EXCLUSIVE How many adults are on PIP in YOUR neighbourhood? Shock figures show up to a third of working age adults are claiming the disability benefit in parts of England
Nearly a third of working-age adults currently get personal independence payments (PIP) in parts of England, analysis shows.
MailOnline's audit of Government figures – presented in an interactive map below – names the PIP capital as a suburb of Plymouth.
Neighbourhoods within Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Stockton-on-Tees have similarly high rates.
Critics of Labour 's ballooning £143billion welfare bill said the figures should act as a 'wake up call' for the Government.
The analysis comes after Keir Starmer completed a humiliating backtrack on his flagship welfare reforms package at the eleventh hour, following sustained pressure from over 120 MPs.
The initial package of reforms was mooted to save around £5billion by the end of the Parliament and included a restriction on the eligibility for PIP.
Existing claimants were to be given a 13-week phase-out period of financial support in an earlier move that was seen as a bid to head off opposition by aiming to soften the impact of the changes.
It's understood now that around 370,000 existing PIP claimants will be able to keep their payments.
But the change on Personal Independence Payment (Pip) is estimated to wipe up to £2billion off the £5billion savings by the end of the Parliament, and Universal Credit tweaks another £1billion.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves is odds-on to hike taxes to pay for the financial shortfall, experts have said.
If the legislation clears its first hurdle on Tuesday, it will then face a few hours' examination by all MPs the following week – rather than days or weeks in front of a committee tasked with looking at the Bill.
Anyone with a long-term physical or mental health condition or disability that affects their day-to-day life can get PIP, including adults in full-time employment.
Latest Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) statistics show 3.7million people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland currently receive it. This is up from around 2m before Covid struck.
The number of young people aged 16-24 receiving PIP has also skyrocketed, as too have claims for anxiety and depression.
PIP is split into two parts and claimants can be eligible for both. The daily living part goes to adults needing help with everyday tasks, whereas the mobility part is doled out to those who require assistance getting around.
Whether they get one or both parts and how much they get depends on how difficult they find everyday tasks and getting around.
Anyone nearing the end of life such as from a life-limiting illness will automatically get the daily living part – but the mobility part depends on their needs.
Adults undergoing PIP assessments are scored on a scale of zero to 12 – based on how difficult they find everyday tasks such as preparing and eating food.
Currently, someone who receives between eight and 11 points in total gets the daily living part of PIP at a standard rate, worth £73.90 per week.
If they get at least 12 points, they get the daily living component at an enhanced rate, worth £110.40 a week.
Under current rules, an applicant needs to be scored at least eight points in any combination to be awarded the lowest rate of PIP.
If the package passes, they would need this to have scored four of these points in a single activity.
MailOnline's analysis found the Victoria Park area of Plymouth to be the PIP capital.
In that particular district, almost 32.5 per cent (1,336) of its 3,940 working-age adults receive the handout.
Victoria Park was followed by Byker East in Newcastle-upon-Tyne (31.8 per cent) and the Central Stockton & Portrack region of Stockton-on-Tees (30.5 per cent).
Our investigation revealed the rate stood above 20 per cent in 58 of 7,200 MSOAs – tiny communities across England home to around 5,000 people.
All but four of these neighbourhoods were in the north.
The DWP uses out-of-date 2011 boundaries for its benefits data, but the ONS uses 2021 boundaries for its population figures.
To get correct figures for the current geographies, we have had to convert these to 2021 boundaries, which could lead to discrepancies in the calculations.
John O'Connell, chief executive, at the TaxPayers' Alliance told MailOnline: 'These figures should be a wake up call for this government.
'When nearly one in three working-age adults in some areas are on disability benefits, its clear that something has gone badly wrong.
'PIP must be reformed to support those in genuine need, rather than becoming an easily accessible income stream.'
Our investigation involved analysing DWP data on the number of working-age adults claiming benefits in all 7,200 MSOAs.
We then compared these figures with the ONS's latest estimates of the working age (16 to 64) population in these areas, allowing us to calculate a percentage.
