Lest anyone is under the illusion that job centres are there
principally to help the unemployed find work, a quick read of a new report by a
parliamentary committee will prove salutary. What shines through is a harsh
sanctions regime enforced by management under government orders to make life hard
for claimants.
While the House of Commons work and pensions committee is
not opposed to benefit sanctions, its report
exposes their arbitrary nature. The MPs were also concerned that initial
interviews with claimants by Jobcentre Plus staff were superficial and geared
towards benefit eligibility rather than re-employment.
Under new rules introduced by the ConDems at the end of 2012,
the number of sanctions has increased rapidly. Now some 5% of all Jobseekers
Allowance claimants are sanctioned every month. Some 860,000 Jobseekers
Allowance claimants were sanctioned in the year to June 2013, the highest
number in any 12-month period since at least April
2000.
The committee’s report insists: “Our evidence suggests that
many claimants have been referred for a sanction inappropriately or in
circumstances in which common sense would suggest that discretion should have
been applied by Jobcentre staff.”
The committee was given evidence about the consequences
for the unemployed people when they
suddenly losing their benefits. Church Action on Poverty (CAOP) and Oxfam
reported that financial hardship due to sanctioning was a significant factor in
a
recent rise in referrals to food banks. The Trussell Trust,
a charitable organisation which runs the largest chain of food banks, has
published statistics which show that changes to benefit payments are the third
most commonly reported reason for referral to food aid.
Most Jobcentre Plus staff are in the Public and Commercial
Services Union, which says it is opposed to sanctions. The PCS is scathing
about the way the role of the Jobcentres has changed under successive
governments, and describes them as “a sign posting outfit” with advisers used “as
compliance officers”.
The union’s evidence to the committee rejects the idea that
the sanctions regime increases the likelihood of someone getting a job. “Instead
it seems to be more of a political measure to satisfy the anti-welfare lobby
rather than a constructive measure to help people into work.”
While the Department for Work and Pensions denies that Jobcentre
Plus staff have targets to meet, it is clear from this report that they exist
by another name. Performance is measured primarily against the proportion of
claimants coming off benefit, known by the jargon “offlow”. Even the MPs are
forced to concede that sanctioning could be seen by staff as a “a route to
achieving offflow performance targets”.
According to the PCS, there are “expectations” for
sanctioning claimants and staff who fail to measure up can be placed on an
“improvement plan” by management, potentially leading to disciplinary action
and even dismissal.
The union’s evidence adds: “We have also had reports that
some offices are operating what has become known as ‘botherability’. This
involves asking claimants to come in to appointments in their Jobcentre at
weekends, and if they miss these appointments they will be sanctioned or their
claim closed. In local offices where ‘botherability’ is being used, the clear
intention is to ‘bother claimants off JSA’.”
So when you read headlines about falling unemployment, dig
deeper. And when you do, you’ll find the figures have fallen in part because
many people have been driven into low-paid jobs or workfare schemes as a result
of sanctions or the threat of them. With all the major parties trying to be
more macho than each other over targeting claimants, things are not going to
improve any time soon.
Paul Feldman
Communications editor
No comments:
Post a Comment