DWP should have legal duty to look after vulnerable benefits claimants, say MPs
Ministers should introduce the statutory duty to prevent people from dying or coming to harm as a result of mistakes in the welfare system, the Commons Work and Pensions Committee said in its latest report.
The committee's latest recommendations come after several high-profile deaths of vulnerable people following their interaction with the benefits system.
Among those named in the report is Errol Graham, who starved to death in 2018, months after his disability benefit payments were stopped.
Meanwhile, Debbie Abrahams, the committee's Labour chairwoman, suggested an 'unhelpful media narrative' about benefits claimants and 'cost-cutting drives' continues to sow distrust in the DWP.
The report comes at a time when the Government is pushing for reforms aimed at reducing the number of welfare claimants by getting more people currently on benefits into work.
'Cost-effectiveness and efforts to move people into work had been prioritised, or been perceived to be prioritised, over providing genuine care and support to vulnerable people,' the report said.
At the same time, claimants have reported 'feeling undeserving of support, or fearful of the DWP'.
A 'deep-rooted cultural change' is needed, according to the report, which recommended a change in the law so that the DWP has to help claimants who are vulnerable get help from other branches of Government, like the health service.
Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall should make a statement in the House of Commons setting out a new approach to safeguarding once the ongoing benefits review is finished, the MPs said.
Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall makes a statement on welfare reform in the House of Commons in March (House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA)
A statutory duty of care would be a 'significant undertaking for the DWP', the report acknowledged, but it claimed the current approach is not working, and there are a 'stubbornly high' number of cases where vulnerable clients have come to harm.
Some 240 internal reviews have been started by the DWP since the 2020-21 year, into cases where there has been serious harm, or where there are allegations that the department's actions have led to death or harm.
However, the committee suggested the 'true scale of deaths and serious harms of vulnerable claimants is currently unknown'.
Ms Abrahams said: 'That people continue to face harm after dealing with the DWP is a self-evident failure of safeguarding in the system.
'Until recently, getting people back into work to cut costs had been prioritised over providing support and care for vulnerable people.
'We heard evidence that the process itself of engaging with the DWP itself too often led to mental distress. Where this led to not being able to get financial support, many had paid the ultimate price.'
Debbie Abrahams speaking at the Labour Party Conference in 2016 (Danny Lawson/PA)
While the committee members had been 'heartened' by evidence they heard from the Work and Pensions Secretary on moves to improve safeguarding, Ms Abrahams added: 'We've heard that, whilst some have been lifted by the system when it works well, this can depend on claimants' confidence that the system will help them.
'Too often, we heard their trust has been smashed by continual cost-cutting drives and an unhelpful media narrative.
'Many fear coming forward and expressing that they need additional support due to their circumstances and they fall deeper into vulnerability and despair as a result.'
The report also contains a warning for ministers about moves to cut costs in the benefits system.
'Incorrectly applied, policies intended to drive claimant behaviour and deliver value for money, such as sanctions and deductions, can create and exacerbate vulnerabilities,' it said.
Mark Winstanley, chief executive of the charity Rethink Mental Illness, gave his support to the committee's recommendations.
'For too long, vulnerable people living with mental illness have suffered devastating harm and lost their lives due to failures in the benefits system,' he said.
'If implemented, a statutory duty for the DWP to safeguard vulnerable claimants would be a crucial step towards real accountability, something we and other committed campaigners have advocated for.
'Like our NHS, the benefits system was set up to support those in need, yet without legal safeguards a punitive and harmful approach has gone unchecked, with little transparency on whether lessons have been learned from past tragedies.
'The Government has pledged to renew its focus on safeguarding – this must include a statutory duty for the DWP to safeguard vulnerable claimants that prioritises the wellbeing of people affected by mental illness in every policy and decision.'
A DWP spokesperson said: 'This Government is committed to protecting the people who use our services and fixing the broken welfare system we inherited so it works for those who need it.
'That's why we are currently consulting on a new safeguarding approach, and our reforms will improve people's lives and rebuild trust, by establishing an approach that genuinely supports vulnerable people.
