Latest news with #incapacityBenefit
Times
19 hours ago
- Politics
- Times
How Liz Kendall can stop this national sickness
The welfare trap has become so vast and bewildering — an incomprehensible maze of acronyms and despair — that it's easy to lose sight of those trapped inside it. Keir Starmer, like others before him, ended up losing his way in the institutional fog. The Treasury needed savings so welfare cuts were ordered to provide them. But no one seemed to ask the most basic question: what about the people? How would MPs explain the cuts to them, and others? And in what possible way would this be politically deliverable? Take Amy, a single mother in Keighley I met last year while filming a documentary. During childbirth, her pelvis fractured. Multiple surgeries have left her walking (with a stick) but in constant pain. Incapacity benefit lets her care for her eight-year-old son and provide something rare in her part of town: a stable home. Still only 30, Amy is bright and eager to train. She once wanted to be a barrister. But she has never worked and has no idea how to start, nor has anyone offered serious help. Starmer's welfare reform would cut payments significantly from next April: the promised 'employment support' looks paltry and unlikely to reach Amy. This is a Treasury raid, disguised as welfare reform. Official forecasts admit that the sickness benefit surge will continue apace: 3.3 million at the last count, 4.1 million within five years. So the obvious mission — reverse the rise — will not be accomplished. Labour rebels were right to reject this combination of penny-pinching, ineptitude and lack of ambition. People like Amy are the hardest cases: the longer you're on welfare, the harder it is to get off. So the first, easiest, most urgent task should be to reduce the rise in sickness benefit claimants. The old, shocking statistic was that 2,000 were being signed off every working day under the Tories. The figures were updated this week: under Labour it's now closer to 3,000 a day. Lives are being squandered on a scale that's hard to fathom and harder to forgive. Once on sickness benefits, claimants are unlikely to work again. This is especially tragic given how many under-35s are claiming: up 60 per cent in five years. It would be callous, if those in charge realised what was going on. Which, even now, they largely don't. Jeremy Hunt, a former chancellor, is a case in point. He recently claimed to be responsible for the sickness benefit surge because, as health secretary, he gave mental health the same status as physical health. But his mea culpa was wrong. A steady fall in sickness benefit claimants, which started under Blair, was suddenly and viciously reversed not following Hunt's 2014 Care Act but in 2019. Why? The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has gone into this in detail. The answer lies in bureaucratic mistakes that were never spotted and lie uncorrected even now. During lockdown, in-person interviews for sickness benefits were replaced with cheaper phone interviews. The new system had a big, unexpected side effect. Assessors told me the prospect of a sit-down interview deters those who are, actually, not too sick to work. Large numbers of them dropped their claims at the last minute. But a phone call? Far less daunting, especially if it's a scripted process that can be easily gamed — and whose questions (and accepted answers) are now all online. Something dull and technical — a reduction in the pre-interview dropout rate — is responsible for a half a million extra sickness benefit awards since 2019. But that figure accounts for only half of the overall surge of one million extra awards in that time. Another factor is the rise in approval rates, now at 80 per cent, double the 2010 level. Why so high? Assessors are incentivised to get through as many claims as they can, and are paid an £80 bonus for every one over a certain minimum. The only way of speeding up is to assess someone as too sick to work. Do so and you can 'curtail' — end the interview — and move on to the next claim. You can be hauled up for rejections (in case the claimant appeals) but approvals are almost never checked. One assessor, a former NHS nurse, told me how appalled he was that the interviews are not recorded. This, he said, leaves the system wide open to abuse. Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, could fix this now. Tell all applicants their interview will be in-person. Switch to a phone call last minute if needs be, but restore that deterrent effect. Record and spot-check all claims, not just rejected ones. Publish all sickness benefit data, daily. How many applied, and were approved? How many bonuses were paid? Such transparency could be transformative. A Covid-style live-data dashboard would focus minds more than any ministerial edict. Last autumn I met Gavin, a taxi driver on the south coast who told the DWP he did not need his sickness benefits any more. No, he was told: you must wait to be reassessed. Three years later, he was still waiting. What he didn't know was that reassessments were stopped in lockdown — and were never properly restarted. Once, 350 a day were moved back into work this way. Now, it's just 50 a day. Reassessments would not threaten people such as Amy, whose case is all too verifiable. No vote is needed in parliament. Kendall has been increasing them, but by nowhere like enough. She does not need new laws, just grip. And to rediscover a sense of urgency, a willingness to take on activists. This is about duty both to the taxpayer and to those stuck in the system. Not long ago, Britain led the world on welfare reform and it was Labour that started the process. The problem isn't a workshy population but a broken system, one that forgets its purpose, loses sight of the individual and now traps more than it helps. The real sickness is political: a kind of fatalism that says welfare is too big to fix, that no one can grip it and that any remedy must wait for some distant white paper. Reassessments, deterrents, scrutiny, transparency — none of these are radical ideas. They worked before and can be made to work again. This isn't about whether Starmer can pass legislation but whether he can govern. Whether he sees the likes of Amy not as costs to be reduced but as citizens to be helped. This was, once, the founding purpose of his party. If a prime minister forgets that purpose, then no majority, however large, will save him when the reckoning comes.
