JC+ adviser’s evidence to W&P Cttee re sanctions

This is yet more evidence of DWP managers deliberately setting out to make claimants fail and get sanctioned and ignoring what the law requires.

It is disgusting and shameful behaviour. 

It has occurred to me that DWP staff who wilfully engage in such deliberately unlawful behaviour and which then causes loss or harm may be committing an offence of misconduct in a public office. A referral to the police would thus be appropriate.

Hi Shawn.  Where was this published?  Though I can follow your link I haven’t been able to find the evidence published on the committee website.

Hi Owen -

If you go to this link, it should open up lots of pieces of written evidence, which includes the above link (currently 4th one down)

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/work-and-pensions-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/benefit-sanctions/?type=Written#pnlPublicationFilter

Cheers - Shawn

Disgraceful! It’s not as if we didn’t know this was happening, but the sheer mendacity, connivance and mean-spiritedness of DWP managers never ceases to appall me.

I hope (probably in vain), that the individual managers involved (I suspect at least one of whom is well known to me) are all prosecuted for misconduct in public office, and named and shamed nationally.

New Guardian cuts blog by Patrick Butler links to supplementary evidence from PCS to W&P Committee, including letters and emails which, it says, show that advisers under pressure to make inappropriate sanctions referrals or face performance management procedures, and decision makers subject to performance management procedures if do not apply sanction in 80% of cases referred -

http://www.theguardian.com/society/patrick-butler-cuts-blog/2015/feb/03/sanctions-staff-pressured-to-penalise-benefit-claimants-says-union?CMP=share_btn_tw

The select committee might want to consider whether there has been a breach of the Civil Service Code.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-service-code/the-civil-service-code

Written answer from Esther Mcvey about 80% adverse decision target in Hansard yesterday -

Stephen Timms:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, with reference to Annex 5 of the Written evidence submitted by the Public and Commercial Services Union to the Work and Pensions Committee dated 29 January 2015, whether the target set out in the memorandum dated 1 July 2013 raising the adverse decision rate of 80 per cent in that Annex remains in place; and if he will make a statement.

Esther McVey:
There are no targets or benchmarks for the number of benefit sanctions applied by Decision Makers. The Department is careful to ensure quality and consistency of decision making throughout the sanctions process. The 80% adverse decision rate forms part of this quality assurance and was introduced to ensure that only appropriate referrals are made by Job Centre Plus advisers to Decision Makers. This measure is in place so that all evidence is considered first by an adviser before a doubt is referred to a decision maker.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2015-02-04/223509

PCS say otherwise…

http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/department_for_work_and_pensions_group/welfare-reform/pcs-response-to-the-dwp-select-committee-.cfm

I wonder which the committee will chose to prefer

second link was refusing to be fixed; I’ve attached the emails instead.

Ian Duncan Smiths response has always been the same.

He has effectively said on many occasions “I dont care what your ‘evidence’ says, i believe I am right”

How on earth can one deal with that sort of mentality?

We will just get the stock DWP response : “there are no targets, and we are giving help and support to those who need it most”  Utterly meaningless twaddle

Professor David Webster, who has been doing lots of good work analysing sanctions statistics, has flagged up that Frank Field, Work and Pensions Committee chair, has written to IDS to chivvy him along in get DWP to respond to the report published pre-election.

As well as being annoyed about these specific delays, Mr Field also highlights concerns about these kind of delays becoming systemic in DWP responses to Committee reports and hoping they can improve response rates.

Frank Field letter to IDS