Forum Home → Discussion → Income support, JSA and tax credits → Thread
Policy Exchange think tank calling for ‘compassionate but stricter’ sanctions regime
‘Under the proposals, first time offenders would be issued with a benefits card credited with their weekly benefit as opposed to facing four weeks without funds as the system now stands. Benefits would be accessed via this card for a maximum of eight weeks. If the claimant continues to breach job search conditions, the card and benefits would be taken away. This system would provide a safety net, mitigating hardship whilst a sanction is appealed, forcing claimants to re-engage with Jobcentre staff and deterring non-compliance through the added inconvenience of daily sign on.’
Their paper also proposes more stringent penalties for people who are consistently breaking the terms of their job search requirements ... Repeat offenders should have their benefits taken away for a longer period of time from 13 to 26 weeks for a third breach. For each offence, a further 13 weeks should be added ...
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/category/item/smarter-sanctions-sorting-out-the-system
This would appear to allow the one simple error - such as being late or forgetful - being resolved but why should any subsequent sanctions be even more draconian and it does not resolve the “there are no targets for sanctions” regime nor the job adviser at Triage or JC+ acting unreasonably. Is this not just a more technical method of imposing sanctions - perhaps even an easier method to stop all payment - at present in practice stoppage of monies ( whether JSA or ESA ) rarely coincides with either the ASE decision or the sanction decision. Repeat offenders re JSA sanctions are in my experience often the least able to work - removed from ESA and left to the vagaries of JSA ASE and AVE.
The answer is to demand that the entire sanctions policy is repealed, and the system returns to the previous one, of sanctions from 2 weeks to 6 months for JSA claimants only, with JCP decision makers having some discretion over the length of the sanction, depending on the nature of the ‘offence’. And also scope for claimants to appeal the length of the sanction. It was always flexible enough to allow for small errors by claimants, while discouraging any who were swinging the lead.
Of course, other things then need to be changed too, such as JC staff no longer being allowed near-absolute discretion over what goes in a jobseekers agreement or claimant commitment, and given some training in careers advice, how employers do recruitment, and the nature of the job market (example of JC ignorance:I had one JC official order me to apply for an apprenticeship because it happened to be in the field of work I normally do. I was 48 at the time, far above the upper age limit for a apprenticeship). It would help too if JC staff were again employed directly by the DWP on long term or permanent contracts with some career prospects, rather than employing outsourced staff on short term contracts who inevitably are under-trained, uncommitted, and more susceptible to being bullied into implementing savagely anti-claimant policies by their management.