logo
Thirteen years ago, Emma told me disability cuts nearly broke her family. Now, under Labour, it's worse

Thirteen years ago, Emma told me disability cuts nearly broke her family. Now, under Labour, it's worse

The Guardian21-03-2025

Wrong, badly wrong, and it won't easily, if ever, be forgotten or forgiven. To take £5bn from those with the least, disability claimants already well below the median income who are clustered in the poorest towns, will leave a lasting scar on Labour's reputation.
Sending Labour ministers out on the airwaves to defend the indefensible has been like sending lambs to the slaughter. The welfare secretary, Liz Kendall, and the employment minister, Alison McGovern, used to speak with passion about their optimistic plans for the future of work – but they never meant £5bn cuts. Torsten Bell, the treasury minister, is fresh from heading the Resolution Foundation with its myriad reports on reducing poverty and inequality, but he had to back £5bn cuts on Newsnight. Stephen Timms, social security and disability minister at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), is one of the most thoughtful and knowledgable ministers about social security. He surely never intended this, yet he too was sent out on BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
Rachel Reeves was a Keynesian, not originally a cutter, but the Treasury is good at frightening the life out of chancellors, and was likely induced to stick to her iron fiscal laws with threats of a Truss crash. With deeper cuts expected, and some departments losing up to 7% of their budget, you can expect no spring in the step of Labour ministers after next week's spring statement.
A woman called Emma recently contacted me. Do I remember her? How could I forget, although it's 13 years since I visited her in Horsham, West Sussex, back when the then-Tory work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, was inflicting savage disability cuts. Hers is one of those stories of misfortune and fortitude that stays in your memory with 'there but for the grace of God' admiration.
Here's what I wrote then about her life with three hyperactive disabled children living in a two-bedroom home: 'Rhys, six, is in special school, a child with no sense of danger, on impulse throwing himself down stairs, pulling furniture down on top of himself or hurtling into the road regardless of traffic. Outside he needs a wheelchair. Barely speaking, he eats with his hands, smearing food everywhere and he needs Ritalin to manage at school. He wakes at 4am every morning and has to be watched every waking minute from then on … Martyn, seven, manages in mainstream school with a teaching assistant to help: he bounces about the sitting room with the youngest, Caitlin. She has just had a heart operation, wears a hearing aid and, aged three, hardly talks, so she starts in special school soon.'
Emma told me then that if she had understood what the autism diagnosis meant for her first two, she never would have risked having a third. As often in families under stress of disabilities, her marriage has broken up since we met.
Now Emma herself uses a wheelchair, as she has severe rheumatoid arthritis, so she relies on her personal independent payment (Pip). Without it to pay for her car and her wheelchair she couldn't have travelled to her beloved but low-paid job as an NHS administrator for the past four years. All three of her children are now on Pip: Martyn, 21, is holding down a job in WH Smith but needs support; Caitlin uses a wheelchair, and is still at school. Rhys needs the most help – after leaving his special school at 19, he's now at college on an independent life skills course. 'He has just learned to cross the road safely. The jobcentre took one look at him and said he couldn't be there unaccompanied, so I don't think an employer would look at him. I hope one day he might volunteer somewhere,' Emma said. The prospect of what will happen if her family lose their benefits has given her panic attacks. Rhys gets £800 a month: 'He really needs that to get him to college, for his lunches, his phone, his basic needs. But he's not 22 so he'll lose that. He'll be on about £300 a month universal credit, and we won't manage.' Together, the family stands to lose thousands.
Although Emma is assessed as having 'ongoing' needs, she fears she faces another test. To keep her Pip she needs to score four points for any one incapacity. 'I have 13 points, but only twos or threes for any one activity, so I'll lose Pip,' she told me. She has two points for needing help to dress or wash her lower body, two points for needing help to manage incontinence, three points for needing help to bathe or shower, but she doesn't have four points for any single one of her needs. And some imagine that the benefits system is too lax.
'Keir Starmer came to our hospital once and said hello when I was at work. He seemed a nice bloke,' she said. 'I wouldn't expect him to do something like this.' Yet here we are, back in Duncan Smith territory. When Labour said 'no return to austerity', it only meant no return to austerity as severe as the George Osborne era at its worst.
The original plans Kendall and McGovern used to talk about were all to do with support, encouragement and training for good jobs with good prospects – not any old job – with highly skilled w ork coaches offering face-to-face personal help. Kendall will still have £1bn to do some of that New Deal programme that worked for the last Labour government. The focus will be on those almost 1 million Neets, the young not in jobs or education, need a big support programme. But there's an irony in that £5bn cut: that number is almost exactly the sum in 1997 that Gordon Brown seized in a windfall on privatised utilities to spend on Labour's new deals for young people, disabled people, lone parents and the over-50s: it was spent with singular success in getting people into jobs. This time, analysts say that £5bn cut will get relatively few off benefits while mostly inflicting a brutal hit on families such as Emma's. And no, benefits tests have not got easier: the Joseph Rowntree Foundation points to a higher rate of refusals over the past five years.
Why do this? Spending on working-age adult benefits, at about 5% of GDP, has changed little in two decades. A third of the growth over the past five years is due to the rise in pension age, with disabled older people claiming while they wait. The government could instead redistribute triple-locked pensions – one of the most generous welfare benefits, but the winter fuel payment row doubt deters them.
Though they're yet to see the final details of Reeves's plan, children's charities estimate about 100,000 more children will fall into poverty because of disability cuts in their family. Labour, so scrupulous about sticking to its fiscal responsibility straitjacket, seems less concerned about its manifesto pledge to 'develop an ambitious strategy to reduce child poverty' which 'not only harms children's lives now, it damages their future prospects, and holds back our economic potential as a country.'
Maybe Labour's child poverty review, due out in the summer, will reverse this backwards direction of travel. But if so, that's no help to the million, like Emma, about to be knocked down by these cuts. Just in from work, Emma said to me: 'Today I have been shaking. I have palpitations. I am tearful. I don't know what I am going to do. I won't be able to afford to work – we could lose everything.'
Polly Toynbee is a Guardian columnist

