FRONTLINE Law Centre (NI) social welfare law quarterly
89 autumn 2013
focus: employment law review
zero hours
private renting costs
age equality
capacity legislation
ADVERTISEMENT
Complained to a Government Department or Agency, Health Service Provider or other public body? Still not happy? The Ombudsman provides a free and independent service for the investigation of such complaints Want to find out more?
Freephone 0800 343424 or Write to: The Ombudsman, Freepost BEL 1478, Belfast BT1 6BR Email to: ombudsman@ni-ombudsman.org.uk Website: www.ni-ombudsman.org.uk or 2 | Frontline | Autumn 2013
CONTENTS
FRONTLINE 89
editorial Welfare reform
4
news Social justice lecture
5
Welfare reform conference
5
Citywide Tribunal Service
6
Migrant Workers Support Unit 6 Back door benefit changes
7
features
NIAMH: Human rights and advocacy
19
FEBE: protecting advocacy
20
NIASW: Promising but challenging legislation
21
practitioner Equality and young people
22
ESA examinations
24
reviews
Estate agent fees
8
FOCUS 1: Employment law Striking the right balance
10
Early conciliation
12
Open for business
13
ICTU
14
Reform to support growth
15
Zero hours contracts
16
E uropean law on asylum and immigration
26
Anti-deportation toolkit
26
8
FOCUS 2: Mental capacity MENCAP: Choice and control
FRONTLINE 89
permission of Law Centre (NI).
Kevin Higgins Advice NI
Design & Layout Michael W Beggs
Sian Fisher Citizens Advice
© Law Centre (NI) 2013 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored on any retrieval system or transmitted in any form by any means, including photocopying/recording, without prior written
Editorial/Advertising
Editorial Panel
Editor Catherine Couvert
Cover photo: © dotshock
18
124 Donegall Street, Belfast, BT1 2GY Tel: 028 9024 4401 Fax: 028 9023 6340 Textphone: 028 9023 9938 Email: admin.belfast@lawcentreni.org
Sharon Geary Housing Rights Service
Twitter: @LawCentreNI
Gráinne McKeever University of Ulster
ISSN 0962 - 8800
Website: www.lawcentreni.org
Ursula O'Hare, Patricia Carty and Jennifer Greenfield Law Centre (NI)
Law Centre®
Frontline is published four times per year by Law Centre (NI). It aims to provide a forum for information, analysis and opinion on matters relating to welfare law and allied social policy issues. Views expressed in the magazine should not be taken to be those of Law Centre (NI).
Frontline is available in large print on request from our publications unit. Phone: 028 9024 4401 or email: admin.belfast@lawcentreni.org Frontline | Autumn 2013 | 3
EDITORIAL
High stakes Stormont is back in business. Yet, we are no clearer about the timescale or the final content of the Welfare Reform Bill and subsequent regulations. The two main parties have been in regular discussion on welfare reform over the summer. The content and any outcomes of the talks have been hermetically sealed. An exception was found in August’s Inside Housing in which Alex Maskey is quoted as saying that the ‘bedroom tax’ will not be introduced for existing claimants in Northern Ireland. If this proves to be correct it provides a breathing space to look at alternative ways of dealing with the issue and time to adapt public housing stock to minimize the impact in the longer term. Of course, the Northern Ireland Executive could follow the advice of Raquel Rolnik, the UN Special Rapporteur on housing, who suggests that the British government should abolish the reform. Her conclusion followed a recent visit to five cities including Belfast. A new timetable for implementation for parts of welfare reform was announced in August. Universal Credit (UC) is now due to start in summer 2014. The introduction of Personal Independence Payment, changes to Housing Benefit and Employment and Support Allowance, reform of the Social Fund and the introduction of mandatory reconsideration to appeals are all due in spring 2014.
4 | Frontline | Autumn 2013
The new timetable reflects the slowing down of the introduction of UC in Britain. The original intention to introduce UC nationally in October 2013 has been radically scaled back to its introduction in another six Jobcentre Plus offices, with the roll out being confined to straightforward claims only. The report of the National Audit Office ‘Universal Credit – early progress’, assessing the management of the information technology, provides the reason for this more modest approach. The report lays bare the sorry tale to date and concludes that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) lacked a detailed view of how UC is meant to work, had inadequate measures in place to monitor progress, poor management, ineffective oversight, high staff turnover and a failure to address recommendations from assurance reviews. In response, the DWP set out that the UC programme is under new leadership and now making progress. DWP insists that the delivery of UC in full by 2017 remains on track. Being generous, this represents a formidable challenge requiring a sea change in performance to date. Time will tell whether the prognosis proves accurate. In slightly better news for UC, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has launched a report entitled ‘Do the UK government’s welfare reforms make work pay?’ It is a report that bears careful reading and examines whether the impact of changes to taxes, social security cuts and the introduction of UC will lead to greater financial work incentives in 2015/2016 than applied five years earlier. The conclusion is that welfare reforms strengthen financial incentives to work, on average, more than offsetting the weakening impact caused by falling real wages. Moreover, the
‘The next few months will shape the social security system for many years to come.’ numbers facing the weakest financial incentive to work will be reduced under UC. This, however, masks significant variations across different groups. In particular, couples with one earner fare significantly better than households with two earners. Of course, these changes have come from a ‘carrot and stick’ approach, namely proposed improved earnings disregards in UC alongside social security cuts, tougher conditionality and a rhetorical barrage scapegoating the unemployed. The other backdrop is the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s letter to the (then) Minister of Finance and Personnel Sammy Wilson setting out that a bill to cover the costs of the delay in implementing welfare reform will be issued from January 2014 onwards. In effect, the Welfare Reform Bill will first need agreement between Sinn Fein and the DUP, then the Executive as a whole, followed by the Assembly after a debate and consideration of amendments, alongside a deal with the Treasury about the cost of any variances and who foots the bill. None of these steps is likely to prove straightforward. Moreover, the greater the difficulties encountered with the reforms in Britain, the tougher the negotiations will prove to be locally. The next few months will shape the social security system for many years to come. The stakes are high and the voluntary sector’s role remains as crucial as ever.
NEWS
Using the law as a tool for social change At the Law Centre’s inaugural social justice lecture, held on 27 September at Crumlin Road Goal, Martyn Day, head of international claims at Leigh Day and Co, shared his experience on using law to achieve social change. He discussed some of his high profile cases, including the recent claim on behalf of Kenyans against the British government’s actions during the Mau Mau uprising in the 1950s; claims against Shell for oil spills on behalf of 15,000 Nigerians; against Trafigura on behalf of 30,000 Ivorians following the dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast; and court action on behalf of Baha Mousa, an Iraqi tortured and murdered by British soldiers. Praising a legal system that, uniquely, allows for this type of class action, and a judiciary unafraid to take on government, he said ‘using the law to hold institutions to account for their actions is an important part of any democracy.’ He bemoaned changes to legal aid which have reduced access to justice in GB.
In the audience at the Law Centre’s social justice lecture. Photo: Kevin Cooper
Les Allamby, Director of Law Centre (NI), added: ‘Martyn’s experience of litigating to protect the most vulnerable communities and people is a lesson in how effective the law can be as a tool for achieving lasting social justice. The work of his firm has shone a light in places kept hidden by multinational corporations and governments. It is an important part
of the checks and balances against the misuse of economic and political power.’ Introducing the lecture, Lord Chief Justice Sir Declan Morgan stressed the importance of litigation in protecting individual rights and cautioned against efforts to limit the scope of judicial review which are being considered in Britain.
