The government’s priorities about the “really disabled” (Report 26 February) are, not untypically, ill-informed, inhuman and discriminatory. They are clearly motivated by ill-conceived economic deficit-reduction motives, as articulated by Patrick McLoughlin: “We’ve got to reduce the deficit… we’ve got to reward those people who work, and that’s what we are doing.” It also signal yet another attempt to use political brute force to overrule the judiciary, which, on this occasion, dared to recognise the disabling effects of mental ill-health.
Punishing those who are not “really” disabled who cannot presently work because of mental ill-health (or other disabling circumstances and conditions) will, in the long term, cause significant hardship and distress – not just for those who become economically disabled on top of everything else, but to the economy overall. What did Theresa May say on the steps of No 10 as she moved in? Did she “really” mean what she said about “fighting burning injustice” and “if you suffer from mental health problems, there’s not enough help to hand”? Can she and her colleagues be held to account on this and other matters of state?
Dr Simon Gibbs
School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences, Newcastle University
• From time to time someone receiving a disability benefit while fit, or claiming to be unemployed while working, appears in court and is punished. These are unusual cases and are not indicative of the wider population of those receiving social security payments. However, it seems that the head of the prime minister’s policy unit is more influenced by red-top headlines and sensationalist television programmes, judging by his view that personal independence payments (PIP) should be restricted to “really disabled people”. Repeatedly mouthing the term “parity of esteem” – for mental health services with other areas of healthcare – will be exposed as a rhetorical flourish without any meaning, if George Freeman’s views prevail and the recent tribunal ruling is overturned. Jeremy Corbyn’s spokesperson on the issue should move rapidly to organise an opposition response.
Les Bright
Exeter
• Personal independence payment provides vital financial support for many people living with mental health problems. It enables people who might otherwise have restricted opportunities to get on with their lives and to be more independent and engaged as equal citizens.We are concerned about the prospect of cuts to PIP for people with mental health problems, many of whom also have long-term physical illnesses and disabilities. Limiting eligibility for this essential benefit could undermine people’s efforts to recover their health and independence and as a result could add extra costs to already stretched NHS and social care services.
We urge the government to assess fully the impact on people with mental health problems of any changes to PIP before they are made and to consult with key agencies and advocacy groups.
Sarah Hughes
Chief executive, Centre for Mental Health
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
