In the run up to the election on 4 July, we saw an unwelcome return to the demonisation of people receiving benefits. Sadly, this is nothing new: age-old notions of the ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving poor’ continue to colour debates around social security, with people who receive benefits accused of being ‘scroungers’, idle, or ‘taking the easy option’ of not working.
Our former Prime Minister and Work and Pensions Secretary used language that seemed to reduce people’s mental distress to being little more than a normal part of ‘life’s ups and downs’. This was coupled with a media narrative suggesting that people who are unwell and in need of support are somehow ‘slacking’ and should be pressurised back into work.
Such minimising of people’s illnesses and distress, while met with significant pushback, not only harms those who are in receipt of some form of benefit but also poisons the wider conversation around how the state should help those who need vital support. The language we use about people directly affects the way we treat them: dismissive language which belittles people’s experience of distress will result in more punitive and uncompassionate policy measures. It could also lead to a rise in mental health stigma, discouraging people from seeking emotional and financial support until things reach crisis point.
It is thus very welcome that in a recent speech, the new Work and Pensions Secretary, Liz Kendall, directly repudiated her predecessor’s comments and acknowledged that better support is needed for people experiencing distress to be able to work. But more needs to be done to shift this narrative.
Research indicates that the current benefits system is unfit for purpose. Instead of providing people with a safety net, it often exacerbates existing mental health difficulties for those who are either in receipt of benefits or attempting to receive some form of benefits. Work Capability Assessments are anxiety-inducing for those who face them, with their experiences and mental ill health often being dismissed out of hand by those carrying out the assessments because of the punitive way in which the system has been designed.
As someone with experience of the benefits system highlighted in our recent report: “The benefits system is extremely stressful to navigate, and this causes me great anxiety. The review processes means that I have had benefits temporarily sanctioned and consequently my rent has been unpaid for three months and [I’m] faced with eviction!”
It is right that this Government looks to overhaul our current social security system and make working conditions better for all, and especially for people with mental health problems. Any reforms must draw on evidence, rather than empty rhetoric – evidence which indicates that benefit sanctions harm people’s health and do nothing to help disabled people find work. And it is vital that this takes place in a context of care and compassion for those who are seeking help. Changing the language around the benefits system will ultimately enable the design of a better system that is respectful, empathic, and sustainable. Language is key: the rhetoric we use to describe people living in poverty, and often those with an associated mental health problem, shapes the way we treat them as human beings.
Research has demonstrated that the current social security system often pushes people further away from work, harms their mental health and throws people into greater insecurity. The introduction of Universal Credit, and the threat of sanctions more specifically, has led to ‘an increase in psychological distress’.
Recent research carried out by the New Economics Foundation found that people think support for the unemployed is twice as high as it actually is: the average estimate was 48% of a full-time minimum wage salary, when the actual figure is just 23% (compared to 40% in 1999). However, the public also think that unemployment benefits should be worth at least 53% of a full-time minimum wage salary. This shows that the public, so often used as an excuse to not do more for people on benefits, actually think that those receiving state support should receive more – suggesting that a bolder and more caring benefits system would in fact be supported by the general public.
Our new research with Save the Children and the Children and Young People’s Mental Health Coalition demonstrates how the current social security system puts further pressure on parents’ mental health, with knock-on effects on their children:
“Kids pick up on your stress and what you can afford. They see you not being able to get what you need or having to choose and then they worry and start to make sacrifices… They pick up your emotions and then live in fight or flight.” – Parent
The report also sets out what can be done to tackle mental ill health and poverty through reforming the benefits system and by extending mental health support for children and families, calling for measures including the exemption of single parents, those with young children and claimants with health conditions from benefit sanctions.
A more compassionate benefits system, built on the evidence of what works and coupled with better mental health support and mentally healthier workplaces, are all essential building blocks for reducing poverty and boosting mental health. Shifting the narratives about poverty, social security, work and mental health is a critical first step to building prosperity and health.
