Skip to main content

BENEFITS REFUSALS DRIVING FOODBANK USE IN THE EAST

Shocking increase in "adverse decisions" under coalition 

The number of people in the east of England having their applications for benefits rejected has soared under the coalition government.

 

The Green Party believes this is one of the primary causes of the increased use of foodbanks. A Parliamentary select committee came to the same conclusion in January and called for an enquiry into inappropriate sanctions being imposed on claimants by Jobcentre Plus staff. They said staff should be incentivised to get people into work and not simply off benefits.

 

Lord Freud, the welfare reform minister, caused controversy when he recently told peers that more people were using the banks because more of them existed, and denied they were even part of the welfare system.

 

Green Party analysis of figures compiled by the Department for Work and Pensions reveal that "adverse decisions" against claimants for Job Seekers Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance in the east of England leapt from 19,000 to almost thirty thousand between 2008 and 2009. According to figures published on February 19th, by last year that number had doubled again to nearly sixty two thousand.

 

Rupert Read, Green Party lead candidate in the east at the May Euro-elections said:

 

"The Conservatives' reputation as the nasty party is underlined by the way in which they seem to be forcing people off social security in order to save petty sums of money and thus sending them into the arms of a network of charitable foodbanks that are struggling to cope.

 

"Wouldn't it be wonderful if the Government could instead target the tens of billions that are being ripped off us all by a tiny minority of bankers and tax-evaders? That's what the Greens will focus on, when we come to power."

 

 

DWP figures for JSA/ESA "sanctions" in the East of England:

Year

Sanctions

2000

13060

2001

17000

2002

19200

2003

17300

2004

15070

2005

16280

2006

14950

2007

16720

2008

19080

2009

29960

2010

53650

2011

52170

2012

53970

(to Oct 2012)

2013

61797

(Oct 2012 – September 2013)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments

Mani Bhushan said…
This comment has been removed by the author.

Popular posts from this blog

Post-Growth: A new vision for a fairer and more sustainable Britain

More on why 20's plenty -- without need for any further 'trials'...

There are a number of reasons for setting a default speed of 20mph throughout the 'unclassified' road network in residential parts of a city such as Norwich. Most important perhaps is that of driver recognition as to what the speed limit is. If you have 20 mph as the default then you not only establish this limit clearly, but you also adjust the driver's recognition as to what is the "normal" speed in such residential areas. The most important aspect is that drivers set 20 mph as the norm with those 30 mph areas or roads being seen as 50% faster, rather than seeing 30 mph as the norm with 20 mph as 33% slower. The psychological adjustment of normal speeds in residential areas is key to the success of reducing speeds and therefore danger to pedestrians and cyclists. Therefore any trial, pilot or whatever, that only implements 20 mph in a tiny proportion of the city is not modelling 20's Plenty in any realistic manner.   When considering the val...