A report by money saving expert Martin Lewis’ charity warns that Labour’s PIP reforms will have a “catastrophic impact” on people’s finances and mental health, and will drive people out of the workplace.

The Money and Mental Health Policy Institute carried out in-depth interviews with 227 with people with a mental health condition who currently receive PIP.  The research shows that:

  • A significant number of people with mental health problems expect to lose PIP under the new reforms — and would face a terrifying income shock as a result. 24% of people surveyed say that they will not be eligible for PIP under the new reforms, with another 39% not sure if they’ll be affected. Around a third of the group who expect to lose out receive the ‘enhanced’ rate of PIP due to having high support needs, and face an annual income drop of over £5,750 if they lose this benefit. The rest of this group, who receive the ‘standard’ rate of PIP, will face a still significant income cut of over £3,850 per year.
  • Losing PIP would force many people with mental health problems to cut or stop spending on critical support they need to support their wellbeing. 82% of respondents who use PIP to pay for counselling, therapy, personal care or support needs — and who are set to lose this benefit — say they will significantly reduce or stop spending on this altogether if they lose PIP. A research participant said: “I feel incredibly distressed at the prospect of losing additional money that goes towards therapy. The amount I get is not covering all the additional costs that come with mental health difficulties as it is.”
  • Losing PIP would also have a huge impact on people’s ability to keep up with day-to-day bills. 85% of survey respondents who use PIP to pay for groceries say they will need to significantly cut or stop spending on this, as do 76% who use PIP to pay for essential household bills.
  • The cumulative impact of these changes would be devastating for people’s mental health. A staggering 97% of respondents say the PIP changes would have a “significant negative impact” on their mental health. Some respondents reported that the prospect of losing PIP has resulted in them having panic attacks or feeling suicidal.
  • A significant number of people also say that these reforms would force them out of work, or to reduce their hours. Around one in five survey respondents who currently receive PIP are in employment. But 63% of that group say they would need to reduce or give up work if they lost their PIP entitlement. For some, this is due to the impact it would have on their mental health, while others said they would not be able to afford the transport costs of going to work. Another respondent said: “PIP pays for the private therapy… which keeps my mental health at a functioning level most of the time. Without these I doubt I could even manage the permitted work hours (14 hours per week) that I do.”

This report and the Citizens Advice report “Pathways to Poverty” are both compiled by highly respected, non-political organisations that cannot be disregarded as “just another left-wing think tank”.  It's definitely one that's worth sharing with your MP.

You can download “Lead shoes instead of a life ring” here.

Latest news on PIP/UC changes

What’s changing, when

What you can do

New PIP test

 

Comments

Write comments...
or post as a guest
People in conversation:
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 hours ago
    Read this hope its true If you’re 65 or older and already receiving PIP, the DWP says you won’t be re-assessed unless your condition significantly changes   https://mramc.in/dwp-says-700000-could-avoid-starmers-pip-changes/
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 8 hours ago
    Thanks for your email G**. I was so pleased that Ed asked about you at PMQs.

    I note what you’ve said about possible PiP amendments and I’ll pass it back to the team. As you know, Ed is absolutely passionate about this issue and I am sure we will make sure that any PiP changes proposed by the Government stand up to scrutiny. We’ll see what the Spending Review says next week.

    Keep in touch!
    Anna

    Anna Sabine MP
    anna.sabine.mp@parliament.uk


    Dear Anna,

    I think MPs should hear about this: The much respected consumer champion Martin Lewis says the welfare cuts will cause fewer disabled people to work.

    The government’s disability benefit cuts would force people out of work or to reduce their working hours, according to new research by the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute – the charity led by Martin Lewis, the consumer champion.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/society/2025/06/revealed-labour-welfare-cuts-pip-will-take-people-out-of-work

    Yours sincerely,

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 7 hours ago
      @Gingin Excellent Gingin well done.  Also well done with your interview with the Guardian the other day. Thank you. We are keeping on keeping on!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 8 hours ago
    Does anyone  understand what this means? Is he saying that more people might score a 4 in future . Is it a riddle? . I keep looking at it . Can anyone interpret or give their thoughts please..

    Sir Stephen Timms says in regards to PIP new proposed scores 

    Sir Stephen said far fewer disabled people would lose PIP than those who currently do not receive four points in any activity because there would be “a good deal of behaviour change”.
    He said this would be at least in part because the healthcare professionals carrying out PIP assessments for the companies contracted by DWP would “reflect” the importance of four points.
    He said: “So, there is going to be much more focus on that, the assessors are going to reflect that.”

