After Oakley: Next steps in dealing with the benefit sanctions regime

1. National Association of Welfare Rights Advisers Glasgow - 12 September 2014 After Oakley:Next steps in dealing with the benefit sanctions regime David Webster Urban Studies University of Glasgow

2. Outline • Background: the Coalition’s sanctions campaign • The Oakley report & the Government’s response – what difference will they make? • Priorities and prospects for dealing with the sanctions regime

3. The tightening sanctions regime • 1,104,000 JSA/ESA sanctions (before appeals) in GB in year to 31 March 2014 (was 564,000 in last year before Coalition) • 149,000 cases where claimants won appeals – but still lost benefits for months • About one quarter of all JSA claimants receive a sanction • JSA 6.95% of claimants per month before appeal, 6.05% after - double for young people • ESA sanctions escalating since mid-2013 – now 1.37% per month

4. Tightening regime (2) • All the most frequently occurring JSA sanctions lengthened from 22 Oct 2012 • ESA (WRAG) sanctions also much harsher from 3 Dec 2012 – now lose all of personal allowance (previously only WRAG component) • Minimum period now 4 weeks • Now 3-year sanctions for repeat ‘failures’: already hit over 1,000 JSA claimants • Max. penalty for 75 years to 1986 was 6 weeks

5. Claimants treated worse than offenders • Scale of penalties higher than Sheriff/ Magistrates Courts • No similar legal protections • No consideration of claimants’ circumstances or knock-on effects • High proportion of unreasonable or unlawful sanctions

8. Changing reasons • People are more careful to hold on to a job in a recession - therefore, big fall in JSA penalties for voluntary leaving/ misconduct (was always the main reason) • Correspondingly bigger rise in more aggressive JSA sanctions: • ‘Not actively seeking work’ • Non-participation in training/employment schemes (inc. Work Programme) • Failure to attend advisory interview • ESA sanctions rise is entirely ‘WRA’

12. 03revD/03

14. Unreasonable sanctions • Ministers say they have not set ‘targets’ • But they have driven up sanctions through management action • ‘Expectations’ or ‘benchmarks’ • Performance reviews and PIPs • ‘Scorecard’

15. Unreasonable sanctions (2) • House of Commons resolution moved by Michael Meacher MP (Lab, Oldham W.) and agreed without a vote 3/4/2014 : • “That this House notes that there have been many cases of sanctions being wrongfully applied to benefit recipients; and calls on the Government to review the targeting, severity and impact of such sanctions.”

16. Esther McVey, Employment Minister - 6 Nov 2013 • ‘The vast, vast majority of people don't get sanctions…… The people who get sanctions are wilfully rejecting support for no good reason….. Sanctions are only applied in the most serious cases….. We'll do everything to stop you having a sanction.’ • ALL OF THE ABOVE IS INCORRECT, AND OBVIOUSLY SO.

17. ‘Hardship’ payments • Brutal regime dating from 1988/1996, devised by Michael Portillo & Peter Lilley • ‘Hardship payments’ 60% of JSA (rarely, 80%) • Harsh test, e.g. no payment if cash from a payday lender exceeds ‘applicable amount’ • Two-week wait before application except for arbitrarily defined ‘vulnerable’ - officially acknowledged to damage health • FoI figures 2012: <25% get hardship payments • Under Universal Credit regime will be even tighter and payments will become repayable

19. Appeal system • Appeal Stage 1: ‘mandatory reconsideration’ –internal to DWP • ‘Mandation’ (28 Oct 2013) has caused huge drop in Tribunal cases • Appeal Stage 2: Tribunal • Few appeal – seen as long and futile, lack of support, can’t afford phone calls/stamps/fares • Failure to appeal leads to longer sanctions • Tribunal rulings set no precedent so Sec of State can keep using same unfair devices

20. Appeal system (2) • In 2013: • 31% asked for reconsideration, 40% successful • 3% appealed to a tribunal, 18% successful • Tribunal success rate was only about 10% in 2000-12 • Overall chance of appeal success is 51% • Most advisers seem to think the Tribunal success rate is much higher for claimants who attend & are represented

21. The Oakley Review • Set up by retrospective ‘Poundland’ Act 2013 • Price of Labour Party abstention on Bill • Very restricted terms of reference: • Process & communications • Only Back to Work schemes (one third of total) • Lack of transparency – only 7% of submissions publicly available (on CPAG website) • Published 22 July – last day of H. of C. sitting • Govt says it has accepted all recs but it hasn’t

22. What will change after Oakley • Reduction in unnecessary stoppages of HB • Claimant to be told before their JSA is stopped (reverses change of Oct 2012) (no timetable) • End to suspensions of JSA before ASW decisions (not an Oakley rec) • Fewer reqs for homeless people (not a O. rec) • Proposed communication improvements - potentially valuable • Time limit promised for mandatory reconsiderations but no date (resource issues)

23. Oakley recs rejected by Govt • Assess new claimants’ needs properly • End conflicting requirements on claimants by JCP & external contractors • Improve communications between JCP & contractors • Allow contractors to consider ‘good reason’ – avoid huge waste through unnecessary referrals • Pilot warning letters & non-money sanctions

24. Issues raised in Review but not taken up by Oakley • Inadequate arrangements for travel costs imposed by mandatory requirements • Inappropriate mandatory placements (sanctions make these more likely as claimants can’t refuse) • Lack of consistency on conditionality between contractors

25. Key process issues beyond scope of Oakley • Claimants’ difficulties accessing & using computers (applies to ASW not BTW schemes) • Discretionary nature of hardship payments; need to consider restoring % reductions – this would eliminate most take-up problems • Doubling-up (since Oct 2012) of disentitlement & sanction for ‘intermediate’ ‘failures’ esp. ASW – cause of serious waste, confusion & loss of HB

