Disabled organisers refusing to meet ministers over DWP benefits cuts
A number of disabled people's organisations working with the government have stopped meeting with ministers, over plans to cut disability benefits.
Charities like Inclusion London have told Yahoo News they are "considering" whether they will still speak to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to inform its upcoming policies on improving employment outcomes and the benefits system for disabled people.
The charity told Yahoo News it is considering its position because the government "is not consulting on the most significant cuts" in its Get Britain Working green paper, accusing the DWP of leaving disabled voices "ignored and silenced".
Another member of a disabled consortium in the West Midlands that works with the government has already resigned over the government enacting the cuts, Yahoo News understands.
The resignation letter, from a man who has worked for disabled organisations for 40 years, said that Starmer's government "has such little regard and respect for the rights and welfare of the disabled community of this country".
Disablities minister Sir Stephen Timms has urged these groups to keep in conversation with the government, telling the BBC's Access All podcast that he "very much hopes" the organisations will continue talking to him.
When asked about working with disability charities on Tuesday, Keir Starmer said he wants to continue to work with disabled people's organisations and "bring people together" to improve outcomes for disabled people.
The government's proposals to cut disability benefits have sparked outrage among campaigners and charities, who warned that the "draconian" policies could push up to 340,000 people into poverty.
The cuts, announced by Liz Kendall and Rachel Reeves last month — such as limiting the number of people eligible for PIP and freezing and halving incapacity benefits for new claimants — will not go to consultation and will be voted on in Parliament.
On Tuesday, however, the government launched the Get Britain Working consultation, asking for groups and individuals to express their views on some measures like scrapping work capability assessments for universal credit claimants, and enhancing the Access to Work programme, a grant system for disabled workers which is beset with delays.
Inclusion London, which supports deaf and disabled people's organisations in London, said it does not think the government has done anywhere near enough.
Svetlana Kotova, director of campaigns at the charity told Yahoo News: "Labour promised in their manifesto to put disabled people's views and voices at the heart of their policy. But the green paper does the exact opposite.
"The government is not consulting on the most significant cuts, that will push disabled people, including children, into poverty. Our voices have been ignored and silenced. We need to understand from the minister what their commitment really means in practice."
For one organiser involved in several disability networks, resignation felt like the only option.
In his resignation letter, shared with Yahoo News, he wrote that he is "extremely scared for the safety of disabled people under a Starmer-led government".
He wrote: "I can no longer work with or be associated with a government who threat my brothers and sisters so appallingly. I have advised Conservative governments with more empathy than this government.
"In all these years and facing down many governments of various political colours and politics, I have never known any government with such little regard and respect for the rights and welfare of the disabled community of this country."
However, some other groups have decided that even though they do not agree with the government's position, cutting off communication with the government is "not the best thing to do".
Mark Baggley from the Choices and Rights Disability Coalition, told Yahoo News: "While it may have been the best thing for one of our networks to step away, I do not think cutting off communication with the government is not the best thing to do.
"Without having these difficult conversations, you're never going to get any change."
Jon Sparkes OBE, chief executive of learning disability charity Mencap, echoed this view.
He told Yahoo News: "To make change, we believe that dialogue with those who have the power to make decisions is crucial – and especially important when the stakes are so high.
"We will continue to engage with government to raise our concerns, and provide a platform for people with a learning disability to voice theirs directly."
The government's disabilities minister, Sir Stephen Timms, has said he "very much hopes" the organisations will continue talking to him.
When asked about the stalemate on the BBC's disability and mental health podcast, Access All, on Monday, Sir Stephen said: "I very much hope that they will carry on talking to me because I need to know what they think about these proposals.
"I want to make sure that the views and voices of disabled people are at the heart of what we do in this area, as well as elsewhere across the government."
A DWP spokesperson said: 'We want to hear from a wide range of people during the consultation period and are committed to putting the views and voices of disabled people at the heart of everything we do.
