Open appeal to the Timms Review panellists

All Posts, Benefits, Disability Rights, DWP, Letters, local groups, News, PIP, Politics, welfare cuts, Welfare reforms No Responses »

Jan 152026

As the UK Government review into the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) gets underway, a disability campaign group in Wales has today launched an open appeal to the panel members.

The ‘Timms review’, named for the Minister of State for Social Security and Disability Sir Stephen Timms, could affect more than 275,000 people in Wales claiming the disability benefit.

Disabled People Against Cuts Cymru (DPAC Cymru) have, however, raised a number of concerns over the fairness of the review.

They say there are longstanding unaddressed concerns with the way the Pathways to Work consultation was carried out last year, particularly in Wales, and they want the review to examine this to make sure those mistakes aren’t repeated.

They say they are also appealing to the panellists to make sure that the review is genuine, that the outcome is not predetermined, and are calling for participation to be widened.

DPAC Cymru’s call for an independent review, democratically led by disabled people and their organisations, received wide support in Wales from disability groups, trade union organisations, and politicians.

At a lobby of the Senedd late last year, Sioned Williams MS, Plaid Cymru, said “Plaid Cymru backs their call for an independent review of PIP, led by disabled people.”

Dr. Atlaf Hussain MS, Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Equalities & Social Justice, Conservative, also said “I fully support Disabled People Against Cuts Cymru (DPAC Cymru) and their call for an independent, disabled-led review of Personal Independence Payment (PIP).”

Click here to read the letter to the panel members.

Click here for the Easy Read version.

The six “headline” asks of the appeal letter are that:

1. The review should examine how disabled people in Wales were treated unfairly by the UK Government last year, and make sure those mistakes aren’t repeated.

2. The review must be genuine, not predetermined.

3. The review must be independent, democratically led by disabled people and our organisations.

4. The review must have wide participation.

5. The review needs a wider scope for it to be successful.

6. The review must engage with the 1.4 million disabled workers organised democratically in their trade unions.

No matter what the review concludes, the final say rests with ministers. DPAC Cymru will do our part to ensure that disabled people & carers are prepared to defeat the Government again if necessary.

Disability News Service December 18th

All Posts, Assisted Dying Bill, Benefits, DWP, Housing, News, PIP, Politics, transport, welfare cuts, Welfare reforms No Responses »

Dec 202025

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).

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

McFadden brags about cutting disability benefits, just as his own strategy warns of ‘deep material poverty’

The work and pensions secretary has bragged about cutting disabled people’s support, three days after launching a child poverty strategy which warned that more than a million children in families where someone was disabled were living in “deep material poverty”.

Pat McFadden told the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg on Sunday that his government had halved the health element for new claimants of universal credit because “under the Tory system we inherited, people got double the money for declaring themselves unfit for work”.

And he said he did not rule out further cuts to benefits.

But his comments on Sunday morning came three days after his Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), alongside the Department for Education and the prime minister, had launched Labour’s new Child Poverty Strategy.

The strategy’s evidence pack states that “single parent families and families where someone has a disability (are) particularly overrepresented in deep material poverty”.

In 2023-24, according to the strategy, there were 1.3 million children in a family where someone is disabled (22 per cent of those children) who were in “deep material poverty”.

The evidence pack points to disabled people’s “high additional living expenses such as transport, home adaptations, or specialist equipment”, while “caring responsibilities or accessibility issues can mean that it is difficult or not possible to find work that suits [those families’] requirements”.

The report itself says that “deep material poverty is especially pronounced for children in single parent families and children in families with disability”.

And it adds: “There are parents who may not be able to work, for example due to severe disability, or who fall on difficult times outside of their control.

“It is not right that we have a system where children are penalised through no fault of their own.”

Three days later, McFadden boasted to Kuenssberg about doing exactly that by slashing the health element of universal credit for most new claimants by about £50 a week from next April.

Announcing the Child Poverty Strategy, the government said it would lift about 550,000 children out of poverty by 2030 and tackle the “root causes of poverty by cutting the cost of essentials, boosting family incomes, and improving local services”.

Measures include making it easier for new parents who receive universal credit to return to work by extending eligibility for upfront childcare costs to those returning from parental leave; ending the unlawful placement of families in bed and breakfasts beyond the six-week limit; introducing a new legal duty for councils to notify schools, health visitors, and GPs when a child is placed in temporary accommodation; and taking measures to help families buy more affordable infant formula.

The government had already announced at last month’s budget that it was removing the universal credit two-child limit that was imposed by the last government in 2017.

Asked by Disability News Service (DNS) to respond to McFadden’s comments, and to say whether he would apologise for his misleading statement about claimants “declaring themselves unfit for work” – when there is a lengthy and harsh “fitness for work” assessment process – a government spokesperson said: “We are reforming the broken system we inherited by tackling perverse incentives around sickness claims, increasing face-to-face assessments, and investing £1 billion to help sick and disabled people into good, secure jobs.

“We want a welfare state that supports those who need it while helping people into work and delivering fairness to the taxpayer.

“That’s why we’ve launched the Timms Review to make PIP fair and fit for the future, while Alan Milburn’s investigation into young people and inactivity will help us tackle the key barriers behind youth unemployment.

“Thanks to our decision to scrap the two-child limit and introduce a wider package of measures for families we will lift 550,000 children out of poverty by the end of this parliament.”

This week, McFadden also released a written statement updating MPs on his department’s plans to improve its record on safeguarding benefit claimants.

It details a series of actions taken since a report on “safeguarding vulnerable claimants” was published by the Commons work and pensions committee in May.

Much of the statement had already been included in a letter he wrote to the committee on 18 November, on which he was questioned by the committee the following day.

McFadden admitted in this week’s statement that an assessment of DWP’s safeguarding approach had found “some good practice, but also variation in awareness, skills, and accountability”.

He said the first year of a new five-year DWP strategy would focus on “raising staff awareness of safeguarding responsibilities, building capability through training, and strengthening relationships with local authorities, health services, and voluntary organisations”.

He will publish a DWP safeguarding policy framework next year, setting out the department’s “comprehensive approach”.

McFadden said DWP “remains open to adopting a statutory duty” to safeguard claimants, one of the key recommendations in the committee’s report.

But there was no mention in his statement of the committee’s call for a new independent body to investigate cases where claimants have been seriously harmed by DWP’s actions.

DNS has previously shown how senior civil servants and ministers spent more than a decade covering up evidence that linked DWP’s actions with hundreds, and probably thousands, of deaths of disabled people who relied on the social security system*.

Documents secured through freedom of information requests, inquest reports, and investigations by bereaved family members show how DWP destroyed incriminating records, failed to share crucial evidence with its own independent reviewers and grieving relatives, and even lied to a coroner.

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

11 December 2025

Minister misleads MPs as mystery deepens over new £2 billion cuts to disability benefits

The disability minister has refused to apologise after misleading MPs about concerns over nearly £2 billion in new cuts to disability benefits.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has added to these transparency concerns by itself providing misleading information about the cuts, and again refusing to clarify how many disabled claimants will be affected, and how much they will lose.

Two weeks on from the budget, it is still unclear how DWP and its ministers intend to cut £85 million next year, £310 million in 2027-28, £520 million in 2028-29, £580 million in 2029-30 and £455 million in 2030-31, from spending on disability benefits.

Treasury documents, published on the day of the budget, show the cuts are connected with increasing DWP’s “capacity” to carry out reassessments of claimants through the work capability assessment (WCA), increasing the number of face-to-face benefit assessments, and “extending Personal Independence Payment [PIP] award reviews periods”.

The budget costings document says these changes will “ensure people receive the right health or disability benefit and the system is sustainable”.

But it is unclear from budget documents exactly how these changes will cut spending on disability benefits, and how any cuts will be split between disabled claimants of PIP and universal credit.

Last week, Disability News Service (DNS) reported the government’s refusal to explain how it will cut spending through these measures, despite repeated requests for clarity.

Following the DNS story, the Liberal Democrat work and pensions spokesperson, Steve Darling, asked in Commons work and pensions questions for an explanation of how disabled people would be impacted by the cuts, which he said had been “quietly sneaked into the budget the other week”.

DNS has been seeking clarification on the cuts from DWP and the Treasury since 26 November, the day of the budget.

And on 1 December, DNS copied in Sir Stephen Timms – the minister for social security and disability – to an email to DWP’s press office, highlighting concerns that he was breaching the post-election pledge he made 14 months ago to improve transparency within DWP.

The email asked for an explanation of how the £1.95 billion in cuts would be achieved.

But responding in parliament on Monday (8 December) to Darling’s question about the DNS report, Sir Stephen told him: “I do not know what the honourable gentleman is referring to.

“I will happily look into the report he has spoken of.”

When DNS then asked if Sir Stephen would apologise for misleading Darling and fellow MPs, the DWP press office itself produced a misleading statement.

It said: “The £1.9 billion in welfare savings were announced by the chancellor at the budget and set out in full in the budget document.

“This will be delivered through measures such as tightening eligibility for overseas pension accrual, reforming Motability, and reducing duplication in benefit administration.”

This is not correct.

The budget costings document makes no mention of the Motability tax changes or pensions in its brief section on the £1.95 billion cuts to “health and disability benefits”.

Instead, the document refers to “operational improvements to health assessments”, including the WCA, “changing the frequency of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) award reviews”, and plans to “increase the number of face-to-face health assessments conducted across both PIP and the WCA”.

Asked why it had provided further misleading information on top of Sir Stephen’s misleading answer to Darling, DWP had not responded by 11.30am today (Thursday).

Meanwhile, Liberal Democrat MP John Milne asked Sir Stephen on Monday if he agreed that the widely-ridiculed claim by Tory shadow work and pensions secretary Helen Whately that “millions are getting benefits for anxiety or ADHD along with a free Motability car” was “clearly nonsense” and “one of the least accurate claims ever made by a politician”.

Sir Stephen said he agreed, although he said that “choosing the most misleading claim is a tough contest”.

Another minister was asked by Liberal Democrat MP Caroline Voaden why one of her constituents in South Devon had spent “nearly two weeks calling the DWP every day to find out why his employment and support allowance had been stopped without warning”, but “each time he called, he waited for over an hour, only for the line to be cut off with no reply”.

DWP minister Andrew Western said such service was “unacceptable” and he promised to “look into it on her behalf”.

The SNP’s Chris Law asked Sir Stephen what action he was taking after nearly 1,000 new and existing claimants had a work capability assessment cancelled by private sector contractor Maximus since 9 September 2024.

He said a whistleblower had told him cancellations were “a regular occurrence, largely because of IT services provided by the DWP”, with one of his Dundee constituents having their WCA cancelled five times.

Sir Stephen said he would be “happy to look into the details”.

11 December 2025

Duty to disabled passengers in railways bill is ‘too vague’ and must be strengthened, MPs are told

A statutory duty in the new railways bill to ensure ministers and public bodies promote the needs of disabled passengers is “too vague” and must be strengthened as the legislation passes through parliament, MPs were told yesterday (Wednesday).

The transport select committee was hearing evidence from experts a day after the government’s railways bill passed its second reading in the House of Commons.

Emma Vogelmann, co-chief executive of the disabled people’s organisation Transport for All (TfA), welcomed the inclusion in the bill of a statutory duty that will force those in charge of the railways to take account of “the needs of disabled persons”.

Labour had previously dropped plans to ensure there was a statutory duty on accessibility in the bill.

But Vogelmann told MPs on the committee that the duty’s wording was “very vague” and “too unenforceable” and “doesn’t guarantee improvements for disabled passengers”, despite the “desperate change that is needed in terms of accessibility”.

She said TfA wanted the bill strengthened so there was a duty to “actively and continuously improve accessibility across the rail network” and ensure there are “measurable outcomes” that show what progress is being made every year.

The bill currently says that ministers, Great British Railways (GBR) and the Office of Rail and Road will have a duty to carry out their roles – alongside other statutory duties – in “the manner best calculated to promote the interests of users and potential users of railway passenger services including, in particular, the needs of disabled persons”.

But Vogelmann told the MPs the legislation should be strengthened to “make sure that accessibility is enforceable and that it is an over-riding, consistent priority for Great British Railways as opposed to at the moment where we feel it is potentially not given enough enforcement power and it is subject to political will in some instances”.

She said the current wording of the duty was “almost purposefully vague”, which risked perpetuating the “tick box” culture and lack of meaningful action on accessibility across the rail system.

She added: “The lack of enforceable standards, the lack of enforceable actions, is really why disabled people feel excluded from the rail network at the moment and why many of us face so many barriers.”

The previous day, a string of MPs had highlighted the need for meaningful improvements to accessibility on the railways, during the bill’s second reading.

The bill will create GBR, a new publicly-owned company that will bring together management of passenger services and rail infrastructure.

The government also plans to use the bill to introduce a stronger passenger watchdog and to simplify fares and tickets.

Transport secretary Heidi Alexander told MPs the bill would “sweep away the fragmentation and dysfunction that have plagued the railway for too long and will bring the 17 organisations involved in running the railway together into one public body, Great British Railways, which is the directing mind that this industry has long called for”.

Many MPs in the debate called for improvements to the government’s Access for All programme, which funds access improvements at rail stations.

Conservative MP Mark Pritchard said “more needs to be done on step-free access” because there was “currently very little in the bill that suggests that more will be done, particularly for rural stations such as Cosford, Shifnal or Albrighton in Shropshire.

“If it cannot be done at every station, and there is no money for that, there at least needs to be step-free access and improved disability access somewhere along inter-county railway lines.”

Adam Dance, the Liberal Democrat MP for Yeovil, said: “Too many rural railway stations are not accessible for disabled people.

“Without support staff, constituents in Yeovil have had serious accidents at railway stations.

“Although the government’s accessibility priorities, which we are debating today, are welcome, does my honourable friend agree that we need a strengthened Access for All programme?”

Keir Mather, a junior transport minister, told MPs he had “heard the calls from colleagues across the house about the importance of the Access for All scheme”, and that the government was continuing to fund the scheme.

Disability News Service reported last month that the government’s new “roadmap to an accessible railway” – covering England, Scotland and Wales – appeared to suggest a reduction in real spending on the Access for All programme, with the roadmap promising a future commitment to only spend “up to” £70 million a year.

Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs voted against the bill receiving a second reading, but it was easily passed by 329 votes in favour to 173 votes against.

11 December 2025

Peers urged to ‘err on the side of caution’ and raise minimum age limit in assisted suicide bill

Peers have been urged to “err on the side of caution” and raise the minimum age limit for an assisted death from 18 to 25, as part of a controversial bill that aims to legalise the practice.

As the House of Lords again debated some of the hundreds of amendments proposed to the terminally ill adults (end of life) bill, peers were told that a minimum age of 18 was “contrary to the mounting evidence of when the brain is fully formed”.

Labour peer Baroness [Luciana] Berger told fellow peers last Friday (5 December) that social media had become “a powerful driver of harm” and that research showed young people in vulnerable situations were “disproportionately exposed to posts that glamorise suicide or present suicidal thoughts as normal, appealing or even fashionable”.

She said she was “haunted” by the words of a young disabled woman who had said in evidence at an earlier stage of the bill: “I’m in care. I’ve got disabilities. The government will pay for me to die under this bill, but it won’t pay for me to live.”

Baroness Berger reminded peers that the children’s commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza, had said she would “far rather that we erred on the side of caution, protecting those who have had terrible lives, terrible experiences, have been abused, have had their families turn them out, protecting those [with] extreme mental illness, protecting those with special educational needs and disabilities, protecting anorexic children who are heading into adulthood”.

Baroness Berger said: “I am clear that we must continue to say to children and young people: ‘Yes, your life matters. Even if it will be a short life, it matters.’”

Labour peer Lord Falconer, who is sponsoring the bill in the Lords, said he believed 18 was still the right age, but that “maybe the answer is some assurance that there is a more intense assessment for people aged between 18 and 25”.

The issue is likely to be debated again at the bill’s report stage.

Meanwhile, the disabled Conservative peer Lord [Kevin] Shinkwin warned of a further attempt to “weaken” the bill’s protections after Lord Falconer proposed an amendment that would affect the adjustments that must be made for those with language and literacy barriers, including people with learning difficulties.

The bill currently states that doctors assessing someone for an assisted suicide “must first ensure the provision of adjustments for language and literacy barriers”.

But Lord Falconer suggested in his amendment that doctors should instead “take all reasonable steps to ensure… effective communication”.

Lord Shinkwin said he failed to see how the change would “do anything other than weaken this bill” and would “fundamentally weaken one of the bill’s safeguards, such as they are”.

He said the bill “makes a mockery” of the Labour party’s “fine, noble and honourable tradition” of “advancing disability rights”.

He said: “It shreds a tradition that deserves to be preserved, not sacrificed in such a profoundly cynical and misleading way as to make out, as the amendment does, that this is somehow only a drafting change.

“There is a reason why not one organisation of or for disabled people supports the bill; they know that disabled people need the bill like a hole in the head.

“I marvel that the noble and learned lord does not seem to realise that the bill is dangerous enough already without the removal of provisions that would at least acknowledge the obligation to first ensure that communication adjustments were made; for example, for people with learning disabilities or users of British Sign Language.”

There was also criticism of Lord Falconer’s proposed amendment by Baroness [Nuala] O’Loan, the human rights expert and former police ombudsman for Northern Ireland, who said his amendment would introduce “a far less specific test, and consideration must be given to setting standards for the level of communication which is required”.

She asked Lord Falconer whether his amendment would “inadvertently disadvantage those with specific learning difficulties and similar vulnerable groups”.

Lord Falconer insisted that the amendment was “not a watering down at all” but he said he would discuss Lord Shinkwin’s concerns with him before the next stage of the bill, although “at the moment, it looks to me to offer just as good, if not better, protection”.

Peers have now dealt with only six groups of amendments, out of the – currently – 84 they will need to get through to move onto the next stage of the bill in the Lords, with further debate planned tomorrow (Friday).

The Hansard Society said this week that if the Lords continued at its current pace it would “far fall short of what is needed to complete the remaining groups in time”, with parliament’s current session due to end in the spring, probably in May.

11 December 2025

Scottish and UK governments are failing to uphold disability rights, says watchdog

The Scottish and UK governments are both failing to uphold the rights of disabled people in key areas, according to an annual report by Scotland’s human rights watchdog.

Two of the 10 areas of “urgent concern” highlighted by the Scottish Human Rights Commission in its State of the Nation 2025 report focus on continued breaches of disabled people’s rights.

The report – presented this week to the Scottish parliament – says the support for people with learning difficulties and autistic people to live in their own homes is “inadequate”, with many forced to live in accommodation that is “institutional, inappropriate, and not in the area that they would call home”.

The Scottish government has failed to put in place the necessary community-based support to deliver the right to independent living, it says.

It also points to the lack of “transparency and monitoring” to ensure action in this area meets human rights requirements.

The report also warns that disability benefits fail to provide a “decent standard of living” and are at risk of being cut, even though disabled people are more likely to live in poverty than people living in households where no-one is disabled.

Disabled people and disabled people’s organisations told the commission last year that social security payments that are meant to cover additional disability-related costs for daily living “are in fact being used to cover basic household expenses such as food”.

Disabled people are “going without enough income to meet costs” and facing rising debt, and are often unable to pay for fuel, including the cost of charging their medical equipment.

The report adds: “Despite these impossible choices, UK politicians have been actively considering further cuts and changes to disability support.”

And, it says, some of the proposed policy choices “actively undermine the rights of disabled people”.

It particularly highlights the £50-a-week cut to the health element of universal credit for most new claimants, from next April, which is happening at a time when disabled people “are struggling to make ends meet”.

The cut, it says, “is particularly inconsistent” with the UK government’s obligation to realise rights progressively under the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Despite the UK government failing to rule out future cuts to spending on personal independence payment (PIP), the Scottish government – which is now responsible for its own version of the extra costs benefit, adult disability payment (ADP) – has “indicated that it does not intend to change ADP to reduce spending”, the report says.

But it says that the Scottish government has still not demonstrated that it has taken a human rights approach to budgeting “that both aims to ensure there is no worsening of disability-related poverty” and, where there is such poverty, to reduce it.

It adds: “Devolution is no excuse for failing to respect, protect and fulfil human rights.”

Derek, a disabled person interviewed for the report, says: “It feels like a lot of the human rights are being chipped away.

“We keep working away to make sure disabled people’s voices are being heard, but sometimes it can be disheartening, and I feel like I don’t have the energy.”

He has been supported by Glasgow Disability Alliance, and he told the commission: “My confidence came, not as an individual but from being involved in and as an ally to a movement.

“The barriers affect so many areas of life. It took me 20 years of fighting my local housing authority to get information in an accessible format, never mind accessible housing.”

Among the report’s calls for action from the Scottish government, it says the necessary housing and social care support must be in place to ensure a right to independent living.

And it says ADP and “other forms of social security and financial support to cover the costs of disability” must “meet those specific needs”, in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Other areas of concern highlighted by the report include healthcare provision; the housing crisis that is denying people across Scotland access to “safe, affordable and adequate housing”; high levels of food insecurity and unaffordability; and changes to the UK social security system that “disadvantage the most marginalised people and families”.

