Contents

Labour accused of ‘horrifying’ betrayal of disabled people after slashing Tory accessible housing target 1

Watchdog dismisses DWP’s description of DNS editor as ‘vengeful’ and ‘vexatious’ for asking to see deaths email 3

Labour ministers considered means-testing PIP, but later ruled it out, watchdog’s report shows 6

Welsh government publishes 10-year plan for disability rights… but fails to include any long-term policies 8

Falconer dismisses attempts to protect four groups of disabled people in assisted dying bill 11

Government’s housing agency fails to mention accessible homes in new five-year strategy 14

Watchdog’s league table on rail passenger assistance is ‘misleading’, say accessible transport campaigners 16

Minister rejects pleas from disabled peers for national wheelchair and equipment strategy 18

Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week 20

Labour accused of ‘horrifying’ betrayal of disabled people after slashing Tory accessible housing target

The Labour government has been accused of a “truly horrifying” betrayal of disabled people after slashing an accessible housing target proposed by the last Conservative government.

On 18 March 2024, Tory housing minister Felicity Buchan finally promised to introduce new rules that would ensure all new homes were built to the strict M4(2)* standard of accessibility, except for cases where this was “impractical and unachievable”.

Conservative ministers had been considering and consulting on the measure – a long-standing demand of the disabled people’s movement – for at least five years, but the general election came before any further action was taken.

This week, the Labour government – after more than a year of delays and false promises – finally published its own plans for accessible housing in a consultation on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework.

But the consultation shows that Labour wants to cut the percentage of new homes that should be built to the M4(2) standard from 100 per cent – under the Tory plans – to just 40 per cent.

Housing secretary Steve Reed said the new framework would “get Britain building” and “place the key to homeownership into the hands of thousands more hardworking people and families”.

But instead of supporting plans for all new homes to be built to a decent accessible homes standard, the consultation document says the government is “proposing a national minimum that ensures at least 40% of new housing over the course of the plan period is delivered to M4(2) standards”.

There will also be no minimum level for the proportion of new homes that are suitable for wheelchair-users, which disabled housing campaigners believe should be set to at least 10 per cent.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves said the reforms “back the builders not the blockers, unlock investment and make it easier to build the 1.5 million new homes across every region – rebuilding the foundations of our economy and making affordable homes a reality for working people once again”.

The government’s press release announcing the consultation includes a string of approving comments from the home-building industry.

Disabled people and their organisations now have the opportunity to deliver their response to the consultation, which ends on 10 March.

But Fazilet Hadi, head of policy for Disability Rights UK, has already accused the government of a “lack of principle” and betraying disabled people.

She said: “The announcement that only 40 per cent of new build homes need to be built to improved accessibility standards is truly horrifying, leaving disabled people feeling betrayed and excluded, and questioning the government’s commitment to disability equality.

“In a society where the number of disabled people across all ages is increasing and in which only a tiny fraction of homes are accessible, it is absolutely incredible to witness the government’s lack of principle and lack of forward planning.

“Requiring 100 per cent of all new-build homes to be built to improved accessibility standards with 10 per cent to wheelchair-user standards would have been the right thing to do, creating a level playing-field for developers and sending a strong signal that our housing stock must change, to meet the needs of our older and disabled citizens.

“The government’s failure of resolve and watered-down proposal leaves a bitter taste, raising questions about whose interests are being served.”

Inclusion London also criticised the move.

It said the government’s proposal “falls short of what disabled people need” and would leave thousands with unmet housing needs.

Laura Vicinanza, Inclusion London’s senior policy and stakeholder engagement manager, said the government had “pledged in their manifesto to champion the rights of disabled people” and “promised to work with us and put our voices at the heart of decision-making”.

She said: “We believe the government should follow the London Plan approach on accessible housing, where 90 per cent of new-build homes are planned to be accessible and adaptable and [another] 10 per cent to be wheelchair-accessible.

“This approach delivers far better outcomes for disabled people than other areas in England.

“We urge the government to reconsider their approach, listen to disabled people and develop ambitious planning policies that leave no one behind.”

Asked how Reed justified slashing the accessible housing target, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government had not commented by 11am today (Thursday).

*Homes built to the M4(2) standard have 16 accessible or adaptable features, similar to the Lifetime Homes standard developed in the early 1990s to make homes more easily adaptable for lifetime use, while M4(3) homes are those that are supposed to be fully wheelchair-accessible

18 December 2025

Watchdog dismisses DWP’s description of DNS editor as ‘vengeful’ and ‘vexatious’ for asking to see deaths email

The information commissioner has dismissed attempts by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to describe a disabled journalist as “vengeful” and “vexatious” after he tried to obtain information about its years of safeguarding failings.

Disability News Service (DNS) editor John Pring was trying to secure an unredacted version of a DWP email that is likely to reveal key information about links between the department and hundreds, and probably thousands, of deaths over the last 15 years.

