Expert Working Group on Welfare – Phase 2 Call for Evidence

1. Underpinning objectives and principles

Earlier this year, SCVO produced a paper which outlined third sector thinking about the principles and objectives which might underpin a future welfare settlement in Scotland. The paper argues that the starting point for welfare in Scotland must be a vision about the kind of society we want Scotland to be. This in turn would shape a written constitution, and policies and legislation which could be taken forward in the event of a ‘yes’ vote next year. ^[i] “Seven principles for a fair society” were developed by the Campaign for a Fair Society.  Made up of a wide range of third sector organisation, the Campaign highlights that these principles could clearly underpin the creation of, and helps us to evaluate, alternative approaches to policy: Family:           Giving families support so that they are able to look after each other. Citizenship:   We are all of equal value and we each have unique and positive contributions to make. Community:   We support and root services in local communities. Connection:   We all have chances to make friends and build relationships. Capacity:        We help each other to be the best we can be. Equality:         We all share the same basic rights and entitlements Control:          We have the help we need to be in control of our own life, and support to live that life.^[ii] The simplicity of these seven principles is their key strength. We can all relate to them and we can see how they might apply to developing and evaluating policy. As the campaign outlines, these principles could be used to ensure people can become directly involved in shaping new approaches/systems^[iii]. With the White Paper Commitment to involve people within the benefits system in shaping a new welfare settlement, these principles would provide a good basis for co-production. The SCVO paper highlights further “positive principles” to underpin development of welfare and benefit policy in Scotland.  These have come from a scan of third sector thinking and papers and include: Ensuring human rights principles are central to a Scottish approach to welfare.  Linked to a written constitution, people should have key basic rights including the right to achieve their full potential. Many within the third sector will welcome a commitment to make this happen as outlined in “Scotland’s Future”.^[iv] The third sector is making a strong call for policy to be grounded in human rights principles as we look at the damage being done to families under the guise of “welfare reform”. This is not just about Westminster policy however. We would expect submissions from the sector to the Expert Group to highlight the challenges within e.g. social care; the need for unpaid carers to have greater rights; the challenges which disabled people face in achieving recognition and full access to the same opportunities which others enjoy. There are some suggestions that a human rights deficit exists in Scotland,^[v] [vi] – the debate around Scotland’s future and the type of welfare approach we want to see gives us an opportunity to take stock. Publication of the Scottish Human Rights Action[vii] may provide a roadmap for taking forward a more ‘human approach’ to welfare regardless of next year’s referendum result. Collectivism – this highlights that we all benefit from welfare and that as a society, we have a responsibility towards each other. Welfare policy and the benefits system is for and about all of us – it should not be about “them” and “us”, which is a key element of the current, negative discourse about benefits in the UK. The notion of collectivism relates to the concept of social investment outlined in the White paper^[viii], and is a key element of approaches to welfare in Nordic countries. A welfare system should be built together together – not something which is ‘done to people’ (co-production). Involving people in shaping a new welfare settlement may afford a very real opportunity to encourage people to buy into the notion of a more inclusive approach - and perhaps even challenge some of the existing negative attitudes to benefit recipients. A system which enables people to have choices about where they live, about work, and their ability to volunteer and so on, not a system which takes choice away.  This includes valuing voluntary contributions to society including volunteering and informal care which have economic as well as social benefits. A system which enhances dignity and respect – at a recent event hosted by the Coalition of Care Providers in Scotland (CCPS), delegates consistently provided evidence about poor and often degrading treatment of benefit claimants. A recent paper by Independent Living in Scotland on social care highlights the impact on dignity for people at the coalface of local authority cuts.^[ix] We must turn this around. A system which ensures people have access to a decent standard of living – is increasingly missing from our current system[x].  As sanctions increase, people are unable to afford the basics of day-to-day life[xi].  The opportunity to create a system which does not impoverish people, and especially those who are unable to work is acknowledged in “Scotland’s Future” with a promise to increase benefits (and pensions) in line with inflation[xii]. It’s important to point out, however, that in the event of a ‘yes’ vote, we would not be starting from the strongest position on this point following the benefit cap and limit to increases on many benefits.  We must also consider the relatively low value of some particular benefits e.g. Carers Allowance. Many of these principles are reflected “Scotland’s Future” and this is to be welcomed.  These are values which guide the third sector’s work with people across the country. We commend these principles to the Expert Group as it considers the output of “Scotland’s Future” and submissions to the call for evidence, and ask that it engages with the sector to consider how these principles might be realised through policy and approaches in a new system, and also in any subsequent changes which may arise as a result of further devolution, should there be a ‘no’ vote. The full SCVO paper can be found here.