Welfare reform: NI hardest hit UK region
A
Martyn Day. Photo: Kevin Cooper
conference held on 3 October by Law Centre (NI), Citizen’s Advice, Advice NI and the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action heard that welfare reform will have a serious negative impact on the economy. Les Allamby gave an analysis of the progress of welfare reform locally. He stressed the need to drive home the message of the adverse economic impact, as well as the social issues, of benefit cuts. He praised the voluntary sector for driving forward concessions on the bedroom tax but cautioned against complacency as there are many serious unresolved issues, such as the impact on women and migrants, and as welfare reform here is unlikely to be very different from GB. He concluded that we need ‘to reject the ‘strivers and shirkers’ language and reclaim social securi-
ty as a system that supports people in difficult circumstances. Imran Hussain of Child Action Poverty Group and Cecilia Keaveney of the Chartered Institute of Housing gave an update on the impact of welfare reform in GB, including a significant increase in child poverty. Professor Christina Beattie and Professor Steve Fothergill from the Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research in Sheffield Hallam University presented the findings of their research which found that welfare reform will take £750 million annually out of the Northern Ireland economy. The research, commissioned by NICVA, can be found on: www.nicva.org/news/ welfare-reform-hits-northernireland-hardest. To watch a video stream of the event, go to: www. nicva.org/events/welfare-reformand-local-economy
Frontline | Autumn 2013 | 5
NEWS
Belfast Citywide Tribunal Service Law Centre (NI) welcomes the new Belfast Citywide Tribunal Service. The service, managed and delivered by the Belfast Advice Group, a new consortium of advice providers from across Belfast, is funded for two years by Belfast City Council. Belfast Citywide Tribunal Service represents people who wish to appeal decisions on benefits, including Employment and Support Allowance, Disability Living Allowance, Personal Independent Payment and Universal Credit. It provides assistance through the process and represents in Appeal and Tribunal settings. Open from 1 July 2013, the service will be delivered by five full-time tribunal representatives and two tribunal assistants from: North Belfast CAB; Ardoyne Association; Ligoniel Improvement Association; The Vine Centre; Ballysillan Community Forum; Tar Isteach; Ballynafeigh Community Development Association; South City Resource Centre; Suffolk and Andersonstown Bureau; and Windsor Women’s Centre. For more information, visit: www. belfastcity.gov.uk/community/advice/tribunalservice.aspx
Lord Mayor, Councillor Máirtín Ó Muilleoir, with Belfast Advice Group Tribunal Representatives (L-R) Katie Hanlon (South); Pat Colton (Central); Mary McManus (East); Elaine Burns (North); Peter McMahon (West). Photo: Belfast City Council
ICTU migrant workers support unit The Migrant Workers Support Unit (MWSU) at the Irish Congress of Trade Unions offers support and advice to migrant workers who experience problems at work and provides representation at grievance and disciplinary hearings with their employ-
Grants for legal work in support of young migrants
T
he Strategic Legal Fund (SLF) provides grants for legal work that can make a significant difference to vulnerable young migrants in the UK. The scope of SLF has recently been extended to Northern Ireland and Scotland. SLF aims to tackle injustices and inconsistencies in law and practice that disadvantage or discriminate against vulnerable young migrants as a result of their migration status. Grants are available for pre-litigation research or third party interventions to ensure that the key legal points are made in existing cases. Next application deadlines are 14 October and 25 November 2013; and 20 January 2014. Potential applicants are encouraged to discuss their ideas with Project Manager Fran Smith in advance of making an application. For more information, contact SLF, PO Box 64636, London SW8 9DE Tel. 020 7091 0539 Email: fran.smith@migrationwork.org Website: www.strategiclegalfund.org.uk
6 | Frontline | Autumn 2013
ers. This covers workplace issues such as mistreatment, denial of statutory rights (outstanding wages, holiday pay, sick pay, maternity rights, disciplinary matters, grievances and dismissal), harassment and discrimination. MWSU also provides information on trade union membership. The MWSU is offering its services to organisations for local advice clinics and awareness raising training sessions on employment rights or myths around racism and is keen to reach out through participating in events throughout Northern Ireland. The MWSU has produced a number of publications in relation to migrant workers such as: ‘Your rights at work’, a pocket guide available in different languages; a multilingual leaflet informing migrant workers about the service; and ‘I am not a Racist but …’ booklet challenging the myths around migration that can lead to racist attitudes. For copies of the publications, or for more information, contact the Migrant Workers Helpline on 028 9031 9644 or email magda.chudzikiewicz@ ictuni.org
NEWS
Mandatory reconsideration Back door benefit changes Advice NI’s head of policy and research Kevin Higgins has concerns over a plans to stop payments of ESA while a case in dispute is being reconsidered by the Department. Advice NI has uncovered the true extent of potentially far-reaching proposals contained within the Welfare Reform Bill which could have extreme consequences for the most sick and disabled across Northern Ireland. Under Clause 101 in the Bill, the ‘power to require consideration of revision before appeal’, a new mandatory reconsideration stage will be introduced for claimants wishing to challenge a decision to disallow benefit. In Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), the main benefit payable for those unfit for work, no appeal will be possible until there has been a mandatory reconsideration and there can be no payment of ESA during the mandatory reconsideration stage. Currently, claimants can appeal a decision to disallow ESA and they can continue to be paid ESA at a ’pending appeal’ reduced amount until the outcome of their appeal.
Serious concerns Advice NI advisers see, on a daily basis, people with severe health problems who have been disallowed ESA. We have serious concerns as to how claimants in this position would cope financially. The issue has been the subject of debate in Britain, where concerns have been raised about: ww delays and the length of time
sick and disabled people could be without any financial support;
ww the contradiction and waste of
resources involved in sick and disabled people having to claim Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) for the period in question;
ww and the concern that many of
them may not be able to satisfy JSA conditions of entitlement.
Bob Stronge, Chief Executive of Advice NI, has called for the proposal to be dropped: ‘This is an unnecessary measure which will cause untold distress for claimants and may well ultimately discourage many from challenging potentially incorrect ESA decisions. We also believe that it will create unnecessary additional workloads for Social Security Agency staff and ultimately for our advisers.’ The proposal is deeply flawed for a number of reasons.
Impact on claimants ESA will be the sole source of income for many claimants. They will: ww have no income during the ESA
mandatory reconsideration period; or ww be forced to claim Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) which will take time to be processed; or ww feel compelled into not challenging the decision.
Impact of the Social Security Agency The proposal will very significantly impact on workloads within both ESA and JSA (and potentially Housing Benefit). Because ESA and JSA operate on the same system, many cases will probably require clerical intervention which increases processing time, likelihood of error and poorer decisions in respect of already vulnerable clients.
Impact on the advice sector Claimants have already been considerably affected by changes to the social security system and this is reflected in increased demand for independent advice services. Undoubtedly, people who see their sole source of income taken away will need advice and support in terms of
what they need to do to make ends meet and to challenge what they may see as an incorrect decision.
Impact on the policy intent While the intent is to reduce unnecessary demand on The Appeal Service by reducing the number of appeals and to resolve disputes quickly, the reality may be that claimants will wish the mandatory reconsideration to be completed as soon as possible so that ESA payment can re-commence. They may be reluctant to take the time to seek the additional evidence that might assist mandatory reconsideration.
Scrutiny needed The Welfare Reform Bill has completed its Committee Stage in the Assembly. It is expected that further debate will take place in the coming weeks. This clause warrants detailed scrutiny and we firmly believe that any moves towards ‘doing things differently’ in Northern Ireland welfare reform must include this issue. Advice NI’s Briefing Paper on the Welfare Reform Bill can be found on: www.adviceni.net.
Reminder: new national minimum wage rates New national minimum wage rates apply from 1 October 2013: aged 21+:
£6.31
18-20:
£5.03
under 18:
£3.72
apprentice rate:
£2.68
Frontline | Autumn 2013 | 7
FEATURE | PRIVATE RENTING
letting it out of control The hidden cost of private renting Peter O’Neill, policy and participation officer at Housing Rights Service, conducted a survey of letting agents which exposed significant upfront costs, variable fees and a worrying lack of transparency. This article summarises the findings and recommends better regulation. The hidden costs of renting private accommodation in Northern Ireland have been revealed in an undercover survey carried out by Housing Rights Service (HRS). A ‘mystery shopping’ survey of 40 lettings agents found that some agents demand upfront fees of as much as £100 to cover routine services such as credit checks and general administration costs and that prospective tenants face significant upfront costs, variable fees and a lack of transparency in an unregulated private lettings market. HRS believes both the Department for Social Development (DSD) and Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) should review this Photo: Catherine Couvert
8 | Frontline | Autumn 2013
evidence and launch their own investigation into this potentially unlawful practice.
Financial obstacles The survey found that the average charge was £48, with the highest cost £100. These fees can create a major financial obstacle for prospective tenants who already face paying a month’s rent in advance and a deposit. Nicola McCrudden, HRS Policy Manager, is concerned at this trend:‘Many local letting agents are increasing financial pressures on hard pressed tenants who urgently need a roof over their heads and who, in many cases, have little or no
choice but to pay these charges. They are also undermining the work of those good letting agents who offer a fair deal. The charges are particularly unjustified considering that many landlords are also likely to be paying agents for the same services as tenants. There is a real danger that these fees are preventing some people on low incomes from finding suitable private rented accommodation and could add pressure on an already over-subscribed social housing waiting list.’ Upfront fees found by the survey included: charges for general administration costs; tenancy deposit protection costs; credit checking fees (for tenants and guarantors); tenancy renewal fees; and check-in inventory charges. All agents surveyed charge a deposit (normally equivalent to one month’s rent) and request a month’s rent in advance. The average rent for a two bedroom property found in the survey was £484.37, with the average deposit amounting to £479.87. The largest financial outlay expected for a two-bedroom flat was one Belfast agent charging a non–returnable fee of £40 for both a tenant and guarantor credit reference check, on top of a deposit and rent in advance (both £675); resulting in a steep upfront payment of £1,430. Only fifteen (37.5 percent) of the 40 agents surveyed advertised their membership of professional bodies
FEATURE | PRIVATE RENTING such as RICS, ARLA, the Property Ombudsman, IPAV and NAEA. Of those fifteen, seven are members of the Property Ombudsman.
Case studies HRS collected case studies from its clients regarding tenancy fees and charges. ww A Belfast letting agent charged
two separate clients for amending names on a tenancy agreement. The agent gave no explanation or breakdown of this fee. The clients felt this was unfair as the initial agreement was drawn up on the agent’s advice.
ww A letting agent in Larne, as
standard practice, charges a £100 administration fee per tenancy allocated.
ww A letting agent in Belfast was
charging foreign nationals who have been in the UK for less than six months a non-refundable credit reference fee of £95 while charging £40 for all other applicants, a possible breach of the Race Relations (Northern (Ireland) Order 1997.
ww A Belfast letting agency charges
£40 to check the reference of every guarantor provided. If the reference check fails, the fee is non-refundable, applicants have to provide another contact and pay the fee again.
The need for regulation HRS believes that these charges are unfair and such business costs should be covered by either the agents themselves or the landlord. Unlike estate agents, letting agents are unregulated and under no compulsion to hold membership of an ombudsman service, leaving dissatisfied tenants with no access to redress. We are calling for greater clarity in the law and for the DSD to rule on whether these changes illegal, as is the case in Scotland. We recommend a requirement for letting agents to clearly present their fees on their websites, in adverts and in all promotional material in a way that is easily comparable across letting agents. On several occasions in the course of the survey, agency staff were unable to provide accurate information
on the fees that they charge and only ten per cent of the agents displayed information about fees on their websites. Housing Rights Service believes that by failing to disclose fees upfront or during their first contact with a customer, letting agents are breaching consumer law. According to the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA), letting agents must clearly display tenancy fees when marketing rental properties and has recently issued guidance to this effect. Nicola McCrudden added: ‘We need more transparency so prospective tenants at least know what fees they’re facing and to help create a more competitive lettings market. The evidence from this survey sup-
ports the call for regulation of the letting agent industry. No charges should be imposed on tenants for functions which are part of the routine letting and landlord management process.’
