logo
Welsh Government warned disability plan lacks key targets

Welsh Government warned disability plan lacks key targets

Mark Isherwood, chair of the Senedd's cross-party group on disability, raised concerns that many long-term objectives in the draft 10-year plan lack firm commitments.
He said Natasha Hirst, who was part of ministers' disability rights taskforce, pointed to a lack of funding and clear, robust targets.
Mr Isherwood quoted Joe Powell, chief executive of All Wales People First, who said: "For this plan to succeed we need the appropriate investment into the infrastructure and services to make this aspiration a reality.
"We need clear targets about how we are going to achieve this.
"Without these, it is very difficult to see how the plan will make a difference to disabled people in Wales."
The Conservative told the Senedd: "Damian Bridgeman, who chaired the disability rights taskforce's housing and community working group, said the draft document was a smokescreen rather than a plan.
"He pointed to the absence of new money and a mechanism to track delivery of the action plan further, adding that, 'disabled people have been reviewed to death, what we need is action – and there's none of that here'."
Mr Isherwood warned the plan lacks a commitment to enshrine the UN convention on the rights of disabled people into Welsh law.
He also cautioned that the UK Government's plans to cut benefits risk further disabling people in Wales by compounding poverty and exclusion.
Jane Hutt described the plan as a landmark moment in the Welsh Government's commitment to ensuring an inclusive and accessible society for all.
She urged organisations and disabled people to respond to a consultation on the draft plan, running until August 7.
Sioned Williams warned the plan has been a "long time coming," stressing the importance of legally enforceable rights.
Jenny Rathbone supported efforts to embed the social model of disability, while Laura Anne Jones warned the plan "falls short in many critical areas."

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Starmer: Scots 'voted for change' in Hamilton by-election
Starmer: Scots 'voted for change' in Hamilton by-election

The Herald Scotland

timean hour ago

  • The Herald Scotland

Starmer: Scots 'voted for change' in Hamilton by-election

The by-election was triggered following the death of SNP MSP Christina McKelvie, who had held the seat since 2011. Mr Russell overturned a significant SNP majority, winning with 8,559 votes, just over than 600 votes more than the SNP on 7,957. Reform UK placed third place with 7,088 votes, while the Conservative result plummeted to 1,621. Posting on social media on Friday morning, Sir Keir said: 'People in Scotland have once again voted for change. 'Next year there is a chance to turbo-charge delivery by putting Labour in power on both sides of the border. 'I look forward to working with you.' Read more: Disdain for Davy Russell comes back to bite political elites Labour wins Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election breakdown in full Labour's candidate, who is the deputy lord lieutenant of Lanarkshire, beat the SNP's Katy Loudon – who fell to her third defeat since 2023. he win comes against the backdrop of national polls which place Scottish Labour in third place behind the SNP and Reform UK – and will undoubtedly give a boost to Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar's bid to become first minister in next year's election. Mr Sarwar told BBC Radio Scotland's Good Morning Scotland programme he is confident Labour can win that contest. Congratulations to @DavyRussell4HLS and the team on a fantastic victory. People in Scotland have once again voted for change. Next year there is a chance to turbo charge delivery by putting Labour in power on both sides of the border. I look forward to working with you. — Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) June 6, 2025 When asked if his party can defeat the SNP, which has been in power in Scotland since 2007, Mr Sarwar declared: 'Absolutely. I believed it before this by-election and I continue to believe it now. 'Next year the choice is simple – a third decade of the SNP with John Swinney as first minister or a new direction for Scotland with me as first minister. 'That is the choice facing the people of Scotland, that is the campaign over the next year, and that is a campaign I am confident we can win. 'I think what the people of Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse did yesterday was lead the way to that change of government next year and a Scottish Labour government next year.' He also said he will 'continue to challenge the poison of Reform', making clear he is 'talking about the people who lead Reform' and not those who 'may be tempted' to vote for them. Read more: How The Herald is covering crucial Hamilton by-election Find all articles on the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election Much of the by-election campaign had been dominated by Reform's advert – branded racist by Labour and other political opponents – which had alleged Mr Sarwar would 'prioritise' the Pakistani community, something he did not say. A surge in support for Nigel Farage's party saw it come in third place in Hamilton, just 800 votes behind the SNP – although there had been speculation Reform could come second or possibly even win the seat. Reform UK deputy leader Richard Tice insisted the party is 'delighted' with the result. But Mr Russell used his victory speech to suggest the community had rejected the 'poison' of Reform. He said: 'This community has sent a message to Farage and his mob tonight. The poison of Reform isn't us – it isn't Scotland and we don't want your division here.' Mr Swinney said Ms Loudon had 'fought a superb SNP campaign' and that he was 'clearly disappointed' his party was unable to win. 'Labour won by an absolute landslide in this area less than a year ago – we came much closer tonight, but the people of Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse have made clear that we still have work to do,' he added. 'Over the next few days, we will take time to consider the result fully.'

