Cllr Middleton:
"As part of the Welfare Reform Bill (Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill) the Government have during the passage of the Bill listened and reviewed the impact on people receiving various benefits in order to ensure the balance of need and ensure an equitable system to support people with varying needs to live as independently as possible".
Mark Webster responds
Cllr Middletons assertion that the government has effectively listened to and reviewed the impact of the Welfare Reform Bill on benefit recipients is undermined by the following:
The government had to make significant last-minute concessions to avoid losing the vote on the bill, indicating a reactive rather than proactive approach to stakeholder concerns.
The timing of the review and the initial push for changes before its conclusions shows a lack of genuine engagement with the needs of those affected.
Strong opposition from MPs and advocacy groups highlighted the inadequacy of the government's efforts to create an equitable system that supports individuals with varying needs.
These factors taken together challenge Cllr Middleton's claim that she makes that the government has successfully balanced the needs of benefit recipients through the legislative process.
Cllr Middleton
The specific impact on people in Telford would depend on how these national proposals are implemented locally and how they interact with existing local services and support systems. It's important for individuals in Telford to stay informed about these changes and to participate in any consultations or opportunities to make their voices heard. We will be reviewing our own discretionary welfare support and hardship policies and working with local voluntary sector partners to ensure people are supported if there is a change to their benefits”.
Mark Webster Response:
Cllr Middleton's statement is ambiguous and is an evasion of responsibility. Local authorities often have the power to influence how national policies are enacted, yet her statement suggests a passive role being taken by Telford and Wrekin Council.
As a Labour council, with a Labour MP and a Labour Government, our local government should take a more proactive stance in shaping these implementations rather than merely reacting to them.
This passivity only leads to inadequate responses to central government, and lets our residents down.
The unique needs of Telford's population, particularly vulnerable groups who rely heavily on local services, are not being represented fully.
Cllr Middleton's call for individuals in Telford to stay informed also overlooks the barriers many disabled residents, their carers and families face in engaging with local governance.
Factors such as lack of awareness, accessibility issues, and socioeconomic barriers hinder effective participation.
Studies have shown that marginalised communities often feel excluded from decision-making processes, which exacerbate existing inequalities in welfare support and access to services.
Therefore, while encouraging participation is important, Telford and Wrekin Council must also ensure that these consultations are genuinely accessible and inclusive. Something she does not commit to.
Cllr Middleton also talked of a review of discretionary welfare support and hardship policies. The effectiveness of such reviews depends on the transparency and inclusivity of the process. If the review does not involve input from affected individuals or community organisations, it risks being disconnected from the actual needs of the community. The reliance on local voluntary sector partners to support individuals during changes to benefits raises more questions than answers about the adequacy of resources and support systems in place.
The voluntary sector operates under severe financial constraints and may not be able to fill the gaps left by reduced government support
Cllr Middleton's statement implies that the interaction between new proposals and existing local services will be crucial. But without a clear strategy for integration, the risk is that new policies will disrupt current services rather than enhance them.
For example, if national proposals lead to cuts in funding or changes in eligibility criteria, local services will struggle to adapt, potentially leaving vulnerable populations without the necessary support.
This highlights the need for a comprehensive impact assessment that considers how changes will affect existing systems and the individuals who rely on them.
Cllr Middleton then attempted to use information from Gov Website
• New welfare legislation to ensure there are robust protections in place to support the most vulnerable and severely disabled.
Mark Webster response:
Although the original question stated 86 charities, that total has risen to over 100 now, that have criticised the narrow definitions of eligibility.
Charities such as Scope and Z2K have raised concerns that the legislation's criteria for protection are too restrictive. The proposed "severe conditions criteria" (SCC) stipulates that only those with constant health conditions will be shielded from reassessment and reduced benefits. This means individuals with fluctuating or progressive disabilities, such as Parkinson's disease or multiple sclerosis, will not qualify for the protections despite having severe support needs. The Green Party are not.alonr in arguing that this narrow definition excludes a significant number of severely disabled individuals who do not meet the stringent requirements set forth in the legislation.
The ambiguity surrounding the criteria for the SCC has led to fears that assessors will interpret the guidelines inconsistently.
This will result in eligible individuals missing out on necessary support due to subjective assessments. The lack of clarity is particularly concerning for those with conditions that vary in severity, as it could lead to unfair treatment and inadequate support for those who need it most.
Another point of contention is the requirement for an NHS diagnosis to qualify for the protections. This stipulation will disadvantage individuals who have been diagnosed privately, including many with neurodivergent conditions. Given the current long waiting lists for NHS services, many individuals may struggle to obtain the necessary documentation to qualify for support, further complicating access to benefits.
While the government claims that the new welfare legislation will provide robust protections and financial support for vulnerable individuals, including an estimated £725 annual income boost for nearly 4 million households, the criticisms highlight significant gaps in the proposed measures. The government asserts that 200,000 individuals with severe, lifelong conditions will be exempt from reassessment, but the effectiveness of these protections remains in question due to the previously mentioned limitations.
