Regulations laid out before Parliament on 20th October in the United Kingdom seek to stop serious offenders detained in psychiatric hospitals from receiving up to £800 per month in benefits.
Offenders convicted of serious crimes, including manslaughter and rape, who are being treated in psychiatric hospitals are set to lose access to certain benefits under regulations announced by Work and Pensions Secretary, Pat McFadden. He states that “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.”
The changes target offenders convicted of specific serious offences under qualifying court-imposed Hospital Orders and restrict access to Universal Credit, Pension Credit, State Pension, and Employment and Support Allowance. The government aims to close the “double provision” loophole in the benefits system, which currently permits offenders under a Hospital Order to legally claim up to £800 per month in Universal Credit and other welfare benefits over several years, while their accommodation and treatment are publicly funded. Unlike offenders detained under qualifying Hospital Orders, prisoners generally lose entitlement to benefits when they enter prison. Implementation of these regulations is expected in early 2027, subject to parliamentary approval.
The policy follows sustained campaigning by victims’ families, including Emma and David Webber and Dr. Sanjoy Kumar and Dr Sinead O’Malley, whose children, Barnaby Webber and Grace O’Malley-Kumar, were stabbed to death by Valdo Calocane in Nottingham in June 2023. Calocane was given an indefinite Hospital Order after being convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. Grace’s father, Dr Sanjoy Kumar, said “offenders with treatment orders already cost the taxpayer an enormous amount…we do not see why taxpayers should fund benefits while they are incarcerated.”
However, mental health charity Mind has raised concerns about the impact of changes on patients’ recovery and rehabilitation. The charity argues that access to money for basic necessities such as clothing and phone credit to contact family are essential during treatment. Jemima Olchawski, Director of Social Impact at Mind said that “removing access to benefits for those who are most unwell undermines court decisions and penalises people for their illness.”
On the contrary, Housing, Communities, and Local Government Secretary, Angela Rayner, said she was “quite frankly astonished” that offenders were receiving benefits, following meetings between ministers and victims’ families. Emma Webber, mother of Nottingham attack victim, Barnaby Webber, expressed outrage that offenders were “having their full bed and board and all of their care and rehabilitation provided for them”, whilst also “amassing a small fortune while they’re inside.”
The government estimates that removing these benefits from eligible offenders will save tens of millions of pounds annually. According to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), around 2,500 existing cases are expected to be affected, alongside approximately 200 new cases annually. The full financial impact is due to be published as part of the 2026 Budget.
For Webber, however, the importance of the new regulations extends beyond reducing public expenditure. She said she will “demand” that ministers reallocate the funds saved through the removal of these benefits and direct them towards supporting victims of serious crime so families “are given the support and the advocacy they need.”
Hundred Families, a charity supporting families bereaved by mental health homicides in Britain, has been campaigning and challenging the fairness of the existing system for many years. The charity was established in 2010 by Julian Hendy, following the murder of his father by a “psychotic man” in 2007. Hendy states that “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”, describing it as “unjust and morally wrong.” Hundred Families highlights that some offenders can accumulate substantial savings, often “many thousands of pounds,” whilst their living costs are publicly funded, raising questions about fairness to victims’ families.
Whilst the regulations await parliamentary approval, the debate continues over public spending, the rights of detained patients, and whether the changes will result in greater support for victims and their families.
