MAINSTREAM media organisations have been warned by a Scottish minister about creating "stigma" around benefit claimants by not challenging UK Government lines on DWP cuts.
The UK Government earlier this week confirmed a £5bn package of cost-saving measures which include swingeing cuts to welfare, with ministers insisting the central aim of these is to get disabled people back into work.
However, one of the key changes being brought in by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is a tightening of eligibility rules around Personal Independence Payments (PIP), which is not a work-related benefit but linked to the additional costs of being disabled.
Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville posted earlier this week "too many commentators/media reports are still accepting UK Government line that cuts to PIP are about helping people back into work".
She added: "It is NOT related to being in or out of work."
Speaking to The National, Somerville said she had spotted some mainstream media organisations quoting this line and not challenging it, along with some podcasters.
She said that by doing this they are risking increasing stigma around disabled people claiming benefits.
Asked what she feared would be the consequences of the media not questioning UK Government claims on PIP, she said: "When I met with disabled people’s organisations and charities that support disabled people, what I heard back was a fear about the stigma that’s being created, particularly about mental health issues or for others that they shouldn’t get support.
Too many commentators/media reports still accepting UKG line that cuts to PIP are about helping people back to work. PIP is a recognition of the additional costs of a disability/long term condition. It is NOT related to being in or out of work.
— Shirley-Anne Somerville (@S_A_Somerville) March 26, 2025
"There’s also an unfortunate narrative that gets suggested about there being disabled people that could be working just now and they’re not, so if we cut their money – and in fact we heard one of the UK ministers saying this when he compared it to pocket money – that will force you back into the Labour market.
"What disabled people who may be able to work are saying is that you need to support us into that work and the workplace needs to be able to be accessible for us. They needed supported rather than punished."
After announcing the changes to PIP last week, Chancellor Rachel Reeves (above) came back this week to announce even more cuts to disabled benefits after the Office for Budget Responsibility said the UK Government would not make as much savings from the original measures as it had claimed.
Somerville said it was "frustrating" some media organisations were not challenging the UK Government saying PIP changes were about getting people into work because it has been made clear from this episode with the OBR that this has only been about cost-cutting.
She said: "I have seen comments both in some areas of the mainstream media and indeed from some folk who use podcasts about an acceptance of this line that this is all about getting people back to work and that is not the case.
"The frustration I have is that people need to challenge that narrative that’s coming from the UK Government because what’s been made clear is that this has got nothing to do with getting people back to work.
"One, because it’s about PIP, which is not to do with being in or out of work, and two, when the OBR told them they weren’t going to save enough by cutting PIP they just cut something else. It was like they had an arbitrary figure to reach in terms of savings and they just cut to get to that number.
"Of course what the UK Government is saying should be reported but what is frustrating is when people haven’t taken the time to speak to disabled people directly – not me, don’t take my word for it – and those that are supporting them and listen to them when they say ‘actually if you cut PIP, it will harm my chances of being able to hold down a job because it takes money away from me that might be able to help me with the additional cost of being disabled’."
