Forum Home → Discussion → Other benefit issues → Thread
JSA claimants welcome sanctions…
“he operated a command and control culture [and] discouraged challenge…there was a good news tone set from the top [which] resulted in favourable, and at times unrealistic, assumptions”
This is from the Kelly report on the Co-Op Bank.
It’s dashed familar somehow….
in additon to the sanctions stuff, we’ve also just done a rightsnet news story on mr couling’s evidence re food banks -
- and, in doing so, came across a letter that the Trussel Trust wrote to him today .... they’re not happy ....
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_Welfare_Reform_Committee/20140501_MM-NC.pdf
re. FoI requests - wise counsel says each of us should apply to a local area JC+ to avoid them refusing the info on cost grounds. Anyone game? I want to see these cards, how many, and what they say.
Excellent!!!!
By the way - as a sampler of the kind of bloke we’re dealing with, see below:
Neil Couling: (P)eople will tell you things in order to maximise their economic choices. In the same way as people will tell you, “I am looking for work”, because they know that if they say that they are not doing so there will be consequences and they will get sanctioned, people will tell you things when they present to food banks. It might not be wilful deceit that is going on; it might well be their belief about the situation. Then, the food banks will record that and it will be presented back as a fact. However, that does not establish a causal link. The supply argument is a much stronger argument. Academics are not exploring the supply argument though; they are looking at what people are reporting in food banks and citing that as evidence. That does not make it right; it is just what they are doing.
The Deputy Convener: I am bound to say that I find that a very unconvincing argument indeed.
Kevin Stewart: I would go so far as to say that it is complete and utter nonsense.
Neil Couling: You just need not engage with it, then; you can just say that it is complete and utter nonsense and not engage with the argument.
Kevin Stewart: I would suggest that you go and speak to folk at food banks, as I have done—the workers, the volunteers and those folks who are presenting themselves, who without doubt are facing major difficulties in their life, often due to sanctioning.
Let us move away from that and look at some of the figures.
Neil Couling: So, let us ignore what I have said, shall we?
Kevin Stewart: Mr Couling, we are here to question you, sir
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/thank_you_cards_received_by_the/new
ha, nice one, be interesting to see your response (maybe they’ll send you a thank you card???)
In fairness to Mr Couling, he is at least to some extent correct.
If someone’s job is to oversee the introduction of Universal Credit, they are more likely to say it is going well and a massive success rather than openly detail the difficulties and problems that they are having. If you have a rather “light touch” on expenses, you may find that some people take advantage .....
However, the exception should not exampled as the rule
Hello Tony Bowman - I used yours as a bit of a template, hope that’s OK.
2 May 2014
Dear Department for Work and Pensions,
In evidence to the Scottish Welfare Reform Committee(report dated
Tuesday 29th April 2014 at column 1452), Mr Neil Couling of the DWP
made the claim that ‘My experience is that many benefit recipients
welcome the jolt that a sanction can give them’ and that it is ‘not
so remarkable’ for Jobcentres to be ‘inundated with thank you cards
from people who have received sanctions’(this being the Deputy
Convener’s form of words)
We request information on how many such cards have been received by
Derbyshire’s Jobcentres. If possible, this should be with specific
focus upon thank you cards from persons subjected to sanctions.
This request is directly relevant to the efficacy or otherwise of
the policy of imposing sanctions and is made to test a specific
claim made before a parliamentary committee.
Yours faithfully,
Derbyshire Welfare Rights
Some might say that Mr Couling has come dangerously close to breaching the Civil Service code. Civil servants should be politically neutral. They are primarily responsible for implementing government policy in an impartial manner and are accountable for that implementation. They should refrain from comments on policy substance one way or the other. Some of his comments might have come dangerously close to crossing that line.
Excellent!!!!
By the way - as a sampler of the kind of bloke we’re dealing with, see below:
Neil Couling: (P)eople will tell you things in order to maximise their economic choices. In the same way as people will tell you, “I am looking for work”, because they know that if they say that they are not doing so there will be consequences and they will get sanctioned, people will tell you things when they present to food banks. It might not be wilful deceit that is going on; it might well be their belief about the situation. Then, the food banks will record that and it will be presented back as a fact. However, that does not establish a causal link. The supply argument is a much stronger argument. Academics are not exploring the supply argument though; they are looking at what people are reporting in food banks and citing that as evidence. That does not make it right; it is just what they are doing.
The Deputy Convener: I am bound to say that I find that a very unconvincing argument indeed.
Kevin Stewart: I would go so far as to say that it is complete and utter nonsense.
Neil Couling: You just need not engage with it, then; you can just say that it is complete and utter nonsense and not engage with the argument.
Kevin Stewart: I would suggest that you go and speak to folk at food banks, as I have done—the workers, the volunteers and those folks who are presenting themselves, who without doubt are facing major difficulties in their life, often due to sanctioning.
Let us move away from that and look at some of the figures.Neil Couling: So, let us ignore what I have said, shall we?
Kevin Stewart: Mr Couling, we are here to question you, sir
I should love to have been a fly on the wall during that exchange.
Fast forward to August 2014 when a Mr Couling (for it is he) is opening his post.
He opens a letter from JC+ saying ‘we are sorry but we cannot pay you JSA for 26 weeks as you lost your job through misconduct’.
He then thinks ‘that is just the jolt I need to remind me not to be such a numpty’ , gets a job with some huge multinational and sends JC+ a bunch of flowers and a lovely thank you card.
A thought…. could advisers please be vigilant just in case jobseekers are called in by their local JC+ for mandatory activity consisting of an emergency card-making session…..?
or a mysterious bulk order to Clinton Cards….................................
I think you’re being very unfair to the chap.
The Oxford definition of inundate (ignoring the literal ‘under water’ alternative definition) is:
verb
[with object]
Overwhelm (someone) with things or people to be dealt with.
Therefore, all that he has said is that JC+ offices are unable to deal with things. So that’s official now.
I’m the last to agree with most things said or done by the muppets in power, but I was talking to a service user last week, who has received a doubled up sanction for failing to turn up to various appointments (at least partially JobFit’s fault, but that’s by the by). She’s eventually managed to get hardship payments, but only after the words “my support workers” were included in the conversation, and as a result has spent the last 13 weeks on roughly £40/week, (plus CTC, CB, HB etc)
She actually, unprompted, said that it had been a good thing for her, because she has realised that she can live on this level, she’s managed it, so it means she knows she can save, which she hasn’t been able to do before, and a few changes in her choices mean she & the kids can have a better Christmas etc. I know another former service user who had been signing & unsuccessfully looking for work for around 6 years, within 3 weeks of a 13 week sanction had managed to find himself a job.
Neither of these wanted or welcomed the sanction, but these will be the kind of cases referred to.
Hi Lorraine
I don’t doubt that there might be some claimants who were ultimately glad of a wakeup call. What many found objectionable, however, amongst other things, was the use of the word “inundated”. Even though he didn’t use the word himself he implied it and didn’t challenge it. See Shawn’s post at 13.
“asked whether jobcentres across the country have been inundated with thank you cards from people who have received sanctions, Mr Couling replied ‘Yes - that is not so remarkable’”.