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.
    · 1 days 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.
    · 1 days 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.
      · 21 hours ago
      @axab43 I disagree, I have known people try to claim job seekers after leaving jobs because it was affecting their mental health and it has fallen on deaf ears at the job centre, one was a best mate of mine who was sanctioned despite saying he was bullied at work. He was told to find something else.

       "If this person was suffering from mental health illness, you comment could seriously upset them and push them further into a pit." 

      Sorry but don't patronise me and try and put a guilt trip on me, I have long term mental health disorders/conditions myself! But I won't delude myself with untrue positives, I prefer to keep a depressive realism, which is nothing to do with "horror stories".  If people don't want to read about reality then ignore my comments and read yours instead, a nice imaginary comfort blanket which might be removed causing a big shock. I would rather be up front from the beginning. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @MJ If this person was suffering from mental health illness, you comment could seriously upset them and push them further into a pit.

      If anyone is in such a place of a job being unsuitable, they should go to the Citizens Advice Bureaux, who could advise them and tell them how to word their objection to the job.   The DWP cannot say a job if suitable for someone if it is affecting their mental or physical health, as they cannot go inside their mind.

      Again, can we try and be a little more positive instead of just telling people horror stories that could cause them more worry/suffering?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Gary You will have to prove the job was unsuitable, and what if they don't think it was? And even if they concede it may have been they will coerce people to apply for other jobs. They will try their damn hardest not to allow a person to go back on to benefits, you will be trapped.  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days 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.
      · 1 days 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.
    · 1 days 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.
      · 1 days ago
      @tintack My thought is, it will ultimately put the NHS six foot under, and surely unresurectable.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days 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.
    · 1 days ago
    I cannot stand much more of this.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @DS I was told don't read all the comments/don't listen to the news or read newspaper headlines.  We won't know what will happen until March and even then, the reforms will take another year to be processed.  It is not worth worrying to all the negative reports and worrying for a year.  Just make you sure you have what evidence you can and you get help from the Citizens Advice Bureaux if they contact you.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days 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.
    · 2 days 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.
      · 1 days 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.
    · 2 days 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.
    · 2 days 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.
      · 20 hours ago
      @axab43 Take a look at how the DWP have handled the sped up migration of ESA to UC. They can handle it; at worst they'll hire more people. I can see continuous assessments will be the norm with UC. PIP, well let's see who actually qualifies for it after Labour have finished! I still wouldn't be surprised if they folded it into UC...
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Rik large scale reassessments of everyone on benefits would take many years.  I have said this over and over again on this forum.  There are people on this forum who really do have serious mental health issues, myself included.  Just putting out the worse cast scenario can cause a lot of suffering.  I have read myself that some of the changes will only apply to new claimants, especially changes to the WCA.   

      And if they are aiming to reassess everyone on benefits, on PIP, and the other reforms they are attending, it will take many years.

      Can we not do worst case scenario comments/posts and it does cause people actual harm yet so many people do it on here.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days 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.
      · 1 days 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.
      · 2 days 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.
    · 2 days 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.
      · 1 days ago
      @Anon I'm not talking about people who are fit for work, I'm talking about people who are unfit but being placed in the LCW or WRAG, and getting the same basic UC as a jobseeker. You can't live on it, and if you're unfit for work for many months or years then not only will that in itself make you more ill, it will make you desperate. Desperate people will do what they must to survive. This all started in 2017 imo, when they scrapped the extra £30 pw for people in the WRAG.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days 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.
    · 2 days 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.
    · 2 days 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.
      · 2 days 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.
    · 2 days 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.
    · 2 days 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