A leading think-tank has called for a radical overhaul of the benefits system, urging ministers to ban migrants from using taxpayer-funded translators when making claims.
The Push to Restore Parliamentary Control
The study by the Policy Exchange think-tank argues that the benefits system should be seen as part of a social contract, which includes the ability to converse in the nation's official language. It follows a significant surge in claims and aims to help contain the spiralling welfare bill.
The report highlights that tribunals which consider benefit cases should no longer offer free translation services. It states that claimants should be expected to pay for their own interpreters if they cannot speak English, except in criminal cases or for the deaf, where "freedom and liberty are on the line".
Soaring Costs and Widening Criteria
Official figures cited in the study reveal a stark increase in costs. The expense of providing translation services in civil cases jumped by 80% in the three years after the pandemic, reaching £12.8 million last year.
Currently, claimants are entitled to free translation help to challenge decisions denying them benefits like Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and Employment and Support Allowance (ESA). The think-tank finds that the criteria for granting claims have been systematically widened by courts for years, contributing to a huge rise in the welfare bill.
The report is highly critical of the current dynamic, stating that Parliament has "increasingly shown itself to be impotent" in setting eligibility for disability benefits, with MPs reluctant to overturn court judgments.
The Scale of the Challenge and Proposed Reforms
The financial scale is monumental. The bill for sickness and disability benefits alone is forecast to exceed £100 billion by the end of the decade. More than 300,000 young people are now on sickness benefits that do not require them to seek work—double the number from five years ago.
Former Lord Chancellor Sir Robert Buckland backed the report's findings, saying the discretionary power allowing judges to interpret law "should be returned to lawmakers" to control "breathtaking" public expenditure.
The report proposes specific reforms:
- Automatically reviewing benefit claim criteria every two years.
- Having courts issue 'suspended' judgments to give Parliament six months to clarify laws before they take effect.
- Tightening rules for PIP claims related to mental health and journey planning, which could save £750 million a year.
Report author Jean-Andre Prager argued the appeals system has become "a substitute for good decision-making rather than a check on it." He called for a restoration of parliamentary authority and the use of technology to create a fairer, more sustainable system.
