Quarter of UK mental ill health benefit claimants expect to lose out from planned reforms, charity says
LONDON, June 5 (Reuters) - Around one in four British people with poor mental health who claim welfare benefits expect to lose their entitlement under proposed government reforms, according to research published by a charity on Thursday.
Britain's government aims to save 4 billion pounds ($5.4 billion) a year by 2029-30 through tightening the rules for claiming a benefit known as personal independence payment (PIP) designed to cover disability-related costs, whether a claimant is in work or not.
The Money and Mental Health Policy Institute said it interviewed 227 people with mental health conditions who receive PIP, which can be worth nearly 6,000 pounds a year.
Some 24% of those surveyed said they expected to lose the benefit, while 39% were unsure if they would be affected.
About one in five of those surveyed were in work, and nearly two thirds of them said reducing the benefit would make them work less, rather than more, due to difficulty affording transport costs or private mental health support.
"Our analysis shows that these changes would actually result in many people with mental health problems who have a job cutting their hours or leaving the workplace altogether," the charity's chief executive, Helen Undy, said.
PIP is paid to 3.7 million people in England and Wales, 6% of the population, and new claims have risen by two thirds in recent years.
The government hopes that tighter eligibility rules will encourage more claimants to seek work. Under the government plans, claimants would need to have a severe difficulty in at least one area of daily life to qualify for the benefit, rather than a range of less severe problems.
Britain's budget watchdog in March estimated that a third of claimants would be affected by the change, of whom around half would lose benefits after being reassessed.
The new plans are subject to consultation until the end of the month. Finance minister Rachel Reeves has been under pressure from campaigners to reconsider, following a U-turn over a decision to scrap heating subsidies for most pensioners.
($1 = 0.7372 pounds)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
43 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
KEMI BADENOCH: A simple way to deter migrants? Make them wait for ten years before they can claim any benefits
The issue of immigration is a simple one for the Conservative Party: we need to crack down on it in every form, both legal and illegal. For me, this is about basic fairness. Britain today seems to work more favourably for those who jump the queue, who break the rules, who get into our country illegally but then denigrate our customs and our culture. And those of us who work hard and do the right thing, hoping one day to leave a better life for our children, are left footing the bill. The billions of pounds of taxpayers' money we are spending to put asylum seekers up in hotels, for example, is well known. Less well known, however, is the fact that low-paid immigrants and refugees who stay here for five years qualify for 'indefinite leave to remain'. This allows them to claim the same benefits British citizens are entitled to, such as social housing and Universal Credit. They become automatically entitled to make such claims regardless of whether they've paid taxes or have simply lived off the state throughout those five years. To my mind, that is fundamentally unfair to all the hard-working Brits who have dutifully paid into the system – and I'm determined to stop it. But it's likely to come as no surprise that the Labour Government has no such interest. It voted against our Deportation Bill last month, which would have introduced a strict cap on the number of newcomers to these shores, as well as doubling the time it takes for immigrants to be able to claim benefits from five to ten years. The same ten-year rule would also apply to people seeking the privilege of British citizenship, up from the current five years. And, to make sure those who come here are serious about contributing to our society, rather than just ripping it off, the Bill would have barred anyone who'd claimed benefits from getting indefinite leave to remain. It would also have given the government the power to remove settled status from those who commit any crime – preventing them from claiming that precious British passport. All in all, that Bill was designed to protect our borders and uphold fairness in our benefits system. But thanks to Labour, it was shot down. To be honest, many – if not all – of the measures it contained would probably have ended up going the same way as the former government's abandoned scheme to deport illegal immigrants to Rwanda. That became bogged down in our courts and frustrated by unnamed foreign judges interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Mel Stride (pictured), when he was Work and Pensions Secretary, came up with reforms to the welfare system that would have saved £5billion, but those, too, got stuck in the courts – giving Labour all the excuses they needed to quietly ditch them I have asked distinguished barrister and shadow attorney general Lord Wolfson KC (pictured), and the shadow solicitor general Helen Grant, to lead a commission to establish, once and for all, if the things that we need to do can be done if we remain a member of the European Convention on Human Rights Other