We should welcome the recent call
from the Work and Pensions Committee for a full and independent review of the
benefit sanctions regime.
%2B558.jpg) |
Image: Jonny, Colin, Tony, Patricia, Ann, Mark, Geof, Cath and Pete;
volunteers at West Cheshire Foodbank sort public donations of food to
distribute to local people in crisis – one in ten people are referred to the
foodbank as the direct result of a sanction.
|
At West Cheshire Foodbank, more
than one
in ten households are referred as the direct result of a sanction.
This is when a person has their social security payments deliberately removed
because they are deemed not to have fully met the detailed requirements of
Jobcentre Plus. In 2014, over one million people in the UK had their social security payments stopped in this way, usually for four weeks, but in some cases for up to three years.
There is clear
evidence that sanctions place significant numbers of individuals and
families in a position where they cannot afford foodi.
Furthermore, new
research by a national coalition of churches shows that the sanctions
regime disproportionately affects people who are young, leaving care, homeless,
single or who have a long term illness or mental health problem”ii.
The DWP recognises that,
with no resources to fall back on, even healthy adults will inevitably “suffer
some deterioration in their health”iii. When Philiv missed an appointment made by Jobcentre Plus, he had his benefits sanctioned
for four weeks throwing him and his family in to a crisis situation. He told us
“I have three children to feed and it is
very hard to manage”. Research by the Methodist Church shows that the
situation Phil and his family were in is common: in 2013/14, around 100,000
children were affected by sanctionsv.
Seaniv explained that
he was also referred to the Foodbank because of a sanction: "I was at CAB sorting out my housing benefit
and could not make an appointment for the IT suite. I phoned up as soon as I
realised I could not make the IT suite and told them I was at CAB sorting my
housing benefit but I was still put on a sanction."
Lilyiv was referred to
the foodbank after she was sanctioned. She told us "I have been sanctioned because I had an appointment for a job
search. I went to the appointment, I signed in and signed back out because I
was told there were no computers free. I was told to go back which I did but
there were still no computers free. Then I was told to make another date to
come back. I am still waiting for the appointment to go back."
Mayiv was sanctioned for
four weeks because she did not attend an interview. She had recently moved into
a hostel and said “when I didn’t receive
an interview letter I was sanctioned”. May continued “The hostel I've recently moved into told me to go
to Foodbank. I am good with money and usually do myself a food
shop".
Although the Department for Work
and Pensions says there is a system of hardship payments in place, very few of
the people who have had to turn to foodbank are aware that these exist, and
have been unable to access them in the first 15 days of a sanction period.
Chris Mould, Chairman of the Trussell Trust quite rightly points out that: “it
is very difficult to feed yourself and your family with no money over that two
week period” vi.
Removing the means by which a
family or individual can eat is not just a violation of the right to food and
social security (UDHR 25i), it is also a disproportionate reaction to
relatively trivial acts like missing an appointment.
As Dr David Webster of The
University of Glasgow identifies
in his written submission to the Work and Pensions Committee, a “combination of
‘silo’ thinking by officials in the DWP and its predecessors, and ideological
gestures by politicians, has led to the growth of what is a huge secret penal
system, rivalling in its severity the mainstream judicial system but without
the latter’s safeguards” vii.
The final reason we need to rethink
sanctions is simple. Despite their punitive nature, there is no evidence that
they work. The purpose of sanctions should be to increase employment, but despite
the DWP being adamant that ‘active policies work’, research from Oxford
University shows there is “no association between the use of sanctions and
employment rates” viii. If anything, as Major Gill Stacey at our local Salvation Army commented recently, the
sanctions regime is counter-productive, creating a climate of fear that can be
“all consuming, damaging people’s mental health and driving people further
from employment”.
The
Work and Pension’s Committee is right to call for a full and independent review
of benefit sanctions again – let’s hope the Government listens this time.
i] 11%. See Section 5.2.2. Spencer, A., Ogden, C. & Battarbee, L. (2015).
Cheshire Hunger: Understanding Emergency Food Provision in West Cheshire.
Available from: http://westcheshire.foodbank.org.uk/cheshirehunger
ii & iii] See Time To Rethink Benefit Sanctions. Report by Church Action on Poverty, the
Baptists Union of Great Britain, the United Reformed Church, the Methodist
Church, the Church of Scotland and the Church of Wales available from http://www.jointpublicissues.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/rethink-sanctions-report-0315.pdf
iv] Name changed.
v] Press Release http://www.methodist.org.uk/news-and-events/news-releases/new-report-nearly-100000-children-affected-by-benefit-sanctions-in-201314
vi] Page 51, Benefit Sanctions Policy Beyond The Oakley Review.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmworpen/814/814.pdf
vii] http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/work-and-pensions-committee/benefit-sanctions-policy-beyond-the-oakley-review/written/16442.html
viii] Loopstra, Reeves, McKee & Stuckler, 2015 in Spencer, A., Ogden, C. &
Battarbee, L. (2015). Cheshire Hunger: Understanding Emergency Food Provision
in West Cheshire. Available from: http://westcheshire.foodbank.org.uk/cheshirehunger