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 hours ago
      @Anon I think that’s what he meant to imply but whether it can be trusted nope 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 3 hours ago
      @Anon I think it’s a combination of people will gear their awards to a 4 yes with evidence  . Perhaps some people were underscored in the past will now challenge it because of loss of nobility award and a lot of money. Then I think the assessors will certainly be getting training to a certain criteria. He’s taunting us this may be positive but do you trust him?. But I can’t believe they don’t know what they are doing won’t just move people to social services either. But it could let them fudge their figures in the meantime to keep the treasury happy.. hmm
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 3 hours ago
      @Slb Behavioural change also referred to theie government's intent to get claimants into work.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 4 hours ago
      @Helen Galloway I read it as behaviour change in assessors; they will actually be scoring 4 points/scoring people correctly; focusing on questions in relation to what scores 4 points maybe?

      But, I really doubt this is what he meant.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 4 hours ago
      @Helen Galloway I think the DWP assessors are training not to give people 4 points. So it could actually be worse, all things being equal.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 10 hours ago
    We have to be very careful how we use the information that cuts to pip would have a huge impact on people’s ability to keep up with day-to-day bills or that 85% of survey respondents use PIP to pay for groceries say they will need to significantly cut or stop spending on this, as do 76% who use PIP to pay for essential household bills.

    Pip is awarded to pay for extra costs related to health conditions, so any spending on bills or groceries would have to be shown to be additional to average, and health related, or the dwp and government could use the above information to argue that the rates of pip are higher than necessary, because pip is not a subsistence benefit.

    The fact pip supplements other income because that income is too low is another argument. We don't want to give the dwp and government any excuse to say pip is too generous.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 hours ago
      @keepingitreal Yup, you’re right
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 hours ago
      @Gingin Gingin - with you on this - absolutely!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 4 hours ago
      @Gingin
      Morally they would not have an argument, but we all know what they're like. They don't have a better nature to which we can appeal. Pip is awarded according to an assessment of need for aids and assistance, and, so far, we have not had to justify how we spend it. We wouldn't want to make way for any suggestion that pip was supplementing an earned income or an income replacement benefit, or to invite a system which refunded our allowed expenses.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 hours ago
      @keepingitreal I’ve said PIP is helpful to our household because my husband is unable to work due to his disability, so how can we afford to live when I can only work part time (due to my caring responsibilities) and that’s not in a high salary job. I totally understand your point and not giving them ammunition, but how could they argue we could do any differently? Where else would the money come from? He also has extra disability-related costs.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 11 hours ago
    I am one of those that has chosen to no longer be around after these cuts. We need to fight these cuts with maximum effort, including fighting the DWP to stop them robbing points from each of the descriptor activities. I have said it before and I say it again. The DWP gave me a maximum of 2 points in activities that I should have been awarded 8 points. 

    STOP THE ROBBERY OF POINTS AND START THE STORY OF ANOINTS.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 12 hours ago
    These proposed welfare cutbacks seem as irrational as they are unfair. Many people with chronic health problems need added financial support. Most of it filters back into the economy. But the entire system is designed to keep ill & vulnerable people in poverty anyway. Even if some could skimp & save a small sum weekly for future emergencies, the £6,000 limit before support is reduced goes all the way back to 2006. Over 19 years ago. It was then doubled from £3,000.  Today, £6,000 isn't a significant amount at all when one considers how much more expensive life is since 2006. Now vulnerable people are left facing severe cutbacks, but without any safety net to fall back on, because the system is designed to punish anyone who might have prepared for just such an outcome. Little fairness here, but an underlying complete lack of compassion (if not contempt) for those stuck at the bottom of society's ladder through no fault of their own.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 4 hours ago
      @Gingin Thanks & not least for your own valuable, informative comments & links posted here. They're genuinely appreciated by me, as by others no doubt.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 4 hours ago
      @Slb Spot on. Considering this lower limit doubled in April 2006 (as did the upper limit from £8,000 to £16,000), & previously it was lifted in 1990, there seems no good reason why it shouldn't have doubled again by now. Unless of course those in power want to either keep vulnerable people living in relative poverty, or else tempt them into cheating the system, which in turn makes them liable to fines or sanctions.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 hours ago
      @Ivan You’ve nailed it
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 hours ago
      @Ivan Even more bizarre is that pensioners can have £10,000 in the bank before it affects their pension credit.  Basically, the £6000 limit is simply encouraging people to keep any savings in cash at home.  They don't want people to "cheat" the system and yet their own rules encourage it.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 9 hours ago
      @robbie
      Indeed. Today, £6,000 barely covers domestic emergencies, let alone health-related matters. Yet, as an example, say one inherits an original vinyl record collection from a deceased uncle, which one sells on eBay to raise much needed funds, but no more than a few grand & it's a one-off. If you don't declare it & the DWP finds out, they'd probably come down on such claimants like a ton of bricks. Some of their staff would even relish dishing out reprisals. But if you're extremely rich, then off-shore tax havens, or parking huge sums in expensive property that's left to stand empty for a nominal council tax charge, etc., are all deemed quite okay. - Like another poster said, there's a strong undercurrent of hatred directed at chronically ill or poor people. This comes from the very top, not least government & populist media. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 12 hours ago
    Oh look another report that ignores those of us only on uc lcwra and won't get new pip....
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 hours ago
      @Frances I think your reply was meant for Sam rather than me?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 hours ago
      @Slb
      "if you're not going to qualify under the harsher rules, then the PIP eligibility changes are the most important element."

