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.