Government data is still collected via 2011 boundaries set by the Census. MailOnline has converted it to the 2021 boundaries.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
23 minutes ago
- The Independent
I thought I knew what Keir Starmer believed – now, it's anyone's guess
Harriet Harman once described a politician's waking nightmare. As social security secretary in the New Labour government, she was delivering her first speech to the party conference in October 1997. 'All these unfamiliar words started coming up on the autocue. I couldn't go back to my notes, and just had to carry on. I realised that Gordon Brown had made the changes to delete all my references to spending plans.' Something similar happened to Keir Starmer in May, as he read a speech on immigration from the prompter in Downing Street. He told Tom Baldwin, his biographer, in an interview published on Friday, that when the unfamiliar phrase 'an island of strangers' scrolled up on the glass screens, he just read it out. 'I wouldn't have used those words if I had known they were, or even would be interpreted as an echo of [Enoch] Powell,' he told Baldwin. 'I had no idea – and my speechwriters didn't know either.' Starmer had arrived back from a three-day trip to Ukraine the night before, and learned that morning that his former home in Kentish Town had been firebombed in the small hours. His sister-in-law was living there and called the fire brigade: no one was hurt, but Starmer was 'really shaken up'. He said, 'It's fair to say I wasn't in the best state to make a big speech,' and that he almost cancelled it. Baldwin wrote: 'Emphasising he is not using the firebomb attack as an excuse and doesn't blame his advisers or anyone else except himself for these mistakes, Starmer says he should have read through the speech properly and 'held it up to the light a bit more'.' Now, a month and a half later, he said: 'That particular phrase – no – it wasn't right. I'll give you the honest truth: I deeply regret using it.' Both parts of his confession to Baldwin were unwise in the extreme. It was unwise to admit that he doesn't always read his speeches before he delivers them – or that he doesn't always read them 'properly', which is the same thing. The pressures on a prime minister's time are intense, and any prime minister has to rely on speechwriters they can trust to produce most of the words that have to be pumped out. But a politician should never admit that their words are not their own, or blame their speechwriters while insisting that they are not blaming them. Especially not one, such as Starmer, who already has a reputation for being the puppet of Morgan McSweeney, his chief of staff, who saw him as the figurehead for his bid to take the Labour Party back from the Corbynites five years ago. But this confession was particularly unwise because it suggests that Starmer's critics were right to detect the echo of Powell's 'rivers of blood' speech in the prime minister's words. The message of the speech was entirely different. Powell complained that the effect of immigration was that the existing population 'found themselves made strangers in their own country'. Starmer's speechwriters, by contrast, were making the point that 'fair rules' hold a country together. 'In a diverse nation like ours – and I celebrate that – these rules become even more important. Without them, we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together.' The sentiment is worthy and uncontroversial, even if the phrasing is a bit poetic. But the meaning was completely clear in the next paragraph: 'So when you have an immigration system that seems almost designed to permit abuse … you're actually contributing to the forces that are slowly pulling our country apart.' I don't know who would actually disagree with that – apart from Enoch Powell, who didn't want any immigration at all. Some of Starmer's critics have also seized on his comment – in the foreword to the immigration white paper, so he presumably did hold these words 'up to the light' – that the 'damage done to our country' by the Conservative 'experiment in open borders' is 'incalculable'. But again, it is hard to disagree: the writer of Starmer's foreword is not saying that immigration is damaging, but that quadrupling it when you promised to reduce it is. Even those who think the UK can easily absorb a net immigration of 906,000 in a 12-month period have to accept that the Tory failure to control immigration has, as the foreword's author said, opened a wound in 'trust in politics'. So Starmer should have defended 'his' words to Baldwin. The message was the right message: that there should be fair rules for immigration, and that immigration has been too high. Now we just do not know what the prime minister thinks. Is the real Starmer the liberal lefty human rights lawyer who implied to Baldwin that he thinks that any attempt to control immigration is Powellism? Or is it the man reading McSweeney's words off the autocue, saying, as he did just before he got to the 'island of strangers' paragraph: 'I know, on a day like today, people who like politics will try to make this all about politics, about this or that strategy, targeting these voters, responding to that party. No. I am doing this because it is right, because it is fair, and because it is what I believe in.' What does he believe in? I thought I knew, but now that he has given that self-pitying interview to his biographer, I am not so sure.
