report on the administration of disability living allowance (DLA) is a good example of working in that way. Has any consideration been given in the proposed welfare reform Bill to lone parents, particularly on the criteria for ESA? I ask that because we will not have the same flexibility in the availability of affordable childcare.

504. Ms McCleary: People have been asking about that recently, and we have told the Committee in the past that we have to take into account the fact that there is limited availability of affordable childcare. That will be taken into account for lone parents.

505. Ms Ní Chuilín: Will that be considered under the category of good cause?

506. Ms McCleary: Yes. The unavailability of childcare is a good cause.

507. Mr Craig: I am intrigued by the fact that we have not sought accelerated passage on the parity issue. It is the first time that that has happened since the Committee started in this term. What can we change in the proposed Bill without destroying the parity issue? If we cannot influence or change anything, what is the point in the Bill going through the Committee Stage? That argument has always been used for seeking accelerated passage.

508. Ms McCleary: As I said, this is a particularly important Bill, and I do not think that it is for us to pre-empt the Committee’s views.

509. Mr Craig: To what extent can we change something that must mirror legislation in the rest of the UK? It is a sensible question.

510. Ms McCleary: I am not saying that it is not a sensible question. However, you have to look at the individual case and take a view on it. It is not possible to make a sweeping statement about it.

511. Mr Craig: Can we change any of the fundamentals of the proposed Bill? I do not believe that we can. The issue of whether we should have accelerated passage is open to question, because, when it comes to working it out, you can make recommendations on the abolition of income support for lone parents and of child support, but, ultimately, the Minister will have made recommendations on the matter anyway. Given the level of correspondence that everybody has had, we will all come to the one conclusion, but I still come back to the question in my mind: why are we going to look at the proposed Bill in detail when we know that very little tinkering can be done with it?

512. Ms Sisk: Clearly, the Department would be concerned about how the proposed Bill would be implemented if certain parts of it were changed. Therefore, as Anne said, we would have to look at each item that the Committee wanted to change and consider whether it would have a serious impact. As the Chairperson rightly said, we are concerned that the funding that comes for social security from the Treasury is predicated on us trying to keep the two systems the same. Therefore, we would always have to be very aware of that.

513. The operation of the Social Security Agency is an issue that we have raised on several occasions. The agency is very dependent on computer systems that are run from Great Britain. The systems are set up to run in the same way across the UK, so we have to be careful about that.

514. That is not to say that there are not some Northern Ireland differences that we could take account of, as we have done on the issue of lone parents. Anne mentioned that Northern Ireland will not be involved in the administrative withdrawal of passports, for example. The proposed Bill has no impact on either of those matters. Therefore, we will have to look at individual clauses of the proposed Bill and hear the Committee’s concerns about them. If there were something that we could do that would not undermine those matters, we would be open to it. It is difficult to say what those are; we will have to wait and assess the Committee’s interest.

515. The Chairperson: When the Minister writes to us, as she did in December — indeed, she wrote to every Assembly Member — she tells us that parity means that we have to have the same IT system. However, it is difficult for us, given the history of the use of the parity argument, to see how there is, as Mr Craig said, any realistic scope for this Committee to successfully suggest amendments. We have been unable to do so in the past, have not wanted to or have not been able to. It is very difficult to say; that is the point.

516. Mr Craig: I am intrigued, Chairperson.

517. Mr Burns: I do not know where we are going. We were always being told that the computer system worked across the United Kingdom, which meant that people could go from one region to another and their benefits would stay the same.

518. The Chairperson: The point about the IT system is always being made to illustrate its utter inflexibility. It is, in practice, the right thing to do, but it also highlights the complete inflexibility that exists at the other end when dealing with rates and administration.

519. Mr Burns: What would be the cost of any difference to the programming of the computer system? What would happen if it were to be changed? Would that create a balance?

520. The Chairperson: That only underscores the point that there is no scope to do anything.

521. Mr Burns: I do not know what we are at here.

522. The Chairperson: Neither do I.

523. Mr Burns: I would have thought that we would have strict parity unless there were very good reasons for not doing so.

524. The Chairperson: Even for a brief period.

525. Mr Burns: Yes.

526. Mr Craig: Thomas summed up the question that is left in my mind. We have so little scope to change some of those provisions. Some members will have huge difficulties with fundamental issues. However, if we are unable to implement changes at that level, we must question why we are looking at the issue at all. It is imponderable.

527. Ms Lo: In a way, I welcome the fact that we can scrutinise the Bill, because the Minister and many MLAs have been lobbied about the change of status of lone parents in particular. We can take time to examine the provisions of the Bill that are of particular concern to individual members, such as childcare. It is right that the Minister should consider the comments that communities have made.

528. I am surprised, however, that it has taken us so long to reach this stage. Three of us are the longest-serving members of the Committee — has Jonathan been here from the beginning? I remember discussing the proposed welfare reform Bill in the Committee in the first few months of this mandate. That was two years ago.

529. Ms McCleary: It has taken a long time to get to this stage.

530. Ms Lo: It has been a long time. I recall saying at the time that it was a very important Bill.

531. Ms Sisk: That was the previous Welfare Reform Bill. There was one in 2008; you are perhaps thinking about it. This is the second Bill. The first Bill was passed after the Assembly was reinstated. That Bill has been enacted.

532. Ms Lo: Why is it taking us so long to catch up?

533. Ms McCleary: It is a very complicated Bill that has lots of provisions. A lot of changes have been made. We are following the GB Act, so we had to wait until that Bill had completed its passage. We then had to look at the EQIA when we sought the approval of the Secretary of State. We are where we are, so hopefully, we will be introducing the Bill soon.

534. Ms Lo: Roughly what is the time lag between April 2010 when the provisions of the Act are implemented —

535. Ms McCleary: It will all depend on when we receive Executive approval to introduce the Bill, but I hope that that will not be too far away. As we said, there is another important date for us in September. The timing is subject to the Assembly’s legislative process, in which the Committee plays a significant part. We would hope to have the proposed Bill through by then.

536. Ms Sisk: We need to get it through by the summer recess to match the October date. Clearly, once the Assembly goes into recess, it would be too late to leave it until September. We are in your hands now.

537. The Chairperson: I am not entirely sure that that is fair. The Committee will deal with this in its own way, and we are restricted in the time that we have to seek an extension to the Committee Stage. I am not going to accept the hospital pass that it is on our toes. We have not created the scenario where there will be a breach of parity.

538. Ms McCleary: We are not suggesting that.

539. The Chairperson: A decision that the Minister, not this Committee, made has resulted in a breach of parity. This Committee will efficiently and effectively do its work, and we will not in any way hold anything up unduly. We understand — unlike some others, it would appear — the potential implications of a breach of parity. The Committee will do its job as it is entitled and has to do, but in no way will we be held responsible for a breach of parity.

540. Ms Lo: The issue is not about the benefit levels for lone parents. They will not lose out because of the delay. They may not gain anything, but the status quo will at least be maintained.

541. Ms Sisk: Hopefully, the delay should not make any difference.

542. Ms Lo: If we are going to depart from practice in England, the definition of and procedure for lone parent will determine whether those people can continue to stay on income support.

543. Ms Sisk: No. The lone parent provision, or the extension of more conditionality to lone parents, will happen much further down the line than April 2010. It will not have any short-term impact on lone parents at all. Various safeguards will be introduced in England in April 2010, but those are for people who are already subject to the jobseeker’s and employment and support allowance regimes. It is not about a tightening of the conditionality on lone parents. That is at least two years away in England, or perhaps even longer. The delay will not have any increased impact at all.

544. Mr Brady: I agree with Jonathan’s argument; it is rational in what you can do. You mentioned how important the Bill is. It is a landmark Bill, in that it represents the biggest change since 1948. To me, a lot of it is a rehash of what has been done over the years. There is nothing new about it; the provisions are the same but are in a different format. Many parts of the Bill are prescriptive, and we should be able to debate and possibly change those elements.

545. The argument on parity is about the desirability of having two systems that are run in parallel or in synch with one another; it is not set in stone. The argument from the Treasury is that if the Assembly decided to pay more, it would come out of our Budget. We would save money that would then go back to them. It is a very one-sided argument, and that must be realised.

546. I mentioned that the Bill is a rehash. For instance, community care grants are similar to the old single payments in that specific retailers were involved, and they made a very good living in the 1970s and 1980s out of single parents. The Secretary of State could instruct people to go to particular retailers to spend their community care grants. It would almost put some retailers in a better position than others, particularly where white goods and that kind of product are concerned. We can talk a lot and expend a lot of energy arguing about it, but unless the whole issue of parity is addressed, [Inaudible]. Since my first day on this Committee, the argument has been used that you cannot get away from parity and accelerated passage because of all the changes that would introduced, such as the introduction of the ESA. However, we are now being told that it can be changed if it is convenient for the Minister and the Department. That argument needs to be looked at.

547. Ms McCleary: I do not think that anyone is suggesting that we are moving away from parity and from the doctrine of parity. What we are talking about is, hopefully, a short period of what I call disparity, but after that, we will return to parity.

548. Mr Brady: With respect, that argument was predicated on the notion that parity is a good thing. I do not necessarily think that it is, because, as has been mentioned, there are many anomalies in childcare provision and so forth that simply do not exist here.

549. Ms McCleary: We have been able to take those factors into account and still maintain parity, so that is not necessarily a contradiction.

550. Mr Brady: The legislation on childcare in particular has been in place in England and Wales since 2006. It will be another year or two before it will be introduced here, so if parity is going to be like with like, that simply cannot happen. It is a different argument perhaps, but it needs to be looked at.

551. Ms McCleary: As you know, one of the key aspects of parity is the fact that a significant amount of money comes to Northern Ireland from the Treasury. I cannot remember the figure off the top of my head, but the amount that Northern Ireland receives in benefit far exceeds —

552. Ms Sisk: It is £2·6 billion.

553. Ms McCleary: It far exceeds the amount that we pay in. Therefore, if parity were to go and we were to fund a social security system for ourselves, there would be major issues. You have already spent some time this morning discussing how money would be spent, and I am quite sure that the discussion would be even sharper if we had to throw social security benefits into the mix.

554. Mr Brady: With respect, the argument that they are giving us a lot of money but we cannot raise our own money comes into play; therefore, a balance has to be struck. I do not wish to turn this into a mantra, but even though a lot of money is coming in for social security benefits, we have the worst pension system in the developed world. That needs to be looked at. A lot of money is coming in, but it is spread very widely. People on benefits are not well off. A lot of money is coming in because we have different conditions, particularly if we consider the historical unemployment levels in certain areas, for example. Therefore, other issues are involved that also need to be looked at. It sounds like a lot of money, but when it is spread out and income support or ESA are considered, it is not really a lot of money. More than £1 million in pension credit has not been claimed, and to me, not enough effort has been made, particularly by the Department, to ensure that people get their entitlements.

555. Ms McCleary: I know that various divisions in the Department have embarked on campaigns to try to increase benefit uptake. However, there is no doubt that there is greater need in Northern Ireland.

556. Mr Brady: In my area, from December 1987 to April 1988, we were able to raise £2 million in unclaimed benefits, particularly in single payments. It took approximately 15 people to do that; therefore, I sometimes wonder why the Department cannot do it with the resources that it has available.

557. Ms Sisk: If the Department were to do that, all that money would come directly to us from the Treasury, not from the Northern Ireland Budget. I do not think that there is any real argument that Northern Ireland would benefit from that. We would be incapable of funding the system ourselves.

558. Mr Brady: I absolutely agree, but the point is that if you pay more, you raise it out of your own money, but if you pay less —

559. Ms Sisk: Do you mean raise the rate as opposed to the total amount? If we were to raise the rate, we would have to pay for it.

560. Mr Brady: It is a very imbalanced way of doing things. We could talk about this for a long time.

561. The Chairperson: We could, but we are not going to do it now.

562. Mrs M Bradley: Mickey said quite a bit of what was going through my head. We have to consider the issue seriously. Margaret, you said that the lone parent element will not come into effect until —

563. Ms Sisk: The increase in conditions for lone parents of younger children will not come into effect straight away either here or in Britain. In Britain, pilot schemes will be established to ascertain how the work-focused interviews and so forth will work with parents of younger children. It will not come into effect nationally until at least two years from now, and it will not have been introduced in Northern Ireland before then anyway.

564. Mrs M Bradley: It would be quite impossible for young parents here to find childcare anyway. A lot them do not have parents of their own to take responsibility for looking after their children on their behalf. The lone parent must be considered, as must the child. The age of one is quite a young age for a parent to leave a young child. That concerns me greatly.

565. Mr Brady: In two years they will be three-year-olds.

566. Mrs M Bradley: I am concerned about the age of the child who will be left. The parent will not have had enough time to bond with their child when they have to put it into childcare, if they can find it, or when they ask their own parent to take on the responsibility. Lots of parents just cannot do that.

567. The Chairperson: Thank you very much for your time. We will speak to you again about this issue.

568. Ms Sisk: I suspect so.

569. The Chairperson: In one respect, having a Committee Stage is good in that allows us to delve into the Bill and to ask why it is so late and what changes we can make to it anyway. However, we will deal with it as expeditiously and effectively as we can.

570. Mr Brady: Perhaps we should join all the pensioners on the streets.

571. Ms Lo: Should we also write to the Executive to say that we really want the Bill to be approved quickly and that we need their approval?

572. The Chairperson: That is a matter for the Minister; it would not be appropriate for us to correspond with the Executive. I suggest that we write to the Department raising some of the issues that were brought up today and ask it to set out the feedback from the Department about the pensions. We should also write to the Minister to ask her to set out the reasons for the period of disparity. Perhaps the best way to proceed is for us to make it clear that we will do our bit as effectively and efficiently as we possibly can and hope that she will do what she can to ensure that no time is lost.

11 May 2010

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Simon Hamilton (Chairperson)
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Alex Easton
Ms Anna Lo
Mr Fra McCann

Witnesses:

Ms Anne McCleary
Mr Colm McLaughlin
Ms Margaret Sisk

Department for Social Development

Mr Kevin Higgins

Advice NI

573. The Chairperson (Mr Hamilton): We are joined by officials from the social security policy and legislation division of the Department for Social Development (DSD), who will brief us on the clauses, schedules and delegated powers of the Welfare Reform Bill. I welcome Anne McCleary, director; Margaret Sisk, assistant director; and Colm McLaughlin.

574. The proceedings are being recorded for Hansard for the benefit of the report and for our scrutiny. Members have a cover note from the Committee Clerk and all the relevant papers. Will you give some brief opening remarks before taking us through the clauses of the Bill?

575. Ms Anne McCleary (Department for Social Development): Thank you for giving us the opportunity to go through the Bill with the Committee. It is a complex but important piece of legislation. We will try to keep things as succinct as possible. We will deal with the various clauses and allow members to ask questions. I will deal with the first 14 clauses and Margaret Sisk will deal with the remainder of the Bill. Colm McLaughlin is our resident guru so, if there are any questions on the detail, I may defer to his superior knowledge.

576. Clause 1 refers to schemes for assisting persons to obtain employment through “work for your benefit" schemes. The clause inserts two new articles into the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995: article 19A, which refers to schemes for assisting persons to obtain employment through “work for your benefit" schemes, etc; and article 19B.

577. Article 19A(1) enables the Department for Social Development to make provision in regulations:

“for or in connection with imposing on claimants … a requirement to participate in schemes … designed to assist them to obtain employment."

In particular, those regulations may impose a requirement on claimants to undertake work or work-related activity as part of a “work for your benefit" scheme. I stress that the intention is to pilot “work for your benefit" schemes in limited geographical areas of Great Britain from 2010 onwards in order to assess their effectiveness. Implementation in Northern Ireland will be subject to the outcome of the evaluation of those pilot schemes in Great Britain and the availability of resources.

578. Paragraph (1) will provide for regulations to set out the circumstances in which jobseeker’s allowance (JSA) claimants are required to participate in schemes under that article. Paragraph (2) makes it clear that regulations may require claimants:

“to undertake work, or work-related activity, during a prescribed period with a view to improving their chances of obtaining employment."

Paragraph (3) defines “work-related activity" as:

“activity which makes it more likely that the person will obtain or remain in work or be able to do so."

579. Paragraph (4) precludes regulations made under paragraph (1) from applying to JSA claimants who are not required to satisfy the job-seeking conditions. The Department envisages that the precluded groups will include lone parents with younger children who are moved to JSA after the abolition of income support.

580. Paragraph (5) provides examples of provisions that may be included in regulations made under paragraph (1). Sub-paragraph (5)(d) enables regulations to provide that benefit payments may be withheld or reduced where a claimant fails to comply with the regulations and that person does not show good cause for the failure within the period specified in regulations. Paragraph (6) provides that JSA is not payable for a period specified in regulations where a claimant fails to comply with regulations made under article 19A. That paragraph also provides that the period specified in the regulations in respect of which a JSA is not payable must be at least one week and not more than 26 weeks.

581. Paragraph (7) provides that the appropriate consequence if a member of a joint-claim couple fails to comply with regulations is that he or she is treated as subject to sanctions for the purpose of article 22A. The period for which the full allowance is not payable must be at least one week and not more than 26 weeks.

582. Paragraphs (8) and (9) make provision for claimants to receive an income-based JSA, even though provision made by the regulations may prevent it. That is to enable claimants who are subject to a sanction to receive hardship payments. Paragraph (8) does not apply in the case of a joint-claim JSA.

583. New article 19B is supplemental to article 19A. Its provisions relate to the practical operation of schemes prescribed under article 19A and provide support for any contractual arrangements that the Department for Employment and Learning may make regarding their delivery. Paragraph (1) enables the Department for Employment and Learning to associate itself, financially or otherwise, with any scheme falling within it. Paragraph 3 enables the Department for Employment and Learning, where necessary, to use existing powers in article 4 of the Employment and Training (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 to make an order dealing with the employment status of claimants participating in schemes under article 19A and detailing how any income gained when on a scheme should be treated for the purpose of other legislation. That follows the same approach as the Welfare Reform and Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1999.

584. Subsections (3) and (5) of clause 1 make amendments which are consequential to the new article 19A. Subsection (3) inserts a new paragraph to make it clear that:

“regulations under article 19A may make different provision for different areas … may make provision which applies only in relation to an area or areas specified in the regulations."

I think that this is really talking about pilots.

585. Subsection (4) amends schedule 3 to the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 to provide that a decision relating to non-payment of benefit under article 19A may be appealed. That is the appeals provision.

586. The Chairperson: I thought that it was the whole Bill.

587. Ms McCleary: It just felt like it.

588. The Chairperson: You mentioned the piloting of “work for your benefit" schemes in GB, and you said that nothing would be done here until the outcome of those pilots was clear. Does the Bill allow for “work for your benefit" schemes to be introduced in Northern Ireland without the pilots having been carried out?

589. Ms McCleary: It does allow us to do that, but we are not going to do that. We are going to wait until we have seen the outcome of the pilots.

590. The Chairperson: When are they due to be completed?

591. Ms McCleary: I am not sure.

592. Ms Margaret Sisk (Department for Social Development): They run for a minimum of two years in GB, so it will be 2011-12 before they are completed.

593. The Chairperson: So there is no intention to bring them in until it is clear that the “work for your benefit" schemes work?

594. Ms McCleary: That is the plan.

595. Ms Ní Chuilín: Has the Department taken into consideration the concerns around the potential exploitation of the unemployed in the “work for your benefit" schemes? There are concerns out there, and I am sure that we will hear from a few people and groups about the potential impact on the minimum wage as well. Those are real concerns. I want to get the mind of the Department at this stage. You assure us that it will not break parity if this scheme is introduced, even though there are pilot schemes in Britain, before the outcome of those pilot schemes.

596. Ms McCleary: The first point is to deal with how it affects the unemployed. The scheme is about work experience. I take from what you said that you are talking about displacement of jobs —

597. Ms Ní Chuilín: I am talking about exploiting unemployed people.

598. Ms McCleary: This is to do with giving folk the opportunity to gain work experience. It is not about exploiting them; it is about giving them an opportunity to move closer to the workplace. It is not about exploitation. That is not the plan. The plan is to give them opportunities to gain work experience and to still receive benefits while they are doing so.

599. Ms Ní Chuilín: I appreciate that that is the Department’s intention, but I know what the reality is on the ground. Even before this Bill was introduced, I was hearing anecdotal evidence of people who have the necessary means paying fairly big companies so that they can walk into an office and get experience. Those people have the means, and their families have the means to support them. I am thinking of someone who is coming out of school, who does not have any experience, who is perhaps not very assertive, and who does not have a strong community or family background. That is probably over 50% of our young population. They will go in somewhere and will be exploited. It is not just a possibility; they will be. That has happened before, and this clause is a concern. When we come back to you after this Bill — which I have no doubt we will under something else — you will hear this again. You will not hear the phrase “I told you so", but it is a real concern. Even employers that have the ability to —

600. Ms McCleary: The pilot —

601. Ms Ní Chuilín: The employers that have the ability to employ are waiting on this Bill going through so that they can get the results, which are not good. That is what is making me nervous. Rather than employing people now when they have the opportunity to do so, they are waiting on the potential to exploit young people as a result of the Bill.

602. Ms McCleary: I understand why you have that concern. We will look very closely at the pilot to see whether that concern is borne out, because it will be fairly apparent. I know that you were not referring exclusively to the very young, but one thing to remember is that this scheme is only applicable to those who have been unemployed for two years. Therefore, it should not affect somebody who is coming straight out of school. As I said at the outset, the idea is to help people to move back to the workplace and give them work experience so that, hopefully, they will be able to find jobs thereafter.

603. Ms Sisk: The programmes will have to be designed and approved by the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL). It will be responsible for making sure that the programmes do what they are supposed to do. At this stage, DEL has not decided what form the programmes will take in Northern Ireland anyway. It is talking about perhaps having mentoring schemes, rather than people physically having to go out and do work. At this stage, an awful lot is still very much up in the air, but the whole point is to try and help people who have been out of the workforce for a long time to move them closer to that, to upgrade their skills and give them a better chance of being able to compete with people who are only just out of the workforce. Clearly, those people are disadvantaged by the fact that they have been unemployed for two years. What tends to happen is that they go round and round employment schemes and never really progress into work. That is the point of all of it. As Ms McCleary said, it is certainly not to exploit workers in any way. The whole point of it is to help them.

604. Ms Ní Chuilín: That is my point also; we are just coming from different perspectives. More often than not, the experience of someone who is very young or who has been unemployed for two years is that they get passed from one scheme to another. They do not feel valued or get a sense of the big wide world out there. To be honest, I imagine that if I spoke to 10 people, at least six would say that it is not for them simply because of the experience that they have had. All the more reason why I worry is that we do not know the shape of the programmes that DEL will bring forward. We are being asked to introduce this Bill without that information.

605. Ms McCleary: No, we are not introducing —

606. Ms Ní Chuilín: It is almost like giving someone a blank cheque.

607. Ms McCleary: This is about giving us the power to introduce —

608. Ms Sisk: There will be —

609. Ms Ní Chuilín: That is what I am worried about.

610. Ms McCleary: There will be regulations —

611. Ms Sisk: There will be an opportunity to comment —

612. Ms Ní Chuilín: That is what I am worried about: giving you the ability to do something that we have not had sight of.

613. Ms McCleary: We will have to come back to the Committee with the regulations that set up the schemes. At that point, the Committee will know exactly what the format of the scheme is. At this point —

614. Ms Ní Chuilín: Are we agreeing this without prejudice, then?

615. Ms Sisk: Yes. The authority is there to make the regulations, but the Committee will have to see all of these things again. The delegated powers memorandum sets out everything that will require regulations to be made.

616. I hear what you are saying. At this stage, there are an awful lot of unknowns from our point of view also, because GB has not really started those pilots yet. We do not really have any idea of what exactly GB will do or how things will work. Some of the things that GB wants to test are some of the things that you are concerned about, such as the exploitation factor or the idea that other people who are in employment may be displaced.

617. Ms Ní Chuilín: Absolutely.

618. Ms Sisk: As regards the pilots, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. When we come back to the Committee, we should have a lot more information, as will DEL.

619. Ms McCleary: That will have to go through you.

620. Mr Brady: The point is that, although the Department may say that the measure is not meant to exploit people, it gives others the opportunity to do exactly that. You mentioned power, and that is what it is all about.

621. This is parity legislation. If different groups on JSA are targeted and, as the Minister has said, sanctions are not be imposed on those who cannot participate due to a lack of childcare, particularly lone parents, does that constitute a breach of parity? Parity is supposed to mean comparing like with like. That is where the whole thing becomes ridiculous, because we do not have that in a lot of the legislation.

622. Ms McCleary: The lone parent example is a good one, because it is a situation where we are doing something different because the situation on the ground is already different, which means that we cannot simply apply the same criteria as in GB.

623. Mr Brady: Do you have any idea of where in Britain the pilot schemes are operating?

624. Ms McCleary: I am not even sure that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has decided.

625. Ms Sisk: We can probably check that out for you.

626. Mr Colm McLaughlin (Department for Social Development): I think that there are four areas. We will check that out.

627. Mr Brady: If you are going to compare areas here which have historically had high unemployment and continue to have low-wage regimes, it seems that areas in England with equivalent or similar problems might provide a better picture and help us in coming to a decision.

628. Ms Sisk: We will see if we can establish where the pilot schemes are operating and let you know on Thursday or at one of the other evidence sessions.

629. A lot of this will be under the control of DEL anyway. Although we make the legislation that requires people to take part in the schemes, DEL will be responsible for designing the schemes. Therefore, a lot of the issues that you raise are ones that that Department will need to take account of.

630. Mr Brady: I am aware of that, but the problem and fear is that schemes implemented by the Department for Employment and Learning in the past have failed and continue to fail the people that they are aimed at. I do not want to be too prescriptive at this point, because there are going to be pilot schemes, but I do not see anything particularly different in the Bill or anything that will help young people, particularly lone parents, and those who have been unemployed for two years. I am very sceptical.

631. Ms Sisk: Only the pilots will provide any sort of evidence. At this stage, we have not got any evidence to convince you.

632. Mr Brady: With respect, in my experience, when these things are up and running they do not change. They certainly do not improve.

633. Ms McCleary: The scheme will not be up and running here, so —

634. Mr Brady: It will eventually, because we are talking about parity legislation.

635. Ms Sisk: The legislation that will require jobseekers to take part in the schemes will be the same, but we do not necessarily have to have the same sort of schemes.

636. Ms Ní Chuilín: Like disability living allowance (DLA)?

637. Ms Sisk: DLA is a benefit, which is different. We are talking about employment schemes. We do not necessarily have to design our employment scheme in exactly the same way.

638. Mr Brady: With respect, Carál is making the point that the schemes are predicated on the fact that benefit is payable if a jobseeker participates.

639. Ms Sisk: Oh yes, that is right.

640. Mr Brady: If they do not participate, they will be sanctioned.

641. Ms Sisk: That is right. We will require jobseekers to take part in the scheme, but the “work for your benefit" scheme that runs in Northern Ireland does not necessarily have to be exactly the same type of scheme that is run in GB.

642. Mr Brady: Ultimately, if you do not participate, you will not get your benefit.

643. Ms Sisk: That is right. Participation is a different issue.

644. Mr Brady: Therein lies the difficulty.

645. Ms Lo: Obviously, a lot of questions still have to be asked. It will be interesting to see the outcomes of the pilots so that we can learn from them.

646. DEL’s employer-led and programme-led apprenticeships are falling down around our ears, because we do not have enough placements. Unless the economic climate improves considerably, it will be very difficult to get young people into any type of job experience. Have the additional resources required by your Department and DEL to fund the administration and setting-up of the schemes been costed?

647. Ms Sisk: All that will have to come as a result of the pilot schemes, because at this stage neither we nor DEL have any idea what form those things will take. However, you are absolutely right to make the point that if there are no employment opportunities out there, these things will clearly not work. You would not tell lone parents that they must go and find a job if there is no job out there. We will not be saying to people that they must go on a “work for your benefit" scheme if there is no scheme for them to go on. At this stage, therefore, it is a case of what we would like to do, and these are the benefits that we see in those schemes, but there is a lot to come out in the wash, so to speak. However, I appreciate what you are saying.

648. Ms Lo: We are doing this in a wrong way. Young people do want to work, but when they come out of school without qualifications they can work, but there are not enough jobs in our economy to provide them with a range of jobs. Even if they go on a scheme, whatever you call it, that gives them six or 12 months’ experience, they are not going to get a real job. We really have to look at this in a more strategic way through education and the economy rather than a narrow, fix-it approach. As Cáral said, they are being penalised.

649. Ms Sisk: The problem needs to be tackled on a number of different levels. I know that you are a member of the Committee for Employment and Learning. A lot of those issues will have come up there, and are also for DEL to take up. The whole idea is to try to tackle unemployment and the lack of employment on different levels and see what will work. If this does not work, it will not be rolled out in GB either. If it does not look like the sort of thing that will be successful in Northern Ireland, it simply cannot happen. There is no point in running something that everyone sees is not going to work.

650. Mr Easton: I am concerned about people going on to a “work for your benefit" scheme after two years. As we stand, how many people will that affect? I do not see where they will get positions, because we are in the middle of a recession, and we always tend to be a year or two behind Great Britain when it comes to being hit badly. There is a concern that there will not be positions, and benefits cannot be taken off people if there are no positions.

651. Ms McCleary: They will not lose their benefits if there is no scheme for them to join. They cannot be penalised. That will not happen.

652. Mr Easton: I just do not see how the scheme will work with the way that the economy is at the moment.

653. Ms Sisk: A couple of years down the line, who knows? Things will have improved a bit.

654. Mr Easton: What happens if you introduce the scheme and there is another recession five years down the road? You could be leaving yourself with a big problem.

655. Mr Brady: Do not be so optimistic.

656. Ms Ní Chuilín: Simon, give him a hug, will you, and cheer him up.

657. Ms McCleary: It is dependent on there being opportunities for folk to go on those schemes. In times when things improve a bit, hopefully there will be greater opportunity. If we do not do this, we could miss the boat.

658. Mr Easton: It might sink on you as well. [Laughter.]

659. Ms Sisk: We will see how GB does, and take our cue from that.

660. The Chairperson: I don’t know about plunging into another recession, but he has plunged us into a depression. [Laughter.] Fra, cheer us up.

661. Mr F McCann: Research that we got on similar schemes in Nova Scotia, the USA, the Netherlands and Denmark seems to suggest that, by and large, such schemes were failures. I take it that, when they were looking at the “work for your benefit" schemes, they tried to draw on the experience of those countries, which seems to be a poor reflection on the Bill.

662. One of the Committee’s concerns — and Alex was one of the people who asked the question — is the worth of the employment in the schemes that people will be asked to go into. On the record of the past, whether it is to do with New Deal or whatever, that call is 100% right. Young people were heavily exploited by employers, and even at the end of the schemes they left with little or no training.

663. You also spoke about people doing the round of schemes. If the pilots are seen as having been a success in different parts of England but do not match the employment situation here, are you saying that they will not be implemented here?

664. Ms Sisk: I am saying that the model of scheme that is introduced in GB does not necessarily have to be the same as the one that is introduced in Northern Ireland. All that we are saying in the legislation is that, where an individual is required to go on a scheme, going on that scheme will be a condition of his or her continued receipt of benefit.

665. However, there is nothing in our legislation that states what the scheme will be. It will be a matter for the Department for Employment and Learning to decide on suitable schemes for Northern Ireland. It will be entirely up to the Department to work out what it thinks will work here. The scheme is not prescribed in the legislation. It is not a parity issue. The only parity issue is the condition that, in order to receive benefit, an individual must attend the scheme, whatever that may be. It is entirely open to DEL to decide what type of scheme it thinks will work here.

666. Mr F McCann: The bigger part of the legislation will be operated by DEL. We need to be clear in our own minds about what we may or may not be agreeing to.

667. Ms Sisk: That is right. By the time that we come back to the Committee with the regulations to introduce the schemes, we will need to know what DEL plans to do. At that point, both the Committee for Social Development and the Committee for Employment and Learning will know the scheme that DEL plans to introduce. However, at this stage, we are saying that clause 1 is the power in the Bill that will allow us to go down that road. We do not have any detail yet. The detail will be in the regulations, with which we will come back to the Committee.

668. Mr F McCann: I thought that you also said that, if employment levels are as bad or worse than they are now, people will not be expected to go on the scheme.

669. Ms Sisk: That is right. If there are no places out there, and employers are not prepared to create opportunities for people to go on the schemes because the level of unemployment is too high, the schemes will not work. People cannot be forced to go on a scheme that does not exist.

670. Mr F McCann: I am a firm believer that what you have in the first round is what you will end up with, especially when we look at consultations, and so on.

671. Ms Sisk: We just do not know at this stage.

672. Mr F McCann: The difficulty that I have with the legislation as it stands is that people will be sanctioned for a number of different reasons. People may go into a jobs and benefit office and be told that they are not looking hard enough for a job or that there is no employment at the end of the scheme that they have been asked to go on. Regardless of what you are saying, people will be sanctioned in those circumstances, because of the regulations that are laid down.

673. Ms Sisk: They will certainly not be sanctioned. It will not be their fault that there is no employment at the end of the scheme. The idea of the scheme is to make people more work-ready. If there are no jobs out there, it is clearly not a person’s fault that he or she cannot find a job at the end of the scheme. The purpose of the scheme is to help people who have been long-term unemployed to get back into the way of working. The longer that one is out of work, the more difficult that it is to find employment.

674. As I said, the point of the scheme is to try to help people who are long-term unemployed to be more work-ready, to improve their skills, and to get used to getting up in the morning and going out to work. People who have been out of work for a long time can get out of that habit. The scheme is not about forcing people into employment. It is not employment; it is a work-preparation scheme.

675. Mr F McCann: But preparing them for what?

676. Ms Sisk: That will depend. DEL will have to assess what is the best type of scheme for people to go on, what they are already skilled to do and what the gaps are in their competencies. Much of this will be down to what type of schemes the Department for Employment and Learning draws up. We have to wait for the pilots to be run in GB in order to see what type of scheme DEL will run.

677. I accept that it is difficult at this stage for you to envisage what is planned. This is very much a framework, and we are waiting to put flesh on the bones. We will have to come back to the Committee to flesh out the legislation, and you will get a much clearer picture of the plans then. At that stage, if you do not like it, you can say no to it.

678. Mr F McCann: What you are asking us to do at present is to support apparatus that will allow you to deal with people somewhere down the line.

679. Ms Sisk: We are asking you to agree the framework, because, without it, we will not be able to do this. Even if the scheme is beneficial in GB, and even if it looks as though it is working, we will not be able to do this if you do not allow us to put the framework in place now. That is what we are asking for.

680. Mr Brady: I take your point that DEL will implement the scheme. However, the buck stops with the Social Security Agency (SSA), because it controls the benefit money and imposes the sanctions.

681. Ms Sisk: Yes.

682. Mr Brady: There would have to be very close networking between DEL and the SSA, and that really is not happening at the moment. Although they are now back in the same office, you may find that the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing most of the time. If DEL is to introduce schemes, however wonderful —

683. Ms Sisk: Hopefully.

684. Mr Brady: We live in hope, as we have done for a long time while we wait for you to come up with some decent schemes. However, that is another story.

685. If schemes are put in place, there will come a time when the Social Security Agency says that someone did not go on a scheme. There has to be some valued judgement of the schemes made by someone in the Department who will then go on to decide whether that person is sanctioned. I am not just talking about lone parents —

686. Ms Sisk: Schemes will also be personalised to the person. It will not be the case that there will be one scheme for all.

687. Mr Brady: “Personalised to the person" sounds a wee bit euphemistic.

688. Ms Ní Chuilín: You are personally losing your benefit — stuff like that?

689. Mr Brady: In my experience, the Social Security Agency is not full of counsellors.

690. Ms Sisk: That is not really its job.

691. Mr Brady: People in the Social Security Agency have a job to do and targets to meet under severe pressure. Therein lies another problem. All that has to be addressed

692. Ms Sisk: That is right. The starting point in deciding whether a person is co-operating will be the personal adviser in the Department for Employment and Learning. The personal adviser will have to go tell the decision-makers in the Social Security Agency that that person is not co-operating. Once the SSA refers a case, it is handed over to DEL. As far as the SSA is concerned, people are co-operating unless it is told different.

693. Mr Brady: I suppose that you would have to decide how co-operative somebody may or may not have been.

694. Ms Sisk: Again, that will be a decision for DEL. It will decide whether a person is co-operating.

695. Mr Brady: To finish, if DEL ultimately makes the decision on whether the scheme is being implemented to its satisfaction, the Social Security Agency will then follow its directive when it comes to sanctions.

696. Ms Sisk: That is how it operates at the minute, and this will be exactly the same. Nobody will be referred to a disciplinary hearing in the SSA for sanction unless the DEL personal adviser decides to do that. The start and end point is with DEL, as it is at the minute for jobseeker’s allowance.

697. Mr Brady: Therefore, the Social Security Agency performs a hand-washing exercise?

698. Ms Sisk: No. In the end, it will have to make the ultimate decision. However, good cause, and so on, will be applied.

699. Mr Brady: “Good cause" is open to debate.

700. Ms Sisk: It is a discretionary thing. It has to be.

701. The Chairperson: That is everything on clause 1. We have 35 clauses to get through. Therefore, I suggest that as we go through the rest of the clauses, the witnesses give an overview of them rather than have us have a detailed debate. Clause 1 on schemes was a particularly contentious issue.

702. Ms McCleary: Clause 2 deals with work-related activity for income support claimants and the partners of claimants. The clause will allow the Department to make regulations that may require a person in receipt of income support or the partner of a person receiving income support, income-based jobseeker’s allowance or income-related employment and support allowance (ESA) to undertake work-related activity as part of their progression to work group. It allows for action plans for people in receipt of certain benefits and the partners of such people, who are required to attend a work-focused interview.

703. Regulations will provide the details on the form, content, review and updating of the action plans. The clause also allows the Department to direct those groups to undertake specific work-related activity or activities, which are detailed in their action plans. However, those directions must be reasonable and have regard to a person’s circumstances. The specific activity identified should be one that helps the individual to prepare for entry into work. The existing flexibilities and safeguards in the jobseeker’s regime will also apply in those cases. That particularly includes the cases of lone parents, for whom work may be restricted to the hours when their children are at school, and the provision on suitable and affordable childcare applies.

704. The policy will be piloted in a number of areas in Great Britain, and it will be fully evaluated to determine whether, when implemented, the policy objectives have been achieved. It will be considered here only following a full evaluation of the pilot.

705. The Chairperson: Do members have any questions, issues or concerns?

706. Mr Brady: Are any criteria laid down to define “partner"? A partner might also be a person’s carer. Will all of that be taken into account?

707. Ms Sisk: Yes. The requirement will not apply to carers, who will be excluded. A person who has a caring responsibility will not be required to work.

708. Mr Brady: Will the definition of “carer" be determined by whether he or she is in receipt of carer’s allowance?

709. Ms McCleary: We will look at all the circumstances.

710. Mr Brady: There may well be carers who are not in receipt of carer’s allowance.

711. Ms Sisk: I do not think that it the will be decided solely on the basis of whether the person is in receipt of carer’s allowance. If a person were to have evidence to show that he or she had caring responsibilities, even if he or she were not in receipt of carer’s allowance, that would be sufficient.

712. Mr Brady: The sanction would then be decided based on what the person was or was not prepared to do.

713. Ms Sisk: That is right. As Anne said, numerous safeguards are built in. Lone parents will be able to restrict their availability for work to school hours, and they will be treated as not available for work during the school holidays. If they are the victims of domestic violence, they will be allowed to be unavailable for an extra three months on top of what they are currently allowed. The necessity to have affordable and available childcare is also included. A tight restriction is available for lone parents, so there is plenty of scope for them not to be forced to do things that they cannot do because they need to care for their children.

714. Mr Brady: You mentioned preparation for work. Given that school holidays here can last for two months or longer, will it not be difficult for an employer to consider taking on someone who will be off for relatively long periods?

715. Ms Sisk: Yes, and employers will have to take that into consideration.

716. Mr Brady: That is particularly true when lack of childcare provision is considered.

717. Ms Sisk: If a parent can find childcare during the school holidays, that is all well and good. The legislation accepts that if lone parents cannot work during the school holidays because they do not have anyone to care for their children, their benefit will not be affected. The whole idea is to try to facilitate lone parents as much as possible to be able to seek work, while still recognising that their primary consideration is their children. At the same, the clause recognises that, unless some way is found of breaking the cycle of lone parent unemployment, we will never get anywhere with ending child poverty.

718. Mr Brady: A point that I raised concerning lone parents was the need to sort out tax credits. The Minister said that she is not responsible for that, and I know that that is the case. However, the two issues are linked.

719. It is accepted that a lone parent will not be required to work during the summer. If that person had been on a scheme to prepare them for work before the summer, would they have to return to the scheme because they were in the same situation that they were in before the summer holidays?

720. Ms McCleary: Schemes will have to take such situations into account, because, fairly obviously, a significant number of people will be in that position.

721. Mr Brady: That will make the situation more complex than it is already.

722. Ms Sisk: Those people are in what are called progression to work groups. The groups are made up of parents of children ranging from three to six years old. Much of this will come out in the wash in the pilots that are being run in GB. Again, we will have to come back to the Committee to put flesh on the bones of some of the issues, such as what sort of things people who are in a progression to work group will be doing. It might not necessarily be work-related activity; it might just be arranging a CV or doing some form of training course, which often do not run over the summer holidays. People in the progression to work groups will not be required to go to work. That is not a requirement. Parents of children who are seven years old and above will be required to seek employment.

723. Mr Brady: Moving lone parents to job seeker’s allowance from income support is surely working towards —

724. Ms Sisk: The lone parents will be on a modified form of job seeker’s allowance. They will not be required to seek work. The Bill modifies job seeker’s allowance to make it suitable for people who are in a progression to work group. They will not be required to satisfy the condition that they must be actively seeking work. It is a preparation.

725. At present, those people will not have to do anything until the child reaches seven years of age. Then, all of a sudden, when the child becomes seven, the parent will be required to seek work. The idea behind that is to prepare people for work so that there is no sudden step. As it is, one minute, they are not required to do anything, and the next, they are required to go out and look for work. To a certain extent, the situation is similar to that of the long-term unemployed. If a lone parent has been at home with children for seven years, he or she may not be ready to go out to work. Many women find that they have lost their confidence. They do not feel that they are able to go out into the workplace; they feel that they cannot compete with people who have been in work throughout their lives. The idea is to get those women ready so that, when their child reaches seven, they are in a position to seek work. The intention is that work will help those families to get themselves above the poverty line. While people remain on benefit, they will never be on anything other than the rock-bottom minimum.

726. Mr Brady: In many cases, people are caught in the poverty trap because of the nature of the work that they may or may not get. Many assumptions have been made. The Minister said in the Chamber that by the age of seven, a child has already bonded with its mother. I am not sure from where she gets that. Perhaps she has read Dr Spock’s ‘Baby and Child Care’, but I do not know.

727. Ms Sisk: One would like to think they had bonded before the child reaches seven.

728. Mr Brady: How is that decided? It is a matter for the individual. However, the assumption is made that it happens at seven, which to me is a totally arbitrary age. The Minister was almost getting in her retaliation first, by declaring that, at the age of seven, a child should be able to make its dinner, open the front door, stay in the house alone, and so on.

729. Ms Sisk: That is probably to expect too much of seven-year-olds.

730. Most seven-year-old children are in school from 9.00 am to 3.00 pm. That allows women to work for sixteen hours per week, which is the suggestion. When children are younger than seven years of age, they will not be in school, and that is why those women are not required to work. We are asking them to get themselves prepared for work. That is all that we require of them. All sorts of flexibilities are built into the clause. If lone parents need to go on training courses, they will not be required to do so if they cannot find childcare that will enable them to do so.

731. The proposal is reasonable. At present, the children of lone-parent families belong in one of the economically worst-off groups and are closest to the poverty line. The only way in which to improve lone parents’ situation is to get them into work. I take your point entirely that they must have decent jobs. However, the starting point has to be a job.

732. Mr Brady: Part of the difficulty for many lone parents is that they cannot access the childcare element of working tax credits because they have no registered childminder.

733. Ms Sisk: I accept what you say. In many cases, grandparents act as childminders.

734. Mr Brady: In many cases, lone parents are going out to work for less than what they would get if they were not going out to work.

735. Ms Sisk: I accept that, but I have to say the same thing as the Minister says: we do not have responsibility for tax credits. I take the point that it is a difficulty.

736. Mr Brady: The two cannot be divorced. If you are going to introduce a scheme that compels lone parents to prepare for work, there has to be some motivation for them to go out and work. Whether you agree with scheme, it would be even worse to expect people to go out and get less for working. They would be as badly off —

737. Ms Sisk: They will not be expected to do that. If someone will be financially worse off, that is good cause for not taking up employment. No lone parents will be required to take up a job if they will be worse off in work than they would be on benefits.

738. Setting aside the financial benefits, all sorts of other benefits are available to people returning to work, such as dignity and self-esteem. A lone parent who goes back to work also creates a role model for the children in the family, particularly the girls, who will see their mother going out into society and competing on a level playing field with everyone else. Surely that is a good thing.

739. Mr Brady: Is it not almost social engineering?

740. Ms Sisk: I would not describe it as that. It is useful to create role models.

741. Mr Brady: It is therapeutic for many young parents, but it does not necessarily negate the fact that, when they are working, they may not be any better off.

742. Ms Sisk: They would have to be at least as well off —

743. Mr Brady: They may have dignity and self-esteem, but, logically, they will not be any better off.

744. Ms Sisk: Some would consider themselves to be better off. The fact that they have self-esteem —

745. Mr Brady: I am thinking about them being financially better off.

746. Ms Sisk: They must be at least as well off, and they certainly cannot be worse off.

747. The starting point must be the job, which will be the springboard from which an individual can move on. If that start is not made, what will we do? Will those people simply be left on benefits for ever?

748. Mr Brady: With respect, I have met very few people over the years who want to be on benefits.

749. Ms Sisk: I am sure that that is right, and I fully accept that point.

750. Mr Brady: The reason that most people are unemployed is because there are no jobs.

751. Ms Sisk: I also accept that.

752. The Chairperson: This is all very interesting, but we have strayed off the subject of clause 2.

753. Mr F McCann: May I ask one question?

754. The Chairperson: If it is related to the clause under discussion, I will allow it.

755. Mr F McCann: Much of what you say, Margaret, is based on the assumption that there will be jobs for people to go into.

756. Ms Sisk: I absolutely agree with you.

757. Mr F McCann: That is the broad point that Mickey has made. Most of the available jobs are low paid, but are highly enough paid for those people to fall just outside the bracket of being able to obtain help with their rent and other things. They will be far worse off, but I understand what you say about the benefits of having a job.

758. The Chairperson: That point does not really relate to the Bill. Anna, do you have a question?

759. Ms Lo: I am OK. I was going to raise the same points.

760. Ms McCleary: Clause 3 of the Bill deals with lone parents. It will remove the current requirement for lone parents on income support or employment and support allowance who have a youngest child under the age of one to undertake work-focused interviews. Those with a youngest child aged between one and two will still be required to attend mandatory work-focused interviews. The clause will also ensure that lone parents with a child under seven are a prescribed category of person entitled to income support. Lone parents with a child under three will not be required to undertake work-related activity. They will be entitled to restrict the times when they are required to undertake work-related activity, and we have covered the majority of that already.

761. The Chairperson: Yes; I think that we have already covered that.

762. Ms McCleary: Clause 4 deals with the entitlement conditions for jobseeker’s allowance as set out in the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, and its aim is not to require people currently claiming income support to satisfy the same requirements as those who currently claim jobseeker’s allowance. Through the clause, the Department is creating a new category of income-based jobseeker’s allowance, with modified requirements appropriate to those who are not expected to be available for and actively seeking work.

763. The key change is that people will be able to claim jobseeker’s allowance on a means-tested basis without having to meet the job-seeking conditions, if they fall within the prescribed groups. That will enable groups who are currently able to claim income support, including lone parents with young children, to be prescribed as able to claim jobseeker’s allowance instead. Again, the aim is to move towards a simpler system of benefits for people of working age, with employment and support allowance for those who are sick or disabled and jobseeker’s allowance for the range of other groups. The clause will also provide for people to make joint claims to income-based jobseeker’s allowance. It paves the way for the measures in clause 5 that ensure that couples, where at least one partner is able to take steps towards doing so, return to work.

764. I must emphasise that carers will not be removed from income support until there is a clear and detailed plan setting out how their benefits will be changed.

765. The Chairperson: OK. If members have no further questions, we will move on to clause 5.

766. Ms McCleary: Clause 5 deals with couples where at least one member is capable of work. It sets out the provisions that are being introduced for claimants and their partners who are capable of making progress towards work. The clause makes provisions for couples where one member is capable of work and inserts additional provisions into the conditions of entitlement for income support and income-related employment and support allowance.

767. The new provisions will mean that, for couples where at least one member is work-ready, the only income-related support available will be the income-based jobseeker’s allowance. Receipt of that benefit will be conditional on the work-ready partner’s fulfilling the full labour market conditionality regime in jobseeker’s allowance. For example, that partner will be required to enter into a jobseeker’s agreement and remain available for, and actively seek, work.

768. It is intended to define in regulations the groups to whom the new provisions will not apply. The jobseeker’s allowance system contains safeguards to ensure that people are not sanctioned for failing to comply, where they can show that they have good cause. For example, if a parent cites difficulty in sourcing suitable childcare, that will form part of the decision-maker’s consideration of good cause.

769. Mr Easton: Perhaps I have misunderstood the explanation of the clause. I am not sure that it is fair that one member of a couple can be penalised because the other person, on whom he or she may rely, does not want to work.

770. Ms McCleary: That is obviously a tricky issue. However, we are talking about couples where one person is capable of work and the other is not. It is about whether that person wishes to return to the workplace and about encouraging and helping them to do so. We are talking about good cause; circumstances will be taken into account in the round by the decision-maker.

771. Mr Easton: If one member of a couple is disabled and not capable of working, and the other member is able to work but has to manage his or her partner, does that mean that one will be penalised because his or her partner is disabled?

772. Ms McCleary: No. It means that all factors will be taken into account and will be in the mix when the decision is being made.

773. Mr Easton: Will there be a list of safeguards?

774. Ms McCleary: Yes.

775. Ms Sisk: A disabled person in receipt of disability living allowance or something like that would still be entitled to it.

776. Ms McCleary: Clause 6 deals with statutory sick pay and employment and support allowance. It will amend an exclusion in the Welfare Reform Act (Northern Ireland) 2007 that prohibits people who are receiving employment and support allowance while they are also in receipt of statutory sick pay. The new change will enable people, in prescribed circumstances, to claim income-related employment and support allowance while they are in receipt of statutory sick pay.

777. Mr Brady: Are you saying that a person who is in receipt of income support to boost their statutory sick pay will be transferred to employment and support allowance in certain circumstances?

778. Ms McCleary: Yes.

779. Mr Brady: What about the passported stuff that comes with income support — housing benefit, all of that kind of thing? Will that be transferrable as well?

780. Ms Sisk: They will still get that, because they will be on the income-related element of ESA. They will still be passported.

781. Mr Brady: Even though they have made contributions? I want to clarify that point, because you have to fulfil certain conditions to get statutory sick pay. If someone is getting that benefit, obviously, he or she must have been working, so he or she may or may not have made contributions. Will the contribution element be looked at first, or will the claimant automatically go on to income-based ESA, on top of statutory sick pay?

782. Ms Sisk: You are talking about people who moved from statutory sick pay and are now getting income support.

783. Mr Brady: Yes, but will people on statutory sick pay get the advantages of income-based ESA?

784. Ms Sisk: They will still be passported on to all the same benefits.

785. Mr Brady: Will those benefits be income-based, rather than based on their contributions?

786. Ms Sisk: Yes, because we are talking about the people who would have been moved on to income support, not those who would have been moved on to contributory benefits. Otherwise, they would have gone on to incapacity benefit, rather than income support.

787. Mr Brady: Obviously, statutory sick pay lasts for a particular period, but, when it finishes, they may still be below the limit, so will they qualify for contributory ESA, which is the old incapacity benefit?

788. Ms Sisk: Yes, but contributory ESA is not income-based, so those would be different people, because —

789. Mr Brady: But they will in the interim? That is really what I am asking.

790. Ms Sisk: Oh right, yes.

791. Ms McCleary: Clause 7 makes provision for the transition of people who move from income support to either ESA or JSA as a result of earlier provisions. It enables awards of income support or ESA to be stopped where appropriate and allows for a transitional allowance to be paid for a time and of an amount that can be prescribed by regulation.

792. The Chairperson: That is fine.

793. Ms McCleary: Clause 8 provides that regulations made within five years of the passing of the Welfare Reform Bill, and which impose a requirement for a lone parent of a child under the age of seven to undertake work-related activity, will be subject to the confirmatory procedure of the Assembly.

794. The Chairperson: Say, at a later stage, the Assembly does not fancy that. What would it mean for parity? Would it be a breach?

795. Ms McCleary: Who knows?

796. The Chairperson: I would hope that you would know.

797. Ms McCleary: The aim is for the social security systems in Northern Ireland and Great Britain to be as closely aligned as possible. It would be patently unfair to apply a sanction in Northern Ireland that could not be applied in Great Britain, or vice versa. The answer is that it depends. The bottom line is that childcare is a huge issue in Northern Ireland, and that will have to be taken into account.

798. Ms Sisk: Parity means that benefit is paid under the same conditions in Northern Ireland as it is in Great Britain. Anything that goes against that would be a breach of parity. Anne McCleary was talking about childcare, but the same childcare situation applies in GB: you are not required to seek work if you cannot get childcare. What we do in Northern Ireland does not breach the parity policy. We are simply more careful about how we apply it operationally on the ground. Nevertheless, to answer your question, in our opinion, the legislation has to be the same, otherwise it will breach parity.

799. The Chairperson: Therefore, to maintain parity, any future regulation will have to be passed here.

800. Ms Sisk: Yes. That is why we will have to come back with information about work-related activity for lone parents and partners. That will require the agreement of not just the Committee but the whole Assembly. There is an extra element of control there, if that gives the Committee any comfort.

801. The Chairperson: From a different perspective, it puts the whole system at the mercy of the Assembly. Our system is much more different.

802. Ms Sisk: Our other lone parent regulations were exactly the same. They had to go through a vote of the Assembly to be confirmed, and this is no different.

803. Ms Ní Chuilín: If, for the sake of talk, Assembly Members decided that they could support the Bill — apart from the lone parent end of it, because they are not convinced that good cause is going to be exercised across the board and you already know that the availability of childcare is problematic — how would that sit with the Department?

804. Ms McCleary: We would be in a breach situation. It is crucial to all of this that the legislation be the same. We have been able to answer the concerns that have been expressed by others in how we operate it. However, we need the legislation to be identical so that we can meet the requirements of parity.

805. Mr Brady: You are saying that parity is set in stone.

806. Ms Ní Chuilín: It is not.

807. Mr Brady: As far as I am aware, it is not. It has evolved as if it were, but really it is not.

808. Ms Sisk: We are saying that the same conditions should apply to someone who is claiming benefit in Northern Ireland as to someone who is claiming benefit anywhere else in the United Kingdom. The idea is that there will be free movement; claimants will be able to move from one part of the UK to the other without having to make a fresh claim, because they will have satisfied the conditions and a decision will have been made that they will have satisfied the conditions and their benefit will be payable to them. We do not want to threaten that. That is the bottom line.

809. Mr Brady: Claimants may be able to move around, but they might not get paid for two months.

810. Ms Sisk: They will get the money paid back to them. We do not want to enter into a situation where people in Northern Ireland could end up being worse off because we have done something to threaten the money that is coming to us from GB. Members will have heard that many times.

811. Mr Brady: Oh yes, I have heard the old Treasury argument.

812. Ms Sisk: You have heard the whole story. You will also have heard about the computer systems and everything else that the SSA gets the benefit of using. All the Department is concerned about is that it does not place that under threat. We will look at areas where there is flexibility to take account of circumstances in Northern Ireland, and we have done that for lone parents. To date, no lone parent in Northern Ireland has been sanctioned, and no lone parent will be sanctioned if they cannot find available childcare. We will do what we can within the bounds of ensuring that we do not undermine in any way the money that is coming to us from the Treasury without any cost to the Northern Ireland block.

813. Mr Brady: That argument has been well rehearsed. The other thing is that, if childcare was available here, it is quite likely that the cost would be much higher, because in Britain it is administered by local authorities. There is a whole infrastructure in place there, whereas here it tends to be more privatised. All of those things may have to be addressed eventually.

814. Ms McCleary: Affordability is an issue.

815. Ms Sisk: We will take account of all the circumstances in Northern Ireland, but in the end it comes down to threatening the funding. We are probably getting as bored of saying this as you are of hearing it, but that is where we are.

816. Mr F McCann: You have talked about having a degree of flexibility, but you are saying that you have to operate within parity. I have no doubt that there will be a number of cases, because of the differences between here and England, where there are no jobs and there is little childcare. For us to sit down and pass legislation will be seen as being punitive against people.

817. Ms Sisk: A claimant in Northern Ireland gets benefit paid to them on the same condition as they get paid in the rest of the United Kingdom. The condition would have to be that employment and childcare were available to them. If those things are not satisfied, they cannot be said to have breached the conditionality. We want to keep the same law that is written down on paper. How we implement that is where we will look for the flexibility. We will look to find flexibility in how the SSA and DEL deal with customers, and we will operate the maximum flexibility that is available to us within the law.

818. The Chairperson: OK, thank you.

819. Ms McCleary: Clause 9 continues the move to the long-term aim of a single working-age benefit to remove the need to move between benefits as circumstances change. As an interim measure, income support is to be abolished, and beneficiaries moved to either ESA or JSA. There is no specific date for the abolition of income support, but it is considered important to set out now a clear intention to abolish income support and thereby move to a system based on two main benefits for people of working age. Carers will not be moved from income support until there is a clear and detailed plan setting out how the benefits system will be reformed over the longer term.

820. The Chairperson: In relation to the timing and phasing of the abolition of income support, has any flexibility on when that can be done been given to the SSA here by DWP, particularly in relation to vulnerable groups?

821. Ms McCleary: There is no date.

822. Ms Sisk: We have no idea. There is no set timescale at all for the abolition.

823. The Chairperson: So there is no rigid date or flexibility?

824. Ms Sisk: There is no date at all; at this stage DWP has not made a decision. What it is saying is that it will only abolish income support when it has made arrangements for all of the groups of people who are currently on income support to move to other benefits. We are going part of the way by putting lone parents onto a modified form of JSA, but there will still be people, particularly carers, who are on income support, and at this stage there is no plan to move them anywhere else.

825. One of the things being looked at with regard to carers is how they would fit into the support Green Paper that was produced before the election. What is going to happen to that is anybody’s guess at the minute. There really is no date at all at this point, but the intention is that at some point income support as a benefit will no longer exist, and there will only be two working-age benefits: ESA and JSA.

826. The Chairperson: When I hear about moving people from one benefit to another I start to panic, because then I hear about computer systems and change.

827. Ms McCleary: There is a huge project involved in the migration from income support and incapacity benefit to ESA. That alone will take a couple of years. It is not something that has not been thought of; there is a huge amount of work going into it within the Department already.

828. Ms Sisk: In relation to the group that we are talking about moving on to JSA, that is being piloted in GB for a minimum of two years; it could well be longer than that.

829. The Chairperson: OK.

830. Ms McCleary: Clause 10 provides the power to direct claimants to undertake specific work-related activity. Work-related activity is defined as any activity that helps the claimant to obtain work, remain in work, or be more likely to obtain or remain in work. ESA claimants in the support group — those with the most severe health conditions or disabilities — are exempt, although they can undertake work-related activity voluntarily. The power is intended to prevent claimants from undertaking activities that are inappropriate in order to fulfil the work-related activity requirement.

831. Clause 10 provides that, in prescribed circumstances, the Department for Social Development, or the Department for Employment and Learning, can direct that a particular activity is the only activity that can be regarded as work-related activity for that person. It will also be made clear in regulations that it will never be appropriate to require people to undergo medical treatment.

832. In addition, clause 10 provides that any direction must be reasonable, having regard to a person’s circumstances, and that if a specific activity is required or ruled out as work-related activity, that must be recorded in the claimant’s action plan.

833. Mr Brady: Who will make the decision on whether something is inappropriate to a person’s circumstances? I presume it will be DEL.

834. Ms McCleary: Yes.

835. Mr Brady: The Bill’s explanatory and financial memorandum says that:

“Failure to undertake the specified activity without showing good cause for this within the allowed time would be sanctionable."

Will that be looked at on an individual basis?

836. Ms McCleary: Yes.

837. Mr Brady: It seems fairly nebulous.

838. Ms McCleary: It is flexible. It gives the person making the decision the opportunity to take all the factors that we have been discussing this afternoon into account. It is also worth remembering that the Bill refers to the need to always take into account the welfare of children in particular. That is important.

839. Mr F McCann: I have asked this a number of times over the past couple of years. Some people work within their communities: will that be recognised by your Department or DEL as worthwhile work or training?

840. Ms Sisk: Oh yes. I think I have said this to you before, Mr McCann. Certainly, people are entitled to do community work, but they cannot say that they are not available for paid work because they are doing that. There is nothing to say that they cannot do that kind of work; there is nothing to stop them doing so.

841. Mr F McCann: People have gone to local offices and have been challenged about work that they were doing. Some people had their benefits suspended.

842. Ms Sisk: Yes, you have to be available for and seeking work to get JSA. It is not permissible for people in that situation to say that they cannot look for work because they are doing voluntary work. They can do voluntary work, but they still have to be available for and seeking work to qualify for JSA.

843. Mr F McCann: So they have to fulfil all the criteria that you are talking about?

844. Ms Sisk: Yes, for JSA.

845. Mr F McCann: So community work is not accepted as —

846. Ms Sisk: It is not paid work.

847. Mr F McCann: What you are doing is —

848. Ms Sisk: It is not employment.

849. Mr F McCann: I think that it is a worthwhile job. It is worthwhile training.

850. Ms Sisk: I do not disagree at all.

851. Mr F McCann: It is something that has always been excluded by the Department.

852. Ms Sisk: That is not to say that it could not be recognised as a sort of preparation for work. It is possible that it could be recognised as work-related activity, but it is not paid employment. That is the difficulty. There is no getting around that.

853. Mr F McCann: Most community work is voluntary, anyway.

854. Ms Sisk: Yes.

855. The Chairperson: We will move to clause 11.

856. Ms McCleary: People can qualify for up to six months of contribution-based JSA or a lifetime of contributory ESA after working for only a short period. Clauses 11 and 12 mean that people can qualify for those non-means-tested benefits by working for as little as 12 weeks at the national minimum wage, or three weeks for higher-rate taxpayers, in one of the past two tax years in order to claim JSA, or in of the past three tax years to obtain ESA.

857. For claims made after 2010, new claimants will need to have worked and made National Insurance contributions for a minimum of 26 weeks to qualify for contributory ESA or contribution-based JSA. Those contributions will need to have been made in one of the past two tax years before the claim. The second condition largely aligns ESA allowance rules with those for JSA.

858. Mr Brady: Will those particular contribution conditions reduce the number of people eligible for JSA?

859. Ms Sisk: I think that it is bound to reduce —

860. Ms McCleary: It probably will.

861. Mr Brady: It is inevitable.

862. Ms Sisk: Tightening of the contributions inevitably will reduce that number.

863. Mr Brady: If you are aiming at the long-term unemployed and asking them to have made contributions within the past two years, it negates the argument.

864. Ms Sisk: There will definitely be a reduction in the number of claimants. It is difficult to say how many. I can give you a rough idea about ESA. GB has estimated that the caseload will be reduced by 20,000 over four years. There will be a relatively small reduction in Northern Ireland, because we usually take about a fortieth of their numbers. We are talking about hundreds. However, there will definitely be a reduction if the same circumstances apply in Northern Ireland.

865. The Chairperson: We will move to clause 12.

866. Ms Sisk: That is the same.

867. Ms McCleary: That included clause 12.

868. The Chairperson: Sorry. I think that everyone is content with clause 13, which refers to visual impairment. We will go to clause 14.

869. Ms McCleary: Clause 14 is about maternity allowance and carer’s allowance, and the abolition of adult dependency increases. This clause will abolish the payment of an adult dependency increase with maternity allowance and carer’s allowance for new claims from 2010. An increase for adult dependants is considered outdated, and this is part of the process of simplifying and updating the benefits system to reflect modern society.

870. Adult dependency increases are not a feature of the new ESA, have never been a feature of JSA and are being phased out from state pension by the Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 2008. Adult dependency increases in payment with carer’s allowance at the time of the change will be phased out between 2011 and 2020, in line with the arrangements for state pension. Phasing out will not apply to maternity allowance, as it is a short-term benefit that is paid for only 39 weeks.

871. The Chairperson: Does the delay in the introduction of the Bill here advantage the people of Northern Ireland?

872. Ms McCleary: Yes.

873. Ms Sisk: It will carry on for longer here, yes.

874. Mr Brady: With the publication of the White Paper, the whole issue around carers may change if a new regime is put in place for them. That may well be redundant before it really takes effect. The issue of carers is one that needs to be looked at.

875. Ms McCleary: It is a huge issue.

876. Mr Brady: Carer’s allowance, for instance, is a stand-alone benefit. It seems reasonable.

877. Ms McCleary: Yes. We will have to see what happens. I do not think that any of us really knows where that is going.

878. Mr Brady: Will many people here who are adult dependents on carer’s allowance be affected?

879. Ms Sisk: No. The number involved is relatively small; in fact, very small.

880. Mr Brady: I have not come across too many. It affects benefit anyhow, so they claim assistance.

881. Ms Sisk: Yes.

882. Ms McCleary: That is right.

883. Ms Sisk: The majority of people who are dependents are entitled to claim other benefits anyway, so it will not have a huge impact.

884. Mr Brady: Will they still get their carer’s premium?

885. Ms Sisk: The individual carer will still get all of that, yes.

886. The Chairperson: Clauses 15 to 17 relate to community care grants. We will take those all together.

887. Ms Sisk: OK. I think that it is over to me now.

888. The Chairperson: Is it the halfway point?

889. Ms Sisk: More or less, yes.

890. Clause 15 amends the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 to enable the Department to require that where the goods or services are covered by arrangements that the Department has made with the supplier, the award made must relate to specified goods or services and the payment will be made to the supplier. It is expected that those arrangements will involve the supply of white goods and furniture at a discounted rate. Basically, what it is saying is that instead of people who apply for community care grants getting money, they will have white goods or furniture provided by arrangements between the Department and the contractor.

891. Clause 16 precludes reviews of such arrangements. At the minute, reviews tend to be applied for by people who have asked for £200 for a fridge or a bed and only got £100. In future, they will be provided with the item, so there should not be the same requirement for a review. Clause 17 is about the Assembly’s control over regulations around the disclosure of information. It provides for penalties for the disclosure of information.

892. To a certain extent, clause 18 is also about the social fund. At the minute, where there is a delay in paying benefit — when the claim cannot be paid immediately or an award has been made but cannot be paid immediately — a claimant can get a payment from the social fund to tide them over. Under the new arrangements, they will actually get a payment of the benefit that they are entitled to, and that will be recouped once they get their full benefit payment.

893. Mr Brady: That method of providing goods was tried in the old single payments system, which led to two things happening. It created almost a monopoly in which certain dealers made a living out of providing those goods, particularly via local offices in which they had contacts. It also stigmatised social security claimants. There is no doubt about that, because there were shops with notices up saying that social security claimants were welcome. When they provided the same service to other people, they did not put a sign up in the window. That needs to be addressed. The other thing is that it can also lead to suppliers raising prices or distributing goods that are not quite up to standard. There needs to be some sort of a check. This type of scheme has been tried before, and I do not see the point of reintroducing it.

894. Ms Sisk: We are told that the purpose is to try to maximise the amount of benefit obtained from the community care budget. It is reckoned that entering into contracts with suppliers will lead to goods at a cheaper rate than a person approaching them individually would get. There will, as you suggest, have to be quality control elements to make sure that the goods supplied are of an acceptable quality. We are still trying to find out from DWP exactly how that will operate. DWP is still talking about the specific arrangements, so I am afraid that I really cannot say much more than that at this stage. I do not really know a lot more.

895. All that we are looking for in the Bill is the power to go down that road should we choose to do so. We may well have to think about the scheme if, when it operates, it looks as if it will not be beneficial. We are trying to get maximum benefit from the amount of money in the community care grant so that we cover as many people as possible.

896. Mr Brady: I understand that.

897. Ms McCleary: It is also about removing bureaucracy.

898. Mr Brady: What happens at the moment is that if you apply under the social fund for, say, a fridge, there is a set rate locally. Are you saying that the Department may well change that? I cannot see it doing that, because it normally goes to three or four suppliers and works out an average price for the area.

899. Ms Sisk: Clearly, it will not be doing that, because it will have entered into a contract with one supplier, who will be asked to supply the item of furniture or white goods. Therefore, they will not be trawling around. As Anne McCleary said, that reduces bureaucracy.

900. Mr Brady: It does, but are you saying that one supplier in an area will be the sole supplier?

901. Ms Sisk: I understand that the plan is for the Department to enter into a contract with one supplier.

902. Mr Brady: But surely that creates a monopoly situation.

903. Ms Sisk: Well —

904. Mr Brady: It did before.

905. Ms Sisk: It probably will in terms of supplying the Department. Presumably, it will suggest that it will get good value for money and a better deal from that contract.

906. Mr Brady: Allegedly.

907. Ms McCleary: One of the other benefits is that the person who applies for whatever it is — if they need, say, a washing machine with a particular function for their circumstances — can actually request that. If that is approved, it is easier to get that item, rather than the person having to come back and say that £150 for a washing machine does not cut it for them because they need a special one —

908. Mr Brady: I absolutely understand that. However, it creates a situation whereby that person simply does not have freedom of choice. If there is one dealer in the area and they are, let us be honest, selling crap, you will have to go with that.

909. Ms McCleary: If there are problems with —

910. Mr Brady: There is no point in saying otherwise.

911. Ms McCleary: If there are problems with that —

912. Mr Brady: That is what happened in the past, and it will happen again.

913. Ms McCleary: If there are problems like that, they will have to be raised with whoever is negotiating the contract, and dealt with.

914. Mr Brady: I would love to talk to some of these people who are negotiating the contracts. I do not want to go on about it, but this is an absolutely bad idea, and I will certainly find it very difficult to support that. I am just flagging that up now.

915. Mr F McCann: I fully support what Mickey has said. All the terminology that you are using to support this approach was used to support it years ago. That scheme was removed years ago because there was gross abuse of it by people selling fridges, cookers, washing machines or whatever. That needs to be considered. I cannot support anything like that, because I have seen the difficulties that people who come into our advice centres have had. The cheques were made out to certain suppliers, and because they were out of the item, they refused to provide a more expensive item or something similar. The people ended up keeping the old item.

916. Ms Sisk: Before we come back to do the clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill, I will see whether we can find out more from DWP about the contract control mechanisms that they are suggesting we put in place.

917. Mr Brady: When you were doing this years ago, a dealer in Newry brought in Spanish cookers and nobody could find the grill.

918. Ms Sisk: Oh aye, they would not work.

919. Mr Brady: They were supposed to have a grill, but nobody ever found it.

920. Ms Sisk: Oh dear.

921. Mr Brady: I think that there is one in Newry museum as an example of how not to —

922. Mr F McCann: It is in Mickey’s house now.

923. Mr Brady: I never got one of those. Seriously, though, that is the kind of thing that opens up. I know that it is funny and all, but that is what happens.

924. Ms Sisk: I understand. We will get in touch with DWP and see whether it has any more —

925. Mr Brady: Spanish cookers left.

926. Ms Sisk: Any more information about the contract controls.

927. As you said, Mr Brady, much of it will depend on how well the contract negotiators conduct the negotiations and impose the conditions based of the contracts. However, the SSA is much better at contract negotiations now than it was in the past, as many contracts are being —

928. Mr Brady: I am thinking about their white-goods skills and what training they will have had.

929. Ms McCleary: It may not be people in the agency who conduct those negotiations.

930. Mr Brady: More privatisation?

931. Ms McCleary: No. Central Procurement Directorate (CPD) now carries out all contract negotiations for the Civil Service. It is expert in that field and could undertake the negotiations for the scheme.

932. The Chairperson: I do not disagree with the principle behind this, and if the Department is trying to drive efficiencies and save money, that is fine. However, although bureaucracy could be reduced, a new layer could also be created in the process, because, as Committee members have outlined, someone will have to check that the new system is operating correctly and that there are no cowboy operations. Furthermore, if the Department is to be successful in achieving maximum efficiencies, it may be better to have one contract for the whole of Northern Ireland. However, that also has its own potential problems, with the successful supplier perhaps not having a branch on an individual’s high street.

933. Ms Sisk: If there were problems of that nature, it might be possible to give people the money.

934. I will find out whether DWP has any more information on how it intends to operate the scheme, how many contractors will be used and what controls it envisages being written into the contracts.

935. The Chairperson: We must appreciate that we are talking about community care grants. I understand the point made about freedom of choice, and the scheme does look a little Soviet. It is almost as though people can have any colour that they want, as long as it is black — although, of course, it was not a Soviet but an arch-capitalist who used that phrase.

936. Ms Ní Chuílin: I was going to say that. That was Ford.

937. The Chairperson: However, the scheme does have that ring to it. Community care grants are not entirely about the freedom of choice that a normal consumer will have, but there is still a consumer element involved.

938. Ms Sisk: That is correct. It is about getting the best value for money from the scheme and getting the person what they want. If an individual wants a fridge or a cooker, he or she should be able to get one of a reasonable quality and standard, but at the best possible price.

939. The Chairperson: And not Spanish necessarily?

940. Ms Sisk: Unless there is a grill on it.

941. Mr F McCann: Someone said that the Model T Ford also started life as a washing machine.

942. Mr Brady: Or as a Spanish cooker. [Laughter.]

943. The Chairperson: Clause 18 deals with payments on accounts and has already been covered. There is nothing too controversial in that clause.

944. Clauses 19, 20 and 27 are all similar and deal with sanctions. Can we take those clauses together?

945. Ms Sisk: Yes. Clause 19 deals with fraud sanctions. Currently, when someone is convicted of benefit fraud on two occasions, and the second offence is committed within five years of the date of conviction for the first, there is a loss of benefit provision, commonly referred to as the two-strike rule.

946. Clause 19 introduces a new benefit sanction to apply after the first conviction, or after an administrative penalty or caution, which will be known as the one-strike rule. The combined effect will be for the benefit to be reduced, or withdrawn for a disqualifying period when a person convicted of one or more benefit offences accepts an administrative penalty as an alternative to prosecution or agrees to be given a caution. The disqualifying period will be four weeks, beginning at a prescribed time after conviction, or on the agreement of an administrative penalty or caution.

947. Clause 20 deals with the sanction for violent conduct. Where someone has been found guilty of violent conduct towards staff in a social security office, staff in a jobs and benefits office or the staff of a contractor, a sanction of one week will be applied to a jobseeker’s allowance claimant who has been successfully convicted or cautioned for violent or threatening behaviour.

948. Clause 27 deals with the sanction for attendance in connection for jobseeker’s allowance. It will allow for regulations to be made providing for entitlement to jobseeker’s allowance to cease for between one and five days if the claimant fails to attend a mandatory interview, and subsequently makes contact with the social security office or the jobs and benefits office within a prescribed period of the date of the interview without showing good cause for the failure to attend. The prescribed period in this instance will be five working days.

949. Mr Brady: Obviously, the whole area of fraud is a judicial matter, and cases must go through the courts. Therefore, it will be a double whammy, with someone possibly receiving a suspended sentence, being jailed or fined and then being sanctioned. Fraud is a matter for the courts to decide on, but even though the courts make a judicial decision to punish a person, that person will be punished again. That seems unfair, particularly if children are involved.

950. Ms Ní Chuilín: That does not happen in the tax system.

951. Ms Sisk: It already happens in the benefits system, but only after the second benefit offence. Clause 19 applies the new benefit sanction after the first offence. A person does not necessarily have to be convicted in a court; he or she can accept an administrative penalty. The idea is to deter people from committing fraud in the first place. The provision will be used only in certain circumstances. The rationale is to deter people from considering committing fraud at the outset.

952. Mr Brady: In my experience, there will always be people who will commit fraud. However, the proportion of people in the North who commit fraud is relatively small. The level of fraud is currently 0·01% among benefit claimants. I was looking at the Department for Social Development website yesterday, and all that I read about concerned people being convicted of fraud.

953. The claim that everyone is committing fraud is an urban myth. In my opinion and experience, the number of people who commit fraud is relatively small. They are easy targets. There are other areas in which the same sanctions do not apply. It seems that people on benefit, who to a large extent are vulnerable anyway, are being targeted.

954. I used to conduct appeals for people who had been overpaid by £200, but had had allegations of fraud made against them. It costs £1,500 or £1,600 to put in an appeal. Is that good use of public money? I do not think that it is.

955. Ms Sisk: You are right to say that the amount of fraud in Northern Ireland is not great. However, the rationale behind the provision is to reduce the level of fraud even more and protect the social security system. If people do not commit fraud, they will not be sanctioned. It is as simple as that.

956. Mr Brady: The statistics from two years ago show that £61 million was lost, £32 million of which was lost in error, more than was lost because of fraud. We do not see that on the DSD website.

957. Ms Sisk: I absolutely agree that the Social Security Agency needs to and wants to improve its performance. I am sure that if representatives from the agency were before the Committee, they would tell you that they are doing their best to make those improvements.

958. Mr Brady: That is not necessarily a criticism. Staff are under pressure and have targets to meet. I am just saying that if we are to have equality in that sense, both sides of the equation must be considered.

959. Ms Sisk: I would not disagree with that. I am sure that the Social Security Agency is striving to improve its performance all the time. The bottom line is that if people do not commit fraud, they will not be sanctioned. It is as simple as that.

960. Ms Ní Chuilín: It just seems a bit punitive that if someone commits fraud and an offence is proven in court, not only does that person receive a penalty from the court but he or she is penalised through the benefits system. That does not happen in the tax system. I know that that is not your responsibility, but it seems a bit strange.

961. Ms Sisk: I do not know why the tax system does not operate in the same way. It is a deterrent; that is the idea.

962. Ms Ní Chuilín: I appreciate that.

963. Ms Sisk: One hopes that sanctions would not have to be used.

964. The Chairperson: I have a couple of questions, the first of which is about clause 27, which deals with non-attendance at mandatory interviews. What account is taken of certain illnesses or what are euphemistically called “chaotic lifestyles"?

965. Ms Sisk: All sorts of safeguards are built in to take account of good cause, particularly safeguards for people with disabilities. Mr McCann asked what happens in the case of someone who fails to turn up once. It is highly unlikely that someone who forgets to turn up for an appointment on one occasion will be sanctioned in that way. The provision is not as draconian as that. It is there to ensure that people satisfy the conditions that are required in order to receive jobseeker’s allowance. It is as simple as that.

966. The Chairperson: Perhaps we should have some sanctions for non-attendance at Committee meetings.

967. Mr F McCann: That is wishful thinking on your part.

968. I have dealt with a number of cases involving young people who have been sanctioned. My big concern is that they are already paid below the poverty line. Whether they are living with parents or on their own, for one, two, six or 26 weeks, they have to go without money. All sorts of possibilities open up if people are hungry or have no money to survive. The only other option that they may have is to turn to crime. You may be forcing people down that road, simply because they might have forgotten to turn up at a meeting. We all forget to turn up at meetings sometimes.

969. Ms Sisk: I expect the decision-makers to take into account all an individual’s circumstances before they take the step of sanctioning someone’s benefit. They have the discretion to do that.

970. Mr F McCann: In some of the cases that I have dealt with, I have argued and debated that point, but not everything was taken into consideration.

971. Ms Sisk: I am not in a position to comment on individual cases. However, the decision-makers are expected to take account of an individual’s circumstances.

972. The Chairperson: Clause 19 deals with fraud, while clause 20 concerns violent conduct. Mickey made the point that fraud is dealt with through the judicial process. Violence is reasonably easy to identify.

973. Ms Sisk: That would also be a matter for the courts. The person must be convicted.

974. The Chairperson: Threatening behaviour is more of a grey area. Who would determine what constitutes threatening behaviour?

975. Ms Sisk: The courts would determine that as well. The law will require a person to be convicted by a court of an offence involving violent behaviour in the first place. Staff in the Social Security Agency or DEL would not make that decision; it would be made by the courts.

976. Ms Ní Chuilín: I want to return to a point that I raised about clause 19 and fraud. If a person is convicted of fraud and loses his or her benefits, what happens if he or she is claiming for dependants?

977. Ms Sisk: There is a hardship provision.

978. Ms Ní Chuilín: Is that definitely built into the legislation?

979. Ms Sisk: Yes.

980. Ms Ní Chuilín: The partner of the person will not be penalised for that person’s behaviour?

981. Ms Sisk: No.

982. Ms Ní Chuilín: Definitely not?

983. Ms McCleary: I would expect that, in such circumstances, the lawyer representing the person would make the point to the judge that the claimant would lose benefit as a result of the decision. Therefore, the judge or magistrate could take account of that circumstance.

984. Ms Ní Chuilín: That complicates matters, because I thought that, if there were a judicial ruling, someone would be punished for committing fraud.

985. Ms McCleary: They are two separate things. I am saying only that it might be one of the circumstances —

986. Ms Ní Chuilín: It might be considered a mitigating circumstance?

987. Ms McCleary: Yes.

988. Ms Ní Chuilín: Will you make your decision regardless of that?

989. Ms McCleary: No. It is up to the court to convict the person of fraud before we can apply sanctions. The only other situation would be one in which the case does not go to court and the person accepts that he or she has committed fraud. The court would not be involved in that case, and the sanction would be applied. There is protection on the basis of hardship to the family of the individual. The individual’s benefit is sanctioned, not that of the family.

990. Ms Ní Chuilín: OK. I just wanted to clear that up.

991. The Chairperson: Clauses 21 and 22 are not controversial. Clauses 23 to 25 are about exemptions. Perhaps we can consider those two clauses together?

992. Ms Sisk: Clause 23 is the one that I mentioned earlier. There is a new exemption from jobseeking conditions for people who have been subjected to domestic violence. They will have an extra 13 weeks before they must make themselves available for work. Clause 24 is about good cause for omissions or failure to comply with certain regulations, and it expressly states that the availability of childcare and the claimant’s physical or mental health or condition will always be considered as just cause.

993. Clause 25 states that the well-being of the child must also be taken into account when drawing up agreements or action plans. Those are extra safeguards that were put into the Bill in GB when it passed through the House of Lords at Westminster, and they are replicated in the Northern Ireland Welfare Reform Bill. They all will be beneficial to claimants.

994. Mr Brady: There are two types of domestic violence. Obviously, there is physical violence, but, having talked to Women’s Aid and other people with whom I have worked over the years, I know that a great deal of domestic violence is psychological. Who will decide whether the provision applies?

995. Ms Sisk: To be honest, I do not know. We have not been asked that question before. I will come back to you on that.

996. Mr Brady: It needs to be addressed, because it is a big issue.

997. Ms Sisk: Yes, I will check up on it.

998. Mr Brady: If someone were to present with two black eyes, the domestic violence would be obvious. Much domestic violence is not obvious, but it is still domestic violence.

999. Ms Sisk: I am wondering whether a person’s word would be accepted or whether evidence from a third party would be required.

1000. Mr Brady: Much of that kind of domestic violence, people keep to themselves, and therein lies a problem that will have to be addressed.

1001. Ms Sisk: The person would have to be prepared to admit that domestic violence took place before allowance could be given. I will check that for you and come back to you either at Thursday’s meeting or the next time that we attend the Committee.

1002. Ms Ní Chuilín: Is there a difference between “good cause" and “just cause"? Do those terms mean the same thing?

1003. Mr C McLaughlin: “Just cause" relates to the taking-up of employment or leaving employment, and “good cause" relates to such issues as failure to attend to sign on.

1004. Ms Sisk: The conditions are the same under each of those terms.

1005. Ms Lo: Can you give some examples of good cause?

1006. Ms Sisk: The unavailability of childcare is a good cause.

1007. Mr C McLaughlin: Mental health conditions is another one.

1008. Ms McCleary: That would cover someone with psychological issues. There is a list of what are considered to be good causes.

1009. Mr C McLaughlin: A few conditions are also prescribed in the legislation.

1010. Ms Ní Chuilín: Can we have a copy of the list, please?

1011. Ms Sisk: Yes, we will provide that.

1012. Clause 26 deals with contracting out functions under the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. The clause will be a matter for DEL rather than DSD. It will enable the contracting out of certain functions of the Department for Employment and Learning under the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. It includes measures such as the drawing-up of action plans. It will not cover decision-making services, which the Department for the Social Development runs. DSD has no intention of contracting out any of its functions. I would not like to hazard a guess as to whether DEL has any such plans, but I do not think that that is likely.

1013. Mr Brady: It is privatisation, and it begs the question —

1014. Ms Sisk: The functions could also be contracted out to voluntary organisations; they will not necessarily be contracted out to private companies.

1015. Mr Brady: The issue goes back to the question of which organisation deals with it. You mentioned action plans, and, obviously, some experience of working on those will be needed. To me, the contracting-out of those functions will mean job losses in the Department.

1016. Ms Sisk: If the Department for Employment and Learning were to decide to go down that road, it would have to make decisions on all such matters. The clause is more a matter for DEL than it is for DSD. DSD will not contract out its functions, which include benefit-related work and decision-making.

1017. Mr Brady: It includes the contracting-out of medical support services.

1018. Ms Sisk: Those are not decision-making services; they are advice-giving services.

1019. Mr Brady: They impact greatly on decision-making.

1020. Ms Sisk: That does not form part of the clause.

1021. Ms Lo: The legislation comes from DSD, so how does that clause cross over to DEL?

1022. Ms Sisk: The Bill covers mainly DSD functions, but that clause was also contained in the Welfare Reform Bill in GB, and the Department for Employment and Learning asked us to leave it in and carry the clause for it. It is for DEL to decide whether it ever intends to implement it. I understand that DEL wants it included just in case it needs it but that it does not currently have any intention to implement it. For a more definite answer on DEL’s plan, if any, the Committee would need to take the matter up with that Department.

1023. Ms Lo: Obviously, you have continued discussions with DEL on that.

1024. Ms Sisk: A similar section exists in the Welfare Reform Act (Northern Ireland) 2007, which you will remember. That provision has not been exercised.

1025. The Chairperson: Clause 27 has been covered. Clauses 28 to 37 are straightforward and technical. Are members content to leave discussion on those and pursue any issues that may arise in writing with the Department?

1026. Ms Ní Chuilín: Some of those clauses will require amendments.

1027. Ms Sisk: We will be returning to the Committee to go through those clauses again anyway. There will be an opportunity to propose amendments then.

1028. The Chairperson: There are some issues with clause 29, so we will go through it. We will deal with the other clauses in writing or at a later stage.

1029. Ms Sisk: Clause 29 will allow for people over the age of 60 to have work-focused interviews. It has been included in the Bill following the raising of the state pension age from 60 to 65 for women and to allow for people in those circumstances to have work-focused interviews. The clause reflects the equalisation of the state pension age.

1030. Mr Brady: Will that be a mandatory requirement?

1031. Ms Sisk: Yes. People in that age group who are claiming benefits will be required to take part in a work-focused interview. If they are training —

1032. Mr Brady: A few years ago, people over the age of 50 did not even have to sign on.

1033. Ms Sisk: I know. However, taking part in a work-focused interview is as far as it goes at this stage.

1034. The Chairperson: Is there anything in the schedules that is not in the Bill?

1035. Ms Sisk: The four schedules to the Bill support the clauses that we have already gone through. There is nothing new or different in them.

1036. The Chairperson: Do members have any outstanding questions to ask? No?

1037. That was a bit of a marathon session in the end, and I thank you for your time and patience.

1038. Ms Sisk: Do you want us to stay and deal with any issues that may arise from the evidence session with Gingerbread NI?

1039. The Chairperson: That would be great. We will take a short break now.

1040. Kevin Higgins, the head of policy and research at Advice NI, joins us. Members have a copy of Advice NI’s submission and all other relevant papers. The session is being recorded by Hansard, and I remind you all to switch off mobile phones.

1041. I invite you to make your presentation. Given the commonality of responses to the Bill, the Clerk suggested that Kevin and Advice NI focus their oral evidence on “work for your benefit" schemes, community care grants and contracting-out issues.

1042. Mr Kevin Higgins (Advice NI): Thank you for inviting me to make a presentation. I will begin with some introductory points and then move on to the three areas of focus. First, in terms of parity with GB, Advice NI has noted that the necessary welfare reform legislation is out of step with that in GB, although possibly temporarily. However, we note that the social security system has not completely broken down and is still functioning normally. Therefore, in respect of timing, if not in respect of substance, events have shown that parity can be broken and that we can do things differently. In that context, Advice NI suggests that this piece of legislation be examined and amended to cater for circumstances that are unique to Northern Ireland, and the opportunity should be taken to adapt how things are done, rather than seek to break parity in respect of benefit types, benefit levels and the conditions attached to benefits.

1043. Secondly, we believe that the primary purpose behind the Bill is to assist people on the journey from benefits to work. Many benefit recipients who will be affected by the proposals contained in the Bill can be categorised as those who are the hardest to help. They often represent the most vulnerable in society in terms of physical or mental ill health, education status, employment readiness, language barriers, and so on. As long as the reform agenda is interested only in removing people as a benefit statistic, applying benefit sanctions and being punitive, and so on, and not meaningfully trying to help people make a transition into employment, the hardest to help, who will be impacted by the proposals, will see themselves as being subjected to the proposals, rather than being eager participants.

1044. In previous welfare reform consultations, Advice NI has argued that forced integration into the labour market will not work without associated significant increases in areas such as childcare. I know that that has been explored in detail already today by the Committee, but we believe that sufficient resources will have to be made available if welfare reform is to have any meaningful impact here.

1045. There should be a firm focus on helping those who move from welfare to work to get and retain jobs over the longer term, so that there is not simply a revolving door in and out of schemes and back and forth onto benefits. There should also be a firm focus on supporting the hardest-to-help benefit recipients, who could well be left behind by welfare reform in a possible haste to meet targets as the labour market is swelled by new people, such as school leavers, university leavers and those who have recently been made redundant, who may well be seen to be more job ready. I will say more about the target regime in a minute. The people who need and could use the most support could well be left behind, although those are the people whom we should be focusing on.

1046. With regard to targets, Advice NI is involved in systems thinking, which is an approach that fundamentally challenges the traditional view of the world in terms of top-down command-and-control management, measures related to budgets, productivity of staff and all of that traditional management routine. Systems thinking is about requiring senior managers to be willing to contemplate the possibility of changing the way that they think about management and about designing services that are specifically around the needs of the service user, rather than some top-down model of what they think should be the case. The systems thinking approach has been shown to result in improved customer service, because it is focused on the needs of the customer or the client. It leads to lower costs in administration and efficiency, and it has improved staff morale, because staff are able to deliver and do more meaningful work for the clients who are coming through the door. Advice NI believes that there is merit in rolling out that type of approach in the delivery mechanisms of welfare reform, as it will guarantee that service users will be at the heart of what is being done.

1047. We agree with the Committee Clerk’s help and guidance; we should focus on certain areas. I will move to the “work for your benefit" aspect of the Bill. Our concerns can be categorised under potential economic impact, and we explored that earlier today. There is also a concern around timing, and there is a potential for it to be a bureaucratic nightmare to administer. It has the potential to be counterproductive and may not help people become any more job-ready.

1048. There is a sense that claimants on these schemes might provide services on the cheap. For example, employers and service providers may source labour under a scheme with a view to exploiting the opportunity to reduce their overheads and staff costs and, importantly, boosting their profit margins.

1049. Advice NI notes from the Programme for Government that growing the economy is the top priority. We, therefore, argue that there needs to be a careful analysis of the possible negative and detrimental impact of “work for your benefit" schemes on economic growth in Northern Ireland, particularly at this stage.

1050. That leads me on to the issue of timing. A number of members today have said that there are few, if any, job placement opportunities in the current economic climate. The claimant count now stands at 55,900; I think that it increased by 300 over the past month. The expectation seems to be that growth will be static, and some commentators have said that we could fall back into recession. In a climate where employers are facing complete shutdown, it is difficult to see where opportunities for placements will arise. Perhaps I should have said “meaningful placements", because it is important to make that distinction. We want something that is credible and meaningful for the participants in these schemes.

1051. Advice NI is worried that participants will simply be channelled through a revolving door. We are concerned that claimants will, effectively, not be able to look for work while on these schemes, thereby making the schemes counterproductive because they deflect claimants from job-seeking and job-related activity. That is an area that should be addressed.

1052. An industry could potentially develop around the administration of “work for your benefit" schemes. Advice NI notes the impact of “work for your benefit" schemes in the US, where it has been a real challenge to achieve high rates of participation in those programmes among claimants, because a significant percentage of welfare recipients are unable to participate at any given time. We are concerned that an industry may develop around the administration of such schemes, with the focus being shifted from where it should be, namely helping the people who should be helped.

1053. We see in paragraphs (5), (6) and (7) of proposed new article 19A, and article 19B, the potential around sanctions and good cause and the need for people who are responsible for making decisions, people who manage those who are making the decisions and people who quality check that work. Very shortly, an industry will develop around that.

1054. We believe that legislative provision is clearly being made in that part of the Bill in terms of a lack of claimant participation. We wish to see similar legislative provision focusing on the schemes themselves, ensuring that they deliver for participants by helping them on that journey from benefits to work. There is a very obvious gap in the Bill. The focus is on enforcing punitive sanctions if people do not engage. However, the question is what people are being asked to engage in and whether those schemes are the most effective way of helping and supporting people to move from benefits to work. We are mainly concerned that those people will not become more work-ready unless the schemes provide an element of real, effective training and support, particularly in addressing barriers such as mental health, physical health, literacy and numeracy, and help them on that journey. Again, there is scope to tighten that up.

1055. We suggest additional wording that aims to create a greater balance and actually refocuses attention on the participants and the schemes. We want those schemes to be as effective as possible, not futile paper-pushing bureaucratic exercises that do little good for the participants’ morale or that of the staff. Of course, resources will be required, and disproportionately more resources will be needed to help those people who face the additional barriers and the longest journey.

1056. We proposed two amendments to clause 1. First:

“Each and every scheme will have a cost-benefit analysis — highlighting administration costs — aimed at ensuring that resources are targeted on individual claimants."

That is to get a sense of the potential development of resources being deflected from the industry, and what will be of benefit to the person. Also, the schemes should:

“clearly specify the support, training and education opportunities available to help people on the scheme become more job ready".

That is aimed at tightening up the arrangements, focusing on the schemes and trying to make them as effective as possible.

1057. That is all that I wanted to say about the “work for your benefit" schemes. I could continue, or we could pause there.

1058. The Chairperson: It may be useful to pause.

1059. Mr Brady: It appears that neither you nor Advice NI is particularly happy with the Bill. It seems to me that welfare reform should reform a scheme that is not doing what it should be doing. I do not want to put you on the spot, but do you think that there is anything in the Bill that suggests that it is innovative and that it will be beneficial to the clients that it is designed to help? It seems to me that large parts of the Bill are not designed to do so. It seems to be more concerned with saving money and resources than helping the people at the bottom.

1060. You talked about management taking an innovative approach; that is absolutely necessary. The other thing, it seems to me, is that in terms of the outcomes and how they might be managed, there are not ultimately going to be people who will benefit in great numbers, which is what the scheme is presumably designed to do.

1061. There is another, more general point about parity. What you are really saying, and what the Committee has been saying, for instance, about disability living allowance is that although we may not be able to change the regulations, we can ask for the administration to be tailored to suit the needs of people here and not to be comparable to areas of Britain that we are not comparable to. Maybe I do want to put you on the spot.

1062. Mr Higgins: We want to see a balance between the punitive and the sanctioning in the Bill, and we want to get a sense that there is some real help and support for people. I do not think that we are getting a real sense of that from the Bill. Parts of the Bill — the proposed new articles 19A(5), 19A(6), 19A(7) and so on — go into a bit of detail about how sanctions and good cause will be administered. That is all on the negative side — what if you do not turn up, and all of that. There is no detail on the schemes themselves. What can a participant expect to get out of them?

1063. Advice NI tries to speak up for those who are more vulnerable and do not have a voice. I do not think that the balance is there. In order to get that balance we want a sense right through the implementation of it. Evidence was given earlier that we are passing something through now and we have to wait for more detail on the flesh of it, but I would also like to get a sense of the management ethos. Are we going to do something differently here? We are in a whole new world of efficiencies and so on.

1064. We have a model of the systems thinking approach, which puts the person at the heart. Services must be built around the individual rather than have some top-down, command-and-control model that some consultant thinks is the right way to do it. There is an opportunity for those in the highest positions to step up to the plate here.

1065. You asked about outcomes. It is important for anyone who is going to be channelled into these schemes — how are the outcomes going to be measured so that it can lead to something meaningful?

1066. Mr Brady: You mentioned lone parents in rural areas particularly. Although childcare provision is a huge issue, a lot of lone parents in rural areas are isolated because of the lack of public transport or of transport in general. That is another issue that has not been addressed in childcare provision. My point is that, even if childcare provision is available, the parent has to balance the cost of that against taking a job that pays minimum wage and how much that is going to cost. Then there is transport — all of hose things have to be factored in. Is that good or just cause for not going in to the scheme?

1067. Mr Higgins: I got a sense from the discussion earlier that some of these things might be issues for DEL. However, they will ultimately land at the desk of a decision-maker in the Social Security Agency. Therefore, there is a join, so there will be issues around consistency. A personal adviser or someone on the front line in DEL could make one decision and somebody else in Newry could make a different decision, which could feed back to the decision-maker in the Social Security Agency and lead to inconsistencies.

1068. Ms Lo: I agree with you. A lot of us have concerns about whether this is part of a political agenda with Labour wanting to be seen to be doing something about getting people out of unemployment and into the job market. We may be creating more jobs for civil servants to administer the new system rather than helping those who need help to get jobs.

1069. I agree that we need to be more person-centred and help people in a meaningful way through training, support and mentoring, rather than imposing sanctions and pushing people into jobs that are not meaningful. If they come in and out of whatever the system is without gaining anything, in many ways they are further stigmatised and disheartened rather than helped.

1070. The Chairperson: Do you want to move on to community care grants?

1071. Mr Higgins: I will talk about contracting out first if that is OK.

1072. The Chairperson: That is fine.

1073. Mr Higgins: It is all interwoven, of course; some of my points about contracting out relate to what we have been talking about.

1074. We can see scope for contracting out third-party provision; it is embedded throughout the legislation, particularly in pages 3, 7, 32 and 33. Advice NI is concerned that, depending on the resource allocations attached to any contract, contractual requirements might incentivise providers to focus on targets, which would be detrimental to the well-being of clients. An immediate implication of that would be that the easiest to help would be the first to be helped, because that would look good on monitoring reports and they would require less support and, by extension, fewer resources.

1075. Traditional contractual arrangements and traditional command-and-control performance measuring could warp and distort activity and direct it away from those who need it most. Again, we advocate the introduction of a systems thinking approach to ensure that procurement and contracts mitigate that risk. For example, Advice NI advocates the involvement of service users and potential service providers at the design and commissioning stages of any contract, as well as at the delivery stage. That inclusive approach should enable a more robust and effective approach, utilising the expertise, skills and experience of all stakeholders. These are issues related to resources and the potential cherry-picking of clients, helping the easiest to help rather than the hardest.

1076. Advice NI is concerned about accountability. Social security benefit claimants are, in the main, used to working with Civil Service staff. Any withdrawal from direct provision, replaced by third-party involvement, might serve to blur and confuse claimants. That could leave claimants susceptible to unethical work practices, as the third-party providers might be more concerned with achieving their targets than providing a high-quality service for claimants. Claimants might feel unable to oppose or complain about any such approach by a third-party provider in case their benefit was jeopardised. We already have a sense that there are quite punitive measures and sanctions and so on, and there is an issue around all of that.

1077. Although services may be contracted out, Departments must retain ultimate responsibility for the overall effectiveness of any service. There should be a strategy for robustly monitoring and evaluating the performance of providers, and that must include effective and independent mechanisms for garnering the views of service users.

1078. Due to the vulnerable nature of the client group, contracts must place heavy reliance on the quality of the service to be provided, as opposed to the price. There must be sufficient resources within contractual arrangements to ensure that work can be carried out not only to a required minimum specification but to the highest standard possible. We believe that vulnerable clients should get no less.

1079. Here we reach an additional part of the contracting debate. If a contract is subject to competitive tendering and the price is a factor in any decision on whether to engage a third-party provider, the price will automatically be driven down. Therefore, reduced resources will be available to the provider to provide the service, and there will be a reduction in the support available. The chance of the service being as effective as it could be is reduced.

1080. I will pause at this stage and pose a question about how a Department can pass information to third-party providers. I speak with some knowledge on this, because Advice NI has been engaged in some Social Security Agency benefit-uptake work. With a view to trying to make that exercise more effective, we recommended that the agency share client details with the advice sector. We could then approach clients in a slightly less officious manner and perhaps increase benefit uptake. However, the agency consistently told us that information cannot be passed to the advice sector because of data protection issues and so on. Therefore, an underlying issue concerns how that problem can be overcome in relation to contracting out in general terms in the Bill and passing information and client details on to third parties. That is worthy of greater exploration.

1081. Moves towards third-party delivery must ensure equality of access, particularly in rural areas. I am reminded of the ongoing exercise on the outsourcing of medical support services. It is important, because client groups may not have the means to travel and compensate for providers’ lack of geographical coverage across any particular geographical area. That is why we suggested the wording that we did in our written response:

“Before any function is ‘contracted out’ there should be an analysis of the resources required to perform that function".

1082. The intention behind that additional wording is to try to ensure that need does not become the victim of financial expediency, that services are not provided by third parties on the cheap and that they are not forced to provide services on the cheap.

“Contractors must conduct annual satisfaction surveys with a specified number of ‘service recipients’".

1083. Again, the intention is to ensure that the needs of service users are built into the heart of the process and flow back to the Departments involved.

“The relevant Government Departments must robustly monitor and evaluate the performance of providers, including garnering the views of service users".

1084. The intention here is to ensure that Departments take ultimate hands-on responsibility and do not wash their hands of the situation. They must not just pass everything across to third-party providers, and there is still a sense of ownership and responsibility there.

1085. We have already heard that there is the potential for a lack of clarity in the minds of claimants because a third-party provider, DEL, the Social Security Agency and the Department are all involved. Somebody needs to grip hold of this and take responsibility.

1086. The Chairperson: We are under a bit of pressure to retain a quorum. Will you move on to community care grants?

1087. Mr Higgins: The first point in relation to community care grants is the timing of the Bill. Members will be aware that there is a consultation out at the moment called ‘Social Fund Reform: Debt, Credit and Low-Income Households’. Page 8 of that document consults on:

“contracting with major suppliers to provide a range of goods and services for people to access instead of cash grants."

At the very least, there is a sense of putting the cart before the horse because we are legislating to do something when, in another document, we are consulting on whether to do it. That is an issue for exploration.

1088. Aside from that, the Government frequently says that financial inclusion is a high priority. Advice NI fails to see how the proposal to award goods and services in kind promotes financial inclusion and helps people to take control of their financial management. Depending on the process, on which there is no detail, this could well further marginalise, exclude and stigmatise claimants.

1089. Restrictions on the resources that are available to third-party providers of goods and services could well drive down the quality of the services and goods that are provided — I am reminded of the Spanish cookers and so on — as providers strive to win a contract to provide those goods and services at the least cost. Procurement exercises drive down costs, but could potentially lead to the provision of poor quality goods and services. Of course, the provision of poor quality goods and services would feed back into the issue of stigma through obtaining the substandard good or service.

1090. Earlier, points were made about how to reduce bureaucracy and so on, but scarce resources could well be deflected towards the development of contracts, how contracts are overseen, and the administration and monitoring of third-party provision. I cannot help thinking that staff will have to be appointed to manage all of that, and that other people will have to manage those people. There could be issues around all of that. We know what the budget for the social fund and community care grants is. We want to keep a very close eye on that to ensure that that budget is maintained at the very least, even if we go through the exercise of procurement for community care grants.

1091. Mr Brady: The social fund in Newry is administered through Armagh. That raises the whole issue about whether to contract with somebody in Armagh or someone in Newry. There are inherent problems, unless, as was mentioned, there is a Six County-wide contractor.

1092. Mr Higgins: Clients may not care where it is administered, but they will want it to be very much accessible to them, so that they can get it where and when they need it.

1093. The Chairperson: There is nothing else at this stage. Thank you very much for your evidence and your time with us today. It is much appreciated. There is quite a lot in your paper in addition to what you have highlighted, so I appreciate that. Those views, and those of other contributors, will be taken into account when we do our clause-by-clause scrutiny and look to propose amendments to the Bill. Thank you very much for your time.

13 May 2010

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Simon Hamilton (Chairperson)
Mrs Mary Bradley
Mr Mickey Brady
Mr David Hilditch
Ms Anna Lo
Mr Fra McCann

Witnesses:

Mr Paul Herink
Ms Lauren Kerr

Citizens Advice

Mr Les Allamby
Ms Laura Niwa

Law Centre (NI)

Ms Marie Cavanagh

Gingerbread NI

1094. The Chairperson (Mr Hamilton): From Citizens Advice, we are joined by Mr Paul Herink, its director of information services, and Ms Lauren Kerr, its information and policy officer. I welcome you both. My apologies for Tuesday, which turned into a bit of an epic session.

1095. Mr Paul Herink (Citizens Advice): It did.

1096. The Chairperson: Had we continued, we could not have done justice to your evidence, not least because, at that stage, Committee members would probably have been asleep. Therefore, thank you for accommodating us today. I remind witnesses to turn off their mobile phones as the meeting is being recorded by Hansard. I invite you to make some opening remarks.

1097. I advise members that, given the commonality of responses from many witnesses to the Bill’s Committee Stage, the Committee Clerk has suggested that the Citizens Advice representatives focus their oral evidence on the abolition of income support and on the extension of conditionality based on work-related activity. After the witnesses have given a brief outline of their position, I will open the session to members’ questions.

1098. Mr Herink: I thank the Committee for allowing us to give evidence on the Welfare Reform Bill. In its written response to the Committee, Citizens Advice raised concerns about a number of clauses, including those that deal with the abolition of income support, work-related activity for employment and support allowance (ESA) claims, “work for your benefit" schemes, social fund reform and sanctions. From our point of view, the philosophy behind those clauses is twofold: first, to achieve greater flexibility and personalisation of benefit conditionality; and, secondly, to reduce the number of working-age benefits. However, will the Bill achieve those aims?

1099. Citizens Advice is one of three agencies that comprise the Advice Services Alliance (ASA). All three agencies have responded in writing and given evidence to the Committee. As the Chairperson said, to avoid unnecessary repetition, we shall concentrate on two main areas; namely, the proposed abolition of income support and mandatory work-related activity for ESA claimants. I shall hand over now to Lauren Kerr, who will cover those areas.

1100. Ms Lauren Kerr (Citizens Advice): The abolition of income support is the first main area of focus with which I shall deal. The Bill proposes to grant the power to remove the right to claim income support from any class of person who is currently entitled to it. Citizens Advice is particularly concerned about one group of people that the provision will affect: lone parents, who are currently entitled to, and do, claim income support. The Bill proposes transferring lone parents from income support to jobseeker’s allowance. We feel that the policy driver behind the proposal is the continuing aim to encourage lone parents into employment. Citizens Advice questions that policy driver.

1101. Is it necessary to abolish income support in order to encourage lone parents into employment, and if income support is abolished, will the aim be achieved? Is it possible to achieve a higher employment rate among lone parents in that way? Citizens Advice feels that achieving the aim is impossible, partly because the Bill fails to address the many barriers that lone parents face when they try to re-enter the workplace. The Bill takes no account of factors such as the lack of availability of suitable childcare for lone parents; the very high cost, if it can be found, of childcare; and the sudden 100% loss of benefit. If a lone parent goes back into work, the amount of benefit does not taper off; there is no financial transition period. In addition, there are increased incidental costs to finding employment, such as travel, getting suitable work clothing and finding tools and equipment for use in work.

1102. Problems with the tax-credit system are another big issue that we hear about from clients who come into the bureaux. When people first apply for tax credits, administrative delays can cause a big gap between people’s last benefit payment, when they are due to be paid for employment and when they receive tax credits, if at all.

1103. From Citizens Advice’s point of view, the proposal simply shifts lone parents from one benefit to another. It does nothing to encourage people into work by removing or seeking to address any of the traditional barriers. To increase the lone-parent employment rate, which the Bill tries to do, a balance needs to be struck. Moreover, some of the other issues have to be addressed.

1104. In our written response, we tried to address some issues that are particular to Northern Ireland on increasing the lone-parent employment rate. We chose a typical bureau — the Causeway bureau — which, in the past year, showed a 25% increase in enquiries about jobseeker’s allowance. On the whole, from December 2008 to December 2009, citizens advice bureaux saw a 42% increase in enquiries about redundancy. Employment is difficult to find at the moment, even for those with no other obstacles to employment. Again, the Bill does not really do anything to address that problem.

1105. We pointed to two other areas in our written response, one of which was the higher levels of educational underachievement in Northern Ireland. Twenty-one per cent of the working-age population in Northern Ireland have no formal qualifications whatsoever, which is a much higher percentage than anywhere else in the UK. That needs to be addressed, because it is difficult to envision a benefit claimant with no formal qualifications being able to make an easy transition to the workplace.

1106. The other issue that we raised that is specific to Northern Ireland is the general lower level of wages paid here compared with those paid in the rest of the UK. In 2009, 16% of full-time employees in Northern Ireland were paid less than £7 an hour, which is a much higher proportion of people than in the rest of the UK. It is clear that low wages and the relatively high cost of childcare are big barriers to employment, and those barriers will not be removed simply by shifting people from income support on to jobseeker’s allowance.

1107. We understand that the Bill aims are to introduce a more personalised and flexible approach to the benefits system and to tailor support to suit the individual. However, we are not sure whether the Bill goes far enough to guarantee that that support will be available. If support is to be provided in order to help people into the workplace, it needs to be provided at the right time and to be resourced adequately; otherwise, people will be forced into a situation with which they cannot cope in the long term.

1108. We feel strongly that income support does not need to be abolished in order to achieve a higher lone parent rate. We are not sure whether jobseeker’s allowance is a suitable alternative benefit for lone parents. We are particularly concerned about jobseeker’s allowance, because we feel that creating a category under jobseeker’s allowance for lone parents who are not required to seek work overcomplicates an already fairly complicated benefits system. The Bill is supposed to make the system less complicated. However, it will, in fact, introduce exemptions to an already established practice in jobs and benefits offices and Social Security Agency, thereby making applications for jobseeker’s allowance more prone to error and more difficult to administer. Citizens Advice does not want that, and we are sure that jobs and benefits offices do not want to experience that either.

1109. The Bill creates a category of jobseeker’s allowance claimants who are not seeking jobs. That is inherently confusing, because the benefit is called jobseeker’s allowance. We are pretty sure that claimants, as well as officials, will be confused by that. Many people have been claiming either jobseeker’s allowance or income support for a long time. If we asked people whether they wanted to make a claim for jobseeker’s allowance, I am sure that they would presume they would have to actively seek work. That will be confusing for claimants, because they might not know which benefit they should apply for and might miss out on a benefit for which they are eligible. Those are most of the points that we wish to make about the abolition of income support. However, there are some more details in our written response.

1110. The other issue that we wish to deal with today is mandatory work-related activity for ESA claimants. Clause 10 will allow the Department for Social Development (DSD) or the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) to specify the type of work-related activity that a claimant must undertake in order to meet the requirements of his or her claim. Citizens Advice is very concerned about that proposal. We are happy to note that, under clause 2, lone parents with children under the age of three will be excluded from that requirement. Nevertheless, the proposal does little to assuage our fears about lone parents or other claimants who do not have a child under three years of age.

1111. The legislation as it stands attempts to limit the DSD’s powers. Under clause 2, proposed new section 2F(3)(a) of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 provides that work-related activity must be reasonable, and we are happy about that. Proposed new subsection (2) adds that the specified work-related activity may not be a medical or surgical treatment only. Although we are happy about that, the legislation does not say that the work-related activity cannot be medical or surgical treatment and one other specified activity. If the one other specified activity is extremely unsuitable for the claimant, he or she is left with a medical or surgical treatment only as being work-related activity. We are concerned that that will impose a medical treatment on individuals in order to ensure that they are entitled to their benefit.

1112. We feel strongly that the discretion that is afforded to people’s individual advisers by that type of power is too wide and that the legislation does not seek to limit its scope enough. The provision aims to limit what a client can count as work-related activity for his or her purposes. It is designed to ensure that the work-related activity is appropriate for the individual, and we understand that aim. However, we are concerned that it has the power to limit the type of work-related activity to a single activity.

1113. It means that an employment and support allowance adviser can limit what is considered work-related activity for a claimant to one activity. Nothing else that the claimant chooses or tries to undertake will be counted as work-related activity. It is likely to discourage claimants who are prepared to undertake work-related activity but find that they cannot undertake the type of activities that they want because those have not been specified for them. It grants a very wide power to a person’s employment and support allowance adviser, and that is not acceptable in our opinion. That is all that I want to say on those two issues.

1114. The Chairperson: Thank you very much. From listening to your evidence and reading your paper on the abolition of income support, it seems that, rather than suggesting to the Committee that we pursue amendments, you are suggesting that we oppose the clause. Is that correct?

1115. Ms Kerr: Yes; we are not sure why the provision has been suggested. There seems to be little in the way of potential benefit to be gained from it; there is nothing in the way of an upside. We specifically oppose jobseeker’s allowance’s being an alternative benefit. However, if income support is to be abolished, we propose an amendment that the alternative benefit should be employment and support allowance, not jobseeker’s allowance. That is inherently less confusing. People’s limited capacity for work stems from the fact that they are a lone parent. There is no need for the creation of a separate category in jobseeker’s allowance for people who are not required to seek employment.

1116. The Chairperson: You accept that the jobseeker’s allowance on to which someone in those circumstances will be moved will be completely different to what you or I would receive. It is a subset, but there are conditions based on the age of the claimant’s child, and so on.

1117. Ms Kerr: Yes, it is a subset. Indeed, it is almost a totally different benefit. The aim of abolishing income support is to reduce the number of working-age benefits. If the benefit is transferred to employment and support allowance, there is no need to categorise a whole different subset of claimants. Such level of amendment to legislation would not be required.

1118. Mr Brady: Thanks very much for the presentation. You can agree or disagree with me, but it seems from what you say that the abolition of income support is about leaving lone parents with no alternative. It takes away any choice. Lone parents have already suffered as a result of the introduction of child tax credits. Many of them have lost out on income support, and the benefits that accrued, because they were in receipt of incapacity benefit, or whatever.

1119. You mentioned childcare, which is a big issue. Working tax credit would encourage lone parents back into work. That is not an issue that DSD deals with, but working tax credit and childcare cannot be divorced. A proper working tax credit system needs to be in place. The situation is a shambles — there is no other way of describing it. Unless an individual goes to a registered childminder — in many cases, none is available — he or she cannot access childcare provision. Childcare costs are higher here than it does in other places. There is no legislation that makes local authorities responsible for it, as there is in England and Wales. The legislation seems to be a case of putting the cart before the horse. The Bill, because of those childcare issues, will particularly affect lone parents.

1120. You also spoke about the cut-off point at seven years of age, which I consider to be too young. The outgoing Minister for Social Development said in the Chamber that she considers that, by the age of seven, a child and its mother have already bonded. I am not sure where she got that information from, but it is an interesting concept. I imagine that there are different development stages, but seven to me seems to be very young. You also made the valid point that a seven-year-old requires more childcare provision than a 10- or 12-year-old.

1121. You also mentioned a personalised and flexible approach. However, there is no doubt that it is prescriptive.

1122. We have been told by the Department that “work-related activity" is a euphemism for getting people towards work. However, the poverty trap is a problem for a lot of lone parents. Having to take low-paid work is an issue; you mentioned that 16% of people here are paid less than £7 an hour.

1123. I also wanted to get your thoughts on parity in the Bill. Parity means having like for like, but if there is no infrastructure, there can be no parity. Although the benefit levels may be the same, the administration is different in relation to sanctions and other issues.

1124. Ms Kerr: Parity of the amounts of benefit paid is an ideal. We do not have parity of situation; there is no parity of experience of claimants. From that point of view it is hard to see how you can achieve parity without addressing the issues. Childcare is a huge issue; people in Northern Ireland are more reliant on their tax credits to pay for their childcare than people in any other region in the UK. Until the rest of the issues are addressed and we are on a par with the rest of the UK in those terms, it is hard to see how we can achieve parity in any way other than in words, in written legislation.

1125. Mr Brady: We have been told that sanctions will not be imposed in relation to lack of childcare provision, which is fine, but how long is that going to last? If we introduce a system of which sanctions are an integral part, it will make things difficult. I am sceptical about that issue, particularly because sanctions will be introduced; there is no doubt about that. There may be a honeymoon period for a short time if it goes through — whether it does or not is another issue — after which sanctions will be introduced, as they have been in the past.

1126. Mr Herink: That is a concern to us. It is enabling legislation; commitments can be given now but can be taken away six months, 12 months or two years down the line. You are right. We are very concerned about parity, because the environment here is very different, particularly, again, in relation to childcare and education levels. Those issues need to be addressed in order to bring parity of experience between ourselves and Great Britain.

1127. The Chairperson: Whenever we have tested this issue, the Department has made it very clear that a lack of childcare in a particular area or in particular individual circumstances will not result in sanctions being imposed, and parents will be covered by that. Clause 25 of the Bill talks about the well-being of children. Do you have any thoughts on that? My understanding is that the insertion of that clause was as the result of a House of Lords amendment.

1128. Ms Kerr: Our counterparts in England and Wales argued for the insertion of that amendment. Our concern is generally around the amount of discretion that that type of clause affords to individual advisers. The well-being of a child is an open-ended situation; there is no definite yes or no. It takes a lot of certainty away from claimants — they are not sure whether they will be sanctioned, and it causes doubt.

1129. The Chairperson: The nature of those types of discussions is that they are of necessity ambiguous. No person’s set of circumstances are the same as another’s.

1130. Ms Kerr: Yes. From a Northern Ireland point of view and, indeed, that of our counterparts in England and Wales, sanctions on any benefit should never be imposed on a lone parent with a child under seven. That would be a hard and fast way of ensuring that sanctions are not imposed on those who are particularly vulnerable.

1131. Mr Brady: You mentioned travel to work. A lot of lone parents live in fairly isolated rural areas and have to rely on public transport. That bumps up their costs, even if childcare is available. That is another issue. Unless they access the childcare element of tax credits, there is really no point. It may be therapeutic, of course, to get them out of the house.

1132. Ms Kerr: A lot of claimants want to get out of the house and work, but to do so would leave them much worse off financially. That is not normally an option for them.

1133. The Chairperson: The explanatory and financial memorandum says about clause 25 that:

“that the well-being of the child should be taken into account when agreeing the activities that a parent will undertake as part of an action plan of jobseeker’s agreement".

1134. That is quite limited in some respects. Are you suggesting that that consideration of the child should be taken further?

1135. Ms Kerr: Ideally, the obligation to consider the welfare of the child should be extended, but I am not entirely sure how, or what amendment could be made to the clause to make it more of an obligation or a determining factor for the adviser who is considering it. That particular clause is well-drafted, but it affords a certain amount of discretion.

1136. The Chairperson: Are you largely content with it?

1137. Ms Kerr: We are largely content with it as it stands.

1138. Mrs M Bradley: Mickey has touched on a couple of things that I wanted to ask about and I will not repeat them, but I am concerned about the tax credits. That is the benefit that our constituency offices get most complaints about. I am particularly concerned about people who have been getting tax credits and are then asked to pay them back. That is a big problem for parents and it has put a lot of young parents on low wages off claiming the benefit because they cannot be bothered to do it. Do you share my concerns about that?

1139. Ms Kerr: Yes, we share concerns about tax credit repayments. We have a lot of clients with concerns about tax credit repayments when they feel that they have done everything in their power to keep Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) up to date with their circumstances. It is very frightening for people to get a letter saying that there is a lot of money owed when they feel that they have done everything right.

1140. Mrs M Bradley: If the title of jobseeker’s allowance (JSA) were to be changed, would you be content?

1141. Ms Kerr: Again, in doing that you are going against the policy behind this, which is to make things simpler. That would not make the process simpler and easier. If income support were abolished, the only way to make things simpler and easier would be to entitle lone parents to employment and support allowance (ESA).

1142. Mr F McCann: Unless I missed it, there is no mention in your document of the reform of the social fund and the community care grants being paid directly to suppliers.

1143. Ms Kerr: No, I do not think that there was. I think we did include that.

1144. The Committee Clerk: [Inaudible.]

1145. Mr F McCann: That is what I am asking.

1146. Mrs M Bradley: I can recall someone inquiring about that before and we were told that that was not going to happen.

1147. Mr F McCann: They said the other day that it was going to happen.

1148. The Chairperson: There is nothing in the Citizens Advice paper.

1149. Mr F McCann: I was just asking whether Citizens Advice has an opinion on that.

1150. Ms Kerr: Erm —

1151. Mr F McCann: The other issue is that of sanctions. Sanctions are widely used across —

1152. Ms Kerr: They are.

1153. Mr F McCann: Has Citizens Advice dealt with the results of people being sanctioned? What is your opinion of the way that that is used at present?

1154. Ms Kerr: More than half of our inquiries are benefits related. We get a lot of queries about whether sanctions are being imposed fairly. Often, the problem with sanctions is that the person feels that they are being unjustly sanctioned, or they are not sure why they are being sanctioned at all. They feel that they have done everything that they possibly can to comply with the requirements for whatever benefit it is, be it JSA or ESA. In our case, it is normally people who claim JSA who tend to be sanctioned.

1155. It is difficult, because there has to be some method by which the jobs and benefits offices can ensure compliance with their procedures. Fairly wide discretion on whether a sanction will be imposed is sometimes afforded to individuals. We support tightening up the discretion that is afforded to individual advisers.

1156. Mr F McCann: That could be said for clause 25 as well. It is up to the person who is dealing with it. When we were dealing with the Housing (Amendment) Bill, there was an argument and debate on whether “shall" or “must" should be used. This Bill is wide and does not allow the adjudicator to say that he has to take something into consideration.

1157. The Chairperson: Before you leave, I want to summarise for the benefit of the Committee. You can stop or correct me if I am wrong in my summation of your overall evidence. Citizens Advice suggests an amendment to the “work for your benefit" schemes to ensure remuneration for participants in line with a minimum wage. You oppose the extension of work-related activity conditions, as that may adversely affect groups who will not benefit from employment. You also oppose the tightening of the prescription of categories of income support recipients, as that will adversely affect lone parents with children over seven who have limited access to childcare. Citizens Advice opposes the abolition of income support and proposes phased and tapered reductions in benefit to incentivise people returning to work. Citizens Advice opposes the “one strike" policy in respect of benefit fraud and 1- to 2-week sanctions for failure to attend an interview. Is that fair?

1158. Ms Kerr: Yes.

1159. Mr Herink: That is fair.

1160. The Chairperson: Thank you for your time, your evidence and the paper that you submitted.

1161. Mr Herink: Thank you for listening.

1162. The Chairperson: Our second briefing on the Welfare Reform Bill today is from the Law Centre. Joining us this morning are Les Allamby, the director of the Law Centre, and Laura Niwa, the policy officer. You are both very welcome. Members have a cover note from the Committee Clerk and a copy of the Law Centre paper, and all the other relevant papers. I remind you to switch off your mobile phones.

1163. I invite you to make a brief statement. Due to the commonality of the responses received, the Committee Clerk suggested that the Law Centre focus on parity, sanctions and equality impact assessment (EQIA) issues.

1164. Mr Les Allamby (Law Centre (NI)): I will make a few opening remarks and cover the issue of parity in the Bill, and Laura will cover sanctions and EQIAs. We will be happy to take questions on both issues and anything else that is in our briefing or in the Bill.

1165. I think that the Bill should be called — and I heard Mickey Brady use the phrase — the “welfare reform cart before the horse policy on a wing and a prayer and a nod and a wink Bill for Northern Ireland". I will explain why I feel that way.

1166. The Chairperson: Is that not the long title of the Bill?

1167. Mr Brady: We will amend it.

1168. Mr F McCann: It is the small print.

1169. Mr Allamby: It may even be the title that the Department uses in invisible ink. I would call it that because there are major changes in the Bill. Citizens Advice mentioned the abolition of income support; there are absolutely no details about how it will work in practice. That is a pretty fundamental reform. There are some interesting options around working-age benefits, but, as ever, the devil is in the detail. Lone parents were mentioned earlier. However, what will happen to carers if income support is abolished? That is a particularly interesting issue that would be worth focusing on. In fairness to the Department in Britain, it has said that it is not sure how it will deal with that, but that it will bring forward proposals. That is not the way to run a railroad or reform welfare.

1170. Secondly, the Bill is full of ideas that have to be tested with pilots, which is a wing and a prayer. One example is the provision of “work for your benefit". It will be tested in Britain and we will see what happens. It appears that it will then be applied in Northern Ireland, but the circumstances are different in Northern Ireland. It should be piloted here to see how it works, and then we can decide whether we really need legislative provision.

1171. The final title of the legitimate Bill, of provision on a nod and a wink, is that it is full of provisions that increase sanctions or conditionality, depending on the term that you prefer to use. However, we are told that, in effect, they will not be applied, so there will be more sanctions for lone parents. It will be a little bit like the provision that starts when a lone parent’s youngest child reaches 12, 10 and seven years old. Sanctions are attached if they do not engage. The Department has given lots of assurances that, in practice, it will not sanction lone parents. In fairness, on the ground, that is our experience. However, if lone parents will not be sanctioned, why put stuff in the Bill that threatens that in the first place?

1172. That is our vox pop line on the Bill. We now come to social security parity and how it operates. I have done a very short paper — I can leave it with the Committee afterwards — which I hope will be of some value. It goes very briefly through the historical issues around parity. Effectively, the legislative provision is section 87 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. It states that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions — now Iain Duncan Smith — and the Northern Ireland Minister — Alex Attwood — when they get to know each other, will be responsible for social security and shall consult with each other to secure that:

“to the extent agreed between them, the legislation … provides single systems of social security, child support and pensions for the United Kingdom."

1173. Effectively, it is about co-ordination; there is no absolute legal requirement for parity.

1174. I am long enough in the tooth and realistic enough to know that there are considerable constraints around the Treasury arrangements for the funding of social security. I am also wise enough to know that there is a considerable financial subvention to the advantage of Northern Ireland due to maintaining parity in respect of the level of benefits and contribution conditions. The money comes outside of annually managed expenditure. It is not part of the Barnett formula, and it is advantageous to us.

1175. There are Treasury documents that show very clearly that, if the Assembly or the Northern Ireland Executive took fundamental decisions to move away from parity, there would be ramifications. Those could include the Treasury deciding to reopen how all of that is funded. There is a received wisdom that may or may not be right, because it has never been tested, that if the Northern Ireland Executive decided that they liked older people more than younger people, and they funded more benefits for older people by taking away benefits from younger people, the money for that would come from Northern Ireland expenditure while the money that was saved would head across the Irish Sea, so there is no great financial leeway to make such radical decisions. That is the overall position. It has never been tested, and I am not sure that we are asking or suggesting today that it should be tested.

1176. That is the backdrop to the Welfare Reform Bill. We already have considerable differences in parity. We have rate rebates while there are still council tax benefits in Britain, and we have greater powers to make deductions from social security benefits here in Northern Ireland because of historical legacy. We also have slightly different rules about studying and benefits. Last year, we decided, quite rightly, not to implement a change to housing benefit about capping eligible rent. We have different administrative arrangements for how lone parents are treated in respect of the recent changes that were made. They are more flexible and favourable, and, in large measure, are a recognition of the lack of childcare provision here compared to other parts of the UK.

1177. There is considerable divergence between the Welfare Reform Act 2009 in Britain and Welfare Reform Bill. There are eight major differences. There is provision in the GB Act for powers to make those addicted to specific drugs, such as heroin and cocaine, accept treatment in order to continue to qualify for benefit. A pilot scheme that is being brought forward in Britain is, in my view, full of holes. We have decided, quite rightly, not to take those powers here. The GB Act provides similar powers in relation to the misuse of alcohol. Although the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has stated that it does not plan to do anything with that power, the idea that the receipt of benefit may be conditional on a person having treatment for alcohol dependency smacks of a major social engineering project.

1178. Sections 16 and 17 in the GB Act provide powers to contract out the provision of social fund loans to an external provider; to give that power to somebody else, whether a third sector, credit union or commercial organisation. After the Department had its fingers burnt with the previous Government’s social fund plans, I do not think that there is any imminent plan to do anything with that; nevertheless, that power has been taken. We support the Department in Northern Ireland’s wish not to take such a power. There is a technical amendment about operating following a previous pre-Budget statement; we are now past the date at which that would have applied anyway.

1179. A pilot scheme to allow pension credit to be awarded without having to make a claim is now being put together in Britain with a view to seeing how that might improve take-up. There is no plan for such pilots in Northern Ireland; it is not in our Bill.

1180. The whole of Part 2 of the Act in Britain — “Disabled People: Right to Control Provision of Services" — builds on the direct payments scheme. Rather than receive social services support as part of a package of care, you can have the equivalent financial sum to spend yourself on buying in the care, giving more flexibility and control. Powers to build on that approach are not being implemented here. In effect, our direct payments scheme has barely been taken off the drawing board. I do not think that there is a great desire in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to extend that; therefore, it has not found its way into our Bill.

1181. Powers to be taken by the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission, such as disqualification from holding a driving licence or a passport for up to two years, have not been applied in Northern Ireland but are in the GB Act.

1182. We have already made very significant changes between our Bill and the GB Act. The question is whether has that gone far enough towards recognising our differing circumstances. For the record, none of those changes are ones that I would argue long and hard should necessarily have been in our Bill.

1183. To quickly summarise, there are small parts of the Bill where the argument for parity is pretty compelling and will probably prevail. Those are clauses 11 and 12, which deal with the contribution conditions for JSA and contributory ESA. They are restrictive; the Law Centre does not agree with them; we do not think that it is a good thing to tighten contribution conditions, particularly in a way that requires a claimant to have worked 26 weeks. There is recognition that people who work seasonally may have worked for short periods and have paid enough contributions. Those people should get their insurance without having had to work 26 weeks. I can understand the argument that there is a fundamental issue there around parity.

1184. The progressive extension of higher-rate mobility component in clause 13 for people with severe visual impairment is an improvement. Again, I see an argument for parity there.

1185. We disagree with the abolition of adult dependency increases, because people who have paid National Insurance should receive the benefits that go with that. I would not like to tell someone who had paid home and contents insurance that the company had changed its mind and, despite their policy, they could not claim for what was taken from their kitchen, only what was taken from the living room or bedroom. I do not see why one should do the same thing with National Insurance. However, I can see the parity argument there.

1186. Frankly, that is it. Everything else should be looked at through the prism of the needs and circumstances in Northern Ireland. On that basis, we do not think that you should be abolishing income support or taking the powers to do so. That is not because there is no parity argument but because we just do not know enough about it. We think that proper policy-making should be about bringing forward proposals and ideas, debating them and, then, on that basis, legislating. We should not legislate first and work out the details later.