BBC News
3 days ago
- Business
- BBC News
What are the government's planned welfare changes?
A significant number of Labour MPs are threatening to vote against the government's working-age welfare reform plan when it comes before the House of Commons next reforms are designed to reduce the overall working-age welfare bill by about £5bn a year by the end of the rebel MPs have signed an amendment to the legislation that makes a series of objections, including a lack of official consultation and impact Verify explains the detail of the reforms and their possible impact. Which benefits would be cut? The government wants to save money by:making it harder for people to access Personal Independence Payments (Pip)cutting the rate of incapacity benefitIncapacity benefit - which is mainly paid through the health element of Universal Credit - goes to those deemed to be unable to work for health benefit is set to be reduced by 50% in cash terms for new claimants from April 2026. For existing claimants, it is due to be held flat in cash terms until 2029-30 - meaning payments will not rise in line with inflation. The government estimates these two changes will save £3bn a year by the end of the is paid to people with a long-term physical or mental health condition or a disability and who need support. Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall has acknowledged that almost 20% of recipients are in work. The government plans to make it more difficult for people to claim the "daily living" element of Pip from 2026-27. Under the current assessment system, claimants are scored on a zero to 12 scale by a health professional on everyday tasks such as washing, getting dressed and preparing are the Pip and universal credit changes and who is affected?Under the proposed change, people would need to score at least four on one task, ruling out people with lower scores who would previously have qualified for the benefit. The government estimates this will save an additional £4.5bn a year from the welfare bill by the end of the decade. Why is the government trying to cut welfare spending? It is concerned about the rise in the number of people claiming working-age benefits in recent years and the implications of this trend for the public Autumn, the government projected that the numbers of working-age claimants of Pip in England, Scotland and Wales would rise from 2.7 million in 2023-24 to 4.3 million in 2029-30, an increase of 1.6 that time, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the government's official forecaster, projected that the overall cost of the working-age benefit system would rise from £48.5bn in 2024 to £75.7bn by would have represented an increase from 1.7% of the size of the UK economy to 2.2%, roughly the size of current spending on defence. Ministers argue that this rising bill needs to be brought under control and that changes to the welfare system are part of that is worth noting though that - even after factoring in the planned cuts - the OBR still projected this bill to continue to rise in cash terms to £72.3bn by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) still projected the total number of working-age Pip recipients to rise by 1.2 million between 2023-24 and 2029-30 - after the cuts. In this sense, the main effect of the Pip cuts would be to reduce the increase in claimants that would otherwise have occurred. What would the impact of the reforms be? The government's official impact assessment estimates that about 250,000 additional people (including 50,000 children) will be left in "relative poverty" (after housing costs) by 2030 because of the that assessment included the impact of the government deciding not to proceed with welfare reforms planned by the previous Conservative administration, which government analysts had judged would have pushed an additional 150,000 people into charities and research organisations have suggested this means the government's 250,000 estimate understates the impact of its own reforms, since the previous administration's reforms were never actually Porter from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has suggested the actual poverty impact of the government's changes could therefore be up to 400,000 (adding the 250,000 figure to the 150,000 figure to generate an estimate of the total numbers affected).However, the government's impact assessment cautions against simply adding the two figures together, noting that "some people are affected by more than one [reform] measure", meaning this approach risks double counting account of this, the Resolution Foundation think tank has estimated that the net effect of the government's reforms would mean "at least 300,000" people entering relative poverty by 2030. What about the impact on employment? The government has claimed that its reforms are not just about saving money, but helping people into Rachel Reeves told Sky News in March 2025 that: "I am absolutely certain that our reforms, instead of pushing people into poverty, are going to get people into work. And we know that if you move from welfare into work, you are much less likely to be in poverty."To this end, the government is gradually increasing the standard allowance in Universal Credit - the basic sum paid to cover recipients' living costs - by £5 a week by is projected to be a net benefit to 3.8 million households and the government argues it will also increase the incentives for people to work rather than claim incapacity government is also investing an extra £1bn a year by 2029-30 in additional support to get people out of inactivity and into employment. What are the rebels' objections? The rebel MPs say disabled people have not been consulted on the proposed also say there has been no evaluation of the overall employment impacts by the is true that the government has not consulted disabled people on the specific cuts to Pip and incapacity benefits, though it is now consulting on the broader reform is also the case that the OBR has not yet done a full employment impact assessment, though the forecaster says it will do one before the Autumn the Resolution Foundation has done its own estimate of the employment impact of the overall reform estimates the total increase in employment could be between 60,000 and 105,000, although it stressed that these figures are highly positive employment figure contrasts with the 800,000 people who are projected to lose part of their Pip payments by 2029-30 and the 3 million people families who will see a cut in their incapacity benefits. What do you want BBC Verify to investigate?
