UC and in work requirements

Hi, we are not yet in a UC area (but will be very shortly) im just catching up on some rightsnets articles, and have just read an amendment to UC reg 99 (6), its a bit early in the morning, so apologies if my brain isnt functioning correctly, but I would like to clarify some info if I can. Before reading this, I was under the impression that those who were in work who were earning below their individual earnings threshold (usually 35 hrs x nmw but adapted for caring etc) would still face ‘requirements’ to help them increase earnings through obtaining better paid work, more work, etc to bring them above the threshold.

so is regulation 99 (6) now saying this isnt the case, and they are running a pilot instead so where somone is above JSA limits plus disregards, they now wont have to meet work requirements?

Im sure this is all very simple really
thanks for your help :)

If you look at what was said in the committee considering this measure you will see (heavily edited):

P
The Minister for Employment (Esther McVey):...The regulations before the Committee today introduce powers to test a range of approaches to establish how we can best support working universal credit claimants who are on low earnings to progress and earn more, which is core to universal credit delivery.

...One of the key reforms that we are now looking to explore in universal credit is how we will support working claimants in some of the lowest-income households who could reasonably be expected to earn more.

Our objective is simple: we want to help influence and support low-paid claimants to progress in work and increase their pay so that they are earning above the level of a full-time job at the national minimum wage, where they are able to do so. ...

... It is about supporting individuals on universal credit who earn less than £12,000 per year on average and who can earn more. These were traditionally low-earning tax credit claimants—those who do not routinely get support to earn more and who do not have any real expectations placed on them now. This is the first time any nation has attempted to work with claimants to increase earnings….

there is very little evidence nationally and internationally about the impact that labour market policies will have in helping people to earn more. We have therefore developed a comprehensive test-and-learn strategy to test a range of different interventions, how they are delivered and when they are provided. The draft regulations will give us the opportunity to test a range of things. The interventions will cover a number of established different levers and our strategy focuses on four key areas: the support we can provide claimants to progress in work; how we test and use conditionality to drive the behaviours we want to build; and how we can engage with and work with employers to come up with solutions.

... Another key area is what we might do to change or test new financial incentives that could drive more people to want to work and earn more. The regulations provide a framework to build on this evidence, supporting randomised control trials to test a number of approaches and to track behaviours. The first of the randomised controlled trials that we plan to deliver under the regulations will begin in April 2015. It will centre on providing work coaching and support to low-earning claimants in order to set relevant goals and aspirations and help individuals to consider what they could do to increase their earnings and what activities they should undertake. As part of the trial, some of those activities could be mandatory, specifically where they offer claimants a strong opportunity to increase their salaries.

In the first trial, we will also test the impact on progress of different frequencies of conversation with claimants, comparing fortnightly discussions and every few months. Many trial participants will be expected and required to do more to increase their earnings, but only where reasonable. We recognise that individual circumstances mean that that approach is not appropriate for everyone. For that reason, some groups such as recent victims of domestic violence will be specifically excluded from the trials, as will self-employed claimants. Universal credit already fully supports people on low earnings in self-employment to establish their businesses; that group needs a different and more specific kind of support for their circumstances. ...  Under jobseeker’s allowance, a person would not be mandated to take a zero-hours contract at all. Under universal credit, we will do this where it could help someone. Obviously, they will still be on benefits and we could support the extra hours. However, where it is an exclusive zero-hours contract, this will not be allowed and we will not do it.

people to take that job. Where it is not, we will not.

...  no in-work pilot participants in any in-work trials would ever be expected or required to do more than claimants who are out of work and expected to find work. ... the wording of the regulations is intentionally broad and is intended to provide an essentially flexible vehicle for exploring the impact and role of each of the key levers for different claimant groups.

Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab): ...  we support the principle of universal credit. She is right that it provides an opportunity to support progression because people continue to be claimants of universal credit once they have gone into work in a way that has not been available in the past. That is one of its advantages. As I understand it, claimants of universal credit are not subject to any of the arrangements at the moment—there is no support for progression for those who are currently claiming universal credit, and no in-work conditionality. Will she confirm that that is the case?

...  What does she understand or expect the resource implications of in-work conditionality to be?

... does the Minister envisage employers having a role in applying in-work conditionality? If so, what is that role likely to be? Does she envisage requiring people, in some circumstances, to change their job to increase their pay? Are we going to have some pilots where people might be required to change their job and some where they will not? Does she expect it to be possible in all the pilots for people to be required to change their job to increase their pay? Can she tell us a little more about that? Generally, given that the explanatory memorandum tells us that the aim is to trial the provision of a range of support, can she tell us some more about what that range is going to be?

...
The hon. Member for Amber Valley asked a good question about the use of sanctions. I am not sure what he understood from the Minister’s answer, but it certainly did not sound to me as though the Minister was saying, “