The report The report, The Hidden Costs of Private Renting in Northern Ireland: An Investigation into the Practice of Letting Charges, is on the website of Housing Rights Service, www. housingrights.org.uk. For further information, contact Peter O’Neill, 028 9024 5640.
CFNI Social Justice Programme Practical training on rights for community groups The Community Foundation for NI is working with more than 50 groups in its Social Justice Approach to Community Development programme. A number of these groups have undertaken a one-day participative training session on equality and human rights as part of the programme. The training aims to increase their knowledge of rights and to support them to assert these and challenge the actions of public bodies, using, among others, the Freedom of Information Act and S75 of the Northern Ireland Act. Developed by CFNI and independent equality consultant Geraldine Scullion, the training is tailored to each group so that it is relevant to the challenges they face. Geraldine develops practical exercises based on the rights’ issues the groups have identified, encouraging the participants to identify their rights and explore how abuses can be challenged. The emphasis is on building participants’ knowledge and, in particular, their confidence in using the language of rights. The exercises and discussions aim to empower the participants and assist them in making informed decisions and planning appropriate strategies. This training has been very well received, with several groups taking action on the rights issues raised.
Photo: CFNI
Frontline | Autumn 2013 | 9
FOCUS | EMPLOYMENT LAW
striking the right balance
Northern Ireland employment law review Ursula O’Hare, Assistant Director Policy and Publications at Law Centre (NI), outlines the main proposals of the Department for Employment and Learning’s review of employment law. She welcomes proposals for early conciliation and early neutral assessment, and explains the Law Centre’s concerns, particularly over the risk of eroding workers’ right to claim unfair dismissal. In the following pages, representatives of the main Department’s stakeholders articulate various facets of the debate. The Department for Employment and Learning (DEL) rightly describes its current Employment Law Review consultation as the most significant review of employment law since the Assembly was established. Devolution affords the opportunity for employment law and employment relations to be landscaped differently from Britain. In forging a ‘fit for purpose’ employment relations system, the Minister has set a commitment to strike the right balance between stimulating business confidence and maintaining employees’ rights.
Background The consultation follows on from a discussion paper in May of last year that explored options for employment law reform in Northern Ireland. The wider context, of course, is what has been happening in Britain over the last couple of years. Under its ‘better regulation’ banner, the Coalition Government has increased the unfair dismissal qualifying period from one year to two while the Un-
10 | Frontline | Autumn 2013
derhill Review has closely examined the workings of the employment tribunals. At the end of last year, employment minister Stephen Farry MLA tasked the Labour Relations Agency (LRA) with developing three projects. First, a model to enable potential tribunal claims to be initially routed through the LRA where Agency conciliation staff could help the parties reach a resolution. Second, enhanced promotion of pre-claim conciliation and arbitration and third, an analysis of the feasibility of introducing a form of early neutral evaluation that would give parties an understanding of the possible outcome of their dispute if it were to go before an employment tribunal. The LRA has taken forward both these projects and has been leading a roundtable process involving a number of stakeholders, including the Confederation of British Industry, Federation of Small Businesses and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.. The models developed by the Agency are at the core of the options now put forward for consultation.
Key proposals The Department’s proposals fall into three categories: ww early resolution of workplace
disputes;
‘The Law Centre sees no merit in extending the qualifying period for unfair dismissal to two years.’ ww efficient and effective employ-
ment tribunals; and
ww better regulation measures.
Early resolution The options set out for early resolution of disputes are two-fold.
(a) Early conciliation The proposal here is that (other than in defined excepted circumstances) no claim can be lodged with the Office of the Industrial Tribunals and Fair Employment Tribunal (OITFET) without providing evidence that conciliation through the LRA has been considered. In practical terms, a person wishing to bring a claim to tribunal will first have to submit an ‘early conciliation’ (EC) form to the LRA outlining basic information about the issue in dispute. LRA conciliation officers will then, with the parties’ agreement, seek to facilitate a settlement within one month. The possibility of extension for a further two weeks is envisaged. Receipt of a completed EC
FOCUS | EMPLOYMENT LAW
form will have the effect of ‘stopping the clock’ in relation to the limitation period for lodging a claim with the Office of the Industrial Tribunal and Fair Employment Tribunal (OITFET). Where conciliation is successful, a legally binding settlement will be agreed by both parties and no claim will go forward to the tribunal in relation to the matters on which agreement has been reached. Where conciliation has been unsuccessful, the LRA will issue an EC certificate, thus enabling a claim to proceed to the tribunal.
(b) Early neutral assessment The proposal is that where conciliation efforts have failed, both parties, by agreement, can request an assessment of the matters that would give an indication of the potential outcome of the case if it were to go forward for arbitration or to the tribunal. It is envisaged that the parties would submit details of the issues arising in the case. This would go to Agency arbitrators who would undertake an assessment, involving the parties, intended to be investigative and participatory. The outcome of the assessment would not be binding on the parties and would not represent a definitive legal view. Following the assessment, parties to the dispute could settle the dispute, seek conciliation or arbitration, proceed to tribunal or withdraw a claim.
Effective tribunals In relation to effective and efficient employment tribunals, the Department has indicated that a separate consultation will be taken forward later this year. Meanwhile, the tribunals’ Rules Committee is carrying out a review of existing tribunal rules and a pilot of early neutral evaluation is currently underway in the OITFET.
Better regulations Finally, the Department is consulting on a range of options relating to ‘better regulation measures.’ These include, among others, the unfair dismissal qualifying period, protected
conversations and the consultation period for collective redundancies.
Concerns Since the first DEL discussion on dispute resolution back in 2009, the Law Centre has made the case for systemic change to the system for resolving employment disputes. The need to focus on the greater use of more informal adjudication and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms seems to have captured widespread support. The proposed model that offers early conciliation and early neutral assessment is welcome.
two. Such a change would undermine employees’ job security and it is difficult to see why employers would require two years to assess an employee’s ability to perform their job satisfactorily. Employees who are dismissed after having worked with their employer for up to two years but who would be unable to bring an unfair dismissal claim are likely to look for alternative remedies. The risk here is of a potential increase in the number of (more complex) discrimination claims. The Department could usefully undertake a review of the impact of the changes in Britain to inform the debate here.
Developing meaningful engagement
The emphasis remains, however, on voluntary engagement by the parties. In previous comments on the employment law system, we recommended a mandatory form of early neutral evaluation for complex cases by a tribunal chair, building on the existing case management system within OITFIT. This would compel parties to examine the merits and weaknesses of their arguments, effectively providing a powerful ‘reality check.’ Whether voluntarism will really achieve the sea-change that is sought to secure the resolution of most disputes primarily through ADR is a critical debate that needs to happen during this consultation exercise. While it is clear that there is an appetite for change that encourages and facilitates workers and employers to quickly and inexpensively resolve disputes, stakeholders do not agree on a number of substantive employment rights, as the following articles illustrate. The Law Centre sees no merit in extending the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from one year to
In autumn 2012, the arbitration scheme was extended to encompass a wide range of employment jurisdictions; an important milestone in shifting the resolution of disputes from the tribunal system to a less adversarial mechanism. It is too early, of course, to evaluate the impact of this change. This consultation is a welcome opportunity to build real support for developing the options for meaningful engagement by the parties outside of the tribunal system. Improving employment relations is in everyone’s interests. In whatever fora disputes will be resolved, all those engaged in an employment law disputes need access to advice tailored to their individual needs and circumstances. This is as true of small and medium enterprises (which comprise 95 per cent of the Northern Ireland labour market) as it is of claimants. Access to bespoke advice is a critical underpinning to any system for dispute resolution.
‘Whether voluntarism will achieve the sea-change needed to secure the resolution of most disputes primarily through ADR is a critical debate that needs to happen.’ Frontline | Autumn 2013 | 11
FOCUS | Employment law
early conciliation
Labour Relations Agency
Jim McCusker, Chair of the Labour Relations Agency, sets out the Agency’s preferred model for a dispute resolution process that may be conducive to better employment relations. Relations between employers and their employees and their representatives are the overriding concern of the Labour Relations Agency. It is therefore in the context of employment relations that we approach the discussion paper issued by the Minister for Employment and Learning. The Minister refers to the Executive’s economic strategy, which has the overarching goal of improving the competitiveness of the Northern Ireland economy. A more competitive economy can be built only on good employment relations. Employment law is a feature of employment relations, but is by no means the whole of it.
‘Early resolution of disputes raises production by motivating staff and cutting the expense of dealing with problems’
Early conciliation
Under our model, an employee thinking of lodging a claim would first have to submit a form to the Agency. To ease the burden on employees and employers this would be a short form seeking minimal information. Once an Early Conciliation (EC) form had been received and registered, an Agency Conciliation Officer would aim to contact the employee in two working days to find out if s/he wished to explore conciliation. If the employee wished to attempt conciliation, the Conciliation Officer would try to contact the employer within two further working days. If both employer and employee agreed to engage in conciliation, the Conciliation Officer would try to facilitate a settlement, normally within one month.
If a more competitive economy is to be realised it is essential that every effort is made to settle workplace disputes in a way that is conducive to better employment relations. In Great Britain and in the Republic of Ireland it has been decided that disputes that cannot be resolved within the workplace, should, in the first instance, be referred to the equivalents of the Agency. It is generally agreed that early resolution of disputes raises productivity by motivating staff and cutting the expense of dealing with problems. Having all claims, or potential claims, passed first to the Agency facilitates early settlements.
