The UK government’s recent announcement on benefit system changes is a mix of progress and setbacks.
While there has been a significant expansion of support for low-income individuals and those out of work, controversial cuts to personal independence payment (PIP) and universal credit for certain groups have sparked widespread concern.
These changes are expected to impact those experiencing mental health difficulties, leaving experts questioning the government’s approach.
The primary goal behind these changes is to reduce the number of people unable to work due to mental health issues.
Measures like the right to try scheme, which allows universal credit recipients to test returning to work without penalty, are steps in the right direction.
The government acknowledges that many people with mental health conditions want to work and that better support is key to enabling them to do so.
The decision to increase the base rate of universal credit is another welcome change. Research conducted in collaboration with the University of Leeds found that a £25 weekly increase in universal credit for parents could significantly improve mental health outcomes.
While the increase is a positive step, experts argue that further raises would provide greater long-term benefits.
Despite these progressive measures, the government is simultaneously cutting PIP eligibility and removing the health element of universal credit for those under 22.
These cuts seem to contradict the government’s recognition that better support leads to better outcomes. Experts believe these reductions stem from financial pressures and a long-standing belief that cutting spending leads to lower costs.
However, history shows that underfunding public health and social support contributes to worsening mental health conditions.
Over the past 15 years, budget cuts, rising living costs, and stagnant wages have made it increasingly difficult for people to maintain financial stability. The removal of key support systems has left many struggling, exacerbating mental health challenges.
Poor mental health already costs the UK economy at least £118bn annually. The Treasury’s focus on immediate cost-cutting fails to consider the long-term financial impact of reduced mental health support.
Without investment in preventative measures, the financial burden on healthcare services and welfare support is likely to increase.
Mental health experts have long advocated for a cross-government strategy to address these issues holistically.
Instead of short-term savings through benefit cuts, investing in mental health support and workplace improvements could lead to greater workforce participation and overall economic benefits.
Previous government initiatives, such as the Sure Start programme launched in 1999, demonstrate the long-term value of investing in social support.
Although its benefits were not immediately evident, studies later confirmed that Sure Start significantly reduced costs for the NHS and helped lift children out of poverty.
The government now has the opportunity to take a similar approach by fully committing to progressive employment support measures.
By prioritising mental health, enhancing workplace conditions, and ensuring financial stability for those in need, the UK can improve both individual well-being and economic productivity.
Instead of relying on cuts, the government must trust mental health organisations and the evidence that proper support leads to positive outcomes. If given the right tools, people with mental health conditions will return to work—not because they are forced to, but because they want to.
