A former Labour councillor who quit the party over international aid cuts has asked how austerity will help the disabled and chronically ill.
Hollingdean and Fiveways ward councillor Bruno De Oliveira, the former chair of Brighton and Hove City Council’s Health and Wellbeing Board, raised the issue of personal independence payments (PIP) and health-related universal credit claims at the board meeting yesterday (Tuesday 8 April).
His question followed the recent announcement by the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, that reforms to PIP would reduce the number of claimants by 1.5 million.
One in 10 people of working age currently claim a sickness or disability benefit.
The number of people claiming health-related benefits with no requirement to work has increased by 800,000 since 2019-20 and the number claiming PIP is expected to more than double during this decade from 2 million to 4.3 million.
Ms Reeves said that spending on working-age sickness and disability benefits had risen by £20 billion since the coronavirus pandemic and, without action, would go up by a further £18 billion by the end of this Parliament to £70 billion a year.
The government’s proposals are planned to save £5 billion a year by 2029-30.
Councillor De Oliveira said: “Given the government’s planned tightening of personal independence payment (PIP) eligibility, the halving of health-related universal credit for new claimants, and the withdrawal of incapacity top-ups for under-22s, could you explain to our residents how these austerity-driven reforms will affect the lived realities of disabled and chronically ill residents in deprived local areas of Brighton and Hove—many of whom already experience systemic exclusion from the labour market?”
His successor as chair of the Health and Wellbeing Board, Labour councillor Faiza Baghoth, said that the government’s reforms were wide-ranging and would have a positive impact for some while some residents would be “affected negatively”.
Councillor Baghoth said: “The council is committed to doing all it can to support local people who are struggling financially.
“Our poverty reduction work includes working closely with partners to understand the local data on poverty, encouraging people to take up all the benefits they are entitled to by signposting to support services, whether run by our community and voluntary sector partners, and providing direct support through our local Fairness Fund.”
Councillor De Oliveira, who now sits as an independent, was frustrated that he was not permitted to ask a supplementary question.
He has asked for the reasons behind the refusal from the council’s monitoring officer Elizabeth Culbert, who is also director of governance and law.
Councillor De Oliveira’s supplementary question would have been: “Has the council consulted with mental health professionals on the psychological impact of forcing individuals to undergo more stringent PIP assessments, especially those with ‘invisible’ or fluctuating conditions?
“If so, could you tell our residents how you justify increased conditionality in a system already associated with anxiety, stigma, and suicidality?”
The second question must be addressed.
Disgraceful that the Councillor was denied his democratic right to ask a supplementary question. He is providing a much needed voice for our citys modt vulnerable people. It’s petrifying for sick and disabled people to have their meagre financial support withdrawn so that the super rich don’t have to pay tax.
I don’t like his politics, but it was very clever of him, as they had a report on a suicide programme for the city. An inexperienced chair could avoid getting into the press by just saying, “I will send a written response.” It’s a shame to deny a question on a partnership board like the Wellbeing board. It is not a good look for a listening council.
Absolutely outrageous that he was not allowed to ask a Supplementary question. This is not only censorship by a so-called democratic council but censorship displaying bias towards in favour of these monstrous cuts.
Well done Bruno for asking this question, it’s a shame that as opposition Councillors we are denied supplementary questions on most occasions.
For a council administration elected under a campaign slogan of “Listening Labour” to refuse to take a question on the impact of PIP and whether the council has bothered to look at the impact on proposed changes for vulnerable people with mental health issues, is far worse than them just not listening – it’s an abuse of power and utilising the Cabinet system the party imposed to avoid answering uncomfortable questions about the impact of national policies on local people.
Really shameful of the administration to not allow such an important question, especially when it’s clear there is a huge public interest aspect in the question.
Labour aren’t interested in disabled people, Otherwise they never would be pushing through plans to put in red routes all through shopping areas in the city and thus stopping disabled people from being able to pat with their blue badges
Both of our last two councils have displayed a propensity to shut down or use procedural technicalities to stifle real issues. This has gone as far as forcibly removing people from forums.
The illusion of democracy is fading in this town.
I only hope that the next council is formed of a new set of faces, Liberals, Independents or even Reform.