DWP’s Claimant Death Cover-Up

AFTER a long wait, the much anticipated benefit claimant death figures were finally released by Iain Duncan Smith (IDS) this summer after being blocked for months. So, what have we learnt and why haven’t the figures made more of an impact in the media?

Welfare rights specialist Nick Dilworth thinks it’s because “the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) attempted to blind those who’d requested information with science. You’d need a degree in mathematics to properly understand the explanation surrounding the age-standardised mortality rates” (ASMR).

Dilworth paints a picture of the confusion, describing how “the statistical big guns were within hours reaching for their calculators, each coming to a different figure — 2,380 dead, 2,500 dead, 4,000 dead?

“Subsequently the media were misled over the right figures with the DWP issuing a wholly inadequate explanation. Most settled on 2,600 dead, which is a great disappointment to the real victims. They would be entitled to assume the number could be far higher given the scope for many simply not appearing because the DWP failed to provide a comprehensive and all-inclusive explanation.”

It’s important to remember those who’ve had a family member die and who wanted to hear the wider picture. Yet as Dilworth says, “bloggers were also reaching different findings, some making out there was no story while others implied it was a national outrage. Obfuscating the proof was what IDS wanted to achieve, with distraction being a key part of his strategy.”

Dilworth, unlike many commentators, refused to be drawn into this game, instead taking a step back to consider in depth what the figures revealed. He came to six key conclusions:

– The DWP data only related to claimants whose incapacity benefit or employment and support allowance ended because they died. A total of 81,140 people on either benefit died between December 2011 and February 2014.

– The data lacked clarity over whether the correct total for those who died with a “fit for work” finding on their claim was 2,650 or 4,010. As a result, mainstream media issued press articles and headlines which deflected the serious issue raised regarding the fact people had died while deemed “fit for work.”

– Readers of the statistics were thrown a red herring by the DWP’s poorly worded explanation. As a result it was wrongly reported that people had died within two and six weeks of being found “fit for work.” The reference to between two and six weeks related only to aligning the date of death with the closure of the deceased person’s claim.

– Figures of between 2,650 and 4,010 only relate to people who had appealed. In 1,360 “completed appeal cases” this can only mean people who had successfully contested a “fit for work” finding, and then subsequently died thereafter. In the case of those who’d not had their appeal heard, the inevitable conclusion can only be they were still within the appeal system at the time of their death.

– The figures omitted those who’d been found “fit for work” and then either came off benefits or were claiming an entirely different benefit. This left a considerable question mark over the usefulness of the statistics for those who were owed real answers. These were not provided by the generalised issue or age-standardised mortality figures — which excluded large numbers of claimants who made more than one claim for the same benefit (repeat claims were specifically excluded).

– It can reasonably be assumed that a large number of those found fit for work would have gone on to claim jobseekers allowance (JSA). What is known from separate Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures is that between December 2011 and February 2014, 7,645,130 people came off JSA — of which only 3,241,885 found work. An incredible 2,402,755 are recorded as “failed to sign on.” It leaves considerable scope for anyone dying not to be included in the figures at all because the jobcentre won’t have any reason as to why their claim ended.

Read more here: http://morningstaronline.co.uk/a-a0bd-DWPs-claimant-death-cover-up
– Nick Dilworth is a welfare rights specialist, consultant and co-founder with New Approach (www.newapproachuk.org). – –

– Ruth F Hunt is author of The Single Feather (Pilrig Press).

Massive survey majority believes ‘inhuman’ DWP causes and then covers-up claimant deaths


Please note: there are repeated references to suicide in the final section of this article, headed: “Is there anything else you would like to tell us about issues covered in this survey?

A Benefits and Work survey has revealed an overwhelming distrust of the DWP, with the majority of respondents considering that the department:

  • has negatively affected their own health
  • treats claimants inhumanly
  • causes claimants’ deaths
  • covers up the poverty, suffering and deaths it causes

Benefits and Sanctions deaths survey
In the last Benefits and Work newsletter we published a link to a ‘Benefits sanctions and deaths’ survey.

Two things prompted us to create the survey:

    the preceding week Conservative business minister Nick Boles told charity volunteers that some benefits sanctions were ‘inhuman’ – then changed his mind.
  • Channel 4’s Dispatches revealed that that more than 30 secret reviews carried out following the deaths of benefit claimants called…

View original post 9,520 more words