Skip to main contentSkip to navigationSkip to navigation

Benefit sanctions and absurdity: will public attitudes change?

This article is more than 9 years old
The miserable and costly consequences of absurd and unfair welfare sanctions cases are increasingly becoming, like Atos fit-for-work tests, a staple of local and national press reports

It's always worth reminding ourselves just how draconian and irrational, not to mention pointless, sadistic, and avoidably counterproductive the benefit sanctions regime can be, not least because, as my colleague Patrick Wintour noted this week:

The issue is one that all political parties are reluctant to take up, partly because public opinion is thought to be hostile to "benefit scroungers"

Here are three examples, each of which has been reported by local news websites in the past few days (thanks to @boycottworkfare for the tip), each of which gives a flavour of the costly, miserable and sometimes absurd consequences of heavy-handed and indiscriminate sanctioning.

First, the case of Ian Mulholland, 43, of Borough Rd Darlington, who was jailed for shoplifting after his benefits were stopped for nine weeks. Mulholland, a court heard, had admitted stealing:

Three packets of casserole steak from Sainsbury's

For that heinous crime (total value of goods: £12.60) he was jailed for six weeks, although activation of a previous suspended sentence means he will spend 14 weeks behind bars.

In mitigation, Mulholland, a former heroin addict, said he stole the steak because he was:

Unable to afford food and, because of his ulcerated legs, was unable to get to the local food bank.

According to Major Colin Bradshaw, who manages a Salvation Army food bank in Darlington, Mulholland's financial and nutritional situation is far from unique. He told The Northern Echo:

Around 70 per cent of the 50 to 58 people we help at our Friday night emergency food bank have been sanctioned – many of them over 50 years of age and all of them desperate.

Meanwhile, the Kidderminster Shuttle reports that mother Lucy Hill, 35, of Westcott Rd, Kidderminster, was convicted on two counts of theft after being caught stealing chicken and washing powder "to feed her family", which includes an 18 month old baby.

Hill had been sanctioned for missing a job centre appointment. Interestingly, the Shuttle report emphasises not (as many media outlets would do) Hill's moral turpitude but the pragmatic and sympathetic response from the public to her predicament, reporting that:

Now the public have rallied behind her [Hill], agreeing they would have to steal as well in her position

This assertion is seemingly based on the possibly slender evidence of comments left on the Shuttle's Facebook page. However, it also quotes Kate Bennett of the Wyre Forest Citizen's Advice Bureau:

The whole idea of sanctions is to stop people from taking the Mickey, and that's fine, but this is starting to get too much now and to be a punishment. You can get a four-week sanction for a silly mistake or for being late and it might not be your fault, and they are sometimes counter productive, as you can see that some people shoplift as they haven't got enough money to live on.

Finally, the case of unemployed Warsop man Michael Droushiotis, 30, who had his benefits docked after telling Job Centre Plus advisors he had been helping his dyslexic brother with his reading.

It's probably best to read the Chad news article to get a sense of the full bureaucratic insanity of this sanction. However, it appears (if I have understood it correctly) that, even though he was not being paid for helping his sibling, his brotherly favour did not qualify as charitable activity, and therefore he was adjudged to be not focusing sufficiently on looking for work.

As a result of the sanction, Droushiotis - who said he had been looking for work - saw his benefits cut from £240 a fortnight to £18. He said:

It didn't stop me applying for work, but I couldn't survive on £18, it's ridiculous.

Indeed. Happily, after an intervention from Droushiotis's local MP, Sir Alan Meale, the DWP investigated and discovered, according to Chad news, that there had been a "misunderstanding". He has now been told his benefit has been reinstated and that arrears owed will be paid.

These are just three examples. Will the proliferation of these stories change public attitudes? As the numbers of sanctions rises as a result of tighter rules, it seems likely that the more absurd examples will become a staple of local news (and then national) reporting, much as happened with work capability assessment injustices meted out by Atos.

The case of David Clapson, the 59 year old diabetic ex-soldier who died after being sanctioned is a case in point: a local news story that became a national one, and a cause celebre that triggered a 211,000 strong Change.org petition and finally this week an MPs inquiry.

And as the DWP and Atos know to their cost, when this happens, attention turns from the people who receive the sanctions to people who dole them out, and how fair and reasonable their actions are. And attitudes begin, slowly, to change.

More on this story

More on this story

  • Government urged to suspend benefit sanctions regime

  • Benefit sanctions hit over 900,000 claiming jobseeker’s allowance

  • Benefit sanctions regime for unemployed to be investigated by MPs

Comments (…)

Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion

Most viewed

Most viewed