Labour is launching a review to decide whether some mental health and neurodivergence issues are being overdiagnosed.  The Health Service Journal (HSJ) reports that a highly controversial figure will play a lead role.

The review has been ordered by Wes Streeting, secretary of state for health and social care.

According to HSJ (paywall) the chair of the review will be psychoanalyst and clinical psychologist Peter Fonagy.

The vice chair will be the hugely divisive academic Sir Simon Wessely, Professor of Psychological Medicine at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, Kings College.

Back in 2011, the Times called Wessely “the most hated doctor in Britain”.  He was widely regarded by people living with ME/CFS as having popularised the idea that ME/CFS is a primarily a psychological condition, rather than a physical health one.

Amongst other things, this made it much more difficult for people with debilitating ME/CFS to score points for physical health activities when applying for benefits.

As a result of his publications, Wessely says he was threatened and harassed to such an extent that he gave up his research and went to work for the military in Iraq and Afghanistan, where he claimed he felt safer.

So, it is more than a little surprising that Wessely has chosen to play such a prominent role in research that could be just as controversial as his work on ME/CFS.

Especially as there is a strong probability that many people will consider the outcome of the research a foregone conclusion, with the government heavily leaning in one direction.

Back in March, the minister behind this review told the BBC that there was an “overdiagnosis” of mental health conditions and that “there’s too many people being written off”.  Streeting’s comments came in the context of Labour preparing to announce massive cuts to personal independence payment (PIP) which they were subsequently forced to drop, following a backbench revolt.

And yesterday, prime minister Keir Starmer told Radio 4 that:

“I think we need to look again at this issue of mental health and ask ourselves a fundamental question, which is: would we not be better putting our money in the resources and support that is needed for mental health than simply saying, it’s to be provided in benefits?”

“I’m not saying you shouldn’t have benefits for mental health issues, but I do think we need to examine this quite carefully. I have to say, I am particularly concerned about young people in this regard – there are about a million young people who are on benefits, not all for mental health issues, but quite a number for mental health issues.

“I think that is wrong, and I don’t just say that because of the spending implications. I say it because if you are on benefits in your twenties, it is going to be extremely difficult to get off benefits for the rest of your life. It is not good, and there’s a million young people in that position. So there’s a moral case for changing that, that I’m perfectly prepared to make.”

There can be little doubt, then, about the government’s attitude to levels of mental health diagnosis.

When Labour attempted to push through its cuts to PIP earlier this year, one of the criticisms made of ministers was that they failed to prepare the ground with backbenchers.  Instead of doing their homework and creating well researched arguments for reducing the number of awards, they simply stated that there was a need to find savings.

So, it looks like ministers have now learnt their lesson and this review is part of an attempt to lay a medical and academic foundation for benefits cuts.

But, if that is the case, it seems astonishing that they have chosen Wessely to play such a public role, knowing his history with claimants.  Unless, of course, Streeting has failed to do his homework yet again.

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.
    · 3 hours ago
    It's classic divide and conquer - they're going after the young people with mental health issues.  The older ones with physical issues will be ok... for now.  Until they target the next group.  

    We need to stick together - an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 5 hours ago
    I want to add this. Remember, must remember to create a paper trail, irrefutable evidence of your disability. None of these jokers be it the Tories, Labour or Reform can question irrefutable facts written down by those affiliated with the NHS or the Medical Establishment. 

    Go back before 2010, go back before the Equalities Act, Depression was considered an illness/disability where the person cannot work or train for work, it was agreed upon even in the 1970s from the research I've looked into. So what is going on here? If there's too many younger people claiming for depression and anxiety then look into the root causes as to why instead of painting them as playactors and scroungers. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 5 hours ago
    Someone should ask Starmer what the moral case is for being in violation of international law and UN conventions the UK is signed up to on rights of people with disabilities and on poverty. If he is proud of the damning UN reports. Why the treatment by him of the ill and disabled is not part of his decency and respect agenda. And instead part of a smear, scapegoat, resentment and demonize agenda. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 5 hours ago
    It looks like the government has pre decided the PIP review outcome. And is determined to 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 8 hours ago
    were all so utterly doomed in this country. labour the probable lesser of two evils are still gunning for the vulnerable for some insane reason.

