Before I get into what happened in Parliament this week, I want to share why I write. Writing is an occupation that helps me understand the world and my place in it, particularly when events leave me feeling unsettled. It allows me to process experiences, emotions and questions that often have no easy answers. Writing gives space to the thoughts that sit heavily in my body. Publishing my reflections as blog posts adds another layer, it creates a connection, for dialogue. When people read and respond, it reminds me that I am not alone. That what matters to me matters to others too. That’s why, when Disability Pride Month began with a decision that felt deeply disheartening, I turned to writing.
On 1 July 2025, Parliament opened Disability Pride Month in a way that felt anything but proud. The Welfare Reform Bill which was titled the Universal Credit (UC) and Personal Independence Payment (PIP) Bill, passed its Second Reading in the House of Commons, but not without widespread concern, debate and resistance.
The Government was forced to retreat on some of the most controversial proposals. Clause 5, which would have raised the threshold for Personal Independence Payment (PIP), was removed following significant pressure from MPs, campaigners and disabled people. Instead, a new review into PIP will be launched. The government used the term co-produced with disability people lead by Sir Stephen Timms, the Minister for Social Security and Disability with the findings expected in 2026.
Proposed changes to Universal Credit were also partially softened. The most severe cuts will no longer apply to people with lifelong or terminal conditions who are already receiving support. However, new claimants may still face reductions. While these changes reflect that public pressure can work, the wider message remains troubling. The bill still passed. It still reflects an approach to welfare that divides people into categories of deserving and undeserving. And it still treats disability support as a cost to be managed, not a right to be protected.
As a disabled person, watching all of this unfold on the first day of Disability Pride Month felt like a gut punch. There is nothing prideful about being reduced to a policy problem. There is nothing empowering about having to fight for the basics of everyday life. There is nothing celebratory about being viewed as a financial risk rather than a human being.
What upset me most was the sheer lack of understanding, from politicians and decision-makers, about what PIP actually is for. Time and time again, I heard it being linked to employment, as though the goal was to push people into work. But PIP is not a benefit for people out of work. It has nothing to do with whether someone is employed or not. PIP exists to support disabled people with the extra costs that come with being disabled, costs that are very real, often hidden, and rarely fully covered. People in receipt of PIP do work. I work. Many of us do. PIP enables us to participate more fully in life, including in employment, not by incentivising us to work, but by helping to create the conditions that make working possible in the first place. Hearing it so fundamentally misunderstood in Parliament felt not only frustrating, but dehumanising.
Disability Pride Month is about being proud of who we are of our identities, communities and resilience. It is a time to name the reality of discrimination while also claiming our place in the world. Pride is about visibility. It is about connection. It is about refusing shame. It is also about resistance a public declaration that our lives matter and our experiences must be heard.
This is where occupational therapy must pay attention. The welfare system is not something separate from our work. It directly affects how people live and what they are able to do. When someone cannot afford heating, food or travel, when they are forced to choose between care and independence, that is occupational deprivation being prevented from participating in everyday life because of external forces (Whiteford, 2000). For some, not receiving PIP pushes them to the poverty line, with devastating consequences for health, housing and stability. For others, it may not take them into poverty, but it still means being unable to afford the equipment, support or adaptations that make life possible or make work sustainable. Whether it is a specialist chair, accessible transport, or help with personal care, the absence of this support restricts occupational engagement and undermines autonomy. Over time, this disconnection can lead to occupational alienation, when people no longer recognise themselves in the routines and roles they are left with (Wilcock, 2006).
As occupational therapists, we often speak about enabling people to live meaningful lives. But that work cannot stop at the individual level. We also need to recognise the structural barriers that limit or exclude people. That is the heart of occupational justice the belief that everyone has the right to engage in occupations that sustain health, identity, belonging and contribution (Townsend and Wilcock, 2004).
Being invested in Disability Pride Month means listening to disabled people, not just supporting them. It means making space, taking action and being honest about where injustice sits. It means understanding that occupation is never just a personal choice — it is shaped by power, policy and opportunity.
So yes, it was a hard start to the month. But that feeling, that sharp disappointment, also speaks to something else. It speaks to raised expectations. It speaks to the strength of community and shared voice. It reminds us that we are still here, still rolling forward, still finding ways to be heard.
Because our occupations matter.
Because our lives matter.
Because pride is never just personal. It is political.
References
Townsend, E. and Wilcock, A.A. (2004) ‘Occupational justice and client-centred practice: A dialogue in progress’, Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 71(2), pp. 75–87.
Whiteford, G. (2000) ‘Occupational deprivation: Global challenge in the new millennium’, British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63(5), pp. 200–204.
Wilcock, A.A. (2006) An occupational perspective of health. 2nd edn. Thorofare, NJ: SLACK Incorporated.
Leave a Reply