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Gangsters ‘would be treated like terrorists' and face up to 14 years in jail under Tory plans
Gangsters ‘would be treated like terrorists' and face up to 14 years in jail under Tory plans

Scottish Sun

time29 minutes ago

  • Scottish Sun

Gangsters ‘would be treated like terrorists' and face up to 14 years in jail under Tory plans

Scotland's turf war shows no sign of slowing down GANG DEMAND Gangsters 'would be treated like terrorists' and face up to 14 years in jail under Tory plans Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) CRIME gang members would be treated like terrorists and face up to 14 years in jail under crackdown plans from the Scottish Tories. It would see them behind bars if they are part of gangs identified by Police Scotland. Sign up for the Politics newsletter Sign up 2 A hitman stormed a bar and assassinated Eddie Lyons Jr and Ross Monaghan And the Tories would rewrite the law to stop fraudsters and rich criminals getting away with paying back a fraction of their ill-gained wealth. Scottish Tory justice spokesman Liam Kerr said: 'Organised crime gangs are causing misery in our communities, but the SNP still fail to act. Find out what's really going on Register now for our free weekly politics newsletter for an insightful and irreverent look at the (sometimes excruciating) world of Scottish Politics. Every Thursday our hotshot politics team goes behind the headlines to bring you a rundown of key events - plus insights and gossip from the corridors of power, including a 'Plonker' and 'Star' of the Week. Sign up now and make sure you don't miss a beat. The politicians would hate that. SIGN UP FOR FREE NOW 'We'll get tough on these individuals by making it a criminal offence to be a member of gangs. 'It will be in a similar vein to it being illegal to be a member of a terrorist organisation. 'It's also time to overhaul the SNP's Proceeds Of Crime laws which too often let criminals off repaying their debts.' Gang membership would lead to the same jail sentence as being part of a terrorist group such as Hamas. It would also see Police Scotland paid by criminals ordered to pay back their ill-gotten gains. The DOWNFALL of Scotland's biggest gangster - Jamie 'The Iceman' Stevenson Part Two The party says this will encourage cops to investigate organised crime gangs by giving them a cash incentive. John Swinney was last week blasted for failing to act on organised crime amid a raging underworld turf war in Scotland and the double murder of two Scots drug lords in Spain. We told last week how a hitman stormed a bar in Fuengirola on the Costa Del Sol and assassinated Lyons gang kingpins Eddie Lyons Jr, 46, and pub owner Ross Monaghan, 43. Justice Secretary Angela Constance said: 'The Scottish Government made it an offence for an individual to be involved in serious organised crime in 2010. 'Since 2008 over £156 million of ill-gotten gains has been recovered through the UK-wide Proceeds Of Crime Act.'