1187. As regards lone parents with children under seven, I can see a strong case for saying that we should not implement the arrangements in Northern Ireland. We are in favour of encouraging lone parents to go back to work, but we should do that through support and encouragement, not through a mandatory scheme. Let us do something different in Northern Ireland. Let us call it a test or a pilot and see whether it actually works by encouraging lone parents, rather than forcing them, into work-related activity. Then we can compare the result with that in Britain. That would seem to be a more sensible approach than simply adopting what is being done in Britain. We really do not know yet how the provisions for parents of 12-, 10- and seven-year-olds will work. We do not have the childcare infrastructure, and, for those looking for jobs, the economy is not family friendly. Therefore, that should not be introduced. In our view, there is no parity reason for it.

1188. The same applies to sanctions. We do not think that sanctions should be extended. There is no need to do so. Again, given the circumstances in Northern Ireland and the jobs market, it is inappropriate; they do not work. Let us try to see what happens if we do not have a mandatory regime attached to almost everything that we do. That might provide a very interesting comparator with what is being done in GB.

1189. Ms Laura Niwa (Law Centre (NI)): I will take some time to look, in particular, at the sanctions in the Bill. Les has already referred to the move to further increase conditionality. That and the proposals to introduce sanctions on claimants for non-compliance raise particular concerns for the Law Centre and others in the sector. I will examine the wider issue of sanctions and then some specific clauses in the Bill, but I will be as brief as possible.

1190. Although sanctions are considered necessary for the functioning of the benefits system, it seems to be very difficult to answer the central question of whether sanctions actually work by inducing individuals to act in accordance with the job-search regime. Research by the Department for Work and Pensions on the Pathways to Work pilots found little evidence that the imposition of sanctions resulted in increasing interest in, or movement towards, work. Evidence from those evaluations and earlier work with JSA claimants suggested that claimants themselves believe that sanctions have only a weak influence on their own behaviour, especially as regards job search.

1191. Nearly half of those sanctioned — 46% — stated that the threat of a sanction would make no difference to whether they looked for work. Therefore, even if we assume that sanctions can reduce the time on benefit and fulfil stated objectives, which evidence from the UK that we have seen does not seem to support, they can only be effective when benefit recipients fully understand their responsibilities and know how to modify their behaviour to avoid a sanction. JSA studies found that not all JSA recipients actually understand the sanctions regime as it stands or, therefore, how to avoid a sanction. That suggests that the current system for both active and inactive claimants is not working as intended, as some claimants do not fully understand their responsibilities or how to alter their behaviour to avoid the imposition of a sanction. Therefore, based on the evidence that is available, the continuing work in the Bill to increase the imposition of conditionality and sanctions as part of a new benefit scheme needs further working out.

1192. The other issue is that it may also have a negative effect on the relationship between the claimant and his or her personal advisor, which the Pathways to Work pilots have shown to be pivotal to success. It seems that in programmes with strong mandatory elements and high sanctioning rates, the relationships between customers and programme staff are likely to be characterised by higher levels of conflict.

1193. UK research has consistently pointed to the importance of a supportive personal adviser/customer relationship, which could be jeopardised by increasing mandation. That is particularly concerning in the context of the Bill, given the high levels of discretion and responsibility that are given to the personal adviser/client relationship.

1194. A further consistent message has emerged about the impact that sanctions would have on individuals. A recent survey showed that 68% of those sanctioned stated that they had experienced financial hardship as a result of a sanction. Such hardship might also have implications for someone’s emotional well-being and relationships with family, especially if the family is supporting the sanctioned individual.

1195. The financial and other hardships that sanctions cause will have a negative impact on wider Government targets, including those on child poverty and social inclusion. Indeed, continuing with a sanctions-led approach seems to be inconsistent with OFMDFM’s review of child poverty, which recognises the positive contribution that benefits can make to reducing it. Although that review specifically called for a benefit-uptake strategy, we believe that some of the Bill’s proposals could result in benefit deprivation rather than uptake. Furthermore, the proposal to increase the use of sanctions could have substantial cost implications, given the potential associated rise in appeals. Leaving so much to the discretion of personal advisers means that there could be challenges. Given that, we believe that the Department needs to produce its own evidence that demonstrates that sanctions are effective. As Les mentioned, consideration may be given to running pilot schemes in Northern Ireland on some of the Bill’s proposals before they are agreed. The pilot schemes on some of those proposals will be running in England only, and, as we all know and have commented on, the evaluation of those schemes will be based on a totally different infrastructure to that which is in Northern Ireland. Therefore, we query how pilot schemes in England can be evaluated properly for potential impact in Northern Ireland. We recommend that pilot schemes should also be run in Northern Ireland prior to any plans being made to roll out the changes.

1196. I will quickly highlight some of our concerns on specific clauses, and further details on those concerns can be found in our briefing. Clause 3, which deals with lone parents, has been discussed, so I will not spend a great deal of time on it. As we said, we support positively encouraging lone parents into paid work at appropriate times. Efforts to move lone parents back to work should be done through measures that are tailored to support and encourage them, rather than through sanctions. As has been mentioned, the childcare infrastructure is not in place in Northern Ireland to support the proposals, and we know that Gingerbread NI will be briefing the Committee next. That organisation will be able to give further information on the potential impact on lone parents and their relationship with childcare provision. Without that childcare infrastructure, the proposals will essentially be unworkable. It is not appropriate simply to transfer the provisions in the Westminster Act to Northern Ireland. Parity arguments, such as those that Les Allamby outlined, must take into account the equality of opportunity, access and support that is available in the different jurisdictions. Although we appreciate the Department’s statements that sanctions will not be applied in such cases, we still query the necessity of including such proposals in the Bill at a stage when they cannot, and will not, be implemented in Northern Ireland.

1197. Clause 19, which deals with the loss of benefit provisions, will introduce benefit sanctions for four weeks following a first conviction, caution or administrative penalty for a benefit fraud offence. Again, we do not see any further need for benefit sanctions to combat fraud. We note that the Department’s figures show that benefit fraud is at the lowest level ever recorded in Northern Ireland, and in the light of the apparent success of the current system, we query the cost-effectiveness of introducing a further sanctions regime.

1198. Similarly, clause 20, which is on jobseeker’s allowance and sanctions for violent conduct, will make provision for a benefit sanction of one week for claimants who are convicted of, or cautioned for, violent or threatening behaviour towards staff or contracted-out staff. Again, 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. We know that taxation penalties are not applied to people who are aggressive in tax offices, and we cannot see why benefit claimants are singled out for a different approach under clauses 19 and 20.

1199. Clause 21, which will repeal sections 53 to 57 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act (Northern Ireland) 2000, will bring an end to a pilot scheme that has been in operation in England since 2001. In the areas concerned, benefit sanctions were applied to offenders who were found to be in breach of specified community orders. As with the other studies that have been referenced, the evaluation results of those pilot schemes showed that enforcing benefit sanctions is not effective. Furthermore, the cost of implementing that scheme resulted in a cost to the state of £5·60 for every £1 that is recovered via a sanction. Again, that is further evidence that the imposition of sanctions is not cost-effective.

1200. Clause 24 deals with good cause for failure to comply with regulations. We welcome the clause, and we welcome the recognition that regulations must include the availability of childcare and the claimant’s physical or mental health or condition in the list of circumstances to be taken into account in defence of the imposition of a sanction. We acknowledge the difficulties that people with physical or mental health conditions face in undertaking mandatory activities, and we believe that it is important that claimants of such conditions are treated with an element of discretion to allow for times of ill health. We therefore recommend that stronger safeguards be put in place in the legislation to ensure that personal advisers implementing the Bill are not given full discretion to determine whether a claimant has good cause for failure to comply with the regulations. A claimant’s mental health and ability to engage in the return-to-work process may be highly complex and sensitive, and it should not be left solely to the discretion of a front line staff worker who does not have the relevant expertise or understanding of a claimant’s condition.

1201. Clause 27 is the main one. It deals with attendance in connection with jobseeker’s allowance, which we have dealt with already. The clause allows payments to be suspended if a claimant fails to attend a mandatory appointment or make contact with Jobcentre Plus within five working days without showing good cause for failure to attend. We believe that the clause fails to take into account the myriad reasons why a person may miss an appointment. If the clause becomes law, it could result in some particularly harsh cases of sanctions being imposed. Overall, we query the rationale for introducing proposals on sanctions without clear evidence that they work. We remain concerned that the Bill places a high level of discretion responsibility on personal advisers, which raises equality of application concerns about how the legislation will be rolled out across Northern Ireland. Sanctions cannot be a one-size-fits-all measure. The Bill does not adequately address the specific needs of a number of groups, including lone parents and those with mental health issues, learning disabilities or literacy concerns.

1202. I wish to speak briefly about the equality impact assessment (EQIA) on which we were asked to comment. The EQIA was based on the UK’s Welfare Reform Act 2009. It was completed in December in 2009 and went out to consultation in September 2009. Our main concern was the decision to conduct the EQIA based on the Westminster Act. We know that there were a limited number of responses to the EQIA, perhaps because it was not based on a Northern Ireland version of the 2009 Act. We were concerned that the potential impact on section 75 groups had not been fully considered, because the EQIA was considered in the context of the Westminster Act instead of the Northern Ireland Bill. We were also concerned that gaps in the potential impact had not been considered, again because the EQIA was not based on the Northern Ireland legislation.

1203. The Chairperson: I wish to pick up on your last point first. Do you think that the failure to carry out an equality impact assessment on the basis of the local Bill subjects it to potential challenge?

1204. Ms Niwa: I will ask the lawyer to speak about challenges.

1205. The Chairperson: A lawyer will challenge anything.

1206. Mr Allamby: Lawyers will challenge anything. I take a slightly jaundiced view of my profession; I can say that because I am a lawyer.

1207. I do not think that a challenge on the failure to carry out an equality impact assessment based on the Northern Ireland Bill would succeed, because the Act in Britain is sufficiently similar for it to withstand a challenge. I am always up for a challenge. However, if you were to ask me whether I think that that failure could scupper the Bill, my honest answer would have to be no.

1208. The Chairperson: That is fine.

1209. Mr Brady: Thank you for your presentation. It is clear that you are absolutely enamoured with the Bill. I am surprised that lawyers take a jaundiced view of anything.

1210. You addressed the issue of parity very well. The arguments that are constantly being made against having parity are the costs involved, the issue with the Treasury, and so on. Is it possible that there will be parity in maintaining benefit levels? The issue is about the whole administration of benefits, how the 2009 Act may apply here and whether we should have our own version, which seems more sensible to me. You mentioned that some parts of the Bill are compelling and sensible, but so much of it is not sensible.

1211. The Bill is prescriptive, particularly about lone parents and people over 50, who are going to have to go for work-focused interviews. Can the Assembly produce legislation that is relevant to the prevailing situation here, particularly for the benefit system?

1212. The abolition of income support does not leave any alternative. If employment and support allowance were to be applied to lone parents in particular, it would make more sense, but if income support is abolished, people will inevitably be forced on to jobseeker’s allowance. The issue of sanctions has been dealt with adequately, but the result of many of the work-focused interviews that are conducted by personal advisers is down to their discretion — discretion, in my experience, without flexibility.

1213. There are issues around that that need to be addressed, because if the Bill becomes law, it will be like putting the cart before the horse. Until a proper infrastructure is in place, the situation will become increasingly difficult for lone parents and carers. There are 185,000 to 187,000 carers in the North who are, in a sense, isolated. There are issues about how a carer’s allowance should be addressed as a stand-alone benefit.

1214. The Bill will impose provisions that really should not apply; it is not tailored to suit the local situation in many ways, particularly given the higher proportion of lone parents. It has been statistically proven that we have a higher proportion of people with a disability and people with mental health difficulties, particularly among younger people. Arguments around support and infrastructure have not been addressed. What are your views on those issues?

1215. It is obvious that, as we scrutinise the Bill clause by clause, we will have the opportunity to make changes that can directly affect the most vulnerable. Surely we are here to try to prevent the most vulnerable from being affected. A measured and honest approach must be taken, because, ultimately, the people who will be affected will be people who are unemployed, lone parents, carers and older people. A fair balance will have to be struck.

1216. Mr Allamby: My view on parity and its role in the Bill is that a great deal of scope exists to do things differently if we so wish, without there being any parity ramifications. The Treasury is not about to reopen the level of benefits paid to claimants in Northern Ireland as opposed to that paid to claimants in Britain on the basis that we have decided not to make benefit entitlement conditional on compulsory treatment for people who are dependent on, for example, heroin or cocaine. The number of those people was so small that it was felt that such conditions were neither necessary nor appropriate. The Treasury is not about to start reopening benefit levels on the basis that we have done things differently, nor will it do likewise if we decide to do something different for lone parents.

1217. I am sure that Gingerbread NI will cover the issue of childcare in more detail, but, at a time when jobs are scarce and unemployment is high, access to what I will call family-friendly jobs is even more difficult to find. Let us examine, for example, the case of a lone parent whose youngest child may be three, four or five years of age. If an older child is at primary school and starts at 9.30 am and finishes at 2.00 pm, lone parent working is predicated on whether that parent has got someone else to pick the child up. Alternatively, the parent will have to look for work in very particular hours. In the employment world at present, such people are not in a position to dictate to employers that they want to work between the hours of 9.30 am and 2.00 pm, particularly if the job is full-time. Much of the work that is available is from 6.00 pm to 10.00 pm. A person wants to work in a supermarket has to be flexible enough to be able to change hours or do shift work, neither of which is family-friendly. We need to recognise the reality and do things differently in Northern Ireland.

1218. With the exception of contribution conditions, the extension of the mobility component to include severe visual impairment and the abolition of the dependency increases, which I mentioned, I do not see anything in the Bill that should be passed simply because of parity.

1219. Take, for example, the abolition of income support. I am not arguing that we should not have a working-age single benefit at some stage. If we can have a working-age single benefit, tell us what it will look like, how it will affect carers and how it will treat lone parents and other people. When we know that, we will be able to say whether it makes sense in Northern Ireland, and we can then pass the powers to introduce it. We should not pass legislation and then wait to see what happens. That does not seem to me to be good practice. There is no reason why the Assembly cannot go further with the legislation than the Department has already gone. In fairness, the Department has moved away from quite a bit of the Westminster Act.

1220. Mr Brady: Thank you for that. Laura mentioned sanctions. Experience tells me that if people are sanctioned, they will appeal. We are talking about [Inaudible] as opposed to an appeal that takes a fair amount of time and costs quite a lot of money. The saving to the public purse would be disproportionate to the amount of benefit that was saved by sanctioning the person.

1221. In working towards a universal benefit, which is, obviously, the intention, it seems that more focus is being put on departmental efficiency than on providing a benefit that will be beneficial to the claimant.

1222. Mr Allamby: It is about sending out some messages, and Laura may wish to add to my comments. Research that DWP commissioned shows that one fifth of the people sanctioned had no idea that they had been sanctioned until after the event. It was not as if they took a conscious decision and did something. The idea that it prevents an individual from taking certain action is doubtful. It also became very clear that certain groups of people were prone to being sanctioned. In Britain, those groups of people were people from ethnic minority backgrounds. That might be something to do with language ability, but we do not know why. People with learning difficulties and literacy problems were also prone to being sanctioned. It is those vulnerable groups. Those people had an unawareness of what was expected of them. The research does not suggest that they were defying rules around benefits or trying to find a way around the system. Therefore, the system does not catch the people whom “it is supposed to"; it does not work.

1223. Another issue in the Bill that is worth bearing in mind is that a number of the provisions allow an individual only five days within which to rectify issues. If an individual fails to attend to sign on or attend an appointment, for example, he or she has five days to rectify that and show good cause. An individual’s mother might fall down the stairs and be rushed to hospital, for instance, on the day of the individual’s appointment. If the individual spends the next few days at the bedside, is it fair to say that the individual has missed the appointment and that he or she has five days to rectify that? One will see already the variety of hard cases that will occur. There are matters that need to be ameliorated, if we are not going to get rid of them altogether in the Bill. People need to be given a longer time in which to justify good cause. Five days is not long enough for failure to meet an appointment, when the reason for that failure could be anything from the wilfulness of the individual, for which there would not be much sympathy, to family circumstances, for which one would have every sympathy.

1224. Circumstances will arise in which individuals who have suddenly realised that they should have been at an appointment comes back a week later and says that their mother is in hospital and that they have been at her bedside for the past seven days. We do not want to be in a position in which individuals are told that the authorities acknowledge that they have good cause for failing to attend but that it is too late, yet that is what some of the provisions of the Bill will result in.

1225. The Chairperson: I want to return to the issue of parity. It frustrates me as much as it probably frustrates every Committee member that parity is put forward as a reason not to do things, rather than a reason to do things.

1226. Let us start from the position of presuming that the Department has experience in drafting social security legislation for Northern Ireland and has tested how far parity can be pushed. I am uneasy with much of the Bill’s content, and, from listening to the Minister, I know that there is a much that she is uneasy with too. Indeed, she has tested the flexibility of parity legislation. As much as I may agree with many of the points that you made, I have a difficulty. I am a cautious person. I do not gamble with my own money, so I am not about to start gambling with Northern Ireland’s social security budget. To proceed along the lines that you, for good cause, are encouraging us to proceed along would be for us to act as much on a wing and a prayer as some of elements of the Bill are.

1227. I have made the point in the Chamber before that, in many respects, the parity argument can render the Committee Stage completely pointless. However, we are here now, and we are teasing out the issues. It is important that we discuss all these matters. You said that parity really affects only three or four clauses directly, and, therefore, we can open discussions on around 30 clauses. However, where will we be if the Department, which has drafting experience and has tested the parity issues, says that we cannot proceed?

1228. Mr Allamby: We have had amicable discussions with the Department. I do not wish to gamble unduly either. You will not generally find me betting on anything in a bookie’s, and you will certainly not find me betting on the social security entitlement here compared with that in Britain. I have acknowledged the clauses that raise parity issues, some of which I do not like. Excepting those, I think that the Department’s view is unduly cautious. I suggest that we look at the other 30-odd clauses on their merits, because they do not have massive parity implications.

1229. If the Assembly says that it thinks that it is the right thing to do to test parity, based on Northern Ireland’s needs and circumstances, that is fine. If you are uneasy with it and say that you do not think that it is the right way forward, that is also a perfectly legitimate viewpoint. I do not think that there are parity ramifications in deciding not to proceed. You may not get rid of all 30 clauses, but I suspect that you will find that at least another half a dozen of the clauses will go and another half a dozen will be modified and ameliorated. To me, that seems a perfectly legitimate approach. The Department carried out its assessment and got rid of some parts of the GB Act, but it has not gone far enough. I would not bring the risk of parity of entitlement into play. There is nothing in the Bill that would do that beyond what I mentioned.

1230. The Chairperson: The Committee finds itself between a rock and a hard place. Too many people have come forward to identify various flaws in the legislation for there not to be something in it. The Committee will go back to the Department to test and probe every one of the flaws that has been raised by you and others. However, I confidently predict that the Department’s response will be that the legislation cannot be changed for this reason or that reason. That puts the Committee in the invidious position of having to say that we have tested all the points that have been raised but will not take the gamble. In the process, we disappoint you and others.

1231. Mr Allamby: I understand that. I will give an example with which even the Department may have some sympathy. I cannot see behind me, so I do not know whether the departmental officials present are grimacing or otherwise. On the issue of lone parent provision, there is a compelling argument to make. Having moved from provision for parents of children aged 12, 10 and seven, we should say that we have different administrative arrangements and should now complete the process. Let us assess how that works, and let us park the continued mandatory engagement of lone parents with children aged one to three.

1232. Let DEL introduce a voluntary scheme, which would not need to be legislated for, and if it turns out that the scheme in Britain works wonderfully well and gets lone parents into work, and DEL thinks that it makes sense, there is nothing to prevent the Department from implementing the scheme in Northern Ireland. In, say, two years’ time, having looked at conditions here and at the wider scheme in Britain, we could insert a clause into another welfare reform Bill. By then, all uneasiness will have been allayed. That would be perfectly proper to do, and it seems to be the more appropriate way in which to go about things.

1233. Ms Lo: Many of us share the concerns that Les and other voluntary organisations raised. There are many question marks over the workability of the legislation. I am particularly interested in your suggestion to pilot “work for your benefit" benefit schemes here. Often, we hear from the Department that pilot schemes are going on in England and that it is waiting to see outcomes before following suit. However, outcomes from pilot schemes in England may differ greatly from outcomes that we might get from running our own scheme. As you said, compared with England, people here suffer from many more disadvantages, including lower wages and fewer available jobs. I do not know how workable or doable it would be to run a few pilot schemes in Northern Ireland with our own specific conditions. Is it possible for the Department to think about that?

1234. Mr Allamby: There is no reason why the Department should not pilot something. If it decides to do so, we must recognise that it must have the powers to do so. Therefore, there is an issue there. In some areas, we should be doing things differently to see the contrast. That is where we are with the lone parent issue. We do not think that the provisions should be extended below the youngest child of seven years of age. We should take a voluntary and encouragement approach, which does not need legislation.

1235. DEL’s “work for your benefit" scheme options are quite different from those that DWP offers. For example, we do not have the same level of future jobs guarantee. We are not sure what changes we will see from the recently formed coalition Government. In some circumstances, therefore, I can see a clear case for piloting what is likely to work in three or four benefit offices. That is what we did, for example, when the equivalent of Pathways to Work was rolled out. To look at how it worked before rolling it out, we started with three social security offices — Ballymoney, Lurgan and one other. We have experience of piloting initiatives to encourage people to work, so it would not be new for Northern Ireland to take a small number of offices and see what works. There is precedent for doing so.

1236. Mrs M Bradley: Les, you mentioned that people who do not sign on in time will have five days to certify what was wrong with them or to give a reason for their failure to attend. Should there be a separate allowance for people with learning difficulties or mental health problems?

1237. Mr Allamby: Our starting point is that five days is not enough, regardless of people’s circumstances. Those with learning or literacy difficulties are another good example of people for whom five days may not be enough. The problem is with the five days. Rather than stipulate five days for one group and 21 days for another, which would make everything more complicated, we would be better telling everyone that, for example, 10 or 21 days is allowed.

1238. If there is good cause for missing an appointment, it should be good cause. It should not be a case of a good cause and having five days to prove it.

1239. Mr F McCann: Mickey has touched on a lot of stuff that I would have said. Do you agree that the premise of all this is the availability of work, and that the whole scheme, especially given that we are in the deepest recession for many years, should be suspended until work is available, and that in the meantime we should look at how it can be refined to suit the local situation?

1240. Mr Allamby: The long-term unemployed are competing with the newly unemployed, and they will struggle. If you have been unemployed for two years and out of work for a long period, it will probably be tough to compete with people who lost their jobs recently. With the long-term unemployed, it is about trying to build confidence, skills and experience, and that is time- and resource-intensive.

1241. If you really want that to work, it has to be voluntary rather than compelling people to attend classes. If you compel people to go to something that they do not want to go to, they will struggle to get the value out of it. You have to win people’s hearts and minds. It makes much greater sense, therefore, to be involved in what is effectively a voluntary contract. I understand the concerns that people will just sit there and do nothing, etc. My experience, however, is that most people want to get back to work. The question then is to persuade them about how best to do that. Rather than compelling people to go on training courses that may or may not be useful for them, you have to start from where people are and develop their skills. The trouble with all these provisions is that you very quickly move to a one-size-fits-all.

1242. You had Paul Gregg’s “progression to work" ideas about tailoring services to the lone parent’s needs. However, what the Department produced in Britain based on that quickly became a one-size-fits-all. That is what happens when you are dealing with large numbers, and my worry is that that is what we will do in Northern Ireland. That one size will suit some very well; it will not suit others. That is not the way to go.

1243. Mr F McCann: I have dealt with a number of cases of people having been sanctioned for non-attendance at meetings. There were different reasons for that, and I found little flexibility in the system. Is there any evidence of success from the pilot schemes in England? Most people just take sanctions on the chin and walk away.

1244. Ms Niwa: I do not know the rates regarding appeal success, but we could certainly [Inaudible.]

1245. Mr Allamby: I have not seen the figures either. There is a notion that everyone does appeal sanctions, but I am not sure that that happens. There is a lack of knowledge or understanding. The DWP research showed that some people thought that their benefit had changed because something else had happened to them, and not that they had been sanctioned. The paradox is that there is a cost involved in a large number of people appealing. Interestingly, some people do not appeal because they still do not understand that their benefit has been reduced. I suspect that we are back to literacy and learning difficulties, etc.

1246. The Chairperson: Maybe we can try to find out that information.

1247. Mr Hilditch: You indicated that sanctions for violent conduct are a criminal issue and should be best left to the courts. Why not both?

1248. Ms Niwa: We are just examining why there should be a different system for benefit claimants than for other claimants such as those in tax situations. Why the differentiation? It seems to be a double penalty on a certain section of the community. We question the fairness of that. If it is a criminal matter, why do they need to be penalised twice if it is dealt with fairly before a court of law and they have a penalty imposed for their actions? Why then impose another sanction, given the possible impact on dependants and family who may be penalised with a reduction in benefit as opposed to just the person who was aggressive or violent?

1249. Mr Hilditch: Are you worried that the person might turn to further crime to get money, as has happened before?

1250. Mr Allamby: That is one danger. It is a form of social engineering that does not apply anywhere else. In theory, if you are going to do this, do it. Some people are violent at the Housing Executive office, the local GP’s surgery or the hospital, and that is unacceptable. However, we do not tell people who are violent in the local hospital that we will increase the tax that they have to pay, if they work, or that we will go to his or her employer and take some money because of the individual’s violence. The violence is dealt with through the criminal sanctions, which is the appropriate way. The other argument about that is that if the violent offender is a man who has a partner and four children, it is not only him who is being penalised. The other five people in the household, who may have had nothing to do with the incident and who may not be violent, are being penalised as well. It is a blunt instrument.

1251. Mr Hilditch: Thank you. I just wanted clarity on that issue. If anyone gets violent in the DUP office, I have my stick. [Laughter.]

1252. Mr Brady: As far as I have been told, and as far as I am aware, the main plank of parity is predicated on the subvention and the amount of money. It is, initially, all about money. As someone who has seen the effects of bad legislation over the past 30 years and its effect on people, I do not think that we should be in a position of rubber-stamping decisions, as has been talked about. Ultimately the Assembly will make that decision. One of our roles is to steer the Assembly in the right direction. It is entirely up to the Assembly what it does after that. Bad legislation is bad legislation; there is no point in saying otherwise. We have a duty of care to the people who will be affected by the legislation. Without affecting the amount of money, we could introduce a much better system.

1253. You both said that if you have a good scheme that saves money, it goes straight back to the Treasury. An example of that is pension credit. There is a huge under-uptake, if that is the right expression, of pension credit. That money does not go into health or education here; it goes back to the Treasury. We are talking about approximately £1 million a week. That needs to be looked at as well. There has been talk here about a system that is similar to that which applies in many European countries, through which people who reach pension age do not have to make a claim. It is all done by computer, which seems to be a very sensible system. I have spoken to people who have studied that.

1254. David mentioned violent conduct. I have worked in a social security office and seen people become violent for many different reasons. In some instances, they were provoked, because they had not been paid money when they should have been. Quite a few of them had mental health problems. Very few people were being violent for the sake of being violent. You will always get those. It puts people in a situation where their families are penalised. That does not happen anywhere. I have been in social security offices when staff have been attacked, but the staff understood the reasons for the attack and did not want prosecutions to follow, but management, perhaps for good reason, pursued that. The reasons why people become violent need to be looked at closely.

1255. Take, for instance, employment and support allowance (ESA). People were left without payment for three months. We went to the ESA headquarters. It has an efficient system for taking claims, but the difficulty lies with getting money out to people. It is efficient in taking claims, but inefficient in producing the end product.

1256. The Chairperson: Thank you for attending this morning. Your evidence has been interesting, and members got a lot out of it.

1257. The Committee will now receive a briefing from Gingerbread NI. I invite Marie Cavanagh to give us a brief run through her evidence.

1258. Ms Marie Cavanagh (Gingerbread NI): I thank the Committee for allowing me to come along today. I have submitted comments in writing, and hopefully members will have had the opportunity to look through them. Gingerbread is the lead organisation representing lone parents in Northern Ireland. We work closely with government Departments, the community and voluntary and private sectors, the Law Centre, Save the Children, the Northern Ireland Anti-Poverty Network and many others, to address some of the issues that arise for lone parents.

1259. There are 95,000 one-parent families in Northern Ireland, which represents about a quarter of the family population, that is, families with dependent children. Those families incorporate around 150,000 children. Gingerbread is a membership organisation with 1,500 lone-parent members, and 150 associate groups that support lone parents. Statistical evidence and recent research by Save the Children indicates that 70% of children in one-parent families are in poverty, and 30% are designated as living in severe or persistent poverty. More than 60% of lone parents rely on some type of benefit. That can be income support, jobseeker’s allowance, disability benefits, tax credits and various in-work benefits. While 56% of lone parents currently work outside the home, more than 90% indicated, when asked, that they wanted to. Those statistics put in context some of what I will say about the Welfare Reform Bill.

1260. Gingerbread’s input will focus on issues as they affect lone parents. My community and voluntary sector colleagues have covered other areas. We see the Bill as introducing a “work for your benefit" philosophy and focusing on sanctions to achieve that. It also proposes to increase pressure on lone parents to seek employment. The Bill will require lone parents whose youngest child is under seven years of age to actively seek work as a condition of benefit entitlement. It also proposes to change how and when community care grants and budgeting and crisis loans are awarded, with the compulsory introduction of identified suppliers for the provision of goods and services, rather than claimants being awarded money to buy the items.

1261. Those are some of the issues that I want to put a bit more flesh on. I do not intend to keep you too long.

1262. On the issue of assisting people to obtain employment, in other words the “work for your benefit" schemes that have been mentioned already in some detail, we believe that applying that scheme to lone parents with children who are under seven years old is unreasonable. Without the childcare provision that would be required to implement that, and without payments being guaranteed, it will be disadvantageous to lone parents. It will discriminate against them directly.

1263. We and lone parents already subscribe to the progression to work philosophy. We are very disappointed that the Bill offers no additional premiums for lone parents in receipt of income support who take part in work-related activities. As I have mentioned already, Government and Gingerbread Northern Ireland’s research indicates that although 56% of lone parents are currently working outside the home, over 90% want 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 when they are in work. Inevitably, that leads them to falling into the low-paid sector. Rather than creating incentives to encourage the progression to work, the Bill imposes sanctions on lone parents where they do not undertake sufficient work-related activities. We oppose that.

1264. The proposal to require lone parents who have children under seven years old to actively seek work as a condition of JSA is discriminatory and unworkable in the current climate. Northern Ireland has the lowest levels of childcare provision in Britain and Ireland, with just over eight places per thousand for children who are under five years old. That means that many lone parents who are currently in work rely on children’s school time to enable them to access employment. Gingerbread Northern Ireland’s research with lone parents has also highlighted the practice of primary schools having different finishing times for classes, depending on the age of children. That specific issue is relevant to Northern Ireland.

1265. The current age limit is 10, and it is proposed to reduce it to seven in November. When we have consulted on that issue with lone parents, they have very vociferously argued that it is totally and absolutely unworkable. They also believe that, even with the age at 10, they are being asked to make a judgement call that they should not have to make. In fact, many lone parents indicate that they often feel that their children need the support of the parent who is resident with them until their early teens, which is partly to do with the implications of relationship breakdown. We argue that 10 is low, seven is too low, and anything below that is completely unworkable.

1266. The issue of primary schools having different closing hours has made it difficult for lone parents to co-ordinate work time with children’s pick-up times. The other issue that has been highlighted through research is the long summer holidays. Lone parents have to take extended periods of unpaid leave to meet their caring commitments during that time. Members should bear in mind that those issues already impact on lone parents who are in work. If welfare reform is to achieve its identified objectives of getting more lone parents into work, that will be exacerbated for more people.

1267. Although Gingerbread, like the Law Centre, supports a policy of positive encouragement, the efforts to move lone parents back to work should be through measures of tailored support rather than sanctions. That should be done at a time of the lone parent’s choosing, as our research indicates their willingness to work outside the home. In other words, we do not see a need for sanctions. Lone parents have, for a number of years, indicated that they are perfectly encouraged to move into the workplace if the infrastructural support is there to allow them to do so.

1268. The current economic climate, with its high unemployment, will make it difficult for lone parents to secure jobs that will allow them to combine their work and family life. That will adversely impact on child poverty if lone parents are exposed to any risk of benefit sanctions. The inclusion of such sanctions without the required infrastructural support for lone parents to implement their willingness to work is unjustified and will be detrimental to the welfare of children in the family. It is also counterproductive in light of the Assembly’s already-vocalised commitment to eradicate child poverty by 2020. You will all be aware that the Assembly will be attempting to implement strategies to do that over the coming years. Les Allamby said that previous reports have shown clearly that benefits are seen as an integral part of the attempt to achieve some of those targets.

1269. Gingerbread believes that the clauses relating to the social fund, and specifically to community care grants relating to specific goods and services, should be removed from the Bill. We believe that the proposal to make payments to third-party suppliers will reduce choice for individuals and prevent competitive pricing. Although I have read that in Britain it was implied that the measures would create competitive pricing, we do not agree, and our argument is exemplified by the school uniform grant, which certainly did not lead to reduced prices and useful competition.

1270. We also believe that it will increase the stigma on lone parents and other claimants who have to use the social fund from time to time. It interferes with individual independence, and it will impact on lone parents’ willingness to claim benefits. As an organisation that provides advice, representation and information to lone parents on numerous social welfare and benefit issues, Gingerbread is aware, at first hand, of the difficulties that lone parents already face in accessing the social fund loans and community care grants. Introducing further obstacles to claims will be detrimental to the well-being of children and will increase the representation workload on the independent advice sector as well.

1271. I will give the Committee some examples. Gingerbread runs an advice service for lone parents. It is a small activity within the organisation, and it receives limited funding, so there is a limit to the amount of work that it can do. However, even with those limited resources we are currently working with between 8,000 and 10,000 enquiries a year from lone parents about benefit issues, in-work benefits or other related benefits. Over the past number of years, we have been instrumental in the uptake of between £750,000 and £1 million a year by lone parents who had previously not had access to benefits to which they were entitled. There is definitely a need to encourage the uptake of benefits, and creating obstacles will not improve conditions for families.

1272. I was not going to mention the sanction of benefits for violent conduct in benefit offices, but as there was some talk about it a minute ago, I will do so. We commented on it previously, and we do not support that proposal or the use of sanctions in that regard. Like the Law Centre, we consider any violent activity to be a matter for the criminal justice system, and it should be dealt with through due process. Implementing sanctions would be a double hit and would be somewhat discretionary. If an act of violence is committed, it should go through due process and be dealt with properly. Any sanctions on individuals that might impinge on the provision of food, clothing, warmth or shelter will have a detrimental impact not only on the individual concerned but on his or her family and children as well.

1273. On the issue of the exemption from job-seeking conditions for victims of domestic violence, we welcome the Government’s recognition of the extreme stress and difficulty felt by victims of domestic violence. However, we argue that the 13-week period will not be sufficient for those experiencing domestic violence to be ready to engage in job-seeking or to be work-ready. We suggest that the number of weeks should be increased or that the process should be open-ended. We are not suggesting that some people may not be able to start that process within 13 weeks, but making that the general rule will prove difficult at the implementation stage; not everyone will come through the process in the same way.

1274. We do not believe that discretion is appropriate, because claimants will be reliant on the approach taken by individual personal advisers. Unfortunately, our experience of the ability of jobs and benefits office and Social Security Agency personal advisers to give consistent interpretation to legislation, particularly where discretion may be involved, is not good. We believe that claimants across the board — not just those who experience domestic violence — could be significantly disadvantaged.

1275. I will give two recent examples of that from our point of view. Lone parents have approached us, through our advice service, to tell us that when they went to jobs and benefits offices or Social Security Agency offices they were told that because their youngest child was 10 or older, they were no longer viewed as lone parents. Quite frankly, the responses that personal advisers have received in that context have clearly shown them that those people are still lone parents. The implication of that has been access to other services.

1276. One particular example is the employment and support services that are available to lone parents. Given that the social security adviser had indicated that the individual concerned was no longer a lone parent, the jobs and benefits adviser decided that that individual was not entitled to a place on a Steps to Work or New Deal programme. That matter was resolved because we were available to achieve its resolution. Lone parents who do not have access to services or do not go to their local advice service may run into difficulties. We acknowledge that the Government are recognising that there may be good cause, but the way in which that is implemented may be different.

1277. When it comes to good cause for failure to comply, Gingerbread welcomes the acknowledgement of the difficulties faced by those with physical or mental health conditions in undertaking mandatory activities. We agree with the Law Centre. I will not labour that point, except to say that where it applies to lone parents, studies across the UK and elsewhere have shown that lone parents are more likely than the general population to experience poor health. Recent research by Gingerbread indicated that stress was a major problem for lone parents. More than two thirds of lone parents surveyed reported experiencing chronic stress. Recent analysis of the Northern Ireland household panel survey showed that mothers of children in poverty are significantly more likely to have poor mental health and well-being than parents of children who do not experience poverty. That directly refers back to the fact that the vast majority of children of lone parents are experiencing poverty.

1278. Northern Ireland does not have sufficient childcare infrastructure in place to enable lone parents to move seamlessly into work outside the home. We want to highlight the fact that, as the Law Centre points out in its written submission:

“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."

1279. That point that has been raised a number of times. We do not have a coherent childcare strategy. Les Allamby’s point about the cart being before the horse is evident in the way that this legislation is being implemented in circumstances in which the infrastructural support that is needed to prop it up is simply not available.

1280. Gingerbread believes that the welfare and well-being of children must be paramount. That principle is already enshrined in the Children Act 1989.

1281. We believe that parents are, in the main, best placed to determine what is in the best interests of their children’s welfare. We welcome the acknowledgement of children’s well-being but believe that the inclusion of the potential use of sanctions and increased pressure on parents, particularly lone parents, to move into work with which they disagree is counterproductive and flies in the face of children’s well-being. We also believe that the imposition of a mandatory scheme and the removal of choice directly discriminate against lone parents. Our organisation held discussions internally about the requirement in the Welfare Reform Bill to mandate parents generally, and lone parents specifically, to move into the work environment. One opinion was that two-parent families have a choice about whether one of them will remain at home and care for the children, whereas lone parents have that choice removed from them by their circumstances. Gingerbread, therefore, encourages the introduction of a voluntary system as opposed to a mandatory one.

1282. I will say only a couple of words about sanctions, because that has been more than adequately dealt with by my colleagues today. Gingerbread believes that the increased use of sanctions will have a substantial adverse impact on dependants as well as claimants. We also believe that that counters the Assembly’s commitment in the Programme for Government to eradicate child poverty by 2020. In fact, the imposition of sanctions will result in an increase in child poverty and will counter any improvements that benefit uptakes may produce in relieving child poverty. If sanctions are not going to be implemented, what is the point of the clause? The Department should consider that.

1283. As a general observation on the issue about the equality impact assessment, which was mentioned earlier, Gingerbread believes that policy and legislation that impact on lone parents need to take account of gender divisions in work and employment and of the way in which women’s choices about paid work are shaped by social and political assumptions, and by expectations about their domestic and caring role. Legislation that attempts to move lone parents, especially lone mothers, into employment without addressing other fundamental gender equality issues is unlikely to succeed. Gingerbread also believes that the implementation of the legislation will have a detrimental, adverse impact on at least one category in the section 75 groups in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. To that end, we feel that further EQIAs should be undertaken in Northern Ireland and that their recommendations should be implemented.

1284. In conclusion, Gingerbread NI believes that the implementation of legislation in Northern Ireland on the basis of pilots carried out in England would be erroneous. We have already pointed out that Northern Ireland does not enjoy the childcare, training or jobs support infrastructure that exists in England, and to implement legislation on the basis of an evaluation of how that worked in England provides no clear comparison. We submit that any attempt at reading across the UK legislation should, at the very least, be piloted in Northern Ireland if any accurate or reasonable comparison is to be achieved. We have something in common with our colleagues in Scotland. All the pilot programmes that DWP has identified have been located in England, and neither Scotland nor Northern Ireland enjoys the same infrastructural support systems as England does. To that end, we believe that pilots should be implemented here. That concludes my evidence.

1285. The Chairperson

1286. A couple of Committee members have indicated that they wish to raise a couple of points with you.

1287. Mr Brady: Thank you for your presentation. You raised the issue of primary school classes. If parents, particularly lone parents, have three young children, for example, who all finish school at different times, those parents will face definite problems and difficulties unless they can structure their work around that.

1288. A building in which I used to work in Newry was an old linen mill that became a clothing factory in the 1950s. It is the only factory that I am aware of, before or since, that had a crèche attached to it. It enabled the mainly female workforce to continue to work while their kids were looked after, collected from school, and so on. That practice was progressive 50-odd years ago, but it did not continue.

1289. Community care grants have been mentioned as a means of creating competition. However, when that system was tried in the 1980s, it created monopolies and stigmatised people. It is a non-runner as far as I am concerned.

1290. Many years ago, people who had allegedly committed fraud and had their benefit stopped could appeal. However, people realised that an appeal, whether successful or not, could prejudice the subsequent court case. It could be logically argued that, if people are sanctioned for violent behaviour before they go to court, their legal cases will be prejudiced. That situation validates the argument that due process should be a completely separate issue. That has not been factored into the legislation.

1291. You spoke about lone parents and child poverty. Save the Children conducted a survey in my constituency three years ago that found that 37% of children in Newry and Armagh were living below the poverty line and that 15% or 20% were living in severe poverty. That is another issue that we must think long and hard about before the legislation is implemented.

1292. Ms Lo: I attended a seminar on the proposed legislation in the Stormont Hotel with many of lone parents; I think that you were there, too, Marie. There was so much anxiety among lone parents, and I could see that they were already experiencing stress in anticipation of the legislation. If the legislation is applied exactly as it is proposed, it will cause a great deal of hardship for lone parents and families, and that worry will obviously extend to the children concerned.

1293. Needless to say, I share many of your concerns. The 13-week exemption period for victims of domestic violence is so arbitrary. Who set that timescale? Some parents may be able to go back to work two weeks after an incident of domestic violence, but others will need six months. Someone who has a physical or mental injury will need longer than 13 weeks.

1294. Ms Cavanagh: That is our argument, Anna. We believe that either the period should be designated as longer or it should be open-ended. Some people will be able to return to work within 13 weeks, but my difficulty with the legislation is how that timescale will be interpreted in law. After 13 weeks, people will have to return to work or face work-focused interviews, and all the rest of it. That does not take account of individuals’ capacity to deal with the circumstances that they have been faced with.

1295. Extending the period to perhaps 26 weeks, or even indefinitely, is a better option. That would give people the option of approaching the Department at whatever stage and say that they are ready to return to work but not force them to do so after 13 weeks. The people who will implement the legislation are not trained to deal with the disclosure issues that are likely to come out at that stage, and that fact also needs to be looked at.

1296. Ms Lo: I presume that a sick line would help to extend that.

1297. Ms Cavanagh: We assume that something will be put I place to allow for it. However, it is again at the discretion of individuals, who, although they conduct their work admirably, are not necessarily equipped to deal with issues such as domestic violence, mental health problems or physical injuries.

1298. Ms Lo: Children who witness domestic violence need a lot longer time if there is one parent at home, in order to provide that security. In the event of a horrendous incident, it is not just the woman — the parent — who needs that security. The children do also, and 13 weeks is too short.

1299. Ms Cavanagh: Again, the emphasis is on the individual, as in the parent. We have argued all along that legislation that simply impacts on parents cannot be countenanced. The situation must be regarded as one that affects the whole family.

1300. The Chairperson: If clarification is required, Anna, we can pursue that with the Department. We can also ask for “domestic violence" to be defined. Does it mean just physical violence? Does it include the threat of violence?

1301. Ms Lo: How is it measured?

1302. Ms Cavanagh: Domestic violence is not necessarily just physical violence. It depends on the interpretation that accompanies it.

1303. Mr Brady: The psychological and long-term effect is an issue.

1304. The Chairperson: We will seek clarity on those matters.

1305. Mrs M Bradley: Even a doctor will say that that is the case, because sufferers are ready only when they know that they are ready to return. No one else knows whether they are ready to go back. I know of a professional person who held down an important job and thought that she could go back to work. Her return lasted a week and a half or two weeks. She came out again and has never been able to go back to work. Serious issues are involved that require a great deal of consideration. Even medical people will say that they cannot adjudicate on that.

1306. The Chairperson: Marie, thank you for the comprehensive run-through of your evidence.

1307. Ms Cavanagh: Thank you.

18 May 2010

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Simon Hamilton (Chairperson)
Mrs Mary Bradley
Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Thomas Burns
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr Alex Easton
Mr David Hilditch
Ms Anna Lo
Mr Fra McCann

Witnesses:

Ms Shirelle Stewart
Ms Regina Cox

National Autistic Society Northern Ireland

Ms Paschal McKeown
Mr Paul McGowan
Ms Teresa Hazzard

Mencap

Ms Anne McCleary
Mr Colm McLaughlin
Ms Margaret Sisk

Department for Social Development

1308. The Chairperson (Mr Hamilton): Joining us to give evidence are Shirelle Stewart and Regina Cox, who are joint directors of the National Autistic Society Northern Ireland. You are very welcome. Members have a cover note from the Clerk and a copy of the National Autistic Society’s paper. All the other papers are in the Bill folder. I again issue a reminder about mobile phones, and I remind you that proceedings are being reported by Hansard as part of the evidence for our Bill report.

1309. Ms Regina Cox (National Autistic Society Northern Ireland): I thank the Committee for inviting the National Autistic Society Northern Ireland to present evidence on the Welfare Reform Bill. Our presentation will focus on three aspects of the Bill: “work for your benefit"; work-related activity; and sanctions. First, I will highlight some information and facts about autism and employment, so that the Committee understands the background to our comments.

1310. As the Committee knows, autism is a lifelong developmental disability that affects how a person communicates with and relates to other people. It is also a spectrum condition. That means that while all people with autism share certain difficulties, their condition will affect them in different ways. Asperger’s syndrome is a form of autism. People with Asperger’s syndrome are often of average or above-average intelligence. They have fewer problems with speech, but may have difficulties with understanding and processing language.

1311. Since it is a spectrum condition, the types of jobs that people can do and the types of support that they may need in the workplace will be different, and a person-centred approach is needed when providing jobs and accompanying support.

1312. There are approximately 11,000 working-age adults in Northern Ireland who have an autistic spectrum disorder. That figure comes from applying the one-in-100 prevalence rate to the working-age population from the 2008 census. We do not have exact figures for the number of adults with autism in Northern Ireland, because they are not counted.

1313. As a spectrum condition, autism encompasses people with a wide variety of abilities, including people with learning disabilities and individuals with postgraduate degrees. Although there are certain roles in which many people with autism choose to work, such as IT and clerical jobs, people with autism are employed in a wide variety of jobs.

1314. Autism is a hidden disability, and many people with autism, especially those with Asperger’s syndrome, can appear to be very able yet face real difficulties in getting to appointments on their own, coping with a change to routine or performing well in interviews. The National Autistic Society runs Prospects, which is a specialised employment consultancy for people who have Asperger’s syndrome. It has been operating since 1994 and has four branches, in London, Glasgow, Sheffield and Manchester. Prospects consultants provide work-preparation training, assistance with job finding and ongoing workplace support to adults with Asperger’s syndrome. They ensure that jobs are appropriate to the individual’s skills and experience.

1315. Prospects can also provide training and consultancy services to managers and their teams. We have produced a number of publications outlining best practice with regard to employing adults with autism. This experience means that we understand the types of support and adjustments that adults with autism require in accessing the workplace and keeping employment.

1316. Ms Shirelle Stewart (National Autistic Society Northern Ireland): The National Autistic Society Northern Ireland understands that “work for your benefit" and the work-related activity of the Welfare Reform Bill will be introduced in Northern Ireland only after the pilot schemes have been concluded in England and a full evaluation completed. However, the Bill being introduced to the Assembly allows for the introduction of “work for your benefit" and the work-related activity. The National Autistic Society Northern Ireland has a number of concerns with regard to the impact that those programmes will have on adults with autism.

1317. As the Committee will know from our previous presentation on Don’t Write Me Off, only 15% of adults with autism across the UK are in full-time work, but 79% of those on incapacity benefit want to work. We are concerned that some of the schemes being introduced through the Welfare Reform Bill do not come with the support that adults with autism will need.

1318. “Work for your benefit" will require people to complete full-time mandatory work placements after the two-year point on jobseeker’s allowance (JSA). We are worried that “work for your benefit" will disproportionately impact on people with autism, as they will be more likely to have been employed for two years without having moved into work, due to inadequate support at earlier stages in the jobseeker’s regime.

1319. We are aware of a number of cases where individuals with autism have attended more than 30 to 40 interviews for jobs that are well below their academic ability but have been unsuccessful due to their social and communication difficulties and a lack of understanding on the part of employers. “Work for your benefit" could cause considerable stress and anxiety for people with autism, many of whom find change difficult and need support as they enter a new role. They may require adjustments in the workplace, and it is essential that employers and employees understand the nature of their disability. A scheme such as “work for your benefit" may cause people with autism a high degree of anxiety if the right support is not in place.

1320. In order to prevent people being referred to “work for your benefit" if the scheme would actually worsen their prospects of moving into work, the Bill should contain a requirement for full assessment of claimants reaching the end of two years on JSA. That could ascertain why the person has not moved into work and should involve the individual concerned and provide them with an opportunity to talk about their experiences of looking for work. Following an assessment, it could then be determined whether “work for your benefit" is appropriate.

1321. One of the other problems is that there are a large number of adults with autism who have not yet been diagnosed but who may find themselves on JSA and, therefore, be party to one of these schemes.

1322. The National Autistic Society Northern Ireland also recommends that records be kept of JSA claimants with a disability who are required to take part in “work for your benefit". The records should include information on different impairment groups. No one should be required to undertake the scheme if it actually worsens their chances of moving into work due to the stress and anxiety it causes.

1323. There was a case of a young girl called Jenny, who presented to one of the committees. She had been on a work scheme, and she was diagnosed with a learning disability. She went on to receive a further diagnosis of high-functioning autism, but when she was on her work placement she was locked in a fridge by her colleagues, who thought that it was humorous. As a result, Jenny has not been able to work; even the thought of going to work causes her extreme anxiety. She ended up spending seven months in her bedroom as a result of the anxiety caused by that experience. That is why we are so concerned that if the support is not in place, or the right placement is not found, the anxiety caused to a person with autism will hinder their chance of entering the workplace.

1324. The National Autistic Society Northern Ireland believes that measuring the numbers taking part in the scheme by impairment type and ensuring that providers are required to show how they will support people with particular disabilities would make it possible to identify whether the scheme has had an adverse impact on any particular group.

1325. To recap, we think that a full-time assessment should be undertaken of claimants reaching the end of two years on JSA; records should be kept of JSA claimants who have a disability, by impairment type, in order to monitor whether the scheme works for adults with autism; and specialist back-to-work support should be offered to all people with autism required to take part in “work for your benefit". People with autism will need support in order to enter the workplace. There does not seem to be any provision in the Bill for that type of support to be offered. Providers should also be required to show how they will support people with particular disabilities.

1326. Currently, employment and support allowance (ESA) claimants may opt to undertake work-related activity that is detailed in their action plan and aimed at progressing their move to work. The Bill proposes to give personal advisers the power to direct an individual to undertake a specific activity from their action plan. Not all advisers have a good understanding of autism, and we believe that this could result in people with autism being required to take part in mandatory work-related activity. Consequently, an individual could be mandated to undertake an activity that could cause them considerable stress and anxiety, facing sanctions if they fail to complete the specified action. Furthermore, there is little guidance as to what activities people might have to undertake as a work-related activity. The National Autistic Society Northern Ireland believes that claimants should have the right to have the direction to undertake a specified activity reconsidered by a third party. That is also one of the recommendations that Professor Gregg suggested.

1327. The Welfare Reform Bill includes several proposals to toughen the sanctions regime for JSA claimants. We have serious concerns about the use of sanctions, as we anticipate that they will have a disproportionately negative impact on people with autism. People with autism may miss an interview for a number of reasons, which could include difficulty in managing their mail, getting to appointments on their own, managing their time or coping with a change in routine, even if they appear very able. Alternatively, a person with autism may have limited social skills and be labeled “difficult" or “unco-operative". Furthermore, some people may not understand the link between the actions that they are supposed to undertake to find work and the benefits that they receive. The National Autistic Society supports Professor Gregg’s recommendation to introduce an early warning system whereby, rather than face a cut in their benefit following their first sanctionable action, claimants are sent a written warning detailing the consequences of further non-compliance.

1328. The Chairperson: Thank you both very much. Members have previously shown interest in a lot of those points and I am sure that they will want to ask questions.

1329. Obviously, ESA forms a major part of the Bill. The last time we spoke with the society was in relation to the concerns that you have about ESA. The Committee has taken a long-standing interest in the problems that there were initially with the processing. Since our last meeting with you, we have visited James House and taken a close look at it. Some assurances were given by the Department that certain changes would be made. Have there been any? Getting rid of income support and moving everyone over to ESA is going to have a greater impact. Have you noticed any improvement in the whole system since we last met?

1330. Ms Stewart: A number of things have improved. The Department had originally talked about asking people, at certain parts of the process, whether they have a disability. We made a change to the script, but unfortunately the change still will not necessarily work for people with autism. We have responded to the Department with regard to that, and we are waiting to hear back. The Department has introduced the ability for advisers to inform people of their right to an advocate, if it is identified that the individuals have autism. It will signpost in that way, and that was a very welcome change. The Department has also given us a direct line to an adviser, which means that we can talk to someone directly and act as an advocate to help sort out claims.

1331. By chance, I had a telephone call this morning from a mother about her 19-year-old son. They had been through the system of ESA, and their experience unfortunately highlights one of the issues that we were talking about. They went for the medical assessment, and the doctor felt that this young man was ready for work and probably should not be on ESA. The mother’s problem is that her son has Asperger’s syndrome. The doctor and her son got onto a shared topic of conversation, and her son came across as being extremely able. Because it was his choice of subject, he communicated fantastically well. Therefore, in that short period of time, according to the mother, the doctor did not fully understand the full implications of Asperger’s syndrome and how it would impact upon him in work — if work did not go according to his way, he would have particular problems controlling his behaviour. He also has some mental health difficulties.

1332. Another problem the mother had is that they do not live in an area where he can access a specialised support service to help him. They live in Holywood. You can access a specialised support service through the Orchardville Society and the NOW Project, but only if you live in certain parts of Belfast. That case will probably go to tribunal, but it is an example of how the system does not work for people with autism. They cannot get the support that they need in order to access employment.

1333. Mr F McCann: Was the doctor supplied by the Department?

1334. Ms Stewart: Yes. He was supplied through the Department’s work capability assessment.

1335. Mr F McCann: Do you find that, in cases like this, doctors are not trained up to identify the specialised needs?

1336. Ms Stewart: That is it. You need specialised training when looking at autism because it is a hidden disability. As we have said, on first meeting, people with Asperger’s syndrome can appear fairly able and articulate, especially if they are speaking about a subject that is of interest to them. Sometimes, the problems of anxiety and depression are hidden; the individual’s need to control the environment is often not explored. It takes a lot of specialist knowledge to understand those difficulties.

1337. Ms Lo: Has the issue of ESA continually asking for a sick line been resolved? People with autism have a condition, not an illness; they do not want to go to the doctor and ask for a sick line all the time.

1338. Ms Stewart: We have been told that that is going to be sorted. To be honest, I have no new evidence either way to say that it has actually got worse, but the Department has said that, in certain cases, it will accept fit notes, as they are now called. However, we have a problem with fit notes, because a lot of emphasis is placed on doctors determining whether that person is actually fit for employment and to talk about what adjustments could be made, but we do not necessarily think that GPs have the adequate amount of training to do that. In fact, doctors in England were interviewed, and they suggested that they did not have adequate training to be able to confidently do that.

1339. Mr Brady: In my experience, people with autism are often misdiagnosed as having mental health problems. Doctors from medical support services are there to find out what is not wrong with you, not what is wrong with you. Unless they have fairly in-depth knowledge of those people, particularly adults of working age, it is difficult for them to come to any sort of impartial conclusion. Again, sometimes that evidence is not always forthcoming. Obviously, with disability living allowance, you get a copy of the GP’s notes and the specialist reports, and you have a chance to go through them, but that does not happen with ESA. A lot of the new descriptors in the new format simply do not relate to people who have autism. That needs to be addressed.

1340. You mentioned Professor Gregg’s recommendation of an early warning system whereby people should be sent a written warning following the first sanctionable action rather than facing a cut in benefits, but, again, they will need somebody to interpret that. Therein lies the difficulty, because I assume that if they were aware of it in the first place, they would not have to send them out a written warning. There are inherent difficulties there. In the context of the Bill, the work-related activity and the “work for your benefit", those issues have simply not been addressed. It is a prescriptive piece of legislation, particularly in relation to certain groups who have particular difficulties.

1341. Ms Stewart: The Department has said that no one who has been identified as having autism will get their benefit cut until a safeguard visit had been made. Since we were told that, there has been no new evidence to suggest that that is not happening. However, if the safeguard were in place, it would help greatly.

1342. Mr Brady: Now they are talking about doing assessments over the phone rather than visiting. I am not sure how that works. Is there a psychic on one end of the phone? It seems to be a totally ridiculous notion. Unfortunately, that is the kind of nonsense that we are expected to sit and listen to. It will be totally ineffective and cause more problems than it will solve. Therein lie issues that we need to address.

1343. Ms Stewart: We have also asked that any letters going out to people with autism were also in an easy-read format. That was one of the things that we had asked under Don’t Write Me Off.

1344. The Chairperson: Understandably, in a lot of your written and oral evidence, you have stressed that you fear that some of the clauses in the bill relating to work-related activity and work-related benefit do not fit in with the lifestyle patterns of people with autism. In fact, it could lead to them falling into the trap of sanctions and the enhanced regime of sanctions. Without speaking for the Department, I suppose the response will be clause 24 of the Bill, the good cause clause.

1345. Ms Lo: Very good.

1346. The Chairperson: I am not going to say it again; my teeth will fall out.

On clause 24, the Bill’s explanatory and financial memorandum makes it clear that in

“circumstances … that constitute good cause for failing to undertake mandatory activities … the claimant’s physical or mental health or condition will always be considered."

1347. Mandatory activities could mean many things or could be narrowly defined. Have you looked at the clause and considered how it might fit in —

1348. Ms Stewart: I have not looked at it in great detail.

1349. The Chairperson: It is something that we will look at, not just for people with autism but for lone parents. There are many groups for whom the clause may offer some comfort.

1350. Ms Stewart: The problem is that people need to be asked about their disability. That does not necessarily happen. Unless the people in the benefits office know that an individual has a disability or has autism, that individual cannot apply. Safeguards must be in place.

1351. Mr Brady: It seems to me that the good cause clause is quite arbitrary, because a determination depends on the person who is making the decision. In my experience, it is not an objective process. In fact, it can often be subjective, and therein lies the difficulty. I am sceptical about the claim that sanctions will not be imposed. That may be the case initially, but somewhere down the road, probably in a relatively short time, sanctions will be imposed. That will cause huge problems, particularly for people who have autism. The Department can carve the clause in stone, but I will still be sceptical about it.

1352. Ms Stewart: The Welfare Reform Bill may get some people back into work, although it may not help those groups of people who are harder to place but who want to work and want the support services to help them into work. Many people with autism are willing to work and would like the supports to be in place to help them to get a job. Unfortunately, we do not have the mechanisms in Northern Ireland to provide those supports.

1353. Mr Brady: You made the point earlier that employers need to be aware of the person’s condition and how it impacts on his or her ability to work. That is very important. We simply do not have the infrastructure in place here.

1354. The Chairperson: During last week’s evidence sessions a witness told us that people who had been sanctioned sometimes did not know why they had been sanctioned. You have told us that people with autism have difficulty managing their mail, getting to appointments on time, managing their time or coping with the change of routine that an appointment would cause. Those are the very reasons why those people might be sanctioned, and if they were sanctioned, they might not be able to deal with it. It is easy to see how, from start to finish, if the condition is not identified immediately, someone could reach the point at which he or she might be sanctioned quite severely.

1355. Ms Stewart: An individual might not even notice what is happening until he or she has been through a number of steps in the process.

1356. Mr F McCann: I have a question about sanctions. Sanctions have been with us, in some shape or form, for a wee while now. Have you come across any instances in which people have been sanctioned?

1357. Ms Stewart: We are aware of sanctions having been applied over ESA. That is because we did quite a lot of research on that benefit. In the past, a number of people with quite severe autism and learning disabilities — a whole list of claimants — have been sanctioned and have had to apply to get ESA.

1358. We have been back and forward to the Department on that issue and have been told that a safeguard will be built in. Therefore, someone with autism should not face sanctions under the system without first being visited. That is a new development, however, and we have not seen it in practice yet.

1359. Mr Brady: I have one final point to make. Obviously, the person who carries out the visit must be aware of the condition. That goes back to the need for staff to have initial training. There is no point in sending out somebody who knows absolutely nothing about the problem.

1360. Ms Stewart: Yes. The individuals who are dealing with people with autism need to be well trained. It is not only about autism awareness; there is a need for much more specialist training.

1361. The Chairperson: Members have no more questions. Shirelle and Regina, thank you for your time and your evidence.

1362. Today’s second evidence session on the Welfare Reform Bill is from Mencap in Northern Ireland. We are joined by Paschal McKeown, policy information manager; Paul McGowan, disability equality officer; and Teresa Hazzard, employment services manager. You are very welcome. Please switch off mobile phones, and I remind you that Hansard staff are recording the proceedings. You may begin with a brief presentation, and that will be followed by Committee members’ questions.

1363. Ms Paschal McKeown (Mencap in Northern Ireland): Thank you for inviting Mencap in Northern Ireland to give evidence to the Committee. Paul McGowan, who is a disability equality officer, will talk about his journey into work, the support that made that happen and the awareness training that he delivers. Teresa Hazzard is an employment manager who has many years’ experience of getting people into work. She will concentrate on the barriers and difficulties that people face and explain what some of the Bill’s proposals might mean for people with a learning disability.

1364. Most people with a learning disability want to work; it is not a population that does not want to do so. Many are able to find a job, so long as they get the extra support to do so, and become very valued employees.

1365. For many people with a learning disability, the opportunity to work is not only about earning money but about gaining confidence, forming new relationships and friendships, having an opportunity to meet new people and becoming more independent. However, Mencap is concerned that the increase in focus on sanctions and conditionality masks the fact that most people with a learning disability do not get the opportunity to get into work.

1366. The Bamford review drew attention to the very low numbers of people with a learning disability who are in work. Very little research has been gathered around the numbers of people with a learning disability who are in work. The review also drew attention to the difficulties and challenges that they face when trying to find and keep a job. Paul and Teresa will talk in more detail about the barriers that they face. The Bamford review also drew attention to the important role that specialist organisations play in helping people with a learning disability to get into and stay in work.

1367. We believe that the proposals outlined in the Welfare Reform Bill do not take account of the distinct needs and circumstances of people with a learning disability. Learning disability is not a mental illness, and we believe that specific reference should be made to learning disability in any proposals for welfare reform and in any evaluation of their implementation or impact.

1368. Many people with a learning disability do not have full control over their lives and rely on others for assistance with everyday tasks, including understanding and responding to the complex world of benefits. Conditions placed on claimants should be reasonable, and claimants with a learning disability must get extra support, we believe, to help them understand what they are entitled to and what they have to do to meet any of the requirements. Anyone who is determining whether people with a learning disability have failed to comply with the conditions must take a holistic view, because the failure to become employed may have nothing to do with their unwillingness to work. It may be linked to the unavailability of the right support, the unwillingness of employers to give them a job, a lack of transport or any other barrier over which the individuals have no control.

1369. Finally, I wish to draw attention to the barriers to work faced by family carers, who are often mothers. Their lifelong caring responsibilities, coupled with a lack of alternative care or support for their son or daughter with a learning disability — particularly when that young person has left school — severely limits their own ability to take up opportunities to work. The proposals should take account of the difficulties that family carers face throughout the lifetime of the person for whom they care and support.

1370. I will now hand you over to Paul, who will talk about his personal journey into work.

1371. Mr Paul McGowan (Mencap in Northern Ireland): I went to Beechlawn School, and when I left in 1990, I joined a YTP scheme at Lisburn College of Further Education. I was there for three years, and while I was there I was promised the moon and the stars. I was told that I would come out at the end with some qualifications. I studied mechanicing, gardening, painting and decorating, and plastering. I liked all that, but it was not what I really wanted to do. When I left the college, I was unemployed for two years. Then I went to the Dairy Farm Open Learning Centre, where I was asked what I would like to do. I said that I wanted to do retailing because my brother was in retail and liked it, and I liked the idea of it. The centre got me a work placement in Poundstretcher in the Kennedy Centre. I worked there for six months and achieved my NVQ level 1 in retailing. My placement was for a year, so, for the other six months, I worked in Rossi’s ice cream parlour in the Westwood Centre, and, while there, I got my health and safety and food hygiene certificates. I left there in 1996 and got a job with the Northern Ireland Hospice on the Somerton Road in Belfast. I was a groundskeeper and tidied up outside, changed bulbs for people and took patients to the shops. I did that from 1996 to 2000.

1372. In 2000, my mother passed away, and I left the hospice, as the job was a bit too hard for me. I was unemployed for a year, and then I got a part-time job working in the kitchen in Hillyard House in Castlewellan, which is where I live. I worked there for a year, preparing the food and doing the washing-up. However, I was working only 12 hours a week, so I needed another job. I got a job in Peacocks in Downpatrick and worked there from 2001 until 2003. I got my NVQ bronze and silver membership in customer service, which Peacocks helped me with. However, I was again working only 12 hours a week, because Hillyard House had closed down. I then saw a job advertisement for a cleaner in Tesco, so I applied for that. The only problem was that the job started at six o’clock in the morning. I had no means of transport to get me up and down the road, so I got up at 4.00 am, left the house at 4.30 am and walked the four miles from Castlewellan to Newcastle. Then I got the bus home at 8.30 am, got changed and went to my other job in Peacocks. I did that for six months.

1373. Tesco saw how determined I was to work, so I was offered a job working 15 hours a week. That meant that I could leave Peacocks and keep to the one job in Tesco. I then saw an advertisement for Mencap’s employment service, where someone comes out and to help people with their benefits, which applied to me as I was still working only 15 hours a week. I was asked what I was earning, got help to fill in the forms and was told that I was entitled to some benefits. My contract with Tesco was increased to 16 hours a week, and I have been there seven years now, since 16 April. However, while I was moving from one job to the other, I did not have much of a social life, so, through Mencap’s employment service, I got put on to Greenhill YMCA, which is an outdoor pursuits centre in Newcastle. Through the club, I do pursuits such as canoeing, archery and bouldering.

1374. I am also a member of the Gateway Club in Downpatrick. As a member, I was invited on to the minibus driver awareness scheme (MiDAS) to learn how to drive a minibus. I was helped through that and passed my test, so I can now drive a minibus.

1375. I saw an advertisement for a disability equality officer post as part of Mencap’s consultancy service. I went to my local job centre in Downpatrick and asked a lady who worked there for an application form. She looked at me and said that she did not think that I would be able to do the job. I must have argued with her for half an hour to try to convince her that I could do it. Owing to my involvement with Mencap, where I had sat on different committees, I knew what the job entailed. By the time that I received the form, the closing date had passed.

1376. I waited another six months and another job came up. I went to a different job centre and the lady that I spoke to there was more helpful. She asked me what help I needed, to which I replied that I needed help to fill in the application form. She asked me whether I would need help to go to the interview, but I said that I would be fine to go to it on my own. We did a mock interview, which helped me. I went to the interview, and I will have been in the job for five years on 5 September.

1377. As part of my job with Mencap, I do consultancy service work, which involves training employers who are going to employ someone with a learning disability. We provide disability awareness training to different organisations.

1378. We provided training at doctors’ surgeries. At one of the training sessions, I did not realise that a lady in the audience was a receptionist in my local doctor’s surgery. Her attitude to me in the doctor’s surgery after that was completely different, which shows that disability awareness training helped her and her colleagues.

1379. We also give disability awareness training to Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) employers. At one training session, the lady who had refused to give me the application form was in the audience. [Laughter.]

1380. The Chairperson: I am sure that you gave her a hard time.

1381. Mr McGowan: I stuck her at the back of the room.

1382. That shows that disability awareness training does help people.

1383. Ms Teresa Hazzard (Mencap in Northern Ireland): Unlike Paul, I have only been employed by Mencap for the past 20 years

1384. Mr McGowan: Shush, she is double-jobbing. [Laughter.]

1385. Ms Hazzard: Mencap’s employment service in Northern Ireland has 20 years experience of supporting young people and adults with learning disabilities to prepare for, find and keep paid jobs. We continue to work in partnership with a wide range of specialist and mainstream education, training and employment organisations and programmes to remove the barriers to work for each person with a learning disability. That includes working to remove barriers and perceptions presented by employers through awareness, education, advice and guidance in the workplace.

1386. Mencap’s experience confirms that people with learning disabilities want to work and, with the right support, can and do work in Northern Ireland. Having learnt from that experience, Mencap is able to present evidence on the Welfare Reform Bill.

1387. People with learning disabilities find it harder than others to learn, understand and communicate. They find it particularly difficult to transfer learning from one environment, be that a further education college or classroom, to another environment, such as the workplace. They may require additional time and support to put into practice in the workplace what has been taught in the classroom environment or in a formal training setting.

1388. People with learning disabilities benefit most from on-job-site experiences, including practical support, coaching and mentoring to learn new skills and work tasks. They also benefit from having learning from those experiences reinforced by people who have an understanding and knowledge of learning disabilities and of how people with leaning disabilities learn best.

1389. Any new arrangements must take account of the fact that, for some people with a learning disability, work-related activity and the development of employability skills will also include developing skills in decision-making, management of money, travelling independently and generally finding out more about the world of work.

1390. The role of the family or carer is crucial. The new arrangements must also take account of the lifelong role that family carers play in supporting a young person or, indeed, an adult with a learning disability. The impact of participation in work-related activity is experienced not only by the individual with the learning disability but by his or her family carer. Many individuals are supported by carers at home to complete basic tasks that enable them to arrive at work, such as getting out of bed, getting dressed, getting fed and getting out on time.

1391. Some individuals have great difficulty in planning and organising for themselves, and many family carers take on the basic functions that you and I take for granted every day. Owing to lack of training and support, many are unable to travel independently and safely to work-related activities. Those people rely heavily on carers, usually their mothers, to be available to support them in the tasks that we take for granted.

1392. Mencap’s employment service has seen a recent increase in lone parents caring for young people and adults with learning disabilities, and it can evidence the additional pressures and difficulties that those carers experience. The absence of alternative care and support provision, alongside the complexity of the impact of work on benefits, severely restricts and limits those carers’ uptake of employment for career opportunities and paid-work opportunities.

1393. In some instances, lone mothers, or, indeed, lone fathers, have to make decisions about their son or daughter’s desire to work, based on their own need to work to provide for the family’s basic needs. Therefore, some are unable to support their children’s participation in work-related activity by transporting them to work or being there to get them out to work on time.

1394. Evidence of compliance or non-compliance is of particular concern to Mencap. Mencap believes that the evidence required to show compliance needs to take account of the difficulties that many people with a learning disability face in understanding complex information or instructions. Many people may experience difficulty in communicating with individuals with whom they attend work-related interviews. That difficulty may arise because they are not familiar with them, or the individuals are unable to use their preferred method of communication.

1395. Many people with a learning disability may, as a result of limited life experiences, have limited skills in making informed choices and decisions for themselves. Those factors, combined with the desire to work and please others, the limited comprehension of information and perhaps poor memory skills, mean that many individuals with a learning disability may agree to undertake activities that they are unable to carry out without support. They may, therefore, be considered to be non-compliant and to warrant sanctions.

1396. Lack of life experiences inhibits many individuals’ ability to answer questions about their own strengths and limitations, and they may overestimate or underestimate their own capabilities. We ask the Committee to take account of the limited choices and autonomy that an individual may have, and the impact of that on compliance. A learning disability is very different from a mental health issue. It should be viewed separately, particularly in consideration of — I will try to get this right — the good cause clause.

1397. Mencap encourages the Committee to ensure that specialist support, including advocacy and the production of information in an accessible format, is available to support the participation of people with learning disabilities in work-focused interviews. We also encourage all staff involved to undertake learning disability awareness training. As you heard from Paul, it is vital that people understand the people who sit before them.

1398. Contracting out is another major concern for Mencap. Specialist organisations in Northern Ireland already provide support to help people with a learning disability to prepare for, enter and sustain employment. Many of those organisations continually struggle to obtain long-term sustainable funding for their work. Mencap recommends that the valuable expertise and knowledge of the voluntary sector be utilised in the development and delivery of the new arrangements contained in the Welfare Reform Bill.

1399. Contracting arrangements must reflect the needs of all who have a desire to work and who may be furthest from the labour market. Mencap is also concerned, however, that a focus on payment by results militates against people with a learning disability from getting into work. People with a learning disability may be more expensive to support, may take longer to move into work and may require support for as long as they are in their workplace.

1400. Mencap is involved with the enhanced support element provided for in DEL’s Steps to Work programme, which targets those who have enhanced needs and specific barriers to work. In that programme, specialist providers work in partnership and alongside non-specialist providers to ensure that the support and enhanced needs of all claimants who may be furthest from the market are met. Mencap urges the Committee to monitor the extent to which the new arrangements are accessible to and benefit those with a learning disability who have a real desire to work and contribute to their communities. We also urge the Committee to ensure that the Bill reflects the enhanced support needs of those with learning disabilities in their search for employment.

1401. The Chairperson: Thank you all for your evidence, particularly Paul, who has a lengthy and impressive CV. Most people would struggle to get out of bed at six o’clock to go to work, never mind if they had to walk four miles to get there. I assume that it was harder on the way back, going up the hill. Thank you very much for that, and well done.

1402. Mr Craig: I thank you all for your presentation. I am very impressed, Paul. I wish that more people had the same determination to work and that everyone had the drive to go that far.

1403. I noted with interest what you said about clause 3, Paschal. Your concerns are about parents with responsibility for looking after a child with learning disabilities. I understand where you are coming from, because it is a big issue, bigger than even the Welfare Reform Bill, and it creates all sorts of difficulties. Parents who look after their children who have learning difficulties subsidise the state to a huge extent.

1404. Clause 3(2) will insert proposed new section 123(2B)(a) into the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992. It states that regulations may make provision:

“as to circumstances in which one person is to be treated as responsible or not responsible for another".

1405. I do not like that word “may", as I hate such ambiguities. I presume that you are not happy with “may", but would you be content with regulations allowing for such situations, or would you prefer the Committee to recommend something more specific?

1406. Ms McKeown: The preference is for a change to the clause. That way, everyone will be clear about what is happening. One problem that people face with the benefits system is a feeling of a lack of clarity about what people are entitled to, the process involved, and what they should do next. I was struck by Paul’s talking about his journey, as it were, into work. He did not start off with benefits; they did not come until he came into contact with an organisation that asked him whether he was on those benefits. The clearer the entitlement and process is made, the better for everyone.

1407. Mr Brady: Thank you for the presentation. Has Mencap considered cloning Paul and sending him out to deliver disability awareness training?

1408. Ms McKeown: Many times.

1409. Mr Brady: What you said was impressive, Paul. You should be visiting every employer in the North at least once a year to give them disability awareness training.

1410. Mencap seems to be seeking good family and infrastructure support. Paul was able to draw benefits because he had contact with Mencap. For people who do not have learning disabilities, the benefits system is extremely complex, and the Bill will make it even more complex, as much as we have been told that it will simplify the system. There have been all sorts of papers, particularly from with the Tories, about dynamic benefits, and that is quite scary.

1411. You are very clear that the support infrastructure needs to be in place. However, you also refer to the disability awareness training that staff need to have. We are back to visits or telephone applications or whatever, and, unless they have that support, the person may not be able to articulate clearly how they are going to be affected. Obviously, you think that that staff training is necessary. Schemes such as this cannot really be introduced unless staff have proper training. We are talking about social security staff and DEL staff who are doing an extremely good job. However, they are under extreme pressure with the current system, and the introduction of this scheme will put them under even more undue pressure, along with taking on board all the other issues that we have talked about.

1412. Ms McKeown: That is true. However, most people with a learning disability are not in contact with any services. In particular, people who have less severe learning disabilities are not in contact with, or are not known to, social services. Therefore, our traditional routes of identifying someone with a learning disability may not be there. Most people with a learning disability will not be easy to identify because they will not come with an organisation that serves people with a learning disability. That is why skilling up the administration around it actually helps people to work their way through the system and to understand learning disability better. They also understand the problems that people may face and the adjustments that can be made so that the system is accessible. That is why that end is incredibly important.

1413. Mr Brady: There are so many specific issues. I have a case where a person with learning disabilities lives independently in a flat, and his mother does everything for him. She shops, buys his clothes and all the rest of it. He is getting disability living allowance because he needs constant supervision: he could not survive without his mother, even though he is trying to live independently. That money is being put into the bank. The Department is now saying that he has too much capital and that he did not tell the Department about it, and his mother is saying that the Department gave it to them. The Department is now deciding when they should spend the money, how long they have to spend it and, indeed, what it should be spent on. That is happening more and more often, and there are issues around that. If that person had the choice, he would probably try to get a job; he has tried in the past. It is a point well made, because that is part of the ongoing difficulty that the Bill will present.

1414. Ms Hazzard: I know of a case that has recently come to our door. It involves a young man who we supported to find employment 16 years ago, and who has worked with the same employer for 15 of those years. He was made redundant last summer because the company closed down due to the economic recession. The young man has now come back to the employment service. He has no independent travelling skills, and he lives in a very rural community with his parents, who are both over 70 years of age. His father, who is the driver for the family, is extremely ill. During the 15 years of his employment, he accessed the access to work scheme and the fares to work scheme, which meant that he paid 25% of his taxi fares to and from work and the Government paid the remaining 75%. He worked in manufacturing and was a labourer in the manufacturing environment. Those jobs have long since gone, so we need to retrain him.

1415. Mencap works in partnership with corporate employers under the Northern Ireland WorkRight scheme, and a 16-hours-a-week job opportunity has come up with a major retailing outlet. However, our difficulty is that that young man has no means of transport to get him to participate in the six- to eight-week trial, which would produce a paid job at the end of the trial. That young man is stuck in a rut. We do not have the money to provide a taxi for him, and the Department is clear that the preparation for him going into work does not include paying for a taxi. Therefore, there is a major difficulty with the system.

1416. Mr Brady: In a few short years we have gone from severe disablement allowance, specifically aimed at young people who, it was accepted, would never “work" in the normal sense, to ESA, which is telling people that they have to work. It does not matter what their particular problems are. There is no doubt that, eventually, people will be pushed in that direction. It is very magnanimous to say that you will do this, that and the other, but, ultimately, the bottom line is that the scheme is intended to get people off the unemployment register. People need to be aware of the fact that it is all about targets and numbers, as opposed to being about people.

1417. Ms Hazzard: That is what we are trying to highlight. Under the Bill, people with learning disabilities will not enable large contractors to meet their targets.

1418. Mr Brady: Between 1979 and 1989, the Tory Government changed the way they worked out employment figures 22 times. It is all about massaging numbers.

1419. Ms Hazzard: I have the dilemma that this young man wishes to work and I have no method of getting him to and from work. Under the regulations, he could be deemed as not participating in work-related activity where there is a real opportunity waiting for him and nothing supporting him to take it.

1420. Mr Brady: Back to sanctions, possibly.

1421. The Chairperson: In a perverse way, Mickey is glad to see a Tory Government, because he can dust down all of his old criticisms from the 1980s.

1422. Mr Brady: God forbid. David Cameron does not come any way close to Margaret Thatcher in any respect.

1423. The Chairperson: I have started something now. That is the end of that. In seriousness, we will forward that evidence to the Committee for Employment and Learning. What you said is, understandably, concerning.

1424. Mr Burns: It was marvellous to hear someone such as Paul give such a good presentation, and I congratulate him on it. He was able to explain about his jobs and how he had got on throughout his career. That was absolutely brilliant, Paul, and well done. It is about instilling people with the confidence to feel that they can get a job or change jobs. Unfortunately, people get down so easily, the confidence is knocked out of them and it is so difficult. We agree about the difficulties with getting people placed into work. [Inaudible] unemployed and staying at home, that would be a great way forward, and I agree with everything that has been said.

1425. The Chairperson: You mentioned your concerns about contracting out, and you are not the first witnesses to have said that. You work with groups of people who, at times, are hard to help. Have you or your sister organisations any experience of contracting out having a negative impact on hard-to-help groups?

1426. Ms McKeown: Mencap covers England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the experience of colleagues in employment services in England is that contracting out has started to squeeze out what they call niche providers. In fact, people with a learning disability are not being well served by those big contracts. We have seen that starting to happen in England.

1427. The Chairperson: Thank you for coming along and providing evidence. It is much appreciated.

1428. We move swiftly on to the briefing from the Department for Social Development (DSD). I welcome Anne McCleary, Margaret Sisk and Colm McLaughlin. Thank you for being so patient and for going through all the evidence with us.

1429. Ms Anne McCleary (Department for Social Development): It has been an interesting experience.

1430. The Chairperson: We talked before about bringing you back to go over some of the points that were raised. Therefore, perhaps you can go through some of the various issues and then members can pick up on what you say or mention anything that may be on their minds.

1431. Ms McCleary: I will take no more than 10 minutes to go through a number of points that have been raised during the evidence sessions. I start by restating the two main policy intentions behind the Bill. The first is the simplification of benefits and the second is to help the unemployed to move closer to the workplace. That is the background.

1432. A number of issues have been picked up on by various groups over the past few days, the first of which is to do with parity. I agree with the Chairman about gambling with the social security budget. I do not want to rehearse those arguments except to say that Les Allamby may be correct about the lack of legal definition in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. However, the reality is that if Northern Ireland breaks parity, it will have to fund that break, including the cost of the benefits and any attendant administration costs.

1433. For example, if the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) completes the move away from income support, it will remove the IT system that goes with that. If we do not follow suit, DSD will have to do that manually or create a new IT system purely for Northern Ireland. Doing that, and paying for it, would be no small task. All that money would have to come out of the Northern Ireland block grant at the expense of hospitals, schools, roads and so on. Fundamentally, we cannot expect the Treasury to fund a system in which a benefit claimant in Newcastle, County Down — with apologies to Paul, who lives near Newcastle — is treated differently over their conditions and rates than someone in Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

1434. As the Committee is aware, the Minister has had discussions with the previous Minister for Work and Pensions about the need for operational flexibility. Those discussions were not about breaches but about the flexibilities that are afforded to pockets of unemployment and deprivation in GB, as well as in Northern Ireland.

1435. The second issue is “work for your benefit". I emphasise that, in the current economic climate, it is even more important to prepare the unemployed for work. The scheme is about work experience, so displacement and national minimum wage issues are not relevant, although we appreciate the Committee’s concerns about those issues and about exploitation. We will study the result of the GB pilot very closely, although, ultimately, the programme’s form and content will be for the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) to decide.

1436. Northern Ireland has too many people who are second- and third-generation unemployed. It is crucial that unemployment not be seen to be the norm, and that children in particular do not simply live in a situation where they accept poverty as inevitable. Research shows that work is good for all of us, financially, psychologically and socially. We do not want any child to grow up without that aspiration.

1437. As with many of the Bill’s proposals, there will be flexibility, in that we expect the programme to be tailored to the individual and their circumstances, whether that relates to caring or childcare responsibilities or to mental health or learning issues.

1438. The fourth issue is to do with work-related activity. Concerns have been voiced about issues around childcare, lone parents, those with mental health or learning difficulties and the over-60s. As I said, the Bill recognises the need for individual circumstances to be taken into account by allowing personal advisers and decision-makers to exercise judgement about suitable work-related activity. That gives the personal adviser or decision-maker the flexibility to take into account, for example, the lack of affordable, available childcare. We have discussed this with our colleagues in DWP and are agreed that there are adequate operational flexibilities that take account of differing circumstances in Birmingham, Belfast or wherever. To try to prescribe for every eventuality would be both impossible and unnecessary.

1439. On the issue of lone parents, the Minister has given numerous assurances about the recognition that Northern Ireland does not have available and affordable childcare in all circumstances. However, if a lone parent does have childcare, it is surely beneficial for the parent and the child if the parent is helped to move closer to the workplace, depending on individual circumstances. The well-being of the child must be taken into account when drawing up a job plan, and in practice it will be a part of all decisions that involve parents. Some evidence was given to the Committee that was not entirely correct; to be clear, lone parents with a child under seven will not be required to work. They will be required to take part in work-related activity, which could be a number of different things. However, that activity will definitely not be work.

1440. The next area is income support. Various respondents were concerned about the lack of detail on that proposal. As we explained, the Department must create the power first before it begins work on the regulations, and the regulations will have to go through this Committee. Again, I stress that personal advisors and decision-makers will take individual circumstances, such as whether an individual is a lone parent or a carer, into account. DWP is moving towards the abolition of income support, and, as Les Allamby said, it would be an exceptionally clear breach of parity if we were to do otherwise. In relation to the contribution requirements, we agree with what Les said about parity. There is no question that that would also be a major parity issue.

1441. We do not know yet how the proposals on community care grants will work in practice. However, it is fair to say that procurement practice has changed dramatically since the times that various respondents described. All contracts are now detailed and prescriptive in terms of quality, timing and value for money. They also include rigorous monitoring.

1442. Sanctions have been another big issue, and I must stress that they are about both deterrence and responsibility. It is important that parity is observed, but, at the risk of repeating myself, there will be flexibility in the exercise of judgement by the personal adviser and the decision-maker. There is also a raft of safeguards such as the decision monitoring service, audits, training and procedural guidance, which will ensure that judgements are properly exercised. Respondents were also rightly concerned that families of applicants should not be penalised. Family circumstances will be part of the consideration, and there are hardship provisions to ensure that the family is not affected or prejudiced. The bottom line is that we all must accept responsibility for the consequences of our actions, and that includes benefit recipients.

1443. There was a general acceptance of the proposals on domestic violence, but again some of the information provided to the Committee was misleading, unfortunately. The 13-week period caused some concern, and a number of respondents said that it should be extended to up to six months. However, the proposed 13-week period is in addition to the existing 11-week provision. Therefore, we are already talking about a 24-week period, which is almost the six months that everybody was asking for.

1444. We need the general flexibility that is contained in the “good cause" clause. It is crucial to the Bill. It is not necessary to go into specific references to, for example, mental health issues, as there will be general flexibility.

1445. To sum up, the Department cannot deviate from the proposals enacted in the Welfare Reform Act 2009, as the full cost of any variance would have to come from the Northern Ireland block. However, there is enough flexibility in the operation of the proposals to take local variances and individual circumstances into account. None of the respondents raised issues that were not raised by others during the passage through Westminster of the 2009 Act, and the same assurances that were given then also apply here.

1446. The Chairperson: Thank you. That was a comprehensive and useful presentation. Will you provide the Committee with a copy of that? It will be useful for clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill.

1447. Ms McCleary: That is fine.

1448. The Chairperson: Clause 25 refers to the well-being of children. The well-being of the child must be considered when jobseeker’s agreements and action plans are being delivered. What is the possible flexibility, notwithstanding all your other comments about parity and my own concerns about breaches? I think that this is one of the clauses that were added in the House of Lords to target issues in relation to children. The Committee has heard a lot of evidence about not just children but people with learning disabilities, carers, people with autism — lots of other vulnerable groups. The argument for considering children’s well-being could be equally applied to those groups. What flexibility exists to amend the Bill to include —

1449. Ms McCleary: Unfortunately, we do not believe that there is any flexibility.

1450. The Chairperson: Just on the basis that that is what is in the GB legislation?

1451. Ms McCleary: We have spoken to colleagues in DWP specifically about that clause. We believe that if the clause were amended, it would be regarded as a breach of parity. It is important to remember that there is already flexibility in respect of the work of personal advisers and decision-makers. They will always take this into account throughout; there is that discretion. We are saying two things: first, we do not think that we can change the clause; and, secondly, we do not think that it is really necessary.

1452. The Chairperson: I am not criticising the clause as it stands, because it is a good clause.

1453. Ms McCleary: You just want it to be a bit better.

1454. The Chairperson: We want to improve on what is already quite good. It is about taking children into account. There is not even parity in respect of childcare provision here, so we are already at a disadvantage. This clause, as good as it is, still puts us at a bit of a disadvantage. Hopefully, that will be taken into account.

1455. Ms McCleary: It will. The Minister has given numerous assurances about that. The various respondents have confessed that lone parents have not been penalised in those circumstances.

1456. Mr Brady: I am really disappointed; I thought that you were going to tell us today that you had ripped up the whole thing.

1457. Ms McCleary: I am sorry; that was plan A. Plan B is —

1458. Mr Brady: Deep down in your heart, I am sure that you would love to do that.

1459. You compared Newcastle, County Down, with Newcastle-upon-Tyne. I know Newcastle- upon-Tyne very well. It is a deprived area that has been badly treated, so maybe that is not a good comparison to make.

1460. Ms McCleary: I think that, to be honest —

1461. Mr Brady: I am glad to hear that we are still, to use an expression that was used in the Chamber today, as British as Finchley. That is reassuring for me, I have to say.

1462. Parity has already been breached in other areas. We do not have council tax; we have rates. I just wonder whether any comparative costings have ever been carried out between the administration of council tax and the administration of rates. Parity is all about the block grant and money: the subvention for social security, in particular. A lot of the stuff that we are talking about is how benefits are administered, how it impacts on people here, and how the Department enacts the legislation to apply here.

1463. The Law Centre said that income support cannot be abolished unless there is something in place that has been tried and tested. The old supplementary benefit, which goes back to 1948, was originally designed as a safety net. However, it was found to be more than that, because it encompassed so many different people.

1464. You talked about second- and third-generation unemployment; why have they been unemployed? Historically there has been high unemployment in my constituency going back as far as partition.

1465. Ms McCleary: That makes it even more important that we help people, particularly children, in those areas.

1466. Mr Brady: The retail industry has changed that in many ways. We had the third highest unemployment rate in western Europe at one time. We are now down to around 4% or 5% from 25% or 26%, even with the recession. That can work, but it takes a long time.

1467. Again, there is the minimum wage. Some people are on working tax credit, which is not really the answer because of the problems that it has caused. You referred to lone parents. I mentioned that in the Chamber and the Minister, Margaret Ritchie, said that we do not deal with working tax credit. That was not the point that I was trying to make. I was trying to make the point that you cannot access childcare unless it is with a registered childminder. They are few and far between, certainly in my constituency. The question about parity is how it is enacted and how it impacts here. We have hugely different circumstances, not just for childcare provision, but for all sorts of other things.

1468. Ms McCleary: That is why it is important that we are not prescriptive. Various people who have given evidence to the Committee said that we should be prescriptive, but the problem with that is we leave something out or cause more difficulty. It has been deliberately left the way it is so that we have flexibility. That will mean that all sorts of circumstances can be taken into account.

1469. We are always talking about particular situations in relation to lone parents, but there are other situations with carers and people who live in rural areas. There is a whole raft of issues that need to be taken into account. The fact that we have not been prescriptive enables us to take those issues and others into account.

1470. Mr Brady: The question is how flexible is “flexible". Decisions are made by individuals within the Department on the ground and in front line services. Unfortunately, there has been so much local office variation over the years that, unless there is a uniform standard or strategy put in place, it is not going to work.

1471. Ms McCleary: We are working very hard. Advice has been given to the personal advisers and the decision-makers. We also have an organisation within the Department, the decision-maker service, which supervises and ensures that the decision-makers are doing what they ought to be doing. An audit service also comes in and looks at what is going on. We constantly monitor the rate of appeals. We do all of that to ensure that the decision-makers are getting it right as far as possible. Obviously, we aspire to get the decisions right first time — I am sure that you would not disagree with that.

1472. Mr Brady: Absolutely.

1473. Ms McCleary: It would be nice to be able to get decisions right the first time, but life is real, and that is not necessarily going to happen all the time. However, that is what we aspire to.

1474. Mr Brady: I think it is fair to say that it will get more real for a lot of people when this legislation is introduced. Finally, are the like of the Autism Society and Mencap involved in staff training and efforts to improve it? Do they have any input into that training?

1475. Ms McCleary: The National Autistic Society has been in close contact with Social Security Agency colleagues. I am not going to give evidence today about how much it has been involved.

1476. Mr Brady: My suggestion is that they should be directly involved in staff training, because they are the people who are best qualified to deliver.

1477. Ms McCleary: I will certainly take that comment back.

1478. Mr Brady: It is the same with domestic violence and Women’s Aid. Domestic violence is not just physical, it is psychological.

1479. Ms McCleary: I accept that.

1480. Mr Brady: I do not want to go on ad nauseam, but it is the old “déjà vu all over again" scenario, with respect, because I have heard most of this before. There is nothing really innovative or new, it is all about targets and sorting out the unemployment figures.

1481. Ms McCleary: It is about helping people to move back.

1482. Mr Brady: That is what it should be about.

1483. Ms McCleary: That is certainly what our intention is.

1484. Mr Brady: I mean no disrespect to people here —

1485. Ms McCleary: I appreciate that.

1486. Mr Brady: I am talking in general terms. We are talking about policies, and God knows what is going to happen in the next couple of weeks.

1487. Ms McCleary: I do not think that anyone here knows.

1488. Mr Brady: We really could be ripping the Bill up.

1489. Ms McCleary: Who knows?

1490. The Chairperson: We are behind the times. This legislation could be last year’s.

1491. Mr Brady: It could well be.

1492. Mr Craig: I share some of those sentiments. We have been here almost too long. I am starting to understand the language.

1493. The Chairperson: We are predicting it.

1494. Mr Craig: We are predicting it, and it is becoming quite frightening.

1495. Clause 3 deals with lone parents. I understand exactly where Mencap is coming from. We are back to discussing the language that being used. You used the term “flexibility" when, quite frankly, in proposed new section 123(2B) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 into the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992, which can be found under clause 3(2), if the words “regulations may make provision" were changed to “regulations will make provision", many of the fears would be allayed. I understand the fears that people have. There will be no provision for parents with learning-disabled children. That is a genuine fear that parents have, and I understand that fear, because, in some respects, I have the same fear. Whether it is done deliberately or inadvertently, someone will ultimately rule that people are not entitled to benefits, purely because they do not understand the circumstances or situations of the parents or, more importantly, of the learning-disabled children. You are saying that regulations may be made around that, and I can interpret that in one of two ways: if you can be bothered, you will make regulations, or if you cannot be bothered, you will not. I do not like that ambiguity. Do you agree or disagree with that?

1496. Ms McCleary: The reason for the use of the word “may" is a purely technical one. It is used because it is creating a regulation-making power. It is a legal matter. That is why the word is there in the first place. The clause is about lone parents. It does not address the issue that you and the representatives of Mencap think that it does.

1497. Ms Margaret Sisk (Department for Social Development): It specifically states that lone parents who have children under one will not have to take part in work-focused activity. That is what clause 3 is all about.

1498. Mr Craig: However, proposed new subsection (2B) is not specifically about that.

1499. Ms Sisk: It is to do with lone parents with children under one. Clause 3 is there to abolish the requirement for them to take part in work-focused interviews, either on jobseeker’s allowance or on employment and support allowance. I think that the thing —

1500. Mr Craig: If I read it correctly, Mencap is 100% right: a specific clause is needed.

1501. Ms Sisk: I am not entirely sure. I would be inclined to think that the clause about which the Chairman was talking, about having to take account of the well-being of the child, would cover that sort of situation.

1502. Mr Craig: You are leaving ambiguity in there.

1503. Ms McCleary: It is discretionary.

1504. Ms Sisk: There is also a specific requirement where a parent who has a disabled child and is in receipt of disability living allowance is not required to satisfy the jobseeker’s allowance conditions. Many safeguards are already built into legislation, not necessarily into this Bill, that cover the situation in which a parent has a learning-disabled or a physically disabled child.

1505. The Chairperson: We can come back to that issue. There may be other safeguards outside of this piece of legislation that might allay fears.

1506. Mr Brady: I want to clarify something. You said that lone parents with a child under seven will not have to work but will have to undertake work-related activity. Currently, that is fairly nebulous as regards time, but surely that will impact on parents’ childcare.

1507. Ms McCleary: If it will impact on their childcare, and if they do not have available and affordable childcare, they will not have to do anything.

1508. Mr Brady: With respect, then what is the point of including the provision in the legislation? Childcare is a huge issue. In most cases, lone parents will probably not have it, because there are plenty of extremely expensive crèches about, and registered childminders are quite rare, certainly in my constituency. Does flexibility come in again? Who makes the valued judgement?

1509. Ms McCleary: The judgement is made by whoever is dealing with that person. Numerous assurances about that have been given in the House and elsewhere.

1510. Ms Sisk: The parent has the final say. If the parent tells the personal adviser that he or she does not have access to affordable and suitable childcare, his or her word will be not be challenged.

1511. Mr Brady: A lone parent who is on benefit will not have access to affordable childcare.

1512. Ms Sisk: The lone parent may have. I know that you are saying that there are situations in which working tax credits are not paid in cases in which family members are prepared to undertake childcare, but it is possible that a family member, such as a grandparent, will be prepared to take charge of the child. Therefore, there are circumstances in which a lone parent may have access to childcare. We are saying that parents who say that they have not got access to childcare will not be required to take part in any activity.

1513. Mr Brady: The granny only has to say that she does not want to look after the child.

1514. Ms Sisk: Yes.

1515. Ms McCleary: The work-related activity may not require lone parents to be out of the house. The work-related activity may involve compiling a CV, or such like.

1516. Mr Brady: Only if they have the wherewithal to do that.

1517. Ms McCleary: Yes. I am simply using a CV as an example and that work-related activity does not have to be something that is done outside of the home.

1518. Mr Brady: I do not want to get into the nuts and bolts, but it requires a degree of skill.

1519. Ms McCleary: I understand that. I accept what you say about CVs.

1520. Mr Colm McLaughlin (Department for Social Development): The work-related activity can be arranged around school hours, Mr Brady. Therefore, a lone parent can restrict his or her hours of work-related activity around school hours.

1521. Mr Brady: The problems with different primary schools and different classes at different times came up last week.

1522. Mr C McLaughlin: Different patterns of school hours are taken into account.

1523. Mr Brady: That is encouraging.

1524. Ms McCleary: I am glad to hear that.

1525. The Chairperson: He is softening.

1526. Ms Sisk: We are finishing on a positive note.

1527. Mr F McCann: I will have to speak to him when we get out. [Laughter.]

1528. It may have been asked already, but I have a question on the pilot schemes that are going on. Given some of the difficulties associated with running pilot schemes, has the Department considered operating pilot schemes here in order to collect more accurate information?

1529. Ms Sisk: We are on the point of putting together a response to that issue. That was one of the questions that the Committee had asked us. The legislation provides for pilot schemes, so, legislatively, it is perfectly feasible to run pilot schemes here. The only point that I will add is that it would be up to DEL to do that, because it is that Department that would have to run the pilot schemes. Therefore, it would depend on the availability of resources in DEL. From DSD’s point of view, there is nothing to prevent pilot schemes from being run, and we would be quite happy for them to be run.

1530. Mr F McCann: I know that you said that the Minister had given guarantees, but Ministers move on, as we have seen over the past week.

1531. Ms Sisk: She had given guarantees around lone parents. I am inclined to think that her successor will subscribe to the same guarantees. I will be very surprised if he does not.

1532. Mr Brady: Do not be surprised if he does not.

1533. Ms Sisk: Oh, I think that he will.

1534. The Chairperson: It is going to get personal. Anna, please bring some sanity back to the meeting.

1535. Ms Lo: I wanted to ask whether we will pilot here, but Fra has already done so. Les Allamby from the Law Centre (NI) told the Committee last week that so much of the Bill is based on uncertainties and is on a wing and a prayer — I love that phrase. He also said that much of it is dependent on the outcome of the pilot schemes in England.

1536. Ms Sisk: We have spoken to DEL about that, and it has not ruled out undertaking a pilot scheme here. However, DEL would prefer to let the pilot schemes in Britain start before it takes a view. Much will depend on the availability of resources, because pilots cost money to run. It will depend on whether DEL has the finances to do it, because money is getting tighter all around the place.

1537. Ms Lo: How similar do you think the “work for your benefit" schemes will be to the old ACE scheme, which did not work?

1538. Ms Sisk: We have no idea. It is entirely a matter for the Department for Employment and Learning to decide what the most suitable type of scheme will be.

1539. Ms Lo: Will it be the same?

1540. Ms McCleary: Not necessarily, but we do not know.

1541. The Chairperson: When you see the regulations for any scheme, come back to the Committee.

1542. Ms Sisk: Yes, we will. They will be confirmatory regulations, so the Committee will have to see them, if the schemes are to be put in place.

1543. Ms Lo: ACE schemes only got people in to do up people’s houses, paint the walls and church halls.

1544. Ms Sisk: The whole point of the schemes is to improve the ability of the long-term unemployed to find work. They must also contain a training element. It is not like a work experience — training and support is also available. That is all that we know about them at this stage, because it will be a matter for DEL.

1545. Mr Easton: I fully understand breach of parity. However, are you saying that we cannot change even a dot of the Bill? Is breach of parity that restrictive?

1546. Ms McCleary: It depends whether — [Laughter.]

1547. Ms Sisk: I was going to be flippant and say that it depends where the dot is. However, that would not be fair.

1548. I will try to avoid using towns that people know, so let us use Belfast as an example. We are saying that someone who claims benefit in Belfast has the same entitlement to the same benefits as someone in London, Edinburgh or Cardiff does, under exactly the same conditions. That is the important point. Therefore, to change conditionality would be an issue. To change clause 25 would alter conditionality in the Bill.

1549. One thing that we certainly can do in that regard is to ensure that guidance is available to staff makes it clear that they must take that matters into consideration; for example, when someone has a mental illness. To a certain extent, that is also covered in clause 24. Chairman, you mentioned good cause. That is dealt with in clause 24, which states that the person’s physical or mental condition must be taken into account.

1550. The Chairperson: I apologise for cutting across Alex’s question. You mention clause 24 in that context. The Bill’s explanatory and financial memorandum refers to “failing to undertake mandatory activities". What does that mean?

1551. Ms Sisk: That means anything at all. For example, someone could be required to draw up an action plan, take part in work-related activity or go to work. It is any requirement that is placed on a person by a personal adviser. Therefore, it could be anything that a person is required to do under the legislation.

1552. Ms McCleary: It covers everything.

1553. Ms Sisk: We believe that that is a sufficient safeguard.

1554. The Chairperson: Alex, do you have anything to add?

1555. Mr Easton: No, I just look forward to the Bill’s not being passed.

1556. The Chairperson: Can the Committee, therefore, be assured that guidance that will be issued to advisers will make it clear that they must take into account requirements other than those that are in the Bill?

1557. Ms Sisk: There will be a great deal more detail in the regulations. We must bear that in mind. The Bill is very much a framework. When regulations are introduced on work-related activity and “work for your benefit" schemes, there will be much more detail. That detail can be built into guidance, as I said. Certainly, one thing that we will do is go away and look at guidance that is available to decision-makers in our Department, and then ask DEL to have a look at the guidance to personal advisers to ensure that those matters are flagged up to be taken into account.

1558. Nobody wants to put conditions on people who are clearly not capable of satisfying those conditions. That is to nobody’s benefit. Nobody wants to force people who suffer from learning disabilities or physical disabilities of any form to do things that clearly will not be conducive to their well-being. That is in nobody’s interest at all.

1559. The Chairperson: It defeats the purpose of the Bill.

1560. Ms Sisk: Yes. It absolutely defeats its purpose.

1561. Mr F McCann: As we have heard from certain groups, it is quite obvious that that happens regularly.

1562. Ms Sisk: That is absolutely not our intention, Mr McCann. I assure you that that is not the Department’s policy.

1563. Mr F McCann: One difficulty is that many people to whom we have spoken say that it is a problem in the Department.

1564. Ms Sisk: If people have examples of that, it is the sort of matter that should be raised with the Department and the Minister for Social Development so that we can determine whether there is an issue that needs to be tackled and whether some offices do not follow the guidance that Anne has discussed.

1565. Ms McCleary: Poor decisions can be made in a couple of cases, and those cases will gain undue attention or notoriety simply because someone happens to know about them. We do not hear about the many thousands of cases in which decision-makers have acted properly, have done what they ought to have done and have taken all those matters into account.

1566. Ms Sisk: Somebody said in evidence that hard cases cannot be legislated for. We must be careful. We have to legislate for the generality. As Anne said, some cases can easily gain disproportionate notice because people have taken wrong decisions. As she said, inevitably, nobody hears about the thousands of cases that go through in which people get their benefits on time, in the correct way, and are treated with respect and dignity. You tend to hear about cases in which things have gone wrong.

1567. Ms McCleary: Good news is not news.

1568. The Chairperson: We know that. [Laughter.]

1569. Mary, tell us some good news.

1570. Mrs M Bradley: The Bill proposes many changes to the way in which benefits are paid. Will proper training be given to decision-makers, and will groups such as Mencap be involved in it?

1571. Mc McCleary: Yes, I can see no reason why that —

1572. Ms Sisk: That will be a decision for the agency and for DEL, but we can take away —

1573. Mrs M Bradley: That can be an important factor, because such groups can recognise things that an ordinary person in an office might not recognise.

1574. Ms McCleary: Stakeholder groups are likely to be involved already, but I simply do not know.

1575. Mr Brady: As you said, it is a framework document, and regulations will follow. However, if the Bill becomes a fait accompli and the legislation goes through, surely you can then include whatever regulations that you want.

1576. Ms Sisk: Not really, Mr Brady. The Bill will give the Department the power to make regulations, but, in almost all cases, we will still have to come back to the Committee and the Assembly with regulations, and if you do not like them, you will be able to stop them there and then. All the Bill does is give the Department the power to come forward with regulations. If the power is not put in place, we cannot make regulations. However, the time to look at all those things will be when the details are added. At the minute, it is very much skeleton legislation.

1577. Mr Brady: The whole thing is predicated on parity. We can argue about regulations until we are blue in the face, but the framework, or enabling, legislation is going through, so now is the time to nail those issues down.

1578. Ms Sisk: To be fair, we would also argue that introducing regulations is a parity issue. However, at this stage, because we have not seen the regulations, we cannot answer questions about points of detail. When you see those details, you may even be reassured.

1579. Mr Brady: I look forward to it.

1580. The Chairperson: He will argue over the dot.

1581. Thank you. That was very useful. Finally, will you confirm that you will be issuing new guidance to advisers to take account of childcare, caring responsibilities, mental illness, learning disabilities and domestic violence?

1582. Ms Sisk: Absolutely. We will make sure that our colleagues in DEL and the Social Security Agency get the guidance, and that it is in order. In addition, as requested, Anne McCleary will let you have a copy of her notes.

1583. The Chairperson: Thank you.

20 May 2010

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Simon Hamilton (Chairperson)
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mrs Mary Bradley
Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr Alex Easton
Mr David Hilditch
Ms Anna Lo
Mr Fra McCann

Witnesses:

Ms Elaine Campbell Ms Amy Veale		Age NI
Ms Anne McCleary Mr Colm McLaughlin Ms Margaret Sisk		Department for Social Development

1584. The Chairperson (Mr Hamilton): I welcome Ms Elaine Campbell, who is head of policy in Age NI, and Ms Amy Veale, Age NI’s policy officer. The evidence session will be recorded by Hansard for inclusion in the Committee’s report. Elaine and Amy, I invite you to give a brief overview of the pertinent issues in your written submission, after which Committee members will have an opportunity to ask questions.

1585. Ms Elaine Campbell (Age NI): We understand that time is limited, so we will restrict our comments to two areas. Amy will address the issue of pilot schemes in a clause that is missing from Northern Ireland’s Welfare Reform Bill, and I will talk about conditionality.

1586. Ms Amy Veale (Age NI): As is outlined in our written briefing, the Welfare Reform Act 2009 contains a section that allows the automatic payment of pension credit for a pilot period in GB. Northern Ireland’s Welfare Reform Bill does not contain a similar clause, meaning that a pilot exercise will not be carried out here. We urge the Committee to press for the inclusion of such a clause, because we have a number of concerns about its absence from the Bill. We already know that pensioner poverty levels are higher in Northern Ireland. The absence of, or failure to include, a clause in the Welfare Reform Bill that is similar to section 27 of the 2009 Act could contribute to the growing inequality between older people in Northern Ireland and those in GB.

1587. There are two main reasons for that. First, the failure to carry out a pilot scheme here will waste an opportunity to narrow the aforementioned poverty gap. We all know that benefit-uptake initiatives here have had limited success, and up to 51% of older people are not claiming pension credit. Our research shows that 29% do not know what benefits are available to them. We need to be proactive in looking at other ways in which to get older people to claim. We have said that, and we continue to say that. A pilot exercise would present an ideal opportunity to be innovative.

1588. Secondly, a key objective of the pilot scheme in GB is to establish how administration of automatic payments would work. It is a learning exercise that is specific to GB. We have a separate administration system here, so a separate pilot needs to be carried out to establish how automatic payments would work in Northern Ireland. Failure to conduct a pilot here could result in pension credit automatic payments being rolled out in GB and not in Northern Ireland. We are concerned that the introduction of automatic payments in Northern Ireland would be significantly delayed, as we would not have tested how such a system could work in Northern Ireland, and the poverty gap, which is already big, could widen.

1589. Government strategies such as ‘Lifetime Opportunities: Government’s Anti-Poverty and Social Inclusion Strategy for Northern Ireland’ and ‘Ageing in an Inclusive Society: Promoting the Social Inclusion of Older People’, and even the Programme for Government, recognise and articulate the need to address pensioner poverty here. We think that the Bill provides an ideal opportunity to do that, and we do not want to waste that opportunity.

1590. Ms E Campbell: It is inappropriate to introduce a conditionality test for over-50s for a number of reasons. First, in the current economic climate, not enough jobs are available. There is insufficient back-to-work support for over-50s, and insufficient training that focuses specifically on older people’s employment needs is available for personal employment advisers. Those issues are already a concern for older people. Introducing conditionality will make that situation worse.

1591. We already know that, when they drop out of the labour market, over-50s are much more likely to stay unemployed for a longer period. Introducing conditions could make people feel as though they are being further punished for a situation that is largely out of their control.

1592. I know that this is outwith the scope of the Welfare Reform Bill, but another issue is that the default retirement age is still 65. On the one hand, over-50s are out of work but are, I hope, being helped into the labour market, yet, on the other hand, we find that age discrimination in employment is still rife. Until employers begin to hire older workers, led by a government ban on the default retirement age, older workers will be stuck in a situation in which they are being pushed into employment by government but pushed back out by employers who do not necessarily want to take them on. I wanted to raise that as an issue, because it does have an impact on the Bill’s potential success.

1593. Rather than focus on punitive measures that may stigmatise people who are already experiencing significant difficulties, there must be a focus on what is needed to help over-50s obtain employment.

1594. I will speak very briefly about the success of programmes such as New Deal. Over-50s are not being well served by such programmes. Around 71% of older people on New Deal went back to benefits immediately. That is a really high percentage, particularly when contrasted with other age groups. The figure was around 54% for people aged between 40 and 49, and 47% for people aged between 30 and 39. The situation as it stands is not working well for older people.

1595. There is also a skills gap among older workers. Oxford Economics conducted a big piece of research into what jobs are coming up, how many there are likely to be, and what skills are needed. As the number of workforce jobs increases, it seems that people are required to have higher-level qualifications, such as NVQ level 4 and higher. Older people are less likely to hold those qualifications. The economy is graduate-hungry, and older workers are not filling the skills gap. Therefore, instead of putting resources into back-to-work-focused interviews, resources should perhaps go into looking into how to upskill the older workforce.

1596. On the basis of research that Oxford Economics carried out, the Economic Research Institute of Northern Ireland (ERINI) stated:

“we envisage a bleak future for the currently unemployed and inactive aged over 50",

1597. and that is without the increased conditionality. If their future is indeed bleak, how will work-focused interviews assist people? Will it point out facts that are already known, such as the fact that older workers do not have the skills to go into employment? How will work-focused interviews operate in order to help older workers to obtain and sustain employment? From our perspective, we do not see work-focused interviews as being a workable solution.

1598. The Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) carried out work that concluded that there should be greater focus on the older participants’ requirements in New Deal. I realise that New Deal is not necessarily your primary concern. However, considerable scope exists for working across Departments to determine the best ways in which to get people who are over 50 years of age back into employment, rather than simply to tell them what will happen if they do not get back into employment.

1599. Therefore, we advise strongly against any sanctions being applied until the three key points that I mentioned at the beginning are met, which are that the economy improve to such a degree that it is likely that people will be able to obtain jobs; that better back-to-work support be provided, which can be done through the Department for Social Development (DSD); and, especially important, that improved training for personal employment advisers be provided. When people first become unemployed is the critical period in which they need help to get back to work. The longer that they are out of work, the longer that they are likely to stay out of work. We all hope that that does not happen. That is it from us. We are happy to take questions.

1600. The Chairperson: Thank you for focusing on those issues. I appreciate that. Certainly, I understand Age NI’s perspective, which is from that of older people, who find it difficult to get back to work. Sometimes, I find myself in the position in which I sound as though I am a spokesman for the Department. I shudder at the thought. You made a point about conditionality, which I understand entirely. I guess that it might be frustrating for people who are over 50 years of age to be going to work-focused interviews repetitively when they feel that there is a dearth of employment generally and a dearth of suitable employment for them. They may not have the skills that employers seek or are at an age at which they do not want to go back to work anyway.

1601. A considerable number of people over 50 would go through work-focused interviews not weekly but more sporadically. Would that not assist, and enhance opportunities for, those who want to go back to work, through focusing their mind on what they should do and through signposting them in different directions, such as towards skills training or employability training? That might improve their position from one of being out of work to one of being on the path back to work.

1602. Ms E Campbell: It could, but not necessarily. If work-focused interviews are seen as a punitive measure, they will not be perceived as something that will work for people. If people are told that they must show up for work-focused interviews or else, only for them to go to those interviews and be told that, yes, they are quite right to think that they do not possess sufficient skills, or if people go to interviews and find them not to be useful, they will not benefit.

1603. From our perspective, advisers must be trained in the needs of older people. You said that people might not want to find employment. They might or they might not. Having spoken to employers, we have learnt that they do not want to take on older workers. Such age discrimination occurs in employers’ perceptions of older people. We do not want them to give up on older people, nor do we want older people to give up on themselves. However, we do not believe that the work-focused interview is necessarily the right starting point. We need to consider how to assist older people to help themselves acquire the necessary skills. If work-focused interviews are seen as a punitive measure, they will not be useful to anyone.

1604. The Chairperson: It is the nature and style of them rather than the encouragement and assistance offered that you believe could be perceived as being punitive.

1605. Ms E Campbell: It very much depends on how work-focused interviews are carried out in practice and how people perceive the help that is offered at job centres. Staff attitudes are not always as enlightened as we would like them to be, particularly where older workers are concerned, and the stigmatising influence can have a detrimental effect on people.

1606. Mr Easton: We are told that it will be a breach of parity if we go against the Bill, but is it not a breach of parity if we do not have a pilot scheme?

1607. Ms Ní Chuilín: He is right.

1608. The Chairperson: Alex is always right.

1609. Mr Easton: I wish that my wife would tell me that. [Laughter.]

1610. The rest of the UK is having a pilot scheme. If our not going along with the Bill is cited as a breach of parity, I cite the lack of a pilot scheme as a breach of parity. We should have a pilot scheme.

1611. The Chairperson: You are inviting me to be a departmental spokesman again.

1612. Mr Easton: It is one area of the Bill that we may be able to work around.

1613. The Chairperson: Departmental officials will be along later for clause-by-clause scrutiny. I encourage members to raise all those issues and seek assurances at that stage. The argument may be that it is a pilot scheme, as opposed to the level of payment or conditions. However, I understand your point, and we will raise it later.

1614. Ms Lo: At one of last week’s meetings, we said that we should have a pilot for the “work for your benefit" scheme. That supports Alex’s point.

1615. The Chairperson: Yes; the Bill certainly contains the power to have that pilot.

1616. Mr Brady: Thanks very much for your presentation. To follow on from Alex’s point, parity seems to be a one-way street in the North, because we have almost to ape what happens in Britain.

1617. It is accepted that pension credit is the benefit that is not taken up by the majority of people who should be getting it. Between £1 million and £1·9 million goes directly back to the Treasury every week. A great deal of money has been spent on a number benefit-uptake initiatives — if that is the right word — but, as you said, most of them have been ineffective. Now seems an ideal opportunity to balance things out and have a pilot scheme that targets those most in need. I cannot imagine that it will cost much more to initiate a pilot scheme than what has been spent on failed uptake schemes and on the contracts that have been issued to various bodies.

1618. Many of the schemes, such as New Deal, are predicated on the fact that many young people will take them up. We were told that 411 people in our area would be eligible, but it worked out that only around 35 people benefited. No one is denying that the majority of people want to work. However, the problem with sending people who are over 50 years of age to work-based interviews is that it raises expectations that will not be fulfilled. You rightly made the point that people who are over 50 have big difficulties getting employment in the current economic climate, and that would be the case even if the economic situation were not as bad.

1619. Last year, an individual who had worked for a firm for something like 36 years but had now been made redundant came into see me. That person was 51 or 52 and, at the last count, had attended something like 49 unsuccessful interviews. That is somebody who wanted to work and who used initiative to try to do so. On balance, people are going through skills assessments who are having their expectations raised but not fulfilled.

1620. You are absolutely right in what you say. It goes back to the issue of parity: there needs to be some balance. It seems that every time that we find an innovative initiative, we are told that it cannot happen. I believe that parity is all about money and the subvention. We could have a better scheme here without its necessarily costing any more money, and surely that is the issue. If, God forbid, we breached parity, the Treasury would come over here with a hacksaw and cut us off, and we would drift off into the Atlantic. That seems to be the notion. If the money is not going to be affected adversely, there is no reason that we cannot be innovative. What are your views on that?

1621. Ms E Campbell: Work-focused interviews have resource implications. If scarce resources are becoming scarcer, will staff be taken off whatever they are doing at that moment to carry out the interviews? Obviously, we do not have the finer detail, but that would take resources away from existing work. The idea sounds OK, but the practical application of that and other ideas for resource allocation and outcomes must be considered.

1622. Mr Brady: All those ideas sound good in an ideal world, but, given the present climate in which unemployed people must look for jobs, we certainly do not live in one.

1623. No big effort has been made to ensure that the people who should receive pension credit do so. Lip service has been paid to take-up campaigns, and we constantly hear that the Minister has initiating a take-up campaign, but none of those campaigns really works.

1624. Ms E Campbell: Age NI has participated in benefit-uptake campaigns that have provided some benefit. Nevertheless, you are right about them. There are other factors at work in the take-up of benefits. For example, some people believe that there is a stigma attached to taking up benefits, and that is an extremely difficult belief to break. I agree that benefit-uptake campaigns have not been as successful as they might be.

1625. Mr Brady: In fairness, I am sure that Age NI’s campaign was more than successful. However, the organisation had limited resources and can contact only so many people. The campaigns target chunks of pensioners who may or may not qualify instead of those who actually qualify. That is a bitty approach.

1626. Ms Veale: A major part of the barrier to pension credit uptake is the stigma that is attached to whole process of applying for it and the filling in of forms. Automatic payments would overcome that barrier to a large degree. The wording of section 27 in the UK Act makes provision for targeting either a sample of older people or a specific group. We, therefore, propose to use that pilot as an innovative way in which to get people to take up pension credit. Single women over 70 could be targeted, because they have the highest levels of pensioner poverty. It would not cost that much to do that.

1627. Mr Brady: In European countries, and particularly in Scandinavia, people automatically receive pension credit when they reach pension age. They do not even have to apply for it. There is absolutely no reason that that could not be considered here. That system is more cost-effective, because the information is already on the computer, so people do not have to go through the rigmarole of applying and making calls. It obviously has much to do with data and information being released under freedom of information legislation. Other countries seem to have a more effective scheme than Britain, which has the meanest pension award in the entire developed world.

1628. Ms Veale: As you say, Mickey, the money spent on benefit-uptake initiatives could be spent on something innovative and new. This is our chance to do that. If a clause that mirrors section 27 in the UK Act is not included, that chance is gone, so we should get it in the Bill.

1629. The Chairperson: Do any other members wish to ask a question?As we move to the next phase of the scrutiny of the Bill, we will certainly raise all the issues with the Department and seek assurance or clarity on possible change.

1630. Ms Campbell: Will it change?

1631. The Chairperson: I always qualify the change with the word “possible", because of the nature of the process.

1632. Thank you very much for coming along and giving your evidence today, particularly at such short notice. We are grateful for that. It is the first time we have had Age NI before us. I am sure that your organisation will be vital to us in a lot of the work we do, and I am sure that we will see you again soon.

1633. Ms Campbell: Yes, definitely. Thank you.

1634. Mr Brady: For some of us it is becoming more and more relevant.

1635. The Chairperson: When we hear about over-50s and work-focused interviews, people here get nervous.

1636. That concludes our evidence sessions on the Welfare Reform Bill. Are members happy to conclude taking evidence and to proceed with clause-by-clause scrutiny? Perhaps “happy" is the wrong word.

Members indicated assent.

1637. The Chairperson: The Committee Stage of the Welfare Reform Bill commenced, as you all know, on 22 April. The Committee has received 20 written responses on the Bill. It has considered oral evidence from seven key stakeholder organisations, plus the Department. Given the Committee’s extensive consideration of evidence and responses from the Department, it was agreed that formal clause-by-clause scrutiny should commence today.

1638. Members have previously set out their interim positions on the clauses of the Bill. I advise members that, during the clause-by-clause scrutiny, they will be asked to set out their final positions in respect of the clauses of the Bill, subject to the Examiner of Statutory Rules report and consequential amendments. Where the majority of Committee members support an amendment, the Committee Clerk and the Bill Clerk will take away the proposal and draft the appropriate wording for consideration at a subsequent meeting. Where members do not feel that they are able to agree a clause, that must be clearly stated during the clause-by-clause scrutiny. In such cases, members will be asked to set out their proposed amendment, and consideration of the clause in question may be deferred until the next meeting.

1639. The Department has not suggested any amendments to the Bill. To speed up the process and answer any queries, the Department has been invited to attend the clause-by-clause scrutiny. We welcome Anne McCleary, Margaret Sisk, and Colm McLaughlin. Responses to the Committee’s queries from the Department, the Employment and Learning Committee and the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister have been tabled, as have the Department’s notes from the meeting on 18 May.

1640. Before we begin, I wish to refresh everyone’s memory of a key point in the last evidence session which might assist us in getting through some of those items. We seek assurance from the Department, in respect of all the clauses of the Bill, that it will revise its and the Department for Employment and Learning’s guidance to benefit advisers, requiring them to give additional consideration to claimants who have childcare difficulties, mental illness, learning disability, domestic violence issues or other caring responsibilities.

1641. Ms Margaret Sisk (Department for Social Development): Yes.

1642. Ms Anne McCleary (Department for Social Development): Yes.

1643. The Chairperson: That may assist us in moving this along. I also seek agreement from the Department that this assurance will be repeated at Consideration Stage of the Bill by the Minister.

1644. Ms Sisk: Yes.

1645. Ms McCleary: Yes.

1646. The Chairperson: There is a lot of paper involved in all of this. Members have a clause-by-clause table which the Committee Clerk has helpfully provided. We will start at the beginning and go through all 35 clauses.

Clause 1 (Schemes for assisting persons to obtain employment: “work for your benefit" schemes etc.)

1647. The Chairperson: Clause 1 introduces mandatory “work for your benefit" schemes for jobseeker’s allowance (JSA) claimants. The Department advises that the policy intention is to target those schemes and provide intensive support for the long-term unemployed. The Department indicates that the schemes are to be piloted in Great Britain, and that regulations prescribing the nature of the schemes will be subject to negative resolution by the Assembly. The Committee has been advised that the schemes will form part of the UK social security system. As such, a decision not to implement them in Northern Ireland would represent a breach of parity in social security matters.

1648. Stakeholders have indicated numerous concerns and suggested changes, including a requirement to pay participants the minimum wage, exemptions for lone parents and claimants with mental or physical disability, guarantees that participants will be facilitated to undertake other training courses, a sunset clause, and a Northern Ireland pilot version of the scheme.

1649. I refer Members to suggested amendments A to M in our table. I will begin by asking the Department whether it has anything to add to its evidence on the clause. We have heard a lot about the pilot schemes in GB. Is there anything that you want to add at this stage?

1650. Ms McCleary: No. The Committee has heard us talk on numerous occasions over the past couple of weeks about the importance of the pilot schemes, and that whatever happens in Northern Ireland will be determined by the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) and not necessarily take exactly the same shape as the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) schemes. There is flexibility there.

1651. Ms Sisk: Amendment B suggests that the schemes should provide training and support. They will provide training and support; that is part of the scheme.

1652. The Chairperson: The power is in the Bill to run NI pilot schemes, if deemed appropriate —

1653. Ms Sisk: Yes, that is right.

1654. The Chairperson: If the GB pilot schemes show anomalies that stick out like a sore thumb and maybe would not work in the same way in Northern Ireland, there is the power to do that.

1655. Ms Sisk: Oh, yes. That will be up to DEL, and it has already indicated that it may well decide to run its own pilot schemes tailored to Northern Ireland. In the end, however, that decision will rest with DEL.

1656. The Chairperson: That is conditional on resources.

1657. Ms Sisk: Availability of resources is one of the big issues for DEL.

1658. The Chairperson: Is the whole thing conditional on resources?

1659. Ms Sisk: The introduction of the scheme is, yes. DEL has made it clear that a lot of the Bill has significant resource implications, because it requires an awful lot more work by personal advisers. Therefore, there will have to be a bid to the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) for additional administration funding. A lot will depend on the availability of resources.

1660. Mr F McCann: It seems that we are near enough joined at the hip to DEL in much of this. Obviously, that is important. However, I always believed that the controlling Department was the Department for Social Development (DSD), and that any decisions to run pilot schemes would, therefore, come through DSD.

1661. Ms Sisk: No. Our responsibility is to require people to attend schemes as a condition of the receipt of the benefit. However, if DEL does not run the scheme in the first place, we cannot put the requirement into place. The running of the scheme is the responsibility of the Department for Employment and Learning. The design of the scheme will also be for DEL.

1662. Mr F McCann: Are you saying that, if the Committee asks you to go away and consider introducing pilot schemes in a number of areas, you do not have the ability to do that or to instruct DEL to do that?

1663. Ms Sisk: We cannot guarantee that that would happen. All we can say is that the power is in the Bill to run pilot schemes. Therefore, there is nothing to prevent them from happening. However, we cannot bind the Department for Employment and Learning to actually run pilot schemes. That would have to be taken up with them.

1664. The Chairperson: The Committee Clerk is reminding me that in GB, DWP has both these roles, but here they are split.

1665. Ms Sisk: That is correct.

1666. Ms McCleary: There is a structural difference.

1667. Ms Ní Chuilín: Therein lies the core of the problem. We have been given assurances that lone parents — I am not talking about this clause, just using it as an example by way of illustration — will not be penalised if they do not have childcare. This is buck-passing from one Department to another. If people cannot avail themselves of proper training, that may be one way out. However, if they cannot avail of the training that they feel is appropriate to them, then their benefit is at risk. Even before we know what the Tory cuts will be, DEL, like any other Department, is saying that there will be budgetary constraints. We have heard a presentation from Age NI about appropriate advice, training and support. Unless it is specified what that is, and it is actually clear and compulsory — or not even so much compulsory but that people fully understand what it is, and it is not related to budgets — this is totally ridiculous. It is forcing people out to work and giving them very little support, and having the audacity to ask them to work for their benefit.

1668. Mr Brady: Resource implications were mentioned. Are we being told by DSD that for such a piece of legislation, which is probably the most major piece of legislation, in terms of its implications for social security, since the inception of the welfare state, proper resources and funding will not be put in place to implement it?

1669. Ms Sisk: We are not saying that. When the pilots are put in place in GB, we will have the opportunity to see what type and level of resources are required to run the schemes. At that point, the Department for Employment and Learning, with us, will approach DFP for resources. Nobody is saying that those resources will not be made available. However, we are saying that the running of the schemes is dependent on the resources being made available.

1670. Mr Brady: Surely, from a logical point of view, those pilot schemes will be run, but the legislation will have been implemented already.

1671. Ms Sisk: Yes.

1672. Mr Brady: It will be too late.

1673. Ms Sisk: The legislation puts in place the power for us to require people to attend those schemes should they be put in place. However, if no schemes are put in place, then people cannot be required to attend them. We are asking for the power to be put in place now so that, if the schemes are run, we can require people to attend them.

1674. Mr Brady: But if the pilot schemes in England are not successful — if there are anomalies within them — then by the time it comes here it will be a fait accompli.

1675. Ms Sisk: If the pilot schemes are not successful in Great Britain they will not be rolled out in Great Britain, and we will not have any schemes here.

1676. Mr Brady: Yes, but the point that we have been trying to make is that there may be an area in Britain where the schemes could be successful, but that does not necessarily transfer to the North.

1677. Ms Sisk: You are absolutely right. That is why we are saying that the design of the scheme in Northern Ireland will be specifically tailored to Northern Ireland.

1678. Mr Brady: Why do we not have a pilot scheme to ensure that?

1679. Ms Sisk: That is up to DEL. If DEL wants to run pilot schemes, it can. All we are saying is that we will have the power in the Bill for the pilot scheme to be run. If we do not put the power in the Bill to run pilot schemes, DEL cannot run them. That is why we need the power in the first place.

1680. Mr Brady: When legislation was being introduced in 2008 around employment and support allowance (ESA), we wanted clause 16 to be deleted. It was to do with privatisation, and we were told that it would not happen so there was no need to delete it, but it has happened in terms of medical support services. If you retain the power —

1681. Ms Sisk: To run the schemes?

1682. Mr Brady: In my experience, it will be implemented.

1683. Ms Sisk: I will not say that it will or it will not. It depends on the success of the pilots in GB. If they are successful and they work well, and if DEL decides that it can run good schemes in Northern Ireland, clearly they will be set up. If not, they will not be set up.

1684. Mr Brady: We could have successful schemes here, which would give a much better overview.

1685. Ms Sisk: We could.

1686. Ms McCleary: We could, and that might happen.

1687. Ms Sisk: However, if we do not put the power in the Bill, then we cannot do it. We need the piloting power in the Bill: so that we can run separate Northern Ireland schemes.

1688. Mr Brady: We are back to “may" and “shall". We will be talking about how many angels we can balance on the point of a needle.

1689. The Chairperson: Is that on our agenda? It may be under “Any other business".

1690. Ms Lo: I just want to clarify something before I comment. Does the first column of the table contain suggested amendments?

1691. Ms Ní Chuilín: Yes.

1692. The Chairperson: Those amendments flow from the various pieces of evidence that the Committee has received. It is literally everything that has been suggested as an amendment, so that the Committee has the fullness of what stakeholders are saying on this.

1693. Ms Lo: So we are asking the Department to accept all those?

1694. The Chairperson: No, we are not quite saying that. It is guidance for Committee members. That is what has been raised, and members may be interested in pursuing one, two or all of them.

1695. Ms Lo: OK. I very much agree with Les Allamby that we seem to be putting the cart before the horse. There are so many uncertainties about “work for your benefit" schemes that we are almost dependent on a wing and a prayer. That is a lovely phrase.

1696. The Bill will give the Department the power to run pilot schemes and to consider whether they are appropriate for Northern Ireland. However, it depends on DEL having the resources to carry them out. If DEL says that those schemes are not for us, will that be a breach of parity?

