I hosted a roundtable with Equal Lives, Bridge Plus, MAP (the Mancroft Advice Project), and the Norfolk Community Advice Network (NCAN) to understand their views about the government’s proposed changes to welfare benefits.
Their message to me was clear, that the changes would have devastating consequences for the people they support.
PIP (Personal Independence Payment), for example, is form of support that enables many people with disabilities to stay in work. Reducing or removing this benefit risks pushing individuals out of employment entirely by cutting off access to vital resources such as mobility aids, private prescriptions, and additional care support that the current health and social care systems are unable to provide.
I heard accounts of the emotional toll these proposals are already having. Far from being isolated testimonies, they reflect a broader pattern, backed by years of evidence, linking DWP assessments and austerity-driven reforms to a rise in mental health crises.
There is growing concern about the pressure placed on people to attend Jobcentres under threat of sanctions. Many feel stigmatised and unsupported, with Jobcentre staff acting both as enforcers and supposed advisors. This conflict of roles has eroded trust and pushed people further from meaningful employment.
Many of those currently receiving PIP are already operating with negative budgets, where essential living costs outstrip their income. The idea that reducing this support will incentivise work is economically misguided.
Disability does not follow a simple formula. Some people with significant impairments are able to work, and some cannot. This is regardless of how many ‘points’ they may or may not score on an assessment. The determining factor is often not a person’s will to work, but the support they receive to make work viable.
One key concern raised was the short-sightedness of this proposal and the failure to see how ‘costs’ would be offloaded to overstretched local authorities and health care services. These proposals do not yet have clear modelling of impacts such as increased use of social care services or the loss of protections like the benefit cap exemption tied to PIP eligibility.
The organisations I met highlighted not only the immediate harm these changes could bring, but also the deeper dysfunction in the current system. People face complex and delayed application processes. Many give up or settle for less than they’re entitled to. Charities and advice services are already overstretched, and few have the resources to guide individuals through what is a highly technical and stressful process.
What is needed is not further cuts, but a long-term, collaborative approach that recognises the complexity of people’s lives, the diversity of their needs, and the importance of investing in an inclusive, accessible social security system.
We cannot proceed with welfare cuts without a clear, evidence-based understanding of the real human cost.