12 | Frontline | Autumn 2013
In furtherance of good employment practice, which enables employees to enjoy fair pay and conditions while raising productivity and improving competitiveness, the Agency has enhanced its services in recent years. Our helpline is used by over 20,000 employees and employers every year. A new preclaim conciliation service has been introduced along with a much more comprehensive arbitration scheme. In pursuit of the Executive’s goals we have drawn up proposals for routing all cases first to the Agency.
Our model
If Early Conciliation was successful, a legally binding settlement would be signed by the employee and employer. Among other things, the employee would agree to refrain from instituting proceedings. If neither employee nor employer wished to engage in conciliation, the Conciliation Officer would issue an Early Conciliation (EC) certificate stating that conciliation had been offered. In certain specified circumstances, the Conciliation Officer could end conciliation before one month expires and issue an EC certificate. The model does provide for the employer to trigger Early Conciliation. Where Early Conciliation is not successful, the employee could proceed to tribunal but would have to ensure that the EC certificate accompanied the claim, unless the case fell within a range of specified circumstances where Early Conciliation is not appropriate. The Agency hopes that there will be a positive response to its proposals from all in the business of employment relations.
FOCUS | Employment law
reform to support growth Federation of Small Businesses Wilfred Mitchell OBE, Policy Chairman for Northern Ireland of the Federation of Small Businesses, puts the case for small employers.
With 7,000 businessowner members from all sectors of industry and commerce, the Federation of Small Businesses is Northern Ireland’s largest business organisation. Micro and small businesses form the bedrock of Northern Ireland’s economy. We have the highest concentration of small and medium enterprisess in the UK, with 98 per cent of firms here employing fewer than 20 people, and 95 per cent employing fewer than ten1. Northern Ireland SMEs provide 80 per cent of all private sector jobs, so we have a vital role in contributing to real and potential employment opportunities.
Law not framed for small businesses Unfortunately the employment law landscape in Northern Ireland discourages growth. Our members tell us, at every
‘Employment law is even more complex in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain, with our extensive raft of unconsolidated equality legislation. ’
encounter with the FSB, that they would like to employ more people (in our 2010/11 NI Member Survey,seven out of ten said they would like to employ some or more staff), but they believe that employment legislation is framed with regard to large companies, multinationals, and trade unionised workers in the public sector. One member’s comment illustrates this: ‘As a small business owner I feel very vulnerable - I’ve been trying to read up on employment law and quite frankly it’s a huge disincentive to employing anyone at all! I can offer a wage well above the minimum wage, a friendly and extremely flexible working environment. My business is growing and there are many people out there desperate for a job - it seems crazy that employing staff is such a minefield...’ Another member very starkly stated: ’I feel that I am the enemy as an employer. The law treats me that way. Therefore I subcontract all our work.’ At a time when unemployment in Northern Ireland is running at 7.5 per cent, and youth unemployment is the highest in the UK, this is a damning state of affairs. If every small business employer in Northern Ireland was to take on just one more employee, it could take nearly 40,000 people off the dole queue. This potential should not be ignored.
perts in employment law. Employment law is even more complex in Northern Ireland than in GB, with our extensive raft of unconsolidated equality legislation. Employment regulations are now legion, and it’s no wonder that micro-business employers have to think very carefully before they take on employees. Small business owners need good reason to start making changes, and tinkering around the edges is not going to be enough. What is needed is a holistic approach with the aim of raising the confidence of SMEs – whilst consolidating regulations and simplifying the system as much as possible. We need to change the ‘culture’ of employment law, and make employing people a sign of business success, not a source of major anxiety. As one member told us, we need to: ‘Remove the fear factor of employing people; make employment law which introduces employers’ rights; make employment law a lot simpler.’
Use devolved powers We welcome the current review of employment law in Northern Ireland as long overdue. We categorically support new measures and proposals for early dispute resolution, but we need tribunal reform too. As the only region of the UK which has fully devolved authority over employment law, this is one policy area in which the NI Assembly and Executive have the potential to clearly recognise the unique shape of our SME-led business sector and develop an employment landscape fit for purpose, which actively encourages enterprise and growth.
Notes 1
Department of Business, Innovation and Skills statistics
Too complex Like individual employees, most small business owners do not have any legal training. They’re not ex-
Frontline | Autumn 2013 | 13
FOCUS | Employment law
open for business
CBI Northern Ireland
Kirsty McManus, Assistant Director, CBI Northern Ireland, sets out the position of private sector employers.
When the Confederation of British Industry detailed our priorities for the year ahead in January, a key focus was the proposed consultation on reform of employment law in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is the only devolved UK region with responsibility for employment law devolved to it from Westminster. It has the unique power to create an employment framework that encourages job growth and investment and to become a leader in modern employer/employee relations.
The context That consultation has now been published by the Department for Employment and Learning. Its importance is much more pronounced in the context of a report we published in July on the differences in employment law between Northern Ireland, the Republic and Great Britain. The comparative analysis paints a stark picture of the differences between the jurisdictions. Given that many of our businesses operate in more than one jurisdiction, it is vital that decision makers take account of the complexity of the current regulatory environment and that the Executive accelerates its efforts to keep pace with competitors in reducing the regulatory burden on business. According to recent research from the Northern Ireland Economic Advisory Group, out of 144 countries, Northern Ireland ranks 45th for labour market
14 | Frontline | Autumn 2013
efficiency. When all the performance indicators are further examined, restrictive labour regulations are in the top four problematic factors in doing business here. Our proposals So, what must this consultation look to achieve? A first key objective is the introduction of a broad protected conversations policy. This would be an opportunity for Northern Ireland to create a clear competitive advantage by leveraging our devolved powers. It will allow employers to engage with employees on succession planning for non-dispute areas such as retirement. A second priority is reform of the collective redundancy period. At ninety days, Northern Ireland is three times higher than the Republic and twice as high as Great Britain as a result of their respective recent
Photo: BIM
reforms. This has several impacts; the most major is the current uncertainty as to how a business would manage a UK-wide redundancy. A third area is the qualifying period for unfair dismissal and its proposed increase to two years’ service. This would have a major impact on our ability to attract foreign direct investment when put in direct competition with other regions in Great Britain. There also needs to be a review of the operation and impact of the 2010 Agency Worker Regulations, especially the clear sense of the gold plating of these in Northern Ireland and reform of key aspects of procedure in tribunals, giving due consideration to the recent Underhill Study in Great Britain (a consultation is expected on this later in the year).
Stimulating growth Northern Ireland’s competitiveness is at risk if the Executive does not maximise the policy levers it has control over, such as employment law, to stimulate business growth and create much needed jobs for our young people. We look forward to working closely with Ministers over the coming months, pressing our case for reform to ensure that Northern Ireland sends a clear message that it is open for business.
FOCUS | Employment law
pRAGMATIC OR IDEOLOGICAL? Irish Congress of Trade Unions Kevin Doherty of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions Northern Ireland examines the economic arguments on which some of the reform proposals are based and finds no evidence for calls to weaken the protection of workers’ rights. The origins of DEL’s review of employment protection laws (EPL) lie in the proposals contained in a report produced by Adrian Beecroft, millionaire, Conservative Party donor and chairman of Dawn Capital, the firm that has a large stock in Wonga.com. Solicited directly by the Prime Minister, this report was to consider how EPL could be weakened to supposedly create jobs and economic growth.
Employment law and economics One of the many critical voices against Beecroft and the government’s approach is John Van Reenen, the Director of the Centre for Economic Performance, Europe’s leading applied economics research centre. According to Van Reenen1:‘Beecroft appears to have ignored the wealth of research into the economic effects of employment laws. This evidence goes against his view that relaxing employment laws will generate large economic improvements in the UK.’ Van Reenen highlights:‘The OECD’s latest indicators show that the UK had the lowest degree of protection in Europe and third lowest of all the countries examined by the OECD. This suggests that reforming EPL is hardly the Number 1 priority
for raising UK growth rates.’ The Chartered Institute for Personal and Development (CIPD) also believe that ‘watering down employment regulation is not only damaging for employee relations, but will also fail to achieve the intended result.’ Mike Emmott, CIPD employee relations adviser, said:2 ‘Employers don’t spend all their time worrying about unfair dismissal claims. In fact, according to the government’s own research, unfair dismissal doesn’t even figure in the list of top ten regulations discouraging them from recruiting staff.’ In a stark warning for the Northern Ireland economy, Van Reenen points out that‘the studies also highlight a further problem with creating more EPL exemptions for small firms as Beecroft recommends. As the regulations kick in when firms get large they will be reluctant to grow.’
The Northern Ireland proposals In light of the above, ICTU welcomes Minister Farry’s commitment to take ‘the necessary steps to divert from GB policy position to develop local tailored solutions.’ However, there are still substantial elements of Beecroft in his Review which ICTU opposes. For example, on the proposal to increase the unfair dismissal qualifying period, Emmott states, ‘There is no evidence to suggest that extending the qualification period for an employee to claim unfair dismissal will have any significant impact on the number of claims brought against employers, let alone boost
the economy by increasing employers’ propensity to hire new staff.’ Statistics from the Labour Relations Agency confirm that varying the qualification period has in the past had no impact on the number of tribunal cases lodged in Northern Ireland. Emmott stresses that poor performing employees, ‘would find it difficult to successfully bring a tribunal claim for unfair dismissal if their managers have competently confronted and managed their resulting underperformance.’3
No argument for weakening protection Concerns that a marginally better level of EPL in Northern Ireland will put off foreign investors can again be assuaged by the evidence. In April 2012 the proposed reductions in EPL were introduced in GB. In July 2013, Enterprise Minister Arlene Foster welcomed a UK Trade and Investment report which shows that Northern Ireland is one of the most successful regions in the UK and Europe for inward investment.4 As the UK is already well ahead of other EU countries in terms of the race to the bottom in EPL, there is no rational argument for implementing these changes. If anything, cutting EPL will undermine the confidence of workers to spend, therefore damaging economic recovery.