1697. Ms Sisk: No.

1698. Ms Lo: So people will not be asked to go on “work for your benefit" schemes? Do we have the power to opt out?

1699. Ms Sisk: Our Bill provides for people who get to the end of Steps to Work schemes to attend a “work for your benefit" scheme. However, if those schemes do not exist, the power will not be exercised. It is up to DEL to decide whether it can design suitable schemes for Northern Ireland, and one of the things it wants to do is have a look at what is run in GB and how successful it is. If the schemes do not work and help people back into employment, there is absolutely no point in wasting taxpayers’ money on them. The starting point must be that to prove that the schemes are of some benefit and that they assist in getting the long-term unemployed back into work. We must put the power into the Bill to allow us to run the schemes if DEL decides that they work, are beneficial and are cost-effective.

1700. Ms Lo: I understand that, but if England decides to roll out “work for your benefit" schemes across the UK, and we say that we do not want them as they do not work for us, or we do not have the resources from DEL to run them, will we have breached parity with the UK?

1701. Ms Sisk: I do not think that we do. One of the issues on parity is that there are the same conditions. If DEL cannot run those schemes because they are unworkable, the condition is not satisfied. I would not see that as a breach of parity.

1702. We need to have the scope to explore the situation. If at this stage you say no, there will be no chance for either DSD or DEL to explore the schemes and establish whether they work. That is what we are asking for at this point.

1703. Ms McCleary: The schemes in Northern Ireland and in GB could be very different things.

1704. The Chairperson: If this clause goes through as it stands it will completely replicate a clause in the Welfare Reform Act 2009, and that will not be a breach of parity. However, I think that Anna’s point is that if GB goes off on one track and we stay stuck in the station, effectively —

1705. Ms McCleary: Yes.

1706. The Chairperson: That would be a breach of parity.

1707. Ms Sisk: We will still have given the power through legislation to do it. We can still apply flexibility. If it does not work in GB, or if we cannot replicate it because it is not possible in Northern Ireland for us to do anything similar, I do not see that as a breach of parity. I see that as being sensible.

1708. Ms Lo: How much of a case do we have for arguing that Northern Ireland is different if the Department for Work and Pensions says that we have to have schemes like the rest of the UK?

1709. Ms McCleary: It is hard to talk about in theory. Parity is all about equality of conditionality and equality in the amount of benefits that a person receives. There are circumstances — in terms of general operational flexibilities — where differences in Northern Ireland can be taken into account. However, it would be a fundamental mistake to say that Northern Ireland is different full stop, because there are areas in Britain that are not unlike Northern Ireland.

1710. Ms Sisk: That is right.

1711. Ms Lo: That is what I am saying. How strong would our case be for arguing against the running of “work for your benefit" schemes?

1712. Ms McCleary: That is a matter for DEL.

1713. Ms Sisk: Our Department and DEL could make a case to DWP if we decided that, after looking at what was happening in GB and looking at the situation in Northern Ireland, it would not be possible for us to do anything similar. I cannot see DWP having a problem with that. However, DWP would have a problem if we decided to not even attempt it — to not put this in the Bill because we do not want it. That is the difficulty. If we give it a try to see if it works, I do not see DWP having a problem with that.

1714. Mr Brady: If, as you say, the measure is workable, what will happen if DEL does not have the resources to implement it?

1715. Ms Sisk: In that case, it will not happen. If DEL decides that it does not have the resources available to run this, there will not be any schemes.

1716. Mr Brady: With respect, that is a major issue. When will DEL know?

1717. Ms Sisk: The starting point has to be to look at what is happening in Great Britain, see what type of schemes are being run and look at the format of those schemes. As far as I understand, the schemes will be run in four areas in GB, and we have given you information on where those areas are.

1718. Mr Brady: The other issue is parity. Talking about equality and all the rest if it is fine, but to me parity is all about the amount of subvention. A breach of parity is all about money, because if you underspend the money goes back to the Treasury, and if you overspend it comes out of your budget. That is the issue.

1719. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am picking up that DEL is the driving force and that DSD will simply administer what DEL decides. Therefore, we should really be looking at the administration rather than the policy.

1720. Ms Sisk: Where the schemes are available, we will require jobseekers to attend them as a condition of receiving their benefit. That is our role in the process.

1721. Can I also say, Mr Brady, that parity is not just to do with money; it is also about individuals receiving benefit on the same conditions as people in Great Britain and having access to the same benefits at the same rates. We have to be careful about that as well. The issue is not simply money, although it is.

1722. Mr Brady: It is.

1723. Ms Ní Chuilín: It is.

1724. Ms Sisk: If we break parity, money comes into it, because it underpins parity.

1725. The Chairperson: As Margaret said, some information has been provided on the pilots. To clarify, Mickey, the pilots begin on 22 November this year and will run for two and a half years. They are taking place in Cambridgeshire, Suffolk, Norfolk and greater Manchester. Two and a half years from this November takes us into 2013. You asked about resources, but it is impossible to know what the resources will be for next year. If the Tory cuts are as bad as feared, there might not even be a DEL by 2013, never mind a pilot scheme.

1726. Mr Brady: I am just thinking in terms of Cambridgeshire and Suffolk. I am not sure —

1727. Ms Sisk: I am sure that there will be opportunities for us to get information from DWP on what is happening with the pilots and how they are running. There is no reason why, if it was of help, the Committee could not see information like that before 2013.

1728. Mr Brady: The analogy was made the other day between Newcastle, County Down and Newcastle-upon-Tyne. The north-east of England is a deprived region where large industries have simply closed down. Places like Consett were derelict a few years ago. That is an area that might have more in common with us with regard to unemployment rates and deprivation than Cambridgeshire or Suffolk.

1729. The Chairperson: There are two pilot schemes in greater Manchester.

1730. Ms Sisk: There is also greater Manchester.

1731. Mr Brady: Greater Manchester could include Blackburn and Bolton and all the associated conurbations.

1732. Ms Sisk: The point, though, Mr Brady, is that they are looking at rural and urban areas. The barriers that people face in rural areas are different, so the idea is to take a cross section of areas.

1733. Ms McCleary: A broad spread.

1734. The Chairperson: That is quite similar to a lot of parts of Northern Ireland.

1735. Ms Sisk: That is right. I am sure that, when these things have been up and running for a while, there will be opportunities to get information about them and about how successful they have been. If it would help you to have more information about them well before 2013, we could use our contacts in DWP.

1736. Mr Craig: Margaret, that was wonderful. I am glad that I watched an episode of ‘Yes, Minister’ last night. [Laughter.] It was an eye-opener.

1737. To paraphrase — correct me if I am wrong — everyone seems to agree that the legislation is far from perfect. It is clear to us that it is not perfect; it does not dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s. However, there is a reason for that. If I am reading the situation right, you are really saying that the legislation is being left open so that it can be interpreted in a number of ways to give you and, more importantly, DEL the flexibility to implement it fully if the funding is there. As we are all aware, funding will probably not be there.

1738. Truth be told, it would probably be cheaper for DEL to do a pilot scheme somewhere in Northern Ireland. There is flexibility in the legislation to allow it to do that. Ultimately, given the timescales that have been outlined, the most responsible thing for DEL to do would be to give the UK pilot schemes six months to a year, look at the results and then make a sensible decision about whether to go for a pilot scheme in Northern Ireland. Alternatively, in a year’s time, we could all be sitting here and there might be no money to implement this, which would knock the whole thing on the head. From what you said, the secret to it all seems to be that although, technically, we can maintain parity by keeping this, in reality, if the finance is not there, there is no breach of parity if we do not actually implement it.

1739. Ms Sisk: That is right. We would break parity if we were to decide here and now that we are not even going to bother, that we do not like the look of it and that, no matter what DWP is doing, we are just not going to do it.

1740. The Chairperson: Or, equally, to amend it radically. That would have the same impact.

1741. Ms Sisk: That is right. We suggest that you leave it and see what happens. All that we are asking for is to put the power into the legislation, and then, depending on the outcomes of the UK pilot schemes, we can make our judgement. As you said, DEL also needs time to look at what happens in GB, because, at the minute, it cannot decide either whether this will work. Nobody really knows anything about the schemes. Yes, you paraphrased it accurately.

1742. Mr Craig: The thing that encourages me, although it may not be in the power of this Committee alone, is the Northern Ireland Assembly’s ability not to implement something that might go dramatically wrong in the rest of the UK. We have not lost the ability to control the implementation of this. That is good.

1743. Ms Ní Chuilín: I still think that it is important to put in some of the suggested amendments, even though it is not our call, from what you are saying about DEL.

1744. Mrs M Bradley: If we were not to amend the Bill —

1745. Ms Ní Chuilín: I would not be happy with it.

1746. Mrs M Bradley: What would the situation be then? In a year or 18 months, would we have an opportunity to put in the amendments that we think are right to make now?

1747. Ms McCleary: We would not be able to change the legislation. To change the Bill, we would have to introduce fresh legislation. However, in terms of its outworking — the scheme itself — in a year’s time we will know far better how the schemes are going and DEL’s thoughts on them.

1748. Ms Sisk: Many of the suggested amendments concern points of detail that are really about the schemes, rather than the power in the Bill, which is simply to establish a scheme. The Bill does not say anything at all about what the scheme will contain.

1749. The Chairperson: That detail will then come in the relevant regulations.

1750. Ms Sisk: That is right, and the proposed amendments to clause 1 are on the scheme’s design.

1751. Ms Ní Chuilín: Chairperson, we are making broad, generic points. The nature of a scheme could depend on whatever resources are available to DEL. We are discussing the fundamental principle of supporting people on welfare. The do-nothing approach that the Department is suggesting is totally unacceptable. The principle is generic enough for even staff in DEL to support, and to leave it as a scheme of sorts is just too vague for me to accept. If the Committee cannot agree on an amendment, my party will table one, because I would not be happy to stand over the clause as drafted.

1752. Mr Brady: We need to get real and be honest with people. I take Jonathan’s point. Ms Sisk is saying that there is flexibility. I have been around long enough to have gone down this road before. In what was a major change in 1988, supplementary benefit was taken out of the income support equation and the social fund replaced single payments, and we were told at the time how flexible all that would be.

1753. One reads this stuff about “dynamic benefits" from the Centre for Social Justice, which was Iain Duncan Smith, a previous leader of the Tory party if I am not mistaken, but nobody will convince me that this legislation will not be implemented. As far as I am concerned, the suggestion that there will be flexibility is fine, but I do not accept that the flexibility that we are being told about will happen. I do not doubt Ms Sisk’s belief that there will be flexibility, but experience tells me that it will just not happen.

1754. The reality is that we have a Welfare Reform Bill with 37 clauses and four schedules. Unless amendments are tabled now, the opportunity for the Committee to propose them will be lost. The Department is saying, “Let’s sit back and see what happens." Once the Bill is passed, it will be too late to amend it. I do not want to be told in the Chamber, as I have been previously, that I am arguing against something after failing to do so in Committee. I am saying now that I am arguing. I want that point to be recorded, because, as far as I am concerned, this is a huge piece of legislation.

1755. Going back years, the guy who came up with the idea for the social fund was seconded from a finance house in the City of London to cobble it together and then returned to the City to leave us with its legacy. That will happen again, because there is no doubt that the Bill’s provisions will be implemented. We need to be on top of things, and if we are to propose amendments, they must be relevant. At the end of the day, the Bill will adversely affect the people whom we represent, not the Department for Social Development or DWP. That must be made clear.

1756. Ms Sisk: May I just say, Mr Brady, that you ought to concentrate on the “work for your benefit" schemes? If they do not work, they will not be implemented and rolled out in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland. Nobody is going to run schemes that cost the Government and the taxpayer money if they do not help people back to work. At this stage, the problem is that we cannot tell the Committee whether the schemes will work. We need the pilots to be run in GB in order to see what will happen. The Bill will merely create the power to run those schemes; it does not specify what the schemes will be. That will be something that DEL will have to carry if it decides to run them.

1757. Mr Brady: With respect, you summed it up by saying “create the power".

1758. Ms Sisk: That is all that the Bill does. At present, to create the power to pilot the schemes is all that we ask.

1759. Mr Brady: Why formulate a very detailed Bill such as this just to conduct a pilot scheme? Why not conduct a pilot scheme, see how it works, and formulate legislation around that? We have here a piece of legislation that, once passed, will be implemented.

1760. Ms Sisk: It will not be implemented if the pilot schemes do not work. If the schemes are too costly and do not work, there is no way in the current economic climate that the Government will roll them out.

1761. Mr Brady: My difficulty is over who decides whether they work or not.

1762. Ms Sisk: The starting point is that DWP will decide whether the schemes are working. However, we will also have to assess whether they would work here. The Department for Social Development will have to make that assessment with DEL.

1763. Mr Brady: Therefore, why will we not have pilot schemes here? Jonathan Craig suggested —

1764. Ms Sisk: We will have pilot schemes if DEL decides to run them. The power to do so is provided in the legislation.

1765. Mr Brady: We need to speak to representatives from DEL, then.

1766. Ms Sisk: Yes, if you want to find out whether DEL intends to run pilot schemes. At this stage, I do not think that DEL will be able to give you a yes or no answer. I think that DEL will want to see what is happening in GB first.

1767. Ms McCleary: As others have said, the key point will be around a year from now, when we will have a clearer idea as to how things are progressing.

1768. Mr Brady: With respect, if the schemes are to run for two and a half years —

1769. Ms McCleary: In GB.

1770. Mr Brady: — yet we will know so much about them in a year, why are they to run for a further 18 months? Will there be some fundamental change?

1771. Ms Sisk: They will not be finally evaluated for two and a half years. We are suggesting that DEL may be able to get some information after a year to see how things are running, although it may well be the case that it does not get that information. I accept what you are saying: that, at this stage, there is much that we just do not know. However, that is because none of the schemes has been up and running for any length of time yet. We have to bide our time; we must wait and see. As I said, nobody is going to run schemes that cost money but do not work.

1772. Mr Brady: The employment and support allowance has been up and running since October 2008 —

1773. Ms Sisk: Apart from anything else, DFP and the NIAO would not be pleased.

1774. Mr Brady: — and there are mixed views on how effective it has been.

1775. Ms Sisk: This is very different from ESA.

1776. Mr Brady: I know, but ESA is the forerunner to what we are talking about.

1777. Mr F McCann: I want to make one small point about the implementation of legislation that does not work, about which we have recently spoken in this Committee. A number of years ago, when people made an application for goods, it used to go directly to the person supplying the goods. It proved hugely disadvantageous to the people who were applying for goods, and it did not work. However, now we are speaking about implementing the same idea again.

1778. Ms Sisk: I think that that concerned care grants.

1779. Mr F McCann: I am just saying that it was proved that that did not work in the past, yet now we are to go through the same thing again.

1780. Ms Sisk: It is slightly different.

1781. The Chairperson: We will return to that later. I was hoping that we might have got to that issue today, but I fear that we might not. I want to try to move the formal clause-by-clause scrutiny on. I have allowed members to express their views several times on clause 1 because I know that it is a fundamental clause and that stakeholders who responded to our consultation expressed many views. I want to move on and get some clarity from the Committee as to its position on clause 1. I have heard some members expressing opposition to it, although it is a means to an end for other members. I think that the point that Jonathan made earlier sums up many members’ views.

1782. We all accept — perhaps even the Department accepts — that it is not a perfect clause, but parity applies, and clause 1 is not the final destination of the “work for your benefit" scheme proposal. The clause creates the power, notwithstanding the comments that members have made. We have heard views expressed in opposition to the clause, and views expressed that were —“supportive" may be too strong a word — accepting of the clause. Does anybody else want to express a view in support of or in opposition to the clause before I put the Question on whether we accept the clause or want to amend it? I take it that there will be a Division. I always like to try to avoid division, but I think that everybody understands the basis on which it is happening.

1783. The Committee Clerk: If the Committee is to divide, I will remind members how the voting system will work. I hope that members will forgive me; I am not patronising them. The Chairperson will put the Question, and members will be asked to indicate which way they are voting by a show of hands. The options are to vote Aye or No or to abstain. A fourth option is not to vote at all, just as would be the case in a plenary sitting. The minutes will therefore record who votes Aye, who votes No, and who abstains but will not record who does not vote.

Question put, That the Committee, subject to the Examiner’s report or other consequential amendment, is content with the clause.

The Committee divided: Ayes 7; Noes 3.

AYES

Mr Armstrong, Mrs M Bradley, Mr Craig, Mr Easton, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hilditch, Ms Lo.

NOES

Mr Brady, Mr F McCann, Ms Ní Chuilín.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 1, subject to the Examiner’s report or other consequential amendment, agreed to.

1784. Ms Lo: I would like it noted that we have many reservations about the clause.

1785. The Chairperson: I can make that clear. I have taken latitude to express my opinion from the Chair in the past. I am not satisfied with how the process has gone, to be perfectly honest, and it has put the Committee in an invidious position. Several amendments were suggested from which, when regulations are made, we may get a bit more purchase. Stakeholder groups have suggested amendments in good faith, and although some of us feel that, even though they are very good suggestions, it is difficult to run with them. However, I acknowledge that other members would be happy to do so. Everyone understands what has happened, and I will ensure that, in our report and in any speech that I make at the Bill’s later stages, we express those concerns.

1786. The Committee Clerk: Some members indicated that they might wish to table an amendment on behalf of their party. If they wish to do so, will they please indicate to me and the Bill Clerk, as soon as they are able to, which amendments they have in mind? That is so that the Bill Clerk has time to draft them.

1787. Ms Ní Chuilín: It should be clear that Sinn Féin wishes to amend clause 1.

1788. The Committee Clerk: Yes, but we wish to know which amendment and what you have in mind. Let us know as soon as possible, because amendments can be a nightmare to draft.

1789. Ms Ní Chuilín: Absolutely.

Clause 2 (Work-related activity: income support claimants and partners of claimants)

1790. The Chairperson: Clause 2 requires claimants who are in receipt of income support, income-based ESA and JSA who are not lone parents of children under the age of 3 to undertake work-related activity. The clause allows DSD or DEL, in circumstances to be set out in subsequent regulations, to issue a direction to a person to undertake work-related activity. The clause also allows regulations to be made that set out a good cause for failing to undertake mandatory activities.

1791. Stakeholders have indicated numerous concerns, mostly around the absence of childcare in Northern Ireland, and suggested changes in the clause, including the replacement of sanctions with the payment of premiums for compliance; exemptions for certain groups of claimants; and suggestions for the better delivery of ESA and JSA.

1792. I refer members to the suggested amendments, which are amendments N to T in the table in the Committee Stage summary. Is there anything that the Department wants to add to the evidence that the Committee has already heard on clause 2?

1793. Ms McCleary: No, I do not think so.

1794. The Chairperson: Do members wish to express any views on the clause at this stage? In the correspondence from the Department, there is more detail on what constitutes “good cause". Such circumstances include disease, or physical or mental disablement; sincere religious or conscientious objection; transport; caring responsibilities; attendance at court; arranging or attending a funeral; lifeboat crew member or part-time firefighter; and domestic emergencies. There are some very good examples of good cause there.

1795. Mr Brady: It is fairly flexible.

1796. The Chairperson: Yes, it is fairly broad. Do members want to express any views?

1797. Mr Brady: I have one point to make. Why does the Department specify a child under the age of three? That age limit is much too low.

1798. The Chairperson: Is that correct? If the child is three or under —

1799. Ms Sisk: It does not apply to a child under three. It applies to children aged three to six.

1800. The Chairperson: As I mentioned before we started, if childcare is an issue —

1801. Ms Sisk: All of that, yes.

1802. Mr Colm McLaughlin (Department for Social Development): Childcare will be included as “good cause".

1803. Mr Brady: You also said that “work-related activity" does not necessarily mean work.

1804. Ms Sisk: It absolutely does not mean work, Mr Brady. That is one thing about which we need to be very clear.

1805. Mr Brady: For instance, a lone parent could argue that looking after a four-year-old [Inaudible.]

1806. The Chairperson: It is certainly work.

1807. Ms McCleary: Well, yes. Perhaps they should not be doing that. Let us not go down that road.

1808. Mr Brady: That could be a reasonable argument that has not been factored in.

1809. Ms Sisk: The Bill does not specify what work-related activity consists of. At this stage, I do not know whether there will be any definition of “work-related activity", even in regulations. However, I suggest that what is really being referred to is the type of activity that would make people more employable in the long run. Therefore, whether looking after a child is sufficient to qualify would have to be left to the personal adviser and the decision-maker.

1810. Mr Brady: Considering the dearth of childcare, people could argue that they are working towards getting a job.

1811. Ms Sisk: Yes, one could argue that about childcare. I am sure that that is a possible argument.

1812. The Chairperson: The phrase is flexible.

1813. Ms Sisk: Yes, it does not specify what it is, so I am sure that your point is arguable, Mr Brady.

1814. Mr Brady: Some might say that that is stretching flexibility.

1815. The Chairperson: It is far too flexible.

1816. Ms Sisk: Our Department and DEL have said that we intend to be as flexible as possible and to take full account of conditions in Northern Ireland and of the availability and non-availability of childcare. That is one reason why not spelling out what “work-related activity" means makes life a lot easier. It can then be interpreted in many different ways.

1817. Mr Brady: What would be the implications of the Committee’s deciding that three was too young and recommending an amendment to move the age limit up?

1818. Ms Sisk: Raising the age limit would break parity.

1819. The Chairperson: We have the same conditions.

1820. Ms Sisk: Yes, that is right.

1821. Mr Brady: [Inaudible.] childcare provisions.

1822. Ms Sisk: However, we are saying that we will take that into account.

1823. Mr McLaughlin: We will take all of that into account.

1824. Ms Sisk: The non-availability of childcare will be taken into account when this is looked at.

1825. Mr Brady: For how long?

1826. Ms Sisk: As far as the Department is concerned, there is absolutely no time limit. It will be taken into account until childcare is available.

1827. Mr Brady: Until the child grows up?

1828. Ms Sisk: Well, until it is not needed any more, yes.

1829. The Chairperson: Some people never grow up.

1830. Mr F McCann: To follow on from that, I know that you say that that is in the Bill, but every clerk in every DEL office will not be checking the wording. Will there be written instructions?

1831. Ms Sisk: Absolutely. There will be instructions and training for staff in all of these things. DEL is completely on board with us on what constitutes good cause and all the flexibilities. We checked those issues out with DEL before coming back to the Committee. Both Departments are entirely in agreement on the matter.

1832. Mr F McCann: Our sitting here can sometimes feel like a waste of time, particularly when dealing with the Bill, because we have no control whatsoever over the vast majority of its provisions.

1833. Ms Sisk: Many of the face-to-face discussions with the people who will be involved will be carried out by staff from DEL. However, there is close liaison between our Department and DEL. We have spoken to DEL officials about the Bill on a number of occasions before coming to the Committee. Therefore, we know a great deal about that Department’s attitude towards it.

1834. Ms Lo: When lone parents with young children are asked to take on work-related activities, surely they should be entitled to payment to cover childcare. Are they?

1835. Ms McCleary: Expenses perhaps.

1836. Ms Sisk: It depends on what that work-related activity is. As far as I am aware, if they require childcare to carry it out, they are probably entitled to claim for it. Money would be made available to them.

1837. Ms Lo: Would that cover attending interviews, compiling CVs and other —

1838. Ms Sisk: They will not be out of pocket for having to do anything like that.

1839. Ms Lo: The problem is finding and accessing it. That is why —

1840. Ms Sisk: The problem is childcare, and we recognise that. We also said that a woman who says that she cannot find childcare will not be challenged on that by her personal adviser. Her word will be accepted.

1841. Ms Ní Chuilín: Will there be a blanket exemption for parents whose children are in receipt of disability living allowance (DLA)?

1842. Ms Sisk: Yes, if they are on the middle or higher rates of DLA, there is a blanket exemption.

1843. Ms Ní Chuilín: That is with a DLA care or mobility component?

1844. Ms Sisk: Yes.

Question put, That the Committee, subject to the Examiner’s report or other consequential amendment, is content with the clause.

The Committee divided: Ayes 7; Noes 3.

AYES

Mr Armstrong, Mrs M Bradley, Mr Craig, Mr Easton, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hilditch, Ms Lo.

NOES

Mr Brady, Mr F McCann, Ms Ní Chuilín.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 2, subject to the Examiner’s report or other consequential amendment, agreed to.

Clause 3 (Lone parents)

1845. The Chairperson: Clause 3 ensures that lone parents with a child under seven years of age remain a prescribed category of person, entitled to income support. The clause also ensures that lone parents in receipt of ESA with a child under one year of age will not be required to take part in a work-focused interview and that those with a child under three will not be required to undertake work-related activity. Stakeholders have indicated concerns, largely on conditionality for benefit recipients. There are some suggested amendments, which can be found at amendments U to V in the table in the Committee Stage summary. Has the Department anything to add?

1846. Ms McCleary: This is obviously an issue that has exercised various minds for some time. I stress that the intention is to facilitate people in being moved closer to work. I also stress that lack of childcare provision will be taken into account.

1847. Ms Sisk: This is an entirely beneficial clause. The idea behind it is to remove the requirement for parents with children under one to attend a work-focused interview. At present, parents with children under one are required to attend periodic work-focused interviews. Clause 3 will remove that requirement, so it is an easing of conditionality for lone parents and parents.

1848. The Chairperson: Some of the objections are to the clause in general.

1849. Ms Sisk: Yes. However, people may also misunderstand its intention. It is a beneficial clause; it is a release of conditionality, rather than an increase.

1850. The Chairperson: All the other assurances still stand?

1851. Ms Sisk: Yes.

Question put, That the Committee, subject to the Examiner’s report or other consequential amendment, is content with the clause.

The Committee divided: Ayes 7; Noes 3.

AYES

Mr Armstrong, Mrs M Bradley, Mr Craig, Mr Easton, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hilditch, Ms Lo.

NOES

Mr Brady, Mr F McCann, Ms Ní Chuilín.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 3, subject to the Examiner’s report or other consequential amendment, agreed to.

1852. The Chairperson: A pattern is developing.

Clause 4 (Entitlement to jobseeker’s allowance without seeking employment etc.)

1853. The Chairperson: Clause 4 extends access to income-based JSA to groups that currently qualify for income support. The clause is designed to support the abolition of income support. Stakeholders have made limited comments, indicating that the provision should not be enacted until detail is provided of the impact on carers of the requirement to undertake work-related activity. No amendments were suggested. Has the Department any comment to make?

1854. Ms McCleary: I stress that the one point to stress is that the clause does not apply to carers.

1855. Ms Ní Chuilín: It does not apply?

1856. Ms McCleary: It does not.

1857. The Chairperson: Do any members wish to comment? If not, is the Committee content to agree the clause without dissent?

1858. Ms Lo: We are breaking the pattern.

1859. Ms Ní Chuilín: We are not voting against it. I thought that I would just prove you wrong there, Simon.

1860. The Chairperson: I am all flustered now. I was on a roll before.

Question, That the Committee, subject to the Examiner’s report or other consequential amendment, is content with the clause, put and agreed to.

Clause 4, subject to the Examiner’s report or other consequential amendment, agreed to.

Clause 5 (Couples where at least one member capable of work)

1861. The Chairperson: Clause 5 removes entitlement to income support and to income-related employment and support allowance for couples where one member is capable of work. Regulations will set out the circumstances in which a member of a couple is treated as being capable of work.

1862. Stakeholders indicated concerns about the impact on carers, and how the provision will prevent claimants from availing themselves of employment support that is available to ESA claimants and of the additional payment for undertaking work-related activity. Amendments were suggested, which are at amendments W to X in the table in the Committee Stage summary. Anne, do you have anything to add?

1863. Ms McCleary: I will just say again that the aim of the clause is to help back into work those who are capable of work. I stress again, however, that caring responsibilities, which I know are a concern, will be part of that assessment.

1864. Mr Brady: Does the carer then have to be verified, as it were, if they are getting carer’s allowance?

1865. Ms McCleary: Any caring responsibilities will be taken into account.

1866. Mr Brady: That is the important bit, because many carers are in receipt of benefits.

1867. Ms Sisk: That would be where the good cause provisions would come into play. Caring would be a good cause.

1868. Ms Ní Chuilín: Will that be clearly set out in the regulations governing that clause? The clause states: “Regulations may prescribe circumstances". Will the regulations outline what constitutes a good cause?

1869. Ms Sisk: Yes. Good cause applies to any mandatory activity. Good cause is a reason not to take part.

1870. Ms Ní Chuilín: OK.

1871. The Chairperson: We can obviously revisit that issue when the regulations come through.

Question, That the Committee, subject to the Examiner’s report or other consequential amendment, is content with the clause, put and agreed to.

Clause 5, subject to the Examiner’s report or other consequential amendment, agreed to.

Clause 6 (Statutory sick pay and employment and support allowance)

1872. The Chairperson: Clause 6 provides a regulation-making power to allow people who are receiving statutory sick pay to claim income-related ESA instead of income support. No amendments were suggested. Do you have anything to add?

1873. Ms Sisk: No.

1874. Mr Brady: At present, if a person is on statutory sick pay, the income support element is only a small aspect of the benefit. The explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill states:

“Currently people may receive income support in addition to statutory sick pay. In order to abolish income support, alternative provision needs to be made for this group of people."

1875. What will that alternative provision be?

1876. Ms Sisk: The alternative is to move them on to income-related employment and support allowance instead. However, they would still be passported to all the benefits that they would have received had they been getting income support.

1877. Ms Ní Chuilín: Are they penalised for being sick?

1878. Ms Sisk: No. The clause simply changes the name of the benefit that they are on. It is just a technicality.

1879. Mr Brady: [Inaudible.] The phrase “alternative provision" needs to be clarified.

1880. Ms Ní Chuilín: The previous clause, for example, states:

“Regulations may prescribe circumstances".

1881. Perhaps that should be written into the Bill. The explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill states:

“alternative provision needs to be made for this group of people."

1882. Ms Sisk: I do not know whether the regulations specifically need to say that the passporting provisions will apply, because passporting applies to anyone in receipt of any income-related benefit. If people are receiving income-based jobseeker’s allowance or pension credit, or anything that is income-related, they are entitled to free glasses, and so on.

1883. Mr Brady: I take that as clarification of the ESA aspect.

1884. Ms Ní Chuilín: That will be reflected in the Minister’s comments at Consideration Stage.

1885. Ms Sisk: You will also see what is in the regulations.

1886. The Chairperson: If that were made clear at Consideration Stage, that would be helpful.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the Examiner’s report or other consequential amendment, put and agreed to.

Clause 6, subject to the Examiner’s report or other consequential amendment, agreed to.

Clause 7 (Transitional provision relating to sections 4 to 6)

1887. The Chairperson: Clause 7 provides for transitional arrangements for people transferring from income support to ESA and JSA. No amendments were suggested by anyone in our evidence sessions. Have you anything to add?

1888. Ms McCleary: No, I think it is purely a technical point.

1889. Mr F McCann: In relation to the transitional support, there will obviously be a change in benefit, and normally when changing from one benefit to another people have to go through the whole process of applying for the new benefit. I take it that, in the transitional period, that will not be the case, and it will just happen automatically.

1890. Ms Sisk: Yes. The regulations will allow for the transition to be made so that when people stop being awarded one benefit they are awarded another benefit. It will ensure that there is no gap in the payment, so that nobody will actually lose anything. It is a technical thing that is required to allow people to move from one benefit to another benefit.

1891. Mr Brady: Are you saying that it will be seamless?

1892. Ms Sisk: It will be a seamless transfer as far as the person is concerned. They will not see any difference.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the Examiner’s report or other consequential amendment, put and agreed to.

Clause 7, subject to the Examiner’s report or other consequential amendment, agreed to.

Clause 8 (Assembly procedure: regulations imposing work-related activity requirements on lone parents of children under 7)

1893. The Chairperson: Clause 8 provides that regulations relating to lone parents’ work-related activity where the child is under 7 will be subject to confirmatory resolution procedure. That is a technical point. No amendments were suggested. Do members have any comment? It is positive, in that the Assembly has the final say on it.

1894. The Committee Clerk: I should advise members that the report of the Examiner of Statutory Rules has not been received yet. That is why the Chairperson is saying “subject to the Examiner’s report". If, when that report comes back, members choose to adopt his recommendations, for example, to change the type of procedure —

1895. Ms Ní Chuilín: We can do it?

1896. The Committee Clerk: Yes.

1897. The Chairperson: I think that we are generally supportive.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the Examiner’s report or other consequential amendment, put and agreed to.

Clause 8, subject to the Examiner’s report or other consequential amendment, agreed to.

Clause 9 (Abolition of income support)

1898. The Chairperson: This will not be just as easy. Clause 9 allows the abolition of income support when there are no longer any groups of entitled claimants. Entitlement to income support can be ended by confirmatory resolution regulations. Stakeholders have indicated opposition to this provision, highlighting concerns in respect of errors and arguing for exemptions and additional safeguards. There are two suggested amendments, Y and Z.

1899. Ms McCleary: Again, we have discussed this at length. I stress again that there is no end date necessarily in sight for income support, because we cannot move away from it until such time as the carers issue is resolved. However, this gives us the framework to move.

1900. Mr Brady: One of the issues that stakeholders had was that you cannot just remove income support without having an alternative. What you are saying is that that alternative —

1901. Ms Ní Chuilín: Is not there.

1902. Mr Brady: — will be in place.

1903. Ms Sisk: It will be in place before income support is removed.

1904. Mr Brady: That was one of the issues that stakeholders had, because if you abolish income support without replacing it with something better, or at least comprehensive —

1905. Ms Sisk: That will not happen. That is why we are saying that that no end date has been decided. Until a suitable alternative benefit can be identified, income support cannot be abolished. The purpose of the clause is just to allow for that to happen. It removes all of the references to income support.

1906. Mr Brady: I would almost say that was reassuring.

1907. Ms Sisk: Income support will not be abolished until there are suitable alternative arrangements for everybody who is currently on income support.

1908. The Chairperson: It would be useful if the assurances that we have heard here, and before from the Minister, were repeated by the Minister —

1909. Ms Sisk: At Consideration Stage, yes. That will not be a problem.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the Examiner’s report or other consequential amendment, put and agreed to.

Clause 9, subject to the Examiner’s report or other consequential amendment, agreed to.

Clause 10 (Power to direct claimant to undertake specific work-related activity)

1910. The Chairperson: Clause 10 allows DSD or DEL to specify a work-related activity for an ESA claimant to undertake. Non-compliance will be sanctionable unless there is good cause. Stakeholders highlighted concerns in respect of how that provision will affect claimants with mental health issues. No amendments are suggested. Has the Department anything to add?

1911. Ms McCleary: I stress that this is about work-related activity, not about work per se. I also stress that it will be personalised to the individual, such as the people just mentioned who have mental disabilities or education issues or whatever. Those kinds of factors will be taken into account.

1912. The Chairperson: And “good cause" can include mental disablement as well as physical.

1913. Ms McCleary: Yes.

1914. Mr F McCann: I do not know whether the Department can answer this point. One of our concerns has always been the level of training given to staff who deal with people who have mental health problems. I have never been satisfied that a course of six, three or four weeks can equip anyone to deal with the widespread problems of those with mental health difficulties. How can we be guaranteed that staff are trained to a level that enables them to deal with it? Sometimes doctors or GPs fail to identify people who suffer from mental health problems.

1915. Ms Sisk: The majority of the staff who deal with such people are personal advisers in DEL. DEL would say that it has its staff trained sufficiently by psychologists. However, if it would be helpful, I will ask our counterparts in DEL to give us information about the type of training that they give to personal advisers. We will ask for that and let the Committee have a note on it.

1916. Mr Brady: The two issues follow on from what Fra was saying. Mencap raised that issue, obviously. [Inaudible.] Autism, because adult autism —

1917. Ms Ní Chuilín: The Don’t Write Us Off campaign.

1918. Ms Sisk: Yes. We are well aware of it.

1919. Mr Brady: The difficulty for people with autism, both adults and children, is that they have very fixed regimes. Even work-related activity, never mind actual work, has to be handled very sensitively. It comes back to what Fra said about staff training. We need to be assured that staff will know what they are dealing with.

1920. Ms Sisk: We will ask our counterparts in DEL to give us a note about the type of training that is given to their personal advisers. We have had reassurances about that before, but we will ask again and send a note to the Committee on it.

1921. The Chairperson: I was going to ask that myself. Anyone else?

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the Examiner’s report or other consequential amendment, put and agreed to.

Clause 10, subject to the Examiner’s report or other consequential amendment, agreed to.

Clause 11 (Conditions for contributory jobseeker’s allowance)

1922. The Chairperson: Clause 11 changes the period of contributions necessary to claim contributory JSA. Stakeholders commented that the provision may adversely affect seasonal workers. There are some suggested amendments, AA and AB, in the table.

1923. Ms McCleary: It is worth highlighting that we discussed the parity issue long and hard. However, the Law Centre itself accepted that parity applied in this area. There is little scope, if any.

1924. The Chairperson: Whether people like it or not, almost.

1925. Mr Brady: Before jobseeker’s allowance was introduced in 1996, people got almost a year’s benefit without contributions. JSA reduced it to six months. The purpose of that was to get people off benefit. If you got it for six months, then your wife was working for 16 or more hours per week. That was what it was specifically designed to do, so I am not fully convinced — in fact I am not at all convinced — that the same purpose is not behind this. It has been suggested that [Inaudible.] The issue for a lot of people is whether there will be income support, anyhow, to supplement their jobseeker’s allowance. [Inaudible.]

1926. Ms Sisk: They will be entitled to income-based jobseeker’s allowance instead of income support.

1927. Mr Brady: That could still knock a number of people off the jobseekers’ list. I think that may be one of the points that have been raised about this. It will probably disenfranchise more people from benefit than it will enfranchise.

1928. Ms Sisk: I do not think that anybody can argue that it will not reduce the number of people who are potentially entitled to those benefits. However, the idea is to align the contributory benefits more closely to periods of work. What is being said is that, in some cases, somebody can qualify for contributory jobseeker’s allowance after working for three weeks, which is not what was intended. The idea is that a person must work a minimum of 26 weeks before being entitled. However, as we have said, this clause is quite clearly a parity issue.

1929. Mr Brady: [Inaudible.]

1930. Ms Sisk: They did.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the Examiner’s report or other consequential amendment, put and agreed to.

Clause 11, subject to the Examiner’s report or other consequential amendment, agreed to.

Clause 12 (Conditions for contributory employment and support allowance)

1931. The Chairperson: Clause 12 changes the period of contributions necessary to claim contributory ESA. Stakeholders commented that the provision may adversely affect seasonal workers. There are some suggested amendments, AC and AD. This is very much the same issue as with clause 11. It is a parity thing, a point that was made by the Law Centre.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the Examiner’s report or other consequential amendment, put and agreed to.

Clause 12, subject to the Examiner’s report or other consequential amendment, agreed to.

Clause 13 (Mobility component)

1932. The Chairperson: Clause 13 allows entitlement to the higher-rate component of disability living allowance for the visually impaired. Stakeholders welcomed the provision. I think that members may actually be enthusiastic about this one. A suggested amendment is at AE in the table.

1933. Ms McCleary: This is definitely a very beneficial clause.

1934. The Chairperson: OK.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the Examiner’s report or other consequential amendment, put and agreed to.

Clause 13, subject to the Examiner’s report or other consequential amendment, agreed to.

Clause 14 (Maternity allowance and carer’s allowance)

1935. The Chairperson: Clause 14 will abolish the payment of adult dependency increases for all new claims to maternity allowance and carer’s allowance. Stakeholders opposed this provision. They highlighted the fact that carers who had not worked long enough to claim statutory maternity pay will be penalised. A suggested amendment is at AF in the table.

1936. Ms McCleary: This is one of the other clauses that the Law Centre accepted was a parity issue. It is also worth saying that clause 14 reflects the fact that society has changed. It is now accepted that adult dependency increases are outdated, and we have to move away from them.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the Examiner’s report or other consequential amendment, put and agreed to.

Clause 14, subject to the Examiner’s report or other consequential amendment, agreed to.

Clause 15 (Community care grants relating to specified goods or services)

1937. The Chairperson: This is where we have our Romanian washing machines. [Laughter.]

1938. Ms Ní Chuilín: It was Spanish cookers.

1939. Mr Brady: With a broken-down grill.

1940. The Chairperson: Or no grill, was it? Clause 15 allows the Department —

1941. Mr F McCann: Mickey still has three of them in the house.

1942. The Chairperson: Clause 15 allows the Department to contract with a supplier — in Spain or wherever — to provide goods and services in lieu of a community care grant. Stakeholders opposed the provision, highlighting concerns in relation to product quality, administration costs and the stigmatisation of claimants. There are some suggested amendments at AG and AH in the table. Have you anything to enlighten us with?

1943. Ms McCleary: I genuinely believe that things have changed since the experiences that others have recounted. The way in which contracts are dealt with has changed fairly dramatically since then, and monitoring and quality control are a key part of that. I genuinely think that it will benefit recipients, who, rather than perhaps having to argue for slightly more than the norm for a particular item because they have a specific requirement for that item, will be able to get the item itself directly. I think that will be beneficial.

1944. Mr Brady: The only thing that has changed is that you now have Czechoslovakian cookers.

1945. The Chairperson: They would be really old, because Czechoslovakia has not been there for about 15 years. They might not even have an on switch.

1946. Mr Brady: They are very old cookers.

1947. The Chairperson: Skodas are from there as well.

1948. Ms Lo: Exactly, and they have improved.

1949. Ms Sisk: One of the concerns raised about this was the stigma that might be attached to it. If somebody gets a cooker or a washing machine it will actually be delivered and installed for them, so they will not have the stigma of having to go to any supplier to ask for it or produce vouchers or anything like that. I would have thought that that might be beneficial for them, as opposed to the opposite.

1950. Mr Brady: The point was made that it will create a monopoly, rather than allowing people to have more choice. That is a difficulty.

1951. Ms McCleary: That will be handled by the awarding of the contract in the first place. There will have to be tenders for it in relation to the EU procurement rules.

1952. Ms Ní Chuilín: Is it going to go down the traditional procurement route?

1953. Ms Sisk: Yes. The contracts are also reviewed periodically. People are not given contracts for ever, so if they do not satisfy the conditions the contract can be moved around. We think that it will get better value for money from the community grant scheme, and that people will also be more inclined to get better goods. They will get what they say they want, as opposed to being given the money.

1954. Ms McCleary: Although in some cases they will be able to receive money.

1955. Ms Sisk: They will get the money in certain circumstances.

1956. Ms Lo: I am a bit concerned. A cooker is a cooker, but there can be different ranges of furniture. There is a big difference between a £50 cupboard and a £200 cupboard. Are they going to get the cheapest range? How is it going to work out?

1957. Ms McCleary: I would not have thought so. The procurement procedure will be looking for value for money — that means value, it is not just about whatever is cheapest.

1958. Mrs M Bradley: So they will have to be quality goods?

1959. Ms McCleary: Yes.

1960. Ms Ní Chuilín: Unless that is set out very clearly it is a wee bit arbitrary at this stage, even depending on the supplier. That is a big concern.

1961. The Chairperson: Say this goes through and we are developing the whole process: how will it come back to the Committee? Are regulations needed to set this up, or is the only assurance we have that it goes through the procurement process, which has its own criteria?

1962. Ms Sisk: I do not think there is a requirement to make regulations, but that does not mean that we could not come back to the Committee to give you more information when we have it. Even DWP has not progressed the issue any great distance yet. After we came to give evidence to the Committee at the beginning we went back to DWP to see if it had more information, but it has not got very far with it either. We can certainly come back to the Committee to provide you with more information once we have it.

1963. The Chairperson: That might be useful.

1964. Ms Sisk: That is not a problem at all.

1965. Mr F McCann: With the best will in the world — and I have no doubt that you sincerely believe what you are saying — I have to refer back to the previous time that this was done. Even today, when people apply for community care grants, there are already fixed prices set against what local offices perceive they should be given and the prices at which they should be buying. What they go for is the cheapest. So it already exists.

1966. One of the difficulties you have, again with the best will in the world, is that once this starts up suppliers will look at mechanisms to get around it. In the past, you could see in local newspapers advertisements about buying second-hand cookers. They got a mechanic in to fix them up and they made triple the price.

1967. Ms Sisk: These will be new.

1968. Ms McCleary: That will not happen. It really will not happen.

1969. Mr F McCann: I understand that you are sincere in saying that. However, the reality will be different. You have said that the Department will try to work around the issue of a stigma, but this will directly hit those areas that suffer from severe and high deprivation. The difficulty is that there are those out there who are seeking to make money. I thought that procurement was trying to get things on the cheap right across the board. I am not just talking about —

1970. Ms Sisk: No, no. Procurement is concerned with quality as well. However, I suggest that at this stage we are talking without having a great deal of information. When we get to the point where we are ready to put together contracts and we have more information, we will come back to the Committee and let it see what we intend to do. We will take on board your views at that stage, when we have some detail.

1971. Mr F McCann: Defer it until then.

1972. Mr Brady: It really is about the outworkings.

1973. Ms Sisk: We will come back to you and talk you through what we intend to do when we have some information about it. We will be more than happy to provide some reassurance on that.

1974. The Chairperson: Do you have no timescale for when that might be?

1975. Ms Sisk: No. We have spoken to DWP, but they have nothing on this as yet. The change of Government has brought a lot of these things to a halt.

1976. The Chairperson: Are members happy to accept those assurances? We cannot defer the whole thing. We will have to take the assurance that the Department will come back to us on this.

1977. Ms Ní Chuilín: We are in no position to vote on this unless we have that assurance.

1978. The Chairperson: Assurance of what?

1979. Ms Ní Chuilín: Assurance on procurement; what it says, and the concerns around it.

1980. The Chairperson: My point is that you are not going to get any detail other than what has been said.

1981. Ms Ní Chuilín: We asked for assurances on previous clauses. The Department is prepared to go forward and say — look, I will give you the wording. It is something about regulations; regulations will be set out clearly to give people some sort of comfort. At the moment, this is just too vague.

1982. Ms Sisk: That will be in the contracting process. This does not require regulations to set it up; the contracts will set it up. What we are saying is that we cannot come back to you with regulations, but with the contract, and let you see what that says and take on board any concerns you have at that stage. I am sure that there is no difficulty in letting you have input to the contracting process, if that would help.

1983. Ms McCleary: The procurement process is lengthy and complex.

1984. Ms Sisk: Input to the contracting process might help. If you have concerns and you want to tie things down more closely, I cannot see that that would be difficult.

1985. Ms M Bradley: That is a good idea. None of us want to put people into embarrassing positions or attach stigma. This will allow us to see that.

1986. The Chairperson: We have got some level of comfort and assurance that we will not be excluded from the process. Can we have that repeated at Consideration Stage?

1987. Ms Sisk: We will write into the Minister’s speech that we will come back and talk to the Committee about this.

1988. The Chairperson: If we are not content with all that is said, we always have the option, like everything else at Consideration Stage.

1989. Mr F McCann: This goes to the heart of providing choice for people. At a time when most people are saying that they want to widen the choice for people in many different things, we are reducing people’s choice.

1990. Ms Sisk: We are trying to get better for money for people. Sometimes it is a case of priorities.

1991. Mr F McCann: You are looking to get things cheaper?

1992. Ms Sisk: No. Better value for money does not necessarily mean getting things cheaper.

1993. The Chairperson: In theory, getting better value for money —

1994. Ms Sisk: Economies of scale. That is right.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the Examiner’s report or other consequential amendment, put and agreed to.

Clause 15, subject to the Examiner’s report or other consequential amendment, agreed to.

1995. The Chairperson: Time is pressing on. We will do two more which are related, and it should not be too difficult. We will take it up to clause 17 and then break.

Clause 16 (Community care grants: reviews and information)

1996. The Chairperson: Clause 16 prevents a review where an award of goods and services has been made in lieu of a community care grant. The clause allows regulations for the exchange of information between the Department and relevant suppliers. Stakeholders made the same points as with clause 15: they opposed the provision and highlighted concerns in relation to product quality, administration costs and the stigmatisation of claimants. No amendments were suggested. It relates to the previous clause, and those assurances relate to that as well. Does anyone want to raise anything further?

1997. Mr Brady: Is this saying that, if someone is awarded goods and is not happy with them, they cannot apply for a first- or second-stage review?

1998. Mr Sisk: As I understand it, yes. The reason why most reviews have been carried out in the past was that people had asked for a specific sum of money and did not get it. They might have asked for £200 and got £100, whereas now they will be asking for an item and will get that item. There will be no reason to ask for a review.

1999. Mr Brady: What about the Spanish cooker?

2000. Mr Sisk: Hopefully, they will not receive a Spanish or Czech cooker, or a Romanian washing machine.

2001. Mr Brady: With the greatest respect; I am not being facetious. Really what it is saying is that if you get an item —

2002. Ms Sisk: They will get what they ask for.

2003. Mr Brady: You might ask for a Rolls-Royce and get a Trabant.

2004. Ms Sisk: One must be reasonable. If someone applies for a cooker and gets a cooker, the argument is that there will be no need for that decision to be reviewed. They will have got what they wanted.

2005. Ms McCleary: Providing it is working, of course.

2006. The Chairperson: If they get a rubbish item — [Interruption.]

2007. Ms Sisk: Yes.

2008. Mrs M Bradley: If they asked for more than one item and only got one, there would be no comeback.

2009. Mr Brady: It is about quality assurance.

2010. The Chairperson: As long as the quality is OK.

2011. Ms Sisk: Again, that is the contracting.

2012. Ms McCleary: [Inaudible.]

2013. Ms Ní Chuilín: It goes back to the previous clause.

2014. The Chairperson: It does. It is entirely to do with the nature of the contract.

2015. Ms Lo: I have never come across the word “preclude" before. What does it mean?

2016. Ms Sisk: It means “prevent" or “not allow".

2017. Ms Lo: Sorry; I have learned a new word.

2018. The Chairperson: You learn something new every day.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the Examiner’s report or other consequential amendment, put and agreed to.

Clause 16, subject to the Examiner’s report or other consequential amendment, agreed to.

2019. The Chairperson: We will do clause 17 and that will do us, because we are nearly at 12.00.

Clause 17 (Regulations relating to information: Assembly control)

2020. The Chairperson: Clause 17 allows for regulations to create an offence relating to unauthorised disclosure of information relating to community care grants. Stakeholders again made the same points as with clause 16: they opposed the provision and highlighted concerns in relation to product quality, administration costs and the stigmatisation of claimants. No amendments were suggested. Does anyone have anything to add?

2021. Ms Sisk: Nothing to add.

2022. The Chairperson: It fits in with the previous stuff.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the Examiner’s report or other consequential amendment, put and agreed to.

Clause 17, subject to the Examiner’s report or other consequential amendment, agreed to.

2023. The Chairperson: That will do for today. We will suspend clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill and come back to it next Tuesday. We have made a lot of progress. I thank Committee members, and Anne, Margaret and Colm for their assistance.

25 May 2010

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Simon Hamilton (Chairperson)
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mrs Mary Bradley
Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr Alex Easton
Mr Tommy Gallagher
Mr David Hilditch
Ms Anna Lo
Mr Fra McCann

Witnesses:

Ms Anne McCleary
Ms Margaret Sisk
Mr Colm McLaughlin

Department for Social Development

2024. The Chairperson (Mr Hamilton): We commenced our clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Welfare Reform Bill on 20 May. During this scrutiny phase, members will again be asked to set out their final positions on each clause in the Bill. Where the majority of Committee members support an amendment, the Committee Clerk and the Bill Clerk will take away the proposal and draft the appropriate wording for consideration at a subsequent meeting. Members must clearly state their position during this scrutiny session if they wish to oppose a clause or do not feel that they are able to agree a clause. In such cases, members will be asked to set out their opposition or their proposed amendment. Consideration of the clause in question may be deferred until the next meeting.

2025. I remind everyone that the Department has not suggested any amendments to the Bill. In order to speed up the process and answer any queries that we may have about individual clauses, the Department’s representatives have been invited to attend today. I ask Ms Anne McCleary, Ms Margaret Sisk and Mr Colm McLaughlin to come forward. They hardly need an introduction; they are better attenders than some members of the Committee.

2026. The proceedings are being recorded by Hansard. We need a quick turnaround of the draft Hansard transcript; the suggestion is that that should happen by Friday 28 May. There is very little time. I am sure that it will be as enjoyable to read as it was to live it.

2027. The report of the Examiner of Statutory Rules on the delegated powers of the Welfare Reform Bill has been received. The Examiner has highlighted clauses 16, 17 and 20, which make regulations subject to confirmatory resolution. The Examiner indicates that equivalent regulations in GB are subject to draft affirmative procedure, but that confirmatory resolution is more commonly used in Northern Ireland for parity measures. Anne, do you have any comments to make about the Examiner’s report?

2028. Ms Anne McCleary (Department for Social Development): No. It is all very positive. We are content.

2029. The Chairperson: Do members have any comments? In light of the Examiner’s report, are we happy to proceed? He highlighted clauses 16 and 17; do we want to go over that again, or are we happy to leave it? There is no real controversy.

2030. The Law Centre has provided a copy of its suggested amendments to the Welfare Reform Bill. As clauses 1 to 17 have already been agreed, the Committee should perhaps consider the Law Centre’s proposals in respect only of the well-being of children in clauses 19, 20, 23 and 27. Those proposals will be dealt with as the clauses in question are considered. If members are content we will proceed with the clause-by-clause scrutiny. Members have a table —

2031. Mr Brady: I am looking at the table of proposed amendments. Some of them apply to clauses that we have difficulties with, such as those that deal with “work for your benefit". Can we still table amendments?

2032. The Chairperson: My understanding is that because the Committee has agreed clauses 1 to 17, we cannot open them up again. However, you are free to table amendments as an ordinary Member.

2033. As I said before, you may draw the Bill Clerk’s attention to amendments that have been suggested by others and which you support. She and the Committee Clerk can help you to refine that into the appropriate jargon.

2034. Mr Brady: I just wanted to clarify that. I do not want to go over everything again.

2035. The Chairperson: I will not let you.

2036. Mr Brady: I take your point.

Clause 18 (Payments on account)

2037. The Chairperson: Clause 18 provides a regulation-making power to allow the Department to make a payment on account of benefit in a range of circumstances. Stakeholders welcomed the provision and suggested that the social fund also be amended to extend eligibility. No amendments have been suggested.

2038. Ms McCleary: I want to emphasise that the provisions in the clause are positive. The aim of the clause is to give the Department improved flexibility to address short-term hardship.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to consequential amendment, put and agreed to.

Clause 18, subject to consequential amendment, agreed to.

Clause 19 (Loss of benefit provisions)

2039. The Chairperson: Clause 19 introduces a one-strike rule for benefit fraud, which will see benefit withdrawn for a four-week period. Stakeholders have made many critical comments about the extension of sanctions to benefit claimants. Witnesses suggested that sanctions are often not understood by claimants, are costly to administer, and are unnecessary given the low level of fraud in Northern Ireland. The Law Centre proposed that the clause be deleted. There are some suggested amendments at AI to AM in our table.

2040. Ms McCleary: It is important to stress that sanctions will only be applied as a last resort. There are hardship payments available so that families are not affected by the measure. The clause is intended to act as a deterrent and encourage people to act responsibly.

2041. Mr Brady: It is a double whammy. If you are prosecuted for fraud, you will be fined or, possibly, imprisoned. If there is an overpayment, not only are you fined but the overpayment is also recovered. Therefore, people are already punished, both in terms of having to pay the money back or being prosecuted and having to pay the money back. Why then should people also be sanctioned? They are still, by definition, entitled to the benefit. The clause is totally prescriptive.

2042. Ms McCleary: It is intended to act as a deterrent and as a reminder to people that they have to be responsible for their own actions.

2043. Mr Brady: With respect, if you are fined and prosecuted and have money deducted, is that not punishment enough to focus your mind on the fact that you may not want to repeat the offence?

2044. Ms McCleary: If someone comes before a criminal court for this kind of issue and sanctions have already been applied, it is up to the lawyers representing that person to make the point that the sanctions have been paid. Depending on the circumstances, the magistrate will consider that.

2045. Mr Brady: With respect, the magistrate might consider that, but my experience over the years has been that not only are people prosecuted but they may be imprisoned, they will certainly be fined and they will also have to pay the money back. The fact that there is a benefit sanction is not taken into account in any shape or form, in my experience. I imagine that that will continue to be the case.

2046. People are being prosecuted and punished for what they have — allegedly — done wrong, so sanctioning them would mean that they were receiving three punishments. The Law Centre is making the point that you are implementing another regime of sanctions that will cost money, even though the person has already been punished. It strikes me that the measure is vindictive, although that might be the wrong word.

2047. Ms McCleary: I stress again that this is something that whoever is hearing any criminal action will look at and be aware of. I am afraid that this is another example of a situation in which parity has to apply; we cannot have people in Northern Ireland being treated differently to those in Great Britain.

2048. Mr Brady: With respect, judicial systems tend to treat people differently anyway. Much depends on who hears the case, and there are all sorts of other issues involved. When you say that the magistrates will take that into account, what is being implied there, and who explains all that to them?

2049. Ms McCleary: It is up to —

2050. Mr Brady: This is no criticism, but, in my experience, solicitors do not know very much about social security, nor do they want to. Also, there is no legal aid for appeals or prosecutions. In fact, in my experience, most people are advised to plead guilty, whatever the type of offence. If they do not, and they are found guilty, the penalty tends to be two- or threefold more.

2051. Ms McCleary: I cannot comment on what somebody’s adviser —

2052. Mr Brady: I can, because I have had many years of experience, and I assure you that that has been my experience. It seems to me that this is unnecessary.

2053. Ms McCleary: It is our belief that this is something that we need to do.

2054. Mr F McCann: I have dealt with some cases where families and single people have been refused hardship money for two or four weeks. I asked how people were expected to live, and they said that it was not their problem, because the claimants were being sanctioned.

2055. We are all very concerned, and have been arguing at many different levels, about how you deal with crime. This is a classic example of someone having no money and having no other option but to turn to crime to survive. That needs to be taken into consideration. Taking into consideration what Mickey has said, as well, people do not always get hardship money. Once they leave the office, if they have no family, or if they have a family who also depend on benefits, it can create some difficult situations and circumstances.

2056. Ms Margaret Sisk (Department for Social Development): Presumably when the person who is charged with fraud offences appears in court, all those types of things are taken into account. I fully understand that there is clearly a difference of opinion here. Some people do not like the idea of applying sanctions for fraud. They are meant to be a deterrent, and, if people do not break the law, they will not suffer any consequences. If they do break the law, unfortunately, there will be a consequence.

2057. Mr F McCann: If someone breaks the law, they are brought to court. Is that not enough? If they get a heavy fine and they have to pay the money back, they are already being penalised.

2058. Ms Sisk: The idea is to relate it more clearly to benefit claims. This is something that, as a consequence, will impact on people’s benefit. I am not going to be able to convince you, because clearly there is a difference of opinion here. It is as simple as that.

2059. Mr F McCann: You would think that it would be one or the other. If you are going to introduce sanctions, why not drop all legal proceedings against people, or vice versa? You cannot have it both ways.

2060. Ms Sisk: We cannot do that.

2061. Ms Lo: People are being punished twice, in many ways. If we follow the suggestion of the Law Centre and drop the clause, what will happen has nothing to do with parity. It is really —

2062. Ms McCleary: It is to do with parity. It means that someone in Northern Ireland would be treated differently to someone in Great Britain.

2063. Ms Lo: What will the consequences be for us?

2064. Ms McCleary: The consequences could be that the Treasury would look again at the consequences and take action on that.

2065. Ms Lo: So they are saying that we should deduct a certain amount of money this year from people who have been convicted, and we have to cough up.

2066. Ms Sisk: It is not possible to say what the Treasury’s attitude is likely to be, but one would have to consider that it will be looking for savings in the current climate, so you would not want to play fast and loose with the social security system. That is our concern. If people do not break the law and do not commit benefit fraud, they will not be sanctioned. It is as simple as that. If they break the law and commit fraud, they will be sanctioned.

2067. Ms Lo: But then it is dealt with by the court.

2068. Ms Sisk: That is already the case with the two strikes rule. All we are saying is that we will extend that to the first offence, to deter and stop people from committing fraud in the first place. At the minute, people are sanctioned after a second offence.

2069. Ms Lo: What happens to people when they have their money deducted? As Fra said, will they be pushed into further crime or robbery?

2070. Ms Sisk: There are hardship payments.

2071. Mr F McCann: However, there is a record of those not having been paid. You mentioned families, but I have dealt with single people who were refused hardship payments.

2072. Ms Sisk: If people can demonstrate hardship, they should be entitled to a hardship payment. Clearly, that is a matter for individual cases, Mr McCann. I cannot say anything about an individual case.

2073. Ms Lo: The hardship payment would be a lot less than the benefit to which they would be entitled.

2074. Ms Sisk: It would be less. Absolutely, yes.

2075. Ms Lo: How much are we talking about?

2076. Ms Sisk: I do not know how much a hardship payment would normally be. I am sorry; off the top of my head I cannot tell you.

2077. Mr Brady: The Law Centre seems to be making quite a sensible point. You have talked about parity, and about the Treasury looking to see whether the scheme will cost more. The Law Centre said:

“We therefore would query the cost-effectiveness of introducing a further sanctions regime in light of the apparent success of the current system."

2078. Ms Sisk: That is about administrative cost-effectiveness, though, Mr Brady. We are talking about a programme, which is a separate issue altogether.

2079. Mr Brady: However, if you had a programme that would cost more, and you saved the Treasury money, would you not be doing the Treasury a favour?

2080. Ms McCleary: You would not get it back.

2081. Ms Sisk: The Law Centre is talking about administration, as in the cost of us administering the system. We are talking about benefit costs, which is a separate issue altogether. There would not be any saving of benefit costs by dropping the scheme.

2082. Mr Brady: Overall, however, you would be saving money without introducing a further regime.

2083. Ms Sisk: That is not part of social security. The administration of the social security system is paid for out of the block. We are talking about social security money that does not come out of the block.

2084. Mr Brady: If the administrative money were saved, surely that could be put to other uses in the administrative system of the Social Security Agency.

2085. Ms Sisk: Well, yes, but —

2086. Mr Brady: Would that not make economic sense, apart from what is actually right and wrong in those situations?

2087. Ms Sisk: What we are saying is that there would be no saving. Dropping the scheme would not save any money in social security terms. In fact, it might cost us. The Law Centre is talking about the cost to the Social Security Agency of administering the scheme. What that would be, I do not know; it is hard to tell. So you could say that if we were not to go down that road administratively we might save money, but it would make no difference to the benefit system.

2088. Mr Brady: It would make a lot of difference to the person that you were punishing. Surely that is the issue.

2089. Ms Sisk: Clearly, there is not going to be a meeting of minds on the matter between our point of view and yours. We will not be able to persuade you of our situation.

2090. Mr Brady: By definition, in the term “welfare to work", “welfare" implies something that is beneficial in general terms. We have a system that is not, in certain cases. You will always get serial offenders. I know that, and I am not defending that in any shape or form. However, the reality is that social security fraud here, much as it has been hyped up by the Department, is low.

2091. Ms Sisk: I agree with that. It is fairly low.

2092. Mr Brady: The amount of money that has been spent on targeting alleged fraudsters is not proportional to the amount of fraud that is committed. That is another issue, but one that needs to be highlighted.

2093. Ms Sisk: Well, that is for debate.

2094. Ms McCleary: I have just got some details here about how the hardship money works. The law divides the customers into two groups: customers who are in a vulnerable group, and other customers. “Vulnerable group" is a term used to describe people who are more likely to suffer hardship if jobseeker’s allowance (JSA) is not paid. Those customers are entitled to hardship payments in circumstances where other customers are not. The people who are classed under the current regulations as being in a vulnerable group are pregnant women, lone parents who are responsible for a child or young person, members of couples or polygamous marriages who are responsible for children or young people, customers who qualify for a disability premium, customers with certain long-term medical conditions, certain customers who provide care for disabled people, certain customers aged 16 or 17, and other customers under the age of 21.

2095. That is the first group, and those who fall into those categories classed as vulnerable are entitled to hardship payments, as well as anyone else who can show or satisfy a decision-maker that they or their partner would experience hardship if they were not paid.

2096. Mr Brady: It is fairly straightforward that anyone who is between 21 and 25 and has no money to live on experiences hardship. The difficulty lies in convincing someone at the local office that you are going to be in hardship, and it can become purely arbitrary.

2097. Ms McCleary: There is discretion —

2098. Mr Brady: Discretion is arbitrary.

2099. Ms McCleary: There is also an appeals system. Certain groups are recognised as being more likely to be in hardship, and those are the groups that we have been talking about.

2100. Mr Brady: Sorry, with respect, you say that there is an appeals system, but appeals can take a long time. An appeal can take six to eight weeks, probably longer in most cases. What happens in the interim?

2101. Ms McCleary: I am told that you can also ask for a reconsideration.

2102. Mr Brady: That can take another two or three weeks. You are not convincing me.

2103. The Chairperson: There is clearly a difference of views on clause 19. I will put the Question.

Question put, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to consequential amendment.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 3.

AYES

Mr Armstrong, Mrs M Bradley, Mr Craig, Mr Easton, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hilditch..

NOES

Mr Brady, Mr F McCann, Ms Ní Chuilín.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 19, subject to consequential amendment, agreed to.

2104. The Chairperson: Ms Anna Lo abstained.

2105. Ms Lo: What is the difference between abstaining and not voting?

2106. The Chairperson: One is actively not voting.

2107. Mr Brady: There are lazy abstentions.

2108. The Committee Clerk: It is just as in plenary sittings, when Members can choose to go into the Aye Lobby, the No Lobby, or both Lobbies to abstain, or they can stay in their places and not vote. Abstentions are recorded in the minutes.

2109. The Chairperson: Not voting is not recorded, which makes it look as though you were not here. At least with an abstention you were in attendance; you were interested enough to be here.

Clause 20 (Jobseeker’s allowance: sanctions for violent conduct etc. in connection with claim)

2110. The Chairperson: This may be a similar issue. Let us keep the debate as focused as we can.

2111. Clause 20 introduces sanctions for claimants of jobseeker’s allowance who are convicted or cautioned for behaving violently towards or threatening violence to benefits staff. Provision for hardship payments and the right of appeal is also included. Stakeholders have made critical comments about the extension of sanctions to benefit claimants. Witnesses suggested that sanctions should not apply to the children or families of perpetrators.

2112. The Examiner of Statutory Rules commented that the regulation-making powers in the equivalent clause in GB are subject to draft affirmative, rather than confirmatory, resolution. The Law Centre proposes the deletion of the clause, and there are suggested amendments at AO and AP in our table.

2113. Ms McCleary: We stress that violence is simply not acceptable, and it is not only this Department that recognises that. As I am sure the Committee is aware, GPs have the power to strike patients who have been violent towards them off their list, and such people can be banned from even setting foot in the surgery. We are not saying that people cannot come in but that there is an appropriate and proportionate sanction there.

2114. Ms Ní Chuilín: In the Health Committee, I and my party voted for zero tolerance of violent behaviour, either verbal or physical, towards health and social care staff. This is a slightly different matter because of the impact that the removal of benefits would have on families.

2115. If claimants are violent, either physically or verbally, their claims still need to be dealt with in some way. The sanctions are punitive. I would not want any member of staff, regardless of where they work, to feel threatened or intimidated, but the approach in clause 20 is far too draconian. There must be some way of processing people’s benefit, which does not necessarily mean that it has to be done on the premises. Such behaviour should go through the courts. The sanctions are a wee bit unnecessary.

2116. Ms McCleary: Such behaviour will go through the courts, if that is appropriate. We understand your concerns about family members, and children in particular, and as I said, the hardship criteria would be applied there.

2117. Ms Ní Chuilín: A claim can be processed online or on the telephone, unlike for healthcare. If one member commits a crime or is involved in violent behaviour, it will affect that person personally; it should not affect the rest of the family as much as this provision would. That is the difficulty.

2118. Ms McCleary: As we said about clause 19, hardship provisions are in place. This is about deterrence. We try to address the difficulties that sanctions cause to the claimant’s family through hardship provisions. Small children and families specifically are in the prescribed group.

2119. Ms Ní Chuilín: Did the Department not consider any facility for the person’s claim to be processed over the telephone, particularly if he or she has a family? If the family ends up having to go down the route of getting hardship payments, those can take up to eight weeks to process.

2120. Ms Sisk: That would not be a deterrent. The whole idea of sanctioning the benefit is for it to be a deterrent. If the person were still paid money, it would not have that impact.

2121. Ms Ní Chuilín: It is completely different from fraud.

2122. Ms Sisk: I do not disagree, but anyone who commits this type of offence will first have to have been prosecuted through the courts and found guilty of violent conduct. The point that Anne is making is that there is no reason that some form of sanction should not be applied to people who use violence against staff in benefit offices.

2123. Ms Ní Chuilín: That is not what I am arguing.

2124. Ms Sisk: There is a deterrent, or something similar, in other situations. We just want to send out the message that violence is acceptable in no circumstances.

2125. Ms Ní Chuilín: With your indulgence, Chairperson, I will tell you what will happen, Margaret. In my experience, a couple will let on to be separated in order to access benefits, simply because they cannot cope with the hassle. Not only will the partner rightly be prosecuted and penalised for his or her behaviour, which we totally support, but the family will be made to pay as well. I think that that is totally unfair.

2126. I do understand what you are saying about a deterrent against fraud, but this is not the same. I thought that the Department might have come up with something to protect the families.

2127. Ms Sisk: There is protection for families.

2128. Ms McCleary: There is the welfare of the child provision.

2129. Ms Sisk: The benefit of the family is not impacted on — it the individual’s benefit that will be sanctioned. The individual is sanctioned, but the other people in the family will still get their money.

2130. Ms Ní Chuilín: Eventually.

2131. Ms Sisk: No, they will get their benefits straight away. The only benefit that will be impacted on is the benefit of the individual who has been sanctioned. The benefit payable to the family will still be paid. The full amount payable to the family will be paid; the only benefit that will be sanctioned is that of the individual who has committed the offence. The individual is the only person who will be impacted on.

2132. We have very little difficulty with this problem in jobs and benefits offices. It is not something that happens very often.

2133. Ms Ní Chuilín: It is usually in accident and emergency departments on Friday and Saturday nights.

2134. Ms Sisk: We do not expect sanctions to be used often, but they are in the legislation as a deterrent so that the message is sent out to claimants that such behaviour will not be tolerated.

2135. Mrs M Bradley: The Derry office does experience that type of behaviour. I know one member of staff who is still off work, having had a nervous breakdown owing to the abuse received. On one occasion, the staff there threatened to come out all together and not serve people at all. We have to find some way in which to protect staff.

2136. Ms McCleary: Yes, we do.

2137. Mr Brady: I absolutely agree that violence should not be tolerated. I was a front line member of staff in a social security office for six and a half years, and, as such, I saw violent episodes. Such episodes were few and far between, but there were many and diverse reasons why people became violent. In some cases, although not many, people were provoked, and many had mental health problems that should have been noted and dealt with. I am not a psychiatrist, but even I know when someone has serious problems. Those problems should have been dealt with immediately rather than left hanging until the person had built up a head of steam.

2138. There has been much talk about parity. The Law Centre made a good point when it said that the same sanctions do not apply to tax. If there is to be parity, there has to be equity across all offices that deal with the public.

2139. I want to clarify an issue about the perpetrators of violence. Years ago, in cases involving someone with gambling or drink problems, wives and children were paid separately. However, owing to the way in which the system has developed, that has become rare, if it happens at all. If someone who is sanctioned is claiming for a partner, and the money is lumped together, how is the sanction for that individual worked out?

2140. Ms Sisk: The legislation sets out the amount that is payable to individuals, their partner and their children. The sanction would be worked out in accordance with that.

2141. Mr Brady, I accept that tax offices are not affected. We have not got the wherewithal in Northern Ireland to legislate for tax, and it is arguable as to whether there should be a similar sanction.

2142. Mr Brady: I am just making a general point about parity. Comparing like with like is something that we are told about all the time. However, in this case, it does not happen.

2143. It is a double whammy. If violent conduct, such as an assault against staff, is enough to warrant prosecution, perpetrators will be punished, and, depending on their record, there is a fair possibility that they will be imprisoned. Presumably, the families would end up having to claim anyhow. It seems as if there are instances that need to be looked at more carefully. Identifying hardship goes back to the arbitrary, discretionary approach that is dependent on whether the member of staff who is dealing with the case has any issues with the person involved.

2144. Ms Sisk: If a family with children was involved, I would be very surprised if there was any arbitrariness.

2145. Mr Brady: You may hope not, but it does happen.

2146. Ms Sisk: There is no way that a family would be penalised.

2147. Mr Brady: It happens.

2148. Ms Sisk: I cannot talk about individual circumstances, because I am not aware of them all. However, it is not something that should happen.

2149. Mr Brady: It should not happen.

2150. Ms Sisk: You raised the issue of people being provoked and people who have a mental illness. The courts take all that into account before a person can be convicted of an offence. The starting point is when a person is found guilty of violent conduct for which there is no excuse. We want to send out the message that violence cannot be tolerated in any area of business, be it in social security offices or, as is already the case, in health centres and hospitals.

2151. Mr Brady: To continue the theme, at appeal, if someone has a record of behaving violently, that would be flagged up in the file and, in my experience, the Department will send down two clerks, or more, depending on how big and violent the person is. That would be flagged in the record. It seems as if that is a more sensible way of approaching the situation. Years ago, there were blacklists.

2152. Ms Sisk: Flags are still applied to the records of potentially violent people. As I said earlier, violence is not the sort of thing that we envisage happening very often, and, we hope, it will not. However, we want sanctions in place in case it is necessary to use them to give our staff the same protection as staff in the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

2153. Mr Brady: I agree that staff need protection and I fully support that. However, the incidence of violence is relatively low, and the reasons for it sometimes differ.

2154. Ms Sisk: I agree entirely.

2155. Mr Brady: A catch-all sanction is not necessarily the best way in which to approach this. The courts are there for a purpose. Imposing sanctions and prosecuting somebody is a double whammy.

2156. Mr F McCann: As Carál said, any assault or any violent or verbal abuse against any member of staff needs to be dealt with quickly and sternly. That raises the issue of creating the double whammy of people being brought to court and having their benefits stopped. I have dealt with a number of people who would be on Mickey’s blacklist. There is a mechanism for people to be barred from local offices, and, on a couple of occasions, I have brought people to sign on outside the office. I know that that happens regularly with a number of people at the office out of which I work.

2157. Ongoing contact takes place with the community and political sectors to create a mechanism to allow people who may have been violent, many of whom are chronic alcoholics or suffer from mental illness, to get their benefit. People who are violent in any office need to be dealt with, but if they are brought to court and sentenced to time in prison or fined, that should be sanction enough.

2158. Ms Sisk: The proposed sanction is to withhold the benefit for a week. That is not a hugely punitive sanction.

2159. Mr F McCann: The person could starve for a week.

2160. The Chairperson: I sense some dissent.

Question put, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to consequential amendment.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6; Noes 3.

AYES

Mr Armstrong, Mrs M Bradley, Mr Craig,
Mr Easton, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hilditch.

NOES

Mr Brady, Mr F McCann, Ms Ní Chuilín.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 20, subject to consequential amendment, agreed to.

2161. The Chairperson: Anna Lo abstained from the vote.

Clause 21 (Repeal of sections 53 to 57 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act (Northern Ireland) 2000)

2162. The Chairperson: Clause 21 will repeal existing sections of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act (Northern Ireland) 2000. No amendments were suggested.

2163. Ms Sisk: Those sections cover a pilot exercise that was run in Great Britain that was proven not to work. The pilot did not offer good value for money, so it was repealed in Great Britain. That pilot exercise was not run in Northern Ireland, so we intend to repeal the sections in the 2000 Act. That shows that it can happen that some measures in legislation do not proceed; it not a foregone conclusion that they go ahead.

2164. The Chairperson: I will wait for any cynics in the room to raise anything.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to consequential amendment, put and agreed to.

Clause 21, subject to consequential amendment, agreed to.

Clause 22(Period for which pilot schemes have effect etc.)

2165. The Chairperson: Clause 22 allows piloting of schemes to be extended from 24 months to 36 months. Again, no amendments were suggested.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to consequential amendment, put and agreed to.

Clause 22, subject to consequential amendment, agreed to.

Clause 23(Exemption from jobseeking conditions for victims of domestic violence)

2166. The Chairperson: Clause 23 includes regulation-making powers to allow the Department to permit JSA claimants who are victims of domestic violence to receive benefit but be exempt from JSA conditions for a period of 13 weeks, in addition to current provisions of 11 weeks.

2167. Stakeholders commented that benefit advisers should have less discretion in interpreting domestic violence and that there should be a general recognition of the impact of domestic violence on claimants. The Law Centre (NI) proposes a further extension of the exemption period beyond 13 weeks, and the Department has indicated previously that the 13-week period is in addition to the 11-week period of exemption. Some suggested amendments along those lines are included in amendments AQ and AS in the table in the Committee Stage summary.

2168. Ms McCleary: There seems to have been misunderstandings about the clause. The Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 1996 already make provision for a period of 11 weeks in connection with domestic emergencies. The proposed 13-week period will be in addition to that, meaning that the total period will be almost be six months, which is what many respondees felt to be appropriate.

2169. The Chairperson: Can you provide any further clarity on the meaning of “domestic violence"? Will only physical abuse be included or will psychological abuse also be included?

2170. Ms McCleary: It will include psychological abuse.

2171. The Chairperson: Will revised guidance be provided to benefits advisers?

2172. Ms Sisk: Yes. Guidance for staff will be produced.

2173. Mr Colm McLaughlin (Department for Social Development): The definition of “domestic violence" will be included in the regulations. That definition will include personal, financial and physical abuse, among other forms of abuse.

2174. The Chairperson: Therefore, that definition will not be prescriptive.

2175. Ms Sisk: It will be a pretty wide definition.

2176. The Chairperson: That covers most of the concerns raised in the evidence given to the Committee. Is the Committee happy enough?

2177. Ms Lo: If someone has a fit note to say that they can return to work, apply for jobseeker’s allowance or attend interviews, will that also be covered?

2178. Ms McCleary: Yes. It will be taken into account.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to consequential amendment, put and agreed to.

Clause 23, subject to consequential amendment, agreed to.

Clause 24 (Good cause to comply with regulations etc.)

2179. The Chairperson: Clause 24 includes regulation-making powers to prescribe the circumstances in which claimants have good cause not to comply with mandatory activities such as JSA directions. Stakeholders commented that there should be less discretion for benefit advisers in interpreting good cause, and that good cause provisions should recognise mental health, learning disability, childcare arrangements and other caring responsibilities. One amendment was suggested, which is amendment AT in the table in the Committee Stage summary.

2180. Anne, do you have anything to add, particularly if you have any clarity to add on the meaning of “good cause" and assurances on the revised guidance that will be given to benefits advisers? I am aware that you previously gave the Committee assurances that various conditions such as mental health and learning disabilities will be included. Do those assurances still apply?

2181. Ms Sisk: Yes.

2182. The Chairperson: Do Committee members want to raise any further issues?

2183. Mr Brady: The issue of “good cause" seems somewhat discretionary.

2184. Ms Ní Chuilín: Will it be set out in regulations?

2185. Ms Sisk: The Department promised that it and the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) will examine the guidance given to staff to ensure that the definition of “good cause" is as broad as possible. The Minister will also give an assurance to that effect in his speech at Consideration Stage.

2186. The Chairperson: Must that definition necessarily be quite broad?

2187. Ms McCleary: Yes; otherwise, examples of good cause will be left out. It is possible to be too prescriptive.

2188. Ms Ní Chuilín: Are “just cause" and “good cause" the same thing?

2189. Ms McCleary: Yes.

2190. Mr C McLaughlin: If someone has left work, that would be termed as a “just cause" for leaving work. A “good cause" would apply if someone failed to attend a work-focused interview or to sign on every fortnight.

2191. Ms Sisk: Different terminology is used in different circumstances, but the situation is exactly the same.

2192. Ms Ní Chuilín: Will the Minister mention that at Consideration Stage?

2193. Ms Sisk: Yes.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to consequential amendment, put and agreed to.

Clause 24, subject to consequential amendment, agreed to.

Clause 25 (Jobseekers’ agreements and action plans: well-being of children)

2194. The Chairperson: Clause 25 requires advisers to take into account the well-being of children of claimants in devising a JSA action plan or agreement. Stakeholders commented that there should be further clarification on how that provision would be applied. An amendment was suggested, which is amendment AU in the table in the Committee Stage summary.

2195. Anne, have you anything to add? How is the well-being of the child taken into account if sanctions are applied?

2196. Ms McCleary: If we accept any of the proposed amendments, we leave ourselves in too prescriptive a situation. It is better to leave the clause as it is, because that will give us the widest discretion to ensure that the well-being of the child is taken into account.

2197. The Chairperson: Do members want to raise anything?

2198. Mr Brady: The Law Centre’s amendment is quite specific.

2199. Ms Sisk: The definition of “well-being" that the Law Centre (NI) suggests includes the considerations that we will use. However, we do not want these things set down in legislation. Once they are in legislation, those are the only things that can be taken into account. There may well be other relevant situations, but we would be precluded from taking those into account.

2200. In the guidance, we will set out the types of consideration that we want the decision-makers to take account of. That is what GB will do as well. The definition is lifted from the Children Act 2004. We will use the same considerations, but we will allow for other things to be considered as well. Therefore, we are not going against what the Law Centre (NI) says but simply do not want to be prescriptive in the Bill, because to do so would fetter the decision-maker’s discretion.

2201. Mr Brady: Your suggestion is more aspirational than —

2202. Ms Sisk: No. Our suggestion will allow for more things to be taken into account than what the Law Centre (NI) sets down.

2203. Mr Brady: You will find that if a mechanism is not specified, we are back to relying on the Department’s discretion.

2204. Ms Sisk: The mechanisms will be specified in the guidance, but there will also be scope for additional factors. That is all that we are saying.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to consequential amendment, put and agreed to.

Clause 25, subject to consequential amendment, agreed to.

Clause 26 (Contracting out functions under Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995)

2205. The Chairperson: Clause 26 provides a general provision to allow DSD and DEL to contract out certain jobseeker functions.

2206. Stakeholders commented that contracting out would require robust monitoring, and might lead to additional administrative costs and a loss of service for hard-to-help or rural groups. There are some suggested amendments, which can be found at amendments AW to AZ in the table in the Committee Stage summary.

2207. Does the Department want to add anything, particularly about the controls that DWP uses for contracted-out organisations or third parties?

2208. Ms McCleary: First, we are not planning to contract anything out. Any contracting out is in the DEL sphere rather than in ours. As we said in an earlier evidence session, contracts in situations such as this will presumably be subject to monitoring.

2209. The Chairperson: DEL has contracted out aspects of business in the past.

2210. Ms Sisk: There is a similar provision in the Welfare Reform Act (Northern Ireland) 2007, but DEL has not yet used it. DEL has asked that this clause be left in the Bill, in case at any point it decides that there are aspects of its business that it wishes to contract out. As far as I am aware, it has no plans to contract out.

2211. Mr Brady: I am wary of contracting out because of the sensitive nature of the business. Take HR Connect, which you may know a great deal more about than I do. It is a disaster, in the sense that all sorts of problems have occurred. Other Committee members have also had problems with HR Connect. It has taken over human resources in the Civil Service, and it has not proved to be successful.

2212. Ms Sisk: As Anne said, DSD has no intention of contracting out any of its functions.

2213. Mr Brady: What about support services?

2214. Ms Sisk: What we are talking about here are the services that impact on benefit decision-making. We have no intention of doing anything like that. I do not know whether DEL has such an intention. Sir Reg Empey is due to appear in front of the Committee for Employment and Learning in the not-too-distant future. Perhaps you can take that up with him and see whether he has any plans. I think that that is a fail-safe measure, just in case.

2215. The Chairperson: Are Members content with the clause? The power exists to contract out services, but the Department has no intention of doing it.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to consequential amendment, put and agreed to.

Clause 26, subject to consequential amendment, agreed to.

2216. The Chairperson: It is 2.55 pm, and I know that some members have their names down to ask questions to the Minister of Justice at 3.00 pm, and that a question for urgent oral answer has been tabled for immediately after Question Time. However, rather than break right now, I wish to jump to clauses 30 to 36, which are minor and technical clauses that make reference to the new arrangements for the payment of child maintenance. No amendments were suggested during evidence sessions.

2217. Question, That the Committee is content with the clauses, subject to consequential amendment, put and agreed to.

Clauses 30 to 36, subject to consequential amendment, agreed to.

Committee suspended for Question Time.

On resuming —

2218. The Chairperson: Welcome back. We seem to have lost about half of the Committee, but it may prove to be for the best.

2219. Clause 27 (Attendance in connection with jobseeker’s allowance: sanctions)

2220. The Chairperson: Clause 27 introduces a sanction for JSA claimants who fail to attend mandatory interviews and the closure of claims where claimants fail to make contact. Stakeholders commented that these sanctions would particularly and unfairly target claimants with certain mental illnesses and would also unfairly affect the families of claimants. The Law Centre proposed an amendment that would allow claimants 21 days, rather than five days, to set out good cause for missing an appointment. There are some suggested amendments at BA and BB in our table. Does the Department have anything to add, particularly in respect of good cause?

2221. Ms Sisk: The Law Centre’s amendment is based on a misunderstanding of what the clause is all about. The clause proposes that where someone misses their interview and then turns up within five days without demonstrating good cause, they will be sanctioned. If they stay away for longer than five days, their claim will be closed down, as happens at the minute. Therefore, extending the length of time to allow them to demonstrate good cause would not be of any benefit to them at all.

2222. The clause is aimed at serial non-attenders. Mr McCann talked about situations in which somebody could fail to attend on one occasion by mistake. That is not the sort of situation that we have in mind. this is aimed at serial non-attenders, the idea being that people who are trying to get into work get into the habit of being at places at a time when they are expected to be there. When a person is working, that is something that they are expected to do.

2223. Therefore, as I said, the amendment that has been proposed by the Law Centre is based on a misunderstanding of the clause. It would not achieve what the Law Centre intends it to achieve. At present, if someone does not attend, their benefit claim is closed down, and they lose benefit until the claim is reopened. That creates bureaucracy. We are saying that the claim would not be closed down; instead, they would lose benefit until the claim is opened up again.

2224. Mr Brady: Is the Law Centre not saying, essentially, that five days is not long enough, say, in the case of an emergency? That is the point that it is making.

2225. Ms Sisk: We are not saying that someone has five days to demonstrate good cause: we are saying that if that person does not turn up within five days, their claim will be closed down anyway, which is what happens at present. The Law Centre suggests that there should be 21 days in which to demonstrate good cause — all that would happen is that the claim would be closed.

2226. Mr Brady: I take your point. However, we then need to look at changing the fact that the case is closed down after five days.

2227. Ms Sisk: Exactly. Therefore, the amendment that the Law Centre has suggested will not achieve what it wants it to achieve.

2228. The Chairperson: They are losing their money after five days.

2229. Mr Brady: You are suggesting another amendment —

2230. Ms Sisk: I am not suggesting any amendment at all. [Laughter.]

2231. Mr Brady: But you have given us —

2232. Mr F McCann: You have steered us in the right direction.

2233. The Chairperson: You have given us an idea.

2234. Ms Sisk: What I am saying is —

2235. Mr Brady: We are not trying to put words into your mouth.

2236. Ms Sisk: The individual will not actually lose much more than he or she would now. At present, their claim is closed down until they turn up again. We are saying that, under clause 27, we will not actually close down that person’s claim; we will keep it open. However, there will be a sanction of a week for not turning up at the right time.

2237. Mr Brady: The case will not be closed.

2238. Ms Sisk: The case will not be closed. Therefore, we are actually removing bureaucracy.

2239. Mr Brady: God forbid.

2240. Ms Sisk: There you are.

2241. Mr F McCann: As you said, I have raised this at previous meetings. I still have a serious problem with sanctions when someone forgets, which happens to us all. I dealt with the case of someone who was on disability living allowance. The reason that he gave for missing his interview was not accepted as good cause. He was fined.

2242. Ms Sisk: His benefit will have been sanctioned.

2243. Mr F McCann: It is the same thing as a fine. I tried to pursue it and asked about a hardship payment. It was not paid. In another case, I asked whether someone could appeal. I was told that the person could appeal, but that by the time that the appeal came through, his money would be back on again. Therefore, he still lost money.

2244. Is there a set number of days, right across all offices? I have heard that some offices operate a week, some two weeks, and others longer. There is no set way to deal with this across all the offices.

2245. Ms Sisk: At present, people are required to attend fortnightly. If they do not attend within five days of their appointments, their claims are closed down. That is what happens. Members will always be able to tell us about situations when things do not seem to have worked fairly. However, good cause is taken into account. Therefore, if people have good reason for not being able to turn up on time and satisfy conditions, that should be taken into account. As I keep on saying, I cannot talk about individual cases.

2246. Mr F McCann: I appreciate that.

2247. Ms Sisk: Clearly, as I said to you before, if there is a pattern in some offices of things not appearing to work according to plan, we in the Department would like to know about it and to look at whether there is a situation. Perhaps the decision-makers need guidance from the Department’s decision-making service. It could be something that simple.

2248. The impact of this clause will not be that much more than what already exists. It is intended to relieve bureaucracy. What will happen is that if someone does not turn up at the right time and comes back to the office within five days, without being able to demonstrate good cause, they will be sanctioned. It is not actually the case that someone has five days to demonstrate good cause. That is not what the clause says. Therefore, the Law Centre has misunderstood the clause.

2249. Mr Brady: You talked about the sanctions affecting the person, but not necessarily their dependants.

2250. Ms Sisk: That is right. That would be exactly the same —

2251. Mr Brady: Will that be made clear?

2252. Ms Sisk: Yes.

2253. Mr Brady: The other thing that I want to clarify is whether cases will be closed after five days. Will people be given the opportunity —

2254. Ms Sisk: No, cases will be closed after five days. If somebody does not turn up within five days, as is the case at the minute, their benefit will be closed down until they come back and reclaim. They will not be sanctioned, because they will have to wait —

2255. Mr Brady: They put in a fresh claim.

2256. Ms Sisk: Yes.

2257. Mr Brady: But that fresh claim could take —

2258. Ms Sisk: However long it takes to decide.

2259. Mr Brady: Therefore, in many cases the sanction will, in effect, be more than a week or two weeks.

2260. Ms Sisk: Yes, but that is exactly the same as the situation at the minute. We are not proposing any changes to it.

2261. Mr Brady: I know, but that does not necessarily make it right.

2262. Ms Sisk: I am not suggesting that you would think that.

2263. Mr Brady: The other thing is the whole issue around good cause and using discretion.

2264. Ms Sisk: As I think we have said —

2265. Mr Brady: There is local office variation

2266. Ms Sisk: It really has to be discretionary to give people the opportunity to take account of what an individual is telling them about their particular circumstances. It will never be possible to be prescriptive in legislation, because, if you are, you reduce the ability of decision-makers to take account of an individual’s circumstances.

2267. Mr Brady: I do not disagree with that, but say you have a genuine case in which someone says that they forgot. It comes down to that person’s credibility and whether the interviewing officer believes them. Sometimes, that is very difficult. I take your point about serial and repeat offenders. For someone who does not sign on or attend because they think that they will get paid anyway, it does not work like that, and people catch on very quickly. Therefore, the incidence will be small.

2268. Ms Sisk: I agree entirely; you are right. We are talking here about repetitive offenders. Somebody who fails to attend —

2269. Mr Brady: It is difficult to have sympathy for people who simply do not bother to turn up. I am not defending anybody. To get benefit, you have to fulfil an obligation.

2270. Ms Sisk: That is all that we are talking about. There could be circumstances in which claims are continually being closed down and reopened, which, administratively, is extremely expensive and not cost-effective.

2271. Mr Brady: I go back to the point about closing claims down, which is more prescriptive, because people can make a fresh claim. They are not sanctioned, but it can take a few weeks.

2272. Ms Sisk: Again, that is a case of people not satisfying the conditions for the receipt of their benefit. If they do not turn up —

2273. Mr Brady: We are back to good cause.

2274. Ms Sisk: Well, yes, they can claim good cause, and we will take that into account.

2275. Mr Brady: We could be at this for a long time.

2276. Ms Sisk: I know. We seem to have been here a couple of times already.

2277. Mr Brady: It is déjà vu all over again.

2278. Ms Sisk: I should have thought of that one.

2279. The Chairperson: That is just today.

2280. Mr Craig: I do not have much sympathy for people who deliberately do this — I call them serial late offenders. I have always made a point of being on time for things. Are sanctions and the impact of not turning up made clear to people when they apply? It must be made clear up front that if they miss two appointments, they have five days to show good cause or else the benefit is gone. If that is made clear, they do not have a leg to stand on.

2281. Ms Sisk: You are right. When you apply for benefits, all the conditions are set down, so there is no excuse for not realising what is required. People are expected to turn up once a fortnight. That is basically it, so it is difficult for someone to explain how they can continually forget to turn up. It is difficult to have sympathy.

2282. Mr Craig: Unless there are medical reasons.

2283. Ms Sisk: In which case, that is a good cause.

2284. Mr Brady: When you sign on, you are given a document. Nobody actually says “this is the way it is going to be." It is quite a long and complex document, so, unless you are used to such documents, it can be confusing. Obviously, I agree with Jonathan about people who just cannot be bothered to turn up. However, the difficulty is getting that message across within that document.

2285. Ms Sisk: I think that someone who demonstrated that they did not understand the documentation would constitute good cause. However, they would have to be able to demonstrate that they did not understand the requirements.

2286. Ms McCleary: For whatever reason.

2287. Mr Brady: I think that that argument has been taken up by the Autistic Society.

2288. Ms McCleary: Yes.

2289. Ms Sisk: Yes, and that would certainly be classified as good cause.

2290. Ms McCleary: All learning disabilities.

2291. Mr Brady: Such people may be articulate to a certain degree without being able to fully comprehend, and there is a subtle difference.

2292. Ms Sisk: I understand that. The people in the jobs and benefits offices tend to know their customer base, and on a lot of occasions they are aware of those with genuinely good reasons, particularly people with any sort of disability that would make it difficult for them to understand the requirements.

2293. Mr Brady: In fairness, the staff are under tremendous pressure.

2294. Ms Sisk: Yes, that is true.

2295. Mr Brady: That is one of the difficulties.

2296. Ms Sisk: Clause 27 is one of the things that will relieve that, because they will not have to continue to action cases over and over again.

2297. The Chairperson: Is there agreement on the clause?

2298. Mr Brady: I would like to look at the other option, but I am not sure how we can get around closing the claims down.

2299. Ms Sisk: Again, that would be a parity situation, and it would require an amendment, because the Bill does not cover that at all.

2300. Mr Brady: It could be in the form of an amendment.

2301. Ms Sisk: An amendment to that effect could be put down, but that would be a break of parity because it would create different conditions here from those for other people across the UK.

2302. Mr Brady: I can feel the thunderbolt already.

2303. Ms Sisk: Yes, you can hear us saying —

2304. The Chairperson: We are going to be struck down here.

2305. Ms Sisk: You would expect nothing else.

2306. The Chairperson: Do you want to divide on this now, so you can vote against it and then decide what else you want to do?

2307. Mr Brady: Yes, do that.

Question put, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to consequential amendment.

The Committee divided: Ayes 4; Noes 2.

AYES

Mr Armstrong, Mr Craig, Mr Easton, Mr Hamilton.

NOES

Mr Brady, Mr F McCann.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 27, subject to consequential amendment, agreed to.

Clause 28 (Social security information and employment or training information)

2308. The Chairperson: Clause 28 broadens the scope of information-sharing provisions relating to social security and employment matters. No amendments were suggested. I have nothing to add.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to consequential amendment, put and agreed to.

Clause 28, subject to consequential amendment, agreed to.

Clause 29 (Persons under pensionable age to take part in work-focused interviews etc.)

2309. The Chairperson: In line with the increase in state pension age, clause 29 introduces a requirement for people aged 60 to 65to undertake work-focused interviews. Stakeholders commented that, given the economic crisis, the provision was inappropriate. However, no amendments were suggested.

2310. Ms McCleary: There may well be those to whom this provision will apply who will want to take part in work-focused interviews because they wish to continue to work. The requirement is not particularly onerous. They will not have to attend work-focused interviews terribly frequently — they will be conducted quarterly on a sliding scale.

2311. The Chairperson: Quarterly? Right.

2312. Mr Brady: People who want to work when they reach that age will probably look for work themselves. I question why they should be put into a category in the current economic crisis, which is likely to last for a while. It is not that long ago that people aged 50 did not have to sign on. We have now gone full circle, and the economic situation is a lot worse than it was 10 or 15 years ago.

2313. Ms McCleary: The provision may assist those who may want to retrain in another area or to do something different.

2314. Mr Brady: I am not sure that employers will be seeking applicants aged 60 or over.

2315. Ms McCleary: There is legislation against age discrimination.

2316. Mr Brady: Some of that legislation, particularly European stuff, has turned out to militate against older people rather than achieving positive discrimination. I am thinking of lifelong learning and the equalisation of college fees, which led to older people being discriminated against because they had to pay the same amount as younger people when, in fact, they were on cheaper courses. There are a lot of issues around that; it is not as straightforward as it may initially appear.

2317. Ms Sisk: I think you will find that, through time, because the population is ageing and there are fewer young people looking for employment, older people will find it easier. The other thing that is a strong possibility — and it has been signalled in the Queen’s Speech today — is that the default retirement age will be extended beyond 65.

2318. Mr Brady: [Inaudible.]

2319. Ms Sisk: I know.

2320. Mr Brady: As a member of that ageing population, I may talk to you about it after next May.

2321. The Chairperson: You will have a work-focused interview.

2322. Ms Sisk: Yes, indeed.

2323. Mr Brady: A work-focused convention.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to consequential amendment, put and agreed to.

Clause 29, subject to consequential amendment, agreed to.

2324. The Chairperson: We have done clauses 30 to 36.

Clause 37, subject to consequential amendment, agreed to.

Schedules 1 to 4, subject to consequential amendment, agreed to.

2325. The Chairperson: Further amendments to the Bill have been proposed; amendments BC and BD in our table. Amendment BC proposes that a pilot scheme for the automatic payment of pension credit be undertaken.

2326. Ms Sisk: We are not proposing to run a pilot scheme here for pension credit. I think that Britain is running a very short pilot involving 2,000 people to see whether sufficient information is held by DWP to allow it to pay pension credit to individuals without a claim. If that is successful and DWP decides that it should be rolled out then clearly in Northern Ireland we will do exactly the same thing. There is no real benefit to us in running a pilot because you are talking about a tiny number of people, and it would probably not prove anything much. That is why we did not see the need to run a pilot scheme here. It would not be cost-effective, but if DWP find that it is of benefit then there is no question but that it will be rolled out in Northern Ireland.

2327. The Chairperson: What proportion of the overall number does 2,000 constitute? It sounds like a small number.

2328. Ms Sisk: It is a tiny number of people. I am sure that there are hundreds of thousands of people getting pension credit. If we were to take something like a fortieth of that it would amount to less than 100 people in Northern Ireland. It really would be of no particular benefit to us at all.

2329. Mr Brady: Logically, why not have a pilot scheme that includes more people? One of the big issues that has been going on for years is that pension credit is not being claimed. There is between £1 million and £1·9 million of pension credit unclaimed here every week. It is much more urgent here than it is in Britain, and therefore it seems sensible to me to raise people’s awareness of the benefit. That money goes back to the Treasury.

2330. Ms Sisk: It is not that it goes back to the Treasury; it just does not come here in the first place. There would be no benefit to us in running a pilot, because DWP will decide whether or not it is going to do this. If we ran a pilot and came up with an answer, we could not put legislation in place that would allow us to do it. The legislation would have to be put in place by DWP, so it is that Department that needs to prove that it works.

2331. Mr Brady: That is not the point. The point of the pilot is to raise awareness among people that they may be entitled to pension credit.

2332. Ms Sisk: I am not sure that that is the point of the pilot.

2333. Ms McCleary: I do not think it is about raising awareness.

2334. Mr Brady: It is about paying people who are entitled; that is the issue.

2335. Ms McCleary: Yes, without their having to go through the process.

2336. Mr Brady: So whether it is DWP or the Social Security Agency here, people who are entitled to the benefit would be getting that benefit. It is not deviating from something that is not already there. The problem here is that the number of people who are not getting the benefit to which they are entitled is much higher proportionately than it is in Britain. It seems a sensible suggestion from Age NI that a pilot scheme could be beneficial.

2337. Ms Sisk: I still come back to my point that, in order for this to be put into place as a permanent solution to the problem, DWP will have to make the decision, and the evidence used will have to be its evidence. Anything that we did would have no bearing on that.

2338. Mr Brady: I understand that. The permanent solution, surely, is making sure that people who are legally entitled to the benefit do, in fact, get it.

2339. Ms Sisk: Yes.

2340. Mr Brady: That is the solution. This is simply running a pilot to make sure that people who are entitled to the benefit get it.

2341. Ms Sisk: The idea of the pilot is to see whether DWP holds sufficient information to allow it to make correct decisions on pension credit, because it is possible that payments will be made to people who are not entitled.

2342. Mr Brady: [Inaudible.]

2343. Ms Sisk: We do not want a situation to arise in which money would have to be recovered from some people. The purpose of the pilot is to see whether an automatic scheme would work. We do not see there being any benefit to us in running pilot schemes, because we cannot influence the final decision. The final decision will have to be made by DWP. If DWP decides that this is a good, workable thing and does not disadvantage anybody in any way, it will be rolled out in Northern Ireland; there will not be a problem.

2344. Mr Brady: You are saying that they may or may not have the information. In a number of European countries, people automatically get their pension and other entitlements when they reach pensionable age. The excuse used in Britain is that they do not have enough postcode information, and that is nonsense.

2345. Ms Sisk: That is not entirely true. Pension credits also —

2346. Mr Brady: They do have the information. I rang up about a television licence on one occasion, and all I had to do was give them my postcode; I did not have to give my name, address or anything else. They could have told me what I had for my breakfast just from my postcode.

2347. Ms Sisk: Pension credit is a means-tested benefit, so information about people’s income, savings and capital is required. It is to check on that —

2348. Mr Brady: There is no difference, because, at the moment, you are acting on the information that people tell you. They could have £20,000 in a shoebox under the bed and not tell you about it.

2349. Ms Sisk: That is correct.

2350. Mr Brady: You will have that information through their bank accounts and obviously —

2351. Ms Sisk: We cannot access people’s bank accounts. They would have to have told us.

2352. Mr Brady: You would have to have the information to access.

2353. Ms Sisk: That is right.

2354. Mr Brady: It used to be that the claimants had to give you their permission, and if you did not get permission, you would not do anything because you did not have enough information. You now have access, once you have the information.

2355. Ms Sisk: Yes, but the purpose of the pilot in GB is to check whether they hold that information. If they can show that DWP holds enough information, without people having to fill in claim forms, this will be rolled out, and there will be no need for a pilot in Northern Ireland. It will be rolled out automatically. There is no benefit to our running a pilot, because we cannot influence DWP’s final decision. It is DWP who will have to make the decision. That is the reason for there being no pilot here.

2356. The Chairperson: Mickey’s points are valid, and everybody will accept that trying to increase the uptake of pension credits should be a priority.

2357. Ms Sisk: Absolutely.

2358. The Chairperson: Do we accept the Department’s point that that it is not meritorious for us to go ahead and run a pilot of something that might differentiate from a pilot that has been going on over there and about which we can do nothing?

2359. Mr Brady: With respect, Alex made the point last week about parity. If there is to be parity, why are they having a pilot scheme and we are not?

2360. Ms McCleary: Their pilot scheme will apply to us.

2361. The Chairperson: It is the same with “work for your benefit" as well.

2362. Mr Brady: I agree that there should be a “work for your benefit" pilot scheme here, because parity is like with like. Why is there a pilot scheme there? Two and a half years has been mentioned — the legislation will be place. Irrespective of what happens with the pilot scheme, do we honestly think that they will change the legislation to take that into account?

2363. Ms Sisk: Are we talking about “work for your benefit"? I am lost.

2364. Ms McCleary: The point to remember is that the pilot is not about increasing awareness of the benefit; it is about making sure that the system has enough information to allow us to do it automatically. That does not need to have Northern Ireland-specific information. It is about whether there is information on the system GB-wide or UK-wide, rather than worrying only about issues specific to Northern Ireland.

2365. The Chairperson: If it works over there, the same information is held here. We do not have to run a pilot.

2366. Ms Sisk: That is correct. We will go straight to it, without holding a pilot.

2367. Mr Brady: I thought that we were here to worry specifically about what happens in the North.

2368. Ms Sisk: On this specific issue, it is DWP-led.

2369. Mr Brady: It is not Social Security Agency-led?

2370. The Chairperson: Members might be looking for assurance. If the pilot scheme in GB works and gets the go-ahead from DWP, we will not have a pilot. Is that correct?

2371. Ms Sisk: That is correct. The scheme will be rolled out here.

2372. Mr Brady: Just because it might not work over there does not mean that it will not work here.

2373. Ms Sisk: If it does not work there, it will not work. The pilot in GB will be looking at whether there is sufficient information to make accurate benefit decisions. The same conditions apply in Northern Ireland as apply in Great Britain: that is the point of parity.

2374. The Chairperson: Before Tommy Gallagher speaks and makes an early impression on the Committee, I want to welcome him here. This is his first meeting, and he is replacing Thomas Burns, whom we wish well and thank for his contributions.

2375. Mr Gallagher: I apologise for not being present for the start of the meeting, but the Health Committee was meeting, and the meeting went on longer than expected. I have come late to the discussion, and I am picking up on what is being said about tax credits and whether something that works in Great Britain will work here. Tax credits do not work for cross-border workers. In fact, the tax credit system is very complicated. I want to say that for the attention of the departmental officials. It is difficult and chaotic, but it may be more of a North/South issue. I am not saying that you are deliberately trying to sweep something aside, but I do not agree with such a broad statement that if something works in Great Britain, it will work here, because it does not work for cross-border workers.

2376. Ms McCleary: There are some cross-border workers in Great Britain, because we heard about some people who commute to France, for instance. It is a tax credit issue.

2377. Ms Sisk: Tax credits are not the responsibility of DSD; they are the responsibility of the Treasury. I know that there have been many complaints about tax credits. Unfortunately, or fortunately, we have no control over those.

2378. The Chairperson: You never know: you might get it yet.

2379. Ms Sisk: We have enough problems.

2380. The Chairperson: The points that have been made are valid and have been taken on board. Given the assurance that we have had that it will work here if it works in Great Britain, and, if it does work in Great Britain, it will be rolled out here automatically. Are members content not to pursue the new clause?

Members indicated assent.

2381. Ms Sisk: If it helps, we could have the Minister make a commitment at Consideration Stage that there will be an automatic roll-out.

2382. The Chairperson: That would be helpful. We are happy not to pursue amendment BC at this stage.

2383. Amendment BD proposes an exemption from work-related conditionality provisions for all lone parents with children in receipt of disability living allowance (DLA).

2384. Ms McCleary: We have talked about parity in relation to that.

2385. Ms Sisk: Parents of children who are in receipt of the middle or higher rate of DLA are exempt from work-related activity. We are talking, therefore, only about the parents of children who are in receipt of the lower rate of DLA. The conditions around their well-being, which we have spoken about, would have to be taken into account. There are quite a lot of safeguards built into the legislation to enable that to be taken into account.

2386. As Colm said, work-related activity can amount to something in the region of one activity every three months. We are not talking about placing onerous burdens on parents, even if they do have to undertake activity, which they will not have to do in every case anyway.

2387. Mr Brady: Lone parents with children who get DLA do so because they meet the required criterion, which is that the children require care and attention that is substantially in excess of what should be required for a child of that age. Even undertaking one activity every three months is putting parents under undue pressure, because they are bound to have difficulties.

2388. Ms Sisk: We talked earlier about the well-being of a child. The decision-maker and the personal adviser will have to take into account all the caveats that are set down. The fact that a lone parent is dealing with a disabled child, even if the parent is not in receipt of the middle or higher rate, is one of the things that will have to be considered. There are sufficient safeguards already built into the legislation that cover all of that.

2389. Mr Brady: The Committee produced a report on DLA, relating to the administration and inconsistency of it. Many children are not getting DLA or are not getting the middle or high rate, when they should be on a higher rate because of the inconsistency of the system. By definition, it is a medically based benefit. Unfortunately, in many cases the medical evidence available is not taken into account.

2390. Ms Sisk: Even if they are not receiving what you consider to be the correct rate of DLA, their well-being would still have to be taken account of, with all the caveats that are set down in that regard applying.

2391. Mr Brady: What about children who have been turned down for DLA and are appealing that decision?

2392. Ms Sisk: Even if they are not disabled at all, their well-being must be taken into account. All the same things have to be considered, regardless of the situation in which the child is in.

2393. Mr Brady: It is discretionary.

2394. The Chairperson: The needs of a child in receipt of DLA are effectively going to be childcare-related needs. We have heard in previous evidence sessions that if a mother says that she has to look after a child because there is no one else to do it, that is not tested but is accepted as a valid reason.

2395. Mr Brady: It is childcare provision.

2396. The Chairperson: That is not childcare in the way in which one would necessarily think of it.

2397. Ms Sisk: They would require a higher level of childcare because their child is disabled. We have also said that the mother’s word is taken for that. The personal adviser will not challenge her or ask her to show evidence to prove it. A personal adviser will take her word for it. In our view, there are quite sufficient and stringent safeguards already built into the legislation.

2398. Mr Brady: It comes back to the degree of training that staff receive.

2399. Ms Sisk: We have asked DEL to give us a note about that, and we will come back to you on it.

2400. Mr Brady: If safeguards were built into that —

2401. Ms Sisk: Extra safeguards will be built in as a result of clause 25. That clause will actually increase the level of safeguards that are built in.

2402. The Chairperson: Those assurances are there. Are members happy not to pursue that amendment?

Members indicated assent.

2403. The Chairperson: Finally, the Law Centre (NI) has proposed an additional amendment in respect of the well-being of children. We have spoken about that just now and previously. The Law Centre (NI) proposes that a new clause be added that requires the Department to have statutory regard for the well-being of children in the discharge of all the clauses. “Well-being" means appropriate childcare, physical, mental, emotional, educational and social factors. I think that you spoke about that earlier.

2404. Ms Sisk: Yes, we did. We said that our intention is that all that be included in guidance. We could go further.

2405. Mr Brady: I really think that that is necessary. It is all right to say that it is discretionary at the moment and that it will not happen, but in my experience over the years, if something is put in place, it is put in there for a purpose. The whole feel-good factor is eroded as time goes on and different targets are set. The Bill was put in place by another Government to the one that we have now.

2406. Ms Sisk: I would be very surprised if the new Government attacked that element.

2407. Mr Brady: I would not be surprised about anything.

2408. Ms Sisk: When the UK Bill was going through Parliament, the Conservatives were actually less draconian about it than Labour. We can have the Minister say that safeguards will be built into guidance; there is no difficulty in doing that. He will give quite a lot of assurances at Consideration Stage.

2409. Mr Brady: I will sleep soundly tonight.

2410. Ms Sisk: I am glad to hear that.

2411. The Chairperson: Are members content not to pursue that amendment given those assurances?

Members indicated assent.

Question, That the Committee is content with the long title, put and agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

2412. The Chairperson: Subject to assurances that have been requested and promised, there are no other consequential amendments. Is the Committee content with the Welfare Reform Bill?

2413. Mr Brady: We will probably be looking at amendments.

Question put, That the Committee is content with the Welfare Reform Bill as drafted.

The Committee divided: Ayes 5; Noes 2.

AYES

Mr Armstrong, Mr Craig, Mr Easton, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hilditch.

NOES

Mr Brady, Mr F McCann.

Question accordingly agreed to.

2414. The Chairperson: Tommy Gallagher abstained.

2415. Thank you, Anne, Margaret and Colm, for all of your help during the past two weeks, which seemed like an eternity.

3 June 2010

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Simon Hamilton (Chairperson)
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín (Deputy Chairperson)
Mrs Mary Bradley
Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Alex Easton
Mr David Hilditch
Mr Fra McCann

2416. The Chairperson (Mr Hamilton): We shall now discuss the draft report on the Welfare Reform Bill.

2417. The Committee Clerk: The intention is to reflect the copious amounts of evidence that Committee considered and the due consideration that the Bill was given over five or six meetings, which covered evidence sessions and clause-by-clause scrutiny. After debate and a number of Divisions, eventually the Committee decided to seek assurances from the Department but not to propose amendments to the Bill. Do Members wish to comment on the draft report?

2418. Mr Brady: The draft report’s executive summary states: “Following debate and a number of divisions, the majority of Committee Members agreed that owing to parity considerations there was limited opportunity to amend the clauses of the Bill."

2419. Subsequently, paragraph 41 on clause-by-clause scrutiny states:

“Following a division, the Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 3 as drafted."

2420. The same form of words is applied to clauses 1 and 2 and to other clauses on which there was a Division. However, the draft report does not include the names of those who objected to a particular clause or why they did so. That information is important, so it should be reflected in the final report. We were not arguing for the sake of arguing; we were trying to argue constructively for particular amendments, but the draft report does not reflect that.

2421. The Chairperson: It is not convention for a report to include a regurgitation of an entire debate.

2422. Mr Brady: I accept that.

2423. The Chairperson: Those discussions are included elsewhere, in the appendices to the report. The minutes of proceedings show the Divisions and how the Committee divided, and the Hansard minutes of proceedings give a flavour of the debate. Committees tend not to go into any more detail than what is in this draft report. The minutes and the Hansard report both record the Divisions, and the Hansard report obviously records the flavour of the debate in much more detail. The report is not drafted in this way in order to try to hide anything.

2424. Mr Brady: I accept that. I am not worried about the minutiae, but the Bill, to reiterate what I said before, contains some of the most important changes to welfare since 1948. The nature of the Welfare Reform Bill, not to mention its implications, means that the report must at least reflect which members were in favour of certain provisions and which were not.

2425. Ms Ní Chuilín: When the Committee’s report is debated in the House, we will then be sure that our position throughout Committee Stage is accurately reflected. We need to know that how we responded to particular clauses is reflected. A change would make that clearer. If it is convention, that is fine. We are not implying anything else.

2426. The Chairperson: The Committee Clerk has pointed out to me that other Bills have come before Committees that prompted Divisions and were reported in the same way. The Committee Stage was not riven by contentious discussion. I understand why for recent historical reasons Sinn Féin wants to make it clear that it disagreed with decisions, and I am happy to verify that there were Divisions and who voted which way. Is that OK?

2427. Ms Ní Chuilín: That is grand.

2428. The Chairperson: I understand the point that you make. It is on the record, and if anyone tries to distort the truth of what took place, as the Committee Chairperson, I will be happy to clarify what happened.

2429. The Committee Clerk: It is just usual practice. Can we just skip through the points remaining and ask whether members wish to comment? The first point of interest is the executive summary. Have members any comments to make or have they spotted any errors?

2430. The Chairperson: I will take silence as meaning assent.

Members indicated assent.

2431. The Committee Clerk: We move to the introduction, which covers paragraphs 1 to 11. The introduction sets out what is in the Bill. Are members happy with the introduction?

Members indicated assent.

2432. The Committee Clerk: We move to the consideration of the Bill, which covers paragraphs 12 to 22. That section of the draft report deals with the large body of evidence that the Committee considered and the oral evidence that it took. Are members content?

Members indicated assent.

2433. The Committee Clerk: We move on to the meat of the report, which is the clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill. Paragraphs 23 to 139 set out the debate that took place in Committee on the various issues considered, and the final decision on each of the clauses.

2434. Mr Chairman, do any issues or questions arise?

2435. The Chairperson: Are members content?

Members indicated assent.

2436. The Chairperson: Are members content for the Bill report to be printed as the Committee’s third report?

Members indicated assent.

2437. The Chairperson: Are members content that the minutes of today’s proceedings be included in the report?

Members indicated assent.

2438. The Chairperson: A typescript of the Committee’s report on the Welfare Reform Bill will lodged in the Business Office tomorrow. Copies of the report should be distributed next week. The Committee Clerk may circulate an electronic copy of the report to all MLAs shortly, as Consideration Stage is scheduled for 14 June — it is coming up fairly soon. Thank you, members.

Appendix 3

Written Submissions

List of Written Submissions

Action Cancer

Advice NI

Age NI

Age Sector Platform

Child Poverty Action

Children in NI

Children’s Law Centre

Citizens Advice Bureau

Committee for Employment and Learning

Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister

Disability Action

Gingerbread NI

Law Centre NI

MENCAP

Mind Wise

The National Autistic Society NI

Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders

Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People

Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance

Northern Ireland Union of Supported Employment

Playboard NI

Royal National Institute for Deaf People

Women’s Resource and Development Agency

Action Cancer

Sent on Behalf of Norman Carson

WELFARE REFORM BILL

Dear Mr McCallion

I refer to your letter dated 30th March 2010 and apologise for the delay in sending a reply to it.

We already engage a large number of volunteers who do not expect to participate in an “work related" schemes. Accordingly we do not consider this initiative to be of benefit to us.

Thanks for the opportunity to reply.

Yours sincerely

Norman Carson
Chief Operating Officer
Action Cancer House
Tel: 028 9080 3341
www.actioncancer.org

Saving Lives, Supporting People

NICVA Award Winner, Judges’ Special Merit Award with Musgrave Retail Partners NI, 2006

NICVA Scope Communication Award Winner in the Weber Shandwick Award for Excellence in Campaigning 2007

Advice NI

Advice NI paper for Committee Stage of the Welfare Reform Bill April 2010

Background

Advice NI is a membership organisation that exists to provide leadership, representation and support for independent advice organisations to facilitate the delivery of high quality, sustainable advice services. Advice NI exists to provide its members with the capacity and tools to ensure effective advice services delivery. This includes: advice and information management systems, funding and planning, quality assurance support, NVQs in advice and guidance, social policy co-ordination and ICT development.

Membership of Advice NI is normally for organisations that provide significant advice and information services to the public. Advice NI has over 70 member organisations operating throughout Northern Ireland and providing information and advocacy services to over 100,000 people each year dealing with over 227,000 enquiries on an extensive range of matters including: social security, housing, debt, consumer and employment issues. For further information, please visit www.adviceni.net.

General

The ‘hardest to help’ very often represent the most vulnerable within our society – in terms of ill health (physical and mental), educational status, housing status, employment readiness, language barriers, income and so on. These same people are the least able to absorb variations or changes to their benefit levels and least able to afford to take risks to work. Advice NI believes that as long as the reform agenda appears to be only interested in removing people as a benefit statistic – not meaningfully supporting people to make the transition into employment – the ‘hardest to help’ may remain reluctant recipients of welfare reform, rather than eager participants;

Given that we are talking about the most vulnerable people in society, acknowledged as being the ‘hardest to help’, Government should ensure that there are adequate safeguards in place to protect and support not further marginalise and demonise. The system must play its part in ensuring that people have sufficient income to put food on the table, keep a roof over their head and provide a basis to make informed decisions about moving from benefits to work.

In previous welfare reform consultations, Advice NI has highlighted that “forced integration into the labour market will not work" without the associated significant increases in spending on areas such as childcare. Government should not shirk its responsibilities in this regard and Advice NI believes that sufficient resources will have to be made available if welfare reform is to have any meaningful positive impact. A firm focus should be on helping those who move from welfare to work to retain their jobs over the longer term and supporting the hardest to help benefit recipients who may be left behind by welfare reform, as the labour market is swelled by students and those recently made redundant who may be felt to be more ‘job ready’.

In terms of parity with GB, Advice NI has noted that the necessary welfare reform legislation in Northern Ireland is now out of step (albeit possibly temporarily) with GB. However we note that the social security system is still functioning perfectly normally. Therefore in respect of timing (if not in respect of substance) these events have shown that parity can be broken; Advice NI would suggest that the legislation be examined and if necessary amended for circumstances unique to Northern Ireland: essentially the opportunity should be taken to adopt how things are done; rather than seeking to fundamentally break parity in terms of benefit types and levels.

Advice NI would advocate that a Systems Thinking approach be developed and implemented in terms of operationalising aspects of the welfare reform proposals contained in the Bill. A Systems Thinking approach helps organisations change from command and control to a systems approach to the design and management of work. The consequences are improved service to customers, at lower costs and improved morale. This unique approach includes identifying the purpose of the organisation from the customer’s perspective; studying demand within the system (understanding what is currently happening and why); categorising demand into value work (work that the service is there to do) and waste (work as a result of a failure to do something or a failure to do something right); re-designing service delivery to improve performance; and finally rolling in a new way of working. Advice NI has embarked on a Systems Thinking project which acts on this approach: focusing on the service user, critically examining service delivery ‘front to back’ from the service users perspective. Advice NI believes that there is merit in rolling this approach in to the delivery mechanisms of welfare reform.

Clause-by-clause Response

Schemes for assisting persons to obtain employment: “work for your benefit" schemes etc.

Advice NI concerns:

There is a sense that services could be provided by claimants ‘on the cheap’. For example employers and service providers may source labour under this scheme with a view to exploiting the opportunity in terms of reducing their staff costs and boosting their profit margins;
Fact that there may be very few / no placement opportunities available in current economic climate. Advice NI notes the Labour Force Survey (LFS) data for Northern Ireland for the period December 2009 – February 2010 which indicates that the seasonally adjusted claimant count in March 2010 increased by 300 over the month to 55,900. The expectation seems to be that economic growth will be negligible (with a remaining risk that there may be a return to recession). In such a climate, with some employers facing complete shut-down, it is difficult to see where the opportunities for placements will arise;
Advice NI notes the impact of ‘work for your benefit’ in the US where achieving high rates of participation in programmes has been a challenge because a significant percentage of welfare recipients were unable to participate in any given period for example because they are waiting for a job opportunity to begin; being temporarily ill or disabled, caring for an ill or disabled family member or in the midst of a noncompliance review process for failure to comply with previous ‘work for your benefit’ directions. We would be concerned that an ‘industry’ may develop around the administration of such schemes, with the focus being shifted from where it should be - namely helping claimants;
Impact of these schemes on job creation / proper waged jobs. At a time when Northern Ireland is struggling to move out of recession and move away from being over-reliant upon the public sector: ‘work for your benefit’ proposals may impact negatively by displacing jobs, particularly within the private sector, which may otherwise have been created.
Impact of these schemes on current jobs; as employers may reduce waged jobs in favour of taking on people under these schemes;
Advice NI notes from the Programme for Government that growing the economy is the top priority; there needs to be careful analysis undertaken as to the potential impact ‘work for your benefit’ schemes may have on economic growth in NI;
Resource implications of administering these schemes: Advice NI believes that there should be a cost-benefit analysis of ‘spend’ in terms of helping people vs cost / administration of the schemes;
While on these schemes claimants will effectively not be able to look for work – so they may be counter-productive; deflecting claimants from directly engaging in job seeking activity;
Advice NI would be concerned that these schemes may not help people to become more work ready, unless they provide an element of training and support for people to become more job ready;

We would suggest that the following wording be included:

(i) Each and every scheme will have a cost-benefit analysis – highlighting administration costs – aimed at ensuring that resources are targeted on individual claimants.

(ii) Schemes will clearly specify the support, training and education opportunities available to help people on the scheme become more job ready;

Work-related activity: income support claimants and partners of claimants

Advice NI concerns:

The intention behind this proposal must be to ultimately move both partners (and lone parents with children) into employment. There must be a real question mark over the ability of the childcare infrastructure in Northern Ireland to cope, in particular in terms of accessibility and affordability. In terms of a comparison between childcare spend between England & Wales and Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland has much reduced levels of Surestart funding;
Sure Start areas tend to be based in traditionally low resourced areas with high levels of deprivation – often in or near NIHE estates. Feedback to Advice NI suggests that even if there is provision of additional funding for child care in these areas, while helpful, will not resolve the childcare issue as increasingly people are compelled to move into private rented accommodation outside of sure start areas due to lack of NIHE accommodation;
There needs to be more help in terms of support at the transition point between benefit and work when parents (particularly lone parents) want to move into work. It is not usually going to be possible for people to have childcare in place until a job has been offered and quite often a registration fee will be required, Advice NI believes that more could be done to support parents at this point;
Advice NI notes the view that there is a lack of a strategic framework underpinning and supporting the childcare infrastructure in Northern Ireland – with no lead Department responsible for school age childcare provision. Given the significance of the proposals within the Welfare Reform Bill this issue needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency;
Advice NI would wish to see a funded childcare strategy in place in Northern Ireland before proposals which have a childcare impact are implemented;
Very often partners of claimants provide significant assistance in terms of informal ad hoc childcare and caring arrangements. An unintended consequence of this proposal could be that this support is minimised with knock-on effects on wider family circles and the community in general;
In some ways this proposal could be seen as dispiriting, counter-productive and pointless for claimants in the context of the current economic climate. If the proposal generates work related activity for the sake of it – this may well undermine the long term efficacy of welfare reform; creating a ‘revolving door’ syndrome and become demoralising for staff and claimants alike;
There would be a concern about the ability of the Social Security Agency and the Department for Employment and Learning to be able to provide an effective joined up service to deliver on welfare reform. For example there is a different culture within these two Departments and differing approaches to the recording of client information. This disparity in approach could prove detrimental to claimants in particular where there are allegations that a claimant is not meeting their work related responsibilities, which ultimately may lead to benefit sanctions;
Advice NI would highlight the fact that retirement age is increasing and that officials need to be aware of the needs of people nearing retirement age (particularly as the retirement age creeps up).There may be a proportion of these people who may not be sick/ill as such but feeling the effects of old age and who may very well be unable to work. There would be a question around subjecting these people to robust work related activity;
An added point in terms of older people is the fact that the age limits for Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance remain the same. It is the view of Advice NI that the upper age limit for DLA should also increase as the retirement age increases. In particular this will allow greater access to the mobility component;
Advice NI would be concerned about sanctions that may arise from these proposals [see ’Sanctions’ below];

‘Contracting out’

Advice NI concerns:

Depending upon the resource allocations attached to these contracts, contractual requirements may incentivise providers to focus on targets to the detriment of the wellbeing of clients;
Services may be directed towards those ‘easiest to help’ and be skewed from those hardest to help as these people may require longer term support; may need more resources in terms of support and may affect the contractors ‘statistics’;
Advice NI would advocate involvement of service users and potential service providers in the contract design and commissioning stages as well as delivery stage. This inclusive approach should enable a more robust and effective approach – utilizing the expertise, skills and experience of all stakeholders;
There must be clear accountability processes in place. Social security benefit claimants are used to dealing with, in the main, civil service staff. Any withdrawal from direct provision, replaced by third party involvement may serve to blur and confuse claimants; perhaps leaving them susceptible to unethical work practices as the provider is more concerned with achieving targets then providing a high quality service for the claimant. Claimants may feel unable to oppose or complain about such an approach by a service provider because they may feel that their benefit could be jeopardised;
Whilst services may be ‘contracted out’, ultimately the particular Government Department must retain responsibility for the effectiveness of the service. A strategy for robustly monitoring and evaluating the performance of providers must be in place, and must include effective and independent mechanisms for garnering the views of service users;
Tendering for a contract must place heavy reliance on quality as opposed to price – due to the vulnerable nature of the client group;
There must be sufficient resources within contractual arrangements to ensure that work can be carried out not only to the required specification but also to the highest standard. Advice NI believes that the vulnerable clients concerned deserve no less;
If such contracts are subject to competitive tendering, then the price will be driven down and as such will serve to reduce the resources available;
Moves towards third party delivery must ensure equality of access. Coverage is important because the particular client group may not have the means to travel and compensate for the providers’ own lack of coverage across a particular geographical area;

We would suggest that the following wording be included:

(i) Before any function is ‘contracted out’ there should be an analysis of the resources required to perform that function and would-be contractors should be asked to clearly demonstrate in detail how they could perform the role within the specified price;

(ii) Contractors must conduct annual satisfaction surveys with a specified number of ‘service recipients’ in order to monitor the quality of the service provided from a service user perspective;

(iii) The relevant Government Departments must robustly monitor and evaluate the performance of providers, include garnering the views of service users;

Lone parents

Advice NI concerns:

Given the current economic climate, the question has to be asked ‘is this the right time to be introducing tougher conditions on lone parents claiming benefit?’;
Any sanctions that may be imposed will only serve to push children of lone parents on benefits into even greater poverty;
We would draw attention to the childcare issues highlighted above including the points made about the lack of accessible, affordable childcare; the lack of a strategic framework underpinning and supporting the childcare infrastructure in Northern Ireland and the lack of a funded childcare strategy in NI;
Equality impact implications of the proposals as by far the greater number of lone parents impacted by this proposal will be women;
This proposal would need to be rural proofed given the added problems that may exist for lone parents in rural areas of Northern Ireland including transport issues;

Abolition of Income Support

Advice NI concerns:

ESA and JSA may not be able to respond sufficiently effectively and flexibly to the needs of people who currently fit within the Income Support category, in particular with respect to those involved in caring;
Undoubtedly greater conditionality will be attached to the benefit claims of these people; Advice NI would be concerned that one interpretation of this approach could be that the role of carers and lone parents is undervalued and that they be become subject to penalties and sanctions as a result of their caring duties;
Advice NI is aware that statements have been made to the effect that Income Support would be abolished only when there are no longer any groups for which it is needed, because alternative provision will have been made. We would remain to be convinced about the alternative provision – presumably if the intention is to shift claimants into full time employment there needs to be an infrastructure in place to replace the caring provided in respect of children and support those who are sick / disabled (particularly those with mental health problems);
If and when people are moved off Income Support, the process must be robust, seamless and must not disadvantage those concerned;

We would suggest that the following wording be included:

(i) Before any individual is moved off Income Support there should be 3 guarantees given (1) that they will not be disadvantaged financially; (2) they will be supported to continue their caring duties (whether for children or looking after someone who is sick / disabled); (3) they will not be subject to benefit sanctions as a direct result of their caring responsibilities – unless realistic, alternative caring provision can be clearly demonstrated;

Power to direct claimant to undertake specific work-related activity

Advice NI concerns:

Government have much to do to reconcile the points of view that (1) supporting people with health problems into work is the answer to their health problems; particularly when they have been assessed as medically incapable of work by both their GP and a doctor of the Department. There appears to be an inherent contradiction in this approach;
There remains doubt that adequate support is / will be in place, particularly for people to manage health related conditions. This point relates to the need for joined up services to be in place across the benefits, employment and health sectors – and ideally with independent advice and information also available to enable benefit recipients to make informed choices about moving from benefits to work;
Advice NI understands that approximately 40% of the current Incapacity Benefit caseload would concern people with mental health related health problems. As people migrate to ESA from IB; and as people with mental health related health problems make fresh claims to ESA; Advice NI would wish to see safeguards built into the system which protect the well-being of people with mental health problems. These may well be very vulnerable people who may not be able to articulate properly their problems;
Advice NI notes the various evaluation reports on Pathways to Work (for people with disabilities) which would have found that Pathways had little effect on the employment or self-reported health condition of people suffering from mental illness. Given the numbers of people with mental illness within the Incapacity Benefit caseload, Advice NI remains concerned that a suitable form of support has not been developed to meet the needs of this particular client group. In the push to remove claimants from benefit, we would remain concerned that people with mental illness may find themselves in the position of being removed from benefit and / or placed in employment; a position which may do nothing to improve their health and well being;
Advice NI notes the work carried out Dame Carol Black which would tend to conclude that work is generally good for both physical and mental health and well-being. However on closer scrutiny, Dame Carol accepts that work is not the best place for everyone; that decisions have to be taken on a case by case basis; that it is difficult to generalise and that it is not about lumping people all together;
Advice NI would be concerned that decisions as regards entitlement to benefit, fitness for work and taking up employment may be overly concerned with simple head count considerations rather than providing tailored support which is appropriate to meet the needs in each individual case;
Advice NI would draw attention to the journey that many with health problems will have to make before being work-ready. We would like to see a continued focus on different elements of this journey including volunteering; education; training, mentoring and part-time work;
The beneficial health effects of work related activity are questionable and depend on the nature and quality of the work (though there is insufficient evidence to define the physical and psychosocial characteristics of jobs and workplaces that are ‘good’ for health);
In terms of ill or disabled people, we would say that there needs to be more focus on employers as regards what employment opportunities are actually available, ascertaining exactly what particular job roles entail and the support that would be available to claimants required to undertake particular work-related activities; including the capacity of small to medium sized employers to provide this level of support?;

Contribution conditions

Advice NI concerns:

The Bill proposes a significant restriction on eligibility for contributory JSA and ESA;
This will in effect reduce the number of claimants who qualify for contributory ESA and JSA, and will force many more claimants on to means tested benefits, which are complex and suffer from low take-up.
Other claimants will have no entitlement at all to means tested benefits;

Mobility component - DLA

Advice NI supports this proposal in respect of severe visual impairment;

Carers Allowance and Maternity Allowance

Advice NI concerns:

Advice NI has been informed by Disability and Carers Service, Castle Court, that about 20 claims are taken per month where dependent additions apply; therefore this proposal will certainly lead to reduced income for those new claimants claiming Carers Allowance and Maternity Allowance;
For many claimants the removal may lead to an increase in reliance on means tested benefits;
Again for other claimants who fail the means test, they will have to live on a lower level of income than otherwise would have been the case;
Advice NI notes that while this Bill is not enacted by the NI Assembly, dependent additions in respect of new claims can continue to be paid by the Social Security Agency – a clear example that both in terms of timing and substance, there can be variation on the parity issue;

Community Care Grants

Advice NI concerns:

Government frequently highlights that financial inclusion is a high priority. Advice NI fails to see how the proposal to award goods and services ‘in kind’ will promote financial inclusion. Depending on the process (on which there is no detail) this may well further marginalise, exclude and stigmatise benefit claimants;
Restrictions on the resources available to third party providers may well drive down the quality of the services and goods provided, as providers strive to provide these goods and services at least cost. This point flows back to the first point in that benefit recipients may find themselves further stigmatised through obtaining a sub standard good or service;
There is a risk that scarce resources are deflected to administration of this third party provision rather than directly to the people who need the help;
Please see points made above under ‘contracting out’;

Loss of benefit provisions

Advice NI concerns:

Any loss of benefit provisions / sanctions have the potential to be draconian and may very well result in hardship in many cases. This approach requires careful consideration given the particularly vulnerable nature of this client group;
Increased responsibility and potentially benefit sanctions will effectively penalise those who are already accepted as being the most vulnerable in our society. Sanctions must be a tool of last resort. There must be adequate safeguards in place to protect and encourage rather than penalise;
People and in particular families cannot be left to simply fall foul of potentially multiple long term sanctions which effectively reduce people already living on minimal incomes. People and families must not be allowed to ‘fall through the cracks’ and allowed to ‘flounder’ as appears to be the case where similar approaches have been taken in the United States;
If sanctions are meant to change a claimant’s behaviour, claimants must clearly know why they are being sanctioned and must clearly be informed as to what steps they need to take to have the sanction removed. There must be a clear, claimant-focussed approach to loss of benefit provisions otherwise this approach will be seen as victimising the vulnerable rather than trying to support and assist;
Benefits sanctions, for example regarding a failure to carry out a job seeker’s direction, will impact upon the whole family (including any children in the household) and there needs to be a balance between encouraging people to move into employment and ensuring that these same people (and in particular their children) are adequately supported while on benefit.

