The Spring budget and Health and Disability White Paper – published earlier this month – mark a further extension of the use of benefit sanctions. Despite the current approach of “focusing on what people can do rather than on what they cannot” and “supporting people into work”, proposals laid out last week ultimately facilitate the extension of a punitive conditionality system, the effectiveness of which is not supported by the evidence.

Although some proposed changes are welcome (for example, improving PIP assessment experience and more flexibility with fluctuating conditions), the documents raise some serious concerns and questions

  1. Automation of Universal Credit (UC) sanctions

The Government is proposing automating parts of the sanctions referral process to “reduce error rates”. This presents the clear risk that individual circumstances relevant to alleged non-compliance with a work-related condition will not be considered in a human way by a by a human being. Under the current system, a person is referred for a sanction by their work coach and the ultimate decision is taken by a third party, without direct contact with a person in question. Automating the first stage might mean fully removing the human element of the sanctioning process and distancing them from the system even more.

For the new system to work, the Government must ensure work coaches are offered guidance on how to engage with the ADM

This would be contrary to recommendations made in PLP’s 2022 , ‘Benefit sanctions: a presumption of guilt’, which found that there are already very limited opportunities for the claimant to make their case directly to the decision maker. Even though the work coaches would “review” the referral, studies show that relying on human oversight of ADM is tainted with significant flaws.

There are no guarantees that they would actually question the automated finding and there is a risk that it would simply become a rubber stamp exercise. For the new system to work, the Government must ensure work coaches are offered guidance on how to engage with the ADM as well as carry out and publish an equality impact assessment of such change.

There are already concerns about the lack of transparency around how similar systems operate. People currently suspected of fraud can have their benefits suspended for up to 11 months with no explanation or reason. Applying automation to sanctions risks duplicating this problem in the already harsh and bureaucratic regime.

2. Increasing the Administrative Earnings Threshold (AET)

UC Claimants deemed fit for work are currently placed in two conditionality groups based on their earnings. Those working over the equivalent of 15 hours on the National Living Wage are placed in the “light touch” group which means they have minimal work-related requirements and are not subject to sanction. Those earning less than that are placed in the “intensive work search” group, which means they have various conditions attached to their claims. The 15 hour threshold will be raised to 18 hours. Together with the removal of the couples’ AET, the changes will put an estimated 100,000 new claimants at risk of sanctions.

Making Work Coach treatment compulsory for the “Light Touch” conditionality group could place up to 600,000 new claimants at risk of sanctions

The Health and Disability White Paper announces even more far-reaching changes, namely, making Work Coach treatment compulsory for the “Light Touch” conditionality group. This could place up to 600,000 new claimants at risk of sanctions and effectively remove the difference between the two categories. 

3. Additional Jobcentre support pilot

The Government has recently initiated a pilot scheme in 90 jobcentres requiring claimants who have been on UC for 13 weeks to attend a jobcentre every day for two weeks. In the series of recent parliamentary questions[1], the DWP maintained that it is too early to make conclusions on the effectiveness of the scheme. And yet, the Government announced as part of the Spring Budget that this scheme will be extended.

For the risks and benefits to be properly assessed, the DWP should publish the Equality Assessment and be transparent about the outcomes of the pilot

Without yet understanding how effective the scheme is, this extension risks imposing disproportionate and unrealistic requirements on claimants (especially those with vulnerabilities, part-time work or caring responsibilities) and stretching the capacity of already overworked jobcentres staff.

For the risks and benefits to properly be assessed, the DWP should publish the Equality Assessment and be transparent about the outcomes of the pilot.

4. Putting parents at risk of sanctions

Although extending free childcare is a welcome development, it is counterbalanced by requiring parents of children over three to actively seek work for up to 30 hours/week or be at risk of losing their benefits through a sanction. This is likely to disproportionately affect single mothers and could push families into destitution.  

5. Extending the discretion of work coaches to determine who is capable of undertaking employment

Scrapping the Work Capability Assessment, which often mirrors parallel PIP assessments, is a good policy in principle as it reduces the number of assessments people need to undertake in order to access welfare support. However, this move must be thoroughly planned to ensure there is no collateral damage.

The unprecedented discretion as to how sanctions are applied can lead to randomised outcomes and excessive penalties

The White Paper announces “more personalised levels of conditionality” (para 17) replacing the current practice of exempting people with limited capability to work from work-related requirements. Research by IPPR revealed that work coaches are already using sanctions differently across the country with rates ranging from 2.9% to 13% of overall UC claims depending on the region.

The unprecedented discretion as to how sanctions are applied – as mandated by the “personalised” conditionality – can lead to randomised outcomes, excessive penalties and the lack of transparent approach.

Conclusion

The Government has announced a ramping up of the sanctions regime, despite, disappointingly, not disclosing its own findings on the effectiveness of this controversial and damaging policy. It also failed to engage with reports which show the catastrophic effects they have on claimants.

“Focusing on what people can do rather than on what they cannot” is a noble sentiment, but in the context of an increasingly punitive system, it rings hollow.

[1] Questions from Ian Byrne MP, Seema Malhotra on job starts and Additional Jobcentre Support pilot, and Jonathan Ashworth MP