While the intention behind the new welfare legislation may be to support the most vulnerable, the actual implementation is falling short of providing adequate protection for many severely disabled individuals.
Cllr Middleton then said:
"• Nearly 4 million households to benefit from uprating of Universal Credit standard rate, the largest, permanent real-terms increase to basic out of work support since 1980, according to the IFS."
Mark Webster Responds:
While Cllr Middleton's claim highlights a significant increase in Universal Credit, what she selectively chose to ignore from the IFS (Institute of Fiscal Studies) is that it is essential to consider the context of this increase.
They noted that while the increase is substantial, it comes after a prolonged period of stagnation and cuts to welfare support. Many argue that framing this increase as a positive development overlooks the previous reductions in support that have adversely affected many disabled households.
The assertion of a "real-terms increase" must be examined in light of current inflation rates. If inflation continues to rise, the purchasing power of the increased benefits will not significantly improve the financial situation of recipients. Many of us point out that the increase does not adequately address the rising cost of living, which has been a pressing issue for many families trying to survive on Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payments.
The claim that nearly 4 million households will benefit is based on estimates that do not fully capture the complexities of individual circumstances. Some households may still find themselves in precarious financial situations despite the increase. Additionally, the effectiveness of the increase in alleviating poverty or improving living standards can be challenged, as many families will still struggle to meet basic needs.
The timing of this announcement was politically motivated, aimed at garnering support ahead of local elections and in response to public pressure regarding welfare reforms, and has been met with skepticism about the sincerity of the claim and whether it genuinely addresses the needs of those affected.
Cllr Middleton went on to quote:
• 13-week period of financial support for those affected by PIP changes as part of upcoming welfare reforms.
Mark Webster responds:
Amnesty International has expressed criticism regarding the upcoming welfare reforms in the UK, and in particular the 13-week period of financial support for those affected by changes to PIP.
In their report titled "Social Insecurity," they outline the devastating human rights consequences of the UK's social security system failures. They point out that the current system does not provide adequate support to ensure a decent standard of living for those in need, particularly highlighting that the proposed 13-week financial support is insufficient to address the complexities of poverty and disability in the UK.
Amnesty International has called for a comprehensive review of the social security system, advocating for reforms that prioritise human rights and accessibility. They stress that the current welfare reforms, including the transitional financial support, do not adequately address the systemic issues that lead to poverty and marginalisation.
Cllr Middleton then read out
• Comes alongside £1 billion employment support package that will unlock opportunity and grow the economy as part of the Plan for Change.
Reduction in Support: The recent changes to UC and PIP are part of a broader trend of reducing financial support for disabled individuals.
Mark Webster Responds:
The government has committed £1.3 billion for employment support over the next few years, with £800 million allocated for 2025/2026 and an additional £400 million for 2026/2027.
However, this funding is not sufficient to offset the losses incurred from the cuts to disability benefits. Many disability advocacy groups, including The Green Party, have expressed skepticism about whether this investment will effectively support disabled individuals in finding and maintaining employment. This is also hindered by the fact that the Labour Government has slashed funding for "Access to Work" scheme, and placed strict limitations on what can be provided, arguing that the costs of employing a disabled person should rest with the employer. Thats NOT making it easier for disabled people to get into work!
Cllr Middleton then trotted out the tired and tested statement:
"This government inherited a broken social security system, with costs spiralling at an unsustainable rate and millions of people trapped out of work. The case for change is stark".
Mark Webster Responds:
The characterisation of the social security system as "broken" is a political narrative rather than an objective assessment.
The system has undergone significant changes over the last 15 years. These reforms have been contentious, with many arguing they have led to increased hardship for vulnerable populations rather than improvements in the system itself. Agian, The United Nations, Amnesty Intetnational and The Green Party have been at the forefront arguing the cases for disabled prople, carers and their families.
Cllr Middleton's assertion that costs are "spiraling at an unsustainable rate" are again framed for political gain!
While social security spending has increased, this can be attributed to various factors, including demographic changes and economic conditions, rather than a failure of the system itself. The largest portion of the "benefits" bill being the state pension. I'm sure that many retirees would agree that it is not a benefit, but payments due for their honouring the social contract when they joined the workforce.
The claim that "millions of people are trapped out of work" can be easily disputed. In areas like Telford, for every job a disabled person can do, there are 333 disabled people for that single job according to the latest statistics!
And again, I reiterate, Labour have SLASHED funding for The Access to Work Scheme for disabled people!
Cllr Middleton's next, was the tired Labour trope:
• Since the pandemic, the number of PIP awards has more than doubled – up from 13,000 a month to 34,000 a month. That is around 1,000 people signing on to PIP every day – that is roughly the size of Leicester signing up every year.