We would suggest that the following wording be included:

(i) In all cases where a loss of benefit / benefit sanction is being considered, there should be scrutiny of any such decision by a decision maker at the appropriate level;

(ii) In all cases where a loss of benefit / benefit sanction is being considered, there should be a minimum level of benefit below which the claimant’s income should not drop;

(iii) Special provisions should be made where children are involved in cases where a loss of benefit / benefit sanction is being considered, over and above the stipulation that there should be a minimum level of benefit below which the claimant’s income should not drop. These may include the provision of tailored face to face support service for what would amount to the ‘hardest to help’ households in Northern Ireland;

Wellbeing of children

Advice NI advocates that the following provision be included in all proposals where benefit has the potential to be reduced and where added responsibilities are placed upon those responsible for caring for children:

(i) “… the officer must have regard (as far as practicable) to its impact on the well-being of any child who may be affected by it …";

Contact information on this Social Policy Briefing Paper:

Bob Stronge (Chief Executive)
Fiona Magee (Deputy Chief Executive)
Kevin Higgins (Head of Policy)

Advice NI
1 Rushfield Avenue
Belfast
BT7 3FP
Tel: 028 9064 5919
Fax: 028 9049 2313
Email: bob@adviceni.net
fiona@adviceni.net
kevin@adviceni.net
Website: www.adviceni.net

Age NI

Evidence to the DSD Committee on the Welfare Reform Bill

Age NI is the new force combining Age Concern Northern Ireland and Help the Aged. We work for a better later life today and tomorrow. We celebrate ageing and work to create opportunity in later life. We have a positive, forward-looking vision for our ageing society. We welcome the opportunity to submit evidence to the Committee for Social Development on the legislative framework for the Welfare Reform Bill.

Age NI would like to take this opportunity to highlight our concern over the absence of a clause in the Northern Ireland draft bill which has been included in the Welfare Reform Act 2009 (applying to Great Britain only). This clause relates to state pension credit pilot schemes.

Specifically, clause twenty-seven of the Welfare Reform Act (2009) makes provision for the piloting of the automatic payment of state pension credit. A similar clause is not contained within the draft bill for Northern Ireland. We would urge the Committee to press for the inclusion of an equivalent clause in the Northern Ireland Bill.

The provision for the piloting of automatic payments has enabled the Department for Works and Pensions to prepare for a pilot exercise in England, Scotland and Wales. The pilot exercise will be conducted this year. The exercise will involve a random sample of ‘entitled non-recipients’ who will receive payment of pension credit for three months. At the end of this three month period recipients will receive a letter highlighting their potential entitlement and instructions as to how to make a claim. Age NI believes that older people here would benefit from a similar exercise.

Pensioner poverty in Northern Ireland remains high. While UK wide figures have decreased in recent years, levels in Northern Ireland have increased. Recently published poverty figures have shown a 6% decrease in pensioner poverty at UK level from 2002/2003. This contrasts to a 3% increase in figures for Northern Ireland. 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 with the most recent available data showing that up to 51% of older people entitled to pension credit fail to claim. Our own 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.

Age NI believe that an innovative approach to benefit uptake is needed. We maintain that the ultimate goal for benefit uptake should be the automatic payment of pension credit. A pilot exercise would not only inform the administration of such a system, but would also provide an ideal opportunity to raise awareness of entitlement and the claiming process for those targeted. Age NI believes that the pilot exercise should be used as a measure to increase benefit uptake.

Age NI would also highlight that failure to conduct a pilot exercise in Northern Ireland may result in the automatic payment of pension credit being implemented across Great Britain and not in Northern Ireland. Despite parity (as a result of the Northern Ireland Act 1998) between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom in payment of social security benefits, methods of administration are not subject to the same regulations. Effectively, payment could be made automatically in Great Britain and not in Northern Ireland. Given higher levels of pensioner poverty in Northern Ireland, government needs to be proactive to ensure that this scenario does not arise.

Age NI would propose that a pilot exercise in Northern Ireland could target older, single, female pensioners. This cohort experiences some of the highest levels of poverty with 28% of older female pensioners, aged 71 to 75, living in poverty (26% of those living in poverty are deemed to be living in severe poverty). It is therefore proposed that any pilot exercise should be focused on this group. Wording which is consistent with that contained in the Welfare Reform Act 2009 would permit this.

Age NI is concerned about a number of issues relating to employment for people approaching later life. DETI figures indicate a decline in employment for people over 50 and fewer over-50s find sustained employment through New Deal compared to younger participants. Our main concern is the additional conditionality for Jobseeker’s Allowance for people over age 50. In the current economic climate, there are not enough jobs; introducing additional conditionality is not appropriate.

Age Sector Platform

Dear Claire

Following our discussion on Friday I am writing to confirm that unfortunately we will not be able to provide written evidence on the above matter on this occasion due to other work commitments at this time. We don’t believe we would be able to provide any substantive comment on this issue at present but we would like to thank the Committee for the invitation to do so and look forward to linking up with the committee on other issues affecting older people in future.

Kind Regards

Eddie

signature

www.agesectorplatform.org

Join our election campaign – sign the online petition at www.pensionersmanifesto.org

Child Poverty Action Clause 1A

CPAG promotes action for the prevention and relief of poverty among children and families with children. To achieve this, CPAG aims to raise awareness of the causes, extent, nature and impact of poverty, and strategies for its eradication and prevention; bring about positive policy changes for families with children in poverty; and enable those eligible for income maintenance to have access to their full entitlement.

1. Insert new clause – 1A Wellbeing of children

Wellbeing of children: the general principle [for implementing this Act].

Insert new clause:

1A Wellbeing of the child

The Secretary of State, in discharging functions under this Act, shall have regard to the well-being of any child likely to be affected by his decision, and to the importance of parents and other persons caring for children in improving the well-being of children.

The Jobseeker’s Act 1995, is amended as follows. After section 1 insert a new Section 1A

The Welfare Reform Act 2007, is amended as follows. After Part 1, insert a new 1A

For the purposes of subsection 1 the meaning of wellbeing of a child shall include the following factors:

(a) physical and mental health and emotional well-being;

(b) protection from harm and neglect;

(d) the contribution made by them to society;

(e) social and economic well-being;

(f) appropriate childcare

Purpose:

This amendment places child wellbeing in its rightful place - at the forefront of all policies or directives put in place as a consequence of the Bill. This amendment recognises the importance of parents and other people caring for child in safeguarding child wellbeing, and includes ‘adequate childcare’ within that definition, thereby providing additional safeguards about the quality of childcare provision.

Explanation

Government amendments to the Welfare Reform Bill state that child wellbeing must be taken into consideration’ ‘so far practicable’ when drawing up action plans or jobseekers agreements, or assessing ‘good cause’. However, CPAG does not believe that these amendments go far enough. Lord McKenzie stated that: ‘We have always made it clear that the measures will be implemented in a way that supports families and children’. Government amendments that ‘prescribe matters to be taken into account in determining whether a person has good cause for any failure to comply with the regulations’ that ‘prescribing those matters must include…’the availability of childcare.’

This amendment places child wellbeing in its rightful place - at the forefront of all policies or directives put in place as a consequence of the Bill. A government amendment also states that decision makers must take the ‘availability of childcare’ into account when deciding ‘good cause’. Including ‘adequate childcare’ within the definition of wellbeing will ensure that quality remains a primary issue. This amendment should be read in conjunction an amendment on exempting lone parents with disabled children in receipt of a Disability Living Allowance.

Explanation

A raft of legislation has been put in place to ensure that ‘child welfare’ (more recently, ‘child wellbeing’) are placed at the forefront of children’s services. However, although ‘child wellbeing’ is referred to in government amendments to the Welfare Reform Act 2009 which states that in preparing any action plan or Jobseekers’ agreements in the Bill, or in section 9 of the Jobseekers Act 1995 (c. 18) or (2) In section 14 of the Welfare Reform Act 2007 (c. 5) , ‘the Secretary of State must have regard (so far as practicable) to its impact on the well-being of any person under the age of 16 who may be affected by it.’

However, while ‘child wellbeing’ has a legal definition which is reflected in the five Every Child Matters outcomes, and these are placed at the forefront of the delivery of children’s services, under the welfare to work agenda, the requirement to increase parental employment has taken precedence over the requirement to enhance child wellbeing. This has resulted in policies which (a) may reduce incomes in households with children because of the imposition of benefit sanctions, and (b) policies which have resulted in some families being compelled to access poorly paid and unsustainable jobs, and (c) a childcare strategy which includes two – potentially contradictory - strands: a demand-led strategy designed to get parents into work, and a supply-side strategy (the universal provision of early years’ education for three and four year olds), which has been put in place to improve outcomes and enhance child wellbeing.

Background Information

Child Wellbeing

The Welfare Reform Bill does not reflect legislative directives that ‘the Secretary of State promote the well-being of children in England’ and ‘must have regard to the aspects of well-being mentioned in section 10(2)(a) to (e) of the Children Act 2004 (c. 31). (The Children and Young Person’s Act 2008)

An evidenced based approach?

The stated objective of the Welfare Reform Bill is to increase employment as a way of reducing child poverty (and generating fiscal savings). However, the policies that are being put in place to achieve this end have adopted a ‘work-first’ rather than ‘child-first’ approach. This is at odds with policies being put in place by the Government to enhance child wellbeing under the Every Child Matters agenda. Driving forward policies that may actually increase child poverty contradicts directive to ‘achieve economic well-being’. Research shows that sanctions damage the health and wellbeing of children, and their imposition on households with children is at odds with the legislative directive that children should ‘be healthy’ and ‘stay safe’.

Although the Government claims that the welfare to work agenda has adopted an ‘evidence-based’ approach, some of the proposals contained within the Bill ignore research which suggest that policies that compel the most disadvantaged groups to seek work or have their benefits cut actually damages the health and wellbeing of both parents and children without necessarily increasing employment rates or reducing child poverty.

The Government argues the following:

Benefit sanctions: Increasing conditionality (including the imposition of benefit sanctions) is important to ensure that families who are deemed to be capable of work engage in work-related activities, and that this will increase employment rates amongst disadvantaged groups;
Work – a route out of poverty: Accessing employment improves child wellbeing, because it reduces poverty and enhances maternal wellbeing;
Childcare is available and it is good for children: Accessing high quality childcare is the best interest of children, particularly children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

However, while there is some truth in these statements, they make three significant assumptions:

The assumption that wielding sticks rather than carrots is an effective way of changing people’s attitudes to paid employment ignores the fact that there are very good reasons why people are not in paid work. They may have caring responsibilities, lack of jobs, lack of suitable or affordable childcare, health problems or face significant discrimination amongst employers. Research suggests that imposition of benefit sanctions does not increase employment rates, but it does reduce incomes and damage child wellbeing. The imposition of benefit sanctins is at odds with the Child Poverty Bill.
The fact that 60% of poor children have a parent in work raise serious questions about the value of employment for people who are struggling to get by in poorly paid jobs. Working long hours, in unfulfilling jobs, for poverty-level wages is unlikely to enhance the wellbeing of either the parent/carer or their children.
Although access to high quality childcare can be a positive experience, particularly for children from disadvantaged backgrounds, placing children in poor quality or erratic childcare provision is unlikely may damage young children. The quality and availability of childcare is an ongoing source of concern.

Benefit sanctions

While Lord McKenzie confirmed that ‘There will be sanctions for non-compliance, which would involve at some point withdrawal of an element of benefit’ he added ‘but hardship provisions exist in the system’. Although Lord McKenzie stated that the Government ‘are seeking to test Professor Gregg’s proposals on conditionality and sanctions. That approach is much more involved in co-operation, letters, warning and engaging people first before there is withdrawal of financial support’ he reiterated their conviction ‘that if the system is to an extent mandatory and people are required to do something, if no sanctions are attached, some will not. As long as those sanctions are applied sensitively and reflect an individual’s circumstances, it is right that we do that. However, we shall consider more detailed amendments on sanctions later.’

Apart from the fact that driving desperate families from one source of inadequate support to another, is hardly likely to enhance the health or wellbeing of those affected, we remain concerned that the Government is willing to countenance financial sanctions in households with children. We do not believe reducing poor people’s incomes can ever be done ‘sensitively’ and nor do we think that an already over-burdened system that will put under increasing strain by a combination of complex welfare to work policies alongside a contraction in the labour market that is have a more pronounced impact on low paid groups is likely to contribute to the delivery of employment programmes with personal advisers and decision makers with the timie, skills and understanding to assess the ‘personal circumstances’ of ever larger numbers of claimants with complex and differing needs

We do not think it is right for a Government that has committed itself to the eradication of child poverty to put in place policies that may reduce income in households that are living in, or face a high risk of living in, poverty. Research findings suggests that the imposition of sanctions generates considerable financial hardship, without necessarily increasing employment levels, not least because, the vast majority of people who are struggling to exist on benefits that are kept below the poverty line are not in paid employment for very good reasons. They may have additional health needs or caring responsibilities which render employment difficult, they may face significant barriers to the labour market because of poor skills or overt discrimination in the labour market. Lack of childcare and support services remain an issue. We endorse Lord Northbourne’s conviction that I suspect that carrots are better than sticks for that purpose.’

During the Minister made a number of assumptions about protections in and around the imposition of sanctions. For example, he stated: ‘If there were to be any suggestion of sanctions that flowed from directions, in looking at good cause, no sanctions could be levied on the individual if there was no appropriate and affordable childcare or appropriate transport. …We should hang on to the point that you could see circumstances where someone would simply point-blank refuse access to any decent, available provision and thereby escape the regime. However, the existence of benefit sanctions is likely to result in them being imposed inappropriately. Research (much of it emanating from the DWP itself) suggests that the imposition of benefit sanctions are usually imposed on families who are already likely to be the most vulnerable to poverty and damage the mental and physical health of both adults and of children. Sanctions are unlikely to help disadvantaged groups access work (particularly when there is a paucity of jobs) because those who affected are often unaware that that their benefits have been reduced, or why they have been reduced. Research from the DWP concludes that sanctions have a ’negligible effects upon labour market behaviour’. (See DWP, The effects of benefit sanctions on lone parents’ employment decisions and moves into employment, Vicki Goodwin, A report of research carried out by the Centre for Public Policy, University of Northumberland, on behalf of the DWP, Research Report 511).

The Minister added: ‘This will ensure that JSA claimants who are parents, including lone parents, will not be sanctioned if they fail to participate in “work for your benefit" or work-related activities because they cannot secure appropriate childcare.’ Will the government being monitoring the situation? What will they do if in due course research suggests that lone parents are being sanctioned despite lack of appropriate childcare?

During the debate on Lord Northbourne’s amendment on child wellbeing, Lord McKenzie agreed that: We are conscious that, to be successful, our policies need to be perceived by lone parents as positive and supportive. As noble Lords have eloquently made clear in previous sessions, this is not always the case and there remains fear about our policies and about how people may be treated in reality.’ The threat of benefit sanctions is unlikely to appear as ‘positive and supportive’.

Work – a route out of poverty

During the debate on this issue in the House of Lords, Lord McKenzie stated that: ‘The Evidence shows that the vast majority of parents on benefits aspire to work at some point in the future and the paid work …is good for them and their children in nearly all circumstances.’ He concedes that: There is some evidence on the effects of maternal employment on children’s cognitive and behavioural outcomes, but that is largely inconclusive: there is little specific to the UK context. What evidence there is suggests that there are few negative effects of maternal employment once the child is aged over 18 months.’ However, both statements are based on the assumption that the quality of the work and the quality of the childcare is good. This by no means always the case. Sixty per cent of poor children live in working households – and in-work poverty is rising – while the quality of some childcare provision continues to be a source of concern.

Childcare

During the debate on childcare amendments in the House of Lords, Lord McKenzie made a number of statements about parental choice vis a vis childcare. For example:

Good cause

‘The first reassurance that I can give noble Lords is that, when setting up their jobseeker’s agreement, parents can agree certain restrictions on their availability for (9 Jun 2009 : Column GC63) or because of their caring commitments’.

‘We should be clear that, at the end of the day, childcare is the parent’s choice. …it is important that it is ultimately the parents who make the decision. Jobcentre Plus advisers will be able to help them to understand what is available in the market, but it is for parents to decide.’

‘The best way in which to approach it is to say that the parent is in the driving seat and will decide what is suitable for their child.’’

The Minister states that the government ‘will use regulation-making powers to introduce provision that mirrors that which we introduced to support the new lone parent obligations introduced last November… (which deal with) decisions on good cause…(9 Jun 2009 : Column GC65)…They prescribe that good-cause decisions must take account of both the availability of childcare and the suitability of any provision in relation to the specific needs of the parent or child.

The Minister states: ‘We will not make people work for their benefit if there is no childcare to support them. Safeguards exist so that customers will not be sanctioned if lack of appropriate childcare prevents them participating in “work for your benefit". I want to make that absolutely clear.’ On the one hand, some lone parents may accept inadequate provision as being ‘reasonable’, and this may damage their child. On the other hand, personal advisers and decision makers may disagree with a parent’s decision. Will personal advisers be equipped to ensure that no children are placed in inappropriate or damaging childcare? Who will be held accountable if it transpires, over time, that the childcare provision was no ‘reasonable’?

The Minister states that: ‘If there is not appropriate and affordable childcare, that should be reflected in the jobseeker’s agreement.’ However, CPAG believes that safeguards are often discretionary and based on subjective notions – such as ‘reasonable’, ‘sensitive’ and ‘should be’ – which are hard to apply within the childcare arena, given the considerable differences in need and expectations. We are concerned given the way the system works, that a list of discretionary exemptions do not provide adequate protection.

The Minister confirms that: ‘Ultimately, however, when it comes to deciding whether a direction was reasonable or whether a person had good cause not to follow it, clearly the decision-makers in Jobcentre Plus have to take a view on what was reasonable in those circumstances. Nothing in all this requires parents to be directed to place their child with any particular provision, although consequences may flow from that [but] We should hang on to the point that you could see circumstances where someone would simply point-blank refuse access to any decent, available provision and thereby escape the regime.’ We are concerned that the ultimate decision about whether childcare is suitable will be made by personal advisers and decision makers who are not specialists in child development, early years, or the needs of adolescents. The policy may result in some parents being compelled to place their children in inappropriate childcare. This may damage child wellbeing.

Lord McKenzie states that ‘good-cause decisions must take account of both the availability of childcare and the suitability of any provision in relation to the specific needs of the parent or child’. However, given ongoing concerns that the ‘mapping’ of local provision within a rapidly changing market is difficult (see research from Daycare Trust on Childcare in the Recession), what guarantees are there that a snap shot of provision at the time (and not when the decision maker is reviewing the situation) is made?

The Minister states that ‘There can be no absolute guarantee that parents will be able to access exactly the childcare they need at the point they need it, and a judgment about predictability of service is almost impossible to make.’ However, predictability is an absolutely essential component of high quality childcare, and constant changes in childcare arrangements is damaging for children. If the predictability of childcare is so difficult, how can the Government predict, in the current economic climate, that the provision of childcare will improve and not contract? Is it right to introduce compulsion prior to the infrastructure to support the legislation being clearly in place?

He states: ‘On contracted-out provision, our contract specifications will make clear that decisions on the type of support and work experience undertaken must be taken in consultation with the client and not in spite of them. … I can guarantee that there will be no conditionality where there is no childcare acceptable to the parent.’ Problems identifying when childcare is, or is not, appropriate is extremely complicated. Decision are being made by people without the training or skills to assess the suitability of the childcare on offer. Disagreements may result in children being placed in inappropriate childcare, and/or contribute a higher rate of sanctions being imposed on families.

Lord McKenzie states that: ‘In 1997, there was a registered childcare place for one in eight children under eight, whereas now there is a registered place for one in four. There are 12,000 out-of-school clubs. There is extensive provision.’ This statement suggests that childcare provision is currently insufficient to meet need.

Although the Minister states that ‘We have a strong body of evidence to show that good-quality early-years childcare for children aged two, three and four has a positive impact on child development, especially for disadvantaged children’ research suggests that childcare provision is by no means always ‘good-quality’, is not always available, and provision may be affected by the economic recession. Leading to Excellence, the latest OFSTED report found wide local variations in the quality of childcare. In the 30 most deprived areas, 47% were not good enough, rating only satisfactory or worse, compared with 40% nationally. Only half of childminders in Inner London are said to be good enough, compared with 64% in other areas of the country.

The Minister has stated: ‘…we intend to test progression to work with parents with a youngest child aged between three and six… We are starting with this age group because there is already a strong foundation of childcare provision available to it, as children aged three and four right across the UK have access to free part-time pre-school education, and children aged five and six receive free education of up to 30 hours a week during school term-time.’ But recent research from the Daycare Trust reports that although 86% of three and four year olds are using free places, 742,700 of the 895,700 childcare places in full day care or sessional settings registered with Ofsted are in settings operated by the private and voluntary sector, ‘and as almost all of these providers also provide the free entitlement, the Government cannot guarantee the long term availability of free childcare places to all parents if private and voluntary childcare providers are unable to continue to operate due to falling occupancy.’

The Minister states that: ‘The large majority of lone parents will be able to find the childcare that they need to enable them to return to work. However, where suitable childcare is genuinely not available, this will be taken into consideration when determining whether there is good cause for any act or omission of a lone parent. The availability of transport and the costs of transport will similarly be taken into account.’ However, these safeguards are very discretionary: who will advise lone parents of their rights vis a vis childcare and transport, and what will happen if they engage in work-related activities when there is no suitable childcare and this has an adverse impact on their child’s development? Parents may be persuaded by personal advisers who are not specialist in child development or early year’s provision that what is in offer is suitable, or parents may be worried about challenging inappropriate decisions. Given that the issue around the final choice about whether or not childcare is suitable has not been satisfactorily addressed (and we consider this issue in other amendments) and that the effect of poor childcare is likely to be much more damaging for young children.

Contact:

Gabrielle Preston
Policy and Research Officer
CPAG, 94, White Lion Street
London N1 9PF
Tel: 020 7812 5231
Fax: 020 7837 6414
gpreston@cpag.org.uk

Child Poverty Action Group Sunset Clause

2. Work for your benefit: “Sunset Clause"

CPAG amendment – Work for your benefit: “Sunset Clause"

Clause 1 page 2 line 27 insert:

(11) The preceding provisions of this section have no effect after 31st December 2012

Purpose

To ensure that once the “Work for your Benefit" has been piloted, the scheme will have to be returned to Parliament for approval before it can be rolled out nationally.

Explanation

“Work for your Benefit" is a version of US-style “Workfare" where claimants are obliged to work or undertake work experience for their benefit, currently paid at £60.50 for a single person over 25. This works out at around £1.73 per hour, well under the current minimum wage of £5.73. If claimants do not take up this work, they face a sanction cutting the full amount of their benefit for 1-26 weeks. These provisions are not subject to reasonableness.

We submit that this provision will increase child poverty and is directly contrary to the government’s stated objectives in the Child Poverty Bill. Where claimants are sanctioned they and their families may be left with no means of subsistence. Clause 1(8) allows for hardship payments to be made, but there is no requirement for this to be done. Sanctions applied to adults affect family income which in turn impacts on children.

Much of the detail for this scheme is to be set out in regulations, including the length of time for which claimants will be expected to participate in the scheme, which the government intends to be six months. This makes it very difficult to anticipate how this potentially draconian scheme will operate in practice.

In the Explanatory Memorandum to the Welfare Reform Bill, the government accepts at paragraph 402 that there is a an issue about whether the “Work for your Benefit" schemes set out in Clause 1 could breach Article 4(2) ECHR, which is a prohibition on forced or compulsory labour.

In CPAG’s view there is a real risk that schemes of this kind may breach the rights of claimants under Article 4(2). Our understanding is that forced labour is; “… all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily…" (International Labour Organisation Convention no 29).

In our view obliging claimants who are not voluntarily in the situation of being unemployed and in receipt of jobseekers’ allowance, to work at rates below the minimum wage, under threat of lengthy and severe sanctioning which would leave them with no means of subsistence, could breach Article 4(2).

The government has decided to pilot the “Work for your Benefit" scheme over a period of 2 years before it is rolled out nationally. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has recommended the pilots should “monitor the implications for individual rights, including the right to respect for an adequate standard of living, the right to respect for private and family life and the right to enjoyment of those rights without discrimination." It is vital, given the gravity of the issues raised by the “Work for your Benefit" scheme, that it should be referred back to Parliament for consideration before it can be rolled out nationally.

Contact:

Sarah Clarke, Solicitor
CPAG, 94, White Lion Street
London N1 9PF
Tel: 020 7812 5219
Fax: 020 7837 6414
sclarke@cpag.org.uk

Child Poverty Action Group Clause 2

3. Clause 2 – Requirement to undertake a particular type of work-related activity for income support claimants and partners of claimants (DLA)

CPAG amendment

Clause 2 - Page 4, line 5 [Clause 2], at end insert - (c) No requirement may be imposed by virtue of this section on a person who:

(i) in receipt of any rate or component of any rate or component of disability living allowance or

(ii) was in receipt of a disability living allowance and has made and is pursuing an appeal against a decision that he is no longer entitled to a disability living allowance, and that appeal has not yet been determined

Purpose:

To ensure that families with a disabled child or children under the age of 16 who are in receipt of either care or mobility component of DLA at lower, middle or upper rate, and those awaiting the outcome of an appeal, are exempt from conditionality with regard to work-related activities and cannot have their benefits sanctioned. A Government amendment to the Bill stipulates ‘In preparing any action plan, the Secretary of State must have regard (so far as practicable) to its impact on the well-being of any person under the age of 16 who may be affected by it’. We believe it is therefore right that disabled children under 16 should be included in this amendment.

Explanation

CPAG believes that the decision to require lone parents with children in receipt of the mobility component of DLA to engage in work-focused activities ignores inadequacies in the administration of the benefits and tax credits system and the complexity of families’ lives. It is likely to generate considerable uncertainty for both parents and those administering the system. A blanket exemption of parents whose child is in receipt of any rate or component of DLA will reduce the possibility of parents who should be exempt being required to engage in work-related activities by personal advisers who may not understand the distinction between the care and mobility component. Furthermore, children in receipt of the mobility component of DLA are very likely to have substantial care needs so their parents should also be exempt.

DLA - Complexity

Despite high levels of poverty in families affected by disability, research shows that take-up of DLA is low because of lack of information, an onerous application process, constant reassessments, and the stigma associated with being on benefits. DLA forms are still complex and poor decision-making –results in a high number of short-term awards, which in turn have led to a growth in disputed decisions resulting from DLA being repeatedly downrated or removed and then, more often than not, reinstated at appeal. More than half of DLA appeals are decided in favour of the claimant, and this figure is rising (see In the NAO (2004) Getting it right, putting it right: improving decision making and appeals in social security benefits cited a briefing paper, What the doctor ordered? CAB evidence on medical assessments for incapacity and disability benefits CAB, February 2006).

Qualitative research suggests that ‘Difficulties arise when decision makers do not know enough about ‘invisible’ conditions like autism, or fluctuating conditions like ADHD, ignore parent’s understanding of their child’s condition and/or ignore parent’s suggestion about who would be most suitable to provide additional evidence’ (G Preston, Helter Skelter: Families disabled children and the benefit system CASEpaper 92, 2005, p.25). There is also evidence that families whose children with autistic spectrum disorders or ADHD – many of whom may only receive the mobility component of DLA - are more likely to be excluded from school and childcare settings, resulting in parents having to care for their children at home during school hours. And yet under the proposed rules lone parents with two or more disabled children in receipt of the mobility component of DLA could be required to engage in work-focused interviews and/or undertake work related activity or possibly face sanctions.

Although Lord Mckenzie stated that ‘… we will ensure that safeguards are in place whereby claimants are not put in a situation where they are being asked to comply with a requirement that is unreasonable or inappropriate to their individual circumstances. This is especially important when they have a disabled child. In all cases, we would ensure that the activities they agreed to were discussed and considered in depth, so that the action plan was suitably tailored to the needs not of only the parent, but the disabled child’ the fundamental lack of understanding about the particular needs of lone parents and their disabled children discussed above does not bode well for the sensitive administration of ‘welfare to work’ programmes which are associated with increasing levels of conditionality.

He states that:‘… any requirement to undertake work-related activity will always take fully into account the family circumstances and requirements of the parent’. However, we believe that the Minister’s assurances underestimate both the complexities of DLA and of the lives of families with disabled children. We believe that is wrong to assume that personal assistants’ and Decision Makers will understand the complex and often arbitrary way in which DLA is administered (discussed in further detail below) alongside assessing disabled children’s complex and differing childcare needs, and deciding whether and how these can be met appropriately.

Keeping track of DLA awards alongside assessing other ‘family circumstances’ introduces an onerous level of complexity, uncertainty and confusion into an already complicated new system, and this is likely to result in some families have their benefits sanctioned – possibly incorrectly – and this is likely to plunge already vulnerable families them into crisis, and contribute to higher levels of child poverty.

Income poverty

Poverty is already high in families with disabled children, even when parents are in part-time or full-time work, because of a combination of significant additional costs (including transport and childcare – which are not included in poverty statistics), inadequate support from the benefit system, low take up of disability benefits such as Disability Living Allowance, and difficulties accessing paid employment.

As discussed above, poverty is compounded by a complex benefit system that creates fluctuations in family income. The sudden loss or downrating of DLA generates high levels of stress, and families often fall into debt because their income has gone down, but additional costs remain the same. (See G Preston, Out of reach? Benefits for disabled children CPAG 2006) Given that families spend additional income on accessing valuable support for children which are vulnerable to social and educational exclusion (see Helter Skelter, p 36 – 47), a drop in income has a disproportionate impact on their children’s wellbeing. This amendment will reduce the possibility of families incurring inappropriate benefit sanctions.

Time Poverty

Caring for disabled children also imposes additional burdens on a time, for family’s whose lives are already seriously affected by the sort of ‘time poverty’ that is associated with living on low incomes, (see Tania Burchardt, Time and Income Poverty, (Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, 2008). Apart from having to care for their children alongside managing their own additional health needs, lone parents with disabled children have to spend a disproportionate amount of time negotiating the complexity of the benefit and tax credit system while attending educational tribunals, hospital appointments, and medical assessments.

Recent research suggests that time poverty is compounded by additional financial and psychological costs associated with applying for benefits, and that this is likely to be rendered worse by the introduction of new and complex systems. (See Understanding the Compliance Costs of Benefits and Tax Credits, by Fran Bennett, Mike Brewer and Jonathan Shaw, published by the Institute of Fiscal Studies, 2008). These sort of problems are likely to be significantly worse for lone parents applying for DLA for their children (and sometimes themselves as well) which involves finding out about it, getting hold of application forms, filling the forms in (and often traumatic business), gathering medical evidence, and then coping with incorrect assessments and tribunals. This amendment will reduce an unwarranted additional raft of complexity into already complex lives.

Childcare

There are also significant issues in and around the provision of childcare for disabled children. This becomes more of an issue for older disabled children who may continue to need adult supervision and support long after this has ceased to be a necessity for most children, generating significant gaps in provision for this group of young people. Although the Minister states that ‘I would also say specifically that, as we have debated extensively, if appropriate childcare is not available at an affordable price, a person cannot be mandated to undertake work-related activity which does not reflect that circumstance’ we remain unconvinced that these safeguards have been sufficiently clarified for any family, let alone lone parents with disabled children.

His statement underestimates the considerable difficulties parents’ experience finding specialist childcare for their children and the problems for largely untrained personal advisers in deciding whether or not the childcare on offer is appropriate. It ignores the fact that many families whose children may have emotional or behaviour problems often result in being excluded from school, holiday schemes and childcare provision. Problems accessing appropriate childcare are likely to be rendered much worse for parents caring for two or more disabled children.

A government amendment to Clause 2 stipulates that, prescribing ‘Good cause for failure to comply with certain regulations’ must include provision relating to:

(a) the person’s physical or mental health or condition;

(b) the availability of childcare...

However, we are concerned that given the complexities involved in assessment a lone parent’s physical and mental health condition while considering the complex childcare needs of their children is likely to generate problems for this particular group. Given the complex childcare needs of disabled children and young people, we believe that it is ‘unreasonable or inappropriate’ to expect parents with children in receipt of the lower rate of DLA to engage in WRA – or face having their benefits sanctioned.

Caring for two or more disabled children – cumulative care needs

Research suggests that the ongoing failure of the benefits system to recognise cumulative impact of caring results in inadequate financial support and inappropriate service provision. These families are particularly susceptible to crises (for example, falling ill). Hard working families reports that ‘Costs soar tangentially when families are caring for two or more disabled children. Managing simultaneous demands – taxing in itself – is rendered more difficult by unsuitable housing, lack of transport, restricted opportunities to access leisure facilities, and the number of different professionals and agencies involved in family life’. Under the current proposals, a lone parents who is caring for two or more disabled children in receipt of the mobility component of DLA will be required to engage in work-related activities, even though the cumulative impact of caring is significant.

Given the close link between poverty and disability, it is hardly surprising that many lone parents with disabled children have additional caring (and indeed financial) responsibilities for sick or disabled members of their extended family – including spouses, grandparents, siblings, nieces and nephews. (See Helter Skelter, p.34). It also exacts a high toll on the health of parents themselves.

CPAG believes that families with children in receipt of any rate or component of DLA are best placed to decide whether or not they would like to participate in work-related activities. Although providing families with the support they need is vital, compelling them to do so with threats of benefit sanctions is unjust, and is likely to result in higher rates of poverty amongst an already vulnerable group of children.

Contact:

Gabrielle Preston
Policy and Research Officer
CPAG, 94, White Lion Street
London N1 9PF
Tel: 020 7812 5231
Fax: 020 7837 6414
gpreston@cpag.org.uk

Child Poverty Action Group Clause 2i

4. Clause 2 Work related activity for income support claimants and partners of claimants

CPAG amendment

Clause 2, page 5, at line 26 insert new subsection (9) and renumber the remainder as appropriate “ (7) Regulations made under Subsection 5 shall provide that reductions shall not be applied where they may have adverse consequence on the wellbeing of children [or a pregnant woman as defined in paragraph 14 of Schedule1B to the Income Support General Regulations 1987] in a household or may worsen the severity or extent of child poverty in that household."

Purpose

To ensure that sanctions shall not be applied in such a way that has negative consequences for children or pregnant women. Families reliant on means-tested benefits are already living substantially below the poverty line. Although the imposition of sanctions will not make a difference to headline poverty figures, it would, in every case worsen material deprivation for those families. This amendment will strengthen child poverty-proofing of financial sanctions for work-related activity requirements. It would also be in line with the findings of the Gregg report on conditionality.

Explanation

Research on the impact of sanctions on children suggest that they have a negative impact on the health and wellbeing of children, and are therefore at odds with legislation on child wellbeing as laid out the Every Child Matters Agenda, which ‘sets out the Government’s approach to the well-being of children and young people from birth to age 19’ and aims ‘to give all children the support they need to: be healthy; stay safe; enjoy and achieve; make a positive contribution; achieve economic well-being. This is enshrined in the Children Act 2004.

Background briefing note

Although there no amendments on benefit sanctions were tabled in Grand Committee, the subject did come up during the debate on the Welfare Reform Bill in the House of Lords. Lord Northbourne spoke for many when he pointed out:

‘a number of the briefings that I have received from various organisations are profoundly concerned about financial penalties being imposed on people who are already living below the poverty rate… let us focus our minds on what is the best way to transform the social norms of those who are not working so that they feel working is the normal thing to do, the thing they ought to be doing and the thing everybody is doing.’

Apart from the fact that driving desperate families from one source of inadequate support to another, is hardly likely to enhance the health or wellbeing of those affected, we remain concerned that the Government is willing to countenance financial sanctions in households with children. We do not believe reducing poor people’s incomes can ever be done ‘sensitively’ and nor do we think that an already over-burdened system that will put under increasing strain by a combination of complex welfare to work policies alongside a contraction in the labour market that is have a more pronounced impact on low paid groups is likely to contribute to the delivery of employment programmes with personal advisers and decision makers with the time, skills and understanding to assess the ‘personal circumstances’ of ever larger numbers of claimants with complex and differing needs

Sanctions – research findings

In the UK the research – some of it emanating from the DWP itself – also suggests that sanctions are associated with problems that are unlikely to help disadvantaged groups access work. Qualitative research into the impact of sanctions in Pathways to Work Pilots suggested that ‘sanctions hit the more socially deprived or isolated, or longer-term benefit recipients harder’ and ‘where customers experienced stress or anxiety [sanctions] ...customers felt that the additional worry and anxiety made their existing condition more pronounced.’ It concludes that ‘In particular, the negative impacts on mental health … were notable amongst this sample.’ (K Bunt and A Maidment, Qualitative research exploring the Pathways to Work Sanctions Regime)

The research reflects findings into the role of sanctions in Jobseeker’s Allowance which were associated with ‘Emotional impacts…[such as] depression, frustration, anger and humiliation’ and associated with ‘financial impacts by the customers, as they took time to pay of their debt after the sanction ended’ and to have a ‘knock on impact on family and friends…increasing the strain placed on some relationships.’ (M Peters and L Joyce A review of the JSA sanctions regime: Summary research findings.) Ironically, research that investigated ‘the characteristics and circumstances of new claimants of incapacity benefit (IB) suggests that ‘the most commonly reported health problems and disability were depression, stress and anxiety, or musculo-skeletal problems’. (P A Kemp and J Davidson, Routes onto Incapacity Benefit: Findings from a survey of recent claimants (DWP research summary) So benefit sanctions are being put in place to encourage vulnerable groups to access work are exacerbating the same health conditions that are driving people out of work and onto benefits.

Research from the DWP also confirms that ‘incurring a sanction does cause some lone parents stress’ but that ‘the majority of lone parents … reported being unaware of a sanction until they noticed a reduced benefit.’ (See DWP, The effects of benefit sanctions on lone parents’ employment decisions and moves into employment, Vicki Goodwin, A report of research carried out by the Centre for Public Policy, University of Northumberland, on behalf of the DWP, Research Report 511) It suggests that ‘There was no evidence gathered in this study to suggest that customers who continued to live with a sanction had made an active decision to do so, instead they appeared to be unaware of their reduced rate of benefit’ and concludes that ‘this study has found that amongst the lone parents in this sample, the sanction regime has had negligible effects upon labour market behaviour.’

There is ample evidence to show that the imposition of benefit sanctions have a damaging impact on families who are already likely to be the most vulnerable to poverty. For example, in the USA - where the Temporary Assistance for Needy Family (TANF) programme has provided a social policy research suggests that it is the most vulnerable groups that are likely to incur sanctions, including ‘those with lower levels of education, less work experience, a high prevalence of health-related barriers to employment, and are more likely to experience several barriers at once.’ (J Millar and M Evans (eds) Lone parents and employment: International comparisons of what works (Prepared for the DWP, published by the Centre for the Analysis of Social Policy, December 2003) p. 37) Sanctioned individuals are likely to have ‘lower household income, are more likely to return to welfare, less likely to be employed and ‘are more likely than non-sanctioned recipients to have personal characteristics, human capital deficits, transportation barriers or personal and family challenges that make them harder to employ.’ (Lone parents and employment: International comparisons of what works,p..51

Research from the USA also shows that children in families who had been sanctioned, as opposed to those in receipt of social security payments who had not, experienced a 30 per higher incidence of past hospitalisations, 60 per cent greater risk of ‘food insecurity’ (including, for instance, being underweight) and a 90 per cent greater risk of being admitted to hospital on an accident and emergency basis. (See for example A Skalicky and J T Cook The Impact of Welfare Sanctions on the health of Infants and Toddlers, The children’s sentinel Nutrition Assessment Program, Boston, Massachusetts, July 2002.)

Evidence about the impact of TANF upon child poverty levels in the USA has also been mixed. Although some report ‘a significant growth in employment among lone parent families’,[1] data suggests that ‘earnings remained low for most of the affected families…[and] annual earnings did not come close to the poverty line for a family of three’. While some commentators argue that welfare reform has contributed to a decline in the poverty rate, ‘the fact that the poverty rate increased in the early part of the 21st century [is] not always acknowledged’ and ‘the decline in welfare rolls was not accompanied by a fall in child poverty rates.’ (Lone parents and employment: International comparisons of what works (Prepared for the DWP, published by the Centre for the Analysis of Social Policy, December 2003, p. 45) What seemed to happen is an early, fast reduction in caseload was associated with a fall in child poverty, but after about 2000 whereas caseload continued to fall, child poverty began to rise. (See A Garnham, Work over welfare: lessons from America? Child Poverty Action Group, 2007.)

Research also shows that the imposition of benefit sanctions damages the health of young children. For example which looked at The Impact of Welfare Sanctions on the Health of Infants and Toddlers (the children’s sentinel Nutrition Assessment Programme, July 2002) found that children in families who had been sanctioned, as opposed to those in receipt of social security payments who had not, experienced a 30% higher incidence of past hospitalisations, 60% greater risk of ‘food insecurity’ (including, for instance, being underweight) and a 90% greater risk of being admitted to hospital on an accident and emergency visit.’)

It would be worrying if in a few years time, the Government discovered that the imposition of a sanctions regime was damaging the wellbeing of children, while failing to reduce child poverty or increase the employment rate among the groups being targeted by this legislation.

Contact:

Gabrielle Preston
Policy and Research Officer
CPAG, 94, White Lion Street
London N1 9PF
Tel: 020 7812 5231
Fax: 020 7837 6414
gpreston@cpag.org.uk

[1] J Millar and M Evans (eds) Lone parents and employment: International comparisons of what works (Prepared for the DWP, published by the Centre for the Analysis of Social Policy, December 2003) p. 45

Child Poverty Action Group Clause 7

5. Clause 7 – Abolition of income support

CPAG recommended amendment:

Page 17, line 20, delete clause 7

The Bill grants the Secretary of State the power to abolish by order income support in respect of any category of person. Clause 7 should also be read in conjunction with clause 4 which allows for some claimants to lose access to income support where they are part of a couple where the other person may be capable of work and clause 3 which allows claimants to claim jobseekers allowance without jobseeking.

In paragraph 87 of the roadmap document on how regulation making powers will be used, there are listed 21 different types of claimant who will remain on IS after 2010.

The Government has confirmed that carers will continue to be entitled to claim IS until there is a clear and detailed plan for long-term reform of the benefits system but this is not a guarantee contained on the face of the bill. Three other groups of income support claimants, we are told, will retain a right to ‘benefit’ without any additional conditionality being applied- see below.

Additionally more complex rules that apply to some couples will make the situation of those on income support less certain. Clause 4 makes the right to continued income support depend on whether the other member of the couple is a person who has limited capability for work and where they are not, that the continued entitlement will depend on regulations to be made under a regulation making power included in this clause. The roadmap document (paras 86 and 87) lists the categories where it is expected that the provisions in clause 4 will not be used to deny a couple income support:

Couples where there is a child under 7
People awaiting transfer to ESA but currently on income support (eg a lone parent whose youngest child is 12 but the parent has a health condition which allow them to be treated as incapable of work)
Couples where one or more of the following applies – one or both have reached age 60 (the eligible age for PC), carers including those who are caring for a child up to 18 in receipt of either middle or higher rate DLA, couples awaiting the outcome of a claim for DLA/AA,
Couples with a short term entitlement to income support and the application of further conditionality would be inappropriate including full time students with a hearing impairment – ( but not disabled students who are to lose access to income support), recognised refugees learning English, those temporarily unable to be active in the labour market such as those on paternity or parental leave, those temporarily looking after a child who is ill or an adult. These last three categories will also not be subject to additional conditionality but there is nothing on the face of the bill to protect these groups.

We think it is unacceptable to allow the Secretary of State the power to scrap IS when the fate of all these different types of claimants with highly specific needs is not explained. Parliament’s crucial role in protecting the interest of these groups is completely undermined if this power remains in the bill.

A ‘road map’ document that simply lists those groups affected is not sufficient. We need a road map for each of these claimant groups with details including:

When they will lose IS entitlement
What benefit they will claim*
What the income consequences will be
What passported benefits will be protected or lost
What conditionality they will be subjected to
What specific forms of good cause will be considered in decisions on the application of sanctions.
What restrictions apply to income based JSA that do not apply to income support. For example a person who is in full time education may be able to claim income support but there are much stricter rules relating to income based JSA. Yet some of the groups that the government may require to claim JSA without jobseeking may need to acquire further skills and qualifications. It is important that those who may be required to claim means tested benefits are not denied the chance to study.

This amendment seeks to protect claimants’ entitlement to income support where they cannot be expected to satisfy the ‘labour market conditions’, normally a prerequisite for getting jobseekers allowance but where it would be inappropriate to expect such conditions to be applied. The amendment will delete the clause and leave in place a benefit which is still required by many groups of claimants. It is unusual to seek to abolish by primary legislation a benefit which meets the needs of certain groups of claimants before there is in place clear alternative provision. But this is what this clause will do. The alternatives, such as they are, require claimants to claim jobseekers allowance but not to satisfy the jobseeking requirements – an extremely illogical requirement and hardly designed to help understanding of the benefit system.

The advantage of income support is that it has a neutral title and Is correctly not associated with jobseeking or employment. It is thus understood to be a benefit that may be appropriate for those, for example, with caring responsibilities. As was pointed out in debate there is some concern that those who have and do not expect to have contact with the labour market may be deterred from claiming jobseekers allowance even if there is no requirement to jobseek just because of the name.

As a response to some concern expressed in debate the government have stated that when they introduce regulations these will be referred to SSAC and that they will also be introduced by affirmative resolution. However as is well known this provides no real protection for claimants. A SSAC report may seek to improve the proposals but can be ignored and affirmative resolutions although preferable in so far as they require parliament to debate the changes before implementation, but relying on making such fundamental changes in a way that are not yet set out allow no possibility of making amendments. The statutory instrument must be accepted or rejected and the latter is a rare event. Thus in real terms these concessions provide no real protection for current claimants of income support.

In CPAG’s view the Secretary of State should not be empowered to abolish IS without the opportunity to debate in Parliament whether a satisfactory alternative has been established for the groups affected. Any alternative provision for these groups needs to be the subject of full parliamentary scrutiny. The Government must produce a clear and detailed plan for how all those currently entitled to IS will be provided for when their entitlement to Income support is abolished. As it stands at present it appears that clause 7 is ‘superfluous’, that if a government wishes to change the entitlement of certain claimants this can be done by amending schedule 1B to the income support regulations, which prescribes which categories of claimant are entitled to income support. The power to pay income support in primary legislation should remain in place until it is decided what are the appropriate benefits for all those who currently receive income support. It is CPAG’s view that income support remains the right benefit for those who have no association with the labour market and cannot be expected to have either in the immediate term or long term.

Child Poverty Action Group Clause 4

6. Clause 4 - Couples unable to claim ESA or income support where one is capable of work

CPAG recommended amendment

Page 14, line 21, leave out clause 4

Purpose

As currently drafted the clause compels a couple in which one person is capable of work, and the other person has limited capability for work, to claim JSA through the person able to work.

Removing the clause will ensure continued access to ESA and its specialist work related activity and condition management provisions, along with the additional payment given to those receiving ESA and undertaking work related activity, to disabled people who are part of a couple The amendment also retains the ability of the couple to choose which member is the claimant.

The clause also provides that a couple where one is entitled to income support (while it continues) and the other is capable of work must claim income based JSA. Deleting the clause would allow the person entitled to income support to continue to claim that benefit while it continues.

Explanation

Generally when a couple make a claim for a income related benefit only one person is the claimant and that person must satisfy the conditions for that benefit. They will then receive the benefit paid at the couple rate.

The document “ Welfare Reform Bill – Use of regulations making powers (Lords)" provided by the Department for Work and Pensions is intended to illustrate the types of regulations that will be made under the bill. The section relating to clause 4 (p23 -26) is completely silent on this issue, it simply says that in certain circumstances couples will not be subject to its provisions.

Clause 4 has not yet been subject to any debate in either house of parliament. Ministers therefore have not explained whether they intend to allow a disabled person with a partner to be treated on an equal footing with a disabled person who is not a member of a couple.

The white paper stated that the couple would still be able to receive the work-related activity component of ESA provided the member of the couple with limited capability for work met the qualifying conditions for the contributory benefit – however no such guarantee was given for those who would otherwise be eligible for income based ESA (Para 6.86.)

This is contrary to the Government’s overall intent to support more disabled people into work and its general approach to allowing partners access to employment support. Partners of JSA claimants are to be given access to work related activity, but if the partner is not capable of work according to ESA criteria then unless they have made sufficient contributions they will be denied access to the specialist tailored support that they require to help them enter work. They will also lose the £25.50 per week work related activity component.

By denying this group access to the specialist support that their condition requires, the government are setting up a barrier to employment that does not apply to other groups. This is discrimination.

Additionally where a couple would have been entitled to income support at the couple rate this will not be possible if one of the couple is capable of work. If the claimant who is the jobseeker has to make the claim and at any stage is subject to sanctions any reduction in benefit income will impact on the couple’s ability to budget on a low income; it will eat into the couple’s income. The requirement that the couple must claim IBJSA undermines the need for a secure income for more vulnerable claimants or those who have commitments to others such as carers. At current benefit rates there is a loss of almost £26 per week. This reduces the couple’s income by a quarter and this can last for several weeks.

This measure also has consequences for child poverty targets if the consequences are that:

Certain people cannot access the employment and support allowance components, and
Reduced entitlement where there is a sanction.

Key questions for minister:

Does the Minister recognise that denying access to the specialist tailored support offered through ESA, such as condition management, leaves in place a barrier that does not affect other JSA partners – and will he recognise that this is discrimination?
Can the Minister confirm if he has taken legal advice on whether this policy and the resultant exclusion is in breach of disability equality duties?
Will the Minister bring forward amendments even at this late stage to guarantee partners with limited capability for work access to the specialist tailored support, and additional premium for participation, that is available through ESA for other working age people with a health condition or disability that causes them to have limited capability for work?
Will Ministers explain what level of benefit will be payable where the person who is capable of work is sanctioned or will the couple only be eligible for hardship payments and if so at what rate if one of the couple would have been entitled to income related employment and support allowance with a component or to income support? If this measure stays in place will the government at least give a guarantee that a hardship payment will be automatic and that these couples will be classed as ‘vulnerable groups’ for this purpose?

There are other distinctions between employment and support allowance and income based jobseekers allowance which would leave the couple at a financial disadvantage if required to claim income based JSA. These issues are of crucial importance to disabled people. The rules for ESA allow the earnings from permitted work to be disregarded. There is no such rule for claimants of JSA, and this clause would force a disabled person who would otherwise qualify for ESA to face a financial penalty for doing such permitted work. No justification for this discriminatory approach has yet been put forward.

This clause may also cause problems for couples where both have health conditions and it may be unclear who should claim and which benefit. It is also likely to generate additional claims for ESA in order to establish that neither member of the couple is capable of work. As a result they may make multiple claims for benefit with drawn-out and overlapping disputes about entitlement, backdating, personal capacity assessments, etc. We therefore think it likely this clause will result in an increase in the number of claims for ESA by partners in these circumstances, causing complexity for claimants and increasing the workload of the DWP.

Child Poverty Action Group New Clause 1A

CPAG amendment

7. New Clause 1A – No requirement to be imposed on lone parents to seek work as a condition of getting an income-related benefit where they have responsibilities for a child aged under 16 in receipt of either the care or mobility component of DLA at any rate.

Purpose:

To ensure that families with a disabled child or children under the age of 16 who are in receipt of any component or care of DLA and those awaiting the outcome of an appeal, are exempt from conditionality with regard to job-seeking activities and cannot have their benefits sanctioned. A Government amendment to the Bill stipulates ‘In preparing any action plan, the Secretary of State must have regard (so far as practicable) to its impact on the well-being of any person under the age of 16 who may be affected by it’. We believe it is therefore right that disabled children under 16 should be included in this amendment.

Explanation

CPAG believes that a blanket exemption of parents with children in receipt of any rate or component of DLA is essential due to current inadequacies in the administration of the benefits and tax credits system and the complexity of families’ lives.

Difficulties coping with additional long-term caring responsibilities, problems with the administration and delivery of DLA, and serious gaps in childcare provision for disabled children render it unreasonable to compel their parents to engage in job-seeking activities if they do not choose to do so. (Given – as discussed below - the majority of lone parents with disabled children want to work, the element of compulsion is in any case unnecessary.)

DLA - Complexity

Qualitative research suggests that ‘Difficulties arise when decision makers do not know enough about ‘invisible’ conditions like autism, or fluctuating conditions like ADHD, ignore parent’s understanding of their child’s condition and/or ignore parent’s suggestion about who would be most suitable to provide additional evidence’ (G Preston, Helter Skelter: Families disabled children and the benefit system CASEpaper 92, 2005, p.25). There is also evidence that families whose children with autistic spectrum disorders or ADHD – many of whom may only receive only lower rate care or just the mobility component of DLA - are more likely to be excluded from school and childcare settings, resulting in parents having to care for their children at home during school hours. And yet under the proposed rules lone parents with two or more disabled children could be required to engage in job-seeking activities or face sanctions.

For personal advisors, the additional need to keep track of a child’s DLA award alongside assessing other ‘family circumstances’ introduces an onerous level of complexity, uncertainty and confusion into an already complicated new system, and this is likely to lead to confusion and mistakes being made. Because changes in DLA awards generate fluctuations in income for families, the imposition of benefit sanctions is likely to plunge them into crisis, and contribute to higher levels of child poverty.

Income poverty

As discussed above, poverty is compounded by a complex benefit system that creates fluctuations in family income. The sudden loss or downrating of DLA generates high levels of stress, and families often fall into debt because their incomes has gone down, but additional costs remain the same. (See G Preston, Out of reach? Benefits for disabled children CPAG 2006) And yet the sudden downrating or removal of DLA will result in families who are already under financial stress and may well be re-submitting evidence and/or attending appeals – will be required to engage in job-seeking activities. Given that families spend additional income on accessing valuable support for children which are vulnerable to social and educational exclusion (see Helter Skelter, p 36 – 47), a sudden drop in income alongside the requirement that a parent seek work has a disproportionate impact on their children’s wellbeing. This amendment will reduce the possibility of families incurring inappropriate benefit sanctions.

Time Poverty

Research undertaken over many years shows that ‘parents with disabled children provide extra care, over and above that of ‘the reasonable parent’, and that parents with disabled children are particularly vulnerable to stress, which is often produced by trying to meet the extra demands of caring for the child without the necessary resources and support. Parental stress in turn impinges upon children’s development’ (see Priorities and perceptions of disabled children and young people and their families regarding outcomes of social care, by Bryony Beresford, Parvaneh Rabiee, Tricia Sloper, University of York, February 2009 - http://php.york.ac.uk/inst/spru/research/summs/priorpercep.php).

Childcare

A government amendment to Clause 2 stipulates that, prescribing ‘Good cause for failure to comply with certain regulations’ must include provision relating to:

(a) the person’s physical or mental health or condition;

(b) the availability of childcare...

However, we are concerned that given the complexities involved in assessment a lone parents physical and mental health condition while considering the complex childcare needs of their children is likely to generate problems for this particular group. Given the complex childcare needs of disabled children and young people, we believe that it is ‘unreasonable or inappropriate’ to expect parents with children in receipt of the lower rate of DLA to engage in WRA – or face having their benefits sanctioned.

Caring for two or more disabled children – cumulative care needs

Research suggests that the ongoing failure of the benefits system to recognise cumulative impact of caring results in inadequate financial support and inappropriate service provision. These families are particularly susceptible to crises (for example, falling ill). Hard working families reports that ‘Costs soar tangentially when families are caring for two or more disabled children. Managing simultaneous demands – taxing in itself – is rendered more difficult by unsuitable housing, lack of transport, restricted opportunities to access leisure facilities, and the number of different professionals and agencies involved in family life’. It is unreasonable to expect such families to balance significant caring responsibilities while engaging in job-seeking activities.

Additional health problems

Statistics also show that children whose health was reported by a parent as being ‘not good’ were twice as likely to live in a lone-parent family. Given the stress and strain of caring for sick or disabled children on a low income, it is hardly surprising that lone parents experience high levels of depression.

Employment

Although a survey undertaken by the Council for Disabled Children undertaken in 2003 suggests that 85% of families with disabled children would like to work – at least part-time – the majority of families with disabled children are forced, or choose, to give up employment to care for their children. Despite legislation, few employers display the flexibility lone parents with disabled children need. This has resulted in a situation in which those who do manage to work often working below their skill level in exchange for flexible employment opportunities.

In July 2004 statistics indicated that only 3% of mothers with disabled children are in full-time employment (compared with 22% of mothers with non-disabled children) and that only 13% managed part time work, compared to 39% of other mothers. (HM Treasury 2004.) A Select Committee Report 8, on Improving the employment rate of disadvantaged groups, Select Committee on Work and Pensions reports that “One quarter [of lone parents] are caring for a disabled child. Children of all ages can need a parent at home for a period, especially in the aftermath of divorce or separation. A punitive approach would only impact badly on youngsters in one parent families - many of whom have already lost one parent - while alienating work-ready lone parents … of finding work. It is extremely worrying that the Government is imposing new requirements on parents without detailing any additional form of support. The Government has repeatedly emphasised that parents know best when it comes to making choices about how to combine work and family life."

Providing families with the support they need to access employment is essential. Compelling them to do so with threats of benefit sanctions is unjust, and is likely to result in higher rates of poverty amongst an already vulnerable group of children.

Contact:

Gabrielle Preston
Policy and Research Officer
CPAG, 94, White Lion Street
London N1 9PF
Tel: 020 7812 5231
Fax: 020 7837 6414
gpreston@cpag.org.uk

Children in Northern Ireland

Response Welfare Reform Bill April 2010

Introduction

Children in Northern Ireland (CiNI) is the regional umbrella body for the children’s sector across Northern Ireland. CiNI provides information, policy, training, participation and advocacy services to support our 140 members in their direct work with and for children and young people. Our membership is drawn from across the voluntary, statutory and independent children’s sector. We are increasingly working in partnership with the statutory children’s sector, recognising that the best outcomes for children and young people are achieved through partnership working. As part of our commitment to partnership working we represent the sector on a number of cross-sectoral, multi-agency bodies, most notably the interim regional Area Child Protection Committee and also the regional Children and Young People’s Committee.

As part of our commitment to partnership working CiNI with Women’s Support Network jointly chair the Early Years Strategic Alliance. The Alliance is a group 16 organisations from across the children’s and women’s sectors working with and for children in their early years and their families. The Alliance has at its core the concern to ensure the development of co-ordinated, cohesive responsive to delivering holistic, child-centred early years and child care provision in Northern Ireland.

CiNI is aware of the work of the Law Centre NI and also of our member organisation Gingerbread NI and would support and endorse the representations which these and other partner organisations from the children’s and women’s sector have made on the issue of welfare reform.

General Comments – International Children’s Rights Standards

CiNI is primarily concerned with the implications of the draft Bill for dependent children and young people and would highlight to Government their obligations in this regard in view of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) which the UK and NI Government have signed up to, and in so doing have committed to ensuring the implementation of all the Convention rights, so as to embed the rights of the child in all law, public policy and service provision for children either directly or indirectly.

CiNI would advocate for a social security/welfare system in Northern Ireland that has at its foundation the principle of protecting and promoting the best interests of the child, in a non-discriminatory manner.

CiNI would also highlight that in developing/reforming welfare provisions children and young people should be encouraged and supported to provide their views and have these views listened to and given due consideration.

A Strategic Co-ordinating Response to Early Years and Childcare Provision

CiNI shares the concerns articulated by the Law Centre NI and others with regard to the proposed requirement on lone parents with children under 7 to actively seek work as a condition of the JSA, clearly this would mean increasing demands on a child care infrastructure that is already failing to meet demand.

While we recognise as important the safeguard in the draft Bill which requires where issues arise in relation to a failure to comply with regulations that account should be taken of the availability of child care, we would contend that the availability of child care should be an active consideration from the outset of the process, rather than being an issue that is only engaged in circumstances where there is failure to comply.

Furthermore the fact still remains that there is not the child care infrastructure in place in Northern Ireland to make return to work a viable option for lone parents, this is also coupled with a current shortage of well-paid employment. The shortage of high quality, accessible, affordable and age-appropriate child care provision in Northern Ireland is of great concern and an issue that has been highlighted in research, and Assembly research itself has noted that existing child care provision has been described as ‘woefully inadequate’.[1]

CiNI would be entirely opposed to these proposals being rolled out in the absence of a comprehensive, holistic, co-ordinated, child-centred and family focused approach to legislation, policy and service provision for early years and child care. We do note that Government departments are working to develop two separate strategic responses on early years and child care. It is now urgent that in consultation with all stakeholders, both DE and OFMDFM and all other relevant departments, working together in a spirit of co-operation expediently deliver a co-ordinated strategic direction for early years and child care services. It is utterly unsatisfactory that crucial areas of provision such as after school provision in Northern Ireland is forced to rely on short-term funding in the absence of any joined up strategic vision which recognises the crucial contribution and added value that providers such as these deliver.

We would highlight that the UNCRC is clear with regard to Government’s obligations in relation to child care provision. The Convention does require that the Government ensure the provision of adequate high quality care for all children and young people.

Under article 3 (2) of the Convention State Parties are required to undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being. Furthermore article 3 (3) requires that State Parties shall ensure that the institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care or protection of children shall conform with the standards established by competent authorities, particularly in the areas of safety, health, in the number and suitability of their staff, as well as competent supervision.

Of particular significance in terms of underpinning Government’s obligations with regard to child care provision is article 18 of the Convention which provides at 18 (2) that State Parties shall render appropriate assistance to parents and legal guardians in the performance of their child rearing responsibilities and shall ensure the development of institutions, facilities and services for the care of children. Further 18 (3) requires State Parties to take all appropriate measures to ensure that children of working parents have the right to benefit from child care services and facilities for which they are eligible.

In preparing Jobseekers agreements and action plans we note that responsible persons must have regard (as far as practicable) to the impact on the well-being of any child who may be affected by it. CiNI would advocate for the higher standard of best interests to be applied in relation to agreements and action plans. Under article 3 of the UNCRC Government is obliged to ensure that the best interests of the child are the primary consideration in all actions concerning the child and this necessarily requires that the evolving capacities and views of the child are considered. Best interests is the internationally recognised higher standard to which Government has signed up to and must implement; it includes and goes beyond the concept of well-being to include consideration of survival, growth and development.

We would also suggest that it must be made clear that where agreements or action plans are identified as having negative and adverse impact on the best interests (including well-being) of a child there is a requirement to take pro-active mitigating steps to re-dress the negative impact so as to protect and promote the rights and best interests of the child.

Sanctions

CiNI would share the concerns that have been expressed by colleagues with regard to the adverse negative impact which benefit sanctions on lone parents would have on child dependents. Proposals for benefit sanctions raise serious children’s rights concerns and we would contend that benefit sanctions are in breach of the Government’s obligations under article 6 (2) to ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child and article 27 to recognise the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development … the parents or others responsible for the child have the primary responsibility to secure, within their abilities and financial capacities, the conditions of living necessary for the child’s development … State Parties, in accordance with national conditions and within their means , shall take appropriate measures to assist parents and others responsible for the child to implement this right and shall in case of need provide material assistance and support programmes, particularly with regard to nutrition, clothing and housing.

CiNI also shares the concerns already expressed by colleagues in relation to the potential impact on child poverty if lone parents are exposed to the risk of benefit sanctions. The proposed introduction of benefit sanctions entirely undermines and brings into question the Government’s commitment to tackling child poverty in Northern Ireland and would have a serious negative impact on the Government’s ability to deliver on its Programme for Government PSA targets to end child poverty by 2020, by reducing child poverty by 50% by 2010 and eliminating severe child poverty by 2012. CiNI would highlight to the Assembly Committee that the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, having considered UK and NI Government implementation of the UNCRC, recently commented on the issue of child poverty noting its particular concern at child poverty levels in Northern Ireland, where 21% of children live in persistent child poverty (being poor 3 years in a 4 year period) which is more than double the GB rate of persistent child poverty[2]. The UN Committee again highlighted that an adequate standard of living is essential for a child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development. The UN Committee recommended that Government:

(a) Adopt and adequately implement the legislation aimed at achieving the target of ending child poverty by 2020, including by establishing measurable indicators for their achievement

(b) Give priority in this legislation and the follow up actions to those children and their families in most need of support;

(c) When necessary, besides giving full support to parents and those responsible for the child, intensify its efforts to provide material assistance and support programmes for children, particularly with regard to nutrition, clothing and housing; [own under-lining]

(d) Re-introduce a statutory duty on local authorities to provide safe and adequate sites for Travellers[3]

While CiNI welcomes the introduction of the Child Poverty Act 2010 and looks forward to its full implementation in Northern Ireland, we would highlight that exposing lone parents to the risk of benefit sanctions goes contrary to the recommendations of the UN Committee and in fact could jeopardise the well-being of children from one parent families as it would mean a reduction of Government efforts to provide assistance and support for these children.

Consultation with Children and Young People

CiNI would highlight that under both section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act and article 12 of the UNCRC Government is obliged to seek and consider the views of children and young people on issues that impact on their lives. We would highlight that there is therefore a requirement on the DSD to ensure in bringing forward proposals for welfare reform in Northern Ireland to engage in early and direct consultation with children and young people. We would highlight that there is a particular obligation to consult directly with children from one parent families to seek their views on the impact that benefit sanctions might have on their lives.

CiNI would highlight that support is available to DSD and to the Social Development Committee to help ensure effective consultation with children and young people. CiNI hosts the Participation Network[4], which is an OFMDFM supported initiative, set up to provide training, signposting and consultancy support to public bodies, such as DOENI, to help in fulfilling section 75 obligations to consult with children and young people. We would urge DSD and the Social Development Committee to visit the Participation Network website and set up a meeting with the Network staff.

Consultation

CiNI trusts that this evidence can usefully inform the Committee as it takes forward its consideration of the draft Bill. We are keen to support Government to ensure the development of a welfare system that has at its heart the aim of protecting and promoting the best interests of children and young people by enabling parents to make positive choices, and support them return to work where that is their wish, when the circumstances are right; and when they can be assured that child care provision is adequate and appropriate to meet the needs of their children.

[1] Northern Ireland Assembly Research Paper 16/08, Childcare Provision in the UK and Republic of Ireland, March 2008

[2] Monteith, Lloyd and McKee Persistent Child Poverty in Northern Ireland

[3] CRC (2008) Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 44 of the Convention Concluding Observations: UK and NI CRC/C/GBR/CO/4

[4] http://www.participationnetwork.org/

Childrens Law Centre

Response to the consultation on the Welfare Reform Bill (NI)
Children’s Law Centre
April 2010

Children’s Law Centre
3rd Floor
Philip House
123-137 York Street
Belfast
BT15 1AB
Tel: 028 90 245704
Fax: 028 90 245679
Website: www.childrenslawcentre.org
For further information contact – liammackle@childrenslawcentre.org

Introduction

The Children’s Law Centre is an independent charitable organisation established in September 1997 which works towards a society where all children can participate, are valued, have their rights respected and guaranteed without discrimination and every child can achieve their full potential.

We offer training and research on children’s rights, we make submissions on law, policy and practice affecting children and young people and we run an advice/ information/ representation service. We have a dedicated free phone advice line for children and young people and their parents called CHALKY and a youth advisory group called Youth@clc.

Our organisation is founded on the principles enshrined in The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, in particular:

Children shall not be discriminated against and shall have equal access to protection.
All decisions taken which affect children’s lives should be taken in the child’s best interests.
Children have the right to have their voices heard in all matters concerning them.

Comments

The centre has a number of concerns about some of the proposals contained in the proposed Welfare Reform Bill (NI).

Section 3. Lone Parents

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 and benefit sanctions whereas the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) is responsible for training and employment programmes.

The Welfare Reform Bill (NI) has been drafted to be applied to the circumstances in Great Britain and takes no account of the very particular circumstances in Northern Ireland.

This is of particular importance when considering the impact of the proposals in respect of children. The childcare infrastructure in Northern Ireland required to underpin the proposals is not in place and there is no lead Department responsible for developing a childcare starategy and appropriate provision. It is not appropriate to simply transfer provisions from the Bill as it was introduced in Westminster to Northern Ireland as the infrastructure to implement the proposals is not available in Northern Ireland. In the absence of a strategy to complement the proposals, aimed at increasing the availability and flexibility of childcare, it would be inadvisable to proceed with the Bill. We would urge the Assembly to first work on developing the infrastructure required to support and enable the Bill rather than passing the Bill as it stands.

With the whole of the United Kingdom in recession and with increasing levels of unemployment in Northern Ireland it will be difficult for lone parents to secure the types of employment enabling them to combine their work and family life and there is a potentially adverse impact on child poverty as parents are exposed to the increased risk of benefit sanctions.

Section 25: Jobseekers Agreements and action plans: well being of children.

We welcome the inclusion in Section 25 of a clause requiring consideration of the well being of children when drawing up jobseekers agreements and action plans. This proposal however does seem to be at odds with the general thrust of the Bill, which is to move more parents into work and to sanction those who fail to comply. The increased pressure on lone parents of young children to move back into work faster does not necessarily sit well with a clause to take into account the well being of the child. It would be helpful if there was further clarification and guidance regarding how the well being of the child will be taken into account in practice.

Section 27: Attendance in connection with Jobseekers Allowance: Sanctions.

Throughout the Bill there is an increasing reference to the use of benefit sanctions for non-compliance with the new demands on claimants. The use of sanctions is likely to have a substantial adverse impact, not only on the claimant but also on the dependant children of claimants. Those in reciept of means tested benefits are already living in poverty and such sanctions can only increase the numbers of children in Northern Ireland experiencing severe poverty. 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 in reducing child poverty.[1]

It is important that the consideration of the impact of benefit sanctions on the children of claimants is considered before there is any imposition of such sanctions. The imposition of such sanctions will have a significant imnpact on these children and in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) such decisions should have the best interests of the child as their central focus.

Conclusion.

We believe that it is appropriate in the context of increased devolution that the Assembly tailor a Northern Ireland approach to the issue of welfare reform. It is important that any such proposals take into account other strategies and legislation brought forward by the Northern Ireland Executive. The Welfare Reform Bill (NI) does not adequately deal with the particularities of the Northern Ireland situation. We would recommend that the Committee do not adopt the proposals as they stand. There is a need for further detailed consultation on the proposals with the aim of developing new proposals for a Northern Ireland context and that consideration is given to a modified legislative approach for Northern Ireland.

We welcome this opportunity to present our views on the proposals and would welcome any future opportunity to develop further the debate around welfare reform and the impact on children and young people.

The Children’s Law Centre
29th April 2010.

Citizens Advice Bureau

Welfare Reform Bill
April 2010

Introduction

Citizens Advice is the largest advice charity in Northern Ireland working against poverty, and meeting the information and advice needs of some 92,000 people per year and dealing with over 324,000 issues. The service is delivered via 27 local offices and 100 other outlets.

Citizens Advice Northern Ireland has formal links to National Citizens Advice in England and Wales and close working relationships with Citizens Advice Scotland (CAS). Together the three associations constitute the largest advice network in Europe, with over 60 year’s experience of providing advice and information to the public. Citizens Advice also works in partnership with the Citizens Information Board in the Republic of Ireland to provide cross border advice and information.

The CAB network is very finely tuned to the targeting of social need and, with its regional spread, modern integrated IT infrastructure and skilled staff, represents an efficient and cost effective channel for the delivery of information and advice to the most socially vulnerable people in Northern Ireland.

Access, inclusiveness and principles

Advice is provided on a huge range of issues by trained, specialist advisers across both main communities and to minority groupings from 28 main offices and from some 120 other outlets within the framework of 4 principles. The advice is delivered with the framework of 4 principles.

free;
impartial;
confidential; and
independent.

To ensure that advice and information are as accessible to as many people as possible the services of Citizens Advice are available through local CAB offices, online at www.adviceguide.org.uk, by e-mail, by telephone and in many community venues such as health centres, hospitals and community centres. In addition, the majority of CAB offices also provide home visits for those who are unable to access their local office due to health problems.

SSA Benefit Uptake

In June 2008 Citizens Advice was awarded a tender to increase the uptake of social security benefits for vulnerable people in Northern Ireland. Since 2005 an additional £27 million of annual benefits and arrears has been paid to Social Security Agency (SSA) customers through benefit uptake programmes.

The Benefit Uptake project aims to assist some of the more vulnerable client groups across Northern Ireland, a substantial number of whom required additional support to maximise their benefit entitlement. Many were at risk of, or already experiencing, poverty and social exclusion.

In 2008- 09 Citizens Advice became the sole provider of the Benefit Uptake Programme and upwards of 25,000 customers were contacted under the three associated categories as part of the project. This programme resulted in an additional 1,800 claims for benefit being identified. This amounted to an additional £5.7 million of benefits being identified and claimed. People who benefited from the project were on average better off by £50 per week with £822 of average arrears, also being paid.

This project also specifically signposts clients towards eligibility and entitlement under the Warm Homes Scheme.

Dealing with Debt

The Dealing with Debt Money Advice Service has been running since April 2006 when Citizens Advice was first awarded a two year contract by DETI to provide face to face money advice across Northern Ireland. In 2008, Citizens Advice was awarded a further 3 year contract to March 2011.

Over the period of 2006-2009 the service assisted close to 6,500 people and handled over £52 million of debt. Statistics for 2008/2009 clearly show that over 2,400 new clients have been assisted with their debt problems, an increase of 20% over the same12 month period during 2007/2008.

NIE for your Benefit

Citizens Advice has been working closely with NIE Energy for more than ten years with regard to projects that include benefit maximisation, energy advice and debt advice. We currently enjoy a good working relationship with NIE Energy which in turn benefits clients. Following a successful evaluation of benefit take up pilots, NIE agreed a three-year benefits uptake programme with Citizens Advice until December 2010. The purpose of the project is to carry out 2,400 benefit enquiry checks over the duration of the project which involves assessing if a client is entitled to additional benefits that they may not be aware of and claiming as well as referring.

NIE will write to a section of its customers inviting them to contact a dedicated Citizens Advice telephone number for a free benefit enquiry check. The customer’s details will then be passed to their local CAB where an adviser will contact them to carry out the check.

Response

Citizens Advice Northern Ireland is pleased to take this opportunity to respond to the Northern Ireland Assembly’s request for evidence for consideration at the Committee stage of the Welfare Reform Bill.

Following the sequence of the Explanatory memorandum we would respond as follows:

Part 1 - Social Security

Work for your Benefit Schemes

Citizens Advice notes that it is intended that work for your benefit schemes will be trialled in Great Britain first, before being rolled out to Northern Ireland. However we would like to take this opportunity to make some observations on this type of scheme.

While Citizens Advice recognises that suitable work related activity can be of assistance to those clients who are seeking to improve their skills in anticipation of an imminent return to work, it has been shown that it is of no help to long term benefit claimants in helping them to successfully achieve long term full time employment.

Research has been carried out on schemes similar to those being proposed in the Bill which have been implemented in other countries. Generally it has been found that only small numbers of scheme participants have gone on to secure a full time job.[2]

Citizens Advice is also concerned that forcing benefit recipients to take part in “work related activity" could be tantamount to their actually working, but for much less than they would be receiving if they were in the same employment outside any type of scheme.

If any such work for your benefit schemes were to be introduced in Northern Ireland Citizens Advice would be in favour of an amendment to the proposed Bill to ensure that any work related activity would be paid at the appropriate National Minimum Wage level, or above.

Work related activity for Income Support

The explanatory memorandum sets out plans to introduce mandatory work related activity for those on Income Support who are not the lone parent of children under 3 or the partner of a person in receipt of the specified benefits.

For the same reasons as outlined above, namely that the forced return to work related activity of those who are not yet ready for such a return can be a hindrance to their successful entrance into the workforce at a later date, Citizens Advice does not support this proposition.

Whilst we acknowledge that there are some recipients of Income Support who would undoubtedly benefit from participating in work related activity we feel that creating additional legislation to deal with this issue would be overly oppressive and prone to enforcement on those for whom work related activity is not a help or assistance into employment, but a barrier to future success.

Lone Parents – Abolition of Income Support

Citizens Advice cannot support the assertion of the consultation paper that the abolition of Income Support will lead to an increase in lone parents returning to employment.

Lone parents face multiple barriers when they try to move from benefits to work and combining work with childcare responsibilities. Moving into the workplace brings with it additional financial burdens. The costs incurred travelling too and from job interviews and ultimately a new job, childcare costs and costs supplemental to that, such as meals and trips from children, not to mention the cost of tools, equipment and suitable clothing for work need to be factored in when a parent, particularly a lone parent contemplates a new job. Financial stability is vital yet often hard to achieve. Some parents are actually worse off in low paid work than claiming benefits. Administration problems, delays and overpayments associated with the tax credits system do not always make it easy to make the move into employment.

Abolishing Income Support will not remove the traditional barriers to lone parents obtaining employment. The cost of childcare is a major obstacle in returning to work for many lone parents. Households in Northern Ireland are more reliant on Child and Working Tax Credits to assist them with their childcare costs than in any other region of the United Kingdom.[3]

Moving lone parents from one benefit to another and expecting them to prepare for work, without making suitable arrangements for the care of their children will not encourage lone parents into work. Only recently the Government sought to remove the current and highly effective scheme of Childcare Vouchers. This would have had the effect of forcing many lone parents out of work, as they simply could not afford to pay for their childcare on the wages they were receiving alone. Until a better balance can be found between assisting lone parents into work which it actually pays them to do and providing them with suitable, affordable childcare arrangements, Citizens Advice does not anticipate that the lone parent employment rate will increase.

This organisation feels that a return to the workplace facilitated by a phased and tapered reduction in benefits would be more successful at increasing the lone parent employment rate. The immediate loss of 100% of their benefit entitlement is often more than enough to discourage those who would otherwise be keen to return to the workplace from doing so.

Clause 3 also discusses lowering to 7 the age at which the lone parent of a child will be a prescribed category for Income Support. The age is currently 10. For all the same reasons outlined above Citizens Advice does not support this. The increased cost of childcare (vital for a child aged only 7) is prohibitive for many lone parents re-entering the workplace.

As well as childcare obstacles, there are educational hurdles to overcome in obtaining employment. The proportion of the working age population who have no formal educational qualifications is higher in Northern Ireland than anywhere else in the United Kingdom.[4] Academic underachievement needs to be addressed and this cannot be achieved by simply shifting people among benefits and hoping that this will provide them with a suitable avenue into the workforce.

Wages in Northern Ireland also need to be addressed. In 2009 16% of full time employees in Northern Ireland were paid less than £7 per hour. This is a higher proportion than anywhere else in the United Kingdom.[5] While wages remain low and the cost of childcare is high lone parents cannot and should not be forced into seeking jobs which do not meet their financial needs.

Citizens Advice understands that the Government is aiming to provide more personalised and flexible support and to tailor that support to individual need in order to help people find and retain work. However that support must be provided at the right time and be adequately resourced to ensure that people are not forced into a work situation that they cannot cope with.

This organisation does not feel that Income Support needs to be abolished in order to achieve the above aims and does not agree that JobSeekers Allowance is a suitable alternative benefit for lone parents, especially where that parent is not actively seeking work due to the age of their youngest child. Seeking to complicate the rules for those applying for JSA and make exceptions and exemptions to already established practice can only make the jobs of both SSA and Benefits Office staff more difficult and more prone to error and mistake. Claimants will also be confused by the change as proposed and are thus more likely to be unsure as to what benefit they should be applying for and how to go about it.

Citizens Advice does not feel that this is the correct way to go about increasing the employment rate amongst lone parents and so cannot support this section of the Bill.

Social Fund Reform

Citizens Advice strongly believes that the Social Fund has long been in need of reform. The current budget available to the fund is too low to meet the high demand placed upon it and we are also concerned that the mechanisms by which applications are made and decisions are taken mean that urgent need is often not met.

Whilst we acknowledge the constraints arising out of the small budget Citizens Advice feels that Social Fund eligibility needs to be extended, particularly to those who are in receipt of contribution based only benefits.

We note the consultation paper’s plans to develop a payment on account facility where it will be possible to make a payment to a person in advance of their application for or a decision on their entitlement where it is not practical for such to be done expediently.

Citizens Advice very much supports this proposition and feels that it could do much to ease the strain on the already overburdened Social Fund budget.

Sanctions

Citizens Advice welcomes any proposals which are designed to ensure that sanctions are used only as a measure of last resort and not as a method of pushing benefit claimants for issues which can be outside of their control. The use of sanctions needs to be carefully and closely monitored to ensure that vulnerable clients are not disproportionately or adversely affected.

Clause 19 of the memorandum details the planned new “one strike" policy. Previously it had been the case that a person would have to have been convicted of benefit fraud on two occasions within 5 years before they would be subject to benefit disqualification for a period of 13 weeks.

Under the proposed “one strike" policy benefit can be reduced or withdrawn for a period of 4 weeks if the person is convicted of one benefit offence/accepts an administrative penalty/agrees to a caution. Citizens Advice does not support this approach. Quite apart form the fact that imposing a four week period of possible non-payment for one offence seems overly harsh, Citizens Advice suggests that this will increase the workload on the SSA.

Currently a person suspected of benefit fraud can be prosecuted or can accept a caution or an administrative penalty. Under the old system doing so would be of no detriment to their immediate benefit income. If, by accepting an administrative penalty or caution a person knows that they are effectively agreeing to a four week period of, at best, reduced payments, they are far less likely to do so. They will likely insist on a formal case being brought. This will be more time consuming and cost more money.

Likewise Citizens Advice cannot support the proposed extension of the time during which a person’s entitlement to JobSeekers Allowance will cease if they fail to attend a mandatory interview and do not contact the SSO or JBO with good cause within 5 working days. The memorandum outlines the increase in loss of entitlement from 1-5 days to 1-2 weeks.

1-2 weeks loss of entitlement for failure to attend an interview and give good cause with 5 working days seems disproportionately large and Citizens Advice is worried that this will cause extreme financial hardship to clients, particularly vulnerable clients.

We also feel that allowing a claimants claim to be closed if they do not contact the SSO or JBO within 5 working days is counterproductive. The result will be an increased workload for SSO staff when the client wants to proceed with their claim and must go through the application process again, likely with extra calls or visits to the SSO being required.

[1] Committee for OFMDFM final report on the Committee’s inquiry into child poverty in NI.

[2] Crisp, R and Fletcher D (2008) A comparative review of workfare programmes in the United States, Canada and Australia

[3] Research undertaken by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. The average amount received in Northern Ireland for childcare support is £80 a week. Among the regions of Great Britain, only the figure for London is higher.

[4] 21% of the working age population of Northern Ireland have no formal qualifications, Labour Force Survey.

[5] DETI Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings 2009

Committee for Employment and Learning

Dolores Kelly, Chairperson
Committee for Employment and Learning

Mr Simon Hamilton
Chairperson
Committee for Social Development
Room 410
Parliament Buildings
Ballymiscaw
Stormont
BT4 3XX

30 April 2010

Dear Simon

Welfare Reform Bill

At its meeting on 21 April 2010, the Committee received a joint briefing from officials from the Departments for Social Development and Employment and Learning on the key aspects of the Northern Ireland Welfare Reform Bill. Members agreed to write to the Committee for Social Development outlining the main issues which were discussed at the meeting.

The Committee noted that there were a number of areas, such as “Work for your benefit", where the Department for Social Development was awaiting the outcome of pilot schemes in Great Britain before introducing similar provisions in this country. Members expressed concern about the impact that a change of Government after the forthcoming General Election may have on these pilot schemes, and the lack of such pilot schemes in Northern Ireland due to lack of resources. Members commended the successful outcome of a small-scale test scheme introduced by the Department for Employment and Learning late in 2009 through LEMIS, whereby job-seekers were encouraged to commit to volunteering activity as a pathway to paid employment.

Members also noted that this legislation makes no provision for carers, and expressed concerns that no long term strategy has yet been developed for those in this situation. The Committee commended the Minister’s recognition of the lack of available child care in Northern Ireland and the inclusion of the facility for lone parents to sign on by post. The Committee also noted the guarantee that no one will lose out financially by working through the implementation of a “Better off in Work calculation", with an enhanced focus on encouraging and supporting people into work, rather than on enforcement.

The Committee still expressed reservations about the impact of the Bill on people with disabilities – you will recall that the briefing paper presented to members by Disability Action was forwarded to you on 11 February 2010. This paper highlighted concerns regarding the level of service provided by the Pathways Advisor Service, in particular the lack of opportunity for Pathways staff to build up a body of expertise in this field, and also difficulties for the disabled in accessing the telephone application process. Members agreed to write to the Minister for Employment and Learning to seek a specific response to each of the issues raised by Disability Action before finalising the formal Committee response on the Bill.

Yours sincerely,

Dolores Kelly MLA Signature

Dolores Kelly, MLA
Chairperson

Committee for Employment and Learning
19 May 2010

Dolores Kelly MLA, Chairperson
Committee for Employment and Learning

Simon Hamilton MLA
Chairperson
Committee for Social Development
Room 410
Parliament Buildings
Ballymiscaw
Stormont
BT4 3XX

19th May 2010

Dear Simon,

Welfare Reform Bill

Further to my letter of the 30th April regarding the Welfare Reform Bill, the Committee discussed the Bill again at its meeting today to ensure that Members’ concerns would be highlighted to your Committee for inclusion in your Bill Report. I have attached my letter of 30th April for your convenience. The Committee stands by the comments I made in that letter and the Committee has agreed that I should highlight additional issues below.

With regard to the “Work for your benefit" provision in the Bill, the Committee has concerns that the GB pilot schemes that will inform how this provision will work have not yet all been completed and assessed, as far as the Committee is aware. The Committee intend to write to Sir Reg Empey to seek clarification on where these pilots stand and whether he is now in a position to say whether or not his Department will implement this provision if there are sufficient resources to do so. The Committee believes that this could be seen as a somewhat risk-prone way to operate, i.e. including provisions in a Bill where relevant pilots have not been completed and assessed and where it is unclear whether resources will be available to implement the provisions should the pilots be deemed successful.

The Committee has similar concerns regarding the “Progression to Work" provision in the Bill regarding support for parents with younger children, where implementation is also dependent on the successful completion of pilots and the availability of resources on the part of DEL. The Committee is supportive of protections in the Bill regarding childcare where a family can be excused from undertaking mandatory activity on the grounds of “good cause".

Members have expressed concerns regarding the Bill’s provision to amend the Jobseekers (NI) Order 1995 which will allow the contracting out to “authorised persons and their employees" of some DEL functions, including arranging work-focused interviews, creating, agreeing and reconsidering action plans and the issuing of directions. The Committee believes that these highly sensitive functions must only be placed in the hands of organisations and persons of the highest calibre and would seek reassurances that the contracting process will be extremely rigorous. Members are very supportive of the exemption from contracting out of decisions such as sanctions against service users; however, Members believe that these exclusions must not be eroded in any future legislation.

With regard to the Bill’s provisions around the sharing of employment and training information for the development of integrated employment and skills services, Members are supportive of this as long as the safeguard that the information should be proportionate is rigidly applied. The Committee is all too aware of cases where excessive personal information is lost during the transfer process, with predictable results.

Overall, the Committee believes that the principle of getting more people into work is a worthy one. However, when dealing with people’s lives there must be thorough assessment and sound reasoning for any actions. As I have indicated above, the dependence on successful completion of pilots for the implementation of certain provisions – if resources for forthcoming from DEL – is a worry and gives the appearance of haste with regard to this Bill.

Members have asked me to raise their concerns regarding the impact on this Bill of the new government in London and the emergency budget that is imminent. The Committee is of the view that the safeguards and agreements that have been put in place regarding this Bill may be seen as commitments attached to the previous UK government and the new government may see them as dispensable at some future date. As this is essentially parity legislation there is a real concern that any legislative erosion of the safeguards of this Bill in GB will force the same erosion here.

In my letter to you of 30th April I indicated the Committee’s reservations regarding the impact of the Bill on people with disabilities. The Committee has shared the concerns expressed by Disability Action with you regarding the level of service provided by the Pathways Advisor Service, in particular the lack of opportunity for Pathways staff to build up a body of expertise in this field, and also difficulties for the disabled in accessing the telephone application process. Despite reassurances from the DEL Minister in respect of these issues Disability Action and other stakeholders, including the National Autism Society (NI), remain gravely concerned that people with disabilities and other life challenges with not be properly catered for and considered under the new systems that the Bill will set up. Members have highlighted their belief that a significantly more detailed EQIA on the Bill, with particular reference to the concerns of those groups representing the most vulnerable in our society, is required.

The Committee has noted the other areas of the Bill that fall under the DEL remit, but Members had asked that I should specifically comment with regard to the issues outlined above.

If any further clarification is required the Committee Clerk would be happy to oblige. The Committee would also like to record its thanks for your invitation to submit evidence to assist your consideration of the Bill.

Yours sincerely,

Dolores Kelly MLA Signature

Dolores Kelly, MLA
Chairperson

Committee for OFMDFM
20 May 2010

The Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister

Peter McCallion
Clerk
Committee for Social Development
Room 412
Parliament Buildings
Ballymiscaw
Stormont
Belfast BT4 3XX

Committee Office Room 404
Parliament Buildings
Ballymiscaw
Stormont
Belfast
BT4 3XX
Tel: (028) 9052 1677
Fax : (028) 9052 1083
committee.ofmdfm@niassembly.gov.uk

Date: 20 May 2010

Dear Peter,

At its meeting of 19 May 2010, the Committee considered correspondence from the Committee for Social Development seeking this Committee’s comments on the Welfare Reform Bill. The Committee agreed to highlight the following recommendations contained within its Final Report on the Committee’s Inquiry into Child Poverty in Northern Ireland.

We recommend that, following a review of initial benefit uptake programmes, consideration should be given by the Department for Social Development to the establishment of longer-term benefit uptake contracts and the adoption of alternative methods to try to contact hard to reach families living in poverty.

We recommend that the Department for Social Development brings forward legislative proposals which would enable information to be shared with other government agencies to enable more effective approaches to be developed to encourage benefit uptake.

We recommend that, as a first major initiative in seeking to eliminate severe poverty, the Executive should commit to the development of a cross-departmental Benefit Uptake Strategy.

The Committee calls on Ministers to lobby the UK Government for the reopening of an office dealing with tax credits in Northern Ireland and for improvements to verification procedures and the administration of the tax credit system.

We call on Executive Ministers to ensure that before introducing welfare reform programmes which have been developed in other parts of the UK, careful consideration is given to their implementation in Northern Ireland, and, in particular, we recommend that an evaluation is carried out of whether necessary support services, such as childcare, are in place prior to their implementation.

We recommend that making work pay should be a specific objective within the Lifetime Opportunities Implementation Plan and that the Department for Social Development, with the support of OFMDFM, should work with departments in the UK on the development of a pilot “Better off in Work" initiative in Northern Ireland.

The Committee also agreed that the Welfare Reform Bill should deal with some of the ongoing problems in the benefit system in Northern Ireland including the importance of considering how to improve benefit uptake in Northern Ireland. The Committee also wished to highlight problems people have with the Tax Credit system when an error is made in calculating an award and repayment is required resulting, on occasions, with the claimant getting into debt to make the repayments on an administrative error.

Members also wished to raise the issue of extending the winter fuel payment to those people with chronic illnesses.

Yours sincerely

Cathie White Signature

Cathie White
Clerk, Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister

Disability Action

Welfare Reform Bill

Disability Action has a number of comments on this draft bill and these are listed below.

Phased complete migration of IS to JSA and ESA.

It is essential that anyone falling into this category is fully informed about the process and if it is required is given support to manage the change over.

Payment of Community Care Grants in certain circumstances directly to a supplier of goods and services.

Disability Action has concerns around the passing of the management of grants to an individual supplier. If this is to happen there needs to be a very clear and defined monitoring system in place to ensure that the money is being properly managed. The individual receiving the community care grant must have a significant input into how the money is used.

Contracting-out of certain social security matters which are the responsibility of DEL.

Disability Action has concerns around prime contractors. To date the track record of this element of welfare reform is poor, as the prime contractors may state in a tender that they will sub contract services to groups including disability organisations but then do not follow through. Again there needs to be meticulous monitoring if this is to happen.

Changes to DLA/ESA – no specifics have been mentioned here but again we have concerns on how this will impact on disabled people.

Yours sincerely

Monica Wilson Signature

Monica Wilson
Chief Executive

Gingerbread NI

29 April 2010

Peter McCallion
Committee Clerk
Committee for Social Development
Room 412, Parliament Buildings
BELFAST
BT4 3XX

Dear Peter,

Welfare Reform Bill 2010 - Consultation Submission

Gingerbread NI is writing in response to the Committee’s request to submit written evidence on the Welfare Reform Bill 2010.

Gingerbread is the lead agency working with and for one parent families in Northern Ireland. There are over 96,000 one parent families incorporating over 150,000 children and accounting for 25% of families with children in Northern Ireland. Gingerbread works with various organisations and agencies creating services and developing networks in local communities to help tackle the issues facing one parent families. Gingerbread works in three key ways: -

developing and delivering services which benefit one parent families including advice and information, vocational training initiatives, family support, personal development, and children and young person’s services;
campaigning to promote positive policies for lone parents and their children through research, policy and lobbying work, with the assembly, local government, the public and private sector ; and
the development of community projects, increasing social awareness of issues relevant to one parent families.

We trust that our concerns will be brought to the attention of the Committee for Social Development. We would be keen to elaborate on the concerns we have raised in the submission and will be happy to give clarification on any issue raised if required.

Yours sincerely

Marie Cavanagh Signature

Marie Cavanagh
DIRECTOR

Gingerbread NI - Consultation Response

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

Gingerbread believes that applying this scheme to lone parents with children over seven is unreasonable. We believe that without childcare provision and payments being guaranteed this will be disadvantageous to lone parent claimants and will discriminate against them directly. Both Government and Gingerbread NI’s research indicated that while 56% of lone parents are currently working outside the home over 90% have indicated that they wish to work outside the home.[1] We are concerned that the scheme will cause job displacement and that lone parents will be discouraged from taking advantage of current employment support schemes to undertake such work.

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

While Gingerbread NI and lone parents subscribe to ‘progression to work’ we are disappointed that the Bill offers no additional premium for lone parents in receipt of Income Support who take part in 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 the meet their caring responsibilities. This inevitably leads to them being low paid. Rather than creating incentives to encourage the ‘progression to work’ the Bill imposes sanctions on lone parents where they do not undertake sufficient work related activity. This Bill appears to fly in the face of the Gregg report approach which was to tailor support to the individual needs and circumstances of lone parents.

Section 3: Lone Parents

Gingerbread NI believes that the proposals to require lone parents with children aged under seven years of age to actively seek work as a condition of JSA is discriminatory and unworkable. Northern Ireland has the lowest level of childcare provision in Britain and Ireland which means that many lone parents currently in work rely on children’s school time to enable them to access work. 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 it difficult for lone parents to co-ordinate work time and children’s pick-up time.[2] 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 efforts to move lone parents back to work should be through measures tailored to support and encourage lone parents rather than through sanctions. This should also be done at a time of the lone parents choosing as we believe that lone parents have already outlined their willingness to work outside the home. The current economic climate with its high unemployment will make it difficult for lone parents to secure jobs that allow them to combine their work and family life. This will adversely impact on child poverty if lone parents are exposed to the risk of benefit sanctions. We believe that the inclusion of such sanctions without providing the required infrastructural support for lone parents to implement their willingness to work is unjustified and would be detrimental to the welfare of children within the family. It is also counter productive in light of the Assemblies commitment to the eradication of child poverty by 2020.

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

Gingerbread NI believes that these sections should be removed from the Bill. We believe that the proposal to make payments to third party suppliers will reduce choice for individuals, prevent competitive pricing, increase stigmatisation of lone parents and other claimants, interfere with individual independence and will impact on lone parent’s willingness to claim. As an organisation provided advice, representation and information to lone parents on numerous social welfare and benefit issues we are aware, at first hand, of the difficulties lone parents already face in accessing Social Fund Loans and Community Care Grants. To introduce further obstacles to claims will be detrimental to the well-being of children and will increase the work load of the independent advice sector in terms of representation.

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

Gingerbread NI does not support the proposal to use sanctions in response to aggressive claimants. Assault is a criminal matter and so a matter for the Criminal Justice System and should be dealt with through due process. Where benefits are the sole income of an individual or family and are relied on for the provision of food, clothing, warmth and shelter any sanction in these circumstances would detrimental to well-being and will impact not just on the individual concerned but on the whole family including children.

Section 23: Exemption from job-seeking conditions for victims of domestic violence

Gingerbread NI welcomes the recognition by the Government of the extreme stress and difficulty faced by victims of domestic violence, however we would argue that 13 weeks will not be a sufficient time period for those experiencing ‘domestic violence’ to be ready to engage in job-seeking or to be work ready. We do not believe that discretion is appropriate in this as claimants would then be reliant on the approach taken by individual Personal Advisors. Our experience of the ability of JBO personnel to give consistent interpretation to legislation particularly where discretion is involved is not good and we believe that claimants could be significantly disadvantaged leading to further victimization and detriment to the well-being of the family.

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

Gingerbread NI welcomes the acknowledgement of the difficulty faced by those with physical or mental health conditions in undertaking mandatory activities. We agree with the Law Centre (NI)’s submission in that:

‘We recommend that stronger safeguards need to be put in place within the legislation to ensure that personal advisers implementing the Bill are not given full discretion to determine whether a claimant has ‘good cause’ for failure to comply with regulations particularly in regards to claimant with mental health and/or learning difficulties. A claimant’s mental health and ability to engage in the return to work process may be highly complex and sensitive and should not be left to the discretion of frontline staff without the relevant expertise or understanding of a claimant’s condition.’

Studies across the UK and elsewhere have indicated that lone parents are more likely than the general population to experience poor health. Recent research by Gingerbread NI indicated that stress was a major problem for lone parents with more than two-thirds of lone parent’s surveyed reporting chronic stress. Recent analysis of the Northern Ireland Household Panel Survey showed that mothers of children in poverty were significantly more likely to have poorer mental health and well-being than parents of children who were not in poverty.[3]

Gingerbread NI believes that Northern Ireland does not have sufficient childcare infrastructure in place to facilitate this and many other clauses within the Bill. Gingerbread NI is in agreement with Law Centre (NI)’s submission: -

‘Northern Ireland does not have a childcare infrastructure 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 infrastructure 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 infrastructure 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

Gingerbread NI believes that the welfare and well-being of children must be paramount. We believe that parents are, in the main, best placed to determine the best interests in the welfare of their children. We welcome the acknowledgement of the well-being of children but believe that the inclusion of the potential use of sanctions and the increased pressure on parents, particularly lone parents to move into work where they would disagree is counter productive and flies in the face of the well-being of children. We also believe that imposition of a mandatory scheme and the removal of ‘choice’ directly discriminates against lone parents.

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

Gingerbread NI believes that the increased use of sanctions will have substantial adverse implications for dependents as well as claimants. We believe this counters the Assembly’s commitments made in the programme for government to eradicate child poverty by 2020. In fact the imposition of sanctions will result in an increase in child poverty levels and will counter any improvement in benefit uptake.

As a general observation Gingerbread NI believes policy and legislation impacting on lone parents needs to take account of gender divisions in work and employment and the way in which women’s choices about paid work are shaped by social and political assumptions and expectations about their domestic and caring role. Legislation that attempts to move lone parents and especially lone mothers into employment without addressing other fundamental gender equality issues is unlikely to succeed.[4]

Gingerbread believes that the implementation of this legislation will have a detrimental adverse impact on at least one category within Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. To this end we would agree with the Law Centre (NI)’s and others who have expressed this in a position paper to be submitted collectively:-

‘We note that an Equality Impact Assessment was completed on December 2009 based upon the Welfare Reform Bill 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 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’.

In conclusion, Gingerbread NI also believes that the implementation of this Bill to Northern Ireland on the basis of pilots carried out in England would be erroneous.

As we have already pointed out Northern Ireland does not enjoy the childcare, training or jobs support infrastructure that exists in England and to implement legislation on the basis of evaluation of how it worked in England provides no clear comparison.

We would submit that any attempt at reading across legislation should at the very least be piloted in Northern Ireland if any accurate or reasonable comparison is to be achieved.

[1] Lone Parents Speak Out: the views of lone parents in Northern Ireland on employment – Gingerbread NI & UUJ

[2] Lone Parents and Work in NI: Issues for Policy Makers – Gingerbread NI and UUJ – Recommendation 12 Department of Education should consider the standardisation of school hours so that parents or carers can pick up all primary –school age children at the same time or at lease facilities are available for all children to stay in school until 3pm

[3]Monteith, Marina et al, Persistent Child Poverty in Northern Ireland. Research Paper, Belfast: Save the Children and ARC

[4] Lone Parents and Work in NI: Issues for Policy Makers – Gingerbread NI and UUJ

Law Centre NI - Executive Summary

Welfare Reform Bill (NI)
Clause by Clause Briefing
Executive Summary
April 2010

Introduction

The Welfare Reform Bill, for England, Scotland and Wales was introduced to Parliament on 14 January 2009 and was granted Royal Assent on 12 November 2009. The Act is the culmination of considerable work by the Government in the area of welfare reform. The Northern Ireland version of the Bill was published on 12 April 2010.

Northern Ireland presents particular circumstances with regards to welfare reform and arrangements to move people into employment. While benefit rates are universal across the UK there are significant differences between social security provision which recognise the particular circumstances in Northern Ireland. The approach towards welfare reform in Northern Ireland can therefore be policy led and is not bound to the principle of parity. While the Department for Social Development has not moved away from the major welfare reform proposals in the 2009 Act, it is possible that a different approach may be taken to conditionality, contracting out of welfare to work programmes and a number of the other initiatives in the NI Bill.

This summary aims to highlight our particular areas of concern and our recommendations regarding the implementation of the Bill.

Recommendations

That pilots are run in Northern Ireland prior to any plans to roll out the changes nationally (section 1)
The Bill should offer additional premium for lone parents in receipt of Income Support who take part in work related activity (section 2)
The proposed change in regards to lone parents should not be implemented until a childcare strategy and suitable supportive infrastructure is in place in Northern Ireland (sections 3 & 24)
Legislation regarding entitlement to jobseekers allowance without seeking employment, which will impact upon carers, should not be enacted until detailed proposals are ready for consultation (section 4)
There are a multiplicity of circumstances facing partners living with a sick or disabled person therefore a sanctions driven approach is neither helpful nor beneficial (section 5)
That Income Support is retained until detailed alternatives are set out and consulted on. Only after this should such a change to primary legislation be brought forward (section 9)
That the minimum number of contribution weeks required to be paid by claimants is reduced from 26 weeks to guard against a further erosion of the national insurance contributory principle (sections 11 & 12)
That carers or those on maternity leave who have not worked sufficiently long enough to claim statutory maternity pay should not be penalised where they have a partner who is also not working (section 14)
Community care grants should not be paid to third party providers but should continue to be paid directly to claimants to guard against stigma and the reduction of choice for claimants (sections 15 & 16)
No further criminal sanctions to combat fraud as benefit fraud is at the lowest ever recorded (section 19)
Benefit sanctions should not be introduced as a response to aggressive claimants, such claimants should be dealt with through the criminal justice system (section 20)
The legislation should allow for continued discretion in cases of domestic violence beyond the agreed 13 week period as for some victim 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 (section 23)
That stronger safeguards need to be put in place to ensure that personal advisers implementing the Bill are not given full discretion to determine whether a claimant has ‘good cause’ for failure to comply with regulations particularly in regards to claimant with mental health and/or learning difficulties (section 24)
Further consideration be given to the continued pressure on lone parents to move back into work faster which does not necessarily seem to stand with a clause to take into account the well-being of the child (section 25)
The Bill clarify who would be deemed an ‘authorised person’ as we have serious reservations regarding these proposed changes not least that private sector contractors may feel obliged to meet their contracts by getting tough on certain groups of claimants (section 26)
That reference is made to continued research findings that the imposition of sanctions resulted in increasing interest in, or movement towards work. We recommend against the continued reliance on sanctions as a way to propel people into work (section 27)

Conclusion

While we are unsurprised that the Department has chosen not to move away from the major welfare reform proposals, it is possible that a different approach may be taken to conditionality, contracting out of welfare to work programmes and a number of the other initiatives contained in the Welfare Reform Act 2009 for Britain. It is of note that NI has not mirrored GB in terms of the full extent of implementation of guarantees of jobs/training etc. for 18-24 year olds so there is a precedent for doing things differently in NI.

The Law Centre believes it is appropriate to tailor a Northern Ireland approach to issues raised in Welfare Reform Act 2009 and the Bill in its current form does not adequately do this. For these reasons, we would recommend that the Bill is not adopted in Northern Ireland without further consultation and consideration of the Northern Ireland context and that consideration is given to a modified legislative approach in Northern Ireland.

If the infrastructure 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 infrastructure required to support and enable the enactment of the Bill rather than passing the Bill as it stands.

The proposals within the Bill have been known for a considerable period of time and the delay in publishing a Northern Ireland Bill has been unfortunate. Given the proposals within the Bill and the specific Northern Ireland context we think it is important that a full debate can occur on the practical consequences of the proposals within the Bill.

Law Centre NI

Welfare Reform Bill (NI)
Law Centre (NI) briefing
April 2010
Law Centre®

This briefing aims to provide a clause by clause commentary on the NI Welfare Reform Bill highlighting particular areas of concern as identified by Law Centre (NI).

Part 1 – Social Security

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

The Bill provides the process to establish a ‘Work for Your Benefit’ scheme. In effect, claimants who reach the end of their flexible new deal programme will be expected to undertake up to six months benefit while in work. The government has characterised this as mandatory unpaid work experience rather than workfare. In practice, the rate paid is not a wage and is effectively an hourly rate of £1.87 (based on a 35 hour week at current JSA rates for adults aged 25 or over). The Bill’s explanatory memorandum suggests that some claimants will be exempt from the scheme (for example lone parents with children under seven years of age). The Bill also provides for the scheme to be piloted though no further primary legislation will be required for the scheme to be rolled out across the UK.

Comment

Law Centre (NI) would wish to see considerably more detail about any such scheme before being able to offer a definitive view for example, we have no sense of the quality and type of work that will be offered. Nonetheless, 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. We welcome the statement made by DSD in its Completed EQIA[1] that the ‘Work for Your Benefit’ programme will only be considered for Northern Ireland following a full evaluation of the pilot exercise in Great Britain and will be subject to the availability of resources. 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 nationally.

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

This clause of the Bill 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. It includes powers to extend such arrangement to lone parents with children aged three years of age or older. In effect the powers include that if work related activity is not undertaken then a benefit sanction can be applied to the claimant

The Bill also extends the powers of the Department to authorise ‘contracted out’ suppliers to carry out a number of his functions. These include issuing action plans and directions, as well as revising and superseding decisions made under relevant sections. The Bill stops short of giving these ‘suppliers’ powers to make decisions about whether a claimant has failed to comply with a requirement to undertake work related activity, whether he/she had good cause for failure to comply or whether a sanction should be imposed.

Comment

Work Related Activity 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. The legislation builds on the recommendations made in the conditionality review by Paul Gregg to create a ‘progression to work’ group of claimants. 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 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. 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.’

We are also concerned by the proposals to extend the powers of the Department to authorise ‘contracted out’ suppliers to carry out a number of his functions. This is likely to be used if contracts for delivering work related training programmes are contracted out to the voluntary sector or the private sector however; in practice it tends to be the latter. This raises the issue of a potential conflict of interest if suppliers receive payments for results which may result in contractors ‘cherry picking’ claimants and seeking to discharge more difficult or demanding claimants who need more work and support.

This clause also refers to ‘good cause for failure to comply with regulations’ we provide detailed analysis of this below (clause 24 Good cause for failure to comply with regulations etc.).

3 Lone Parents

The Bill builds on existing Government initiatives to increase the obligation for lone parents with older children to look for work. Under the Bill lone parents will be required to undertake differing levels of activity, depending on the age of their youngest child. Where the child is aged; under one, no activity will be required; over one but under three, the parent will be required to attend a work focused interview at regular intervals; three to under seven, the parent will be required to undertake work-related activity. Section 3(4) also contains provision that allows lone parents receiving employment and support allowance to restrict the hours they are required to undertake work-related activity. These powers will be used to enable them to restrict the activities they will undertake to their child’s hours of schooling or formal childcare.

Comment

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. 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 foresee a number of difficulties in introducing legislative powers for this purpose in Northern Ireland. The childcare infra structure in Northern Ireland required to underpin these proposals 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 unworkable. 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.

Further, with high unemployment the current economic climate will 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.

4 Entitlement to jobseekers allowance without seeking employment etc.

The Bill proposes to extend entitlement to income-based JSA for different categories of claimants, including people currently claiming IS. It establishes a new entitlement for claimants who are not required to meet job seeking conditions but who do meet the other basic conditions of entitlement. Under this approach income-based JSA will be extended to groups of claimants who currently qualify for income support, including lone parents with young children.

Comment

LCNI recommend, however, that legislation should not be enacted to take these powers until detailed proposals are ready for consultation. In the White Paper the Government accepted the Gregg Report’s recommendation that it is inappropriate to expect those in receipt of carers benefit to engage in back to work activities. This does not seem to have been translated directly into the Bill but we hope this will be dealt with in regulations.

5 Couples where at least one member capable of work

The Bill proposes other changes which will affect couples claiming benefit. In particular the right of a sick or disabled person to claim ESA for the couple when the partner could qualify for JSA is removed. In addition, the Bill makes arrangements to allow the partner of claimants of Income Support, JSA and ESA to be required to undertake work-related activity or be subject to a sanction. These proposals will initially be piloted and then evaluated in Great Britain.

Comment

In our view, there are a multiplicity of circumstances facing partners living with a sick or disabled person and while we accept the value of encouraging partners to seek work where appropriate, a sanctions driven approach is neither helpful nor beneficial. Many people can be playing a role as a carer of someone without getting Carer’s Allowance. The danger once again is that a ‘one size fits all’ approach is taken to the detriment of claimants providing considerable care and support to a partner.

This clause intends to remove entitlement to IS and income-related ESA for couples where one member is capable of work. For couples affected, the only route to income-related financial support will be through income-based JSA and the member of the couple who is capable of work will be required to fulfill job seeking requirements. As with many aspects of the Bill the actual detail of the proposals will be prescribed in regulations, which are not yet available. These regulations will include details of when a member of a couple will not be treated as capable of work, for example, someone receiving ESA or carer’s allowance.

6 Statutory sick pay and employment support allowance

This clause amends the Welfare Reform Act (Northern Ireland) 2007 which prevented those entitled to statutory sick pay from eligibility for ESA. It is proposed to remove this exclusion to enable people in prescribed circumstances to claim income-related ESA whilst in receipt of statutory sick pay. This clause includes a regulation-making power to allow individuals in receipt of statutory sick pay to claim income-related ESA, instead of IS. This provision is necessary due to the plans within the Bill to abolish IS.

Comment

We comment further on the plans to abolish IS below (clause 9 Abolition of income support).

7 Transitional provision relating to sections 4 to 6

This clause allows for the transition of claimants from IS to ESA or JSA as a result of the provisions in clauses 4 to 6. The clause includes provisions to stop IS and ESA awards where appropriate and allows for a transitional allowance to be paid as prescribed in regulations.

8 Assembly procedure: regulations imposing work-related activity requirements on lone parents of children under 7

This clause allows for the introduction of regulations to govern imposing work-related activity on lone parents of children under 7 and sets out Assembly procedures for scrutiny.

Comment

See our comments under clause 3. Again Law Centre NI would urge against the taking of such powers without providing any details as to how this might work in practice.

9 Abolition of income support

The Bill proposes the abolition of income support and this clause provides for the repeal of its associated references and any transitional protection necessary.

Comment

We do not support this clause. 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. Law Centre supports the retention of Income Support until detailed alternatives are set out and consulted on. Only after this should such a change to primary legislation be brought forward. It is not appropriate to take such a wide ranging power without providing any details of how it might be applied.

10 Power to direct claimant to undertake specific work-related activity

This clause confers further powers on the Department to specify a work-related activity which an ESA claimant in the work-related activity group must undertake to meet the requirements of the claim. This includes powers to direct that a particular activity is not to be counted as work-related activity, as well as directing that a specific activity is the only activity which can, in a person’s case, be regarded as work-related activity. Any such direction must be reasonable having regard to the person’s circumstances and recorded in their action plan, with any failure to comply being sanctionable.

11 Conditions for contributory jobseeker’s allowance

12 Conditions for contributory employment and support allowance

Comment

In effect, six months work will be needed to meet the requirement regardless of the amount of national insurance contribution paid. This will replace the existing contribution condition which relies on the payment of contributions up to a certain value in each of the tax years. This will make it more difficult for people working seasonally or for other short periods at a time to qualify for benefit[2] and is a further erosion of the national insurance contributory principle and as such this is a retrograde step. This mirrors provision in the Welfare Reform Act 2009 in Britain.

13 Mobility component

The Bill amends Section 73 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 which governs the mobility component of disability living allowance to set out a new category of entitlement to the higher rate mobility component for people who are severely visually impaired as prescribed in regulations.

Comment

We welcome this change in the Bill which we understand will be implemented in April 2011. Work is being done in Britain to set out exactly which groups of visually impaired people will qualify.

14 Maternity allowance and carer’s allowance

The Bill seeks to abolish dependant additions for Maternity Allowance and Carer’s Allowance. There will be transitional protection for those receiving the additions in April 2010 and for Carer’s Allowance this will end in April 2020 if entitlement has not already ended.

Comment

We do not think that carers or those on maternity leave who have not worked sufficiently long enough to claim statutory maternity pay should be penalised where they have a partner who is also not working.

15 Community care grants relating to specified goods or services

16 Community care grants: reviews and information

These clauses make provision for community care grant payments to be made for specified goods or services to an external supplier rather than directly to the applicant. It is assumed that these provisions relate primarily to the supply of white goods and furniture at discount rates including services such as delivery and installation. There is no right to seek a review against the decision for payments to be made to a specific supplier.

Comment

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 on a claimant’s independence and could have an adverse impact upon peoples 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.

17 Regulations relating to information: Assembly control

This clause amends section 166 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to provide that regulations about the unauthorised disclosure of information in relation to external provider social loans or community care grants are subject to the affirmative procedure where the regulations create new offences or increase penalties.

18 Payments on account

This clause broadens the range of situations in which a payment on account can be made before an award of benefit has been made. It enables payments to be made on the basis of need rather than only in situations where it is impracticable to make or determine a claim or pay benefit, and is intended to provide the Department with more flexibility to address short-term hardship. An advance of 75% of weekly benefit will be made to those unable to wait until normal benefit payments are made.

19 Loss of benefit provisions

This clause introduces benefit sanctions for four weeks for anyone who following a first conviction, caution or administrative penalty for a benefit fraud offence will incur a four week sanction (or loss) of their benefit payments.

Comment

We do not see any need for further benefit sanctions to combat fraud. We note the Department’s figures shows that benefit fraud is at the lowest ever recorded.[3] The figures for customer fraud in Northern Ireland are lower than those cited in the Green Paper: £18.1 million (0.5% of social security benefits).[4] We therefore would query the cost-effectiveness of introducing a further sanctions regime in light of the apparent success of the current system. We also note that this sanction is on top of recovering the overpayment and in the case of an administrative penalty a 30% extra payment on top of recovery of other payment. The sanctions applied particularly to those receiving a caution or administrative penalty are disproportionate.

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

The Bill also makes provision for a benefit sanction of one week for JSA claimants who are convicted of or cautioned for violent or threatening behaviour towards staff or contracted out staff.

Comment

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. Taxation penalties are not applied to people who are aggressive in tax offices. We cannot see why benefit claimants are singled out for this approach.

21 Repeal of sections 53 to 57 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act (Northern Ireland) 2000

This brings to an end a pilot scheme which has been in operation in Derbyshire, Hertfordshire, Teesside and West Midlands since October 2001. In these areas benefit sanctions have been applied to offenders found to be in breach of specified community orders. The pilot scheme applies to offenders in the pilot areas who are aged between 18 and 59 and receiving jobseeker’s allowance, income support or certain training allowances.

Comment

We note that that evaluation results showed that enforcing benefit sanctions was not effective.

22 Period for which pilot scheme have effect etc.

This clause extends the period of time that pilot schemes can run under JSA and ESA from 12 and 24 months respectively to a maximum of 36 months to create consistency.

23 Exemption from jobseeking conditions for victims of domestic violence

The Bill inserts a new provision relating to those who have been victims of, or threatened with, domestic violence into Schedule 1 to the Jobseekers Act 1995. The Department is required to exercise existing regulation-making powers to provide that victims of domestic violence will, for a period of 13 weeks, be able to start or continue a claim to jobseeker’s allowance without: being available for employment; having entered into a jobseeker’s agreement; or actively seeking employment.

Comment

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 continued discretion in such cases beyond the agreed 13 week period as for some victim 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. Consideration will need to be given to the ability of Personal Adviser’s to make discretionary decisions in such cases and an alternate system may need to be considered that does not rely on the use of discretion in such sensitive cases.

24 Good cause for failure to comply with regulations etc.

This section provides that where regulation-making powers in the Social Security Administration (NI) Act 1992, the Jobseekers (NI) Order 1995 and the Welfare Reform Act (NI) 2007 enable circumstances to be prescribed that constitute good cause for failing to undertake mandatory activities (and just cause for leaving employment), the regulations must always include the availability of childcare and the claimant’s physical or mental health or condition in the list of circumstances that must be taken into account.

Comment

We welcome the acknowledgement of the difficulty faced by those with physical or mental health conditions in undertaking mandatory activities. It is important that claimants with such conditions are treated with an element of discretion to allow for times of ill health. We recommend however that stronger safeguards need to be put in place within the legislation to ensure that personal advisers implementing the Bill are not given full discretion to determine whether a claimant has ‘good cause’ for failure to comply with regulations particularly in regards to claimant with mental health and/or learning difficulties. A claimant’s mental health and ability to engage in the return to work process may be highly complex and sensitive and should not be left to the discretion of a frontline staff worker without the relevant expertise or understanding of a claimant’s condition.

This clause also helps to further confirm 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.

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

The Bill introduces the requirement that the well-being of the child should be taken into account when agreeing the activities that a parent will undertake as part of a jobseeker’s agreement in order to help the parent move closer to or into work. It also makes similar provision for recipients of employment and support allowance when an action plan is prepared.

Comment

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 Capabilities Assessment as part of ESA entitlement. The continued pressure on lone parents to move back into work faster 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.

26 Contracting out functions under Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995

The Bill allows for the contracting out to ‘authorised persons’ of certain functions related to JSA claims, such as conducting interviews, provision of documents, specifying meeting times and places and entering into, or varying, jobseeker’s agreements. The clause states that some types of decisions, such as failure to comply with requirements, good cause for failure and JSA reductions cannot be contracted out.

Comment

Law Centre (NI) would welcome further information on who would be deemed an ‘authorised person’ under this clause and are concerned that the proposal of a new ‘tier’ into the back-to-work system i.e. that of the private and third sectors through a means of contracting and sub-contracting could weaken the link between the state and the individual. Introducing a chain of responsibilities is likely to lead to a dilution of the state’s responsibilities towards claimants and could weaken public faith in the system. We have serious reservations not least that private contractors may feel obliged to meet their contractual obligations which are dependent on results by getting tough on certain groups of claimants.

27 Attendance in connection with jobseeker’s allowance: sanctions

This clause allows JSA payments to be suspended if a JSA claimant fails to attend a mandatory appointment and makes contact with Jobcentre Plus within five working days without showing good cause for the failure to attend. Initially JSA payments will be suspended for a fixed period of at least one and not more than two weeks. For second and subsequent failures, a fixed sanction of two weeks will apply.

Comment

It is concerning that despite research by the Department for Work and Pensions, on the Pathway to Work pilots, which found that there is little evidence that the imposition of sanctions resulted in increasing interest in, or movement towards work[5] the Bill proposes a range of sanctions on those who do not fulfill their work activity obligations. In addition there are a myriad of reasons why a person misses an appointment and it takes more than five days to explain why (e.g a family emergency). This will result in some particularly harsh cases, for example if a family member is rushed to hospital in an emergency and is seriously ill resulting in the claimant taking a week to explain why an appointment is missed then a sanction will still be applied.

The proposed increased use of sanctions could have substantial cost implications given the potential associated rise in appeals. The Department should produce its evidence that demonstrates that sanctions are effective especially in light of the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee, which questions the efficacy of sanctions.[6] 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.[7] These proposals would result in benefit deprivation, not uptake.

The imposition of conditionality and sanctions as part of the new benefit scheme may also have a negative effect on the relationship between a claimant and his/her Personal Adviser, which the Pathways to Work pilot has shown is pivotal to its success. Previous Department research found that Personal Advisers “felt that allowing customers to move forwards at their own pace, and emphasising the voluntary nature of participation, were critical to gaining customer commitment and co-operation."[8]

The government recognises that job offers ‘may be more limited’ for disabled people and people with health conditions.[9] Given this acknowledgement it seems inherently unfair that disabled people will be subject to the same conditionality principles. We oppose increased sanctions in all instances; however, we particularly oppose sanctions against disabled individuals while there is no parity in terms of job offers for disabled/non disabled claimants.

28 Social security information and employment or training information

This clause expands the scope of data sharing powers including the use of employment and training information.

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

In line with the equalisation of access to state pensions this clause increases the age that a woman claiming specified benefits is required to attend a work focused interview. People aged 60 or over on working age benefits will get additional back to work support offered by way of a work focused interview.

30 Minor amendments

This clause contains minor amendments, including scrapping Christmas bonuses for income related ESA claimants, use of the term ‘qualifying young person’ for those over 16 years of age to ensure that dependant additions can be preserved in certain benefits where a child or young person is still in education and ensuring that a person on incapacity benefit can get an increase for only one adult dependant and that occupational pensions are treated as earnings.

Conclusion

[1] DSD, Welfare Reform Bill (Northern Ireland) 2010, Completed Equality Impact Assessment, Dec 2009

[2] Frontline, Welfare Reform: raising Expectations or setting unrealistic goals?, Winter 2008, pg 16

[3] Chapter 2.23

[4] NIAO Social Security Benefit Fraud and Error 2008 NIA 73/07-08 section 1.1.

[5] Department of Work and Pensions, Pathways to Work: Findings from the final cohort in a qualitative longitudinal panel of incapacity benefit recipients, October 2006

[6] Social Security Advisory Committee Report No 19 Sanctions in the Benefit System: Evidence Review of JSA, IS and IB sanctions. This report highlights the inconclusive evidence as to the success of sanctions and puts forward a series of recommendations, which do not appear to have been taken into account.

[7] 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’.

[8] Tim Knight, Sarah Dickens, Martin Mitchell and Kandy Woodfield for the Department of Work and Pensions, Incapacity Benefit Reforms: Personal Adviser Roles and Practices – Qualitative Research, 2005.

[9] Chapter 3.34. This acknowledgement is reflected in statistics on employment in Northern Ireland: only 32% of people with disabilities are in employment compared to 79% of those without disabilities. Statistics compiled by Disability Action.

Law Centre NI - Group Briefing

Welfare Reform Bill 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.

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 current 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

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.

[1] Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Monthly Labour Market Report, April 2010

[2] 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’.

[3] Households Below Average Income Northern Ireland, 2007-2008

[4] Research conducted by Millward Brown on behalf of Age NI, June 2009

[5] Save the Children report, A Child’s Portion 2009

Law Centre (NI)

Social Security Parity and Welfare Reform Bill –
A Note for the Social Development Assembly Committee

Introduction

The principle of social security parity has dominated the policy rationale for the development of social security in Northern Ireland for over 80 years. The original financial arrangements between Britain and Northern Ireland were derived from the Government of Ireland Act 1920. Under the Act, Northern Ireland was provided with powers to set its own priorities and fund all transferred services from its own resources. In effect, the principle of parity has never been enshrined in legislation and this remains the case today. Instead the concept of parity emerged as a general principle on the basis that it was advantageous to Northern Ireland in that Northern Ireland could not fund a social security system the equivalent to Britain’s without financial subsidy. In 1938 the government formally, committed itself to funding any deficit in the Northern Ireland budget or the basis that it was not the result of a standard of social expenditure higher than, or of a standard of taxation lower than that of Great Britain[1]

As a result of historical unemployment, poorer health and other factors the greater reliance on social security led to the received wisdom that parity is in the best interests of Northern Ireland.

The Position Today

Section 87 of The Northern Ireland Act 1998 provides that:

‘The Secretary of State (ie of Work and Pensions) and Northern Ireland minster responsible for Social Security shall from time to time consult one another with the view to securing that, to the extent agreed between them, the legislation to which this section applies provides single systems of social security, child support and pensions for the United Kingdom’

The legislation does not require social security parity but, does signal the desirability of providing co-ordinated systems of social security. Social security remains, however, a transferred matter with separate primary and secondary legislation with its own separate administrative arrangements.

A further driver (or constraint) on parity is the arrangements set by the Treasury in funding devolved administrations. In 2000 the Treasury issued a statement of funding policy which includes the view that:

“social security benefits in Northern Ireland where adjustments are based on the latest economic assumptions produced by the Treasury in conjunction with forecasts produced by the Northern Ireland department with responsible for social security. These benefits will be funded on the same model as in Great Britain, that is funding will be in line with actual entitlement of claimants. If, in the future, the Northern Ireland Executive change social security policy to differ from the rest of the United Kingdom, United Kingdom Ministers will need to take a view on whether and how to adjust this funding[2].

In effect, this is seen as a ‘shot across the bows’ to the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly that there are risks associated with fundamentally moving away from parity of provision in social security

Furthermore, in the section on charging for devolved public services the statement sets out that:

Responsibility for setting charges for devolved public services will rest with the devolved administrations. They can decide whether they wish to follow United Kingdom Government policy on fees and charges in specific cases. The general principle that applies is if a devolved administration chooses to charge more, the additional negative public expenditure receipts will accrue to its budget and if it chooses to charge less it will need to meet the costs from within its budget[3].

This has also been taken to mean that if the Northern Ireland Assembly decided of its own volition to spend more on social security by adopting a more favourable or generous approach than in Britain then the additional expenditure would have to come from its own budget. On the other hand, if the Assembly decided to save money on social security by adopting a less favourable approach then any saving would return to the Treasury in Britain. This interpretation, however, has never been tested.

Parity in Practice

Benefit rates are the same whether a person lives in Belfast or Birmingham. There are (and always have been) significant differences between social security provision which recognise particular circumstances in Northern Ireland.

At a macro level these include retaining a rates rebate system in Northern Ireland rather than Council Tax Benefit. Elsewhere, greater powers to make deductions from social security benefits are maintained in Northern Ireland, different rules apply to studying and entitlement to benefit and there are different administrative arrangements for the delivery of benefits. More recently, amendments to housing benefit to cap eligible rent on large properties were not introduced in Northern Ireland and the administrative arrangements for lone parents with young children having to actively look for work were applied differently in Northern Ireland.

The Welfare Reform Bill

The Welfare Reform Act 2009 contains a number of provisions that are not found in the Northern Ireland Welfare Reform Bill. These are:

Welfare Reform Act

Part 1:

Schedule 3 and S11 – ISA/ESA – claimant’s dependent on drugs

This provision gives powers to require those addicted to specific drugs to have to accept treatment in order to continue to qualify for benefit. A pilot is scheme now being brought forward in Britain. Similar powers have been taken to cover misuse of alcohol though there is no intention to use these powers at present.

S16 and S17 external provider of Social Fund Loans.

In effect this is a power to contract out the provision of social fund loans either in specified areas or throughout Britain.

Our understanding is that the Department has no wish to take such power in Northern Ireland.

S23 power to uprate benefits following review in tax year 2009/2010

This was a technical amendment to deal with a one-off uprating following a previous pre-budget statement and has now applied across the UK.

S27 State pension credit pilot schemes

A pilot scheme to allow pension credit to be awarded without a claim being made to improve take up of benefit. A pilot is planned for Britain. No pilots are planned for Northern Ireland.

S36 Power to remove council tax benefit.

The rate rebate scheme which was abolished in 1988 in Britain has remained in place in Northern Ireland.

S37-50 Disabled People and Right to Control Provisions of Services.