How much money Elon Musk lost because of feud with Donald Trump
How much money Elon Musk lost because of feud with Donald Trump

Daily Mail​

timean hour ago

  • Daily Mail​

How much money Elon Musk lost because of feud with Donald Trump

The controversial former-head of DOGE Elon Musk has reportedly lost more than $34billion from his personal net worth after his fall from grace at the White House and very online break up with the US President. Shares in Musk's Tesla also dropped more than 14 per cent at the end of yesterday, losing about $150billion in market value - the largest single-day decline in the company's history. It is the second largest loss of personal net worth, beaten only by Musk's own wipe out again in November 2021, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index of the 500 wealthiest people on the planet. He remains the richest man in the world, with a huge $334.5 billion fortune. Musk, who officially left the White House last week, reached a peak of nearly $500 billion in the months after Trump's election success. The valuation of his companies had surged thanks to the belief they would profit from his close relationship with Trump and his role as head of the Department of Government Efficiency, it was reported. But his government contracts with the US were on the line last night as he continued to take part in a savage war with words against Donald Trump, with their partnership breaking down over a tax-cut and spending bill. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts," Trump posted on Truth Social. The withdrawal would have potentially huge consequences for his Tesla and SpaceX revenue. SpaceX has been awarded over $17 billion in government contracts since 2015, according to ABC news. Much of that money comes from NASA and the Department of Defence. One of Trump's oldest advisors, Steve Bannon, went further and suggested the government seize SpaceX under the Defense Production Act - a move that would undoubtedly trigger challenges. Musk, who had threatened to decommission the SpaceX Dragon capsule - a critical lifeline for transporting American astronauts and supplies to the International Space Station - ultimately retreated. After a user on X suggested he 'cool off and take a step back for a couple of days', Musk abruptly posted: 'Good advice. Ok, we won't decommission Dragon.' It was not before he claimed that Trump is 'in the Epstein files', suggested that he should be impeached and replaced with 40-year-old Vice President J.D. Vance. Moments before the Epstein charge, Trump had taken to Truth Social and said he had asked Musk to leave his administration and said the billionaire went 'CRAZY!' With that, Musk announced that it was 'time to drop a really big bomb.' This 2014 image shows Elon Musk (right) alongside Ghislaine Maxwell (left) who facilitated Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking ring. She's currently serving time in federal prison '@RealDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public,' Musk wrote. 'Have a nice day, DJT!' Jeffrey Epstein is a serial child sex offender who died in prison in 2019. Trump pledged to release the files related to Epstein, with Attorney General Pam Bondi releasing some pages in February, but most of that information was already in the public domain. 'Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out,' Musk added. Asked for comment, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told the Daily Mail in a statement: 'This is an unfortunate episode from Elon, who is unhappy with the One Big Beautiful Bill because it does not include the policies he wanted.' The brawl started when the X-owner had originally campaigned to stop the 'disgusting abomination' of the x bill which he believed would contribute too much to the country's $36.2 trillion debt. Trump's big, beautiful bill' called for getting rid off electric vehicle tax credits - the cause of Musk's frustration, according to Trump. Analysts at JPMorgan Chase & Co. estimated that the bill would cut about $1.2 billion from Tesla's full-year profit. Despite staying quiet at first, Trump then told reporters he was 'very disappointed' in Musk and they 'had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore'. Musk immediately responded via tweet, saying: 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election'. He had spent nearly $300 million backing Trump's campaign among other other Republicans in last year's election. However, the drastic drop in net worth might not reveal the true impact on Musk who increasingly relies on his private enterprises as a source, it was reported in Bloomberg.

Illegal immigration is turning us into a lockdown society
Illegal immigration is turning us into a lockdown society

Telegraph

timean hour ago

  • Telegraph

Illegal immigration is turning us into a lockdown society

The mild weather has, we are told, exacerbated the problem of small boats crossing the English Channel. The pledge to 'smash the gangs' is no longer being repeated endlessly by Labour spokespeople (perhaps the recent sunny weather distracted Border Force?) But fear not. The Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, has a plan. She thinks a gigantic governmental IT project is what is now needed to get a grip on the explosion in immigration. Whenever politicians run out of road in trying to solve a problem, it's never long before the introduction of ID cards rears its ugly head. One might say this is an exercise using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but that would be unfair. The issues at stake tend to be rather bigger than nuts – terrorism, mass uncontrolled immigration, widespread welfare fraud and the like. No, it's more like wildly swinging a sledgehammer in an idiotic attempt to repair a window. The way ID schemes work is to split the population into two cohorts – one which is entitled to something and one which isn't. You want to visit your local GP? You'd better whip out your digital ID card to do so. A police officer doesn't like the cut of your jib and wonders if you should be in the UK at all? You'd be advised to have data on hand to prove your citizenship. Three problems immediately emerge. First, the law-abiding majority are obliged to undertake an ever-increasing number of checks and tests to go about their ordinary lives. Second, it assumes that the people you want to collar are not adept at melting into the black market economy. How many employers are hiring large numbers of illegal immigrants unknowingly and were genuinely just about to get round to making sure they all had the right to work here? None. Third, it relies on the state actually operating a complex IT system successfully. We have surely learnt over recent years that in the vast number of ways the government is able to waste huge tranches of taxpayers' money, botched IT projects are probably top of the list. You can bank on a new digital ID system to break, be littered with errors or both. Ronald Reagan's old dictum – 'there are no easy solutions, but there are simple solutions' – is typically honoured in the breach. The Home Secretary is overreaching for a solution which is difficult and complex but – she is hoping – avoids being especially controversial. Instead, to tackle the immigration disaster, we need to get back to basics. The vast numbers of people coming to our shores are doing so because enforcement is weak, the legal system is soft and the incentives to come here are too great. If you are unwilling or unable to deal with those root causes, there is no database – however magical you may imagine it to be – that will be of much assistance. The reason we have failed to deport many undesirables is not because we are sitting across a desk from them and can't identify who they are or what they are entitled to. Rather it's because our asylum system works at a snail's pace, allows fatuous appeals under human rights legislation, and the package of goodies you receive while you are here is too good to resist. We need to speed up the system so claims take eighteen days (or, ideally, eighteen hours) to process rather than eighteen months. We must ensure that your child's preference for British-made chicken nuggets is not an admissible basis for resisting deportation. We have to find a more robust way of policing the English Channel. None of these are easy to achieve, but they are simple to grasp. Instead, the political elite – this time in the form of Yvette Cooper – prefers to rush down the rabbit hole of believing a flashy computerised system is the answer to our prayers. It probably won't happen. It certainly won't work.

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