'As we deliver our Plan for Change, we encourage people to have their voices heard through our consultation so we can build a safeguarding approach that works better for all.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Record
an hour ago
- Daily Record
Calls to ‘abandon' new DWP benefit reforms and create a National Disability Strategy nears milestone
Thousands of people have signed an online petition calling for DWP reforms due to start next year to be scrapped. Nearly 9,500 people have signed an online petition urging the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to 'abandon' proposed welfare reforms to health and disability benefits, outlined in the Pathways to Work: Reforming Benefits and Support to Get Britain Working Green Paper. Petition creator Rick Burgess, is calling for the UK Government to scrap the plans due to start from next November and instead work with disability charities and organisations across the country to create a 'National Disability Strategy'. The campaigner argues that the plans will see 'devastating cuts to disability benefits ' and puts forward proposals to 'protect the income of disabled people from further shocks'. The 'Abandon DWP Pathways to Work Green Paper and create National Disability Strategy' petition has been posted on the official UK Government's Petitions-Parliament website. It states: 'The DWP Green Paper Pathways to Work proposes what we think are devastating cuts to disability benefits. We think the Government must drop these proposals and instead begin a process of co-production with disabled peoples representative organisations to create a whole government disability strategy.' The proposals include: Abandon the DWP Pathways to Work: Reforming Benefits and Support to Get Britain Working Green Paper. Establish and resource a disability strategy co-production infrastructure working with Deaf and Disabled People's Organisations (Organisations run by and for disabled people) to create a National Disability Strategy to inform Labour market, Employment rights and Social Security reform that provides an adequate standard of living in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Protect the income of disabled people from further shocks. At 10,000 signatures, the petition would be entitled to a written response from the UK Government, most-likely from the DWP. At 100,000, it would be considered by the Petitions Committee for debate in Parliament. You can view it in full here. Last month, the DWP rejected proposals in another online petition calling for the welfare reforms to be scrapped. More than 27,400 people have signed in support of the petition, posted by disability activist Abigail Broomfield who argues that instead of reducing benefits, the DWP should be providing 'support, not hardship and deprivation, for those who cannot work.' However, the DWP response in April highlighted how the 'UK Government must urgently tackle the spiralling welfare bill, restore trust and fairness in the system, and protect disabled people. Social security reforms will therefore continue as planned.' The welfare reform proposals centre on changes to both the eligibility criteria for and the reduced payment rates of benefits and include plans to abolish the Work Capability Assessment (WCA), meaning the new Personal Independence Payment (PIP) assessment would determine eligibility for PIP and the health element of Universal Credit. Responding to the 'Protect disabled people who cannot work from planned cuts to benefits' petition - also posted on the official UK Government petitions website, DWP said: 'Our welfare system is broken, costing almost a third as much as it does to run the NHS in England while leaving people for years on benefits with no offer of support, no hope of a future in work and no opportunity to improve their standard of living. 'Working-age adults who are in work are three times less likely to be in poverty than those out of work. We need to act to end the inequality that sees disabled people and people with health conditions trapped out of jobs, despite many wanting to work, and ensure our welfare system is there for people who need it, now and long into the future. 'As part of our Plan for Change we're introducing the most far-reaching reforms in a generation, with £1 billion a year being invested to give people the best possible chance with tailored support that can be adapted to meet their changing circumstances - including their changing health.' DWP went on to list the changes being made to the system to 'support sick and disabled people - many of whom want to work - into jobs, while protecting those with the most severe conditions who can never work'. Commenting on the DWP's response, Ms Broomfield told the Daily Record: 'They've not addressed how they're going to protect disabled people who can't work and have just repeated points from the Green Paper. 'In fact they've doubled down on how by claiming that getting disabled people into work is going to protect disabled people.' The disability campaigner added: 'A Freedom of Information request revealed that nearly 90 per cent of disabled people or 1.3 million people who only get standard rates or PIP are going to be losing money.' Ms Broomfield will continue her campaign to get the petition to 100,000 signatures of support where it would be considered by the Petitions Committee for debate in Parliament. You can read the full petition and DWP response on the Petitions Parliament website here. Online consultation The 12-week consultation on reforms to health and disability support officially launched on April 7 on with publication of all accessible versions of the Pathways to Work Green Paper. The consultation is open until 11.59pm on Monday June 30, 2025. The proposed reforms aim to support people into work, protect people who can never work and put the welfare system on a sustainable footing so that it can continue to support those in need now and into the future. DWP said: 'One in three of us faces a long-term health condition, so we all need a system that can support us to stay in work or get back into work.' The measures are the latest step in the UK Government's drive to build a modern welfare system that helps people get jobs rather than creating unnecessary barriers, with ministers' proposed plans set to: Provide more tailored employment support for those who can work, breaking down barriers to opportunity Simplify the system and reduce unnecessary assessments, cutting bureaucracy and making it easier to navigate Improve the way financial support is assessed and delivered, ensuring it reaches those who need it most and that people using the system have a better experience and are treated with dignity and respect Build a more flexible approach that recognises the diverse needs of disabled people and those with long-term health conditions DWP said that without changes, it is forecast that the system could cost as much as £70 billion a year by the end of the decade and risk not being there for people when they need it in future. Issues open for consultation include: Supporting people to thrive with the new support offer Supporting employers and making work more accessible Reforming the structure of the health and disability benefits system DWP said: "These are part of the wider reforms that also include reintroducing reassessments for people on incapacity benefits who have the capability to work to ensure they have the right support and aren't indefinitely written off, targeting Personal Independence Payments for those with higher needs, and rebalancing payment levels in Universal Credit."
