‘No one votes Labour to cut the welfare state. People vote Labour to grow the welfare state. That’s the role of the party.’ That’s what John McTernan, Labour strategist, said on Coffee House Shots last week. He’s absolutely correct, of course. But the ballooning cost of the benefits bill means that Labour now faces an uncomfortable decision, for which many of its MPs seem ill prepared.
The total cost for Personal Independence Payments (PIP) alone is expected to reach £35 billion by the end of this decade, up from £16 billion in 2019-20 and £26.5 billion in 2024-25. The total benefits bill, including the state pension, universal credit and other benefits, could hit £324 billion by 2030.
Labour has few options for balancing the books
Yet Labour has few options for balancing the books. They’ve already hit the country once with a devastating tax raid which has left the economy reeling. Gilt yields are well above where they were during the mini-budget. But even the modest proposals to reduce the benefits bill have been watered down, given the inability of scores of Labour MPs to stomach a marginal deceleration – not a reversal – of benefits spending. As Richard Burgon, MP for Leeds East, put it: ‘The Government shouldn’t be balancing the books on the backs of disabled people.’ This, for some Labour MPs, is a point of principle.
But what do Burgon and his colleagues really believe is behind the growth of PIP? Is it just that we are getting older? Sicker? That the pandemic changed things? Or that underfunding of the NHS is leaving people suffering with longer-term conditions?
Certainly, Britain appears to be sicker than in previous years. And with the NHS in the state that it is, it’s probably inevitable that there would be uptick in bad health. But are we really supposed to believe that, for example, the number of people with Tourettes has climbed three-fold? The statistics suggest so: 1,661 people with the condition now receive PIP, including 857 who receive the mobility part of enhanced PIP (making them eligible for Motability), up from 545 in January 2019. Or that the number of people receiving PIP for sleep apnea has gone from 429 to 3,001? Or that there should really be people receiving PIP for writer’s cramp (seven), acne (14) and factitious disorders (18)?
Or is it the case that the almost four-fold increase in the number of people receiving PIP for eczema is partially attributable to the very normal human phenomenon of responding to incentives? If it becomes easier to access free money, it seems likely that more people will, shockingly, take that free money. Is it perhaps the case that, given how few PIP assessments now take place in person, some less than scrupulous fellow citizens and residents feel more confident in emphasising the disabling effects of, say, their tennis elbow, or obsessive compulsive disorder? And that, perhaps, the Department for Work and Pensions is less able to identify the genuinely needy and those gaming the system?
Maybe this isn’t the case. Maybe there is a reasonable explanation to all of this. And the various benefit claims, broken down in the Taxpayers’ Alliance’s benefits dashboard, can all be explained away. But for any Labour MPs still planning on voting the government’s already diluted plans down, it’s surely time for them to advocate for an urgent public inquiry on what is driving the devastating surge in sleep apnea across our island.
Comments