• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Joint Public Issues Team

Churches working for peace and justice

  • Home Page
  • Who We Are
    • Six hopes for society
  • Issues
    • Economy
      • Tax Justice
      • Reset The Debt
      • Living Wage
    • Environment
      • Net Zero In My Neighbourhood
    • Poverty and Inequality
      • The Cost of Living Crisis
      • Universal Credit
      • Truth and Lies
      • Enough
      • Rethink Sanctions
      • Faith in Foodbanks
      • Housing and Homelessness
    • Asylum and Migration
      • Refugees
      • End Hostility
      • The Asylum System
    • Peacemaking
      • The Arms Trade
      • Nuclear Weapons
      • Drones
      • Peacemaking resources
    • Politics and Elections
      • Elections
      • Meet Your MP
      • Art of the Possible
      • Brexit
    • Other Issues
      • International Development
      • Modern Slavery and Exploitation
        • Forced labour in fashion
  • Get Involved
    • JPIT Conference 2022
    • Newsletter
    • Events
    • Walking with Micah
  • Resources
    • Advent
    • 10 Minutes on… podcast
    • Politics in the Pulpit?
    • Stay and Pray
    • Season of Creation
    • Prayers
    • Public Issues Calendar
    • Poetry
    • Small Group Resources
  • Blog

Action, Blog, Poverty and Inequality · 9 June, 2015

#rethinksanctions:Responding to your MP

Hundreds of people have contacted their MP about Benefit Sanctions. Some of the replies have been positive. The replies which have been less positive have used a shared set of arguments. Below are the arguments used in support of the sanctions regime and our response to them. We hope this may help you in replying to your MP and continuing to challenge the unjust Benefit Sanction regime.

Read Rethink Sanctions here.

1. It is important to have a system based on fairness. Claimants have a responsibility to do everything they can to get back into work.
Claimants – just like those in work – have both rights and responsibilities and no-one questions this. What we are questioning is the fairness and effectiveness of the sanctions system in policing these rights and responsibilities.
For example those of us who are employed would probably not accept having our salary stopped for a month because we did not meet our weekly performance targets. A benefit claimant who is judged to have not applied for the correct number of jobs will lose their benefits for a month. It seems grossly unfair to hold claimants up to higher standards than we would expect of others.

2. “Sanctions are only used for a “tiny minority”

18% of Jobseekers were sanctioned last year, 22% over the past 5 years. In a single year over 1 million people were sanctioned. The sanctions regime punishes more people than the Magistrate’s and Sheriffs court systems combined. The numbers are often played down by quoting monthly rather than annual rates (in the same way as a payday lender would) but by any reasonable estimation the sanctions regime is huge.

3. The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) does not recognise the figure that

100,000 children were affected by sanctions.
This is the Department for Work and Pension’s own figure obtained from them via a freedom of information request. It does not include the sizable number of children whose families were sanctioned and later won back their benefits via appeal. The fact that the sanctions regime affects so many children is troubling – we do not believe that the failing to recognise your own evidence, as the DWP is doing, is an appropriate response to troubling facts.

4. People sanctioned who are in genuine need are able to apply for hardship payments.
Most people who are sanctioned are not permitted to apply for a hardship payment for the first two weeks of a sanction – even if they are able to demonstrate genuine need.

The DWP acknowledges this is likely to lead to “a deterioration in health” but states that this is necessary in order to maintain the “deterrent effect of sanctions”. Foodbanks have become vital for such people who are barred from support, regardless of their needs.
For all people sanctioned the definition of genuine need is extremely tight. For example claimants must demonstrate they have no resources to meet basic need and have considered charities, foodbanks and borrowing from friends and family as alternate sources of help. It is important to note that hardship payments are gradually becoming hardship loans.

5. Sanctions are used as a last resort.
A reasonable person may view the phrase “a last resort” as meaning other options have been explored and that a number of attempts have been made to challenge a claimant’s behaviour before sanctions are used. This is not the DWP’s understanding of the phrase. When asked to explain the policy the Department replied

“DWP uses the term ‘last resort’ in reference to the fact that there are many safeguards in place to prevent sanctions being inappropriately applied”.

The Department’s policy is that claimants should be referred for a sanction “first-time every time” if they are judged to have breached the detailed conditions set out in a document called a Claimant Commitment. The experience of claimants, foodbanks as well as testimony from Jobcentre workers is that sanctions are not used as a last resort but instead are readily given out for minor infractions.

6. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) does not sanction vulnerable claimants – such as those with learning difficulties or mental health conditions without making every effort to contact them, their carer, or their healthcare professional first.

