Disability campaigners protested outside Hove Town Hall before a debate about the government’s proposed changes to personal independence payments (PIP) and universal credit.
And when the Brighton and Hove City Council meeting started, the campaign group Speak Out presented a petition calling for a better understanding of the effects locally of the proposed changes.
Speak Out representative Siân Klein told the special council meeting that there was widespread anxiety among members of the organisation which represents people with learning disabilities.
Many members were worried about the potential cuts and were already struggling with the “cost of living crisis”, with half falling below the poverty line.
She said: “Support from disability benefits is not a luxury but a necessity. These benefits provide crucial financial assistance, enabling individuals to afford basic needs such as healthcare, housing and daily living expenses.
“In today’s challenging economic climate (the proposed cuts) will exacerbate the difficulties faced by one of the most vulnerable groups in our society.”
She asked the council to lobby the government to change its position, with MPs due to debate the welfare reforms next week.
After a national outcry, the Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall wrote to fellow Labour MPs yesterday (Thursday 26 June) as a brewing rebellion appeared to threaten the party’s majority.
She offered to exclude anyone currently receiving disability payments from the proposed reforms.
At the special council meeting on Monday (23 June), Green councillor Ollie Sykes asked the Labour council leader Bella Sankey to write to the minister about local concerns.
Councillor Sykes criticised the reforms, intended to cut billions of pounds from the welfare benefits bill by limiting eligibility for PIP and cutting and freezing the universal credit health elements.
Councillor Sykes, one of those who called the special council meeting, said that the need for reform was accepted by many.
But he said: “These proposals will not have the desired effect, for example, (they) misunderstand the role of PIP in supporting employment.
“Locally, we need to better understand the impacts on our disabled residents of these cuts and there is a role for the council here in working with voluntary and community sector partners to assess and report back.”
The Green opposition Steve Davis said that the government’s proposals would push more disabled people into poverty and they in turn would need more support from the council.
Councillor Davis said: “If fewer people access this support, who picks up the pieces when more people cannot live the independent lives they could and should?
“The answers are, disabled people going without and suffering hardship or other services being forced to step in – like the NHS, like social services, like food banks and other voluntary sector organisations – and, for the purpose of this meeting, like councils.”
Independent councillor Bruno De Oliveira said that councillors should take a stand against austerity being used against the most oppressed people in Brighton and Hove, saying: “We must acknowledge the impact on the wellbeing of our residents.
“People are tired of political cynicism. We can change that. Out there, someone trusts you (councillors) that you would care on matters like this – that we would be the difference – or who are we being councillors for?”
Labour councillor Jacob Allen said that, rather than write to ministers, the council should respond to the government consultation and provide support locally through the household support fund.
Councillor Allen faced interruptions from the public as he said that the Labour government had “inherited a broken and cruel system”.
He said: “Under the current proposals, out for consultation, where people do lose PIP, because their needs are lower than 90 per cent of other PIP claimants, they will be given some of the most generous transitional protections.
“And there would still be an £8 billion increase in welfare spending by the end of this parliament.”
He said that he wanted “to encourage a careful, transparent approach by asking for a full impact assessment before changes are rolled out”.
He added that, locally, the issue was a matter for the council’s People Overview and Scrutiny Committee rather than for the full council.
Councillor Sankey said that the council had worked with Speak Out and other local learning disability organisations.
She recognised “the concerns that exist around some of the proposed changes while recognising the many positive proposals that have been welcomed by advocacy organisations”.
She added: “We focus on local impact and mitigations and call for the resources that we and other partners need to protect against counterproductive impacts.”
She said that the Greens had been “cynical” – they called the meeting along with Councillor De Oliveira – because council motions had no formal bearing on government policy.
Conservative group leader Alistair McNair said that Labour was the party of austerity, slashing benefits even though that was not why people had voted for them.
Councillor McNair said that more than four million working age people were claiming health-related benefits – or 10 per cent of the working-age population. This was a million more than in 2019.
He said: “Benefit spending is predicted to reach £100 billion by the end of this parliament. It’s currently around £80 billion. Government borrowing is running at £150 billion a year and rising.