These provisions provide powers to enable people with disabilities aged 18 or over to have a greater choice and control over the way services are provided by local authority social services departments and other providers. The position builds on the direct payments scheme in Britain whereby disabled people can receive money equivalent to the cost of certain services) to purchase their own care and support. In Northern Ireland similar legislative provision exists though the Direct Payments scheme has a very low take up (in large measure due to a lack of planning and limited support for disabled individuals to utilise the scheme). There appears to be little desire by DHSSPS to extend the scheme further at present in Northern Ireland.

Part 3:

S51-53 Disqualification for holding driving licence or travel authorisation.

This provision gives the Child Maintenance Enforcement Commission (CMEC) the power to apply to a court to withhold the right to a driving licence or a passport from anyone who has arrears of child maintenance. Powers are also taken for the CMEC to have the right to make such orders without the need to go to court.

Part 4:

S56 Registration of Births
Schedule 6

This section provides for joint registration of births where the parents of a child are neither married nor civil partners to each other.

Summary

In effect, we already have significant divergences between the Welfare Reform Act and the Northern Ireland Bill in important areas of policy. We support the principle of tailoring welfare reform legislation to meet the needs and circumstances of Northern Ireland. The question is whether the Department has gone far enough.

Arguably, sections 11 and 12 conditions for contributions for contributory jobseeker’s allowance and contributory employment and support allowance, Section 13 extension of higher rate mobility component to people with severe visual impairment and Section 15, abolition of adult dependency increases raise issues of parity in terms of rates of benefit and entitlement conditions. Section 9, the abolition of income support, also raises questions, but given the paucity of detail as to what is proposed, it would be better not to take such a wide-ranging and sweeping power until a proper consultation paper on proposals is put forward. There is no compelling parity argument as to why any of the other provisions should replicate the Welfare Reform Act. In fact, there is a strong case that Northern Ireland should effectively pilot an alternative approach, for example, providing voluntary encouragement and support to help lone parents with a youngest child aged under 7 years of age into work rather than a mandatory scheme backed with sanctions. This would allow a more meaningful comparison of the two approaches to trying to get people back to work. A similar approach should be adopted to work for benefit schemes and other areas where an extension of sanctions is envisaged. Moreover, the Bill proposes a number of proposals which are subject to pilots and, in our view, it would be better to evaluate these pilots and assess how appropriate they are for Northern Ireland rather than introduce legislation on a ‘wait and see’ approach.

Law Centre (NI)
May 2010

[1] Social Security Parity in Northern Ireland Johnathan Bradshaw PRI University of York 1989.

[2] HM Treasury: Funding the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly

[3] Opcit HM Treasury Section 7.1

Mencap

Welfare Reform Bill
Comments by Mencap in Northern Ireland

1.0 About Mencap

Mencap is a voluntary organisation with over 60 years experience of working alongside and representing the views and interests of people with a learning disability and their families. We deliver a range of services, support a membership network of over 50 local groups and clubs and campaign for equal opportunities and chances for people with a learning disability.

Through our employment and training services we provide help to young people and adults with a learning disability to prepare for, find and keep a job. We help individuals with a learning disability to explore their options, provide skills training in the workplace and work to remove the barriers to work for each person. We work in partnership with a range of specialist and mainstream employment, training and education organisations and support employers by providing information on the benefits of employing a person with a learning disability; as well as advice on making reasonable adjustments and disability awareness training designed and delivered by two people with a learning disability for their managers and staff.

2.0 About learning disability

Understanding learning disability

People with a learning disability find it harder than others to learn, understand and communicate. People with profound and multiple learning disabilities need full-time help with every aspect of their lives. Learning disability is not a mental illness or dyslexia. People with a learning disability do not have the same control over their own lives as the rest of our society.

The Bamford Review of Mental Health and Learning Disability defined learning disability as including the “presence of a significantly reduced ability to understand new or complex information or to learn new skills (impaired intelligence), with a reduced ability to cope independently (impaired social functioning), which started before adulthood with a lasting effect on development"[1]

Barriers to work faced by people with a learning disability

It is estimated that 2% of the population has a learning disability – over 33,000 people in Northern Ireland. The Bamford Review indicated that the numbers of people with a learning disability was likely to increase, drawing attention to the assumption being made in England of a 1% growth in population per year for the next 15 years.

Most people with a learning disability want to work but they remain the most excluded group of disabled people in the workforce, with an estimate employment rate in England of 17% compared to 49% of disabled people as a whole.[2] The Bamford Review stated that in the EHSSB and SHSSB areas 10% and 8% of people with a learning disability were reported to be in paid employment, mostly part-time work.[3]

The Equality Commission, in its report on Key Inequalities[4], drew attention to the Labour Force Survey (2002) which indicated that only 21% of people with mental ill-health or learning disability are in employment. The report also outlined the range of barriers, including education, attitudes and transport, faced by disabled people when trying to access employment opportunities.

The Bamford Review drew attention to external factors which impact on the uptake of employment opportunities by people with a learning disability including inflexible rules on claiming benefits, absence of clear intra-agency partnership, low expectations and a disparate reliance on health and social care services funding.

The Bamford Review also drew attention to barriers people with a learning disability face when trying to access government employment programmes including admission criteria, outcomes required, duration of the programme and the pattern of provision.

The Bamford Review drew attention, too, to the lower level of enrolments in colleges of further education by people with a learning disability in Northern Ireland compared to those in England, the lower number of students enrolled on full-time courses, and to the lack of accredited courses or progression from FE provision.

The Bamford Review highlighted the value of the supported employment model in helping people with a learning disability access employment, the reliance on European funding to deliver this model and the urgent need to mainstream the funding and learning associated with this provision.

Most people with a learning disability need extra support to enjoy the same opportunities and services as others in their community and a number of specialist employment support providers, including Mencap, have been successful in helping people with a learning disability find and keep a job. People with a learning disability who do work are more likely to work part time and in low paid jobs.

Barriers to work faced by family carers

The Bamford Review drew attention to the fact that over 60% of people with a learning disability live at home with family carers and that over 50% of families are dependant on state benefits as their main source of income.

The Bamford Review also drew attention to the increasing numbers of lone parents caring for children and adults with special needs. It highlighted the difficulties experienced by family carers, usually mothers, in entering and remaining in employment including the need to provide care and support for the lifetime of their son or daughter; the lack of appropriate, accessible child care facilities and places for disabled children or young people; and the absence of alternative care and support provided by social care, particularly for young people and adults with a learning disability who have left school. The absence of alternative care and support provision severely restricts and limits uptake of employment and career opportunities by family carers.

The report by the Equality Commission also highlighted the difficulties facing carers when trying to enter or remain in employment including the complexity and rules associated with qualifying for benefits and the interaction of this with paid work, earnings and hours of work.

3.0 General comments

People with a learning disability tell us about the importance of work to them and the opportunities work gives them to become more independent, to take greater control over their own lives, to expand their social relationships, to play a more active role within the life of their community, and to develop greater confidence and self-esteem.

Mencap believes that people with a learning disability should get the extra support they need to enter and remain in work, including specialist, tailored support that understands and responds to their distinct needs and continues for as long as the individual is at work.

We urge the Committee for Social Development to ensure that the new arrangements proposed in the Welfare Reform Bill takes account of the distinct needs and circumstances of people with a learning disability and their family carers.

4.0 Recognition of learning disability

Mencap acknowledges that the proposals, at some points, refer to the person’s physical or mental health condition. We believe, however, that it is essential to make specific reference to learning disability to ensure that the distinct nature of the disability and its lifelong impact is adequately and properly recognised.

5.0 Lone parents and the age of children

Mencap notes that the proposals take account at different points of the caring responsibilities of lone parents with young children under 1 year, under 3 years, and under 7 years and to the reference to the availability of child care. We do not believe, however, that the proposals take sufficient account of the specific lifelong caring responsibilities of families caring for and supporting a child or adult with a learning disability and the lack of accessible and appropriative alternatives available.

Mencap urges the Committee to ensure that the distinct circumstances of parents of disabled children or adults or those caring for other vulnerable family members are reflected in the new arrangements.

6.0 Work related activity

Mencap believes that the new arrangements must take account of the specific needs, additional support requirements and barriers experienced by people with a learning disability and family carers when considering what is regarded as work related activity, times at which they are required to undertake work related activity and the “good cause" for failing to comply.

Many people with a learning disability learn best in the workplace, doing practical, hands on tasks where they have the opportunity to be shown and learn first hand the skills the specific job requires. We believe that the arrangements must take account of the impact of learning disability on an individual and how they learn new skills. We believe, too, that the arrangements must take account of the fact that for some people with a learning disability work related activity may include developing an individual’s skills in making decisions, managing money, travelling independently, as well as finding out more about the world of work. We believe, too, that account must be taken of the availability of good quality, accessible training opportunities for people with a learning disability.

We believe that the arrangements must take account of the caring responsibilities of parents, the availability and appropriateness of alternative care and support provision and the time they have available to be involved in work related activity.

7.0 Evidence to show compliance, consequences of non-compliance and sanctions

Mencap believes that the evidence required to show compliance must take account of the difficulties people with a learning disability face in understanding complex information or instructions and in communicating with those they don’t know or who aren’t familiar with their preferred method of communication.

Consequences of non- compliance and sanctions must also take account of the impact of the learning disability on an individual’s ability to remember, fully understand the consequences of their actions, and the limited choice and autonomy they have over their own life. Consequences of non-compliance and sanctions should also take into account the myriad barriers experienced by people with a learning disability in finding and keeping a job, particularly those that are outside the “control" of the individual concerned.

We urge the Committee to ensure that the evidence required and the consequences of non-compliance and sanctions take account of the distinct circumstances of family carers caring for a child or adult with a learning disability and does not penalise them because they have caring responsibilities and because alternative caring arrangements are not available.

8.0 Action plans and reconsideration of action plans

People with a learning disability are likely to need extra support to understand complex information and to participate in formal proceedings. Mencap urges the Committee to ensure that extra specialist support, including advocacy support and the production of information in accessible formats, is available to people with a learning disability to enable them to participate in work focused interviews and able to request reconsideration of the action plan. We believe, too, that all staff involved in the process should undertake learning disability awareness training.

9.0 Contracting out

Specialist organisations which provide support to people with a learning disability to find a job struggle to obtain long-term funding to carry out this work. There are real concerns about future sustainability of specialist services with the impact of efficiency savings and cuts in public spending in health and social care as well as employment and learning provision. We believe that the expertise and knowledge of the voluntary sector should be utilised when developing and delivering services and that urgent consideration should be given to mainstreaming funding for this specialist provision.

We remain concerned that contracting arrangements may mean that specialist, niche providers are squeezed out of the process and that people with a learning disability will not get the support they need to find and keep a job. We believe that a focus on payment by results can fail to take account of the fact that people with a learning disability may be more expensive to support into employment because they require more support and take longer to move into work than others, and may require extra support for as long as they are in work.

We urge the Committee to ensure that those who are furthest from the labour market, such as people with a learning disability, are not disadvantaged by the new contracting arrangements and that there are appropriate targets included within contracts for reaching and supporting particular groups, such as people with a learning disability. We believe, too, that account should also take account of distance travelled by claimants, particularly those who are furthest from the labour market.

We urge the Committee to monitor the extent to which the new arrangements are accessible and benefit people with a learning disability and family carers. We urge the Committee to also monitor the impact of the contracting arrangements on voluntary sector.

Paschal McKeown
April 2010

[1] Equal Lives, Bamford Review of Mental Health and Learning Disability, DHSSPS, 2005

[2] People with learning disabilities in England, Eric Emerson and Chris Hatton, Centre for Disability Research, May 2008

[3] Audit of Learning Disability in Northern Ireland, McConkey R, Slevin E, Barr O, UUJ, 2004

[4] Key Inequalities, Equality Commission Northern Ireland, 2007

Mind Wise - paper for Committee Stage 29.4.10

MindWise paper for Committee Stage of the Welfare Reform Bill - April 2010

Background

MindWise is a leading membership charity which supports those affected by severe mental illness and other mental health difficulties.

Our mission is to transform lives and develop new visions for mental health by challenging stigma and discrimination and by providing quality services and support.

General

MindWise welcomes the opportunity to comment on the proposals contained in the Welfare Reform Bill of this Committee Stage.

The ‘hardest to help’ very often represent the most vulnerable within our society – in terms of ill health (physical and mental), educational status, housing status, employment readiness, language barriers, income and so on. These same people are the least able to absorb variations or changes to their benefit levels and least able to afford to take risks to work. MindWise takes the view that the reform agenda must aim to support people in the transition into employment rather than appear to pendise those who are in receipt of benefits.

MindWise does not think that the proposals in the Bill do enough to help people with severe mental illness.

The real problem for people trying to get back into work or start volunteering is discrimination by employers. Less than 4 out of 10 employers would even consider an applicant who declared a mental illness.

The Government says it wants an 80% employment rate - but has not said who the 20% of people are who should not be expected to work. Some people with severe mental illness won’t be able to work at some points - and in this situation, the State should support people with a decent income and not pressurise people to get into work.

The Government wants to penalise people on Job Seekers Allowance who do not comply with action plans. But this might be for very good reasons related to poor mental health. Job Centre Plus advisers themselves admit that they lack mental health knowledge - how will they be able to judge?

People who do not attend an appointment without good cause could lose that week’s benefit. Again, we don’t think Job Centre Plus understands severe mental illness well enough to judge if someone had a good cause or not.

People on Job Seekers Allowance who use drugs will have to go for drug treatment or face having benefits cut. Many people with severe mental illness also use drugs, for many different reasons. Drug services need to be accessible to people with mental health conditions or it will be unfair to penalise people for not attending.

The role of independent companies is increasing - but there seems no reason to think they know any more about mental health than Job Centre Plus. We want contracts with independent companies to say that all staff must have mental health awareness training.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) says it will ‘further explore’ the assessment test for Employment and Support Allowance. We want a real research study to be done on the assessment test, looking at the views and experiences of claimants, families and professionals. The assessment test has never been properly researched and it should be - if it doesn’t work, it leads to people living in poverty.

People with mental health difficulties often experience periods of ill health mixed with periods of good health. In the transition to work it is important that some flexibility is shown, particularly in the early stages of the move to employment. This in turn highlights the need for understanding and trained staff in social security who have an appreciation of mental illness. It also requires sympathetic employers who will work with the individual and those supporting their recovery. Failure to address this will result in dissatisfied employers and employees who may regress in their recovery.

Clause-by-clause Response

Schemes for assisting persons to obtain employment: “work for your benefit" schemes etc.

MindWise concerns:

The current economic climate will reduce placement opportunities;
Only jobs which are ‘hard to fill’ will be offered to the scheme. These are likely to be low paid and menial;
Impact of these schemes on job creation / proper waged jobs;
Impact of these schemes on current jobs / employers may reduce proper waged jobs in favour of taking on people under these schemes;
Menial and low paid jobs under the scheme will add to the stigma already experienced by people with mental health difficulties;
We understand that while on these schemes claimants will effectively not be able to look for work – so they may be counter-productive and will add to the stigma of mental illness;
Schemes may not help people to become more work ready, unless they provide an element of training and support for people to become more job ready.

We would suggest that the following wording be included:

(i) Schemes should clearly specify the support, training and education opportunities available to help people on the scheme become more job ready;

(ii) Schemes should be obliged to provide claimants with the training and support they can avail of in order to assist them to become more work ready;

(iii) Scheme should be ‘person-centred’ with support in place for claimants. Voluntary sector expertise may be appropriate to assist the scheme.

Work-related activity: income support claimants and partners of claimants

MindWise concerns:

The intention behind this proposal must be to ultimately move both partners (and lone parents with child over the age of 3) into employment. There must be a real question mark over the ability of the childcare infrastructure in Northern Ireland to cope, in particular in terms of accessibility and affordability;
Very often partners of claimants provide significant assistance in terms of informal ad hoc childcare and caring arrangements. An unintended consequence of this proposal could be that this support is minimised with knock-on effects on wider family circles and the community in general;
MindWise would be concerned about resultant sanctions that may arise from these proposals. Should inform of childcare or care arrangements break down especially if these are beyond the control of the claimant.

‘Contracting out’

MindWise concerns:

Depending upon the resource allocations attached to these contracts, contractual requirements may incentivise providers to focus on targets to the detriment of the wellbeing of clients;
Services may be directed towards those ‘easiest to help’ and be skewed from those hardest to help as these people may require longer term support; may need more resources in terms of support and may affect the contractors ‘statistics’. Individuals with severe mental illness may be significantly disadvantaged;
MindWise would advocate involvement of service users and potential service providers in the contract design and commissioning stages as well as delivery stage (person-centred). This inclusive approach should enable a more robust and effective approach – utilizing the expertise, skills and experience of all stakeholders;
There must be clear accountability processes in place. Social security benefit claimants are used to dealing with, in the main, civil service staff. Any withdrawal from direct provision, replaced by third party involvement may serve to blur and confuse claimants; perhaps leaving them susceptible to unethical work practices as the provider is more concerned with achieving targets then providing a high quality service for the claimant. Claimants may feel unable to oppose or complain about such an approach by a service provider because they may feel that their benefit could be jeopardised;
Tendering for a contract must place heavy reliance on quality as opposed price – due to the vulnerable nature of the client group;
There must be sufficient resources within contractual arrangements to ensure that work can be carried out not only to the required specification but also to the highest standard;
If such contracts are subject to competitive tendering, then price alone must not be the determinant but quality of service must be considered;
Moves towards third party delivery must ensure equality of access. Coverage is important because the particular client group may not have the means to travel and compensate for the providers’ own lack of coverage across a particular geographical area;

We would suggest that the following wording be included:

(ii) Contractors must conduct annual satisfaction surveys with a specified number of ‘service recipients’ in order to monitor the quality of the service provided from a service user perspective;

(iii) Independent contractors must have a knowledge and expertise in delivering services to people with severe mental illness and mental health difficulties.

Lone parents

MindWise concerns:

Given the current economic climate, the question has to be asked ‘is this the right time to be introducing tougher conditions on lone parents claiming benefit’ ;
Any resultant sanctions that may be imposed will only serve to push children of lone parents on benefits into even greater poverty;
There is an inadequate affordable, accessible childcare infrastructure in Northern Ireland to support lone parents move from benefits into employment;
Equality impact implications as by far the greater number of lone parents impacted by this proposal will be women;
This proposal would need to be rural proofed given the added problems that may exist for lone parents in rural areas of Northern Ireland including transport issues;

Abolition of Income Support

MindWise concerns:

ESA and JSA may not be able to respond sufficiently effectively and flexibly to the needs of people who currently fit within the Income Support category, in particular with respect to those involved in caring;
Undoubtedly greater conditionality will be attached to the benefit claims of these people; MindWise would be concerned that one interpretation of this approach could be that the role of carers and lone parents is undervalued and that they be become subject to penalties and sanctions as a result of their caring duties;
MindWise is aware that statements have been made to the effect that Income Support would be abolished only when there are no longer any groups for which it is needed, because alternative provision will have been made. We would remain to be convinced about the alternative provision – presumably if the intention is to shift claimants into full time employment there needs to be an infrastructure in place to replace the caring provided in respect of children and those who are sick / disabled;
If and when people are moved off Income Support, the process must be robust and must not disadvantage those concerned;

We would suggest that the following wording be included:

Power to direct claimant to undertake specific work-related activity

MindWise concerns:

Government have much to do to reconcile the points of view that (1) supporting people with mental health problems into work is the answer to their mental health problems; particularly when they have been assessed as medically incapable of work by both their GP and a doctor of the Department and possibly a psychiatrist;
There remains doubt that adequate support is / will be in place, particularly for people to manage mental health related conditions. This point relates to the need for joined up services to be in place across the benefits, employment and health sectors – and ideally with independent advice and information also available to enable benefit recipients to make informed choices about moving from benefits to work;
MindWise notes the work carried out Dame Carol Black which would tend to conclude that work is generally good for both physical and mental health and well-being. However on closer scrutiny, Dame Carol accepts that work is not the best place for everyone; that decisions have to be taken on a case by case basis; that it is difficult to generalise and must be ‘person-centred’;
MindWise notes the various evaluation reports on Pathways to Work (for people with disabilities) which would have found that Pathways had little effect on the employment or self-reported health condition of people suffering from mental illness. Given that people with mental illness account for over 40% of the Incapacity Benefit caseload, MindWise remains concerned that a suitable form of support has not been developed to meet the needs of this particular client group. In the push to remove claimants from benefit, we would remain concerned that people with mental illness may find themselves in the position of being removed from benefit and / or placed in employment; a position which may do nothing to improve their health and well being;
MindWise would be concerned that decisions as regards entitlement to benefit, fitness for work and taking up employment may be overly concerned with simple head count considerations rather than providing tailored support which is appropriate to meet the needs in each individual case;
MindWise would draw attention to the recovery journey that many with mental health problems will have to make before being work-ready. We would like to see a continued focus on different elements of this journey including volunteering; education; training and part-time work;
The beneficial health effects of work related activity are questionable and depend on the nature and quality of the work (though there is insufficient evidence to define the physical and psychosocial characteristics of jobs and workplaces that are ‘good’ for health);
In terms of ill or disabled people, we would say that there needs to be more focus on employers as regards what employment opportunities are actually available, ascertaining exactly what particular job roles entail and the support that would be available to claimants required to undertake particular work-related activities;

Contribution conditions

MindWise concerns:

The Bill proposes a significant restriction on eligibility for contributory JSA and ESA;
This will in effect reduce the number of claimants who qualify for contributory ESA and JSA, and will force many more claimants on to means tested benefits, which are complex and suffer from low take-up.
Other claimants will have no entitlement at all to means tested benefits;

Mobility component - DLA

MindWise supports this proposal in respect of severe visual impairment;

Community Care Grants

MindWise concerns:

Government frequently highlights that financial inclusion is a high priority. MindWise fails to see how the proposal to award goods and services ‘in kind’ will promote financial inclusion. Depending on the process (on which there is no detail) this may well further marginalise, exclude and stigmatise benefit claimants;
Restrictions on the resources available to third party providers may well drive down the quality of the services and goods provided, as providers strive to provide these goods and services at least cost. This point flows back to the first point in that benefit recipients may find themselves further stigmatised through obtaining a sub standard good or service;
There is a risk that scarce resources are deflected to administration of this third party provision rather than directly to the people who need the help;
Please see points made above under ‘contracting out’;

Loss of benefit provisions

MindWise concerns:

Any loss of benefit provisions / sanctions have the potential to be draconian and may very well result in hardship in many cases. This approach requires careful consideration given the particularly vulnerable nature of this client group;
Increased responsibility and potentially benefit sanctions will effectively penalise those who are already accepted as being the most vulnerable in our society. Sanctions must be a tool of last resort. There must be adequate safeguards in place to protect and encourage rather than penalise;
People and in particular families cannot be left to simply fall foul of potentially multiple long term sanctions which effectively reduce people already living on minimal incomes. People and families must not be allowed to ‘fall through the cracks’ and allowed to ‘flounder’ as appears to be the case where similar approaches have been taken in the United States;
If sanctions are meant to change a claimant’s behaviour, claimants must clearly know why they are being sanctioned and must clearly be informed as to what steps they need to take to have the sanction removed. There must be a clear, claimant-focussed approach to loss of benefit provisions otherwise this approach will be seen as victimising the vulnerable rather than trying to support and assist;
Benefits sanctions, for example regarding a failure to carry out a job seeker’s direction, will impact upon the whole family (including any children in the household) and there needs to be a balance between encouraging people to move into employment and ensuring that these same people (and in particular their children) are adequately supported while on benefit.

We would suggest that the following wording be included:

(i) In all cases where a loss of benefit / benefit sanction is being considered, there should be scrutiny of any such decision by a decision maker at the appropriate level;

(ii) In all cases where a loss of benefit / benefit sanction is being considered, there should be a minimum level of benefit below which the claimant’s income should not drop;

Wellbeing of children

MindWise advocates that the following provision be included in all proposals where benefit has the potential to be reduced and where added responsibilities are placed upon those responsible for caring for children:

(i) “… the officer must have regard (as far as practicable) to its impact on the well-being of any child who may be affected by it …";

(ii) Due consideration must also be given to the impact on young carers of people

MindWise wishes to thank our colleagues in Advice NI with whom we operate Debt Management Services for sharing their response to the Welfare Reform Bill, aspects of which have been incorporated in this response.

We also consider that there is a clear and demonstrative need for a full Equality Impact Assessment on the Welfare Reform Bill given the comments contained in our response.

We attach MindWise’s briefing paper/position statement in relation to the Bill, which further evidences and adds weight to the recommendations stated in our response’

Signed:

Bill Halliday Signature

Bill Halliday
Chief Executive Officer

Mind Wise - Briefing 29.4.10

Welfare Reform Bill – Briefing
April 2010

Summary

MindWise supports the Government’s aim to support many more people with mental health problems to retain or regain work. The opportunity to work can help individuals, not only economically, but also in regaining the self confidence and self esteem which are crucial elements of recovery. This applies not only to those affected by common mental health issues such as anxiety disorders and depression but also to people affected by severe mental illnesses like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

To achieve this aim, the Government must approach this issue with sensitivity and be prepared to invest in support which is tailored to the needs of these groups. In particular MindWise believes:

The Government must ensure that the Work Capability Assessment is appropriately sensitive to the needs of people with fluctuating health conditions, such as mental illness.
Investment must be made to provide training for Job Centre Plus staff, Medical Services professionals and support provider staff in working with people with mental health problems and understanding their needs.
The Government should ensure that prime providers of support are referring people who need condition-specific support to specialist sub-contracted providers appropriately.
The Government’s proposals for this group should focus less on conditionality and more on addressing the fundamental barriers to these groups securing employment. This includes providing information and support to employers to reduce stigma and prejudice.
The Government should maximise the opportunities for access to volunteering and part time work as a crucial first step to long term employment, especially for those furthest from the labour market. Claimants need to be given much greater scope to take opportunities of this nature without any threat to their current benefit regime.

1 Work Capability Assessment (WCA) and fluctuating conditions

We welcome the fact that mental and physical health conditions are now assessed using the same scoring. However, we are not at all confident that the new test is sensitive to the fluctuating nature of some conditions, such as mental illness. We welcome the annual independent report to be conducted on the WCA and hope that customers’ own views are part of this monitoring process. MindWise’s members have reported experiences where the process of attending a WCA has had a detrimental effect on a person’s health and therefore reduced rather than increased their chances of returning to the labour market.

MindWise recommends that customers’ views and experiences of the WCA are included in the annual independent report on the WCA.

2 Training for Personal Advisers and Medical Services

DWP’s own research suggests that even within Pathways regimes, Personal Advisers admit lacking knowledge and understanding of mental health issues.[1] 12% of people with mental illness report being most discriminated against by Job Centre Plus stuff[2]. We need Personal Advisers to be trained to a basic level of awareness of mental illness in order that they can make appropriate decisions about conditionality issues. We strongly recommend involving individuals with disabilities in designing and delivering this training, as this has been found to be highly effective in improving others’ understanding of the issues.[3]

MindWise recommends that all Personal Advisers are given mental health awareness training, delivered by people directly affected by mental illness

We are not confident that Healthcare Professionals will be able to determine when a customer will be able to return to or enter the labour market. This is particularly difficult to predict for people with fluctuating conditions. In our view, the training which Medical Services doctors receive on mental health issues is poor. In order for the WCA and WFHRA to be accurate, therefore driving down the number of appeals and increasing the support to the individual, Medical Services need a full training programme, involving people affected by mental health conditions in delivery of training as this is the most effective method.[4]

MindWise recommends that mental health training is expanded for Medical Services and that people affected by mental illness are involved in delivery of training.

Providers of community work programmes must be sensitive to the needs of people with mental health conditions and ensure that the atmosphere of programmes is conducive to good mental health and that any discriminatory behaviour from participants is challenged promptly. 23% of people with mental illness report experiencing the most discrimination from work colleagues; 31% from neighbours and the local community.[5]

MindWise recommends that providers of work experience opportunities have mental health awareness training in place for all staff.

When considering a first offence of benefit fraud, it is essential that issues of Mental Capacity are taken into account. If someone commits benefit fraud when lacking mental capacity, no sanction should be applied to that person as it would be a consequence of mental illness rather than malice. DWP Decision-Makers may not currently have enough awareness of Mental Capacity issues to appropriately judge whether an assessment of mental capacity needs to be made in a case.

MindWise recommends that Decision-Makers are trained further in issues of Mental Capacity.

3 Condition-specific support

Whilst skills are sometimes an important barrier to work for people with severe mental illness, they are not the only barrier. Confidence is as important a barrier to work for people with severe mental illness as skills. MindWise is helping to address this barrier through supporting mental health specific Condition Management Programmes or ‘Confidence to Work’, Capacity Building and volunteering programs throughout Northern Ireland. We are concerned that the current contracting model is not resulting in the appropriate number of referrals to mental health specific interventions. Condition Management is most effective when it relates to a specific health condition.[6]

In some areas, we are finding that only 3% of claimants are being referred on from the prime contractor, which is in stark contrast to the 40% plus of IB claimants who have a mental health condition. We are concerned that independent prime contractors do not currently have enough mental health awareness to identify claimants who may benefit from mental health specific interventions. It is not enough to wait to monitor the outcomes from specific contracts – Job Centre Plus needs to monitor contracts more proactively and intervene where specific groups of claimants are not receiving the requisite support. We are also concerned that in a number of areas, people with mental illness are being referred to generic Condition Management Programmes, which are not appropriate for this group.

MindWise recommends that JCP contracts specify that prime contractors must provide mental health awareness training to all staff.

MindWise recommends that JCP monitors contracts more proactively by disability group to ensure that specific groups of claimants are offered requisite support.

MindWise recommends that confidence is assessed as well as skills and that appropriate interventions are identified for claimants.

4 Employer information and support

Motivation is not a barrier to work for people with mental illness. People with mental illness have the highest ‘want to work’ rate of any group of people with disabilities.[7] Yet, the actual employment rate for this group is one of the lowest: 13.3% compared to 59% for those with difficulty hearing.[8]

Employers admit lacking resources to support employees with mental health conditions. 70% of line managers do not have adequate information about mental health.[9] The Individual Placement and Support model, which is well evidenced, includes long-term support for employers and employees, but services on this model are not available in many areas of the country. Where back to work planning is undertaken, specialist organisations with expertise in supporting people with mental health conditions should be engaged to provide advice to employers and employees on an ongoing basis. Large employers could ensure that all employees or named leads have mental health awareness training through programmes like Mental Health First Aid or MindWise’s Education not Discrimination programme in the same way that some employees receive First Aid training. Mental Health First Aid courses help members of the general public, including people in work, to learn how to respond to a mental health crisis situation. The business focused consultancy support to employers on healthy workplaces recommended in the Black report needs to be part of any action planning for employers.

MindWise recommends that Job Centre Plus (JCP) engages specialist organisations to provide ongoing advice and support to employers and employees as part of back to work planning

MindWise welcomed the Employability campaign and engaged its members in consultation on campaign materials and concepts. However, we do not feel that the campaign was funded to a level where it can challenge the deep-seated prejudice of employers or provide enough support to employers to help the 40% of Incapacity Benefit claimants with a declared mental illness.

MindWise recommends that the Employability campaign is extended and that good practice resources are further disseminated and training extended to line managers across the public sector.

Employers also chronically underestimate the number of employees who have a mental health condition.[10] This is often because people with mental health conditions do not declare on application forms that they have a mental illness for fear of discrimination. Sometimes this fear can result in people not applying for jobs: 41% of people with mental health conditions have not put in an application for a job they wanted due to worry about stigma and discrimination.[11]

American Disability law does not allow employers to ask people if they have a disability until after a job offer has been made. Pre-employment questionnaires are only allowed if they relate to “the ability of an applicant to perform job-related functions." This ensures that it is easier to recognise cases where employers have discriminated against potential applicants: 16,000 charges are filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act every year.[12]

MindWise recommended that the new Equalities Bill, due to pass through Parliament, in autumn 2010, should have included a provision to restrict the use of pre-employment questionnaires and bring British equalities law in line with the American system.

5 Volunteering and part-time work

We agree that volunteering opportunities can be a useful step for customers trying to enter the labour market for the first time or trying to enter the labour market after a period of illness. However, our members tell us that currently they fear having a review of benefit entitlement triggered by undertaking voluntary work.

MindWise recommends that customers doing voluntary work do not have a new WCA triggered for this reason alone.

There is no clear literature available in JCP to explain people’s right to volunteer and what it would mean for people’s benefits. We would like to see clearer information for customers about the impact of volunteering on benefits.

MindWise recommends that JCP produces information materials on volunteering for all benefit claimants.

Some of MindWise’s members report that volunteering opportunities are more accessible at some points in recovery because there is less pressure in these environments than in full-time paid work. For some of these people, Community Work Programmes may be a useful alternative to voluntary work. MindWise believes that claimants themselves should be able to determine when this is a useful alternative rather than this being prescribed by Personal Advisers, who may not have a full understanding of a claimants’ condition or circumstances. Claimants should be able to visit Community Work Programmes before deciding if the opportunity is suitable for them.

MindWise recommends that claimants should determine whether a Community Work Programme is an appropriate alternative

6 Individual budgets

To ensure that people have access to individual budgets across the country, we would welcome the introduction of a legal right to ask for a budget.

MindWise recommends that disabled people are given a legal right to ask for an individual budget.

Whilst a level of safeguards is necessary, the advantages of individual budgets are only felt if individuals using services are given flexibility to define their own outcomes in relation to individual aims and plans for recovery. This is especially important for people with mental health problems using health or social care services, as they may need support to make progress in any area of life, from doing grocery shopping to obtaining paid work. The Norfolk pilot on individual budgets in health and social care gave a minimal restriction to people using budgets and was successful.

MindWise recommends that minimal restrictions are put on people deciding to use individual budgets.

We welcome the proposal to give people access to advice and advocacy services to help people decide how to spend allocated resources. We would like to ensure that specialist services are available to give people specific advice.

MindWise recommends that specialist advice and advocacy services are provided to people using individual budgets.

MindWise – about us

Transforming lives and developing new visions for mental health by challenging stigma and discrimination and providing quality services and support.

www.mindwisenv.org

[1] NatCen Social Research, 2004

[2] MindWise/Mind/Mental Health Media, Stigma Shout, 2008

[3] MindWise & Institute of Psychiatry: How we can make mental health education work

[4] MindWise & Institute of Psychiatry: How we can make mental health education work

[5] MindWise/Mind/Mental Health Media, Stigma Shout, 2008

[6] DWP (2005a) Incapacity Benefit Reforms Pilot: Findings from a longitudinal panel of clients. HMSO.

[7] ONS, 2003

[8] UK’s Office for National Statistics’ Sept - Dec 2006, Labour Force Survey. Figures quoted for people of working age only.

[9] The Work Foundation, 2003

[10] Shaw Trust, Mental Health: the Last Taboo, 2006

[11] MindWise, Breaking down the Wall, 2008

[12] US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) Charges FY 1997 – FY 2006.

The National Autistic Society NI

Welfare Reform Bill
Response from the National Autistic Society Northern Ireland

The National Autistic Society Northern Ireland

The National Autistic Society (NAS) Northern Ireland is the charity working throughout Northern Ireland for people affected by autism. In Northern Ireland we provide information, advice and support. We campaign and lobby for lasting positive change for those affected by autism. Our services include family support, education advice, an outreach service for adults, befriending schemes and social programmes for people with autism. We have 11 branches providing local sources of information and support

Autism and employment

Autism is a lifelong developmental disability that affects how a person communicates with, and relates to, other people. It is a spectrum condition, which means that, while all people with autism share certain difficulties, their condition will affect them in different ways.
Asperger syndrome is a form of autism. People with Asperger syndrome are often of average or above average intelligence. They have fewer problems with speech but may still have difficulties with understanding and processing language.
There are approximately 11,000 working age adults in Northern Ireland who have an Autistic Spectrum Disorder[1]
As a spectrum condition autism encompasses people with a wide variety of abilities including people with learning disabilities and individuals with postgraduate degrees. Whilst there are certain roles in which many people with autism choose to work, such as IT and clerical roles, people with autism are successfully employed in a very wide range of jobs.
Autism is a hidden disability and many people with autism, especially those with Asperger syndrome, can appear very able yet face real difficulties in getting to appointments on their own, coping with a change to routine, or performing well in interviews.

Key points

Work for your benefit will disproportionately impact on people with autism. We would like to see a Government commitment to carry out a full assessment of all people who have not secured employment after two years on jobseekers allowance to determine why they have not moved into work and assess whether mandatory work for your benefit is appropriate.
Directed work-related activity risks people with autism being forced to chose between an activity that would cause them considerable stress and anxiety or a benefit sanction. People must have the right to request a review of any direction to undertake a specific activity from their work action plan
Given the generally low understanding of the sanctions regime, the government must commit to ensuring that a first “offence" results in a written warning rather than a sanction

The National Autistic Society Northern Ireland understands that work for your benefit and work related activity will only be introduced in Northern Ireland after the pilot schemes have been concluded in England and a full evaluation completed. However the Bill does allow for the introduction of work for your benefit and the work related activity for Northern Ireland. The National Autistic Society Northern Ireland has a number of concerns regarding the impact that this will have on adults with autism.

Work for your benefit

The Welfare Reform Bill proposes to introduce work for your benefit. This will require people to complete full time mandatory work placements at the end of a two year point in their Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) claim.

Work for your benefit will disproportionately impact on people with autism as they will be more likely to have been unemployed for two years and have reached the end of a Steps to Work programme without having moved into employment due to inadequate support to help them at the earlier stages of the Jobseekers regime.
Furthermore, work for your benefit can be expected to cause considerable stress and anxiety for people with autism, many of whom find change difficult and need support as they enter a new role.
In order to prevent people being referred to work for your benefit for whom, the scheme would actually worsen their prospects of moving into work, due to the stress and anxiety it would cause the Bill should contain a requirement for a full assessment of claimants reaching the end of two years on Jobseekers. This should ascertain the reasons why that person has not moved into work and should involve the individual concerned and provide them with an opportunity to talk about their experience of looking for work. Following an assessment it could then be determined whether work for your benefit is appropriate.

The National Autistic Society Northern Ireland recommends that:

The Welfare Reform Bill should contain a requirement for a full assessment of claimants who have reached the end of two years on jobseekers and are being moved onto work for your benefit to determine if work for your benefit is appropriate.

Record keeping

The National Autistic Society Northern Ireland would suggest that records are kept of Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants with a disability required to take part in work for your benefit when it is introduced in Northern Ireland. These records should also include information on different impairment groups. The National Autistic Society Northern Ireland believes no one should be referred to work for your benefit if the scheme would actually worsen their chances of moving into work due to the stress and anxiety caused. The National Autistic Society Northern Ireland believes that specialist support needs to be offered to all people with autism required to take part in work for benefit.

Measuring the numbers participating in the scheme by impairment type and ensuring that providers are required to show how they will support people with particular disabilities will make it possible to identify if the scheme has an adverse impact on any particular group.

The National Autistic Society Northern Ireland recommends that:

Records are kept of jobseekers allowance claimants who have a disability, by impairment type, in order to monitor if the scheme works for adults with autism
Specialist back to work support should be offered to all people with autism required to take part in Work for your benefit
Providers are required to show how they will support people with particular disabilities

Work-related activity

Currently, Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) claimants may opt to undertake work-related activity that is detailed in their action plan and aimed at progressing their move towards work. The Bill proposes to give personal advisers the power to direct an individual to undertake a specific activity from their action plan.

Not all advisers have a good understanding of autism and we believe that this will result in people with autism being required to take part in inappropriate mandatory work-related activity. Consequently, an individual could be mandated to undertake an activity that would cause them considerable stress and anxiety, facing sanctions if they fail to complete the specified action. Furthermore, there is little guidance as to what activities people might have to undertake as work-related activity.

The National Autistic Society Northern Ireland recommends that:

Claimants should have the right for the direction to undertake a specified activity to be reconsidered by a third party as recommended by Professor Paul Gregg[2]

Sanctions for Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants

The Welfare Reform Bill includes several proposals to toughen the sanctions regime. We have serious concerns over the use of sanctions as we anticipate these having a disproportionately negative impact on people with autism. People with autism may miss an interview for a number of reasons. These could include difficulty managing their mail, getting to appointments on their own, managing time or coping with a change of routine, even if they appear very able. Alternatively, a person with autism may have limited social skills and be labelled ‘difficult’ or uncooperative. Furthermore, some people may not understand the link between the actions they are supposed to undertake to find work and the benefits they receive.

The National Autistic Society Northern Ireland recommends that:

The Northern Ireland Assembly implements the recommendation made by professor Paul Gregg to introduce an ‘early warning’ system whereby following their first sanctionable action, rather than a face a cut in their benefit claimants are sent a written warning detailing the consequences of further non-compliance.

For further information please contact Shirelle Stewart, Northern Ireland Director (Joint), National Autistic Society Northern Ireland, 59 Malone Road, Belfast, BT9 6SA Tel: 028 9068 7066 Mobile: 07789941239 Email: Shirelle.stewart@nas.org.uk

[1] Based on the working age population of 1,093,500 (2008 census) and a prevalence rate of 1 in 100

[2] Gregg, P. for the DWP (2008) Realising potential: a vision for personalised conditionality and support

NIACRO

4th May 2010

Peter McCallion
Committee Clerk
Room 412
Parliament Buildings
Belfast
BT4 3XX

Dear Peter

I enclose NIACRO’s written evidence to the Committee for Social Development on the Welfare Reform Bill.

We welcome the opportunity to submit written evidence and if you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact us.

We look forward to the final report of the Committee

Yours faithfully

Pat Conway
Director of Services

Enc

1. Introduction

2. Work for your benefits scheme

3. Work related activity: income support claimants and partners of claimants

4. Contracting out

5. Lone parents

6. Abolition of income support

7. Conditions for contributory Jobseekers allowance

8. Conditions for contributory employment and support allowance

9. Community care grants relating to specified goods and services

10. Loss of benefits provision

11. Sanctions for violent conduct etc in connection with claim

12. Exemption from jobseeking conditions for victims of domestic violence

13. Contracting out function under Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995

14. Attendance in connection with Jobseekers allowance: sanctions

15. Summary of NIACRO recommendations

1. Introduction

1.1 NIACRO, the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, is a voluntary organisation, working for almost 40 years to reduce crime and its impact on people and communities. NIACRO provides services under the headings of; working with children and young people who offend; providing services to families and children of offenders; supporting offenders and ex-prisoners in the community and working with prisoners.

1.2 We receive funding from, and work in partnership with all the main criminal justice agencies in Northern Ireland.

1.3 NIACRO Services

NIACRO is experienced in dealing with welfare issues for prisoners and their families, offenders and ex-prisoners.

1.4 Prisoners

As part of our commitment to resettlement, we work closely with NI Housing Executive (NIHE) and the Housing Rights Service to help tenants retain their homes during imprisonment. We assist prisoners in addressing welfare issues, including accommodation and access to benefits, prior to their release, through an Advice Service in each of the three prisons in Northern Ireland. Each year, this service deals with over 900 prisoners.

1.5 Families

Through our Family Links Service, NIACRO also offers advice and support to the families of people in prison. In many cases, the adult in prison is also the main breadwinner and families are unaware of their entitlements or how to access welfare during the imprisonment of a loved one. They have committed no crime, but may find themselves in immediate financial hardship.

There are no specialised support services for the families of prisoners and they are often isolated within their community, serving a silent sentence. In some cases, the families are too ashamed to tell anyone about their changed circumstances and without the assistance of NIACRO’s Advice Service, welfare agencies would not be aware of their needs.

In our first year of operation, we made 2392 contacts with families, sent out 2012 information packs, and made 644 home visits and 3531 phone calls.

1.6 Communities

Our APAC (Assisting People and Communities) project provides an individual needs-led approach to integration and in particular works with the Housing Executive to assist people who risk losing their tenancy as a result of anti-social or offending behaviour. The programme has been extended to include a dedicated worker for women and another who works to meet the needs of individuals with mental health issues. Overall, APAC dealt with almost 100 cases in the past year.

1.7 Employment

NIACRO’s Jobtrack programme is committed to assisting people with a conviction get back into employment following a sentence. It is funded by the European Social Fund and supported by the NI Probation Board and NI Prison Service. It is based on research, which suggests that employment reduces re-offending rates.[1]

1.8 From 2008/09, it engaged over 750 unemployed adult offenders across Northern Ireland from 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2009. Of the 224 offenders who completed the programme, over 60% went into training or employment. From the 381 offenders who chose to leave the programme early, 17% went into employment or training. The remaining numbers are still working to complete the programme.

1.9 Jobtrack works because it understands the challenges that prisoners and ex-offenders face when seeking employment. Most ex-prisoners and offenders want to be employed, but are unable to do so due to employer suspicions, numeracy and literacy issues (71% of Jobtrack service users have a Level 1 or below qualification when they enter the programme) addictions, mental health issues and self-esteem difficulties.

NIACRO tailors education and training to individuals’ needs and matches this to labour market demands. This takes time and often results in service users maintaining benefits while participating in the programme.

1.10 NIACRO’s response

NIACRO’s response has been informed by experience developed in almost 40 years of working with users of the welfare system. As a result, we have chosen to respond only on Part 1 of the Bill, where we feel we have the most to contribute.

2 Work for your Benefit Schemes

2.1 NIACRO supports initiatives that promote the employment prospects of vulnerable and disadvantaged individuals. Simple measures such as work placement shadowing, volunteering opportunities, mentoring to build esteem and confidence can all contribute to helping a person make the transition to employment. However, they are most successful when the individual concerned is willing to get involved and is not forced into attendance.

2.2 Positive incentives to motivate people who are long-term unemployed and hard to reach groups to seek and maintain employment should be readily available and promoted.

2.3 Fixed-term work experience placements, apprenticeships, bonuses for participating in and completing training, benefit top-ups, help with work- related expenses and access to training, must be supplemented with support such as information on return-to-work credits, tax credits and extended payments of Housing Benefit. It is also crucial that Government understands there needs to be an element of ‘buy-in’ for those who are seeking employment to understand the benefits of undertaking the schemes.

2.4 Programmes like Jobtrack also succeed because their service users are voluntary participants and have made a decision to change their lives. Vulnerable people are not always in a strong position to make this decision and should the ‘work for your benefit’ scheme become mandatory, there are potential difficulties with:

Those who are not capable of seeking employment, risking their benefits and becoming vulnerable to criminal activities;
An increase in bureaucracy for employers, who may receive numerous applications from unsuitable candidates;
Work placements organised by service providers like NIACRO could be under threat as employers are deluged with requests from people who are seeking only to maintain their benefits and have no interest in the workplace.

2.5 In current economic circumstances, it is important that Government is flexible. Sanctions for non-compliance must be a last resort. Otherwise, Government runs the risk of the above list becoming the norm, leading to a lack of employer engagement and an increase in the number of vulnerable people falling into offending and anti-social behaviour.

2.6 The Bill must also make clear that participants should be able to continue looking for paid employment and take up any job offers while on the schemes.

2.7 Programmes like Jobtrack are evaluated regularly, in order to assess whether it is still delivering on its aims. NIACRO believes that any ‘work for benefit’ scheme should have clear targets and must be independently measured, otherwise their value is questionable. This should be incorporated into the final Bill.

3. Work-Related Activity for Income Support Claimants and Partners of Claimants:

3.1 The biggest obstacle preventing lone parents taking advantage of job opportunities is the lack of high-quality and affordable childcare. A flexible approach to encourage this group into employment is necessary, as opposed to one where regulations are rigidly followed and sanctions applied for non-compliance.

3.2 Government should provide childcare vouchers or subsidised placements for any participant on a work-related activity where the benefit claimant is a lone parent and does not receive childcare support from the extended family.

3.3 Claimants with confirmed physical or mental health disabilities or other such conditions should be exempt from having to comply with work-related activity requirements for a prescribed period of 13 weeks, in line with the remainder of the Bill, and subject to review.

3.4 People subjected to or recovering from domestic violence should also be exempt from having to comply with work-related activity requirements for a prescribed period of 13 weeks, subject to review.

4. Contracting Out:

4.1 Budgets and cost savings should not be a motivating factor when determining who functions are contracted out to. Benefit claimants deserve the best service and not the cheapest available option.

4.2 NIACRO also wants to see Government engage with a number of providers to compare performance and ensure that quality remains high on the agenda.

4.3 Where functions are contracted out, Government departments should have in place robust monitoring, accountability and scrutiny policies and practices to protect the participant and to ensure that the tax payer is receiving value for money.

4.4 NIACRO wants to see clear evidence that companies who take part in public sector procurement follow the guidelines for good practice in the fair recruitment of people with convictions. This would publicly demonstrate Government commitment to employment led resettlement.

5. Lone Parents:

5.1 NIACRO works extensively with lone parents, through our Family Links programme. Every time a parent enters prison, they leave their partner as a lone parent.

5.2 Aside from child care, a major obstacle for lone parents entering the workplace is the inflexibility of the working day. Whereas employers may want 9-5, lone parents may only be able to offer 10-3, especially where children are of school age and there is no family support.

5.3 Sanctions should only be used as last resort. One parent households are more likely to be in financial hardship, compared to two parent households, where one or both parents are working.

6. Abolition of Income Support:

6.1 NIACRO does not believe the circumstances of carers can be met through existing Employment and Support Allowance or Jobseeker’s Allowance provisions.

6.2 Therefore, proposed changes to abolish income support (Part 1, section 9) should be suspended to allow further consultation in the community and debate within the Assembly.

7. Conditions for Contributory Jobseeker’s Allowance:

7.1 The amended bill has made changes to the first condition of entitlement to contributory JSA by increasing the earnings factor from 25 to 26 times that years lower earnings limit. This could potentially remove an individual’s eligibility to the contributory JSA and move claimants into the means-tested version.

7.2 People with a conviction are a vulnerable group. Should they be forced into applying for means-tested allowances, they are at risk of being further deprived and at risk of offending behaviour. NIACRO recommends this amendment is not part of the final Bill.

8. Conditions for Contributory Employment and Support Allowance:

8.1 Reducing the number of qualifying years from three to two could remove an individual’s eligibility to the contributory version of ESA, leading to claimants migrating to the means-tested version of the benefit.

8.2 The earnings factor is being increased from 25 to 26. This again could disenfranchise claimants from the contributory version of ESA. NIACRO recommends this amendment is not part of the final Bill.

9. Community Care Grants Relating to Specified Goods and Services:

9.1 While we understand the reasoning behind this measure, NIACRO is concerned that it will remove the element of free will and choice from the applicant, especially if the Department has an arrangement with a specified provider.

9.2 Therefore, NIACRO is seeking safeguards within the Bill to ensure a claimant will receive quality service and not just the cheapest option.

9.3 A claimant generally applies for a community care grant for a specific purpose, necessary to their ability to survive. Removing their right to use the grant award as they see fit is taking away a claimant’s ability to make independent decisions regarding their own needs.

9.4 Further, it will reinforce the stigma attached to a claimant’s impoverished financial circumstances and may reduce the number of applicants, serving to financially exclude and marginalise them.

10. Loss of Benefit Provisions:

10.1 NIACRO firmly believes that loss of benefit should only be applied in the most extreme circumstances and only as a last resort when all other attempts at encouraging positive and responsible behaviour have been exhausted.

10.2 Removing the only income source from vulnerable, socially and financially excluded people increases their level of marginalisation and exclusion, as well as increasing their risk of offending or criminal behaviour.

10.3 The partner and children of a benefit claimant should not have to suffer for the actions of the benefit claimant. When a sanction is imposed to remove benefit, allowances for the partner and children must continue.

10.4 Where benefit is suspended, claimants should have access to a hardship fund to meet the basic living needs of food, heat and electricity.

11. Sanctions for Violent Conduct in Connection with Claim:

11.1 In the case of joint-claim couples, the sanction should apply to the perpetrator and the partner should not be made to financially suffer as a result.

11.2 Where a sanction is applied against a perpetrator, their children should not be made to suffer financially.

12. Exemption from Jobseeking Conditions for Victims of Domestic Violence:

12.1 NIACRO wants the proposal of exemption extended to people at risk of, subject to or recovering from domestic violence.

12.2 We recommend that domestic violence should be specifically referenced in this section of the Bill, as it is a valid reason for an individual’s failure to comply with regulations.

13. Contracting out Functions under Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995:

13.1 Where functions are contracted out, government departments should have in place robust monitoring, accountability and scrutiny policies and practices to protect the participant and to ensure that the tax payer is receiving value for money.

13.2 The department should retain an oversight role to quality assure that the contracted-out functions are of a consistent, reasonable and efficient standard.

13.3 NIACRO wants to see clear evidence that companies who take part in public sector procurement follow the guidelines for good practice in the fair recruitment of people with convictions. This would publicly demonstrate Government commitment to employment led resettlement.

14. Attendance in Connection with Jobseeker’s Allowance: Sanctions:

14.1 In the case of joint claim couples, the sanction should apply only to the perpetrator. The partner and any children should not be made to financially suffer as a result. The onus must be on the relevant agency to highlight necessary changes to benefits to the partner.

15. Summary of Niacro Recommendations

NIACRO supports initiatives that promote the employment prospects of vulnerable and disadvantaged individuals. However, they are most successful when the individual concerned is willing to get involved and is not forced into attendance.
Positive incentives to motivate long-term unemployed and hard to reach groups to seek and maintain employment should be readily available and promoted.
Fixed-term work experience placements, apprenticeships, bonuses for participating in and completing training, benefit top-ups, help with work- related expenses and access to training, must be supplemented with support such as information on return-to-work credits, tax credits and extended payments of Housing Benefit.
It is crucial that those who are seeking employment are helped to understand the benefits of undertaking the schemes.
In current economic circumstances, it is important government officials take a flexible approach. Sanctions for non-compliance with regulations must be a last resort; otherwise vulnerable people are at risk. This could lead to a lack of employer engagement and an increase in these groups falling into offending and anti-social behaviour.
Participants should be able to continue looking for paid employment and even take up job offers while on the schemes.
Any ‘work for benefit’ scheme should have clear targets and must be independently measured. This should be incorporated into the final Bill.
Government should provide childcare vouchers or subsidised placements for any participant on a work-related activity, where the benefit claimant is a lone-parent and does not receive childcare support from extended family.
Claimants with confirmed physical or mental health disabilities or other such conditions should be exempt from having to comply with work-related activity requirements for a prescribed period of 13 weeks, subject to review.
People subjected to or recovering from domestic violence should also be exempt from having to comply with work-related activity requirements for a prescribed period of 13 weeks, subject to review.
NIACRO wants to see clear evidence that companies who take part in public sector procurement follow the guidelines for good practice in the fair recruitment of people with convictions. This would publicly demonstrate Government commitment to employment led resettlement.
Proposed changes to abolish income support (Part 1, section 9) should be suspended to allow further consultation in the community and debate within the Assembly.
The Bill should include safeguards to ensure, once a claimant has successfully applied for a community care grant, they will receive quality service and not just the cheapest option.
The partner and children of a benefit claimant should not have to suffer for the actions of the claimant. When a sanction is imposed to remove benefit, allowances for the partner and children must continue.
Where benefit is suspended, claimants should have access to a hardship fund to meet basic living needs, food, heat, electricity.
Where violent conduct has occurred and in the case of joint claim couples, the sanction should apply to the perpetrator and the partner should not be made to financially suffer as a result.
Where a sanction is applied against a perpetrator, their children should not be made to suffer financially.
DSD should retain an oversight role to quality assure that the contracted-out functions are of a consistent, reasonable and efficient standard.
[1] Home office (2002) Breaking the Circle: a report on the review of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, London, Home Office.

NICCY

Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children
and Young People - May 2010

Evidence to the Committee for Social Development on the Welfare Reform Bill

1. The Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY) was established in 2003 with the principal aim “to safeguard and promote the rights and best interests of children and young persons".

2. Article 7(4) of the Commissioner for Children and Young People (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 requires NICCY to provide advice on issues affecting children’s rights and best interests when requested, or when NICCY decides. NICCY was asked to provide written evidence to the Committee for Social Development on the Welfare Reform Bill and is scheduled to provide verbal evidence on 13 May 2010. We will limit our evidence to the aspects of the Bill pertaining to children’s rights and best interests.

3. Under the 2003 Order, in exercising its functions NICCY must have regard to

a. the importance of the role of parents in the upbringing and development of their children; and

b. any relevant provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

4. Article 27 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child requires state parties to ‘recognise the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development’. While parents are recognised in this article as holding primary responsibility to secure the resources to meet their children’s needs, the state also holds responsibility to assist parents in meeting the needs of their children and must, in case of need, ‘provide material assistance and support programmes, particularly with regard to nutrition, clothing and housing.’

Article 27, UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

1. States Parties recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development.

2. The parent(s) or others responsible for the child have the primary responsibility to secure, within their abilities and financial capacities, the conditions of living necessary for the child’s development.

3. States Parties, in accordance with national conditions and within their means, shall take appropriate measures to assist parents and others responsible for the child to implement this right and shall in case of need provide material assistance and support programmes, particularly with regard to nutrition, clothing and housing.

4. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to secure the recovery of maintenance for the child from the parents or other persons having financial responsibility for the child, both within the State Party and from abroad. In particular, where the person having financial responsibility for the child lives in a State different from that of the child, States Parties shall promote the accession to international agreements or the conclusion of such agreements, as well as the making of other appropriate arrangements

5. The Welfare Reform Bill (hereafter ‘the Bill’) makes provision for Northern Ireland corresponding to the provision contained in the Welfare Reform Act 2009 (hereafter ‘the 2009 Act’). NICCY has concerns that this legislation was created for a different economic context. The 2009 Act was developed during a period of record employment, and before the levels of unemployment started to rise as a result of the current recession. The situation has changed considerably from that time, with record levels of unemployment, with more people losing jobs, and high levels of competition for the few jobs that have been created. Arguably this different economic climate makes many of the provisions of the Bill less relevant, and potentially problematic.

6. In addition, the socio-economic and political contexts in Northern Ireland differ significantly from those in Great Britain due to decades of economic underdevelopment, Direct Rule and conflict. Save the Children research in 2008 found that, while levels of child poverty in Northern Ireland are generally around average for the UK, levels of persistent child poverty were considerably higher, at around 21% for NI, compared to 9% for GB. This means that children experiencing poverty in Northern Ireland are likely to experience it for considerably longer than children in the UK, and suggests quite a different pattern of benefit uptake, as well as a differences in the barriers to work experienced in Northern Ireland. NICCY suggests that there needs to be more evidence gathered on this issue before legislation be passed mirroring the 2009 Act for GB.

7. A second area that is notably different in Northern Ireland compared to GB is in the provision of childcare. If parents are to be encouraged to return to work, they must be to access high quality, affordable childcare. NICCY understands that the 2009 Act followed funded programmes to increase the provision of childcare in GB. In contrast, in Northern Ireland, there is a widely recognised crisis in the provision of childcare. While there has been a focus on childcare by the Ministerial sub-committee on poverty, no single department has yet taken responsibility for the provision of childcare, and the funding for this has been piecemeal. A childcare strategy must be developed, funded and implemented before conditionality is introduced for parents.

8. In considering changes to benefits for families, MLAs should be aware of the fact that families living on benefits automatically fall below the poverty threshold, and that making ends meet on benefits is extremely difficult. Recent research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation established ‘minimum income’ levels which reflected what the general population felt was sufficient for different households to live on. This research found that the ‘minimum income’ that people considered families needed to live on was considerably higher than benefit levels. NICCY has deep concerns, therefore, at proposals for conditionality which would result in there being less money to provide for the basic needs of children. Article 27 of the UNCRC requires government to support parents in providing for children, and conditionality may result in more children going without basic items, due to a reduction in benefits to families.

9. This paper outlines some of the key concerns of the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People in relation to the Welfare Reform Bill. We will provide more detail on these concerns when we present to the Committee for Social Development on 13 May 2010.

NIPSA

Welfare Reform Bill presented to the Northern Ireland Assembly by the Minister for Social Development Margaret Ritchie MLA - 12 April 2010

Comments From Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance

1. The Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance (NIPSA) represents staff in both the Department for Social Development (DSD) and the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL). Aspects of the Welfare Reform Bill apply to both Departments.

2. NIPSA, Northern Ireland’s largest trade union represents 46,000 civil and public servants throughout Northern Ireland including 6,000 staff in DSD and 1,400 in DEL. In addition NIPSA is an affiliate of the Organisation of the Unemployed Northern Ireland and the largest affiliate of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions – Northern Ireland Committee.

3. Before getting into specific aspects of the Bill, NIPSA would want to comment generally.

4. NIPSA representatives have previously attended Westminster events alongside colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions Group of our sister union the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS). NIPSA have joined with PCS in opposing aspects of the Welfare Reform Bill which applies in Great Britain.

5. As the recession deepens NIPSA believes that the top priority for the Northern Ireland Assembly should be the creation of employment and not the installation of punitive sanctions and increased conditionality for social security claimants / people seeking employment. NIPSA believe such a position will force more citizens, including children, into great levels of poverty and stigmatize those who need the help of the state most.

6. NIPSA is concerned that the Bill will remove the welfare safety net and the principle of entitlement by proposing to abolish Income Support and introduce “Work for your Benefit" schemes.

7. Under the current Steps to Work programme in DEL training providers are already facing difficulty in being able to identify placements for jobseekers. In the midst of a recession when jobs are extremely scarce these Welfare Reform proposals will place an additional burden on employers, particularly small and medium sized employers. “Work Fare" could be used by some unscrupulous employers as work substitution while some employers may find it difficult to find the time and the staff to provide proper training to jobseekers.

8. Staff working on the DEL side are already facing considerable difficulties because they are working significantly under complement. With the significant increase in the register DEL staff are signing people every 4 weeks instead of the previous fortnightly arrangements. This is because DEL simply don’t have the accommodation requirements for staff to sign everyone on a fortnightly basis. The register will also increase because of the proposals to change Income Support and move claimants onto jobseekers allowance.

9. NIPSA members in DEL are extremely concerned about the potential for increased verbal and physical violence towards them given the SSA’s decision to radically restructure their delivery operations under the proposed Customer First initiative. This will leave some SSA offices with a skeleton number of staff and this will put real pressure on DEL colleagues to answer social security questions which they are neither qualified nor trained to deal with.

10. At a time, during the General Election campaign, when it is clearly recognised that the drastic economic situation which faces the country should be the top priority of the Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly, we are concerned that the Minister and the Assembly would wish to privatise areas of the public service as identified in the Committee Clerks letter to us of 30 March 2010. The current proposals of contracting out reflect those adopted by the former DWP Minister James Purnell in Great Britain. We, like our colleagues in PCS, believe that such proposals represent a dangerous and widely unsupported experiment with alternative models of delivery. We believe that the public service has got the skills, expertise, dedication and should have the resources to carry out the delivery of all public services such as those identified in the Welfare Reform Bill.

11. NIPSA have previously supported demands for the Government to urgently raise the Jobseekers Allowance and reiterate that claim now. The claimant count has risen in Northern Ireland significantly over the last 18 months. Now is the time to identify how claimants can be helped, increase benefit levels and provide the highest quality of service to claimants through the Jobs and Benefits Office network. In essence NIPSA are opposed to:-

Work for your Benefit;
Compulsory training;
The abolition of Income Support;
The privatisation of any aspect of existing service provision;
Requiring all parents of young children to seek work;
Cutting the benefits of single parents and those with long term benefits.

Comments

We have listed our comments in respect of the paragraphs highlighted in the Bill.

We have also identified, in sub-headings, the issues which we have concerns with and also one which we particularly welcome.

Paragraph 1

Schemes for Assisting Persons to obtain employment: “Work for your Benefit Schemes"

The Bill introduces regulations which will make provision for a requirement to participate in schemes of any prescribed description that are designed to assist claimants to obtain employment. It also identifies that claimants may have to undertake work or work related activity during any prescribed period with a view to improving their prospects of obtaining employment. This seems to ignore the reality that many disadvantaged groups, such as people with learning or physical disabilities or those with mental health problems, face a severe employer resistance to recruiting them into jobs. NIPSA would view this as potentially discriminatory and yet these individuals will be punished if they will are unable to obtain work.

The “Work for your Benefit" scheme seems to be tantamount to “Work Fare". In Great Britain the Department for Work and Pensions defines “Work Fare" as programmes that will have the aim to improve the employability and work habits of participants and then force the responsibilities of those receiving social assistance through taking part in activities of benefit to the wider community.

As you may be aware “Work Fare" has applied in various countries throughout the world for some years, notably the United States, Canada and Australia. In a DWP Report published in 2008 entitled “A Comparator Review of Work Fare Programmes in the United States, Canada and Australia" examination was given of the impact of Work Fare schemes had on participation in unpaid activities as a condition of receiving social security. The findings identified that “Work Fare" had a deterrent effect that stops people claiming or enforces people to leave welfare before the “Work Fare" stage. The study also found that there was little evidence that “Work Fare" increased the likelihood of finding work with levels of non-participation in mandatory activities being high in some programmes.

NIPSA believes that the vast majority of claimants are not responsible for the fact that they are unemployed. If any so-called punishment is appropriate it should be about the management or mis-management of the economy which leads to redundancies and not to claimants. NIPSA recognise that work experience can be helpful for people hoping to re-enter the labour market but believe that this should be done on a voluntary and not compulsory basis.

Paragraph 2

Work related activity: Income Support claimants and partners of claimants

NIPSA are opposed to the compulsory requirement that claimants should undertake work related activity in order to obtain the Income Support currently payable. We believe that compelling people who are not ready or able to attend work experience could be counter productive which would cause disruption to the claimant, to their home life and also alienate individuals from seeking work in the future.

Paragraph 2(g)

Privatisation / Contracting out

NIPSA are strongly opposed to contracting out of any work currently undertaken by either DSD or DEL. We believe that this work should be undertaken by the hard working and dedicated, trained and competent members of the civil service and not be put out to the private sector. We believe that the private sector has no role in the provision of welfare services. This is not just an ideological approach but a practical one.

The Welfare Reform Bill proposes to allow for the contracting out of:

conducting interviews
providing documents
giving, varying or revoking directions

NIPSA members working in Jobs and Benefits Offices, the remaining Social Security Offices and the remaining Job Centres have been applauded by both the DEL and DSD Ministers for providing excellent work to the public or Northern Ireland. Similarly in Great Britain, from which these contracting out provisions are taken from their Welfare Reform Bill, the Job Centre Plus network has been recognised as one of the best “back to work" agencies in the world. Despite that the Westminster Government have put that record at risk by privatising employment services using untried and untested methods. We do not want the same thing to happen in Northern Ireland.

We note and would wish the Minister and the DSD Committee to consider evidence provided by a number of organisations from which we will quote.

The Child Poverty and Action Group produced a report in December 2008 entitled “Contracting out Employment Services: Lessons from Australia, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands". The report was undertaken by a renounced expert in the field Sharon Wright who examined the international research evidence available and found “remarkably little justification for the proposed changes to the delivery of employment services".

The Audit Commission, in its report in 2008, said that they are “Not aware of any evidence that services transferred to the third sector showed distinct improvement in quality after that transfer" and the Audit Commission concluded with “There is very little evidence, at either national or local level, on the performance and value for money secured from voluntary sector providers".

These sentiments were also echoed by the Public Administration Select Committee (Westminster) report entitled “Public Services and the Third Sector: Rhetoric and Reality" published in July 2008. They said that “The central claim made by the Government and by advocates of a greater role from a third sector and service delivery is that third sector organisations can deliver services in distinctive ways which will improve outcomes for service users. We were unable corroborate that claim. Too much of the discussion is still hypothetical and anecdotal. Although we received a great volume of responses to our call for evidence, much of it admitted that the evidence was simply not available by which to judge the merits of Government policy.

The so called “third sector" which have been widely promoted by the Westminster Government to take DWP contracts is composed of non-profit making voluntary and community groups, hybrid governmental charities and long established charities and profit seeking businesses. Each of them have different priorities ranging from representing service users through to those who wish to aim to increase their market share of public contracts.

NIPSA note with concern that in the contracting out of services in the DWP, 33 of the 34 contracts awarded went to the private sector. Given the dedication and hard work of staff in both the Social Security Agency and the Department for Employment and Learning, any proposal to outsource the provision of work currently undertaken by them which has been included in this Welfare Reform Bill will be a major blow to their morale. There can only be one interpretation of the message sent out by such a proposal and that would mean that their dedication to the job, the associated hard work and consistent record of successful service to claimants is not valued.

In Great Britain, faith based organisations have been allowed to bid for DWP contracts. Any similar proposal in Northern Ireland would be unacceptable given the sensitivities and the needs of our divided community. For example the Salvation Army at a parliamentary joint committee on human rights argued that “Whilst it is appropriate for the state to be religiously neutral this is impossible for an organisation such as the Salvation Army which delivers its service as the direct out working of the Christian faith".

The implication would be that any faith based organisation which seeks to influence its public sector contract by its religious outlook we recognise such as the Salvation Army and other faith based organisations do valuable work in their work specific area of responsibility. However we don’t believe that they have any role in the provision of public sector contracts.

We believe that public services need to be accountable to the electorate and to its elected representatives. Such accountability requires a high level of regulation and we are concerned that this appears to be absent from the Bill. Given the fact that contracts in Northern Ireland have not been previously awarded we can only look at what the developments have been in Great Britain to judge. We are concerned to note that contracts in the DWP are being awarded to the biggest and cheapest bids. Many service outsourcing contracts have gone over budget and some of them have had to been brought back in house because they have failed to produce the quality of the service required. We believe that there is a real risk involved in contracting out. It appears that if all else fails the Assembly and the Executive will be forced to take responsibility, clean up the problems etc.

NIPSA would strongly argue that privatisation, particularly in areas such as service provision has not worked, can not work and will not work. For that reason we identify many examples of contract failures listed below.

In Great Britain there have been a series of disastrous moves to privatised welfare services and these are widely in the public domain. We quote from some of these examples below:

In March 2009 the Manchester News reported claims by jobseekers that they were being treated “like cattle" by an organisation called A4e (a private sector provider of back to work provision). The jobseekers said that up to 200 of them had been crammed in to premises where they had two computers, no telephone access for job searches and just one toilet each for men and women which were filthy. One jobseeker, Mark Jones, told the Manchester Evening News that “In 6 weeks I did absolutely nothing all day, every day. No training was offered, no job search facility was made available and no work experience placements arranged".
Similarly an apprentice group called Carter and Carter had contracts with the Department for Work and Pensions for Pathways to Work and for the New Deal for Disabled People. However the company went into administration in March 2009, some 10 months after the death of its founder Phil Carter. The company received most of its funding from DWP Contracts and the Learning and Skills Council. But by January 2007 had a net debt of £86million and its shares were suspended in October 2009. In November 2009 The Guardian newspaper reported that the company had to return Government payments for tuition at its North East Skills Unit “after an enquiry found falsification of some supporting documentation".
Another DWP provider called Instant Muscle went bankrupt in early 2009. The firm had won an £11million contract with DWP in November 2009 to carry our interviews on claimants in Surrey and Sussex. Although Instant Muscle had been established as a charity in 1981 it became a company in 2005 but retained its charitable registration.
In August 2009 the Daily Mirror newspaper reported that the New Deal contractor Maatwerk had been dropped from DWP after up to 6 rogue staff made 7,000 jobseekers sign fake papers saving Maatwerk to find them jobs. This was done in order for Maatwerk staff to qualify for payouts of up to £3000 a time. Jobseekers were paid £150 each to sign bogus forms although they were thought not to have known that they were helping to cheat taxpayers. One Maatwerk insider was reported as saying “They are often financially challenged, so £150 for signing a paper was an easy option. But suspicions were raised when some staff had left the office, yet claimed for large numbers of jobseekers".
Further examples of unsatisfactory practices in privatised functions are the Business Employment Services Ltd (BEST) who were awarded the contract for £40million by DWP in 2006 to provide training for long term jobseekers in West Yorkshire. The operation of the scheme has been called in to question by the Bradford MP Marsha Singh who has called for an investigation in to this New Deal private contractor after she received allegations that it was failing to provide adequate services. BEST has been described by users as “hopelessly inadequate" with up to 20 people sharing 2 computers on which they are supposed to complete training and job searches according to complaints passed to Marsha Singh. Other users also complained that they were advised to complete time sheets that indicated training had taken place when the offices were closed on a bank holiday. On another occasion all present at the training course were advised to complete 2 forms to state that they were receiving training when in fact they were being told to take 2 days off to look for work outside of BEST offices.
Although not happening in Britain, the Salvation Army pulled out of the Australian ‘Welfare to Work’ scheme because of new rules introduced by that Government. Under that scheme which began in July 2008 jobseekers lose unemployment benefit for 8 weeks if they fail to take up a job or repeatedly fail to meet obligations. Catholic Social Services Australia and Anglicare have also pulled out of a programme entirely. This would suggest that not only privatisation to private sector organisations but also to the voluntary sector applies.
Finally in the UK an £85million contract was awarded to the Australian firm Work Directions Ltd who are one of the largest providers of employment services to the Australian Government. Work Directions UK, a subsidiary of Ingeus has won 6 of the first 15 contracts put out to tender. The organisation has been investigated for breaking labour laws in Australia by under-paying workers and was found to have technically broken the law and agreed to reimburse the money to its employees. The organisation had also used privacy arguments to pursue its auditors checking up on whether or not it had spent the taxpayers money correctly. The organisation has also lost a number of Australian Government contracts because of its poor performance.

NIPSA raise these points because we are concerned about the potential damage to the social security / employment services provided by DSD and DEL in Northern Ireland.

Paragraph 9

Abolition of Income Support

NIPSA would be opposed to the abolition of Income Support because we believe that this is a vital safety net for claimants. Those who currently claim Income Support include many people who are suffering in the current economic crises such as lone parents with young children, foster parents, pregnant woman and careers.

This seems to suggest claimants who remain on Income Support could be required to attend work focused interviews and other work related activity or be subject to a sanction. We believe that if this proposal is implemented it could be confusing for advisors and claimants alike. Forcing lone parents onto jobseekers allowance would seem to rely on improvements in child care provision. In Northern Ireland the provision of good quality and affordable child care is extremely rare and in addition affordable child care provision for shift workers, for children after school, or at weekends, is still almost impossible to find.

Paragraph 10

Power to direct claimants to undertake specific work related activity

The comments that we have given in relation to “Work for your Benefit" schemes earlier in our response equally refer to this paragraph.

Paragraph 23

Exemption from job seeking conditions for victims of domestic violence

NIPSA welcomes the commitment from the Minister that claimants who have been subject to domestic violence will be exempt from the normal job seeking conditions.

Paragraph 26

Contracting out functions under JobSeekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995

The comments that we have given at paragraph 2(g) regarding contracting out equally apply to this paragraph.

NIUSE

Northern Ireland Union of Supported Employment’s Brief to Committee for Social Development Welfare Reform Bill

Northern Ireland Union of Supported Employment
58 Strand Road
Derry
Co Londonderry
BT48 7AJ
Tel 028 71 377709
Fax 028 71 360125
Textphone 028 71 372077
Email: info@niuse.org.uk
Website: www.niuse.org.uk

Introduction

The Northern Ireland Union of Supported Employment (NIUSE) is a membership based organisation representing individuals and organisations providing vocational training and employment opportunities for people with disabilities and disadvantage groups in particular people with significant disabilities to access and stay in paid employment through Supported Employment.

The aim of NIUSE is to promote best practice in Supported Employment in Northern Ireland. This is achieved through:-

Policy Development (NI, UK and EU)
Information Service
Service User Involvement
Networking (local, regional, national and European)
Development Work
Quality Standards
Staff training and development
Membership Service

NIUSE is the only pan disability (physical, learning, mental health, sensory, hidden disability) and Northern Ireland wide organisation representing and promoting vocational training and employment for people with disabilities and disadvantaged groups.

Brief

NIUSE has responded to:-

The Department for Work and Pensions consultation on “No one written off: reforming welfare to reward responsibility" (21 July - 22 October 2008) as part of the Governments Welfare Reform. NIUSE facilitated a consultation on behalf of the Department for Work and Pension on the “No one written off: reforming welfare to reward responsibility" for people with disabilities and senior representatives from the community and voluntary sector.
The Department for Social Development Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA) on the Welfare Reform Bill 2009 (September 2009)

NIUSE welcomes the opportunity to submit a brief to the Committee on Social Development on the Welfare Reform Bill.

NIUSE welcomes the aim of the Welfare Reform Bill 2009 “to encourage and enable as many people as possible to return to the labour market by ensuring that the welfare system provides people with the opportunities that they need to improve their skills, prepare for work and move off benefits and in to employment."

However, NIUSE has a number of concerns that the Welfare Reform Bill will have an adverse impact on people with disabilities and other marginalised groups such as lone parents, carers, people from ethnic minorities etc.

General Comments

NIUSE has a number of general comments regarding the Welfare Reform Bill:-

1. Current Economic climate

NIUSE acknowledges that the Welfare Reform Green Paper was planned before this global economic crisis but the Government must now take this into consideration and respond. Job Seekers Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance claimants will have added pressure to find employment during this economic recession with less employment opportunities available and with increasing numbers of individuals looking for work.

The reality of the current situation was highlighted in the DWP consultation seminar when a participant shared his experience that his hours had been reduced and he is under threat of redundancy. So already, there are a number of factors which will have a direct impact in the number of people the government want to move off JSA or IB and ESA.

2 Resources

NIUSE is concerned that the Government has allocated

insufficient resources (ie staff, training etc) to implement the Welfare Reform Bill. For example with the introduction of “Work for Your Benefit Programme" do JSA Personal Advisors have the specialist skills to identify suitable work experience and support individuals during this period?

Furthermore, the Jobs and Benefits Offices have lost the specialist role of the Disablement Employment Advisors. Their role has been subsumed into the Pathways to Work Personal Advisors service. This has not been the case in Great Britain where the DWP have retained the role of DEAs. NIUSE is concerned with the loss of expertise, skills and local knowledge in providing support to people with disabilities.

The Disablement Advisory Service still exists within the Department for Employment and Learning providing a policy and advisory role and has responsibility for specialist services and programmes such as Access to Work (NI), New Deal for Disabled People, Workable NI, and Job Introduction Scheme etc.

3 Consultation with people with disabilities

What efforts have been made by DSD to consult directly with people with disabilities and people from disadvantaged groups on the Welfare Reform Bill 2009?

4 “Revolving Door"

The Welfare Reform Bill 2009 focuses mainly on assisting and supporting individuals to move from benefits (JSA and ESA) into employment. The paper fails to address the issue of maintaining an individual in employment. Without the right support in employment, vulnerable individuals may find themselves losing their job and returning to claim benefits. The Government needs to explore employment interventions which will not only assist people with disabilities to access employment but stay in and progress in employment.

The model of Supported Employment is an employment intervention which assists people with disabilities and other disadvantaged groups to find and maintain employment.

The definition of Supported Employment

“Provides support to people with disabilities or other socially disadvantage groups to secure and maintain paid employment in the open labour market"
(European Union of Supported Employment, 2005).

Government Departments (DEL and DSD) need to give serious consideration to this model as a mainstream employment intervention which will assist people with significant disabilities and people from other disadvantaged groups to access and maintain employment.

6 Work for your Benefits

NIUSE clearly recognises the benefit of work experience in providing work skills and habits in a realistic work environment. However, NIUSE have concerns regarding the introduction of the “Work for your Benefits" programme for people with disabilities and people from disadvantaged groups.

In responding to the DSD EQIA on the Welfare Reform Bill NIUSE questioned this proposal that “Work for your benefits" does not make a direct impact to people with disabilities. Statistics would imply that there is an increase in the number of people with disabilities and health related conditions in receipt of JSA. This relates to the introduction of the Employment and Support Allowance in October 2008 and an increase in the number of claimants being turned down for ESA and applying for JAS.

Statistics highlighted since the introduction of ESA (Oct 2008) show there have been over 36,390 (March 2010) applications for ESA. 58% of these have been disallowed and have appealed their decision of which 83% withheld. Therefore, there will be an increase in the number of people with disabilities and health related conditions applying for JSA.

Information regarding disability and health related conditions needs to be recorded to ensure that individuals receive appropriate support by JSA Personal Advisors.

Furthermore the “Work for your Benefits" programme will put added pressure on people with disabilities in particular people with mental health difficulties and people with learning disabilities which may not be fully understood by JSA Personal Advisors.

Similarly, NIUSE has reservations about such as scheme applying to lone parents with children under seven without childcare provision and payments being guaranteed.

NIUSE is also concerned that work experience could be abused by employers to avoid paying for permanent staff i.e. Job displacement . Lessons should be learnt from previous Government vocational training and employment programmes that some employers operated their business using trainees on work experience. There needs to be specific criteria for work experience options which should be regulated and monitored regularly.

The Government must ensure that an appropriate transparent and accountable regulatory framework is in place to ensure consistency of policy and practice to deliver the “Work for your Benefits" programme.

“Work for your Benefit" Pilots – NIUSE is greatly concerned that as with many proposal in the Welfare Reform Bill pilots will be running in England only, therefore the evaluation of these pilots will be based on a totally different infrastructure to that in Northern Ireland. NIUSE query how pilots in England can be properly evaluated for potential impact in Northern Ireland.

7. Supporting Parents with younger children into employment

NIUSE is concerned that there is not enough childcare provision available to assist lone parents to take up employment. Until this is fully addressed lone parents should be encouraged to take up employment not forced. The lack of childcare strategy for Northern Ireland continues to impact upon the introduction of the Welfare Reform in Northern Ireland. Public bodies in NI are under no obligation to assess and meet local childcare needs as is required under the Childcare Act 2006 in England and Wales. This needs to be addressed before the Bill is past and as lone parents will be placed in a very comprising position i.e. forced to work but with no proper child care.

This further supports that “Work for your benefit" pilots in GB can not be easily transferred to Northern Ireland as the childcare infrastructure is not available here to support lone parents in to work.

Furthermore, lone parents with disabilities may need additional support to assist them to find employment, are the Jobs and Benefit Office Personal Advisors appropriately trained and resourced to assist people with disabilities to progress to work.

8. Partners of benefit Recipients

NIUSE is concerned that forcing lone parents on to JSA to some extent relies on anticipated improvement in child care provision. Affordable childcare provision for shift workers, after school or at weekends is still not available. NIUSE does not support forcing couples where one partner is entitled to ESA or IS to claim JSA. NIUSE would recommend and support a voluntary approach for partners to come forward for work-related activity.

9. Work- related activity for claimants of Employment and Support Allowance

NIUSE welcomes the Department’s aim to encourage people with disabilities to move in to work and provide them with the appropriate support.

However, NIUSE is concerned with the Department’s proposal to amend Welfare Reform Act Northern Ireland 2007 “to allow Personal Advisors to specify a particular work –related activity which a claimant must undertake to meet the requirements of the claim".

This will put added pressure on people with disabilities, in particular people with mental health and learning disabilities to take up work related activity.

NIUSE is also concerned regarding the level of support that the Pathways to Work Personal Adviser can offer. They are currently under pressure and are not meeting the needs of people with significant disabilities. Specialist provision provided by the Department for Employment and Learning through the Disablement Employment Advisors, no longer exists under Pathways to Work and there is the potential that this specialist expertise could be lost from within the Department for Employment and Learning.

10. Work-related activity for lone parents on income support and partners of claimants

The Bill does not offer no additional premium for lone parents in receipt o 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.

11. Sanctions

NIUSE agrees that government staff must be protected from violent behaviour whether it is actual or threatened.

NIUSE believes that the blanket use of sanctions and conditionality is inappropriate and will do little to prevent or reduce risk to staff. With the increase in number of people with disabilities and health related conditions applying for JSA this proposal will have a direct impact on them. As information is not collected regarding disability and JSA, the Department is not aware of the impact that the sanctions will have on people with disabilities. Specific concerns exist for people who experience severe and fluctuating mental health issues.

Sanctions often disproportionately impact on the most vulnerable and will cause undue anxiety and stress to individuals who are unable to attend interview etc. It is not uncommon for individuals with severe mental health difficulties to be unable to go out or open their mail and it will be vital that adequate safeguards are put in place to protect people on the margins. Otherwise, sanctions may have the unintended effect of adding to someone’s deprivation and ill-health.

Often those who are most vulnerable are affected by sanctions as they are unable to understand the process involved and what is expected of them. Personal Advisors should take into account that people with significant disabilities in particular people with learning disabilities may not be able to understand and comprehend the request made by them, for example to attend a WFI. As a result of this they may incur sanctions.

Furthermore, by imposing sanctions this may infringe and contravene other Government polices, for example eradicating child poverty - if sanctions are imposed on a family. This is particularly concerning regarding the current financial and economic climate with increasing costs of food and fuel.

NIUSE would recommend stronger safeguards need to put in place within the legislation to ensure that personal advisers implementing the bill are not given full discretion to determine whether a claimant has “good cause" for failure to comply with requlations particularly for claimants with mental health and/or learning disabilities. A claimants mental health and ability to engage in the return to work process may be highly complex and sensitive and should not be left to the discretion of a frontline staff without the relevant experience, expertise and understanding of the claimants condition.

11. Simpler benefits system

NIUSE welcomed the idea of simplifying and streamlining the benefit system as this is long over due. However, NIUSE is concerned that the proposal to simplify the system by moving all claimants to Job Seekers Allowance and the Employment and Support Allowance is simplistic and infeasible. It is essential that the new system does not disadvantage people with disabilities, lone parents, carers etc who are currently claiming benefits or discourage prospective claimants.

NIUSE welcomes the purposed changes to payment by account and extension of the Disability Living Allowance provision for people with “blindness/severe visual impairment".

12.00 Community Care grants relating to specified goods or service

NIUSE is concerned by the proposal to reduce the choice for individuals and enforce specification on suppliers by DSD. This will cause further stigma for individuals applying for community care grants and the supplier will be aware that they are on benefits. This impacts upon the claimants independence to choice their product or service and could have an adverse impact upon willingness to apply. There is also concern with regard to the cost and quality of the goods via a third party. The only person who will benefit from this will be the provider. Further consideration should be given to the potential impact of theses clauses.

13.00 Migration of Incapacity Benefit & Income Support to JSA and ESA

This will be a massive undertaking and it is essential that anyone falling into this category is fully informed and if required given additional support to manage the change over.

If the migration of benefits will have the same impact i.e. the number of claimants been turned down for ESA and moving on to JSA, a larger portion of people with disabilities and health related conditions will be moving on to JSA. This will be a new regime for claimants and additional support will be required and cognisance needs to be taken of this and appropriate, expert and experience advise needs to be provided. Also, programmes provided for people with disabilities may not be available to disabled people on JSA.

14.00 Contracting out Functions

NIUSE is aware of the need for change regarding contracting out of services. However, NIUSE is concerned regarding the delivery of service and quality of service delivered under this method. To date the track record of contracting out services is very poor. In the past there have been similar government programmes which have been contracted out, based on output related funding. Some providers did not have the best interest of the individual in mind and the focus was on numbers rather than the quality of service. Once again those who were the most vulnerable (i.e. people with disabilities) were most affected.

Similarly, NIUSE is concerns regarding the use of Prime contractors. Recent experience in Northern Ireland and across GB highlighted many difficulties with Prime Contractors, for example making bids and sub-contracting with specialist organisations and then awarded the contract not following through on the sub-contracting arrangements. Often these large prime contractor organisations are not specialist or aware of the local issues. Therefore, individuals do not get the specialist support they require to assist them to find a job.

NIUSE would also recommend that specialist services should not be contracted out under Prime contract measures as these need specialist organisations to deliver services.

A number of research reports have been carried out on Prime Contracting in GB relating to Pathways to Work such as:-

“The Influence of outcome-based contracting on provider –led Pathway to work", Department of Work and Pensions http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2009-2010/rrep638.pdf
The Work and Pension Select Committee has issued a report entitled “Management and Administration of Contracted Employment Programmes". The report examined DWP’s contracted employment programmes as a whole. It focused on the prevention of fraud, the treatment of subcontractors, and ensuring fair treatment of customers.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmworpen/101/101.pdf

14.00 Summary

In summary NIUSE welcomes the aim of the Welfare Reform Bill 2009 “to encourage and enable as many people as possible to return to the labour market". There are a number of concerns that we hope the Committee for Social Development give due regard to these issues.

Should you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact:-

Playboard NI

PlayBoard’s Response the Welfare Reform Bill - April 2010

Introduction

PlayBoard is the lead agency for the development and promotion of children’s and young people’s play in Northern Ireland. To this end, the organisation provides a range of innovative services designed to strengthen service delivery. Since its inception in 1985, PlayBoard has campaigned, lobbied, raised awareness and developed partnerships in order to put play on the agenda of policy makers and resource providers.

PlayBoard is a membership organisation with 300 plus members. The agency exists to promote, create and develop quality play opportunities aimed at improving the quality of children’s lives. This is achieved through three key functions:

Championing Children’s Play – rights and needs
Developing, expanding and promoting membership services to assist stakeholders provide better play experiences and opportunities for all children: and
Improving and enhancing PlayBoard ensuring the organisation is progressive and fit for purpose.

All children and young people have the right to play and have an intrinsic need to play: opportunities for children to be free to choose what they do– with the chance to challenge themselves, take risks and enjoy freedom. The right to play is enshrined in Article 31 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Background

Northern Ireland has the highest child/youth population in the UK, with children under 18 years representing 27% of the population and with children experiencing higher levels of need here in Northern Ireland. PlayBoard would highlight that there is considerable evidence which would support initiatives and activities that would improve outcomes for children and young people.

Approximately 20% of children and young people in Northern Ireland will suffer significant mental health problems before their 18th birthday (CMO, 1999). The number of teenagers with depression and anxiety has increased 70% in the last 25 years and a recent Royal College of Psychiatrists study found that 30% of teenagers self harm. Disabled children and young people are at higher risk of developing mental ill health, with children and adolescents with a significant learning disability being 3-4 times more likely to experience mental health problems[1]. Children in contact with the youth justice system also have increased likelihood of experiencing mental health problems.

The particular context of children’s lives in Northern Ireland is one which has been hugely determined and influenced by the recent political conflict and its ongoing legacy. Despite the official discourse which depicts Northern Ireland as being a ‘post conflict’ or ‘normalised’ society the reality is that is continues to be a highly segregated society. Segregation in housing, education, public services and leisure facilities continues to be the daily reality experienced by most children and young people. Over 90% of public housing continues to be segregated along religious lines.[2]

“Investing in disadvantaged young children is a rare public policy initiative that promotes fairness and social justice and at the same time promotes productivity in the economy and in society at large. Early interventions targeted toward disadvantaged children have much higher returns than later interventions such as reduced pupil-teacher ratios, public job training, convict rehabilitation programs, tuition subsidies, or expenditure on police. At current levels of resources, society over invests in remedial skill investments at later ages and under invests in the early years." James Heckman Science 2006

Child poverty levels in Northern Ireland are higher than in other jurisdictions within the UK. 29% of 122,000 children in Northern Ireland live in poverty[3] and 10% of children or 44,000 children live in severe poverty.[4] Between 2001-2004 short term poverty affected 27% of children in Northern Ireland compared with 22% in Britain while persistent poverty affected 21% of children in Northern Ireland compared with 9% in Britain.[5]

Recent research by Save the Children ‘A Child’s Portion’ has illustrated the extent of under resourcing of children’s services in Northern Ireland by comparison with other jurisdictions in the UK.[6] One example of this is the comparative spending on Sure Start provision - £80 per child in Northern Ireland compared with nearly £600 per child in England.

The political, social, economic and cultural context of children’s lives, outlined above, graphically illustrates how the conflict and its legacy continues to cast a dark shadow over children and young people’s lives today in many different but interconnected ways. This underscores how critically important it is to have a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland to address many of these fundamental rights issues for children and young people. The Bill of Rights proposals should include strong and effective provisions for enforcing and implementing the Bill of Rights – this is central to its potential to protect and promote children’s rights. It is essential that the process for drafting legislation and policy is a transparent one which ‘proofs’ legislation and policy against children’s rights standards – in this way you can ensure that it is equality proofed and child rights compliant.

PlayBoard believes that as long as the reform agenda appears to be only interested in removing people as a benefit statistic – not meaningfully supporting people to make the transition into employment – the ‘hardest to help’ may remain reluctant recipients of welfare reform, rather than eager participants; Given that we are talking about the most vulnerable people in society, acknowledged as being the ‘hardest to help’, Government should ensure that there are adequate safeguards in place to protect and support not further marginalise and demonise. The system must play its part in ensuring that people have sufficient income to put food on the table, keep a roof over their head and provide a basis to make informed decisions about moving from benefits to work.

PlayBoard has highlighted that “forced integration into the labour market will not work" without the associated significant increases in spending on areas such as childcare. Government should not shirk it’s responsibilities in this regard and PlayBoard believes that sufficient resources will have to be made available if welfare reform is to have any meaningful positive impact. A firm focus should be on helping those who move from welfare to work to retain their jobs over the longer term and supporting the hardest to help benefit recipients who may be left behind by welfare reform, as the labour market is swelled by students and those recently made redundant who may be felt to be more ‘job ready’.

In terms of parity with GB, PlayBoard has noted that the necessary welfare reform legislation in Northern Ireland is now out of step (albeit possibly temporarily) with GB. However we note that the social security system is still functioning perfectly normally. Therefore in respect of timing (if not in respect of substance) these events have shown that parity can be broken; PlayBoard would suggest that the legislation be examined and if necessary amended for circumstances unique to Northern Ireland: essentially the opportunity should be taken to adopt how things are done; rather than seeking to fundamentally break parity in terms of benefit types and levels.

The arguments supporting the need for and benefits of School Aged Childcare appear to be well rehearsed. PlayBoard’s work on the ground has been evaluated, monitored and tested. The benefits and contribution are clear. Unfortunately, the continual threat of closure hanging over projects is in contrast to the policy and academic arguments supporting the needs and rights of children and young people. This further highlights the need for a strategic approach to the wider issue of childcare. The issue of the development of the “whole child" doesn’t recognise policy drivers or Departmental priorities. What is lacking is an integrated and coherent response supported by long term funding. The current tax credit system also needs to be reviewed to ensure that the Tax Credit system can be utilised to support School Age Childcare services. There also needs to be a joined up approach between welfare and the department allocated with the responsibility for childcare.

We also need to be mindful of the introduction of community planning, that recognition is given to local partnerships in the development of any strategy and in its implementation recognising local needs and the success of local partnership models such as the Childcare Partnerships and Investing for Health Partnerships.

Work-related activity: income support claimants and partners of claimants

PlayBoard would like to highlight the following concerns:

The intention behind this proposal must be to ultimately move both partners (and lone parents with children) into employment. There must be a real question mark over the ability of the childcare infrastructure in Northern Ireland to cope, in particular in terms of accessibility and affordability. In terms of a comparison between childcare spend between England & Wales and Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland has much reduced levels of Surestart funding;
PlayBoard notes the view that there is a lack of a strategic framework underpinning and supporting the childcare infrastructure in Northern Ireland – with no lead Department responsible for school age childcare provision. Given the significance of the proposals within the Welfare Reform Bill this issue needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency;
PlayBoard would wish to see a funded childcare strategy in place in Northern Ireland before proposals which have a childcare impact are implemented;
Very often partners of claimants provide significant assistance in terms of informal ad hoc childcare and caring arrangements. An unintended consequence of this proposal could be that this support is minimised with knock-on effects on wider family circles and the community in general;

Lone parents

For lone parents PlayBoard would like to highlight the following concerns:

Given the current economic climate, the question has to be asked ‘is this the right time to be introducing tougher conditions on lone parents claiming benefit?’
Any sanctions that may be imposed will only serve to push children of lone parents on benefits into even greater poverty;
We would draw attention to the childcare issues highlighted above including the points made about the lack of accessible, affordable childcare; the lack of a strategic framework underpinning and supporting the childcare infrastructure in Northern Ireland and the lack of a funded childcare strategy in NI;
Equality impact implications of the proposals as by far the greater number of lone parents impacted by this proposal will be women;
This proposal would need to be rural roofed given the added problems that may exist for lone parents in rural areas of Northern Ireland including transport issues;

Abolition of Income Support

PlayBoard would like to highlight the following concerns:

ESA and JSA may not be able to respond sufficiently effectively and flexibly to the needs of people who currently fit within the Income Support category, in particular with respect to those involved in caring;
Undoubtedly greater conditionality will be attached to the benefit claims of these people; PlayBoard would be concerned that one interpretation of this approach could be that the role of carers and lone parents is undervalued and that they be become subject to penalties and sanctions as a result of their caring duties;
PlayBoard is aware that statements have been made to the effect that Income Support would be abolished only when there are no longer any groups for which it is needed, because alternative provision will have been made. We would remain to be convinced about the alternative provision – presumably if the intention is to shift claimants into full time employment there needs to be an infrastructure in place to replace the caring provided in respect of children and support those who are sick / disabled (particularly those with mental health problems);

Loss of benefit provisions

PlayBoard would like to highlight the following concerns:

People and in particular families cannot be left to simply fall foul of potentially multiple long term sanctions which effectively reduce people already living on minimal incomes. People and families must not be allowed to ‘fall through the cracks’ and allowed to ‘flounder’ as appears to be the case where similar approaches have been taken in the United States;
Benefits sanctions, for example regarding a failure to carry out a job seeker’s direction, will impact upon the whole family (including any children in the household) and there needs to be a balance between encouraging people to move into employment and ensuring that these same people (and in particular their children) are adequately supported while on benefit.

Wellbeing of children

PlayBoard advocates that the following provision be included in all proposals where benefit has the potential to be reduced and that added responsibilities are placed upon those responsible for caring for children:

(i) “… the officer must have regard (as far as practicable) to its impact on the well-being of any child who may be affected by it …";

The UK government has ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) (hereafter the UNCRC). We would recognise that the standards contained in the UNCRC should be integral to the welfare reform agenda. proposals must build on and increase the children’s rights protections already afforded by the UNCRC. Ensuring this will afford the opportunity to make the principles and provisions of the UNCRC justiciable.

The welfare reform agenda Northern Ireland must be underpinned by the UNCRC so real and positive change is a possibility for the children and young people of NI.

[1] Bamford Review Report (2006) AVision for a Comprehensive Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service

[2] NIHE (2006) Mixed housing scheme is launched. 30 October 2006.

[3] Magadi, M. And Middleton, S. (2007) Measuring Severe Child Poverty in the UK. Save the Children UK.

[4] Ibid

[5] Save the Children and ARK. (February 2008) Persistent Child Poverty in Northern Ireland Belfast.

[6] www.savethechildren.org.uk/en/54_9399.htm

RNID

Wilton House
5 College Square North
Belfast
BT1 6AR
Telephone 028 9023 9619
Textphone 028 9023 9619
Text Answerphone
028 9031 2033
Fax: 028 9031 2032
www.rnid.org.uk

Consultation Response
Committee for Social Development
Welfare Reform Bill
29th of April 2010

About us

We’re RNID, the charity working to create a world where deafness or hearing loss do not limit or determine opportunity and where people value their hearing. We work to ensure that people who are deaf or hard of hearing have the same rights and opportunities to lead a full and enriching life. We strive to break down stigma and create acceptance of deafness and hearing loss. We aim to promote hearing health, prevent hearing loss and cure deafness.

RNID estimates that in Northern Ireland there are 202,000 individuals with mild to moderate hearing loss; 140,000 of these are over the age of 60. 17,000 individuals in Northern Ireland are severely or profoundly deaf; 14,000 of these are over the age of 60. Most deaf and hard of hearing people in the UK develop a hearing loss as they get older. Around the age of 50, the proportion of people with a hearing loss increases sharply. Approximately 55% of people over 60 in the UK are deaf or hard of hearing (www.rnid.org.uk/information_resources/factsheets/deaf_awareness/factsheets_leaflets/facts_and_figures_on_deafness_and_tinnitus)

RNID (NI)’s response to the Welfare Reform Bill will focus on key issues that relate to people who are deaf and hard of hearing.

RNID is happy for the details of this response to be made public.

Employment, Training and Skills

Research has indicated that here are a range of barriers that face people who are deaf and hard of hearing in moving off benefits into employment.

RNID’s research report ‘Opportunity Blocked’ (2006) found that only 63% of deaf and hard of hearing people of working age were in employment compared to the national average of 75%. It is not their deafness that prevents people from working – rather it is the lack of understanding and awareness on the part of others as to what deaf people can do.

In order to support deaf people in their search for employment and in their progression within employment, RNID (NI) provides an Employment, Training and Skills Service (ETSS). This service provides person-centred support to address individual barriers that deaf clients, i.e. ‘work ready’ clients, may have in moving from benefits into work. Our experienced Employment Advisors can guide deaf clients through the maze of job advertisements and applications, assist in preparing for interview and identify training and further and higher education courses.

RNID (NI) also works with deaf clients for whom an immediate return to work is not appropriate but for whom working could become a genuine possibility with time, encouragement and support. We are currently delivering a project which aims to increase deaf and hard of hearing people’s potential to gain employment by improving their general health and well being through access to leisure services and health-related information.

RNID (NI) believes that we have a vital role to play in supporting deaf people seeking employment and would welcome the opportunity to discuss our Employment, Training and Skills Service (ETSS) with the Committee, Department and the wider Assembly. For more information on this service, please contact Alan McClure, Employment Manager, RNID (NI) on 028 90321733 or alan.mcclure@rnid.org.uk

Benefits System

RNID (NI) agrees that the current benefits system is complex and confusing and believes that wider reform leading to simplification is needed. Currently the system works against deaf and hard of hearing people.

Deaf people in particular have difficulty engaging with the system as can be evidenced by research carried out by RNID in 2009. 29% of deaf people surveyed (n = 1,315) had not claimed DLA or AA. Of this 29%, 53% thought that deaf people could not claim DLA or AA, 24% had not heard of these benefits and 23% did not know how to claim them. The DLA claim form also proved problematic with 74% of deaf people surveyed finding it hard to complete.

We would recommend that information on benefits should use plain English and, where possible, graphics to make resources more understandable.

Deaf people are excluded from mainstream information services and require information to be specific, focused and accessible. To meet this need RNID (NI) delivered a partnership project with the Citizen’s Advice Bureau in 2006/2007, providing fully accessible information and advice to deaf clients. The project staff recovered £458,564 in unclaimed benefit for 1,372 deaf people in Northern Ireland over a forty two month period. For those people who were not assisted by the project, it can be assumed that valuable benefits and related information remain untapped.

RNID (NI) calls on the Assembly to work with us to undertake a proactive approach to increasing accessibility of the benefits system to people who are deaf and hard of hearing, including accessible written and online resources, support staff that are fully trained in the needs of deaf clients, and procedures to ensure that fully qualified sign language interpreters are made available to assist with communication.

RNID (NI) provides a range of services that could meet these needs:

Communication Support (CS)
Our Communication Support Service matches requests for communication support to fully qualified and registered (MRSLI) professionals who are trained ‘Language Service Professionals’ i.e. sign language interpreters, deaf-blind interpreters, electronic and manual note-takers, lip speakers and speech to text reporters.
Employment, Training and Skills (ETSS)
Outreach and Information
Training

Employers

RNID (NI) believes that any welfare reform programme that is aimed at getting disabled people back to work must also seek to change the attitudes and misperceptions of employers if it is to stand any chance of success.

We believe that the best way to promote inclusion of deaf and hard of hearing people in the workplace is for employers to come into first-hand contact with them and to experience the range of skills and abilities they have. We believe that this will help overcome negative attitudes and misperceptions, which present deaf and hard of hearing people with the single biggest barrier to employment.

RNID (NI)’s Employment Training and Skills Service (ETSS) encourage employers to adopt positive attitudes and accessible working practices for deaf and hard of hearing people, using a person-centred approach.

Services provided include:

Workplace Assessments. This is where the employer contacts ETSS directly and a RNID (NI) Employment Adviser carries out an assessment, making recommendations in relation to the support needed for a deaf or hard of hearing employee.
Access to Work Assessments. This is where an employee contacts the local Jobs and Benefits Office. RNID (NI) is contracted by the Jobs and Benefits Office to carry out an assessment at the client’s place of work and to make recommendations in relation to support needs for a deaf or hard of hearing employee
RNID (NI) has developed a ‘Louder than Words’ charter mark. This charter mark ensures that all premises and services offered by organisations are accessible for people who are deaf and hard of hearing. RNID NI recommends that staff working in benefit offices consider working towards this charter mark.
‘Deaf Awareness’ training which can be tailored to meet the specific needs of the particular employee and their colleagues. We recommend that staff, especially frontline staff, working in the benefits system receive this training as they need to be aware of the communication needs of their clients and be able to assist them appropriately. RNID (NI) also recommends that frontline staff complete the level one Certificate in British Sign Language (BSL) or Irish Sign Language (ISL).

The following additional recommendations could prove invaluable in supporting deaf and hard of hearing people into work.

RNID (NI) recommends that employers provide opportunities for work experience for people who are deaf or hard of hearing.
RNID (NI) recommends that employers read ‘The Don’t Panic’ pack (enclosed), which provides information about recruiting and developing deaf and hard of hearing employees.
RNID (NI) recommends that all employers are aware of the Department of Employment and Learning (DEL’s) ‘Access to Work’ programme, which is available to overcome the practical problems caused by disability in the workplace. It offers advice and help in a flexible way that can be tailored to suit the needs of an individual in a particular job, or getting to and from work.
RNID (NI) believes that employers need to be aware of their duties under legislation. The Disability Discrimination Act has begun to have an effect on employers in Northern Ireland, and we hope that the promotion of the responsibilities of employers under the DDA will continue.

Sanctions

RNID (NI) is seriously concerned about the benefits sanctions for jobseeker’s allowance claimants who, without good cause, fail to attend mandatory appointments in connection with their claim.

Research carried out by RNID (2009) outlined above has highlighted the difficulties experienced by deaf people in relation to engaging with the benefits system. It is essential that the system is accessible to deaf and hard of hearing people and that they are provided with the necessary Communication Support to attend appointments.

Initiatives and Models of Good Practice

In April 2010, Citizens Advice launched its first ever web pages dedicated to its own British Sign Language (BSL) advice. These pages allow BSL users an alternative and convenient way of accessing information on Citizens Advice services e.g. benefits and employment.

Other initiatives e.g. DVDs advising on benefits and employment, web cameras for clients to access BSL-fluent advisors in different parts of the country are also being piloted by Citizens Advice and RNID.

RNID (NI) recommends that staff working in the benefits system in Northern Ireland explore the possibility of using these initiatives and models of good practice to engage with deaf people.

Further information on the above can be accessed on http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/bsl.htm

Conclusion

RNID (NI) believes that if the welfare reform agenda is to be successful in Northern Ireland, further resources have to be made available to support the expected increase in the numbers of disabled people entering the workforce.

RNID (NI) welcomes many of the reforms outlined in the Bill, albeit with some reservations and concerns. However, the fundamental premise of assisting disabled people into work and away from poverty is entirely in line with our own principles, and we remain committed to working with the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that welfare reform works to the benefit of deaf and hard of hearing people. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss any of the comments we have made in this document.

Sharon Redmond
Policy and Research Officer
RNID Northern Ireland
Wilton House
5 College Square
North Belfast
BT1 6AR
Telephone: 028 90239619
Textphone: 028 90239619
Text Answerphone: 028 90312033
TalkByText: 02072968001 Ext 2754
Fax: 028 90312032
Email: sharon.redmond@rnid.org.uk
Website: www.rnid.org.uk

Womens Resource & Development Agency

WRDA
6, Mount Charles
Belfast
BT7 1N

30th April 2010

Peter McCallion
Clerk to the DSD Committee
Room 412,
Parliament Buildings
Stormont
Belfast
BT4 3XX

Dear Peter,

I wish to confirm that the Women’s Resource and Development Agency is making a response to Department of Social Development Committee in relation to the consultation on the Welfare Reform Bill via the group response prepared by the Law Centre (NI).

We have particular concerns about the disproportionate gender impacts that some of this legislation is likely to cause and have included our concerns in this co-ordinated response.

Yours Sincerely,

Lynn Carvill

Lynn Carvill
Women’s Sector Lobbyist

Appendix 4

DSD Submissions

List of DSD Submissions

Briefing Paper from DSD 10 October 2008

Correspondence from DSD 10 February 2009

Briefing Paper from DSD 2 July 2009

Correspondence from DSD 27 November 2009

Welfare Reform Bill Completed Equality Impact Assessment December 2009

Correspondence from DSD 18 January 2010

Correspondence from DSD 2 March 2010

Correspondence from DSD 10 March 2010

Final Delegated Powers Memorandum 12 April 2010

Correspondence from DSD 18 May 2010

Correspondence from DSD 19 May 2010

Correspondence from DSD 27 May 2010

Briefing Paper from DSD 10 October 2008

Outline of Green Paper

Chapter 1. Promoting opportunity and realising potential

Introductory

Chapter 2: An obligation to work

powers to require those ignoring back-to-work support to undertake full-time activity in return for their benefits.
pilots to require long-term unemployed to engage in programme of full-time community based work experience.
drug users on benefits to take steps ((e.g.) treatment) to support a return to work.
new measures on skills – including skills checks and piloting mandating lone parents and people on incapacity benefits to undertake work-related training.
Jobseekers Allowance – stronger sanctions regime (e.g. consider automatic benefit sanctions for failing to attend mandatory interview without good cause).
more personalised approach, skills checks, directed job search and supported job search

Question 1: How long should ‘work for your benefit’ last at different stages in the claim?

Question 2: How could capacity and capability to provide full-time work experience in the community sector be provided and incentivised to produce the best employment outcomes for participants?

Question 3: Is full-time ‘work for your benefit’ as an alternative to a sanction of loss of benefit for repeated non-compliance with work search requirements an effective option for some jobseekers? How should it be targeted?

Question 4: What penalties do you think would be most effective to deter more people from committing benefit fraud?

Question 5: Do you think it would be appropriate to reduce or withdraw entitlement to benefit after a first offence? How long should the sanction period be?

Question 6: Do you agree with the proposed approach for identifying problem drug use? How should it be implemented? Do you think that everyone claiming a working-age benefit should be required to make a declaration of whether or not they use certain specified drugs?

Question 7: What elements should an integrated system of drug treatment and employment support include? Do you agree that a rehabilitation plan would help recovering drug users to manage their condition and move towards employment?

Question 8: When is the right time to require ESA claimants to take a skills health check?

Question 9: Should ESA customers be required to attend training in order to gain the identified skills they need to enter work?

Question 10: In view of the need to help lone parents develop the skills they need to find work, are we right to require lone parents to have a skills health check and training as a condition of receiving benefit?

Question 11: Should we pilot extra benefit payments for lone parents in return for training, and if so, when the youngest child is what age?

Question 12: Are there any other circumstances where customers cannot get the skills they need to enter employment under present and planned arrangements?

Question 13: How might we build on the foundations of the current rules so that they do not discourage unemployed people from volunteering as a deliberate back-to-work strategy, while retaining a clear focus on moving off welfare into paid employment?

Chapter 3: No one written off

personalised programmes of back-to-work support for all new and existing claimants for incapacity benefits.
extending engagement beyond initial pathways period.
doubling of Access to Work and WORKSTEP budgets to help with workplace adjustments.
increasing supported employment provision.
use Work Capability Assessment to confirm existing beneficiaries are receiving the right benefit and that their personal needs are identified.
keep Employment and Support Allowance under review to ensure it continues to provide support only for those unable to work.
reform Work Capability Assessment to identify people who could take up specific suitable jobs.
make sure Employment and Support Allowance is seen as a temporary benefit for most (rather than a long-term benefit) – a culture change.
challenge local areas to develop Fit for Work Services.
reforming the sick note system – present system leaves people with the impression that one has to be 100 per cent fit to be in work.

Question 15 What expectations should there be of people undertaking the personalised support we will now be offering in the Work Related Activity Group? Could this include specific job search?

Question 16: How can we make Access to Work more responsive to the needs of claimants with fluctuating conditions – including mental health conditions?

Question 17: What additional flexibilities in the system or forms of support would claimants with multiple and complex problems need to enable them to meet the new work-focused requirements proposed in this Green Paper?

Question 18: What are the key features of an action planning approach that would best support employees and employers to take the steps for the employee to make a swifter return to work?

Chapter 4: Ending child poverty.

work best route out of poverty.
full disregard of child maintenance in Income Related Benefits.
encourage joint registration of births.
requirement for partners of benefit recipients (except full-time carers or parents of young children) to seek work under Jobseekers Allowance regime.

Question 20: What approach might be suitable to assist partners of benefit claimants who can work into employment?

Chapter 5. Delivering choice and control for disabled people.

individual budgets for disabled with greater say in how a range of public funding is used to meet their needs.

Question 21: What are the next steps in enabling disabled people, reliably and easily, to access an individual budget if they want one? Should they include legislation to give people a right to ask for a budget or will the other levers the Government has got prove sufficient? What are the safeguards that should be built in? How can this be done?

Chapter 6: Simplifying and streamlining the benefit system.

abolish Income Support – (simpler structure around 2 main benefits Jobseekers Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance).
seeking views on how carers, those in trade disputes etc. should be handled after Income Support is abolished.
consider issues for reform in the longer term (e.g.) Bereavement Benefits and Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit.
longer term reform of social fund (to decrease overall Financial Exclusion).

Question 22: Is a system based on a single overarching benefit the right long-term aspiration? How could a simpler system be structured so as to meet varying needs and responsibilities?

Question 23: Would moving carers currently on IS onto JSA be a suitable way of helping them to access the support available to help combine caring with paid work or preparing for paid work?

Question 24: How might we reform Bereavement Benefit and IIDB to provide better support to help people adjust to their new circumstances while maintaining the work focus of the modern welfare state?

Question 25: Are lump sum payments a good way of meeting people’s needs? Do they give people more choice and control? Could we make more use of them?

Chapter 7. Empowerment and devolution – a new way of delivering services

devolving power to deliver local flexibility.
empowering individuals – greater choice of which provider they use.

Question 26: What information would providers need to make the Right to Bid effective? How would the evaluation process need to work to give providers confidence that their ideas would be evaluated fairly and effectively? How do we get the balance right between rewarding those who come up with new ideas and the obligation to tender projects?

Question 27: What would the processes around contributing to commissioning and performance management look like in a range of different partnership areas? How might they best be managed to achieve the desired outcomes?

Question 28: How could a link be made to the radical proposals for the pilots set out in Chapter 3, which seek to reward providers for outcomes out of the benefit savings they achieve?

Question 29: How effective are current monitoring and evaluation arrangements for City Strategies?

Correspondence from DSD 10 February 2009

Briefing Paper from DSD 2 July 2009

Welfare Reform Bill 2009

Part	Measures in GB Bill	NI position
1 - Social Security
“Work for your benefit" schemes	These schemes will be for long-term jobseekers who have received increasingly intensive support from Jobcentre Plus and specialist back-to-work providers. The pilots, which will be limited to certain geographical areas, will be commenced from 2010 to assess their effectiveness. They will give jobseekers the opportunity to develop their work skills through undertaking full time work-experience. Work for your benefit schemes will also be piloted for some jobseekers who are likely to benefit from the scheme at an earlier stage of unemployment. The schemes will be mandatory and aim to help jobseekers find sustained work in the open labour market. Some jobseekers are likely to face particular barriers due to the length of time they have been away from employment. Work for Your Benefit schemes are intended to enable them to benefit from the opportunity to develop work habits and routines that they may not have experienced for some time.	The Department for Social Development will consider the outcome of the pilots in Britain and will consult with the Department for Employment and Learning before introducing “Work for your benefit" schemes. The pilots will commence in 2010 for 2 years. We do not normally run pilots in Northern Ireland
Revised system of working-age benefits	All lone parents on income support are required to participate in work-focused interviews (WFIs) as part of their claim. The lone parent WFI regime has been expanded over time and since April 2008 has required all lone parents to undergo regular interviews, generally every six months. The WFIs aim to encourage more lone parents to take up sustainable work and ensure that all lone parents are aware of the help and support available to them. Since October 2005 lone parents have been required to agree a mandatory action plan with their Jobcentre Plus Personal Advisor as a condition of completing their initial WFI, helping lone parents and their advisors concentrate on their longer-term goals and set the steps they can take or are taking to prepare for work. Lone parents who wish to take up the offer of greater support to move towards employment can volunteer for the New Deal for Lone Parents programme. This aims to help and encourage lone parents to improve their job readiness and employment opportunities and gain independence through working. This is achieved through providing access to various elements of assistance and provision made available through a New Deal Personal Adviser. There has been an increase on the obligation for lone parents with older children to look for work. By 2010 this will extend to lone parents with a youngest child aged seven and over by removing entitlement to income support solely on the grounds of being a lone parent. Those who are able to work can claim jobseeker’s allowance instead, and those with a disability or health condition may claim employment and support allowance.	The Department for Social Development will consult with the Department for Employment and Learning before introducing the measures in Northern Ireland decision on the various aspects for Northern Ireland. Particular considerations here will clearly be the availability of childcare and resource implications for the Department for Employment and Learning.
	Partners of jobseeker’s allowance claimants with children are also required to take part in a compulsory WFI every six months, whilst partners of benefit claimants in receipt of income support, incapacity benefit or employment and support allowance are required to attend only one WFI six months into their partner’s claim. Similarly to lone parents, a partner who wishes to volunteer for extra support following a WFI is able to take up the New Deal for Partners programme. To support more partners into employment, there are powers in this Bill which may be applied to require more activity from partners in return for benefits. Acknowledging that more needs to be done to support partners with younger children, there are proposals to evaluate and introduce new measures for lone parents and partners of benefit recipients with younger children, in line with the long-term vision for personalised conditionality proposed by Professor Paul Gregg in his independent report Realising potential: a vision for personalised conditionality and support. The proposed powers in the Bill will underpin Professor Gregg’s recommendation that in the long-term parents with younger children should generally be part of a “Progression to Work" group, for whom an immediate return to work is not appropriate, but is a genuine possibility with time, encouragement and support. The intention is to establish a personalised conditionality regime which is tailored to the individual’s circumstances, so that preparation for work becomes a natural progression rather than a sudden step up. The Bill includes provision that will ensure lone parents and partners of benefit recipients in the Progression to Work group are required to undertake action planning and work-related activities. These actions and activities are broadly defined to ensure they are appropriate to the needs and circumstances of each individual. In instances where work-related activity is identified which will improve their employment prospects, for example as a result of a skills health check, individuals may be directed to carry this out. The measure will be piloted in a number of areas in Britain from 2010 for 2 years
Abolition of income support	The intention is to eventually abolish income support as people currently receiving it are moved on to other benefits such as income based Jobseekers Allowance or income based Employment and Support Allowance. One group which can be moved is made up of people who may receive income support in addition to statutory sick pay. There is provision in the Bill to allow people who are receiving statutory sick pay to claim income-related employment and support allowance instead of income support.	This measure will be replicated in the Northern Ireland Bill. There is no specific date for this. Instead it is intended that Income Support will disappear over time as customer groups are moved off it.
Work-related activity for claimants of employment and support allowance	There is provision in the Bill to direct an employment and support (ESA) claimant to undertake a specific work-related activity in certain circumstances. This extends the provision in section 13 of the Welfare Reform Act 2007 which requires ESA claimants (with the exception of those in the support group) to undertake a work-related activity of their choice. This could be used, for example, where a person has significant barriers to work which they have been encouraged to address but refuse to do so or where an ESA claimant has failed to meet their general work-related actively requirement without good cause.,This will be piloted in Britain starting in October 2010 and March 2011	This measure will be replicated in the Northern Ireland Bill.
Jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance: drugs	The White Paper set out the Government’s view that for a number of people the biggest barrier to work was their drug use. The Bill provides for problem drug users to be directed to make, and comply with, a rehabilitation plan. In some circumstances they could also be required to undergo drug testing. Pilots will be carried out in Great Britain to test the proposed arrangements.	This measure will not be replicated in the Northern Ireland Bill
Contributory jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance	In addition to making provision concerning conditionality, there is provision to amend the contribution conditions for both contributory jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance. This will mean that in order to qualify, new claimants will normally need to have paid national insurance contributions for at least 26 weeks in one of the last two tax years prior to the claim. This will align the contribution condition for Employment and Support Allowance and Jobseekers Allowance and ensure entitlement to the contributory elements is linked to a period of recent work.	This measure will be replicated in the Northern Ireland Bill
Disability Living Allowance	There is provision to extend the mobility component of disability living allowance to certain people with severe visual impairments. This will allow those with severe sight impairment to have access to the higher rate of mobility component.	This measure will be replicated in the Northern Ireland Bill
Abolition of adult dependency increases	There is provision to remove an adult dependency increase from maternity allowance and from carer’s allowance in line with the abolition of adult dependency increases from state pension. This is the final stage in the process of removing adult dependency increases. Adult dependency increases are a legacy of an era where one single breadwinner(normally male) was the norm. Existing claimants will have their adult dependency increase protected until 2020.	This measure will be replicated in the Northern Ireland Bill
External provider social loans	The discretionary Social Fund is a cash-limited system of one-off payments, mainly to people receiving pension credit, income support, income-related employment and support allowance or income-based jobseeker’s allowance – although crisis loans are available to anyone, whether on benefit or not, who are without the resources to meet their immediate, urgent needs. In November 2008 the Government published a consultation document The Social Fund: A new approach, which sought views on the merits of taking legislative powers to allow some credit unions, and similar organisations from the third sector, to take over the provision of credit to social fund customers in their areas, under contract to the Department for Work and Pensions. Following the end of that consultation the decision was taken to implement this proposal, and clauses are therefore included in the Bill allowing for the provision of “external provider social loans". There is also provision in the Bill to restrict access to social fund crisis loans or budgeting loans to those areas in which external provider social loans will not be available.	This measure will not be replicated in the Northern Ireland Bill
Community Care Grants	Under the existing arrangements successful applicants for community care grants may be provided with cash to obtain the goods or services that the award covers. At the discretion of the appropriate officer, a payment may be made to a third party to provide the goods or services. There is provision in the Bill to allow for the Secretary of State to require that, where goods or services are covered by arrangements that the Secretary of State has made with a supplier, the award made must relate to specified goods or services and the payment would be made to the supplier. It is expected that these arrangements will involve the supply of white goods and furniture at a discounted rate.	This measure will be replicated in the Northern Ireland Bill
Payments on account	Every year thousands of people make a social fund application because they are without funds but are awaiting the award or payment of benefit. There is provision to extend the existing provisions for making and recovering a payment of benefit on account. This will replace the need for people to apply for social fund crisis loans on the grounds that their health or safety is at risk.	This measure will be replicated in the Northern Ireland Bill
Benefit sanctions for offenders Benefit sanctions for violent conduct	There are amendments to the current provisions dealing with the consequences of benefit fraud. The amendments allow for the loss of benefit following one or more conviction, penalty or caution for benefit fraud. Clause 22 also introduces a new sanction provision for those in receipt of jobseeker’s allowance who have been convicted or cautioned for violence against anyone exercising functions under the Jobseeker’s Act 1995.	This measure will be replicated in the Northern Ireland Bill This measure will be replicated in the Northern Ireland Bill
Benefit sanctions for those who fail to attend mandatory appointments	There is provision in the Bill to allow for the introduction by regulations of a new one-week benefit sanction for those customers who fail to attend their mandatory appointments within the Jobseekers Allowance regime This will be a stronger incentive to attend these important appointments, and will reduce operational burden on Jobcentre Plus in having to close and re-open claims where customers have been out of touch for just a few days, because of the current arrangements for disentitlement. Currently if a customer fails to attend their appointment their claim is closed, even if they return in just 1 or 2 days, unless they can show good cause for the failure to attend. Jobcentre Plus then opens a new claim. This not only places unnecessary operational burden on Jobcentre Plus, but also means that the customer may only lose 1 or 2 days benefit which is not an effective disincentive to failing to attend their appointment. This new sanction will mean those customers returning within 5 days working days will not have their claim closed, but they will receive a week sanction for their failure. This is a stronger incentive for encouraging attendance than the existing disentitlement system, as customers will consistently be sanctioned for a full week’s benefit If a customer repeats this behaviour in the same claim, then on the 2nd failure this sanction will escalate to 2 weeks loss of Jobseeker’s Allowance.	This measure will be replicated in the Northern Ireland Bill
Pilot schemes	There is provision in the Bill to pilot, for a period of up to 12 months, ways in which state pension credit entitlement may be calculated and paid in order to increase the numbers of eligible persons receiving benefit. Regulations will be made which would allow the payment of state pension credit without a claim being made and with modified rules concerning how the entitlement is determined.	This measure will not be replicated in the Northern Ireland Bill as we do not normally run pilots in Northern Ireland. If the pilot is successful and the scheme is rolled out, we will replicate the scheme in Northern Ireland.
	There is also provision to amend the Jobseekers Act 1995 and the Welfare Reform Act 2007 which allow for the piloting of regulations relating to working-age benefits. Piloting regulations can have effect only in specified areas and in relation to specified classes of persons. At the moment piloting regulations can only have effect for a maximum of 12 months under the Jobseekers Act 1995 and a maximum of 24 months under the Welfare Reform Act 2007. The Bill makes provision to extend and align both these time limits to 36 months.	This measure will be replicated in the Northern Ireland Bill
Miscellaneous	There is provision to allow the contracting out of certain functions of the Secretary of State under the Jobseekers Act 1995. Some types of decisions, for example failure to comply with requirements, good cause for failure and any reductions in jobseeker’s allowance are excluded and cannot be contracted out.	The relevant functions are the responsibility of the Department for Employment and Learning . This measure will be replicated in the Northern Ireland Bill
	There is provision to expand the definition of social security information in the Jobseekers Act 1995. It does this by providing that such information should be taken to be social security information. This is linked to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 in which section 72 deals with data-sharing for social security purposes, between Ministers of the Crown, people carrying out functions on their behalf, or designated by a Minister of the Crown, and local authorities.	This measure will be replicated in the Northern Ireland Bill
	The Social Security Administration Act 1992 will be amended to broaden the definition of social security information to include information related to work-focused interviews.	This measure will be replicated in the Northern Ireland Bill
	Under the existing legislation a person who is under 60 years of age and claiming any one of a number of specified benefits, that person is required to take part in a work-focused interview as a condition of continuing to receive the full amount of that benefit. There is provision to amend the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to extend the requirement so that where the claimant has a partner, and both are under 60 years of age, they are both required to attend work-focused interviews. From April 2010 the process of equalising state pension age at 65 for both men and women will begin. The state pension age for women will gradually be increased over a 10 year period until it reaches 65. To reflect these changes, the age at which a person will be required to take part in a work focused interview will also increase.	This measure will be replicated in the Northern Ireland Bill
	There is provision for some minor technical amendments to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992.	These amendments will be replicated in the Northern Ireland Bill
2 – Disabled people: right to control provision of services
Introductory	In 2005, the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit published the report “Improving the life Chances of Disabled People". This report set out a cross-government strategy to improve disabled people’s opportunities and quality of life, with the commitment of achieving full equality for disabled people by 2025. The report recognised that disabled people are often expected to fit into an inflexible framework of service provision, rather than services being personalised to respond to individual need. Subsequent publications including the concordat “Putting People First" (2007) and the “Independent Living Strategy" (2008) have outlined commitments to creating a system that allows disabled people to have maximum choice and control over the support services they receive.	This is not a social security issue. In Northern Ireland it cuts across the responsibilities of a number of departments including the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Department for Employment and Learning. This part will not be included in the Northern Ireland Bill.
3 – Child Maintenance
Child Maintenance	Currently the courts have the power to disqualify from driving or commit to prison non-resident parents who have failed to pay child maintenance. The Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 added to these powers the ability to curfew or to disqualify from holding or obtaining travel authorisation. There is provision to allow the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission to administratively make the decision in the case of disqualification for holding or obtaining a driving licence or travel authorisation, with the court dealing with appeals against the Commission’s decision.	The power to administratively disqualify a non-resident parent from holding or obtaining travel authorisation will not be introduced in Northern Ireland.
	There is provision for the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission, to pilot for a period of two years, the power to disqualify the non-resident parent from driving. The Secretary of State must prepare a report on the operation of the withdrawal of driving licences during this period and the report must be laid before parliament within six months of the end of the pilot period.	As we do not normally run pilots in Northern Ireland, This measure will not be replicated in the Northern Ireland Bill. If it is decided to proceed to national roll-out of the proposal to administratively disqualify a non-resident parent from holding or obtaining a driving licence, the measure will be implemented in Northern Ireland
	There is also provision to allow the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission to operate on annual basis in relation to payments of child maintenance, it will be an offence for failure to notify the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission of a change of circumstances and the time bar for investigating the supply of false of misleading	These measures will be replicated in the Northern Ireland Bill
4 – Birth registration
Birth Registration	Under existing legislation, a father who is not married to the mother of his child at the time of the child’s birth may have his details entered on the birth register only with the co-operation of the child’s mother or where there is a court finding of his paternity. There is provision to amendment the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 and the Children Act 1989 to promote child welfare and parental responsibility by ensuring, where possible, that unmarried parents jointly register the birth of their children.	This measure will not be replicated in the Northern Ireland Bill as the Department of Finance and Personnel, who have responsibility for Birth Registration, has indicated that it does not intend to legislate on this
5 – General
General	This Part contains clauses dealing with consequential amendments, repeals and revocations of other legislation, financial provisions, the extent of the Bill, commencement of provisions of the Bill and the short title.	With the exception of the financial provisions and extent of the Bill, these measures will be replicated in the Northern Ireland Bill

Correspondence from DSD 27 November 2009

Mr Peter McCallion
Social Development Committee Clerk
Room 419
Parliament Buildings
Stormont
BELFAST
BT4 3SW

Date: 27 November 2009

Dear Peter

Northern Ireland Welfare Reform Bill - Equality Impact Assessment

The Social Development Committee has requested briefing for their meeting on 3rd December on the outcome of the consultation on the Equality Impact Assessment for the Northern Ireland Welfare Reform Bill.

A summary of the responses and comments on them is attached for the Committee’s information.

Copies of the Equality Impact Assessment were issued to 57 organisations. Responses were received from Disability Action, Advice NI, Law Centre (NI), Northern Ireland Union of Supported Employment, Women’s Centres Regional Partnership, and the Health and Social Care Board Western Office.

Although the period for consultation was due to close on 22 September 2009, the period was extended to 6 November for some organisations who requested the Equality Impact Assessment in an easy read format. No comments were received on the easy read version.

