Parliament's Work and Pensions Committee has reopened an inquiry into the Department for Work and Pensions’ treatment of vulnerable benefit claimants.
The previous iteration of the committee launched an inquiry asking whether DWP’s approach to safeguarding needs to change in July 2023, following reports that a number of its “customers” had died. It closed in May after the general election was called, as inquiries cannot be carried over into the next parliament.
In an announcement yesterday, the committee – which is now headed up by Labour MP Debbie Abrahams – said it would formally reopen the inquiry “in light of the seriousness of this subject”.
“We will continue our evaluation of DWP’s approach to safeguarding, and seek to understand how the new government intends to rise to the challenge of ensuring it supports those who find it difficult to interact with the benefit system,” it said.
The initial inquiry noted that over the three years to July 2022, the number of internal department investigations into cases where there were allegations of DWP mishandling with “severe negative impact” doubled. It said there were 140 “internal process reviews” during this period, compared with 64 between 2016 and 2019.
DWP guidance describes these IPRs as “an opportunity for the department to understand customers’ experiences and to ensure DWP’s people have followed the correct processes”.
“Where this is not the case, they seek to understand why, to inform future learning activity to improve services,” it adds.
The reviews are conducted when there is a “suggestion or allegation that the department’s actions or omissions may have negatively contributed to the customer’s circumstances” and a customer has suffered serious harm, died or is believed to have attempted suicide; or the department has been told to participate in a multi-agency review such as a Safeguarding Adults Review or is named as an interested party at an inquest.
Any member of DWP staff can refer a case to be considered for an IPR. There were 75 referrals across 2023 to 2024, 53 of which met the criteria and were accepted for an IPR.
Announcing the reopening of the inquiry, the committee said: “There are many people who claim benefits from DWP who are considered vulnerable and in need of special care, support or protection to ensure that they are able to access the public services they require from the department.
“Although DWP implements a number of safeguarding processes to help provide additional support to these people, DWP does not currently have a statutory duty to safeguard the wellbeing of vulnerable claimants.”
The committee’s call for evidence – which received 78 written submissions – asked for input on whether there should be such a duty and what it should look like, as well as what DWP could do to help vulnerable people to make a claim for benefits.
It also asked what measures DWP uses to ensure that vulnerable claimants are safeguarded against harm, and how successful these measures are; whether the department has an adequate understanding of the vulnerable claimants that use the benefit system and the support they need; and whether it does enough to monitor the wellbeing of vulnerable claimants.
And it asked whether the department is “adequately transparent” about its safeguarding measures for vulnerable claimants – including the IPR process – and its safeguarding failures.
DWP has received significant criticism in recent years over transparency, and MPs on the Work and Pensions Committee have repeatedly warned DWP that its refusal to publish research it has commissioned could damage public trust. The department meanwhile only published details of its “serious case panel” – set up in 2020 to “consider the most serious systemic issues” identified in internal reviews and by the independent case examiner – following vocal criticism from campaigners.
DWP repeatedly refused to release terms of reference for the panel – which was mentioned in 2019 Spending Review documents but was not formally announced – to journalists who spotted references to it in official documents. It also refused to say who sat on the panel or provide further details on why it was set up.
The department published the documents later that year, following questions from the committee.
The department also came under fire for referring to the panel as “independent”, later admitting that it was comprised of civil servants and led by a director and clarifying that panel members "will be independent of the case, not necessarily the department".
The committee said it will be contacting stakeholders and witnesses who had given evidence during the last parliament to ask if they would like to submit any further evidence, to reflect any changes that might have occurred since last being in contact.
The committee will report “in due course”, it said.