The Sun
24 minutes ago
- The Sun
Kneecap rapper wears Palestine Action ‘terror group' T-shirt ahead of controversial Glasto set that BBC WON'T show live
CONTROVERSIAL hip hop group Kneecap have shared an image of one of its members wearing a "We Are All Palestine Action" ahead of their Glastonbury set. JJ O Dochartaigh - who often wears a balaclava in public - was seen in the snap wearing the top on X, with the caption reading: "1 hour to go..." 1 They are due to perform at 4pm on the West Holts stage. It comes after the BBC confirmed it will not be broadcasting the Irish trio's performance live following Sir Keir Starmer saying they should be banned from appearing altogether. Festival bosses, meanwhile, have already warned part of the grounds could be locked down during the group's performance this afternoon due to crowd surge concerns. Frontman Liam Og O hAnnaidh was charged under the Terrorism Act after allegedly displaying a flag in support of proscribed terrorist group Hezbollah while saying "up Hamas, up Hezbollah" during a gig in November in Kentish Town, north London. A BBC spokesperson said: 'As the broadcast partner, the BBC is bringing audiences extensive music coverage from Glastonbury, with artists booked by the festival organisers. "Whilst the BBC doesn't ban artists, our plans ensure that our programming meets our editorial guidelines. "We don't always live stream every act from the main stages and look to make an on-demand version of Kneecap's performance available on our digital platforms, alongside more than 90 other sets." The band themselves addressed a post on X to "a chairde Gael" - which means "Gaelic friends" in which they said they'd been contacted by the "propaganda wing of the regime". The post added: "They WILL put our set from Glastonbury today on the I-player later this evening for your viewing pleasure. "The crowd expected today is far greater than West Holts capacity so you'll need to be very early to catch us EARLY". A festival statement released today warns: "Kneecap will draw a large audience for their 4pm West Holts show. "If you're not planning to see them, please plan alternative routes around that area. "If you do plan to attend, listen to stewards, and please have some other entertainment options in mind in case the field reaches capacity and we need to close it as part of our crowd planning measures." Earlier this month the rapper - who performs under the stage name Mo Chara - and bandmates Naoise O Caireallain and O Dochartaigh were mobbed by hundreds of fans outside Westminster Magistrates' Court. He was released on unconditional bail - and is due at the same court on August 20 for the next hearing. The group's much-anticipated appearance at Glastonbury has been criticised by PM Sir Keir Starmer and Tory leader Kemi Badenoch. Mr Starmer said this week it is "not appropriate" for the group to perform at the festival, which started on Thursday. Asked by The Sun on Sunday if he thinks Kneecap should play, the PM said: 'No I don't. 'I think we need to come down really clearly on this. I won't say too much, because there's a court case on, but I don't think that's appropriate.' Ms Badenoch also said the BBC "should not be showing" the band's set in a post on social media. Her post said: "The BBC should not be showing Kneecap propaganda. "One Kneecap band member is currently on bail, charged under the Terrorism Act. "As a publicly funded platform, the BBC should not be rewarding extremism." The band are not currently listed for live broadcast. Avon and Somerset Police said: "Ticket-holders can once again expect to see uniformed officers on site at Glastonbury Festival 24/7 throughout the festival as part of our extensive policing operation ensuring it is safe for everyone attending, as well as those who live nearby." In response to the charge, Kneecap said in a post: '14,000 babies are about to die of starvation in Gaza, with food sent by the world sitting on the other side of a wall, and once again the British establishment is focused on us... 'Instead of defending innocent people, or the principles of international law they claim to uphold, the powerful in Britain have abetted slaughter and famine in Gaza, just as they did in Ireland for centuries. Then, like now, they claim justification. 'The IDF units they arm and fly spy plane missions for are the real terrorists, the whole world can see it.' Hezbollah - founded in 1982 - is an Iran-backed Shiite militia. The Lebanese terrorist organisation voiced support for the Hamas attacks on Israel on October 7 2023 before launching guided rockets and artillery shells at Israeli-occupied positions the following day. Israel has retaliated with strikes on Gaza - and the conflict remains ongoing, with thousands of people, including civilian children, killed. Kneecap has said they "do not, and have never, supported Hamas or Hezbollah", condemned all attacks on civilians, and alleged footage was "deliberately taken out of all context" as part of a "coordinated smear campaign" over their criticism of "the ongoing genocide against the Palestinian people".
