1 Introduction
In the text of this Report, our conclusions are set
out in bold type and our recommendations, to which the
Government is required to respond, are set out in bold italic
type.
Benefit sanctions
1. Unemployment benefits have always been conditional.
In order to receive financial support while unemployed, claimants
have typically been required to demonstrate that: they are involuntarily
unemployed; they have not been dismissed from a job through misconduct;
and are both available for, and looking for, work. A system of
disallowances, or disqualifications, where claimants fail to meet
these types of underlying entitlement conditions has existed since
the introduction of unemployment benefit in 1911.
2. The nature of unemployment benefit conditions"conditionality"has
developed considerably over recent decades. Jobcentre Plus (JCP)
Advisers (now known as Work Coaches) can now require claimants
to demonstrate that they are taking many more steps towards finding
work than was previously the case; and these steps can be more
precisely defined. Claimants' participation in a number of externally
contracted Back to Work schemes, including unpaid work placements,
can also be mandatory.
3. A system of benefit sanctionscessation
of benefit payments for open-ended or fixed periodshas
developed alongside more stringent benefit conditions over the
last four decades. The application, or deterrent threat, of sanctions
where claimants fail to meet the agreed, or prescribed, conditions
is intended to influence claimants' behaviour positively: to encourage
them to participate in activity aimed at getting them into work.
This much more "active" system of employment support
is now the norm in developed economies.
4. There has been an apparent mainstream political
consensus for the development of benefit sanctions policy and
the direction of travel has been maintained under successive governments
since the 1980s. However, it is by nature a controversial policy
area, as sanctions withhold subsistence-level unemployment benefits
from people who may have little or no other income. Furthermore,
the system is now applied to a wider range of unemployed claimants,
including many with long-term health conditions and disabilities,
and single parents with caring responsibilities for young children.[1]
Background to our inquiry
5. We considered conditionality and sanctions as
part of a previous inquiry into Jobcentre Plus in the reformed
welfare system. Our January 2014 Report set out serious concerns
about: the extent to which benefit sanctions were being applied;
whether the rules were always clear, and being fairly and proportionately
applied by JCP and its parent department, the Department for Work
and Pensions (DWP); and the wider social impacts on claimants,
particularly whether sanctions were contributing to severe financial
hardship and food poverty.[2]
6. During our previous inquiry the Government established
an independent review of Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) sanctions
"validated by the Jobseekers Act 2013". The review was
carried out by Matthew Oakley, who is a member of the Social Security
Advisory Committee (and was previously Head of Economics and Social
Policy at Policy Exchange). The scope of the Oakley Review was
limited to JSA sanctions in relation to externally contracted
mandatory Back to Work schemes; it did not consider sanctions
applied to claimants within the standard DWP/JCP system. The review
was further limited in scope to consider issues concerned with
DWP's communications with claimants and contracted providers of
the schemes, and claimants' understanding of the sanctioning process,
including their options in respect of challenging DWP's decisions
and applying for hardship payments. The Oakley Review, together
with the Government's response, was published in July 2014.[3]
We recognise that the implementation of many of Mr Oakley's recommendations
has been extended to claimants outside the original remit of the
Oakley Review.
7. Given the concerns identified in our 2013-14 inquiry,
and the tightly constrained scope of the Oakley Review, our Report
recommended that DWP commission a second, broader independent
review of the benefit sanctions system, including all sanctions
applied within DWP/JCP. Despite the Minister for Employment
(Rt Hon Esther McVey MP) appearing to indicate during oral evidence
that such a review was planned, our recommendation was rejected
by the Government in its formal response to our Report.[4]
8. We decided to conduct a further inquiry in order
to follow up some of the issues set out in our January 2014 Report,
and to consider areas of benefit sanctions policy which were outside
the scope of the Oakley Review, including Employment and Support
Allowance (ESA) sanctions, applied to unemployed people with health
conditions and disabilities. We also wanted to explore the impacts
of the new sanctions regime and alternatives to the financial
sanctions being applied.
9. This Report does not rehearse at length all of
the issues and concerns set out in our previous Report; however,
similar concerns about how the conditionality and sanctions system
is being applied in some Jobcentre Plus offices and districts
were reiterated by a range of witnesses. We received new evidence
from the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS), representing
DWP staff involved in the benefit sanctioning process, which raised
further concerns about the approach adopted in a number of individual
Jobcentres, and more broadly, including whether targets for sanctions
exist. There was very widespread support from witnesses for our
earlier call for a broader independent review. Our starting point
in this Report is therefore a reiteration that:
We recommend that DWP commission a broad independent
review of benefit conditionality and sanctions, to investigate
whether sanctions are being applied appropriately, fairly and
proportionately, in accordance with the relevant Regulations and
guidance, across the Jobcentre Plus network. This review should
be established and report as soon as is practicable in the next
Parliament.
This inquiry and Report
10. We announced our terms of reference and issued
a call for evidence in November 2014. We received around 160 written
submissions from a range of organisations and individuals and
held three oral evidence sessions, including a final session with
the DWP Minister.[5] We
are grateful to everyone who contributed to our inquiry, particularly
the individual claimants who took the time to share their experiences
with us.
1 Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Welfare Sanctions and Conditionality in the UK,
September 2014 Back
2
Work and Pensions Committee, Second Report of Session 2013-14,
The role of Jobcentre Plus in the reformed welfare system, HC
479 [hereafter, JCP Report] Back
3
Oakley, M, Independent review of the operation of Jobseeker's Allowance sanctions validated by the Jobseekers Act 2013,
July 2014 [hereafter, Oakley Review]; DWP, Government's response to the Independent review of the operation of Jobseeker's Allowance sanctions validated by the Jobseekers Act 2013,
Cm 8904, July 2014 [hereafter, Government response to the Oakley
Review] Back
4
Work and Pensions Committee, Third Special Report of Session 2013-14,
Role of Jobcentre Plus in the reformed welfare system: Government Response to the Committee's Second Report of Session 2013-14,
HC 1210 Back
5
Lists of oral witnesses and written evidence are set out at the
end of the report. Back
|