Growing the economy If the Northern Ireland economy is to grow and create jobs, it is time to reject the failed neo-liberal economic dogma on which Beecroft is based.
Notes 1
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/ 2012/05/28/evidence-based-policybeecroft-van-reenen
2 www.startupdonut.co.uk/news/startup/ cipd-brands-beecroft-proposals-forcompensated-no-fault-dismissals-objectionable-and-unnecessary3 www.cipd.co.uk/pressoffice/press-releases/cipd-opposes-proposals-unfairdismissal.aspx 4 www.northernireland.gov.uk/index/media-centre/news-departments/newsdeti/news-deti-july-2013/news-deti240713-foster-welcomes-ukti.htm
Frontline | Autumn 2013 | 15
FOCUS | Employment law
everybody hurts The zero hours contract
Joe McGlade, adviser at Dungannon Citizens Advice Bureau, analyses the impact of zero hours contracts and calls on the Assembly to legislate to curb their growth. Currently the subject of much media and political discussion, the increasing use of the controversial zero hours contract has serious repercussions for both workers and employers. Recently, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) suggested that one million people across the UK could be employed on zero-hours contracts. What is a zero hours contract? The expression ‘zero hours contract’ does not have a definition in law. Zero hours contracts are contracts of employment which do not specify any number of hours that the worker will be required to work. A zero hours contract is a one-sided agreement, allowing the employer to determine whether and when to offer the individual work, while the worker is not guaranteed any work but must hope, perhaps on a daily basis, that an offer of work is forthcoming. The concept, at its simplest, does not compel an employer to offer
16 | Frontline | Autumn 2013
work, and neither does it compel a worker to accept the work offered. Accordingly, pay is given only for hours actually worked.
Bad for workers The zero hours contract could require workers to wait at home by the phone until they are needed. Alternatively, the worker may be required to wait on work premises to see if there is any work to do. Due to the uncertain and irregular nature of the work under such contracts, workers may have problems with managing their finances, obtaining mortgages and claiming certain benefits. Childcare may also be an issue, especially if the employer tends to call upon a worker to attend work with little notice. The uncertainties created in the employment relationship can also lead to operational difficulties in: ww calculation of holiday pay entitle-
ment;
ww entitlement to rest breaks; ww inability to claim Guarantee pay-
ments;
ww potential non qualification for
Statutory Sick Pay (dependent on hours and pattern of work);
ww uncertainty as to entitlement to
notice of dismissal, or to pay during any such notice period.
‘The unfettered extension of the phenomenon will lead us to a society where inequality is encouraged in the workplace, and where workers are denied the most basic of protections against exploitation and abuse. ’ Typically, a zero hours worker is a low earner, and may well be the only wage earner in the household. Whilst, technically, limited help may be available (typically in the form of Jobseeker’s Allowance, Tax Credits and Housing Benefit), such benefit systems are difficult to access with an unpredictable working pattern. This may lead to eligible people not applying for their entitlements. Some commentators suggest that zero hours contracts provide more flexibility for some workers and that this suits their circumstances. Whilst this may be true for a small portion of the people labouring under such contracts, the vast majority would much prefer certainty and consistency in their working life. As stated earlier, the concept suggests that the worker is permitted to freely refuse to work any of the hours
FOCUS | Employment law
Many carers are on zero hours contracts. Photo: track5
of work. Our experience in Citizens Advice offices does not bear this out. We meet people working under these contracts who are afraid to refuse work, as they believe, likely correctly, that if they refuse once, they will never be offered work again. We have also been informed that people working under such contracts are too afraid to ask for holidays, and are forced to accept work even though they are too sick to work.
Not good for business The major benefit of zero hours contracts, as trumpeted by proemployer groups, is the flexibility they provide to a business. They state this flexibility is valuable as it allows businesses to adjust to peaks and troughs in demand. Whilst this argument seems, on the face of it, reasonable, we believe it to be disingenuous. There will be times in business when demand fluctuates, requiring an adjustment of resources, but there are long established business practices which serve to alleviate the effects of this issue on business. We believe the rise in popularity of zero hours contracts is due to the
belief, which may be mistaken, that costs to business are reduced. As many will be aware, employees enjoy the best legal protections and employment rights currently available. There has been much litigation over whether people are employees or not. Workers on zero hours contracts may seek to enforce their rights by claiming they are employees. As the test for determining employment status is multifactoral, (personal service, control, mutuality of obligation etc), the fact that a person has signed a zero hours contract does not, in itself, prevent a tribunal declaring them to be an employee. Worryingly, due to the uncertainty concerning the employment status of zero hours workers, HR companies are now advising employers to be careful to make distinctions between their ‘employees’, and the zero hours staff they hire. Citizens Advice has received reports of zero hours workers being harassed and intimidated by regular staff. It may be that, as these businesses are now operating zero hours contracts, overtime is not being offered to permanent staff. It may also be that permanent staff see
the zero hours worker as a threat to their job.
Stunting local economy The potential impact to the local economy cannot be overstated. Should this system of working be permitted to expand, the uncertainty in the mind of the zero hour worker will translate into a stunted economy, where insecure people are saving money to provide for themselves and their families when the inevitable rainy day comes.
Undermining employment law reform We are firmly of the view that, unless the Assembly legislates to curb the growth of the zero hours contract, the reforms put in place following DEL’s employment law consultation will mean nothing to a growing sector of the working population. The unfettered extension of the phenomenon will lead to a society where inequality is encouraged in the workplace, and where workers are denied the most basic of protections against exploitation and abuse.
Frontline | Autumn 2013 | 17
FOCUS | capacity legislation
hopes and fears
Part two
MENCAP Choice and control in my life Paschal McKeown of Mencap ontinues the discussion on progress towards a mental capacity bill started in Frontline 88. Being able to make decisions about my life is fundamental to who I am, my status and my personal fulfilment. Like most people, I take for granted the ability to live as I choose, where I like and with whom I like. For too long, however, people with a learning disability have had most decisions about their life made by others and had assumptions made about their competence and ability to be ‘selfdirecting’ based solely on their status as a person with a learning disability.
Challenges Despite the common law presumption of capacity, people with a learning disability have, in effect, been required to prove their capacity before being allowed to make decisions that are routine and everyday as well as decisions that are significant in their life. People with a learning disability face regular challenges regarding their capacity when trying
18 | Frontline | Autumn 2013
‘For too long, people with a learning disability have had most decisions about their life made by others ’ to do things that most of us take for granted, like opening a bank account, entering into a contract, getting married and until recently, trying to vote. Like other disabled people, they are also subject to more scrutiny and face a higher bar, with judgements being made about the efficacy and ‘rightness’ of each decision they make. The effect of the disability itself, which means that people with a learning disability may experience significant difficulties in understanding, learning and communication, coupled with the failure of mainstream services to make adjustments profoundly impacts on the opportunities they have to gain the
experience, knowledge and skills that would enhance their ability to make decisions.
Supported discrimination Plans to introduce a single law on mental capacity to regulate situations where there are concerns about an individual’s capacity to make decisions provide us with a real opportunity to make a lasting difference to how people with a learning disability are viewed, treated and listened to when making decisions about their life. It is vital that the new legislation does not stop at the principle of ‘best interests’ but brings into effect ‘supported decision making’. As the first jurisdiction in the United Kingdom to introduce new legislation since the UK Government’s 2009 ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Northern Ireland is in a unique position to ensure that the new law on capacity reflects the legal trend that people with disabilities should be supported in their decision making, rather than have decisions routinely made for them by substitute decision makers. Article 12 of the Convention, which confirms the legal capacity of people with disabilities ‘on an equal basis with all others in all aspects of life’, recognises that some disabled people may need assistance to exercise their legal capacity and obliges States to provide access to the support they need.
Our vision Mencap’s vision is of a world where people with a learning disability are valued equally, listened to and included, and have support to achieve the things they want out of life. We believe that the proposed capacity legislation presents an important opportunity to reinforce the shift towards viewing people with a learning disability as individuals with rights who may need extra support, including advocacy support, to enjoy and exercise their rights. MENCAP - Segal House, 4 Annadale Avenue, Belfast BT7 3JH. Tel: 028 9069 1351. Email: help@mencap.org.uk Web: www.mencap.org.uk/northern-ireland
FOCUS | capacity legislation
NIAMH Human rights and advocacy
health and capacity legislation (summer 2013), which: ww recognises the valuable work by
independent advocacy services and by the DHSSPS including its Advocacy Policy Guide;
ww brings together learning from
Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland; and
ww makes the case for the provision
Iris Elliott, head of public affairs and policy at Northern Ireland Association for Mental Health, welcomes the opportunity for enhanced human rights in new legislation backed up by strong independent advocacy services. The new legislation is a genuine opportunity to realise the human rights ratified under the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (UNCRPD), in particular Article 12 (which deals with equal recognition before the law)1. Legislation can only create meaningful change if it embodies societal conversations about what human rights look and feel like in everyday life. We need to ensure that these conversations happen between politicians and their constituents, particularly those who will be directly affected by the legislation.
Challenges Those of us involved with the legislation are aware of its complexity, and the challenge of producing a unified bill across the civil and criminal justice systems, which addresses the full scope of: health, welfare and financial decisions. We are engaged in codifying global commitments into our domestic legislation. We need to develop legislation that will be fit for purpose whether that is dealing with decision making in day to day humdrum life, or in difficult, conflictual and crisis situations.