Daily Record
an hour ago
- Daily Record
State Pension age compensation scheme for millions of WASPI women to be debated next week
An estimated 3.6 million women were financially impacted by the increase to the State Pension age. The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee has announced there will be a parliamentary debate on a motion over 'financial redress for 1950s women impacted by the Department for Work and Pensions' (DWP) maladministration of the State Pension ' next week. Bob Blackman confirmed the debate will take place on Thursday, July 3 during the weekly 'Business of the House' session in the Commons last week. The debate will be of keen interest to the WASPI women (Women Against State Pension Inequality) campaign who announced on Monday they have secured a vital legal safeguard in their bid for a compensation scheme for an estimated 3.6 million women after the High Court approved a limit on the campaign's liability for DWP defence costs. WASPI is seeking a judicial review to force the UK Government to reconsider its decision to rule out a compensation package for women affected by the way changes to the State Pension age were communicated. The DWP has agreed to a costs capping order, protecting each side in the event they lose. The agreement limits WASPI's liability for UK Government legal costs to £60,000, and caps the UK Government's liability for WASPI's legal costs at £90,000. WASPI has welcomed the breakthrough as a 'major milestone' in their fight to secure a lawful Government response to the Ombudsman's compensation proposals for 1950s-born women. However, campaigners stress the order does not reduce the actual legal costs of the case, which will be much higher. Earlier this month, Mr Justice Swift, a senior High Court judge ruled that the case is 'arguable' and 'ought to be considered at a final hearing', meaning ministers could be ordered to re-think their position on compensation if WASPI wins the argument in court. But arguing the case involves submitting thousands of pages of evidence, and winning key legal arguments on a complex body of case law. The campaign continues to ask supporters to contribute to its legal fighting fund as preparations begin for a full hearing later this year - they must raise enough to cover not only the capped UK Government costs, but those of the legal team fighting the case. The judicial review will examine the Government's rejection of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman's (PHSO) recommendations for compensation, ranging between £1,000 and £2,950, despite ministers' acceptance that maladministration had occurred. In December 2024, the UK Government said that, while it accepted the Ombudsman's finding of maladministration and apologised for there being a delay in writing to 1950s-born women, a blanket compensation scheme, which could cost taxpayers up to £10.5 billion, cannot be justified. Angela Madden, Chair of Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI), said: 'This agreement - fully approved by the court - is a vital step forward in our legal campaign. 'We now have the certainty we need to press on, but the costs of fighting this case remain very real. Our expert legal team is showing they can and do win victories against the government but it takes time and forensic presentation of our evidence, and that costs money. 'This is the fight of our lives and we can't win it without public support.' Earlier this month, WASPI launched a new interactive tool which shows the UK-wide state of play of MP support for a compensation scheme for women affected by changes to their retirement age. The new analysis shows 179 MPs have publicly blasted the UK Government's decision not to compensate WASPI women in recent months. WASPI said that of these, 56 Labour MPs have openly criticised Downing Street's failure to deliver justice, while dozens more are thought to be supportive behind the scenes, including several senior ministers. The map shows how smaller parties are almost unanimous in their support, with a strong coalition of Liberal Democrat, Reform UK, SNP, Green, Plaid Cymru and DUP MPs backing calls to compensate WASPI women. The smaller parties are almost unanimous in their support, with a strong coalition of Liberal Democrat, Reform UK, SNP, Green, Plaid Cymru and DUP MPs backing calls to compensate WASPI women. Around a dozen Conservative MPs have also recently reaffirmed their support for compensation. The findings come at the launch of WASPI's new website, which has new resources to enable supporters to write to their MP and join the campaign for as little as £15 per year. Some of the strongest advocates for WASPI women include members of the State Pension Inequality for Women APPG, chaired by Labour MP Rebecca Long-Bailey. The cross-party group of MPs is one of the largest in Parliament and includes representatives from across the major political parties who have vowed to continue the fight for justice. However, WASPI campaigners say 134 MPs previously backed calls for compensation but have failed to reaffirm their support since the Labour Government's announcement in December. The figures do not include serving government ministers or whips, at least 80 of whom have previously pledged their support for the campaign. All MPs' positions on compensation can be found on WASPI's interactive 'state of the nation' map, alongside new campaign resources, here.
