Serious offenders detained in hospital will no longer receive benefits

Under the current system, an offender can be paid over £800 a month in Universal Credit, amounting to thousands in taxpayer cash over several years. The proposed change is expected to save tens of millions of pounds each year.

As part of ongoing action to put fairness back at the heart of the welfare system, this intervention will stop hundreds of offenders receiving benefits from early next year, those already in hospital and future cases. 

Those transferred to mental health hospitals from prison are already banned from claiming. The regulations laid today will extend this to mental health hospital patients that are guilty of a dozen serious offences, focusing on violent and sexual offences.

The move will end the so-called “double provision” where people detained under a hospital order can receive benefits despite already having their bed and board fully funded by the taxpayer through the NHS.

Families of victims in high-profile cases - including the loved ones of Kennedi Westcarr-Sabaroche and the victims of the Nottingham attacks, Grace O’Malley-Kumar, Barnaby Webber, and Ian Coates - have bravely highlighted the loophole which sees offenders continuing to receive benefit payments.

The change comes after extensive engagement between the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and a range of experts and victims directly affected. 

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Pat McFadden said:

We said we’d act to tackle this gross unfairness and we’re delivering on that promise.

For too long these violent criminals have had their living costs paid by the taxpayer twice over, while their victims and families paid the price.

That ends today because victims and taxpayers deserve a system that is fair and supports only those who genuinely need it.

The decision to remove benefits from serious offenders will not affect people currently detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, who have not committed any offence. 

Anyone detained under a hospital order for any reason will continue to receive appropriate mental health support. 

The regulations deliver on the promise made earlier this year to close the loophole, marking the latest step in reforming the welfare system to put fairness at its core, while ensuring it works for the people who need it most.

Emma Webber, Mother of Barnaby Webber said: 

This is long overdue, and simply the right thing to do. It was a disgrace that Calocane and offenders like him have ever received taxpayers’ money.

A hospital bed does not erase the egregious crimes committed, nor the destruction they have caused. Closing this loophole finally delivers some basic accountability that victims deserve.

Leon Westcarr, Uncle of Kennedi Westcarr-Sabaroche said: 

The loss of my niece can never be undone, but I am encouraged that this long-standing injustice has been recognised and addressed. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for listening, investigating the issue, and taking bold action to ensure that those responsible for the most serious crimes do not benefit from their actions. This is an important step towards fairness for victims and their families.

Linda Westcarr, Mother of Kennedi Westcarr-Sabaroche said: 

I believe it is right that the Government reviews benefit entitlement for those who have committed the most serious offences, particularly where public money, funded by taxpayers, is involved. For many victims’ families, the question of whether serious offenders should continue to receive benefits raises understandable concerns about fairness, accountability and the values we uphold as a society. In my view, this is not simply a question of policy; it is also a matter of moral responsibility and ensuring that the impact on victims and their families is properly recognised.

I recognise that a hospital order is a mental health disposal rather than a prison sentence, and that each case must be considered carefully. However, the seriousness of the offence and the lasting consequences for victims and their families must remain central to these decisions.

For families like mine, the consequences of losing a loved one are devastating and lifelong. Kennedi’s life was taken, her child is growing up without a mother, and our family continues to live with the trauma of her death.

I welcome this announcement as a step towards addressing these concerns and achieving a greater sense of fairness for victims’ families. I hope the Government will provide clarity on how and when the proposed changes will be implemented.

Kennedi mattered. Her life mattered. The voices of victims’ families must be heard, and their suffering must never be overlooked when decisions are made about the consequences of serious crime.

Dr Sanjoy Kumar, father of Grace O’Malley Kumar said: 

Our campaign has always been about accountability and fairness. Offenders with treatment orders already cost the taxpayer an enormous amount. On release, every offender gets help with housing and benefits.

On the principle of fairness alone, we do not see why taxpayers should fund benefits while they are incarcerated. We are grateful to the Secretary of State Pat McFadden for taking action and listening to our campaign which always been about what is good for the country.

Julian Hendy, from the Hundred Families said: 

This is a very welcome move and something we’ve been campaigning on for nearly a decade. 

Paying thousands of pounds of state benefits to mentally disordered offenders on hospital orders who have committed the most serious of crimes cannot be justified. It is unjust and morally wrong. 

Dangerous offenders should not be rewarded for their crimes, particularly when they have no costs and when victims’ families have to struggle so hard to get appropriate care and support.

That’s why we’re very grateful the government has taken action to close this dangerous loophole, which will surely help keep patients, their families, and the public safe.

Additional Information:

• The Regulations will apply to individuals subject to a Section 37 order under the Mental Health Act 1983 and a Section 57A order under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995

• The offences under scope for England and Wales (not including the Scots Law equivalents) are:

• Manslaughter (whether voluntary or involuntary)
• Attempted murder
• Wounding (etc) with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (GBH)
• Rape
• Assault by penetration
• Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent (aggravated, with penetration)
• Rape of a child under 13
• Sexual assault of a child under 13 (aggravated, with penetration)
• Causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity (aggravated, with penetration)
• Sexual activity with a child
• Familial sexual offences (sexual activity with a child family member) (offender 18 or over)

• Familial sexual offences (inciting a child family member to engage in sexual activity) (offender 18 or over)

• Murder is not included because a Hospital Order is not an available disposal for the offence of murder which attracts a mandatory life sentence.
• The affirmative regulations will be laid in Parliament on 20 October and remain subject to parliamentary approval.
• Without these regulations, an offender on Universal Credit, in a single household, aged over 25 and receiving the LCWRA rate, could receive over £800 a month. 
• The change is expected affect some 2,500 offenders already in hospital and approximately 200 a year in future.
• Removal of these benefits will save in the low tens of millions of pounds each year with full financial impacts to be published as part of the 2026 budget.
• Individuals in scope will no longer be entitled to either Universal Credit, Pension Credit, State Pension and Employment and Support Allowance while they remain detained in hospital. 
• The NHS will continue to provide appropriate mental health support.
• The policy follows engagement with clinicians, victims’ groups, mental health experts and the devolved governments and the decision to remove benefits from serious offenders will not affect anyone currently detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, who has not committed an offence.
• The change applies only to those convicted of a serious offence as defined in the regulations; it does not affect anyone on remand, unfit to plead, awaiting trial or those convicted of offences that are not detailed in the prescribed list.
• While the change only comes into effect early next year, it will apply to both existing and future cases from the point that the regulations come into force, regardless of when their conviction was made.