Mark Webster responds:
It is not disputed that since the pandemic there has been a huge increase in the number of mental health related claims for disability welfare, and can be directly linked to the policies and cuts implemented by the previous Conservative government, particularly concerning NHS and mental health services. But cutting funding before putting services back in place is only going to end increasing the number of deaths attributed to the DWP and the sitting government.
This increase in claims reflects a growing recognition of mental health issues as significant barriers to daily functioning and employment. Labour MP Shaun Davies has done his part too, by securing over £125,000 in benefits that people are entitled to, and not been claiming!
The cuts to mental health services has created a cycle where individuals are pushed into greater need for financial support through PIP. As people struggle with untreated mental health conditions, the demand for PIP has risen sharply, indicating that the government's approach to welfare reform is short-sighted.
As the current Labour government considers further reforms, we are calling for a more compassionate approach that prioritises mental health support and recognises the interconnectedness of health services and welfare needs!
Then Cllr Middleton trotted out another old trope:
• Almost 1 million young people – 1 in 8 - are not in education, employment or training.
Mark Webster responds:
The claim that "almost 1 million young people – 1 in 8 - are not in education, employment or training (NEET)" reflects a significant issue but lacks context.
Current NEET Rates are approximately 13% of young people aged 16 to 24. This figure has been relatively stable, with slight fluctuations over recent years.
The about 59% of NEET individuals are economically inactive, meaning they are not looking for work primarily due to long-term health issues, caregiving responsibilities, or other personal circumstances. For instance, 27% of NEET young people report health conditions as a barrier to employment, while 13% are engaged in family care. This context suggests that the NEET status is not solely a reflection of economic failure but also of personal and health-related challenges.
While the statistics are portrayed as alarming, it is crucial to note that many young people transition out of NEET status quickly. Approximately one-third of young people who become NEET return to education, employment, or training within six months.
When compared to other countries, the UK’s NEET rate is lower than the OECD average for both age groups 15-19 and 20-24. Suggesting that while the issue is significant, it is not unique to the UK and is part of a broader global challenge regarding youth employment and education.
With Cllr Middleton framing the NEET issue as she has, she shows that she is not taking into account nuances in the facts, and this oversimplification leads to misguided council policies that fail to address the underlying causes of youth disengagement.
Furthermore, her and the councils lack of depth in understanding results in solutions that are ineffective or even counterproductive.
Cllr Middleton then rattled off from the Shaun Davies playbook:
• 1-in-10 people of working age are now claiming a sickness or disability benefit.
Mark Webster's response
While accurate, the framing is once again negative towards the disabled people! These disabilities have been compounded by the lack of investment in NHS services and by framing the responsibility on the individual instead of the states failings is scapegoating the sick and disabled community
Cllr Middleton went on to trott out another Labout party trope:
•" Without reform, the number of working age people on disability benefits is set to more than double this decade to 4.3 million."
Mark Webster responds
Again, Labour, and Cllr Middleton, are framing this as the sick and disabled persons problem, when it is the failure of the state over the last 15 years. Reforming the system before correcting 15 years of neglect is putting the cart before the horse and willingly pushing people into poverty for no reason other than manipulating their figures.
Cllr Middleton seems to have given up, and pulled yet another Labour party trope out of the bag:
• Spending on working age disability and incapacity benefits is up £20 billion since the pandemic and is set to increase by almost that much again by the end of this Parliament, to a staggering £70 billion a year.
Mark Webster's response:
The figures presented are accurate, and yet again, I am forced to repeat, without addressing the root causes, 15 years of neglect means that figure will go up without action. By blaming the sick and disabled she and labour are framing sickness and disability as the individuals fault, and not the states for not providing the necessary health and care services.
Cllr Middleton then closed with another tiredold trope:
That’s why, through the introduction of this Bill; the government is fixing our broken social security system so it supports those who can work to do so while protecting those who cannot - putting welfare spending on a more sustainable path to unlock growth as part of our Plan for Change".
Mark Webster responds
Cllr Middleton and Labour are Failuring to Address Root causes of the disability welfare issues!
Many individuals on disability benefits face significant barriers to employment, including lack of access to appropriate support services and discrimination in the job market.
Labour has cut access to work programme already before these cuts.
The proposed reforms do not tackle the underlying issues, which are crucial for enabling individuals to transition back into work, if they can.
Advocacy groups, United Nations, Amnesty Unternational, and public opinion have largely criticised Labours approach, labeling it as "appalling" and detrimental to those who rely on social security.
Organisations such as Citizens Advice and the Disability Charities Consortium have voiced strong opposition to the proposed cuts, emphasising the potential for increased poverty and hardship among disabled people.
The focus should shift from merely reforming the welfare system to ensuring that it provides adequate support for those who cannot work, while also addressing the barriers that prevent individuals from entering the workforce.
Stop putting the cart before the horse.
Comments
Post a Comment