New inquiry call as DWP deaths mount, despite decade of secret investigations

Extracts from new secret reports show a catalogue of errors made by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and its private contractors that have been linked to the deaths of disabled people interacting with the benefits system.

DWP has finally released nearly 100 recommendations made in reviews that were completed between September 2020 and November 2022 into deaths and serious harm caused to benefit claimants.

DWP has been collecting such reviews centrally for more than a decade for the purposes of “continuous improvement” and learning lessons.

But despite more than 10 years of reviews, which DWP refuses to publish in full or even pass to the families of deceased claimants, the latest recommendations show the actions of the department’s ministers, civil servants and contractors continue to be linked to countless deaths.

After being shown the latest recommendations, Labour’s Debbie Abrahams has renewed her call for an independent inquiry into the years of deaths linked to DWP’s actions.

Every one of the 53 internal process reviews (IPRs) carried out by DWP civil servants investigated the case of a sick or disabled benefit claimant who had either died or experienced significant harm*.

The recommendations refer to multiple errors and policy failings across universal credit, employment and support allowance (ESA) and personal independence payment (PIP).

Although it is impossible to be certain how many of the flaws uncovered by the reviews played a significant part in the deaths of claimants – because DWP refuses to release the full reports – the recommendations suggest the disability benefits system continues to be deeply flawed and unsafe.

Several IPRs criticise the private sector contractors that carry out PIP assessments, suggesting that assessment reports were not meeting “the agreed quality”, that “quality assurance checks” for these reports were not “sufficiently robust”, that reports should “fully explore customer’s medical conditions and meet the quality standards to support an accurate PIP award”, and that the reports needed to be “robust and meet the agreed standards”.

Further concerns about PIP were raised in one IPR that suggested an assessment provider’s reports were not “robust” and that it had failed to seek evidence from a healthcare professional listed on the PIP2 “How your disability affects you” form.

Another IPR warned of concerns about “inconsistent interpretation of evidence”, without making clear who was responsible.

One recommendation made in October 2020 – following the death of Philippa Day 12 months earlier** – calls for the introduction of an additional check where claimants “fall out of the PIP reassessment process due to non-return of a PIP claim form”.

Another IPR suggests some DWP decision-makers are failing to use “all available sources of evidence” when deciding PIP claims.

On ESA, one report suggests that the claimant’s benefits had been removed without the necessary enquiries being made about “any change in circumstances or medical condition”, despite there being a seven-year gap since their last work capability assessment.

Another IPR raises concerns that members of DWP’s ESA team were not aware of “the correct process to follow when a capability for work questionnaire is not received from a customer”.

And a third raises concerns about the failure to ensure “reported changes” were accurately recorded on the ESA system.

On universal credit, one review raises concerns over the decision-making process after the receipt of a work capability assessment report, and another suggests a failure to comply with the “WCA referral process”.

One of the most concerning recommendations relating to universal credit is the suggestion to “consider if front line colleagues are sufficiently trained to identify customers reporting changes in their health conditions”, while another underlines the need for universal credit “claimant commitments” to “ensure they reflect the customer’s health journey”.

Abrahams, who has played a key role in drawing attention in parliament to deaths linked to DWP, including through her membership of the Commons work and pensions committee, said she was “shocked” to see the latest IPR recommendations.

She told Disability News Service (DNS) today (Thursday): “Clearly, the reassurances that have been made to members of the work and pensions select committee by consecutive work and pensions secretaries that lessons are learned from every case, are absolutely meaningless.

“Even in this two year time span, recommendations are repeated. How many more claimant deaths or serious harms are there going to be?

“Twelve months on from the Equality and Human Rights Commission requiring the government’s Department for Work and Pensions to enter into a section 23 agreement because of concerns about discrimination against sick and disabled claimants, it seems the government are either incompetent or just don’t care, or perhaps both.

“I will be exploring all avenues of action that can be taken including an independent public inquiry into the true scale and causes of these deaths and serious harms, whether a duty of care on the government’s Department for Work and Pensions exists and if it doesn’t whether it should.”

The recommendations were released to DNS under the Freedom of Information Act.

It is believed the department was holding back the release of the documents until the publication of the government’s much-criticised Transforming Support white paper last month.

Other recommendations from IPRs completed between September 2020 and November 2022 were released in January, while last week DNS reported on recommendations made in IPRs completed between April 2019 and September 2020.

Both of these sets of IPRs also suggested close links between numerous deaths and key parts of the benefits system, despite more than a decade of such tragedies.

*DWP guidance says IPRs should be carried out if there is ‘a suggestion or allegation that the Department’s actions or omissions may have negatively contributed to the customer’s circumstances, or cases in which the department may be able to learn about the operation of its processes, AND a customer has suffered serious harm, has died (including by suicide), or where we have reason to believe there has been attempted suicide’. They are also carried out if DWP is asked to ‘participate in a Safeguarding Adults Board, or is named as an Interested Party at an Inquest’. 

**DNS obtained a draft copy of this IPR at Philippa Day’s inquest in January 2021, with the agreement of her family

Picture: Disabled artist-activist Dolly Sen (left) and disabled campaigner Joy Dove (holding Jodey Whiting sign) in front of DWP’s Caxton House headquarters in 2019 as part of Sen’s action highlighting how DWP policies have caused thousands of “broken hearts”

A note from the editor:

Please consider making a voluntary financial contribution to support the work of DNS and allow it to continue producing independent, carefully-researched news stories that focus on the lives and rights of disabled people and their user-led organisations.

Please do not contribute if you cannot afford to do so, and please note that DNS is not a charity. It is run and owned by disabled journalist John Pring and has been from its launch in April 2009.

Thank you for anything you can do to support the work of DNS…