The cross-party House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee (EAC) has today called for the government to “accelerate its plans to reform health-related benefits”, warning that the country now spends more on incapacity and disability benefits than on defence  

The 14 member EAC has four each of Labour, Conservative and crossbench peers and two Lib Dems and includes former Tory Chancellor Norman Lamont.

The EAC claims that 3.7 million people of working age receive health-related benefits, 1.2 million more than in February 2020. They argue that the UK is now spending more on incapacity and disability benefits (almost £65 billion) than defence – and that figure is set to rise.

The committee also says it has seen no convincing evidence that deteriorating health or high NHS waiting lists have been the main driver of the rise in health-related benefit claims

It argues that there has been “a wealth of analysis” of the problems with the benefits system along with credible solutions.

The EAC’s recommendations include

  • A reform of the fit note system
  • Individuals who are signed off work for more than a month should undergo additional or ongoing assessments
  • Work Capability Assessment (WCA) is not rigorous enough and susceptible to error. The assessment should be face-to-face and seek to establish what work an individual can do rather than looking to corroborate what they cannot do.
  • If people return to work, they should not be at risk of immediately losing benefits; or, if the job proves unsuitable, they should not be immediately faced with having to reapply for these benefits.
  • Just as unemployed people have a work coach, so should those on incapacity benefit for the first two years of their period on benefits.

The call will add to growing pressure on Liz Kendall to make cuts to benefits, at the same time as last week’s High Court Judgement will oblige her to be honest about the financial effects of those cuts on claimants.

You can read the committee’s call for urgent action here.

Comments

Write comments...
or post as a guest
People in conversation:
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 3 hours ago
    Scapegoating the disabled and sick for their failures with the economy
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 3 hours ago
    I'm so unwell, I have multiple auto immune diseases that are incurable.

     On top of these illnesses I have awful side effects from my multitude of medications. 

     I'm sick of being vilified for being unwell, abd always having to worry about the pittance I get, being taken away from me.

     All this cuts, green paper, white paper, vouchers, reforms is now starting to take a real toll on my mental health.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 4 hours ago
    I agree that if people return to work, they should not be at risk of immediately losing benefits; or, if the job proves unsuitable, they should not be immediately faced with having to reapply for these benefits. I think that some of the increase is disability benefits is that the increasing cost of living has encouraged more people who have a health condition to report this in order to get enough income to get by. Also with the increase in State Pension Age there are older people claiming Universal Credit who in previous years would be drawing a pension. Having more work coaches for those on incapacity benefit is fine but what specialist training are they going to receive, what is their caseload going to be and are they going to be able to offer tailored support? 

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 4 hours ago
    Do you think this may affect/apply to Atendance Allowance both my parents 89 & 95 yo rely on?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 5 hours ago
    If people return to work, they should not be at risk of immediately losing benefits; or, if the job proves unsuitable, they should not be immediately faced with having to reapply for these benefits.

    Thats a good thing. 


    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 3 hours ago
      @Gary Following my earlier comment, the government and the DWP have been paying these self-styled gurus, such as, Alan Milburn, to concoct reports on benefits and make recommendations, to shift any blame or wrong-doing from themselves and just say, "Ah, this is from the experts in the field and not necessarily a mere government policy".
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 3 hours ago
      @Gary That was the Tories' plan, I'm afraid.

      As Labour have been paying some self-styled gurus, like Alan Milburn, to concoct reports on benefits and make recommendations, some of them have recommended that in order to be able to go back on the same previous benefits, people must have tried to stay in work for a minimum period of two years.

      Apart from their proposal of paying PIP in vouchers, etc., the Tories' plan was way preferable compared to what Keir Starmer's Labour are mumbling. In case you think I'm a Tory voter, be assured I always voted for Labour, except the last election on which I voted the Greens just for the sake of not voting Keir Starmer's Labour, as it was clear to me that Keir Starmer didn't stand for anything whatsoever, neither did he have any policies, ideologies, programme, etc, and that he was all after becoming prime minister. I wish I was wrong.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 hours ago
    "Work Capability Assessment (WCA) is not rigorous enough and susceptible to error."