      I don't think I'd qualify even under the existing rules. I may apply anyway, but as things stand I'm struggling to see how I could answer the questions in such a way as to score the required points.

      "we have to concentrate on those who lose most as it has greater impact."

      I understand that, but for those of us who already don't get PIP, losing LCWRA is enough to leave us without sufficient income to afford the bare essentials required just for mere survival. There isn't really any greater impact of a cut than leaving those on the receiving end without the means to survive. 

      That's why I wish there were more attention on the LCWRA issue: if you're left without the means to survive it makes little difference if you're plunged into that situation by losing "just" the UC health element or by losing UC health plus PIP. The result is the same in both cases.


    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 hours ago
      @Slb Exactly this SLB, it’s all about what will make the most noise and putting these plans to shame. It isn’t that individual circumstances don’t matter. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 3 hours ago
      @Slb You wont know whether you'll qualify if you don't apply. The green paper is a long way from implementation. Someone applying now might qualify, and might again after November 2026, regardless of any rule changes.

      As Anon points out, there are a lot of undecided elements, and details missing from the proposals. The situation is far from simple.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 4 hours ago
      @tintack Again, if you're not going to qualify under the harsher rules, then the PIP eligibility changes are the most important element.  What's more, from a campaigning point of view, losing two or three benefits rather than one makes for more head-turning and impact.  

      If we want the green paper cuts to ditched, we have to concentrate on those who lose most as it has greater impact.  It doesn't mean people don't care about those losing only LCWRA, it us simply a case of tactics to get the job done. And we all want that. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 hours ago
    How can anyone with a sound mind, empathy, understanding of the economy and how this could even crash the economy as many economists have suggested, believe that these cuts can be  beneficial in anyway? 

    It is purely political and a hate crime to the most vulnerable demographic of our society, pure and simple. This government clearly views disabled, mentally ill and chronically ill people with hatred and contempt, what other sane reason could there be. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 hours ago
      @kevin Same leaders same methods !

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 hours ago
      @MATT People hate paying taxes because they cannot see the economies of scale, but they go on expecting great services for that lower taxes and end up having to pay for private services with higher bills. It really is a case of haggle over the cents and trip over the pounds!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 4 hours ago
      @Jonno And the ironic thing is Starmer had a disabled brother Nick who had learning disabilities from complications during birth and struggled to hold down a steady job. You would think this would give him more understanding.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 10 hours ago
      @Jonno Starmer is a cowardly narcissistic sociopath, anyone in the labour party who supports him with these cuts is complicit in his disability cleansing, they will have blood on their hands.   
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 10 hours ago
      @CaroA You defiantly don't sound over dramatic, they are targeting a vulnerable minority of people, who are already struggling to survive their health conditions, disabilities, mental health problems etc, who are already in poverty for no fault of their own with hate speech, lies, demonising for a political agenda. It is not over dramatic to say many of this vulnerable group will die due to these cuts, be it via their health conditions or people being so desperate they will take their own lives. 

      We should call it disability cleansing, they are choosing to do this, they know the consequence's and are happy, maybe even joyfully on their part eradicate us.  

Free PIP, ESA & UC Updates!

Delivered Fortnightly

Over 110,000 claimants and professionals subscribe to the UK's leading source of benefits news.

 
iContact
We use cookies

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential for the operation of the site, while others help us to improve this site and the user experience (tracking cookies). You can decide for yourself whether you want to allow cookies or not. Please note that if you reject them, you may not be able to use all the functionalities of the site.