Errol Graham: DWP and Safeguarding Adults Board Inquiry

Debate between Lilian Greenwood and Debbie Abrahams

Tuesday 6th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In fact, he was in the Chamber back in February 2020 when we had the previous debate and described some of these events. Three years on, nothing has changed. He is absolutely right: not only would it be nice, but it is a requirement. The DWP has a safeguarding requirement and a responsibility to ensure that the claimants who come to its attention are adequately protected.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing today’s debate, which obviously highlights the sad death of my constituent Errol Graham. The purpose of a safeguarding adults review is not to hold an individual or organisation to account, but it is about agencies learning lessons to improve future practice. If tragedies such as Errol’s death are to be prevented in future, which I am sure is what we all want, surely all agencies must share the relevant information with the board. Does she share my concern—I know she does—that in failing to share that 2014 assessment, the DWP did not assist the local authority in its really important duty in that respect?

[Debbie Abrahams]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the purpose of this Adjournment debate. The situation has gone on for too long, with information not shared and information lost—I will come to that later on. There have been concerns about how the Department has acted to safeguard not just individual claimants but the information it has on claimants, so that it can learn those lessons and improve its practices.

This information from the 2014 work capability assessment—do not forget, Errol died in 2018—expressed in the clearest language that he would not be fit to work “indefinitely”. That was the language of the assessor. It was not him saying that he was not fit to work; it was the language on that 2014 work capability assessment, which was not presented either to the safeguarding review or to the High Court judge. It also was not presented at the coroner’s inquest. The presenting of that report to the organisations that should have had it when making assessments of the circumstances of Errol’s death has been carefully avoided. This is serious stuff. I know that the Minister is relatively new in the role, but I want to know why that 2014 work capability assessment was not provided specifically to the recent safeguarding review board. I will go back to the other instances in a moment.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about to Errol. Errol was her constituent, and I have had long-standing contact with Mr Graham’s daughter-in-law, Alison Burton. She has said that the Department’s behaviour raises “serious questions” about its honesty and transparency, given the Department’s knowledge of Errol’s significant mental distress and its failure to disclose it to the safeguarding review. That can be taken in conjunction with the Department’s failure to provide peer review reports into the deaths of claimants to the independent reviewers of the work capability assessment, Professor Harrington and Dr Litchfield. Members will be aware that there was a statutory requirement to undertake independent reviews of the work capability assessment. There were two separate assessors; one was Professor Harrington, and the other was Professor Litchfield. None of the peer reviews—there have been a number of different names for what happens when the Department investigates the deaths of claimants—or serious case reviews and so on were provided to the independent reviewers.

The response I got when I asked various urgent questions on this issue a few years ago was, “Well, they did not ask for them.” Then—this is all on the record; I was going over it last night when I was writing this speech— in response to the urgent question that I secured on this issue, the answer was, “Well, they were lost. We no longer have these reports, so we cannot provide them.” It is clear to see why there is a crisis in confidence in the Department and why there is a lack of trust from not just families, but claimants themselves.

This issue needs to be seen in the context of the recent action by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which 14 months ago issued a section 23 notice to the Department over its concerns about the evidence that the Department is discriminating against disabled claimants. For 14 months, there has been nothing—nothing—from the Department, and there has been nothing from this Government. Surely as a Government they would see that the equality laws that have been set for everyone should also apply to them, but, no, 14 months on, there has been nothing. I will let people draw their own conclusion on what drives that, but if we say that the first duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe, I think we would all agree that the DWP is clearly failing as far as disabled claimants are concerned.

In a 21st-century civilised society, the circumstances that led to Errol’s death should shock us all, but Errol’s death, unfortunately, is just one of many, and there is a pattern here. In addition to the lack of safeguarding provisions that led to Errol’s death—even though, as I say, there was an awareness from 2014 of his severe condition—many social security claimants have been found fit to work and have then died. For example, a freedom of information application in 2019 showed that 274 claimants a month—a month—who had been found fit for work subsequently died within six months, which is a much higher mortality rate than for the population as a whole.

The true scale and causes of these deaths are simply unknown. In an answer to a written question I submitted last year, it was revealed that between 2019—so since the inquest into Errol’s death—and June 2022, 140 more claimants and 39 serious harms were being investigated by the DWP, but that is only what the Department says it is investigating. The National Audit Office, in its review in 2020, said that it is probably a much, much higher figure.

Errol’s story is an example of the Department’s failure to safeguard claimants, and subsequently to avoid any form of scrutiny or accountability. Any Government who were confident in their policies would be open to scrutiny, but there is a pattern of avoidance by the Department, including the refusal to provide various reports and data to the Work and Pensions Committee, on which I sit. I have asked this in the past, but I am going to give the Minister and the Government one more opportunity: will the Government convene an independent inquiry into the scale and causes of the deaths of social security claimants? The Minister is welcome to intervene on me, but if he wants to include that in his response to the debate, that would be absolutely fine.