But DWP refused to release the email, accusing Pring of a “vexatious” request, and later telling the information commissioner that his years of investigations* suggested he was a “vengeful requester” and that his actions could cause distress to the department’s civil servants.

Information commissioner John Edwards has now concluded that DWP failed to provide any evidence for its claims.

His decision notice said Pring’s continuing freedom of information efforts were “clearly in the public interest” and that the department “cannot label a requester vengeful on the basis that they publish articles that do not agree with DWP’s actions”.

The email DNS has been seeking was sent from the office of Tory work and pensions secretary Therese Coffey in February 2021, but the document was almost completely redacted, with eight of its nine bullet points blacked out, when it was provided to Pring in response to an earlier request.

The email related to a secret “critical friend” report written for Coffey by Conservative peer Baroness Neville-Rolfe, which called on DWP to reduce the number of suicides of benefit claimants and other “very bad cases” linked to its actions.

DWP refused to release the unredacted email, telling DNS in response to a freedom of information request in February 2025 that the request was “vexatious”.

When DNS complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), DWP told the commissioner that Pring had imposed a significant “burden” on the department over “a period of years” relating to “the work the Department undertakes to support vulnerable customers”.

What DWP did not tell the commissioner was that these freedom of information requests, which date back more than a decade, have helped expose how senior DWP figures spent more than a decade covering up evidence linking the department with countless deaths of disabled people who relied on the social security system.

Pring’s book on these deaths, The Department, was published last year*, and was praised by the incoming Labour minister for social security and disability, Sir Stephen Timms.

The freedom of information requests have also led to numerous parliamentary interventions, national media coverage, and repeated public humiliation for senior civil servants and DWP ministers from both the Conservative and Labour parties.

But DWP told the information commissioner that Pring’s work indicated “a negative approach to the work that the Department undertakes to support vulnerable people” and “leads to the view that this request is part of a persistent and repetitive campaign and so vexatious in nature”.

It said this indicated that Pring could be considered a “vengeful requester”.

And after Pring described the initial claim that he was being “vexatious” as “ridiculous”, DWP told the information commissioner that the “repeated requests for information and the tone and language used by the complainant in communications… could be considered as harassment and has the potential to cause distress to DWP colleagues”.

Because the February 2021 email was written four years previously, DWP added, the freedom of information (FOI) request was “diminished in value and not justified”.

There was no mention in DWP’s evidence to the commissioner that many of Pring’s requests over more than a decade had exposed wrongdoing and cover-ups and how the department’s actions had led to the deaths of countless disabled claimants.

Edwards said in his decision notice that the department had failed to provide “any evidence or detailed explanations to substantiate its assertions”, while he was “not persuaded that the request can be characterised as vexatious”, and he was “disappointed at the paucity of DWP’s arguments”.

He said: “The complainant is an investigative journalist specialising in disability and welfare rights.

“Whilst FOI requests to DWP may cause a burden, they are a recognised part of the journalistic process.”

He added: “Scrutiny of information relating to previous decisions or actions by a public authority is clearly in the public interest, for example to aid understanding of actions taken and whether lessons were learned.”

And he concluded: “It is not the role of a journalist to cast a positive light on information obtained under FOIA**.

“DWP cannot label a requester vengeful on the basis that they publish articles that do not agree with DWP’s actions.”

The commissioner also dismissed any suggestion of harassment, saying in the decision notice: “It is well established that public officials should be open to scrutiny and criticism.

“Whilst they should obviously be protected from excessive or distressing criticism, DWP has provided no evidence that this has occurred in this case.”

DWP will now need to provide a new response to Pring’s FOI request to see the unredacted email.

It is just the latest in a string of DWP failures on transparency since Labour came to power, continuing years of similar failings under successive Conservative-led governments.

At Labour’s annual conference in Liverpool, in September 2024, Sir Stephen told Pring: “The department has absurdly refused to answer lots of the questions that you have asked and that is something that we want to change… because public scrutiny is a good thing, and it puts pressure on ministers and on civil servants to have the consequences of what they are doing known about publicly.”

Despite his words, the failures on transparency have continued in the last 15 months.

Asked to comment on the ICO ruling, the department’s refusal to follow his plea for greater transparency, and whether the department should apologise to Pring, Sir Stephen had not responded by 11am today (Thursday).

Asked if the department would apologise for its comments about Pring, if it accepted a culture change was necessary within DWP, and if it would now release the unredacted email, a DWP spokesperson said: “We are currently considering the ICO’s decision notice and will respond within the timescales set by the commissioner.”

Debbie Abrahams, the Labour chair of the Commons work and pensions committee, said in a statement: “One of the foundations of a thriving democracy is the publication of accurate information for scrutiny in a safe and timely manner.

“In its decision, the commissioner noted that the DWP had taken the wrong interpretation of the rules about which he had written to the department before on its poor FOI record, and it’s right it be made to look at its practices again.

