With many thanks to the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.
Benefits claimants are subjected to an ‘amateurish, secret penal system which is more severe than the mainstream judicial system’, writes Dr David Webster of the University of Glasgow.
Few people know that the number of financial penalties (‘sanctions’) imposed on benefit claimants by the Department of Work and Pensions now exceeds the number of fines imposed by the courts. In Great Britain in 2013, there were 1,046,398 sanctions on Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants, 32,128 on Employment and Support Allowance claimants, and approximately 44,000 on lone parent recipients of Income Support. By contrast, Magistrates’ and Sheriff courts imposed a total of only 849,000 fines.
Sanctioned benefit claimants are treated much worse than those fined in the courts. The scale of penalties is more severe (£286.80 – £11,185.20 compared to £200 – £10,000). Most sanctions are applied to poor people and involve total loss of benefit income.
Although there is a system of discretionary ‘hardship payments’, claimants are often reduced to hunger and destitution by the ban on application for the first two weeks and by lack of information about the payments and the complexity of the application process. The hardship payment system itself is designed to clean people out of resources; all savings or other sources of assistance must be used up before help is given.
Decisions on guilt are made in secret by officials who have no independent responsibility to act lawfully; since the Social Security Act 1998 they have been mere agents of the Secretary of State. These officials are currently subject to constant management pressure to maximise penalties, and as in any secret system there is a lot of error, misconduct, dishonesty and abuse.
The claimant is not present when the decision on guilt is made and is not legally represented. While offenders processed in the court system cannot be punished before a hearing, and if fined are given time to pay, the claimant’s punishment is applied immediately. Unlike a magistrate or sheriff, the official deciding the case does not vary the penalty in the light of its likely impact on them or their family. If the claimant gets a hearing (and even before the new system of ‘Mandatory Reconsideration’ only 3 per cent of sanctioned claimants were doing so), then it is months later, when the damage has been done.
‘Mandatory reconsideration’, introduced in October 2013, denies access to an independent Tribunal until the claimant has been rung up at home twice and forced to discuss their case with a DWP official in the absence of any adviser – a system which is open to abuse and has caused a collapse in cases going to Tribunal.
Yet the ‘transgressions’ (DWP’s own word) which are punished by this system are almost exclusively very minor matters, such as missing a single interview with a Jobcentre or Work Programme contractor, or not making quite as many token job applications as the Jobcentre adviser demands.
How did we get to this situation? Until the later 1980s, the social security system saw very little use of anything that could be called a sanction. Unemployment benefits were seen as part of an insurance scheme, with insurance-style conditions. Any decision on ‘disqualification’ (as it was called) from unemployment benefit was made by an independent Adjudication Service, with unrestricted right of appeal to an independent Tribunal. The maximum disqualification was 6 weeks, and those disqualified had a right to a reduced rate of Supplementary Benefit assessed on the normal rules.
‘Sanctions’ are almost entirely a development of the last 25 years.
[“Conditionality” has been a part of welfare to some degree since its inception. However, the Coalition made sanctions a key part of welfare conditionality as a part of their welfare “reforms in 2012, considerably increasing their severity, timescale and frequency. My insert. KSJ].
The British political class has come to believe that benefit claimants must be punished to make them look for work in ways the state thinks are a good idea. Yet the evidence to justify this does not exist. A handful of academic papers, mostly from overseas regimes with milder sanctions, suggest that sanctions may produce small positive effects on employment. But other research shows that their main effect is to drive people off benefits but not into work, and that where they do raise employment, they push people into low quality, unsustainable jobs.
This research, and a torrent of evidence from Britain’s voluntary sector, also shows a wide range of adverse effects. Sanctions undermine physical and mental health, cause hardship for family and friends, damage relationships, create homelessness and drive people to Food Banks and payday lenders, and to crime. They also often make it harder to look for work. Taking these negatives into account, they cannot be justified.
Benefit sanctions are an amateurish, secret penal system which is more severe than the mainstream judicial system, but lacks its safeguards. It is time for everyone concerned for the rights of the citizen to demand their abolition.
David Webster’s written and oral evidence to the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee inquiry into Benefit Sanctions beyond the Oakley Review is available on the Parliament.uk website and and his other papers on sanctions are available via Child Poverty Action Group.
This article first appeared on Monday, 26 January, 2015 on the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies site. You can read the original here
Sanctions are founded on Tory psychobabble. You can’t “incentivise” people by starving them
Department of Department of Work and Pensions officials admit to using fake claimant’s comments to justify benefit sanctions
13 thoughts on “Benefit sanctions: Britain’s secret penal system – Dr David Webster”
These sanctions are “grievous bodily harm”. There is no practical difference between causing someone physical damage by an act of intentional violence and a sanction intended to cause them harm by deprivation of the necessities of life. The social security provisions are a fund into which all of us have paid or will pay, precisely to provide life support to those in need. This is a wicked and shameful policy.
LikeLiked by 3 people
LikeLiked by 1 person
All in all, it would seem that resorting to thieving and burglary would actually benefit these people who are punished outside of the judiciary. Well done BOTH parties for allowing this system to exist and actively encouraging people who might not otherwise consider breaking the law – doing just that. A bed and three meals a day and rights and privileges thrown in would seem to many, a better option. A three to nine month stretch in prison might seem a favourable trade off.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Reblogged this on Lindas Blog.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Everyone needs to be doing everything possible to bring down these tory bastards and totally destroy this government, Smith the mass murdering filthy evil tory bastard who has been killing innocent disabled people since the days of the coalition government and Cameron who is also guilty of deliberate murders, manslaughters, fraud as well as evil disability hate crimes, I think all people who are sanctioned should totally kick off and totally not give into these power hungry morons, these sick monsters are imposing benefit sanctions sometimes for no reason at all, this can not be legal, sooner or later someone who is sanctioned is going to totally lose it and then they will be just like a powder keg waiting for a spark to set it off,then and just then mb these government criminals will take notice when a person who is sanctioned deliberately starts to show the true extent of their real mental health problems and they end up doing physical violence because it is going to happen, its just a matter of time, all people who are sanctioned are just like ticking time bombs just waiting to go off, British people are being treated like this yet they do everything to help the illegal immigrants and the refugees who these stupid morons have let into our country and make it even unsafer for all British people now because of this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If they’ve been let into the country, then the refugees aren’t “illegal”. Personally I don’t see oppressed people fleeing their own country as an enemy: it’s the government that have imposed the policy framework, after all, not migrants or refugees.
These courts need closing down and people should be a\loud to fight there santions and legal aid given we paid in for everey on e claiming any money are class as crinmails.time people woke up middle class can cliam any think but not the poor the poor proping the middle class up .