potentially transformative policies of ours have floundered in similar ways. Mel Stride, when he was Work and Pensions Secretary, came up with reforms to the welfare system that would have saved £5billion, but those, too, got stuck in the courts – giving Labour all the excuses they needed to quietly ditch them. I call this lawfare – the use of litigation as a political weapon. Even if these legal activists aren't successful, the costs and delays they incur are crippling to democracy. It is turning us into a country afraid of its own shadow. This must change. I have asked distinguished barrister and shadow attorney general Lord Wolfson KC, and the shadow solicitor general Helen Grant, to lead a commission to establish, once and for all, if the things that we need to do – get control of our borders, protect our welfare system and restore fairness – can be done if we remain a member of the European Convention on Human Rights. They will get to the bottom of how we got into this legal quagmire, and the challenges to getting us out. If their conclusions are that we cannot enact reasonable policies to put British citizens first when it comes to social housing and scarce public services, then I will know that we need to leave. The commission's findings will also help me make a workable plan to get us out of the ECHR, while taking into account the need to ensure essential human rights remain protected. The greatest danger we now face is allowing lawfare to make this country less fair, less safe and less democratic. But I'm determined that, under my leadership, the Conservative Party will protect our values, our democracy, our country – and, ultimately, our people.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
LORD ASHCROFT: 'We can sniff Starmer's fear of Farage' say voters as they back winter fuel U-turn and insist two-child benefit cap must stay
Mrs Merton, the comic interviewer created by the late Caroline Aherne, famously asked Debbie McGee what first attracted her to the millionaire Paul Daniels. In the same satirical spirit, voters have been wondering what it was about the Reform party's surge in the local elections that prompted Keir Starmer to tighten his immigration policy and row back on cuts to the winter fuel allowance. Some welcome the winter fuel reversal and even give Labour some credit for listening and learning. More sceptical voters, of whom there are plenty, see a weak Government that can't make a decision and stick to it. Some wonder which taxes will rise to pay for the U-turn. On all sides, the link between Labour's plummeting popularity and the winter fuel climbdown is obvious (in my research, Starmer's explanation that his newfound largesse was the result of an improving economy just made people laugh). 'You've kind of gotta sniff a bit of desperation,' one 2024 Labour voter told us. The same is true of Starmer's recent conversion to tighter immigration controls, with promises of stricter education and language requirements and a longer wait for settled status. On this issue, voters are, if anything, even more doubtful – for at least three reasons. First, they don't think he means it: the human rights lawyer and free-movement advocate has not suddenly seen the merits of firm border control ('If that was what you truly believe, it should have been on the table months ago,' a Reform supporter said). Second, they don't think it will happen: my poll found only just over a quarter of all voters think Labour would succeed in cutting immigration numbers, even if it wanted to – which most think it doesn't. Third, they think he's aiming at the wrong target. As my poll also showed, people care much more about illegal migration, and the vast hotel costs that follow, than about those coming here legitimately to work. Some worry that Starmer's new rules will make it harder to recruit, especially in crucial areas such as the care sector, even as migrants arrive on our beaches in record-breaking numbers. In a double blow for Starmer, the people who take his new immigration rhetoric most seriously are the ones who like it least, often inside his own party. Most of them don't think he means it either, but some longstanding Labour voters find it profoundly depressing that the Prime Minister seems willing, as they see it, to pander to the Right. Many found his warning that Britain risked becoming an 'island of strangers' particularly worrying. 'When you're quoting Enoch Powell, I draw a line at that,' one told us last week. Evidently aware of these tensions, Labour figures are dangling the prospect of an end to the rule under which families can only claim child-related benefits for up to two children. This would please the Left and many party activists, but infuriate rather more than that. In my poll, most Labour voters backed the two-child benefit limit, while Conservatives and Reform voters did so overwhelmingly. They see it as an issue of fairness: 'I've got six children and I agree with the cap, because all the extra children I had, I've paid for,' one participant put it. These debates underline the dilemmas facing Chancellor Rachel Reeves as she prepares to unveil her spending review on Wednesday. With the economy struggling to grow under the weight of her extra taxes and regulations, she faces difficult choices over how to maintain public services – and the Government's new commitments on defence – while sticking to her fiscal rules. I found voters tend to want her to