“Freedom of Information rules are in place to hold the balance between the privacy of people and the sensitivities of information and the public interest in knowing that information, and they should be adhered to.”

*The Department: How a Violent Government Bureaucracy Killed Hundreds and Hid the Evidence, Pring’s book on the years of deaths linked to DWP’s actions and failings, is published by Pluto Press

**The Freedom of Information Act

18 December 2025

Labour ministers considered means-testing PIP, but later ruled it out, watchdog’s report shows

Labour ministers considered the possibility of means-testing personal independence payment (PIP) last year, but then ruled out the option, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has admitted.

A decision notice issued by the information commissioner reveals that ministers considered means-testing PIP in the “early days” of the Labour government, which was elected in July 2024.

But the potential policy, which has been under discussion within DWP for at least five years – and almost certainly much longer – was rejected by early this year.

The information came following a freedom of information request by welfare rights expert Finn Keaney, who asked DWP in May for reports produced since Labour came to power in July 2024 that discussed the possibility of making PIP a means-tested benefit.

When DWP responded, it admitted that it “holds information relevant to your request”.

It also admitted that there was “a legitimate public interest in understanding the rationale behind proposed changes to disability benefits, including whether and how the Department has considered the option of means-testing PIP”.

It then added: “The information requested includes early-stage analysis and internal advice that is directly informing live policy development.”

But it refused to release the documents, taking advantage of a Freedom of Information Act exemption that “protects the private space within which Ministers and their policy advisers can develop policies without the risk of premature disclosure”.

Keaney complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) about DWP’s refusal to release the documents.

Although the commissioner has now ruled in DWP’s favour, the ICO decision notice makes it clear that means-testing PIP was considered by Labour DWP ministers and then ruled out as a policy option.

DWP told the commissioner that the advice and analysis documents it held were “part of active policy discussions” that influenced the government’s decision-making on PIP and the broader system to support disabled people.

And it said the material included “advice and analysis developed during early policy formulation and was considered alongside other potential options”.

Keaney had previously pointed to the limited opportunity for public scrutiny of many of the government’s plans for welfare reforms, and to the risk that DWP was avoiding “meaningful scrutiny and feedback from those affected”.

He told DWP earlier this year that this meant there was “an increased urgency and importance for the public to have oversight of welfare policy at the earliest stages of its development”, to avoid undermining democracy and restricting the public’s ability to hold the government to account over policy development.

But DWP told the commissioner that the government has now “confirmed its commitment to maintaining PIP as a non-means-tested cash benefit”, and it warned that “publishing advice on policy options not pursued could lead to unnecessary confusion or concern”.

The department also acknowledged the “legitimate public interest in understanding the rationale for changes to disability benefits and how means-testing of PIP has been considered” but said that PIP reform was “highly sensitive and remains under active public and Parliamentary scrutiny”.

Despite DWP admitting that means-testing PIP had been ruled out, the commissioner said that releasing the documents “would have a direct and detrimental impact on the policy development process”.

He said there would be “a significant public interest” in the information because it would “aid the public’s understanding of policy considerations relating to welfare reform” and would provide “interested stakeholders” with an “insight into the analysis of the issues in question”.

But he concluded that “the balance of the public interest” meant the papers should not be released.

The government is currently reviewing the future of PIP, with the review led by Sir Stephen Timms, the minister for social security and disability, and two disabled co-chairs, Dr Clenton Farquharson and Sharon Brennan.

There has been mounting evidence that DWP civil servants have been keen – and possibly still are – to cut spending on disability benefits by means-testing PIP.

Two years ago, Disability News Service (DNS) was told that participants in focus groups had been asked questions about which groups of people “deserve” various benefits and what they think about the idea of means-testing “extra cost” benefits.

Questions about the “extra cost benefit” ended with participants being asked whether it should be means-tested on the grounds of “affordability”, although it was never clear who had funded the focus groups.

Two years earlier, the Conservative government had published its Shaping Future Support green paper, which suggested that ministers could create a “new single benefit” to simplify the disability benefits application and assessment process, which could “provide support for disabled people and people with health conditions on low income and with extra costs”.

Work and pensions secretary Therese Coffey later told DNS at a fringe meeting at the party’s annual conference in October 2021 that merging PIP with universal credit was “on the table”.

Just a month later, DNS reported how a DWP civil servant had told a disability charity that the Conservative government planned to merge PIP with universal credit, although not for at least six years.

Meanwhile, new official statistics show complaints about DWP have rocketed in the last year.

The number of complaints received rose from 5,260 in the quarter ending September 2024 to 8,005 in the quarter ending September 2025, an increase of 52 per cent.

The most striking increase related to universal credit, where complaints increased by 82 per cent compared to the September 2024 quarter (from 2,200 complaints to 4,005).

Complaints about DWP mistakes, delays, and a lack of respect from DWP staff all rose on the previous quarter.

Complaints to the Independent Case Examiner, which act as an appeal process for those not satisfied with the outcome of a DWP complaint, also rose steeply.

For the September 2025 quarter, ICE received 2,645 complaints, an increase of 13 per cent from the previous quarter (2,334 complaints), and an increase of 61 per cent from September 2024 (1,642).

18 December 2025

Welsh government publishes 10-year plan for disability rights… but fails to include any long-term policies

The much-anticipated disability rights plan for Wales has left it to the next Welsh government to come up with a strategy to tackle the long-term barriers disabled people face in their daily lives.

When the Welsh government published its long-awaited plan on Monday (15 December), following a 12-week public consultation, it was accompanied by no major announcements or new funding.

Instead, the Disabled People’s Rights Plan 2025 to 2035 offers more than 60 short-term actions, which the Welsh government expects to be completed by 2027.

Most of these are minor measures, listing actions the Welsh government is already taking, or promising reviews, to update guidance, conduct evaluations, improve engagement, or raise awareness.

There is no pledge in the plan to introduce a right to independent living, no promise to incorporate the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities into Welsh law, and no commitment to funding disabled people’s organisations, all demands made by Disability Wales in its new manifesto.

There is also no promise to create a new minister for disabled people, another Disability Wales demand.

The explanation for the lack of long-term action is hidden on page 24 of the 80-page document, with the plan admitting: “Future Governments will set the medium to long-term actions they will take to achieve the ambition and outcomes for disabled people set out in this 10-year plan.”

The plan does not even include details of how progress will be measured, with that still to be decided.

But in one of the few new measures announced in the document, a new external advisory board, which will be led by disabled people, will “provide independent advice and guidance” on implementing the plan.

Instead of detailing a long-term strategy, the 80 pages are filled with descriptions of the existing barriers disabled people face across neighbourhoods, places, and transport; employment, income, and education; independent living, health, and social care; and justice and supporting environments.

The plan also lists existing legislation, strategies, action plans, programmes, guidance, frameworks and reviews.

Among the short-term actions announced in a separate document, the government promises an update of anti-bullying and safeguarding guidance; to work with local authorities and transport operators to update data on blue badge parking spaces; and to “collaborate with disabled people’s organisations to design and deliver a new funding stream that addresses social care needs”.

On a right to independent living, it promises only “to continue to work with all providers, including local authorities, to ensure that disabled individuals are able to live independently at home, wherever possible”.

The roots of the plan lie in the ground-breaking Locked Out report, which was co-produced with disabled people, and commissioned by the Welsh government, and which exposed the levels of exclusion experienced by disabled people in Wales during the pandemic.

The report led to a Disability Rights Taskforce and now the Welsh government’s 10-year Disabled People’s Rights Plan.

Chairs of the taskforce’s working groups will be included on the plan’s new external advisory board. 

Disabled campaigners who worked on the taskforce were reluctant this week to criticise the Welsh government’s plan, stressing instead the need to pressure future governments to fill out the long-term strategy.

They also highlighted the “unprecedented” level of co-production with disabled people that has taken place.

Disability Wales*, which is part-funded by the Welsh government, declined to comment on the content of the plan.

But DW’s chief executive Rhian Davies, a member of the Disability Rights Taskforce and chair of its independent living/social care working group, said the plan was “born from the dark days of the pandemic, where disabled people were an afterthought in public policy, resulting in high numbers of avoidable deaths and thousands more facing loneliness, isolation and hardship”.

She said: “Coupled with over a decade of austerity and the cost-of-living crisis, many disabled people are ‘barely surviving’.

“Nevertheless, the high level of engagement among disabled people in the work of the taskforce, together with the collective leadership demonstrated by the 10 taskforce working group chairs, shows the resilience and commitment within our community to creating a more inclusive future where disabled people ‘truly thrive’.

“With Senedd elections on the horizon, taking forward delivery of the plan will fall to the new Welsh government working co-productively with the external advisory board, including pinning down detail regarding the actions as well as the measurement framework.

“It is vital that the cross-party commitment secured to date follows through beyond the election to ensure that the demands of disabled people for an equitable and inclusive society in Wales are fully realised.”

Joe Powell, chief executive of All Wales People First, which is also part-funded by the Welsh government, described the plan as “a new and ambitious vision for Wales”, which was “unprecedented in its co-production with disabled people and represents the most detailed and comprehensive involvement and feedback from disabled people to date”.

He said: “For the plan to achieve its intended impact, it is vital that any incoming Welsh government builds on the existing short-term, micro-level targets and develops these into a fully realised macro-level approach over the plan’s 10-year lifespan.

“Without sustained commitment of time and resources, there is a significant risk that the plan will fail to deliver meaningful change, undermining the trust and goodwill of disabled people across Wales.”

Dr Natasha Hirst, a disabled activist who chaired the taskforce’s access to services working group, praised the “positive language and aspirations” of the plan, which were in “stark contrast to the deeply dehumanising and punitive rhetoric and policies of the UK government”.

She said the “long period of genuine co-production with disabled people and our organisations in Wales” had been “an important process for identifying the barriers that exclude us and damage our quality of life and has built an institutional and political commitment to the social model”.

She added: “There’s still much more to be done and it’s essential that we now secure cross-party support for this 10-year plan.

“Political parties must make a firm commitment to taking it forward in their election manifestos and supporting the funding of the work once a new government is in place.”

Jane Hutt, the Welsh government’s cabinet secretary for social justice, said in a statement alongside the plan’s publication: “We are committed to ensuring that disabled people can participate in Welsh society on an equitable basis, free from barriers, and to creating an inclusive and accessible environment for all.

“This 10-year plan represents our commitment to true inclusion and participation.

“I thank the Disability Rights Taskforce and everyone who contributed to the consultation, ensuring the plan is grounded in lived experience.

“We must now all work together to make sure the plan succeeds and that the values of accessibility, inclusion, and co-production are central in all that we do.”

*Disability Wales is a Disability News Service subscriber

18 December 2025

Falconer dismisses attempts to protect four groups of disabled people in assisted dying bill

The Labour peer trying to steer the assisted suicide bill through the House of Lords has rejected attempts to remove eligibility from disabled people who are homeless, in prison or pregnant, and from many young disabled people.

Lord Falconer rejected amendments – several of which were suggested by disabled crossbench peer Baroness [Tanni] Grey-Thompson – that would have prevented disabled people in all four groups from being eligible for an assisted death.

The amendments were dismissed by Falconer as the Lords again debated some of more than 1,150 amendments proposed to the terminally ill adults (end of life) bill, which would offer the possibility of an assisted suicide to terminally-ill people in England and Wales who have been found to have less than six months to live and are over the age of 18.

Baroness Grey-Thompson had proposed amendments that would have protected those impacted by imprisonment, pregnancy and homelessness, and which she said she had suggested to “invite debate” on how these groups could be affected by legalising assisted dying.

On homelessness, she said: “We have to understand the impact that homelessness might have on people’s decision-making abilities.”

Baroness [Sue] Gray, former chief of staff to prime minister Sir Keir Starmer, told fellow peers: “Not only are people who are homeless by definition cut off from and invisible to key public services, including healthcare, but they often have complex further needs, such as abusive relationships, poor mental health and addiction.

“How can we imagine that they will not be at risk of being offered an assisted death simply because those needs are judged too hard to meet, or because someone else has decided that their lives are not worthwhile?”

She said that had happened in Canada, where “the parameters for an assisted death were widened soon after the law was passed, and we duly saw examples of individuals dying by Medicaid explicitly because they were affected by isolation and homelessness”.

She said: “While I have other reservations about the bill and the pressuring effect it will have on disadvantaged groups, I am especially concerned that we are looking to introduce it at a time when the cost of living means that homelessness has reached critical levels throughout the UK.”

She added: “It is wholly impossible to justify leaving out safeguards that would prevent homeless people being coerced into an assisted death, whether through abuse, absence of choice or simply their despair.”

Baroness [Nuala] O’Loan, the human rights expert and former police ombudsman for Northern Ireland, told peers on Friday (12 December): “Solutions to things such as poverty and homelessness should not involve offering people assisted death rather than a home, possibly in sheltered accommodation, in which they may be able to flourish.”

On pregnancy, Baroness Grey-Thompson said: “A woman may or may not know that she is pregnant. She may be more or less than 24 weeks pregnant.

“A woman may prefer to terminate the pregnancy prior to requesting assisted death, or she may not; she may just choose to carry on to end her life.

“But having information available is a really important part of making an informed decision.”

She said states and countries around the world that had legalised assisted dying had come up with varied ways of dealing with the issue, which she said were “really important things that we need to have much more clarity on”.

On prisoners, Baroness Grey-Thompson said they “can be very vulnerable and prone to suicide” and can also “experience a lack of care and palliative care”.

Baroness [Claire] Fox, the former Brexit Party MEP, said prisoners should be omitted from any bill.

She said: “Letting prisoners have access to and be eligible for assisted death would be very close to reckless state abandonment of those prisoners to something very deeply dark.”

The state “effectively putting a prisoner to death via lethal drugs” was “far too like capital punishment, which I have long opposed and do not approve of”, she said.

Lord [Kevin] Shinkwin, the disabled Conservative peer, supported an amendment that would have prevented any young disabled person with an education, health and care plan (EHCP) from being eligible for an assisted death.

He said it would protect “vulnerable young adults who deserve and need extra protection on account of their disability” and that such protection was “neither patronising nor discriminatory”.

But Lord Falconer dismissed all four sets of amendments, around homeless people, prisoners, those who are pregnant, and young disabled people with EHCPs.

On terminally-ill people who were homeless, he said he was “very strongly against that right to an assisted death being taken away from them, but the safeguards will apply, to be sure that it is their clear and settled view and not the product of coercion”.