2.   Social protection and social investment

The independence White Paper calls for a social investment approach to welfare in the result of a ‘yes’ vote.  This is something which the sector welcomes, as it moves towards an asset based view of welfare, rather than a focus on processes and systems which in the current scenario, provide only the most basic of safety nets.^[xiii] It also focuses on the “life course” – recognising the advantages of investing in people over the longer term – both the benefits system and wider welfare services are an investment in our society and affect all of us.  This approach moves away from a “them” and “us” approach to the welfare state explicit in elements of current political narrative. Whilst Nordic and other countries have faced significant challenges to their economies and welfare systems, they have weathered the recent economic crisis better than many^[xiv] – the economic and social justification for a strong social protection system is increasingly realised across Europe: "It is precisely those European countries with the most effective social protection systems and with the most developed social partnerships that are among the most successful and competitive economies in the world." [xv] The notion that the British system is contributory is increasingly recognised as a myth. There are strong voices increasingly arguing for a clear contributory principle, and that people who pay in should receive adequate benefits in the event of losing their job, ill health etc. [xvi] A stronger contributory link may be important if we are to rebuild faith in our welfare system.  But our concern is how we view those contributions – we must recognise that not everyone can take up paid work; however, they still contribute to society and to our economy. Moving toward an approach which seeks to both invest in and protect people will not be without its challenges – we must recognise that countries with stronger systems have achieved this through strong social partnerships and ‘buy-in’ as well as trust in the state. [xvii]

