Young adults receiving disability benefits should be forced to seek work or training or have their cash stopped, says report backed by David Blunkett_nhy
Young adults claiming disability benefits should be made to look for work or training in exchange for their money, a new report says today.
Former Labour minister Lord David Blunkett is indorsing a call for the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) to be made ‘conditional’ for those aged 18-30 to combat spiraling joblessness.
The centre-right Policy Exchange think tank argues that the current system will cost every taxpayer up to £1,500 by 2028/29 and does not incentivise claimants to seek work.
They argue that it has become a ‘front-stop rather than a backstop’ as PIP claimants do not have to offer any medical evidence of illness to claim.
Figures show awards for a ‘psychiatric condition’, including anxiety and depressive disorders, grew from an average of 2,600 per month in 2019 to 5,700 by January 2024.
On Wednesday a Cabinet minister said there is a ‘moral case’ for cutting the welfare bill.
Lord Blunkett, a former work and pensions secretary, said: ‘What is absolutely certain is that for the sake of individuals, our economy and the affordability of the system, radical and positive change is necessary.
‘Reflecting the experience of implementing the New Deal for the Young Unemployed from 1998, the recommendation that for the under 30s there should be some form of conditionality is well worth exploring.
‘Not least with the staggering figure of around 70 per cent of those under 25 claiming sickness or disability benefit presenting with some form of mental ill health.
Former Labour minister Lord David Blunkett is indorsing a call for the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) to be made ‘conditional’ for those aged 18-30 to combat spiraling joblessness.
The centre-right Policy Exchange think tank argues that the current system will cost every taxpayer up to £1,500 by 2028/29 and does not incentivise claimants to seek work.
‘The change over time and the variation with older people of working age cannot be ignored.
‘So a combination of focused and improved support together with much clearer requirements on the individuals seeking help makes absolute common sense.’
It comes as Chancellor Rachel Reeves sets her sights on reducing the welfare bill as she battles to avoid the need for tax rises at the Spring Statement later this month.
In an interview she hinted that so-called ‘NEETs’ are in her sights, saying that the ‘majority’ of the million young people not in education, employment or training should be working.
Ms Reeves is said to be looking for £5billion of savings from benefits, with suggestions that conditions for claiming incapacity payments will also be tightened.
On Wednesday Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood defended efforts to reduce the amount spent on welfare.
She told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: ‘There is a moral case here for making sure that people who can work are able to work and there’s a practical point here as well, because our current situation is unsustainable.’
Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall, who is expected to set out reforms within weeks, told Cabinet colleagues on Tuesday there are 2.8 million people not in work due to ill-health and one in eight young people not in education, training or employment.
She told them this is ‘holding back the economy’ and is ‘bad for people’s wellbeing and health’, with the sickness and disability bill for working-age people rising by £20 billion since the pandemic and forecast to hit £70 billion over the next five years.
A Health and Disability Green Paper will set out plans to supports those who can work back into jobs, rather than write them off, she said.
Economist Paul Johnson said cuts to welfare will need to be ‘radical’ to persuade the OBR they will generate enough savings.
Spending on health-related benefits is projected to increase so the potential savings are ‘quite large’, the IFS director told BBC Radio 4’s World At One.
‘But you’re only going to achieve significant or noticeable savings, you’re only going to persuade the OBR, if you’re going to do something really quite radical.
‘Like, for example, simply making people with certain types of conditions or certain levels of illness not eligible for these benefits. Certainly tinkering with them is not going to do the job.’