Fears of damage to nature from Labour planning reforms overblown, minister says
Fears of damage to nature from Labour planning reforms overblown, minister says

Glasgow Times

time39 minutes ago

  • Glasgow Times

Fears of damage to nature from Labour planning reforms overblown, minister says

Housing minister Matthew Pennycook hit out at criticism that the plans would allow developers to get away with damaging habitats if they contributed to a nature restoration fund, dubbed 'cash to trash'. Mr Pennycook dismissed concerns several times, including calling them 'misrepresentation', 'patently false', and saying some critics had 'flagrant misconceptions' of what the Bill would do. Campaigning groups, including the National Trust, RSPB, Wildlife Trusts and Marine Conservation Society have warned they believe the reforms will significantly weaken environmental law. They said it could allow developers to effectively disregard environmental rules, and increase the risk of sewage in rivers, flooding and the loss of woods and parks. It came as Labour faced a potential rebellion in the voting lobbies on Monday over the fears. One Labour MP encouraged the Government to 'rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation' as he tabled an amendment. However, Mr Pennycook said the current 'status quo' between the environment and development was not working. In turn, he said, proposed changes would lead to a 'win-win' for both. He said: 'The nature restoration fund will do exactly as its name suggests. It will restore, not harm nature. It is a smart planning reform designed to unlock and accelerate housing and infrastructure delivery while improving the state of nature across the country.' He later told MPs: 'I feel obliged to tackle a number of the most flagrant misconceptions head on. 'First, some have claimed that driven by a belief that development must come at the expense of the environment, the Government is creating a licence for developers to pay to pollute. A cash-to-trash model, as some have dubbed it. In reality, the nature and restoration fund will do the precise opposite. 'I have been consistently clear that building new homes and critical infrastructure should not, and need not, come at the expense of the environment. It is plainly nonsense to suggest the nature restoration fund would allow developers to simply pay Government and then wantonly harm nature.' Mr Pennycook said the money would be given to Natural England, which would develop plans on how to better preserve nature. In response to a question from shadow housing minister Paul Holmes about the capacity of Natural England to take on the responsibilities, Mr Pennycook said: 'We've been perfectly clear that this new approach is not a means of making unacceptable development acceptable.' He continued: 'Another claim put forward has been that the Bill strips protections from our protected sites and species, allowing for untrammelled development across the country. Again, I'm afraid this amounts to nothing less than wanton misrepresentation.' Green Party MP Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) said the Office for Environmental Protection warned the Bill reduces environmental safeguards. 'This Bill constitutes a regression on environmental protection,' she said. Mr Pennycook said: 'The Government's view that the Bill is not regressive. Environmental delivery plans (EDPs) will secure improved environmental outcomes that go further than simply offsetting harm as required under current legislation.' Suggestions that the Bill would allow for the destruction of irreplaceable habitats or create irretrievable harm to them were 'patently false', he told MPs. The Conservatives accused the Government of 'greenwashing', over its plans. Mr Holmes said: 'While developers may cheer the ability to pay into a nature restoration fund instead of taking direct responsibility for mitigations, we should ask, is this really restoration, or is it greenwashing?' Mr Pennycook said the new laws were needed to 'speed up and streamline' Labour's housing target of 1.5 million homes, clean energy goals and aim to approve at least 150 'major economic infrastructure projects'. Labour MP Chris Hinchliff described the nature restoration fund as a 'kernel of a good idea', but added: 'The weight of evidence against how it has been drafted is overwhelming.' The North East Hertfordshire MP said his amendment 69 will give 'ministers the opportunity to rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation, ensuring environmental delivery plans serve their purpose without allowing developers to pay cash to destroy nature'. He added: 'It would ensure conservation takes place before damage, so endangered species aren't pushed close to extinction before replacement habitats are established, and it outlines that conservation must result in improvements to the specific feature harmed, protecting irreplaceable habitats like chalk streams.'