3.   Challenges for a new system

New welfare approach, same economic model – It’s important to emphasise the continued focus on the same neo-liberal economic model which led us to a position where inequality and poverty are increasing in a wealthy country. Whilst this is very visible in the current Coalition Government’s approach, it has also been picked up by political commentators in response to the Independence White Paper. [xviii]  Whilst the language in the White Paper is perhaps more nuanced, we still see a strong focus on GDP and on economic growth alone as something to strive for. Proposals around a more progressive taxation system may well be negated by a focus on reducing Corporation Tax – at a time when public concern about this issue is particularly high. The six key objectives of economic growth outlined in “Scotland’s Future” [xix] do not include an objective focussed on people i.e. who benefits from economic growth and how.  The continuation of a strategic approach that focusses on sustainable economic growth for its own sake is not enough – “..how that growth and any associated wealth is distributed leads to better and wider societal results.”[xx]  Without this change of direction, progressive welfare policies will not have the desired impact - dependency on benefits could still exist to fill cost of living gaps for the working poor. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has highlighted the specific challenges facing the labour market in the UK.[xxi] Measures announced in the White Paper may help mediate elements of in–work poverty (e.g. dual earners in Universal Credit) but won’t help to eradicate it.  In-work poverty will remain a significant challenge regardless of next year’s vote.  A different approach to the economy is needed – economic growth must be seen as the means and not an end in its own right. Creating policies which mirror life today and in future - In SCVO’s  “Positive Principles” paper, there are clear views from the third sector about the need for policy making to better reflect societal changes and challenges. For example: “Demographic change is bringing about a fundamental shift in how we all live, work and care… – rising life expectancy, shrinking family networks … huge progress in women’s workforce participation, greater incidence of disability and learning disability and advances …meaning that far more severely disabled children live into adulthood….For many families this is bringing a new mix of work, childcare and care for older and disabled loved ones – new challenges which previous generations have simply not faced.” [xxii] Traditional transitions e.g. from child to adult life, into old age are blurring and family life is increasingly complex - e.g. increasing numbers of sandwich carers. Therefore, having separate, ‘compartmentalised’ approaches to policy are no longer appropriate or work for us. In responding to these challenges,  we need to step back and consider how areas of policy which are not always associated with wellbeing and ‘welfare outcomes’ play a key role in helping families and communities respond to changing demography and societal changes. This includes looking at employment, transport, housing and planning policy, and capital investment, through a “welfare lens”[xxiii]. Boundaries between services are a key frustration for many families. Input to the last phase of the Expert Group highlighted the need for greater links between services and a more holistic approach to welfare policy[xxiv] – this is something which could happen within the current devolution settlement. Clearly though, opportunities to rethink how services such as social care could be more closely aligned with the benefits system present themselves with a ‘yes’ vote e.g. a key set of principles which underpin both. Opportunities present themselves with the commitment to widen access to childcare – considering how access to childcare support for families with disabled children interacts with education, housing and the benefits system. Building trust in the state - This is sorely needed if we are to tackle some of the more negative attitudes to welfare which exist.  Trust is an essential element in Nordic models [xxv] - especially trust in statutory institutions.  The success of recent narrative around the benefits system has been in pitting people against each other.  The sheer complexity of the benefits system and the bureaucracy in accessing wider ‘welfare services’ is such that people do not trust the system to work with or for them. The need to tackle public attitudes to welfare is, we believe, linked with the issue of trust. Public views of welfare and welfare policies are complex and intertwined with many factors including age, entitlements, how the system itself works and changing attitudes over time [xxvi] - but there is perhaps some hope in that across generations, the idea of reciprocity and a system which helps those in need is still seen to be important. [xxvii] As the Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland highlight in their response to “Scotland’s Future”, it doesn’t necessarily matter where powers lie: “The challenge now for all sides in the debate is to not just settle the constitutional question but to build the public support and political will needed to ensure investment in childcare and social security and a far fairer distribution of rewards and opportunities in the workplace are priorities wherever powers end up lying."[xxviii] Creating a strong social partnership – Employers, the state, the third sector and other key stakeholders need to move beyond the political sphere to create a joint approach to reshaping services. Creating a new benefits system requires will, leadership and to move beyond traditional dividing lines. We need an honest debate about our starting point - The debate about Scotland’s future presents us with a chance to do this.  We need to be clear about what has worked well within devolution and what hasn’t.  We talk about a lot about reforming public services but the reality on the ground for many is that these services work can against, and not for them.  Service complexity and bureaucracy are off putting at best.  At worst, people feel increasingly abandoned. At a time when resources are strained and demand for support is likely to increase, we need to find ways of supporting people’s capacity and support networks.  Research to be published by Quarriers may provide some real insight into these challenges.[xxix] Not considering what happens in the event of Scotland saying ‘no’ – and not taking up the opportunity to have a Plan B.  The offer from the “Better Together” campaign is not yet clear.  It is also not clear if the Scottish Government will make the case for further powers to be devolved,  should Scotland vote ‘no’ next September.  The momentum will be with the Scottish Government especially if the result is close, and whilst we focus on the wider debate and vision for welfare, we must not lose sight of the potential opportunity to push for administrative changes or additional powers which could help change people’s lives in very real and positive ways.

4.   Support into employment

The opportunity to bring together Scotland’s existing (devolved) skills and employability infrastructure with (reserved) welfare and benefits policy and employment programmes/legislation is an important one, should Scotland opt to become independent.  There is also an opportunity to:

• Review what works well both in programmes offered via reserved powers, and what works well in Scotland.
• Review existing structures and how well they are working, and also to combine complementary functions.