Professor Angela O’Hagan, chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, said: “People are struggling to heat their homes, feed their families, or access basic services, and this is fuelling real frustration and tension across our communities.

“At times like these, human rights matter more than ever. They provide the framework that requires public bodies to act fairly, protect people’s dignity, and direct resources to those who need them most.

“The most effective way to rebuild trust and reduce anger is to make these rights a lived reality for everyone.”

She added: “This report is a clear call to action.

“We urge the Scottish parliament and all public bodies to use its findings to make better decisions about legislation, budgeting and service delivery.

“Human rights set the minimum standards that people in Scotland should be able to depend on, especially during tough times.”

Meanwhile, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has warned the UK government it is failing to uphold “fundamental” human rights, including access to healthcare for disabled people, the right to peaceful protest, and freedom from exploitation for migrant workers.  

In a new report, published on Human Rights Day, the commission assessed progress on some of the 302 recommendations (PDF) made by other UN member states at the UK’s Universal Periodic Review in November 2022.

The EHRC report says successive government disability strategies and action plans have failed to focus on improving health services for disabled people, despite data showing disabled people in England face greater barriers to healthcare and are more often on NHS hospital waiting-lists than non-disabled people.

11 December 2025

Thousands of disabled people in one county should benefit from care charging legal case victory

Hundreds, or even thousands, of service-users in Kent should benefit from a legal case taken by a disabled woman who spent years over-paying care charges because the county council failed to tell her about crucial rules.

Kent County Council – which is now run by the right-wing Reform UK party after a landslide election victory earlier this year – has now backed down and agreed to do more to tell disabled people in the county how calculating their disability-related spending could reduce their care charges.

A disabled woman known as PXA had been forced to cancel her council-funded support because she could not afford the higher charges imposed in September 2024 when the council changed its charging policy, leading to her and thousands more disabled people in the county seeing sharp increases in their weekly care charges.

After seeking legal advice, she learned that she had been overpaying her care charges for years because her disability-related expenses had never been assessed.

PXA won permission for a judicial review of the council’s actions, but the local authority backed down and settled the case, days before a trial was due to begin last week.

The case revolved around the council’s failure to do enough to tell disabled people about the disability-related expenditure (DRE) system.

When calculating a person’s social care charges, a local authority must – if it treats their disability benefits as income – deduct what that person spends in DRE.

But Kent County Council’s policy since 2003 had been to deduct a standard amount for DRE and only to carry out an assessment of their actual spending if the disabled person asked for one.

The council set this standard amount at £21 in 2003, and reduced it to £17 in 2011, failing to increase it to allow for inflation for the next 14 years.

Legal firm Gold Jennings, which represents PXA and three other claimants, found that between them they had overpaid tens of thousands of pounds in care charges.

The firm believes there are “hundreds if not thousands” of other disabled people in Kent who were unaware that they should request an assessment of DRE to try to reduce their care charges.

The council’s own statistics show that, of about 16,000 individuals paying for their care in the county, only a few hundred had requested a DRE assessment.

Gold Jennings said PXA’s case was assisted by “compelling” evidence from the disabled people’s organisation Inclusion London, which used its virtual DRE assistant to highlight how disability-related spending for many people was likely to be significantly more than the £17 per week used by Kent County Council.

Even the council’s own figures – using individual assessments carried out in the 11 months after the September 2024 policy change – put average DRE at £55.46 per week.

Disabled people with this average level of DRE would have been overpaying care charges by nearly £2,000 per year.

PXA provided evidence that she had “never properly been told about DRE or that she could request an assessment”, said Gold Jennings.

The council has now agreed to make significant changes to its policy, including referring to DRE in its annual charging letters; providing clearer guidance in its DRE factsheet; and changing guidance to ensure council staff tell claimants about DRE and its importance in cutting charges.

It has also agreed to credit a “goodwill” amount to PXA to reduce her future care charges.

Svetlana Kotova, director of campaigns and justice at Inclusion London, said: “We are pleased with the outcome of this legal challenge and sincerely hope the changes that Kent agreed to make will enable many disabled people who use social care to keep more of their money.

“This case shows very powerfully the problems in practice with the DRE assessment process, which in theory allows disabled people to prove their extra disability costs so that they can keep more of their disability benefits, but is often unworkable.

“People don’t know about DRE and the process of claiming it is very complicated and often demeaning.

“It is wrong that people with very high support needs end up being overcharged for the essential care they need.

“This just pushes disabled people into deeper poverty.

“This is why Inclusion London have been campaigning to scrap care charging altogether.”

Clare Jennings, head of public law at Gold Jennings, said the consequences of the council’s actions were that her clients had been overpaying by thousands of pounds a year for their care, for many years.

She said: “I am deeply concerned that my clients’ situation is not unique and that there will be hundreds, if not thousands, of others like them in Kent, and thousands more in other local authority areas who operate similar policies, who have overpaid for their care, enriching local authorities by tens of millions of pounds.”

A council spokesperson said: “Faced with increasing demands for complex care, rising costs of care and a lack of adequate funding from central government, we are having to take tough decisions to make sure future essential services are sustainable.

“Unlike a number of other UK councils, Kent County Council delayed using powers given to local authorities under 2014’s Care Act to take into account higher, or enhanced, rates of disability benefits when assessing how much people should contribute to the cost of their care.

“Following public consultation in 2024, the decision to change this policy and increase the amount some people contribute to the cost of their care was not taken lightly and we included a £900,000 contingency in the budget to help with increased disability-related expenses.”

11 December 2025

DWP and Treasury silent over mystery of £2 billion cuts to disability benefits

The government has refused to explain the impact that last week’s budget will have on disabled people who receive benefits, despite repeated requests for clarity over cuts of up to £580 million a year.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the Treasury have both failed to provide any details of the cuts to spending on disability benefits of nearly £2 billion over five years.

It is just DWP’s latest failure of transparency since Labour’s new minister for social security and disability, Sir Stephen Timms, promised to improve its openness to public scrutiny in September 2024.

Treasury documents published on the day of last week’s budget showed that, from next April, the government will increase DWP’s “capacity” to carry out reassessments of disabled people’s capacity for work through the work capability assessment (WCA).

DWP will also carry out more face-to-face assessments, which have been drastically cut back since the early weeks of the pandemic, both through WCAs and assessments of eligibility for personal independence payment (PIP).

The Treasury’s budget costings document also said DWP would be “changing the frequency” of reviews of PIP awards, which would allow it to “complete award reviews on time, reducing the number of people who are called to a PIP assessment when their function has not changed, and allowing providers to redirect resource to WCA re-assessments”.

The budget document described this measure as “extending Personal Independence Payment award reviews periods”.

The budget costings document said these changes will “ensure people receive the right health or disability benefit and the system is sustainable”.

But there are significant question-marks over these measures, because the changes together are set to save the government £85 million next year, £310 million in 2027-28, £520 million in 2028-29, £580 million in 2029-30 and £455 million in 2030-31, a total of £1.95 billion over five years.

Disability News Service (DNS) has been asking the Treasury and DWP to clarify how these cuts will be made for more than a week.

The Treasury initially claimed that the budget documents were not announcing new policies, but were “just costing existing plans from planned welfare reforms – so nothing new from this”.

But neither department has been able to point to where or when these “existing plans” were announced by DWP, particularly the changes in reviews of PIP awards, and how these changes will affect PIP recipients and those on out-of-work disability benefits.

Although the government has previously made it clear that it wanted to increase reassessments through the WCA, and to increase the number of face-to-face WCAs and PIP assessments, these ideas were included in March’s green paper.

Green papers are supposed to lay out policy proposals for consultation, but they are not announcements of final decisions on government policy.

DNS has been unable to find any DWP announcements on these and the other measures in last week’s budget documents since the spring budget on 26 March 2025, other than a brief reference to carrying out more PIP face-to-face assessments in a speech by the then work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall in May.

Both DWP and the Treasury have refused to provide clarity on the budget changes, with DWP instead releasing a statement that failed to explain what measures it was taking on PIP award reviews*.

It is 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 DNS: “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.”

Meanwhile, DWP’s controversial new anti-fraud bill – now to be known as the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error, and Recovery) Act – has become law after receiving royal assent on Tuesday.

Last month, cross-party MPs warned that ministers’ refusal to introduce a key protection into the bill could see a repeat of the countless deaths caused by the austerity measures of past governments.

And they warned that future “authoritarian” governments could misuse the powers the Labour government has claimed through the bill, which applies to England, Scotland and Wales.

One of those powers will allow DWP to force banks to examine the accounts of claimants of means-tested benefits and then provide details of any accounts where there have been potential breaches of benefit eligibility rules.

Disability Rights UK said it was “deeply concerned” at the “bank spying bill” becoming law.

It said on X/Twitter: “A government agency that is notorious for punitive sanctions and bureaucratic faults that have cost lives, this will have dire consequences.”

*The statement is included here as a footnote, as it failed to answer the questions put to the department by DNS: “We are increasing the number of face-to-face assessments and tackling the backlog of Work Capability Assessments we inherited, by changing the frequency of PIP assessment reviews. This will ensure claimants receive the right level of support while at the same time reducing unnecessary award reviews, as we shift our focus from welfare to work, skills and opportunities.”

4 December 2025

‘Unacceptable’ new figures show rejections of Access to Work claims have shot up this year

Ministers have been forced to admit that the proportion of Access to Work claims they are rejecting has leapt by more than a fifth this year, with disabled campaigners describing the figures as “unacceptable” and “clearly worrying”.

The figures, provided through a response to a written parliamentary question, show the proportion of applications rejected has risen by more than 22 per cent in 2025-26 so far, compared with 2024-25.

This follows a rise of more than 12 per cent in 2024-25, Labour’s first year in control of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)*.

It is the strongest evidence yet to support concerns being raised by disabled campaigners, who have been warning for months that Access to Work (AtW) support is being cut.

The figures came just days after Disability News Service (DNS) reported that DWP was claiming that “an issue” with data was preventing it releasing detailed monthly figures on AtW claims.

The new figures were released by Sir Stephen Timms, the minister for social security and disability, in response to a question from Labour’s former shadow minister for disabled people, Vicky Foxcroft.

Rather than requesting more detailed monthly data, as DNS had done, she had asked for the number and proportion of AtW claims that had been closed in each year since 2022-23.

In 2022-23, Sir Stephen told her, 31,482 applications were not approved, which was 30 per cent of all decisions.

The proportion of applications rejected fell to 24 per cent in 2023-24, the last full year of the Conservative government, but then last year under the new Labour government – which claims it is trying to increase the number of disabled people in work – it rose to 27 per cent of all applications being rejected (a 12.5 per cent increase).

And so far this year (April to October), the proportion of claims rejected has increased even more sharply, with 27,297 applications not approved, one in three (33 per cent) of all decisions, a rise of more than 22 per cent (six percentage points) on 2024-25.

Although he provided these figures, Sir Stephen failed to provide Foxcroft with data showing the frequency of reasons for rejections (which include “no contact from the applicant”, “insufficient evidence provided”, “applicant not eligible” and “application not pursued”.

Disabled consultant, broadcaster and campaigner Shani Dhanda, co-founder of the Access to Work Collective, said the increase in claims being rejected was “unacceptable”.

But she also called again for clarity from ministers on exactly what was happening within the AtW system.

She told DNS: “We still have no idea where people are being lost in the system, and the vague reasons given tell us nothing about what actually went wrong.

“What we see on the ground is chaos: phone calls going unanswered, people cut off mid-call, evidence repeatedly misplaced, and applicants waiting so long for approvals, change of circumstances or renewals, that work opportunities disappear.

“The fact that non-approvals have jumped to 33 per cent, the highest in recent years, while transparency has been stripped back, is unacceptable.

“Access to Work is meant to support disabled workers, not shut them out.”

David Buxton, chief executive of the disabled people’s organisation Action on Disability, which in October produced evidence showing the average AtW support hours of disabled people it had been working with had plunged from 22.5 to just four in two-and-a-half years, said the new figures were “clearly worrying”.

And he criticised the department for the lack of transparency over what was driving the increased rejections.

He said: “Without clear data, we are all being left to guess, but what’s absolutely clear is that disabled people need a system that works.

“We must push for workable, sustainable and effective solutions that genuinely support people to stay in work.”

He added: “The numbers point to a system that is struggling to meet disabled people’s needs.

“When more than 100,000 applications over recent years have not been approved, and when a third of decisions this year are non-approvals, that has a very real impact on people’s ability to stay in work or take up new roles.”

Catherine Eadie, a social enterprise founder and Access to Work claimant, and a member of the Access to Work Collective, added: “For those of us dealing with Access to Work daily, these figures match what we see: procedural errors, misinterpretation of guidance, misplaced evidence, and delays so long that people’s jobs and businesses become unviable while they wait.

“When approval rates drop this sharply and explanations get vaguer, trust is impossible.”

Foxcroft told DNS: “I encourage ministerial colleagues to investigate this concerning increase in the number of cases being rejected by the DWP and ensure that it feeds into their wider work on reform of the current programme.”

She said: “It has long been clear that Access to Work is not fit for purpose.

“I am pleased that ministers have acknowledged this and begun to take action through the Pathways to Work green paper.

“These statistics show, however, that there is still a long way to go towards removing the workplace barriers disabled people face every day.”

DWP is expected to announce its proposals for AtW reform in the next few weeks.

*It took control in July 2024, so the first three months of 2024-25 were under Conservative control

4 December 2025

Watchdog’s silence after removing figures that showed social security spending is not ‘spiralling’

The government’s “independent” spending watchdog has refused to explain why it removed figures from its crucial budget forecast report that proved spending on social security is not spiralling out of control.

The move by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) will help the government – and commentators – justify expected future cuts to spending, such as to personal independence payment and out-of-work disability benefits.

This week, the Sunday Times reported that the government was set to push ahead with plans, first proposed in March’s Pathways to Work green paper, to prevent disabled young people under the age of 22 from receiving the health element of universal credit.

And in a speech in London on Monday, the prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, said that the social security system had “trapped people in poverty”, particularly young disabled people.

Her said young disabled people were being “simply written off” and trapped “in a cycle of worklessness and dependency for decades” which “costs the country money” and was “bad for our productivity”.

Disability News Service and academics, other journalists and disabled activists have been using the OBR figures since early this year to dismantle claims that “welfare spending” is increasing at an unmanageable rate.

But these crucial figures have been omitted from OBR’s latest Economic and Fiscal Outlook report, which was published last week alongside the budget.

The figures were first highlighted by a disabled activist in February, after they were included in the OBR’s October 2024 Economic and Fiscal Outlook.

The October 2024 figures showed that the share of GDP* taken by social security spending was stable, and was even predicted to fall from 11.1 per cent to 11.0 per cent in 2027-28 and 2028-29, before rising slightly back to 11.1 per cent in 2029-30.

Updated figures were included in an OBR report in March this year**, and they showed that social security spending was predicted to be even lower – as a proportion of GDP – than previously predicted.

The figures were included in one of the charts released alongside the Economic and Fiscal Outlook report, which is published alongside every budget.

That chart (chart 5.2) tracked “welfare spending” as a proportion of GDP for every year back to 2010-11, when it was 12 per cent of GDP.

But last week’s version of chart 5.2 was substantially different.

Instead of showing how spending has changed year by year since 2010-11 as a proportion of GDP, table 5.2 now shows how the proportion of government spending in different areas has changed relative to 2010-11 levels, making it impossible to compare social security spending levels year-by-year and prove that it has not “spiralled”.

What last week’s OBR report does show (see table 5.1 in the main report) is that the chancellor’s spending decisions – including scrapping the two-child benefit cap – have not led to an increase in the proportion of GDP being spent on social security, compared with previous predictions.

The figures show that welfare spending for 2024-25 was significantly lower than predicted last year (10.8 per cent compared with a predicted 11.1 per cent) as a proportion of GDP, while the predicted spending for this year is also lower than was forecast by the OBR last year (10.9 per cent versus 11.1 per cent), while the forecast levels for the next four years have remained unchanged.

These figures show that any attempt by media, civil servants and politicians – such as chancellor Rachel Reeves last year, DWP in January, and opposition MPs such as Tory leader Kemi Badenoch in September – to make false claims that social security spending is spiralling out of control would be misleading, if not deeply dishonest.

This week, OBR’s press office refused three times to even acknowledge emails asking why it had removed the historic figures from the report.

The Treasury had also not commented by noon today (Thursday) on whether it requested OBR to remove the historic welfare spending figures.

OBR’s refusal to comment came in a week that its chair, Richard Hughes, resigned after the watchdog mistakenly published its outlook report before Reeves had delivered her budget speech to MPs.

*Gross domestic product, the size of the country’s economy in a particular year

**Chapter five of OBR’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook – March 2025, chart 5.2, shows welfare spending as a percentage of GDP: https://obr.uk/efo/economic-and-fiscal-outlook-march-2025/

4 December 2025

Manifesto calls on next Welsh government to enable disabled people to ‘flourish and thrive’

The national body for disabled people’s organisations (DPOs) in Wales has issued five major demands to political parties ahead of next spring’s elections to the Welsh Senedd.

The Disabled People’s Manifesto, published by Disability Wales, includes a call for the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) to be incorporated into Welsh law.

It also demands a “robust” disabled people’s rights plan – which should include the appointment of a minister for disabled people – ahead of the current Welsh government’s 10-year plan, which is likely to be published this month.

And it calls for Welsh politicians to champion disabled people’s leadership – supporting disabled leaders in public life, and ensuring they are represented in decision-making and policy development – and for government to fund the work of DPOs.

The manifesto demands a guaranteed right to independent living, with reforms to social care, health and housing that focus on dignity, choice, and accessibility, and for the new government to promote inclusion, and end the institutionalisation of disabled people.

And it calls for the social security system to be devolved from the UK to the Welsh government, as has been – partially – achieved in Scotland.

The manifesto, From Barely Surviving to Truly Thriving, has been developed with DPOs from across Wales and individual disabled people.

In all, more than 250 disabled people helped shape the manifesto, which outlines demands from politicians over the four years from the May 2026 elections.

Although the Welsh Labour government included a pledge to incorporate UNCRPD into Welsh law in its programme for government in 2021, Disability Wales says no progress has been made towards this goal, and so the convention remains “a guiding framework rather than a legally enforceable standard”.

A draft version of the Welsh government’s Disabled People’s Rights Plan, when it was published in May, saw the government accused of putting up a “smokescreen” with a document that lacked “teeth” and was full of pledges to carry out reviews and produce guidance while offering no new money.

The 61-page plan included no significant promises on key areas such as social care, accessible housing and transport, and disability poverty, and was short of concrete targets.

Disability Wales says in its manifesto that the draft plan “must be strengthened to ensure long-term impact and accountability”, while there must be “sustained investment and infrastructure” for DPOs so they can be “essential partners” in delivering the plan.

Disability Wales also says in its manifesto that disabled people “remain underrepresented in political and public life”.

It calls for all political parties to publish the percentage of their representatives who identify as disabled people and their targets for improving these figures in the run-up to the 2026 Senedd and 2027 local government elections.

The manifesto says that barriers to independent living “strip away autonomy and keep people trapped in unsuitable housing, inflexible care arrangements and discriminatory environments”, and it calls instead for accessible housing, inclusive health services, and an end to institutional care.

It also calls for a national campaign to tackle the “ableism, stigma, and discrimination” faced by disabled people.

Devolving social security systems to Wales would enable “more responsive, fair, and inclusive support systems, designed in coproduction with disabled people and DPOs”, the manifesto says.

It concludes: “Disabled people in Wales deserve more than mere survival.

“We deserve the right to truly flourish and thrive.

“We know that change is possible, but it requires commitment, collaboration and courage.

“We call on all political parties to adopt these five calls and work with us to build a Wales where disabled people are not just supported but celebrated.”

Disability Wales has also launched a “commitment form”, asking every political party and candidate to state clearly and publicly where they stand on each of the manifesto’s five calls.

Their responses will be updated during the Senedd election campaign and used afterwards to monitor delivery and implementation of the policy demands.

Rhian Davies, chief executive of Disability Wales (DW), said: “DW’s vision is for an inclusive, equitable and barrier free society.

“Disabled people in Wales deserve more than mere survival; we deserve the right to truly flourish and thrive.

“Following the recent module two Covid-19 Inquiry report, which criticised government failure to appreciate the level of risk faced by disabled people, resulting in escalating death rates and a reversal of rights, this manifesto is a call to action for all political parties to commit to real change.

“Together, we can move from surviving to thriving.”

Natalie Jarvis, DW’s policy and research officer, said: “As someone involved in the co-production of this manifesto alongside DPOs and the voices of hundreds of disabled people across Wales, I have heard stories of exhaustion, frustration and injustice but also of hope, resilience and vision.

“Disabled people know exactly what needs to change.

“What we need now is the political will to act and for parties to commit to our calls within their own manifestos ahead of the elections.”

4 December 2025

Deaf people who use BSL face ‘entrenched’ health and social care exclusion, say government advisers

Deaf people who use British Sign Language (BSL) face “entrenched” and “systemic” exclusion from health and social care services across Britain, according to a new report by government advisers.