Daily Mail
9 hours ago
- Daily Mail
ROSA MONCKTON: Why I'll fight in the Lords against this breathtakingly cruel and ignorant assisted suicide Bill
Last week in the House of Commons we saw two measures passed: the first licensing women to abort at up to full term, the second enabling the state to participate in, and even encourage, suicide for the terminally ill. There is a terrible symmetry here, and a bleak message – that life at its beginning, and at its end, is worthless. As the mother of an adult with a learning disability I am petrified by the lack of protection for vulnerable people in the assisted suicide Bill. You spend much of your life as a parent of a disabled child fighting for the necessary support, for the right school, the therapists, a specialist college. Every time you think you can take a breath and relax, the next milestone and hurdle awaits. You worry endlessly. The biggest concern for every parent is what will happen when we are dead. Who will look after our 'child', who will understand their needs, care for them in the right way and facilitate their way through life? But now, to add to that worry, is another enormous and unspeakable question – how can we stop them being killed? I cannot believe that I am having to write these words. Yet the assisted suicide Bill makes no special provision whatsoever for this disenfranchised group. How have we got to this place, where some lives are valued more than others? Many people with a learning disability are vulnerable. My own 30-year-old daughter, Domenica, who has Down's syndrome – and loves life – is highly suggestible and would intuit what her interlocutor wanted to hear, without understanding what she would be agreeing to. Yet in law she has what is called 'capacity'. The Bill is flawed on so many levels: the fact that no one on the death panel has to have any knowledge of the individual, the fact that hospices and care homes that do not want to be involved in assisted suicide will have no protection in law and the fact that their government funding could be based on participation. Where does that sit with the ethos of Dame Cicely Saunders, who founded the hospice movement? A movement based on the principle of care: 'You matter because you are you, and you matter to the end of your life. We will do all we can not only to help you die peacefully, but also to live until you die.' She also said: 'Suffering is only intolerable when nobody cares.' People who work in hospices do care, and the hospices that I have visited and am involved with are wonderful, positive and life-affirming places. Those who work in these hospices who do not approve of assisted suicide – which is almost all of them – will probably leave the palliative care profession. And where does that leave us? With people who want to end the lives of others, not care to the end. All legislators – of which I am one, in the House of Lords – should be considering the weakest and most vulnerable when making momentous, and in this case, literal, life and death decisions. The Bill as it stands has no special protection for people like my daughter. This is something that rightly troubles the Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, too. Explaining his decision to vote against the Bill in a Facebook post aimed at his constituents, he said: 'I can't get past the concerns expressed by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Physicians, the Association for Palliative Medicine and a wide range of charities representing under-privileged groups in our society about the risks that come with this Bill.' Among the many amendments rejected by the committee set up by the sponsor of the bill, Kim Leadbeater MP, were safeguards to protect people with Down's syndrome – an amendment which should have included all people with a learning disability or autism. The committee, of which the great majority were backers of the Bill, rejected by 13 to eight to exclude special support for those with Down's syndrome when discussing assisted suicide. How could this possibly be considered acceptable? Was there not one of those 13 with experience of what it is to have a learning disability; no understanding of how much specialised knowledge and interpretation is needed? If anyone mentions death or dying to my daughter, she immediately becomes acutely anxious and troubled. The deaths we have had in our family have traumatised her. The thought of a stranger telling her that to kill herself would be an option if she has a terminal illness is so frightening and chilling that it makes me cry, and the fact this could all happen without any of her family being informed – as the Bill enables – is breathtakingly cruel and ignorant. But above all else it makes me angry. Angry at the lack of rigour in this bill. Angry at the lack of understanding of people with learning disabilities. Angry at the implicit assumption that their lives are not worth the same as the rest of the population. We saw it during the Covid pandemic, when the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), which provides guidance to the NHS and the social care sector, divided the population into different categories and advised how each should be treated. Category 7 was defined as 'completely dependent for personal care, from whatever cause, physical or cognitive. Even so, they seem stable and at no risk of dying'. That would have covered my daughter. Categories 7 to 9 were to be denied lifesaving treatment. Legislators have a duty to be rigorous and fair. You cannot make laws because Dame Esther Rantzen lobbied the Prime Minister, or because someone's granny had an avoidably terrible death. This should never have been a Private Member's Bill. It has not had the scrutiny or the parliamentary time necessary for such a momentous change in the way we live and die. It is a law for the strong and determined against the weak and the vulnerable. All of us in Parliament should know which of those needs the most protection.