Telegraph
25 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Our welfare system needs reform, not arbitrary cuts
As the smoke settles from yet another astonishing tyre-screeching U-turn by Kier Starmer on his welfare proposals, the stark reality is that instead of significant savings, we will all now face an extra tax bill of £3bn in the autumn. This U-turn isn't surprising to me because their proposal was a classic panicky short-term Treasury driven cut but in no way genuine reform. I even doubt that the savings would in the longer term have materialised. This is because I believe they were going at it the wrong way. The Covid lockdowns blasted a hole in our welfare system. Since 2020, the number of households where no one has ever worked has doubled. Economic inactivity due to long-term sickness has risen by 800,000. And taxpayers today are shelling out an extra £30 billion every year on sickness and disability benefits, on top of an already bulging bill. Lockdown reversed much of the progress we had made under the transformations of Universal Credit, in part relaxing eligibility rules and assessments for benefits, a leniency that astonishingly continues to this day. But also expanding the 'claim culture', albeit inadvertently, through schemes like furlough. It is easy to forget that by 2019 we had the lowest rate of workless households on record. Clearly, we have to get a grip. But solving this problem will take thought, courage and time. The Government's proposals are rushed in order to be 'scored' by the OBR in time for the Spring Statement. In a panic, the Treasury opted to simply top-slice spending by raising the threshold for disability benefits across the board. This leads to some deeply concerning outcomes. According to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), three in four Personal Independence Payment (PIP) claimants with arthritis, two in three with cardiovascular disease, and even a third with cancer could lose support. Yet there is another way, one which focuses on the root causes of the crisis. But that must start with a grown-up conversation about mental health. Monthly PIP claims have more than doubled, driven in large part by a threefold increase in people citing mental health conditions. Meanwhile the majority of people on Universal Credit receiving health-related top-ups now also report poor mental health. Tragically, it is disproportionately young people fuelling this rise, those most likely to suffer the mental and emotional consequences of being out of work. And yet it is the system itself that is driving worklessness and dependency. Of course, PIP eligibility does not require someone to be out of work. Yet five in six recipients are. Taken in the round, once you tot up all the various benefits, the system has tilted towards incentivising ill health rather than supporting recovery. There is another way. New research from the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) shows that better targeting of mental health benefits – focusing help to those with more serious conditions – could save the Government up to £9 billion. A more humane and sustainable approach to reform would recognise that, for many people with anxiety or depression, ensuring proper treatment is much more compassionate than parking them on benefits and slamming the door to an independent life. First, the government could use the savings to fund a £1 billion investment in NHS Talking Therapies, expanding 1.5 million additional treatment courses. CSJ polling also finds that nearly half the public believe people with less severe conditions should be supported through programmes and services, compared to one in five saying cash. Second, the Government should accelerate the rollout of Universal Support, originally launched by the last Conservative government and now rebranded as Connect to Work. This scheme works with the local charities and community organisations best placed to help people who are furthest from the workforce. These inspirational people are already on the ground, collaborating with employers to tackle the most difficult barriers to work, whether family breakdown, debt, addiction, and poor health. Finally, for the first time, sickness benefit is being brought into Universal Credit as I had designed originally. The DWP now has powerful tools Universal Credit provides. The NHS has made it clear that for depression and anxiety, the largest new claimant group, work is a health treatment. Yet far too many people were left on sickness benefit with no meaningful contact. Many who were off work for health reasons received no time with a work coach at all. Now under Universal credit that can change. The system should be doing more – using AI to free up work coach time – to increase the contact time with claimants and not leaving them parked on the sidelines. Our welfare system needs reform, not arbitrary cuts. I understand the pressure Liz Kendall is under. But short-term fixes risk doing lasting damage. We need a system that treats people with compassion while actively supporting them to recover and return to work. That's how to reduce dependency, control costs, and rebuild lives.
