DPAC is extremely disappointed by the Work and Pensions Committee’s report on the use of sanctions[i].
It seems that the Committee has many worries, concerns, and disquiet about the use of sanctions, but does not go further than recommending a full inquiry for the next Parliament.
Meanwhile, claimants are being threatened and bullied in jobcentres, driven to destitution through the use of sanctions and denied final recourse by the disinclination of jobcentres to advertise or award hardship payments. Others are driven to desperation and suicide.
Perhaps this outcome is not entirely unexpected. After all, both Tories and Labour agree there is a need to use sanctions in the benefits system, although evidence showing their effectiveness is patchy and unconvincing. The first sentence of the Report’s Summary spells it out clearly: ‘Unemployment benefits have always been conditional. A system of disallowances where claimants do not meet the underlying entitlement conditions, including being involuntarily unemployed, available for work, and actively seeking work, has existed with some variations since the introduction of Unemployment Benefit in 1911’.
What is omitted and plays on the current understanding of conditionality, is that initially conditionality meant that claimants had to look for work in order to get their benefits. It is only more recently that sanctions have been used. Study after study have been undertaken to prove the effectiveness of sanctions, in vain. Although some studies have found that they can lead to a move into work, it is accepted that these jobs are low skilled, short term and badly paid.
The question the Work and Pensions Committee did not ask itself is whether this small gain in employment is worth all the suffering deliberately inflicted on claimants. Everybody seems to agree that claimants playing the system represent a tiny minority, but it is the vast majority of claimants who are trying very hard to find a job, who have mental health problems or other serious issues, who get caught up in this web of punishment, bullying and threats.
The Work and Pensions Committee was presented with clear evidence of sanction targets but is still asking for an inquiry.
The Work and Pensions Committee was presented with clear evidence of hardship payment denial but is still asking for an inquiry.
The Work and Pensions Committee was presented with clear evidence of people’s suffering but is still asking for an inquiry rather than demanding an immediate moratorium on sanctions, before an inquiry is undertaken.
Furthermore, the Work and Pensions Committee recognises that evidence presented by Esther McVey relied on data pre-dating the new sanction regime: ‘It is a concern that the Minister provided evidence to us on destinations of JSA, Income Support and ESA claimants from 2011, that pre-dated the new sanctions regime (NSR) introduced in 2012, in an attempt to challenge the findings of the University of Oxford/LSHTM study on the effects of the NSR on getting JSA claimants offflow. This was regrettable’.
It is not the only time Esther McVey has been economical with the truth during this inquiry. During her session with the Work and Pensions Committee, she stated: ‘But we know it [sanctions] is acting as a deterrent from the claimants themselves, who say they are at least 70% more likely to follow it because that deterrent is there. We know it works. Again, the vast majority of people adhere to the system because that deterrent is there’[ii].
A Freedom of Information request was made to elicit the evidence on which this statement was made. The response of DWP[iii] led to this document[iv]: (page 157). Although it looks good on the face of it, there are huge discrepancies in compliance because of sanctions between the different types of claimants, and also one very important sentence had been omitted by Esther McVey: ‘However, there was no evidence from the survey that knowledge of JSA conditions led to actual movement into work. Respondents who said they were more likely to look for work because of their knowledge of JSA conditions were no more likely than other respondents to have moved into work when they left JSA’.
For all these reasons, DPAC is disappointed by the Work and Pensions Committee’s report and DPAC remains totally opposed to the use of sanctions, not only because they are ineffective (if not counter productive), but because they represent institutional abuse by the state against its citizens.
[i] https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmworpen/814/814.pdf
[ii] https://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/work-and-pensions-committee/benefit-sanctions-policy-beyond-the-oakley-review/oral/17970.html
[iii] https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/252642/response/623750/attach/2/FoI%20488.pdf
[iv] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/261656/rrep852.pdf
Did you really expect to get an honest report from the DWP?
Actually yes! Civil servants are meant to be apolitical, working to standards of natural justice.