Independent advocacy We recognise the need to explore ‘worst case’ scenarios in order to test that the legislation is sufficiently robust to meet these challenges. However, we in NIAMH are convinced of the value of upstream investment in systems that: support decision-mak-
ing, assist early de-escalation, and put in place advanced planning. The provision of independent advocacy is of fundamental importance. Independent advocacy will help us to answer key questions set by UNCRPD. How do we ensure that people who experience mental illhealth are recognised everywhere as persons before the law? How do we ensure they enjoy legal capacity on an equal basis with others in all aspects of life? What are the appropriate measures that the Assembly needs to include in the legislation to: ‘provide access by persons with disabilities to the support they may require in exercising their legal capacity’ (A12.3)?
Safeguards Our focus on advocacy has a safeguarding agenda too, in line with A12.4. The Convention requires the State to provide appropriate, effective and proportionate safeguards; and to ensure that all measures: ‘respect the rights, will and preferences of the person, are free of conflict of interest and undue influence, are proportional and tailored to the person’s circumstances, apply for the shortest time possible and are subject to regular review by a competent, independent and impartial authority or judicial body’.
of independent advocacy both statutory and non-statutory.
The paper was developed with members of the Mental Health and Learning Disability Alliance, Advocacy Network Northern Ireland and Action for Advocacy, England. We hope that it will be a valuable resource to inform our work to deliver human rights based mental health and capacity legislation. NIAMH - 80 University Street, Belfast BT7 1HE. Tel: 028 32 8474. Email: info@niamhwellbeing.org Web: www.niamhwellbeing.org
Note 1
Whilst the policy intent of the Programme for Government is to implement our commitments under UN CRPD and this is the focus of this article, I note that the 1998 Northern Ireland Act requires the Assembly and the Ministers to uphold and protect the rights guaranteed under the European Convention in Human Rights Act. The Act’s provisions mandate that the overarching ethos of legislative standards be derived from the provisions of the ECHR.
Review of advocacy and mental health This is why NIAMH is producing a review paper on advocacy and mental
Frontline | Autumn 2013 | 19
FOCUS | capacity legislation
FEBE Protecting advocacy in new capacity law Martha McClelland, Federation of Experts By Experience (FEBE), is keen to ensure that plans for new capacity legislation protect access to peer advocacy and engage the views of the majority of people who will be affected by change. Service users and peer advocates for mental health (themselves advocacytrained service users in recovery) welcome mental capacity legislation being enacted in Northern Ireland but have some important concerns about the proposed law and its workings. As most people can recover from mental illness, their loss of capacity is rightly recognised as transient. Bamford principles demand that service users are involved in every stage of their process of care and recovery. This raises several considerations. 1) How does this legislation ensure that service users, as a group and
as the individual concerned, are involved in settling benchmarks and standards of mental capacity and recovery? 2) How will the person’s right to choose the type(s) of advocacy they want be protected? People may need/wish different types of advocacy at various stages of their recovery. 3) Advocacy must ensure that the service user’s choices and decisions are paramount. Effective advocacy must ensure that a conflict of interests between service user and any others is avoided. Ultimate recovery depends on the person learning to make decisions and live with the consequences. This can sometimes conflict with ‘best interests’ as seen by some ‘independent’ advocates, professionals or carers. How does this legislation protect this right?
Peer advocacy
Photo: imagecreator
20 | Frontline | Autumn 2013
This is where the ethos and praxis of peer advocacy can be so different from other ‘independent’ advocacy. Peer advocacy is a long-term process and commitment, which should be available freely throughout the client’s period of recovery. We are concerned that the advocacy support offered by this bill seems exclusively focused on in-hospital or in-crisis advocacy. The recovery jour-
ney can be a long process but is the ultimate goal and everyone’s right. Providing advocacy only for detained persons struggling with mental health issues may exclude them from peer advocacy and thus a significant opportunity for successful support in their recovery. This is the same argument noted by those speaking for young persons under sixteen who, under new legislation, would be excluded from advocacy unless they are detained.
Consultation process A very serious concern we have is the consultation process for this legislation. It has not been outlined how service users as a whole are to be successfully involved. This is a matter of utmost urgency. It cannot be assumed that simply putting notices in newspapers and holding roadshows will succeed.Many users will never hear about such events. This process must be given urgent and creative thought, with use of radio and television, social media and other formats considered. Not the least of the problems is the language in which it is described. ‘Mental capacity legislation’ has meaning only for service users who are legally trained and the relatively few mental health activists, not the vast majority of people who will be affected by these important changes. This consultative process MUST be inclusive and therefore engaging service users must begin urgently and creatively across the North. FEBE: http://febe.org.uk/
FOCUS | capacity legislation
NIASW Promising but challenging legislation Nigel Spiers of the Northern Ireland Association of Social Workers explains the organisation’s views on the anticipated Mental Capacity Bill. Representing professional registered social workers, many employed by Health and Social Care Trusts, the Northern Ireland Association of Social Workers (NIASW) anticipates the Capacity Bill with much hope and some caution.
The role of social workers Social workers have long recognized the challenges of protecting those vulnerable from abusive relatives and others and sometimes from themselves. We also fully acknowledge the need for individuals, especially those who are vulnerable, to have protection from the state and for society to have protection from a very small number of mentally incapacitated individuals. We already intervene with persons at risk to themselves or a risk to others. Social workers, trained and ‘approved’ (ASWs) under the present Mental Health (NI) Order have, since 1986, implemented this legislation. Many adult services social workers engage with Part VIII of the Order in respect of clients deemed financially incapable. With responsibility for complex assessment and decision making about relative risks, safety, harm and protection and intervention in the lives of people, social workers become involved in relationships that involve profound interpretations as well as meeting basic human needs including security. The proposed legislation offers the legal underpinning for agencies to treat with dignity both service users, particularly those who are vulnerable and incapacitated, and their dedicated care givers.
What the Bill could achieve We will support the Bill if it provides a comprehensive legal and policy
framework for autonomous, supported and safeguarded substitute decision making. The legislation will have to facilitate care and treatment as well as support and protection. It will also have to allow control of a limited number of incapacitated people, for specific reasons and for as short a time as possible with stringent safeguards. Intervening into the lives of those with serious physical or mental ill health (or both) and impaired decision making, using the same legislation, will not be discriminatory and could enable earlier beneficial intervention with seriously mentally disordered people where there is no imminent threat of harm.
Issues to overcome NIASW is, however, concerned about organisational, managerial, clinical practice and service delivery changes within Trusts which have been gath-
ering pace. Trusts and the Health and Social Care Board will need to prepare staff at all levels to make sure there is sufficient practitioner and supervisory expertise to implement the detail as well as the spirit of what we believe will be challenging legislation. Collaboration between agencies and within Trusts will be vital and yet we fear that in Trusts, programmes of care can be very separate with limited seamless service delivery and a lack of holistic approaches. Additionally, service users, including those who are incapacitated, have been given more responsibility through direct payments for their own care, and supported living has mostly replaced residential care. At the same time there are much needed enhanced safeguarding arrangements for vulnerable adults. NIASW acknowledges the proposed bill will also apply to people who are subject to the justice system and it must be a given that, in those agencies tasked with implementing the legislation, there is close collaboration with public protection interventions, with adult safeguarding and with domestic violence prevention. Conversely, we are concerned that new legislation might lead to an increase in intrusive interventions. Staff training will be the key. NIASW: Douglas House, 397 Ormeau Road, Belfast, BT7 3GP. Email: n.ireland@basw.co.uk Web: www.basw.co.uk/northern-ireland
Republic of Ireland: assisted decision-making bill
G
alway University’s Centre for Disability Law and Policy has welcomed the publication of the Republic of Ireland’s Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013. The Bill is available at: www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc. asp?DocID=24147&&CatID=59 Professor Gerard Quinn of CDLP said: ‘The Minister is to be congratulated for moving beyond traditional guardianship to enable people take charge of their own lives (…) In the period ahead we will be making many suggested improvements to make this profound shift a reality in people’s daily lives.’
Charles O’ Mahony, Lecturer in Public Law, added: ‘Much of the Capacity Bill is framed positively and a greater premium is being placed on respect for the decision-making of persons. The Mental Health Act 2001 is currently undergoing review and it is essential the mental health legislation and new legal capacity legislation interface in a consistent way reflecting Ireland’s obligations under international human rights law.’
Frontline | Autumn 2013 | 21
EQUALITY COMMISSION | Age equality
age equality
Should age laws protect children and young people? Evelyn Collins, Chief Executive, Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, explains joint proposals by the Commission and Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People for modernizing age discrimination legislation1. The Equality Commission and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY) believe that people of all ages, including children and young people, should be protected against unlawful age discrimination and harassment when accessing goods, facilities and services, for example, health care or education. We recognise that there are situations in which it is appropriate to treat adults and children differently and the law should allow for that where there are justifiable reasons for doing so. But that is not a reason for excluding children and young people completely from the protection of anti-discrimination law. Age is the very factor that makes children and young people more vulnerable than adults. They therefore require special protective measures, rather than no protection from age discrimination when accessing services.