Yours sincerely

Margaret Sisk Signature

Margaret Sisk

cc John Ball
Billy Crawford
Rory Muldrew

Correspondence from DSD 27 November 2009 Appendix 1

Welfare Reform Bill – Equality Impact Assessment comments

Comments Received From	Points raised	Response
	Work for your Benefit
Western Office HSC Board Advice NI Northern Ireland Union Of Supported Employment Disability Action Law Centre(NI)	There is potential that employers may offer placements linked to the scheme as opposed to recruitment from the wider labour market There is a specific challenge for those living in rural areas as there is restricted access to affordable childcare, public transport and job opportunities. Also, many rural dwellers are under-employed in farming yet play a vital role in supporting and maintaining sustainable development which is important to the population’s health and well-being There are concerns regarding the introduction of the “Work for your Benefits" programme for people with disabilities and people from disadvantaged groups. The national minimum wage should be paid to anyone undertaking work through ‘work for your benefit’, rather than the £1.73 implied by the proposal. Such schemes need to take into consideration the impact this will have on families.	There are risks associated with “Work for your Benefit" schemes but the EQIA makes it clear that such schemes will only be considered in Northern Ireland after their concept has been tested by pilot in Great Britain and proven satisfactory. Work for your Benefit measures will be designed to ensure that they are appropriate to the needs and circumstances of the individual - those circumstances may include the area in which that individual lives. Only JSA recipients who must be available for and actively seeking work will be required to participate in Work for Your Benefit. Customers who have restrictions within their Jobseeker’s Agreement relating to the days and hours they must be available to work will be able to carry these forward to restrict the time they must be available for Work for Your Benefit. Wanting to pay the National Minimum Wage for Work for Your Benefit is based on a misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of the programme. It is not employment. It is an employment programme. It is designed very specifically to give people not only the chance to develop work habits and experience through supported placements, but also to deliver tailored back to work support. Paying the National Minimum Wage for Work for Your Benefit would result in an erosion of incentives to move into the open labour market and into paid employment.
	Work Related Activity – Employment and Support Allowance
Law Centre(NI) Disability Action Advice NI WCRP	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. ‘Work-related activities’ through Employment and Support Allowance may have a disproportionate affect on people with mental health problems and those with childcare and caring responsibilities (mainly women). Participating in mandatory work related programmes is likely to have substantial adverse implications for claimants and their dependants. Such schemes should be on a voluntary basis. The question must be asked as to the extent that Personal Advisers (who are not medically trained and indeed may have little or know knowledge of the disability) should be “encouraging, persuading and supporting people to take up work-related activity", and initiating benefit penalty processes should the claimant allegedly not be fulfilling their responsibilities.	Although our intention is to monitor the Great Britain pilots, this does not preclude us from running our own pilots to see what could be done that may be more appropriate in Northern Ireland.. Should it be considered useful to do so, the Department for Employment and Learning will consider such an approach but there will be resource implications that will need addressed before commitments can be made. This will include any proposals to increase Access to Work budgets The reforms are designed to help all people including disabled people and those with health conditions into work. The measures have been designed to have a positive impact on people with health conditions and disabilities and aim to promote equality of opportunity. Where a Personal Adviser considers that a person, who is required to take part in an interview, is not fit to engage because of their condition they can defer participation until the condition settles down. This is particularly the case in relation to claimants with mental health impairments where conditions can fluctuate quite dramatically in a short space of time.
		Personal advisers are trained to work at the claimant’s pace and not to force people to do things if that would be counter-productive. Where a person’s capability for work-related activity is limited by a physical or mental condition and the limitation is such that it is unreasonable to require the person to undertake work-related activity, no conditionality is required and they will not be asked to participate in work-focused interviews or work-related activity. The training given to personal advisers provides them with the skills required to interact successfully with claimants with a range of health conditions and disabilities. The training package includes key messages around health and disability, perceptions about health issues, background to specific health conditions and their impact, as well as active listening and customer interaction skills. Sanctions will only be applied when claimants are clearly refusing to engage or undertake any activity which is effective for them. There are measures in place to ensure that the individual circumstances of anyone referred for a sanction are considered, before the decision to remove benefit is made. For a jobseeker to be sanctioned their Personal Adviser needs to refer their case to a Decision Maker, who is independent of both the Adviser and the jobseeker.
	Supporting parents with younger children into employment
Law Centre(NI) Advice NI Northern Ireland Union Of Supported Employment	There is concern that there is not enough childcare provision available to assist lone parents to take up employment. Until this is fully addressed lone parents should be encouraged to take up employment not forced. Lone parents with disabilities may need additional support to assist them to find employment, are the Jobs and Benefit Office Personal Advisors appropriately trained and resourced to assist people with disabilities to progress to work? Is there a process in place to ensure that decisions are consistent and fair in deciding whether the parent has provided evidence which demonstrates that they are not able to take up a job because appropriate childcare is not available?	The Progression to Work programme will be piloted in the first instance in Great Britain for a minimum of two years. It will require lone parents and partners of certain benefit recipients with younger children, to undertake mandatory action planning and work-related activities, which are flexible and personally tailored to their needs, disabilities and circumstances. These groups will not be required to take up work as a condition of their benefit but will have to show what they are doing to progress towards a return to work at the appropriate time for them. Participating in work related activity will be subject to the availability of suitable and affordable childcare where this is necessary. The childcare position in Northern Ireland is fully recognised and will be taken into account. Customers with disabilities can access the full range of the Department for Employment and Learning disability programmes regardless of the benefit they claim. The Department for Employment and Learning has a comprehensive suite of programmes already in place. In addition to the advice and guidance afforded to Personal Advisers and Decision Makers and the measures in place to request a review or appeal, the internal systems for monitoring the quality of decision making ensure that decisions on sanctions are consistent and fair.
	Partners of Benefit recipients
Northern Ireland Union Of Supported Employment Law Centre(NI) Disability Action	Affordable childcare provision for shift workers, after school or at weekends is still not available. We do not support forcing couples where one partner is entitled to ESA or IS to claim JSA. We would recommend and support a voluntary approach for partners to come forward for work-related activity. There is a real risk that women may find it harder to combine looking for work with childcare responsibilities and will miss out on the adviser support available and potentially be subject to sanctions	Partners of certain benefit recipients with younger children will be required to undertake mandatory action planning and work-related activities, which are flexible and personally tailored to their needs and circumstances. These groups will not be required to take up work as a condition of their benefit but will have to make clear what they are doing to progress towards a return to work at the appropriate time for them. As with lone parents, participating in work related activity will be subject to the availability of suitable and affordable childcare where this is necessary. The childcare position in Northern Ireland is fully recognised and will be taken into account.
	JSA: Sanctions for Violent Conduct in Connection with Claim
Northern Ireland Union Of Supported Employment Advice NI Law Centre(NI)	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 the benefit sanctions. We note that the EQIA has not carried out an impact assessment on these proposals and would seek clarification as to the reasons for this decision. Account should be taken of those who are suffering mental problems as their actions could be directly linked to their medical condition. Care needed to ensure that vulnerable clients are not put at greater risk of poverty, debt and isolation that could aggravate their condition.	The sanction would only apply following a conviction or caution. This means that the Courts would have already considered and reached judgement on the offence, and in the case of cautions, guilt will have been admitted by the offender. Because the numbers are small it is not possible to give a breakdown of the gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or disability of the jobseekers that will be impacted by this proposal. Vulnerable claimants such as disabled people or people with a mental health condition will not suffer a complete loss of benefit. They may still be eligible to receive reduced hardship payments as is the case with other benefit sanctions. There are already measures in place to ensure that the individual circumstances of anyone referred for a sanction are considered before the decision to remove benefit is made.
	NIUSE agrees that government staff must be protected from violent behaviour whether it is actual or threatened. NIUSE believes that the blanket use of sanctions and conditionality is inappropriate and will do little to prevent or reduce risk to staff. With the increase in number of people with disabilities and health related conditions applying for JSA this proposal will have a direct impact on them. Specific concerns exist for people who experience severe and fluctuating mental health issues. More and more people with mental health problems previously would have been in receipt of incapacity related benefits but now do not quality for ESA. They will find themselves subject to a JSA regime which may be inappropriate for them.
	Attendance in connection with jobseeker’s allowance: sanctions
Law Centre(NI)	We would welcome further information regarding what constitutes ‘good cause’ and the criteria for deciding whether to suspend payments for one or two weeks. We are concerned that sanctions could be imposed before due regard is given to the demonstration of good cause and we are apprehensive about empowering social services staff with further discretion to suspend payments.	The sanction of one week’s loss of JSA will apply to customers who fail to attend their appointments, without good cause, and who return to the Jobs and Benefits Office within 5 working days of their failure. Customers who don’t return within 5 working days will have their claim closed, as is the case currently, and will need to re-claim whenever they do attend. If a customer repeats this behaviour in the same claim, then on the 2nd failure this sanction will escalate to 2 weeks loss of JSA. “Good cause" can include attending a job interview, health or disability problems, attending a funeral etc. The list is not exhaustive. The decision maker will consider each case on its merits.
	Loss of benefit provision
Advice NI	There is concern that this could be the start of a culture of suspending benefits for less serious offences than fraud. Both staff and claimants would need to be very clear as to the implications of being subject to formal cautions and agreeing to administrative penalties.	A one strike 4 week benefit sanction can only be applied in criminal cases where there is sufficient evidence to consider referring the case to the Public Prosecution Service. In the less serious of these criminal cases, the Agency has the option to offer a lower level sanction as an alternative to prosecution. The lower level sanctions available are an administrative penalty (which is similar to a fine) or a formal caution. However, the customer must agree to accept a lower level sanction - it cannot simply be imposed by the Agency. The implications of accepting a lower level sanction, along with the impact of the new ‘one strike’ sanction on benefit entitlement, will be explained fully to the customer at interview before they decide whether or not to accept the sanction. All cases where the customer waives the offer of a lower level sanction will be referred to the Public Prosecution Service to consider prosecution through the courts. In all such cases, the decision whether or not to impose a new ‘one strike’ sanction will be deferred until Court proceedings are completed.
	Abolition of Income Support
Law Centre(NI) Northern Ireland Union Of Supported Employment WCRP Disability Action	The proposal to simplify the system by moving all claimants to Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance is simplistic and infeasible. 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. Income Support also offers a lifeline to women experiencing domestic and sexual violence. Women leaving domestic violence, with their children, would be treated as job seekers, with only a three-month exemption from job seeking. This will serve to discourage victims from leaving an abusive partner or to return to the situation as they are financially vulnerable. There is concern regarding Carer’s Allowance and Income Support (including passporting benefits such as Housing Benefit, free school dinners, eye tests etc) and how they would be transferred over and protected.	The Bill will provide for a new form of Jobseeker’s Allowance to be paid to people in prescribed groups who cannot meet the usual jobseeking conditions. To all intents and purposes this new form of Jobseeker’s Allowance will be the same as Income Support and regulations will be made setting out clearly which groups can receive it. There will therefore be no doubt as to whether particular groups have or have not been provided for. Income Support will not be abolished until suitable arrangements have been made for all groups currently entitled to claim Income Support. Passporting benefits will not be affected
	Abolition of Adult Dependency Increases
Law Centre(NI) Advice NI Western Office HSC Board	This appears to be a purely money saving exercise and a further erosion of the national insurance principle. Carers or those on maternity leave who have not worked sufficiently long enough to claim statutory maternity pay should not be penalised where they have a partner who is also not working. It is proposed that a full, comprehensive, independent benefits check be offered to each of the individuals affected by this change There are still many vulnerable adults who may be at risk and the service needs to be altered to protect them	The proposals regarding the abolition of adult dependency increases will simplify the benefit system and make it fairer. New claimants from April 2010 will no longer be able to claim an adult dependency increase in addition to the personal rate of Carer’s Allowance or Maternity Allowance. However, those claimants who are already in receipt of an adult dependency increase will continue to receive the increase until the end of their Maternity Allowance period. In the case of Carer’s Allowance, the increase will be phased out between 2010 and 2020. This is in line with the arrangements already in place for phasing out adult dependency increases with State Pension. Additional support for lower income households remains available through the income-related benefits, which include higher amounts for couples and carers. Depending on the individual circumstances a range of social security benefits is available including Disability Living Allowance, Attendance Allowance, Employment and Support Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, Jobseeker’s Allowance, State Pension as well as the income-related benefits such as Income Support and Pension Credit.
	Community Care Grant applicants will be provided with the item they have applied for rather than money.
Advice NI Western Office HSC Board	It is important that clients are not stigmatised, offered inferior goods and given reasonable choice Any system of this kind will create stigma. In terms of social inclusion policies a person who is not free to spend may not consider themselves a full member of society with such a system being seen as being linked to charity, rather than an entitlement. This approach may well particularly disincentivise older people from claiming their entitlement.	The provision of goods or services as opposed to cash will improve the service by ensuring that applicants receive value for money. The application process will become quicker and clearer and will result in a speedier delivery of goods or services. In deciding the arrangements to be made with suppliers the Department will consider a wide range of requirements which should ensure that it can deliver a high quality service in a manner that is suitable for and acceptable to all applicants.
	General Comments on Social Security Provisions
Northern Ireland Union of Supported Employment Disability Action	Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance claimants will have added pressure to find employment during this economic recession with less employment opportunities available and with increasing numbers of individuals looking for work. There is concern that the Government has allocated insufficient resources (i.e. staff, training etc) to implement the Welfare Reform Bill 2009. For example with the introduction of “Work for Your Benefit Programme" do JSA Personal Advisors have the specialist skills to identify suitable work experience and support individuals during this period? The Welfare Reform Bill 2009 focuses mainly on assisting and supporting individuals to move from benefits (JSA and ESA) into employment. The paper fails to address the issue of maintaining an individual in employment. Without the right support in employment, vulnerable individuals may find themselves losing their job and returning to claim benefits.	In the current economic climate it is more important than ever to ensure that families are given the help and support they need to improve their employment prospects. The Department for Employment and Learning has more staff who are better trained and delivering a wider range of programmes to people with ill health and/or disabilities than ever before. Work for your Benefit schemes will not be considered in Northern Ireland before the pilots in Great Britain have demonstrated that this approach is effective. There are resource implications for Departments associated with the 2009 Bill and these will need to be addressed before all of the provisions can be implemented. The Department for Employment and Learning has a range of programmes including Access to Work (NI), New Deal for Disabled People, Workable NI, Job Introduction Scheme etc which are specifically designed to help people with disabilities train for, find and remain in work.
	Child Support-Child Maintenance
Western Office HSC Board	Withdrawal of driving licence for non payment of child maintenance – while this action is understandable, it is important that it does not result in the non-resident parent facing barriers to work or social inclusion	The legislation will make clear that before disqualifying a non-resident parent from driving the Department must consider if s the licence is needed in order to earn a living. This would not necessarily prevent the decision being made but the overall intention is to encourage payment and not deprive the non-resident parent of the means to pay. This action will only be taken as a last resort when other methods to secure payment have failed.
	Contracting out Functions
Disability Action Northern Ireland Union of Supported Employment Western Office HSC Board	There is concern regarding the delivery of service and quality of service delivered under this method. In the past there have been similar government programmes which have been contracted out, based on output related funding. Some providers did not have the best interest of the individual in mind and the focus was on numbers rather than the quality of service. Once again those who were the most vulnerable (i.e. people with disabilities) were most affected. There is concern regarding the use of Prime contractors. Would encourage DSD to examine how those services could be delivered by the community and voluntary sector as they have easier access to the most disadvantaged in our society	The Department for Employment and Learning recognises that sub-contractor partnerships will provide access to genuine specialisms which will address local requirements, particular areas of disadvantage and increase credibility within the geographic locations they are operating. Private providers have been strong in exploiting flexible approaches to helping people back to work and are highly responsive to the incentives built into their contracts.
		The Department for Employment and Learning will consider how it might contract with external provider to deliver the best outcomes for customers Performance improvement will be managed on a day to day basis by the Department for Employment and Learning at an appropriate level. Any Lead contractors will be responsible for ensuring that their sub-contractors meet the agreed performance and quality standards. Contracts will stipulate that providers should not discriminate against any customer on the grounds of disability (amongst others) and that reasonable adjustments are made to ensure full participation for all customers. In addition providers need to have equality and diversity and harassment policies in place and arrange for diversity training for new and existing staff. They will also be required to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people. A commissioning strategy will put in place incentives to encourage new providers into the market and drive better outcomes for customers. Private and voluntary sector providers are valuable partners. Wherever possible their expertise will be drawn on. Third sector organisations play a vital role in welfare provision and are well placed to offer services because of their local experience, knowledge of what their community needs and credibility with their constituency groups.

Welfare Reform Bill
(Northern Ireland) 2010

Completed Equality Impact Assessment

December 2009

Index

1. Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998

2. Equality Impact Assessment

3. Consultation

4. Monitoring

5. Executive Summary

6. Aims of the Policy

7. Responsibility for Developing and Delivering Policy

8. Consideration of available Data and Research

9. Consultation comments and the Department’s response

10. Personalised conditionality

Schemes for assisting persons to obtain employment

Supporting parents with younger children into employment

Partners of Benefit Recipients

Work-related Activity for claimants of Employment and Support Allowance

Persons of pensionable age to take part in Work-focused Interviews

11. More support matched by higher expectations for jobseekers

Jobseeker’s Allowance: sanctions for violent conduct in connection with claim

Attendance in connection with Jobseeker’s Allowance sanctions

Loss of benefits provision

12. Simpler Benefits system

Abolition of Income Support

Persons entitled to Jobseeker’s Allowance without meeting jobseeking conditions

Statutory Sick Pay and Employment and Support Allowance

Contribution-based Jobseeker’s Allowance and contributory Employment
and Support Allowance

Abolition of Adult Dependency Increases in Carer’s Allowance and Maternity Allowance

13. Other Social Security Proposals

Social Fund – community care grants

Payments on Account

Disability Living Allowance for blind claimants

14. Child Maintenance

Administrative withdrawal of driving licences

Payments of child support maintenance

Offences relating to information

15. Contracting Out Functions

Functions performed by the Department for Employment and Learning

16. List of organisations consulted

Annex A - Equality Impact Assessment comments

1. Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998

Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (“the 1998 Act") requires The Department for Social Development, in carrying out its functions to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity between:

persons of different religious belief, political opinion, racial group, age, marital status or sexual orientation;
men and women generally;
persons with a disability and persons without; and
persons with dependants and persons without.

In addition, the Department must, in carrying out its functions, have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group.

In accordance with Schedule 9 to the 1998 Act, the Department for Social Development has produced an Equality Scheme which explains how it will implement its obligations under Section 75. A copy of the Scheme, which was approved by the Equality Commission on 15 March 2001, is available on the Department’s website at http://www.dsdni.gov.uk. Copies are also available in printed form and, on request, in alternative formats such as Braille, large print, disc, audio cassette and in minority languages to meet the needs of those who are not fluent in English from Departmental headquarters through a request to:

The Office of the Permanent Secretary
4th Floor
Lighthouse Building
1 Cromac Place
Gasworks Business Park
Ormeau Road
Belfast BT7 2JB

2. Equality Impact Assessment

In order to comply with its Section 75 obligations, the Department carried out an Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA) on the proposals within the Welfare Reform Bill 2009.

The primary function of an EQIA is to assess the extent of differential impact of policy on Section 75 categories, and groups within those categories, and to determine whether that impact is adverse, i.e. whether the policy negatively affects people within one or more of the equality groups[1].

When undertaking an EQIA, the Department closely follows the guidance published by the Equality Commission in April 2001 (revised 2005). This recommends that there should be seven steps in the EQIA process:

Step 1 Defining the aims of the policy.

Step 2 Consideration of available data and research.

Step 3 Assessment of impacts.

Step 4 Consideration of:

measures which might mitigate any adverse impact; and
alternative policies which might better achieve the promotion of equality of opportunity.

Step 5 Formal consultation.

Step 6 Decision and publication of the results of the EQIA.

Step 7 Monitoring for adverse impact.

This report includes information on the publication of the results of the EQIA.

3. Consultation

In June 2009 the Department issued an Equality Impact Assessment for consultation in which it examined the implications of the proposed Welfare Reform Bill in relation to the promotion of equality of opportunity and good relations. This completed Equality Impact Assessment sets out the Department’s final analysis of the equality implications of the reforms having taken account of the comments received. An outline of the comments received and the Department’s consideration of each is given in Annex A. The document is available on the Department’s website – http://www.dsdni.gov.uk

4. Monitoring

While the parity principle is designed to ensure uniformity of provision across the United Kingdom, and in line with the Department’s commitment under the Equality Scheme, any adverse differential impacts on equality of opportunity or good relations identified will be shared with the Department for Work and Pensions and taken into account in its ongoing monitoring of the effects of the policies. Such findings will be used to inform further development of, or modification to, existing policies.

5. Executive Summary

The consultation paper on proposals for welfare reform No one written off: reforming welfare to reward responsibility was published in July 2008. This was followed by the publication of an independent review of conditionality in the benefits system by Professor Paul Gregg Realising potential: A vision for personalised conditionality and support, and the White Paper Raising Expectations and increasing support: reforming welfare for the future. The White Paper set out proposals for the continuing reform of the welfare state. These reforms started with the introduction of New Deals, and have progressed to the introduction of Employment and Support Allowance in October 2008 and most recently new obligations for lone parents with older children in November 2008.

The Westminster Welfare Reform Bill giving effect to the proposals in Great Britain has completed its stages in the House of Commons and is currently in the House of Lords. It is expected that the Bill will receive Royal Assent in Autumn 2009. The Bill will reform the welfare and benefit system to improve support and incentives for people to move from benefits into work.

The key aim of the Welfare Reform Bill is to encourage and enable as many people as possible to return to the labour market. To this end the Bill will ensure that the welfare system provides people with the opportunities that they need to improve their skills, prepare for work and move off benefits and into employment where that is appropriate. This will be achieved by engaging with customers, and helping them to overcome any barriers to work they may face, putting systems in place to ensure that customers get the personalised support they deserve and at the same time increasing personal responsibility.

The Bill will establish a personalised conditionality regime where the support to enable people to return to the labour market is tailored to their individual needs and circumstances so that preparation for work becomes a natural progression rather than a sudden step up.

The intention is to legislate to remove Income Support and move to a dual-benefit system with Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment Support Allowance as the primary benefits. This will be a significant step towards a simpler and more flexible system of benefits where people are treated as individuals not categorised by benefit labels.

To encourage participation and help to foster personal responsibility and thereby increase employment prospects, there will be a clearer sanction regime for those who fail to attend an interview or fail to sign on without a good reason. There will also be increased sanctions for those who are found to have committed benefit fraud. The current safeguards that are in place will be maintained to support vulnerable people; they may still be eligible to receive reduced hardship payments.

To get more value from the available Social Fund community care grants budget an arrangement will be made with a third party to provide successful social fund applicants with the goods or services. It is expected that these arrangements will involve the supply of white goods and furniture.

There will be additional powers for the enforcement of child maintenance arrears involving the administrative withdrawal of driving licences. These measures will only be implemented where the non-resident parent will not as opposed to cannot pay child support maintenance. There will be a requirement to notify details of changes of circumstances to ensure that the correct amount of maintenance is passed to children.

In accordance with the long-standing principle of parity between Northern Ireland and Great Britain in social security, child support and pensions matters, it is anticipated that a Northern Ireland Welfare Reform Bill will make corresponding provision for Northern Ireland.

6. Aims of the Policy

The key aim of the Bill is to further reform the welfare and benefit systems to improve support and incentives for benefit claimants, their partners and lone parents with a view to improving their employment prospects or preparing them for work in the future.

This stage of the reform is about creating a system which recognises that barriers to work can be different for each individual and which is flexible and in a position to respond with personalised support.

The aim is to provide support that is tailored to each person’s needs and give everyone the opportunity to develop skills so that they can find work. In return people will be required to make full use of the support from which they could benefit.

Those people with caring responsibilities, serious illness or disability and the parents of very young children will not be required to look for work or to undertake activity to move closer to the labour market.

Personalised conditionality

In his review Realising Potential: A Vision for Personalised Conditionality and Support Professor Paul Gregg recommended that conditionality (the principle that entitlement to benefits should be dependent on satisfying certain conditions) should be extended so that virtually no one may claim benefits without taking active steps to address their barriers to work. Professor Gregg recommended personalised conditionality and support for the 3 broad groups into which he divided benefit customers –

a work ready group – these will be customers who are claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance and are assessed as being immediately “job ready" and should therefore be able to make a prompt return to work;

a progression to work group – for people where an immediate return to work is not appropriate but there is a genuine possibility with time, encouragement and support, it could become a possibility, for example lone parents and partners of benefit recipients with younger children (a youngest child aged between one and less than seven), and Employment and Support Allowance claimants (other than those in the Employment and Support Allowance support group); and

a no conditionality group – where no requirements will be applied because it is not appropriate as they either have a particular severe health condition or disability, or they are a carer or a lone parent with their youngest child under the age of one. Making progress towards work will be completely voluntary for people in these situations.

The aim is to deliver better, more flexible, more appropriate support to people across the range of out-of-work benefits: a personalised model of support and conditionality that is not dependent on the benefit that is claimed but on the circumstances of the individual claiming it.

Schemes for assisting persons to obtain employment

To help those Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants who have been unemployed for longer than two years to improve their prospects of obtaining employment, it is proposed that they will be required to participate in a "work for your benefit" programme. This will involve jobseekers undertaking a period of full-time work for up to six months. In addition the proposal will apply to some jobseekers who are likely to benefit from the programme at an earlier stage. These programmes will initially be piloted in Great Britain for 2 years.

The introduction of the “Work for Your Benefit" programme will only be considered for Northern Ireland following a full evaluation of the pilot exercise in Great Britain and will be subject to the availability of resources.

Supporting parents with younger children into employment

There will be provision to support parents with children under 7. In line with the personalised conditionality proposed by Professor Gregg, lone parents who can work and partners of certain benefit recipients with younger children will be required to undertake activities that will enable them to progress towards work. These people will be part of the “Progression to Work" group for whom an immediate return to work is a genuine possibility with time, encouragement and support.

It is recognised that the success of these proposals would require a significant increase in the availability of affordable child care. Evidence shows that for lone parents’ balance of childcare and work, a lack of good quality, convenient and affordable childcare was a major barrier to work for lone mothers in the UK. (Bell, A., N. Finch, I. La Balle, R. Sainsbury and C. Skinner (2005) A question of balance: lone parents, childcare and work)

These proposals will initially be piloted and then evaluated in Great Britain.

Supporting partners of certain benefit claimants into employment

There will be provision to extend the existing requirement that couples with no children must make a joint-claim for Jobseeker’s Allowance to couples with a child aged 7 or over where both partners are capable of work. With a few exemptions, under these arrangements, both members of the couple will be required to be available for and actively seeking work as a condition of receiving the benefit.

The provision will also remove entitlement to Income Support and income-related Employment and Support Allowance from couples where one member of the couple is capable of work.

Currently a couple may decide between them which one will make a claim for income-related support (i.e. Income Support or income-related Employment and Support Allowance). It is proposed to remove that choice where one member of the couple is capable of work. The route to income-related help will be via Jobseeker’s Allowance. The other party to the claim will still be able to claim any contributory or non-means tested benefit they are entitled to such as contributory Employment and Support Allowance. These proposals will initially be piloted and then evaluated in Great Britain.

Work-related activity for claimants of Employment and Support Allowance

To help those in receipt of Employment and Support Allowance (except those in the Support Group) and as part of their progression to work, it is proposed that claimants undertake a specified work-related activity to help them to obtain work or remain in work. Advisers will encourage and support people to take up work-related activity which is considered necessary before requiring someone to undertake a specific activity. This will involve working with their personal adviser to draw up an action plan and will ensure that they benefit from personalised support.

These proposals will initially be piloted and then evaluated in Great Britain.

Persons of pensionable age to take part in Work-focused Interviews

From 2010 the process of equalising pension age at 65 for both men and women will begin. The state pension age for women will gradually be increased over a 10 year period until it reaches 65. To reflect these changes, the age at which a person will be required to take part in a work-focused interview will also increase.

To ensure that back to work help operates equally for all ages people aged 60 or over on working age benefits will get additional back to work support offered by way of a work-focused interview.

Jobseeker’s Allowance: Sanction for Violent Conduct in connection with Claim

The aim of the sanction is to encourage the claimant to engage with the Jobseeker Allowance labour market conditionality regime to receive the support they need to move into a job. It is proposed to introduce a benefit sanction for Jobseeker’s Allowance customers who commit acts of violence or threatening behaviour against Jobs and Benefits and Social Security Office staff or contracted staff in the course of a claim for Jobseeker’s Allowance. Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants generally come into contact with staff at least once a fortnight and this contact is usually face-to-face.

Attendance in connection with Jobseeker’s Allowance sanctions

To encourage compliance with the Jobseeker’s Allowance mandatory appointments and reduce operational burdens on Jobs and Benefits/Social Security Offices, it is proposed that entitlement to Jobseeker’s Allowance will cease for a fixed one week sanction for failure to attend a mandatory interview. This will be increased to two weeks for a second failure. This will mean that entitlement to Jobseekers’ Allowance will continue but will not be payable for a fixed period of at least one week but not more than two weeks.

Loss of benefit provisions

The proposed change is to introduce a benefit sanction following a first benefit fraud offence (“one strike"). The “one strike" sanction will be for a period of 4 weeks and will apply following a first conviction or following agreement to pay a penalty or acceptance of a caution. As with the current “two strikes" sanction, provision will be made to allow for hardship payments to be considered to meet the basic needs of vulnerable customers and those with families.

Abolition of Income Support

It is proposed that there will be provision in the Bill to pave the way for a major simplification of the benefits system. This may seem a radical change but it is the logical step in a process that has been continuing for some time. When first introduced, Income Support was a “catch all" benefit for everyone who satisfied an income test. Since then a number of new benefits have been introduced to provide support for different groups – income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance for unemployed people, Pension Credit for older people and income-related Employment and Support Allowance for sick and disabled people. In addition lone parents with older children now receive Jobseeker’s Allowance rather than Income Support.

Income Support now serves a much narrower purpose than was intended. It is used mainly for lone parents with young children, carers and a number of much smaller groups. Under the circumstances it does not make sense to retain it as a separate benefit.

Although there is no definite date to abolish Income Support, it is considered important to set out a clear intention now and thereby move to a system based on the two main benefits for people of working age.

Persons entitled to Jobseeker’s Allowance Without Meeting Jobseeking Conditions

The Bill will create a new category of modified income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance appropriate to people who will not be expected to meet the jobseeking conditions such as having to be available for and actively seeking work.

This will allow groups of people who currently claim Income Support, such as lone parents with young children, to be prescribed as able to instead claim Jobseeker’s Allowance.

Statutory Sick Pay and Employment and Support Allowance

Currently a small minority of people on Statutory Sick Pay receive an income-related top up by claiming Income Support. The Welfare Reform Act (Northern Ireland) 2007 prohibits people from receiving Employment and Support Allowance whilst they are in receipt of any Statutory Sick Pay. It is proposed to remove this exclusion to enable people in prescribed circumstances to claim income-related Employment and Support Allowance whilst in receipt of Statutory Sick Pay.

Contribution-based Jobseeker’s Allowance and contributory Employment and Support Allowance

There will be provision to modernise the qualifying conditions for contribution-based Jobseeker’s Allowance and contributory Employment and Support Allowance so that people can qualify only after a reasonable period of work.

It is important to strengthen the link between a recent, substantive period of work and entitlement to contributory working-age benefits. In future people will usually need to have worked and paid contributions for at least 26 weeks before they can qualify for these benefits.

It is intended that these changes will be applied from October 2010 to new Employment and Support Allowance and Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants only.

The existing protections that allow disadvantaged groups such as carers and young disabled people to qualify for Employment and Support Allowance will be retained.

Carer’s Allowance and Maternity Allowance - Abolition of Adult Dependency Increases

It is proposed that the payment of an adult dependency increase with Maternity Allowance and Carer’s Allowance will be abolished from April 2010. Adult dependency increases are additions to certain contributory and income-maintenance benefits paid in certain limited circumstances. Adult dependency increases have their origin in the immediate post-war period when single breadwinner households were the norm. The concept of dependency on which the increases were based does not reflect the changes in society where partnerships of equals is the norm. An increase for an adult dependant is therefore considered outdated and this measure is part of the process of simplifying and updating the benefit system to reflect modern society.

Social Fund – Community Care Grants

It is proposed that successful Community Care Grant applicants will be provided with the item they have applied for rather than money. The Department will enter into contracts with suppliers who are able to provide items such as white goods and furniture at a discounted price including services such as delivery and installation.

The most vulnerable individuals will be protected, by allowing those who have special requirements (for example through ill-health or disability), to receive items or services not part of the standard contract or even cash in some cases.

Payments on Account

An advance of 75% of weekly benefit will be made to those unable to wait until normal benefits, such as Jobseeker’s Allowance, are paid. As with crisis loans, the advance of benefit will be recovered from normal benefit. The amounts received will be the same as those provided under the current system but the double handling entailed in separate processing of the benefit claim and the crisis loan application will be avoided thereby resulting in an improved service for customers.

Disability Living Allowance Mobility Component for Blind Claimants

Entitlement to the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance depends on the nature and extent of walking difficulties that result from disability. The higher rate is for people who are physically unable to walk or virtually unable to walk. It is also available to people who are both deaf and blind. The lower rate is available to people who can walk but who need guidance or supervision from another person when walking out of doors on unfamiliar routes. Provision of the higher rate mobility component will be extended to people with blindness/severe visual impairment.

Period for which pilot schemes have effect

The maximum duration of pilots is currently 12 months for Jobseeker’s Allowance and 24 months for Employment and Support Allowance. It is proposed to extend and align the pilot periods for these benefits to 36 months so as to create consistency.

Child Maintenance

It is proposed that the Department will have the power to administratively (i.e. without application to the court) disqualify a non-resident parent who wilfully refuses to maintain their children from holding or obtaining a driving licence. An administrative process is likely to be more effective. International evidence is clear that to administratively disqualify a non-resident parent from holding or obtaining a driving licence leads to a greater amount of child maintenance being collected.

It is intended that such administrative powers would be employed sparingly – where the non-resident parent has wilfully refused or culpably neglected to pay maintenance and where the only other options would be for the Department to ask a court to imprison the non-resident parent or make him or her subject to a curfew.

Contracting out functions

There will be provision to enable certain functions of the Department for Employment and Learning to be contracted out to authorised persons and their employees. These include arranging Work-focused Interviews, creating, agreeing and reconsidering action plans as well as the issuing of directions.

The direction of travel in mainstream employment programmes is away from tightly specified contracts towards a more flexible, outcome focused approach, i.e. providers are free to take whatever steps are necessary to get results and will be paid on the basis of the number of people they get into work.

The provision will ensure that providers have the freedom to innovate and have the flexibility to tailor their services to local needs and individual circumstances. Instead of tying providers’ hands with very specific requirements, it instead pays providers by results and allows them to do what works.

7. Responsibility for Developing and Delivering Policy

Provision of social security, child support and pensions in Northern Ireland is governed by the long established policy of the maintenance of parity with Great Britain, as provided for under section 87 of the 1998 Act. In line with section 87 of the 1998 Act, there are, in effect, single systems of social security, child support and pensions across the United Kingdom: social security, child support and pensions policy is therefore developed on this basis. The Department for Social Development, in conjunction with the Department for Work and Pensions, is responsible for the delivery of policy.

The Department for Employment and Learning will be involved in the implementation of the policy in relation to work-related activities.

8. Consideration of Available Data and Research

In assessing the impacts of the policy under section 75 of the 1998 Act the Department has concluded that there is evidence of some differential impact in respect of some categories. Those impacts have been considered in light of available data and policy intention to determine whether their effect is adverse. Where this is the case, consideration has been given to mitigating factors.

The data relied on derived from a number of sources: Labour Market Statistics Bulletin Sept 2008 – Women in Northern Ireland; Report on Child Poverty (June 2008) conducted by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister; Northern Ireland Labour Force Survey (October to December 2008); After Housing Costs analysis of Households Below Average Income 2006/07; Labour Force Survey; and the Department for Social Development’s Statistics

9. Consultation comments and the Department’s response

The draft Equality Impact Assessment was issued to the organisations listed at section 16. In addition an easy read version of the Equality Impact Assessment was issued to Disability Action on request.

Comments were received from Advice NI, Disability Action, Law Centre (NI), Northern Ireland Union of Supported Employment (NIUSE), Western Office Health and Social Care Board and Women’s Centres Regional Partnership.

The table at Annex A sets out the comments received and the Department’s response.

10. Personalised conditionality

10.1 Schemes for assisting persons to obtain employment

Currently a person claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance for 18 months enters the Department for Employment and Learning employment and training programme “Steps to Work" for a maximum period of 18 months. If they are unsuccessful in finding work during that period, they continue to claim benefit and subsequently after a further 18 months again enter the Steps to Work Programme.

It is proposed that claimants on Jobseeker’s Allowance who have been unemployed for at least 2 years and reach the end of a Steps to Work programme without finding work should take part in a ‘Work for Your Benefit’ programme. However, it is envisaged that Jobs and Benefits Office personal advisers will be able to require other jobseeker’s allowance claimants to take part in Work for Your Benefit at an earlier stage if the adviser feels that this would be beneficial for the claimant based on their individual needs.

The Work for Your Benefit programmes will be designed to move jobseekers closer to the labour market and help them find sustained work in the open labour market. The programme will ensure jobseekers continue to receive support and benefit from the opportunity to develop work habits and routines that they may not have experienced for some time. This is because jobseekers still on benefit at this stage are likely to face particular barriers, for example loss of skills, due to the length of time they have been away from employment.

The work-experience will consist of roles that offer participants the opportunity to carry out tasks that are similar to a normal working environment. Evidence shows that the closer work-experience is to real work the greater the chance of participants finding work.

It is not the intention to specify any particular types of activity because it is important to ensure that claimants are doing work-experience that is relevant to their individual needs and barriers to work. This means the activity undertaken will be specific to each individual.

Costs incurred such as travel and employment clothing will be met by the Department for Employment and Learning.

The Work for Your Benefit programme will initially be piloted in Great Britain for 2 years. The programme will provide up to 6 months full-time work experience to test whether the support provided helps long-term unemployed people back to work.

The introduction of the Work for Your Benefit programme will only be considered for Northern Ireland following a full evaluation of the pilot exercise in Great Britain and will be subject to the availability of resources.

Impact Assessments

Age

The majority of jobseekers who reach the end of two years on Jobseeker’s Allowance without having moved into work are those aged 25 to 49. People aged 18 to 24 represent 47% of Jobseeker’s Allowance new claims but only 8% of those whose claims reach two years.

	Under 18	18 to 24	25 to 49	50+
JSA new claims 2007/08*	0%	47%	44%	9%
Jobseekers whose claim lasted one year or more	0%	17%	60%	23%
Jobseekers whose claim lasted two years or more	0%	8%	54%	38%

Source: Department for Social Development – Social Welfare Statistics & Consultancy Branch

* This may include claimants with more than one claim during the year

The age 50 years and over shows the greatest increase proportionally and hence the policy is likely to impact more on older jobseekers.

Marital Status

Currently 7% of recipients of Jobseeker’s Allowance have a partner whereas 93% are single. These proposals are therefore more likely to have an impact on single people.

Men and Women

In 2007/2008 72% of new claims to Jobseeker’s Allowance were made by men compared to 28% of women. Also, of jobseekers reaching the follow-through stage of New Deal 25+ 76% were men compared to 24% women.

The finding that males are disproportionately likely to reach long-term unemployment and therefore be affected by the Work for Your Benefit programme is also confirmed by figures that show that in 2007/2008, 1,765 men joined New Deal for 25+ compared with 602 women. The majority of these people were mandated to enter the programme as they had been in receipt of benefits for at least 18 months.

In July 2008 9.5% of women had been claiming unemployment related benefits for over one year but less than 3 years as compared to 14.1% of men. (Labour Market Statistics Bulletin Sept 2008 – Women in Northern Ireland).

Persons with dependants and persons without

The proposals do not make any direct impact in relation to persons with dependants and persons without. However figures for recipients of Jobseeker’s Allowance in April 2009 show that 92.5% had no dependants. The proposals therefore are more likely to impact more on claimants who have no dependants.

Persons with a disability and persons without

These proposals do not make any direct impact in relation to people with a disability. It is estimated that the employment rate in Northern Ireland for those with a disability is 34% compared to 77% who are non disabled (Labour Market Survey). Information about the disability of Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants is not collected.

However the proposal is expected to have a greater impact on people with a disability as they are more likely to reach the end of Steps to Work without having moved into employment. Nearly half of all people with work-limiting disabilities are in workless households (DTZ Pieda Consulting (2005) Report on Labour Market Dynamics Phase One: A Descriptive Analysis of the Northern Ireland Labour Market.

Employment enables all, including disabled people, to become economically and socially active in their local community. For those with disabilities, employment can not only provide opportunities to make a recognised contribution to the economy but assists in overcoming the underlying social deprivation that so many disabled people experience in their daily lives (Equality Commission for Northern Ireland-Statement on Key Inequalities in Northern Ireland, October 2007).

The support that the ‘Work for Your Benefit’ programme offers will be flexible and personalised to the individual in line with the principles of Steps to Work and therefore accommodate individuals’ needs. It is expected to help more jobseekers with a disability find sustained employment, thereby promoting equality of opportunity.

Mitigation

Introducing the Work for Your Benefit programme to the jobseeker regime is expected to help reduce long-term jobseekers’ barriers to finding employment by re-establishing basic work skills and habits, thereby having a positive impact on employment prospects. The available data shows that the proposal is more likely to impact on men rather than women as men are more likely to make a claim for Jobseeker’s Allowance than women and they are disproportionately more likely to reach long-term unemployment than women. In addition jobseekers aged 25 and over are more likely to have claims lasting more than 2 years. Those who have claimed Jobseeker’s Allowance for less than 2 years can volunteer for the programme but it will be for their adviser to decide whether it would be beneficial for the claimant based on their individual needs. Therefore these groups are more likely to benefit from improved employment prospects as a result of this measure.

In order to ensure that customers are doing work experience that is relevant to their individual needs and barriers to work, the activity they undertake will be specific to each individual.

Only Jobseeker’s Allowance recipients who must be available for and actively seeking work will be required to participate in Work for Your Benefit.

Customers that have restrictions within their Jobseeker’s Agreement relating to for example to the days and hours they must be available to work will be able to carry these forward to restrict the time they must be available for Work for Your Benefit.

10.2 Supporting Parents with younger children into employment

Lone parents

In December 2008 new arrangements were introduced for lone parent benefit claimants with older children. Instead of claiming Income Support, lone parents with children aged 12 or over, and who are capable of paid work are required to be actively seeking employment while claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance. This will be followed by lone parents with a youngest child aged 10 or over from October 2009, and 7 or over from October 2010. Those lone parents with a disability or health condition may claim Employment and Support Allowance.

Lone parents remaining on Income Support currently have a mandatory requirement to participate in Work-focused Interviews and complete a mandatory action plan as part of their claim. The lone parent Work-focused Interview regime has been enhanced over time and since April 2008 has required all lone parents to undergo regular 6 monthly interviews. The Work-focused Interviews aim to encourage more lone parents to take up sustainable work and ensure that all lone parents are aware of the help and support available to them. The following table shows the current Work-focused Interview regime for lone parents –

	Lone parent	Lone parent – year before transfer to Jobseeker’s Allowance
Work-focused Interview	Every 6 months	Every 3 months
Mandatory action plan	Yes	Yes

Partners with younger children

Currently partners of Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants with children are required to take part in compulsory Work-focused Interviews every 6 months whilst partners of benefit claimants in receipt of Income Support, Incapacity Benefit and Employment and Support Allowance are required to attend only one Work-focused Interview 6 months into their partner’s claim. The table below shows the current Work-focused Interview regime for partners –

	Partners of Jobseeker’s Allowance recipients	Partners of Employment and Support Allowance recipients
Work-focused Interview	Every 6 months	Only one 6 months into claim
Mandatory action plan	No	No

A New Personalised and Supportive Conditionality Regime

In line with the long-term vision for personalised conditionality proposed by Professor Paul Gregg, lone parents who can work and partners of certain benefit recipients with younger children will be required to undertake activities that will enable them to make progress towards work.

It is proposed that lone parents and partners of benefit recipients with younger children should in the long-term also be engaged in activity that helps them prepare for and move towards employment as part of the Progression to Work group.

The Progression to Work group will apply to all workless parents with children aged under 7. It is proposed that those in the Progression to Work group will be required to undertake the following activities as detailed in the following table.

Age of youngest child	Conditionality grouping	Requirements
Under 1	No conditionality	Not subject to any conditionality requirements
1 – 2	Progression to Work	Required to attend Work-focused Interviews and agree an action plan. Not mandated to undertake any activities recorded on the action plan or other activities, although encouraged to do so on a voluntary basis
3 – 6	Progression to Work	Required to follow the full Progression to Work regime based around Work-focused Interviews, action plans and work related activity.

The proposed policies will support more parents with younger children make the move into employment. In turn it should reduce the amount of time all parents spend on benefit, increase overall employment and reduce child poverty. Having a job is the factor that most protects families from poverty. A child in a workless household has a 58% chance of being in poverty compared with a risk of poverty of 14% for a child when one or both of their parents is working (Report on Child Poverty (June 2008)) conducted by the Committee of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister).

The Progression to Work programme will be piloted in the first instance in Great Britain for two years. It will require lone parents and partners of certain benefit recipients with younger children, to undertake mandatory action planning and work-related activities, which are flexible and personally tailored to their needs and circumstances.

These groups will not be required to take up work as a condition of their benefit but will have to make clear what they are doing to progress towards a return to work at the appropriate time for them.

Initially this policy will be piloted in a number of areas in Great Britain and will be fully evaluated to determine whether or not when implemented, the policy objectives have been achieved. Introduction will only be considered in Northern Ireland following a full evaluation of that pilot.

It is recognised that the issue of the availability of childcare will be a major consideration in Northern Ireland for parents with younger children. The personalised nature of the conditionality is intended to take account of their circumstances including the availability of suitable or affordable childcare.

Impact Assessments

Age

Lone Parents

Of the 15,890 lone parents receiving Income Support where the youngest child is under 7 years of age, 44.19% are aged between 25 and 34. This decreases to 1.26% of lone parents in the 45 to 49 age group.

Age	Percentage
Under 18	1.16
18-24	36.17
25-34	44.19
35-44	16.96
45-49	1.26
50-54	0.2
55-60	0.06
Over 60	0.0
Total	100

Source: Department for Social Development – Social Welfare Statistics & Consultancy Branch

Partners

There are currently 1,345 Jobseeker Allowance partners with a youngest child under age 7. 18.8% of partners of Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants are in the 18 to 24 age group. This increases to 51.5% for the 25 to 34 age group and decreases to 27.1% for the 35 to 44 age group.

Age	Percentage
under 18	0.5
18-24	18.8
25-34	51.5
35-44	27.1
45-49	2.1
50-54	*
Total	100.0

* Indicates a small sample size

Marital status

Data on the marital status of lone parents and partners of benefit recipients is not available. However, although the reforms will impact on all parents with children under the age of 7 irrespective of their marital status, the proposals will affect lone parents more with childcare responsibilities.

Men and Women

The provisions will apply to all parents both male and female with younger children and as such aim to promote equality of opportunity. The majority of lone parents are women with over 98.18% (at April 2009) on Income Support with a child under 7 currently being female so these measures will evidently impact more on women than men. For partners of benefit claimants it is estimated that a slightly lower, but still significant 73% are female. Again the measures will impact more on women than men.

Similarly to the measures for partners with children aged 7 and over, carers will be exempted from the requirements of this new conditionality regime.

Persons with dependants and persons without

These changes will affect all parents with younger children and will have a direct impact on all people receiving Income Support or Jobseeker’s Allowance with dependants under the age of 7. Recent figures show that 43.1% of Income Support claimants had dependant children compared to 7.5% of Jobseeker’s Allowance customers (these figures refer to all Jobseeker’s Allowance and Income Support claimants with children). 13,142 lone parents on Income Support have a youngest child aged 1 to 6.

In Jobseeker’s Allowance 1,037 couples have children aged 1 to 6 and on Income Support 2,012 couples have children aged 1 to 6.

Persons with a disability and persons without

Information about the disability of Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants or their partner is not available.

Partners of Employment and Support Allowance/Income Support recipients who are in receipt of disability or sickness benefits in their own right will be exempt from the proposals. Partners who are not in receipt of Employment and Support Allowance but who seek exemption from these new requirements under the Jobseeker’s regime on account of sickness or disability will need to establish that they have limited capability for work through an Employment and Support Allowance assessment and will be able to claim contributory Employment and Support Allowance.

Mitigation

More needs to be done to support those with children under 7. Of the 98,800 children living in poverty, around 24,200 children (2006/07 Household Below Average Income (After Housing Costs analysis)) are from out-of-work lone parent families with a youngest child under 7. The risk of poverty is twice as high for children of workless lone parents than it is for lone parents in part-time work (2006/07 Households Below Average Income (After Housing Costs analysis)).

The lone parent employment rate in Northern Ireland has significantly increased since 1997 and there are now 11,000 more lone parents in employment (Source: Labour Force Survey).

The Progress to Work programme will support more parents with younger children to make the move into employment.

The proposals will provide the help and support for lone parents so that work becomes a natural progression from benefit and there will be no sudden step-up when they are required to be available for paid work under the Jobseeker’s Allowance regime when their child reaches age 7.

Those lone parents with a disability or health condition may instead claim Employment and Support Allowance.

The Northern Ireland Executive has set itself the challenging aspiration to eradicate child poverty. The best way out of poverty is paid work and in time these proposals should increase overall employment and reduce child poverty.

In Great Britain the changes will be piloted for lone parents and partners with children aged between 3 and 6 and a full multi-method evaluation will be undertaken to fully assess the impact of the policy on parents with younger children. More flexible Work-focused Interviews may also be piloted for those who will retain access to existing services and support on a voluntary basis. Introduction will only be considered in Northern Ireland following the evaluation of the pilot exercises in Great Britain.

Partners of Benefit Recipients

Income related benefits are calculated on a family basis. This means that for couple families the needs of both members of the couple are met. However while the whole family receive support from these benefits it is only the person who actually makes the claim who is required to undertake any significant action to move towards work.

Currently, partners of Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants with children are required to take part in a compulsory Work-focused Interview every 6 months, whilst partners of benefit claimants in receipt of Income Support, Incapacity Benefit or Employment and Support Allowance are required to attend only one Work-focused Interview six months into their partner’s claim. The purpose of the Work-focused Interview is to discuss the possibility of working and to encourage partners to take up the Steps to Work programme.

The existing policy for partners of benefit recipients has had a limited impact in helping partners to look for and move into work, with the single Work-focused Interview for partners of non-Jobseeker Allowance claimants giving little scope for influencing behaviour and take-up of the New Deal for Partners programme (now Steps to Work) remaining very low.

It is proposed to support and encourage more couples with children aged 7 and over into employment, by making Jobseeker’s Allowance the only route to income-related support where at least one member of the couple could reasonably be expected to look for work.

Where both members of the couple with children are capable of work they will be required to make a joint-claim to Jobseeker’s Allowance with both partners having to satisfy the conditionality for that benefit.

Currently where both members of a couple are entitled to make a claim for an income-related benefit, for example one has a health condition and the other is capable of work they can choose which person will claim the appropriate benefit. It is proposed that this choice will be removed so that the person who is capable of work will be required to claim Jobseeker’s Allowance. The other party to the claim will still be entitled to any contributory or non means tested benefit they are entitled to, for example Disability Living Allowance, contributory Employment and Support Allowance etc. These changes are designed so that people supported by the benefit system are taking appropriate action to move towards work.

The following table summarises the arrangement that could apply to partners of different benefit payments:-

Claimant of	Partner capable of work?	Any children?	Current conditionality for Partner	Proposed conditionality for Partner
Jobseeker’s Allowance	Yes	Yes – youngest aged 7 or over	Work-focused Interview every six months and access to New Deal for Partners	Jobseeker’s Allowance joint-claim, full conditionality for both members of the couple
Income Support/ income-related Employment and Support Allowance	Yes	No	Work-focused Interview at six month point only and access to New Deal for Partners	Partner becomes main Jobseeker’s Allowance claimant and full Jobseeker’s Allowance conditionality applies. Original Employment and Support Allowance main claimant can still claim contributory Employment and Support Allowance
Income Support/ Income-related Employment and Support Allowance	Yes	Yes – youngest aged 7 or over	Work-focused Interview at six month point only and access to New Deal for Partners	Partner becomes main Jobseeker’s Allowance claimant and full Jobseeker’s Allowance conditionality applies. Original Employment and Support Allowance main claimant can still claim contributory Employment and Support Allowance

There will be certain exceptions to this proposal for example where a person is capable of work but has caring responsibilities they will not be expected to claim Jobseeker’s Allowance.

Impact Assessments

Age

These reforms do not make any direct provision in relation to age as they apply to all partners of benefit recipients. Of the 893 income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance partners with a youngest child aged 7 of over, 43.8% are in the 35 to 44 age group as compared to only 8.9% in the 25 to 34 age group. (Figures are not available to indicate if any of these partners have a disability and therefore will not be required to comply with Jobseeker’s Allowance conditionality).

Age	Percentage
under 18	0.0
18-24	*
25-34	8.9
35-44	43.8
45-49	27.6
50-54	14.5
55-60	4.4
60+	0.6
Total	100.0

* Indicates a small sample size

Marital status

The reforms will impact on all partners with children aged 7 or over regardless of their marital status. The changes will now extend the same conditionality of those partners without children who can work to all partners who can work with children over the age of 7.

Men and Women

Women currently make up the largest proportion of partners of benefit recipients who are within the scope of the benefit changes. Overall 77% of partners are female, ranging from 95% of Jobseeker’s Allowance non-joint claims to 73% of Income Support claims.

The proposals for partners of benefit recipients apply equally to men and women who can work. However, as there are more female partners than male, the change will impact on more women than men.

Women are more likely to be the primary carer in general. There is a potential risk that women may find it harder to combine looking for work with their childcare responsibilities and therefore miss out on the positive support available. However, from December 2008 Jobseeker’s Allowance has already been modified to take into account the specific needs of being a parent. This includes a range of flexibilities, one of which is that no parent will be penalised if they are unable to access appropriate and affordable child care where necessary.

Persons with dependants and persons without

These proposals will impact on all couples with dependant children aged 7 or over. Currently couples without children have to meet the increased conditionality of making a joint claim to Jobseeker’s Allowance. There are currently 876 partners of Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants with children aged 7 or over. On Income Support there are currently 9,437 partners with children aged 7 or over. (There is no available information to estimate how many of these partners will be directly affected by the proposals as some of these partners may be incapacitated, carers, etc and will not be subject to the new regime.

Persons with a disability and persons without

The proposals will have an impact on couples where one person is capable of work but the other is not and could therefore affect people with a disability as that person will have the option of claiming Income Support or income-related Employment and Support Allowance as a couple, closed off to them. Instead, the person who is capable of work will have to make a claim for Jobseeker’s Allowance for themselves and their partner. The person who is not capable of work will still be able to claim non-means tested benefits such as contributory Employment and Support Allowance.

Mitigation

Supporting partners of benefit claimants into employment will apply equally to men and women. As the population affected by the change is predominantly female, the changes will provide an opportunity to promote gender equality by helping more women back into the labour market.

Flexibilities within Jobseeker’s Allowance and exemptions are in place to ensure that partners will not be penalised. For example if they can demonstrate that suitable childcare is not available or they have significant caring responsibilities, they will not be penalised. There is a process in place to ensure that decisions are consistent and fair. The Personal Adviser is responsible for gathering evidence from the parent which demonstrates that they are not able to take up a job because appropriate childcare is not available. This information is then passed to a decision maker who will, taking account of Departmental guidance, consider on a case by case basis whether the steps the parent has taken are reasonable. The decision by the decision maker can of course by challenged through the current appeal procedures. This will ensure that there is consistency in the decision making process.

In Northern Ireland there is a shortfall in childcare provision and it is envisaged that the flexibilities and operational easements in place will ensure that no one will be penalised where affordable and appropriate childcare is not available.

In addition, in the event of bereavement, serious illness or domestic emergency, the needs of the parent and family will be taken into account by their Personal Adviser when planning or rescheduling work-related activity.

Although these proposals require (in some cases) both members of the couple to look for work, there is no requirement for both partners to enter work. Therefore, childcare responsibilities can be shared between both parents.

If the Executive is to achieve its child poverty objectives, we must reach all those who are capable of work and provide them with help to find work. Introducing obligations for partners of benefit claimants is intended to reduce the number of workless couples as a step towards helping those families out of poverty.

There will be certain exceptions to this proposal for example where a person is capable of work but has caring responsibilities they will not be expected to claim Jobseeker’s Allowance.

10.3 Work-Related activity for claimants of Employment and Support Allowance

The Welfare Reform Act (Northern Ireland) 2007 provides that Employment and Support Allowance claimants (except those in the Support Group) can be required to undertake work-related activity. Work-related activity is any activity which helps the claimant to obtain work, remain in work or to be more likely to obtain or remain in work. The Bill will amend the Welfare Reform Act (Northern Ireland) 2007 to allow Personal Advisers to specify particular work-related activity which a claimant must undertake to meet the requirements of the claim.

Personal Advisers will always encourage, persuade and support people to take up work-related activity which is considered necessary before considering requiring someone to undertake a particular activity. However, there is a strong case for stepping up conditionality, as part of the action plan process, where someone consistently fails to engage effectively with the personalised support regime.

There are two situations in which it is envisioned that an adviser may be able to require someone to undertake a specific activity—

Where a claimant is carrying out work-related activity but there is a significant barrier to work which the claimant has been encouraged to address but has failed to do so. Discretion will be used as to whether the claimant is directed into the specific work-related activity straight away or allowed the period between work-focused interviews to comply voluntarily with the suggestion before a formal direction is given; or
Where a claimant has failed to meet their general work-related activity requirement without good cause.

Claimants could be directed into any activity, subject to certain safeguards, which helps them to move closer to work. As limited capability for work is a condition of entitlement to the benefit, no one would be required to apply for or take up a job, nor would they be required to undergo medical treatment against their will.

Impact Assessments

As Employment and Support Allowance has only been available since the end of October 2008, validated statistics are not yet available. Therefore where appropriate we have used Incapacity Benefit statistics, as Incapacity Benefit has the same client base as Employment and Support Allowance.

Age

Employment and Support Allowance is a working-age benefit and can be claimed from age 16 to the day before a claimant reaches pension age. The help and support provided by Employment and Support Allowance is available to everyone who makes a claim for the benefit regardless of age.

Age Group	Total Incapacity Benefit Recipients
Under 20	807
20-29	10,081
30-39	16,667
40-49	30,212
50-59	38,729
Over 60	13,734
Total	110,230

Source: IB Midas Scan March 2009

Although nearly 48% of Incapacity Benefit claimants are over the age of 50, new claims are received proportionately across the full age range. Older people may be more likely to have a disability or health condition, but there is also evidence that the longer claimants remain on Incapacity Benefit, the less likely they are to move back into work. However, this does not mean that they do not want, or are unable, to work. There is a commitment to promote employment prospects for older people, indeed for people of all ages, with and without health conditions. The proposed measures to increase support to help claimants back to work will contribute to this.

Age Group	New claims to Incapacity Benefit (April 2008-March 2009)
16-25	3,735
26-35	3,771
36-45	4,734
46-55	4,782
56-65	2,853
Total	19,875

Marital status

It is not compulsory for contribution based Employment and Support Allowance claimants to disclose this information and it is not robust enough for equality impact assessment purposes. It is not envisaged that specific work-related activity will present any unequal treatment on the grounds of marital status.

Men and Women

Based on Incapacity Benefit figures there are slight differences in claim rates between males and females which is reflected in the breakdown of claimants by gender – 58% of incapacity benefit claimants are male with 42% female. However, there is no evidence of adverse impact between men and women and Employment and Support Allowance is available to male and female claimants alike.

The risk that gender equality will be affected by extending personalised employment support to existing claimants is small. Any caring responsibilities undertaken by either sex will be taken into account when suitable work-related activities are agreed between the personal adviser and claimant. The activities that claimants are asked to undertake will be compatible with their capabilities.

Persons with dependants and persons without

Although almost 97% of Incapacity Benefit claimants are recorded as having no dependants, they are not required to disclose this information. This figure is therefore incomplete and cannot be used for the purpose of Section 75 comparisons. The risk that extending personalised employment support to claimants with dependants will result in unequal treatment is small and any caring responsibilities undertaken by a claimant are taken into account when suitable work-related activities are agreed between the personal adviser and the claimant.

Persons with a disability and persons without

Employment and Support Allowance is specifically for people who have limited capability for work by reason of a physical or mental condition and the services provided are available to all claimants. People who are so limited by their illness or disability that it would be unreasonable to require them to undertake any form of work-related activity are in the support group of Employment and Support Allowance and are not required to undertake any conditionality. However, they are able to volunteer to participate in work-related activity if they choose to do so.

The reforms are designed to help disabled people and those with health conditions into work. As such, the measures have been designed to have a positive impact on people with health conditions and disabilities and aim to promote equality of opportunity.

Many Employment and Support Allowance claimants are likely to be covered by the Disability Discrimination Act. The table shows the distribution of Incapacity Benefit claimants by medical condition, with mental and behavioural disorders being the most common. People with mental and behavioural disorders recorded as their primary condition account for around 44% of existing claimants, with people with diseases of the musculoskeletal system recorded as their primary condition making up the next largest group, with 18% of cases.

Condition	Percentage of caseload
Mental and behavioural disorders	44
Musculoskeletal	18
Circulatory and Respiratory	8
Injury and Poisoning	7
Diseases of the nervous system	4
Other	19
Total	100

Source: DSD publications, Statistics Benefit Publications August 2008

Mitigation

The risks around increased conditionality for Employment and Support Allowance claimants mostly relate to accommodating and catering for the needs of an extremely diverse customer group.

This will be mitigated by making reasonable adjustments for claimants attending work-focused interviews – for example the Department will take account of the needs of individual claimants, for example, allowing claimants with learning disabilities to be accompanied by a carer or for people who are deaf to have communicator support.

To mitigate the risk of unfair sanctions being placed upon individuals with fluctuating conditions, learning difficulties or mental health conditions as a result of failure to fulfil inappropriate conditions, the reforms provide for the specific activities an individual is to undertake to address their barriers to work will be agreed between the claimant and personal adviser. The adviser will work closely with the claimant to ensure that the requirements placed on the individual are appropriate and reasonable. Sanctions will only be applied when claimants are clearly refusing to engage or undertake any activity which is effective for them and they will always be provided with an opportunity to give good cause for being unable to comply.

Personal Advisers are given awareness of the different needs of different customer groups and by using the work-focused health related assessment, which provides the personal adviser with important information about the claimant’s capabilities and limitations particular to their condition, will help ensure individuals with, for example, autism will only be encouraged to do activities which are in keeping with their capabilities. The increased conditionality rules present an opportunity to build up a more consistent relationship of trust and support with claimants, and to understand the particular requirements of their condition.

Employment and Support Allowance is a working-age benefit for people who have limited capability for work by reason of a physical or mental condition, designed to give them the help and support they need to overcome barriers to employment while providing support for those who cannot work. It should impact positively on all associated with such a client group but does not specifically relate to any Section 75 groups. The proposal for specific work-related activity aims to promote, support and encourage those with a health condition to return to work of some kind.

10.4 Persons of Pensionable Age to take part in Work-focused Interviews

As state pension age starts to equalise between women and men, older people will remain on, or make claims for, working age benefits. We need to make sure they receive the help they need to get back to work.

To ensure our back to work help operates equally for all ages, it is proposed to allow people aged 60 or over on working age benefits to get the additional back to work support offered by a Work-focused Interview. A Work-focused Interview is designed to help a customer move closer to the labour market. It is an opportunity for a customer to explore all the options available to them with regard to improving their prospects of moving closer to employment, or training which could lead to employment at a later date.

This support will not affect people in receipt of any benefits other than Income Support or Incapacity Benefit – customers in receipt of, for example Jobseeker’s Allowance or the new Employment and Support Allowance will be subject to the rules relating to those benefits regardless of age.

Work-focused Interviews are already mandatory for younger claimants of both Income Support and Incapacity Benefit; the proposed change will ensure an equal approach to this customer group.

It is already unlawful to discriminate in training, recruitment and employment on grounds of age. We must ensure that opportunities exist for people to continue training and to work as long as they want to. Equally, individuals must accept that they have responsibilities regarding work and planning for their future.

Impact Assessments

This is a minor technical amendment to existing legislation. It will apply to all people over the age of 60 who are claiming a working age benefit. Work-focused Interviews are already mandatory for younger claimants of Income Support, Incapacity Benefit and Employment and Support Allowance. This proposal will ensure an equal approach to everyone claiming a working age benefit. There is no data available on the Section 75 categories.

This support will not affect people in receipt of any benefits other than Income Support or Incapacity Benefits – customers in receipt of, for example Jobseekers Allowance or Employment and Support Allowance will be subject to the rules relating to those benefits regardless of age.

Work-focused Interviews are already mandatory for younger claimants of both Income Support and Incapacity Benefit; all this legislative change will do is ensure an equal approach to this customer group.

Mitigation

The proposal to introduce Work-focused Interviews for people aged over 60 on working age benefits will allow them to get the additional support offered by a Work-focused Interview. As State Pension Age equalises between 2010 and 2020 older people will increasingly either remain on or make a claim to a working age benefit. It is important that they receive the help they need to get back to work.

Work-focused Interviews may be deferred or waived in certain circumstances. A deferral may be appropriate where a customer, for example, has recently taken on major caring responsibilities. An interview may be waived where a customer for example is severely disabled and not in a position to be helped into employment.

11. More support matched by higher expectations for jobseekers

11.1 Jobseeker’s Allowance: Sanctions for Violent Conduct in Connection with Claim

It is proposed to introduce a benefit sanction of one week for Jobseeker’s Allowance customers who commit acts of violence or threatening behaviour against benefits office staff or contracted staff in the course of a claim for Jobseeker’s Allowance.

With regard to dealing with a customer who becomes verbally abusive, threatening or causes damage the relevant procedural controls which are presently employed are:-

non-acceptance policy
application of Public Order legislation
removal of offending customers by the police
warnings
exclusion

At the discretion of local management incidents will be dealt with by either:

a verbal warning/first written warning:
a final written warning; or
an exclusion.

In the event of a customer repeatedly directing unacceptable customer behaviour towards staff, offices can demand that the person is accompanied to the office for any future business transactions. An example of a suitable person to accompany a customer would be one of the following:-

a representative from the Social Services:
an advice worker
a representative from a community group
a solicitor; or
a councillor

The sanction is designed to:-

further discourage this type of unacceptable behaviour;
further incentivise appropriate engagement with labour market conditionality by increasing the severity of future labour market sanctions following conviction or caution of violent behaviour against staff; and
in this way, ensure that these difficult to help customers are engaging with their responsibilities appropriately and getting the support they need to move into work.

The sanction would only apply following a conviction or caution. This means that the Courts would have already considered and reached judgement on the offence, and in the case of cautions, guilt will have been admitted by the offender.

Vulnerable claimants such as disabled people or people with a mental health condition will not suffer a complete loss of benefit. They may still be eligible to receive reduced hardship payments as is the case with other benefit sanctions.

Impact Assessment

Information on the number of reported assaults by Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants alone is not collected. It is considered that the number is likely to be small.

11.2 Attendance in Connection with Jobseeker’s Allowance Sanctions

To be entitled to claim Jobseeker’s Allowance a person must be available and actively seeking work during the payment period, which is checked through attendance of Fortnightly Jobsearch Reviews, commonly known as ‘signing on’. If a jobseeker fails to attend an interview or sign on without a good reason, then their entitlement to claim Jobseeker’s Allowance would be brought into question and their Personal Adviser would refer them to an independent Decision Maker to make a decision about their entitlement. If the Decision Maker judged that the jobseeker did not satisfy the entitlement conditions for Jobseeker’s Allowance then their claim would be closed down.

Closing down claims only for jobseekers to start a new claim is a time-consuming and costly process for the benefits offices. It is also a poor incentive for jobseekers to demonstrate that they are actively seeking work and attend interventions with the benefits offices – the process typically leads to just two days of lost benefit.

The new proposals will mean that Jobseeker’s Allowance payments will be suspended if a claimant fails to attend a mandatory interview and subsequently makes contact with the benefits office within five working days without showing good cause for failure to attend. In the first instance, Jobseeker’s Allowance will be suspended for a fixed period of at least one and not more than two weeks. For second and subsequent failures, a fixed sanction of two weeks will apply.

The proposal to replace the disentitlement process with a fixed one week sanction for failure to attend a mandatory interview (increased to two weeks for a second failure) extends the expectation that jobseekers should engage with the support offered through the Department for Employment and Learning’s employment programmes to the jobseekers’ intervention regime. It reflects the recommendations in the Gregg Report of ensuring attendance at all mandatory appointments and implementation of clearer fixed fines.

There is no information available on the number of sanctions currently imposed, however anecdotal evidence suggests that because of the existing flexibilities in the Jobseeker’s Allowance regime, only a small number of claimants are actually sanctioned.

Impact Assessment

Mitigation

Sanctions are in place to ensure that jobseekers comply with the current employment support regime and do not in themselves provide opportunity to promote equality. They encourage jobseekers to participate in work programmes and therefore help to ensure that the opportunities to promote equality in programmes such as the Department for Employment and Learning’s Steps to Work programme are accessible to all.

The proposal to replace the disentitlement process with a fixed one week sanction for failure to attend a mandatory interview (increased to two weeks for a second failure) extends the expectation that jobseekers should engage with the support offered through the Department for Employment and Learning’s programmes to the jobseeker’s intervention regime. It reflects the recommendations in the Gregg Report of ensuring attendance at all mandatory interviews and implementation of clearer fixed fines.

There are already measures in place to ensure that the individual circumstances of anyone referred for a sanction are considered, before the decision to remove benefit is made. For a jobseeker to be sanctioned their Personal Adviser needs to refer their case to a Decision Maker, who is independent of both the Adviser and the jobseeker. The Decision Maker needs to be satisfied that the jobseeker does not have good cause for failing to attend the interview. Jobseekers have an opportunity to present evidence to the Decision Maker and appeal against any adverse decision.

11.3 Loss of benefits provision

The current incremental sanction regime to deter customers from committing benefit fraud comprises the use of:-

administrative penalties – an administrative penalty is the offer to the customer to agree to pay a financial penalty where the customer has caused benefit to be overpaid to them, by either an act or omission. The amount of the penalty is currently stipulated in legislation as 30% of the amount of the gross overpayment;
formal cautions – a formal caution is an administrative sanction that the Agency is able to offer as an alternative to a prosecution as long as specific criteria are met, and the case is one the Department could take to court if the caution was refused. A formal caution attracts a criminal record;
prosecution; and
the loss of certain benefits for 13 weeks where a customer is convicted of two benefit fraud offences within a 5 year period (“two strikes").

The proposed policy change is to introduce a loss/reduction of benefit sanction following a first benefit fraud offence (a “one strike") which would apply not only to cases which were prosecuted and result in a criminal conviction for benefit fraud but also to those cases which result in an administrative penalty or a formal caution. This would mean that in all cases where there is sufficient evidence that benefit fraud had been committed to commence a prosecution there would be recovery of the overpayment, a fraud sanction and a 4 week benefit penalty.

It is estimated that around 800 people per annum, who are convicted for the first time or receive an administrative penalty or a formal caution, will now have the potential to attract a “one strike" sanction. This represents less than 1% of the total live caseload of claimants receiving those benefits that are sanctionable.

Impact Assessment

Less than 1% of the total live caseload of claimants receiving those benefits is likely to be affected by the “one strike" sanction. As only certain benefits are subject to sanctions, the largest impact will be on customers who receive Income Support, Jobseeker’s Allowance, Housing Benefit, Pension Credit, Employment and Support Allowance, some Widows/Bereavement benefits and some Industrial Injuries Benefits.

The existing “two strike" policy only impacts on a small number of offenders who are convicted of benefit fraud on more than one occasion within a three year period. It is estimated that about 800 people a year who are convicted for the first time or receive an administrative penalty or formal caution, will now have the potential to attract a “one strike" sanction.

In order to maintain coherence and impact with the “two strikes", a “one strike" sanction would logically be for a shorter period so that the penalty for repetitive offenders is more severe. The impact of a 4 week sanction would be a short, sharp punishment and the sum of benefit at stake is a meaningful amount.

The difference between a 4 week “one strike" sanction and a 13 week “two strike" sanction will increase the deterrence of committing fraud a second time.

Age

The following table shows the age breakdown of people who received a conviction and those who received an administrative penalty/formal caution for the three year period from 2006 to 2008.

Age	Convictions		Administrative Penalties & Formal Cautions		Total Freq
Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage
under 18	1	0.1%	0	0%	1
18-24	112	11.8%	160	18.7%	272
25-34	284	29.8%	267	31.4%	551
35-44	269	28.2%	210	24.8%	479
45-49	102	10.7%	87	10.3%	189
50-54	77	8.1%	59	7%	136
55-60	80	8.4%	51	6%	131
61-72	28	2.9%	14	2%	42
Total	953	100%	848	100%	1801

The table shows that most of those who received a conviction were in the 25 to 34 age group (29.8%) closely followed by those in the 35 to 44 age group (28.2%). Most of those who received an administrative penalty/formal caution were also in the 25 to 34 age group (31.4%), followed by the 35 to 44 age group (24.8%).

Marital Status

The following figures show a breakdown by marital status of people who received a conviction and those who received an administrative penalty/formal caution for the three year period from 2006 to 2008.

Marital Status	Convictions		Administrative Penalties & Formal Cautions		Total Freq
Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage
Lone Parent	245	25.8%	219	26.0%	464
Common Law	28	3%	27	3.2%	55
Divorced	9	1%	8	1%	17
Married	101	11%	85	10%	186
Separated	16	2%	19	2.2%	35
Single	254	26%	266	31.4%	520
Not Known	298	31.2%	224	26.4%	522
Total	951	100%	848	100%	1799

Unfortunately it is impossible to draw any relevant conclusions from these figures because the Lone Parents group would overlap with most of the other groups i.e. divorced, separated, single and not known.

The loss of benefits provision’s new “one strike sanction" will not have a differential impact on marital status. The sanction will apply equally to all customers who have committed a benefit fraud. Their marital status will not determine the impact of the reform as all customers will be assessed in the same way which does not take account of marital status.

Men and Women

The following table shows the breakdown of men and women who received a conviction and those who received an administrative penalty/formal caution for the three year period from 2006 to 2008.

Sex	Convictions		Administrative Penalties & Formal Cautions		Total Freq
Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage
Male	483	50.5	418	49	901
Female	474	49.5	430	51	904
Total	957	100%	848	100%	1805

The figures for men and women who received a conviction and administrative penalty/formal caution are almost evenly distributed. For convictions males make up 50.5% while females make up the remaining 49.5%. For administrative penalties/formal cautions males make up 49%, while females make up the remaining 51%.

The loss of benefits provision’s new “one strike sanction" will apply to all benefit customers who are deemed to have committed an offence, regardless of their gender. The policy will be applied in accordance with the law, thereby ensuring that any customer who breaks the law will be punished for their crime.

Persons with dependants and persons without

The following table shows the breakdown of persons with dependants and persons without, who received a conviction and those who received an administrative penalty/formal caution for the three year period from 2006 to 2008.

With Dependants/ without Dependants	Convictions		Administrative Penalties & Formal Cautions		Total
Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage
With	342	36%	268	32%	610
Without	611	64%	580	68%	1191
Total	953	100%	848	100%	1801

There were more convictions and administrative penalties/formal cautions for people without dependants than with dependants; 36% of those who received a conviction had dependants while 64% of those who received a conviction had no dependants. 32% of those who received an administrative penalty/formal caution had dependants while 68% of those who received an administrative penalty/formal caution had no dependants.

Provisions will be made to allow for hardship payments to be considered to meet the basic needs of vulnerable customers and those with families. These will result in a reduction, rather than a total withdrawal of benefit during the period of the sanction. Besides this, there is no evidence to suggest that different groups have other different needs, issues and priorities in relation to this sanction policy. The “one strike" sanction will apply equally to all those who commit benefit fraud.

Persons with a disability and persons without

There is no data available to disaggregate those who commit benefit fraud by disability and therefore it is unknown whether or not the policy will have an unequal impact. According to the 2006/07 Family Resources Survey Northern Ireland 10.8% of the Northern Ireland population were in receipt of a disability related benefit such as severe disablement allowance, disability living allowance or incapacity benefit. Whether or not a customer has a disability, has no bearing on the policy changes as the same rules apply to all customers.

Mitigation

The “one strike" policy will apply equally to all customers who commit a first offence of benefit fraud which results in a conviction, administrative penalty or formal caution.

Benefit fraud referrals are statistically analysed and are investigated in order of the highest risk of criminality. There will be no direct or indirect targeting of any particular Section 75 category under the policy. The purpose of the policy is to deter people from committing benefit fraud from the outset and to punish those who do commit benefit fraud.

All cases referred for prosecution are considered by the Public Prosecution Service in accordance with the Test for Prosecution which is set out in the Code for Prosecutors. There are two elements to the Test for Prosecution, namely:

The Evidential Test, which is the evidence which can be produced in court sufficient to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction; and
The Public Interest Test, which is the prosecution required in the public interest. Factors such as serious illness or disability will be considered under the Public Interest Test, but the decision whether to prosecute depends on the individual circumstances of each case.

There are a number of circumstances where an officer of the Department may decide not to continue with or close the investigation. For example, if a significant mental or physical condition is suspected at any stage during an investigation which suggests that prosecution or an alternative sanction is undesirable, the case will be referred to a senior officer to decide whether to continue with or close the investigation.

Existing loss of benefit hardship provisions will apply and therefore the penalty is a reduction in benefit by 20% or 40% for 4 weeks rather than a total loss of benefit if the customer is within a vulnerable group, has family responsibilities or if particular hardship would result.

12. Simpler benefits system

The proposals continue the move to the long-term aim for a Single Working Age Benefit to remove the need to move between benefits as circumstances change. An independent commission is to be appointed to work with the Great Britain Government to consider design and implementation. As an interim measure, Income Support is to be abolished and beneficiaries moved to either Employment and Support Allowance or Jobseeker’s Allowance. A consultation paper on the Social Fund has already been issued and consultation on the future structure of Housing Benefit is under consideration. Future consultation on proposals to replace bereavement benefits with a system of lump sum payments is also planned.

12.1 Abolition of Income Support

This may seem a radical change but it is a step in a process that has been continuing for some time. When first introduced, Income Support was a “catch all" benefit for everyone who satisfied an income test. Since then a number of new benefits have been introduced to provide support for different groups – income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance for unemployed people, Pension Credit for older people and income-related Employment and Support Allowance for sick and disabled people. In addition lone parents with older children now receive Jobseeker’s Allowance rather than Income Support.

By 2010, lone parents with children aged seven or over will be required to look for work and claim Jobseeker’s Allowance. Also in 2010, the migration of cases from Income Support to Employment and Support Allowance is expected to commence, thus replacing Income Support as the main means-tested benefit for people of working age who are unable to work because of their ill-health.

Clearly Income Support will serve a much narrower purpose to that for which it was introduced and there is a clear case for reappraising whether the needs of these people could be better met through a benefits structure suitable for modern needs. This measure is about working more closely with people with whom at present we have little current contact whilst at the same time introducing a simpler, more streamlined system of benefits that is able to meet people’s needs.

Income Support now serves a much narrower purpose than was intended. It is used mainly for lone parents with young children, carers and a number of much smaller groups.

There is no specific date for the abolition of Income Support. It will only be done once resources allow and when it is clear how the change will fit with other changes underway, in particular the move of lone parents to Jobseeker’s Allowance and the transfer of sick and disabled people from Income Support to Employment and Support Allowance.

It is however considered important to set out a clear intention to abolish Income Support now and thereby move to a system based on the two main benefits for people of working age. This will be a significant step towards a simpler and more flexible system of benefits where people are treated as individuals not categorised by benefit labels.

Impact Assessment

A separate impact assessment on the proposed reforms to abolish Income Support is not considered necessary as the effect on the Section 75 groups has been considered and assessed under Part 8.

12.2 Persons Entitled to Jobseeker’s Allowance Without Meeting Jobseeking Conditions, etc

The proposal is to initially move lone parents with young children, followed by other groups not able to work and who currently get Income Support onto a new form of Jobseeker’s Allowance.

This measure will allow those groups who move to the modified Jobseeker’s Allowance to benefit from an increased level of activity, where appropriate. Those who considered they were in a position to explore a return to work would be able to volunteer and benefit from the increased support available. This measure will help to reinforce the message that work is the best route out of poverty and it will also simplify customer journeys by avoiding the complexity in moving between Jobseeker’s Allowance and Income Support.

The modified Jobseeker’s Allowance will cater for a wide variety of different support needs. It will provide a graduated range of conditionality according to individual circumstances.

It creates a new entitlement for people who are not required to meet jobseeking conditions but who do meet the other basic conditions of entitlement, thus enabling income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance to be extended to groups of claimants who currently qualify for Income Support, for example carers, lone parents with young children etc.

The move to Jobseeker’s Allowance will take account of plans for further development of the conditionality regime for lone parents with young children. Under the proposals in Part 8 the Westminster Government intends to pilot a more personalised conditionality regime for lone parents with children under seven currently on Income Support, with work and skill-related activities tailored to fit their circumstances, but ensuring that preparation for work becomes a natural progression rather than a sudden step-up when their child turns 7.

The change in benefit will not in itself mean that they are subject to any more obligations than they would be under Income Support. As now they will have obligations which increase with the age of the child until the child reaches age 7 and full jobseeker’s requirements apply.

Impact Assessment

It was not considered necessary to carry out a separate impact assessment on the above proposals as the effects on the Section 75 groups has been considered and assessed under Part 8.

12.3 Statutory Sick Pay and Employment and Support Allowance

Statutory Sick Pay provides a measure of earnings replacement for employees unable to work because of short-term sickness. The Statutory Sick Pay scheme is administered and paid for by employers, who have a statutory liability to pay Statutory Sick Pay for up to 28 weeks to any employee incapable of work under their contract of service for four or more days in a row and who satisfy the qualifying conditions.

Currently a small minority of people on Statutory Sick Pay receive an income-related top up by claiming Income Support. However, Income Support is to be abolished and working age people will be supported through the dual system of working age benefits: Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance. The Welfare Reform Act (Northern Ireland) 2007 prohibits people from receiving Employment and Support Allowance whilst they are in receipt of any Statutory Sick Pay. The Bill removes this exclusion to enable people in prescribed circumstances to claim income-related Employment and Support Allowance whilst in receipt of Statutory Sick Pay.

Impact Assessment

This is a technical measure to amend existing legislation which governs the application of the entitlement conditions to Employment and Support Allowance for people receiving Statutory Sick Pay and will have no significant impact on claimants.

All employees who satisfy the qualifying conditions will be entitled to claim the top-up under Employment and Support Allowance regardless of religious belief, political opinion, racial group, age, marital status, sexual orientation or gender or whether or not they have a disability or dependants.

The proposals regarding Statutory Sick Pay and Employment and Support Allowance will make the benefit system simpler and fairer.

12.4 Contribution-based Jobseeker’s Allowance and contributory Employment and Support Allowance

Currently people can qualify for up to six months of contribution-based Jobseeker’s Allowance or a life time of contributory Employment and Support Allowance after working for only a very short period. This means that people can qualify for these non means tested benefits by working for as little as 12 weeks at the national minimum wage, or three weeks for higher-rate tax payers, in one of the two (for Jobseeker’s Allowance) or three (for Employment and Support Allowance) tax years before their claim.

The intention is that for new claims after 2010, new claimants will need to have worked and made National Insurance contributions for a minimum of 26 weeks to qualify for contributory Employment and Support Allowance or contribution-based Jobseeker’s Allowance. These contributions will need to have been made in one of the last two tax years before the claim. This second condition largely aligns the Employment and Support Allowance rules with those for Jobseeker’s Allowance.

It is estimated that this proposal will have an impact on the Employment and Support caseload more so than on the Jobseeker’s Allowance caseload owing to the time-limited nature of this benefit to 182 days in a single spell of unemployment.

Income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance and income-related Employment and Support Allowance will still be available to those who do not qualify for contribution-based Jobseeker’s Allowance or contributory Employment and Support Allowance if they satisfy the qualifying conditions.

Bringing together the rules of the main National Insurance based benefits in the future – Employment and Support Allowance and Jobseeker’s Allowance – will make the system simpler and fairer by making Employment and Support Allowance rules as similar as possible to Jobseeker’s Allowance. Many consultation responses in Great Britain welcomed the idea of a simpler benefits system, as long as the changes were made clear. The new contribution conditions for contributory Employment and Support Allowance will affect those with broken work patterns or those who have little recent contact with the world of work.

Impact Assessment

Age

As would be expected, older jobseekers are more likely to be claiming contribution-based Jobseeker’s Allowance only, as they have had longer to build up the required level of contributions. The proportion claiming contribution-based Jobseeker’s Allowance only increases with each age group, from 1% of 18 – 24 year olds to 22% of those over 50.

Proportion of Jobseeker’s Allowance recipients on contribution-based Jobseeker’s Allowance by age group

	Under 18	18-24	25 to 49	50+
All JSA recipients	69	14829	21116	4555
Contribution based JSA	0	185	2625	997
Proportion of Contribution based JSA	0%	1.2%	12.4%	21.9%

Source: Department for Social Development – Social Welfare Statistics & Consultancy Branch

For jobseekers, older groups tend to have a higher proportion of people claiming contribution-based Jobseeker’s Allowance only. There is a risk that the proposal may therefore have a disproportionate impact on older jobseekers.

Employment and Support Allowance is a working age benefit and can be claimed from age 16 to the day before a claimant reaches pension age.

Age Group	New claims to Incapacity Benefit (April 2008-March 2009)
16-25	3,735
26-35	3,771
36-45	4,734
46-55	4,782
56-65	2,853
Total	19,875

There is no evidence that strengthening the link between recent work and contributory benefit will disproportionately affect any particular age group. Individuals with low or no other income may apply for income-related Employment and Support Allowance. Existing provisions to protect severely disabled young people who cannot be expected to satisfy the normal paid contributory conditions will be retained.

Marital status

Data on the martial status of those receiving contribution-based Jobseeker’s Allowance and contributory Employment and Support Allowance is not collected. Changes to the contribution conditions are not envisaged to present any unequal treatment on the grounds of marital status.

Men and Women

The proportion of jobseekers claiming contribution-based based Jobseeker’s Allowance only has increased for both men and women in recent years. The proportion in March 2009 (9.4%) is higher than it was in March 2004 (4.9%). The proportion has been lower for men historically. Currently there is a 6% point gap, with 14% of women claiming contribution-based Jobseeker’s Allowance only compared to 8% of men.

Proportion of persons claiming contribution-based Jobseeker’s Allowance by gender

Date	Proportion Male	Proportion Female	Total Proportion
Mar-04	3.6	9.5	4.9
Mar-05	3.5	9.1	4.7
Mar-06	3.3	9.7	4.7
Mar-07	3.3	9.3	4.6
Mar-08	4.0	10.0	5.2
Mar-09	8.3	13.9	9.4

Source: Department for Social Development – Social Welfare Statistics & Consultancy Branch

Women may be disproportionately affected by the changes to the Jobseeker’s Allowance contribution conditions, but in mitigation those with low incomes would be eligible to apply for income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance.

In relation to Employment and Support Allowance, based on Incapacity Benefit figures there are slight differences in claim rates between males and females which is reflected in the breakdown of claimants by gender – 58% of incapacity benefit claimants are male with 42% female. However, there is no evidence of adverse impact between men and women and Employment and Support Allowance is available to male and female claimants alike.

Any risk that gender equality could be affected by the changes in contribution conditions is mitigated by individuals with low or no other income being able to apply for income-related Employment and Support Allowance.

Persons with dependants and persons without

Data on persons with dependants receiving contribution-based Jobseeker’s Allowance is not collected.

The existing provision to protect carers’ entitlement to contributory Employment and Support Allowance will be retained and those with no or low incomes would be eligible to apply for income-related Employment and Support Allowance.

Persons with a disability and persons without

Data on the number of claimants with a disability who are receiving contribution-based Jobseeker’s Allowance is not collected. However information provided by the Department for Work and Pensions shows that the proportion of jobseekers claiming contribution-based Jobseeker’s Allowance in Great Britain appears to be similar for those with and without a disability as the proportions have converged in recent years. It remains slightly lower for claimants with a disability – currently 13% compared to 15% for claimants without a disability.

The Department would not expect the changes in contribution conditions for Jobseeker’s Allowance to have a disproportionate impact on those with or without disabilities. Those with low or no other income can apply for income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance.

Employment and Support Allowance is specifically for people who have limited capability for work by reason of a physical or mental condition and the services provided are available to all claimants.

Condition	Percentage of caseload
Mental and behavioural disorders	44
Musculoskeletal	18
Circulatory and Respiratory	8
Injury and Poisoning	7
Diseases of the nervous system	4
Other	19
Total	100

Source: DSD publications, Statistics Benefit Publications August 2008

Employment and Support Allowance is for people who have limited capability for work by reason of a physical or mental condition, designed to give them the help and support they need to overcome barriers to employment while providing support for those who cannot work. It should impact positively on any stereotypes associated with such a client group but does not specifically relate to any Section 75 groups.

Mitigation

New claimants will need to have worked and made National Insurance contributions for a minimum of 26 weeks to qualify for contributory Jobseeker’s Allowance. The increased conditionality for Jobseeker’s Allowance may impact more on older jobseekers since they have had longer to build up the required level of contributions. In mitigation, income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance will still be available to those with low or no income who do not qualify for contribution–based Jobseeker’s Allowance.

There may be a risk that those with more severe health conditions could find it more difficult to work for a minimum of 26 weeks in one of the two tax years prior to the claim. In mitigation of this risk, those with no or little income can apply for income-related Employment and Support Allowance. Also, existing protections that allow disadvantaged groups such as young disabled people to qualify for Employment and Support Allowance will be retained.

The proposals regarding the contribution conditions for contribution-based Jobseeker’s Allowance and contributory Employment and Support Allowance will make the benefit system simpler and fairer.

12.5 Abolition of Adult Dependency Increases in Carer’s Allowance and Maternity Allowance

It is proposed to abolish the payment of an adult dependency increase with Maternity Allowance and Carer’s Allowance from April 2010. Adult dependency increases are additions to certain contributory and income-maintenance benefits paid in certain limited circumstances. An increase for an adult dependant is considered outdated and this measure is part of the process of simplifying and updating the benefit system to reflect modern society. Adult dependency increases are not a feature of the new Employment and Support Allowance introduced in October 2008, have never been a feature of Jobseeker’s Allowance and are being phased out in State Pension by the Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 2008. Adult dependency increases in payment with Carer’s Allowance at the time of the change will be phased out between 2010 and 2020, in line with the arrangements for State Pension. Phasing out will not apply to Maternity Allowance as this is a short-term benefit paid for only 39 weeks.

Impact Assessment

Age

Around 67% of Carer’s Allowance recipients with an adult dependency increase are over the age of 45. Whilst older carers are more likely to be caring for a spouse, relatively few adult dependency increases are paid to carers aged 65 or over because the increase overlaps with a dependant’s own State Pension. Where a dependant does not receive State Pension, Pension Credit may be payable.

Age Group	Recipients	Recipients of adult dependency increase
Under 20	216	6
20-24	1,124	22
25-29	1,691	64
30-34	2,442	112
35-39	3,881	186
40-44	5,133	295
45-49	5,089	395
50-54	4,563	387
55-59	4,316	358
60-64	2,324	194
Over 65	823	37
Total	31,602	2,056

Source: Carer’s Allowance MIDAS Scan February 2009

There is no data collection of Maternity Allowance adult dependency increases regarding age. The abolition of adult dependence increases will apply to all Maternity Allowance claims regardless of the age of the claimant.

Marital status

It is not compulsory for claimants to disclose this information and it is not robust for equality impact assessment purposes. Although adult dependency increases are mainly paid to married couples, they are also paid to civil partners and single people. The abolition of adult dependency increases will apply to all Maternity Allowance and Carer’s Allowance claims regardless of the marital status of the claimant. Unequal treatment on these grounds is not envisaged.

Men and Women

At February 2009, out of a total of 31,602 recipients of Carer’s Allowance, 2,056 were receiving adult dependency increases, representing 6.5% of claimants. Of those, 1,221 were in payment to men while 835 were in payment to women. This is at odds with the fact that almost 68% of Carer’s Allowance recipients are women.

Gender	Recipients	Recipients with adult dependency increase
Male	10,115	1,221
Female	21,487	835
Total	31,602	2,056

Source: Carer’s Allowance MIDAS scan February 2009

Removing the adult dependency increases will affect female claimants with male dependants as well as male claimants with female dependants. Those in respect of whom adult dependency increases would otherwise have been payable and who are unable to work, will be eligible for the usual range of working-age benefits.

Persons with dependants and persons without

Adult dependency increases are only payable to claimants with dependants. Those in respect of whom adult dependency increases would otherwise have been payable and who are unable to work, will be eligible for the usual range of working-age benefits.

Persons with a disability and persons without

Of 31,602 recipients of Carer’s Allowance, 3,763 claimants are also in receipt of either Disability Living Allowance or Attendance Allowance which represents less than 12%. Of the 2056 recipients of Carer’s Allowance who are receiving adult dependency increases, 231 are also in receipt of Disability Living Allowance which represents just over 11%.

Removing the adult dependency increase will affect carers with adult dependants irrespective of whether or not they have a disability.

Data is not collected in relation to Maternity Allowance recipients and disability. Removing the adult dependency increase will affect Maternity Allowance recipients with adult dependants irrespective of whether they have a disability or not. No adverse impact from the proposal in terms of unlawful disability discrimination is anticipated.

Mitigation

The proposals regarding the abolition of adult dependency increases will make the benefit system simpler and fairer.

Adult dependency increases are being abolished for new claimants from April 2010. Existing claimants will have their entitlement to the increase safeguarded until 2020. Claimants with low or no other income will continue to be able to apply for income-related benefits.

For new claims to Maternity Allowance after 6 April 2010 the claimant will not receive an adult dependency increase in addition to the personal rate of Maternity Allowance. This will affect approximately 0.5 per cent of the total Maternity Allowance caseload and additional support for lower income households will remain available through the income-related benefits.

13. Other Social Security Proposals

13.1 Social Fund – Community Care Grants

Community Care Grants are designed to allow the most vulnerable individuals and families to be resettled or remain in the community. They provide valuable support for those who frequently have nowhere else to turn. During 2007/08 almost 45,000 applications were made and £13.59 million was paid by way of community care grants. The table below shows the expenditure by applicant group –

Applicant group	% of total amount
Pensioners	24.9
Unemployed	3.1
Disabled	45.6
Lone parents	19.7
Others	6.8

Source: DSD Social Fund Annual Report 2007/08

This will ensure applicants receive value for money from their grants and that the grant is spent on the item it was awarded for. The Community Care Grant process will be streamlined and reduce the number of reviews required. In addition the application process for customers will be quicker and clearer and the new process will result in vulnerable individuals receiving their item or service more quickly than if they had been receiving cash. It will also protect the most vulnerable individuals, by allowing those who have special requirements (for example through ill-health or disability), to receive items or services not part of the standard contract or even cash in some cases.

Impact Assessment

There is no data available on Section 75 groups. As the same groups will receive help as they do under the current arrangements, it is not considered that the proposal to provide applicants with the item rather than money will have an adverse impact on any of the Section 75 categories.

Mitigation

The most vulnerable individuals will also be protected, by allowing those who have special requirements (for example through ill-health or disability) to receive items or services not part of the standard contract or even cash in some cases.

13.2 Payments on Account

This measure will allow advance payments of benefit to be made to those facing hardship while awaiting their first full payment of benefit. At present, these claimants apply to the Social Fund for a crisis loan to tide them over. If their application is successful, they receive a loan equal to 75% of their normal benefit entitlement which is recovered from normal benefit once it is paid. In Northern Ireland for the period 2007/08, £ 1,431,161 (16.7 % of awards) was for “alignment loans", i.e. crisis loans to tide a customer over until the first payment of benefit or wages.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

As the same groups will receive help as they do under the current arrangements, it is not considered that the proposal to enable an advance payment of benefit to be made will have a differential impact on any of the Section 75 categories.

13.3 Disability Living Allowance Mobility Component for Blind Claimants

Disability Living Allowance provides a contribution towards some of the extra costs faced by severely disabled people as a result of their disabilities. Broadly, entitlement to Disability Living Allowance depends on the extent to which the person needs help with personal care, needs supervision or has difficulties with getting around.

Entitlement to the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance depends on the nature and extent of walking difficulties that result from disability. The higher rate is for people who are physically unable to walk or virtually unable to walk. It is also available to people who are both deaf and blind. The lower rate is available to people who can walk but who need guidance or supervision from another person when walking out of doors on unfamiliar routes. The Bill extends the provision of the higher rate mobility component of Disability Living Allowance to people with blindness/ severe visual impairment.

Impact Assessment

Age

The mobility component of Disability Living Allowance is focused on providing extra help to people who have the very considerable disadvantage of being severely disabled prior to age 65 and who may face limited opportunities to work, earn and save. The earliest age at which children can qualify for the higher rate mobility component is 3 years. The age of 3 represents a sensible and practical dividing line which helps establish that any mobility difficulties after that age are not as a result of late development.

Age	Number of recipients in receipt of low rate Mobility for blindness
Under 20	171
20-24	110
25-29	84
30-34	78
35-39	141
40-44	158
45-49	177
50-54	152
55-59	186
60-64	207
65+	512
Total	1976

Source: DLA MIDAS Scan May 2009

Nearly 61% of claimants currently receiving Disability Living Allowance are over the age of 50. This is because older people are more likely to have a disability or health condition. The extension of the higher rate mobility component to people with severe sight impairment will apply to all claimants who meet the criteria.

Marital status

It is not compulsory for claimants to disclose this information and it is not robust enough for equality impact assessment purposes. However, no unequal treatment in relation to marital status is envisaged.

Men and Women

It is not compulsory for claimants to disclose this information and it is not robust for equality impact assessment purposes. However, no unequal treatment in relation to marital status is envisaged.

Persons with dependants and persons without

Data to assess the numbers of claimants with dependants is not available. The measures presented by the proposed reforms will be applied to all Disability Living Allowance claimants who are blind/severely visually impaired whether they have dependants or not. The extension of the higher rate mobility component of Disability Living Allowance will have no adverse impact on people with or without dependants.

Persons with a disability and persons without

Disability Living Allowance is specifically for severely disabled people and is intended to help with the extra costs arising as a result of their disabilities. The measure is designed to address the restrictions and risk to personal safety faced by blind people who are able to walk but require guidance and supervision out of doors.

Mitigation

The proposals to extend the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance will allow those with severe sight impairment to have access to the higher rate mobility component, helping visually impaired people with additional mobility costs.

14. Child Maintenance

14.1 Administrative withdrawal of driving licences

The Child Maintenance Act (Northern Ireland) 2008 allows the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Division to apply to the court to have non-resident parents who will not as opposed to cannot pay child support maintenance disqualified from driving. It is proposed to make provision to enable the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Division to do so without application to the court.

It is proposed that there will be extensive appeal provisions. The non-resident parent will be able to appeal to the magistrates’ court against the administrative order by the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Division. Where an appeal has been lodged the order will be suspended pending the determination, withdrawal or discontinuance of that appeal. On appeal, the court would be able to make a decision with representations from both the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Division and the non-resident parent.

The existing powers relating to court-based enforcement action continues to apply i.e. attempts to recover money through the Enforcement of Judgments Office.

The power to administratively disqualify a non-resident parent from holding or obtaining a driving licence will be piloted in Great Britain before a decision is taken on whether to proceed to national roll-out. If it is decided to proceed to national roll-out the proposal will be implemented in Northern Ireland.

In line with other enforcement measures available to the Department, the aim of the proposed administrative withdrawal of driving licences is to encourage compliance.

Impact Assessment

There is no evidence to suggest that the proposal to allow the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Division rather than the courts to withdraw a non-resident parent’s driving licence for non payment of child support maintenance will have a differential impact on any of the Section 75 categories apart for men.

In Northern Ireland 93% of lone parents are female compared with 95.7% of old scheme, and 94.5% of new scheme, child support customers. Child maintenance can be claimed by either men or women providing they are the parent with care and the measures in the Bill apply equally to both male and female parents. The measures in this Bill are intended to improve income flows and support for children.

Mitigation

The proposal would only be used after considering the other options for compliance. It is intended that such administrative powers would be employed sparingly– where the non-resident parent has wilfully refused or culpably neglected to pay maintenance and where the only other options would be for the Department to ask a court to imprison the non-resident parent or make him or her subject to a curfew.

The nature of the proposal requires careful consideration, on a case by case basis, the individual circumstances of the non-resident parent (including any representations that he or she may make) before the administrative order is imposed. The order itself will be suspended, and not implemented (pending an appeal to the court) if that appeal is lodged within 28 days of the order being served. This means that each individual case is thoroughly reviewed as and when the administrative orders are imposed

14.2 Payments of Child Support Maintenance

One of the reforms set out in the White Paper “A new system of child maintenance" is to simplify the calculation of child maintenance by using the latest available tax-year information as the basis for calculating a child maintenance liability, to move to a system of fixed-term awards of one year, and to use gross income rather than net weekly income. This new method will create an annual cycle. The legislation will be amended to allow the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Division to operate on an annual basis in relation to payments of child maintenance. The notification of the maintenance calculation will show an annual rather than a weekly amount. Where the payment interval is to be monthly, the schedule of payments will show 12 equal monthly payments. This will make it easier for the non-resident parent to see what payments are due to be made, on what date and how they relate to the maintenance liability. This will also facilitate the making of payments by regular direct debit because the amounts will be the same each month.

Impact Assessment

Since the proposal on payments of child maintenance is administrative in nature it is not considered that there is absolutely no change on the differential impacts on any of the Section 75 categories

14.3 Offences relating to information

Currently a person commits an offence if he/she fails to notify a change of circumstances. There will be a new provision to extend this offence to a failure to report other changes of circumstances, for example, a change in income, benefits or employment status. This is to address the issue of non-resident parents who move on and off benefits to minimise the amount of maintenance they pay.

It is proposed to extend the criminal prosecution time bar from 6 months to 12 months for the supply of false or misleading information. This extension of time will allow the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Division to conduct a full and proper investigation when it has been shown that false information has been supplied.

These measures will lead to greater provision of accurate information and will result in the improved calculation and collection of the correct payment of child maintenance.

Impact Assessment

The proposals to require non-resident parents to report other changes of circumstances and to extend the criminal prosecution time bar for the supply of false or misleading information will apply to all non-resident parents.

Clearly most non-resident parents are men, and most parents with care are women. It is therefore considered that these proposals will not have a differential impact on any of the other Section 75 categories.

15. Contracting out functions

It is considered that these proposals will not have a differential impact on any Section 75 categories.

16. List of organisations consulted

Action Cancer
Advice NI
Age Concern
A2B
Health and Social Care Board Headquarters
Health and Social Care Board Western Commissioning Group
Health and Social Care Board Belfast Commissioning Group
Health and Social Care Board Northern Commissioning Group
Health and Social Care Board Southern Commissioning Group
Health and Social Care Board South Eastern Commissioning Group
CO3
Association of Directors of Social Services
Barnardos
Business in the Community
Carers Northern Ireland
CBI (Northern Ireland)
Chief Medical Officer
Child Poverty Action Group
Citizens Advice Bureau NI
Coalition on Sexual Orientation
Disability Action
Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board (NI)
Economic Research Institute of NI
Employers’ Forum on Disability
Engineering Employers Federation
Equality Coalition
Equality Commission for Northern Ireland
Equality Now
Federation of Small Businesses
Greater Shankill Partnership
Help the Aged (Northern Ireland)
Industrial Society of Learning & Development
Institute of Directors
Key Skills Resource Centre
Law Centre (Northern Ireland)
Lifeline
Macmillan Cancer Relief
MENCAP
NACCO Materials Handling Ltd
National Deaf Children’s Society (NI)
Deaf Association of Northern Ireland
NIACRO
Northern Ireland Gay Rights Association
Northern Ireland Anti-Poverty Network
Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce & Industry
Northern Ireland Council for Ethnic Minorities
Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
Northern Ireland Union of Supported Employment
Northern Health and Social Care Trust
Faculty of Legal, Social & Educational Sciences
Queer Space
Rethink Northern Ireland
Royal National Institute for the Blind (Northern Ireland)
SENSE Northern Ireland
Skill Northern Ireland
The National Autistic Society
University of Ulster

Annex A

Welfare Reform Bill – Equality Impact Assessment comments

Comments Received From	Points raised	Response
	Work for your Benefit
Western Office HSC Board Advice NI Northern Ireland Union Of Supported Employment Disability Action Law Centre(NI)	There is potential that employers may offer placements linked to the scheme as opposed to recruitment from the wider labour market There is a specific challenge for those living in rural areas as there is restricted access to affordable childcare, public transport and job opportunities. Also, many rural dwellers are under-employed in farming yet play a vital role in supporting and maintaining sustainable development which is important to the population’s health and well-being There are concerns regarding the introduction of the “Work for your Benefits" programme for people with disabilities and people from disadvantaged groups. The national minimum wage should be paid to anyone undertaking work through ‘work for your benefit’, rather than the £1.73 implied by the proposal. Such schemes need to take into consideration the impact this will have on families.	There are risks associated with “Work for your Benefit" schemes but the EQIA makes it clear that such schemes will only be considered in Northern Ireland after their concept has been tested by pilot in Great Britain and proven satisfactory. Work for your Benefit measures will be designed to ensure that they are appropriate to the needs and circumstances of the individual - those circumstances may include the area in which that individual lives. Only JSA recipients who must be available for and actively seeking work will be required to participate in Work for Your Benefit. Customers who have restrictions within their Jobseeker’s Agreement relating to the days and hours they must be available to work will be able to carry these forward to restrict the time they must be available for Work for Your Benefit. Wanting to pay the National Minimum Wage for Work for Your Benefit is based on a misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of the programme. It is not employment. It is an employment programme. It is designed very specifically to give people not only the chance to develop work habits and experience through supported placements, but also to deliver tailored back to work support. Paying the National Minimum Wage for Work for Your Benefit would result in an erosion of incentives to move into the open labour market and into paid employment.
	Work Related Activity – Employment and Support Allowance
Law Centre(NI) Disability Action Advice NI WCRP	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. ‘Work-related activities’ through Employment and Support Allowance may have a disproportionate affect on people with mental health problems and those with childcare and caring responsibilities (mainly women). Participating in mandatory work related programmes is likely to have substantial adverse implications for claimants and their dependants. Such schemes should be on a voluntary basis. The question must be asked as to the extent that Personal Advisers (who are not medically trained and indeed may have little or know knowledge of the disability) should be “encouraging, persuading and supporting people to take up work-related activity", and initiating benefit penalty processes should the claimant allegedly not be fulfilling their responsibilities.	Although our intention is to monitor the Great Britain pilots, this does not preclude us from running our own pilots to see what could be done that may be more appropriate in Northern Ireland.. Should it be considered useful to do so, the Department for Employment and Learning will consider such an approach but there will be resource implications that will need addressed before commitments can be made. This will include any proposals to increase Access to Work budgets The reforms are designed to help all people including disabled people and those with health conditions into work. The measures have been designed to have a positive impact on people with health conditions and disabilities and aim to promote equality of opportunity. Where a Personal Adviser considers that a person, who is required to take part in an interview, is not fit to engage because of their condition they can defer participation until the condition settles down. This is particularly the case in relation to claimants with mental health impairments where conditions can fluctuate quite dramatically in a short space of time.
		Personal advisers are trained to work at the claimant’s pace and not to force people to do things if that would be counter-productive. Where a person’s capability for work-related activity is limited by a physical or mental condition and the limitation is such that it is unreasonable to require the person to undertake work-related activity, no conditionality is required and they will not be asked to participate in work-focused interviews or work-related activity. The training given to personal advisers provides them with the skills required to interact successfully with claimants with a range of health conditions and disabilities. The training package includes key messages around health and disability, perceptions about health issues, background to specific health conditions and their impact, as well as active listening and customer interaction skills. Sanctions will only be applied when claimants are clearly refusing to engage or undertake any activity which is effective for them. There are measures in place to ensure that the individual circumstances of anyone referred for a sanction are considered, before the decision to remove benefit is made. For a jobseeker to be sanctioned their Personal Adviser needs to refer their case to a Decision Maker, who is independent of both the Adviser and the jobseeker.
	Supporting parents with younger children into employment
Law Centre(NI) Advice NI Northern Ireland Union Of Supported Employment	There is concern that there is not enough childcare provision available to assist lone parents to take up employment. Until this is fully addressed lone parents should be encouraged to take up employment not forced. Lone parents with disabilities may need additional support to assist them to find employment, are the Jobs and Benefit Office Personal Advisors appropriately trained and resourced to assist people with disabilities to progress to work? Is there a process in place to ensure that decisions are consistent and fair in deciding whether the parent has provided evidence which demonstrates that they are not able to take up a job because appropriate childcare is not available?	The Progression to Work programme will be piloted in the first instance in Great Britain for a minimum of two years. It will require lone parents and partners of certain benefit recipients with younger children, to undertake mandatory action planning and work-related activities, which are flexible and personally tailored to their needs, disabilities and circumstances. These groups will not be required to take up work as a condition of their benefit but will have to show what they are doing to progress towards a return to work at the appropriate time for them. Participating in work related activity will be subject to the availability of suitable and affordable childcare where this is necessary. The childcare position in Northern Ireland is fully recognised and will be taken into account. Customers with disabilities can access the full range of the Department for Employment and Learning disability programmes regardless of the benefit they claim. The Department for Employment and Learning has a comprehensive suite of programmes already in place. In addition to the advice and guidance afforded to Personal Advisers and Decision Makers and the measures in place to request a review or appeal, the internal systems for monitoring the quality of decision making ensure that decisions on sanctions are consistent and fair.
	Partners of Benefit recipients
Northern Ireland Union Of Supported Employment Law Centre(NI) Disability Action	Affordable childcare provision for shift workers, after school or at weekends is still not available. We do not support forcing couples where one partner is entitled to ESA or IS to claim JSA. We would recommend and support a voluntary approach for partners to come forward for work-related activity. There is a real risk that women may find it harder to combine looking for work with childcare responsibilities and will miss out on the adviser support available and potentially be subject to sanctions	Partners of certain benefit recipients with younger children will be required to undertake mandatory action planning and work-related activities, which are flexible and personally tailored to their needs and circumstances. These groups will not be required to take up work as a condition of their benefit but will have to make clear what they are doing to progress towards a return to work at the appropriate time for them. As with lone parents, participating in work related activity will be subject to the availability of suitable and affordable childcare where this is necessary. The childcare position in Northern Ireland is fully recognised and will be taken into account.
	JSA: Sanctions for Violent Conduct in Connection with Claim
Northern Ireland Union Of Supported Employment Advice NI Law Centre(NI)	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 the benefit sanctions. We note that the EQIA has not carried out an impact assessment on these proposals and would seek clarification as to the reasons for this decision. Account should be taken of those who are suffering mental problems as their actions could be directly linked to their medical condition. Care needed to ensure that vulnerable clients are not put at greater risk of poverty, debt and isolation that could aggravate their condition.	The sanction would only apply following a conviction or caution. This means that the Courts would have already considered and reached judgement on the offence, and in the case of cautions, guilt will have been admitted by the offender. Because the numbers are small it is not possible to give a breakdown of the gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or disability of the jobseekers that will be impacted by this proposal. Vulnerable claimants such as disabled people or people with a mental health condition will not suffer a complete loss of benefit. They may still be eligible to receive reduced hardship payments as is the case with other benefit sanctions. There are already measures in place to ensure that the individual circumstances of anyone referred for a sanction are considered before the decision to remove benefit is made.
	NIUSE agrees that government staff must be protected from violent behaviour whether it is actual or threatened. NIUSE believes that the blanket use of sanctions and conditionality is inappropriate and will do little to prevent or reduce risk to staff. With the increase in number of people with disabilities and health related conditions applying for JSA this proposal will have a direct impact on them. Specific concerns exist for people who experience severe and fluctuating mental health issues. More and more people with mental health problems previously would have been in receipt of incapacity related benefits but now do not quality for ESA. They will find themselves subject to a JSA regime which may be inappropriate for them.
	Attendance in connection with jobseeker’s allowance: sanctions
Law Centre(NI)	We would welcome further information regarding what constitutes ‘good cause’ and the criteria for deciding whether to suspend payments for one or two weeks. We are concerned that sanctions could be imposed before due regard is given to the demonstration of good cause and we are apprehensive about empowering social services staff with further discretion to suspend payments.	The sanction of one week’s loss of JSA will apply to customers who fail to attend their appointments, without good cause, and who return to the Jobs and Benefits Office within 5 working days of their failure. Customers who don’t return within 5 working days will have their claim closed, as is the case currently, and will need to re-claim whenever they do attend. If a customer repeats this behaviour in the same claim, then on the 2nd failure this sanction will escalate to 2 weeks loss of JSA. “Good cause" can include attending a job interview, health or disability problems, attending a funeral etc. The list is not exhaustive. The decision maker will consider each case on its merits.
	Loss of benefit provision
Advice NI	There is concern that this could be the start of a culture of suspending benefits for less serious offences than fraud. Both staff and claimants would need to be very clear as to the implications of being subject to formal cautions and agreeing to administrative penalties.	A one strike 4 week benefit sanction can only be applied in criminal cases where there is sufficient evidence to consider referring the case to the Public Prosecution Service. In the less serious of these criminal cases, the Agency has the option to offer a lower level sanction as an alternative to prosecution. The lower level sanctions available are an administrative penalty (which is similar to a fine) or a formal caution. However, the customer must agree to accept a lower level sanction - it cannot simply be imposed by the Agency. The implications of accepting a lower level sanction, along with the impact of the new ‘one strike’ sanction on benefit entitlement, will be explained fully to the customer at interview before they decide whether or not to accept the sanction. All cases where the customer waives the offer of a lower level sanction will be referred to the Public Prosecution Service to consider prosecution through the courts. In all such cases, the decision whether or not to impose a new ‘one strike’ sanction will be deferred until Court proceedings are completed.
	Abolition of Income Support
Law Centre(NI) Northern Ireland Union Of Supported Employment WCRP Disability Action	The proposal to simplify the system by moving all claimants to Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance is simplistic and infeasible. 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. Income Support also offers a lifeline to women experiencing domestic and sexual violence. Women leaving domestic violence, with their children, would be treated as job seekers, with only a three-month exemption from job seeking. This will serve to discourage victims from leaving an abusive partner or to return to the situation as they are financially vulnerable. There is concern regarding Carer’s Allowance and Income Support (including passporting benefits such as Housing Benefit, free school dinners, eye tests etc) and how they would be transferred over and protected.	The Bill will provide for a new form of Jobseeker’s Allowance to be paid to people in prescribed groups who cannot meet the usual jobseeking conditions. To all intents and purposes this new form of Jobseeker’s Allowance will be the same as Income Support and regulations will be made setting out clearly which groups can receive it. There will therefore be no doubt as to whether particular groups have or have not been provided for. Income Support will not be abolished until suitable arrangements have been made for all groups currently entitled to claim Income Support. Passporting benefits will not be affected
	Abolition of Adult Dependency Increases
Law Centre(NI) Advice NI Western Office HSC Board	This appears to be a purely money saving exercise and a further erosion of the national insurance principle. Carers or those on maternity leave who have not worked sufficiently long enough to claim statutory maternity pay should not be penalised where they have a partner who is also not working. It is proposed that a full, comprehensive, independent benefits check be offered to each of the individuals affected by this change There are still many vulnerable adults who may be at risk and the service needs to be altered to protect them	The proposals regarding the abolition of adult dependency increases will simplify the benefit system and make it fairer. New claimants from April 2010 will no longer be able to claim an adult dependency increase in addition to the personal rate of Carer’s Allowance or Maternity Allowance. However, those claimants who are already in receipt of an adult dependency increase will continue to receive the increase until the end of their Maternity Allowance period. In the case of Carer’s Allowance, the increase will be phased out between 2010 and 2020. This is in line with the arrangements already in place for phasing out adult dependency increases with State Pension. Additional support for lower income households remains available through the income-related benefits, which include higher amounts for couples and carers. Depending on the individual circumstances a range of social security benefits is available including Disability Living Allowance, Attendance Allowance, Employment and Support Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, Jobseeker’s Allowance, State Pension as well as the income-related benefits such as Income Support and Pension Credit.
	Community Care Grant applicants will be provided with the item they have applied for rather than money.
Advice NI Western Office HSC Board	It is important that clients are not stigmatised, offered inferior goods and given reasonable choice Any system of this kind will create stigma. In terms of social inclusion policies a person who is not free to spend may not consider themselves a full member of society with such a system being seen as being linked to charity, rather than an entitlement. This approach may well particularly disincentivise older people from claiming their entitlement.	The provision of goods or services as opposed to cash will improve the service by ensuring that applicants receive value for money. The application process will become quicker and clearer and will result in a speedier delivery of goods or services. In deciding the arrangements to be made with suppliers the Department will consider a wide range of requirements which should ensure that it can deliver a high quality service in a manner that is suitable for and acceptable to all applicants.
	General Comments on Social Security Provisions
Northern Ireland Union of Supported Employment Disability Action	Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance claimants will have added pressure to find employment during this economic recession with less employment opportunities available and with increasing numbers of individuals looking for work. There is concern that the Government has allocated insufficient resources (i.e. staff, training etc) to implement the Welfare Reform Bill 2009. For example with the introduction of “Work for Your Benefit Programme" do JSA Personal Advisors have the specialist skills to identify suitable work experience and support individuals during this period? The Welfare Reform Bill 2009 focuses mainly on assisting and supporting individuals to move from benefits (JSA and ESA) into employment. The paper fails to address the issue of maintaining an individual in employment. Without the right support in employment, vulnerable individuals may find themselves losing their job and returning to claim benefits.	In the current economic climate it is more important than ever to ensure that families are given the help and support they need to improve their employment prospects. The Department for Employment and Learning has more staff who are better trained and delivering a wider range of programmes to people with ill health and/or disabilities than ever before. Work for your Benefit schemes will not be considered in Northern Ireland before the pilots in Great Britain have demonstrated that this approach is effective. There are resource implications for Departments associated with the 2009 Bill and these will need to be addressed before all of the provisions can be implemented. The Department for Employment and Learning has a range of programmes including Access to Work (NI), New Deal for Disabled People, Workable NI, Job Introduction Scheme etc which are specifically designed to help people with disabilities train for, find and remain in work.
	Child Support-Child Maintenance
Western Office HSC Board	Withdrawal of driving licence for non payment of child maintenance – while this action is understandable, it is important that it does not result in the non-resident parent facing barriers to work or social inclusion	The legislation will make clear that before disqualifying a non-resident parent from driving the Department must consider if s the licence is needed in order to earn a living. This would not necessarily prevent the decision being made but the overall intention is to encourage payment and not deprive the non-resident parent of the means to pay. This action will only be taken as a last resort when other methods to secure payment have failed.
	Contracting out Functions
Disability Action Northern Ireland Union of Supported Employment Western Office HSC Board	There is concern regarding the delivery of service and quality of service delivered under this method. In the past there have been similar government programmes which have been contracted out, based on output related funding. Some providers did not have the best interest of the individual in mind and the focus was on numbers rather than the quality of service. Once again those who were the most vulnerable (i.e. people with disabilities) were most affected. There is concern regarding the use of Prime contractors. Would encourage DSD to examine how those services could be delivered by the community and voluntary sector as they have easier access to the most disadvantaged in our society	The Department for Employment and Learning recognises that sub-contractor partnerships will provide access to genuine specialisms which will address local requirements, particular areas of disadvantage and increase credibility within the geographic locations they are operating. Private providers have been strong in exploiting flexible approaches to helping people back to work and are highly responsive to the incentives built into their contracts.
		The Department for Employment and Learning will consider how it might contract with external provider to deliver the best outcomes for customers Performance improvement will be managed on a day to day basis by the Department for Employment and Learning at an appropriate level. Any Lead contractors will be responsible for ensuring that their sub-contractors meet the agreed performance and quality standards. Contracts will stipulate that providers should not discriminate against any customer on the grounds of disability (amongst others) and that reasonable adjustments are made to ensure full participation for all customers. In addition providers need to have equality and diversity and harassment policies in place and arrange for diversity training for new and existing staff. They will also be required to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people. A commissioning strategy will put in place incentives to encourage new providers into the market and drive better outcomes for customers. Private and voluntary sector providers are valuable partners. Wherever possible their expertise will be drawn on. Third sector organisations play a vital role in welfare provision and are well placed to offer services because of their local experience, knowledge of what their community needs and credibility with their constituency groups.

[1] P4 ECNI Practical Guidance on Equality Impact Assessments

Correspondence from DSD 18 January 2010

Social Security Policy and Legislation Division

Mr Peter McCallion
Social Development Committee
Room 419
Parliament Buildings
Stormont
Belfast
BT4 3S W

Level 1
James House
2–4 Cromac Avenue
Gasworks Business Park
Ormeau Road
Belfast
BT7 2JA
Tel: (028) 90819101
Fax: (028) 90819984
Email: Anne.McCleary @dsdni.gov.uk
Your reference: CSD/009/2008//3/PMcC
Our reference:

Date: 18 January 2010

Dear Peter

Equality Impact Assessment of the Welfare Reform Bill

You wrote to John Ball on 14 December 2009 setting out the Committee’s response to the consultation on the Equality Impact Assessment of the Northern Ireland Welfare Reform Bill. Your letter has been passed to me for reply.

Parity

Members have indicated that within the parity constraints, the Department should devise guidance to ensure the delivery of the measures within the Bill in a manner appropriate to the unique social and economic conditions in Northern Ireland.

I am happy to assure the Committee that when considering the introduction of the measures in the Bill in Northern Ireland, account will be taken of conditions specific to Northern Ireland and where practicable, appropriate flexibilities and operational easements will be introduced. Guidance will be provided to ensure that staff are aware of and consider those flexibilities and operational easements where necessary.

Accelerated Passage

Minister Ritchie has decided that she does not wish to seek accelerated passage for the Bill. Consequently the Bill will proceed through the normal stages following its introduction in the Assembly. The Committee will be informed of the likely date for introduction as soon as this has been agreed.

Lone Parents and Childcare

Members have sought assurances that the secondary legislation brought forward under the Bill will be formulated in such a way as to recognise the dearth of childcare places in Northern Ireland.

As we have assured the Committee on several occasions, the Department appreciates that there are issues in Northern Ireland around the availability of childcare and we recognise the Committee’s legitimate concern on the issue.

As the Committee is aware, a number of flexibilities and operational easements have already been introduced in Northern Ireland since December 2008 for lone parents who claim Jobseeker’s Allowance.

The Bill and secondary legislation flowing from it will prescribe additional safeguards for parents including lone parents -

In determining whether a person has “good cause" for failing to undertake mandatory work related activities, provision in the Bill will ensure that the availability of childcare and the person’s health condition must be taken into account.
When preparing an action plan or a jobseeker’s agreement for a parent, the personal adviser will be required to have regard to the well being of any child affected by it when agreeing the activities it contains. This will include having regard to a child’s physical and mental health and emotional well-being; protection from harm and neglect; education, training and recreation; the contribution made by them to society; and their social and economic well-being
Lone parents will also be allowed to restrict the hours they are engaged in work related activity. It is intended that this will allow such parents to fit their work-related activity around their child’s schooling or formal childcare.
Only lone parents who have a youngest child aged between 3 and 6 will be required to undertake work-related activity

Benefit Sanctions

Members felt that sanctions for simply failing to attend an interview are disproportionate and have an unjust effect on the dependents of the claimant.

If a jobseeker fails to attend an interview or sign on without “good cause", their entitlement to claim Jobseeker’s Allowance is brought into question and their personal adviser would refer their case to an independent decision maker to make a decision about their entitlement. If the decision maker judges that the jobseeker did not satisfy the entitlement conditions for Jobseeker’s Allowance then their claim would be closed down.

A decision maker has to take into account the matters outlined in legislation when deciding good cause for not attending or attending at the wrong time. These include

whether the claimant misunderstood the requirement on him due to any learning, language or literacy difficulties of the claimant or any misleading information given to the claimant by an employment officer;
whether the claimant was attending a medical or dental appointment, or accompanying a person for whom the claimant has caring responsibilities to such an appointment, and whether it would have been unreasonable, in the circumstances, to re-arrange the appointment;
any difficulty with the claimant’s normal mode of transport and whether there was any reasonable available alternative;
the established customs and practices of the religion, if any, to which the claimant belongs;
whether the claimant was attending an interview for employment.

A person may give a different reason from those mentioned above. Decision makers will consider all reasons given and determine whether to take them into account and whether they constitute good cause.

Voluntary Work

Members queried whether the Department would recognise voluntary work as suitable for inclusion in “Work for your Benefit" schemes.

In Britain, the “Work for Your Benefit" scheme will be delivered through private, voluntary or public sector contractors. It will be for individual providers to source work experience placements with a variety of host organisations once contracts have been awarded. The procurement process for these contracts is under way with contract award expected in the summer of 2010 with the pilots in Britain due to be launched in November 2010.

It has not yet been decided what form such schemes might take in Northern Ireland. In the first instance it would be our intention to monitor and learn from the experience in Britain.

Members have also suggested that Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants should be permitted to undertake voluntary work and retain their benefit entitlement.

A basic requirement for Jobseeker’s Allowance is that a person has to be available and actively seeking work. Usually, when completing a Jobseeker’s Agreement, a jobseeker must be willing and able to take up employment immediately.

A person can do voluntary work as long as they are available for and actively seeking work. Jobseeker’s Allowance is not normally affected as long as:

The person does not receive any pay other than to pay for expenses like fares or special clothing you need for the voluntary work
It is reasonable for the person or organisation that the claimant is doing the voluntary work for not to pay them.

Legislation introduced in December 2008 makes special provision for those with caring responsibilities or those who undertake voluntary work. They have to be willing and able to:

take up a job within 28 days of being notified of it in circumstances where a parent can show that 7 days is not reasonable because of their caring responsibilities; and
attend a job interview within 7 days notice of that interview in circumstances where the parent can show that 48 hours is not reasonable because of their caring responsibilities.

Those rules should make it easier for people out of paid employment to make a greater commitment to volunteering by allowing them to give 28 days notice before having to start a job. It should also make it more worthwhile for voluntary organisations to take on unemployed volunteers and offer them development and training opportunities.

Resources

The Committee have sought further information and assurance in respect of the resource and training implications for staff in the Department for Employment and Learning and the Social Security Agency following implementation of the provisions of the Bill.

Increases in for example the number of work-focused interviews resulting from some of the provisions in the Bill are likely to result in increased costs particularly for the Department for Employment and Learning. Increased resources and training will also be required to deliver such measures as work-related activity for some claimants of Employment and Support Allowance and increased conditionality for some lone parents and partners.

As indicated, Work for your Benefit and work related activity schemes will not be considered in Northern Ireland before the pilots in Great Britain have demonstrated that this approach is effective. The resource and training implications for Departments associated with the Bill will need to be addressed before all of the provisions can be implemented.

I hope this information is helpful.

Yours sincerely

Anne McCleary Signature

Anne McCleary
Ext: 37984

cc John Ball
Billy Crawford
Rory Muldrew

Correspondence from DSD 2 March 2010

Social Security Policy and Legislation Division

Mr Peter McCallion
Social Development Committee
Room 419
Parliament Buildings
Stormont
Belfast
BT4 3S W

Level 1
James House
2–4 Cromac Avenue
Gasworks Business Park
Ormeau Road
Belfast
BT7 2JA
Tel: (028) 90819101
Fax:: (028) 90819984
Email: Margarert.Sisk @dsdni.gov.uk
Your reference: CSD/009/2008/4/CMC
Our reference:

Date: 2 March 2010

Dear Peter

Welfare Reform Bill

You wrote to John Ball on 18 February 2010 setting out the Committee’s request for the Department’s response to a number of issues on the Welfare Reform Bill raised by Disability Action in their briefing paper to the Committee for Employment and Learning.

Employment and Support Allowance

Disability Action has raised concerns about the difficulties in accessing claims and the subsequent high proportion of unsuccessful claims.

Access to Employment and Support Allowance

The Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) Centre has procedures in place to assist customers with disabilities during the application process.

These include the facility for a claim to be made by an advocate on behalf of a customer. In addition, if at any stage of a telephone conversation the telephone agent becomes aware that a customer is having difficulty with the claim process, the agent will advise the customer that an advocate can complete the call on their behalf. Once an advocate has been authorised they can act for the customer during any subsequent contact.

If a customer is identified as having difficulty in completing a claim by telephone the staff in the ESA Centre will arrange for an appointment in the local benefit office where staff will provide assistance.

As well as the telephony channel, the ESA Centre can issue claim forms to individuals and has distributed claim forms to a wide range of voluntary and political groups. Claim forms are also available from Jobs & Benefits / Social Security Offices.

In addition, the ESA Centre has actively engaged with groups representing vulnerable customers through its outreach programme. These groups include the National Autistic Society, Action Mental Health and the Disability Consultative Forum. Senior officials from ESA also meet on a regular basis with representatives from the Advice Sector Alliance and participate in the Disability Consultative Forum.

In recent months, awareness sessions have been delivered to Action Mental Health, Triangle Supported Employment and advice workers from the National Autistic Society. Special arrangements have been put in place to assist Macmillan staff working with ESA customers which involves the completion of a shorter version of the medical questionnaire.

Like other benefits, information about ESA is available in all Jobs & Benefits/Social Security Offices, via the NI Direct website, and on the Department’s website. Information leaflets and claim forms containing details on how to claim ESA have been issued to the voluntary sector and to all constituency offices of elected representatives. Information leaflets on ESA are provided in Braille and audio for the visually impaired and a text phone service is available for customers with hearing difficulties. Arrangements are also in place to provide interpreting services for customers with limited understanding of English.

Unsuccessful claims

Central to ESA is the Work Capability Assessment (WCA); a medical assessment conducted by trained professionals to examine what customers can do, rather than what they cannot do. To date, 11,115 cases have been actioned following the WCA. Of these, 7,618 (69%) customers have been disallowed ESA by decision makers in the Centre as they were found not to have a limited capability for work.

These results reflect that the WCA is a more accurate assessment, and provides a better means to correctly identify people with health conditions which make it unreasonable to expect them to work. The work capability assessment was developed in consultation with medical experts and a range of other representative groups, including Disability Alliance and the Disability Rights Commission, to ensure that it is an accurate assessment of an individual’s capability for work. The assessment looks at the functional effects of an individual’s condition, rather than the condition itself. However, the changes introduced in the work capability assessment ensure that the assessment deals more effectively with the types of conditions that are prevalent today. The assessment fully addresses the needs of individuals with cognitive and intellectual function limitations, for example, conditions such as learning disability, autistic spectrum disorder, and acquired brain injury.

Arrangements are also in place to ensure that vulnerable customers receive a safeguard visit before a decision is made to disallow benefit due to non-attendance at a WCA or for failing to attend a Work Focused Interview (WFI). The safeguard visits were introduced as a means for the Department to explain conditionality, i.e. the consequences for not attending a WCA or WFI, and to obtain the reasons for not attending so that the Department can avoid stopping benefit for vulnerable customers and so prevent additional hardship.

It is worth noting that customers who are assessed as having the severest disabilities or health conditions will go into the ‘support group’ and be exempt from the Work Capability Assessment and the Work Focused Interviews. Those customers in the Support Group receive an additional component totalling £30.85.

Training

At its inception, the ESA Centre had high levels of inexperienced staff, and as a result has put in place an active and rigorous training program. Staff receive up to 36 days formal classroom training on benefit knowledge, designed to take account of their individual experience and job role. This training is supplemented by a period of on the job consolidation provided by the Centre’s ‘Expert Users’, technical experts who provide ongoing job support and assistance to newly trained staff. To ensure telephony staff are fully equipped to deal with all customer enquiries, training has been tailored to meet particular areas of interest. For example, specific skills training has been provided to telephony staff to provide greater understanding of contributory claims and Social Fund. In addition, call recordings are used to identify individual training needs and areas where the generic training needs to be revised. The ESA Centre training program has resulted in an increase in the number of fully trained staff and a reduction in the need to use temporary recruitment agency staff.

Benefit training is supplemented with customer service training. The ESA Centre has sought to provide staff with the requisite knowledge and skills to deal with customers who have a disability. To date, Disability Action have delivered disability awareness training to 230 staff within the ESA Centre.

In addition, the ESA Centre has actively sought to engage with voluntary groups in order to help determine training needs. For example, as a result of meetings with the National Autistic Society, operational staff in the ESA Centre have received awareness sessions on autism. The condition has also been integrated into the customer service training provided to ESA telephony staff.

Competence of the Pathways Advisor Service

Disability Action has raised the issue regarding the competence of the Pathways Advisor Service which has replaced the dedicated Disablement Employment Advisor function.

