Nearly two million sickness benefit recipients lack regular eligibility reviews
Almost two million people receiving sickness benefit may not be eligible to claim, yet the government is not regularly checking their eligibility. More than two-thirds are overdue for reassessment, with average waiting times of two years, meaning people are effectively "signed off and written off" from the system as Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden admitted. The problem was highlighted after The Times found one person continued to receive payments for 16 years without a single health review, exposing serious gaps in welfare oversight.
The government is developing welfare reforms that could remove the health element of Universal Credit, currently worth £217 per month, from some under-25s, replacing cash payments with intensive support including subsidised jobs and mental health assistance. The broader context shows Personal Independence Payment (PIP) claims have reached a record 4.09 million as of July 2026, up 7 per cent year-on-year and nearly double the 2.05 million in January 2019, prompting a government-commissioned review to declare the system "no longer fit for purpose". However, the Prime Minister faces likely opposition from Labour backbenchers, as last year backbench rebellion forced the government to abandon similar disability benefit cuts.
- Nearly two million sickness benefit claimants may be ineligible and overdue for checks
- One person was paid for 16 years without a health review
- Government plans welfare reforms but faces Labour backbench opposition
New here? Start with this
Sickness benefit is a welfare payment for people unable to work due to illness or disability. Nearly two million people in Britain currently receive this support.
The government is supposed to regularly check whether claimants still qualify for these payments, but has not done so consistently. More than two-thirds of recipients are overdue for such checks, with many having waited years without a formal review of their circumstances.
This matters because money may continue going to ineligible people, wasting public resources, and the system loses visibility of who truly needs support. It raises questions about whether government systems can adequately manage welfare benefits.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The welfare system faces genuine sustainability challenges: nearly two million potentially ineligible recipients, a PIP caseload that has doubled since 2019, and routine assessments delayed by an average of two years represent a system genuinely not fit for purpose, as a government review confirmed. These aren't administrative inconveniences but rather taxpayer resources potentially misdirected from those with genuine needs, and addressing eligibility gaps through more rigorous and timely reviews is essential to ensure welfare remains both fair to claimants and fiscally sustainable. Tightening assessment processes and reforms like those proposed for Universal Credit reflect a necessary rebalancing.
The case against
The underlying problem is not too many people claiming benefits but insufficient government investment in assessment infrastructure for fair decisions. Removing £217 monthly from under-25s or cutting support threatens vulnerable people when evidence suggests they need more intensive support to find work, not less. The government should prioritise properly staffing the eligibility review system rather than using long waiting times as justification to remove people from support. When Labour backbenchers forced abandonment of similar disability cuts last year, they recognised that welfare reductions harm those least able to bear them—a lesson that remains urgent as these proposals face predictable resistance.
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by Daily Mail as “Two million people on benefits might not qualify… but the Government isn’t checking”.