Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

7.4 million people claim some form of disability or incapacity benefits

1000 replies

MidnightPatrol · 17/03/2025 08:15

Given the various back and forth of discussion on the reduction in disability and incapacity benefits, not much data on the debate has been shared - it’s a mainly emotional debate.

So for context, the figures:

  • 7.4 million people claim sickness benefits of some kind
  • The total number of claimants has increased by a third in five years (up 1.8 million)
  • 1 in 10 working age adults claims, and 1 in 12 school aged children
  • 1.2 million people aged under 25 claim sickness benefits, a rise of two thirds in 5 years - 1 in 15 claiming something
  • 4 million adults claim sickness benefit of some kind, up from 2.8 million in 2019. Two thirds of that increase is people under 50.
  • 2.5 million people claim UC health benefits, up 500k people this year alone - in 2019 less than 500k people claimed this
  • 1.8 million have no requirement to look for work
  • Sickness benefits for working age adults are expected to cost £70b by 2030 - a third of the cost of the NHS
OP posts:
Thread gallery
12
childofspace · 17/03/2025 11:45

Also child dla hasn’t even been mentioned as part of the reforms and you’re all getting over excited about that ….

Itsalljustinmyhead · 17/03/2025 11:46

childofspace · 17/03/2025 11:42

As I said I’m not calling anyone anything just saying I see a worrying trend and it’s worth being mindful of that .

You can’t emotionally blackmail people into allowing benefits to wreck the economy, which is literally what they are doing.

Lyannaa · 17/03/2025 11:46

Thoughtsonstuff · 17/03/2025 11:39

They will probably be net contributors though.

You need to educate yourself before posting.

  1. the DWP admits the fraud rate is low (otherwise why would the government be saying that eligibility criteria is going to be reviewed)
  2. PIP is not an out of work benefit. Nor is it means tested in anyway.

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about these subjects:

NC10125 · 17/03/2025 11:47

The stats which I would really like to see are what happens when you significantly increase your spend on welfare and medical services for people.

Imagine if you had a trial where people who are claiming PIP could be provided with really high level medical services, available whenever they need them with no waiting list - treating both physical and mental health issues - and including all of the things like physio/counselling etc which its almost impossible to access on the NHS. Imagine in the trial people also had access to a universal basic income so they had none of the stress of foodbanks etc etc.

I'd love to see what percentage of people still needed to claim PIP at the end of a year, three years and five years........

loopyloolou · 17/03/2025 11:47

I work and claim PIP as I have stage 4 incurable cancer. There is currently no cure. Should I not receive it? How do you decide who is deserving enough ?

MidnightPatrol · 17/03/2025 11:47

childofspace · 17/03/2025 11:44

You’re clearly in the wrong job.

Or - you could say her perspective is interesting, given she works with children with SEN and doesn’t think they require additional funding at home for their needs?

OP posts:
Itsalljustinmyhead · 17/03/2025 11:47

Lyannaa · 17/03/2025 11:46

You need to educate yourself before posting.

  1. the DWP admits the fraud rate is low (otherwise why would the government be saying that eligibility criteria is going to be reviewed)
  2. PIP is not an out of work benefit. Nor is it means tested in anyway.

Fraud just means claiming in the name of somebody else, things like that. Not exaggerated symptoms.

Itsenough4now · 17/03/2025 11:47

Wecantkeepthisup · 17/03/2025 11:42

Thank you for starting this thread.

I work in a SEN school for children with moderate learning difficulties. Over 50% of our children are awarded DLA of £184.30 per WEEK. Then the parents get £81.90 per WEEK carers allowance. £266.20 per WEEK.

DLA is awarded because children don't walk safely with their parents when out and about (but can with us on our weekly school trips) and occasionally need supervision overnight when the child wakes up and refuses to go back to sleep.

This is just my school of 140 pupils. It's repeated across the country. Parents know what to say to be awarded DLA. And that's just DLA for children.

It's not sustainable.

I don't think your point is completely valid. Children with or without SEN often behave well at school and then play up at home. These limited experiences do not invalidate another person's experience. For instance I've had a incredibly easy menopause, no real symptoms (yet) does that mean others are lying or milking minor symptoms?

whatsthatBout · 17/03/2025 11:48

childofspace · 17/03/2025 11:44

You’re clearly in the wrong job.

This. How can it be a shock that 50% of children at a special needs school are in receipt of DLA.

Also weekly carers allowance is for parents caring for their child rather than working full-time. You can only claim that if your earnings are low enough. Plenty of parents simply can’t access wraparound or childcare for their child with disabilities.