26. Wider issues not considered by Oakley • Effectiveness of sanctions & how harsh do they need to be • Effects of sanctions on claimants & families • Effects on the JCP service, other public services, voluntary sector & wider society • Need for a more effective appeal system • DWP ‘targets’ • ESA and UC sanctions • Etc etc

27. Wider Review • H. of C. Work & Pensions Committee (Jan. 2014) called for further urgent inquiry with wider scope • Esther McVey stated (1/2/2014): ‘I have made a commitment to look more widely at the sanctions regime and will provide details on the approach including the Terms of Reference in due course’ • BUT Govt has RENEGED (response to HofC Wk & Pensions Committee 3/4/2014) • Oakley himself calls for wider review

28. Other inquiries • Scottish Parliament Welfare Reform Committee – v. good interim report June 2014 • ‘last resort’ • culture change from punitive to supportive • Frank Field’s All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Hunger & Food Poverty – report end-2014 • Fawcett Society ‘Who Benefits?’ inquiry into impact of JSA conditionality and sanctions on women – report late 2014?

29. Impact of Oakley - conclusions • Welcome but limited improvements to the system • A comprehensive independent inquiry is still needed • Oakley Review is helpful in exposing the administrative shambles of the sanctions system • In spite of Govt news management, media coverage of Oakley was damaging to Govt • A good springboard for further campaigning

30. Priorities & prospects • Depends whether a Yes or No vote in the Scottish referendum • If the UK splits, sanctions will have played a significant role • ‘the.... welfare system will be foremost in my mind when I vote. I get treated like a 2nd class citizen..... The sanctions are unbelievable.... (with independence) we’ll never get a Tory govt again’ – unemployed, E.Kilbride (FT 9 Sept) • My family in Wester Hailes was always Labour but are all voting Yes.... sanctions are a big factor – student, Edinburgh (BBC TV News 9 Sept)

31. Priorities & prospects: a No vote • Priority: Get a well-informed UK parliament debate on Oakley Report & need for further inquiry • Scotland likely to get control of this aspect of social security & employment policy – probably sympathetic to reform (good if limited record re Scottish Welfare Fund) • N. Ireland already has control & has not joined in escalation of sanctions

32. Northern Ireland • No JSA sanctions data for N.Ireland since 2010 • In Feb 2005 1.6% of JSA claimants under sanction in N.Ireland (GB 2.0%) • N. Ireland sanctions on downward trend from 2006 to Nov 2010 • N. Ireland appears to have been exempted from GB sanctions drive • Devolved sanctions don’t undermine common National Insurance system • Fewer sanctions mean bigger flow of govt cash to N.Ireland – financial one-way bet

33. Priorities & prospects: No vote (2) • Outcome in England & Wales will depend on May 2015 election • Labour milder on sanctions but ambivalent (division goes back to 1930, similar for German Left – mirrors working class division ) • Campaigning therefore needed on GB basis • Need to get it across to the British (inc. Scottish) right that neoliberal ‘welfare’ policy really will destroy the Union – they have to choose

34. Priorities & prospects: a Yes vote • Sanctions unlikely to get much air time • Scotland: eventual sanctions policy might follow Expert Group on Welfare (June 2014): ‘We recommend that the current system of sanctions is abolished and.... replaced with a system that is more proportionate, personal and positive.’ • BUT – no longer financially a one-way bet • Abolishing sanctions is now a significant cash cost (direct plus effects)- GB direct cost was <£50m, now ~£300m, also 3/4m unemployed not on JSA • SNP redistribution has favoured middle class

35. Priorities & prospects: Yes vote (2) • Post-Indy Scottish welfare funding problems: state set-up costs, need to build up currency reserves, loss of tax revenue from co’s moving S., higher borrowing costs, cost of moving Trident, unfavourable EU terms (1% of EU pop.), loss of pop. & faster ageing pop. etc etc. • Remember the Irish Free State! – cuts in old age pensions & abolition of free school meals, lost more pop. after independence than before; repudiation of land annuities led to trade war with permanent damage to Ireland

36. Priorities & prospects: Yes vote (3) • England & Wales: Loss of Scottish MPs clearly means shift to the right, sanctions reform less likely • Shift would probably start next May – constitutional crisis, Nationalist MPs likely to abstain in rUK votes • Even less airtime for sanctions • Difficult to run a further, wider sanctions inquiry on a UK basis

37. Campaigning points • Key priorities: • House of Commons debate on Oakley • Wider, independent inquiry • Other priorities: • Sign the online petition re David Clapson’s death (now 205,000 signatures - 6,600 per day) • Get your horror stories into the media • Maximise appeals – not enough people appeal • Start to get agreement on components of sanctions reform

38. Some suggested reform points • Sanctions a genuine last resort • No one to be made destitute by sanctions – end discretion in hardship payments • Restore max. 6 weeks • Restore independence in DWP decision-making – repeal 1998 Act & remove decisions from S. of S. • Introduce proper appeal/review system • Claimants’ own strategies for getting work should be respected

39. More information • Oakley report & Govt response https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/jobseekers-allowance-sanctions-independent-review • CPAG website – Oakley submissions http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/oakley-sanctions-review-responses-other-organisations • My Sanctions project webpage http://www.gla.ac.uk/schools/socialpolitical/research/urbanstudies/projects/ukbenefitdisallowances/ • Paul Spicker’s blog http://paulspicker.wordpress.com/ • Welfare Conditionality http://www.welfareconditionality.ac.uk/ • Email me at: david.webster@glasgow.ac.uk