The seven Nolan principles of public life apply to us all—Ministers and MPs. Two of them are openness and transparency, but unfortunately, those principles are absent from the Minister’s Department. In an area such as social security, this could not be more important. We need a paradigm shift in our social security system from one that demonises to one that is supportive and enabling. Disappointingly, I see a re-emergence of the vile shirker-scrounger narrative from 10 years ago, and a focus on working-age sick and disabled people and social security claimants.

I do not know whether there is anybody from The Daily Telegraph in the Gallery, but I have to point out that I saw its shameful editorial last week. Not only was it ignorant in some of the assertions made, but it has what I see as absolutely disgraceful rhetoric in trying to vilify social security claimants. Just like our NHS, our social security system should be there for any one of us in our time of need, providing dignity and security for all.

In 2020, I read from a list of people who we knew had died. At the time, I said:

“The death of any person as a result of Government policy is nothing less than a scandal… For too long, the Department has failed to address the effects of its policies. It must now act. Enough is enough.”—[Official Report, 24 February 2020; Vol. 672, c. 155.]

Three years later, 140 more families are grieving. When will the Government sort this out?

Social Security Benefits: Claimant Deaths

Debate between Lilian Greenwood and Debbie Abrahams

Monday 24th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely right. This shames us all. These are the most vulnerable in our society, and, as I shall go on to show, evidence is revealing that policies driven by the Government are having this impact.

Over the last 10 years, five reviews of the work capability assessment have repeatedly raised issues relating to the assessment process, from the loss of medical records to blatant lies in assessment reports. Nearly 3,500 individuals shared their experiences for the purpose of the Work and Pensions Committee’s 2018 reports on ESA and PIP assessments, which was an unprecedented public response to a departmental Select Committee inquiry. Tonight, however, I want to raise a number of cases which have been in the public domain, and in which the Department’s processes to safeguard vulnerable claimants have been an abject failure.

On 23 January this year, Disability News Service brought to public attention the death of Errol Graham in 2018. Weighing just 4½ stone, Errol’s body was found eight months after his employment and support allowance had been stopped. He was 57 years old. His social security support was cut off in October 2017, just weeks after he failed to attend an appointment for a DWP fit-for-work assessment. He had been on incapacity benefit since 2003, after his father—whom he had cared for—died. He was reassessed as unfit for work in 2013, and was on ESA when the DWP called him for a retest in 2017, as, according to a letter from the Department,

“the claimed level of disability was unclear”.

The inquest heard that it was standard DWP procedure to stop the benefits of a claimant marked on the system as vulnerable after two failed safeguarding visits. It made two visits, on 16 and 17 October. Errol’s ESA payment, due on 17 October, was stopped on the same day. There was no formal requirement for DWP staff to seek more information about Errol’s health—for example, from his GP—or about how he was functioning before ceasing his benefits, and the inquest heard that they had not done so.

The coroner’s report into Errol’s death found that the

“safety net that should surround vulnerable people like Errol in our society had holes within it”.

Furthermore, she said:

“He needed the DWP to obtain more evidence”—

from his GP—

“at the time his ESA was stopped, to make a more informed decision about him, particularly following the failed safeguarding visits.”

A consultant psychiatrist told the inquest that

“Errol was vulnerable to life stressors”,

and that it was

“likely that this loss of income, and housing, were the final and devastating stressors that had a significant effect on his mental health”.

Errol’s daughter-in-law, Alison, has been scathing, telling me of the anger she and her husband Lee feel. She said that it was particularly shocking that the QC acting on behalf of the Government in the inquest tried to intimidate not just the family but others, shouting at the police officer who found Errol’s body about what else he had seen. In particular, they were deeply offended that the police officer was asked whether he had found any takeaway menus or cartons. It was clear at that inquest that the Government were far from being in listening mode or trying to learn from this. Rather, they were seeking to blame, which is absolutely unforgivable.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. It is now more than 18 months since Errol Graham starved to death and more than eight months since the inquest into his death. At that inquest, the coroner asked for robust policy and guidance for DWP staff to prevent future deaths, yet the Department’s serious case panel is not even expected to consider the systemic issue identified in Errol’s case until next month. Does my hon. Friend agree that this inaction makes it hard to believe the Secretary of State when she tells me that the Department took Errol’s tragic death very seriously?

[Debbie Abrahams]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. I shall go on to show that this has been going on for years now, and that nobody has responded. Systematic errors are coming out in repeated coroners’ reports and other reports, yet there is still no action.

Pension Equality for Women

Debate between Lilian Greenwood and Debbie Abrahams

Thursday 14th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) on securing this important debate, and I am absolutely delighted to be able to speak in support of his motion. We have had an excellent and passionate debate with some fantastic contributions, and I would like to thank each and every one of them. On the whole, it has been completely cross-party, recognising the real injustice that women born in the 1950s have been dealt. There can be no doubt that women have borne the brunt of this Government’s cuts over the past seven years, but that applies particularly to women born in the 1950s, who have been dealt a real injustice with the accelerated increase in their state pension age.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely no surprise that 1950s women such as my constituents Jane Yates and Glenys Daly feel robbed? They have worked hard for 45 years and they say that their bodies are giving up, yet they cannot get the pensions that they have paid for.