80 pound a WEEK carers allowance is actually really really cheap compared to paying paid carers to look after a disabled child. Doesn’t even meet minimum wage.

childofspace · 17/03/2025 11:48

MidnightPatrol · 17/03/2025 11:47

Or - you could say her perspective is interesting, given she works with children with SEN and doesn’t think they require additional funding at home for their needs?

So all the parents have FII then for financial gain I expect ?

D23456789 · 17/03/2025 11:48

BlueandWhitePorcelain · 17/03/2025 11:35

ITA - DD has ADHD, depression, anxiety and OCD, as diagnosed by the NHS. She took the ADHD meds and antidepressants to enable her to work. She was the only graduate at her grade in the department and HR admitted she was the best; their key employee at her level. She was the most conscientious and the only one, who did her job properly - all her colleagues resented this, because they did the bare minimum, turned up late, didn’t comply with the official procedures, etc. DD asked for a few reasonable adjustments. The major company’s initial response was:

”This is not how we conduct our business!”

When she pointed out these were reasonable adjustments for a business of their size, as per The Equality Act, HR agreed to them. However, her manager would say after three weeks:

Why can’t you do this task, like everyone else?”

Her manager then wrote nasty emails about her to senior management - she told her colleagues subsequently, in her view, she could write whatever she liked about the staff, whether it was true or not! Everyone in the department, including her manager subjected DD to two years of workplace harassment and bullying, until she left. Basically, the manager was afraid to manage her team. (I know, because I supported DD in meetings with her manager, HR and the area manager, and read all the paperwork on DD in a subject access request)

Two years after leaving, with more severe mental health problems, including an admission as an inpatient, DD has been diagnosed with Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder over the workplace bullying, the most common cause of it apparently. She is awaiting an inpatient bed again, costing £500 a night - having been suicidal every day for the last 9 months. She’s on an antipsychotic (to relieve the anxiety), an antidepressant, a benzodiazepine (for the anxiety) and a beta blocker (to stop the physical symptoms of panic attacks).

She says there are structural barriers to employment for people with ADHD and/or mental health problems - the stigma, and companies don’t want to employ them, and can’t be bothered with reasonable adjustments. Until, the government enforces The Equality Act and sets quotas, instead of leaving the most vulnerable to enforce it individually at the employment tribunal, it is pointless people bleating on about people with mental health problems on benefits.

All the other patients in the inpatient unit, are there after being sectioned for psychosis. They are revolving door patients - they stay there for a few months until stable on regular medications, food and drink and are discharged. They are not even under The Community Mental Health Team on discharge - they don’t take their meds, eat or drink properly, and self neglect generally, until they deteriorate enough in a month or two, to be sectioned again. Then the whole cycle starts again. It is ludicrous to suggest these people could work reliably enough for an employer.

I am so sorry to hear about your DD and I hope she recovers. Her experience is very similar to the young man I mentioned and I agree, there are massive structural barriers. The government absolutely need to do more here. I think the attack on ND people getting benefits fails to recognise the challenges that these people face regarding work and the consequences of that on their health. The Equality Act is not working; as you say its down to the individual enforcing it but by the time someone is experiencing worsening health due to being bullied, they're very unlikely to have the energy to persist with that. The government have tackled this all wrong in my opinion; they haven't engaged with the disability communities to understand the root of the problems. Instead, they've used inflammatory language that is creating more hate.

Lyannaa · 17/03/2025 11:48

Thoughtsonstuff · 17/03/2025 11:44

You suggested that people on this thread were Nazis. It was a very obvious implication. It's overused these days by anyone who doesn't want to use proper arguments so has unfortunately lost much of it's power. But it's still a very incendiary thing to suggest bearing in mind the Real Nazi's treatment of the disabled (gassing and experimenting on).

Edited

Well the Nazis didn’t start off by gassing people, did they?

And it’s clear from your posts that you know F all about how the systems actually work.

Thoughtsonstuff · 17/03/2025 11:49

Lyannaa · 17/03/2025 11:46

You need to educate yourself before posting.

  1. the DWP admits the fraud rate is low (otherwise why would the government be saying that eligibility criteria is going to be reviewed)
  2. PIP is not an out of work benefit. Nor is it means tested in anyway.

I'm talking about small business owners. Overall they will.be contributing tax in some form from their business rather than taking benefits. Hence being net contributors (contributors being the relevant word here).

"Educate yourself before posting"..bit rude?

LoztWorld · 17/03/2025 11:49

Burry · 17/03/2025 09:32

The reality is that even if everyone currently on benefits genuinely needs them, the system has to be affordable. If it isn’t affordable, even people who genuinely need this support can’t have it. As a society we have to decide who to prioritise.

