Society hits out at benefit sanctions regime

The UK's current system of benefit sanctions is failing to treat claimants with dignity and respect and causing severe hardship for some of the most vulnerable in society, according to the Law Society of Scotland.

In its response to the House of Commons Work & Pensions Select Committee inquiry into benefit sanctions, the Society's Administrative Justice Committee also claims that the system is not meeting the UK Government’s policy objective of assisting claimants into work.

Among other points the response states:

• the fact this Government policy may not breach human rights in general is, at least in part, contingent on the contribution of the third sector through the widespread provision of food banks;
• the penal effects of sanctions, which have been felt more keenly in recent years, were further exacerbated by the removal in 2013 of an immediate right of appeal to an independent tribunal and the introduction of a mandatory reconsideration process;
• there is currently no means of independently monitoring the quality of Department of Work & Pensions decision making, which evidence suggests "should be a matter of considerable concern";
• it is "a matter of considerable regret" that the Government has failed to conduct research, both into the effectiveness of sanctions in getting benefit recipients back into sustainable work and into the hardship that sanctions cause to those affected by them;
• decision makers need better guidance on the application of sanctions, including on how to apply sanctions more fairly and consistently across a range of different scenarios;
• the current regime, taken with other changes, has "fostered a hostile environment in the delivery of welfare benefits and the emergence of a caustic relationship between DWP and its customers", whereas the benefits system "ought more properly to be more caring and supportive in relation to its customers";
• a more transparent approach to the potential deployment of sanctions "would lead to better outcomes for both citizen and state";
• it appears that no special efforts are made to distinguish vulnerable claimants from others – "a matter of great concern in those cases where the imposition of a sanction leads to the complete withdrawal of benefit for a significant period of time";
• the operation of the current regime "is widely regarded as grossly unfair and brings the benefits system into disrepute".

It adds that there is an "urgent need" for effective monitoring and a review of training provided for Department of Work & Pensions staff.

Committee convener Richard Henderson commented: "Reviewing decisions around sanctions, through mandatory reconsideration and through appeal to the First-tier Tribunal, is not sufficiently effective or speedy enough to be regarded as satisfactory means of redress – resulting in real hardship for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. The DWP urgently needs to put in place an effective mechanism for monitoring the quality of decision making across all of its operations and should also undertake a review of the decision-making training it provides to its staff.

"While we accept that there may well need to be power to make reasonable directions to claimants, and for some sanctions to be available if these directions are not followed, evidence shows that the UK Government’s policy objectives in this area – namely that benefit sanctions are there to positively assist claimants and that there is appropriate support available to help people return to work – are not being achieved."

Mr Henderson added: "Claimants are not being treated with dignity and respect. Best practice is not being developed through learning from appeal decisions and, in some individual cases, human rights may well have been breached. It has long been apparent that there are some very serious issues to be examined in this area, and this inquiry offers a real opportunity to create a better benefit system across the UK and also provide much needed insight as a new benefit system is developed in Scotland."

Click here to view the full response.