Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Benefit Sanctions and Welfare Conditionality: Covid-19

Monday 19 October 2020 · 4 questions

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Answered 0 Partly answered 3 Not answered 0

Key points

  • Ministerial responses indicate that active labour market policies can be more effective during recessions, encouraging claimants to prepare and look for work.
  • Sanctions are only applied when claimants fail to meet their conditionality requirements without good reason, with work coaches ensuring reasonable requirements based on individual circumstances.
  • The government acknowledges the difficult times but highlights job creation in digital, green, and logistical sectors that can be carried out safely.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Jeff Smith Lab Manchester Withington
Economy Employment Benefits & Welfare
Context

The MP questioned the effectiveness of resuming benefits sanctions and welfare conditionality amid rising unemployment due to the COVID-19 outbreak.

Question

What assessment has been made of the effectiveness of resuming (a) benefits sanctions and (b) welfare conditionality during increased levels of unemployment as a result of the covid-19 outbreak?

Answer from Mims Davies

Evidence suggests that active labour market policies can be even more effective during recessions. We will continue to encourage claimants to prepare and look for work where it is safe to do so. Claimants will not be subject to conditionality until they have agreed a new or updated claimant commitment.

Partly answered

Not addressed: Did not provide specific evidence on the effectiveness of sanctions and conditionality during increased unemployment.

How: Under Review

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email
Q2 Kim Johnson Lab Liverpool Riverside
Benefits & Welfare
Context

The MP highlighted significant increases in unemployment and furloughed workers in Liverpool, questioning the government's evidence on the benefits of reintroducing sanctions and welfare conditionality.

Question

There are a further 27,000 people on furlough in our closed hospitality sector who will either be let go or have to survive on 67% of their wages come November. With benefits sanctions being reintroduced and welfare conditionality being reinstated, what evidence do the Government have that this is benefiting claimants and preventing a return to the high unemployment of the '80s?

Answer from Mims Davies

I stress to the hon. Lady that sanctions are only used when claimants fail to meet their conditionality requirements without good reason. As I said in my previous responses, work coaches will work to ensure that any requirements set are reasonable, taking into account the claimant's circumstances and, crucially, the situation in the local labour market, while allowing them to adhere also to public health advice.

Partly answered

Not addressed: Did not provide specific evidence or data on the effectiveness of sanctions and conditionality.

How: Under Review

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email
Q3 Jeff Smith Lab Manchester Withington
Employment Benefits & Welfare
Context

The MP noted an increase of 3,000 unemployment claims in Manchester and suggested that more supportive measures are needed rather than punitive ones.

Question

In Manchester, Withington there are 3,000 more people needing to claim unemployment benefits than this time last year, and unemployment is rising and will get worse at the end of the furlough scheme, so there are not 3,000 jobs for those people to go to. Suspending sanctions and welfare conditionality was the right thing to do in the crisis, but we are still in that crisis. Does the Minister not accept that we need to be more supportive and less punitive at the moment?

Answer from Mims Davies

I hope the hon. Gentleman and his constituents will acknowledge that, despite the reintroduction of conditionality and sanctions, we fully recognise that these are difficult times. New jobs are being created in the digital, green and logistical sectors that can be carried out safely in line with social distancing and public health rules.

Not addressed: Did not address whether the government should remain more supportive rather than punitive.

How: Changed Subject

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email
Q4 Seema Malhotra Labour (Co-op) Feltham and Heston
Benefits & Welfare
Context

The MP questioned government policy on reinstating benefit sanctions against expert advice, amid rising unemployment and business closures.

Question

In July, the Government chose to reinstate benefit sanctions and conditionality, against the advice of experts. We are now in the covid second wave, with businesses closing, unemployment rising and vacancies halved since March, but last week the Government said that the clinically extremely vulnerable and those they live with could have their benefits cut if they refuse a job that puts them at risk from the virus. Is that really the Government's policy? Is it not time to end the threats and re-suspend benefit sanctions, or are we no longer in this together?

Answer from Mims Davies

I understand the hon. Lady's point, but if someone cannot work and must stay at home, there are ways of getting additional support, and I would urge anybody concerned to use the benefits calculator on gov.uk. I again remind the House that work coaches will always work to ensure that requirements are reasonable, always taking into account the claimant's circumstances and the situation in the local labour market, and continuing to adhere to public health advice.

Partly answered

Not addressed: Did not confirm whether sanctions would be suspended or re-imposed during the second wave.

How: Under Review

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email