The report* found that Deaf and Deafblind people’s lack of access to services costs the Treasury millions of pounds through “unmet needs, wasted appointments and delays in care”.

Better access to health and social care services would allow more Deaf and Deafblind people to find work and progress in their careers, and contribute more through taxation, says the report.

The report focuses on the experiences of Deaf and Deafblind BSL-users in England, Scotland and Wales, and is based on a review of their access to services carried out by the government’s BSL Advisory Board’s health and social care sub-group.

The report found a “deep-rooted lack of trust” within Deaf and Deafblind communities following repeated experiences of exclusion from services, which often left them “traumatised” by a lack of access to health and social care.

One Deaf woman spent five months sleeping in an accident and emergency cubicle because there was no bed available in mental health services that had BSL support.

Repeated access failures and exclusions often cause “accumulated trauma” over a person’s lifetime, says the report.

BSL users usually need “high levels of motivation, perseverance with inaccessible systems and patience with the inexperience of professionals trying to meet their needs” if they want to access services, the report found.

Many BSL-users avoid social care and health services completely due to their past experiences because they believe their communication needs will not be met.

There are believed to be about 87,000 Deaf BSL-users in the UK, and 25,000 people who use BSL as their main language.

The report makes a string of recommendations to the UK and devolved governments, including calls to establish national, 24/7 video relay services for England and Wales; set up national BSL complaints services within England, Scotland and Wales; provide mandatory deaf, deafblind and BSL awareness training for all NHS and social care staff; and address “language deprivation” in deaf children through “early and comprehensive” BSL provision and support for families.

The Locked Out report* follows the passing of the British Sign Language (BSL) Act in April 2022, which was introduced as a private members’ bill by Labour MP Rosie Cooper and recognised BSL as a language of England, Wales, and Scotland.

The act provided Deaf people with no new rights, but it secured significant support from the Deaf community, and it led the following year to the government setting up its BSL Advisory Board to offer advice to ministers on key issues affecting the Deaf community.

All the board’s members are deaf or deafblind, or have deaf parents or a deaf child.

Craig Crowley, the board’s co-chair, says in a foreword to the report that the document is a “powerful call to action and a roadmap towards a more inclusive and equitable future for BSL users within our health and social care systems”.

He says: “We acknowledge the distressing reality of delayed diagnoses, inadequate treatment, and the emotional impact of communication breakdowns, but we strongly believe these are challenges we can, and must, overcome.”

The British Deaf Association (BDA) welcomed the new report and its “stark” findings, describing it as the “most comprehensive examination ever undertaken into the barriers faced by Deaf and Deafblind BSL users across the NHS and social care systems”.

It said the persistent failures in communication access were causing avoidable harm, entrenched inequalities, and the denial of basic rights for tens of thousands of Deaf and Deafblind people across the UK.

Rebecca Mansell, BDA’s chief executive, said: “This is a ground-breaking report that lays bare the challenges that deaf signers face every day with the NHS and care system. 

“This report confirms what Deaf and Deafblind people have been telling government for decades: the health and social care system is not built with our communities in mind. 

“We are particularly delighted to see the strong focus in the report’s recommendations on the steps that governments must take to address language deprivation in deaf children and adults.

“We strongly endorse the recommendation that governments provide free BSL courses for the families of deaf children. 

“This recommendation backs up the recently published report, The Value of British Sign Language – An Economic Analysis, written by Rand Europe, the policy research organisation.

“This reports that the teaching of BSL to young deaf children and their families delivers an impressive economic return on investment – up to £14 for every £1 invested. 

“This report requires a strong and supportive government response, and we will be contacting BDA members to urge them to write to their MPs.” 

The Department of Health and Social Care had failed to comment on the report by noon today (Thursday).

*Locked out: Exclusion of deaf and deafblind BSL users from health and social care in the UK

4 December 2025

Years of scapegoating rhetoric has led to ‘envy and resentment’ of those with blue badges, research finds

Years of scapegoating rhetoric and politicians casting disabled people as “scroungers” have reinforced prejudices about the blue badge parking scheme and led to “envy and resentment” instead of equal access, according to a four-year research project.

Half-hearted implementation of the scheme has left disabled people who rely on it feeling worried, angry and frustrated, and like “second-class citizens”, because of the encounters they have had while trying to use their badges, the research concludes.

The research was carried out by Vera Kubenz, a disabled postgraduate researcher at the University of Birmingham, and herself a blue badge holder.

She said this week that she feared that recent rhetoric around disabled people receiving “free cars” through the Motability scheme, and the need for cuts to disability benefits, would lead to a fresh wave of such aggressive and hateful encounters.

In a summary report based on her research, Disabled People’s Encounters with Strangers in Accessible Parking Spaces, Kubenz concludes that, as long as there is wider societal prejudice, hostility and suspicion aimed at disabled people, “there can be no such thing as a truly accessible space”.

As part of her research, she surveyed more than 300 disabled people with experience of encounters – good and bad – while using their blue badges.

In the survey, 74 per cent of disabled people said they had been accused of “faking” their impairments while using their blue badges.

These types of encounters were particularly common for younger disabled people, with some told they were “too young” to be disabled.

One of those who took part in the survey, who is 49, said: “A member of the public stopped me as I was parking in a Blue Badge space.

“He knocked on my window, I wound it down and he told me I shouldn’t be parking there, and I had no right to be there.

“I explained I was disabled. He said I was too young and there was nothing wrong with me.

“I proceeded to get into my wheelchair and get out of the car, in fairness, he did look quite embarrassed when I got out of the car.”

The impact of such encounters was clear, with 91 per cent of disabled people who took part in the survey saying they worried about them, with 40 per cent always worrying and 35 per cent worrying a lot, while more than two thirds (68 per cent) said they sometimes did not use their vehicles because of the worry.

Another survey participant said: “A man in his 50s came over trying to take our car keys out of the car (luckily it was a keyless ignition Motability vehicle).

“When he realised he couldn’t get the key he came round to my side trying to grab my Blue Badge.

“We was called every name under the sun. The c word, the n word, lots of f yous.

“All because we had parked in the disabled bay… I was that upset with the whole incident I wanted to just leave and not have my operation.”

Common locations for encounters were supermarket carparks (87 per cent of those surveyed), near shops (70 per cent) and at hospitals or GP surgeries (58 per cent).

Most people (70 per cent) experienced encounters between a few times a year and a few times a month.

People with chronic illness, who were neurodivergent, or who had mental health conditions were particularly likely to be confronted over their use of accessible parking spaces.

Many of those surveyed said that being under constant suspicion meant they always felt on edge and worried that an encounter could happen at any moment.

Two thirds (67 per cent) of disabled people taking part in the survey had experienced hate and harassment in accessible parking spaces.

Negative encounters could involve staring, tutting, or hushed comments, while nearly half (46 per cent) of people had been insulted and a third (32 per cent) had been threatened, while some (six per cent) had been subjected to physical violence.

But most people (69 per cent) had also had at least one positive encounter, often a positive chat with another blue badge holder.

Kubenz says in the report that enforcement of blue badge spaces is often a postcode lottery.

Although some of those surveyed said their councils took action to enforce rules around the use of blue badges, many others said their council took no action.

One said: “I wish that Blue Badge parking was properly policed because what we have now is the worst of both worlds, people making assumptions and not looking at the badge and trying to police it for the benefit of those who do, but in doing so make lots of assumptions.”

Ultimately, says Kubenz, all disabled people who use blue badges risk confrontations because “nobody can live up to the impossible stereotype required for being truly ‘deserving’”.

The survey of 304 blue badge holders was carried out in 2023, while there were 20 follow-up interviews; it was open to holders of blue badges who had had at least one encounter, were over 18, and lived in England.

Kubenz told Disability News Service this week: “I am very concerned that the renewed government and media statements about disabled people’s ‘free cars’ and cuts to both in- and out-of-work benefits will intensify the resentment non-disabled people have against all disabled people, and that this will lead to more encounters because people feel entitled to ‘police’ blue badge bays because they are seen as a perk rather than essential for access.

“These confrontations can range from underhanded comments to intrusive questions, verbal abuse, and even physical violence.

“I fear the current government rhetoric will directly contribute to more aggression and hate towards disabled people.”

She added: “Many of the people interviewed had little faith that the government would change anything about blue badge policy or awareness, precisely because they are responsible for so many of the misconceptions that lead to encounters.

“I conclude in my research that currently the blue badge scheme only provides bare minimum access; it is not about equality, but about keeping disabled people ‘in their place’.”

On Friday 12 December, between 12pm and 1pm, Kubenz is hosting a webinar on the findings of her Politics of Parking project, with guest speakers Anjna Patel, a trustee of Disabled Motoring UK, and accessible transport campaigner Christiane Link

4 December 2025

New official figures expose how politicians and media have repeatedly lied about social security spending

New official figures – hidden by government and opposition parties – have exposed months of lies by politicians and the media about “spiralling” spending on social security and the need to cut benefits.

The updated statistics from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) show that, rather than “spiralling out of control”, social security spending is predicted to be lower in 2029-30 than it is this year.

Previous figures published by OBR in October 2024 showed that the share of GDP* taken by social security spending was stable, and even predicted to fall from 11.1 per cent to 11.0 per cent in 2027-28 and 2028-29, before rising slightly back to 11.1 per cent in 2029-30.

Despite those figures, it appears to have become an accepted fact across the mainstream media – and particularly right-wing publications – that social security spending is out of control.

But the new OBR figures**, published in March this year but apparently not reported on by the media, show predicted spending to be even lower than previously forecast.

They show that social security spending is predicted to be 10.9 per cent of GDP this year, then 11 per cent in 2026-27, 10.8 per cent in 2027-28, 10.7 in 2028-29 and 10.8 per cent in 2029-30, when it will be 0.2 percentage points lower than next year’s expected level.

The figures – which may be adjusted again later this month by OBR – highlight the repeated dishonesty of politicians and media commentators who insist that chancellor Rachel Reeves must act in this month’s budget to curb what they claim is rapidly-rising spending on social security.

Although spending on personal independence payment (PIP) has been rising quickly, and is predicted to rise further – likely due to the combined impact of the pandemic on long-term health, the rise in mental ill-health, lengthy NHS waiting-lists after 15 years of austerity, greater awareness of PIP, the rising state pension age, and the cost-of-living crisis – the OBR figures show overall social security spending to be stable and even predicted to fall slightly.

This week, Disability News Service (DNS) approached the Treasury, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), the Conservative party, the Labour party and Reform UK, asking why they have repeatedly stated that social security spending was spiralling and needed to be cut when it was now set to fall over the next few years.

By noon today (Thursday), Labour, the Conservatives and Reform UK had all failed to comment on the figures or even acknowledge the approach.

The Treasury passed the questions to DWP.

A response from DWP ignored the questions asked by DNS and so is included as a footnote to this article***.

The last few days have seen Tory leader Kemi Badenoch and Reform UK leader Nigel Farage both calling for cuts to social security spending.

Badenoch said in a speech on Tuesday that she had a plan to “cut welfare”, and “reduce eligibility for lower-level mental health issues”, repeatedly conflated PIP with out-of-work disability benefits, misleadingly claimed that “sickness benefits pay more than the minimum wage”, and attacked the Motability car scheme.

Two months ago, she said the social security system was “out of control”.

Last week, Reform UK’s work and pensions spokesperson Lee Anderson said his party would cut £3.2 billion a year from PIP spending by “fully [removing] those with anxiety disorders, but not serious psychiatric disorders, from PIP eligibility”.

And this week, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage wrongly claimed that the benefits bill had “ballooned” this year, while he also claimed – again wrongly – that the million lowest-paid workers would “all be better off if they claimed to have mild anxiety”.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves was more subtle in her “scene setter” speech ahead of the budget, describing welfare spending on Tuesday misleadingly as one of the “pressures on the public finances”.

Last month, she repeated the false claim that welfare spending was spiralling, telling Channel 4 News: “We can’t get to the end of this parliamentary session and have done nothing, because if more and more of our money that we spend as a government is spent on welfare, you’ve got less for the NHS, you’ve got less for schools.”

Meanwhile, the harm caused by previous efforts to cut spending on disability benefits was highlighted on Tuesday by a protest outside DWP’s Caxton House headquarters by disabled artist, writer and filmmaker Dolly Sen.

Sen – who declared the building a “crime scene” because of the “structural violence built into the welfare system” – was joined by campaigners Joy Dove and Ian Briggs.

One of their aims was to call on the government to “prioritise the safety, dignity and lives of claimants in all welfare policy”.

Dove’s daughter Jodey Whiting died in February 2017, and in June a second inquest into her suicide – following her mother’s eight-year campaign for justice and accountability – found that her “deteriorating” mental health had been “precipitated” by the withdrawal of her out-of-work disability benefits after she missed a work capability assessment.

Briggs has campaigned for justice for five years over his claims that the actions of the Child Maintenance Service – part of DWP – contributed to Gavin’s decision to take his own life.

Sen said: “They call it welfare; I call it warfare.

“The DWP wages war on the poor, the disabled, and the already-broken.

“It’s a ministry of cruelty that has turned suffering into policy, despair into a spreadsheet.

“Behind every tick box is a human being who didn’t survive the paperwork.”

She added: “We will continue to campaign until the state stops treating life as a cost to cut.”

Dove said: “I want to show I am not going away. I want a public inquiry and justice for Jodey, if that’s the last thing I do.

“The coroner said the DWP triggered Jodey to kill herself, and I think someone should be held accountable.

“I am also doing this for the other families who have lost loved ones due to the DWP.”

*Gross domestic product, the size of the country’s economy in a particular year

**Chapter five of OBR’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook – March 2025, chart 5.2, shows welfare spending as a percentage of GDP: https://obr.uk/efo/economic-and-fiscal-outlook-march-2025/

***A DWP spokesperson said: “We’re shifting our focus from welfare to work, skills, and opportunities, so more people can move out of poverty and into good, secure jobs as part of our Plan for Change. We’re also modernising jobcentres, delivering a youth guarantee, and funding local programmes like Connect to Work so people get the skills to thrive, and businesses get the workforce they need.”

6 November 2025

Ministers listen to disabled campaigners and return key accessibility duty to railways bill

The government has restored accessibility to the heart of its planned rail reforms, in a victory for disabled campaigners and allies who fought plans to remove a key measure from new legislation.

Labour had previously dropped plans to ensure there was a statutory duty to ensure accessibility was central to all policy decisions made by the new Great British Railways (GBR).

This led to disabled campaigners and allies accusing transport secretary Heidi Alexander of scrapping commitments on accessibility made by the last Conservative government.

But when the government published its new railways bill yesterday (Wednesday), it included a “passenger and accessibility” duty.

In its response to a consultation on the bill, also published yesterday, the Department for Transport (DfT) said it would “include a passenger and accessibility duty in primary legislation to ensure GBR factors in the needs and interests of disabled passengers when carrying out its statutory functions”.

It said it was taking this step “in line with the feedback and strong support outlined in responses to the consultation”.

The bill says that GBR, ministers and the regulator must all “exercise their functions” in “the manner best calculated to promote the interests of users and potential users of railway passenger services including, in particular, the needs of disabled persons”.

The bill will create GBR, a new publicly-owned company that will bring together management of passenger services and rail infrastructure.

The government also plans to use the bill to introduce a stronger passenger watchdog and simplify fares and tickets.

DfT said this watchdog would have “an explicit role in accessibility by monitoring how services are delivered to disabled passengers and advocating for improvements where issues arise”.

Ministers have also published a new “roadmap to an accessible railway”.

The roadmap – which covers England, Scotland and Wales – promises that GBR “will embed accessibility into the heart of the railway”.

But despite a series of pledges in the roadmap to improve the railway’s accessibility, questions are already being asked about the government’s commitment to funding the cost of transforming the railway’s infrastructure to ensure it is accessible to disabled passengers.

The roadmap says £373 million will be spent over the next five years on the Access for All station improvement programme, but it admits that this will only increase the proportion of rail stations across Britain that are step-free from pavement to platform from 56 per cent to 58 per cent.

But the roadmap also promises that reforms to the Access for All programme will lead to a future commitment to only spend “up to” £70 million a year.

This appears to be a reduction in spending, once inflation is accounted for, as the Department for Transport (DfT) previously allocated £350 million for the scheme from 2019 to 2024, although only £285 million of that was eventually spent over those five years.

Among other measures in the roadmap – and following years of calls from campaigners, particularly the Campaign for Level Boarding – the government promises a “comprehensive study of level boarding to identify and scope practical, cost-effective solutions for achieving level boarding across prioritised locations on the rail network”.

A strategy next year will include the government’s approach to “improving level boarding and setting out what is needed from trains and infrastructure in the future, to allow people to board with greater ease”.

The roadmap also promises that Network Rail will deliver a plan to improve the reliability and performance of lifts and escalators at stations across the rail network.

And it says improvements will be made over the next 16 months to the much-criticised Passenger Assist – which allows disabled passengers to book assistance in advance of their journey – that will be aimed at making it “more reliable and consistent”.

On customer information on station accessibility, among the improvements planned are the introduction of “virtual 3D walkthroughs” of 250 of the country’s busiest and most complex stations, and improvements to live information on facilities such as lifts, escalators and accessible toilets.

And eligibility for a disabled persons railcard will be expanded to “cover a wider range of disabilities”.

There will also be a new, “comprehensive” disability equality training programme for rail staff, which will be co-produced and delivered in partnership with disabled people and rolled out across the rail network, with the possibility of a new British Standard for “inclusive service”, which will apply to train companies as they are nationalised.

A new National Accessibility Panel will “oversee and advise on nationally significant issues affecting disabled passengers across the UK”, with membership including disabled people and representatives from disabled people’s organisations, as well as the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland.

Emily Sullivan, co-founder of the Association of British Commuters, and a disabled researcher in equality and human rights, said: “After eight months of campaigning, it is a real victory to get core duties for accessibility and socioeconomic value back into the plan for Great British Railways.

“Our next task is to make sure these duties are even stronger, and that there is a much better, rights-based framework for regulating accessibility.

“There is also an urgent need to secure more funding – with slow progress on Access for All and signs of more austerity policies ahead, such as railway destaffing.”

She said the roadmap was “very short-term” but included some “valuable suggestions”, particularly the commitment to develop a new system of accessibility panels, which “could be transformative for disabled people’s representation” if the system was independent, transparent, and engaged with the public, and co-created with disabled people’s organisations.

But she said there were some “serious omissions”, with “no mention whatsoever of equality or rights-based standards, which should be the foundation of everything else”.

And she said it was “appalling” that there was no “mention or aspiration” towards disabled people’s right to “turn up and go” on the rail network.

Sullivan also said it was “hugely concerning” that the private sector Rail Delivery Group would be developing technologies like Passenger Assist until at least 2027, when it “should have been removed from the area of accessibility years ago”.

She said: “It is important to watch this closely in case the focus on pre-booking technologies is being used once again as a way to destaff the network.”

The disabled people’s organisation Transport for All said the railways bill was “a once-in-a-generation opportunity to rebuild Britain’s railways with accessibility for everyone embedded from the ground up”, but that it must lead to “concrete, enforceable change across the rail network”.

It said it would be closely monitoring developments with the bill and GBR’s licence “to ensure that disabled people’s experiences are central in shaping the next era of Britain’s railways”.

Emma Vogelmann, co-chief executive of Transport for All, said: “This bill is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to rebuild Britain’s railways with accessibility for everyone embedded from the ground up.

“We welcome the government’s commitment to include disabled passengers in the new passenger interest duty and to give the passenger watchdog a clear role in monitoring accessibility.”

But she added: “These promises must lead to real, measurable improvements for disabled people who rely on rail.

“Accessibility for everyone must be a priority for public transport and a defining principle as Great British Railways takes shape.”

A DfT spokesperson told Disability News Service: “We are fully committed to improving accessibility across the network, and the railways bill includes a statutory duty requiring key bodies in the sector to support all passengers, particularly the needs of disabled people.

“Alongside the railways bill, today we published an accessibility roadmap, which is a practical plan to deliver real, measurable change and expanded eligibility for the disabled persons railcard.”

Labour’s Ruth Cadbury, who chairs the Commons transport committee, gave a cautious welcome to the roadmap.

The committee’s Access Denied report on transport accessibility argued for a long-term plan with concrete timescales to address the barriers faced by disabled travellers, with the committee later describing the government’s response to its report as lacking “urgency” and disabled campaigners warning that it left the future of disabled people’s right to travel in “grave danger”.

Cadbury said: “We will take a close look at the roadmap and its implementation to ensure that it delivers on this need.”

She welcomed some of the contents of the roadmap but stressed that “funding needs to be equal to the scale of the challenge”.

She said: “We will be looking closely in the future at whether the roadmap’s ambitions transform the experience of getting around on the rails in practice.”

Rail minister Lord [Peter] Hendy described the roadmap as a “turning point” for disabled rail passengers and said it was “a practical plan to deliver real, measurable change, ahead of the establishment of Great British Railways”.

He said: “We know there is more work to do, but the roadmap lays the foundations for a longer-term transformation under GBR, because an accessible railway isn’t just better for disabled people – it’s better for us all, and this is the start of building one together.”

