Share this post:

The National Audit Office has cleared the Department for Work and Pensions of delaying the publication of serious safeguarding data in order to hide the facts from MPs before a vote to cut disability benefits.

The DWP has delayed publishing Internal Process Review (IPR) figures on deaths and serious harm among Universal Credit claimants – and its annual report and accounts (ARA) document was published on July 10, 2025 – the day after MPs voted to cut benefits.

Where’s the transparency? Where’s the accountability?

Background: serious incidents, delayed data

The DWP’s  ARA revealed a sharp rise in serious cases accepted for IPR (I hope you’re keeping track of these acronyms!) — including 55 involving Universal Credit, up from 31 the previous year, and 59 relating to claimant deaths.

These figures were released after Parliament voted to cut the Universal Credit health element from April 2026, reducing support for many disabled people by £47 per week – meaning it will be more or less halved.

The Department had previously assured a tribunal that IPR recommendations from 2020 onward would be published by March 2024 — and these remain unpublished.

Last month, Vox Political raised multiple questions with the DWP about the timing of the ARA, the release of recommendations, and whether internal processes had considered MPs’ need for timely information.

The Department refused to answer.

The NAO’s response – and what it means

In my letter to the NAO, I stated:

“On 10 July 2025, the DWP published its Annual Report and Accounts (ARA), which revealed a sharp rise in serious cases accepted for IPR — including 55 cases involving Universal Credit in 2024–25 (up from 31 in the previous year), with 59 cases relating to a claimant’s death. These figures were released after Parliament had already voted to pass legislation cutting the Universal Credit health element from April 2026.

“The DWP has refused to explain:

• Why this data was not published earlier, particularly given its clear relevance to the vote
• Why recommendations from IPRs dating back to 2020 have still not been released, despite a tribunal commitment to publish at least some of them by 31 March 2024
• Whether civil servants considered their duty to ensure MPs were properly informed before voting on related legislation.

“The Public Accounts Committee has declined to take up the matter and advised me to raise it with your office. I now do so on the following grounds:

“Value for Money and Governance: The IPR process is a key safeguarding mechanism within a major public service department. A failure to act on recommendations, or to publish them transparently, may undermine accountability and expose the public purse to repeated failings.

“Transparency and Accountability: The timing of the ARA publication raises legitimate concerns about whether data on deaths and serious harm was strategically delayed to avoid informing a crucial Commons vote.

“Non-Compliance with Tribunal Undertakings: The DWP assured a tribunal it would release some IPR recommendations by March 2024 — yet it has failed to do so.

“I believe there is a strong public interest in the NAO investigating:

• The Department’s internal decision-making regarding the timing of the ARA and IPR figures
• Whether any communications strategies or risk assessments influenced the delay
• The impact of withholding this information on Parliamentary scrutiny and public accountability.”

Here’s the reply, from Laura Brackwell, director of the NAO’s Work and Pensions value for money team:

“As you may know, the NAO’s main functions are to audit the accounts of government departments and other
central government bodies and to carry out examinations into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with
which departments and other bodies have used their resources. It is not therefore part of our role to assess
how departments ensure that MPs are properly informed before voting on related legislation.

“In terms of the timing of DWP’s 2024-25 annual report and accounts, publication on 10 July 2025 was in line
with previous years – for example, the publication date was 22 July 2024 for the 2023-24 annual report and
accounts, and 6 July 2023 for the 2022-23 annual report and accounts. The period between the end of the
financial year on 31 March and publication is a busy one, with departments working to finalise their annual
reports and accounts and the NAO completing its audit of the financial statements. DWP is routinely one of
the first government departments to publish its annual report and accounts and we have no concerns that it
may have delayed publication of the 2024-25 document. For information, the statutory deadline for
departments to lay their 2024-25 accounts before Parliament is 31 January 2026.

“With respect to IPR data specifically, I see that DWP has published some information including details of what
was identified from serious cases and the actions it has taken in response. DWP has said that in the first
instance it has published information from IPRs completed in 2022 to 2023 and that future publications will
cover IPRs carried out after these dates, as well as historical information on IPRs dating back to 2020. You
may well have seen this material but, in case not, it can be found on the gov.uk website: Advanced Customer Support: Learning and improving from serious cases – GOV.UK.

So the DWP’s 2024–25 ARA publication on July 10, 2025 was in line with previous years, and the office did not raise concerns about any strategic delay, nor did it examine whether the timing affected parliamentary scrutiny.

I am left to wonder why the Public Accounts Committee sent me to the NAO at all. Was this another delaying tactic?

Where questions remain

While the NAO has cleared the DWP from an audit perspective, serious issues remain. They are:

• Transparency gaps: Recommendations from IPRs dating back to 2020 have still not been published, despite tribunal commitments.

• The impact on Parliamentary scrutiny: MPs voted on benefit cuts without access to the latest IPR data, meaning their decision was not made on the basis of all the information that should have been available to them.

• Internal decision-making: It is unclear whether any communications strategies or risk assessments influenced the timing of publication.

Civil servants have a legal and constitutional duty to ensure Parliament is properly informed.

Delaying serious safeguarding data until after politically sensitive votes raises questions about whether that duty has been met.

Why this matters

When this information is published affects vulnerable people directly.

MPs were making decisions on Universal Credit cuts without access to the latest data on deaths and serious harm among claimants.

Next steps and how you can help

The story is far from over. Vox Political will continue to pursue answers through:

• Parliamentary follow-up: Writing to select committees or MPs to ask whether they were aware of IPR data before voting.

• Freedom of Information requests: Tracking internal correspondence on the timing of the ARA and any decision-making around withholding IPR recommendations.

• Public scrutiny: Highlighting gaps in transparency and ongoing safeguarding risks.

You can take action too:

• ✍️ Email your MP – Ask whether they were aware of these figures before voting and whether they will press the DWP for explanations: TheyWorkForYou

• 💳 Support investigative journalism – Help keep pressure on the government: Ko-fi / Vox Political

• 📬 Stay updated – Join the mailing list for future reporting on this investigation.

Until all IPR recommendations are published and Parliament has full access to safeguarding data, questions of transparency and accountability will remain unresolved and lives are in danger.

Vox Political will continue to report on this issue as it develops.

Read This Site’s previous articles on this issue:

Here

Here

And here

Share this post: