Connect with us

Politics

Liz Kendall Faces Criticism Over Disabled Benefits Cuts and Strategy Delays

Editorial

Published

on

In a recent parliamentary session, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall faced intense scrutiny regarding proposed cuts to welfare benefits, including a substantial reduction of £5 billion from the welfare budget. The confrontation came during a meeting of the Work and Pensions Committee, where Liberal Democrat MP Steve Darling accused the government of neglecting to consult disabled individuals about these changes.

Mr. Darling, who is registered blind, challenged Ms. Kendall’s assertion that recent welfare reforms were “in the right place.” He highlighted the planned cuts to Personal Independence Payments (PIP), a crucial support for many disabled people, which have now been postponed pending a review by DWP Minister Sir Stephen Timms scheduled for next year. The heated exchange underscored concerns about the government’s approach to disability benefits amid significant legislative alterations to avoid a potential defeat in the House of Commons.

During the hearing, Ms. Kendall acknowledged the difficulties surrounding the reforms, describing the process as a “bumpy ride.” She stated, “We have to start shifting resources into the things that really help create better lives for people.” While Ms. Kendall emphasized her commitment to aiding individuals with long-term health conditions, Mr. Darling pointed out the lack of prior consultation with disabled communities regarding the proposed changes to PIP, asking, “Why did you ignore disabled people?”

In response, Ms. Kendall refuted the claim of neglect, asserting that disabled individuals would be central to the upcoming Timms review. She argued that the department was focusing on broader issues that contribute to poverty and disadvantage, such as poor health, inadequate job opportunities, and insufficient skills training. “This department ends up picking up the pieces of the problems that are deep-rooted from many other government areas, and we’ve got to change that,” she explained.

The Work and Pensions Secretary also faced questions regarding the government’s delayed child poverty strategy, which is now anticipated to be released in the autumn. Mr. Darling pressed her on the issue, noting the urgency of addressing the plight of the approximately 4.5 million children living in poverty. Ms. Kendall countered that the government has already taken significant steps, such as expanding free school meals for children in households receiving Universal Credit, calling these measures a “down payment” on tackling child poverty.

Despite her reassurances, Mr. Darling remained unconvinced, reiterating the importance of timely action for children in poverty. He accused Ms. Kendall of evading questions about the delay in releasing the child poverty strategy, to which she responded, “We want to get this right… we have not had slippage on tackling child poverty.”

As the government navigates these contentious issues, the future of welfare reforms and the strategies to combat child poverty remain critical areas of focus. Ms. Kendall’s assurances of commitment to these causes will be closely monitored by both political opponents and advocacy groups as the reviews and strategies unfold in the coming months.

Our Editorial team doesn’t just report the news—we live it. Backed by years of frontline experience, we hunt down the facts, verify them to the letter, and deliver the stories that shape our world. Fueled by integrity and a keen eye for nuance, we tackle politics, culture, and technology with incisive analysis. When the headlines change by the minute, you can count on us to cut through the noise and serve you clarity on a silver platter.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © All rights reserved. This website offers general news and educational content for informational purposes only. While we strive for accuracy, we do not guarantee the completeness or reliability of the information provided. The content should not be considered professional advice of any kind. Readers are encouraged to verify facts and consult relevant experts when necessary. We are not responsible for any loss or inconvenience resulting from the use of the information on this site.