No. We are a rich country. We CAN afford to give every ill or disabled person a decent quality of life, insofar as that is possible with their particular conditions.

There is no “can’t afford it” when it comes to government spending, there are only different priorities. And caring for our most vulnerable should absolutely be a top priority. The only reason the govt has sparked this whole debate is because it’s in line with their own political interests to appear tough on benefits. It’s a political decision.

To just say “well we can’t afford to look after disabled people in genuine need” is a) outrageously callous and b) illustrates a complete misunderstanding of how national economies actually function.

Itsalljustinmyhead · 17/03/2025 11:49

Lyannaa · 17/03/2025 11:48

Well the Nazis didn’t start off by gassing people, did they?

And it’s clear from your posts that you know F all about how the systems actually work.

So unless we let benefits go beyond 100 billion a year, we’re Nazis?

kittensinthekitchen · 17/03/2025 11:49

MidnightPatrol · 17/03/2025 11:35

4 million working age adults.

That's not what the OP says

MidnightPatrol · 17/03/2025 11:49

Itsenough4now · 17/03/2025 11:47

I don't think your point is completely valid. Children with or without SEN often behave well at school and then play up at home. These limited experiences do not invalidate another person's experience. For instance I've had a incredibly easy menopause, no real symptoms (yet) does that mean others are lying or milking minor symptoms?

Does that mean the family should get £1,000 in additional support via the benefits system, I suppose is the question then.

OP posts:
Itsalljustinmyhead · 17/03/2025 11:49

LoztWorld · 17/03/2025 11:49

No. We are a rich country. We CAN afford to give every ill or disabled person a decent quality of life, insofar as that is possible with their particular conditions.

There is no “can’t afford it” when it comes to government spending, there are only different priorities. And caring for our most vulnerable should absolutely be a top priority. The only reason the govt has sparked this whole debate is because it’s in line with their own political interests to appear tough on benefits. It’s a political decision.

To just say “well we can’t afford to look after disabled people in genuine need” is a) outrageously callous and b) illustrates a complete misunderstanding of how national economies actually function.

This entire post is pure Disney.

FlippityFloppityFlump · 17/03/2025 11:49

I wonder how these figures compare with France, Spain, Germany etc?

Are they significantly higher than those countries? Are other countries healthier? Differerent thresholds for receiving any disability benefits?

Lyannaa · 17/03/2025 11:50

Itsalljustinmyhead · 17/03/2025 11:47

Fraud just means claiming in the name of somebody else, things like that. Not exaggerated symptoms.

Wrong.

Thoughtsonstuff · 17/03/2025 11:50

LoztWorld · 17/03/2025 11:49

No. We are a rich country. We CAN afford to give every ill or disabled person a decent quality of life, insofar as that is possible with their particular conditions.

There is no “can’t afford it” when it comes to government spending, there are only different priorities. And caring for our most vulnerable should absolutely be a top priority. The only reason the govt has sparked this whole debate is because it’s in line with their own political interests to appear tough on benefits. It’s a political decision.

To just say “well we can’t afford to look after disabled people in genuine need” is a) outrageously callous and b) illustrates a complete misunderstanding of how national economies actually function.

We are no longer a rich country unfortunately. Going rapidly down the league table.

LoztWorld · 17/03/2025 11:51

Itsalljustinmyhead · 17/03/2025 11:49

This entire post is pure Disney.

Do you genuinely believe that in the UK in 2025 we need to see disabled people starving in the street like we did 100 years ago? That’s what that poster seemed to imply. If you believe that you are the naive one, not me.

LongDarkTeatime · 17/03/2025 11:52

Thoughtsonstuff · 17/03/2025 11:19

That comparison doesn't really work as overall they won't be a net drain on taxpayers. They just won't pay the full tax that HMRC want.

Correction
already responded to this but a more appropriate answer would be …
PLEASE let you employer know you believe it’s OK not to pay your salary as you believe it’s only what you pay at the shop till which impacts on your finances.

Lyannaa · 17/03/2025 11:52

MidnightPatrol · 17/03/2025 11:49

Does that mean the family should get £1,000 in additional support via the benefits system, I suppose is the question then.

Do you know anything about the day to day realities of raising a child with a disability? What do you think they spend the money on?

NotenoughHolidays · 17/03/2025 11:53

Maurepas · 17/03/2025 10:28

Point is - are all these people really sick.

Let's assume they are, or that its difficult to tell the genuinely sick ones from the not genuine, what then? Taking money away doesn't make them magically able to work.

Maybe reductions in sick benefits for children could help reduce the bill, as they have parents to rely on, but adults, even young adults, should be entitled to sick benefits if they meet the criteria, and a lot more support put in place.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.