The following is an open letter written by Ben Golightly from Swansea Disabled People Against Cuts

Dear Torsten Bell MP,

I believe that your recent activity and contradictory statements mean that you owe some serious answers to the public, to members of Swansea Disabled People Against Cuts, and to your party.

Contradictory statements

In your last communication to myself and Swansea Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) by email on Monday 2 June at 17:05, you again reiterated, as your office has consistently done, that you would only, and could only, meet us as constituents, and not as a campaigning group of disabled people from across Swansea as we have requested, and as you were instructed in an open letter signed by more than 250 individuals and organisations, including a national Labour-affiliated trade union.

You also repeated your excuse that you will also not debate with us while there is a public consultation on the disability cuts in process, despite our serious concerns with that consultation process.

We are also aware, two minutes prior to emailing us, at exactly 17:03, you reached out to another disability group offering to meet them to discuss exactly the issue of welfare reforms, on terms that two minutes later you said you could not offer us.

You never insisted that they be constituents. That was always a nonsense excuse: you can meet with any campaign group you wish.

If you merely don’t like us, and want to meet with them instead, that’s your choice. But that’s not the excuse you gave us, or the 45 Swansea Labour councillors, or four Labour members of the Senedd, copied into your email to us. It is not the excuse that has now been seen by more than 100 journalists (as I informed you would be the case).

Given your opposite statements at 17:03 and 17:05, merely two minutes apart, would you care to explain your mental gymnastics?

Is it not completely suspect that, out of nowhere, you finally reached out to this other disability group on the same day that we publicly highlighted your failure to engage in front of the press and your party?

Offensive language

We have never used the sort of language that you have used regularly against critics: “memes of the keyboard warriors” (on the day of the Spring statement when 100 disabled people attended our protest in Swansea), “burden” (in the context of carers), “cheap” and “lazy” (when talking to pensions economists), and most recently “garbage” “meme muppets”.

When we complained about the use of the word “burden” (and other words), under press attention you deleted the post, called us liars, and tried to have the claims retracted in the press. We robustly defended our claims and they remain published.

The language you use is your business and the public can judge. You are entitled to argue about the context. But when you do, you are not entitled to delete the context and call people liars.

Despite your attempts to muddy the water by telling everyone how open you are to meetings with our members who are constituents (we have never asked for this, and you know that), we have been at pains to clarify exactly the issue at hand: you will not meet us as a group, and you will not face us in a public debate.

There is no point in meeting you as constituents. You have nailed your colours to the mast and defended the cuts on Newsnight. We want an equal right of reply to the dodgy talking points from yourself, and other ministers (e.g. Rachel Reeves comparing disability benefits to “children’s pocket money”, Liz Kendell’s “taking the mickey”).

You have since repeated your claims that we have lied. Given your repeated accusations of dishonesty, there is no way we can possibly meet you behind closed doors without a journalist present, so that the press and the public can judge for themselves.

We have always wanted to debate and defeat your policies, not have a personalised spat or an exchange of insults over social media. That is why we repeatedly asked you for a fair and respectful public debate.

Given the circumstances, however, and given the language you are always the first one to use, I think we have earned the right to ask, Mr. Bell:

1. Were you genuinely reaching out to another disability group at the same time as refusing to meet with us, or were you merely seeking to use them to cover for your lack of engagement, and feeling pressured by disabled people campaigning against your policies?

2. Do you spend too much time on social media looking at memes and insulting people instead of listening?

3. Are you a bully?

4. Are you a liar?

5. Will you finally apologise for your language and behaviour and retract your multiple, repeated, false public claims that Swansea DPAC has ever lied?

6. Will you finally defend your policies, like a grown up, in a fair and respectful public debate with Disabled People Against Cuts?

This sorry business could all have been avoided if you had simply met with us, as requested, so that we could hash out our differences, and if you had taken one of the many opportunities to simply apologise and retract your statements. Obviously, you will never agree to debate your policies with us, because the disability cuts that you defend are, in fact, indefensible.

I look forward to your reply, public apology and retraction.

Start listening

The Pathways to work green paper is a flawed document, from its first word to its last, and must be withdrawn. We urge the government to stop, and start again on welfare reform, genuinely consulting with disabled people and carers from day one in a process of co-production.

Instead, disabled people have had to fight tooth and nail against flawed consultations and MPs and ministers who are not listening.

I was informed today (as a ticket-holder) that the in-person consultation for Wales has now been rearranged – properly, in a central location, with advance notice. This is how it should have been everywhere.

Let there be no doubt: like everywhere else, disabled people in Wales would have had to settle for a blatantly discriminatory and inaccessible consultation if we had not, through campaigning, forced you to do better. It should not have taken protests, media scrutiny, and a member of the Senedd (literally) raising our letter in the Welsh Parliament for the DWP to arrange a simple meeting. Given those failures, how can we trust the DWP to support disabled workers?

It is utterly unconscionable that, as reported by the i paper, the welfare cuts bill may be presented to parliament before the consultation has even finished.

Reactions

The United Nations said in 2007, and repeated in 2024, “there is reliable evidence that the threshold of grave or systematic violations of the rights of persons with disabilities has been crossed.”

“The UK’s fragmented, cruel and punitive approach creates a cascading effect of human rights violations” said Amnesty UK in 2025.

And now you are defending tightening eligibility and reducing support.

Carers UK call the proposals their “worst fears”, an “unprecedented step in the wrong direction”, “shocking and shameful”. Disability benefits cuts are creating a public health emergency, say health professionals. Benefits cuts will drive people into homelessness, warn 14 organisations in the homelessness sector.

Disability Wales call your proposals “cruel” and “unjust” and say it will “threaten the financial security and basic human rights of disabled people across the country.”

The Resolution Foundation calls the proposals “a short-term ‘scored’ savings exercise, rather than a long-term reform.” The New Economic Foundation says that the proposals are “driven by the Chancellor’s self-imposed fiscal rules rather than a focus on supporting ill and disabled people,” “will not help people to return to work”, are “simply not true” and an “economic fantasy”. It says that “Rachel Reeves’ spring statement is built on shaky foundations”.

Trade unions have also hit out: PCS has called the proposals a “blatant attack”, “immoral”, “abhorrent”, and “cruel”. Unison has described the cuts as a “false economy”, and says that the government must “row back”. FBU has described them as a “Thatcherite assault”, instructing Labour MPs to vote against. NEU has called it “simply indefensible”. Unite general secretary Sharon Graham says “if you closed your eyes, you would not think it was a Labour government”. CWU calls the cuts “cruel”, “immoral”, and warns “Labour will be a one term government if it continues down this path”. BFAWU describes the proposals as “yet another attempt to balance the budget on the backs of the poorest”, “fundamentally flawed”, and “cuts disguised as ‘support’.”

The TSSA “strongly opposes the government’s proposed changes to Personal Independence Payment (PIP), which will negatively affect millions of people across the UK, including many of our own working members” and “stands firmly with all those affected by these proposals.”

Citizens Advice say that “by refusing to properly consult on its plan to cut billions from disability benefits, the government is choosing not to ask questions it doesn’t want the answers to. The cuts will have a devastating impact on disabled people (and their children), sending hundreds of thousands into poverty, and many more into deeper poverty. This will result from a series of arbitrary reforms that have been designed around savings targets rather than improving outcomes, inflicting hardship on people in ways that the government doesn’t yet fully understand.”

Please do the decent thing.

Sincerely,

Ben Golightly

Swansea Disabled People Against Cuts

Featured image via the Canary