22 | Frontline | Autumn 2013
Proposals for law reform The Equality Commission’s proposals for reform, ‘Ending Age Discrimination in the Provision of Goods and Services’, recommend that inequalities in goods, facilities and services, such as health and social care, financial services, retail services or transport provision are addressed on behalf of people of all ages. The Commission has already welcomed the commitment given in the Programme for Government to extend age discrimination legislation to cover the provision of goods, facilities and services. Strengthening age discrimination legislation for older people is in keeping with the Government’s Older People’s Strategy, ‘Ageing in an Inclusive Society’. However, together with the Commissioner for Children and Young People, we believe that there is a robust case too for strengthening the rights of children and young people against unlawful discrimination and harassment on the grounds of age in the provision of goods, facilities and services. This is consistent with OFMDFM’s ‘Strategy for Children and Young People’ and the ‘Delivering Social Change’ framework. In addition, strengthening the rights of children
‘Strengthening the rights of children and young people is consistent with the UK government’s obligations under international human rights conventions’ and young people is consistent with the UK Government’s obligations under international human rights conventions; in this case, specifically the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Health and social care In health and social care, for example, there is compelling evidence that children and young people experience age discrimination when accessing a range of services. Children and young people with mental health issues can experience difficulties in accessing health and social care services which are appropriate for their age. Almost 200 young people in Northern Ireland were admitted to adult psychiatric wards between 2007 and 2009.
EQUALITY COMMISSION | Age equality In the provision of health and care services, we believe that there should be no specific exceptions for age-related difference in treatment or services - any age-based decisions should be objectively justifiable.
Other areas of discrimination Negative attitudes, barriers and hostility by service providers are frequently reported by young people trying to use shops or public transport and when engaged with the criminal justice system. In education, private clubs and other areas too, age-related criteria or rules cannot be arbitrary. Where there are good reasons for limiting a service to people of certain ages, for example in education, we recommend that decisions are based on the actual needs of children and young people, and either fall within a particular exception, such as a positive action exception, or are justified objectively.
Where different treatment is justified A difference in treatment between adults and children and young people should be allowed where the law allows or requires businesses to restrict access to goods or services to people of certain ages, for example, having to be sixteen to get married, or to be eighteen to buy alcohol. We have proposed that concessions aimed at children, young people and older people should not be considered discriminatory, so for example, cheaper transport fares or admission to leisure facilities should be permitted.
Rooting out absurd inconsistencies Including children and young people within the legislation will also ensure that the legislation does not result in unjustifiable and absurd inconsistencies of treatment. For example, an arbitrary age cut-off point for the legislation would mean that an eighteen year old who is harassed due to his/her age could bring a complaint under the proposed legislation, but a seventeen year old who is subjected to the same harassment could not. The Equality Commission and the Commissioner for Children and Young People are working to persuade the Executive to adopt these proposals, which would mean Northern Ireland would be joining the
Evelyn Collins, Chief Executive, Equality Commission, presenting certificates to thank 17 young people who took part in a joint project with the Commission and NCB Northern Ireland to design web pages. The aim was to help young people see discrimination when it happens and know what to do about it. Photo: Equality Commission
countries which are leading the way internationally on this issue.
Notes 1
Their joint document, ‘Strengthening Protection for all Ages - Proposals for Reform: Protecting children and young people against unlawful age discrimination in the provision of goods and services’ (June 2013) discusses the issues in detail:
Short briefing: www.equalityni.org/archive/Age%20GFS%20%20Short%20 Briefing%2028%20June%202013.docx Summary report: www.equalityni.org/archive/pdf/GFSprotection_children+young_ people-SummaryReport-18June13.pdf Full report: www.equalityni.org/archive/ pdf/GFSprotection_children+young_people-FullReport-18June13.pdf
Ombudsman
Northern Ireland
Land and Property Services Delay in valuation of property The complainant told the Ombudsman that he had contacted the Land and Property Service (LPS) in 2004 seeking an estimate / valuation for a property. The valuation did not take place until 2006, and the owners of the property did not receive a rates demand until 2011. It also took a further year for LPS to contact the complainant. From the information examined, it was clear to the Ombudsman that there had been significant maladministration in LPS’s handling of this rates account, in par-
ticular, the lengthy delay in having the property valued and subsequent issuing of the appropriate rates bill. LPS had already acknowledged the errors that had occurred, and made a proposal that the rates arrears could be paid off over an extended period. In addition, LPS wrote off 25 per cent of the arrears. In light of this reduction and the extended period to repay the rates arrears, the Ombudsman did not believe that he could achieve any better outcome for the complainant than LPS had already offered.
Frontline | Autumn 2013 | 23
practitioner | Social security
social security update Challenging ESA medical examinations and HCP reports Carla Rogers social security legal adviser at Law Centre (NI), urges claimants and their advisers to make full use of the complaint procedure in challenging ESA medical examinations reports.
People who are too disabled or ill to work may be entitled to Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) if they are assessed as having limited capability for work through the work capability assessment (WCA). As part of the WCA, claimants attend a medical examination1 conducted by healthcare provider Atos through a doctor or, in some cases, approved healthcare professional (HCP). There has been much criticism in the media and among social security advisers, since the inception of ESA in 2008, of ESA medical examinations and HCP reports.
Concerns Between June 2011 and July 2013 there were 86,790 medical assessments in Northern Ireland with only 487 complaints; and only 37 received corrective action. However, practical experience of Law Centre and its members indicates that whilst many claimants have reason to complain they often do not. We believe the complaint process is generally underused, partly through lack of knowledge of the existence and/or importance of the complaint procedure and the range of issues that can be complained about. Some claimants believe that an appeal against the ESA decision can effectively determine their issues of complaint. However, an appeal and a complaint are entirely separate matters. In addition, we understand that Atos does not inform claimants of their right to complain following a medical examination. The complaint record in the rest of the UK is higher. This led the
24 | Frontline | Autumn 2013
Department for Work and Pensions to conduct an audit on the quality of HCP reports, with 41 percent of reports audited found to be of a poor standard. This led to the Department directing Atos, in July 2013, to put into place a quality improvement plan.2 This would include retraining and re-evaluating Atos healthcare professionals, with those not meeting the required standard continuing to have their work audited until they do, or losing the right to carry out assessments. It is too early to say what will be included in the quality improvement plan. Until meaningful changes are effected, the only option for aggrieved claimants is to make challenges via the existing complaint procedure.
Issues for complaint Advisers and claimants should be aware of the issues that can be complained about. The following list is not exhaustive but includes some of the more prevalent issues: ww the way in which a medical
examination was carried out, for example: if an examining professional was confrontational; if closed questions were asked; if no opportunity was given to explain answers; if further medical evidence was not considered;
ww any issues with the test centres,
such as accessibility;
ww unhelpful administrative staff or
procedures; and
ww the HCP medical report, for exam-
ple: misleading conclusions being
drawn from answers to questions on ability to perform everyday tasks; the wrong drop-down box being ticked; comments included that did not reflect what was said.
Complaint procedure A complaint can be lodged by: 1. phoning the Customers Relations Manager on 011 3230 9175; 2. emailing customer-relations@ atoshealthcare.com; 3. completing the comments, complaints and suggestion form which can be obtained from Atos; or 4. writing to Atos Healthcare. It is advisable to email Atos or write by recorded delivery. It might also be beneficial to copy the letter of complaint to the claimant’s local councillor and highlight on the complaint that this is being done. There has been much criticism of the long delays in investigating complaints. Feedback from service users and advisers suggests that it can take several months for complaints to be dealt with. There are three stages to complaining. Stage 1: Atos will investigate the complaint and prepare a response. Stage 2: Where a claimant is not satisfied, s/he can contact the Customer Relations Manager at Atos. A senior manager will personally review the complaint and undertake a further investigation where necessary. Law Centre (NI) is concerned that Atos does not appear to advise service users that unsuccessful complaints can be pursued beyond this stage. Stage 3: A claimant or her/his representative who is still dissatisfied can complain in writing to the Chief Executive of the Social Security Agency asking for the matter to be investigated3. Stage 4: If still not happy, a claimant or representative can write to the Independent Case Examiner (ICE) and ask for review4. The service is free. The ICE will review both sides of a complaint and, where appropriate, make recommendations on how the matter should be resolved.
practitioner | Social security To complain or not to complain? There is no absolute requirement to complain and the complaint procedure is separate from an appeal against an unfavourable ESA decision. However, Law Centre (NI) would strongly recommend complaining where the claimant is contemplating appealing and the complaint involves the medical examination or HCP report. If people do not complain then it appears that the system is running adequately. This does not appear to reflect our experience.
A successful complaint may have positive ramifications for the appeal A complaint, amongst other things, allows the claimant the chance to put forward her/his side of what happened at a medical examination and/ or highlight and dispute inaccuracies in the HCP report. It also offers the possibility of having the report rectified where discrepancies exist, although our members’ feedback suggests that very few HCP reports are amended following a complaint. Many negative ESA decisions are based on findings contained in the HCP report. A successful complaint may have positive ramifications for the appeal, for example where the decision was based on a HCP report that is subsequently shown to be unreliable. In our experience, appellants may find it difficult to dispute a HCP report at an appeal tribunal if they have not followed the complaint procedure.
Tribunals and complaints Law Centre (NI) believes that a tribunal should not proceed (in absence of consent by the appellant) where there is an outstanding complaint relating to the accuracy of the HCP report. An adjournment would give an appellant the chance to lodge a complaint and have the matter dealt with. We are currently representing in an appeal to the Social Security Commissioner on this point. We are concerned that there is no clarity on how a HCP report should
be treated where a complaint is unsuccessful. Is the tribunal bound to accept the HCP report in full or can it form its own view on the validity of the complaint/s and the weight to be attached to the report? Law Centre (NI) is keen to receive referrals on the issue and will be keeping a watchful eye on case law developments. It is also not clear whether tribunals will adjourn an appeal hearing to facilitate a new medical examination where they are of the opinion that a HCP report is inaccurate, as sometimes occurs in DLA cases. Whilst we would advocate such an approach, in the interests of justice, we acknowledge its practical limitations. In particular, any new examination would have to determine the appellant’s disabilities and how they affected her/him at the relevant date which would have been several months before.
