UK Welfare Department Under Fire Over 'Culture of Complacency' Surrounding Carer's Allowance Scandal
A senior official at the UK's Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has been accused of overseeing a "culture of complacency" that led to widespread errors with the carer's allowance benefit, leaving thousands of unpaid carers facing huge bills.
The criticism comes from Debbie Abrahams, chair of the work and pensions select committee, who says the DWP repeatedly prioritized vulnerable people over actual need and failed to learn from its mistakes. She expressed "doubt" about the department's permanent secretary, Sir Peter Schofield, who had promised MPs six years ago that he would fix critical flaws in the benefit but has yet to do so.
An investigation by The Guardian found that hundreds of thousands of unpaid carers, mostly already living in poverty, were left with significant debt due to DWP shortcomings. Several hundred received fraud convictions as a result of these errors.
Despite promising changes last month, Schofield was accused of giving out "a lot of blancmange" (empty promises) by one MP. Abrahams has written to him, expressing her skepticism over his recent commitments and citing evidence that suggests senior civil servants within the department blame claimants for their own mistakes.
A recent independent review by disability expert Liz Sayce found the overpayments were caused by systemic DWP failures, poor benefit design, and unlawful internal staff guidance. The government-commissioned report contradicts views held by a senior civil servant in the department who suggested carers themselves were to blame for incurring the overpayments.
Abrahams has called on Schofield to demonstrate "action" within his senior team to address the attitudinal issues, stating that until the DWP changes its culture, it will struggle to build trust with those it's meant to serve. The department claims to be taking decisive action to correct its mistakes and restore public trust.
The scandal has raised concerns about the government's handling of vulnerable individuals and whether it truly prioritizes their needs over administrative convenience.
A senior official at the UK's Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has been accused of overseeing a "culture of complacency" that led to widespread errors with the carer's allowance benefit, leaving thousands of unpaid carers facing huge bills.
The criticism comes from Debbie Abrahams, chair of the work and pensions select committee, who says the DWP repeatedly prioritized vulnerable people over actual need and failed to learn from its mistakes. She expressed "doubt" about the department's permanent secretary, Sir Peter Schofield, who had promised MPs six years ago that he would fix critical flaws in the benefit but has yet to do so.
An investigation by The Guardian found that hundreds of thousands of unpaid carers, mostly already living in poverty, were left with significant debt due to DWP shortcomings. Several hundred received fraud convictions as a result of these errors.
Despite promising changes last month, Schofield was accused of giving out "a lot of blancmange" (empty promises) by one MP. Abrahams has written to him, expressing her skepticism over his recent commitments and citing evidence that suggests senior civil servants within the department blame claimants for their own mistakes.
A recent independent review by disability expert Liz Sayce found the overpayments were caused by systemic DWP failures, poor benefit design, and unlawful internal staff guidance. The government-commissioned report contradicts views held by a senior civil servant in the department who suggested carers themselves were to blame for incurring the overpayments.
Abrahams has called on Schofield to demonstrate "action" within his senior team to address the attitudinal issues, stating that until the DWP changes its culture, it will struggle to build trust with those it's meant to serve. The department claims to be taking decisive action to correct its mistakes and restore public trust.
The scandal has raised concerns about the government's handling of vulnerable individuals and whether it truly prioritizes their needs over administrative convenience.