Experts Warn that Reducing Welfare Will Have Devastating Impact on Those with Health Conditions

Heather Bingham, a campaigner with a combination of mental health issues, physical disabilities, and neurodiversity, has expressed grave concern over the government’s apparent lack of understanding about the specific needs of disabled people in the workforce. In a personal account, she highlights the severe costs she faces in maintaining her health to work, with nearly £1,000 in monthly expenses. For Bingham, remaining healthy enough to work means self-employment, as mainstream employment does not accommodate her circumstances. Despite these challenges, she fears that cuts to benefits will only make it harder for people like her to remain employed.

In her letter, she criticises the government’s approach, claiming that unless the NHS improves its capacity to help individuals beyond mere survival, and unless the tax system recognises the additional costs of managing disability, these cuts will have disastrous consequences. She draws comparisons with the tragic consequences of the previous government’s mishandling of the personal independence payment system, fearing that Labour could repeat these mistakes.

Carolyn Sutton, another writer, adds her voice to the conversation, questioning the justification for cutting benefits for people who are genuinely unable to work due to sickness or disability. Sutton, who was forced to stop teaching due to a brain injury, shares her frustration with the government’s stance on reducing benefits, arguing that it will not aid in her recovery. She calls for more understanding of the real needs of disabled individuals.

Michael Miller, who worked as an occupational psychologist, reflects on the more compassionate and effective methods used in the past to help long-term sick individuals return to work. He recalls a time when rehabilitation focused on integrating patients back into work settings gradually, rather than punishing them. This holistic approach, he argues, was more successful and cost-effective in the long term.

Sacha Deshmukh, the chief executive of Amnesty UK, also weighs in, saying that while the government’s stance on reforming the benefits system may be necessary, it must be done with respect for human rights. He argues that social security is not a political gift but a fundamental right, and that the government must address the root causes of poverty, such as the escalating costs of housing and essentials, rather than targeting the ill and disabled.

Finally, Dr. Natalie Symes, a former GP, points out that reducing the benefits bill is not possible without addressing the crisis in primary care. GPs, overwhelmed by acute cases, often cannot give disabled patients the attention they need to return to work or navigate their benefits. Dr. Symes warns that as the government cuts benefits, the demand for GP appointments will skyrocket, exacerbating the already dire situation.