“A cut of £4.5 billion, while painful, will barely scratch the surface. If Labour is going to dig us out of this black hole, it needs to grow the economy.”
But Councillor McNair said that things would only get worse because Chancellor Rachel Reeves did not how to grow the economy as she “shovels more money” into the public sector.
He added that the government either had to cut benefits or grow the economy but would do neither.
Brighton and Hove Independent councillor Mark Earthey said that Labour was supposed to be like Robin Hood, taking from the rich and protecting the poor.
Councillor Earthey spoke about his experience as an unpaid carer for his elderly parents and for his late wife. He said that to pay all types of carers would cost the entire NHS budget – more than £190 billion a year.
He said: “Think what would happen if even a small percentage of carers were forced out of caring by the reforms. Under that additional strain, organised community care in Brighton, or everywhere, could collapse completely.
“How do you intend to step in to fund the gap for our local residents? You won’t get extra funding from central government, no matter how much you plead, because they took it away from you in the first place.”
Very poor of the Labour council and councillors locally to shut out the voices from the disabled community and not allow them to ask questions at the meeting. Why on earth did not one Labour councillor locally have the courage to break ranks from the whipped Party line (as some Labour MPs and councillors did elsewhere). How can they claim they support residents in the city when they are prepared to put their Party line first on something as important as protecting the most vulnerable people in the city.
Also not convinced by Keir Starmer’s u-turn – in what kind of world does it make any logical sense that people already disabled and making a claim will receive more money than someone who becomes disabled through accident or illness in the future. The needs will be the same and it’s cruel to have a 2-tier system for disability benefits based on the date the disability began.
I fear it will be much worse. I already see them conveniently having a wide scale rejection of claims continuation from those currently receiving it. They’ll fiddle the numbers of what’s recorded in your reassessment to say they won’t approve the claim. Forcing claimants to pursue a Mandatory Reassessment which they’ll then approve the claim but say that you’re existing claim was terminated. It will be executed with callous planning across government departments and private companies. It will be transparent. But they’ll investigate themselves and find they did nothing wrong
I think we tend to overestimate what political reach Ward Councillors actually have on legalisation like this. Although I agree with the spirit of what you are saying, it feels like a disconnect between local and regional. Personally, I think the bill was looking at the wrong aspects, when you consider data like the amount of assessments that get overturned on appeal, a clear way to save money is to make those assessments correct the first time.
Oh, and I’d wager most socialists are in favour of taxing the super-rich to make society more equal.
But it looks like Labour have not in fact submitted anything to the consultation before it closed yesterday.
In a response today when quizzed about what the council ACTUALLY submitted before the 30 June consultation deadline a BHCC officer has responded to say that “The actual response will be submitted in a survey and won’t be published.”
The use of future tense suggests the council hasn’t actually submitted ANYTHING to the consultation at all yet, despite the deadline being yesterday, and despite the welfare reforms being debated in parliament today. If the officer is correct and the council has not in fact bothered to get anything submitted to the consultation before the deadline passed, it’s a further snub to disabled residents and shows just how little this Labour council is prepared to do to stand up for the most vulnerable in the city. It also makes a mockery of the comment in this article saying “Labour councillor Jacob Allen said that, rather than write to ministers, the council should respond to the government consultation and provide support locally through the household support fund.” if they haven’t actually bothered to submit that suggestion before the consultation deadline passed.
Not having the backbone to oppose Tory-like Labour cuts is bad enough on it’s own, but to give glib answers with ineffective suggestions that then in fact don’t happen and they don’t do, rather than having the courage that many Labour Party politicians elsewhere are showing by speaking out, shows Brighton and Hove Labour in a particularly poor light.
I would love to know why our Labour council and its councillors showed greater passion and interest and even put a bigger physical presence out there fighting against Brighton College planning permission trying to be a thorn in the side of a private school than helping to support our most city’s vulnerable at a time of deep distress? Your city’s people desperately need you to do the right thing and support the people many of whom voted for you!
Because one is a local planning matter directly within the council’s powers, while the other is a central government responsibility that local councillors have limited ability to affect. It’s not a matter of caring more about one than the other.