6 November 2025

Government review calls for ‘safer, more supportive’ workplaces for disabled people

A government review has called for action by employers and ministers to ensure “safer, more supportive, inclusive workplaces” and to address the barriers faced by sick and disabled people in and out of work.

The final report of the Keep Britain Working review focuses on what employers and government can do to address links between ill-health and economic inactivity.

But it almost completely ignores the views of sick and disabled people, and the risks of forcing someone back into work when they are not well enough, particularly when many of the available jobs are “poorly-paid, strenuous and insecure” and likely to make someone unwell again, as Disability Rights UK pointed out this week.

It also appears to suggest that employers should be given more power in deciding when an employee should return to work, with less say given to GPs, through reforms to the “fit note” system.

The report points to an estimated gain of up to £18 billion a year to employers, government, and the wider economy, if the suggested reforms are introduced.

The review says the UK has been “sliding into an economic inactivity crisis driven in large part by ill-health and by barriers to work faced by disabled people” and it lays out a seven-year plan to “radically improve results in managing health and disability in work”.

In contrast to the months and years of targeted attacks by politicians and right-wing media, in which sick and disabled people have been blamed for the country’s economic problems (see separate story), the review places the responsibility for addressing the “crisis” largely on employers.

It says: “Disabled people describe repeatedly having to self-advocate for workplace adjustments, often with anxiety about whether support will be given or withdrawn in future.
“As many conditions are dynamic and fluctuating, this becomes a recurring burden.
“It also makes changing roles or employers much harder.”

The 10-month review, led by Sir Charlie Mayfield, former chair of John Lewis Partnership and of the British Retail Consortium, was commissioned last year by the government.

The review says the aim is to “re-humanise the workplace, raise standards, improve access to support, and transform the visibility of data”.

The review was told by ill and disabled employees that they “fear disclosing health conditions or disabilities, and are worried about stigma, discrimination, or damage to career prospects”.

Although Sir Charlie emphasises the risk of “disengaging from work and potential support, or relying on welfare as an alternative to work”, almost all his report calls for action by employers and government and mostly avoids blaming sick and disabled people.

In a letter to work and pensions secretary Pat McFadden and business and trade secretary Peter Kyle, Sir Charlie says: “With the right approach, many more people could stay in work, recover faster, and live healthier, more secure lives.”

The review calls for a “fundamental shift from a model where health at work is largely left to the individual and the NHS, to one where it becomes a shared responsibility between employers, employees and health services”.

Among its recommendations, the review calls for significant reform of the fit note, which is issued by healthcare professionals to provide evidence of their advice on a person’s fitness for work.

It suggests that a new employer-funded system would “offer support and advice, early intervention, good case management, and targeted early-stage treatment pathways”, with this eventually “reducing – or even replacing – the need for the current fit note”, a recommendation that may alarm many campaigners concerned at the power this may give employers over unwell employees.

It also calls for the development of “stay in work” and “return to work” plans, faster access to support, and a new certified “healthy working” standard for employers.

Publishing the report, the government announced a list of about 80 employers that have pledged to become part of the “vanguard” of organisations that will be “early adopters” of the new approach to workplace health.

There are already significant concerns being expressed about the report.

As well as concern over the apparent move towards giving employers more power in deciding an employee’s fitness for work, there is likely to be alarm about the report’s failure to discuss those sick and disabled people who cannot work or even move towards work, and the risks of pressuring them to do so.

There is likely to be disquiet among many disabled people that the list of enthusiastic “vanguard” employers includes Capita, Maximus and Unum, all of which have been linked closely to activity by the Department for Work and Pensions that has caused countless deaths of disabled claimants over the last three decades.

Many will also highlight the government’s continuing cuts to disabled people’s Access to Work packages – with more cuts believed likely in the coming months – and its decision to cut the health element for most new claimants of universal credit who cannot work for disability-related reasons, supposedly as an “incentive”, from April 2026.

The new work and pensions secretary, Pat McFadden, is also expected to take action to prevent most sick and disabled people under the age of 22 from accessing the health element of universal credit.

Another potential concern is that there is little or no mention in the report of working with disabled people and DPOs to implement the review’s recommendations.

Instead, the report talks of the need for a “phased approach… working with willing employers and providers to develop and prove what works, before embedding and extending it across the wider economy over the next 3-7 years.”

But McFadden said yesterday in a written statement to MPs that a new “vanguard taskforce”, to be co-chaired by Sir Charlie, will “bring together representatives from business, disabled people, workers representatives and health experts to shape and deliver this work”.

He did not make it clear how many of the report’s recommendations the government accepted, but he said ministers planned to “work with businesses and disabled people to pilot and develop improvements and reform”.

He said the government was “already piloting innovative approaches to the fit note and we are committed to further reform so that it works better for patients, employers and the health system”.

There are only fleeting mentions in the report of the Access to Work scheme – currently plagued by delays and cuts – and its importance to disabled people in finding and maintaining jobs.

And the review is dismissive of Disability Confident, the much-criticised scheme introduced more than a decade ago by Conservative work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith.

It says: “Schemes such as Disability Confident and Access to Work have several positive features and good intent, but we heard regularly across the review that they were not delivering effectively in practice, with Disability Confident lacking accountability and ‘teeth’ and Access to Work facing long delays and delivery challenges.”

McFadden said: “Business is our partner in building a productive workforce – because when businesses retain talent and reduce workplace ill-health, everyone wins.”

Kyle added: “Many more people could remain in work if they receive the right support – and that’s exactly what today’s action is about.

“We believe that when people are treated with dignity and care, businesses flourish.”

6 November 2025

DWP refuses to rule out cuts to PIP next year

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has refused to rule out spending cuts to personal independence payment (PIP) when it completes a year-long review that is being headed by the disability minister.

Misleading reports in right-wing media last week suggested that updated terms of reference for the review showed ministers had ruled out any cuts to PIP spending.

But the terms of reference suggest exactly the opposite: that spending will not be allowed to be higher than the “projections” published by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) but could be lower.

The terms of reference say: “The purpose of the Review is to ensure that PIP is fair and fit for the future rather than to generate proposals for further savings.

“However, the sustainability of the system is an important consideration and so the Review will operate within the OBR’s projections for future PIP expenditure, to ensure it is there to support generations to come.”

This second sentence has been added since the original terms of reference were published in June.

The following sentence has also been added to the terms of reference since June: “We want to ensure public money is spent as effectively as possible in supporting disabled people to live independent and fulfilling lives.”

This week, DWP refused to clarify what it meant by these two sentences, and whether the review could lead to cuts to PIP spending.

Instead, a DWP spokesperson said: “We want a welfare state that is there for those who need it and supports people into work, while delivering fairness to the taxpayer.

“That’s why we’re launching the Timms Review to make sure PIP is fair and fit for the future.

“We’re shifting our focus from welfare to work, skills and opportunities so more people can move out of poverty and into good, secure jobs as part of the Plan for Change.”

Last week, DWP announced the names of the two disabled people – Dr Clenton Farquharson and Sharon Brennan – who will co-chair the review with Sir Stephen Timms, the minister for social security and disability.

Brennan is a former director of policy and external affairs at National Voices, a coalition of English health and social care charities, and a former member of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee.

Farquharson is a consultant, associate director at Think Local Act Personal, and a board member of both Disability Rights UK and the Race Equality Foundation.

DWP has also launched a recruitment process for the 12 members of the PIP review’s steering group.

The majority of the steering group will be disabled people or representatives of disabled people’s organisations.

These positions will be paid, with a daily fee of £300 for up to five days a month until autumn 2026.

As the Benefits and Work website pointed out, this is likely to mean the steering group will have only about 55 days to complete its work.

It also pointed out that steering group members will not need to sign a gagging clause, although they will be expected to “maintain the confidentiality of information shared in confidence”.

There was shock and alarm this summer when DWP imposed a gagging order – which was later removed – on members of its new Independent Disability Advisory Panel.

In a parliamentary written statement, Sir Stephen said the PIP review would be the first time the government had undertaken co-production with disabled people “on this scale”.

But the terms of reference make it clear that final decisions on any changes will be made by Labour’s new work and pensions secretary, Pat McFadden.

Meanwhile, Benefits and Work also highlighted a string of errors, concerning statements and misleading claims made by Reform UK in a press conference last week on the party’s plans to slash PIP and target the Motability scheme.

6 November 2025

Safeguarding probe launched after veteran disabled activist reports ‘terrifying’ care home experience

A veteran activist, who has spent her life campaigning for disability rights, has called on the government to fix the “rotten to the core” social care system, after experiencing “terrifying” treatment during a short stay in a care home.

Rachel Hurst, now 86, is hoping to give evidence about her experience to Baroness Casey’s social care commission, which has been set up by the government to examine the crisis in adult social care.

For 12 days last month as a temporary resident at Miranda House in Royal Wootton Bassett, she says she was frequently left in wet and soiled pads – sometimes all day – and had to remind staff to bring her the medication she needed to take every morning.

Sheets were not changed, she was left in bed for hours at a time during the day, there was little communication from staff, some of whom were “rude” and uncaring, she says, and the home did not have the hoist needed to allow her to use the toilet safely, while there was no monitoring of her fluid intake.

She said the care provided was “dire”, even though the home itself was clean and her room was mainly well-equipped, and she was left with an infection which she believes was caused by the failure to change her pads.

Wiltshire Council has now launched a safeguarding investigation into her experience at the home.

Miranda House is owned and run by Aria Care Group, which operates more than 60 homes across England, Scotland and Jersey.

Hurst is a former director of the international disability rights network Disability Awareness in Action (DAA) and former vice-chair of Disabled Peoples’ International, and she was heavily involved in lobbying the United Nations (UN) for nearly 20 years to introduce a disability rights convention, receiving letters from disabled people all over the world about her campaign, which she shared with the UN.

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was eventually adopted in 2006 and entered into force in 2008.

A former chair of the British Council of Disabled People and Greenwich Association of Disabled People in the 1980s, she has fought for disabled people’s rights throughout her adult life.

She has always been known as a forthright, formidable, and charismatic campaigner – she once heckled prime minister Tony Blair at an event in 10 Downing Street – and says she now wants to use her final years to highlight the appalling state of social care.

She spent 12 days in the care home while her support needs were being assessed.

Hurst, who was awarded a CBE in 2008, said: “I felt impotent and lonely and depressed. It was terrible.”

She said she contacted Disability News Service (DNS) about her “dreadful” and “terrifying” experience because she wanted to publicise the impact of the social care crisis on disabled people who rely on care and support.

Hurst, who nearly died last Christmas from sepsis, pneumonia and flu, told DNS: “I am very angry; the whole of the social care system is engineered to discriminate.

“I am hoping you will write a story, but I want to make sure it gets to people who will then do something.

“This must get on the radio or television, so people begin to talk about the treatment of disabled people.

“I don’t care about me anymore, but I do care about other disabled people.

“I don’t want something done about my situation, I want something done about social care, even if it’s the last thing I do.

“I want people to understand how terrible things are. The discrimination against us is quite unbelievable.

“I travelled the world visiting residential homes, but I am shocked that in Britain today we are treating people in the way we are in these homes and in social care and in our own homes.”

She is now living back at home in Wiltshire, but still relies on 24-hour care, with her health and care needs funded by an NHS Continuing Healthcare package from Bath and North East Somerset, Swindon and Wiltshire Integrated Care Board.

The family’s concerns have been passed on by the care board to Wiltshire Council.

Cllr Gordon King, the council’s cabinet member for adult social care, said: “Everyone has the right to expect the highest standards of care and support when staying in a care home.

“When concerns are raised and we are made aware, Wiltshire Council will carry out a safeguarding investigation and support a thorough review of the issues.

“We have initiated a safeguarding investigation based on the information that has been shared.

“Where care is funded by health services, the integrated care board and Wiltshire Council work closely together to respond to concerns, ensuring they are properly addressed and that the individual raising them is kept informed throughout the process.”

A spokesperson for Miranda House said: “There is nothing more important to us than the health and wellbeing of the people in our home.

“While we were sorry to receive this feedback from Ms Hurst, her account differs to our records and is in stark contrast to the typical positive comments we receive from residents and their loved ones.

“The home has a 9.5 rating on the independent comparison website carehome.co.uk and is often complimented for our caring and supportive staff team.

“Throughout her 12 days in our home, we had been in close communication with NHS Bath and North East Somerset, Swindon and Wiltshire Integrated Care Board, who organised Ms Hurst’s care.

“We are confident our team did everything they could to respond to her unique needs with compassionate care.”

Bath and North East Somerset, Swindon and Wiltshire Integrated Care Board refused to comment directly on the complaint made by Rachel Hurst due to patient confidentiality, even though she had made it clear she was happy for DNS to report her case and for the board to discuss it with DNS.

Instead, it released the following statement: “As commissioners of local health and care services, we expect our provider partners – including those outside of the NHS, such as care home residences – to maintain the highest possible standards, and to treat all patients with kindness, dignity and respect.

“Where care falls below the expectations of patients and their families, we will investigate and work alongside providers to implement tangible improvements which not only benefit the individual, but also prevent similar situations from occurring.

“We strongly encourage any patients who have concerns about their care to reach out to us through our Patient Advice and Liaison Team as early as possible so that we can step in and take action without delay.”

6 November 2025

Tens of thousands tell government: We reject any plans to cut PIP

Tens of thousands of disabled people and allies have made clear to the government that they reject any plans to cut spending on personal independence payment (PIP) and other disability-related support.

The views came in response to a public consultation on March’s Pathways to Work green paper, with the government publishing its summary of those responses on 30 October.

The consultation, which ran until the end of June, received nearly 48,000 responses, including nearly 900 organisations.

Out of nearly 15,000 direct responses to a consultation question on the government’s original plans to cut PIP entitlement – which were later dropped after a backbench rebellion – more than half (52 per cent) called for the current criteria to be maintained, while 37 per cent highlighted the financial impact of losing PIP, and 18 per cent pointed to the mental health impacts of such a loss.

It is not possible from the document to measure how many respondents in total opposed cuts to PIP because of the way the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) produced its report.

But in addition to the 15,000 direct responses, DWP also received more than 33,000 other responses – coordinated by three outside organisations – which did not reply directly to the questions posed in the consultation.

Again, DWP did not attempt to calculate how many of these responses opposed cuts to PIP, but it said there was “broad opposition to changes to the value or eligibility of PIP”.

It said these responses also opposed stopping disabled people under 22 from receiving the health element of universal credit, another reform proposed in the Pathways to Work green paper.

Opposition to this change was also overwhelming among those who responded directly to the consultation questions, with more than 42 per cent saying support should be based on need, not age, and more than 12 per cent highlighting that delaying access to the health element would cause financial hardship for young people and increase their risk of poverty.

The document appears to suggest that just four per cent of respondents backed delaying the payments until 22.

Elsewhere in the government’s consultation response, thousands of disabled people and allies made clear to DWP that if it wanted to improve its “current approach to safeguarding people who use our services”, it should abandon any cuts, ensure “financial stability”, and reform the assessment process to ensure “fair, transparent, unintrusive, individualised assessments delivered by trained medical professionals”.

Meanwhile, the government has all but confirmed that it has dropped its plans for a white paper based on many of the Pathways to Work proposals and has decided to proceed instead by announcing future proposals individually.

In response to last week’s Disability News Service (DNS) report that the white paper had been dropped, DWP eventually produced the following statement: “Today, we published the response to the Pathways to Work Green Paper and have already put in place the equivalent of over 1,000 full-time Pathways to Work advisers across Britain to help disabled people into work, as well as investing £1 billion a year for employment support by the end of the decade.

“We have also launched the Timms Review to ensure PIP is fair and fit for the future and are increasing the number of health assessments that are being conducted in person.

“We will be bringing forward other policy updates in due course.”

Following a DNS briefing last week, the Liberal Democrat work and pensions spokesperson Steve Darling asked Sir Stephen when the white paper would be published.

In his written response on Monday – which mirrored the statement given to DNS – Sir Stephen failed to mention the white paper but instead said DWP had appointed new Pathways to Work advisers and launched his PIP review (see separate story), adding: “We will be bringing forward other policy updates in due course.”

Further evidence that the white paper has been scrapped came in updated terms of reference for the PIP review.

The original terms of reference (PDF) made two mentions of the white paper, but both of these have been removed from the updated terms of reference.

The Benefits and Work website said the backbench rebellion over PIP appeared to have “put ministers off the idea of launching another full scale attack on benefits” and instead seemed to have persuaded them to “switch to guerilla tactics, choosing smaller individual targets which they believe will be easier to achieve”.

6 November 2025

DWP’s plans ‘in tatters’ as McFadden scraps white paper on further disability cuts

Ministers have dumped plans for a major white paper containing a swathe of further cuts and reforms to disability benefits, following months of activism by disabled people and allies that forced the government into a major U-turn this summer.

Work and pensions secretary Pat McFadden, who only took on the role last month, confirmed the move in a meeting with representatives of disabled people’s organisations (DPOs) earlier this month.

One DPO said yesterday (Wednesday) that the admission was a “major success” for disabled people who fought the summer cuts bill.

But DPOs also warned that activists would need to keep up the pressure on ministers because McFadden had made it clear that, despite abandoning the white paper – which is likely to have significant political implications for the Labour government – individual measures would be taken forward.

He insisted in the meeting – first revealed this week by Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People – that further reforms would go ahead, but they would be introduced individually rather than all together in a white paper.

The white paper was set to be based on many of the measures outlined in the Pathways to Work green paper, and responses to a subsequent public consultation.

The results of that consultation should be published before the end of this year.

The decision to bin the white paper means that many of the reforms suggested in March’s green paper – including removing the health element of universal credit for those under 22; reform, and possibly cuts, to Access to Work; a time-limited replacement for contributory employment and support allowance; scrapping the work capability assessment; and changes to the safeguarding, conditionality and sanctions regimes – are likely to be announced separately over the coming months.

Some – but not all – of the reforms will still require legislation.

McFadden’s admission that he had dumped the white paper was made in a meeting on 14 October with Fazilet Hadi and Svetlana Kotova from umbrella organisation DPO Forum England.

Hadi, head of policy for Disability Rights UK, told Disability News Service (DNS): “I definitely think that the amazing campaigning from disabled people and our allies against the PIP cuts has left the government feeling very bruised.

“The change of heart in publishing a DWP white paper, and the delay in launching the SEND white paper, bear this out.

“Having said this, Pat McFadden has been moved to DWP to drive through cuts to social security, so the lack of a white paper doesn’t mean that there won’t be further threats to the benefits of disabled people.

“It just means that those threats won’t all come at once.”

Kotova, director of campaigns and justice at Inclusion London, agreed.

She said: “There is a pause, but it does not mean reforms won’t be coming.

“And we need to keep the pressure and persuade or force the government to switch its focus from cutting benefits or ‘fixing us’ to be more work ready to putting resources and its attention to making workplaces more inclusive.”

Among their arguments in the meeting, she said, was for the government to move money from employment support towards the Access to Work scheme.

Steve Darling, the Liberal Democrat work and pensions spokesperson, has lodged a parliamentary question about the “deeply disturbing” situation after being alerted by DNS.

He said: “At the time of a cost-of-living crisis, it is concerning that the secretary of state could be moving away from a more thoughtful, considered approach, to one more driven by cuts than by strategy.

“This will only add to the stress and uncertainty that disabled people are facing with the threat of more cuts to disability benefits next year.

“I have therefore asked the secretary of state a named day parliamentary question to find out when (if at all!) the white paper will be published, to try to shed some light on this fraught situation.”

Rick Burgess, from Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People, who first revealed publicly that the white paper had been dumped, told DNS: “They are not confident that they will get a big piece of legislation through parliament anymore.

“It shows we really scared them. It’s a huge embarrassment for them. All their plans are in tatters, and they are afraid of losing another showdown in parliament.

“A Starmer government couldn’t survive another drubbing.”

But he said he did not think ministers had changed their attitudes towards welfare reform, only that they were not confident they could push a large bill through parliament.

And he said it would be much harder for disabled people to stop a stream of smaller reforms, and that “keeping track of them is going to be really tricky”.

Linda Burnip, co-founder of Disabled People Against Cuts, said the government’s move to drop the white paper was “obviously a major success for disability rights activists and the many months of campaigning”.

But she said it appeared likely that ministers would use secondary legislation to “sneak things through in dribs and drabs and hope changes won’t be noticed”.

McFadden told Fazilet Hadi and Svetlana Kotova at the meeting that no decisions had yet been taken on barring under-22s from the health component of universal credit, and that it was a priority of his to get more young people into work.

They said he seemed to indicate that time-limiting contributory benefits would be taken forward relatively soon.

Hadi said: “We emphasised the need for government to join up its policies on disabled people and to coproduce solutions with us.

“We urged him to move funding to the Access to Work scheme from the additional money being spent on employment support.”

Reforms – and almost certainly cuts – to personal independence payment are expected to follow next autumn, following a review being headed by Sir Stephen Timms, the minister for social security and disability.

Sir Stephen today (Thursday) launched the review, and announced his disabled co-chairs – Dr Clenton Farquharson and Sharon Brennan – as well as a recruitment process for the 12 members of a steering group that will jointly lead the review.

