Safeguarding Vulnerable Claimants

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams]

That was just the intervention that I needed.

There have also been the cases of Jodey Whiting, David Wood and many, many others. Our report recognises the significance of every death and harm experienced by claimants, and the impact of these cases on their loved ones.

We know that 40 deaths and 13 serious harms of claimants were investigated by the Department in 2023-24 alone as part of its internal process reviews, but in common with the National Audit Office’s 2020 report, we believe that the actual numbers are much higher. We heard evidence that the process of accessing DWP support, and some DWP policies themselves, can create or exacerbate existing vulnerabilities. For example, sanctions or the threat of sanctions can lead to material deprivation, stress, and the deterioration of physical and mental health. In some cases, the experience of engaging with the system and the processes has been so difficult and distressing that it has contributed to claimants deciding to take their own life.

Some of the most serious cases of harm—where a coroner’s inquest has found that DWP contributed to a claimant’s death—have resulted in prevention of future death reports. Since 2010, DWP has been issued with 10 prevention of future death reports relating specifically to the deaths of benefit claimants. The fact that the Equality and Human Rights Commission issued a section 23 notice on the DWP for potential discrimination against disabled people in 2022, and the investigation that was subsequently launched last year after the failure to reach an agreement, added to the evidence that the Work and Pensions Committee collected on the DWP’s inadequate approach to safeguarding. The inquiry set out to examine the support that the Department provided to vulnerable claimants, how it had learned from mistakes and failures, and what needed to change.

The new Committee agreed to reopen the inquiry on 30 October 2024. Before I turn to the findings and recommendations of the report, I should acknowledge that in the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper, published in March, the Government said they were consulting

“on a new DWP safeguarding approach to make it clear what the department and its staff are expected to do in order to safeguard the public.”

I welcome that, and I was heartened by the Secretary of State’s evidence to the Committee last November.

Our principal recommendation is for a statutory safeguarding duty to be placed on the DWP to protect claimants. Although the Secretary of State would be accountable for this duty, reflecting the leadership needed to drive these changes, it would make safeguarding in the DWP everyone’s business: at all levels of the organisation and at all stages of policy development and implementation. The duty would include the proactive consideration of the safeguarding needs of claimants, the ability to refer vulnerable individuals to other agencies with a duty of care, and, again, the proactive consideration of the impacts of key policies and legislation on the health and wellbeing of claimants before they are implemented.

The need for a new legal obligation is clear. The current approach to safeguarding in DWP has been described as “piecemeal and lacking coherence”, and the Committee agrees. For that reason, the report calls for a comprehensive, systems-based approach to safeguarding that integrates into every stage of policy development, implementation and review. The approach must involve everyone in the DWP to ensure that safeguarding becomes a fundamental part of the Department’s culture.

We see a new statutory duty as the cornerstone of a bigger cultural shift that is needed in the DWP. For too long, the focus has been on cost cutting, often at the expense of providing genuine support. That approach has led to a system in which claimants feel undeserving of support and fearful of the very Department that is meant to assist them. The necessary cultural shift must be driven from the top down, with Ministers and senior officials leading the way. A statutory safeguarding duty would help to focus minds, improve accountability and ensure that safeguarding becomes everybody’s business in the DWP.

The need for deep-rooted cultural change in the Department cannot be overstated. The process of engaging with the DWP often leads to mental distress for claimants. This distress is compounded by a lack of trust in the system, driven by continual cost-cutting measures and an unhelpful media narrative. To rebuild trust, the DWP must prioritise safeguarding and support over cost cutting, and this means creating a system that not only helps people to find sustainable work, but compassionately supports those who may never work.

The report also emphasises the importance of learning from past mistakes. The Department has conducted a number of IPRs, but the full scale of harm is much higher. The ongoing investigation by the Equality and Human Rights Commission into the Department’s treatment of disabled people and those with long-term mental health conditions underscores the need for transparency and accountability.

In addition to the statutory duty, the report makes a number of other important recommendations, which I will go through quickly. As I have mentioned, it is recommended that all significant new policies are analysed by the Department’s chief medical adviser’s team. Currently, such assessments are not routinely carried out, leading to policies that may inadvertently harm claimants or exacerbate existing vulnerabilities. By making these assessments a standard part of policy development, we hope to ensure that the impacts of policies on the health and wellbeing of claimants are considered and harms mitigated.

The report stresses the importance of having a robust, clear and accessible complaints procedure to prevent failures recurring. As I have stated, the true scale of deaths and harms is not known. The report calls for systematic recording and publication of all cases of serious harms and deaths involving claimants. The Department should commit to publishing this information annually to aid transparency. The report also recommends improving transparency in the processes used to learn from serious mistakes and failures, and the introduction of an independent body—the Department should not mark its own homework—to investigate serious harms.

On defining and identifying vulnerability, the Department’s current approach is seen as flexible, lacking in clarity and consistency. The report calls for a formalised definition of vulnerability that is clearly communicated in public-facing documents. It also recommends adding victims of abuse to the additional support area in universal credit, and implementing proactive measures to identify and support vulnerable claimants.

Ensuring that vulnerable people can access the benefits they are entitled to is crucial for delivering equitable welfare provision. The removal of the Help to Claim face-to-face service has made it more difficult for some individuals to apply for universal credit. The report recommends that the DWP ensures that jobcentres provide thorough support, and that detailed information about additional support is proactively offered to claimants. In that regard I do give praise, because there are so many good people in the Department, such as the advanced customer support senior leaders, who are integral to helping frontline DWP staff. I praise those staff, and we need more of them.

Effective communication and making sure that people are aware of what support they can access is also important, and we need more of it. That also applies to training and capacity building for frontline staff, which needs to happen to achieve the cultural changes we need. Finally, collaboration with other agencies needs to be a statutory responsibility, and there needs to be DWP membership of the safeguarding adults boards. I am very grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

First, I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend. She has been a persistent champion of safeguarding vulnerable people in the system, and this report really emphasises that. I was surprised that the Committee did not recommend the removal of conditionality, because that is a serious lead into harm for so many people. In anticipation of the pathways to work legislation coming before this House, I think the report makes very sobering reading and raises serious concerns about safeguarding and the accountability of that safeguarding.

I would pick out the recommendation about the chief medical adviser’s assessments. Currently, that is private advice to Ministers. What steps does my hon. Friend believe can be taken so the House can be supplied with the full evidence base it needs to make informed choices, not least because policies such as pathways to work will place many people at serious risk, including serious risk to their lives?