He said he believed prisoners “should be entitled to exactly the same position as everybody else” because the safeguards in the bill were “sufficient” and it would “be wrong to exclude prisoners from this right”.

On pregnancy, he said that “safeguards can adequately deal with this, and I am not in favour of any change in relation to it”.

And he said he was also “very against” excluding anyone with an EHCP being excluded from the bill’s provisions, again because of the safeguards already within the bill.

He pointed to comments he made the previous week, in which he said it was right to consider whether “enhanced protection” was needed for all those under 25 – which will include those with an EHCP – although he believed 18 was the right minimum age for an assisted death.

The issues around further protection for prisoners, homeless people, disabled young people and pregnancy are likely to be discussed again at the bill’s report stage.

Peers have now dealt with only 10 of more than 80 groups they will need to debate to finish the Lords committee stage of the bill, with all the bill’s remaining stages needing to be completed by the time parliament’s current session ends, probably in May, for it to become law.

18 December 2025

Government’s housing agency fails to mention accessible homes in new five-year strategy

The government’s housing and regeneration agency has failed to explain why its new five-year strategy fails to mention disabled people, or the need to address the accessible housing crisis.

Homes England published its five-year strategic plan last week.

It came just days before the government launched a consultation on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework, which is set to slash targets for accessible new homes that were promised by the last Conservative government (see separate story).

The Homes England document brags of how the agency has “established itself as an essential delivery partner in tackling the nation’s housing challenges”.

And it says it will need to “radically increase” its activity so it can support the sector in delivering the government’s target of 1.5 million new homes by the end of the parliament.

The strategic plan also describes the agency’s responsibility to drive innovation in “modern construction methods”, design, environmental sustainability and building safety.

But none of its six objectives mention the urgent need for all new homes to be built to strict accessibility standards, or for more homes to be built that are suitable for wheelchair-users.

Not one of the 15 key performance indicators (KPIs) by which it will track its own performance mentions accessible housing.

Across the document’s 35 pages, there is not a single mention of disabled people or disability, or of accessible housing.

Since its election victory in July 2024, the Labour government has repeatedly failed to take action on the accessible housing crisis, despite promising soon after the election that it would do so “shortly”.

In October 2025, housing secretary Steve Reed failed to include any pledge on accessibility in a major announcement on delivering a series of new towns across England.

A subsequent report on new towns, commissioned by the government, also failed to mention disabled people, with the 135-page report containing only two brief references to the need for accessibility, either of the new homes themselves or the built environment surrounding them, and including no mention of working-age disabled people.

This week, more than 17 months after the general election, the government finally published its plans, which threaten to slash accessible housing targets promised by the Conservative government.

These plans saw the government accused of a “truly horrifying” betrayal of disabled people and of ignoring the accessible housing crisis.

Disabled campaigners and allies wanted the government to strengthen guidance so all new homes must be built to the strict M4(2)* “accessible and adaptable” standard, and a minimum of 10 per cent of new homes meet the M4(3) standard, which means they would be suitable for a wheelchair-user.

But the government wants to cut the percentage of new homes built to M4(2) standard from 100 per cent – under the Tory plans – to just 40 per cent, with no targets for wheelchair-accessible homes.

Mariella Hill, policy and campaigns officer for Inclusion London, which has campaigned for action on accessible housing, said: “Homes England’s failure to mention disabled people or accessible housing in its strategy is a serious omission.

“Only around 13 per cent of homes in England have basic accessibility features, meaning most disabled people cannot even visit, let alone live, in the existing mainstream housing stock.

“Government strategies that ignore this crisis will fund and deliver homes that many of the people who need them most simply cannot use.

“In the meantime, disabled people are trapped in homes that deny their right to an independent life, where they cannot access basic facilities or carry out everyday tasks like showering or cooking.

“The government and its housing agency must focus not just on building more homes, but on building the right kind of homes for the people who urgently need them – accessible social rent homes.”

Homes England refused to explain why it had failed to mention both disabled people and accessible housing in its five-year strategy, but it said in a statement: “As the government’s housing and regeneration agency, our focus is on delivering the high-quality, safe and sustainable homes England needs in vibrant, inclusive communities.

“It is important to us that as many people as possible have access to quality homes that are fit for purpose.

“Accessible housing provision is determined by local planning policy, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.

“Adhering to local planning policy is one of the conditions that all housebuilders must meet when receiving funding from us.”

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government had failed to comment on the Homes England failure by 11am today (Thursday).

*Homes built to the M4(2) standard have 16 accessible or adaptable features, similar to the Lifetime Homes standard developed in the early 1990s to make homes more easily adaptable for lifetime use, while M4(3) homes are those that are supposed to be fully wheelchair-accessible

18 December 2025

Watchdog’s league table on rail passenger assistance is ‘misleading’, say accessible transport campaigners

Disabled campaigners have dismissed a watchdog’s “misleading” new league table that claims to show the best performers in assisting disabled rail passengers.