Fears of damage to nature from Labour planning reforms overblown, minister says
Fears of damage to nature from Labour planning reforms overblown, minister says

Rhyl Journal

timean hour ago

  • Rhyl Journal

Fears of damage to nature from Labour planning reforms overblown, minister says

Housing minister Matthew Pennycook hit out at criticism that the plans would allow developers to get away with damaging habitats if they contributed to a nature restoration fund, dubbed 'cash to trash'. Mr Pennycook dismissed concerns several times, including calling them 'misrepresentation', 'patently false', and saying some critics had 'flagrant misconceptions' of what the Bill would do. Campaigning groups, including the National Trust, RSPB, Wildlife Trusts and Marine Conservation Society have warned they believe the reforms will significantly weaken environmental law. They said it could allow developers to effectively disregard environmental rules, and increase the risk of sewage in rivers, flooding and the loss of woods and parks. It came as Labour faced a potential rebellion in the voting lobbies on Monday over the fears. One Labour MP encouraged the Government to 'rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation' as he tabled an amendment. However, Mr Pennycook said the current 'status quo' between the environment and development was not working. In turn, he said, proposed changes would lead to a 'win-win' for both. He said: 'The nature restoration fund will do exactly as its name suggests. It will restore, not harm nature. It is a smart planning reform designed to unlock and accelerate housing and infrastructure delivery while improving the state of nature across the country.' He later told MPs: 'I feel obliged to tackle a number of the most flagrant misconceptions head on. 'First, some have claimed that driven by a belief that development must come at the expense of the environment, the Government is creating a licence for developers to pay to pollute. A cash-to-trash model, as some have dubbed it. In reality, the nature and restoration fund will do the precise opposite. 'I have been consistently clear that building new homes and critical infrastructure should not, and need not, come at the expense of the environment. It is plainly nonsense to suggest the nature restoration fund would allow developers to simply pay Government and then wantonly harm nature.' Mr Pennycook said the money would be given to Natural England, which would develop plans on how to better preserve nature. In response to a question from shadow housing minister Paul Holmes about the capacity of Natural England to take on the responsibilities, Mr Pennycook said: 'We've been perfectly clear that this new approach is not a means of making unacceptable development acceptable.' He continued: 'Another claim put forward has been that the Bill strips protections from our protected sites and species, allowing for untrammelled development across the country. Again, I'm afraid this amounts to nothing less than wanton misrepresentation.' Green Party MP Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) said the Office for Environmental Protection warned the Bill reduces environmental safeguards. 'This Bill constitutes a regression on environmental protection,' she said. Mr Pennycook said: 'The Government's view that the Bill is not regressive. Environmental delivery plans (EDPs) will secure improved environmental outcomes that go further than simply offsetting harm as required under current legislation.' Suggestions that the Bill would allow for the destruction of irreplaceable habitats or create irretrievable harm to them were 'patently false', he told MPs. The Conservatives accused the Government of 'greenwashing', over its plans. Mr Holmes said: 'While developers may cheer the ability to pay into a nature restoration fund instead of taking direct responsibility for mitigations, we should ask, is this really restoration, or is it greenwashing?' Mr Pennycook said the new laws were needed to 'speed up and streamline' Labour's housing target of 1.5 million homes, clean energy goals and aim to approve at least 150 'major economic infrastructure projects'. Labour MP Chris Hinchliff described the nature restoration fund as a 'kernel of a good idea', but added: 'The weight of evidence against how it has been drafted is overwhelming.' The North East Hertfordshire MP said his amendment 69 will give 'ministers the opportunity to rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation, ensuring environmental delivery plans serve their purpose without allowing developers to pay cash to destroy nature'. He added: 'It would ensure conservation takes place before damage, so endangered species aren't pushed close to extinction before replacement habitats are established, and it outlines that conservation must result in improvements to the specific feature harmed, protecting irreplaceable habitats like chalk streams.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store