balance the books by controlling spending rather than raising taxes, but think she will do the opposite. Starmer has tried to divert attention from Labour's troubles by highlighting the contradictions in his opponents' plans. It is certainly true that Nigel Farage is offering simultaneously to slash taxes and boost spending – not least by scrapping the two-child benefit cap. But these attacks on Reform slightly miss the point. Those drawn to the party know its policies are a work in progress; it is the change of direction they want to see. They want a government that takes them seriously and puts Britain first. They won't be fact-checked into submission. More interesting is Starmer's acknowledgment that Reform is now Labour's chief opponent – a view shared by voters of all parties. Strikingly, my poll found Farage is considered the most likely of the current leaders to be PM after the next election. This is not good news for Kemi Badenoch. Most in my poll expected her to be swapped out before the election. This is not because it would be a good thing or would help the Tories' chances, but because that's what they believe the party does. No Tory leader has served a full term since David Cameron. The leadership circus has long been part of the Conservatives' problem. Another round would signal to many potential supporters that the party is not serious. And with Labour in trouble and Reform promising whatever it pleases, seriousness is above all what the Tories need to prove.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Trump's tariffs will cost UK steel industry £150m
US trade tariffs have dealt a £150 million blow to the UK steel industry as a wave of cheap products driven from American shores are being dumped in Britain, senior industry figures warn. The UK risks being hit harder than other countries in the tariff chaos despite having negotiated a deal with Donald Trump on exports of steel to the US. This, steel bosses say, is because the UK does not have 'the right defences' to prevent countries such as China from flooding our market with cheap steel that would have been sold to the US. That will drive down prices and crowd out domestic British steelmakers. By contrast, EU countries have erected barriers to protect their steel industries. Trade body UK Steel said imports were 'flooding on to the UK market depressing prices' as a result of the US tariffs, which last week rose to 50 per cent for steel and aluminium from a previous rate of 25 per cent. The UK managed to avoid the higher levy after securing a last-minute exemption. But Russell Codling, commercial director at Tata Steel, told MPs urgent measures were needed to protect UK industry. He said steel prices in the UK were tanking below those in Europe following the US tariffs – a price difference 'leading to something like a £100 million- £150 million-a-year loss in the UK compared with Europe.' The UK industry is already struggling to remain profitable due to high energy costs and environmental taxes, which are heavier than those on EU manufacturers. Codling added that the UK market for foreign steel imports was 'far more free-flowing than into mainland Europe'. The latest crisis comes hard on the heels of Government intervention to prevent the country's last blast furnaces at the British Steel plant in Scunthorpe, North Lincolnshire, from being closed by Chinese owners Jingye in April. Codling, whose firm employs 8,000 people, said the UK needed to bring in measures to shield producers against cheap imports that 'are as least as good as our trading partners around the world.' A 25 per cent levy will still apply until the Government finalises a proposed trade deal with the US which should see tariffs cut to zero. Steel exports from Britain to the US are worth £400 million a year, making it the sector's second-biggest market. But UK bosses fear the Trump administration could alter the terms of any deal before it is signed. Gareth Stace, director general of UK Steel, said the Government needed to take 'decisive action' to protect producers. He added: 'The EU has stepped up its trade defences, and now we must do the same.' Respected industrialist Andrew Cook warned that the dumping of cheap steel would cause 'great damage'. He said: 'China built 600 million tons of surplus steel-making capacity to dump on foreign markets. This is the main reason why Britain's steel industry has suffered so badly.' Currently, the UK sets a quota for steel imports allowed into the country tariff-free. Imports above that level incur a 25 per cent levy. But UK Steel says the quotas do not offer 'adequate protection'. The UK's Trade Remedies Authority (TRA), which monitors unfair practices, is reviewing whether the measures, which are based on EU controls from 2018, suffice. Industry minister Sarah Jones insisted the Government – which is set to unveil its £2.5 billion steel strategy later this year – is backing the industry 'to the hilt'. She said: 'The TRA has been working at pace to identify stronger measures to defend the industry.' Rajesh Nair, head of Tata Steel UK, urged Ministers to ensure the US doesn't require British exports to have been 'melted and poured' in the UK to be tariff-exempt. This process now only happens at British Steel's Scunthorpe blast furnaces. Tata, which closed its UK blast furnace last year, is having to import steel until electric arc furnace steelmaking starts in Port Talbot in late 2027, Nair said.