More importantly, gains in employment would mean savings in terms of increased tax take, which can directly benefit Scotland’s people. Learning from what works well – Community Jobs Scotland Managed by SCVO, Community Jobs Scotland (CJS) is a Scottish Government funded job creation programme. CJS enables young unemployed people to access paid work and additional training to progress into sustainable employment. It also helps to strengthen and develop third sector organisations taking part. Two evaluations of CJS have shown a range of positive outcomes which far outweigh those achieved by e.g. the Work Programme. Phase two of the programme will offer jobs which have wage incentives for people with disabilities. A further extension of the programme will target ex-offenders and young people leaving care, recognising their distance from the labour market and specific challenges in accessing employment.  With increasing evidence that the Work Programme is not reaching such groups^[xxx], this type of approach could provide a baseline for developing employability support in an independent Scotland – and even without further powers or control over currently reserved powers, the programme has much to offer. In a soon to be published evaluation of CJS, key outcomes include:

• The creation of 1,420 jobs across 383 third sector employers
• Jobs created across all 32 of Scotland’s local authorities
• 39% entered employment; 9% entered further education or training; 6% engaged in volunteering.

This compares favourably to the Work Programme – both in terms of time on the programme but also on outcomes e.g. for those who moved into the programme in its early stages, 22.5% of the June 2011 intake achieved a job outcome payment.[xxxi] More importantly, those who take part in CJS feel supported and have the opportunity to gain new skills and qualifications – whilst there are positive benefits for organisations which offer CJS opportunities. Across the lifetime of the scheme, and previously with the Future Jobs Fund, the third sector has created some of 6,482 job opportunities since 2009. The total investment in the programmes was just shy of £37 million[xxxii]. This shows the substantial potential of the sector to shape a new approach to employment services in Scotland – creating real opportunities for unemployed people to move back into the job market on a more competitive basis. The role of employers, trade unions and work bodies in developing employment and labour market policy is vital, and is highlighted in “Scotland’s Future” – the third sector also has a substantial role to play, as outlined above. Creative approaches to employment and flexibility in the workplace can help deal with some of the challenges outlined above.

5.   Policy choices

Throughout “Scotland’s Future” reference is made to the Nordic models and approaches to welfare.  Features of Nordic economies as well as welfare policies are part of the Common Weal approach.[xxxiii] In considering what might work well within a benefits system, it’s vital to recognise how this interacts with wider welfare policy. This was something which was highlighted in sessions held by the Expert Group in the first phase of its work (e.g. session with Poverty Alliance and Third Sector sessions[xxxiv].  Policies which are currently devolved to Scotland can lead to greater (or less) dependency on the benefits system. There may be much we can learn from other approaches to welfare policy in other countries, including those which are regarded as “developing”.  Work carried out by interns with SCVO earlier this year examined welfare and benefits policy across different continents. Some of these approaches looked to actively tackle poverty in countries where the notion of a welfare state is probably non-existent. Other approaches support social cooperative groups delivering ‘welfare services’. As highlighted above, the need to see how policies not traditionally associated with the benefits system might impact on the health and wellbeing outcomes of people should be considered by the Expert Group. Some examples highlighted by the interns include: Communities shaping poverty policy: Ubudehe, Rwanda Here, cellules were created (administrative units of around one hundred households). Each cellule worked through a process of identifying and defining the nature of poverty in their cellule, ranking the causes in terms of priority and identifying how money and resources would tackle key challenges. Each community developed solutions and an associated action plan.  A signed agreement between the community and other stakeholders is made public and an elected representative from the cellules oversees funds to implement the action plan. Evaluations of Ubudehe show that 1.4million people benefitted directly with improvements in income and positive impacts on social cohesion. The programme received a prestigious UN Public Service Award.[xxxv] Co-housing and planning regulations: Netherlands and Australia Co-housing developments are becoming more common in Europe with one development in Fife. They are common in the Netherlands and as well as being part of new housing developments, can be part of retro-fits of existing housing.  Age specific co-housing receives support from local authorities in the Netherlands, “based on the understanding that they contribute towards prevention of care costs.”[xxxvi] Helping people to stay active and connected to their local and wider community, co-housing requires the active involvement of residents, with some communities sharing their own resources more widely with their local communities.  Local authorities have contributed to the development of co-housing through resources, the creation of development posts and in the form of grants to enable residents to have more control over the environment in which they live. In Australia, planning regulations allow easier building of ‘granny flats’ which enable older relatives to stay near to (but separate from) their families. [xxxvii] Intergenerational sites, child and elder care: USA Such sites usually have care for children and older people delivered in the same place.  In  some cases, there are shared spaces to encourage interaction. Different options include senior centres located in schools, and community centres shared by younger and older generations. Benefits of such approaches include:

• Support for ‘sandwich carers’ who may only need to travel to one location to care for their elderly relatives and children.
• Sharing of resources and personnel – cost saving
• Building intergenerational learning, understanding and socialising
• Supporting child development, especially interpersonal and communication skills.
• Health benefits for elderly adults – including a sense of purpose from sharing their knowledge.
• Services are more ‘universal’ in the sense that the whole community and different age groups benefit.

The balance between more universal services versus cash benefits In countries such as Denmark, the focus is more on access to services such as childcare, as opposed to tax (cash) credits[xxxviii].  Louise Settle, an intern with SCVO argued that this may help if we are to build a system which everyone can buy into: “The availability of high-quality services reduces the burden on parents and unpaid carers and allows them to return to work or continue caring for longer. Public serves are more suitable for ensuring that high quality services are available to everyone, regardless of their location, socio-economic background or specialised needs. Furthermore, universal serves give the middle-class a stake in the social security system and removes the stigma associated with current distinctions between ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving poor’. This is essential if we want Scotland to be a more egalitarian society.”[xxxix] The White Paper commitment to move towards a more universal childcare service does not provide an answer to the balance between cash and services which might underpin such an approach.  The role that employers might play in creating services that are regarded as more universal must also be considered. The need for an effective social partnership to create a ‘Scottish Welfare State’ is recognised but must be strong and effective, able to stand the test of both time and political persuasion.

6.   Conclusion

The debate about Scotland’s future should now take off after publication of the White Paper – although we remain concerned that it will remain out of reach of those who would have most to offer, particularly in shaping a future welfare settlement for Scotland; that is, those who are part of the current system.  As part of the last phase of work, a session with the Poverty Alliance and the Expert Group consulted people affected by current benefit changes – their solutions and ideas were simple and related to how the system treated them. To that end, SCVO and colleagues from across the sector will welcome the focus in the white paper on dignity and respect.  But more needs to be done to ensure that people who are part of the welfare state have a clear role in shaping what that looks like. It becomes clearer each day that the direction of travel being taken at Westminster level will be one which will drive greater inequality and poverty.  Whatever the result of next year’s referendum as highlighted in our last response to the Expert Group now “is not a time for “risk-aversion” in policy making”.   As pointed out by the IPPR in its interim “Condition of Britain” report: “Many people are committed to helping themselves and others, and to working together to build a better society.”[xl] We can be brave and start to move towards systems and approaches which empower people, not take their quality of life away – or we can have more of the same if we remain on the same journey.  Regardless of the result next year, we have an opportunity here to truly realise the vision of Christie. Across the third sector, the call for real change is strong – we believe that submissions to the call for evidence will strongly demonstrate this. At a time when people increasingly feel disempowered electorally and in other ways, changing our approach to welfare, to social protection, provides an opportunity to give power back to people – to help them shape the kind of system that a future Scotland would take forward.  Let’s not duck this challenge but face it head on. Finally, a debate about welfare provides an opportunity to be open and honest about inequality in Scotland and how we tackle this. The work of the Expert Group, coupled with elements of the White Paper, bring the significant challenges that Scotland faces to the fore - publically, politically and in policy terms.  A frank debate about the nature of poverty and inequality in Scotland is long overdue.