'We have set out a sweeping package of reforms to health and disability benefits that genuinely support people back into work, while putting the welfare system on a more sustainable footing so that the safety net is always there to protect those who need it most.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Three men to go on trial next year over fires linked to UK PM Starmer
LONDON (Reuters) -Three men all linked to Ukraine will go on trial next April accused of involvement in a series of arson attacks on houses and a vehicle in London connected to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, a London court heard on Friday. Over five days last month, police were called to fires at a house in north London owned by Starmer, another at a property nearby where he used to live, and to a blaze involving a car that also used to belong to the British leader. Ukrainian Roman Lavrynovych, 21, is charged with three counts of arson with intent to endanger life. Fellow Ukrainian Petro Pochynok, 34, and Romanian national Stanislav Carpiuc, 26, who was born in Ukraine, are accused of conspiracy to commit arson. Lavrynovych and Carpiuc appeared by video-link at London's Old Bailey court on Friday where Judge Bobbie Cheema-Grubb set the trial for April 27 next year. Pochynok was not present for the hearing. In earlier hearings, prosecutors said the motive for the arsons was unclear. The men will enter formal pleas at a hearing in October, but the lawyers for Carpiuc and Pochynok said their clients denied involvement. Counter-terrorism police have led the investigation but none of the men have been charged with offences under terrorism laws or the new National Security Act, which was brought in to target hostile state activity. Police said the first fire involved a Toyota RAV4 car that Starmer used to own and sold to a neighbour. Days later, there was a blaze at a property where Starmer previously resided and the following day there was an attack on a house in north London that he still owns. Starmer, who has lived at his official 10 Downing Street residence in central London since becoming prime minister last July, has called the incidents "an attack on all of us, on our democracy and the values we stand for". Earlier this week a fourth man, aged 48, who had been arrested at London Stansted Airport in connection with the arson, was released on police bail.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
The burqa is inconsistent with integration
Churchill once said, 'Nothing can save England, if she will not save herself. If we lose faith in ourselves, in our capacity to guide and govern, if we lose our will to live, then, indeed, our story is told.' Let those words settle – less as a relic of the past than as a stern admonition for the present. As we reopen a debate many in Westminster have long preferred to bury, we must ask: has Britain still the will to save herself? Or will we, through cowardice and confusion, allow our national story to end not with a bang, but a whimper? The question of banning the burqa and niqab is not a trivial sideshow in the culture wars. It is a litmus test of national self-belief. It goes to the heart of whether Britain has a solution to the complex problems caused by rapid population increase and demographic change. Starmer, predictably, has neither the inclination nor the courage to approach this subject. But a new government with spine, conviction, and a willingness to take the slings and arrows of metropolitan outrage might yet do so. And it must – for the issue before us is no longer about fabric and facial coverings. Are we, or are we not, a society confident in our values? And if the answer is yes – if we are to stem the disintegration of national cohesion and restore a shared civic space – then we must start by outlawing one of the most visible symbols of separation: the full-face veil. Libertarian objections, while intellectually consistent, fall short of lived reality. It is true that in a free society, individuals ought generally to wear what they wish. But there are limits to freedom, and always have been – limits defined by the need to preserve what the French, with admirable clarity, call le vivre ensemble: the capacity to live together. France and Belgium, far from authoritarian states, understood this when they enacted bans in 2010. In 2014, the European Court of Human Rights – an institution I criticise more often than not – nevertheless ruled correctly in S.A.S. v France. The court unanimously acknowledged that the ban infringed individual freedoms of religion and private life, but held that the interference was justified in order to protect a broader societal good: the integrity of social life in an open, liberal democracy. Interestingly, the court rejected the public safety rationale, instead identifying the core issue as one of cultural compatibility. In a Western, pluralist society, being able to see and be seen, to look one another in the face without impediment, is not merely a nicety. It is a necessity. It underpins trust, empathy, and the social contract itself. The burqa and niqab are not akin to turbans, yarmulkes, headscarves or motorcycle helmets. They are garments of erasure – of identity, of individualism, and of the mutual recognition that life in community demands. No law compelling British Sikhs to remove their turbans, or Orthodox Jewish women to discard sheitels, has ever been proposed – because those traditions do not negate the possibility of social interaction. Full facial coverings do and any ban could reasonably make exceptions for sporting, health or professional reasons or for riding a motorbike (as in France). There is also a deeper hypocrisy. When I have travelled in Middle Eastern or Catholic countries, I have covered my shoulders, legs, and hair when asked. I have done so not under duress, but in a spirit of respect. I have entered women-only spaces and abstained from alcohol when custom required it. Is it so outlandish to expect that those who come to Britain might return the courtesy? Other nations are unapologetic in defending their ways of life. Why are we so ready to abandon ours at the first hint of discomfort? Our culture – rooted in Judeo-Christian values, Enlightenment reason, and the hard-won principle of sexual equality – has made this country one of the most tolerant and liberal on earth. But tolerance cannot mean indifference. A society that tolerates everything, even its own erosion, will not survive. The answer must now be: no more. Not because we are intolerant – but because we wish to remain a society worth integrating into. A society with the courage to demand participation, not parallelism. A society with the clarity to say: there are lines, and they matter. Churchill warned us that if we lose faith in ourselves, then indeed, our story is told. That warning echoes now more than ever. Let us choose to save ourselves. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