He said the majority of this steering group would be disabled people or representatives of DPOs.

DWP had not commented on McFadden’s admission by noon today (Thursday).

30 October 2025

‘Shocking’ figures show parents linked to DWP service face death rates up to three times higher

Parents who pay to support a child through the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and its Child Maintenance Service (CMS) face death rates up to three times higher than others the same age, according to “shocking” and “deeply troubling” new figures.

Analysis by Disability News Service (DNS) has shown that, for every age group between 20 and 54, those who use the service – known as “paying parents”* – face a much higher rate of death than those of the same age who do not have to deal with the CMS.

DNS carried out the analysis using figures obtained from DWP through a freedom of information request.

The request followed concerns raised by campaigners who have called for an inquiry into the deaths of parents driven to take their own lives by DWP’s refusal to correct errors in child support demands.

The figures, which are particularly exaggerated for younger age groups, have been passed to the Commons work and pensions committee, which is at the early stages of an inquiry into concerns about CMS.

Among the inquiry’s aims will be how to “improve the way it deals with families”, and concerns over how CMS calculates payments, and enforcement of its decisions.

The DNS analysis shows that, for all those aged 20 to 24 in England and Wales, the rate of deaths in 2024 was 0.04 per cent, compared with 0.13 per cent for CMS paying parents (more than three times higher).

For those aged 25 to 29, the rate of death was more than twice as high for paying parents, and for those 30 to 34 it was twice as high (0.12 per cent versus 0.06 per cent).

The difference in death rates narrows for older age groups, but there is still a substantial difference for every group analysed by DNS, with CMS paying parents aged 50 to 54 facing a death rate of 0.46 per cent in 2024, compared with 0.34 per cent for all adults in that age group.

Results for 2022 and 2023 show similar, striking differences.

Over those three years, there is not a single age group between 20 and 54 – the only groups examined in the analysis – where the death rates are not higher for paying parents than for all adults in England and Wales.

Although the figures do not show how many of these deaths were suicides, they do add strong evidence to the claims of campaigners who believe the higher rates of death for paying parents are at least partly caused by errors by CMS and its toxic culture, including its refusal to correct its mistakes.

DWP said this week that it was carrying out reforms aimed at streamlining CMS but that it did not “recognise” the DNS figures or any suggestion of a causal link between the actions and culture of CMS and the deaths of paying parents, although it did not point out any errors in the DNS calculations.

Ian Briggs, from research and campaign group STOPS (StopSuicides UK), which focuses on the harm caused by CMS, said: “I, and many others, have long known that the CMS and the DWP have been responsible for driving many parents to suicide.

“For years we have tried to highlight this to the DWP, yet every attempt is met with the same denial – that there is no link between the CMS and suicides.

“Even when presented with clear and credible evidence gathered by the STOPS group, the official response from ministers has remained one of outright dismissal.”

His son Gavin took his own life five years ago.

The coroner at Gavin’s inquest refused to investigate his father’s claims that the actions of the CMS had contributed to his decision to take his own life, even though the agency had wrongly claimed he owed £16,000 in support payments, after claiming his income was £76,000 rather than the £26,000 it was in reality.

Ian Briggs said this week: “The mortality rates recently revealed through John’s** research and exposed by Disability News Service cannot all be explained away as coincidence.

“While not every death may be due to suicide, these figures reveal a deeply troubling pattern that demands urgent scrutiny.

“At some point, there must be a full and independent public inquiry into these disturbing facts and the systemic failures within the CMS and DWP that continue to destroy lives and families.

“I would like to personally thank John and Disability News Service for… exposing these shocking mortality rates, and for giving a voice to the countless families – like mine – who have suffered unimaginable loss.”

Craig Bulman, who was left with PTSD after the Child Support Agency mishandled his case – the agency, the predecessor of CMS, eventually paid him a £5,000 consolatory payment – said the figures uncovered by DNS were “shocking”.

He told DNS: “Even allowing for statistical margins, the death rates you’ve calculated are deeply disturbing and point to something seriously wrong within the Child Maintenance Service.”

The Child Support Agency’s failings left Bulman homeless, triggered a mental breakdown, and caused the loss of his job.

He said this week: “These figures confirm what families have been warning for years – that the Child Maintenance Service is operating without proper oversight or duty of care.

“Death rates among paying parents are up to three times higher than the national average, and yet the DWP has failed to investigate or publish these findings.

“This now warrants an independent inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005.”

In January 2023, during the final session of a previous inquiry into CMS by the Commons work and pensions committee, Labour MP Debbie Abrahams told of a paying parent whose arrears had been inaccurately assessed “and the frustration that he found ultimately led to him taking his life”.

She said his mother had previously written to DWP “expressing real concerns about mental health” but there had been no reply.

She added: “This is not the first time. We had a panel before Christmas that also provided data about the suicides of paying parents who were inaccurately assessed in terms of the arrears that they owed.

“This is tens of thousands of pounds that they said that they owe, leaving literally pounds for them to exist on.”

She asked Tory work and pensions minister Viscount Younger at the time if DWP collected data on suicides of paying parents.

He told her: “Could I just say that, being new into the department, I am already aware, having seen some of the correspondence that I have had to look at and sign off on, of some absolutely tragic cases?

“It is absolutely appalling that cases can lead to people taking their own lives.

“That is dreadful and we must look at all ways in which we can avoid that or have systems and processes that do not lead to that.”

Despite those comments, a DWP spokesperson said this week: “Over 780,000 people engage with the Child Maintenance Service, many of whom are experiencing a difficult time in their lives, and all staff are trained to support vulnerable customers.

“We do not recognise this data or suggestions of a causal link between the CMS and deaths among parents.”

*Child maintenance covers how a child’s living costs are paid when one of the parents does not live with the child

**DNS editor John Pring

***The following organisations are among those that might be able to offer support if you have been affected by the issues raised in this article: Mind, Papyrus, Rethink, Samaritans, and SOS Silence of Suicide

30 October 2025

Former detective exposes culture of disability discrimination within ‘institutionally disablist’ Met

A culture of institutional disability discrimination within the Metropolitan police is exposed today by the former head of its disabled staff association.

Dave Campbell, who retired this year after serving 32 years as a police officer, has told Disability News Service (DNS) that he believes disability discrimination within the force is rampant and that the Met is institutionally disablist.

He believes this “corporate culture” impacts how the force engages with disabled members of the public.

Campbell was chair of the Met’s Disabled Staff Association (DSA) for six years, and he was also vice-president of the Disabled Police Association of England and Wales.

His disclosures come only days after DNS revealed that prosecutions of disability hate crime across the country were continuing to plummet, with police forces in England and Wales passing on just a tiny proportion of recorded cases to prosecutors.

For six years, Campbell repeatedly tried to persuade the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to act on his concerns, before his retirement earlier this year.

It was his intervention that ensured the recent Casey review of the force’s internal culture and standards of behaviour examined the treatment of disabled people, when its initial focus was on racism, sexism and homophobia.

He believes the review provided an “alarming insight into how disabled people feel about their place in the organisation”, as he told Met commissioner Sir Mark Rowley in a letter last year.

He has told DNS that the upper levels of the Met have made it clear through their actions and inflexible policies – which he says marginalise disabled staff, and stem from outdated attitudes – that they do not want people who become disabled to continue serving as police officers in the force.

He says several disabled officers and staff have left the force because of their disability-related treatment and have written directly to the commissioner expressing their “despair and concerns”, without receiving any acknowledgement.

Over the four years between 2019 and 2023, he says, more than 200 disability discrimination employment tribunal claims were taken against the Met, including a significant number which included claims of race or gender discrimination.

The Casey review found an even higher number – 358 – in the five years between 2017-18 and 2021-22, but it was criticised by disabled campaigners for concluding that MPS was institutionally racist, sexist and homophobic, but not that it was institutionally disablist.

Campbell believes the number of disability discrimination tribunal cases increased after the Casey review by up to 60 per cent in 2023-24 compared to the previous year, while the DSA received hundreds of emails from distressed colleagues about the way they were being treated by their managers.

He has told Sir Mark that disability-led internal grievances are also at a high level, while many of his members had “no confidence or trust in the grievance management process” or in the ability of the Culture, Diversity and Inclusion directorate – set up after the Casey review – to produce change.

In the wake of Casey’s report, Campbell – as DSA chair – commissioned an independent review of disability inclusion and workplace adjustments in the force, by the Business Disability Forum (BDF), which reported its findings in September 2024.

Disabled colleagues in the DSA were asked if they had witnessed or personally experienced unfair treatment at work through disability-related harassment, bullying or discrimination, and 358 of the 775 who responded to the survey said yes (46 per cent), and another 123 (16 per cent) said maybe, a total of 62 per cent.

Of 504 police officers, 49 per cent said yes, and 15 per cent said maybe, a total of 64 per cent.

Of the 775 responses from disabled officers and civilian staff, less than 20 per cent (160) agreed with the statement: “MPS is an organisation that recognises and values disabled people.”

And just 65 (eight per cent) agreed that “feedback and complaints are listened to”.

One respondent said: “If you treated any of the other protected characteristics as you did disability then there would be uproar and heads would roll.”

Campbell believes the BDF report supports the view that MPS is institutionally disablist.

He told Sir Mark in last year’s letter: “In my experience Disability discrimination in the MPS is viewed less significantly and addressed differently in comparison to Race, Homophobia, Gender or any other type of Discrimination…”

In an earlier letter to Sir Mark, in 2022, Campbell told him: “There needs to be a change in attitudes [towards disabled officers] and an end to conscious labelling, as sick, lame, lazy, shirker, which are all derogatory terms yet seemingly acceptable…”

He has yet to receive any “tangible” response to the concerns he raised in last year’s letter and the survey report.

Campbell, a detective sergeant before his retirement, has himself twice taken successful action against the Met for disability discrimination, winning the first case at tribunal and then securing an MPS settlement before the start of a tribunal for the second case.

He describes himself as a person of ethnic origin, and has experienced intersectional discrimination, which he says is widespread in the Met.

He said the same complaints are being made “time and time again” at tribunal and through the force’s internal grievance process, which shows there is a “systemic” problem and failure to address these issues through an absence of “corporate memory” and a lack of “morality”.

Currently, about 3,500 police officers have adjustments made for them to allow them to continue in their roles, he said, out of about 36,000 officers in total across the force.

Campbell believes the number of MPS disabled officers and civilian staff may be as high as 10,000 – almost a quarter of the workforce – because many staff do not share their impairment with the force “due to concerns of how they will be treated”.

The Met’s DSA has more than 6,500 members and has 37 peer-to-peer support networks for disabled staff.

Campbell says he has increasingly been coming across incidents where the force’s occupational health department is making recommendations for adjustments to be made for officers who become disabled – often caused by their duties – but managers are refusing to agree to these adjustments.

Instead, officers are often told: “If you cannot do the job then you should just leave,” or: “This isn’t the right job for you.”

He told DNS: “We are just hitting a brick wall. This is about holding the police to account for systemic behaviour both internally and externally.

“If these attitudes exist towards disabled people in the workforce, what hopes do disabled people have when they become victims of crime?”

Louise Holden, Inclusion London’s senior policy officer for disabled people and crime, said: “I admire Dave Campbell and his tireless work within a disablist organisation.

“I share Mr Campbell’s concerns about how the Met treat disabled victims when their attitude to their own disabled staff is so appalling.

“Things have gotten worse since the A New Met for London plan following the Casey review.

“The work Inclusion London was involved in stopped and the new structure is a closed shop.

“Community confidence is at an all-time low.

“There has been no follow-up to the Casey review and with the Met decision to stop investigating non-hate crime incidents, without any consultation, it’s clear the Met is just not interested in disability issues.

“There has been no radical reform, only half-baked gestures and platitudes that amount to nothing.

“We are calling for renewed engagement with us, so we can support the Met with our expert knowledge on these issues.

“I hope the Met is ashamed of how they have behaved since the Casey review and want to work with us again.”

Commander Simon Messinger, the Met’s professionalism and senior lead for disability, said: “We are fully committed to driving positive change across the Met and fostering a culture of inclusion, and have taken significant steps to improve how we support disabled colleagues.

“This progress has helped us to achieve Disability Confident level three status, the highest level of recognition within that scheme, which reflects our determination to improve how we recruit, retain, and support our staff.

“We know there is much more to be done and will continue to work with the Met police Disabled Staff Association, and partners such as the Business Disability Forum, to drive further progress.”

A spokesperson for the mayor of London said: “The mayor is clear there is no place for harassment or discrimination in the workplace and is committed to working with the Met police to deliver a New Met for London where everyone can thrive.

“Since the Baroness Casey review in 2023 the Met has implemented a number of improvements for disabled employees, including the introduction of disability passports, Disability Smart assessments and the force is now a Disability Confident employer, improving how they recruit, retain and develop disabled staff.

“But there is more to do and the Met is working closely with the Disability Independent Advisory Group and the new chair of its Disabled Staff Association to listen and act on concerns to deliver a fairer and more inclusive Met.”

*If you have information about a police officer or member of staff who works for the Met and is corrupt or abusing their position and power, you can call the force’s anti-corruption and abuse hotline anonymously on 0800 085 0000

30 October 2025

Committee calls cuts bill ‘discriminatory’, even though all its Labour MPs voted for it

A Labour-led committee of MPs has called the government’s universal credit cuts act “discriminatory” and warned that it will push disabled people into poverty, despite every one of its Labour members voting for the legislation in July.

The Universal Credit Act will see the health element of universal credit halved for most new claimants from 6 April next year, from £105 to £54 a week.

All seven Labour MPs on the committee* voted for this cut in July.

But Labour’s Debbie Abrahams, who chairs the committee, said this week: “This is not only discriminatory, but without mitigations, will potentially push more people with disabilities and health conditions into poverty, exacerbating their condition and pushing them further away from the labour market.”

She was commenting on the publication of the government’s response to the committee’s report on the Pathways to Work green paper.

Her committee’s report had called on the government to delay the cut to the health element until it had carried out an “independent and comprehensive assessment of the impact the change could have on disabled people”.

But in this week’s response, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) dismissed those concerns.

Instead, it pointed to the “sustained, above inflation increase” to the standard allowance of universal credit (UC), which will also be introduced through the bill.

It said that this, together with the cut to the health element, would address “perverse incentives in the UC system and better encourages those who can work to enter or return to employment”.

Asked why she had voted for the cut to the health element when she thought it was discriminatory and would push more disabled people into poverty, Abrahams told Disability News Service (DNS) in a statement: “I worked very hard to secure major concessions on removing the cuts to PIP and people currently on UC health in the welfare bill.

“The bill isn’t perfect, and that was reflected in the work and pensions Pathways to Work report and its recommendations.

“However, voting against the bill would have meant that the increase in the standard allowance wouldn’t have gone ahead, and that was seen as a major positive aspect of the bill.

“This increase is not just for this year, but for each year until the end of this parliament.

“I am still continuing to work hard on securing mitigations around the reduction in support for newly disabled people from April next year and I remain committed to ensuring disabled people across the country have access to the support they need.”

Meanwhile, DWP has refused to explain to the committee what assessment it made of the bill’s impact on safeguarding, before the legislation was introduced to parliament earlier this year.

The bill had originally included steep cuts to personal independence payment (PIP), before a backbench Labour rebellion – following three months of activism from disabled people and allies – led to those measures being removed.

But there has been almost no discussion in parliament – and little or no information from ministers – on the bill’s potential impact on safeguarding claimants.

In its response to the committee’s report, DWP has made no mention of safeguarding, although it said that it had carried out an equality impact assessment for the bill.

But the impact assessments published on parliament’s website make no reference to safeguarding.

Asked by DNS why it failed to respond properly to the committee’s recommendation to release its assessment of the bill’s impact on safeguarding, and whether it did assess the safeguarding implications of the original bill, DWP said it was looking to improve its safeguarding approach, which included a review of the green paper consultation responses.

A DWP spokesperson said: “Our welfare reforms package was appropriately advised and numerous protections were baked into our plans.

“We are shifting our focus from welfare to work, skills, and opportunities, so more people can move out of poverty and into good, secure jobs as part of our Plan for Change – backed by £1 billion a year for employment support by the end of the decade.”

Grassroots groups of disabled people, such as Black Triangle, Disabled People Against Cuts, the Mental Health Resistance Network, and the Spartacus network, spent years highlighting deaths linked to DWP’s actions.

Concerns have also been raised by relatives who have called for action after the deaths of their family members.

Some of the evidence linking DWP with the deaths of benefit claimants has come through prevention of future deaths reports written by coroners, several of which only emerged years after they were written.

Other evidence of persistent DWP safeguarding flaws has emerged through freedom of information requests to the department, which have revealed how hundreds of recommendations for improvements have been made by DWP’s own secret reviews into the deaths of claimants.

Some of these reviews showed DWP staff continuing to make the same fatal errors, year after year.

The evidence collected by DNS and others, stretching back more than a decade, has shown how DWP repeatedly ignored recommendations to improve the safety of its disability benefits assessment system, leading to countless avoidable deaths.

It also shows how DWP hid evidence from independent reviews, and how the department failed to keep track of the actions taken in response to recommendations made by its own secret reviews.

Evidence also demonstrates that the cultural problems within DWP extend far beyond the assessment system, touching all aspects of its dealings with disabled people in the social security system.

The evidence, compiled over the last decade by DNS and other journalists, academics and activists, shows systemic negligence by DWP, a culture of cover-up and denial, and a refusal to accept that the department has a duty of care to those disabled people claiming support through the social security system.

Much of that evidence has been brought together in a detailed timeline, as part of the Deaths by Welfare project headed by Dr China Mills and supported by Healing Justice Ldn, which works with marginalised and oppressed communities.

*Debbie Abrahams; Johanna Baxter; Damien Egan; Gill German; Amanda Hack; Frank McNally; and David Pinto-Duschinsky

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

30 October 2025

Disabled people warn of ‘severe’ consequences if chancellor removes Motability VAT exemption

Disabled people have warned of “severe” consequences if the chancellor goes ahead with reported plans to remove the Motability car scheme’s VAT exemption in next month’s budget.

Disability News Service (DNS) reported last week how the company that runs the scheme, Motability Operations, had warned that removing the VAT tax break entirely could impose an upfront cost of at least £3,000 on even the cheapest cars it offers.

There is no certainty that the chancellor will go ahead with removing the tax exemption entirely – which was revealed by the Times – and she may abandon the plans completely.

But the minister for social security and disability, Sir Stephen Timms, failed to deny plans to target the VAT exemption when asked by disabled Labour MP Emma Lewell on Monday about potential cuts to the scheme.

Instead, Sir Stephen said again that there would be no changes to personal independence payment until next autumn.

Yesterday, a Reform UK press conference on the party’s plans to slash disability benefits – particularly personal independence payment (PIP) – saw the party target the Motability scheme.

The party’s work and pensions spokesperson in the Commons, Lee Anderson, said the scheme had “got completely out of hand” and was “an absolute scandal”, and he suggested that all those receiving Motability cars should only be able to secure a “blue three-wheeler”*.

He said: “What’s wrong with that? Let’s go back to that.”

Meanwhile, disabled people who rely on Motability to maintain their independence have told DNS this week of the drastic impact that increased costs could have on their ability to afford a car through the scheme, and how this would affect their ability to work, enjoy leisure opportunities, and attend medical appointments.

Julia Dalton, a Motability customer for more than 40 years, relies on an adapted vehicle, which she says has allowed her “to work for over four decades, contribute taxes, and live independently” in east Yorkshire.

As an electric wheelchair-user, she needs a large vehicle with a hoist to lift her wheelchair into the car.

She said: “Without Motability, I could never have afforded a suitable vehicle.

“It is not possible for me to use a cheap second-hand car because if it breaks down, I cannot simply use a hire car that is not adapted for my needs.

“Without a reliable vehicle I would not have been able to get to work and would likely have lost my job.

“This scheme has protected my independence, wellbeing, and ability to contribute”.

She says that advance payments – on top of contributing the enhanced rate mobility component of PIP every month – have risen significantly in recent years.

Her latest vehicle in March cost her £4,000 in an advanced payment as well as £1,500 for essential adaptations.

She said: “I am managing financially, but even I would struggle to pay thousands more on top.

“If someone like me is at risk of coming off the scheme, what happens to those with less support?

“The consequences are severe: disabled people stuck at home; people losing work because they cannot travel; missed medical appointments; isolation.

“Motability is not a luxury. It is a lifeline.”

She added: “If exemptions are removed or costs continue to rise, we risk destroying a system that enables disabled people to live, work, and participate fully in society.

“I am deeply grateful for Motability. I want to see it protected for the future, so others can have the same opportunities that I had.”

Emma, from Leicester, told DNS that her Motability wheelchair-accessible vehicle (WAV) – which needed an advance payment of £4,500 – had made “a huge positive difference” to her life, and allowed her to continue to visit her dad after he had a stroke, firstly while he was in hospital, and then at home.

She said: “WAV taxis are expensive and difficult to arrange, and using public transport would have been impossible for me health-wise.

“Without that access, he might have declined further or needed residential care.

“The scheme has literally kept our family connected and independent.”

