Pat McFadden, the Secretary of State for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), has issued a clear warning to the 24 million people currently claiming benefits: no options are off the table when it comes to managing the welfare budget.
Speaking before a cross-party committee, McFadden said, “I have only been in the job for three months, and if I start ruling things out it will just close doors in the future, so I am not ruling anything out.” His remarks set the stage for potential changes as the Labour government looks to curb public spending on welfare.
Central to this effort is the Timms Review, commissioned by the government and led by Sir Stephen Timms. Its goal is to evaluate and improve the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) system without increasing expenditure. McFadden emphasized, “The Timms Review cannot be to come up with more expenditure on PIP. It has to work within the budgetary parameters of the Government and respect fiscal rules.”
READ MORE: HMRC Urges UK Households to File Early Ahead of Tax Deadline
READ MORE: UK Brace for Intense Rainfall with Snow Threat in Four Northern Counties
The announcement has sparked concern among opposition figures. Steve Darling of the Liberal Democrats criticized the government’s approach, stating that previous Conservative policies had already strained the benefits system and public services, while the current administration’s failure to boost growth or job creation has exacerbated the situation.
Darling said, “Many will be worried to hear the Work and Pensions Secretary refuse to rule out a repeat of last summer’s benefits debacle. Hitting disabled people who are already working only worsens their employment prospects.”
He urged the government to address the root causes by improving healthcare and social services and making it easier for people to work, rather than cutting benefits in ways that could harm vulnerable groups.
While the Labour government faces calls to reduce the welfare bill, Chancellor Rachel Reeves has been criticized by opponents over the so-called “Benefits Street Budget,” underscoring the politically sensitive nature of managing public spending on benefits.