Young People Face Benefit Cuts: The Government's Plan to Exclude Under-22s from Incapacity Benefits

The UK government has announced significant changes to the benefits system that will directly impact under-22s with long-term illnesses or disabilities. As part of a reform introduced by Work Secretary Liz Kendall, those under 22 will no longer be eligible for a health top-up on universal credit. Currently, about 66,000 individuals aged 18 to 21 benefit from this financial support, which the government intends to eliminate in order to save funds and redirect those resources towards training programs for young people.

Kendall assured that these reforms aim to introduce ‘fairness’ for long-term sick and disabled individuals, yet the announcement has been met with backlash from disability advocates who criticize the policy as “dangerous cuts.” Under existing rules, individuals over 18 but below state pension age in England, Wales, and Scotland can receive incapacity benefits if deemed too sick to work by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP). The proposed reforms would elevate the eligibility age to 22 and also increase the minimum age for claiming the Personal Independence Payment (Pip), a crucial adult disability benefit, from 18.

The government is actively seeking public feedback on these proposals, with discussions expected to continue until the end of June. It’s noted that similar measures are likely to be mirrored in Northern Ireland, despite benefits being managed separately. The push for these changes aligns with Labour’s broader strategy to reduce public expenditure by minimizing incapacity benefit claims, which are anticipated to rise sharply in the coming years mostly due to exacerbated mental health issues linked to the pandemic and an aging population unable to work.

Labour leader Keir Starmer emphasized the need for actionable strategies rather than allowing vulnerable youth to be trapped in a cycle of unemployment. Conversely, Disability Rights UK has raised alarms about the implications of this decision, arguing it reflects a pattern of implementing harsh cuts rather than genuinely facilitating disabled individuals’ integration into the workforce.