Select committee: Work and Pensions Committee
Recommendation 39
1st Report – Safeguarding Vulnerable Claimants
Published 15 May 2025
Addressed to Department for Work and Pensions
Work and Pensions Committee Safeguarding vulnerable claimants All items in this report Report on parliament.uk ↗ Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗
Recommendation (the committee's words)
DWP should work with the PHSO in the next six months to improve the transparency of the processes it uses to learn from serious mistakes and failures, including Internal Process Reviews, the Independent Case Examiner, and the Serious Case Panel. Greater transparency would improve accountability and drive learning. This would help to ensure that claimants, their loved ones, and relevant stakeholders have a better understanding of the entire system, and drive learning within a systems-based approach to safeguarding. (Recommendation, Paragraph 161)
From: Work and Pensions Committee, 1st Report – Safeguarding Vulnerable Claimants (HC 402), 15 May 2025
Government response
The government responded to the whole report on 22 July 2025 (deadline 15 July 2025).
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.The Government has responded in full only to those recommendations outside the scope of the consultation on a new safeguarding approach, with the others being "considered alongside the consultation", the outcome of which "will be published in the Autumn".
- On a statutory safeguarding duty, the Government is "open to" it. The Secretary of State "will make a statement to the House in the Autumn" setting out DWP's new approach to safeguarding.
- It does not intend to publish the Chief Medical Advisor's team advice on the Pathways to Work changes, saying it remains advice to the Secretary of State and that "a single document does not exist".
- On Help to Claim, DWP states it "has found no shortfall" in support following the transition, citing jobcentre support and the Visiting Service.
- On the PHSO's powers, DWP "acknowledges" the recommendation but says it lacks authority to make such changes. Any change "would require primary legislation" and is "a matter for Parliament".