A public health disaster

The DWP’s benefit sanctions have become a serious threat to public health – and health professionals should become engaged in exposing their effects and pressing for their abolition.

Like any insurance scheme, unemployment benefit has always had qualifying conditions. For most of the time up to 1986 there were few disqualifications, except for a ban of up to 6 weeks where people left a job voluntarily or lost it without good reason. But since 1986 there has been a growth of ‘sanctions’ – fines administered by officials to make claimants do particular things which the state, often very disputably, claims are a good idea, such as applying for 30 jobs a fortnight.

Under the Coalition, JSA and ESA sanctions have almost doubled, to 1.1m per year, affecting about 0.7m people. More than one fifth of all JSA claimants are now sanctioned over any 5-year period. JSA sanctions are running at 7% of claimants per month, and twice this for people aged 18-24; ESA sanctions are rising rapidly and are now close to 1.5% per month. Lone parents on Income Support have also been sanctioned since 2001, though since 2008 they have been moved progressively to JSA where 4% are sanctioned per month.

All the commonest JSA sanctions have been lengthened since October 2012. The minimum period is now 4 weeks, with 13 weeks for a second ‘failure’. There are now 3-year sanctions for repeat ‘high level’ ‘failures’, which have already hit over 1,000 JSA claimants. Since December 2012, sanctioned ESA claimants have lost all of their personal allowance, instead of the much smaller ‘work related activity’ component.

Prior to 1988, disqualified claimants were entitled to Supplementary Benefit as of right at a reduced rate, on the normal criteria. Since then (1996 for those on contributory benefit), sanctioned claimants have been eligible only for discretionary ‘hardship payments’. This system, devised by Michael Portillo and Peter Lilley, involves a special, harsh test designed to ensure that the claimant is entirely cleaned out of resources. For instance there is no payment if the claimant has borrowed cash from a payday lender. There is a two-week wait before claimants, however destitute, can even apply, except for arbitrarily defined ‘vulnerable’ groups. Ministers and officials know that this system damages people’s health. As to whether a claimant’s health condition makes them ‘vulnerable’, the DWP’s Decision Maker’s Guide devotes 52 pages to the question:  Will this claimant’s health decline more than a normal person’s would ?  Less than a quarter of sanctioned claimants get hardship payments, and the separate application process and deficiencies in the DWP’s administration mean that they are frequently not paid even to those entitled. Under Universal Credit, hardship payments will become loans, and the rules even stricter.

Although the money lost through sanctions is greater than in the scale of fines available to the courts, benefit claimants do not have the protections given to offenders. There is no consideration of their circumstances before a sanction is imposed, and no legal representation. Official studies have shown that claimants find the appeal system too difficult to use. In 2013 only 31% asked for reconsideration by the DWP and only 3% appealed to an independent tribunal. Consequently, huge numbers of unreasonable and unlawful sanctions go unchallenged.

There has never been any specific study of the impact of sanctions on health, but from official studies, reports by voluntary organizations, and claimants’ own stories, there is a large volume of evidence of effects which are known to damage health. Conditions such as depression, irritable bowel syndrome and diabetes are worsened. The death from diabetic ketoacidosis in July of a claimant from Stevenage, David Clapson,  has been reliably attributed to a JSA sanction which meant he couldn’t afford to keep his fridge going. Hunger, cold, damage to family relationships, debt, homelessness, crime (including ‘survival theft’ and violence) and disempowerment are all predictable consequences of the total loss of income, and all have been extensively documented. About a quarter of sanctioned claimants use Food Banks, and a similar proportion of Food Bank users are sanctioned claimants. By contrast, there is no satisfactory evidence that sanctions do more than drive people off benefits, or at best into bad and unsustainable jobs, and even the OECD – long an advocate for sanctions – agrees that to achieve even these limited effects, sanctions do not have to be anything like as harsh as they are in the UK.

Recently (3/4/2014), the House of Commons agreed a resolution moved by Michael Meacher MP: “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.” This added to calls for a comprehensive inquiry from many quarters, in particular the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee. 

A limited review (the Oakley review) was earlier conceded by the Coalition and reported on 22 July.  It elicited a great deal of evidence on the working of the sanctions regime, some of which can be found on the Child Poverty Action Group website . However it was given very restricted terms of reference, and although the Coalition says it has accepted all the recommendations, in practice it hasn’t. Consequently, although some useful reforms are taking place, most of the problems in the sanctions system are being left untouched, and the need for a comprehensive independent inquiry remains.

Fundamental change is required. The UK sanctions regime is incompatible with the UN Principles on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights, which require governments to ensure adequate food and to recognise poor people as free and autonomous agents. As the Scottish Parliament’s Welfare Reform Committee has asserted, the culture needs to change from punitive to supportive. And no one should be made destitute by sanctions or disallowances.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  1. victedy says:

    my friends daughter was sanctioned Jan ’13, for not looking for enough jobs the week her father died, The jobcentre wouldn’t listen to reason. She couldn’t heat her home or feed her 12-yr-daughter. She walked around the shops to keep warm and when she had no money to launder her daughters school uniform she had to keep her off school. It was a community support officer that got her help when he asked her (in the street) why her daughter wasn’t in school.
    13 weeks in all she was without money, even though the sanction was for 8
    weeks and she had a nervous breakdown with the stress it caused. Now this was someone that was NOT a “skiver” she was laid off from her job in a hotel.

  2. CJ says:

    This sort of sanction happens everyday. A death in the family is a good enough reason. I believe only direct action by ppl marching to highlight this brutal and inhuman law. DWP workers shld be ashamed of themselves doing this job that cause mental illness and death in some case, It can never be morally justified to sanction lone parents or disabled people. Why is this allowed in UK?

  3. kat says:

    When my son was sanctioned I had to pick up the pieces keeping him fed and warm. Not everyone has families to do this. I don’t understand how the DWP expects people to survive without money to pay their bills and buy food.

  4. I think these sanctions are disgusting.My husband was told that there was a doubt on his jobsearch amount and it was going to a decision maker.He was also told that he would receive no money despite the fact no decision has been made yet.

  5. successcvs says:

    Is there no Civil rights for these victims. For me death in these circumstances is murder. Fine example of British Values

    1. Phil says:

      I agree with you, it’s attempted murder and there is intent as the DWP know that health will deteriorate in a healthy person so to exact that on a sick person could have potentially fatal consequences and it has. If I get caught in this system again (sanctioned 5x but appealed every one and won) I will call in the police and present the dwp’s own regulations as evidence of attempted murder. failing that I may just take it upon myself to damage the health of jobcentre staff, in self defence , of course!

  6. vicky says:

    sanctions are just the way this government are saving money on the welfare state.just to make it look like there are less people out of work.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 828 other subscribers.

Follow us on Twitter