I understand that at present the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) has more staff who have received comprehensive training and who have more programmes available to help sick and disabled people find work than ever before. The Department continues to work in partnership with providers from the Disability sector to ensure that these programmes are delivered to as many people as possible and to the high quality standards that are expected.

There are 140 Pathways Personal Advisers and 38 Adviser/Team Leaders, many of whom are ex Disablement Employment Advisers (DEAs). These front-line staff are also supported by specialist Disability Programme Managers and Access to Work Advisors within the Disablement Advisory Service, as well as a much enhanced team of 5 Occupational Psychologists.

The training given to Personal Advisers provides them with the skills required to interact successfully with claimants with a range of health conditions and disabilities. The training package includes key messages around health and disability, perceptions about health issues, background to specific health conditions and their impact, as well as active listening and customer interaction skills

Gaps in Provision

Disability Action asserts that the current focus on Welfare reform is leading to significant gaps to meet the needs of people with disabilities

It should be noted that around two-thirds of people with a health condition or disability report mild to moderate symptoms which are manageable in the workplace with the right support. It is also questionable whether the previous DEA function would be the most appropriate or cost-effective service for this client group in helping them to find or retain suitable employment.

Specific programmes for people with health conditions and disabilities include Access to Work, Workable NI, the Condition Management Programme and the Work Preparation Programme. DEL’s main back to work programme, Steps to Work is also open to people with health conditions and disabilities.

People with more severe difficulties who are in receipt of benefits may not be required to participate in any work-related activity as a condition of benefit. However, as it is important not to write anyone off, people in this group can access any appropriate support or employment provision on a voluntary basis.

I hope this information is helpful.

Yours sincerely

Margaret Sisk Signature

Margaret Sisk
Ext: 37101

cc John Ball
Billy Crawford
Garath McGinty

Correspondence from DSD 10 March 2010

Final Delegated Powers Memorandum
12 April 2010

Delegated Powers Memorandum by the Department for Social Development

Introduction

1. The Welfare Reform Bill was introduced in the Northern Ireland Assembly on 12 April 2010.

2. This memorandum identifies the provisions for delegated legislation in the Welfare Reform Bill. It explains the purpose of the powers, the reason why they are left to delegated legislation and the procedure selected for the powers and why it has been chosen.

Background and summary

3. In July 2008 the consultation paper on proposals for welfare reform “No one written off: reforming welfare to reward responsibility" (Cm 7363) was published. In Northern Ireland 100 copies of the consultation paper were issued to a broad spectrum of interested groups. Following the consultation period, and the publication of an independent review by Professor Paul Gregg “Realising potential: A vision for personalised conditionality and support" a White Paper “Raising expectations and increasing support: reforming welfare for the future" (Cm 7506) was published. This set out the proposals for reform of the welfare state building on earlier reforms. Comments on the Green Paper were considered in developing the provisions of the Welfare Reform Act 2009 and the proposals for the Northern Ireland Welfare Reform Bill.

4. This Bill will further reform the welfare and benefit systems to improve support and incentives for people to move from benefits into work and set the scene for the abolition of income support.

5. Increasing parental responsibility is the reason for including further changes to child maintenance legislation - building on the Child Maintenance Act (Northern Ireland) 2008 (c. 10).

6. The Bill is organised into the following parts:

Part 1 (Clauses 1-30) - Social security;

Part 2 (Clauses 31-32) - Child maintenance;

Part 3 - (Clauses 33-37) - Miscellaneous and supplementary; and

Schedules 1-4.

7. The Department has followed the precedent in current social security legislation by setting out the overall legislative framework on the face of the Bill and providing for regulations and orders to set out the matters of detail. Previous examples include the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act (Northern Ireland) 2000 (c. 4), the State Pension Credit Act (Northern Ireland) 2002 (c. 14) and the Welfare Reform Act (Northern Ireland) 2007 (c.2).

8. This approach provides the Department with the necessary flexibility to make changes in the light of operational experience and changing circumstances.

Social Security

9. Part 1 of the Bill contains provisions which will increase support for benefit claimants, their partners, and lone parents with a view to improving their employment prospects or preparing them for work in the future. The provisions also set out the framework necessary for the future abolition of income support, and the movement of claimants of that benefit to jobseeker’s allowance with differing degrees of conditionality, or employment and support allowance. The Bill also makes provision for extending the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance to people with severe visual impairments.

10. The proposed delegated powers will enable regulations to provide for the detailed rules of the benefits and the way they are administered. As already stated, this will provide the Department with the flexibility to amend the detailed rules more easily, and within appropriate timescales, in the light of operational experience and other developments. It also allows for the timely introduction of adjustments that necessarily occur from time to time, for example, the level of the support and work-related activity components. Regulations will also provide for appropriate transitional arrangements.

Child maintenance

11. Part 2 of the Bill contains measures relating to child maintenance. The Child Maintenance Act (Northern Ireland) 2008 (“the 2008 Act") made extensive changes to the system of child maintenance, and the amendments proposed by the current Bill will build on these measures.

12. The 2008 Act changed the way in which maintenance was calculated: under the new system maintenance, is based on the non-resident parent’s gross annual income. The Bill will enable the Department to notify the non-resident parent of the annual amount and the equal monthly payments. This will make it easier for the non-resident parent to understand and pay his or her child maintenance liability. The details of this measure will be set out in regulations.

13. The 2008 Act made it an offence for a non-resident parent to fail to notify a change of address. The Bill extends this offence to a failure to notify a change of circumstances, which will be specified in regulations.

Other miscellaneous and supplementary measures

14. Part 3 of the Bill sets out general and supplementary provisions applying to the whole of the Bill, for example a delegated power to make consequential amendments to subordinate legislation and when provisions in the Bill could come into effect. There are delegated powers under clauses 33 (consequential amendments of orders and regulations), and 36 (commencement).

15. The Department for Social Development has considered in each case the appropriate procedure to follow in making regulations and orders. Most of the provisions deal with technical or procedural detail. On this basis and for the reasons set out in paragraph 10 above, it is proposed that the delegated powers to make regulations or orders should be subject to negative resolution procedure except as otherwise cited in this Memorandum.

General

16. All of the delegated powers are exercisable by statutory regulation. The annex to this memorandum lists and provides references for all of the clauses containing powers to make delegated legislation. The Annex lists the provisions by which the powers are created. Provisions which illustrate how a delegated power must or may be used have not been listed, but have of course been explained where appropriate in this memorandum.

17. All powers are exercisable by the Department, powers include powers to prescribe certain information and to prescribe the format in which information is provided and in which declarations are made.

Analysis of delegated powers by clause

Part 1 - Social Security

Clause 1 - Schemes for assisting persons to obtain employment: “work for your benefit" schemes etc.

18. Clause 1 (schemes for assisting persons to obtain employment: “work for your benefit" schemes etc.) makes provision for “work for your benefit" schemes.

19. This clause inserts two new Articles, Article 19A (schemes for assisting persons to obtain employment: “work for your benefit" schemes etc.) and Article 19B (Article 19A: supplemental) into the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/2705 (N.I. 15)).

20. Article 19A(1) specifies that regulations may impose a requirement on jobseeker’s allowance claimants to participate in schemes designed to assist them to obtain employment. It is intended that “work for your benefit" schemes will provide an opportunity for unemployed jobseeker’s allowance claimants to develop work habits and routines. The intention is that participants in these schemes will also be offered help with job search and other back to work support.

21. It is important that the powers are sufficiently broad and flexible so that the schemes can be tailored to the needs of individual jobseeker’s allowance claimants, including the long-term unemployed, many of whom face particular disadvantages in securing employment. The schemes need to be responsive to changes in the labour market and the detailed rules may also need to be amended quickly, for example, to take account of changes to benefit rules in secondary legislation.

22. For these reasons, the Department believes that the detailed rules for schemes for assisting persons to obtain employment are more appropriate for regulations than primary legislation.

23. This is not a new approach. The requirements imposed on existing employment programmes for jobseeker’s allowance claimants, such as the Department for Employment and Learning’s Steps to Work programme, are also significantly underpinned by secondary legislation.

24. It is intended to pilot “work for your benefit" schemes in limited areas of Great Britain from 2010, specified in regulations in order to assess the effectiveness of such a scheme in helping jobseeker’s allowance claimants to obtain work. Implementation in Northern Ireland will be subject to the evaluation of the Great Britain pilots and will depend on the availability of resources.

25. The clause contains two delegated powers - at paragraph (1) of Article 19A and paragraph (3) of Article 19B.

26. Article 19A(1) enables regulations to make provision for, or in connection with, requiring jobseeker’s allowance claimants in prescribed circumstances to participate in prescribed schemes designed to help them obtain employment. It is the intention to use this power to make regulations requiring certain jobseeker’s allowance claimants to take part in “work for your benefit" schemes.

27. Paragraph (2) and paragraphs (4) to (9) of Article 19A further describe the regulations which can (or, in the case of paragraph (4) may not) be made under the power described in paragraph (1).

28. Paragraph (2) provides examples of regulations which could be made under paragraph (1). In particular, regulations may require participants in schemes to undertake work or work-related activity (which is defined in paragraph (3)) during any prescribed period with a view to improving their employment prospects. It is intended that the requirement would apply during the period that claimants are required to take part in a “work for your benefit" scheme and that it will help claimants back to work by developing their work habits and routines, as well as providing substantial back to work support.

29. Paragraph (4) limits the power to make regulations. A claimant can only be required to take part in any scheme under Article 19A if he or she would otherwise be required to meet the jobseeking conditions (see clause 4 and Schedule 1).

30. Jobseeker’s allowance claimants who are required to meet the jobseeking conditions must usually be available for, and actively seeking, employment to be entitled to a jobseeker’s allowance. However, there may be some circumstances in which claimants who are participating in a “ work for your benefit" scheme may not actually be able to meet the normal requirements, for example because they would be treated as taking part in full-time work. In these cases, it is intended to be able to use regulations to provide that the person is not required to be available for employment as a condition for receiving jobseeker’s allowance.

31. Paragraph (5) provides further examples of the type of regulations that could be made under paragraph (1). Regulations could prescribe a period during which a claimant is not required to meet some or all of the jobseeking conditions which would otherwise apply in relation to him or her (sub-paragraph (b)) and for suspending any jobseeker’s agreement (sub-paragraph (c)) in order to facilitate full-time work and work-related activity.

32. Claimants can be required to participate in schemes (paragraph (1)). Paragraph (5)(d) to (f) enables the making of regulations concerning good cause in relation to sanctions. This follows the same approach as in Articles 21(8) (circumstances in which a jobseeker’s allowance is not payable) and 22A(9) (denial or reduction of joint-claim jobseeker’s allowance) of the Jobseeker’s (Northern Ireland) Order 1995.

33. Paragraph (6) deals with the consequences where a claimant who is not a member of a joint-claim couple does not have a good reason (good cause) for having failed to comply with regulations made under Article 19A. The consequence is that a jobseeker’s allowance is not payable. Paragraph (6) enables regulations to specify the period for which it will not be paid. This must be at least 1 week but may be no longer than 26 weeks. The intention is to provide in regulations that, for example, refusal, without good cause, to accept a place on a “work for your benefit" scheme or to carry out particular activities as part of any scheme will result in that person not receiving their jobseeker’s allowance payments.

34. Paragraph (8), which should be read with paragraph (9), enables regulations to make provision for an income-based jobseeker’s allowance to be payable to such a person even though other provisions in the regulations would otherwise prevent payment. This substantially replicates existing powers in the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (see Article 22(4) to (6)). The intention is to use these powers to make hardship payments.

35. Paragraph (7) deals with the consequences in the case of a joint-claim couple where the claimant has failed to comply with the regulations. It provides that the person is to be treated as subject to sanctions for the purposes of Article 22A (denial or reduction of joint-claim jobseeker’s allowance) of the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. In summary, the consequence is that if both members of a joint-claim couple are subject to sanctions, an allowance is not payable and if only one member of the couple is in default, it is payable at a reduced amount specified in regulations. In either case, the sanction period, which must be specified in regulations, must be at least 1 week but may be no more than 26 weeks.

36. Article 19B(3) enables the Department for Employment and Learning to apply the existing powers in Article 4 of the Employment and Training (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (status of trainees etc.) to specify both the employment status of participants schemes within Article 19A and also the way in which sums paid to participants are to be treated for the purposes of the relevant legislation, such as that governing liability to tax and National Insurance contributions.

37. This follows an established precedent, and enables such matters to be dealt with in the same way as they are dealt with for the purposes of the Department for Employment and Learning’s Steps to Work programme. For example, a miscellaneous provisions order, The Steps to Work (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 2009 (S.R. 2009 No. 297) was used to make clear the employment status of participants in the Steps to Work programme.

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

38. Clause 2 amends the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (c. 8) by inserting new sections 2D to 2H into that Act.

Section 2D

39. This allows the Department to make regulations which may require a person in receipt of income support and who is not a lone parent of a child under the age of 3 (subsection (1), or the partner of a person receiving income support, income-based jobseeker’s allowance or income-related employment and support allowance (subsections (2) and (3)) to undertake work-related activity as a condition of continuing to receive their full amount of benefit. “Work-related activity" for the purposes of this section and sections 2E and 2F means activity which makes it more likely that the person will obtain or remain in work or be able to do so.

40. The regulations made under subsection (4) will make provision for matters such as, the circumstances under which the new requirements are to apply, notifications that need to be sent, circumstances when the requirement will be considered as having been met, the consequences of any breach of a requirement, and matters to be taken into account in the consideration of good cause for failure to comply with any requirement.

41. Subsection (5) provides that the consequences for failure to comply with this requirement will be that the claimant’s benefit will be reduced. Regulations under subsection (6) will prescribe the amount of reduction and the period over which it is to apply. Subsection (8) provides that lone parents are entitled to restrict the hours for which they are required to undertake work-related activity.

Section 2E

42. Section 2E requires the Department or the Department for Employment and Learning, in circumstances to be specified in regulations, to provide a person in receipt of income support, income-based jobseeker’s allowance or an income-related employment and support allowance and who is required to attend a work-focused interview with an action plan.

43. Regulations made under subsection (3) will provide for the form, content and review and updating of action plans. Where a person is required, under the provisions of section 2D, to undertake work-related activity, subsection (4) provides that action plans will contain details of the activities which will allow that requirement to be met. Regulations under subsection (5) will provide for the circumstances and procedural matters under which the action plan may be reconsidered.

44. Subsection (6) provides that the well-being of any child should be taken into account when agreeing the activities that a parent will undertake as part of an action plan.

Section 2F

45. Subsection (1) allows the Department or the Department for Employment and Learning, in circumstances to be set out in regulations, to issue a direction to a person required to undertake work-related activity under section 2D and when such a requirement will be considered as having been met. The direction may not specify medical or surgical treatment as the only activity which is to be regarded as work-related activity.

Section 2G

46. This section will allow the Department or the Department for Employment and Learning to authorise staff of contracted out suppliers to carry out various functions.

47. By virtue of these regulations income support claimants and some partners of a person claiming income-based jobseeker’s allowance or an income-related employment and support allowance, will be subject to similar conditionality requirements as those which apply to some people claiming employment and support allowance.

Section 2H

48. This section applies to any regulations made under sections 2A, 2AA and 2D of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992. This provides that the circumstances to be prescribed in regulations as to what constitutes good cause for failing to undertake mandatory activities must include provisions relating to the availability of childcare and the claimant’s physical or mental health or condition.

49. It is considered appropriate for the negative resolution procedure to apply to the use of any of the powers contained in this clause.

Clause 3 – Lone Parents

50. Subsection (1) amends section 123 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (c.7) by inserting a new subsection to ensure that lone parents with a child under seven are a prescribed category of person entitled to income support.

51. Subsection (2) amends section 2A of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 to ensure that lone parents on income support with a child under one will not be required to take part in a work-focused interview.

52. Subsections (3) to (5) amend sections 12, 13, and 24 of the Welfare Reform Act (Northern Ireland) 2007, to ensure that lone parents on employment and support allowance with a child under one will not be required to take part in a work-focused interview and with a child under three will not be required to undertake work-related activity. A regulation-making power provides that lone parents on employment and support allowance will be entitled to restrict the times when they are required to undertake work-related activity.

Clause 4 - Entitlement to jobseeker’s allowance without seeking employment etc.

53. A person claiming jobseeker’s allowance has to be available for and actively seeking work and have a jobseeker’s agreement with the Department or the Department for Employment Learning (referred to as ‘the jobseeking conditions’ in this provision) whereas an income support recipient has no such conditions attached to his entitlement to benefit. Clause 4 amends the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 so that those conditions which are not relevant to people who claim income support (the jobseeking conditions) are not applied when these groups move on to jobseeker’s allowance. These provisions will not affect the position of those claimants who would have claimed jobseeker’s allowance anyway because some other change in their personal circumstances had meant that they were available to participate in jobseeking activities.

Subsection 3: New Article 3A of the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995

54. Paragraphs (1),(3) and (7) of new Article 3A, inserted by clause 4 restate the rules for people who are able to claim contribution-based or income-based jobseeker’s allowance under the current system and there is no change in the position of these individuals. Paragraphs (2) and (4) provide for claims from people who do not have to meet the jobseeking conditions.

55. New Article 3A(4)(c) provides a power to prescribe the category of persons who do not meet the jobseeking conditions and who would not otherwise be able to claim jobseeker’s allowance. The Department intends to use this power in a similar way to the existing power to prescribe persons who may be entitled to income support in section 123(1)(e) to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992. The power will enable the groups currently prescribed in Schedule 1B of the Income Support (General) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1987 to be prescribed for the purposes of income-based jobseeker’s allowance instead. Paragraph (5) provides that regulations under paragraph 4(c) must ensure that lone parents with a child under seven fall within a prescribed category of person.

56. New Article 3A(8) restates the regulation-making power that is contained in Article 3(2C) of the current provision and has resulted in regulation 3E of the Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996.

Subsection (3): New Article 3B of the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995

57. This restates the position for claims from joint-claim couples that is contained in Article 3(2B) and (2D) of the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. The regulation-making powers will be used in the same way as for existing provision.

Subsection (4)

58. Subsection (4) introduces Schedule 1 containing amendments to the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 which would provide a framework under which some people not required to meet the jobseeking conditions may nevertheless be required to meet some other conditions that will help prepare them for work in the future. Other measures in the Bill will mean that elements of this framework will already be in place for some people on income support before Schedule 1 takes effect. Therefore the amendments to the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 in Schedule 1 do not imply any change in principle although they will facilitate the further extension of the new conditionality framework, especially to partners.

59. The Department expects to transfer groups from income support to income-based jobseeker’s allowance over a period of time as and when resources permit rather than all at once. Currently income-based jobseeker’s allowance is similar to income support except for the jobseeking conditions and some detailed rules connected with jobseeking (for example regulations on education and training). Since the Bill makes it clear that the jobseeking conditions will not apply and any other differences from income support will be clearly set out in regulations, the delegated powers in clause 4 are suitable for the negative resolution procedure to apply.

Clause 5 - Couples where at least one member capable of work

60. Subsection (1) amends the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 by inserting new regulation-making powers into section 123(1) (conditions for income support). It also inserts new subsections (6A), (6B) and amends subsection (7) of that Act (employment and support allowance).

61. Subsection (2) amends paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 to the Welfare Reform Act (Northern Ireland) 2007 (c.2) (conditions for entitlement to income-related employment and support allowance). The purpose of these provisions is to remove entitlement to income support and income-related employment and support allowance for couples where one member is capable of work. This will mean that the only route to income-related support for such couples will be via income-based jobseeker’s allowance and the member of the couple who is work ready will be required to fulfil the jobseeking requirements in Article 3 of the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. Regulations will prescribe the circumstances in which a member of a couple will not be treated as being capable of work, for example, if they have claimed or are receiving employment and support allowance or they are in receipt of a carer’s allowance.

Clause 6 - Statutory sick pay and employment and support allowance

62. Clause 6 amends section 20 of the Welfare Reform Act (Northern Ireland) 2007 (c. 2). Section 20 as enacted provided that a person could not be entitled to an employment and support allowance in respect of any day on which he was also entitled to Statutory Sick Pay.

63. This provision alters that position such that in circumstances which will be prescribed in regulations, a person may be entitled to income-related employment and support allowance in respect of days on which he is also entitled to statutory sick pay.

64. It is appropriate that this is done in secondary legislation. The nature of the circumstances in which those claiming statutory sick pay would need to access employment and support allowance may need to be adapted to take into account wider changes in social security and other legislation in the future. In line with provision in other social security legislation the power should be subject to negative resolution procedure.

Clause 7 - Transitional provision relating to sections 4 to 6

65. Subsections (1) to (3) of clause 7 provide broad general powers to make transitional provisions relating to sections 4 to 6 of the Act.

66. In relation to the application of these powers to make transitional arrangements relating to section 4 (entitlement to jobseeker’s allowance without meeting jobseeking conditions etc.) the Department intends to make such transitional arrangements as are necessary to ensure that people whose income support or income-related employment and support allowance is terminated to be treated as having been awarded a transitional allowance to be determined according to regulations. The intention is to apply the power to ensure that no-one transferring to a different benefit as a result of provisions in section 4 is financially worse off as a consequence.

67. The relevant delegated powers are unlikely to be required and if they are, they will be used in a beneficial way to protect the position of claimants. It is appropriate for the negative resolution procedure to apply to the use of these powers.

Clause 8 – Assembly procedure: regulations imposing work-related activity requirements on lone parents of children under 7.

68. Clause 8 provides that regulations made within five years of the passing of the Welfare Reform Act and which impose a requirement on a lone parent of a child under 7 to undertake work-related activity will be subject to the confirmatory procedure of the Assembly.

Clause 9 - Abolition of income support

69. Clause 9 provides for the abolition of income support.

70. Since 7 October 1996, in order to qualify for income support a person has to fall within a category prescribed in regulations made under section 123(1)(e) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992. The prescribed categories are set out in Schedule 1B to the Income Support (General) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1987. The intention is that in future categories will be prescribed for the purposes of jobseeker’s allowance to provide for people who do not have to meet the jobseeking conditions by virtue of regulations under Article 3A(4)(c) or (8) of the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 or under provisions made under other enactment.

71. Subsection (2) of clause 9 will allow the Department to abolish income support by Order once it is satisfied that it is no longer necessary to prescribe groups of people to receive income support because they are catered for elsewhere in the benefit system. In order to ensure that the process of transferring groups out of income support goes smoothly, subsection (4) of the clause makes provisions for an order under subsection (2) to contain transitional provisions or savings.

72. Income Support, as a benefit of last resort, is referred to in many other Acts. Subsection (3) provides for consequential amendments and repeals to be made under Schedule 2 and Part 1 of Schedule 4 in accordance with any provisions contained in an Order made under subsection (2).

73. Subsection (7) provides that an Order to end entitlement to income support will be subject to the confirmatory resolution of the Assembly.

Schedule 1: Amendments connected to section 4

74. The Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 and other primary legislation requires amendment to ensure that once people who qualify currently for income support move to jobseeker’s allowance, the jobseeking conditions and related requirements to attend at times specified by an employment officer and provide information and evidence in relation to their jobseeking activities do not apply to them.

75. The Jobseekers(Northern Ireland) Order 1995 also needs to be restructured to provide a conditionality regime that is appropriate for people who, while not subject to jobseeking conditions, should nevertheless be expected to take steps to prepare for work in the future. Under current arrangements provided for under the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992, in appropriate cases, income support recipients can be subject to a requirement to participate in work-focused interviews. In future, those groups who ought to be preparing for work will also have to meet a requirement to: have an action plan; participate in work-related activity; and comply with an employment officer’s directions. The effect will be to ensure that, where these requirements apply, former income support cases will have to meet similar conditionality requirements to those which apply under the Welfare Reform Act (Northern Ireland) 2007 to people claiming the employment and support allowance because they have limited capability for work.

76. Once these provisions are in place, the restructured jobseeker’s allowance will be able to provide three different levels of conditionality requirements that can apply to claimants depending on their circumstances: no conditionality; employment and support allowance type conditionality for people expected to prepare for work at some point in the future; and full conditionality for jobseekers. The provisions in Schedule 1 are to a large extent a restatement of the provisions currently found in the section 2A and 2AA of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992, Articles 10, 21 to 22B of the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 and sections 12 to 16 of the Welfare Reform Act (Northern Ireland) 2007.

77. It is intended that the negative resolution procedure will apply with respect to all the delegated powers contained in Schedule 1.

78. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Schedule 1 introduce new Articles 13A to 13C, 20A and 20B into the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. These provisions create the conditionality regime most likely to apply to people who are not required to meet the jobseeking conditions and who may previously have been subject to a requirement to participate in work-focused interviews.

79. The majority of delegated powers in Schedule 1 simply restate existing legislation to ensure that all relevant conditionality requirements that can apply to groups likely to claim jobseeker’s allowance in the future can be found in the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 and that these are set out in a clear and rational way in the restructured Order.

80. Delegated powers in relation to: work-focused interviews; action plans, work related activity and employment officer directions to undertake work-related activity, will be new to jobseeker’s allowance and are intended to be used in relation to groups who are not required to meet jobseeking conditions (i.e. some former income support claimants and their partners) but who are expected to prepare for work in the future. In all cases there will be power to prescribe in regulations groups who do not have to meet any of these conditions. It is intended that those groups would include lone parents with children under 1, carers who are regularly and substantially engaged in caring for someone who is severely disabled and some groups with very specific or temporary reasons for not being able to comply with jobseeking conditions. The creation of a clear no-conditionality group will ensure that only those people who can reasonably be expected to prepare for work will be subject to additional requirements.

Schedule 1, paragraph 3: Article 13A

81. Article 13A provides that claimants who do not have to satisfy the jobseeking conditions (i.e. people who would have previously qualified for income support) can be subject to a requirement to take part in work-focused interviews. This provision will not apply to lone parents with a child aged under the age of one. Paragraph (4) limits the purpose of the work-focused interview, to a person’s existing or future employment or training prospects or needs and improving their employment prospects. The regulation-making powers in paragraphs (1) and (2) apply the requirement both before a person becomes entitled to benefit and as an on-going condition if the claimant is to continue receiving full benefit. These powers are similar to the requirements in income support currently imposed on claimants and their partners under section 2A and 2AA of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992.

Schedule 1, paragraph 3: Article 13B

82. New Article 13B to the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 sets out the conditions and requirements that may be prescribed in regulations made under Article 13A. The regulation-making powers in paragraphs (1) and (2) are analogous to those in section 12(2) and (3) of the Welfare Reform Act (Northern Ireland) 2007. These requirements are in practice similar to those in section 2A(1) to (4) that set out the current requirements for income support cases in relation to work-focused interviews and the consequences of non-compliance. The delegated powers contained in paragraphs (3) to (7) restate the provisions that currently apply to income support recipients by virtue of section 2A(5) to (8) of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 and are intended to be used in the same way.

Schedule 1, paragraph 3: Article 13C

83. Some prescribed groups of claimants will be provided with an action plan when they attend a work-focused interview.

84. The provisions in Article 13C replicate section 14 of the Welfare Reform Act (Northern Ireland) 2007 which provides for action plans for recipients of employment and support allowance. However, no sanctions will apply if an action plan is not provided. The purpose of the action plan is to help claimants to consider the possible steps they may take to assist them to return to work at some point in the future.

85. Paragraph (1) of this Article contains a regulation-making power to prescribe the circumstances in which the Department or the Department for Employment and Learning must provide a person with an action plan. Regulations will set out these circumstances. Regulations are appropriate in this circumstance to allow for other circumstances in which the Department or the Department for Employment and Learning must provide an action plan, in the light of experience.

86. Paragraph (2) will be used to prescribe the purposes of the action plan. It is envisaged that initially, when claimants are only required to take part in work-focused interviews, the purpose of the action plan will simply be a record of what was discussed during the interview. It would be expected to include any activity that the claimant might take voluntarily to assist a return to work. In these respects its purpose will be the same as in the existing Pathways to Work programme, in providing a reference document for the claimant.

87. Paragraph (3) provides for regulations to specify the form and content of action plans; and the means of reviewing and updating them. It is intended that regulations will specify that the action plan will be a written document that will contain a record of the work-focused interview. It will also contain a record of any activity that the claimant has agreed that he is willing to take that may make it more likely that he will obtain or remain in work or be able to do so and other information that the Department or the Department for Employment and Learning considers appropriate. Paragraph (5) provides that in preparing the action plan the well being of any child who may be affected by it is to be taken into consideration.

88. However, when participation in work-related activity is required, it is intended that the action plan would include activities such as attending a training programme that, if undertaken by the claimant would satisfy the work-related activity requirement.

89. Paragraphs (4)(a) to (e) provide for prescribing the circumstances when a claimant can ask for their action plan to be reconsidered and setting out how this would work. It is intended to introduce this provision in regulations when it is required for claimants to undertake work-related activity. This would be in order to resolve situations where a claimant believed the steps included were inappropriate or no longer appropriate and that other steps, not agreed at the work-focused interview, should be included.

90. Having these provisions set out in regulations rather than in primary legislation would allow the Department or the Department for Employment and Learning the flexibility to apply relevant requirements as and when appropriate and for requirements to be changed in the light of evidence about the usefulness of the action plan.

Schedule 1, paragraph 4

91. To a large extent paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 is a restructuring of existing conditionality and sanctions provisions in Article 21 to 22B of the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 and to a much lesser extent sections 2A and 2AA of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 insofar as these apply to income support. The restructuring is necessary to give this part of the Act some coherence so that former income support groups moved to jobseeker’s allowance, or who are moved within jobseeker’s allowance as circumstances change, may do so as seamlessly as possible.

92. People who are able to claim jobseeker’s allowance under current provisions will continue to do so with no change in the requirements that are applied to them.

Schedule 1, paragraph 4: Article 20A

93. People who will in future be able to qualify for jobseeker’s allowance when they do not satisfy the ‘jobseeking conditions’ may have to satisfy two additional requirements. Article 20A(1) provides for new requirements that may be applied to some prescribed persons who are not required to meet the jobseeking conditions. Failure to comply with the additional requirements can incur a sanction. The details of prescribed persons and the extent to which the requirements will apply to them will be set out in regulations under Article 20A(8). However, in general the requirements that the claimant must carry out a direction given by an employment officer in an action plan with a view to improving his existing or future prospects of being or remaining employed.

94. People who are required to have an action plan can be directed to take part in a training scheme under Article 20A(3).

95. Paragraph (8) provides regulation-making powers to ensure the additional conditions will only apply in prescribed circumstances or, where the person is not required to meet those conditions, they will only apply to a prescribed extent. The intention is to clarify in regulations that these conditions will only apply to some of the groups who will qualify on the basis that they are not required to meet the jobseeking conditions. For example the requirements would be inappropriate for people claiming jobseeker’s allowance while on parental leave.

96. The delegated powers under Article 20A(9) restates the power presently contained in Article 21(10)(c) of the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 for the meaning of “employment programme" and “training scheme" to be prescribed in regulations.

Schedule 1, paragraph 4: Article 20B

97. Article 20B introduces a requirement for people who do not have to meet the jobseeking conditions: the requirement to undertake work-related activity, referred to as a “relevant requirement" in accordance with the regulations. Lone parents with a child under the age of 3 will not be required to undertake work-related activity. The delegated powers in paragraphs (3) and (5) will be used to set out the circumstances, notification arrangements, requirements and obligations that will apply. Paragraph (4) provides that lone parents (subject to meeting any prescribed conditions) can restrict the hours they are required to undertake work-related activity. This will enable lone parents to restrict the activities they will undertake to their child’s hours of schooling and formal childcare. Paragraph (5) provides powers to prescribe which activities would be acceptable. These provisions are similar to those that currently apply in employment and support allowance under section 13 of the Welfare Reform Act (Northern Ireland) 2007. Provision is made in paragraph (6) that a person cannot be required to undertake medical or surgical treatment as the only activity to meet their work-related activity requirement.

Schedule 1, paragraph 5: Article 20D

98. Article 20D provides supplemental details in relation to the application of sanctions under Article 20B. Paragraphs (3) to (7) and (10) and (11) restate the delegated powers currently included in Articles 21(7) and (8) and 22(3), (7) and (8) of the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 in relation to voluntary unemployment, good cause, the meaning of “trial period" and employment commencement dates.

99. Paragraph (9) provides a new regulation-making power which applies to a claimant who is not required to meet the jobseeking conditions and who is in breach of a training scheme requirement by virtue of Article 20C(3)(b) to (e). Generally no sanction will apply where there is good cause for the breach. The power in paragraph (9) enables regulations to specify persons and circumstances in which no sanction is to apply whether or not there is good cause.

Schedule 1, paragraph 6: Article 21

100. The substituted new Article 21 of the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 provides for circumstances when jobseeker’s allowance will not be paid because of a benefit sanction. Paragraph (3) makes provision for claimants who do not satisfy the jobseeking conditions who will not be paid jobseeker’s allowance for a relevant period if the claimant breaches a jobseeker’s direction, or a training scheme requirement, or a work-related activity requirement. The relevant period that will apply to these cases is to be prescribed under the power contained in paragraph (4)(b). The intention is that the relevant period will be from 1 to 26 weeks depending on the circumstances.

101. The other delegated powers contained in paragraphs (5) and (6) restate the powers currently contained in Article 21(3) and (4) of the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 to prescribe the period for which the allowance is not to be payable and the circumstances to be taken into account in determining that period.

Schedule 1, paragraph 6: Article 22

102. Article 22 restates the powers currently contained in Article 22(4) to (6) of the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 for regulations to prescribe the circumstances when the rules in Article 21 preventing allowance from being paid are to be disregarded and where this applies, the rate and period for which the allowance can be paid.

Schedule 1, paragraph 7: Article 22A and 22B

103. Article 22A provides for circumstances when jobseeker’s allowance will not be paid in joint-couple claims because of a benefit sanction. Article 22B provides for exemptions from the sanction regime in Article 22A. The new sections restructure existing provisions in equivalent parts of the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 and do not introduce any new delegated powers.

Schedule 1: Other amendments to the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995

104. Under the current rules a person who has limited capability for work is unlikely to satisfy the basic conditions for jobseeker’s allowance by virtue of Article 3A(7)(e) of the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. People with limited capability for work can however claim income support.

105. Paragraph 23(2) of Schedule 1 introduces a new regulation-making power into paragraph (2) to Schedule 1 of the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. Article 3A(7)(e) of the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 provides a basic condition that, with respect to a claim that is not a joint-claim for jobseeker’s allowance, a person will meet the basic conditions if the person does not have limited capability for work. The effect of paragraph 23(2) is to enable regulations to be made to disapply the rule in Article 3A(7)(e) in prescribed circumstances. The Department intends to use this power to enable people with limited capacity who do not want to claim the employment and support allowance and who would normally claim income support, to be able to claim jobseeker’s allowance instead. For example, a lone parent with limited capability for work and a young child can currently choose whether to claim income support or the employment and support allowance. It is not the intention to remove this choice.

106. Paragraph 23(3) of Schedule 1 substitutes paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 so that the regulation-making power contained therein can be used to prescribe circumstances in which a person may be able to claim jobseeker’s allowance without being required to meet the jobseeking conditions: previously these conditions were spelled out in paragraph 8. It is intended to use this power to prescribe most of the groups previously included in Schedule 1B of the Income Support (General) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1987 and in the Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996.

107. Paragraph 23(5)(b) of Schedule 1 introduces a new regulation-making power into paragraph 14 of Schedule 1 to the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. Under current provisions, a person who is in relevant education can claim income support in prescribed circumstances. The intention is to provide for similar provision in jobseeker’s allowance so that these groups will be able to claim that benefit in the future.

108. Paragraph 23(6) of Schedule (1) introduces paragraph 14A into Schedule 1 of the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. Under current rules jobseeker’s allowance is payable until a person reaches pensionable age as defined by reference to the other provisions. This would mean that a man or a woman could be paid jobseeker’s allowance until their 65th or 60th birthday respectively. Income support can be paid to a person until they reach the qualifying age for state pension credit - currently this is 60 for both men and women. This amendment therefore provides a power for regulations to be made which maintain the position of income support recipients once they are moved to jobseeker’s allowance and also the position of people that would ordinarily claim jobseeker’s allowance.

Clause 10 - Power to direct claimant to undertake specific work-related activity

109. Clause 10 amends section 15 of the Welfare Reform Act (Northern Ireland) 2007 (c. 2) to provide that, in prescribed circumstances, a direction can be given by the Department or the Department for Employment and Learning which specifies an activity which must be undertaken in order for the claimant to remain entitled to employment and support allowance.

110. It is intended that regulations will set out the circumstances in which the Department or the Department for Employment and Learning may wish to issue such a direction. It is intended that the regulations will prescribe that the circumstances will include where claimants have been identified as having a substantial skills needs, where claimants have previously failed to engage with the requirement to undertake work-related activity, or where claimants have been on the benefit for a significant amount of time and for whom general work-related activity has proved ineffective. New subsection (1A) provides that the direction may not specify medical or surgical treatment as the only activity which is to be regarded as work-related activity.

111. It is appropriate, given the likely complexity and level of detail that will be included in regulations made under this provision, for this to be set out in secondary legislation. The nature of the circumstances in which the Department or the Department for Employment and Learning may wish to direct a specific activity may need to be adapted to take into account wider changes in social security and other legislation in the future.

112. In line with provision in other social security legislation the power should be subject to negative resolution procedure. The Department believes that negative regulations provide the necessary flexibility to deal with the level of detail needed to accommodate future policy changes and to keep the provision up to date.

Clause 11 - Conditions for contributory jobseeker’s allowance

113. Clause 11 amends the National Insurance contribution conditions for jobseeker’s allowance as provided by the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/2705 (N.I. 15).

114. Subsection (2) amends the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 to provide that the first contribution condition for jobseeker’s allowance is met by the claimant having paid, or being treated as having paid, class 1 contributions on relevant earnings which are not less than 26 times the base year’s lower earnings limit.

115. Subsection (3) provides a regulation-making power to make provision for determining relevant earnings. This power will be used to set out in regulations how relevant earnings are to be calculated with reference to the data which the Department obtains from HM Revenue and Customs about how much National Insurance has been paid. It will make provision for the calculation of relevant earnings where a person has been engaged in more than one period of employment in the base year. It will further make provision for earnings above the lower earnings limit to be disregarded in this calculation.

116. It is appropriate, given the likely complexity and level of detail that will be included in regulations made under this provision, for this to be set out in secondary legislation. In line with provision in other social security legislation the powers should be subject to negative resolution procedure. The Department believes that negative regulations provide the necessary flexibility to deal with the level of detail needed to accommodate future policy changes and to keep the provision up to date.

117. Subsection (5) provides regulation-making powers to enable the first contribution condition to be relaxed and treated as satisfied by prescribed groups who otherwise do not meet the conditions. One group is prescribed as being those persons who have been entitled to prescribed benefits during any prescribed period or at prescribed times. It is necessary for the detail of these groups to be prescribed in regulations so that amendments can be made to accommodate future changes in the benefits regime.

118. The detail of additional groups will also be set out in regulations. As a result of these regulations a modified contribution condition will apply to certain groups.

119. It is appropriate that this type of detail is in secondary legislation. The groups to which the relaxed form of contribution conditions will apply may need to be adapted to take into account wider changes in social security and other legislation in the future. It is therefore intended that the negative resolution procedure will apply.

Clause 12 - Conditions for contributory employment and support allowance

120. Clause 12 amends the National Insurance Contribution conditions for employment and support allowance as provided for by the Welfare Reform Act (Northern Ireland) 2007 (c. 2).

121. Subsections (1) to (3) amend the Welfare Reform Act (Northern Ireland) 2007 to provide that the first contribution condition for employment and support allowance is met by the claimant having paid, or being treated as having paid, Class 1 or Class 2 contributions on earnings which are not less than 26 times the base year’s lower earnings limit. The Welfare Reform Act (Northern Ireland) 2007 is further amended to require that the contributions must have been paid in respect of one of the last two complete tax years prior to the claim, in line with the requirement for the same in jobseeker’s allowance.

122. Subsection (4) provides for earnings to be calculated with reference to a claimant’s Class 1 contributions paid on relevant earnings and their Class 2 contributions, if both have been paid.

123. Sub-paragraphs (3) and (3A) provide regulation-making powers to make provision for determining relevant earnings. This power will be used to set out in regulations how relevant earnings will be calculated in the same way as described for the power in clause 10 above. Also as for clause 10 it is appropriate, given the likely complexity and level of detail that will be included in regulations made under this provision, for this to be set out in secondary legislation. Further, that in line with provision in other social security legislation the powers should be subject to negative resolution procedure.

Clause 13 - The mobility component of disability living allowance

124. Clause 13 amends section 73 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (mobility component of disability living allowance). The amendment has the effect of extending eligibility for the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance to people with severe visual impairments. New section 73(1AB)(a) gives the Department the power to prescribe the severe visual impairment to which the provisions are to apply. Section 73(1AB)(b) allows the Department to prescribe other conditions relating to eligibility.

125. Providing for regulations to make further provision as regards eligibility means that, while it is clear on the face of the primary legislation who the provision is aimed at, the Department has the flexibility to develop the detail of the extension of higher rate mobility component to those with severe visual impairments. The Department for Work and Pensions has already undertaken some work with the Royal National Institute of Blind People to develop appropriate criteria for establishing whether or not someone is severely visually impaired. This work is ongoing.

126. The level of prescription in new section 73(1AB) is in line with the existing provisions of section 73 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992. The new provision will be subject to negative regulation procedure as are other regulations made under section 73.

Clause 15 - Community care grants relating to specified goods or services

127. Clause 15 adds paragraph (ca) to section 136(4) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (principles of determination) (and adds a reference to that paragraph in section 134(2A)).

128. In determining an application for a community care grant, appropriate officers must act in accordance with directions issued by the Department (section 136(1) and (2) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992). Subsection (4) gives specific examples of matters which may be covered by the directions.

129. Paragraph (ca) adds to those specific examples with the consequence that there is a specific power to include in directions a requirement that, where the goods or services are covered by arrangements the Department has made with a supplier, the award made must relate to specified goods or services and the payment would be made to the supplier. Directions are not subject to Assembly control.

Clause 16 - Community care grants: reviews and information

130. Clause 16 relates to review of an appropriate officer’s determination. Article 38 of the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 provides the circumstances in which a review may take place. This clause will add paragraph (1A) to Article 38 of the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 to restrict a review by an appropriate officer for a community care grant determination where goods or services have been awarded. Reviews are to be restricted so that, where a person without particular needs rejects goods or services awarded on an application for a community care grant, they may not apply for a review.

131. Although it is intended that the right to apply for a review will be restricted in respect of an award of goods or services, an application may still be made in certain cases and these will be covered in regulations. Regulations provide flexibility for the provision of those cases in which an application for review may be made to take into account the arrangements entered into for the provision of goods or services. The regulations are subject to the negative resolution procedure.

132. This clause also inserts section 116E into the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act1992 to allow for regulations to the supply of, use or disclosure of information in connection with community care grants. This will apply to the exchange of information between relevant suppliers of goods and services and the Department.

Clause 17 – Regulations relating to information: Assembly control

133. Clause 17 will amend section 166 of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 to ensure that where regulations create criminal offences regarding the unauthorised disclosure of information relating to community care grants, they will be subject to the confirmatory procedure of the Assembly.

Clause 18 - Payments on account

134. Clause 18(2)(a) repeals section 5(1)(s) of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 which enables regulations to be made providing for the making of a payment on account of benefit where it is impracticable for a claim to be made immediately or where an award of benefit has been made, but it is impracticable to pay the whole immediately. Subsection (2)(b) inserts a new subsection (1B) into section 5 of that Act. It provides a regulation-making power to allow a payment on account of benefit to be made where –

no claim has been made or a claim has been made (including where a claim has been determined and an award made) and, in either case, a person who is or would be covered by such a claim would be in need if no payment on account was made, and
an award has been made but it is impracticable for the full amount of the benefit to be paid immediately.

135. The new subsection broadens the range of situations in which a payment on account may be made before an award has been made. It enables these payments to be made on a need basis rather than in situations where it is impracticable to make a claim, determine a claim or pay benefit. It provides the Department with improved flexibility to address short-term hardship.

136. New subsection (1A) of section 5 of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 effectively excludes housing benefit from the new provisions about payments on account of a benefit in new subsections
(1B) and (1C). Instead new subsection (1A) re-enacts, in similar terms, the repealed power in section 5(1)(s) for housing benefit alone.

137. The new section (1C) enables regulations to make provision about the manner in which payments on account of benefit are to be set against subsequent payments of benefit.

138. Subsections (3) and (4) of clause 18 make subsequent changes to references to section 5(1)(s) in other sections of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992.

139. The purpose of the change in legislation is to enable a payment on account of benefit to be made in cases of need where a full payment of benefit would not be due in any event because of statutory legislation relating to paydays and periods of payment, notwithstanding any delay in making the claim or in determining it.

140. The intention is that regulations will provide more detail, as is currently the case with Part II of the Social Security (Payments on Account, Overpayments and Recovery) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1988 (S. R. 1988 No. 142). It is intended that regulations will specify the circumstances in which a payment on account of a benefit may be made where a claim is yet to be made in the manner prescribed by regulations. It is also envisaged that regulations will prescribe the general parameters within which a decision as to ‘need’ is to be made.

141. In the exercising of discretion under this legislation, detailed guidance to the Department’s decision makers will be provided.

142. The regulations made under the new sections 5(1A) and (1B) will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. This is consistent with the procedure that applied to section 5(1)(s) which it replaces as it does to all other subsections of section 5(1) which deal with claims for and payments of benefit.

Clause 19 - Loss of benefit provisions

143. Clause 19 inserts in the Social Security Fraud Act (Northern Ireland) 2001 (c. 17) (“the 2001 Act") new sections (5A to 5C) that will result in a benefit sanction of 4 weeks being imposed on the sanctionable benefit of persons convicted of a first benefit offence, or accepting a caution or a financial penalty. The 4 week period is known as the disqualification period. A sanction can only be applied to a sanctionable benefit, and a benefit offence can only be committed with regard to a disqualifying benefit. This clause also makes consequential amendments to sections 6 to 12 of the 2001 Act.

144. Subsection (1) of this clause inserts the new sections 5A to 5C in to the 2001 Act. It contains the following regulation-making powers that will allow for the determination of how much, if any, sanctionable benefit will be paid to the offender during the 4 week disqualification period in which the sanction applies following his conviction, or his acceptance of a penalty or a caution.

145. In the new section 5B, subsection (6) allows, where the sanctionable benefit is income support, regulations to prescribe the manner in which the offender’s applicable amount, used to determine the amount of his entitlement to income support, may be reduced.

146. Subsection (7) allows, where the sanctionable benefit is jobseeker’s allowance, regulations to prescribe that the rate of income-based jobseeker’s allowance payable to the offender may be reduced, or that income-based jobseeker’s allowance will be payable only if the offender complies with such obligations with respect to the provision of information as regulations may impose, or that income-based jobseeker’s allowance will be payable only if the circumstances are otherwise such as may be prescribed. Subsection (9) makes identical provision with respect to Employment and Support Allowance.

147. Subsection (8) allows, where the sanctionable benefit is state pension credit, regulations to prescribe that the rate of state pension credit payable to the offender may be reduced in such manner as may be prescribed.

148. Subsection (10) allows, where the sanctionable benefit is housing benefit, regulations to prescribe that the rate of housing benefit payable to the offender may be reduced in such manner as may be prescribed or that the benefit will be payable only in such circumstances as regulations may provide.

149. Subsection (11) allows regulations to set the date on which the 4 week disqualification period is to start, which will be a date after the offender is convicted, or accepts a caution or a penalty.

150. In paragraph 4 of Schedule 3, section 9(1) of the 2001 Act is amended so as to include new sections 5A to 5C. Section 9(1) sets out the existing regulation-making power that allows for any social security benefit to be treated, for the purposes of the application of the benefit sanctions in sections 6 to 8, as a disqualifying benefit but not a sanctionable benefit, or as neither a sanctionable benefit nor a disqualifying benefit.

151. Section 9(2) is also amended to extend the existing regulation-making power to include the benefit sanction in new section 5B. This existing regulation-making power allows for regulations to provide that a benefit sanction will not apply to deductions from payments of benefit that are paid to a person other than the offender.

152. The sanction that is to be applied, under new section 5B, to the benefit of offenders convicted of a first benefit offence, or accepting a caution or financial penalty is a similar benefit sanction as that imposed under the existing section 6 for those offenders convicted of two benefit offences within five years of one another. The only difference is that the new sanction applies for 4 weeks rather than 13 weeks. The regulation-making powers in subsections (6) to (10) of new section 5B are identical to those in subsections (3) to (5) of the existing section 6.

153. Paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 provides that the procedure for the exercise of the regulation-making powers contained in new section 5B will follow the existing procedure set out in section 10 for the regulation-making powers under the existing sections 6, 7, 8 and 9. Section 10(2) will set out that regulations, made under sections 6 to 9, except those to which section 10(3) applies, shall be subject to the negative resolution procedure.

154. Regulations to which section 10(3) applies shall be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Section 10(3) shall apply to the regulation-making powers in new section 5B in the same way as it applies to the existing regulation-making powers in sections 6, 7 and 8.

155. Section 10(3)(a) will apply to any provision in regulations that provide for treating a benefit as a disqualifying benefit but not a sanctionable benefit.

156. Section 10(3)(b) will apply for the purposes of income support to any provision in regulations that sets out the manner in which the applicable amount will be reduced.

157. Section 10(3)(c) will apply for the purposes of jobseeker’s allowance, state pension credit, employment and support allowance and housing benefit to any provision in regulations the making of which is authorised by the relevant provisions in section 5B, in the same way as it applies to the corresponding provisions of the existing sections 6, 7, and 8.

Clause 20 - Jobseeker’s allowance: sanctions for violent conduct etc. in connection with claim

158. Clause 20 inserts in the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 new Articles 22C and 22D that will result in a benefit sanction of 1 week or 6 weeks being imposed on the benefit of jobseeker’s allowance claimants who have been convicted of, and cautioned for, an offence involving violence or harassment. The default sanction is 1 week but the claimant will face a further sanction of 5 weeks loss of benefit if they are subsequently subject to any other benefit sanction under the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. The benefit of a jobseeker’s allowance claimant will not be payable during the sanction period even though that person satisfies the conditions for entitlement. The offence must be done to a person exercising functions under the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 on any premises and while the offender was on the premises for the purposes of their claim to jobseeker’s allowance.

159. Paragraph (2)(a) of new Article 22C sets out, with regard to claims other than a joint-claim jobseeker’s allowance, that regulations may prescribe the date upon which the 1 week sanction period will commence. Paragraph (4)(a) makes similar provision for regulations in relation to joint-claim jobseeker’s allowance.

160. Paragraph (6) allows for regulations to provide in respect of all jobseeker’s allowance claimants, including joint-claim jobseeker’s allowance claimants, that the sanction of 1 week’s loss of benefit will not apply to a claimant after the end of a prescribed period or otherwise in prescribed circumstances. It also provides for regulations to provide for the further sanction period of 5 weeks not to apply to a claimant after the end of a prescribed period or otherwise in prescribed circumstances. The purpose of this regulation making power is to allow regulations to provide for situations where it would not be appropriate or practical to apply the 1 week benefit sanction or additional 5 week sanction to a claimant, for example where the offender served a long custodial sentence for the offence of violence or harassment and upon release made a fresh claim for jobseeker’s allowance.

161. Paragraphs (7) and (8) allow regulations to make provision for an income-based jobseeker’s allowance to be paid in prescribed circumstances to offenders who have been convicted of an offence involving violence or harassment, to whom the benefit would not otherwise be payable by virtue of Article 22C. This regulation making power does not apply to joint-claim jobseeker’s allowance claimants for whom corresponding provision is made elsewhere in the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. This regulation making power allows for hardship payments to be made to certain vulnerable claimants, in the same way as with other benefit sanctions under the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. Paragraph (8) allows regulations to provide that such hardship payments will only be payable at a reduced rate or payable for only part of the week.

162. Paragraph (5) of new Article 22D allows regulations to be made for requiring prescribed persons to notify the Department about prescribed matters for the purpose of the benefit sanction that may be imposed under Article 22C. The purpose is to give the Department power to require other government departments or public bodies such as the police, the Public Prosecution Service or the Department of Justice to notify, or provide information about, offences involving violence that fall within the scope of new Article 22C.

163. Paragraph (6) of Article 22D allows regulations to be made for the purpose of adding or removing an offence from the list of offences in paragraphs (1) or (2) of Article 22D that constitute an offence involving violence or harassment for the purposes of the application of the benefit sanction in Article 22C. This regulation making power allows the list of offences in paragraphs (1) or (2) to be amended if it is considered that other offences should be included in the list, or that offences should be removed from the list.

164. The matters provided for by the above regulation making powers are to be left to delegated legislation because they concern detailed matters of application of the benefit sanction to claimants in different situations and matters of administration. It is not necessary or practical to include such matters in the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. This is in accordance with the existing benefit sanctions provisions found in the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995.

165. The procedure for the exercise of the regulation making powers contained in the new Articles 22C and 22D will be the negative resolution procedure. The only exception is the regulation making power contained in paragraph (6) of Article 22D, which will be subject to the confirmatory resolution procedure.

Clause 22 - Period for which pilot schemes have effect etc.

166. Clause 22 makes amendments to the current piloting powers contained within Article 31 of the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 and section 19 of the Welfare Reform Act (Northern Ireland) 2007.

167. Article 31 of the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 and section 19 of the Welfare Reform Act (Northern Ireland) 2007 allow for the piloting of regulations made under specified enactments relating to working age benefits (pilot schemes). Pilot schemes made under Article 31 and section 19 are permitted to have effect for a specified period not exceeding 12 months under Article 31(1) and not exceeding 24 months under section 19(1). Regulations must be made using the confirmatory resolution procedure. Under Article 31(8) regulations may only be made with a view to ascertaining whether their provisions will, or will be likely to, encourage persons to obtain or remain in work or will, or will be likely to, facilitate the obtaining by persons of work or their remaining in work. Under section 19(3) regulations may only be made with a view to ascertaining whether their provisions will or will be likely to (a) encourage persons to obtain or remain in work, or (b) make it more likely that persons will obtain or remain in work or be able to do so.

168. Under both Articles 31 and section 19 a pilot scheme may:

provide that its provisions are to apply only in relation to one or more specified areas and of classes of person, and persons selected by reference to prescribed criteria or on a sampling basis;
make consequential or transitional provision with respect to the cessation of the scheme; and
be replaced by a further pilot scheme making the same or similar provision to that which was made by the previous one by way of confirmatory procedure resolution.

169. Clause 22 amends Article 31(1) of the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order1995 and section 19(1) of the Welfare Reform Act (Northern Ireland) 2007 by extending and aligning the time limits to 36 months. It also amends Article 31(8) so as to mirror exactly the language of section 19(3)(b).

170. The time limits extension is proposed for the following reasons:

The design of pilots to develop a good evidence base for policy has advanced so that, to ensure effective evaluation, pilots today normally need to last longer than 12 months and in some cases longer than 24 months. Proper evaluation of pilot programmes relating to working age benefits can take at least 18 months and the lead in time for any new contract is 18 months. As such, to facilitate the testing of future programmes the Department need powers that allow pilots to be run for up to 36 months.
There is now a much greater use of private contractors for pilot schemes and certain programmes are increasingly being delivered by the private and voluntary sectors. Short-term contracts for the piloting of these programmes are not usually viable. Contractors are wary of agreeing contracts for a specified period when it is plain that to evaluate the provisions properly a greater length of time is required. The time limits cause commercial uncertainty as it is not known whether a pilot will be renewed. This introduces significant risks for providers, so increasing the costs for the Department for Employment and Learning. This is particularly an issue for certain piloting programmes where the Department for Employment and Learning envisages asking providers for significant upfront investment. The Department for Employment and Learning is less likely to attract interest from a range of providers to compete for this programme if only 12 or 24 month contracts can be offered.

171. The amendment to Article 31(8) of the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 is intended to create consistency between the piloting powers under Article 31 of the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 and section 19 of the Welfare Reform Act (Northern Ireland) 2007 and the expanded definition of a jobseeker’s direction under Article 20A(1)(b) of the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (as inserted by this Bill - see Schedule 1, Part 1 (Amendments of Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995)) which provides that a claimant must carry out any direction given by an officer of the Department or the Department for Employment and Learning with a view to improving the claimant’s existing or future prospects of being or remaining employed.

172. Additionally, the amendment is proposed so as to ensure that regulations made under new Articles of the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 and the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (c. 8) (as inserted by this Bill - see clause 2 (work-related activity: income support claimants and partners of claimants) and Schedule 1, Part 1 (Amendments of Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995)) fall within the scope of Article 31(8) and can therefore be piloted. In particular, the Department or the Department for Employment and Learning may wish to pilot the following provisions which whilst arguably may not be directly concerned with encouraging people to obtain or remain in work, are certainly aimed at making it more likely that persons will obtain or remain in work or be able to do so in the future:

section 2D of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 - regulation-making powers to require claimants to undertake work-related activity;
section 2E of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 and Article 13C of the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 - regulation-making powers to require an action plan to be provided to a person subject to a requirement imposed under section 2A or 2AA of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992, or Article 13A of the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, to take part in a work-focused interview;
section 2F of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 - regulation-making powers to permit the Department to give directions about a work-related activity requirement imposed under section 2D in prescribed circumstances; and
Article 13A(1) of the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 - regulation-making powers to require claimants to take part in work-focused interviews.

Clause 23 – Exemption from jobseeking conditions for victims of domestic violence

173. Clause 23 amends the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 by introducing a new paragraph in Schedule 1, which provides an exemption to the jobseeking conditions for victims of domestic violence. Subsection (1) of the new clause provides that regulations will prescribe the circumstances in which domestic violence is or is not to be regarded as being inflicted on or threatened against a person. Subsection (4) provides that domestic violence shall have such meaning as may be prescribed in regulations. What is regarded as constituting domestic violence and the circumstances in which it occurs will be detailed and complex. These definitions may need to be changed to reflect changes in social norms and may also need to be changed in the event of operational difficulty once the amendment has come into operation. It is therefore appropriate for this to be set out in secondary legislation. Further, that in line with provision in other social security legislation the powers should be subject to negative resolution procedure.

Clause 24 – Good cause for failure to comply with regulations etc.

174. Clause 24 introduces a new paragraph 14A into Schedule 1 to the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 and a new paragraph 10A into Schedule 2 to the Welfare Reform Act (Northern Ireland) 2007 to provide that, where regulation-making powers enable circumstances to be prescribed that constitute good cause for failing to undertake mandatory activities (and just cause for leaving employment in the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995), the regulations must expressly state that availability of childcare and the claimant’s physical or mental health or condition will always be considered.

Clause 25 – Jobseeker’s agreements and action plans: well-being of children

175. Clause 25 introduces a new paragraph (4A) into Article 11 of the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 and a new subsection 5 into section 14 of the Welfare Reform Act (Northern Ireland) 2007. This provides that the well-being of the child should be taken into account when agreeing the activities that a parent will undertake as part of an action plan or jobseeker’s agreement in order to help the parent move closer to or into work.

Clause 26 - Contracting out functions under Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995

176. Clause 26 inserts new Article 22E into the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. The purpose of this Article is to allow the Department and the Department for Employment and Learning to authorise public, private and voluntary sector contractors to undertake various functions relating to the jobseeker’s allowance conditionality regime for different groups of jobseekers as set out in Article 13A to 13C and 20A and 20B as inserted by this Bill. These provisions are broadly equivalent to those provided under section 16 of the Welfare Reform Act (Northern Ireland) 2007 for employment and support allowance and will enable the Department and the Department for Employment and Learning to make more efficient use of contractors who will be able to deal with people on jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance who are subject to similar requirements.

177. Subsections (2) and (3) enable regulations to be made that allow persons other than officers of the Department or the Department for Employment and Learning to be authorised to exercise functions imposed on the Department and the Department for Employment and Learning under regulations made under various provisions in the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 and also the decision making functions linked to these. In common with the approach taken to previous social security legislation, the majority of detail is contained within regulations rather than on the face of the Bill. This allows operational changes to be made in light of changing policy and as other regulations are made, for example in relation to new Articles 13A to 13C.

178. The intention is to use these powers to make regulations allowing the Department or the Department for Employment and Learning to authorise public, private and voluntary sector contractors to undertake various functions such as those which are related to work-focused interviews (Article 13A) and action plans (Article 13C). This will not include an authorisation to undertake the decision-making process that could lead to sanctions so such functions of the Department are specifically excluded under subsection (4).

179. Subsection (5) allows for regulations made under subsection (3) to define the scope of authorisations that can be issued to contractors. For example the regulations may provide that the Department or the Department for Employment and Learning could only authorise private and voluntary sector contractors to exercise work-focused interview functions or to undertake functions related to additional work-related activity only in certain areas.

180. These provisions are a further extension of contracting out provisions that already exist and it is appropriate for the negative resolution procedure to apply to the use of any of these powers.

Clause 27 - Attendance in connection with jobseeker’s allowance: sanctions

181. Clause 27 substitutes paragraphs (a) to (c) of Article 10(2) of the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, and inserts new paragraph (ca) into Article 10(2) and a new subsection (2A) after Article 10(2).

182. Subsection (2) of this clause (Article 10(2)(a)) provides for regulations to set out the circumstances in which jobseeker’s allowance will not be payable for a prescribed period of one week or two weeks in the case of claimants who fail to comply with the requirements set out in regulations made under Article 10(1) or (1A) to attend at such place and at such time as an employment officer may specify and to provide information and such evidence as may be prescribed about their circumstances, their availability for employment and the extent to which they are actively seeking employment. An example of a failure to comply with requirements set out in regulations made under Article 10(1) or (1A) would be a failure to attend a Social Security Office or a Jobs and Benefits Office for a fortnightly job search review, also known as “signing on".

183. Subsection (2) (section 10(2)(b)) also provides for regulations to set out that a person’s jobseeker’s allowance is to be payable if, within a prescribed period of that person’s failure to comply with the requirements set out in regulations made under Article 10(1) or (1A) to attend at such place and at such time as an employment officer may specify, that person makes the contact prescribed by the regulations with an employment officer and shows that he had good cause for the failure to comply. For example if a person failed to attend a fortnightly job search review at the required time, but within a certain period contacted the Jobs and Benefits Office or Social Security Office and could demonstrate he had good cause for failing to attend, then jobseeker’s allowance would be payable.

184. The existing Article 10(2)(d) provides for regulations to set out what matters are to be taken or are not to be taken into account for the purposes of determining whether a person has or does not have good cause for failing to comply with the regulations made under Article 10(1) or (1A), and the circumstances in which a person is to be regarded or not regarded as having good cause for failing to comply with the regulations.

185. Subsection (2) (Article 10(2)(c)) also provides for regulations to set out that a person shall lose his entitlement to jobseeker’s allowance at a time to be determined in the regulations if the person does not make the prescribed contact with an employment officer in the prescribed period. For example, a person who failed to attend a fortnightly job search review at the required time, and who did not contact the Social Security Office or Jobs and Benefits Office within a certain period, would lose his entitlement to jobseeker’s allowance. He would be required to reclaim jobseeker’s allowance if he wished to continue his claim.

186. Subsection (2) (Article 10(2)(ca)) also provides for regulations to set out that in certain circumstances an income-based jobseeker’s allowance is to be payable to a person even though as a result of regulations made under Article 10(2)(a) jobseeker’s allowance would not be payable to him. This subsection allows regulations to provide for hardship payments to be made in certain circumstances. An example of such a payment would be where a vulnerable person, defined in regulations, might experience hardship if jobseeker’s allowance was not paid to him.

187. Subsection (3) (Article 10(2A)) provides for regulations to set out, in relation to those vulnerable persons to whom jobseeker’s allowance is to be payable as a result of Article 10(2)(ca), that jobseeker’s allowance payable to those persons will be payable at a rate to be prescribed in regulations and for a period to be prescribed in regulations.

188. In the amended Article 10 of the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, the matters left to delegated legislation reflect the provisions of the existing Article 10(2). This provides, in a similar way to the amended Article 10(2), for regulations to set out the circumstances in which a person’s entitlement to jobseeker’s allowance is to cease if they fail to comply with any regulations made under Article 10(1) or (1A), and to set out that a person’s entitlement does not cease if they can demonstrate good cause for their failure to comply with those regulations. Regulations made under the amended Article 10(2) will set out similar circumstances in which jobseeker’s allowance will not be payable. The major change is that in certain circumstances where a claimant fails to comply with requirements of the regulations jobseeker’s allowance will not be payable, rather than jobseeker’s allowance entitlement ceasing.

189. Regulations made under the amended paragraphs of Article 10 will be subject to the negative procedure, as is the case with the existing regulation making powers in Article 10. See Article 37 of the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995.

Clause 28 - Social security information and employment or training information

190. Clause 28(4) amends an existing regulation-making power conferred by Article 69 of the Welfare Reform and Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 (S.I. 1999/3147 (N.I. 11). That power enables the Department to make regulations concerning the sharing and use of social security information. Clause 21(4) extends that provision so that it also applies to information relating to employment and training information. This would permit (for example) the Department to make regulations permitting a person providing a training course for a jobseeker’s allowance claimant pursuant to arrangements made by the Department for Employment and Learning to provide information to Social Security Offices or Jobs and Benefits Offices about the claimant’s record of attendance and levels of attainment. The negative procedure applies: see Article 73(1) of the Welfare Reform and Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1999.

Part 2 - Child maintenance

Clause 31 - Payments of child support maintenance

191. Clause 31 enables the Department to notify the non-resident parent of the annual amount of child maintenance owed, rather than the weekly amount, and of the equal monthly payments, or payments at other intervals.

192. Clause 31 amends Article 29(3) of the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 to insert the power to make regulations to determine, on the basis of prescribed assumptions, the total amount of the payments of child maintenance payable in a ‘reference period’, and to make provision for adjustments to such an amount. Clause 31 also inserts a new paragraph (3A) into Article 29 requiring payments to be made by reference to such an amount and reference period, at prescribed intervals falling in the reference period and prescribes the date for the start of a 52 week reference period, or will prescribe, in certain circumstances, a different period to be the ‘reference period’.

193. This will enable payments to be allocated to instalment periods within the reference period, rather than to a maintenance period. It can be problematic to try to match a calendar monthly payment to a weekly maintenance period. As the payments are averaged out as equal instalments, a non-resident parent may be slightly ahead of or behind the weekly accrual of their liability in any given instalment period. This clause amends the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 to make it clear that the Department has the power to determine periodical payments by reference to an annual amount. The detail has been left to delegated legislation because it is more appropriate to have the specific details of the new procedure in secondary legislation than in the primary. It is believed that it is appropriate for these regulations to be subject to negative resolution as they will set out the detail of a procedural measure, intended to simplify the system of child maintenance payments.

Clause 32 - Child support maintenance: offences relating to information

194. Clause 32 concerns information offences: the offence of providing false information, for which the time limit for prosecution is extended, and the new offence of a failure by a person to notify the Department of a change in circumstances.

195. Clause 32(2) inserts into Article 16A(3A) of the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 the words “any other change of circumstances", making it an offence for a person to fail to notify certain changes of circumstances, which must be prescribed by regulations made under Article 16(1). Although this clause does not create a new regulation-making power, the new offence can only take effect once regulations have been made prescribing the information that a person is under a duty to notify to the Department.

196. Regulations made under Article 16(1) are currently subject to the negative resolution procedure. This includes regulations requiring a person to notify a change of address. As a failure to notify a change of address is a criminal offence under Article 16A(3A), this provision is very similar to the proposed amendment. We do not consider that extending the Child Support Information Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2008 (S. R. 2008 No. 403) to prescribe other changes of circumstances that must be notified is substantially different to the duty to notify a change of address, and there is no reason to make this part of the regulations subject to the confirmatory procedure. Neither would it be appropriate for the regulations to be subject to the confirmatory procedure the first time the power is exercised. This is because the power could be used more than once, each time prescribing circumstances to be notified.

197. Consideration has been given so as not to create unnecessary offences and that regulations are tightly and precisely termed to ensure there is a clear understanding of any requirement placed on parents. Indeed, the changes of circumstances to be notified to the Department must be narrow enough to enable the system to process the information without becoming over burdened. For these reasons the negative procedure will be sufficient.

Part 3 - Miscellaneous and supplementary

Clause 33 - consequential amendments of orders and regulations

198. Clause 33 provides a regulation-making power to allow the Department to make any necessary amendments to secondary legislation as a result of changes made by this Bill. For example, in relation to social security some references in secondary legislation will need to be updated as a result of changes made in primary legislation by this Bill. Regulations may make consequential, transitional or savings provision.

Clause 36 - Commencement

199. Subsection (2) provides, with certain exceptions, for the provisions of the Bill to come into operation on such day as the Department may by order made by statutory rule appoint. As is usual with powers to make commencement orders they are not subject to any Assembly procedure.

Department of Social Development
April 2010

Department for Social Development
April 2010

Annex 1, Table identifying powers to make delegated legislation, in the Welfare Reform Bill 2010

Clause	Subject		Procedure
Part 1 - Social Security
1(2)	Prescribing schemes for assisting persons to obtain employment: “work for your benefit".		Negative
1(2)	Order-making power under Article 4 of the Employment and Training (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (status of trainees).		Negative
1(2)	Payment of income based jobseeker’s allowance where this would otherwise not be payable.		Negative
2(2)	Inserts new section 2D(1) into the SSA (NI) Act 92 - requirement to undertake a work-related activity.		Negative
2(2)	Inserts new section 2D(4) into the SSA (NI) Act 92 - prescribing circumstances, requirement and consequences of any work-related activity requirement.		Negative
2(2)	Inserts new section 2D(6) into the SSA (NI) Act 92 - reduction of benefit payable for failure to undertake work-related activity.		Negative
2(2)	Inserts new section 2D(7) into the SSA (NI) Act 92 - when the obligation to participate in work-related activity will not apply.		Negative
2(2)	Inserts new section 2D(8) into the SSA (NI) Act 92 to allow lone parents entitled to income support to restrict the hours for which they will be required to undertake work-related activity. For example they could restrict activities to their child’s school hours of schooling or formal childcare.		Negative
2(2)	Inserts new section 2E(1), (3), (4) and (5) into the SSA (NI) Act 92 - action plans in connection with work-focused interviews.		Negative
2(2)	Inserts new section 2F(1) into the SSA (NI) Act 92 - directions about work-related activity.		Negative
2(2)	Inserts new section 2G(2) into the SSA (NI) Act 92 - contracting out.		Negative
2(2)	Inserts new section 2G(4) into the SSA (NI) Act 92 - extent to which contracting out arrangement will apply.		Negative
3(1)	Amends section 123 of the SSC&B (NI) Act 92 to ensure that lone parents with a child under seven are a prescribed category of person entitled to income support.		Negative
3(2)	Amends section 2A of the SSA (NI) Act 92 to ensure that lone parents on income support with a child under one will not be required to take part in a work-focused interview.		Negative
3(3) to (5)	Amend sections 12, 13 and 24 of the WRA (NI) 2007 to ensure that lone parents on employment and support allowance with a child under one will not be required to take part in a work-focused interview, and that lone parents on employment and support allowance with a child under three will not be required to undertake work-related activity. Section 3(4) also contains provision that allows lone parents receiving employment and support allowance to restrict the hours they are required to undertake work-related activity. These powers will be used to enable them to restrict the activities they will undertake to their child’s hours of schooling or formal childcare.		Negative
4(3)	Inserts new Article 3A(4)(c) into the JS (NI) Order 95 - power to prescribe persons who are not required to meet the jobseeking conditions.		Negative
4(3)	Inserts new Article 3A(8) into the JS (NI) Order 95 - when joint claim couples, where the other member has limited capability for work, will be able to claim.		Negative
4(3)	Inserts new Article 3B(2) into the JS (NI) Order 95 - joint claim jobseeker’s allowance.		Negative
5(1)	Section 123(1) of the SSC&B (NI) Act 92 - new paragraph (ga) provides for exceptions to the rule in income support permitting claims from couples with one partner having limited capability for work.		Negative
5(2)	Inserts new sub-paragraph (2A) into paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 to the WRA (NI) 2007 - provides exceptions to the rule in Employment and Support Allowance for the other member of the couple must not have limited capability for work.		Negative
6	Statutory sick pay and employment and support allowance.		Negative
7(1)	Transitional provision relating to sections 4 to 6.		Negative
8	Provides that any regulations under new section 2D(1) of SSA (NI) Act 92, new Article 20B of the JS (NI) Order 95 and section 13 of the WRA (NI) 2007 which impose a requirement on a lone parent with a child under 7 to undertake work-related activity and are made within 5 years of the date the Act is passed will be subject to the confirmatory procedure.		Confirmatory
9(2)	Abolition of income support - cessation of section 123 of the SSC&B (NI) Act 92.		Confirmatory
9(4)	Power to make transitional and consequential amendments in connection with the abolition of income support.		Negative
10	Power to direct claimant to undertake specific work-related activity.		Negative
11(3)	Inserts new paragraph (2A) into Article 4 of the JS (NI) Order 95 to make provision for determining claimant’s relevant earnings for the base year.		Negative
11(5)	Allows for prescribed categories of claimants to satisfy the first contribution condition by alternative criteria. This new provision in the JS (NI) Order 95 for jobseeker’s allowance will parallel the provision in the WRA (NI) 2007 in respect of employment and support allowance.		Negative
12(4)	Inserts new subsection (3A) into paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the WRA (NI) 2007 to make provision for determining the claimant’s relevant earnings for the base tax year.		Negative
13(4)	Power to prescribe severe visual impairments and other conditions relating to eligibility.		Negative
13(4)	Power to prescribe conditions relating to eligibility.		Negative
15(6)	Inserts paragraph (ca) into section 136(4) of the SSC&B (NI) Act 92. Paragraph (ca) is added to a list of examples of matters which may be covered by directions. It relates to a requirement that, where the goods or services are covered by arrangements the Department has made with a supplier, the award made must relate to specified goods or services and the payment would be made to the supplier. (Clause 15(2) and (7) add new provisions referring to the directions in sections 134 and 136 of the SSC&B (NI) Act 92).		Not subject to Parliamentary control
16(2)	Amends Article 38 of the SS (NI) Order 98 and inserts new sub-paragraph (1A) which provides for the circumstances in which an application for review may be made in respect of the award of goods or services to be set out in regulations.		Negative
16(3)	Inserts new section 116E into the SSA (NI) Act 92 which allows regulations to provide for the exchange of information between the Department and relevant suppliers and for the use and disclosure of such information, including provision for a criminal offence for unauthorised disclosure. There is power by regulations to make exception to this.		Negative
18(2)	Provides for new powers within section 5 of the SSA (NI) Act 92 to make provision for payments on account.		Negative
19(1)	Inserts new sections 5B(6)-(10) into SSFA (NI) 2001 providing regulation-making powers in relation to IS, JSA, SPC, ESA and HB during the disqualification period.		Confirmatory
19(1)	Inserts a new section 5B(11) into SSFA (NI) 2001 providing a regulation-making power to determine the first date of the disqualification period.		Negative
20(1)	Inserts a new Article 22C and 22D into the JS (NI) Order 95 relating to sanctions for violent conduct in connection with claims.		Negative (except Article 22D(6): Confirmatory)
23(1)	Inserts into Schedule 1 to the JS (NI) Order 95 a new provision relating to those who have been victims of, or threatened with, domestic violence.		Negative
23(2) & (3)	The Department is required to exercise regulation-making powers to provide that victims of domestic violence will, for a period of 13 weeks, be able to start or continue a claim to JSA without: being available for employment; having entered into a jobseeker’s agreement; or actively seeking employment.		Negative
24(1)	Provides that where regulation-making powers in the JS (NI) Order 95 enable circumstances to be prescribed that constitute good cause for failing to undertake mandatory activities (and just cause for leaving employment), the regulations must always include the availability of childcare and the claimant’s physical or mental health or condition in the list of circumstances that must be taken into account.		Negative
24(2)	Provides that where regulation-making powers in the WRA (NI) 2007 enable circumstances to be prescribed that constitute good cause for failing to undertake mandatory activities (and just cause for leaving employment), the regulations must always include the availability of childcare and the claimant’s physical or mental health or condition in the list of circumstances that must be taken into account.		Negative
25(1)	Inserts new paragraph (4A) into Article 11 of the JS (NI) Order 95 to provide that the well-being of the child should be taken into account when agreeing the activities that a parent will undertake as part of a JSA agreement in order to help the parent move closer to work.		Negative
25(2)	Inserts new paragraph (5) into section 14 of the WRA (NI) 2007 to provide that the well-being of the child should be taken into account for recipients of ESA when an action plan is prepared.		Negative
26(2)	Inserts new Article 22E(3) and (5) into the JS (NI) Order 95 to provide for certain functions of the Department or of the Department for Employment and Learning to be carried out by authorised person and the extent of authorisation.		Negative
27(2)	Provides regulation-making powers that allow the Department to prescribe the circumstances in which a JSA claimant will not be paid benefit following a failure to attend compulsory appointments.		Confirmatory
28(4)	Clause 28(4) amends an existing regulation-making power conferred by Article 69 of the Welfare Reform and Pensions (NI) Order 1999. That power enables the Department to make regulations concerning the sharing and use of social security information.		Negative
Part 2 - Child maintenance
31(2) and (3)	Amends paragraph (3) and inserts a new paragraph (3A) into Article 29 of the Child Support (NI) Order 1991 providing a regulation-making power to determine the total amount of payments of child maintenance payable in a “reference period" and other supplementary regulation-making powers.		Negative
32(2)	Inserts into Article 16A(3A) of the Child Support (NI) Order 1991 the words “any other change of circumstances", which will be prescribed in regulations under the existing power in Article 16(1).		Negative
Part 3 - Miscellaneous and supplementary
33(1)	Power to make consequential amendments to subordinate legislation.		Negative
36(2) and (3)	Commencement of certain provisions within the Bill on an appointed day by order.		Not subject to Parliamentary control
In Schedule 1:
p. 3		Inserts a new Article 13A(1) and (2) into the JS (NI) Order 95 providing a regulation-making power with regard to requirements to take part in a work-focused interview.	Negative
p. 3		Inserts a new Article 13B(1) and (3) into the JS (NI) Order 95 to provide for the circumstances and requirements for work-focused interviews and the consequences for failure to comply.	Negative
p. 3		Inserts a new Article 13B(4) and (5) into the JS (NI) Order 95 providing for circumstances when relevant requirements are not to apply.	Negative
p. 3		Inserts a new Article 13C(1), (3) and (4) of the JS (NI) Order 95 providing regulation-making powers to make provision with regards to action plans in connection with work-focused interviews. In preparing an action plan the Department must have regard to the well-being of any child who may be affected by it.	Negative
p. 4		Inserts a new Article 20A(8) into the JS (NI) Order 95 providing for circumstances when a direction may not be given to a person who is not required to meet the jobseeking conditions.	Negative
p. 4		Inserts a new Article 20A(9) into the JS (NI) Order 95 to provide for the meaning of “employment programme" and “training scheme" to be prescribed in regulations.	Negative
p. 4		Inserts a new Article 20B(1) and (2) into the JS (NI) Order 95 to provide for requirements in relation to work-related activities. This does not apply if the claimant is a lone parent with a child aged under three.	Negative
p. 4		Inserts a new Article 20B(3) into the JS (NI) Order 95 to provide circumstances when the work-related activity requirement is not to apply.	Negative
p.4		Inserts a new Article 20B(4) into the JS (NI) Order 95 to provide that lone parents are entitled to restrict the hours for which they will be required to undertake work-related activity. For example they could restrict such activities to their child’s hours of schooling or formal childcare.	Negative
p. 4		Inserts a new Article 20B(5) into the JS (NI) Order 95 to provide for directions in connection with work-related activities.	Negative
p. 4		Inserts a new Article 20B(6) into the JS (NI) Order 95 to provide that a person cannot be required to undertake medical or surgical treatment to meet their work-related activity requirement.	Negative
p. 5		Inserts a new Article 20D(3) into the JS (NI) Order 95 to provide for circumstances when a person is not to be regarded as having left employment voluntarily.	Negative
p. 5		Inserts a new Article 20D(5) into the JS (NI) Order 95 to provide for circumstances when a person can accept employment on trial and leave that trial without being regarded as having left employment voluntarily.	Negative
p. 5		Inserts a new Article 20D(6) into the JS (NI) Order 95 to prescribe the meaning of “trial period".	Negative
p. 5		Inserts a new Article 20D(7) into the JS (NI) Order 95 to prescribe matters which are to be taken into account to determine good cause for failure to comply.	Negative
p. 5		Inserts a new Article 20D(9) into the JS (NI) Order 95 to prescribe circumstances when the rules on breaching a training requirement will not apply to a person who is not required to meet the jobseeking conditions.	Negative
p. 5		Inserts a new Article 20D(10) into the JS (NI) Order 95 to prescribe matters to be taken into account for the purposes of work-related activity requirements.	Negative
p. 5		Inserts a new Article 20D(11) into the JS (NI) Order 95 to provide for the day on which a person’s employment is to be regarded as starting.	Negative
p. 6		Substitutes Article 21 of the JS (NI) Order 95. New paragraph (6) provides for relevant circumstances the Department is to take into account in determining the period for which benefit is not payable.	Negative
p. 6		Substitutes Article 22 of the JS (NI) Order 95. New paragraphs (1) and (3) provide for circumstances when a sanction may not be applied or when benefit may be paid at a prescribed rate instead.	Negative
p. 7		Substitutes Article 22A of the JS (NI) Order 95. New paragraphs (3) and (8) provide for regulations to prescribe the circumstances, the period and the matters to be taken into account for the purposes of any sanction applied to a joint-claim couple for failure to comply with a requirement.	Negative
p. 7		Substitutes Article 22B of the JS (NI) Order 95. New paragraph (1) and (3) provide for regulations to prescribe the circumstances when a sanction under Article 22A would not apply or only apply to a prescribed extent.	Negative
p. 16		Sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) amend Article 16 of the JS (NI) Order 95 so that circumstances can be prescribed when a person involved in a trade dispute could claim JSA.	Negative
p. 17		Sub-paragraph (2) inserts a new Article 17(1) into the JS (NI) Order 95, so that circumstances can be prescribed where a member of a couple who is involved in a trade dispute could claim JSA.	Negative
p.19		Inserts a new Article 17B into the JS (NI) Order 95. Paragraphs (3)(b) and 4(b) providing for any benefit paid to a couple or a joint-claim couple to be recovered from a prescribed person.	Negative
p. 23		Sub-paragraph (2) inserts a new paragraph 2(4) into Schedule 1 to the JS (NI) Order 95. This will provide for circumstances where a person may be entitled to JSA even though they have limited capability for work.	Negative
p. 23		Sub-paragraph (3) substitutes paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the JS (NI) Order 95 so that persons not required to meet the jobseeking conditions who qualify for JSA may be prescribed in regulations.	Negative
p. 23		Sub-paragraph (5) inserts a new sub-paragraph (2) into paragraph 14 of Schedule 1 to the JS (NI) Order 95. This will enable regulations to be made to prescribe persons who are in relevant education to qualify for JSA.	Negative
p. 23		Sub-paragraph (6) inserts a new paragraph 14A into Schedule 1 to the JS (NI) Order 95. This will provide that circumstances where people who are not required to meet the jobseeking conditions will be able to claim JSA until the qualifying age for state pension credit.	Negative

DSD Briefing Paper 18.05.2010

1. Restate the policy intention:-

Simplification of benefits

Help unemployed move closer to workplace.

2. Parity.

Agree with Chairman’s comments about “gambling with social security budget". I do no want to rehearse the arguments again but -

Les Allamby may be correct about the lack of legal definition – NI Act., however, the reality is that if NI breaks parity – NI will have to fund that break, both benefits, and administration cost e.g. if DWP complete the move away from IS, they will remove the IT support and DSD have to do it manually and /or create new IT system – no small task. All of that would have to come out of NI Block, at the expense of hospitals, schools, roads, and so on.

Fundamentally we cannot expect Treasury to fund it if a benefit claimant in Newcastle (Co Down) is treated differently (conditions and rates) than someone in Newcastle upon Tyne.

Minister has had discussions with previous Minister for Work and Pensions about the need for operational flexibility but that wasn’t about breach – the same flexibilities are afforded in pockets of unemployed etc in GB.

3. Work for Your Benefit.

Emphasise that in the current economic climate it is even more important to prepare unemployed for work. The scheme is about work experience, so displacement and national minimum wage are not relevant, although we appreciate committee’s concerns about exploitation. We will study the result of GB pilot very closely although ultimately the programmes form and content will be for DEL.

NI has too many people who are 2nd and 3rd generation unemployed – it is crucial especially for children that unemployment is not seen to be the norm, and that they do not simply live, accepting poverty as inevitable. Research shows that work is good for us all, financially, psychologically, socially etc. We don’t want a child to grow up without that aspiration.

As with many of the proposals in the Bill, there will be flexibility, in that we expect the programme to be tailored to the individual and to their circumstances, whether caring/childcare responsibility or mental health issues.

4. Work Related Activity.

Concerns have been voiced about issues around childcare, LP’s, those with mental health/learning difficulties, and over 60’s. As I have already said, the Bill recognises the need for individual circumstances to be taken into account, by allowing Personal Advisers and DM’s to exercise judgement about suitable WRA. This gives PA or DM the flexibility to take the lack of affordable, available childcare etc. into account. We have discussed this with colleagues in DWP and are agreed that there are adequate operational flexibilities, which take account of differing circumstances in Birmingham and Belfast or wherever. To try to prescribe for every eventuality would be impossible and unnecessary.

5. Lone Parents.

Minister has given numerous assurances about the recognition that NI does not have available affordable Childcare. However, if a LP does have childcare, it is surely beneficial to that parent and their child for the parent to be helped to move closer to the workplace, depending on their circumstances. The wellbeing of the child must be taken into account when drawing up a job plan, but it will, in practice, be a part of all decisions involving parents. To be clear, LP’s with a child under 7 will not
Be required to work. Work related activity is not work, but work experience.

6 IS.

Various respondents were concerned about the lack of detail. As we explained, we have to create the power first, before we begin work on the Regulations. These regulations will have to go through this Committee. Again, I stress that P Advisers and DM will take individual circumstances (e.g. LP and Carers) into account. DWP are moving towards abolition of IS, and it would be an exceptionally clear breach of parity if we did otherwise.

7. Contribution Requirements.

Agree with Les re breach of Parity.

8. Community Care Grants.

We do not know yet how this will be done, but procurement practice has changed dramatically since the times which various respondees described and any contract now is detailed and prescriptive in terms of quality, timing, VFM and includes rigorous monitoring.

9. Sanctions.

This is about deterrence and responsibility. It is important that parity is observed, but, at the risk of repeating myself, there is flexibility in the exercise of judgement by PA and DM, and a raft of safeguards (DMS, audits, training and procedural guidance) to ensure that such judgement is properly exercised.

Respondents were also, rightly, concerned that families of the benefit applicant should not be penalised. Firstly, family circumstances, will be part of the consideration, and secondly there are “hardship provisions", to ensure that the family are not affected.

The bottom line is that we all have to accept responsibility for the consequences of our actions, including benefit recipients.

10. Domestic Violence

General acceptance of this proposal. Information to Committee has been misleading – the 13 weeks period is in addition to the existing 11 week provision – i.e. a total of 24 weeks.

Good Cause – The general flexibility is crucial. Specific reference to mental health conditions is not necessary,

To sum up:-

We cannot deviate from the proposals enacted in the GB Act, as the full cost of any variance will have to come out of the NI Block.

There is enough operational flexibility to take local variances and individual circumstances into account. None of the respondents have raised issues which were not raised by others during the passage of the Act, and the same assurances apply here.

Correspondence from DSD 19 May 2010

Social Security Policy and
Legislation Division

Mr Peter McCallion
Social Development Committee
Room 412
Parliament Buildings
Stormont
Belfast
BT4 3XX

Level 1
James House
2–4 Cromac Avenue
Gasworks Business Park
Ormeau Road
Belfast
BT7 2JA
Tel: (028) 90819101
Fax:: (028) 90819984
Email: Margaret.Sisk @dsdni.gov.uk
Your reference: CSD/009/2008/5
Our reference:

Date: 19 May 2010

Dear Peter

You wrote to John Ball on 12 May and 18 May 2010 setting out the Committee’s request for more information on a number of measures in the Welfare Reform Bill. Your letters have been passed to me for reply.

Details of the trials of the “Work for Your Benefit" schemes to be held in Great Britain;

The Committee has requested some details on the pilots in Great Britain for the “Work for Your Benefit" scheme.

The “Work for Your Benefit" pilots in Great Britain will take place from 22 November 2010 for two and half years in the Jobcentre Plus districts of

Cambridgeshire and Suffolk,
Norfolk,
Greater Manchester Central and
Greater Manchester East and West.

The programme will be contracted out and providers from the private and voluntary sector and will be asked to source work-experience placements. In order to maximise the chances of people finding work, Work for Your Benefit is to be personalised and tailored to individuals’ needs.

As such, it is anticipated that placements will be sourced on an individual basis with a variety of organisations. Some of these will be community based, but participants being placed with private companies will not be ruled out if that seems to be the best chance of moving them back into work.

Safeguards will be included within contracts to ensure that placements in host organisations are in addition to any existing or planned vacancies. This will ensure that participants do not displace other workers. The Department for Work and Pensions will work closely with providers to monitor the effects of the pilot programme on the wider labour market.

“Good cause" provisions of the Bill

The Committee has asked specifically what constitutes “good cause" and what guidance is to be issued to benefits advisers and other officials in this regard.

Certain circumstances are specified in a number of Jobseeker’s Allowance regulations as “good cause". These circumstances include:-

Disease or physical or mental disablement
Sincere religious or conscientious objection
Transport
Caring responsibilities
Attendance at court
Arranging or attending a funeral
Lifeboat crew or part-time fire fighter
Domestic emergencies

Clauses in the Bill also include “childcare". This is not an exhaustive list of what counts as good cause, as this would restrict the ability of decision makers to take into account the circumstances of the individuals.

Decision makers have the flexibility to consider all matters put forward by the claimant and decide in the light of all the evidence whether or not the claimant had good cause. Decision makers receive extensive training to ensure they have the expertise to make a range of decisions including good cause.

They are supported by experienced and trained Special Advisory Officers and have access to comprehensive up to date and clear procedures and guidance designed to provide easy to understand speedy and accurate explanations of the issues to consider for good cause.

Further information on the definition of domestic violence which is to be employed by benefits advisors in the application of provisions related to Clause 23

The definition of “domestic violence" will be contained in regulations. The proposed definition is as follows:-

“domestic violence" means any violence and includes physical, emotional, or financial abuse"

The above wording includes psychological violence either by the word “emotional" or by saying “and includes" rather than having a restrictive list.

Details of the controls and safeguards which are to be employed by the Department for Work and Pensions in respect of the management of 3rd party contracts associated with Community Care Grants.

The Committee have ask for further details on the controls and safeguards to be employed in respect of contracts with third parties associated with Community Care Grants

The Department for Work and Pensions are at a very early phase of considering a number of options to discuss with procurement colleagues and have not entered into any commercial arrangements. The detailed arrangements will be a matter for contract between the Department for Work and Pensions and any future third party supplier.

The appointment of third party suppliers and quality control arrangements will be subject to critical scrutiny once the design of the scheme is finalised.

Piloting “Work for Your Benefit" schemes in Northern Ireland

The Committee have sought information on the feasibility of piloting “Work for Your Benefit" schemes.

Legislatively there is nothing to prevent pilot schemes in Northern Ireland.

The Department for Employment and Learning may decide to pilot their own arrangements. This would of course be subject to availability of resources

Automatic Pension Credit payments in Northern Ireland

The Committee has sought information on the feasibility of piloting automation of Pension Credit payments

The Department for Work and Pension proposes to pilot the automation of Pension Credit payments in a very small number of cases. Although there is no intention to run pilots in Northern Ireland, automated payments would be introduced in Northern Ireland, should it be decided to introduce them in Great Britain.

I hope this information is helpful.

Yours sincerely

Margaret Sisk Signature

Margaret Sisk
Ext: 37101

cc John Ball
Billy Crawford
Gareth McKinty

Reply to SD Committee -
Training of Personal Advisers

Social Security Policy and Legislation Division

Mr Peter McCallion
Social Development Committee
Room 412
Parliament Buildings
Stormont
Belfast
BT4 3XX

Level 1
James House
2–4 Cromac Avenue
Gasworks Business Park
Ormeau Road
Belfast
BT7 2JA

Tel: (028) 90819101
Fax:: (028) 90819139
Email:Margaret.Sisk@dsdni.gov.uk
Your reference:
Our reference:

Date: 27th May 2010

Dear Peter

Welfare Reform Bill

During the course of taking evidence from stakeholders at the Committee Stage of the Welfare Reform Bill, the Committee raised concerns about the training of Personal Advisers to enable them to consider physical and mental health problems of claimants. We undertook to provide details of the training given to Personal Advisers.

At present the Department for Employment and Learning has more staff who have received comprehensive training and who have more programmes available to help sick and disabled people find work than ever before. That Department continues to work in partnership with providers from the disability sector to ensure that these programmes are delivered to as many people as possible and to the high quality standards that are expected.

There are 140 Pathways Personal Advisers and 38 Adviser/Team Leaders, many of whom are ex Disablement Employment Advisers. The training given to Personal Advisers provides them with the skills required to interact successfully with claimants with a range of health conditions and disabilities. The training package includes key messages around health and disability, perceptions about health issues, background to specific health conditions and their impact, as well as active listening and customer interaction skills.

These front-line staff are also supported by specialist Disability Programme Managers and Access to Work Advisors within the Disablement Advisory Service, as well as a much enhanced team of 5 Occupational Psychologists.

It should be emphasised that the issue of whether a claimant is capable of undertaking work related activity is determined by a Health Care Professional and not the Personal Adviser.

I do hope this information is helpful.

Yours sincerely

Margaret Sisk Signature

Margaret Sisk
Ext: 37101

cc John Ball
Billy Crawford
Gareth McKinty

Appendix 5

Other Papers

List of Other Papers

Advice NI Social Policy Briefing Spring 2007

Advice NI Social Policy Briefing July 2008

Correspondence from Law Centre NI 8 October 2008

Correspondence from Law Centre NI 8 October 2008 Appendix 1

Law Centre Briefing Paper October 2008

Advice NI AGM Report February 2009

Law Centre NI Briefing Paper March 2009

Advice NI Briefing Paper May 2009

Correspondence from Committee for Employment and Learning 11 February 2010

Assembly Research and Library Services Research Paper April 2010

Examiner on Statutory Rules Advice on Welfare Reform Bill Delegated Powers 20 May 2010

HM Treasury “Funding the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly" A Statement of Funding Policy July 2000

Law Centre Paper from Social Security Advisory Committee February 2006

Advice NI Briefing Paper Spring 2007

Social Policy Briefing
Spring 2007

Advice NI policy paper in relation to:
Welfare Reform: Challenges, Choices and International Insight
(A DWP conference to consider where the UK will be in 10 years’ time)

Background

Membership of Advice NI is normally for organisations that provide significant advice and information services to the public. Advice NI has over 80 member organisations operating throughout Northern Ireland and providing information and advocacy services to over 150,000 people each year on over 237,000 enquiries including: social security, housing, debt, consumer and employment issues. For further information, please visit www.adviceni.net.

General

Advice NI was invited to participate in a conference on Welfare Reform held at Central Hall, Westminster on Monday, 26th March 2007 and hosted by The Rt Hon John Hutton, MP Secretary of State and Jim Murphy, MP Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions. The purpose of the event was to consider where the UK is expected to be in 10 years’ time – feeding into the Prime Minister’s 10 year review – Welfare Reform: 10 years on, 10 years ahead.

The conference included contributions from the following:

Welfare Reform in the UK

Rt Hon John Hutton MP

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

The Freud Review of Welfare

David Freud

Author of Reducing dependency, increasing opportunity: options for the future

The German Experience

Professor Jutta Allmendinger

Director of the Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg

The US Experience

Ron Haskins

Senior Fellow, Brookings Institute, Washington DC

In addition there were Breakout sessions which included the Australian Experience - Job Network and Welfare to Work; what now for Welfare Reform and Poverty: Recent US Developments; & Future Trends in European Social Policy.

In their introductions, both John Hutton and Jim Murphy talked about the impacts and challenges presented by:

Demographics:
Migration:
Mobility &
Global competition;

They went on to put forward the view that ‘everyone who can work, should work’. This ethos would underpin greater engagement with the private and voluntary sectors; a move towards outcome-based contractual arrangements and payment by results; more individualised, tailored support for those on benefits facing multiple disadvantage; greater progress towards benefit simplification; & greater conditionality in return for benefits particularly in respect of lone parents.

Advice NI view:

There may be a conflict between a reform agenda which has the objective of moving people off benefits and into paid employment; and the qualifying conditions for these benefits. Government should adopt a cautious approach to revising qualifying conditions for benefits as this may ultimately be to the detriment of the very people who rely on (or will rely on) these benefits as a lifeline;
Government should also consider the economic situation. The economy is currently strong and arguably supports active labour market policies; should an economic downturn occur Government will need to revisit any reforms implemented with a view to rebalancing the approach to conditionality;
Conference did not debate the role of taxation in the context of welfare reform: analysis focused on the impacts and outflows of claimants moving from benefits to work. Taxation as it relates to sharing wealth, supporting essential services and supporting the most vulnerable in our society merits discussion within the welfare reform debate. In our view it is inaccurate and misleading to hermetically seal the discussion and focus it solely on benefits on-flows and off-flows;
Advice NI believes that there must be a debate on benefit levels and year-on-year increases to benefits. The current levels and uprating structure is in our view contributing towards income inequality and directly contributing towards people on benefits being pushed further into poverty;
Many people pay National Insurance contributions with the expectation that should they become unemployed or ill they will be supported by the benefits system. The reform agenda may lead many to question the use of National Insurance with potential benefit recipients seeing the qualifying criteria for contributory benefits tightening with a view to restricting expenditure; and the national insurance pool itself moving towards convergence with income tax, with a break in the direct link between contributions paid and accessibility to contributory benefits.
There needs to adequate accessible, independent advice provision to allow people on benefits to make informed decisions about moving from benefits to work;
The voluntary sector, and in particular the advice sector, may need to approach the new ‘contracting world’ with caution. There may well be tensions between such fundamental principles as independence, impartiality, confidentiality, advocacy on behalf of clients; and contractual requirements which may incentivise providers to focus on targets to the detriment of the wellbeing of clients;
Advice NI would advocate involvement of service users and potential service providers in the contract design and commissioning stages as well as delivery stage. This inclusive approach should enable a more robust and effective approach – utilizing the expertise, skills and experience of all stakeholders;
On another level any private / voluntary sector involvement in service delivery must have clear accountability processes in place. Social security benefit claimants are used to dealing with, in the main, civil service staff. Any withdrawal from direct provision, replaced by private / voluntary sector involvement may serve to blur and confuse claimants; perhaps leaving them susceptible to unethical work practices as the provider is more concerned with achieving targets then providing a high quality service for the claimant. Claimants may feel unable to oppose or complain about such an approach by a service provider because they may feel that their benefit could be jeopardised;
Tendering for any private / voluntary sector involvement must place heavy reliance on quality as opposed price – due to the vulnerable nature of the client group;
There must be sufficient resources within contractual arrangements with the private / voluntary sector to ensure that work can be carried out not only to the required specification but also to the highest standard. Advice NI believes that the vulnerable clients concerned deserve no less;
Moves towards private / voluntary sector involvement must ensure equality of access. Coverage is important because the particular client group may not have the means to travel and compensate for the providers lack of coverage across a particular geographical area;
Moves towards benefit simplification are to be welcomed – however there would be concerns that any move towards such simplification will create ‘winners and losers’ and leave many benefit recipients worse off;
There needs to be the infrastructure in place to support lone parents to move into employment – in particular accessible, affordable childcare; and appropriate employment opportunities;
The National Minimum Wage should be reviewed with a view to making it a living wage; with attendant scope for reviewing the in-work tax credit support in order to really drive home the point that the Government is committed to ‘making work pay’. Consideration should also be given to disregarding tax credits as income within the calculation for Housing Benefit;

David Freud’s presentation continued along similar lines with the view put forward that ‘work is good for you, claiming benefits is bad for you’. The presentation focused on the need to concentrate resources on the ‘hardest to help’ with associated increased responsibility to be required from these ‘hardest to help’ benefit recipients. Freud spoke about the need to get benefit recipients ‘deeply placed into work’ (for three years or more) and highlighted the need to change the emphasis from job placement to job progression.

Advice NI view:

The ‘hardest to help’ very often represent the most vulnerable within our society – in terms of ill health (physical and mental), educational status, housing status, employment readiness, language barriers, income and so on. These same people are the least able to take risks to work. As long as the reform agenda appears to be only interested in removing people as a benefit statistic – not meaningfully supporting people to make the transition into employment – the ‘hardest to help’ may remain reluctant recipients of welfare reform, rather than eager participants;
Linking rules are very important for people who attempt employment but suffer a relapse. Linking rules should apply to all benefits which were in payment prior to taking up the employment opportunity, in particular Housing Benefit and Disability Living Allowance;
There could be a system of much improved ‘run-on’ support (from benefits into work) to incentivise and reduce any perceived risk of moving into paid employment;
In addition to benefit simplification, the issue of bureaucracy needs to be addressed to ensure that linking and run-on systems are streamlined, fast and effective;
Government have much to do to reconcile the points of view that (1) supporting people with health problems into work is the answer to their health problems; and (2) these same people have been assessed as medically incapable of work by both their GP and a doctor of the Department;
There remains doubt that adequate support is / will be in place, particularly for people to manage health related conditions. This point relates to the need for joined up services to be in place across the benefits, employment and health sectors – and ideally with independent advice and information also available to enable benefit recipients to make informed choices about moving from benefits to work;
Increased responsibility and potentially benefit sanctions will effectively penalise those who are already accepted as being the most vulnerable in our society. Sanctions must be a tool of last resort. There must be adequate safeguards in place to protect and encourage rather than penalise;

Jutta Allmendinger, Director of The Institute for Employment Research –

Nuremberg, spoke about the German experience and highlighted that pre2005 the German benefit system focussed on preserving the status of people who moved from work to benefits (unemployment insurance assistance was funded through contributions, was earnings-related and duration of up to 32 months). Post 2005 the same benefit has a reduced duration of up to 12 months, and the general benefits system has greater ‘activation’ components including early obligation to register and tighter definitions of suitable work.

Ron Haskins, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institute, Washington DC, spoke about the US experience and in particular the five components of 1996 welfare reform in the US:

1. End Cash Entitlement

2. Block Grant Funding

3. Work Requirements

4. Sanctions

5. 5-Year Time Limit

It was demonstrated that this has drastically reduced the welfare caseload and has left potential welfare recipients more open to the risks of a downturn in the economy. However this approach has also been associated with very significant increases in resources towards childcare and tax credit top-up payments. There is a view that the punitive measures embodied in the welfare reform law were not the primary cause of its success. Welfare reform was successful because the US economy was good and because in-work supports – child care and health insurance – helped make work pay. Problems with the US approach were highlighted as being the difficulty for welfare recipients to secure continuous employment (often a focus on ‘take the first job’ and not the ‘best job match’. There was also a very significant issue related to ‘floundering families’ – with a significant increase in single mother households without work and without access to welfare (number has almost doubled since 1990).

Advice NI view:

People cannot be left to simply ‘fall through the cracks’ and allowed to ‘flounder’ as appears to be the case in the US;
Given that we are talking about the most vulnerable people in society, acknowledged as being the ‘hardest to help’, Government should ensure that there are adequate safeguards in place to protect and support not further marginalise and demonise. It was highlighted that ‘work is the only route out of poverty’ but the benefits system must play it’s part in ensuring that people have sufficient income to put food on the table, keep a roof over their head and provide a basis to make informed decisions about moving from benefits to work;
US speakers reiterated the point that “forced integration into the labour marker will not work" without the associated significant increases in spending on areas such as childcare. Government should not shirk it’s responsibilities in this regard.

Advice NI would ask decision makers to consider using the tried and tested Advice NI eConsultation service as a means by which targeted organisations (and the individuals to whom they provide a service) are included in this process. Further information on the Advice NI eConsultation service can be found at http://www.adviceni.net/econsultation/default.asp

Advice NI welcomes the opportunity to input into this debate and would be keen to be kept informed of developments.

Contact information on this Social Policy Briefing Paper:

Bob Stronge (Director)
Kevin Higgins (Head of Policy)
Advice NI
1 Rushfield Avenue
Belfast
BT7 3FP

Tel: 028 9064 5919
Fax: 028 9049 2313
Email: bob@adviceni.net
kevin@adviceni.net
Website: www.adviceni.net

Advice NI Briefing Paper July 2008

Advice NI social policy briefing paper in relation to:

Welfare Reform: A welfare state fit for the 21st Century
(An ‘Inside Government’ conference to consider Government’s aim to move people from being passive recipients of benefits to active job seekers)

July 2008

Advice NI background

Conference overview

Advice NI perspective

Advice NI Background

1. Advice NI is a membership organisation that exists to provide leadership, representation and support for independent advice organisations to facilitate the delivery of high quality, sustainable advice services. Advice NI exists to provide its members with the capacity and tools to ensure effective advice services delivery. This includes: advice and information management systems, funding and planning, quality assurance support, NVQs in advice and guidance, social policy co-ordination and ICT development.

2. Membership of Advice NI is normally for organisations that provide significant advice and information services to the public. Advice NI has over 80 member organisations operating throughout Northern Ireland and providing information and advocacy services to over 110,000 people each year on over 214,000 enquiries including: social security, housing, debt, consumer and employment issues. For further information, please visit www.adviceni.net.

Conference Overview

3. As part of the Government’s debate on the future of the welfare state, Advice NI was invited to participate in a conference held at One Great George Street, Central London in June 2008. In particular debate centred on the health of the population, the cost of ill health and models of intervention. The event aimed to offer the opportunity to address key issues including:

How best to utilise the different resources and expertise that the private and voluntary sectors utilise to ensure that those who need it receive the required support;

Through long term mentoring, help keep customers in work and progress in their roles as opposed to return to benefits;

How best to reward organisations that are successful in helping claimants find and stay in work;
How best to role out local employment partnerships;
Greater personalisation of employment support, ensuring the hardest-to-help are targeted;
Retain and revise the role of Jobcentre Plus (Jobs & Benefits Offices in NI);
How a higher employment rate can be achieved through partnership with local communities;
How Pathways to Work can be continued to be rolled out across the country;
How reform to the welfare reform system can help the government eradicate child poverty;
How addressing the skills deficit can address unemployment and keep people in work;

4. Introducing the event Lord Archie Kirkwood, former chair of the Work and Pensions Select Committee, talked about welfare reform to date. Regarding future direction he highlighted the need for welfare reform to be co-ordinated & integrated with other government policies; monitored to ensure reforms are appropriate and effective; properly resourced; and have employer buy-in.

5. Terry Rooney MP, Chair of the DWP Select Committee, spoke about the target of an 80% employment rate (against a current figure of 75%) and if this target is to be achieved then people with disabilities, lone parents, people from minority ethnic communities and the low skilled must be better supported. He outlined that there is a comparable person from each of these groups in employment and any barriers must be addressed to help more people move into employment. Mr Rooney also expressed the view that when employees are notified that they are loosing their job, there should be a process whereby they can make contact with their Jobs & Benefits Office to be supported to find another job as soon as possible.

6. From the point of view of government responsibilities Mr Rooney believed that the issue of sanctions required attention. He outlined that if sanctions were meant to change claimant’s behaviour, claimants must clearly know why they are being sanctioned and must clearly be informed as to what steps they need to take to have the sanction removed. There should also be more flexibility around testing work with greater use of Permitted Work, a review of earnings disregards and more supportive benefit run-on periods. He also outlined that government has a duty to address the issue of benefit uptake.

7. The Right Honourable Stephen Timms MP, Minister of State for Employment and Welfare Reform, spoke about the goal of an 80% employment rate from the present figure of 75% and the need to open up employment opportunities to those who previously have missed out on these opportunities.

8. The Minister focused particularly on three areas:

New Deal: more intensive job search requirements, increased expectations on people who have been on benefit for a long time;
Lone Parents: a goal of 70% employment rate amongst lone parents, introducing regulations requiring lone parents (depending on the age of the youngest child) to move from Income Support to Job Seekers Allowance with associated work seeking responsibilities;
Pathways and Employment & Support Allowance: greater focus on what a person can do, not what they cannot do; more help available for people to stay in work and to return to work more quickly;

9. Mark Lovell Executive Chairman of A4e spoke on the role the private sector can play in the reform agenda. According to their website[1], “A4e is a successful international business and a market leader in global public service reform. We work with government and the private and third sectors to design, develop and deliver front line public services that benefit individuals, organisations and communities."

10. Mr Lovell spoke about putting customers at the heart of the design process; about models of engagement in other European countries, including France where there is a voluntary model of engagement, Germany where there is a family model of engagement and England where the model is the Pathways to Work programme. Mr Lovell spoke about the need for partnership, effective services require vibrant diversified supply chains, mixed portfolio of services focused on client need, commissioning and contract structures must support demands for delivery, he described a consumer model of services ‘for people’ not ‘to people’, the need for sufficient government investment and for financial risk to be managed at the top tier and not passed down to service providers. He finally highlighted that providers would need to be aware of the need to provide value for money, efficiency and productivity.

11. A view from the advice sector perspective was put forward by Teresa Perchard, Head of Policy, Citizens Advice. Teresa outlined that people, particularly those who have been claiming out-of-work benefits for a long period, often lack the confidence to be able to consider moving into employment; often the staff in Jobcentre Offices do not have the time to provide the required support; moving from benefits to employment is often considered a risk because finances are so tight; effective advice services must be in place to assure claimants that (1) they will be better-off; and (2) ensure that in-work benefits are put in place swiftly and accurately.

12. In terms of integrating welfare reform with Employment and Skills, Ruth Owen (Jobcentre Plus) and David Cragg / Karen Riley (Learning & Skills Council) spoke about transforming the welfare state: and supporting people to move from welfare to skills and employment. Ruth spoke about the need for core skills & employment support that was available to all, with associated tailored solutions to fit local needs. Karen talked about the need to conduct skills screening with claimants to ensure that skills could be developed; matched to job content; and employer needs. The idea of Any job, Better job, Career (ABC) was raised which appears to be a particularly US concept. David highlighted the need for alignment with government strategies including investment, regeneration, housing and health. He also highlighted the need to engage with employers to ensure that any claimant-support programmes were meeting their needs. The ultimate aim of all speakers appeared to be sustainable employment leading to career progression.

13. Ann Watt, Deputy Director, Cabinet Office Social Exclusion Taskforce[2], spoke about the challenges in terms of employment relating to people with complex multiple problems, with no/low skills and no experience. She particularly referred to (1) young people leaving care, (2) adult offenders, (3) mental health service users and (4) people with moderate to severe learning disabilities. These categories of people could additionally include those who are homeless and / or have drug and alcohol addictions. Ann outlined that compared to the average 75% employment rate across the entire population, these groups had employment / education / training rates of 63%; 35% 20% and 10% respectively.

14. Paul Kirk Head of Worklessness, Communities and Local Government, believed that the introduction of the new Employment & Support Allowance and the rollout of Pathways was significant. He made the following points:

Monitoring / Quality: the need to be better able to track off-flows from Incapacity Benefit / Employment & Support Allowance to ensure people remain in employment and actually embark on career progression;

Conditionality: greater conditionality may create resistance from claimants and support groups; greater conditionality in the form of sanctions may cause hardship and may also force people to accept jobs that are not right for them;

Contracts: government needs to create contracts which will allow for effective delivery;

Health: the health service must be able to react effectively to the needs of claimants with disabilities; needs to be better integration between health and work agendas;

15. Finally Dame Carol Black, National Director, Health and Work Well Being, provided a review of the health of Britain’s working age population. She outlined that outflows from incapacity benefits have fallen by 35% in the last decade and that 30% of children who have a parent with a disability or health condition live in poverty. She added that if we are to achieve full employment and reduce child poverty, no discussion on welfare reform can take place without considering:

How best to promote health and well-being in the workplace and protect the health of those in work; and
How best to support those with health conditions to stay in work or return to work.

16. She spoke about the review which she carried out ‘Working for a healthier tomorrow’[3][4] which had at it’s heart “a recognition of, and a concern to remedy, the human, social and economic costs of impaired health and well-being in relation to working life in Britain". The overall message from Dame Carol was that work is generally good for both physical and mental health and well-being; and she outlined 3 key objectives which were:

1. Prevention of illness and promotion of health and wellbeing;

2. Early intervention for those who develop a condition; and

3. An improvement in the health of those out of work

17. Closing the event Lord Kirkwood urged all stakeholders to engage in the welfare reform debate. He quoted George Bernard Shaw: “Be careful to get what you like, or you may have to like what you get".

Advice NI perspective

18. Taking up Lord Kirkwood’s challenge, Advice NI would wish to focus more keenly on government’s responsibilities and ensuring that these responsibilities are discharged. This can most plainly be illustrated by looking at the issue of government’s responsibility from the perspective of someone in work and paying their tax and National Insurance contributions.

19. The government has recently expended much effort in terms of researching, developing and implementing pathways from welfare-to-work. This has included a wide-ranging public relations offensive in particular around the achieving the goal of an 80% employment rate and in particular focusing on vulnerable client groups which may find themselves furtherest from the labour market. The focus of the welfare reform debate has clearly been on the personal responsibility of benefit claimants to move into employment – in particular lone parents and people with disabilities.

20. Advice NI believes that the starting point when government talks about welfare reform needs to change. There needs to be account taken of the views of people who are in employment because these may be the very people who are not engaged now, who will find themselves out of work and who will become very disillusioned with government and the social security system for not protecting them in their hour of need.

21. Advice NI would wish to highlight that pathways from work-to-welfare must not be further undermined. People pay National Insurance contributions with the expectation that should they become unemployed or ill they will be supported by the social security benefits system – in particular in terms of accessing contribution-based benefits. If the government tip the balance so far that in effect this support is not forthcoming for people who find themselves out of work, the question may rightly be asked ‘why should I pay National Insurance contributions at all?’ Advice NI believes that the time has come for a debate on the issue of National Insurance contributions; the extent to which these contributions allow access to social security benefits; the extent to which this access has diminished over time / will diminish in the future; & the role and cost of private insurance packages which are in effect replacing this support.

22. From the perspective of people who are in receipt of benefits, government has very clearly put forward a rights and responsibilities agenda[5]. Again Advice NI would challenge government to do more to meet it’s responsibilities towards those on benefits.

23. In respect of benefit claimants, areas where government responsibilities have not been adequately discharged include:

Benefit uprating: in respect of the Income Support Personal Allowance (aged 25 or over) the increase in 2008/9 was from £59.15 to £60.50 representing an increase of £1.35 which is 2.28%.

Benefit uptake: the extent to which people are not receiving the support they are entitled to needs to be addressed. For example in Northern Ireland take-up of Pension Credit is considered to be as low as 49% by caseload and 60% by expenditure.

Earnings disregards: the earnings disregard for a single person (£5) has remained unchanged since the introduction of Income Support in April 1988. The disregard has now become less than the National Minimum Wage hourly rate which currently stands at £5.52 an hour. This in no way incentivises claimants to move into paid employment.

ESA & permitted work: the differential treatment of those claiming contribution-based and means-tested Employment & Support Allowance in relation to earnings. It appears that relatively generous earnings disregards for contribution-based ESA do not apply to means-tested ESA. As well as being confusing for ESA claimants and staff alike, this differential treatment effectively discourages means-tested ESA claimants from engaging in paid employment.

Benefit run-on: the transition from benefits into paid employment acts as a disincentive for claimants. More financial support could be provided: which in effect could empower claimants to themselves proactively seek to work. This could be funded from monies which otherwise would have gone to government agents to provide back-to-work support.

Better off in work: other incentives should be considered including the extension of Free School Meals provision which will help government meet it’s goal of trying to ensure parents move into work; and improved support with housing costs which is a key consideration for people moving from benefits to work.

National Minimum Wage: the NMW should become a National Living Wage which again would encourage people to take that first step into paid employment. In respect of the NMW uprating, in October it will increase from £5.52 to £5.73 an increase of 3.8%.

Childcare: there is a distinct lack of accessible, affordable childcare, particularly as regards Northern Ireland. In addition no government department here has lead responsibility for childcare and there is no strategy in place to deliver accessible, affordable childcare in the foreseeable future.

Education / training / volunteering: the focus of moving people from benefits into paid employment has left many people feeling sceptical about the motives behind welfare reform – more about a numbers game rather than seriously tackling heath and well-being issues. Given that many people within vulnerable client groups are furtherest from the labour market, government needs to be realistic and understand that many will have a life changing journey to make before they are ready to move into paid employment.

Social fund: the provision of lump sum payments via the social fund should be reviewed and broadened to encompass support for low waged households.

Cross departmental support: government still tends to operate within silos which negatively impacts on the support that can be given. For example intense activation activity within the benefits field may run in parallel with lengthy waiting lists and delays in treatment within the health field.

24. Advice NI asked the following questions at the event: (1) given that welfare reforms are now targeted at the more vulnerable within our society, is there enough recognition that these people have a journey to make; that they are furtherest from the labour market; that they are the least attractive to employers; that they may need to take part in up-skilling, further education, training, volunteering permitted work, part-time work before getting to the stage where full time paid employment might be a possibility? & (2) given the research that expresses the view that work is generally good for you, how fit do you have to be to be considered fit for work; where is the tipping point from being unfit for work / work being detrimental to your health as opposed to being fit for work / work being beneficial to your health?

25. As expected the answers were non-committal and perhaps underlined that when the surface is scratched the issue is not as straightforward as may first appear. In respect of (1) the response was that employment is the end goal and in fact government does not want to incentivise any activity other than moving claimants off benefits and into employment. This disheartening response perhaps underscores the view of the sceptic that number counting rather than tailored support is the order of the day. This is perhaps further evidenced by the stated policy objective of reducing the number of people on incapacity benefits by one million from 2005 levels [Ready for work: full employment in our generation (Dec 2007].

26. In answer to (2) it was agreed by Dame Carol that work is not the best place for everyone; that decisions have to be taken on a case by case basis; that it is difficult to generalise and that it is not about lumping people all together. This again demonstrates how coming at the issue of welfare reform from a different perspective leads to responses which are diametrically opposite to initial headline comments.

27. It is the view of Advice NI that there is always a balance to be struck between encouraging families in receipt of social security benefits to move into paid employment and providing adequate support for families while they are in receipt of benefits. In our view the government has taken a predominantly ‘work focused’ approach, concentrating primarily on ‘making work pay’ and using employment as the principal means of tackling child poverty. However, in taking this approach, there is a concern that families on benefits are being left behind and marginalised. In general terms, just as government would urge those on benefits not to have a phobia about working, Advice NI believes that Government itself should not have a phobia about seeking to improve the quality of life for those people and children reliant on benefits.

28. Benefits sanctions, for example regarding a failure to carry out a job seeker’s direction, impacts upon the whole family and there needs to be a balance between ‘encouraging’ people to move into employment and ensuring that these same people are adequately supported while on benefit. Previous Advice NI Social Policy Papers (‘New Deal for Disabled People’; ‘The Contributory Principle – On the Agenda or in the Firing Line’ and ‘Welfare Reform: Challenges, Choices and International Insight’ available on www.adviceni.net) indicate that the focus may be too heavily weighted in favour of moving people off benefits rather than firstly ensuring that people are adequately provided for on benefit. In our previous Welfare Reform paper we highlighted the plight of so-called floundering families in the USA:

“Welfare reform was successful because the US economy was good and because in-work supports – child care and health insurance – helped make work pay. With the downturn in the economy, problems with the US approach were highlighted as being the difficulty for welfare recipients to secure continuous employment (often a focus on ‘take the first job’ and not the ‘best job match’). There was also a very significant issue related to ‘floundering families’ – with a significant increase in single mother households without work and without access to welfare (number has almost doubled since 1990)."

29. In terms of people with disabilities, Advice NI notes the analysis of the impact of Pathways[6] as highlighted in the report ‘The impact of Pathways to Work’ which focuses on the overall impact of Pathways on employment, earnings, receipt of incapacity benefits, and a potential indicator of the extent to which individuals’ health affects their everyday activities.

30. Whilst generally positive about the impact of Pathways it should be noted that the report highlights that Pathways had little effect on the employment or self-reported health condition of people suffering from mental illness. Given that people with mental illness account for over 40% of the Incapacity Benefit caseload, Advice NI remains concerned that a suitable form of support has not been developed to meet the needs of this particular client group. In the push to remove claimants from benefit, we would remain concerned that people with mental illness may find themselves in the position of being removed from benefit and / or placed in employment; a position which may do nothing to improve their health and well being.

31. Dame Carol also highlights a ‘consensus statement’[7] from leaders of the healthcare profession which supports the view that healthcare providers should be doing all they can to help people enter, stay in or return to work. Again the fine print of the statement clarifies that:

“Work which is appropriate to an individual’s knowledge, skills and circumstances and undertaken in a safe, healthy and supportive working environment, promotes good physical and mental health, helps to prevent ill health and can play an active part in helping people recover from illness."

The key word in the statement is “appropriate" and again Advice NI would be concerned that decisions as regards entitlement to benefit, fitness for work and taking up employment may be overly concerned with simple head count considerations rather than providing tailored support which is appropriate to meet the needs in each individual case.

32. Finally on the question of ‘is work good for your health and well-being?’ Advice NI notes the report[8] with the same title which interestingly makes the point that:

“There is also growing awareness that (long-term) Worklessness is harmful to physical and mental health, so the corollary might be assumed – that work is beneficial for health. However, that does not necessarily follow."

33. The report highlights a number of issues including: employment is generally the most important means of obtaining adequate economic resources; work meets important psychosocial needs in societies where employment is the norm; there is a strong association between worklessness and poor health; there is strong evidence that re-employment leads to improved self-esteem, improved general and mental health, and reduced psychological distress and minor psychiatric morbidity; claimants who move off benefits and (re)-enter work generally experience improvements in income, socio-economic status, mental and general health, and well-being.

34. Whilst the report does conclude that “work is generally good for health and well-being", it makes a number of provisos to this statement:

These findings are about average or group effects and should apply to most people to a greater or lesser extent; however, a minority of people may experience contrary health effects from work(lessness);
Beneficial health effects depend on the nature and quality of work (though there is insufficient evidence to define the physical and psychosocial characteristics of jobs and workplaces that are ‘good’ for health);
The social context must be taken into account, particularly social gradients in health and regional deprivation.

Again Advice NI would draw attention to the journey that many will have to make before being work-ready. We would like to see a continued focus on different elements of this journey including ‘is volunteering good for your health and well-being’; ‘is education and training good for your health and well-being’; ‘is part-time work good for your health and well-being’. Advice NI will continue to advocate on behalf of those people for whom the transition from benefits to work may not be a straightforward process. We will try to ensure that the needs and views of this section of the population are heard despite the rhetoric and sweeping statements to the effect that work is good for everyone – the evidence appears to suggest that appropriate work can be beneficial with decisions to be made on a case by case basis. This is not such a good sound-bite but it does perhaps more accurately reflect the situation.

35. In conclusion, Advice NI note that commentators are predicting the first signs of recession in Britain. A slowdown in the British economy with associated job looses must be factored into the welfare reform equation. As highlighted above:

“There needs to be account taken of the views of people who are in employment because these may be the very people who are not engaged now, who will find themselves out of work and who will become very disillusioned with government and the social security system for not supporting them in their hour of need."

36. Advice NI is keen to stay involved in the welfare reform debate and would be keen to be kept informed of developments.

Contact information on this Social Policy Briefing Paper:

Bob Stronge (Director)
Fiona Magee (Deputy Director)
Kevin Higgins (Head of Policy)

Advice NI
1 Rushfield Avenue
Belfast
BT7 3FP

Tel: 028 9064 5919
Fax: 028 9049 2313
Email: bob@adviceni.net

fiona@adviceni.net
kevin@adviceni.net
Website: www.adviceni.net

[1] http://www.a4e.co.uk/Home.aspx

[2] http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/social_exclusion_task_force.aspx

[4] http://www.workingforhealth.gov.uk/Carol-Blacks-Review

[5] http://www.dwp.gov.uk/welfarereform/readyforwork

[6] http://www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2007-2008/rrep435.pdf

[7] http://www.workingforhealth.gov.uk/documents/healthcare-professionals-consensus-statement-4-march-2008.pdf

[8] http://www.workingforhealth.gov.uk/documents/is-work-good-for-you.pdf

Correspondence from Law Centre NI
8 October 2008

Our Ref: LA/RL

8 October 2008

via email

Dear

Please find enclosed background briefing on the recent DWP Green Paper.

The Law Centre would be happy to give oral evidence to the committee so wishes. We will send you on our own response to the Green Paper once it is finalized.

If anything arises from the Green paper feel free to contact either myself or Ursula O’Hare.

Yours sincerely

Les Allamby
Director

Correspondence from Law Centre NI 8 October 2008 - Appendix 1 Briefing Paper

Dwp Green Paper – No One Written Off :

Reforming Welfare To Reward Responsibility

July 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

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Law Centre (NI)

October 2008

[1] Fothergill S and Wilson I (2007) – A million off Incapacity Benefit how achievable is Labour’s target? Cambridge Journal of Economics 31 1007-1023

[2] Crisp R and Fletcher D R (2008) A comparative review of workfare programmes in the US, Canada and Australia Research Report No 533.

[3]SSAC (2008) – The Social Security (Lone Parents and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2008 paragraph 6.2 p27

[4] Committee for the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister (2008): Final Report on the Committee’s Inquiry into child Poverty in Northern Ireland

Law Centre NI Briefing Paper Oct 2008

Reforming Welfare to Reward Responsibility

A Law Centre (NI) Response - October 2008

Introduction

1.1 Law Centre (NI) is a public interest non-governmental legal 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. The Law Centre provides a specialist legal service (advice, representation, training, information and policy comment) in five areas of law: immigration, social security, community care, mental health and employment.

1.2 Our services are provided to almost 500 member agencies. Members include local Citizen Advice Bureaux, independent advice agencies, local solicitors, trade unions, social services, probation offices, constituency associations of local political parties, libraries and other civic organisations.

1.3 The Law Centre is pleased to respond to the proposals detailed in the Green Paper No-one Written Off: Reforming Welfare by Rewarding Responsibility. We welcome the government’s aspirations to deliver an improved out-of-work benefit system through an enhanced advice system tailored to the individual and the focus on exploring possible strategies for tackling long-term unemployment. However, we have concerns about the effectiveness and justification for some of the proposals. The proposals would present particular difficulties in Northern Ireland and we explain these below.

Northern Ireland circumstances

2.1 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 and 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).

2.2 In Northern Ireland, the extensive use of private and voluntary sector has not been proposed to date. This contrasts to GB, where pilot models have long been implemented.

2.3 The Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) is not applying Flexible New Deal in Northern Ireland. For GB, this Green Paper would be part of a graduated step towards a new system; however, as Flexible New Deal is not in place in Northern Ireland, the implementation of this Green Paper would require some changes to current arrangements.

2.4 The Department for Social Development (DSD) is currently considering modified administrative arrangements with relation to moving lone parents from Income Support to Jobseeker’s Allowance in order to reflect Northern Ireland’s particular circumstances. Similarly, we believe that this Green Paper would require tailored modification to be effective in Northern Ireland.

2.5 Given the differences outlined above, combined with differences relating to regulations, delivery and administration, the Law Centre believes it is appropriate to tailor a Northern Ireland approach to issues raised in the Green Paper. For these reasons, we would recommend that this Green Paper is not adopted in Northern Ireland.

2.6 This paper now examines the content of the Green Paper within a UK-wide context, but with specific reference to Northern Ireland, where appropriate.

Simplification

3.1 We welcome the proposal 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 eg a lone parent with caring responsibilities for a disabled child. The Law Centre would therefore support the retention of Income Support.

Carers

4.1 The Law Centre does not support the Department’s proposal to move carers to Jobseeker’s Allowance. JSA is not suitable for carers, who, by definition, are engaged in full time caring work for at least 35 hours a week. We would be concerned at any proposals that would have a negative impact on entitlements to Carer’s Allowance or that would introduce sanctions for carers. We would seek reassurance that these proposals will not have such an impact.

4.2 Furthermore, we do not feel that the current provisions of JSA could encompass the broad and often complex needs of carers. Modifying JSA to meet carers’ needs would require a range of significant changes, which would run contrary to the expressed intention to simplify the benefit system. Carers are different to job seekers - a fact that should be acknowledged in the type of benefit they receive. Attempting to draw equivalence between ESA and JSA for the purposes of a superficially simplified system is damaging.

4.3 While we would reject the proposal of moving carers to JSA, we would welcome some of the secondary proposals such as increasing carers’ access to personal advisers who can assist with training plans, etc. By adopting this approach, the integrity of the carer’s role within the community would be retained and, in the case of temporary caring roles, the carer would be better equipped to enter the job market when appropriate. We support positive incentives and encouragements to facilitate carers who wish to find work. This should be based on the carer’s own choice and circumstances. One size will simply not fill all carers. The message of the Green Paper runs contrary to the message contained in the recent Carer’s Strategy.

Increased involvement from private / voluntary sectors

5.1 The Green Paper proposes a radical new approach to harnessing the innovation and expertise of the private and voluntary sectors, however, little detail is provided as to how the private service providers will go about doing this. We deem it essential that providers make public their proposed methodologies in getting a claimant to enter the labour market particularly in light of the substantial financial rewards that the provider may be eligible to receive.

5.2 The proposal of a new ‘tier’ into the back-to-work system i.e. that of the private and third sectors through a means of contracting and sub-contracting could weaken the link between the state and the individual. Introducing a chain of responsibilities is likely to lead to a dilution of the state’s responsibilities towards claimants and could weaken public faith in the system.

5.3 Providers are to be given new freedoms to deliver services by means of a ‘black box’ approach whereby outcomes are set but no methods are prescribed. The lack of regulatory framework is both striking and worrying. We would call for the creation of a regulatory body to ensure that minimum standards are met; to monitor any inconsistencies in delivery quality; and to ensure that financial motivation does not override careful consideration of a claimant’s individual circumstances.

‘Work for your benefit’ proposal

6.1 The Law Centre strongly opposes the Green Paper’s proposals to increase conditionality and to introduce a ‘work for your benefit’ element into the welfare system. The ‘work for your benefit’ premise appears to be grounded in evidence that was unpublished at the time the Green Paper was drafted and thus constitutes an untested hypothesis. The now published evidence does not substantiate the ambitions contained in the Green Paper. Any evidence leading to a fundamental change within the welfare system should be based on published evidence and subject to public scrutiny through consultation.

6.2 There is little detail in terms of the nature of ‘work-related activity or ‘full-time activity’’; indeed, the proposals state that the Department intends to seek views on the ‘precise content’ of these programmes. It thus appears that proposals do not derive from tested models. The ‘precise content’ of such programmes should be publicly known if the consultation process is to be effective. This notwithstanding, our current concerns are set out in paragraphs 6.3 – 6.7.

6.3 The Department states its intention to be clear that ‘community work is not about introducing compulsory volunteering.’ It is unclear, however, how the Department intends to maintain the distinction between voluntary community work and compulsory community work.

6.4 We are concerned that the proposals allow advisers to compel a claimant to undertake full-time activity at any stage of their claim at their discretion. Conferring such powers on individual adviser could result in abuse and therefore safeguards need to be put into place.

6.5 It is unclear whether the Department intends to impose sanctions on those individuals who are unable to participate in, or meet the requirements of, work-related activity.

6.6 Abuse of powers could also stem from the proposal to contract the work-related activity to public, private and voluntary providers. It is essential that the claimant continues to have full access to independent advice providers (i.e. not the contracted party) to ensure that the claimant can make the transition to paid work and that she/he is not effectively ‘parked’ in an unpaid, yet full-time work-related activity.

