Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
the impact of their policy to impose benefit sanctions after four
weeks rather than three months if an unemployed jobseeker fails
to seek or take work in any field; and whether they will publish
their evaluation of the effectiveness of such sanctions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth
and Development Office and Department for Work and Pensions
() (Con)
No assessment has been made. We are not changing the reasons why
we may apply a sanction, including refusing to take a job that
has been offered, nor the rates applied. As part of the Way to
Work campaign, we are changing the period in which a claimant can
limit their job search to their usual occupation to promote wider
employment opportunities, supporting people into work more
quickly. As the noble Baroness knows, we no longer plan to
publish a report.
(Lab)
My Lords, given the general view that tougher sanctions will have
only a limited impact on labour supply in today’s market, the
inability of the Government’s evaluation to assess their
deterrent effect, the independent evidence that they typically
push people out of the formal labour market or into poor jobs at
the cost of longer-term better-quality jobs, and that they are
associated with serious hardship and ill health, what
justification is there for introducing a significantly harsher
policy now without even public consultation?
(Con)
I make it absolutely clear that we are not having tougher
sanctions. We are reducing the period for which people can look
for usual work, as I said. I went to Hastings jobcentre last
week, and it was busy helping people to look for work. There were
employers in there doing interviews, not rubbing their hands
saying, “We can sanction more people”. The whole Jobcentre Plus
network is enthralled by this new opportunity. We will be helping
people to get a job quicker, but we will not stop helping them to
get a job in the field they want to be in.
(Con)
My Lords, I appreciate what the Minister said—the Government are
altering not the sanctions, merely the period of time—but I
confess to being surprised when I heard this. A month seems a
very short period in which to expect somebody to find work in
their usual area. Could it not be extended a bit?
(Con)
The decision about the four-week period has been made. I can go
back and say that noble Lords would like it to be longer, but
that will probably not come as a surprise to the Secretary of
State. The other factor is that we are inundated with employers
wanting to recruit people to their workforce. In my experience,
you are much more able to get the next job if you are in a job,
than if you are sitting looking for jobs that do not exist at the
moment.
(Lab)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Lister said, there is no
evidence that sanctions are effective in encouraging people into
sustained long-term work. As universal credit statistics show,
new claimants flow quickly off. In view of this, will the
Minister ensure that the Government adopt the safety valve of
preparing people with independent advice before bringing in these
sanctions? What action will the Government take to publicise and
inform claimants of the easement regime, which can protect people
from such sanctions, notwithstanding what the Minister has said
already? A month is a sanction.
(Con)
Sanctions apply only if claimants do not comply with their agreed
requirements for no good reason. That is not changing at all. If
claimants refuse to apply for roles, attend interviews or take up
paid work without good reason, they can be referred for a
sanction. If a claimant disagrees with the sanction decision,
they can ask for it to be reconsidered. We have a
well-established system of hardship payments available as a
safeguard if a claimant demonstrates that they cannot meet their
immediate and most essential needs due to a sanction.
(Con)
My Lords, if a sanction is applied, what arrangements are there
for someone who feels unfairly treated to ask for redress? In
particular, is it simple or will they have to run through a whole
series of bureaucratic hoops?
(Con)
Building on the answer that I just gave the noble Baroness on the
opposite Benches, if a claimant disagrees with their sanction,
they can ask for the decision to be reconsidered and can
subsequently appeal against it. There are hardship payments. To
emphasise the point, I rang a district manager this morning and
said, “Tell me about this Way to Work”. She said, “We love it.
We’re very excited about it, we’ve never had so many jobs, and
the last thing in the world we want to do is sanction somebody in
this environment”—and I believe her.
(CB)
My Lords, the Minister referred to the inundation of employers,
and I can imagine that, but has any work been done to assess the
willingness of employers in different sectors to take on people
with no experience in that sector? It is very important that
workers on the front line understand.
(Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very good point. The work coaches are
well trained and their relationship with employers is gathering
momentum. In fact, I heard today that employers are more prepared
to take people with no experience in their industry and in fact
are also considering taking people they would not normally have
taken, such as ex-offenders and those with autism. So, yes, I
agree.
(Lab)
My Lords, let us take a step back. What the Government are doing
is saying to somebody who has lost their job, “If you don’t get
back into your own field within four weeks, you should go and
find any job and get in there fast”. The Government put out a
massive press release last week saying, “We’re going to get half
a million people into over a million vacancies”, and the
centrepiece was the idea that you could be sanctioned within four
weeks—ironically, before you even get your first universal credit
payment, which takes six weeks.
Given that only 3% of universal credit claimants are even in this
category—and given that all the evidence shows that most of them
get back into work really quickly anyway—rather than blaming
people who have lost their jobs, why not focus on long-term
unemployment, people leaving the labour market and people
retiring early? Let us concentrate on the real problems. Would
that not be a better idea?
(Con)
I am afraid that on this occasion I cannot quite agree with
everything that the noble Baroness said, or indeed the sentiment
in which it was said. That will come as no surprise to people.
The fact is that we have been working with long-term unemployed
people to try to overcome their barriers and put solutions in
place. I say again that when someone does not have a job and they
cannot get one within the field that they are used to and skilled
in, their skills can be applied to other sectors, so they can
take jobs and be in work and then, when a job comes up in the
field they want, we can help them apply for it. So I do not hold
with what the noble Baroness says.
(LD)
Putting pressure on people to take jobs with the threat of
benefit sanctions has a known link with deteriorating mental
health. Indeed, some medics have pointed to a link between
benefit sanctions and suicide. In the past, the Government have
refused to assess that impact and publish the results. Will the
Minister now look at that evidence and make sure, for
transparency’s sake, that we all see it?
(Con)
Let me go to the point about the publication of the evaluation
and so on. We committed to using UC administrative data to look
at the impact that a sanction has on an individual. However,
durations could not be compared as we did not have robust legacy
data and could not develop counterfactual information without
legislative changes to allow for the testing of different
approaches. Therefore, we were not able to do it and come up with
a meaningful comparison.
I understand exactly the point that the noble Baroness made about
mental health. Our work coaches are trained in mental health and
to watch out for people. As I say, the last thing they are going
to do is threaten people. It is only when there is no good reason
for turning down an opportunity that a sanction will be imposed.
Sanctions are running at 0.78%, which is lower than pre
pandemic.
(Con)
My Lords, some people seem to find great difficulty in securing a
job, so what has been done by the Government to help these people
to secure employment?
(Con)
I am pleased to say that the Government have doubled the number
of work coaches. They are spending more time with people, finding
out in more depth the issues that are stopping them working and
putting interventions in place to help them overcome their
barriers. We have our plan for jobs programme. More and more
employers are coming into jobcentres to interview people,
understanding the barriers that people face. When all is said and
done, we are doing a lot for people.