[Debbie Abrahams]

There are so many cases like theirs, and I shall touch on a couple of them, if I may.

Women born in the 1950s have had their state pension age quietly pushed back, many without receiving any notice. They expected to retire at 60, only to find that they had three or more years to wait. In spite of some appalling stories of the dire circumstances that some of these women are facing, the Government have still refused to provide any transitional support. During our national pensions tour, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and I started this summer, we have heard from many women who are not only struggling but facing destitution. I shall mention a couple of cases, all anonymous of course. The first woman states:

“I’ve been paying national insurance for 43 years, but have no private pension or anything else for that matter. I’ve supported 2 children on my own salary as a divorced, single parent. I had no notification of the 1995 Act but in Feb 2012 I was told that my retirement date was May 2019. I’ll be 65 and 4 months. I’ve worked, got extra qualifications, had good jobs, but at 63 I am unemployed and am claiming JSA which finishes soon. I’ve little savings. Have applied for over 40 jobs since Sept. I’m at my wits end”.

The second woman states:

“I don’t remember ever getting a letter saying my pension age had changed. I’m disabled and have had a lot of stressful things going on in the last few years. Incapacity Benefit changing to ESA and worrying about that, then the bedroom tax and having to downsize, then news that DLA is changing. The change in State Pension Age just sort of crept in there and came to my attention when WASPI highlighted it. I kept hearing the words that no one will wait longer than 18 months! Then I realised not only would I not get a state pension when I was 60 but also the winter fuel allowance and bus pass would be affected. I’m tired of not mattering.”

Those women deserve more than this.

As we have heard, many of these women have had to rely on the wider social security system beyond the state pension to survive. This means that if they are claiming jobseeker’s allowance or universal credit, they will be expected to undertake 35 hours a week of job search activity, or be sanctioned. I would be grateful if the Minister commented on the recommendation in the final report of John Cridland’s review of the state pension age, which suggests that older jobseekers should be required to find only part-time work. Do the Government support that recommendation?

When the plight of women born in the 1950s was first raised by Women Against State Pension Inequality and various other groups two years ago, they stated that 3.8 million women were affected by the lack of notice of the changes in the Pensions Acts of 1995 and 2011. The change in the 2011 Act affected 2.7 million women, of whom only 150,000 have reached their revised state pension age to date. By 2026, they will all have retired. Those women feel palpable and justifiable anger. As they have said, they have done the right thing. They have worked all their lives, paid into the system for decades, cared for their children and cared for their parents, only for the goalposts to be moved. Many are seeking legal redress against the Government. They need action now, not in 10 or 20 years’ time.

Labour has presented two options that the Government could take forward now. The first, which was included in our manifesto, is the extension of pension credit to those most badly affected by the accelerated increase in the state pension age, enabling them to get additional support based on the 1995 state pension age timetable. That would provide approximately half a million women on the lowest incomes with up to £159 a week. We have repeatedly called on the Government to implement those costed measures—about £800 million, as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington mentioned—but they have sadly refused to act.

Our manifesto commitment said that we would consider other options as well, and I set out an additional option at conference that would give women the opportunity to retire up to two years early, rather than as expected under the Government’s plans. Given that the Government have so far refused to set aside additional expenditure, we felt that it was imperative to present cost-neutral proposals, so that there was no excuse to rule it out. Under the second option, women born in the 1950s would see a small reduction of 6% in their weekly state pension entitlement for each year that they retired early. Based on the state pension today, a woman retiring a year early would receive £149.98 a week instead of £159.55. That option would be available to all those waiting to retire—around 2.6 million women. However, as I said then and want to reiterate now, that proposal is a starter. It is to complement additional action on transitional protections. These women need action now, and the Government could introduce these options now, which also do not preclude compensation. We want to continue working with women to right the wrong that they have been done.

Labour’s options were developed after listening to women and men as part of the national state pension tour to discuss the future of our state pension system. We also met the various 1950s women lobby groups, and something that struck us profoundly was the urgency for many women. They need something now and cannot wait six months, let alone three, four or five years. As we all know, most 1950s-born women will retire in the next few years, so something needs to happen now, but this Government have ignored their pleas for help and have ignored the tangible measures that could be taken. Their approach is not only morally bankrupt and shows that they have no commitment to tackling burning injustices, but, given the prospect of a lengthy and costly court battle as women seek compensation for the years that they have lost, it is also extremely foolhardy.

Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North challenged the Government on their contingency planning in the event of the courts awarding compensation to the affected women. The Minister said the Government believed that they were on firm ground, but history is littered with court and other decisions when injustice has been proved and Governments have had to pay up. It is clear that this Government have even less support in the House for their position on 1950s women than they do for a meaningful vote on the negotiated settlement with the EU, so I ask the Minister to work with us and with these women on a comprehensive set of bridging arrangements now.