Benefits claimant says people struggle to find jobs because they can’t find one that’s ‘meaningful’
PIP claimant Gigi El-Halaby told LBC that some people struggle to find work because available roles may not be meaningful or accessible for those with mental health conditions and disabilities. Her comments matter amid government efforts to increase employment among benefit claimants, while raising questions about whether job schemes sufficiently account for individual health needs.
Presenter Simon Marks argued that many people work primarily to earn money rather than because they find their jobs meaningful. El-Halaby said meaningful work could help people with mental ill health regain purpose, and cited retail work at Boots as inaccessible for her; PIP supports people with long-term conditions and can be claimed while working. The government’s Jobs Guarantee offers eligible 18-to-24-year-olds up to 25 hours’ paid work weekly for six months, with more than 90,000 jobs expected by 2029, while an interim PIP review received over 38,000 responses, 90% reporting negative experiences.
- Claimant says suitable, accessible work can be difficult to find.
- Presenter questioned whether jobs must be meaningful.
- Government is expanding employment support for benefit claimants.
New here? Start with this
Personal Independence Payment, or PIP, is a benefit for people with long-term illnesses, disabilities or mental health conditions who need help with extra day-to-day costs. It is not based on whether someone is in work, and people can receive it while employed.
The debate comes as the government looks for ways to help more benefit claimants into jobs, including through programmes offering paid work and support for young adults. These schemes often focus on moving people into available vacancies, but some claimants say the work offered may not suit their health needs or circumstances.
Supporters of this view argue that a suitable job can provide routine and a sense of purpose, particularly for people recovering from mental ill health. Others point out that paid work is often taken mainly for financial reasons, and that employers and support services must balance individual needs with the jobs available.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters argue that employment policy should recognise that work is more sustainable when it accommodates people’s health needs and offers a sense of purpose, particularly for those recovering from mental ill health. A job that is physically or psychologically inaccessible may worsen someone’s condition or lead to rapid turnover, whereas suitable, meaningful work can build confidence, routine and independence. They therefore contend that schemes aimed at benefit claimants should measure success by durable, supported employment rather than simply moving people into any available role.
The case against
Critics argue that meaningful work is a worthwhile aspiration but cannot reasonably be a prerequisite for entering employment, since many people take ordinary or imperfect jobs primarily to meet living costs and gain experience. They may say that broad job guarantees are most effective when they create many accessible entry points, with meaning and progression often developing over time rather than being available from the outset. On this view, support should remove genuine disability-related barriers and make reasonable adjustments, while still encouraging claimants who can work to consider available roles rather than narrowing opportunities to those that feel intrinsically fulfilling.