    At least hundreds, and probably thousands, have been driven into early graves after having their support wrongly cut off because of the WCA. Just how "rigorous" do they want to make it? It's "susceptible to error" all right, but not in the way they think.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 hours ago
    The billions the government waste and it's always the same story keep blaming the disabled, people with health and mental health conditions and even pensioners get it in the neck too.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 7 hours ago
    I cannot stand much more of this.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 3 hours ago
      @DS Same here Ds.....my health issues are physical...but all this is starting to take a toll on my mental health.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 12 hours ago
    These are recommendations not set in stone reforms but this to me echoes what Alan Milburn said about "engagement".


    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 hours ago
      @Dave Dee True, it was Alan Milburn who came up with this "Duty to engage". But don't forget, Liz Kendall used to parrot if after.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 12 hours ago
    The cuts should start with cutting the number of the unelected lords in this club that's getting bigger and bigger for no meaningful and justifiable reason.

    Why should this club have unelected 808 members that are costing the tax payers £21,110,000 per yea? This is just the costs directly relating to the Members Finance Scheme, such as, allowances and travel expenses, excluding the costs of the House of Lords, estates, works expenditure, and non-cash items! And this was in 2023 when there were 776 members in this club.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 12 hours ago
    These reforms will be for those in the future, won't they?  Not for those already on benefits.  They seem to be for the future?  (I also read that the planned changes now will be one year to legislate from when the Green Paper is published. )
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 hours ago
      @Rik That's right. A guy who wrote a report for the DWP on this issue, has exactly recommended to reduce sickness payments to the same level as jobseekers' level.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 7 hours ago
      @Scorpion This. It must be understood the whole point of these cuts is not about getting people off of benefits, but to get claimants on the lowest level possible. This will be the approach with both UC and PIP in the coming year.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 11 hours ago
      @axab43 Don't believe it. I will put money on Labour undertaking a large-scale reassessment of existing claimants. It was only the Conservatives who said existing claimants would be exempt from changes.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 11 hours ago
      @axab43 I doubt, as If people are kept reassessed and their award can be downgraded, then, they're no different from new claimants, intentionally misleadingly claiming that their circumstances have changed.

      "The reform will apply to new claimants or those undergoing a reassessment of their health."


      The trouble is that neither the government nor the DWP are making any clear statements. We only come across others speaking for them, including the media and other organisations.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 12 hours ago
      @axab43 They are recommendations not reforms.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 hours ago
    If people are being driven to exaggerate their illnesses, and that's a big if - it's because of the massive increase in the cost of living and the absolute inability to live on basic UC. 

    What needs to be tackled is the relentless racking up of debt, people being reliant on food banks, people being sanctioned and expected to live on nothing for weeks at a time for minor infractions etc etc. And the one single thing they can do to tackle the benefits bill, rent controls. Stop landlords from continuing to charge exorbitant rents and living off benefits!!

    But no, it plays far better to the Smail crowd and the Reform Trumpettes to say it's all made up and that we all need to be whipped in the street.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 hours ago
      @Am I'm sorry but nobody should be exaggerating illness in order to get more UC, even if there is a cost of living crisis. If  someone can work, they should, not tell lies.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 14 hours ago
    The majority of the Labour membership want the House of Lords replaced with an elected second chamber. Here's hoping that Starmer's desire for this hasn't wained because I sure as hell do not care what an unelected, often-hereditarily appointed old 'Lord' has to say about any matter.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 14 hours ago
    If they've a modicum of fairness, they should introduce a new wealth tax: of a just 2% levy on individuals who own assets worth more than £10 million, which would only affect 0.04% of the UK population and would raise £24 billion a year. 

    They rather prefer to punish the venerable who are already in dire straits.

    To me, targeting and punishing the venerable and weaker is the epitome of cowardice and lack of honesty.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 12 hours ago
      @Scorpion That's because the rich lobby parliament and give donations.  They always go after the most vulnerable in society, it's unjust and unfair. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 14 hours ago
    I don’t like the look at that especially the on going assessments and a work coach straight away sounds like more hassle and say if I get cancer in future would that mean I would have to go threw all this?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 14 hours ago
    I did see this in the FT. Not surprised. That Green Paper will be grim but the report does contain some uncomfortable truths as well

Free PIP, ESA & UC Updates!

Delivered Fortnightly

Over 110,000 claimants and professionals subscribe to the UK's leading source of benefits news.

 
iContact
We use cookies

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential for the operation of the site, while others help us to improve this site and the user experience (tracking cookies). You can decide for yourself whether you want to allow cookies or not. Please note that if you reject them, you may not be able to use all the functionalities of the site.