    of course depression in young people rose massively, the country for younger people is an absolute nightmare with huge debts and zero chances.

    suicide is the main cause of death for young men, I guess thats out of favour this week...

    these people are vile. no policies to help the root cause of issues, just more beating with sticks.

    between these and reform, I just cant stack this country 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 hours ago
      @alzon I think politicians have lost the plot to be honest. So to prove you're depressed you need to go to beachy head?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 9 hours ago
    I think we've reached the point where most of these "ideas" that have leaked or will after these reviews, will be so legally difficult to actually achieve they've resorted to "hanging out" their time in Government by trying to make the disabled so ill with worry that they'll close their claim themselves or knowing the backbench or courts will obliterate it so they can blame them for the failure to implement.

    it's like...

    ok if we harass enough people with voluntary offers, send out enough scary hints to the media or do enough silly things that will be shut down, then we can say we tried.

    one thing is certain none of the things I've seen or heard so far would ever make it into reality.

    Don't let them in your head, stand your ground, and get it documented by your GP or specialist if the rhetoric alone is already impacting your health adversely.

    This government might have a majority, but it also has extremely bad judgement and should get used to failing.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 3 hours ago
      @Lemon Pie Excellent response and spot on . You have definitely done your homework that’s exactly what they are like 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 9 hours ago
    Well, I suppose I like many already have no confidence in this review, after all if it’s entitled over diagnosed there’s already a presumption of what it is they are trying to prove and discredit claimants with mental health issues.

    I see similarities with the TImms review, I have been wondering for some time whether people would donate a small sum of money so we actually commission our own independent reviews and present our findings to DWP?

     I certainly would like to think with regards to Timm’s review this idea might get off the ground because their idea of co-creation doesn’t look like anything I’ve ever seen as co-creation and I don’t think we would actually keep it all secret with those invited to participate having to sign a non disclosure agreements.

    Instead our review / research would be transparent. I’d like to think that we could present our findings to the Timms review and we would like to include disable people by commenting and participate as well as including the charities which support people with disabilities and illnesses and experts who could give an objective view that we have confidence in. 
    we could show DWP & the government how it should be done because I see this format as the go to approach for anything the government wants to disprove or get the find the question to the answer they want to prove! It’s the beginning of a slippery slope, with lots of these reviews coming our way under DWP whether it’s this government or any other party making up the next government. 
    They all seem to be pretty much saying that we’re having too many people claiming benefits especially disability benefits.
    I’m amazed how they just picked something such as mental illness and without a shred of evidence to back them up other than parroting it’s life’s tribulations and it’s being over diagnosed, since when have they been medically qualified and yet they can make these statements and nobody challenges them so why don’t we play them at their own game? 
    Would anybody be prepared to see if we could raise the funds to actually do these reviews ourselves going to experts and charities and organisations that represent disabilities, & illnesses and including people with disabilities and chronic health conditions?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 8 hours ago
      @Boo Great idea – I think that any evidence we can provide can only help and strengthen our cause. I’d be up for donating. Perhaps existing research could also be collated and included – for example the evidence that harassing people to work doesn’t work.

      Here is a link to Fundraising ideas, including Online fundraising tools – in case its helpful.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 8 hours ago
      @Boo In theory a good idea, but I suspect any independent findings from the disabled community will be ignored.  I would prefer, if possible, for a fighting fund to be set up for legal challenges all the way to the Supreme Court (which, if ECHR is going to be withdrawn will be the Court of last resort). We would need to enlist the assistance of very good Barristers, eg the likes of Michael Mansfield, KC
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 9 hours ago
    Labour, the Tories and Reform ultimately want to bar anyone with mental illnesses from claiming benefits but they don't want to shape it that way just yet. 

    Surely this will become a legal battleground?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 9 hours ago
    Once again, an example of evidence-free crap that was first peddled by Reform, now being pushed by this "Labour" government. Choosing Wessely is no surprise: if this government can choose the worst possible person then they will. It's like conducting an independent review into whether war crimes have been committed in Gaza and having it chaired by Benjamin Netanyahu.  
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.