The “benchmarking” report by the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) claims that two of the best-performing train companies for passenger assistance are Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) and Southeastern.

But GTR and Southeastern are the train companies that have gone furthest in running driver-only operated trains to unstaffed stations, often replacing onboard and station staff with roving “mobile” staffing units, say campaigners.

Three years ago, GTR admitted in a leaked document that it had been breaching access laws for more than 10 years across large parts of its rail network.

Southeastern and GTR were also highlighted three years ago by The Association of British Commuters (ABC) as key offenders for denying disabled passengers the ability to “turn up and go” (TUAG) without booking assistance in advance.

ORR claims Southeastern has the best score for reliability (based on the proportion of disabled passengers who received none of the assistance they had booked in advance) over the last three years.

It ranks the top five providers as Southeastern (eight per cent said they received none of the assistance they had booked), LNER (eight per cent), Network Rail (eight per cent), Avanti West Coast (nine per cent) and GTR (10 per cent).

The worst performer is Northern Trains, with 16 per cent, with South Western Railway (15 per cent) and West Midlands Trains (14 per cent) only slightly better.

Five of the top nine performers in the ORR league table – Southeastern, GTR, Great Western Railway, Chiltern Railways and Greater Anglia – were found by ABC research in 2022 to be discriminating against disabled passengers by regularly denying TUAG services to those who need boarding assistance.

Emily Sullivan, a disabled researcher in equality and human rights and co-founder of ABC, said she was “sceptical” about whether the ORR figures provided an accurate picture of equality and discrimination when it came to passenger assistance.

She said Southeastern and GTR were “the same two operators where driver-only operation and ‘mobile staffing’ are most progressed, after years of cuts to onboard and station staff”.

And she said that ranking train operators by their performance on pre-booked assistance was “a gift for potential train operator manipulation of the system, which could even make the worst for TUAG appear to be the ‘best’ for booked assistance.

“The use of a league table is also misleading due to the very different types of networks and patchwork of different staffing policies.

“The standards for data collection are themselves discriminatory and every time they publish data including only ‘booked assistance’ they are by implication telling disabled people they do not have the equal right to travel.”

Another leading disabled campaigner, Christiane Link, a consultant and adviser on accessibility, also criticised the ORR figures.

She said: “I don’t think these statistics are sound. They focus too much on booked assists and ask people after months about their travel experience.

“I think it’s overdue that the ORR focus more on the provision of Turn Up and Go, not just booked assists, and ask people directly after travelling about their experience, not months later.”

It is the first time ORR has attempted to rank rail passenger assistance.

The regulator particularly shamed South Western Railway (SWR), West Midlands Trains (WMT) and Northern Trains for their poor performance.

It said SWR and WMT “showed a pattern of sustained poor performance in delivering reliable passenger assistance” and have been asked to submit “detailed action plans” for improvement.

Despite already having been told to implement an improvement plan following concerns raised last year, Northern told ORR four months ago that about 800 passenger-facing staff had not completed disability awareness training.

ORR has now launched a formal investigation into this failing by Northern.

The regulator plans to expand its benchmarking framework next year to include new data sources and measures such as post-assistance passenger confidence, staff training compliance, TUAG reliability, and feedback on the Passenger Assist mobile phone app.

18 December 2025

Minister rejects pleas from disabled peers for national wheelchair and equipment strategy

The government has dismissed pleas by disabled peers for ministers to introduce a national strategy to address the “untenable” state of wheelchair and community equipment services.

A trio of disabled peers told ministers in the House of Lords how the current state of services was preventing the removal of key barriers to independent living.

But a Labour minister made it clear the government had no plans to draw up a national strategy for wheelchair provision, while also appearing to rule out a national strategy on community equipment.

Lord [Kevin] Shinkwin, a Conservative peer, and himself a wheelchair-user, highlighted the “delays in hospital discharge, loss of independence, social isolation, with the inevitable impact on mental health, and, of course, avoidable deterioration in health and well-being” that were caused by the flaws in the system.

He said that high-quality wheelchair provision provides “high value” to both wheelchair-users and wider society, and the current system “does not make economic sense”.

Baroness [Sal] Brinton, another wheelchair-user and a senior Liberal Democrat peer, called for a national strategy “that serves the needs of disabled people and their families, while offering value for money to commissioners and the public purse.

“What we have at the moment is the exact opposite.”

Two months ago, an inquiry by the all-party parliamentary group for access to disability equipment found an “inconsistent” community equipment system that was in crisis due to fragmentation, underinvestment, and a lack of leadership.

Baroness Brinton, a member of the all-party group, said the “forensically detailed” report showed how “systematic barriers” prevented millions of disabled children and adults across the UK from accessing the equipment they need to live “safely and independently”.

Another disabled peer and wheelchair-user, Lord Blencathra – former Conservative Home Office minister David Maclean – criticised the postcode lottery in services, with delays in assessment and delivery that can leave disabled people without mobility support for months.