Recording medical examinations Many advisers and claimants do not know that they are entitled to record a medical examination. Law Centre (NI) would advocate doing this as it will help resolve potential disputes over the content of a medical examination. A claimant must advise the assessor in advance (or, alternatively, ask Atos, in advance) to record it, and request a copy after the examination. A claimant is entitled to bring along a friend or adviser to the medical examination. In our experience, many claimants and advisers are unaware of this option. Law Cen-
tre (NI) would recommend that the friend/adviser takes written notes which can be used as a contemporaneous record of the examination at tribunal or in a complaint.
Medical examiner’s field of expertise Advisers should also be aware of the recent decision of CE/3883/2012. This important case held that the conclusions of a HCP report compiled by a physiotherapist for a claimant with mental health problems has ’no probative value whatsoever’5 because the ‘physiotherapist has no professional expertise in mental health matters’6. Advisers should check the speciality or field of discipline of the medical examiner as this may be crucial to the weight to be attached to a HCP report.
Notes 1
Unless the Department has decided that they automatically have limited capability for work.
2 www.gov.uk/government/news/hobantaking-action-to-improve-the-workcapability-assessment As Atos operates UK-wide, presumably measures put in place would apply to Northern Ireland. 3
DSD has published helpful information on making a complaint: www.dsdni.gov.uk/ index/ssa/customer-information/ssacustomer-service/ssa_customer_complaints_guidance/ssa_customer_complaints_leaflets.htm
4 www.ind-case-exam.org.uk/en/about/ role.asp 5
Paragraphs 22 and 23
6
Ibid no 6
Fact sheets for people with disabilities Disability Action has updated its information sheets on: n Attendance Allowance n Blue Badge Scheme n Personal Independence Payment n Changes to the Welfare Reform Bill Download them from: www.disabilityaction.org/services-and-projects/information-andadvice/benefits-and-helpful-information 25 Frontline | Frontline | Autumn | Autumn 20132013 | 25
REVIEWS | Books
REVIEWS Handbook on European Law relating to asylum, borders and immigration Published by European Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), 2013. Free.
identifies the applicable EU and CoE legislation and, crucially, the key case law for each issue. Therefore, a practitioner can quickly identify the correct directive and the leading case which might help her formulate an argument. The handbook’s annex also includes a very handy table showing which country has ratified which EU Directive and Regulation as well as a guide to finding (the hitherto wellhidden) caselaw of the European courts. This handbook is an essential reference tool – whether or not you are comfortable with the idea of Europe being a primary source of law. Liz Griffith, Policy Officer, Law Centre (NI)
Eurosceptic rhetoric may be on the rise in the halls of Westminster but the fact remains that European law provides an increasingly important framework for the protection of the rights of its citizens and for foreigners too. European law cannot be ignored by legal practitioners or policy makers. It is, however, undeniably complicated with a seemingly endless array of conventions, legal instruments and institutions. It is often hard to know where to start: which piece of legislation governs which right? what remedy is available if a right is violated? The Handbook on European Law relating to asylum, borders and immigration provides the answers. The handbook provides a concise overview of the two European legal orders regulating migration: the Council of Europe (CoE) legal system, primarily encompassing the European Convention of Human Rights and ECtHR caselaw; and the European Union (EU) legal system, encompassing the relevant regulations, directives, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and caselaw issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The handbook breaks migration down into topics. Each topic is presented in a table, which clearly
26 | Frontline | Autumn 2013
Campaigning Toolkit National Coalition of Anti-deportation Campaigns. Free from www.ncadc. org.uk/toolkit
The Campaigning Toolkit was published by the National Coalition of Anti-deportation Campaigns (NCADC). The main idea for this book is to be an aid to understanding the asylum and immigration systems in the UK, and to campaigning for the right to stay. The toolkit explains the
procedures involved in campaigning to stay, different campaign categories, strategies to stop deportations, legal background and its importance, also some of the solutions for inevitable situations during the campaign process. However, this toolkit is not intended to be understood as legal advice. Its glossary contains fully explained legal and non-legal terms which relate to the asylum and immigration system, helping readers to easily understand terms they have never encountered before; and its step by step approach on the process, useful sources/links, real case history/case studies and some of the immigration process explained with the help of diagrams make this toolkit simply a reader-friendly book. It is important to know about what’s going on in your case and what your rights are as an asylum seeker. It is also important information for an asylum seeker’s supporters/supporting organisations working to stop deportation and obtain leave to remain in the UK. This book will help to identify the legal side of your case which provides the back bone for the campaign, for getting support from the wider community, and for arguing about injustice. I would really recommend this book to the supporters/supporting organisation of an individual asylum seeker or the organisations who want to help migrants’ voices to be heard. It is a highly recommended resource for those asylum seekers who have newly applied or been refused and are waiting for a tribunal decision. Most importantly, it can help you to prepare yourself for possible future detention/threat to be deported. As an asylum seeker, it is always better to be prepared for the worst so at least something could work in your favour while you are in the situation. Geerthanshan Manoharan Gee is currently seeking asylum. He is a member of Belfast Friendship Club and was recently released from detention.
Library news A selection of new publications added to the shelves of the Law Centre’s library
Books/reports A guide to data protection. Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA) 2013 (available online) Handbook on European law relating to asylum, borders and immigration. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2013. (available online) Human rights of unaccompanied migrant children and young people in the UK. First Report of Session 2013-14. (HL Paper 9) House of Lords and House of Commons. Joint Committee on Human Rights. Study of expenditure poverty in Northern Ireland, February 2013 (Final report to the OFMDFM branch) by Prof Paddy Hillyard and Dr Demi Patsios Welfare benefits for marginalized EU migrants: special non-contributory benefits in the UK, the Republic of Ireland and the Netherlands (input from Aire Centre, Garden Chambers and Federation of Legal Advice Centres , Dublin(FLAC)), by Eleanor Sibley, producer, and Marieke Widmann, editor. 2013 Personal Independence Payment: what you need to know. Child Poverty Action Group, 2013.
Journal articles The arts in refugee camps: ten good reasons. Forced Migration Review, May 2013 Charitable help – how the voluntary sector is supporting the welfare state, by Jude Doherty. Adviser 158 July/August 2013 Four ways to get legal aid for welfare rights problems – Part 2. Legal Action July/August 2013 Recent developments in prison law. Legal Action July/August 2013 Social welfare law and asylum seekers in Ireland: an anatomy of exclusion. J. Social Security Law 20 (2) 2013 Welfare reform, increased conditionality and discretion: Jobcentre Plus advisers’ experiences of targets and sanctions, by Aimee Grant. Journal of Poverty and Social Justice 21 (2) June 2013 Forced Migration – special LGBT issue
Mental health art & film festival Northern Ireland’s first ever mental health festival will be held from 10 to 13 October, to coincide with World Mental Health Day. The festival spans music and song, film, visual arts, photography, poetry and wellness. Organized by a steering group from the arts, mental health, community and voluntary sectors, it will profile challenging work being done in film with mental health service users, will launch a new music CD, host a Health and Happiness roadshow and programme concerts, readings and live events.
Inside Out: What You Don’t See, a panel discussion on offender mental health, and launch of exhibition, will take place on 10 October, 6pm, Whitla Hall and Naughton Gallery, QUB. To confirm attendance email: coe@qub.ac.uk For more information on other festival events, join the Facebook page
at: www.facebook.com/NiMentalHealthArtsFilmFestival
Frontline | Autumn 2013 | 27
Encyclopedia of Rights
training at Law Centre (NI)
Law Centre (NI) Encyclopedia of Rights was updated this summer
Belfast
With essential information for advisers on:
10/10 Personal Independence Payment 16/10
ww benefits and tax credits;
Tribunal Representation – six days
ww employment rights;
17/10 Advocacy Skills - two days 22/11
ww rights and benefits in community care; and
Immigration Law and Criminal Justice
ww immigration and marriage/civil partnership and other family relationships.
26/11 Challenging Tax Credit Decisions: Overpayments 28/11 Understanding Universal Credit 29/11
The Rights of Agency Workers
Read it online: www.lawcentreni.org/EoR
06/12 WRAP Refresher - Means Tested Benefits
Derry 08/10 Welfare Rights Adviser Programme – eight days 05/12 Personal Independence Payment 10/12 WRAP Refresher - Means Tested Benefits
All Law Centre courses count towards CPD requirements for solicitors, barristers and CAB advisers. Contact Elaine McCorriston for details: admin.derry@lawcentreniwest.org or visit www.lawcentreni.org. Full Training Programme online: www.lawcentreni.org/training/training-programme
Training and conference rooms for hire
SAVE THE DATE Pro-Bono in Practice: International Perspectives
8 November 2013 A conference by Law Centre (NI)’s Legal Support Projects See www.lawcentreni.org for more details
Advertise in Frontline Reach over 500 organisations in the voluntary advice sector, social services, trade unions, solicitors practices, statutory organisations, libraries, legal departments of universities throughout Northern Ireland. Frontline is also distributed to MLAs and placed on the Law Centre’s website.
The Law Centre’s training and conference room seats 40 people and can be hired at the rates listed below. An additional meeting room, seating ten people, can be booked subject to availability, at rates to be negotiated. Members
Non-members
£60 (half day) £120 (full day)
£70 (half day) £140 (full day)
These rates include the hire of the room and use of equipment, which must be pre-booked and is subject to availability. Catering also available.
For more information or to book: contact Ann Cartwright on: 028 9024 4401 or email: ann.cartwright@lawcentreni.org
28 | Frontline | Autumn 2013
n 1/8 page
£50
n 1/4 page
£80
n 1/2 page
£120
n full page (inside)
£200
n sponsorship advert:
£500
(full back page plus special mention)
We can design your advert or take cameraready copy. For more information contact Catherine Couvert, Publications Officer Telephone: 028 9024 4401 Email: catherine.couvert@lawcentreni.org