She said the knock-on effects of removing the VAT exemption – and the insurance premium tax, which is reportedly also being considered – would “make it even harder for disabled people to stay mobile”.

She said: “The knock-on effects would be huge — more reliance on carers, increased pressure on health and social care services, and greater difficulty getting to appointments or even maintaining social contact and contributions to society.

“If the tax relief were removed, I simply wouldn’t be able to afford a vehicle and would be stuck in my house even more.”

Richard, a Motability-user for 30 years, from the West Midlands, told DNS that the scheme was vital as a wheelchair-user living in inaccessible housing, and that he and many others would be forced to leave the scheme because it would become unaffordable if its VAT exemption was removed.

He has a progressive, neurological muscle-wasting condition and uses his Motability car to drive to a pool to swim, which allows him to keep the strength in his shoulders that he needs to pull himself up and down the stairs of his home.

Without the car, he would not be able to use the stairs and would end up in expensive extra care housing or a nursing home.

He said: “Being stuck at home would be very detrimental to my mental health.

“It will have similar effects on many, especially those who would have to give up work due to unaffordable initial payments.”

April, who has been a Motability customer for 15 years and lives in Lancashire, said the scheme has allowed her to maintain her independence and job and “gets me to and from my workplace safely and stress free”.

She has a small automatic hatchback which now requires a £1,000 advanced payment, when previously there was no advance payment required.

She said: “I fear these government proposals will make Motability pass these costs on to the scheme users – to the detriment of those struggling on low incomes and those needing larger adapted vehicles.

“The scheme must be preserved for those of us that need it to maintain our independence, to work, attend appointments, and to live decently, with dignity and safety.”

Michael Newbold, from Staffordshire, a Motability customer for more than 20 years, said the scheme was “essential” for him and his disabled wife.

He said: “I need a car for appointments and shopping, also for leisure.”

They have already had to cope with the council stopping paying for a personal alarm, and for the insurance on his stairlift.

He said: “It’s like little by little they are taking all the things that make life easier.

“Most people, in my opinion, will not be able to afford the VAT rise if they are in a similar position as me.”

Another customer, Phil, told DNS that he and his wife Kath would be “totally screwed” without their Motability vehicle.

They are both disabled, but it is Kath who is the Motability customer as she uses a powerchair following a spinal stroke, so she needs a WAV.

Phil said: “We had to find a £4,000 down payment for our WAV and when it has to go back [at the end of the lease] we’ll have to find the same if not more for the next vehicle.

“Adding VAT on top would make it unaffordable for us.”

Without the car, he said, they would be “totally isolated”, and they already both struggle with their mental health.

He said: “I can only believe others in the disabled community will be affected in the same way.

“My wife and I are from Bristol and it’s a city with an awful bus service so another reason the Motability scheme is so vital for us.”

*A reference to the Invacar that was provided by the government to disabled people up until the late 1970s, when it was replaced by the Motability scheme

**Motability Foundation, the charity that oversees the car scheme, is a DNS subscriber

30 October 2025

Disabled people face ‘systemic’ barriers in accessing community equipment, parliamentary inquiry finds

A cross-party group of MPs and peers has called on the government to draw up a national strategy to address the “deeply troubling” and “systemic” barriers that prevent disabled people accessing the equipment they need to live independently.

Hundreds of disabled people and professionals across the UK fed into the inquiry by the all-party parliamentary group for access to disability equipment, which found an “inconsistent” community equipment system that was in crisis due to fragmentation, underinvestment, and a lack of leadership.

The inquiry heard of disabled children missing school because the correct hoists had not arrived; disabled adults unable to live independently and forced out of their jobs because repairs to equipment were taking months; and carers driven to “physical and emotional exhaustion”.

It found too many disabled people faced long delays, unsuitable equipment and “a lack of joined up support” within the system, which provides equipment such as grab rails, hoists, wheelchairs, ramps, specialist mattresses, and assistive technology.

The group’s report includes findings of a survey from more than 600 users of equipment, carers, professionals and equipment-providers.

More than half of equipment-users who took part (55 per cent) said they believed services were worsening.

The same proportion said they did not have access to the equipment they needed.

One equipment-user told the inquiry that the support offered “barely scrapes the barrel of what people actually need to live their everyday lives.”

More than a fifth of those surveyed (22 per cent) said they had waited more than two months to receive their equipment once it had been approved.

The report heard of the experience of Rhys Porter, who has cerebral palsy, and went without essential equipment, including a hoist and home adaptations, for two years.

His parents had to help him use a commode seat in his bedroom and drag him into the family bathroom on a towel once a week.

He was only able to go ahead with vital surgery because the charity Newlife provided him with a portable hoist.

The report calls for a “cohesive” national strategy; funding reform of the current “fragmented” model; action to address lengthy waiting-times for assessments and equipment; improved communication with equipment-users and between local authorities, health bodies, and government departments; a national advisory board with service-user representation; and action to improve reuse and recycling of equipment.

Labour MP Daniel Francis, chair of the all-party group, said: “Across hundreds of testimonies, one message came through loud and clear: the system designed to support disabled children and adults is failing them.

“It is failing to deliver equipment on time, failing to provide the right support, and failing to listen to the very people it exists to serve.

“Under the current system we’re seeing children missing school, adults being forced out of work and carers injuring themselves.

“It’s failing patients, carers, and the sector alike, and it’s high time for the government to get a grip.

“Access to community equipment is not privilege, it’s a daily necessity.

“We need a national strategy for community equipment and clear leadership and accountability in its delivery.

“Ensuring everyone is given the right support at the right time is simply a matter of political will and commitment.”

The Department of Health and Social Care was unable to comment on the report by noon today (Thursday).

30 October 2025

Regulator’s annual report shows impact of social care crisis on disabled people

An annual report by the care regulator has highlighted how the continuing social care crisis is impacting disabled and older people who need support in their own homes.

The Care Quality Commission said in its annual State of Care report that the health and social care system remained “fragmented and under severe strain”.

It said that demand for local authority-funded support had continued to rise, while the job vacancy rate in adult social care was still three times higher than in the wider employment market.

And it said that more community services were “urgently needed” to support people to stay in their own homes for longer.

The report includes evidence from members of CQC’s Experts by Experience group, which has come from their own experiences of care and support and from talking to other service-users during CQC inspections.

Living in a rural area can particularly affect alternative options if a homecare agency is providing poor care, the report says.

One of the Experts by Experience told CQC: “The only other agency down the road hasn’t got any space for me. Where do you expect me to go?

“I’m telling you what’s wrong and the things I’m not happy with, but I don’t feel like I’ve necessarily got a choice to change that.”

CQC’s Experts by Experience said disabled people had told them how they had been “left to sit or lie in soiled or wet clothing for hours while waiting for their care worker to arrive”.

The report says: “As local authorities around the country increasingly look to make savings, it seems likely more will signpost people to support in the community, ration the care they do provide, and reduce the provision of other statutory and non-statutory services.

“As well as negatively affecting the health and wellbeing of those in need of social care support, this could increase the pressure on the health and care system and the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector, and further increase the burden on unpaid carers.”

As CQC only began implementing its new single assessment framework in January 2024, it is not possible to directly compare the latest ratings from its inspections with previous years.

Inspections have been focused on services where CQC information suggested people might be at risk.

The ratings produced through the framework for about 3,000 adult social care services (out of a total of about 20,000 services across England) show four per cent were rated inadequate, another 26 per cent were seen as requiring improvement, 67 per cent were rated good, and two per cent were seen as outstanding.

Professor Sir Mike Richards, CQC’s chair, said: “The Casey Commission will be an important step in reforming social care – but it won’t solve the core funding problem.

“We continue to call for long-term, sustainable funding for adult social care.”

30 October 2025

Chancellor’s reported plans to impose VAT on Motability could add £3,000 to even the cheapest cars

The chancellor’s reported plans to target the Motability car scheme for new taxes in next month’s budget by removing its VAT exemption could impose an upfront cost of at least £3,000 on even the cheapest cars it offers, the company has calculated.

Motability Operations spoke out after an article in the Times – which has strong contacts within Whitehall – suggested that Rachel Reeves would be “dramatically reducing an exemption by which cars leased under the scheme do not have to pay VAT or insurance premium tax”.

The Times said that VAT tax breaks “worth about £1 billion a year are set to be scrapped in the budget”.

But targeting the Motability car scheme in next month’s budget by completely removing its VAT exemption would add thousands of pounds every three years to the bills of some of the poorest disabled people in the country.

The potential tax-raising measure – which would be aimed squarely at disabled people – follows months of mounting hostility aimed at disabled people and the Motability scheme in the right-wing media and on social media.

But Motability Operations, the company that runs the scheme, said this week that removing VAT relief “would make cars unaffordable for most disabled people, leaving only the wealthiest able to access the scheme – a result that would fundamentally undermine its purpose”.

It confirmed to Disability News Service (DNS) that, if Reeves placed VAT at 20 per cent on all Motability cars – and assuming no changes elsewhere in the scheme – it would increase the overall cost of a lease over three years by £3,000 for the cheapest cars it offers.

This would mean disabled people would have to find an advance payment of £3,000 for even the cheapest models, on top of having to contribute all their enhanced mobility component of personal independence payment (PIP) to fund their monthly lease payments.

It would mean the scheme would instantly become unaffordable to tens of thousands of disabled people seeking independent mobility.

Motability Operations said the median household income of a disabled person using the scheme is just £18,500, half the UK average.

Graham Footer, chief executive of Disabled Motoring UK (DMUK), told DNS: “DMUK is concerned by the recent reports in the national media that the chancellor is considering making changes to the Motability scheme, including removing the tax breaks.

“The fact this is even on the table for consideration is a worry.

“If the chancellor goes ahead with the changes, it will have a significant detrimental impact on Motability customers and for many it will put the scheme financially out of reach.”

A Motability Operations spokesperson said: “The scheme operates at scale, allowing bulk purchasing and strong manufacturer discounts.

“Removing the zero-rating would erode this efficiency and undermine the social purpose of enabling independence and affordable mobility.

“There would also be a knock-on impact to jobs in the automotive sector.”

Motability Foundation*, the charity that oversees the car scheme, has described some of the “recent, misinformed commentary” about the scheme as “profoundly disheartening” and said that it “unfairly stigmatises disabled people”.

It said the scheme “provides a vital service to disabled people, helping them to overcome significant mobility barriers” and “a foundation of independence which also helps to address the transport equity gap”.

Earlier this year, Motability Foundation’s disabled boss hit back at months of “hostile”, “harmful” and inaccurate media reports and online comments about how the scheme is run and its disabled customers.

Chief executive Nigel Fletcher said then that he believed the “climate of stigmatisation” of disabled people “risks rolling back decades of progress in promoting disability inclusion and understanding”.

He told DNS: “It creates an environment where disabled people are scrutinised and made to feel they must justify their right to mobility and participation. This is unacceptable.”

Coverage has included reports of comments made by Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, who claimed that new Motability vehicles were being leased by people with food intolerances.

Other reports have suggested that Motability vehicles are handed out “free” – rather than in exchange for most or all of the higher rate mobility element of PIP, and sometimes an additional advance payment – and with few if any checks on eligibility, misleading statements that were repeated today (Thursday) by Conservative shadow work and pensions secretary Helen Whately.

There have also been widespread reports in the media and on social media attacking Motability customers and accusing them of abusing the scheme.

*Motability Foundation is a DNS subscriber

23 October 2025

Psychologists’ charity fails to raise concerns over job coaches in surgeries, weeks after £640K DWP contract

The national charity representing psychologists failed to speak out about the serious risks caused by placing work coaches in GP surgeries, just weeks after it was awarded a £640,000 contract by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

There was alarm among many disabled people when DWP announced earlier this month that it was expanding a programme to “embed” job advisers in GP surgeries, mental health services and other healthcare settings.

They believe that for many disabled claimants of out-of-work benefits, particularly those with mental distress, ill-health and trauma, the idea of facing a DWP officer in a healthcare setting, at a time when they need support rather than pressure to discuss work, would be “horrifying”.

Among those speaking out was Dr Jay Watts, a disabled activist and herself a consultant clinical psychologist, who said: “It’s really dangerous for the government to put work coaches in GP surgeries.”

She said many mental health claimants already find it “scary” to visit their GPs because they “tend not to be believed”, while surveys show a substantial proportion of them are “absolutely terrified of the DWP”.

She said she feared the DWP scheme would prevent many claimants accessing healthcare.

Despite these concerns, the British Psychological Society (BPS) – which represents psychologists – appeared to be broadly supportive of the DWP scheme, in a statement it issued last Thursday (16 October).

It appeared to suggest that the scheme could be useful, given the right training for the job advisers, saying: “While a job adviser could act as an incentive and offer support to those with mental health problems to return to work, it is vital this isn’t to the detriment of a person’s recovery by adding further stress and anxiety.

“Ideally, all job advisers should be psychologically informed and work to identify a person’s strengths and support them in managing change.”

But it has now emerged that this statement was published just four weeks after DWP awarded BPS a £641,000 four-year contract to carry out accreditation of the department’s in-house work psychologists.

BPS yesterday (Wednesday) denied any connection between the award of the contract and its statement on the DWP scheme.

But one campaigner, who first spotted the contract award, told Disability News Service this week: “The BPS’s views on employment advisers are totally compromised by this and should not be regarded as objective.”

The grassroots, user-led mental health group Recovery in the Bin (RiTB) added: “The BPS have betrayed every person in need of mental healthcare and social security.

“We are being treated like livestock who either produce or are sent to the abattoir.

“The NHS will be polluted with work fetishism and people will not trust anything medical professionals do, as everything will be corrupted to a work outcome, instead of what is best for the person.”

Another disabled activist said the BPS response was “appalling” and “completely unethical”.

They said: “I would be terrified if I had to face a DWP officer in my GP surgery, or worse, during an inpatient admission under the Mental Health Act.

“The thought of anyone being in that situation when they need care, not pressure to discuss work, is horrifying.

“Health professionals should protect lives, not enable harm.”

A spokesperson for the British Psychological Society said: “There is no connection between the awarding of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) contract and the British Psychological Society’s (BPS) stance on the government’s roll-out of work advisers in GP surgeries.

“The BPS is an independent professional membership body, and our positions are shaped by our members, the best available evidence, and our ethical standards as set out in our charter.

“Contract negotiations between the DWP and BPS remain ongoing and as such it would be inappropriate for us to comment further.

“The BPS retains editorial and public independence and will continue to raise awareness where psychological evidence calls for challenge.”

There has been controversy for nearly a decade over DWP’s attempts to blur the lines between the health and employment systems by embedding work advisers in surgeries.

In March 2016, the Mental Health Resistance Network organised a protest about a year-long DWP pilot scheme which saw private sector job coaches placed in six GP surgeries in Islington, north London.

Denise McKenna, co-founder of MHRN, said at the time that the network would “never accept this scheme and we will never give up until it is abandoned”, and described it as a “drastic move” that would cause some people to stop seeing their GPs.

23 October 2025

Peers derail government plans to hand some DWP staff powers to use force against benefit claimants

Government plans under controversial new legislation to give some Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) staff “morally dubious” powers to use force against benefit claimants have been derailed by peers.

The public authorities (fraud, error and recovery) bill was set to give authorised DWP staff the same powers of search, entry and seizure as the police.

But unlike powers granted to the Public Sector Fraud Authority, the bill was also set to allow these officers to use “reasonable force” against benefit claimants when exercising their new powers.

Until now, one of the bill’s most controversial measures was that it is set to force banks to examine the accounts of claimants of means-tested benefits for potential breaches of benefit eligibility rules and then pass that information to DWP.

But a string of crossbench and opposition peers also raised concerns about the “reasonable force” measure on Tuesday during the bill’s report stage.

The crossbench hereditary peer Lord Vaux told the Lords: “This would make it lawful for a DWP officer – not a police officer, but a civil servant – to enter your home, seize your belongings and forcibly hold you down while doing so.”

He said this would be used against benefit recipients, a part of the population who are more likely to be disabled and are “more vulnerable” than the general population.

He said: “The use of physical force marks a far more serious infringement than the powers of search, entry and seizure alone.”

He was supported by Conservative peer Lord [Mark] Harper, a former minister for disabled people, who urged ministers to “not give power to use reasonable force to people who are not trained to use it and do not have proper oversight”.

The Liberal Democrat peer Lord Palmer said that “any exercise of physical powers must surely rest with the police.

“Are we going to train a new breed of DWP officers who have to be tough and able to act as police? It is quite nonsensical.”

Baroness [Claire] Fox, a non-affiliated peer and former Brexit Party MEP, added: “I do not want DWP civil servants, who might have been on a minor training course, to have that power. I think it is wrong.

“For them to have that power of physical force aimed at people on benefits seems wholly wrong and morally dubious.”

The Conservative shadow work and pensions minister Viscount Younger – a former DWP minister – said the government had “yet to offer a convincing explanation of why DWP officials need this power at all”.

He said Conservatives were “deeply concerned” by the new powers being granted to DWP investigators through the bill, and said the measures raise “profound questions about the limits of state power and the safeguards that ought to accompany it”.

Work and pensions minister Baroness Sherlock accepted that the bill would give authorised and trained DWP officers powers to use reasonable force against individuals, but she told fellow peers that the intention was for them “to be able to use that against property, not against people”.

And she said the search, entry and seizure powers would only be used for “serious organised criminality” and “where the DWP has a reasonable belief that someone has intentionally committed sophisticated, often high-value fraud against the DWP” and not against “an average benefit claimant who has accidentally overclaimed by £20”.

She said the “intention is that reasonable force will be used only against things, not people”, which “will be made clear in guidance and training”, and that the powers “will enable DWP-authorised investigators to use reasonable force to access locked cabinets and digital devices once they are lawfully on a premises”.

She said the law would also require that any application to the courts for a warrant to access a property would have to include “information about any vulnerable individuals who may be present on the premises”.

But an amendment proposed by Lord Vaux to remove from the bill the power to use reasonable force against individuals was approved by peers by 212 votes to 144.

Among the disabled peers voting in favour of Lord Vaux’s amendment were Liberal Democrats Baroness [Celia] Thomas and Lord Addington, and Conservatives Lord [Kevin] Shinkwin and Lord [Chris] Holmes.

No Labour peers voted in favour of his amendment.

It is not yet clear whether DWP ministers will attempt to re-introduce these powers into the legislation before the bill becomes law.

A DWP spokesperson said this morning (Thursday): “The amendment is subject to parliamentary process and will be discussed in the house in the next stages of the bill.”

The bill is due to return to the Lords today for its third reading, before it returns to the Commons for discussion of amendments made by peers.

23 October 2025

Reeves refuses to apologise for repeating false claim that social security spending is spiralling

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has refused to withdraw a misleading and inaccurate statement that scapegoated disabled people and other benefit claimants for the country’s economic problems.

In an interview with Channel 4 News, Reeves repeated the false claim that welfare spending was spiralling out of control.

She told the programme: “We can’t get to the end of this parliamentary session and have done nothing, because if more and more of our money that we spend as a government is spent on welfare, you’ve got less for the NHS, you’ve got less for schools.”

It came as government sources briefed the Times newspaper that Reeves was intending to raise revenue from the Motability disabled people’s vehicle scheme by £1 billion a year in the budget by attacking its VAT and insurance premium tax exemptions (see separate story).

Disability News Service (DNS) told the Treasury this week that Reeves should be aware that her statement on “welfare” was highly misleading.

This is because figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility reported last autumn* that welfare spending was stable as a proportion of GDP, and that it was lower than it was in 2015-16.

DNS shared figures with the Treasury that showed that the share of GDP was predicted to be 11.1 per cent in 2024-25; the same in 2025-26 and 2026-27; to fall to 11.0 per cent in 2027-28 and 2028-29; and to rise to 11.1 per cent again in 2029-30.

The Treasury, Department for Work and Pensions, and political parties, including Labour and the Conservatives, have been repeatedly shown these figures by DNS, and yet senior figures across the parties continue to claim that spending on social security is “spiralling”.

Last week, the Financial Times agreed with months of reports and analysis from DNS, academics and disabled campaigners, and concluded: “Costs are not spiralling.

“Projected total welfare payments, at around 11 per cent of national income a year, are lower than when David Cameron was prime minister even though there are more pensioners.”

Chris Giles, the paper’s economics commentator, added in his article: “The welfare system is far from perfect but it cannot be blamed for your taxes rising in November’s Budget.”

The Treasury this week refused to comment on why Reeves and fellow ministers repeatedly claim that social security spending is spiralling out of control when it is not, and whether she would apologise.

*Chapter five of OBR’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook – October 2024, chart 5.2, shows welfare spending as a percentage of GDP: https://obr.uk/efo/economic-and-fiscal-outlook-october-2024/

23 October 2025

Timms goes back on his word by refusing to provide crucial evidence of Access to Work cuts

The disability minister has gone back on his word by refusing to provide crucial information that would help expose a “perverse”, secret programme to restrict grants made by the Access to Work disability employment scheme.

Sir Stephen Timms told Disability News Service (DNS) at Labour’s annual conference late last month that he would provide the date on which he approved an order from senior civil servants for Access to Work (AtW) staff to be more “scrupulous” in how they applied guidance.