He said many of the wheelchairs provided are “heavy, cumbersome or not tailored to users’ daily lives, forcing some to buy their own”, while assessments “often fail to consider lifestyle needs, reducing independence and social participation”.

He told fellow peers: “NHS England acknowledges variation in service quality and outcomes.

“Putting it simply, NHS wheelchairs are dirt cheap and for that you get big, heavy, ugly things which appal young people who may need to use them.”

He also called for a national NHS wheelchair services strategy.

The three disabled peers were responding to a debate secured by former Labour health minister Lord Hunt, who said the provision of wheelchairs and community equipment for disabled people was “a disgrace” and “absolutely woeful”.

Lord Hunt, a patron of the Wheelchair Alliance, said wheelchair services were “inconsistent and under-resourced”, with “a system that prioritises lowest initial cost over long-term value and reliability.

“There are no consistent national standards, no independent regulation and few clear paths for users seeking repairs, reporting faults or making complaints.

“As a result, many disabled people experience long waiting-times, delays in hospital discharge, loss of independence, social isolation and, tragically, avoidable deterioration in health and well-being.”

He said it was “the same dismal picture” with community equipment, which includes hoists, grab rails and medical beds. 

The sharing of responsibility between local authorities and integrated care boards (ICBs) leads to “fragmented and inconsistent delivery”, he said.

And he said that community equipment was “the silent crisis at the root of the challenges we face in providing community and social care”.

Lord Hunt said he was “absolutely convinced that we need a national strategy, underpinned by the appointment of a national clinical director accountable to ministers and backed up by strong performance management”.

But the junior health minister, Baroness Merron, said there were “no plans to publish a national strategy for wheelchair provision”.

She said ICBs were responsible for wheelchair services “based on the needs of their local population”, and NHS England had developed “policy guidance and legislation to support ICBs” to ensure they commission “effective, efficient and personalised wheelchair services”, while a wheelchair quality framework was published in April.

She said local authorities had a statutory duty to provide community equipment, and the government’s 10 Year Health Plan for England provides them with the “freedom and autonomy” to do so.

She said: “In this regard, it is important that we are giving systems a greater degree of control and flexibility over how funding is deployed to get this done.”

She said the pandemic had contributed to a backlog of referrals to wheelchair services, but all ICBs and community health services now have a duty to “actively manage and reduce waits over 18 weeks, and to develop a plan to eliminate all 52-week waits”.

She told fellow peers: “The approach of the 10-year health plan identifies disabled people as a priority group.

“Our neighbourhood health service will support disabled people, and the 10-year plan focuses on choice and control over their care.

“I have heard what noble Lords have said, and I will take that back.

“I hope the steps we have made will make a difference, but I recognise that there is so much more to do.”

18 December 2025

Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week

Austerity cuts to non-health related benefits led to a rise in people claiming disability benefits, according to a thinktank. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says cuts to housing support for private renters in 2011, for example, directly reduced incomes of families affected by £667-per-year and increased the number of people receiving disability benefits: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/austerity-cuts-likely-caused-surge-36387370

The government is to invest £3 billion in creating bespoke places within local state schools for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). The plan, announced by Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, to create up to 60,000 places within mainstream schools, will be partly funded by the suspension of a group of planned free schools, saving an estimated £600 million in the coming years: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/dec/11/labour-funding-children-send-local-school-spaces

A major review into rising inactivity among Britain’s young people has been launched by former health secretary Alan Milburn, with a promise not to shy away from “uncomfortable truths” or “radical” solutions. A panel of experts will help draw up recommendations. Milburn has also launched a call for evidence to help shape the investigation, saying a “coalition of the concerned” must mobilise to save a generation not earning or learning: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/dec/16/alan-milburn-launches-major-uk-review-into-rising-inactivity-among-young-people (this review was announced last month and will focus only on sick and disabled young people: https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/new-investigation-on-neets-will-only-target-young-disabled-people-dwp-document-shows/)

The Home Office has failed to protect vulnerable migrants it locks up in detention centres, a high court judge has ruled. Mrs Justice Jefford found an unlawful failure of the systems designed to protect immigration detainees from inhuman and degrading treatment under article three of the European Convention on Human Rights and that these failings had been going on for years. The judgment could affect thousands of people who are at risk: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/dec/15/home-office-fails-to-protect-vulnerable-migrants-high-court-judge-rules

The Department for Work and Pensions needs a management and cultural overhaul if it is to restore public trust after the benefits scandal which left hundreds of thousands of unpaid carers in debt, a key government adviser has warned. Professor Liz Sayce led a scathing review of the carer’s allowance scandal, which found the DWP system and leadership failures were responsible for carers unknowingly running up huge debts, some of which resulted in serious mental distress and, possibly, criminal convictions for fraud: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/dec/14/government-carers-allowance-scandal-liz-sayce-civil-service

18 December 2025

News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com