3 reasons why Starmer could U-turn on controversial benefits cuts to PIP
An upcoming vote in the House of Commons on government proposals to cut £5bn from the benefits bill has sparked a rift in the Labour Party. The Labour leader is reportedly facing a growing backbench rebellion over the government's welfare reforms announced in March, with some reports suggesting as many as 100 backbench Labour MPs have signed a letter saying they can not support the proposals as they stand. Some of the party's MPs have been publicly critical. Imran Hussain said 41,000 disabled people in his Bradford East constituency would be affected and that many were 'rightly horrified' by the policy. Neil Duncan-Jordan, the MP for Poole, is one of those to have signed the letter, branding the reforms wrong". I have signed this letter calling for the government to rethink its stance on disability benefits because I think the current plans are need to be listening to people's concerns and I hope things will begin to change. — Neil Duncan-Jordan MP (@NeilForPoole) May 8, 2025 Ahead of the vote (which is expected to take place some time in June) the anger has reportedly led the prime minister to consider softening the proposed reforms – specifically changes to the eligibility rules surrounding the benefits payments to disabled people. Yahoo News takes a look at what's going on. The government has proposed a raft of benefits cuts, predominantly affecting those who are disabled or have a long-term health condition. One of those cuts is to personal independence payments (PIP), a benefit for people in and out of work that helps with the additional costs of living with a disability. The government wants to limit who is eligible by changing the assessment criteria from 2026. It means at least 800,000 disabled people could lose out on payments, according to figures published by the department of work and pensions. The health component of universal credit (UC) is also to be frozen until 2030, with the amount cut in half for new claimants from April 2026. Under-22s who are disabled or have a long-term illness will also no longer be able to claim a health top-up of universal credit from April 2026, with the money saved set to be reinvested by the government into training young people. In total, the cuts will leave 2.25 million households losing out on £500 per year, according to the government's own impact assessment. Some of the government's welfare reforms are open to consultation, with the public being asked to submit their thoughts until 30 June 2025. However, critics have said that only the less serious reforms — like scrapping the work capability assessment for those applying for the health component of universal credit — are open to discussion. In recent weeks, reports have indicated ministers are considering softening the cut. According to the Financial Times, one of the rumoured changes includes making the proposed changes to eligibility for PIP less strict, which could mean 195,000 fewer disabled people are affected by the reforms. Claimants could also get a longer 'transitional period' — from when they are informed their benefits are cut to their benefits stopping — so they have more time to plan for the loss in income, the Times reported. The rumoured changes reportedly hopes to get frustrated MPs onside, who have taken moral objections with the scale and severity of the cuts, the disproportionate impact for voters in the Labour heartlands, as well as the increasingly positive polling for Reform. Several Labour MPs have taken issue with the cuts, voicing their concerns that Labour has historically supported and championed a robust welfare system. According to the Times, 170 backbenchers warned that they may not support the reforms that make it harder to claim PIP as well as cutting incapacity benefits to increase incentives to work. Added to this, it warned that the scale of the cuts had not been seen since George Osborne's austerity reforms, which the party voted staunchly against. Forty-two MPs — including Nadia Whittome, Diane Abbott and Stella Creasy — wrote to the Cabinet earlier this month saying that the reforms were "impossible to support" and called for "a change in direction". The letter reads: 'The planned cuts of more than £7bn represent the biggest attack on the welfare state since George Osborne ushered in the years of austerity and over three million of our poorest and most disadvantaged will be affected. "Without a change in direction, the green paper will be impossible to support.' Another private letter, signed by 100 MPs, said they could not support the government in the disability vote, the Guardian reported. MPs don't just have the party whip to answer to — they are also held to account by their constituents. While the scale of the PIP cuts are clearly far-reaching, the map indicates that the 10 areas most affected by the government's PIP cuts are in Labour heartlands. In fact, out of top 20 areas where claimants are set to miss out on PIP, 19 voted for Labour in the general election — with Clacton voting for Nigel Farage's Reform UK party. In fact, many of the areas are emerging Labour/Reform UK battlegrounds. And, in the wake of Labour's chastening local election results in May, some have pointed the finger at the government's welfare cuts as one of the key drivers of discontent among the party's traditional voting base. 3. Reform are out-positioning Labour on welfare At a national level, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has pledged to reverse the winter fuel cut and scrap the two-child benefit cap if the party came to power in a naked attempt to target Labour's perceived weakness in the area of welfare. And while the government has signalled a partial U-turn on the winter fuel payment, it continues to dodge calls from campaigners and MPs to ditch the cap. Overall, the most recent YouGov poll seems to indicate the public are also losing faith in Labour on welfare issues, with 69% saying the government is handling welfare issues badly. A DWP spokesperson said: "We are determined to create a welfare system that supports people into work and out of poverty. 'At the heart of the government's reforms is £1bn scheme to help the long-term sick or disabled find good, secure jobs. 'Our Plan for Change will change people's lives for the better. That is why we have raised the national living wage, increased benefits, and given additional help to the poorest households.'