6.7 While some types of work experience could ultimately help a claimant to move into sustainable paid employment, ‘work-related activity’ experience is highly unlikely to be fruitful if participation is not voluntary. Instead of a introducing a mandatory regime, we believe that providing real incentives for claimants to undertake voluntary work would be a more effective use of resources. The ‘outdoor relief’ principle of the nineteenth century Poor Laws effectively substituted relief benefits for wage payments and had a detrimental impact on England’s economy; an analogy could be drawn with the proposals outlined in the Green Paper, which risk displacing real employment. The work-related activity scheme further risks a substantial undermining of the government’s commitment to the minimum wage and could result in stigmatisation.

Increased use of sanctions

7.1 The proposed increased use of sanctions could have substantial cost implications given the potential associated rise in appeals. The Department should produce its evidence that demonstrates that sanctions are effective especially in light of the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee, which questions the efficacy of sanctions. An increased use in sanctions is likely to have substantial adverse implications for dependents 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. These proposals would result in benefit deprivation not uptake.

7.2 The government recognises that job offers ‘may be more limited’ for disabled people and people with health conditions. Given this acknowledgement as to the lack of job offers, it seems inherently unfair that disabled people will be subject to the same conditionality principles. We oppose increased sanctions in all instances; however, we particularly oppose sanctions against disabled individuals while there is no parity in terms of job offers for disabled/non disabled claimants.

7.3 Finally, 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 the benefit sanctions.

Lone parents

8.1 The Law Centre thoroughly welcomes the Green Paper’s proposals to fully disregard maintenance earnings and believes that this will have positive implications for the government’s endeavours to eradicate child poverty by 2020. We also broadly support the proposal for joint birth registration in terms of its scope for reducing child poverty by promoting shared responsibility for the child, though safeguards need to be sensitively applied where appropriate.

8.2 However, the Law Centre has grave reservations about the proposals to move lone parents on to JSA until a time when a Northern Ireland government Department takes lead responsibility for childcare and a suitable strategy and investment plan is devised and implemented.

8.3 In Northern Ireland, approximately one half of children living in poverty live in households where one or more parents is employed in full-time activity. It follows that poorly paid jobs that offer little in the way of security or status may compound poverty: claimants may therefore require broader support than simply moving them into employment. The Green Paper may be too simplistic in this regard.

8.4 We support the introduction of In-Work credits to assist lone parents to make the transition from benefits into works. It is essential that lone parents continue to receive tailored support once they have embarked upon work.

Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) and related issues

9.1 We fully support the move to double the funding for the Access to Work scheme. The scheme is extremely effective in increasing accessibility to the labour market, thus making a tangible difference to people with disabilities. For these reasons, we would urge an even greater government investment in Access to Work and we advise extending the scope of Access to Work to include disabled people undertaking work placements or voluntary work, which may later lead to paid employment.

9.2 Despite the success of Access to Work, disabled people still face substantial barriers to employment. Statistics compiled by Disability Action in Northern Ireland show that only 32% of people with disabilities are in employment compared to 79% of those without disabilities. Barriers to employment include: financial barriers, e.g. loss of benefits about income from paid work; attitudes, e.g. documented discrimination in recruitment processes, interviews, application forms, etc.; physical accessibility; perceived health and safety issues; public image, etc. In light of such figures, we strongly oppose increased conditionality for claimants receiving ESA. The ‘conditionality approach’ is at odds with ESA and its integral purpose of providing necessary support to those who have been assessed as being in need.

9.3 We are concerned that the proposals call for every ESA claimant to undergo a ‘light touch basic skills screen’ and if appropriate, a ‘mandatory skills health check’. Being in receipt of ESA, a claimant may well have a disability of such a severe nature as to render the proposal of a mandatory skills health check inappropriate. This applies equally to the proposal to introduce a training requirement for ESA claimants. A blanket proposal such as this is not welcome.

9.4 Moreover, we wonder if the proposed assessment procedure is an inefficient allocation of resources and unnecessarily burdensome on the state and unduly demanding on the claimant.

Delivering choice and control for disabled people

10.1 We acknowledge the Government’s progress over the last decade in improving rights and opportunities for disabled people. We fully support the proposals to increase the degree of control disabled people have over the support that is available. However, we seek to make an important distinction with regards to right to control: disabled people should have the right to fully participate in the decision-making that affects them; however, disabled people should be given the choice as to whether they wish to manage their own budgets. The element of choice is essential given the shifting of responsibility from state to claimant and the liabilities a disabled person may face by effectively becoming an employer. It is unclear whether the government envisages a situation where a claimant may face shortfalls to pay for their assessed needs; if so, we fear that this could lead to a situation where ‘top-up payments’ become the norm. The Law Centre has successfully intervened in cases where the application of top-up payments have proved to unlawful in the context of community care context; we would not wish to see top-up payments incorporated into welfare benefit.

Fraud

11.1 We do not see any need for further criminal sanctions to combat fraud. We note the Department’s figures shows that benefit fraud is at the lowest ever recorded. The figures for customer fraud in Northern Ireland are lower than those cited in the Green Paper: £18.1 million (0.5% of social security benefits). We therefore would query the cost-effectiveness of introducing a further sanctions regime in light of the apparent success of the current system.

Problem drug users

12.1 The Law Centre is concerned about the proposed approach for indentifying problem drug use for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is felt that the proposed programme is disproportionate given the relatively small numbers of problem drug users within the system. This is particularly the case for Northern Ireland; in 2007 there were a total of 257 registered addicts. The costs of implementing the programme are likely to be high, given the anticipated increase in sanctions, appeals, potential criminal proceedings.

12.2 There is no evidence to support the effectiveness of compulsory treatment. We therefore do not support the proposal to introduce mandatory addiction treatment schemes; instead, we would support increased access to voluntary rehabilitation/treatment.

12.3 We are concerned by the proposed sharing of information between Jobcentre Plus and the police, probation services and prisons, especially in light of the recent increase in data mismanagement by government bodies and contractors. Our concerns are compounded by the proposed increase of private sector involvement, which could result in private contractors becoming privy to sensitive information relating to a person’s health and drug use.

12.4 The Law Centre has particular concerns about the proposal that a person’s failure to declare a drug addiction may render their claim fraudulent and thus the claimant liable to criminal proceedings. Equating drug addiction with illegality could be unhelpful not least as it may deter addicts from seeking assistance.

12.5 It is unclear how these proposals will be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights incorporated into UK domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998. On the proposed data sharing, we are concerned about a potential breach of Article 8 (1) ECHR. Furthermore, the proposed requirement for a claimant to declare her/his addiction (and the associated criminal sanctions) may violate the legal privilege that protects the right against self incrimination. In addition, it has been established that compulsory medical treatment falls within Article 8 (1) ECHR and therefore there may well be further compatibility issues to this effect.

12.6 No consideration appears to have been given to the possible implications of reducing, or in some instances stopping, a drug users access to benefits. For example, could such a policy result in an increase in criminal activity?

12.7 It does not seem helpful to propose that the welfare system involves itself in an individual’s drug rehabilitation and/or treatment; this is the remit of the medical profession and specialised social workers. Likewise, we believe that involving doctors in benefit issues would constitute a significant infringement of the confidential relationship between doctors and patients, which could have wide implications for society.

Wider reform of the welfare system

13.1 The Law Centre fully supports the retention of the Bereavement Benefit and Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefits (IIDB) as distinct benefits and cannot see any advantage in reforming these benefits. In addition, we would urge caution in issuing lump sum payments in such circumstances unless accompanied with specialised tailored advice.

13.2 Given that ESA has yet to be implemented, we are cautious about the proposals to reform Work Capability Assessment. Instead, we would advocate that the benefit is properly evaluated before modifications are made.

13.3 The proposals to relax the 16 hour study rule in JSA are welcome. In Northern Ireland, the test of whether a course is part time is used rather than an hours-led approach. Advisers should be given wide discretion to ensure that all claimants can benefit from full-time employment-related training while receiving benefits if such a need is identified. We would also support an extension to the eight week training limit. Similarly, we welcome the proposal to allow ‘second-chance learning’ while receiving benefits until the increased age of 21; again, we would support discretion on this issue.

13.4 Likewise, we support the proposal to relax rules for claimants who undertake voluntary work. It is essential that volunteering opportunities are clearly publicised to claimants especially in light of the proposed introduction of mandatory work-related activity, which could otherwise damage the integrity of volunteering organisations and of those associated with them. This builds on existing good work already undertaken by DSD in Northern Ireland.

13.5 We do not, however, support the proposed amendments to contribution conditions as we believe that they will lead to restricted access to benefits and to further erosion of the principle of national insurance, which is likely to have undesirable long-term implications. The Department should exercise caution with regards to EEA nationals’ access to benefits: the Law Centre has worked on several cases whereby migrant workers have found it extremely difficult to obtain the benefits to which they are legally entitled. We would welcome any moves by the Department to provide assistance to EEA migrants who require benefits yet are currently overlooked by the system. The proposals to limit EEA nationals access to contributory benefits is misleading and borders on scapegoating given the low uptake of benefits among migrant workers and the extent of low pay within migrant labour.

Further comments

14.1 We are concerned that the Department’s proposals to move claimants off benefit and into work appear to be designed to operate in a buoyant market. However, the current economic climate has resulted in increased unemployment and a rise in JSA claimants which could severely hamper the effectiveness of the proposals and the justification of an increased sanction system. We therefore question the feasibility of the proposals.

14.2 Individuals are rarely claimants through choice. Subsequently, we are concerned that the proposals tend to weigh towards punitive action rather than encouragement and support; indeed much more of the paper is dedicated to ‘control of’ rather than ‘support for’ claimants. Any results achieved through increased conditionality and punitive action could be more effectively and more cheaply realised through a system of enhanced incentives. We look forward to the implementation of the Steps to Work programme, recently introduced in Northern Ireland, which provides a menu-based flexible approach to assisting claimants with individual employment and training needs. We believe that such a programme is fully consistent with the Beveridge principles and that it will enhance, rather than detract from, the welfare system.

14.3 We are unsettled by some of the Green Paper’s underlying assumptions. The use of the word ‘customer’ as a synonym for ‘claimant’ implies that the individual is exercising a choice in being in need of assistance. Our experience tells us this is not the case and we find that this use language is unhelpful and misleading. We are also concerned that the Department’s increasing use of marketplace descriptors in the context of social welfare indicates an uncomfortable departure from the Beveridge principles.

14.4 The Green Paper appears to assess an individual’s contribution to society solely in terms of economic productivity and fails to take into account other ways in which non-earning individuals can be attributed worth. Such a unidirectional approach towards societal value is ultimately likely to damage the very notions of UK society.

Conclusions

15.1 While the Law Centre welcomes some of the Green Paper’s individual proposals, we are concerned about its broader policy implications. We feel that the proposals weigh unfavourably towards claimants’ responsibilities while concurrently out-sourcing government duties of care by way of low-regulation partnerships, which could result in reduced faith in the system. The lack of evidence underpinning the Government’s move towards increased conditionality leads us to question the Department’s justifications for many of the proposals; we strongly feel that proposals should be supported by published, tested evidence. We would welcome a broader approach to welfare reform, whereby flexibility within the labour market is increased so as to respond more effectively to the individuals who are currently excluded from the market. We would also have liked to have seen greater clarity on the rights of claimants alongside the responsibilities outlined in the Green Paper.

15.2 Accordingly, with the exception of some welcomed measures discussed above, we feel we cannot support the implementation of this paper.

Advice NI AGM Report February 2009

AGM Report

‘Crunch Times at the Frontline’

February 2009

Section 1

Executive Summary

Section 2

Background

Section 3

‘Crunch Times at the Frontline’
Issues and Problems

Section 4

Recommendations

Executive Summary

1.1 At a time of increasing uncertainty facing many households across Northern Ireland; with unemployment levels rising; with increasing numbers of people accessing services of the Social Security Agency (SSA) and increasing numbers of people accessing services of advice agencies (particularly debt and money advice services), Advice NI members are reporting major issues on two fronts: (1) social security agency-related workload (2) difficulties responding to increased demand.

1.2 Clients are presenting with a range of social security-related problems including difficulties coping on benefit income levels, people not receiving their full benefit entitlement, delays in the processing of claims, requiring assistance in disputing poor quality decisions (particularly requiring assistance with appeal hearings) and coping with welfare reform including the introduction of the Employment & Support Allowance.

1.3 Advice NI members strive to provide a vital lifeline for people who find themselves in difficulty. The latest Advice NI Membership Profile Report highlights that advice agencies are finding it increasingly difficult to cope with client demand.

1.4 Advice NI would make the following recommendations in order that both clients and advice agencies cope with the challenges ahead:

1.4.1 Recommendation 1: Benefits, tax credits and the National Minimum Wage need to be uprated to take account of the increasing pressures on household incomes.

1.4.2 Recommendation 2: Clients who present with social security-related queries often require help with other issues, particularly debt and money advice. Additional funding needs to be made available to enable advisers to cope with this demand.

1.4.3 Recommendation 3: The Warm Homes Scheme is the Department’s main vehicle for addressing the fuel poverty issue. Adequate provision for face to face advice provision needs to be built into the Warm Homes process, to ensure that people in fuel poverty can maximise their incomes.

1.4.4 Recommendation 4: There should be an extension to the current provisions of benefit take up activity in Northern Ireland. Innovative and new methodologies in targeting those most vulnerable, hard to reach and in need should be implemented. Remuneration needs to reflect the full costs of service delivery.

1.4.5 Recommendation 5: Given the extent to which benefit payments are now made into some form of bank or Post Office account, more needs to be done to help people understand what benefits they receive.

1.4.6 Recommendation 6: At a time when more people may need to access the benefits system, more should be done to ensure that benefit applications are processed in a timely fashion.

1.4.7 Recommendation 7: Standards of decision making need to be reviewed particularly for the disability and incapacity benefits. An independent ‘DWP Standards Committee’ has expressed a series of concerns about decision making carried out, For example the committee states “... not just to improving the standard of decision making for the sake of paying the right benefits and avoiding errors, but also to what is fair, and ‘customer focused ...". The committee also feels that improvements could be made in relation to mental health issues and weighing medical evidence, staff attitudes and abilities and ‘getting it right’ at the reconsideration stage (DWP Standards Committee Annual Report 2007/2008).

1.4.8 Recommendation 8: Advice NI believes that the communication/ information flow between SSA/HMRC and the independent advice sector could be improved. In particular would recommend a local liaison point in respect of HMRC.

1.4.9 Recommendation 9: Additional funding needs to be injected into the independent advice sector to help address the need for additional advice services, including the downstream consequences of welfare reform. A funding stream similar to the 2003/06 Welfare Reform and Modernisation Project could be used.

1.4.10 Recommendation 10: The Social Security Agency/HMRC should recognise that telephony may not suit everyone, and every effort should be made to provide a face-to-face service which is timely and responsive to the needs of vulnerable claimants.

Background

2.1 In the current economic crisis many lower income families in Northern Ireland are struggling to pay bills and make ends meet. Over the last year there has been an unprecedented increase in electricity, heating oil and gas with the average grocery bill rising by 30%. This coupled with the fact that the uprating of benefits and the national minimum wage is minimal in comparison means that people are set to find themselves in even greater hardship. On top of this it is forecasted that unemployment is set to rise, inevitably meaning even more people falling into debt. Advice NI notes with concern that the number of people claiming unemployment benefits has increased by 2,200 to 38,400 in January 2009. This increase was similar to that recorded in the previous monthly period to December 2008. We also note that the increase over the year to January was 14,700, a higher percentage increase than the UK as a whole.

The annual percentage increase in Northern Ireland 62%, was the highest since the claimant count began in January 1971. Nearly 80% of the annual increase occurred in the last six months. The district council areas which showed the highest percentage increase over the year were Magherafelt (an increase of 536, or 189.4%), Dungannon (727, or 161.9%) and Cookstown (471, or 149.5%).

2.2 Independent Advice Centres provide a vital lifeline for people who find themselves in difficulty. They provide a range of services to people living in disadvantaged urban or rural areas as well as particular social groups such as lone parents, people with disabilities, older people or members of BME communities. Advice NI members deal with over 200,000 enquiries a year the majority (57%) being benefits related (Advice NI, Membership Profile Report (MPR) 2008).

2.3 Due to the difficult funding environment, advice agencies are under considerable pressure to maintain their current level of services. This is illustrated by the fact that the level of staffing has decreased by 4% over the past year (Advice NI, MPR 2008).

2.4 Inadequacies in the administration of benefits by government departments has only exacerbated this pressure. Advice NI members are indicating that due to poor decision making, particularly in relation to disability and incapacity benefits, clients are being faced with undue stress and hardships as well as increasing the workload of advisers. This view is reinforced by a recent Advice UK report ‘it’s the system, stupid?’ which highlights that much of the demand for advice services is ‘failure demand’ – work that should not need doing caused by failings further back in the system of public service administration.

2.5 Evidenced by case studies, panel discussions at Advice NI’s AGM and post AGM e-Consultation posts this briefing paper sets out some of the key issues and problems clients and advisers are facing on a daily basis and makes some important recommendations on how the system can be improved for the betterment of people living in Northern Ireland.

‘Crunch Times at the Frontline’ - Issues and Problems

3.1 Income Inadequacy

3.1.1 Low income families and clients are experiencing increased levels of hardship due to welfare benefits and wages not uprating in line with essential living costs. The average grocery bill has increased by 30% whilst benefits such as Income Support personal allowance for persons aged 25 or over only increasing by 2.28% (Family Resources Survey, DSD NI).

3.2 Debt

3.2.1 Advisers and statistics are indicating that clients are experiencing an increase in levels of debt and mortgage repossessions. A total of 3,628 mortgage arrears were issued to people struggling with repayments in Northern Ireland in 2008, a rise of 64% on the previous year. Figures from the court service show the number of writs and summonses issued rose from 2,213 in 2007. Advice NI member, Housing Rights Service, has reported a 300% increase in demand for their specialist debt service.

3.2.2 Advice agencies are dealing with increasing number of clients, who have lost their jobs, are in debt and are unable to pay their mortgages. Debt queries are up 6% this year (Advice NI membership profile 2008).

3.2.3 Case Study - Client was in receipt of Income Support and Disability Living Allowance. Income was maximised by virtue of securing a Severe Disability Premium, a Community Care Grant and support from St Vincent de Paul. Client’s financial situation was tackled: included Debt (1) £3,113.46; Debt (2) £7,833.24; Debt (3) £3,098.48; Debt (4) £2,100.00; Debt (5) £7,518.24.

Total additional weekly income generated: £68.45

Support with Bankruptcy Application (Debt Written Off): £23, 663.42

3.2.4 Advice NI e-Consultation post - “The demand for locally accessible quality frontline advice services has dramatically increased with significant additional debt related work which is time consuming and yet there are no additional resources to meet demand. There are reports all across N.I. from independent advice agencies about the increased demand and many offices are struggling to meet current demand or even remain open, with some having to restrict service delivery due to current case load management issues. " (www.adviceni.net/econsultation/default.asp, Peter McMahon, Housing Rights Service)

3.3 Fuel Poverty

3.3.1 Advice agencies have indicated that there has been a significant increase in low income and vulnerable clients experiencing fuel poverty which is defined as “when a household spends more than ten per cent on energy". It is estimated that 50% of families with children in Northern Ireland could be living in fuel poverty (The impact of fuel poverty on children, Save the Children 2008). With the current economic climate set to continue many more people are going to face hardship and despair.

3.4 Benefit Take Up

3.4.1 There is a low level of awareness and take up of welfare benefits in Northern Ireland. For example the total amount of Pension Credit left unclaimed annually is between £57 million and £134 million. The average number of pensioners entitled to Pension Credit and yet not claiming is between 39,000 and 74,000 (Family Resources Survey, DSD NI).

3.4.2 Research has indicated that one of the major issues of why take up of benefits is so low is that clients feel that claim forms for a range of benefits are very complex and can put them off applying (Advice NI, Benefit Take Up Project Evaluation, 2007).

3.4.3 Clients are continually approaching advice centres as they are confused about their entitlements due to poor communication between government departments. Each benefit department tends to operate in its own silo and has specialised knowledge on their particular benefits, whereas in reality many benefits interact with each other and need a holistic approach to service delivery.

3.4.4 Case Study - Client was a carer for his elderly mother. As a result of benefit take up work he contacted our adviser on behalf of his Mother. His mother was not aware of Attendance Allowance and did not think she was entitled as both she and her son had savings. An Information Officer advised her that AA was not affected by savings or income and assisted with the application. The application was successful and low rate care AA was awarded.

Total additional weekly income generated: £43.15

3.5 Method of Payment

3.5.1 Due to the introduction of Direct Payment into claimants Post Office Card Accounts or Bank Accounts many clients do not know what benefits they are in receipt of. Advisers often find it very difficult to retrieve this information from the various agencies and therefore is extra stress/workload for clients and advisers when they are assessing benefit entitlements.

3.6 Delays

3.6.1 Clients are facing delays in the processing of claims. Advice NI has evidence of numerous examples of delays including huge delays in the processing of Child Benefit claims and more recently delays in the processing of Community Care Grants. A verified case has come to light where a Pension Credit claimant was told incorrectly that their claim would take 12 months to be processed.

3.6.2 Advisers have highlighted that many clients are receiving inconsistent and inaccurate information from benefit and Tax Credit departments with unacceptable waiting times to see customer representatives. Additionally adviser feedback consistently shows that clients would not have the confidence in agency staff completing forms such as Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance. This is substantially increasing the pressure on advice centres.

3.6.3 Case study - My client was told on number of occasions by different incapacity benefit (IB) staff that he wasn’t entitled to IB, when actually he was. It was only when he mentioned about it in passing that I offered to check his entitlements. Advisers in that department don’t seem to be applying the formula for occupational pensions correctly… Additionally there is poor communication between IB and carers allowance (CA) for (overlapping benefit rules) and the actual rates of benefit that customers are receiving. IB told CA that the client (same as before) got full rate of IB and so they disallowed him CA. However due to occupational pension rules, he actually only got £36 IB p/w despite being on long term IB and could therefore qualify for some CA up to reach max of £50.55 p/w. I had to contact CA and explain this and customer had to await reconsideration.

3.7 Quality of Decision Making

3.7.1 Advice NI are receiving constant feedback from advisers who are stating that poor decision making particularly in relation to disability and incapacity benefits is causing undue stress and hardships for many clients. This is further evidenced by the increase in numbers of clients coming to advice centres looking representation at appeals (Advice NI membership profile report 2008).

3.7.2 Case Study - Client was admitted to hospital following a severe depressive episode. When adviser saw client in hospital she had been found fit for work, her Incapacity Benefit had stopped and she had nil income. Adviser assisted client to appeal this decision, made claims for Income Support and Disability Living Allowance. The appeal was successful, Incapacity Benefit was re-instated, arrears paid; plus DLA and IS claims were awarded.

Total additional weekly income generated: £219.40

3.7.3 Case Study - Thirty seven year old man came to centre requiring help to complete his DLA renewal form. He had mental health difficulties for a number of years which included severe paranoia. His mental health was managed by the community mental health team and he had a very well established relationship with his community mental health nurse. His only contact with his GP was for repeat prescriptions. This was detailed on his renewal form. His DLA renewal was turned down based on evidence from GP report.

Request lodged for the decision to be looked at again and it remained unchanged. Decision appealed to a tribunal which client found to be extremely distressing. Supporting evidence secured from the Community Mental Team and he was given an indefinite award. Client has since moved into private rented accommodation and was awarded SDP on his IS claim.

Total additional weekly income generated: £108.70

3.8 Partnership Working

3.8.1 Advice NI has evidence that some benefit and Tax Credit departments are still refusing to talk to advisers on behalf of clients even though this authority has already been established.

3.8.2 Advice agencies are stating that referrals received from the SSA are substantially adding to adviser’s workloads.

3.8.3 There is evidence that there is a lack of prior consultation on proposed changes to policy or methods of working by the SSA with the independent advice sector. For example there has been no pre-consultation engagement with Advice NI or members on the SSA Strategic Business Review.

3.8.4 Advice NI e-Consultation post - “‘Crunch times at the frontline’ is real and it is also having a ripple effect across the advice sector and the ripples are fast becoming waves. Never has there been a better time to consider if we can deliver our services better with the limited resources we have and for me that means strategic and collaborative partnership working." (www.adviceni.net/econsultation/default.asp, Peter McMahon, Housing Rights Service)

3.9 Access to Information and Advice

3.9.1 A difficult funding environment and diminishing resources is impacting on advice agencies service delivery. The demand for advice is increasing but infrastructure and capacity is decreasing. This is illustrated by the fact that the level of staffing has decreased by 4% over the past year (Advice NI, membership profile report 2008).

3.9.2 Advice NI is currently undertaking research on the current funding climate within the Advice NI membership. Early findings indicate that a significant number of organisations within our membership have had to issue staff protective redundancy notices as funding contracts are coming to an end without any indication that they will be renewed. Considering the services provided by members and with the current economic climate forecasted to further deteriorate, Advice NI strongly believes that advice services should receive additional support rather than face cutbacks, particularly within the framework of the DSD advice and information strategy.

3.9.3 There is a significant increase in the workload for advisers and advice agencies with the constant change in government welfare reform policy. For example the DWP expect there to be an increase of 26,500 appeals a year with the introduction of employment and support allowance (www.dwp.gov.uk). This represents an increase of around one third on current incapacity appeal numbers.

3.9.4 Poor communication between the different government benefit agencies is also increasing the workload for advisers as advisers may have to make several contacts before beginning to assess a client’s situation.

3.9.5 Case Study - Adviser conducted a home visit and conducted a benefits check for a carer, her husband and her daughter who suffered from Down’s syndrome. Both parents had severe health problems, were assisted with Attendance Allowance forms which were both awarded. This also brought in entitlement to a Severe Disability Premium for the daughter.

Total additional weekly income generated: £134.75

3.9.6 Case Study - As a direct result of calling an advice centre a couple received backdated Pension Credit of £6,676 and an increase in their weekly income by way of accessing two Severe Disability Premiums and claiming Housing Benefit as they were entitled to have their rent paid. Total additional weekly income generated: £152.41

3.9.7 Advice NI e-Consultation post – “It is certainly a case of rising demand vs. decreasing funding. Advice Centres have never been busier as we struggle to cope with the fallout of the current financial crisis and if that’s not bad enough the government go and introduce ESA. The demand for advice in respect to debt issues, employment (redundancy), fuel poverty and benefits has never been greater yet we continuously seem to be fighting a losing battle with funders. It is so frustrating and soul destroying having to constantly go cap in hand to funders to try and prove your worth, particularly when it is quite clear that Advice Services are vital and represent great value for money." (www.adviceni.net/econsultation/default.asp, Michael Roddy, Omagh Independent Advice Services)

3.9.8 Advice NI e-Consultation post – “We at EBIAC saw our staffing levels drop from 7 to 2 between 2006 and 2007. We now have 3 staff. We still have similar amounts of people presenting for advice. The number of people needing advice is rising due to the recent changes to the social security system and current economic climate. We also see quite a lot of work generated by poor decision making in relation to disability and incapacity benefits. This does cause much undue stress for clients. Staff are under continuous pressure in our centre as to provide our services each staff member has to juggle different roles. It is very stressful and a situation I thought would only be temporary has become long term. Our services depend greatly on the goodwill of paid staff and volunteers who are very committed to the people in the community in which we work. We like other advice centres offer incredible value for money. We would like more funding in order to meet all the need being presented by our clients. Advice services are a very basic service to the community; they do not provide additionally, they meet people’s basic needs. It is hard to accept that the government is committed to helping those most in need when we are so underfunded in one of the most deprived areas of Northern Ireland." (www.adviceni.net/econsultation/default.asp, Mary McManus, East Belfast Independent Advice Centre)

3.10 Telephony

3.10.1 Telephony plays a significant role in terms of SSA’s service delivery. This role is set to increase given the proposals set out in the SSA’s Strategic Business Review.

3.10.2 Whilst this method of contact may suit some SSA claimants, Advice NI is mindful of the Social Security Advisory Committee report published in July 2007: ‘Telephony in DWP and its agencies: Call costs and equality of customer access’ – in which the Committee stated that whilst the modernisation of the Department’s services has undoubtedly worked well for many, there was evidence that in moving to telephony-based services the Department effectively transferred some of its costs to the claimant, and that in terms of access, the poorer and more disadvantaged the claimant, the greater the potential barriers. The Committee also reported on a number of other barriers to access presented by telephony - such as language and cultural issues, mental health and other problems linked to a range of disabilities - to which reliable, alternative access solutions have yet to be established.

3.10.3 The Social Security Agency should recognise that telephony may not suit everyone, and every effort should be made to provide a face-to-face service which is timely and responsive to the needs of claimants.

3.11 Welfare Reform

3.11.1 Welfare reforms to date including the introduction of the Employment & Support Allowance have had a direct impact on claimants and on advice agencies. This trend will not abate, particularly with the publication today of the Government’s latest welfare reform white paper.

In previous Welfare Reform Briefings, Advice NI has made the points that:

“Government should consider the economic situation. The economy is currently strong and arguably supports active labour market policies; should an economic downturn occur Government will need to revisit any reforms implemented with a view to rebalancing the approach to conditionality";

“There needs to adequate accessible, independent advice provision to allow people on benefits to make informed decisions about moving from benefits to work";

“The ‘hardest to help’ very often represent the most vulnerable within our society – in terms of ill health (physical and mental), educational status, housing status, employment readiness, language barriers, income and so on. These same people are the least able to take risks to work. As long as the reform agenda appears to be only interested in removing people as a benefit statistic – not meaningfully supporting people to make the transition into employment – the ‘hardest to help’ may remain reluctant recipients of welfare reform, rather than eager participants";

“There should be a system of much improved ‘run-on’ support (from benefits into work) to incentivise and reduce any perceived risk of moving into paid employment";

“It is the view of Advice NI that there is always a balance to be struck between encouraging families in receipt of social security benefits to move into paid employment and providing adequate support for families while they are in receipt of benefits. In our view the government has taken a predominantly ‘work focused’ approach, concentrating primarily on ‘making work pay’ and using employment as the principal means of tackling child poverty. However, in taking this approach, there is a concern that families on benefits are being left behind and marginalised. In general terms, just as government would urge those on benefits not to have a phobia about working, Advice NI believes that Government itself should not have a phobia about seeking to improve the quality of life for those people and children reliant on benefits";

“In terms of people with disabilities, Advice NI notes the analysis of the impact of Pathways[1] as highlighted in the report ‘The impact of Pathways to Work’ which focuses on the overall impact of Pathways on employment, earnings, receipt of incapacity benefits, and a potential indicator of the extent to which individuals’ health affects their everyday activities. Whilst generally positive about the impact of Pathways it should be noted that the report highlights that Pathways had little effect on the employment or self-reported health condition of people suffering from mental illness. Given that people with mental illness account for over 40% of the Incapacity Benefit caseload, Advice NI remains concerned that a suitable form of support has not been developed to meet the needs of this particular client group";

3.11.3 Advice centres will undoubtedly see their workload increase with the implementation of welfare reform proposals. Government and its Departments must be mindful of the impact of welfare reform and equip advice agencies to deal with the down-stream consequences.

Recommendations

4.1.1 Recommendation 1: Benefits, tax credits and the National Minimum Wage need to be uprated to take account of the increasing pressures on household incomes.

4.1.2 Recommendation 2: Clients who present with social security-related queries often require help with other issues, particularly debt and money advice. Additional funding needs to be made available to enable advisers to cope with this demand.

4.1.3 Recommendation 3: The Warm Homes Scheme is the Department’s main vehicle for addressing the fuel poverty issue. Adequate provision for face to face advice provision needs to be built into the Warm Homes process, to ensure that people in fuel poverty can maximise their incomes.

4.1.4 Recommendation 4: There should be an extension to the current provisions of benefit take up activity in Northern Ireland. Innovative and new methodologies in targeting those most vulnerable, hard to reach and in need should be implemented. Remuneration needs to reflect the full costs of service delivery.

4.1.5 Recommendation 5: Given the extent to which benefit payments are now made into some form of bank or Post Office account, more needs to be done to help people understand what benefits they receive.

4.1.6 Recommendation 6: At a time when more people may need to access the benefits system, more should be done to ensure that benefit applications are processed in a timely fashion.

4.1.7 Recommendation 7: Standards of decision making need to be reviewed particularly for the disability and incapacity benefits. An independent ‘DWP Standards Committee’ has expressed a series of concerns about decision making carried out, For example the committee states “... not just to improving the standard of decision making for the sake of paying the right benefits and avoiding errors, but also to what is fair, and ‘customer focused ...". The committee also feels that improvements could be made in relation to mental health issues and weighing medical evidence, staff attitudes and abilities and ‘getting it right’ at the reconsideration stage (DWP Standards Committee Annual Report 2007/2008).

4.1.8 Recommendation 8: Advice NI believes that the communication/ information flow between SSA/HMRC and the independent advice sector could be improved. In particular would recommend a local liaison point in respect of HMRC.

4.1.9 Recommendation 9: Additional funding needs to be injected into the independent advice sector to help address the need for additional advice services, including the downstream consequences of welfare reform. A funding stream similar to the 2003/06 Welfare Reform and Modernisation Project could be used.

4.1.10 Recommendation 10: The Social Security Agency/HMRC should recognise that telephony may not suit everyone, and every effort should be made to provide a face-to-face service which is timely and responsive to the needs of claimants.

Contact information for this AGM report:

Bob Stronge (Director)
Kevin Higgins (Deputy Director)
Arfawn Yasin (Head of Policy and Research)

Advice NI
1 Rushfield Avenue
Belfast
BT7 3FP

Tel: 028 9064 5919
Fax: 028 9049 2313
Email: bob@adviceni.net

kevin@adviceni.net
arfawn@adviceni.net
Website: www.adviceni.net

[1] http://www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2007-2008/rrep435.pdf

Law Centre NI Briefing Paper March 2009

Welfare Reform Bill
Briefing for the Committee for Social Development

March 2009

Introduction

The Welfare Reform Bill (the Bill) was introduced to Parliament on 14 January 2009. It completed its first reading in the House of Lords on 18 March 2009. The White Paper and the resulting Bill come as the culmination of considerable work by the Government in the area of welfare reform. The Bill also legislates in order to make joint birth registration by unmarried couples the normal, default position.

Northern Ireland presents particular circumstances with regards to welfare and arrangements to move people into employment. While benefit rates are universal across the UK there are significant differences between social security provision which recognise the particular circumstances in Northern Ireland. The approach towards welfare reform in Northern Ireland can therefore be policy led and is not bound to the principle of parity.

The Department of Social Development decided not to adopt the Green Paper in 2007 and must now consider whether, and if so, to what extent it will adopt the White Paper proposals. While the Department is unlikely to move away from the major welfare reform proposals, it is possible that a different approach may be taken to conditionality, contracting out of welfare to work programmes and a number of the other initiatives heralded within the White Paper and contained in the Welfare Reform Bill for Britain.

Summary of Main Issues for LCNI

Proposals to move all claimants to JSA and ESA are simplistic and unfeasible. JSA and ESA alone cannot offer the flexibility required in certain circumstances, such as when a claimant qualifies for support under more than one category. Income Support should therefore be retained.
The tightening of contribution conditions for contributory ESA and JSA (requiring claimants to have paid a minimum of 26 weeks contributions in each of the last two tax years before the year of the claim) will make it more difficult for seasonal workers or others who work for short periods at a time to qualify for benefit.
The potential adverse impact on lone parents of proposals to require lone parents with children under seven years of age to actively seek work as a condition of JSA needs to be considered. The childcare infrastructure to support the proposals is not in place in NI and there is no lead Department to develop the infrastructure. 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 the risk of imposing benefit sanctions on lone parents may have an adverse impact on child poverty in NI.
The imposition of escalating sanctions could have several implications including an increase in costs associated with a potential rise in appeals; damage to relationships between claimants and Personal Advisers and a potentially negative impact on dependents as well as claimants.
The Government’s expectation of a ten percent increase in disallowances for ESA as a result of changes to the Work Capabilities Assessment will result in more people with ‘lower levels’ of physical and mental health problems being expected to claim JSA.
The introduction of a new drug and employment support programme is arguably disproportionate given the relatively small number of problem drug users within the system (in NI in 2007 there were a total of 257 registered addicts) and the potentially high costs of implementing the programme and the lack of evidence that it will improve rehabilitation.
The establishment of a ‘Work for Your Benefit’ scheme, which is characterised as mandatory unpaid work experience raises considerable concerns. There are reservations about its imposition without adequate childcare provision being in place and a lack of guarantees regarding payments. There is also the potential for job displacement as a result and the requirement for participants to leave existing training schemes to participate. Further detail is required.
Proposals to alter the Social Fund, will allow the Secretary of State to outsource the loan scheme to external paid providers and to enter into agreement with a third party to supply goods and services under the community care grant scheme instead of the claimant receiving the money directly.
The Bill seeks to abolish dependent additions for Maternity and Carer’s Allowance. This seems to be a purely money saving exercise and a further erosion of the national insurance principle. Carers or those on maternity leave who have not worked sufficiently long enough to qualify for statutory maternity pay should not be penalised where they have a partner who is also not working.
The commitment not to move carers in receipt of Income Support onto JSA until there is a clear and detailed plan for a future system of support for carers should be confirmed.
Provisions to allow for greater control of the provision of services for people with disabilities is welcomed. The direct payments scheme in NI does not have a wide take up and further detail on what programmes will be used to extend direct payment arrangements in NI and the support available to users will need to be provided.

The Law Centre believes it is appropriate to tailor a Northern Ireland approach to issues raised in the White Paper and the Bill. For these reasons, we would recommend that the Bill is not adopted in Northern Ireland without further consultation and consideration of the Northern Ireland context and that consideration is given to a modified legislative approach in Northern Ireland. We think the Department should set out its own arrangements and proposals which are tailored to Northern Ireland’s needs so that a full debate can occur on the practical consequences of any proposal.

Law Centre NI Briefing Paper March 2009

Welfare Reform Bill (2009)
Law Centre (NI) Briefing

March 2009

Introduction

Raising Expectations and Increasing Support: Reforming Welfare for the Future (the White Paper) was published in December 2008 and sets out the Government’s proposals for the continuing reform of the welfare state. Following on from the White Paper the Welfare Reform Bill (the Bill) was introduced to Parliament on 14 January 2009. The White Paper and the resulting Bill come as the culmination of considerable work by the Government in the area of welfare reform. This work started with the publication of a Green Paper in the summer of 2009 and follows the recent introduction of the employment and support allowance in October 2008 and new obligations for lone parents with older children in November 2008.

The Bill also fulfils the commitment made in the White Paper Joint Birth Registration: Recording Responsibility to legislate in order to make joint birth registration by unmarried couples the normal, default position, thereby enabling unmarried fathers to have their names entered on the birth register and to gain parental responsibility by this route.

The Bill provides a basic framework with little legislative detail which will be set out in regulations which have yet to be published despite the Bills progress through Parliament in Westminster. Moreover, some parts of the White Paper are not reflected in the Bill and we understand will be introduced under existing legislative powers.

Summary of Main Proposals

Law Centre (NI) welcomes a number of the principles behind the Government’s package for reform as contained within the White Paper and the subsequent Bill. However, we have considerable concerns regarding the outworking of some of the proposals and outline these and other recommendations below.

Abolition of Income Support as part of the move towards a single working age benefit (Para 5.1)
Contributory conditions for contributory ESA and JSA are to be tightened (Para 5.2)
Couples with children aged 7 and above will be required to make a joint claim for JSA and both claimants will be required to seek work unless only one partner is able to work. (Para 5.4-5.6)
The introduction of three categories of benefit claimants; work ready, progressions to work and ‘no conditionality’ (Para 5.3)
Escalating sanctions as proposed in the Gregg Review (Para 6.1-6.6)
A review of the Work Capability Assessment Test (Para 7.1)
Development of a new drug and employment support programme (Para 7.2)
Piloting a new ‘Work for Your Benefit’ scheme within ESA (Para 7.3)
Changes to the administration of the Social Fund (Para 7.4)
The abolishment of dependent additions for Maternity Allowance and Carer’s Allowance (Para 7.5)
Commitment not to move carers off Income Support (Para 8.1)
Greater control of the provision of services by people with disabilities (Para 8.2)
A more open market to delivery of back-to-work services allowing more private companies to provide these services (Para 8.3)

The Northern Ireland Context

We welcome the recognition within the White Paper that while the Government will continue to work closely with the devolved administration in Northern Ireland to seek to maintain a single system of social security across the UK, the Northern Ireland Executive will consider the most appropriate arrangements for Northern Ireland.

While the principle of social security parity has dominated the development of social security policy and legislation in Northern Ireland social security remains a transferred matter with separate legislation and administrative arrangements. While benefit rates are universal across the UK there are significant differences between social security provision which recognise the particular circumstances in Northern Ireland. The approach towards welfare reform in Northern Ireland can therefore be policy led and should not be slavishly bound to the principle of parity.

Given the differences outlined above, combined with differences relating to regulations, delivery and administration, the Law Centre believes it is appropriate to tailor a Northern Ireland approach to issues raised in the White Paper. For these reasons, we would recommend that this White Paper is not adopted in Northern Ireland without further consultation and consideration of the Northern Ireland context and that consideration is given to a modified legislative approach in Northern Ireland.

Changes to Benefits

We welcome the proposals 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. The Law Centre would therefore support the retention of Income Support.

Contribution conditions for contributory ESA and JSA are to be tightened. From 2010, claimants will have to have paid a minimum of 26 weeks contributions in each of the last two tax years before the year of the claim. In effect, six months work will be needed to meet the requirement regardless of the amount of national insurance contribution paid. This will replace the existing contribution condition which relies on the payment of contributions up to a certain value in each of the tax years. This will make it more difficult for people working seasonal or for other short periods at a time to qualify for benefit.[1]

The White Paper sets out the Government’s response to Professor Paul Gregg’s report Realising Potential: A Vision for Personalised Conditionality and Support. The report found that more could be done to improve the efficacy of conditionality for benefit claimants and recommended support based on three categories. The first being the ‘Work Ready’ group who have a rules-based set of requirements similar to the current JSA arrangements of active job seeking and aimed at those able to return to work quickly. The second group is a ‘Progression to Work’ group aimed at those who cannot immediately look for work but who with time, encouragement and support could eventually return to work. Gregg recommends that this group includes claimants in the Work Related Activity Group for ESA, lone parents and partners with a youngest child aged between one and six years of age. The final group is a ‘No Conditionality’ group for those claimants who are unable to meet any work conditionality requirements so there will be no requirement for any work related activity but support is still available if a claimant wishes. This is aimed at lone parents and partners whose youngest child is under one year old.

We are very concerned by the proposals within the White Paper to 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.

5.5 We foresee a number of difficulties in introducing legislative powers for this purpose in Northern Ireland. The childcare infrastructure 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. Further, with rising 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. Finally, there is a potentially adverse impact on child poverty if lone parents are exposed to the risk of benefit sanctions.

5.6 Recent research by the Department for Work and Pensions looked at the long term impact of lone mothers moving into work.[2] The research concluded that there are considerable material and social benefit for families and children in entering employment.[3] Nonetheless, the demands of childcare mean this work is generally part-time, insecure and poorly paid. The research also highlighted the costs in terms of family life and general health and well-being. Tax credits remain essential though the financial benefit of tax credits is mitigated by complexity, unreliability and the prospect of the recovery of overpayments. The lack of childcare also remains a significant barrier to obtaining and maintaining work. This research illustrates the complexities associated with finding and sustaining work for lone parents at a time when the economy was strong. The White Paper and Bill still fail to reflect these complexities. For Northern Ireland the childcare issue is even more relevant and the full blown approach envisaged in the White Paper should not be adopted here until childcare is fully and properly resolved.

5.7 In addition, the Welfare Reform Bill proposes other changes which will affect couples claiming benefit. In particular the right of a sick or disabled person to claim ESA for the couple when the partner could qualify for JSA is removed. In addition, the Bill makes arrangements to allow the partner of claimants of Income Support, JSA and ESA to be required to undertake work-related activity or be subject to a sanction. In our view, there are a multiplicity of circumstances facing partners living with a sick or disabled person and while we accept the value of encouraging partners to seek work where appropriate, a sanctions driven approach is neither helpful nor beneficial.

Sanctions

6.1 Despite research by the Department for Work and Pensions, on the Pathway to Work pilots, which found that there is little evidence that the imposition of sanctions resulted in increasing interest in, or movement towards work[4] the Bill proposes a range of sanctions on those who do not fulfill their work activity obligations.

6.2 New legislation will be introduced so that it is no longer possible for a JSA claimant to ignore a mandatory appointment without incurring at least one full week’s sanction of their JSA. Subsequent failures will lead to a sanction equal to two weeks’ benefit. There is also a sanction being introduced if a claimant is deemed to be behaving violently towards Jobcentre Plus staff. 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 the benefit sanctions.

The proposed increased use of sanctions could have substantial cost implications given the potential associated rise in appeals. The Department should produce its evidence that demonstrates that sanctions are effective especially in light of the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee, which questions the efficacy of sanctions.[5] An increased use of sanctions is likely to have substantial adverse implications for dependents 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.[6] These proposals would result in benefit deprivation, not uptake.

6.4 The imposition of conditionality and sanctions as part of the new benefit scheme may also have a negative effect on the relationship between a claimant and his/her Personal Adviser, which the Pathways to Work pilot has shown is pivotal to its success. Previous Department research found that Personal Advisers “felt that allowing customers to move forwards at their own pace, and emphasising the voluntary nature of participation, were critical to gaining customer commitment and co-operation."[7]

The government recognises that job offers ‘may be more limited’ for disabled people and people with health conditions.[8] Given this acknowledgement it seems inherently unfair that disabled people will be subject to the same conditionality principles. We oppose increased sanctions in all instances; however, we particularly oppose sanctions against disabled individuals while there is no parity in terms of job offers for disabled/non disabled claimants.

6.6 A new sanction is introduced under which anyone who commits a benefit fraud offence will incur a four week sanction (or loss) of their benefit payments. We do not see any need for further criminal sanctions to combat fraud. We note the Department’s figures shows that benefit fraud is at the lowest ever recorded.[9] The figures for customer fraud in Northern Ireland are lower than those cited in the Green Paper: £18.1 million (0.5% of social security benefits).[10] We therefore would query the necessity for and cost-effectiveness of introducing a further sanctions regime in light of the apparent success of the current system.

Other Key Aspects within the Bill

The White Paper also proposes changes in the following key areas:

7.1 Work Capabilities Assessment

7.1.1 As part of the earlier welfare reforms the Government committed to an overhaul of the Personal Capability Assessment (PCA) from an incapacity based tool for determining eligibility to Incapacity Benefit to a more positive and full assessment of capability to include health related interventions to assist those with a disability to engage in work. The now named Work Capabilities Assessment (WCA) is independently reviewed annually and the White Paper proposes an additional review of how effective the WCA is in identifying the level of disability and health conditions among claimants. This review will include making recommendations for altering the WCA to ensure it takes better account of people’s adaptation to their condition. Interestingly the White Paper actually states that as a result of the changes to the WCA the Government expects a ten per cent increase in disallowances for ESA, therefore, more people with deemed ‘lower levels’ of physical and mental health problems will be expected to claim JSA.

7.2 Drug and Employment Support Programme

7.2.1 A new drug and employment support programme will be developed to provide integrated and personalised support for problem drug users on JSA or ESA. The proposals cover claimants who are currently or recently have a heroin or crack cocaine problem. Claimants identified as problem drug users will be referred for an initial assessment with a healthcare professional who will determine whether they should be referred to the new programme. During the period on the programme, claimants will receive a Treatment Allowance. This is paid within the existing structures of JSA or ESA, but the conditions of entitlement will be varied and replaced with a more tailored and appropriate set of conditions for supporting recovering drug users. The Bill gives the Secretary of State in Britain the power to ask a claimant on JSA or ESA questions about drug dependency and its impact or finding work. Claimants who refuse to answer these questions can be obliged to undertake a substance related assessment. Anyone refusing assessment can in turn undergo an intimate drug test. The penalty for refusing to comply with the test or any subsequent rehabilition plan is the loss of benefit for 26 weeks.

The Law Centre is concerned about the proposed approach for indentifying problem drug use for a number of reasons. First, it is felt that the proposed programme is disproportionate given the relatively small numbers of problem drug users within the system.[11] This is particularly the case for Northern Ireland; in 2007 there were a total of 257 registered addicts.[12] The costs of implementing the programme are likely to be high, given the anticipated increase in sanctions, appeals, potential criminal proceedings and the likelihood of this approach improving rehabilitation appears slim. We also note, with interest, that the Bill has taken powers to extend this approach to alcohol misuse. Our understanding is that these powers will not be used which begs the question, why take such powers in the first place?

7.3 Work for Your Benefit

7.3.1 The Bill establishes a ‘Work for Your Benefit’ scheme. In effect, claimants who reach the end of their flexible new deal programme will be expected to undertake up to six months benefit while in work. The government has characterized this as mandatory unpaid work experience rather than workfare. In practice, the rate paid is not a wage and is effectively an hourly rate of £1.73 (based on a 35 hour week at current JSA rates). The Bill’s explanatory memorandum suggests that some claimants will be exempt from the scheme (for example lone parents with children under seven years of age). The Bill also provides for the scheme to be piloted though no further primary legislation will be required for the scheme to be rolled out across the UK.

7.3.2 The Law Centre would wish to see considerably more detail about any such scheme before being able to offer a definitive view. Nonetheless, 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.

7.4 Social Fund

7.4.1 The Bill contains two proposals regarding the Social Fund. First, it provides the Secretary of State with Powers to outsource the social fund loan scheme to external providers and to pay these providers. Second, it allows the Secretary of State to enter into an agreement with a third party to supply goods and services under the community care grant scheme instead of the claimant receiving the money directly. It is difficult to see which external providers are interested in taking on such a responsibility given the government commitment made in December 2008 to not introduce interest charges on such loans. Our understanding is that, for example, the Credit Union movement is unlikely to be interested in taking on such a role. On the second proposal we note with concern the absence of any recourse to a review through to the independent Social Fund Inspector of any decision to pay a grant to a third party rather than the individual directly. We think this gap should be remedied.

7.5 Dependent additions

7.5.1 The Bill seeks to abolish dependent additions for Maternity Allowance and Carer’s Allowance. There will be transitional protection for those receiving the additions in April 2010 and for Carer’s Allowance this will end in April 2020 if entitlement has not already ended. This appears to be a purely money saving exercise and a further erosion of the national insurance principle. We do not think that carers or those on maternity leave who have not worked sufficiently long enough to claim statutory maternity pay should be penalised where they have a partner who is also not working.

Issues for Particular Groups

8.1 Carers

8.1.1 The Government has accepted the Gregg Report’s recommendation that it is inappropriate to expect those in receipt of carer’s benefit to engage in back to work activities. This is a welcome move and it means that carers in receipt of Income Support will not be moved onto JSA until there is a clear and detailed plan that sets out how the benefit system will be reformed over the longer term. This places a clear obligation on Government to review the situation for carers. Additionally, there is a pledge to ensure that proposals for a future system of support makes appropriate provision for carers and fits well with the Department of Health’s (GB) review of the social care and support system currently underway.

8.2 People with disabilities

8.2.1 Government recognise that the question of choice and control for disabled people extends beyond the fields of social care and health. From 2010, it is intended to run some pilots (described as ‘trailblazers’) in which disabled people will be told how much they are eligible to receive in support and will be able to choose how that money is used to achieve outcomes agreed with the State. Currently there are no plans to run pilots in Northern Ireland. Individuals will be able to receive a direct payment, continue to allow the health and social care trust to arrange their support, or use a mixed approach. There will be no compulsion on disabled people to take state funding as cash – if they wish to continue to receive services commissioned on their behalf then they can do so.

8.2.2 Before commencing the pilots, DWP have committed to consulting widely with disabled people, service providers and other stakeholders to establish the best way to the achieve the objectives of choice and control whilst also safeguarding and improving services. They also have committed to local and national consultation ahead of the trailblazers to investigate which sources of support could be included.

8.2.3 We fully support the move to double the funding for the Access to Work scheme. The scheme is extremely effective in increasing accessibility to the labour market, thus making a tangible difference to people with disabilities.[13] For these reasons, we would urge an even greater government investment in Access to Work and we advise extending the scope of Access to Work to include disabled people undertaking work placements or voluntary work, which may later lead to paid employment.

8.2.4 Despite the success of Access to Work, disabled people still face substantial barriers to employment. Statistics compiled by Disability Action in Northern Ireland show that only 32% of people with disabilities are in employment compared to 79% of those without disabilities. Mencap have expressed concern that the proposed reforms do not go far enough to provide ‘appropriate specialist support for people with a learning disability’ and without the ongoing funding this requires, people with a learning disability will continue to be the disabled group most excluded from the work force.[14]

8.2.5 The direct payments scheme in Northern Ireland does not have a wide take up and while there is some independent support for individuals using direct payments this support, though welcome, is limited in scope. We would need to see more detail about what programmes will be used to extend direct payment arrangements and the support available to users before being able to comment further.

8.3 People with mental ill health

8.3.1 The Government, through the welfare reform process, has demonstrated an awareness of the needs of those with mental health issues. We remain concerned regarding a number of the proposals within the Bill namely increasing conditionality and sanctions and the role of employers. Under the new proposals people with mental health issues will be one of the largest groups affected by the welfare reform agenda. Those with mental health issues are often keen and willing to return to work but lack the support to be able to achieve this goal. We are concerned that sufficient thought has not been given to the particular needs of people with mental health issues in the drafting of the Bill and the proposals for required participation.

8.3.2 The concept of compulsory participation shows little understanding of the fluctuating and, at times, unpredictable nature of some mental health problems. Increasing conditionality and sanctions are unlikely to be effective in enabling people with experience of mental distress to take steps towards employment at the most appropriate time and pace for them. As pointed out by four leading mental health organisations ‘taking too punitive an approach to those with these problems [mental health problems] will seriously undermine the Government’s ambition to reduce the overall number of long term unemployed.’[15] Safeguards need to be included within the Bill to ensure that people will not be adversely affected by not securing work due to mental ill health.

8.3.3 The Bill also proposes to give personal advisers increased flexibility and powers to support people, namely people with disabilities and the long-term unemployed back to work. 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 job search and training schemes. Consideration needs to be given to the allocation of resources for training for personal advisers and this should be informed and/or delivered by those with mental health issues.

8.3.4 The move to encourage and support more people to return to work is welcome. We are concerned, however, by the practical issues faced by many claimants with mental health issues when it comes to securing and maintaining employment as considerable prejudice and discrimination still exists in relation to mental health within the workplace.

8.3.5 The White Paper proposes a more open market to delivery of back-to-work services allowing more private companies to provide these services. The proposal of a new ‘tier’ into the back-to-work system i.e. that of the private and third sectors through a means of contracting and sub-contracting could weaken the link between the state and the individual. Introducing a chain of responsibilities is likely to lead to a dilution of the state’s responsibilities towards claimants and could weaken public faith in the system.

8.3.6 A recent survey by Mind, however, showed most members preferred voluntary sector providers with 71 per cent finding them helpful, compared to 44 per cent for DWP services and only 28 per cent for private companies.[16] The Government has not adequately addressed the potential impact of these proposals for people with mental health problems. This raises concerns that people will be pushed into ill-suited jobs, which may only serve to exacerbate existing mental health problems and may ultimately work against people retaining long-term employment. The experience to date in Britain is that contracts have gone to private sector providers. Once again we would wish to see more detail of what DSD would have in mind for Northern Ireland before being able to comment further.

8.3.7 The White Paper is also very light on employer responsibilities and does not put enough on emphasis on the vital role of retention. Employers are central to achieving an increase in the rate of employment of people with mental health problems. The Government needs to take further action to reduce the stigma and discrimination faced by people with mental health issues, across all areas but particularly in the area of employment where prejudice is evident.

Where to Next

The White Paper is broad and wide-ranging. The Department of Social Development decided not to adopt the Green Paper in 2007 and must now consider whether, and if so, to what extent it will adopt the White Paper proposals. While the Department is unlikely to move away from the major welfare reform proposals, it is possible that a different approach may be taken to conditionality, contracting out of welfare to work programmes and a number of the other initiatives heralded within the White Paper and contained in the Welfare Reform Bill for Britain. We think the Department should set out its own arrangements and proposals which are tailored to Northern Ireland’s needs so that a full debate can occur on the practical consequences of any proposal.

For further information about this response contact:

Policy Unit
Law Centre (NI)
124 Donegall Street
BELFAST
BT1 2GY

Tel: 028 90 24 44 01
Fax: 028 90 23 63 40
Textphone: 028 90 23 99 38

[1] Frontline, Welfare Reform: raising Expectations or setting unrealistic goals?, Winter 2008, pg 16

[2] Department of Work and Pensions Research Report, Work and Well Being Overtime: Lone Mothers and Their Children (2008)

[3] Ibid at page 536

[4] Department of Work and Pensions, Pathways to Work: Findings from the final cohort in a qualitative longitudinal panel of incapacity benefit recipients, October 2006

[5] Social Security Advisory Committee Report No 19 Sanctions in the Benefit System: Evidence Review of JSA, IS and IB sanctions. This report highlights the inconclusive evidence as to the success of sanctions and puts forward a series of recommendations, which do not appear to have been taken into account.

[6] 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’.

[7] Tim Knight, Sarah Dickens, Martin Mitchell and Kandy Woodfield for the Department of Work and Pensions, Incapacity Benefit Reforms: Personal Adviser Roles and Practices – Qualitative Research, 2005.

[8] Chapter 3.34. This acknowledgement is reflected in statistics on employment in Northern Ireland: only 32% of people with disabilities are in employment compared to 79% of those without disabilities. Statistics compiled by Disability Action.

[9]Raising Expectations and Increasing Support: Reforming Welfare for the Future at Chapter 2.23

[10] NIAO Social Security Benefit Fraud and Error 2008 NIA 73/07-08 section 1.1.

[11] The Green Paper states that 2.5 million people apply for JSA every year, of whom less than half of one per cent are estimated to be problem drug users i.e. 12,500 people. See Chapter 2.39

[12] Statistical Bulletin PHIRB 1/2008 – Northern Ireland Drug Addicts Index 2007, table 1, page 11. Clearly this data is limited insomuch that it records only the number of addicts who are registered by Health and Social care Trusts; nonetheless, it clearly indicates that numbers are extremely small.

[13] Disability Alliance ‘Access to Work for Disabled People’ 2004 states that ‘for every £1 the Treasury spends on Access to Work, it recoups on average £1.48 in tax and NI contributions’

[14] At http://www.mencap.org.uk/news.asp?id=6792 as of 03.02.09

[15] Joint statement by, Professor Dinesh Bhugra, President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists; Paul Farmer, Chief Executive of Mind; Angela Greatley, Chief Executive of Sainsbury Centre and Paul Jenkins, Chief Executive of Rethink at http://www.mind.org.uk/News+policy+and+campaigns/Press/2008-12-03QueensSpeech.htm as of 03.03.09

[16] Mind, Briefing on Government’s Welfare Reform White Paper at http://www.mind.org.uk/News+policy+and+campaigns/Policy/Welfare+Reform+Bill+introduced.htm as of 03.03.09

Law Centre NI Briefing Paper March 2009

Social Security Parity – Briefing Paper for Social Development Committee

March 2009

Introduction

As a result of historical unemployment, poorer health and other factors the greater reliance on social security led to the received wisdom that parity is in the best interests of Northern Ireland.

The Position Today

Section 87 of The Northern Ireland Act 1998 provides that:

‘The Secretary of State (i.e. of Work and Pensions) and the Northern Ireland minster responsible for social security shall from time to time consult one another with the view to securing that, to the extent agreed between them, the legislation to which this section applies provides single systems of social security, child support and pensions for the United Kingdom’

Furthermore, in the section on charging for devolved public services the statement sets out that:

In effect, this has been taken to mean that if the Northern Ireland Assembly decided of its own volition to spend more on social security by adopting a more favourable or generous approach than in Britain then the additional expenditure would have to come from its own budget. On the other hand, if the Assembly decided to save money on social security by adopting a less favourable approach then any saving would return to the Treasury in Britain.

Parity in Practice

At a macro level these include:

Rates rebates/ Council Tax rebates.

Northern Ireland retains a rates system for collection of income toward funding local Council services. In Britain council tax benefit has applied since 1988. There are a number of important differences between the provision of council tax benefit and the payment of rates rebates within the Housing Benefit scheme (for tenants) and rates rebate scheme (for owner occupiers). The most important is that in Northern Ireland, local rates still include water charges. As a result, water rates payable in general rates are subject to the rate rebate scheme. In Britain, water charges are separate from council tax benefit and not subject to any rebate scheme.

Deductions from Social Security Benefits

There have been longstanding differences in the powers to make deductions from social security benefits for public debts (and more recently other types of debt). The gap between the wider powers provided for in Northern Ireland than in Britain have narrowed slightly in recent years yet, they remain substantial. This difference appears to stem from a historical hangover from the introduction of the Payments for Debt Act (1971) to combat the rent and rates strikes deployed to protest at the introduction of internment. Long after the end of the strike the DHSS (as then) continued to argue that as public debt was higher in Northern Ireland there was a need for greater powers to deduct monies for rent, rates and fuel than available in Britain.

The current difference is that in Northern Ireland deductions from benefits to cover payments for fuel costs and arrears, housing debts, rates can be made from income support, jobseeker’s allowance, retirement pension, severe disability allowance, state pension credit, widow’s pension, widowed mother’s allowance, income related employment and support allowance and contributory employment support allowance (if payable at the same level as income related ESA).

In contrast, in Britain deductions for fuel costs and housing debts can only be made from Income Support, income based Jobseeker’s Allowance and state pension credits.

Deductions from incapacity benefit and SDA can only be made if paid with income support or pension credit, from retirement pension only where state pension credit is payable and contributory Jobseeker’s Allowance where the level of award is the same as income based Jobseeker’s Allowance.

In effect, in Britain deductions for fuel costs and housing debts can only be made from non-means tested benefits where either a means tested benefit is payable as well or the level of payment of the non-means tested benefit is the same as the means tested equivalent. No deductions can be made from widow’s benefits for housing debts or fuel cost.

In Northern Ireland deductions can be made from non-means tested benefits on a free standing basis. Deductions can be made from widow’s benefits towards fuel costs and housing debts.

In addition, there is a maximum level of deduction for certain debts and fuel costs which is 25 percent of the total applicable amount or minimum guarantee (ie a claimant and his/her family’s level of needs). In Britain, total deductions greater than this can only be made with a claimant’s consent. In Northern Ireland consent of the claimant must be sought but, if refused, the Department can nonetheless make a deduction above the 25 percent maximum. The lack of consent cannot be overridden in Britain.

Studying and Benefits

The rules under which a person can study and retain benefit differ between Northern Ireland and Britain. Subject to specific exceptions, a person cannot claim income support or income based jobseeker’s allowance when studying full time. In Britain a full time course of study for further education purposes is normally one which involves more than 16 hours of guided learning a week. In Northern Ireland a full time course of study depends on whether the academic institution defines it as full time or not rather than the number of hours of guided learning.

Currently, the Flexible New Deal scheme in Britain is not available in Northern Ireland. Instead an equivalent the Steps to Work programmes is applied to Northern Ireland.

Other Issues

The examples already provided where the parity principle is not applied are not exhaustive. In addition, the Department for Work and Pensions has piloted a number of provisions in certain parts of Britain only which were then either rolled out across the UK or dropped depending on circumstances. Moreover, administrative arrangements for delivering benefits are substantially different, for example, SSA and DEL deliver social security provisions around Income Support, Jobseeker’s Allowance and income related ESA and looking for work. This is administered by Jobcentre Plus alone in Britain.

Job training programmes have differed between Northern Ireland and Britain. There was no parallel programme to Enterprise Ulster or the Action for Community Employment schemes. In Britain the Restart programme, a benefits plus training programme with tougher availability for work tests did not apply to Northern Ireland.

Conclusion

There is no legislative requirement for the parity principle to inexorably drive the Northern Ireland Executive or the Assembly to enact the same Welfare Reform Bill regulations or administrative approach to social security policy or legislation. Nonetheless, there is a general policy driven towards parity given the financial arrangements should the Northern Ireland Executive seek to depart from parity in a substantive way.

As a result, the approach in Northern Ireland can be policy led and is not wholly in thrall to the principle of parity.

Advice NI Briefing Paper May 2009

1. Advice NI:

Advice NI

Briefing Paper

‘Crunch Times at the Frontline’

May 2009

Membership of Advice NI is normally for organisations that provide significant advice and information services to the public. Advice NI has over 70 member organisations operating throughout Northern Ireland and providing information and advocacy services to over 110,000 people each year dealing with over 213,000 enquiries on an extensive range of matters including: social security, housing, debt, consumer and employment issues. For further information, please visit www.adviceni.net.

2.0 Background

In the current economic crisis many lower income families in Northern Ireland are struggling to pay bills and make ends meet. Over the last year there has been an unprecedented increase in electricity, heating oil and gas with the average grocery bill rising by 30%. This coupled with the fact that the uprating of benefits and the national minimum wage is minimal in comparison means that people are set to find themselves in even greater hardship. On top of this unemployment has seen record increases, inevitably meaning even more people falling into debt. Advice NI notes with concern that the number of people claiming unemployment benefits has increased by 2,200 to 38,400 in January 2009.The annual percentage increase in Northern Ireland 62%, was the highest since the claimant count began in January 1971.

Independent Advice Centres provide a vital lifeline for people who find themselves in difficulty. They provide a range of services to people living in disadvantaged urban or rural areas as well as particular social groups such as lone parents, people with disabilities, older people or members of BME communities. Advice NI members deal with over 200,000 enquiries a year and the latest Advice NI Membership Profile Report highlights that advice agencies are finding it increasingly difficult to cope with client demand. Debt and money advice enquiries amount to approximately 20, 000 or 9% of this workload. This marks a 6% increase from the previous year.

We are aware that many organisations within our membership are being forced to consider reducing their service provision and have had to issue staff protective redundancy notices as funding contracts are coming to an end without any indication that they will be renewed.

In general terms the impact on advice services cannot be under-estimated and include:

Reduced opening hours, shorter working weeks, reduced tribunal representation work, more reliance on voluntary work
Greater pressure on the remaining service provision
Impact on staff morale, greater uncertainty
Once lost, service provision may not recover from loss of funding

All this happening at a time when need for services is already exceeding supply.

3.0 ‘Debt Issues and Problems

Advisers and statistics are indicating that clients are experiencing an increase in levels of debt and mortgage repossessions. A total of 3,628 mortgage arrears were issued to people struggling with repayments in Northern Ireland in 2008, a rise of 64% on the previous year. Figures from the court service show the number of writs and summonses issued rose from 2,213 in 2007. Advice NI member, Housing Rights Service, has reported a 300% increase in demand for their specialist debt service.

NI’s level of redundancies has also accelerated in recent months. There were 2,777 confirmed redundancies in 2008, an increase of 45% on the 2007 figure (1,912). The latter was the lowest figure in more than a decade. Focussing solely on the level of redundancies misses the high level of under-employment and unemployment that has been occurring in the self-employed sector over the last year. NI has a higher proportion of its workforce classed as self-employed than any other UK region

Advice agencies are dealing with increasing number of clients, who have lost their jobs, are in debt and are unable to pay their mortgages.

Insolvency Service also reports 443 individual insolvencies in Northern Ireland in the fourth quarter of 2008. Of this figure 293 were bankruptcies and 150 were iva’s. Increase of 38.9 % from quarter 4 in 2007. (Of this figure 30.2% increase in bankruptcies and 59.6 % increase in iva’s in 12 mths.

4.0 Debt infrastructure in Northern Ireland

Advice NI believes further funding and support into money advice services is needed to address the problem of consumer debt. This is supported by findings from The Personal Finance Research Centre University of Bristol Report (published in 2003) that indicated at the time of research there were around 12,500 people in Northern Ireland who had multiple debt problems and could benefit from money advice.

This report highlights that in order to meet the needs of those in multiple debts 125 full-time advisers would be required. However it goes on to suggest that because not all people with multiple debt problems would seek advice it was considered more realistic to aim to meet the needs of half those in multiple debt. In which case, about 60-65 advisers would be needed in Northern Ireland. This report also highlighted that there are geographical gaps in money advice provision in western areas of Northern Ireland and that rural communities are poorly served in terms of help for people in financial difficulties. In particular Advice NI would highlight thr need for money advice services that will meet the needs of particular social groups including older people, migrant workers, women and people with a disability.

Advice NI welcomes the investment that the Department of Enterprise Trade and Investment (DETI) has made and its continued commitment to fund debt advice until 2011. However whilst we consider this funding valuable we believe this level of investment is not sufficient to fully address the current level of unmet need for money advice services.

During the period 1st April 2005 to 31st March 2006 DETI funded a pilot scheme with Advice NI and Citizens Advice Northern Ireland. The project funded a number of front line advice posts for both Advice NI and Citizens Advice along with two central posts to provide Training, Case Management, IT support and Research. The pilot was heavily subscribed throughout its operation and serviced clients from every postal area in Northern Ireland. Advice NI and Citizens Advice Bureaux serviced a total of over £16 M of debts throughout the course of the pilot.

This pilot also supported Advice NI in leading the development and implementation of Wiseradviser Money Advice Training in Northern Ireland from 1st April 2005 to 31st March 2006. Throughout this period six new skilled level courses were developed and seven Generalist and Skilled level courses were delivered. 122 candidates attended this training and 34 of these achieved accreditation at level two through the Open College Network for the Introduction to Dealing with Debt Course. Advice NI was also successful in obtaining a Regional Award at the 2006 National Training Award Competition for the above course. Today in 2009 Advice NI in partnership with Citizens Advice continue to offer an extensive range of wiseradviser money advice training courses available in 20 subject matters, including Banking Law, Debts and Courts in Northern Ireland and Mortgage Arrears.

Currently DETI support for debt advice services is administered through a competitive tendering process which has largely served to exclude Advice NI members (and by extension their clients) from accessing this support.

5.0 Gaps and recommendations

In England and Wales government has given a commitment to tackling over-indebtedness and has invested significant funds in a range of initiatives in an attempt to prevent and cure debt. They have set strategic priorities around issues such as access to credit and lending, financial capability, creating a savings culture, high quality free advice and the justice system and debt. They have also tied the issue of sustainable funding into their action plan.

Indeed in Scotland the Scottish Executive has also contributed considerable resources into free debt advice and vulnerable consumer projects.

Advice NI believes more money advice provision and training needs to be implemented to address the issue of debt advice in Northern Ireland and to meet the number of debt advisers needed as highlighted on page 4 of this briefing. Taking into account the Bristol Report research was conducted in 2003, we would expect given the current economic decline in Northern Ireland that there is the need for a more up to date piece of research and more debt advisers needed.

We would therefore welcome a similar commitment to tackling debt similar to what has been provided in other parts of the UK and Ireland (i.e. Money Advice Budgeting Service). This could include a more holistic plan that considers both preventative and action based approaches to dealing with debt advice in NI. The plan should be set in a more qualitative and quantitative context and include more detail on the objectives, how they will be delivered, what the success criteria is and what the role of other government departments and the voluntary and community sector is in informing and implementing the plan. We would also like to see an emphasis and objectives relating to debt and particular client groups.

Advice NI is committed to proactively working towards prevention and elimination of debt in Northern Ireland through independent advice centres. Advice N is keen to work with Government Departments in identifying future services that will in particular meet the needs of particular social groups.

Advice NI would like to make the following recommendations to enable Northern Ireland to cope with the challenges ahead:

Additional funding for a further 30-40 frontline money advice posts.
An increase in infrastructure support and training services for advice providers and other organisations
Additional resources provided to meet the needs of vulnerable groups including older people, minority ethnics, women and people with mental health difficulties.
The speedy implementation and resourcing of the DSD Advice and Information Strategy – Opening Doors.
An expansion of the Social Security benefit take-up initiative with the use of alternative methodologies to target hard to reach groups
A national campaign to warn the public of the implications of doorstep lending and illegal lending practices which would also promote local credit unions
An extension of the take up of free school meals and the creation of a higher threshold for eligibility.

Contact information for this Debt Briefing:

Bob Stronge (Director)
Fiona Magee (Deputy Director)
Joanne Mc Coy (Money Advice Coordinator)

Advice NI
1 Rushfield Avenue
Belfast
BT7 3FP

Tel: 028 9064 5919
Fax: 028 9049 2313
Email: bob@adviceni.net

kevin@adviceni.net
joanne@adviceni.net
Website: www.adviceni.net

Correspondence from Committee for Employment and Learning 11 February 2010

Ms Sue Ramsey MLA, Chairperson,
Committee for Employment and Learning
Room 283,
Parliament Buildings,
Stormont,
Belfast BT4 3XX

Telephone: (028) 9052 0379
Fax: (028) 9052 1433
E-mail: cel@niassembly.gov.uk

Simon Hamilton MLA
Chairperson, Committee for Social Development
Room 412
Parliament Buildings
Stormont
Belfast
BT4 3XX

11 February 2010

Dear Simon,

Welfare Reform Bill

At its meeting on 10 February 2010, the Committee for Employment and Learning was briefed by representatives from Disability Action on the impact of the Welfare Reform Bill on people with disabilities.

Disability Action focussed on difficulties with the claim process for ESA, including access issues; concerns with the competence of the Pathways Advisor Service which has replaced the dedicated Disablement Employment Advisor function; and, a perceived gap in provision for disabled people.

The representatives from Disability Action also raised concerns over the high rate of unsuccessful claims for ESA compared with Incapacity Benefit - they quote figures of a failure rate of 69% for ESA against 27% for Incapacity Benefit. Since this falls within the remit of Social Development you may wish to investigate this further.

The Committee agreed that the full text of the Disability Action briefing paper should be forwarded to your Committee for information and for your future scrutiny of this legislation.

Yours sincerely

Sue Ramsey Signature

Sue Ramsey MLA
Chairperson

Enc.
cc Sir Reg Empey, Minister for Employment and Learning

Assembly Research and Library Services
Research Paper April 2010

Bill Research Paper

16 April 2010

Welfare Reform Bill

Eleanor Murphy

Research Officer
Research & Library Services

The Welfare Reform Bill was introduced to the Northern Ireland Assembly on 12 April 2010. The second stage of the Bill is scheduled for the 20 April 2010. The Bill constitutes the final stage of the three staged approach to welfare reform. The Bill includes provisions to establish a ‘work for your benefit’ scheme for the long-term unemployed, introduces new benefit contribution conditions and includes provisions designed to simplify the benefit system by abolishing Income Support. It also includes a range of new benefit sanctions including sanctions relating to benefit fraud and violence against jobs and benefits staff.

Library Research Papers are compiled for the benefit of Members of The Assembly and their personal staff. Authors are available to discuss the contents of these papers with Members and their staff but cannot advise members of the general public.

Summary Of key points

The Welfare Reform Bill[1] was introduced to the Northern Ireland Assembly on 12 April 2010. The Bill contains many provisions, primarily relating to the areas of social security and child maintenance, which correspond to provisions contained with Welfare Reform Act 2009[2] which received Royal Assent on 12 November 2009. The purpose of the Welfare Reform Bill (GB) was to build on a commitment to tackle worklessness, nationally and locally; to create a tax and benefits system which raises family incomes; and to increase the responsibility of those on benefits to take active steps to help themselves get back to work, making clearer the relationship between the support people receive and the expectations on them to participate fully in society[3].

Not all provisions contained within the Welfare Reform Act 2009 have been included in the Welfare Reform Bill as introduced to the Northern Ireland Assembly. For example, provisions relating to the joint registration of births and provisions which apply benefit conditionality on drug users[4] are not included within the Northern Ireland Bill.

The Welfare Reform Act 2009 constitutes the final phase of the three phased approach to welfare reform. Details of these proposals were contained within the Welfare Reform Green Paper ‘No one written off: reforming welfare to reward responsibility’ published by the Department for Work and Pensions in July 2008[5]. This was followed by the publication of an independent report by Professor Paul Gregg entitled ‘Realising Potential: A Vision for Personalised Conditionality and Support’ (in December 2008)[6]. This introduced the concept of conditionality into welfare reform, i.e. “the principle that entitlement to benefits should be dependent upon satisfying certain conditions". The review set out a “radical and ambitious vision" for a single personalised conditionality regime whereby virtually everyone claiming benefits but not in work should be required to engage in activity that will help them move towards and then into employment.

The Government’s White Paper, ‘Raising expectations and increasing support: reforming welfare for the future’[7] based on the findings of ‘No one written off’ and the Gregg Review. The Welfare Reform Act 2009 gives effect to those proposals contained within the White Paper which required primary legislation.

The Welfare Reform Bill, as introduced to the Northern Ireland Assembly, gives effect to many of the proposals contained within the White Paper. In short, the main elements of Northern Ireland Welfare Reform Bill include:

The introduction of ‘Work for your benefit’ schemes which will initially be piloted in Great Britain;
The requirement for certain lone parents and partnership of benefit recipients to undertake work related activity as part of their progression to work;
The requirement for certain Employment and Support Allowance claimants to undertake work-related activity;
The abolition of Income Support and the phased migration of Income Support claimants to either Jobseeker’s Allowance or Employment and Support Allowance;
New contribution requirements for Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance. In order to qualify, new claimants will need to have paid national insurance contributions for at least 26 weeks in one of the last two tax years prior to the claim;
The extension of entitlement conditions to the higher rate mobility component of DLA so as to allow entitlement to people with a prescribed severe visual impairment;
The abolition of adult dependency increases for Maternity Allowance and Carer’s Allowance;
The payment of community care grants in certain circumstances directly to a supplier of goods and services;
The introduction of benefit sanctions for benefit fraud, failing to attend certain mandatory interviews and for violence towards jobs and benefits staff;
The introduction of certain exemptions from jobseeking conditions for people experiencing domestic violence;
The contracting out of certain functions with are the responsibility of the Department for Employment and Learning;
The introduction of work-focused interviews for persons under 60 years of age who is claiming any one of a number of specified benefits; and
Amendments to the current statutory child maintenance provisions relating to information offences.

Background to the Welfare Reform Bill

Consultations

Contents of the Bill

PART 1: SOCIAL SECURITY

‘Work for Your Benefit’ Schemes (clause 1)

Overview and Evaluation of Work for Your Benefit/Workfare Schemes

Reaction of Stakeholders to the ‘Work for Your Benefit’ Proposals

Work-Related Activity: Income Support Claimants and Partners of Claimants (Clause 2)
and Lone Parents (Clause 3)

Abolition of Income Support (Clause 9)

Work Related Activity for Claimants of Employment and Support Allowance (Clause 10)

Contributory Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Clauses 11-12)

Mobility Component of Disability Living Allowance (Clause 13)

Abolition of Adult Dependency Increases (Clause 14)

Community Care Grants (Clauses 15-17)

Payments on Account (Clause 18)

Benefit Sanctions (Clauses 19 – 21)

Reaction to the Benefit Sanction Proposals

Miscellaneous Provisions (Clauses 23 – 30)

PART 2: CHILD MAINTENANCE

Payments of Child Support Maintenance (Clause 31)

Child Support Maintenance: Offences Relating to Information (Clause 32)

Background to the Welfare Reform Bill

1. The Welfare Reform Bill[8] was introduced to the Northern Ireland Assembly on 12 April 2010. The Bill contains provisions, primarily relating to the areas of social security and child maintenance, which correspond to provisions contained with Welfare Reform Act 2009[9]. The principle of parity is reflected in Section 87 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998[10] which requires the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Minister for Social Development to consult with each other in order to ensure that relevant legislation achieve as far as possible, a single system of social security, child support and pensions across the UK.

2. To understand the basis of the Welfare Reform Bill, as introduced to the Northern Ireland Assembly, it is important to consider the policy context behind the Welfare Reform Act 2009. The Welfare Reform Bill[11] (GB) was introduced in the House of Commons by James Purnell, the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, on 14 January 2009 and received Royal Assent on 12 November 2009. The purpose of the Bill was to build on a commitment to tackle worklessness, nationally and locally; to create a tax and benefits system which raises family incomes; and to increase the responsibility of those on benefits to take active steps to help themselves get back to work, making clearer the relationship between the support people receive and the expectations on them to participate fully in society[12].

3. In short, the main elements of the GB Bill included[13]:

Simplifying the benefits system by abolishing Income Support and moving all customers onto either Jobseeker’s Allowance if they are well or Employment and Support Allowance if they are sick;
Ensuring a greater sense of rights and responsibilities by applying a regime of benefit sanctions for non-attendance at Jobcentres;
Requiring job search by partners of benefit claimants to help everyone who can find work find work;
The abolition of Adult Dependency Increases in Carer’s Allowance and in Maternity Allowance;
Facilitating work-focused interviews for over 60s;
Requiring work-related activity in return for receipt of Employment and Support Allowance; and
New arrangements for joint birth registration.

4. It should be noted at the outset, however, that not all provisions contained within the Welfare Reform Act 2009 have been included in the Welfare Reform Bill as introduced to the Northern Ireland Assembly. For example, provisions relating to the joint registration of births and provisions which apply benefit conditionality on drug users[14] are not included within the Northern Ireland Welfare Reform Bill. Also not included are similar provision to those contained within the Welfare Reform Act 2009 which permits the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission to administratively make the decision to disqualify a non-resident parent from holding or obtaining travel authorisation a driving licence for refusal to pay child maintenance.

5. The Welfare Reform Act 2009 constitutes the final phase of the Government’s three phases of welfare reform. The three phases were identified by the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, James Purnell, as follows:

“First, we deepened the obligation to work, by introducing the New Deal and creating Job Centre Plus out of the merger of the Benefits Agency and Employment Service. These reforms meant that people signed up for work when they signed up for benefits…We matched those obligations with higher support, including making work pay through the National Minimum Wage and the Working Tax Credit.

Second, we widened the obligation to work. We piloted the New Deal for Disabled People and Pathways to Work, the first employment programmes to help people on incapacity benefits get to a stage where they can find work. The New Deal for Lone Parents as introduced on a voluntary basis. That support worked, but we wanted more people to benefit. So we are now replacing incapacity benefits with Employment and Support Allowance….From this November, we are requiring lone parents to look for work from when their youngest child reaches 12 years old, moving down to seven years from 2010.

This white paper implements the third phase of the reform programme. It is based on a simple idea: that no one should be left behind, that virtually everyone should be required to take up the support that we know helps people overcome barriers to work…."[15]

6. Detailed proposals for the third phase of welfare reform were contained within the Welfare Reform Green Paper ‘No one written off: reforming welfare to reward responsibility’ published by the Department for Work and Pensions in July 2008[16]. The paper set out ‘plans for improving support and work incentives to create a system that rewards responsibility and delivers greater choice and control over the support that it provided’[17]. Proposals set out in the paper included:

New powers to require long term unemployed people to engage in a programme of full-time, community based work experience to improve employability skills and build work habits;
Toughening the Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) sanctions regime by introducing automatic benefit sanctions for those failing to attend mandatory interviews without good cause;
Expecting problem drug users on benefits to take appropriate steps, such as drug treatment or employment provision, that support a return to work; and
For lone parents, consulting on whether to require a skills health check and participation on relevant training when their youngest child is five[18].

7. In December 2008, an independent report by Professor Paul Gregg entitled ‘Realising Potential: A Vision for Personalised Conditionality and Support’ was published[19]. Conditionality is defined in the report as, “the principle that entitlement to benefits should be dependent upon satisfying certain conditions". The review set out a “radical and ambitious vision" for a single personalised conditionality regime whereby virtually everyone claiming benefits but not in work should:

Be required to engage in activity that will help them move towards and then into employment;
Have an adviser with whom they will be able to plan and agree a route back to work;
Be obliged to act on the steps that they agree will help them; and
Be able to access a wider range of personalised support on the basis of need and not what benefit they are on.

8. An additional aspect of the Gregg Review is the recommendation that the Government should set a vision for personalised conditionality and support regime with three broad groups:

A ‘Work Ready’ Group for people who are immediately job ready akin to the Jobseeker’s Allowance regime;
A ‘Progression to Work’ Group aimed at those where an immediate return to work is not appropriate but is a genuine possibility within time; and
A ‘No Conditionality’ Group which would involve no conditionality requirements whatsoever. This group would consist of the current Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) support group, lone parents and partners with a youngest child under the age of one, and certain carers.

9. In December 2008, the Government published its White Paper, ‘Raising expectations and increasing support: reforming welfare for the future’[20] based on the findings of ‘No one written off’ and the Gregg Review. The Welfare Reform Act 2009 gives effect to those proposals contained within the White Paper which required primary legislation.

10. For further detailed information on the background to welfare reform and the GB Welfare Reform Bill, two comprehensive research papers (weblinks below) published by the House of Commons Library are highly recommended. For ease of reference, a number of extracts from these papers are included throughout this paper.

House of Commons Library, Research Paper 09/08, ‘Welfare Reform Bill: social security provisions’ (23 January 2009)
House of Commons Library, Research Paper 09/23, ‘Welfare Reform Bill: Committee Stage Report’ (13 March 2009)

11. Further recommended reading includes the official reports of the following Social Development briefing sessions on the Welfare Reform Bill:

16 October 2008 (Welfare Reform Bill Green Paper)
23 October 2008 (Law Centre NI)
2 April 2009 (Law Centre NI, Social Security Advisory Committee)
2 July 2009 (DSD officials)
2 December 2009 (DSD officials)
28 January 2010 (DSD officials)

Consultations

The Green Paper “No one written off: reforming welfare to reward responsibility was published on 21 July 2008. A three month public consultation period followed, which ended on the 22 October 2008. Responses to the consultation were evaluated by the Department for Work and Pensions and a summary of responses is included as an appendix to the White Paper Raising expectations and increasing support: reforming welfare for the future. The 1,125 responses to the consultation were also independently evaluated by GfK NOP Social Research and the results published in their report ‘The Green Paper Consultation: No one written off - reforming welfare to reward responsibility’.[21] A number of these responses will be referred to throughout the paper.

In Northern Ireland, 100 copies of the consultation paper were issued to a broad spectrum of interest groups, individuals, political parties and the Committee for Social Development. A total of 9 replies were received, the NI Welfare Reform Bill’s Explanatory Memorandum maintains that most responses were broadly supportive of the thrust of the proposals, i.e. the aim to reduce unemployment levels and to reduce and eliminate child poverty; the simplification of the benefits system; and greater parental responsibility for maintenance payments for those living apart. The comments on the Green Paper were considered in developing the provisions of the Welfare Reform Act 2009 and the proposals for the Northern Ireland Welfare Reform Bill.

The Contents of the Bill

The Welfare Reform Bill has 37 clauses and 4 schedules and is divided into three main parts. This section of the paper will provide a broad overview of the contents of the Bill, primarily concentrating on those clauses contained with Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill.

In summary, the Bill includes the following provisions:

‘Work for your benefit’ schemes which will initially be piloted in Great Britain;
The requirement for certain lone parents and partnership of benefit recipients to undertake work related activity as part of their progression to work;
The requirement for certain Employment and Support Allowance claimants to undertake work-related activity;
The abolition of Income Support and the phased migration of Income Support claimants to either Jobseeker’s Allowance or Employment and Support Allowance;
New contribution requirements for Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance. In order to qualify, new claimants will need to have paid national insurance contributions for at least 26 weeks in one of the last two tax years prior to the claim;
The extension of entitlement conditions to the higher rate mobility component of DLA so as to allow entitlement to people with a prescribed severe visual impairment;
The abolition of adult dependency increases for Maternity Allowance and Carer’s Allowance;
The payment of community care grants in certain circumstances directly to a supplier of goods and services;
The introduction of benefit sanctions for benefit fraud, failing to attend certain mandatory interviews and for violence towards jobs and benefits staff;
The introduction of certain exemptions from jobseeking conditions for people experiencing domestic violence;
The contracting out of certain functions which are the responsibility of the Department for Employment and Learning;
The introduction of work-focused interviews for persons under 60 years of age who are claiming any one of a number of specified benefits; and
Amendments to the current statutory child maintenance provisions relating to information offences.

Part 1: Social Security

‘Work for your Benefit’ Schemes (Clause 1)

This clause makes amendments to the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995[22] which enables the Department for Social Development to make provision in regulations requiring Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) claimants to participate in schemes that are designed to assist them in obtaining employment, i.e. ‘work for your benefit’ schemes. The intention is that ‘work for your benefit’ schemes will be piloted in a number of geographical areas in Great Britain from 2010 in order to assess their effectiveness. Implementation in Northern Ireland will be subject to the outcome of the evaluation of these pilots and the availability of resources[23].

The NI Welfare Reform Bill’s Explanatory Memorandum maintains that the proposed amendments to the Jobseekers (NI) Order 1995 would provide for regulations that set out the circumstances in which JSA claimants would be required to participate in such schemes. It is intended that these powers will be used to require a proportion of the long-term unemployed who reach the end of the Department for Employment’s and Learning’s Steps to Work[24] programme (who have been unable to find work) to take part in a ‘work for your benefit scheme’. It is also the intention to enable personal advisers to require other JSA claimants to take part in such schemes if they consider that participation would benefit the individual concerned.

It is envisaged that claimants may participate in ‘work for your benefit’ schemes for a period up to six months. In addition to undertaking full-time work or work-related activity as part of the schemes, participants will also be provided with relevant employment support. ‘Work related activity’ is defined as activity which would make it more likely that the participant will obtain or remain in work or be able to do so. The Explanatory Notes states that it is envisaged that groups precluded from the new regulations will include lone parents with younger children who are moved to JSA after the abolition of Income Support.[25]

Article 19A(5)(d) enables regulations to provide that benefit payments may be withheld or reduced where a claimant has failed to comply with the regulations and he or she does not show good cause (e.g. dealing with a domestic emergency) for the failure to participate in a scheme. The Bill includes provision to amend Schedule 3 of Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 to appeal decisions relating to non-payment of benefits relating to the ‘work for your benefit’ scheme.

Paragraphs (8) and (9) of Article 19A make provisions to enable claimants who are subject to a sanction to receive hardship payments. Regulations may prescribe the rate and period of such payments and the circumstances in which they are payable.

Article 19B, paragraph (1) enables the Department for Employment and Learning to associate itself, financially or otherwise, with any ‘work for your benefit scheme’. This may involve contracting with non-Government organisations and providing funding for relevant work-related activity and employment support. The Department for Employment and Learning may also wish to make payments to persons participating in the schemes to cover expenses, e.g. the cost of public transport to the host organisation.

An Overview and Evaluation of ‘Work for your Benefits’ and ’Workfare’ Schemes

The House of Commons Library Research Paper ‘Welfare Reform Bill: Social Security Provisions’ published in January 2009 provides the following overview and evaluation of similar ‘work for your benefits’/‘workfare schemes’ in other jurisdictions:

Ref: Extract from the House of Commons Library Research Paper ‘Welfare Reform Bill: Social Security Provisions’ (pp19-21)

“There are a number of schemes in other countries that require participants to engage in unpaid work experience as a condition of receiving social security benefits, including the US, Australia, Denmark and the Netherlands.

In the US, there have been a variety of workfare programmes introduced as part of states’ welfare programmes:

‘In the US, most states operate workfare schemes as part of their obligations under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), introduced in 1996. This established Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) as the core welfare programmes for families with dependent children under the age of 18. Under TANF, all states are subject to work participation requirement to engage at least 70 per cent of its welfare population in work-related activities for at least 30 hours a week’. AS TANF programmes are designed and implemented at state level, there is considerable variation in the scope and nature of workfare programmes across the US’1.

The Australian ‘Work for the Dole’ (WfD) model has also been frequently studied. It was introduced in 1997, initially for young people (18-24) who had been unemployed for six months or longer2. It involves mandatory participation in community projects run by councils, community organisations or charities in return for $20.80 per fortnight addition to unemployment payments. Initially participants were expected to work for 32 hours per fortnight. In 2006, this requirement was extended to 50 hours for those who had been unemployed for 12 months or more.3

The Labor Government, elected in November 2007, have proposed some changes to WfD, including extending the period before mandatory WfD activity to 12 months and making changes to the funding regime.4

Evaluation

A research report by the Centre for Regional and Economic Social Research (CRESR), (funded by the DWP) summarised evidence on workfare schemes in the US, Canada and Australia.5 The authors noted that there were few systematic evaluations of workfare programmes that isolated the effects from those of other welfare-to-work activities. They summarised evidence from the programmes as follows:

Effectiveness in reducing welfare caseloads

Dramatic reductions in welfare caseloads in the US and Canada cannot be attributed to workfare alone. Other elements of welfare reform such as intensive job search requirements and time limits on claiming have contributed to falling caseloads whilst economic growth has also enabled recipients to find work.
Workfare has a deterrent effect which stops people claiming or encourages them to leave welfare before the workfare phase. This makes it harder to measure the tangible outcomes of welfare.
The proportion of welfare recipients engaged in workfare is low in all three countries studied, even in the US which has the most extensive and well established workfare programmes.

Effectiveness in improving welfare outcomes

There is little evidence that workfare increases the likelihood of finding work. It can even reduce employment chances by limiting the time available for job search and by failing to provide the skills and experience valued by employers.
Subsidised (‘transitional’) job schemes that pay a wage can be more effective in raising employment levels than ‘work for benefit’ programmes.
Workfare is least effective in getting people into jobs in weak labour markets where unemployment is high.
Levels of non-participation in mandatory activities are high in some workfare programmes.

Effectiveness for clients with multiple barriers

Workfare is least effective for individuals with multiple barriers to work.
Welfare recipients with multiple barriers often find it difficult to meet obligations to take part in unpaid work. This can lead to sanctions and, in the most extreme cases, the complete withdrawal of benefits that leaves some individuals with no work and no income.
Some states in the US have scaled down, large-scale, universal workfare fare programmes in preference for ‘softer’ and more flexible models that offer greater support to those with the most barriers to work. This includes a greater reliance on subsidised jobs that pay wages rather than benefits to participants.

In the US, the study looked at evidence on schemes in New York and Wisconsin, which are regarded as large-scale workfare schemes with tough sanctions regimes, but also Washington State and Vermont which operate subsidised job schemes. The report found that the outcomes for subsidised job programmes were more favourable than for conventional workfare programmes. In New York, the Work Experience Programme (WEP) requires participants to work for three days per week, with two days for job search activity. According to one study, records show that only 5%of WEP participants had found jobs. The use of WEP as the sole form of work-related activity fell dramatically between 1996 and 2001.6

The Wisconsin Works (W-2) programme has been studied mainly due to significant falls in welfare caseload in the 1990s. Placements in ‘Community Service Jobs’ are one of four activities that can be mandated under the W-2 programme. However, the study again found weak evidence of sustained jobs and of those leavers who found jobs, around half had incomes below the poverty line. High absence rates were also reported.

These changes to the design and use of workfare in New York and Wisconsin prompted Crisp and Fletcher to write that there as a “discernable shift away from more punitive, universal ‘work for benefits’ models towards schemes where recipients are paid a basic wage."

In Washington State, a 1999 survey found that subsidised “Community Jobs" generated better outcomes than unpaid work experience. The workfare component of the welfare to work scheme has been discontinued.

The evidence from Australia on improved job outcomes is mixed. One early study found that employment outcomes among participants had increased by 7% compared with a control group of non-participants. However, Crisp and Fletcher also point to other research that found WfD ineffective in helping participants find sustainable employment. WfD was also criticised for limiting time for job search activities and for favouring unskilled work which did not develop participant’s skills…..

A more positive review of the Australian experience is put forward in a 2003 book from the Centre of Applied Economic Research at the University of New South Wales. This found that on the whole, the programme did help find participants jobs.7 It is estimated that between 60-70% of those who successfully found jobs would have found employment even without the programme, although it may have assisted in them finding long-term jobs of higher quality. In addition, helping the remaining 30-40% find jobs represented a notable success. The authors argued that the programme should be strengthened and made several recommendations including

Introducing a pilot programme to allow participants, upon completion of the programme, to volunteer in the for-profit sector to improve work experience;
Improving the availability of training credits to WfD participants;
Giving participants more choice of projects to participate in;
Improve funding of the programme to improve training opportunities and simplify financial arrangements for community organisations; and
Increase the small payment to cover costs associated with WfD participation (e.g. transport).

The Freud report commented on WfD and also on a programme in Nova Scotia, Canada8"

‘Opinion on whether Work for the Dole is effective differs. There are three common criticisms: that it reduces worksearch and so makes it less likely that someone will get a job; that it does not increase an individual’s employability; and that it stigmatizes the long-term unemployed. The Australian Government has countered that it enables people who have been out of the workforce for a long time to develop work habits, a sense of purpose and a sense of achievement within the community’.

Reaction of Stakeholders to the ‘Work for your Benefit’ Proposals

The Government has acknowledged that the ‘work for your benefit’ proposals have ‘provoked differing responses’:

“Some respondents were opposed to the principle of anyone working for their benefit while others thought it was reasonable that people who had been claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance for a protracted period were expected to take up the opportunity to get back into the habit of work"[26].

Again the House of Commons ‘Welfare Reform: Social Security Provisions’ Research Paper provides the following useful summary of some of the key responses to the ‘work for your benefit’ proposals contained within the Green Paper ‘No one written off’:

Ref: Extract from the House of Commons Library Research Paper ‘Welfare Reform Bill: Social Security Provisions’ (pp22-27)

“The Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) said that it had ‘very severe reservations" about the proposals which, it noted, would impact on claimants at the same stage that the Department was now proposing to remove support for mortgage interest from new claimants of JSA9. The recent international comparative study of ‘workfare’ programmes undertaken for the Department10 [referred to in the previous section] questioned the effectiveness of such programmes in reducing benefit caseloads, improving employment outcomes and helping claimants with ‘multiple barriers’ to work. The Committee had seen ‘no evidence to suggest that any contemporary ‘workfare’ models’ were likely to be effective in Great Britain. It was also concerned about the nature of the activity envisaged; it should not replace existing jobs and should provide ‘added value’ for the participant by addressing education and skills needs as well as barriers to working. There was also the issue of how a claimant could combine ‘work for benefit’ with jobsearch activities.

The SSAC response stated:

The challenge is to provide positive, meaningful, useful and voluntary work experience, without incurring disproportionate costs in setting up ‘make work’ schemes. It will be hard to avoid creating a perception of work as a punishment for failure and thus creating an additional stigma for those who are long term unemployed or have had a series of short term jobs.11

As regards the suggestion, underpinning the proposal to allow Jobcentre Plus advisers to require full-time activity at any stage, that some people deliberately leave benefit and reclaim JSA at a later stage to avoid increasing conditionality, SSAC said it could find no empirical evidence to suggest that this was occurring. The Committee also noted that the policy which targeted claimants moving in and out of JSA ‘did not sit comfortably’ with other initiatives designed to encourage the long-term unemployed to explore short-term job opportunities, and noted that the changing economic climate was likely to increase the number of temporary or insecure jobs.

The Child Poverty Action Group argued that the ‘work for your benefit’ proposals amounted to ‘workfare’, and also pointed to the recent DWP-commissioned international comparative research……

CPAG believed that the workfare option would be ‘unlikely to achieve more than stigmatising a small group’ and said it failed to deal with the complex reasons why systems of engagement failed to work for some people. Its submission states:

CPAG is in support of helping those out of work to volunteer in order to help them develop the skills and participate in local communities, and there is clearly a case for personal advisers to be able to provide access to work experience and work faster programmes.

However we do not support forced full time work experience, the dual risk of this is both stigmatising and meaningless for claimants to go through – devaluing and de-motivating them whilst not adding the their employability.

There is also an important point of principle that work should be decently paid. The single rate of jobseeker’s allowance is £60.50, which works out at £1.73 per hour on a 35 hour week, £4 less than the national minimum wage……..12

Citizens Advice also voiced ‘serious concerns’ about the work for your benefits proposals, arguing that there was ‘very little evidence’ from other countries that such schemes were effective.13 The DWP-Commissioned research cited in the Green Paper14, it argued, did not support the use of workfare programmes. The Citizen Advice response went on:

2.23 It is seriously worrying that DWP are prepared to consider work for benefit schemes without addressing the key problems found in international comparative research.

2.24 Full-time activities, such as community work or job trials, are positive steps in building confidence for return to work, and the emphasis should be on encouraging people into these supportive placements. The threat of a sanction should be unnecessary in a discussion with a claimant and personal advisers should work on building positives relationships so that they can jointly discuss necessary steps for return to work…….15

The Law Centre (NI) views with regard to ‘work for your benefit’ schemes is that it would

“…wish to see considerably more detail about any such scheme before being able to offer a definitive view. Nonetheless, 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 possibility of job displacement as a result of the scheme and the possibility of lone parents and others having to leave existing training schemes to undertake such work".[27]

Law Centre (NI) is also concerned that the approach taken to the whole issue of welfare reform in Northern Ireland takes into consideration the particular circumstances in Northern Ireland in contrast with GB:

“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 and 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)….."

“While the principle of social security parity has dominated the development of social security policy and legislation in Northern Ireland social security remains a transferred matter with separate legislation and administrative arrangements. While benefit rates are universal across the UK there are significant differences between social security provision which recognise the particular circumstances in Northern Ireland. The approach towards welfare reform in Northern Ireland can therefore be policy led and should not be slavishly bound to the principle of parity…"[28]

Work-eelated Activity: Income Support Claimants and Partners of Claimants (Clause 2) and Lone Parents (Clause 3)

From 2 October 2008, the Social Security (Lone Parents and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2008 amended the Income Support (General) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1987. The amendments introduced changes to the entitlement conditions for Income Support so that lone parents who are claiming solely on the grounds of being a lone parent, and are capable of work, are to claim JSA when their youngest child is:

Aged 12 years or over from 2 December 2008;
Aged 10 years or over from 26 October 2009; and
Aged 7 years or over from 25 October 2010.

This essentially means that from October 2010 most lone parents with a child aged 7 or over will be subject to the JSA regime. However, the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Lone Parents) (Availability for Work) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2010 builds on an existing flexibility in JSA regulations which allows parents with caring responsibilities for a child to restrict their availability for work to 16 hours per week in an agreement with an adviser. The regulations extend this flexibility into a new right for lone parents with a youngest child aged 12 years and under to restrict their availability for work to their child’s normal school hours[29].

Clause 2 of the Welfare Reform Bill will amend the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 and will permit the Department for Social Development to make new regulations which may require a person in receipt of income support, and who is not the lone parent of a child under the age of 3, or the partner of a person receiving Income Support, income-based JSA or income-related Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), to undertake work-related activity, as part of their progression to work.

Clause 3 amends relevant legislation to ensure that lone parents on Income Support or ESA with a child under one will not be required to take part in work-focused interviews. It is also proposed that the relevant legislation will be amended to ensure that lone parents on ESA with a child under three will not be required to undertake work-related activity.

Clause 2 would enable the Department for Social Development to make regulations relating to work-related activity including, for example:

The circumstances in which a person is subject to any requirement to undertake such activity and notifying the person of such a requirement;
Prescribing the time and amount of work-related activity which a person is required to undertake;
Detailing the circumstances in which a person is, or is not, to be regarded as undertaking such an activity;
Imposing a sanction where a person required to undertake work-related activity has failed, without good cause, to comply with the requirement; and
Providing that lone parents entitled to Income Support can restrict the hours for which they will be required to undertake work-related activity.

The Welfare Reform Bill also provides that persons, and their partners, who are required to attend work-focused interviews should be provided with an action plan. Regulations made under this section will provide the form, content, review and updating of such action plans. The action plan will contain details of the activities which will allow for the requirement to be met. The Bill provides that the well-being of the child should be taken into account when agreeing the activities that a parent will undertake as part of an action plan. Provision should also be made in the regulation which outlines the circumstances which will constitute good cause for failing to undertake mandatory activities. The Bill’s Explanatory Memorandum states that they “must expressly state that availability of childcare and the claimant’s physical or mental health or condition will always be considered".[30]

The proposed new requirement for ‘work-related activity’ or lone parents with young children in Northern Ireland is one of the issues relating to welfare reform which has come under the most scrutiny. In response to the Government’s White Paper, the Law Centre for NI highlighted its concern at the potential impact of the proposed changes in Northern Ireland,

“We are very concerned by the proposals within the White Paper to 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.

We foresee a number of difficulties in introducing legislative powers for this purpose in Northern Ireland. The childcare infrastructure in Northern Ireland required 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 rising 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. Finally, there is a potentially adverse impact on child poverty if lone parents are exposed to the risk of benefit sanctions.

Recent research by the Department for Work and Pensions looked at the long term impact of lone mothers moving into work. The research concluded that there are considerable material and social benefits for families and children in entering employment. Nonetheless, the demands of childcare mean this work is generally part-time, insecure and poorly paid. The research also highlighted the costs in terms of family life and general health and well-being. Tax credits remain essential though the financial benefit of tax credits is mitigated by complexity, unreliability and the prospect of the recovery of overpayments. The lack of childcare also remains a significant barrier to obtaining and maintaining work. This research illustrates the complexities associated with finding and sustaining work for lone parents at a time when the economy was strong. The White Paper and Bill still fail to reflect these complexities. For Northern Ireland the childcare issue is even more relevant and the full blown approach envisaged in the White Paper should not be adopted here until childcare is fully and properly resolved."

This concern was also reflected in the Committee Stage of the Welfare Reform Bill at Westminster.[31] One Member moved an amendment to provide that work-related activity would not apply to lone parents until their youngest child was five, rather than the three as the Government had proposed (the amendment was later withdrawn) The House of Commons Library Research Paper outlines the Government’s response to the question of the age criteria for the youngest child:

Ref: Extract from the House of Commons Library Research Paper ‘Welfare Reform Bill, Committee Stage Report’, pp12-13

“Responding for the Government, the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform, Tony McNulty, said that no engaging with lone parents until their youngest child reached five would be “neglectful" and that the system should “starting working with lone parents at the earliest opportunity". He said that “work-related activity" was defined widely deliberately in order to cover individual circumstances16. The age of three had been chosen, the Minister said, because it was the age from which, in England and Wales at least, the state increasingly provided full-time child care. He acknowledged however that childcare coverage for this age group was not universal, and said that the absence of childcare would be taken into account when discussing the details of work-related activity for those with younger children. Mr McNulty also said that he envisaged that as a lone parent’s youngest child approached the age of seven, there would be a “slightly stronger focus on the work element of the work related activities rather than the broader skills and training element".17

The shortage in the availability of affordable childcare in Northern Ireland and its impact on welfare reform is an issue which the Members of the Committee for Social Development have raised with the Department for Social Development on several occasions – see for example, Northern Ireland Assembly Official Report Evidence Sessions on the Welfare Reform Bill on 28 January 2010[32] and 3 December 2009[33].

Clause 8 of the Bill provides that regulations made within five years of the passing of the Welfare Reform Bill and which impose a requirement on a lone parent of a child under 7 to undertake work-related activity will be subject to the confirmatory procedure of the Assembly.

Supporting Partners of Certain Benefit Claimants into Employment

The provision will also remove entitlement to Income Support and income-related Employment and Support Allowance from couples where one member of the couple is capable of work. Currently a couple may decide between them which one will make a claim for income-related support (i.e. Income Support or income-related Employment and Support Allowance). It is proposed to remove that choice where one member of the couple is capable of work. The route to income-related help will be via Jobseeker’s Allowance. The other party to the claim will still be able to claim any contributory or non-means tested benefit they are entitled to such as contributory Employment and Support Allowance. These proposals will initially be piloted and then evaluated in Great Britain[34].

The Abolition of Income Support (Clause 9)

The abolition of income support is part of the move towards simplifying the benefits system and creating a single working age benefit. People currently claiming Income Support will move to either ESA or JSA. The Bill’s Explanatory Memorandum notes that there is scope in the Bill to provide necessary transitional protection. The Bill provides that an order to end entitlement to Income Support will be subject to the confirmatory resolution process of the Assembly.

The rationale for the abolition of Income Support is set out in the White Paper ‘Raising Expectations’:

“The social security system exists to provide support for those who need it, acting as a safety net when necessary and helping individuals to support themselves. For the benefits system to be effective in achieving its aims it must be sufficiently accessible and clear enough for customers and staff to navigate…..

The current system is too complex. We should not expect our customers to mould themselves to fit the system, nor should our staff waste time and money dealing with badly designed processes. We need to develop a benefits system that enables and empowers individuals to take control of their lives and treats each customer as an individual, with their own varied routes back into employment. This would be a benefits system that doesn’t merely catch people, but propels them forwards……

We received many supportive responses and have also looked closely at the proposed models for a single benefit put forward by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), David Freud and others. We remain attracted to the idea of a single working-age benefit and will continue to explore whether, over the longer term, this is the right approach for our aims for the social security system.

Radical simplification should improve things for our customers and our staff and help to shift our customers’ focus away from the complex and overlapping structure of benefits towards the journey back to work. A single system of benefits would mean that the claims and payment process could be more easily automated.

We have previously said that major changes to the benefits system have to be made in several stages. This is the only way to ensure safe delivery and minimise disruption for our customers. We have started to lay the foundations of a simplified system of benefits with the introduction of the Employment and Support Allowance and other recent changes. The next natural step towards a simplified system should be the closure of Income Support which would take us to a dual-benefits system based around Jobseeker’s Allowance and the Employment and Support Allowance. Those who currently claim Income Support and who do not move onto the Employment and Support Allowance will move to Jobseeker’s Allowance"[35]

Law Centre (NI) has indicated that whilst it welcomes the simplification of the out-of-work benefit system, it does not support the abolition of Income Support:

“We welcome the proposals 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. The Law Centre would therefore support the retention of Income Support."[36]

Work Related Activity for Claimants of Employment and Support Allowance (Clause 10)

This clause allows the Department or the Department for Employment and Learning to specify a work-related activity which a claimant of ESA, in the work-related activity group, must undertake to meet the requirements of the claim. Work-related activity is activity aimed at helping the claimant obtain work, remain in work or to be more likely to obtain or remain in work. This will not apply to claimants whose condition limits them to the extent that they could not reasonably be required to undertake work-related activity as a condition of receiving their benefit.

The Bill also provides that any direction given to the claimant must be reasonable and have regard to the person’s circumstances. Any direction given to the claimant with regards to work-related activity must be recorded in the claimant’s action plan. Failure to undertake the specified activity without showing good cause for this within the allowed time would be sanctionable.

Contributory Jobseeker’s Allowance And Employment And Support Allowance (Clauses 11-12)

This clause amends the contribution conditions for JSA so that the first contribution condition for jobseeker’s allowance is met by the claimant having paid, or being treated as having paid, at least 26 weeks of Class 1 contributions on relevant earnings at the base year’s lower earnings limit (£90 per week in 2008/09) in one of the two tax years prior to the claim. Class 1 national insurance contributions are those paid on earnings from employment. Relevant earnings are those upon which contributions have been paid and which count towards establishing entitlement.

Clause 12 amends the contribution conditions for ESA so that the number of tax years in which a person can pay national insurance contributions and qualify for employment and support allowance is reduced from three years to two. This aligns the period for ESA with that for JSA.

The clause further amends the Welfare Reform Act (Northern Ireland) 2007 to provide that the first contribution condition for employment and support allowance is met by the claimant having paid, or being treated as having paid at least 26 weeks of Class 1 or Class 2 contributions on relevant earnings at the base year’s lower earnings limit (£90 per week in 2008/09) in one of the two tax years prior to the claim. Class 1 national insurance contributions are those paid on earnings from employment. Class 2 National Insurance contributions are those paid on earnings from self-employment. Relevant earnings are those upon which contributions have been paid and which count towards establishing entitlement.

This clause also provides a regulation-making power which will be used to set out the detail of the calculation to determine whether a person has paid contributions on enough earnings to be entitled to the contributory benefit. The existing regulation-making power in the Welfare Reform Act (Northern Ireland) 2007 is amended to allow for further prescribed categories of claimants, for example partners of overseas service personnel, to satisfy the first contribution condition by alternative criteria.

Mobility Component of Disability Living Allowance (Clause 13)

This clause amends the entitlement conditions to the higher rate mobility component of DLA so as to allow entitlement to people with a prescribed severe visual impairment. The clause amends section 73 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 to set out a new category of entitlement to the higher rate mobility component for people who are severely visually impaired as prescribed in regulations. Clause 13 does not alter the existing entitlement to the higher rate mobility component of those who are blind and deaf (to the prescribed degree).

Abolition of Adult Dependency Increases (Clause 14)

Maternity Allowance is an income maintenance benefit paid to women who have been employed or self-employed but who do not qualify for Statutory Maternity Pay. Carer’s Allowance is an income maintenance benefit payable to certain people who provide at least 35 hours of care a week to severely disabled person.

Adult Dependency Increases (ADIs) are additions that may be payable with certain contributory and non-contributory benefits if another adult is financially ‘dependent’ on the recipient. They are a long standing feature of the benefits system, dating back to the introduction of the National Insurance scheme in 1948.

Clause 14 repeals sections 82 and 90 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 which make provision for Adult Dependency Increases (ADIs) to be paid with maternity allowance and carer’s allowance respectively, in circumstances where the claimant has an adult dependant. The clause will abolish the payment of ADIs for all new claims to maternity allowance and carer’s allowance at the same time as they cease to be available on new claims to state pensions in 2010.

ADIs in payment with Carer’s Allowance at the time of change will be phased out between 2010 and 2020. This will be in line with the arrangements for phasing out the existing ADIs paid with the state pension. Phasing out will not apply to maternity allowance as this is a short-term benefit paid for 39 weeks. Payment of ADI for existing maternity allowance claims will therefore cease when the maternity allowance entitlement ends.

The Welfare Reform Bill (GB) 2009 Impact Assessment justifies the abolition of ADIs with Maternity Allowance and Carer’s Allowance on the following grounds:

ADIs are based on outdated assumptions about dependency and have little relevance to today’s society;

The change is aligned with the planned phased abolition of ADIs in the Retirement Pension, and will bring greater uniformity across benefits;

As a step towards a simpler benefits system which is easier to understand and operate, and helps reduce error; and

To remove disincentives to seek work or increase earnings.

Community Care Grants (Clauses 15-17)

Under the existing law, successful applicants for community care grants may be provided with cash to obtain the goods or services that the award covers. At the direction of the appropriate officer, a payment may be made to a third party to provide the goods or services. These amendments to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 enable the Department to require that, where the goods or services are covered by arrangements the Department has made with a supplier, the award made must relate to specified goods or services and the payment would be made to the supplier. It is expected that these arrangements will involve the supply of white goods and furniture at a discounted rate.

Clause 16 inserts a new section 116E into the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 which allows regulations to provide for the exchange of information between the Department and relevant suppliers and for the use or disclosure of such information, including provision for a criminal offence for unauthorised disclosure. There is power by regulations to make exceptions to this.

Payments on Account (Clause 18)

Clause 18 provides a regulation-making power to allow a payment on account of housing benefit to be made where no claim has been made or a claim has been made (including where a claim has been determined and an award made) and, in either case, a person who is or would be covered by such a claim would be in need if no payment on account was made, and an award has been made but it is impracticable to pay the full amount of the benefit immediately. The Bill broadens the range of situations in which a payment on account may be made before an award has been made. It enables these payments to be made on a need basis rather than in situations where it is impracticable to make a claim, determine a claim or pay benefit. It provides the Department with improved flexibility to address short-term hardship.

Benefit Sanctions (Clauses 19 – 21)

Benefit Sanctions Relating to Benefit Fraud

Section 6 of the Social Security Fraud Act (Northern Ireland) 2001 enables certain specified benefits to be withdrawn, or reduced payments to be made, for a period of 13 weeks (known as the disqualification period) where a person is convicted of benefit fraud on two occasions, and the second offence was committed within five years of the date of conviction for the first. These loss of benefit provisions are commonly referred to as the ‘two strikes’ rule. Where such an offence of benefit fraud comes to light, the offender may be prosecuted, agree to an administrative penalty as an alternative to prosecution under section 109A of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992, or agree to be given a caution.

Subsection (1) inserts new sections into the Social Security Fraud Act (Northern Ireland) 2001. New section 5B, for example, introduces the new benefit sanction to apply after the first conviction, or after any administrative penalty or caution known as the “one strike" rule. The combined effect is for benefit to be reduced or withdrawn for the disqualification period where the offender has –

been convicted of one or more benefit offences in any proceedings;

accepted an administrative penalty as an alternative to prosecution; or

agreed to be given a caution

The disqualification period is defined in subsection (11) of new section 5B as a period of four weeks beginning at a prescribed time after conviction or the agreement of an administrative penalty or caution.

Benefit Sanctions Relating yo Violent Conduct Relatin
G to a JSA Claim

Clause 20 inserts 2 new Articles into the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 relating to sanctions for violent conduct (e.g. commons assault, battery or affray) in connection with a JSA claim. New Article 22C makes provision for a benefit sanction of one week to be applied to JSA claimants who are successfully convicted of or, cautioned for violent or threatening behaviour towards staff of Social Security Offices or Jobs and Benefits Offices or contracted out staff. In addition, for the sanction to apply it is necessary that –

the violent conduct was towards staff of Social Security Offices or Jobs and Benefits Offices or contracted out staff;

the offence took place on the Social Security Office or Jobs and Benefits Office premises while the offender was there for the purpose of a jobseeker’s allowance claim;

the offender is a person or a member of a joint claim couple who satisfies the conditions of receiving jobseeker’s allowance.

Reaction to the Benefit Sanction Proposals

The Law Centre NI has expressed the following reservations with regard to the imposition of sanctions:

Despite research by the Department for Work and Pensions, on the Pathway to Work pilots, which found that there is little evidence that the imposition of sanctions resulted in increasing interest in, or movement towards work4 the Bill proposes a range of sanctions on those who do not fulfil their work activity obligations.

New legislation will be introduced so that it is no longer possible for a JSA claimant to ignore a mandatory appointment without incurring at least one full week’s sanction of their JSA. Subsequent failures will lead to a sanction equal to two weeks’ benefit. There is also a sanction being introduced if a claimant is deemed to be behaving violently towards Jobcentre Plus staff. 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 the benefit sanctions.

The proposed increased use of sanctions could have substantial cost implications given the potential associated rise in appeals. The Department should produce its evidence that demonstrates that sanctions are effective especially in light of the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee, which questions the efficacy of sanctions.5 An increased use of sanctions is likely to have substantial adverse implications for dependents 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.6 These proposals would result in benefit deprivation, not uptake.

The imposition of conditionality and sanctions as part of the new benefit scheme may also have a negative effect on the relationship between a claimant and his/her Personal Adviser, which the Pathways to Work pilot has shown is pivotal to its success. Previous Department research found that Personal Advisers “felt that allowing customers to move forward at their own pace, and emphasising the voluntary nature of participation, were critical to gaining customer commitment and co-operation."7 [37]

Similarly, reservations have also been expressed by the Social Security Advisory Committee in its occasional paper, ‘Sanctions in the benefit system: Evidence review of JSA, IS and IB sanctions:

“The impact of sanctions

A consistent message has emerged in terms of the impact of JSA sanctions on individuals. Several reports have discussed the material hardship and emotional problems associated with sanctions (see for example Saunders et al., 2001 and Vincent, 1998), although there is still a great deal more to be known about the differential effects on claimants.

A number of qualitative studies have shown that JSA sanctions have a significant financial impact (as would be expected). However, the severity of the impact depended on a number of issues, including whether the claimant received timely information about entitlement to hardship funds, lived with their parents, had a partner and children or were able to find work immediately following the sanction (Saunders et al., 2001). Hardship payments replace much of the lost benefit but not all claimants are eligible and possibly some of those who are eligible do not claim. The impact on younger claimants who live with their parents may be mitigated by financial support from them, but this simply spreads the impacts of the sanction onto the family unit. The Department has little information on the longer-term impacts of sanctions. For example, there is currently no information on people who may become homeless as a result of a sanction or whether a sanction leads to long-term health impacts such as anxiety and depression."[38]

Miscellaneous Provisions (Clauses 23 – 30)

Other key provisions contained within the Bill include:

Clause 23: requires the Department to exercise regulation-making powers to provide that victims of domestic violence will, for a period of 13 weeks, be able to start or continue a claim to jobseeker’s allowance without: being available for employment; having entered into a jobseeker’s agreement; or actively seeking employment. Regulations made by virtue of the new provision will be subject to the confirmatory procedure.

Clause 26: provides a general provision to allow the contracting out of certain functions of the Department or the Department for Employment and Learning under the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995.

Clause 27: allows regulations to be made providing for entitlement to jobseeker’s allowance to cease for between one and five days if the claimant fails to attend a mandatory interview and subsequently makes contact with the Social Security Office or Jobs and Benefits Office within a prescribed period of the date of the mandatory interview without showing good cause for the failure to attend. Regulations set out that the prescribed period is five working days. This new provision will mean that in these circumstances, entitlement to JSA will continue but will not be payable for a fixed period of at least one week and not more than two weeks.

In addition, regulations will provide that if a person fails to attend a mandatory interview for the second or subsequent time, a fixed sanction of two weeks will be applied whilst keeping the claim open. If the person makes contact with the Social Security Office or Jobs and Benefits Office within the prescribed period of five working days and shows good cause in both circumstances, a sanction would not be imposed.

Clause 29: amends Section 2A of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 to allow regulations to be made requiring a person who is under 60 years of age who is claiming any one of a number of specified benefits to take part in a work-focused interview, as a condition of continuing to receive the full amount of that benefit. Subsection (3) amends section 2AA of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 and extends the requirement so that where the claimant has a partner, and both are under 60 years of age, they are both required to attend work-focused interviews.

Part 2: Child Maintenance

Payments of Child Support Maintenance (Clause 31)

Article 29 of the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 provides a general power to make regulations as to the payment of child support maintenance. These regulations allow the Department to specify the intervals at which payments are to be made, having regard to the circumstances and preferences indicated by the non-resident parent. Many non-resident parents prefer to pay calendar monthly, in line with when they receive earnings. Precisely matching payments to weekly liabilities may not be straightforward and may be unclear to parents.

Clause 31 amends Article 29 of the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, extending the provisions which may be made by regulations in relation to payments of child support maintenance. Subsection (2) allows for regulations making provision for determining the total amount of maintenance payments due in a reference period (a period of 52 weeks or, in some circumstances, a different period - see subsection (3)), and requiring payments to be made, by reference to that amount and that period, at prescribed intervals.

This will enable the notification of the maintenance calculation issued to each parent to show an annual rather than weekly amount. Where the payment interval is to be monthly, the schedule of payments due will show 12 equal monthly amounts. It will therefore be much easier for each parent to see what payments are due to be made, on what date, and how they relate to the maintenance liability. This will also facilitate the making of payments by regular direct debit because the amounts will be the same each month. Annual amounts will be adjusted if a relevant change in circumstances occurs during the year, requiring a new maintenance liability to be calculated.

Child Support Maintenance: Offences Relating to Information (Clause 32)

Clause 32 amends Article 16A of the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, which deals with offences relating to the provision of information.

Article 16A(3A) of the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 currently provides that a person commits an offence if he or she fails to notify the Department of a change of address. Clause 32(2) substitutes a new paragraph (3A), which extends this offence to a failure to report other changes of circumstances. These other changes of circumstances will be specified in regulations made under the provisions of Article 16(1) of the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991.

Article 16A(2) of the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 currently provides that it is an offence for a person to knowingly make a false statement or representation or knowingly provide, or cause or allow to be provided, a document or other information which is false. Clause 32(3) adds a new paragraph (6) into Article 16A of the 1991 Order, setting the time limit for bringing such a case to 12 months from the date the false information was provided. Currently, Article 19(1)(a) of the Magistrates’ Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 limits the time in which a prosecution can be brought to 6 months. The amendment brings the time limits broadly in line with those for benefit fraud, and increases the likelihood of successful prosecutions under Article 16A(2) of the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 due to the increased time in which the offence can be discovered and investigated by the prosecutor.

[1] Welfare Reform Bill. archive.niassembly.gov.uk/legislation/primary/2009/niabill13_09.pdf

[2] Welfare Reform Act 2009. www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2009/ukpga_20090024_en_1

[3] Prime Minister’s Office News Release. ‘Queen’s Speech – Welfare Reform Bill’. 2 December 2008. www.number10.gov.uk/Page17671

[4] Under the Welfare Reform Act 2009, problem drug users are compelled to follow a rehabilitation plan as a condition of their benefits.

[5] Department for Work and Pensions (2008) No one written off: reforming welfare to reward responsibility. Public Consultation. www.dwp.gov.uk/policy/welfare-reform/legislation-and-key-documents/no-one-written-off/

[6] Gregg, P. (2008) Realising Potential: A Vision for Personalised Conditionality and Support: An independent report to the Department for Work and Pensions. www.dwp.gov.uk/policy/welfare-reform/legislation-and-key-documents/realising-potential/

[7] Department for Work and Pensions (2008) Raising expectations and increasing support; reforming welfare for the future. www.dwp.gov.uk/policy/welfare-reform/legislation-and-key-documents/raising-expectations/

[8] Welfare Reform Bill. archive.niassembly.gov.uk/legislation/primary/2009/niabill13_09.pdf

[9] Welfare Reform Act 2009. www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2009/ukpga_20090024_en_1

[10] Section 87, Northern Ireland Act 1998. www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980047_en_8#pt8-pb3-l1g87

[11] Welfare Reform Bill, http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2008-09/welfarereform.html

[12] Prime Minister’s Office News Release. ‘Queen’s Speech – Welfare Reform Bill’. 2 December 2008. www.number10.gov.uk/Page17671

[13] Prime Minister’s Office News Release. ‘Queen’s Speech – Welfare Reform Bill’. 2 December 2008. www.number10.gov.uk/Page17671

[14] Under the Welfare Reform Act 2009, problem drug users are compelled to follow a rehabilitation plan as a condition of their benefits.

[15] Department for Work and Pensions (2008) Raising expectations and increasing support: reforming welfare for the future. www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/foreword-4543.pdf

[16] Department for Work and Pensions 92008) No one written off: reforming welfare to reward responsibility. Public Consultation. www.dwp.gov.uk/policy/welfare-reform/legislation-and-key-documents/no-one-written-off/

[17] Department for Work and Pensions, welfare reform webpages, www.dwp.gov.uk/welfarereform/noonewrittenoff/

[18] Department for Work and Pensions (2008) No one written off: reforming welfare to reward responsibility. Quick Read Version. www.dwp.gov.uk/welfarereform/noonewrittenoff/

[19] Gregg, P. (2008) Realising Potential: A Vision for Personalised Conditionality and Support: An independent report to the Department for Work and Pensions. www.dwp.gov.uk/policy/welfare-reform/legislation-and-key-documents/realising-potential/

[20] Department for Work and Pensions (2008) Raising expectations and increasing support; reforming welfare for the future. www.dwp.gov.uk/policy/welfare-reform/legislation-and-key-documents/raising-expectations/

[21] GfK NOP Social Research (2008) The Green Paper Consultation: No one written off – reforming welfare to reward responsibility. www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/consultationreport.pdf

[22] Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1995/uksi_19952705_en_1

[23] Welfare Reform Bill. Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. archive.niassembly.gov.uk/legislation/primary/2009/niabill13_09_efm.htm

[24] For further information on the Department for Employment and Learning’s Steps to Work programme see www.delni.gov.uk/index/finding-employment-finding-staff/fe-fs-help-to-find-employment/stepstowork.htm

[25] Northern Ireland Welfare Reform Bill. Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. archive.niassembly.gov.uk/legislation/primary/2009/niabill13_09_efm.htm

[26] Department for Work and Pensions (2008) Raising expectations and increasing support: reforming welfare for the future, p146 cited in House of Commons Library (2009) Welfare Reform Bill: Social Security Provisions, p22. www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2009/rp09-008.pdf

[27] Law Centre (NI) (2009) Welfare Reform Bill 2009, A Law Centre (NI) Briefing. www.lawcentreni.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=202&Itemid=191

[28] Ibid.

[29] Explanatory Memorandum. The Jobseeker’s Allowance (Lone Parents) (Availability for Work) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2010. SR 2010, No. 144.

[30] Ibid.

[31] House of Commons Library (2009) Welfare Reform Bill: Committee Stage Report, pp12-13. www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2009/rp09-023.pdf

[32] See archive.niassembly.gov.uk/record/committees2009/SocialDevelopment/100128DepartmentalBriefing.htm

[33] See archive.niassembly.gov.uk/record/committees2009/SocialDevelopment/091203_WelfareReformBill.htm

[34] Department for Social Development (2009) Welfare Reform Bill: Equality Impact Assessment. www.dsdni.gov.uk/consultation-pdf_equality_impact_assessment_-_final_document_approved_by_minister.pdf

[35] Department for Work and Pensions (2008) Raising expectations and increasing support: reforming welfare for the future, pp34-35. www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/fullversion.pdf

[36] Law Centre (NI) (2009). Welfare Reform Bill 2009: A Law Centre (NI) Briefing. www.lawcentreni.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=202&Itemid=191

[37] Law Centre (NI) (2009) Welfare Reform Bill 2009, A Law Centre (NI) Briefing. www.lawcentreni.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=202&Itemid=191

[38] Occasional Paper cited in House of Commons Library Research Paper ‘Welfare Reform Bill: Social Security Provisions’, pp66-67.

Examiner of Statutory Rules Advice on Welfare Reform Bill Delegated Powers 20.05.10

Scrutiny of Delegated Powers Advice to the Committee for Social Development from the Examiner of Statutory Rules on the Welfare Refrom Bill

1. I have considered this Bill, in conjunction with the helpful and useful Delegated Powers Memorandum submitted by the Department for Social Development, in relation to powers to make subordinate legislation. I have also considered the Seventh Report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of the House of Lords for Session 2008 – 2009 on the Welfare Reform Bill enacted as the Welfare Reform Act 2009 for Great Britain (30 April 2009).

2. The Bill is concerned with social security and child maintenance and contains many powers to make subordinate legislation. Most are subject to negative resolution and this appears to be an appropriate and unexceptionable level of Assembly scrutiny.

3. Five powers (contained in clauses 8, 9(2),16/new section 116E(5) of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (“the Administration Act"), 20(2)/new Article 22D(6) of the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 and 27(2)/amendment of Article 10 of the Jobseekers Order) to make subordinate legislation are subject to confirmatory procedure, that is to say, the subordinate legislation is made and laid before the Assembly and, if not confirmed by resolution of the Assembly before the expiration of six months from its coming into operation will cease to have effect. This formula is used in social security legislation in Northern Ireland where the corresponding provision in the legislation for Great Britain uses the draft affirmative procedure: this is for reasons of parity and timing.

4. The only provisions to which I draw attention are those in clause 16/new section 116E(5) of the Administration Act and clause 17/amendment of section 166 of the Administration Act and clause 20(2)/new Article 22D(6) of the Jobseekers Order and 20(3)/amendment of Article 37(1)(c) of the Jobseekers Order. Clause 16/new section 116E(5) of the Administration Act allows regulations to contain provision for the creation of criminal offences; and clause 17 amends section 166 of that Act so that regulations under new section 116E(5) which create an offence or increase the penalty for an existing offence are subject to confirmatory procedure. Similarly, clause 20(2)/new Article 22D(6) allow regulations to add or remove offences from those specified in new Article 22D(1) or (2); and clause 20(3) amends Article 37(1)(c) of the Jobseekers Order so as to make such regulations subject to confirmatory procedure Generally, it seems that draft affirmative procedure would be the appropriate procedure for regulations which contain provision in respect of offences. But in the circumstances of social security legislation (where the established practice is to use confirmatory procedure for Northern Ireland where draft affirmative procedure is used for Great Britain — for reasons of parity and timing) confirmatory procedure seems to be the appropriate level of Assembly scrutiny.

5. There are no other matters to which I draw the attention of the Committee for Social Development in this regard.

Gordon Nabney
Examiner of Statutory Rules
20 May 2009