Jobcentre Plus sign.

A full independent review should be established to investigate whether benefit sanctions are being applied ‘appropriately, fairly and proportionately’, says the Work and Pensions Committee.

The Committee reiterates this recommendation, originally made in January 2014 but rejected by the Government, in the light of new evidence which raises concerns about the approach being adopted in a number of individual Jobcentres, and more broadly, including concerns about whether targets for sanctions exist.

The report calls for the independent review also to examine the legislative framework for benefit sanctions policy, to ensure that the basis for sanctioning is well-defined, and that safeguards to protect the vulnerable are clearly set out.

Dame Anne Begg MP, Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, said: “Benefit sanctions are controversial because they withhold subsistence-level benefits from people who may have little or no other income.

“We agree that benefit conditionality is necessary but it is essential that policy is based on clear evidence of what works in terms of encouraging people to take up the support which is available to help them get back into work. The policy must then be applied fairly and proportionately.

“The system must also be capable of identifying and protecting vulnerable people, including those with mental health problems and learning disabilities. And it should avoid causing severe financial hardship. The system as currently applied does not always achieve this.”

She added: “Recent research suggests that benefit sanctions are contributing to food poverty.

“No claimant should have their benefit payment reduced to zero where they are at risk of severe financial hardship, to the extent of not being able to feed themselves or their families, or pay their rent.

“DWP’s (Department for Work and Pensions) discretionary hardship payment system is intended to prevent this happening, but it does not always do so.

“This is often because JSA hardship payments are not available until the 15th day of a sanction period. It is not reasonable to expect people to live without any source of income for 2 weeks. DWP should make all hardship payments available from day one of a sanction period.

“Problems also arise because the claimant is not aware of the application process for a hardship payment or because they are put off applying because of the difficulty in understanding and navigating the system.

“This needs to change. DWP should not wait for the claimant to apply for a hardship payment. It should initiate the process itself, and then coordinate the decision on hardship payments with decision-making on the sanction itself, particularly where the claimant has dependent children or is vulnerable.”

Investigating the deaths of vulnerable benefit claimants

The report notes that DWP currently investigates all deaths of benefit claimants “where suicide is associated with DWP activity”, and in other cases where the death of a vulnerable benefit claimant is brought to its attention, through a system of internal “peer reviews”. Since February 2012, DWP has carried out 49 peer reviews following the death of a benefit claimant.

DWP has stated that 33 of the 49 cases have resulted in recommendations for change at either local or national level.

However, it was unable to confirm in how many cases the claimant was subject to a benefit sanction, or provide any details about how its policies or procedures had been altered in response to the death of a claimant.

Dame Anne Begg said: “We have asked DWP to confirm the number of internal peer reviews in which the claimant was subject to a benefit sanction at the time of death, and the result of these reviews in terms of changes to DWP policy.

“It is important that all agencies involved in the provision of public services are scrutinised, to ensure that lessons are learned after members of the public are let down by the system, particularly where the failures of a public body may have contributed to a death.

“We believe that a new independent body should be established to fulfil this role.”

Increasing the evidence base on financial sanctions

The Committee finds that more “active” regimes, in which unemployed claimants are required to do more to find work, have been shown to be relatively effective; however, evidence on the specific part by played by financial sanctions within successful active regimes is limited and far from clear-cut.

The report calls for a series of evaluations to increase the evidence base, particularly around the efficacy and impacts of the new sanctions regime introduced by the Welfare Reform Act 2012.

Dame Anne Begg said: “The Government introduced longer minimum sanction periods without first testing their likely impacts on claimants.

“The minimum sanction period is now four weeks, rather than one week. It is important that the impacts of the new sanctions regime are properly evaluated.

“There is currently no evidence on whether the application, or deterrent threat, of a four-week sanction makes it more, or less, likely that a claimant will engage with employment support or gain work.

“This is an area of policy which must be based on robust evidence. The Department needs to demonstrate that the application of the new sanctions regime is not intended to be purely punitive.”

Full implementation of the Oakley review

The Oakley Review of Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) sanctions in relation to Back to Work Schemes, published in July 2014, made a number of recommendations aimed at improving some aspects of the sanctions system. This has already led to welcome changes, including improvements to DWP’s information to claimants about the sanctioning process, and the clarity of its claimant letters.

However, a number of the Oakley recommendations are yet to be fully implemented, in part due to the requirement for legislative change and/or contractual negotiations with Work Programme providers.

The Committee believes that DWP should take more urgent steps to fully implement the outstanding recommendations.

Dame Anne Begg commented: “DWP must take a more common-sense approach to mandatory Work Programme activity and sanction referrals.

“For example, it makes no sense, and is a considerable waste of administrative resources, for Work Programme providers to have to refer a claimant back to DWP for a sanction decision, even where they know that the claimant had a perfectly good reason for not meeting a particular requirement.

“In the negotiations to re-let the Work Programme contracts in 2017, DWP should prioritise the development of a more flexible approach to the setting of mandatory conditions.

“There is also widespread support for pre-sanction written warnings and non-financial sanctions. The Department should get on with piloting this approach.

“If it requires legislation, the Department should bring it forward as soon as possible in the new Parliament.”


Source: www.parliament.uk – published here under the Open Parliament Licence.


 

 

5 COMMENTS

  1. I know someone who was sanctioned for something that wasn’t her fault. Not only was she sanctioned when she went for her next appointment she asked if the sanction had been lifted. The interviewer didn’t even know how to end a sanction. The whole system iss a complete failure and needs redressing

    • Jenny if you hear of anyone else being sanctioned please get them to appeal it. I know its a long process but they have lost the money anyway and they could get it back. Ian Duncan Smith and the DWP hate claimants appealing any loss of benefit. 99% of JSA appeals are wins for the claimant. 90% of Atos appeals are also wins for the claimant.and around 7% are partial wins. and both are given benefit back.
      Its at the point the Tory lord has asked that people should not win back their backdated benefits as its like giving them free money. when it is not as the judge pointed out when ask it was money people were entitled to have back as it should have never been stopped.
      I know one person who has won two atos appeals within ten minutes of having his case heard. because Atos was shown as incapable of assessing his illness and the NHS doctors treating the illness were issuing medication that the research centre said was the only ones available to treat such a illness. The claimant hadn’t actually told lies he had understated what was wrong with him through a lack of medical knowledge. and any person medically qualified should have know this. The person to me and you would look slightly unhealthy but to a trained doctor who knows the condition knows full well the stage the illness is at and the persons ability throughout the entire day not just a 45 minute medical. please also tell people the Judge has a independent doctor at the appeal to take advice from. something Ian Duncan Smith didn’t want in the appeal system but cold not stop. You know a claimant has no right to ask a Atos medical examiner to see their medical qualification. and one can only take from that they have no medical qualification and are pulling a Little Britain computer sketch,.which is why people say the medicals are fake.

  2. trouble is its not saving monies it was aalways about getting the private sector to dip into that tax payers wasnt about savings jeff3

Leave a comment...

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.