‘Welfare reforms still mean a climate of fear. Changes are too little, too late’ – LabourList

Let’s face facts: the government’s benefit cuts bill has been a complete disaster. Even with the recent ‘concessions’, it is still set to push disabled people further into poverty and exclusion.

The bill may no longer cut £5.5 billion from welfare spending – but a £2.5 billion cut is still a brutal assault on the social security system so many rely on. It’s disabled people who will pay the price.

The government’s so-called compromise, protecting existing claimants but applying harsh new rules to future ones, is not a victory. It creates an arbitrary, two-tier system that will treat disabled people differently based on the date they happened to make their claim.

READ MORE: 70 councillors in hardest-hit region over welfare reform write to Kendall

Those who claim PIP, or the health element of Universal Credit after the deadline will face a system deliberately designed to deny them support. This is not fairness. It’s not the mark of a progressive government. It’s a rushed bodge that solves a political headache but leaves disabled people with an enduring injustice.

Climate of fear

Worse still, the reassessment process under this bill will hang over existing claimants like a sword. Ministers say people currently receiving support will be protected – but what happens when their circumstances change? Disabled people find themselves in the category of being a ‘new’ claimant for all sorts of reasons, even when they have spent years receiving support.

Nothing in the legislation guarantees their long-term safety. The DWP has form when it comes to eroding protections through the back door, drip-feeding people into new regimes under the guise of administrative change. The reality is this bill creates a climate of fear, where disabled people will worry constantly about when the axe might fall.

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of all things Labour – and follow us on  Bluesky, WhatsApp, Threads, X or Facebook.

Ultimately even if disabled people and our organisations could have faith in iron-clad protections for current claimants, none of us is willing to accept any proposal that sees some of us worse off. No one knows when they might need to rely on the social security system, it’s something that needs to be there for everyone.

The truth is that none of this should have happened in the first place. A bill of this magnitude should have been co-produced with disabled people and our organisations from the very start.

Now, ministers scramble to promise ‘consultation’ as one small part of the process. That is too little, too late. Co-production is not a rushed tick-box exercise tagged onto legislation already steaming through Parliament. It means disabled people shaping the system at every step – not just commenting on the detail of changes already baked in.

Importantly, it is not appropriate for MPs to vote on something so rushed, without all the information available. The full impact of these policies – particularly the recent ‘concessions’ – needs sufficient time for scrutiny. That takes far longer than a weekend to consider.

This is about disabled people’s lives

There is an alternative. The Commission on Social Security, a project led by people with lived experience of the benefits system, has demonstrated how meaningful co-production can build a fair, compassionate system that works for everyone. This bill has shown the opposite: what happens when those with power try to ‘fix’ disabled people, instead of fixing the barriers in society.

When Labour was last in government, it established the Office for Disability Issues which put co-production at the heart of its work. That legacy has been shamefully abandoned here. As Disabled Members’ Representative on the NEC, I know how important it is to disabled members to have our voices heard in policy-making.

I have seen this as a priority in my role, spending hours at the National Policy Forum in 2023 negotiating to see this embedded in various policy areas, including in social security.

Then again at the Clause V meeting ahead of the General Election, I made co-production my primary ‘ask’ as I know the significance this bears for disabled members, and disabled people more widely. This was rebuffed despite popular support from across the Party. If the leadership had listened then, we might have avoided this appalling mess – one that has not only damaged the Labour Party but, far more importantly, has sown fear among thousands of disabled people.

The circus that has unfolded around this bill has treated the issue like internal party drama. But this is not just about the Labour benches or who runs Downing Street. This is about the lives of disabled people and our families, who face losing vital support for generations to come.

The bill should be withdrawn, and there must be a full rethink. If that doesn’t happen, Labour MPs must stand firm and vote it down. Sticking plaster fixes and last-minute amendments will not cut it. If the Party is serious about co-production, serious about disabled people’s rights, and serious about fairness, we must start again – and this time, do it with us, not to us.

• SHARE: If you have anything to share that we should be looking into or publishing about this story – or any other topic involving Labour– contact us (strictly anonymously if you wish) at [email protected].
• SUBSCRIBE: Sign up to LabourList’s morning email here for the best briefing on everything Labour, every weekday morning.
• DONATE: If you value our work, please chip in a few pounds a week and become one of our supporters, helping sustain and expand our coverage.
• PARTNER: If you or your organisation might be interested in partnering with us on sponsored events or projects, email [email protected].
• ADVERTISE: If your organisation would like to advertise or run sponsored pieces on LabourList‘s daily newsletter or website, contact our exclusive ad partners Total Politics at [email protected].

Value our free and unique service?

LabourList has more readers than ever before – but we need your support. Our dedicated coverage of Labour’s policies and personalities, internal debates, selections and elections relies on donations from our readers.

Support LabourList