Health and 'cost/benefits' analysis of the DWP in 'guidance for decision makers'

From Revd Paul Nicolson of Taxpayers Against Poverty, who says:

Looking at the guidance I doubt whether any Jobcentre decision maker is capable of making such decisions about health and should never have been asked. The guidance has more to do with Ministers answering legal challenges and complying with human rights legislation. 

THE DWP SEEMS TO THINK THAT MAKING PEOPLE ILL "IS A PRICE WORTH PAYING" TO "ENCOURAGE" THE UNEMPLOYED INTO WORK. 

The DWP never thinks about the additional costs in the NHS when the DWP makes people mentally and physically ill by shredding or even stopping their incomes; and then enforcing inevitable rent and council tax arrears, overpayments etc..........

This is a clip from a government document for Decision Makers (re Sanctions) in the DWP. You can find the full article on the Ekklesia website,  It was sent in by a TAP supporter.

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/21360

Guidance for hardship payments

“Comparing the decline in health with a healthy adult

35098 The DM must consider if the health of the person with the medical condition would decline more than a normal healthy adult. The DM should make this comparison based on a normal healthy adult who is in similar circumstances to the person with the medical condition.

35099 It would be usual for a normal healthy adult to suffer some deterioration in their health if they were without

1. essential items, such as food, clothing, heating and accommodation or

2. sufficient money to buy essential items for a period of two weeks. 

See Appendix 6 to this Chapter for further guidance.

The DM must determine if a person with a medical condition would suffer a greater decline in health than a normal healthy adult and would suffer hardship (DMG 35142 et seq)”.

Here is the link to the whole of Chapter 35 of the DWP guidance to sanctions decision makers about Hardship Payments. It is 156 pages long. "two weeks" appears 17 times. Appendix 6 gets us nearest to what the DWP is getting at.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/391572/dmgch35.pdf

"Full health depends upon a regular and varied intake of food containing sufficient calories and essential nutrients. A normal healthy body contains enough reserves to cope with dietary changes over a short period but there are medical conditions that could deteriorate due to an inadequate diet over a two week period following a DM's decision". 

The other references to "two weeks" seem to be saying that its OK for the health of a healthy person with a sanction to deteriorate over two weeks but don't risk it with a mentally or physically ill person, who should be given a hardship payment.

Looking at the guidance I doubt whether any Jobcentre decision maker is capable of making such decisions about health and should never have been asked. The guidance has more to do with Ministers answering legal challenges and complying with human rights legislation. 

There are very few normal healthy bodies being sanctioned; they are mostly unable to buy a healthy diet and all other necessities for themselves or their children

The DWP description of "full health" has been ignored when deciding the level of benefits and deciding on the caps, cuts and council tax benefits for decades.

I have been writing since 1999 that the adult unemployment is not enough to live on (now at £72.40 a week). Since April 2013 many tenants have been paying rent due to the bedroom tax and council tax out of it; families have been suffering in the same way due to the overall benefit cap of £500. Making the purchase of a healthy diet even more impossible for nearly three years - not just two weeks. Before then we had 100% council tax and housing benefit.

Rev Paul Nicolson
Taxpayers Against Poverty