MP Tessa Munt emails the MEA regarding the DWP’s training guidance on ME/CFS

[Sly Saint]

This has probably been posted somewhere, but in case it hasn't.........
from the MEA website December 2, 2025

Tessa Munt, MP for Wells and Mendip Hills, recently reached out to the ME Association's Welfare Rights Consultant, Ella Smith, about her work regarding the DWP's redacted training guidance on ME/CFS and the proposed welfare reforms. With permission, we have published their email correspondence below for you to read.

Tessa Munt also recently led a parliamentary debate on ME/CFS in Westminster Hall – you can watch the debate here.


Dear Ella,

A constituent has approached me concerning the article that the ME Association published on 7 October.


As you’ll know, this related to a response that the DWP provided to a FOI request for the instructions that DWP provides to contracted healthcare professionals conducting assessments for disability benefits. 

As your article puts so well, the DWP response raises serious concerns including:

• the extent of redaction in response to what appears to be a reasonable request;
• the basis for withholding information, being ‘law enforcement exemptions’ which seem to imply that people with ME will use the information to ‘game’ the system; 
• the idealised expectations compared to the reality for most people, for example, that they have access to specialist services and will have a care plan. 

I wondered where you have reached in terms of the issues that you raised? 

I was grateful to my constituent for highlighting this issue because I’ve been tracking your work this year on the government’s proposals for benefit reform, been impressed, and intended to reach out to you some time ago. 

As you may be aware, I have taken an active interest in ME, and pushed in various ways to get a more ambitious and better resourced Final Delivery Plan. If I may help in any way with your work focusing on benefits and ME, then please do let me know.

Thank you for all that you have been doing for the ME community at this troubling time. 

Kind regards,

Tessa Munt
Member of Parliament for Wells and Mendip Hills

Dear Tessa,

Thank you so much for your email, and for your continued commitment to the ME/CFS community. I’m really pleased your constituent brought the FOI response to your attention; we’ve also been monitoring it closely.

As you rightly highlight, the level of redaction in the DWP’s response raises serious questions. The ME Association routinely monitor published disclosures that may impact the people we support. This one stood out, not only because of how little was actually disclosed, but because of the justification used. Invoking law enforcement exemptions seems to suggest that people with ME/CFS or Long Covid might use accurate information to manipulate the system; a baseless and stigmatising assumption.

The response also paints an idealised picture of clinical management, assuming access to specialist services and personalised care plans that, in reality, most people do not have. It reinforces our long-standing concerns about the disconnect between internal DWP guidance and the lived experience of energy-limiting conditions.

At present, we haven’t submitted a challenge via the Information Commissioner, simply due to resourcing constraints (though this may be something we revisit in future); we remain deeply concerned and will continue to track this issue as part of our wider scrutiny of the DWP.  

Current Welfare Policy Focus  

Our current focus is the forthcoming Timms Review of PIP, particularly with ensuring that it is genuinely co-produced and inclusive of conditions like ME/CFS. We have ongoing concerns about both of these aspects. However, we are also actively engaged in monitoring the wider welfare reform agenda, including other proposals in the Pathways to Work Green Paper and how these link to the findings of the recently published Sir Charlie Mayfield Keep Britain Working report.

The abolition of the Work Capability Assessment and its replacement with PIP-based eligibility for Universal Credit poses a serious threat to many disabled people; especially those who would struggle to meet work-related requirements but do not qualify under the PIP criteria. The proposal to abolish the WCA risks removing crucial safeguards for those whose health would be seriously harmed by work or work-related activity. Regulations 29 and 35 of the ESA regulations currently allow claimants who do not meet the required number of points to still qualify if:  

• Regulation 29: There would be a substantial risk to their health if found fit for work.

• Regulation 35: There would be a substantial risk if required to undertake work-related activity.

These protections are vital for people with fluctuating or energy-limiting conditions such as ME/CFS and Long Covid, who are at particular risk of harm and long-term consequences to their health and functionality because of the need to appropriately manage their energy via pacing. Disregarding this vital aspect of ME/CFS leads to pushing through tolerance levels and results in Post-Exertional Malaise (PEM). As repeated episodes of PEM can lead to lasting deterioration in health and function, it is essential for people with ME/CFS to carefully manage and avoid overexertion.

The government has not provided clarity on how these risks will be mitigated or who will make determinations about conditionality. There are serious concerns about the capacity and training of work coaches to fulfil this role when so few qualified Health Care Professionals fully understand or appreciate the complexity of managing conditions like ME/CFS.

We are also very concerned by the suggestion of replacing ESA with a new, time-limited Unemployment Insurance. The proposed Unemployment Insurance would replace New Style ESA for many future claimants. However, New Style ESA in the LCWRA group currently provides enduring support for people who meet eligibility criteria. This:  

• Upholds the contributory principle for those who have paid National Insurance.

• Enables disabled people to maintain financial independence and retain dignity.

• Is particularly important for claimants in households not eligible for means-tested support (e.g., where a partner works).

Replacing this with time-limited Unemployment Insurance will disproportionately harm individuals in low-income but non-means-tested households. It may also increase the risk of coercive control and domestic abuse, as some disabled people will become entirely financially dependent on a partner and this is a recognised intersectional risk factor for abuse; particularly also considering that ME/CFS is more prevalent in women, who are also more likely to be financially disadvantaged. Loss of personal income can lead to impaired credit history due to lack of bills or bank accounts in one’s own name. Over time, people may also lose vital life skills associated with managing money, further limiting independence.  

We’d very much welcome your support in challenging these proposals as they develop. If your team is considering Parliamentary Questions, debates, or written interventions, I’d be happy to provide briefings, background, or case examples to support that work.

Thank you again for reaching out, and for your kind words. It means a great deal, especially at such a difficult time for so many of the people we represent. We are very aware of all your hard work on behalf of people with ME/CFS and remain incredibly appreciative of your energy and dedication.

With very best wishes,

Ella Smith

Welfare Rights Lead, ME Association

for the rest

MP Tessa Munt emails the MEA regarding the DWP's training guidance on ME/CFS - The ME Association

Photo of Tessa Munt ©House of Commons/Roger Harris – image […]

meassociation.org.uk