Now, three weeks on, he is refusing to reveal this date.

This will make it harder to secure the order through a freedom of information request.

Instead of responding to an email from DNS seeking the information, Sir Stephen forwarded the message to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) press office.

But DWP’s press office also failed to provide the information.

It said in a statement: “No changes have been made to Access to Work policy.”

Instead of providing the date of the order, it provided background information which failed to clarify when, or if, Sir Stephen approved a document about the guidance, but suggested that the changes were put into effect through additional training for AtW case managers.

The briefing did confirm that Sir Stephen had been made aware that this work was taking place.

The DWP press office had failed to clarify the information it provided by noon today (Thursday).

Last week, DNS reported how official government figures revealed the first signs that ministers had been engaged in a “perverse” programme to secretly restrict AtW grants.

The DWP figures showed that the number of people who had any AtW provision approved fell by more than 10 per cent in the year to March 2025.

The figures also showed that the number of disabled people who had AtW requests for aids and equipment approved plunged by 16 per cent on the previous year, while approvals for support for travel to work fell by 14 per cent, and the number of approvals for mental health support dropped by seven per cent.

Figures from the last six months – not due to be published for another 12 months – will eventually show how the cuts to essential funding are “far more severe” than those shown in last week’s DWP figures, one disabled expert has predicted.

In the interview at the Labour conference in Liverpool last month, Sir Stephen admitted that he had seen a submission, which he had approved, which stated that AtW guidance would now be “scrupulously applied”.

He said he could not remember when he saw the submission, but his special adviser told DNS: “I think we need to check.”

Sir Stephen then said he would check in DWP records when this took place, and he added later in the conversation: “But what I can check, John*, is when this happened.”

*DNS editor John Pring

23 October 2025

Disabled people describe impact of ‘very unfair’ extra costs caused by DWP’s universal credit migration

Disabled people have described their anger with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) for failing to warn them of the significant hidden costs – which can be more than £2,400 a year – of transferring onto universal credit from their old “legacy” benefits.

They have come forward to share how the unexpected hit to their finances caused by moving onto universal credit from employment and support allowance (ESA) has impacted their ability to cope with the cost-of-living crisis.

They are facing extra costs from their local authority as a result of the move, even though DWP has previously insisted that they would – at least initially – be no worse off on universal credit than on their previous benefits once they were forced onto the new system through the “migration” process.

But Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) revealed last week that it had been hearing from disabled people who have been hit hard in two different ways by this process.

Some disabled people have seen their care charges to their local council increase, sometimes by more than £50 a week.

Other disabled people are receiving a much lower discount under their local council tax reduction scheme after migrating onto universal credit.

DPAC said this week that disabled people had continued to come forward to describe the extra costs they were facing, which appear to vary across the country.

DPAC is hoping a legal action might be possible, and it is still looking for disabled people who are eligible for legal aid and might be willing to take a legal challenge with DPAC’s support.

It also encouraged those affected to complain to their MPs, and to continue to share their stories with DPAC.

Linda Burnip, DPAC’s co-founder, said: “Many people are losing over £200 a month which is more than £2,400 a year from already meagre social security payments and that has to be wrong.

“DPAC demand DWP explain what it knew and when about this added cost to the migration process.”

This week, disabled people have described to Disability News Service (DNS) the impact of the unexpected costs of migrating to universal credit from ESA.

Mark Catlin, from Hertfordshire, is now having to pay £30 a month in council tax – rather than nothing – after he was moved onto universal credit from ESA in May this year.

He assumed it was a mistake when he received the bill but when he called the council he was told that the council tax reduction for those on ESA was 100 per cent but was just 75 per cent if the same person moved to universal credit.

Catlin told DNS it was “not easy” to cope with the extra monthly cost.

He said he believed DWP did not care about the extra payments, and that most of its advisors were “not even aware of these changes; if they are, they’re not making people aware of them”.

And he said he was “pretty disgusted” with the council.

He said: “I don’t understand how they can justify the reduction change just because the name of the benefit changes, when there’s been no change in financial entitlement, especially with the cost of living being so changeable.”

Another disabled claimant, Lisa, from Plymouth, moved onto universal credit in June.

She told DNS: “I heard all the government statements saying those moving from legacy benefits would have their entitlement protected and income would stay the same.”

But she found out that the change meant her council expected her to pay 40 per cent of council tax charges, rather than the previous level of 20 per cent, which means an extra £41 a month.

Lisa, who has long-term health conditions, said the extra charge was “very unfair”.

She said: “It’s becoming more difficult to cover expenses and costs to just pay bills and food each month.

“It has become clear the DWP and government ministers have wiped their hands of any responsibility of this extra charge, saying it’s up to the individual councils what rates they set their council tax levels at.”

Labour’s Debbie Abrahams, who chairs the Commons work and pensions committee, was not available to comment on the concerns this week.

Meanwhile, DWP has again refused to say if and when it became aware of the issue, whether it was concerned, or if it would take any action.

Last week, it issued the following statement: “We support millions of people through universal credit every year – including those who have moved from ESA – and it’s a top priority for us to ensure that people receive the help they are entitled to.”

23 October 2025

Ministers’ refusal to raise limit on accessible housing grants is discriminatory, secret reports admits

The continuing refusal of ministers to raise the upper limit on a scheme that helps disabled people make access improvements to their homes is discriminating against some of those with higher support needs, a secret government report has admitted.

The internal review into how the upper limit on disabled facilities grants (DFG) is working was obtained by Disability News Service (DNS) through a freedom of information request, after care minister Stephen Kinnock refused to publish it.

The DFG scheme helps councils in England fund access improvements to disabled people’s homes, but the upper limit of £30,000 was set in 2008.

Councils have a legal duty to provide adaptations for disabled people, subject to a needs assessment, eligibility criteria and a means test, and can also provide funding above the upper limit at their own discretion.

Adaptations can include stair-lifts, level access showers, widening doors, ramps, grab rails, raised toilets, access to gardens, height-adjusted kitchens, heating systems, loft conversions and home extensions.

Seven years ago, an independent review commissioned by the government recommended increasing the limit in line with inflation, and introducing regional variations.

Last year, shortly before the general election, a report by the cross-party levelling up, housing and communities committee highlighted “many shortcomings” in the DFG system, and called on ministers to review the £30,000 upper limit and set new regional upper limits which took account of inflation and construction costs.

Now an equality impact assessment carried out as part of a secret internal review has found that the upper limit of £30,000 is “likely to be adversely impacting small numbers of disabled people in some groups, including children with complex needs and working-age adults”.

It also found that disabled people of all ages “with severe conditions such as multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease or those suffering from acquired brain injuries are also disproportionately negatively impacted by the current upper limit”.

It found that disabled people affected by the upper limit can see vital adaptations delayed as they seek additional funds for the work, “or in the worst cases, the adaptations are not provided”, which can have a “significant detrimental impact on disabled people and their families”.

But it concluded that this discrimination was “proportionate to achieving the aims of the upper limit” because it allowed councils to manage their DFG budgets and support “the majority of eligible individuals to receive an adaptation”.

The secret report added: “In reality, given the benefits of having an upper limit, it [is] unlikely that the DFG will ever be a suitable means of funding the entirety of high cost adaptations.

“There is always likely to be some impact on that high cost cohort, which is always likely to require some additional funding from alternative sources.”

The report concluded that ministers needed to “continually keep the policy under review and improve our evidence and analysis”, particularly to fill “evidence gaps” on disabled people who have “dropped out of applying for a DFG or experienced delays because of the upper limit”.

It also concluded that there were “clear benefits for keeping an upper limit in place” because it “provides a mechanism that helps ensure proper conversations are held about alternatives to adapting the home, and to control costs”.

But it said the government should decide “whether the current level of the upper limit is still appropriate and whether it should be raised”.

Mikey Erhardt, policy lead for Disability Rights UK, said: “The continued refusal of successive governments to raise the upper limit is as frustrating as it is counterproductive.

“Given the state of local authority finances, meaning top-up payments are unlikely, disabled people with the highest needs, whose lives could be changed by adaptations, will likely not get the changes they need to live safely in their own homes.

“The government’s continued housing policy of prioritising the needs of developers, private landlords, and big business necessitates the continued use of systems like the disabled facilities grant.

“Simply put – there are no accessible homes, and those actors have no intention to build them, so we need DFG to create them.

“This report makes clear the goals of the government: short-term cost saving and cost saving alone.

“The report makes clear the dangers of not raising the DFG ceiling.

“We are calling on the government to do the right thing and raise the ceiling and link it to inflation so no more disabled people have to live in dangerous, inaccessible homes.”

Svetlana Kotova, director of campaigns and justice at Inclusion London, also criticised the government for failing to increase the upper limit.

She pointed to Inclusion London’s Barriers at Home report, which found earlier this year that one in three people with mobility impairments do not have level access in their own homes.

She said the government’s failure to raise accessibility standards on new homes and its failure to increase the upper limit on DFGs meant that “new, inaccessible homes will be built, and the adaptations we need won’t be fully funded”.

She said: “It is a scandal that in our country, disabled and older people now have to fundraise to ensure they can access the bathroom, bedroom or get out of the house.

“The government can change this: make sure everyone who needs adaptations can get them, and raise minimum accessibility standards for new homes, so that 10 per cent meet the M4(3) wheelchair-user standard, and the rest meet the M4(2) accessible and adaptable standard.”

The government’s internal review found that most DFGs above the upper limit went to working-age adults (40 per cent) and disabled children (43 per cent), according to reports by councils from 2023-24, with older people receiving another 16 per cent.

The average cost of a high-value adaptation ranged from £47,206 in the north-east of England to £56,685 in the south-west.

The most expensive DFG to be reported by local authorities cost £159,000.

The average cost of a DFG in 2023-24 was about £10,000.

Landlords, the NHS and social services rarely contribute to higher-cost adaptations, so any additional funding must usually come from either the local authority or the disabled occupant.

Most councils told the government that their current budget was either not big enough to meet demand for DFGs, or that they would need to reduce their discretionary grants if budgets do not increase in the future.

DNS requested a copy of the internal review from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) after care minister Stephen Kinnock told Liberal Democrat MP David Chadwick last month that the report would not be published.

Last October’s budget saw an £86 million increase in central government spending on DFGs, which was set to reach £711 million in 2025-26.

DHSC and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) share responsibility for DFG policy.

They agreed to review the upper limit after a judicial review claim challenged its legality.

DHSC had failed to comment on the internal review by noon today (Thursday).

23 October 2025

Ministers finally announce progress on ‘liberty safeguards’, but also challenge vital definition

The government is set to push ahead with a long-delayed new system of safeguards that could have a significant impact on service-users who are unable to consent to restrictions placed on their liberty in health or social care settings.

There have been years of delays to the introduction of Liberty Protection Safeguards (LPS), which will replace the current Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) in England and Wales.

But care minister Stephen Kinnock finally announced this week that there will be a new consultation on the new LPS system “in the first half of next year”.

The announcement came as the Supreme Court this week heard a case brought by the Northern Ireland attorney general, which is examining the definition of “deprivation of liberty”.

The case challenges two 2014 rulings by the Supreme Court – one of which became known as the Cheshire West ruling – which significantly widened the definition of who would be protected by the DoLS system.

The Cheshire West ruling found that a disabled person was being deprived of their liberty if they were obliged to live in a particular place “under continuous supervision and control”, and they were not free to leave their homes or move away without permission, and they could not consent to decisions about their welfare.

It also found that such people needed “a periodic independent check on whether the arrangements made for them are in their best interests”.

But the Department of Health and Social Care has been heavily criticised for intervening in this week’s case and for asking the Supreme Court to set aside the Cheshire West ruling.

The 2014 rulings led to an increase in referrals from 13,700 in 2013-14 to 322,455 in 2023-24 and a backlog of 123,790 cases.

The rulings eventually led to the drawing up of the LPS system, based on a report by the Law Commission.

The last government had originally planned to bring in LPS in October 2020, but its implementation was repeatedly delayed by Conservative ministers.

The Department of Health and Social Care said this week that the new system would “deliver improved protection and an easier and improved system”.

It said the current DoLS system was “bureaucratic and complex” and led to “poor understanding and application of the law by professionals, unacceptable distress for families” and the lengthy backlog, which placed pressure on the social care system.

Kieran Lewis, rights and migration policy manager at National Survivor User Network (NSUN), said: “We urge the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Justice to treat their consultation on the Liberty Protection Safeguards with the care it deserves, making it genuinely accessible and actively seeking out people subject to deprivations of liberty, as well as their families and carers, to shape it.

“We also echo calls to defend the Cheshire West judgement and ensure that any changes in the law around deprivation of freedom are made in close collaboration with disabled people and their organisations.

“This is the bare minimum, considering the complete lack of trust that disabled people now have in this government, which continues to demonstrate its lack of real concern for them.”

Kinnock said the consultation was about “fixing a broken system by hearing directly from those with lived experience and their families”.

He said: “There is currently a shameful backlog in the system of unprocessed cases under the current system which means that people’s rights are not being protected.

“At the same time, we know that many people in the system and their families find these intrusive assessments distressing.

“This is about ensuring we are fully focused on the most vulnerable people in our society and their families – understanding their needs, ending the maze of referrals and paperwork, and delivering the best protections and safeguards possible.”

The responses from next year’s consultation will inform a new code of practice to the 2005 Mental Capacity Act, which will be laid before parliament.

23 October 2025

Tory trio mislead party conference on disability benefits as they stir up hostility towards disabled claimants

A trio of leading Tories have used misleading and offensive statements at their annual conference in Manchester to scapegoat disabled people who rely on support from the benefits system and whip up hostility towards them.

The Conservative party made it clear this week that it would go further and faster than the Labour government in cutting disability benefits, and said it would cut £23 billion from social security spending if it won back power.

Some of these savings would be used to pay for the abolition of stamp duty on residential property sales*, which would only benefit the better-off.

The most offensive line may have come from Tory leader Kemi Badenoch, who told the conference yesterday (Wednesday): “I stand for a society where… the vulnerable are supported, but where freeloaders are told where to get off.”

She said a Conservative government would “restrict benefits to those with more severe mental health conditions, not anxiety or mild depression”**.

Disability News Service (DNS) reminded the party this week how government-funded research found that when a Conservative-led government tried to slash the number of people on out-of-work disability benefits and force them into work in the post-2010 austerity years, it led to 590 suicides in three years.

The party had not responded to these concerns by 11am today (Thursday).

Badenoch also told the conference that “after Covid, 2,000 people a day were being signed onto out-of-work sickness benefits”, which she said was “a national tragedy”.

There was no suggestion in the former engineer’s speech that she had connected the impact of a deadly and disabling pandemic with this increase in the number of people being unable to work due to sickness or disability.

Badenoch also appeared to suggest that she supported allowing disability hate speech to pass unpunished, telling Tory members: “I stand for a society where free speech trumps hurt feelings.”

Mel Stride, the former work and pensions secretary and now his party’s shadow chancellor, had spoken earlier in the week of the “spiralling welfare bill”.

DNS has now told the party’s press office on at least three occasions that figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility*** show clearly that social security spending as a proportion of GDP**** is predicted to remain at or close to 11.1 per cent for the next five years, and that it is lower than it was in 2015-16.

Again, the party had not responded to these concerns about Stride’s misleading comment by 11am today.

The party also announced plans to prevent anyone other than British citizens from receiving social security support, if it regains power.

It appears that this would apply to disabled people with significant support needs and those who have legally worked in the country for years through “indefinite leave to remain”.

The third shadow minister to mislead the conference on cuts to disability benefits was shadow work and pensions secretary Helen Whately.

She told Tory members: “Millions are getting benefits for anxiety and ADHD, along with a free Motability car.”

A disabled person can only qualify to join the Motability scheme if they receive the enhanced mobility component of personal independence payment (PIP) or similar benefits.

In fact, DWP figures show – as highlighted by the Benefits and Work website – that only about 190,000 PIP claimants have ADD, ADHD, anxiety or anxiety-related conditions as their “main disabling condition” and receive an enhanced mobility component.

And many of this group will not have exchanged their PIP mobility component for a Motability vehicle.

It is possible that Whately was referring to all those disabled people with anxiety and ADHD who have a Motability vehicle (ie including those with a different main disabling condition in addition to a mental health condition or being neurodivergent), but – if so – her statement was still highly misleading.

And even if that had been her intention, Motability Operations, the company that runs the scheme, says it has only a total of 860,000 customers, and many of those use their allowance to hire a powered wheelchair or mobility scooter.

Whately’s comments also suggest that PIP claimants receive a “free” car in addition to that benefit, when in fact a claimant usually has to exchange all their mobility allowance to lease a Motability vehicle, and must also often make a non-refundable advance payment.

Once again, the Conservative party had refused to comment by 11am today on Whately’s figures.

*It is believed this would apply to primary residences in England and Northern Ireland

**Although she said she wanted to “restrict benefits”, it is unlikely that she meant that people with anxiety or “mild” depression would be prevented from accessing mainstream benefits such as the standard universal credit allowance

***See chapter five of OBR’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook – October 2024, chart 5.2

****Gross domestic product, the size of the country’s economy in a particular year

9 October 2025

Government ‘has lost its way’ on accessible housing, after new towns report ignores disabled people

The government has been accused of losing its way on accessible housing, after refusing to explain why a report by its “taskforce” on delivering a series of new towns across England does not include a single mention of disabled people.

The independent report – commissioned by the government – recommends 12 potential locations for new towns across England, with at least 10,000 new homes in each location.

But the 135-page report contains only two brief references to the need for accessibility, either with the new homes themselves or the built environment surrounding them, and there is no mention of working-age disabled people.

One reference in the report says new towns should “include homes for older people, as well as specialist housing built to accessible and adaptable standards”.

The other says the mix of homes in new towns should include “homes for market sale, private rent, affordable housing, and specialist accommodation for students, families, and older people, all within a single coherent masterplan”.

Disabled people’s organisations that have been campaigning for action to solve the accessible housing crisis were critical of the latest failure by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG).

Mikey Erhardt, policy lead for Disability Rights UK, said: “It is unacceptable that, in 2025, a plan to deliver thousands of new homes, to tackle the housing crisis, will do nothing to improve the lives of disabled people.

“Relegating the needs of millions to a classification as ‘specialist’ shows just how entrenched ableist views are within the department.

“What is specialist about creating places that millions can actually call home, instead of the less than 10 per cent that disabled people can currently even visit?

“Yet again, we see a government department that has lost its way in trying to triangulate policy in favour of big developers and landlords, with disabled people as ever missing out.

“Talk about a missed opportunity; they’ve not even chosen to commit to a minimum number of accessible or wheelchair-accessible homes, let alone ensuring DDPOs* are included in the planning process.

“If our newest towns can’t be accessible, which ones will be?”

Last week, housing secretary Steve Reed announced that the government would build 12 of the new towns across England, but he and his party failed to make any pledge that accessibility would be central to their design.

More than 15 months after the general election, disabled people are still waiting for the new government to say whether it will introduce stricter minimum accessibility standards for new-build homes in England, three years after a pledge by the last Conservative government – which was never fulfilled – to take action to address the critical shortage of accessible housing.

Laura Vicinanza, senior policy and stakeholder engagement manager for Inclusion London, said: “The taskforce talks about accessible ‘specialist housing’, but accessible and adaptable standards must apply to all housing, so we’re not cut off from our communities.

“Housing with a baseline level of accessibility benefits us all – it allows us to stay in our homes longer as our needs change and we age.

“Three years ago, the Conservative government committed to raise the minimum accessibility standards for all new-build housing to the M4(2) accessible and adaptable standard, but they didn’t follow through.

“It’s time for Labour to commit to M4(2) accessibility for all new-builds, and for 10 per cent of new housing to be M4(3) wheelchair-accessible, focused in social housing.

“This is the opportunity to ensure that this wave of new housing and new towns doesn’t lock us out of safe housing for another generation.”

This week, Disability News Service (DNS) asked the government why the taskforce and its report had almost completely ignored disabled people’s housing needs, and the opportunity to build in accessibility across the new towns from the beginning; and why there was nothing in the taskforce report that sets a minimum level of accessible homes, including how many wheelchair-accessible homes should be built in the new towns.

DNS also asked for reassurance for disabled people that the government’s new towns plans would build in accessibility right from the start and from the ground-up, in co-production with disabled people and their user-led organisations.

MHCLG declined to explain why the taskforce report contained so few references to accessible housing and built environment in the new towns and failed to mention disabled people.

And it once again said it would set out its policies on accessible new-build housing shortly.

At last year’s Labour party conference, in September 2024, after DNS questioned the party on the failure of ministers to mention the accessible housing crisis, a Labour spokesperson promised the government would “set out its policies on accessible new build housing shortly”.

An MHCLG spokesperson said in a statement this week: “Everyone deserves to live in a decent home that is suitable for them and meets their needs.

“We will create New Towns that work for everyone, including disabled people, and we welcome recommendations from the taskforce that they should include specialist housing built to accessible and adaptable standards.

“We’re committed to working with disabled people and their organisations to shape these new communities together.”