We have heard repeated testimony that for many people the first they know about a sanction is when they go to the cash machine to find the money has not entered their account.
It is important to note that it is accepted that large numbers of vulnerable people have their benefit removed because of sanction. Each day 100 people who are unfit for work because of mental health conditions have their sickness or disability benefit sanctioned. The question is not about how hard the DWP attempts to contact people or their carers but the justice of the widespread removal of vulnerable people’s benefits.

7. The decision to impose a sanction is taken by an independent decision maker, and everyone is made aware of their right to appeal. Claimants have every opportunity to present additional evidence.

The Department for Work and Pensions directly or indirectly employs all those who refer people for a sanction as well as all those who make the decision to sanction and all their managers. The decision maker will not meet the claimant and will probably not talk to the claimant. Decisions are made on the balance of probabilities and the maximum value of benefit loss that can be imposed by a decision maker is over £10,000.
The immediate right of appeal to the independent tribunal service has been removed and claimants must first undergo internal procedures to challenge a sanctions decision. These processes are time limited and must be completed while the family is undergoing the sanction or the right to appeal is lost. Many give up challenging the decision in order to focus on the immediate problem of surviving the sanction period.
Even if an appeal is upheld, this is often too late for some people who are already forced into the situation of having to turn to friends, families or foodbanks in order to feed themselves or their families. Others end up getting into debt, a situation they cannot get out of even if the sanction is eventually overturned.

8. Benefit sanctions are not new: they have existed for decades to encourage people to engage with the support being offered.

Before 1997 when an unemployed person didn’t meet a condition for claiming benefit, such as actively seeking work, they were removed from the benefit roll and payment stopped. As soon as they started looking for work again they could reapply for benefit.

A sanction is very different – it a deliberate punishment removing benefit for a fixed period of time, usually a month. People who are sanctioned although they are not receiving any money must continue to obey the Jobcentre by doing things, such as applying for jobs or attending courses, or face further punishments. This principle was extended to some sick and disabled claimants in 2007.

Over the past 5 years however the sanctions regime has been applied more vigorously and since 2012 the duration of sanctions has increased enormously. It is disturbing that a benefit system intended to provide for the needy and vulnerable is now effectively used as a means of coercion and compliance.

And finally – Has the MP said if he supports our call for an independent inquiry into Benefit Sanctions?

Witnesses infront of the DWP Select Committee, including Nikki Hart of Methodist Action North West.s is the key ask of the campaign. It is backed by churches, charities, and the House of Commons Select Committee and in any correspondence it is important that MPs are pressed on the issue.

In any response it is important to ask the question:

Do you support the call of many churches charities and the DWP Select Committee for a full independent inquiry into benefit sanctions?

 

Filed Under: Action, Blog, Poverty and Inequality

Paul Morrison

I am the policy advisor with particular responsibility for issues around the economy including poverty and inequality. Prior to working for the Methodist Church I was a postdoctoral researcher at Imperial College studying viral disease and vaccine design.

Previous Post: « Think Pray Vote… What’s next?
Next Post: You don’t get to call it a Living Wage unless you can live on it »

Primary Sidebar

Search

Recent Posts

  • JPIT’s Review of 2022
  • What does Government Support for Asylum Seekers really provide?
  • God with Us – the Refugees of Calais and Dunkirk
  • How can we respond to COP27?
  • Statement on the conclusion of the COP27 Climate Conference in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt
  • COP27 – what should we be looking for?
  • “He has filled the hungry with good things” – What we need from the Autumn Budget
  • What are the stories we should tell about the humanitarian crisis at Manston Airport Asylum centre?
  • How can we be sure that the products we buy are not the result of modern slavery?
  • Why I hate Warm Banks (and why my church is opening one)
  • How does our theology call us to challenge Poverty?
  • Introducing Alfie
  • Biden says nuclear risk is the highest since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis
  • Churches respond to risk to benefit levels
  • Briefing on the ‘Mini Budget’ for the Enough to Live group
  • Introducing Hazel
  • Introducing Hannah
  • An energy cap announcement in three parts: the good, the absent and the ugly
  • Afghanistan and the UK – One Year On from the Fall Of Kabul
  • Inflation, interest rates and the poorest

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter

Footer

Follow us

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Quick links

Stay and Pray
Politics in the Pulpit
Faith in Politics podcast
Public Issues Calendar
Useful Links

Our work

About Us
Meet the Team
Join the Team 
Internship
Our Newsletter

Contact us

25 Marylebone Road
London NW1 5JR

Tel: 020 7916 8632

enquiries@jpit.uk

Copyright © 2023 · Showcase Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in