Serious Offenders detained in mental hospitals to lose benefits under government crackdown

By Lucy Caulkett-

Thousands of pounds in taxpayer-funded benefits will be withdrawn from serious offenders detained in mental health hospitals under new government rules, following a campaign by victims’ families who branded the existing system unfair. The changes are expected to save tens of millions of pounds annually and will apply to around 2,500 people already detained, as well as future cases.

Serious offenders detained in mental health hospitals after being convicted of some of the most serious violent and sexual offences will lose access to taxpayer-funded benefits under a government crackdown designed to end what ministers describe as an unfair system of “double provision”.

The new rules, announced by the Department for Work and Pensions, will prevent eligible offenders from claiming benefits while their accommodation, meals and treatment are already being funded by the NHS. The government says the changes will restore fairness to the welfare system and address long-standing concerns raised by victims’ families about public money continuing to be paid to people responsible for devastating crimes. Under the current arrangements, an offender detained under a hospital order can receive more than £800 a month in Universal Credit, depending on their circumstances, despite having their living costs covered in hospital. Over several years, those payments can amount to thousands of pounds in public money. Work and Pensions Secretary, Pat McFadden,(pictured) said the government had promised to address the issue and was now delivering on that commitment.

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

“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.”

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

The regulations are due to be laid before Parliament on 20 October and remain subject to parliamentary approval. The changes are expected to take effect early next year, applying to people already detained who fall within the new rules as well as those detained in future.

The government estimates that around 2,500 existing patients will be affected, alongside approximately 200 people a year in future. The policy is expected to save public funds in the low tens of millions of pounds annually, with the full financial impact due to be published as part of the 2026 Budget.

Victims’ families welcome long-awaited action

The decision follows campaigning by relatives of victims in several high-profile cases, including the families of Kennedi Westcarr-Sabaroche and the victims of the Nottingham attacks, Grace O’Malley-Kumar, Barnaby Webber and Ian Coates.

Their campaigns focused on the fact that some offenders detained for treatment after serious crimes could continue receiving benefits while the state paid for their hospital accommodation and care. Emma Webber, the mother of Barnaby Webber, welcomed the announcement and said the existing arrangements should have been addressed much earlier.

“This is long overdue, and simply the right thing to do,” she said.

She added that a hospital bed should not erase the seriousness of crimes or the harm inflicted on victims and their families, describing the change as an important step towards accountability.

Leon Westcarr, uncle of Kennedi Westcarr-Sabaroche, said the loss of his niece could never be undone, but welcomed the government’s decision to recognise and address what he described as a long-standing injustice. He praised McFadden for listening to the concerns raised by victims’ families and taking action to ensure that people responsible for the most serious crimes did not continue receiving the benefits in question. Kennedi’s mother, Linda Westcarr, said the issue went beyond welfare policy and raised questions about fairness, accountability and the responsibilities of the state towards victims.

She acknowledged that a hospital order is a mental health disposal rather than a prison sentence, and that individual cases require careful consideration. However, she argued that the seriousness of an offence and its lasting consequences for victims must remain central to decisions about public support. The consequences of Kennedi’s death remain devastating and permanent, she said, pointing to the impact on her child, who is growing up without a mother.

“Kennedi mattered. Her life mattered,” she said, calling for the voices of victims’ families to be heard when decisions are made about the consequences of serious crime.

The government said its decision followed engagement with victims’ families, clinicians, mental health experts, victims’ organisations and devolved governments.

The changes will apply to people detained under specified hospital orders following conviction for a defined list of serious offences.

In England and Wales, the list includes manslaughter, attempted murder, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, rape, assault by penetration and a range of serious sexual offences involving children. The regulations also cover relevant cases under Scotland’s separate legal framework.

People within the scope of the rules will lose entitlement to Universal Credit, Pension Credit, State Pension and Employment and Support Allowance while they remain detained in hospital.

Murder is not included because a hospital order is not an available disposal for that offence, which attracts a mandatory life sentence.

The government has stressed that the changes will not affect people detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 who have not committed an offence. Nor will they apply to people on remand, those awaiting trial, people found unfit to plead or individuals convicted of offences outside the specified list.

The distinction is significant because a hospital order is imposed in the criminal justice system to enable treatment in hospital, rather than simply being another form of imprisonment. The new rules target benefit entitlement for people who have been convicted of specified serious offences and are detained under the relevant legal orders.

The NHS will continue to provide appropriate mental health treatment and care. The policy concerns benefit payments, not access to clinical support.

Campaigners say the change addresses a long-standing injustice

Dr Sanjoy Kumar, father of Grace O’Malley-Kumar, said the campaign had always focused on accountability and fairness.

He argued that offenders detained under treatment orders already cost the taxpayer substantial sums and questioned why they should continue receiving benefits while their living costs were met during detention. Julian Hendy, of the Hundred Families organisation, said his group had campaigned on the issue for nearly a decade.

He described the payment of thousands of pounds in benefits to mentally disordered offenders on hospital orders for serious crimes as unjustifiable, particularly when victims’ families can struggle to secure appropriate care and support. He welcomed the government’s decision to close what he called a dangerous loophole, arguing that the change could contribute to fairness for victims and their families, as well as public safety. The government presents the reform as part of its wider effort to put fairness at the centre of the welfare system and ensure benefits are directed towards those who genuinely need financial support.

However, the policy also draws a clear distinction between people detained in hospital because of mental illness and those whose detention follows conviction for a specified serious offence. Ministers say the latter group should not receive the listed benefits while their basic living costs are already being met by public funds. The regulations must still receive parliamentary approval before coming into force. Once implemented, they will apply to eligible existing cases regardless of when the conviction occurred, as well as to future cases.

The announcement represents the culmination of a campaign to change a system they believe failed to recognise the consequences of serious crime. For the government, it is a welfare reform intended to end duplicate public payments while maintaining treatment for those detained in hospital. The immediate financial savings are expected to reach tens of millions of pounds each year. But the government’s wider case for the change rests on a question of public fairness: whether people convicted of the most serious offences should continue receiving benefits when taxpayers are already covering their accommodation and care.