*Deaf and disabled people’s organisations

9 October 2025

Alarm over government’s choices to lead ‘over-diagnosis’ review that could help ministers cut benefits

The government’s decision to commission a review of alleged “over-diagnosis” of mental health conditions and neurodivergence has caused alarm among many disabled people, with fears that it will allow ministers to justify further sweeping cuts to disability benefits.

There is also concern that health and social care secretary Wes Streeting has commissioned two high-profile mental health figures with controversial backgrounds to lead the review.

Although the government has not yet confirmed the review will take place, it will reportedly examine the prevalence of mental illness and neurodivergence, “with a particular focus on whether some conditions are being overdiagnosed”.

But disabled activists believe its authors have been chosen because they will “help to slash the social security bill”.

The review will apparently be chaired by Professor Peter Fonagy, while the vice-chair will be Professor Sir Simon Wessely.

Fonagy is a highly-decorated clinical psychologist and psychoanalyst but he has also been closely associated with the Serenity Integrated Mentoring (SIM) programme, which was described as unethical, unlawful and unsafe and “a national scandal” that had put people in severe mental distress at risk of being denied vital support.

He was lead author of an article (PDF) whose co-authors included Paul Jennings, the former police officer who founded SIM, and which examined how SIM was working in London and concluded six years ago that it was “promising”.

Jennings described Fonagy in one presentation as a “senior supporter” of the programme.

Campaigning by the StopSIM Coalition later exposed SIM as discriminatory, coercive and punitive, and eventually persuaded NHS England to admit it was wrong to endorse SIM without applying “sufficient scrutiny” and to accept that this had harmed service-users.

Wessely’s appointment is likely to prove even more divisive.

He helped recruit patients onto the notorious, and later discredited, PACE trial – part-funded by the Department for Work and Pensions – and he was hugely supportive of the PACE research (PDF) into the use of controversial treatments such as cognitive behaviour therapy and graded exercise therapy for those with ME.

In 1993 (PDF, page 17)*, Wessely had written to the then Department of Social Security to argue that the only difference between “chronic fatigue syndrome, or ME as it is sometimes known” and “the major psychiatric disorders” was “the existence of a powerful lobby group that dislikes any association with psychiatry”.

Wessely argued in his letter that any suggestion that ME was a neurological condition would “discourage any sensible efforts at rehabilitation” and lead to an “ever increasing stream of claims for permanent benefits in people who might otherwise have had a chance of recovery”.

The view – shared by Wessely – that it was the attitudes of people with ME that were preventing their recovery, and the impact of this belief among many doctors and scientists on the treatment of many thousands of people with ME, was described by the Guardian’s George Monbiot last year as “the greatest medical scandal of the 21st century”.

Wessely also led a review of the Mental Health Act, which was criticised for falling “significantly short” of recommending full human rights for people in mental distress, but was a blueprint for Labour’s much-criticised mental health bill.

Although the Fonagy review has yet to be officially confirmed by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), its existence was revealed by the well-connected Health Service Journal (HSJ).

Linda Burnip, co-founder of Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC), said: “I think the choice of these two people shows how little regard the government, and Streeting and Timms** in particular, have for the fears of disabled people.

“It seems likely that they have deliberately been chosen to help to slash the social security bill.”

The grassroots, user-led mental health group Recovery in the Bin (RiTB) said both appointments were “safe establishment” figures with troubling backgrounds, such as Wessely’s links to the ME “forced exercise programmes” and Fonagy’s links to SIM, which suggested “a very low probability that this will be an open and fair investigation”.

RiTB said: “We expect it will return findings the government will find useful to deny people benefits.

“The issue that should be investigated is the thousands of deaths covered up by the DWP.

“Instead, they want to cause more death.”

A spokesperson for DPAC Cymru said it was “alarmed” at the decision to appoint Fonagy and Wessely, whose backgrounds were “a clear signal” of a “politically-motivated review that has had its outcome decided in advance.

“In the context of an NHS starved of funding, disability welfare cuts, and the UK government’s demonisation of disabled people, it is obvious why these two men have been selected.”

A DPAC Cymru member added: “Normalising mental health and neurodiversity normalises seeking help and clarity which makes diagnosis more accessible.

“We’ve always existed, we’ve always been different, we just didn’t have the ability to seek help or diagnosis.

“This whole ‘autism is new’ and ‘over-diagnosed’ argument is just another load of rubbish to demonise young people, make disability a taboo, exclude disabled communities, and save rich people pennies on providing help to people who really need it, and it frustrates me so incredibly much.”

Bethan Edwards, co-founder of the Stop SIM Coalition, which has now been disbanded, told Disability News Service (DNS) this week: “Professor Fonagy led an evaluation of SIM during its implementation in London in 2018 and 2019.

“SIM involved withholding care from people in extreme mental distress and involved the threat of criminalisation for attempting to use statutory services to meet significant mental health needs.

“It should not have taken a group of service-users to bring this to the public and professional bodies’ attention in 2021, leading to SIM’s demise.

“The alarm could and should have been raised sooner, including by Professor Fonagy himself.

“I, therefore, have very little confidence that the DHSC’s review will put the well-being and safety of people with mental health needs ahead of the Labour governments agenda – to cut welfare spending and to continue underfunding mental health services.”

And Kate Skinner, a neurodivergent campaigner, psychology student and academic research assistant, told DNS: “In my mind, the government’s potential reasons behind this review are straightforward: if fewer people qualify for diagnostic labels (such as ADHD), then fewer people will qualify for benefits, accommodations, and specialist services, as so many places lock the provision of support behind these labels.

“Reviews like this one feel like their real purpose is redefining who counts as being ‘deserving’ of support, as evidenced by the wider media, which has been chipping away at the ‘validity’ and ‘deservingness’ of neurodivergence for a while now.”

She said: “I understand why many disabled people, particularly those who are neurodivergent, are deeply concerned about this review.

“Psychology and psychiatry have a long history of researchers deciding what is ‘best’ for others, while ignoring the lived experiences of the people they study.

“This history of exclusion and paternalism already makes it difficult to trust that this new review, commissioned in such a negative light, will be conducted with genuine openness or ethical integrity.”

Skinner added: “One of the professionals leading this review [Wessely] has previously argued that greater awareness of mental health conditions may not be ‘beneficial’, and has warned against ‘over-professionalising’ or ‘medicalising’ certain conditions.

“Therefore, it is difficult not to feel that the government is seeking to use ‘experts’ to push through a harmful, ideologically-driven agenda.

“Until reviews like this are shaped and conducted by those they claim to represent, any talk of ‘overdiagnosis’ will continue to sound less like healthy, scientific investigation and more like deep, cynical suspicion.”

DHSC declined to comment on the HSJ article.

*This document was obtained from the National Archives through the efforts of disabled barrister Valerie Eliot Smith, who has ME

**Sir Stephen Timms, minister for social security and disability

9 October 2025

Coach firm to pay thousands to accessible transport activist after driver lied that he threatened violence

A coach operator that passed on defamatory lies about a well-known disabled activist who exposed the inaccessibility of one of its coaches will have to pay him substantial damages, and make a humiliating apology in open court.

A driver for Bolton-based Tyrers Coaches fabricated claims about Doug Paulley, alleging he had threatened a Network Rail coordinator with violence and that he hurled swearwords at him over an access failure at Rochdale train station 13 months ago.

Tyrers had passed on the allegations to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA), and another transport company, Arriva.

The incident occurred after Tyrers – which was one of the companies providing a rail replacement service on behalf of government-owned Northern Trains – had been unable to accept Paulley onto its vehicle because the relevant door was not working.

Coaches from two other companies were also not able to accept Paulley on board, with one driver not trained to operate the accessibility equipment, and the other vehicle not wheelchair-accessible.

Tyrers later told DVSA and another transport company, Arriva, that Paulley had threatened violence, was physically threatening, called its driver “a d**khead” and told him he didn’t know what he was “f***ing doing”.

Paulley later discovered by accident – when his solicitor submitted a subject access request to DVSA in connection with another discrimination case – what Tyrers had said about him.

The coach company was unaware that Paulley – who has spent years exposing access failures across the transport industry – had recorded the incident on a camera attached to his wheelchair.

He was able to use the recording to show that none of the claims made by the Tyrers driver had been true.

He decided to launch a defamation claim in the high court because of the risk of serious damage to his reputation, and – he told Disability News Service – because he wanted to address the “reprehensible”, discriminatory and dishonest behaviour of transport companies and coach drivers, and their “horrific, hateful, ableist behaviour”.

Tyrers has now agreed to pay him £7,500 in damages and a further £1,000 for a breach of data protection law.

The company will also have to write to DVSA and Arriva, making it clear that the allegations it shared were false.

And it will have to apologise in open court for the false claims it made, and for the distress and damage caused to Paulley’s reputation.

Tyrers had not commented on its actions by 11am today (Thursday).

Train company Northern has also apologised to Paulley, after one of its managers claimed in an email that he “goes around Railway Stations and tries to find fault at each location”.

The email had been sent out after Paulley complained about the Rochdale incident, in which he had been “simply trying to travel and encountered genuine accessibility barriers” with the rail replacement bus service.

He told Northern in a complaint: “When I documented these experiences, it was as part of my legitimate role as a nationally recognised transport accessibility advocate, not as malicious troublemaking.

“The suggestion that I ‘go around’ railway stations looking for problems fundamentally misrepresents evidence-based documentation of accessibility failures as some form of personal vendetta.”

He said the language used showed “a concerning institutional prejudice against disabled passengers who exercise their legal rights to document accessibility failures and hold operators accountable”.

And he said it had “contributed to the toxic atmosphere” that enabled the discriminatory behaviour by Tyrers, and the subsequent “inaccurate, defamatory allegations” that were made about him.

Paulley said Northern’s actions had created “chilling effects that may deter other disabled passengers from reporting legitimate concerns”.

Northern has now apologised in an email for the distress caused by its manager’s comments and told Paulley his campaigning was “invaluable” and “helps us learn from our mistakes” and that his work over the years “has been greatly appreciated and has played an important role in helping us improve”.

Paulley’s data protection case against another transport company is ongoing.

A Northern spokesperson said the company had no further updates to the apology issued to Doug Paulley.

But he added: “As referenced [in the emailed apology], the work that campaigners including Mr Paulley do is invaluable.

“The comments in the email about which the complaint was received are not reflective of Northern’s views, and we are truly sorry for any distress caused by these comments.”

9 October 2025

Access to Work dossier of evidence shows ‘real harm’ and job losses caused by DWP cuts and failings

The Access to Work scheme is failing Deaf and disabled people, and its “decline” in the last two years has caused them “real harm”, with some support packages cut by 80 per cent, according to a detailed dossier of evidence prepared by a user-led organisation.

The 33-page report was put together by London-based Action on Disability (AoD), which said its evidence shows “systemic administrative failure, lack of transparency, and potential breaches of equality and human rights obligations” by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

The evidence has been sent to the National Audit Office (NAO) as part of its ongoing investigation into how DWP is addressing “challenges” in the operation of the Access to Work (AtW) scheme.

NAO launched its investigation earlier this year following concerns that increased demand for AtW support, and other factors, had “adversely affected DWP’s administration of the scheme”, with “growing backlogs of people waiting for their applications to be processed or their claims to be paid”.

Much of the AoD report is based on its experience assisting disabled people with their AtW applications, renewals and appeals, in which their awards were “reduced, delayed, or rendered unusable due to unimplementable conditions”.

Between January 2023 and July 2025, it says, average support hours per week for more than 35 work placements it monitored have fallen from 22.5 to just four, while the average waiting time for an AtW case manager to be allocated has risen from eight weeks to 30, the job retention rate has halved from 88 per cent to 43 per cent, and the progression to paid work for those on supported internships has fallen from 72 per cent to 28 per cent.

Employers working with AoD say the deterioration of the scheme since 2023 has led to “job losses, reduced hours, and withdrawal from inclusion programmes that were previously successful”, with a significant decline in confidence in AtW among employers.

The dossier was shared with Disability News Service (DNS) this week, just days after DNS reported how disability minister Sir Stephen Timms admitted signing off on a directive that led to widespread cuts to disabled people’s AtW support packages.

Sir Stephen admitted to DNS last week that he had signed off on an order for AtW staff to apply guidance more “scrupulously”, after civil servants submitted a “proposal” to him to approve.

Among its concerns, the AoD report says changes to the way the scheme operates have made it harder for disabled people to contact their AtW case manager, while leading to inconsistency around quotations, inconsistent decision-making, and delayed or unclear pathways for appeals.

The effect of the changes has been to exclude disabled people from employment, destabilise supported internships, and undermine employers’ commitment to inclusion.

This has left AtW no longer operating “as a transparent, accountable, or lawfully administered scheme”, says the report.

The impact of changes over the last two years has been “a significant reduction in awards, increased administrative delays, and a breakdown of communication between AtW and service users, reversing years of progress in inclusive employment”.

And it says its evidence suggests that DWP has refused to publish internal policy instructions; denied claimants procedural fairness; obstructed transparency; and failed to ensure economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in public spending.

The report particularly highlights what AoD calls a “systemic policy shift”, with many applications that would previously have been awarded 100 per cent of a disabled person’s support needs in the workplace now being awarded about 20 per cent of their assessed needs.

This occurs when AtW categorises the assistance requested as a “job aide”, meaning the support worker is viewed as performing part of the job on the claimant’s behalf, rather than helping the disabled employee to overcome barriers related to the work.

AoD says AtW’s “rigid” approach fails to recognise the “legitimate” support that many disabled people need to complete their work independently, such as prompting and structured guidance.

It says AtW’s lack of recognition of such an approach to support has led to significant funding reductions of up to 80 per cent, disproportionately affecting people with learning difficulties, autistic people, those with acquired brain injury, or people with sensory processing impairments.

The report says the 20 per cent award policy “is like handing someone a plank that only stretches a fifth of the way across a river and then blaming them when they fall in”.

The NAO said its report was likely to be published early next year, and its team was still “gathering evidence through different methods”.

A government consultation on the future of Access to Work closed on 30 June, and DWP says it is now reviewing those responses and the scheme and working with disabled people and others on its proposals.

A “collaboration committee” on Access to Work – whose members have remained anonymous – concluded its work this month, and DWP says its views and concerns will now help shape the department’s policymaking.

DWP continues to insist that no changes have been made to AtW policy.

David Buxton, chief executive of AoD, said: “Access to Work should be a bridge into employment.

“Instead, thousands are being left stranded mid-way.

“The scheme’s decline is costing jobs, damaging wellbeing, and wasting public money.

“We hope the NAO’s inquiry restores transparency, fairness, and trust.”

A DWP spokesperson said: “We inherited an Access to Work scheme that is failing both employees and employers, which is why – as part of our welfare reform – we consulted on how it could be improved.

“We are reviewing all aspects of the scheme and will develop future policy with disabled people and the organisations that represent them.”

Meanwhile, disability consultant Alice Hastie, who specialises in providing AtW advice, warned this week that DWP had now shut down the AtW complaints email address, which she said “seems like a bizarre (and barely legal!) way of reducing the number of complaints they have to deal with”.

DWP said last night (Wednesday) that its policy is that email is not a valid contact method for complaints unless this has been agreed as a reasonable adjustment.

It is believed that the complaints email may have been shut down because it was for internal use only and its existence was not supposed to have been leaked to claimants.

9 October 2025

Greens show contrast with other major parties on disability cuts and refusal to stir up hostility to claimants

The Green Party is set to continue to contrast its policy approach on disability with other political parties by supporting disabled people who rely on benefits and have already experienced years of austerity cuts.

The newly-elected leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, Zach Polanski, told members at their annual conference in Bournemouth that the party would fight for the many disabled people “who have found themselves at the sharp end of brutal government cuts”.

His speech was focused on reducing the cost-of-living and addressing “rip-off Britain”, demanding more from “the very wealthiest”, tackling climate breakdown, attacking the “alarm bells of authoritarianism” within the Labour government, supporting the NHS and community cohesion, protecting “rights” and “liberties” through a “politics of hope”, and supporting migrants.

But there was almost no mention of how the party would fulfil these pledges, other than a repeated emphasis on wealth taxes, although its general election manifesto last year pledged a five per cent increase in the level of disability benefits, free personal care for adults, and more money to support disabled children in mainstream schools.

The difference in emphasis from the Liberal Democrat conference – where party leader Ed Davey spoke in an interview of targeting disability benefit fraud – and particularly the Labour, Reform and Conservative party conferences (see separate story), was clear.

There were no attacks on disabled people claiming benefits in Polanksi’s speech, and no calls for cuts to spending on supporting disabled people, or complaints about the “over-diagnosis” of mental distress or neurodivergence.

Instead, he said his party would fight for hard-pressed families, renters who live in “shoddy accommodation” and are wary of further rent increases, and “thousands and thousands of disabled people in the UK who have found themselves at the sharp end of brutal government cuts”.

In his speech, Polanski mentioned meeting a disabled man and his carer while knocking on doors with another Green politician, and how they spoke about “how hard everything is and how it just didn’t feel like a single person was representing them”.

Despite his words, there was still no clear picture of what Polanski and the Green Party would do to change that, other than “focusing day-in, day-out on the cost of living”.

One of the party’s co-deputy leaders, Rachel Millward, had told the conference of her experience of physical impairment and associated “horrendous” pain in her 20s, when she had a blue parking badge and an adapted vehicle.

But she said: “Far worse than that was the pain of separation from my community and from nature.

“Conference, please let us always make it a priority to find ways to give people with disabilities much better access to both.”

The contrast with the four main UK-wide parties continued this week, when the Green Party’s other co-deputy leader, Mothin Ali, attacked the “divisiveness and hatred” of the Conservative party and its announcements at its conference in Manchester this week (see separate story).

He said: “The package so far – turbo-charged welfare cuts, draconian anti-migration measures, and axing life-saving foreign aid – would leave few but the wealthiest unscathed.

“These measures are a cruel attack on the sick and disabled, migrants and asylum-seekers, and some of the poorest communities in the world.”

9 October 2025

New film celebrates 10 years since ‘moment in time’ victory over care charges in London borough

A new film released to celebrate 10 years since activists won a campaign to stop their local council charging for care shows how disabled people can achieve important victories by taking collective action, say campaigners who fought for that success.

The film* highlights the eight years of campaigning by Hammersmith and Fulham Coalition against Cuts (HAFCAC), which led eventually to their London borough scrapping home care charges in April 2015.

The campaign began in 2006 when the new Conservative-led council introduced a policy that imposed charges for home care.

HAFCAC was set up to fight the “discriminatory policy”, and it spent eight years lobbying councillors, holding protests and pushing the council to change its policy.

Tara Flood, one of the HAFCAC steering group members, says in the film: “There’s something particularly awful about receiving, through the post or via email, a document, an invoice, that sets out how much you have to pay to enable you to live at home with the support that you need to participate in your community, to be a friend, to be a family member, to be a parent, to get to work.

“No-one else is experiencing that.”

HAFCAC also backed a judicial review legal action against the charges brought by three disabled people from the borough who received home care.

Although they lost the case, one of the high court judges described the policy as sacrificing home care services on the altar of council tax reductions.

The film describes how the coalition raised much of its funding with pub quizzes, at which disabled activists such as Flood, Kevin Caulfield and Debbie Domb – all members of HAFCAC’s steering group – began to build relationships with politicians, including Labour’s Steve Cowan.

Cowan, who would go on to lead Hammersmith and Fulham council, says in the film: “The crucial thing was what Debbie, Tara and Kevin were able to do, was educate me and my colleagues on the need for the social model of disability to be right at the heart of our Labour administration’s approach.”

Months after Labour won back control of the council in May 2014, Cowan announced that Hammersmith and Fulham would be scrapping all home care charges in May 2015.

It remains one of only two councils in England that do not charge for home care, after Tower Hamlets council in east London scrapped adult home care charges from April this year.

Caulfield says in the film: “That moment [in 2014] was a real moment in time to show that campaigning does work, that disabled people getting together and collectively taking action can really have an impact.”

David Webb, a fourth member of the HAFCAC steering group, who ran the fund-raising pub quizzes, describes in the film how having personal assistance has completely changed his life.

He says: “It has given me a measure of choice and control that I didn’t have before.”

Victoria Brignall, who has benefited from scrapping care charges in the borough, says in the film: “People don’t choose to be disabled.

“It’s a tax on disability and we would like disabled people to be treated in the same way as other people.

“You don’t charge people to send their children to school, or to use parks, or to collect your rubbish, so why charge disabled people for their care?”

She says she hopes other councils will now be inspired to abolish home care charges.

Last year, Disability Law Service published research which showed that disabled people across England were continuing to face unlawful discrimination and inequality on an “unparalleled” scale due to “unjust” social care charging policies.

Caulfield points out in the film that tens of thousands of disabled people every year are taken to court for non-payment of care charges.

“That’s just a disgrace,” he says.

He and his fellow HAFCAC veterans say the film serves as both a celebration and a rallying cry, and that they hope their success “will inspire more disabled people to take action”.

The film, launched on Tuesday, is dedicated to Debbie Domb, “a fearless freedom fighter for disabled people’s rights”, who died in 2018.

*The film, ‘£12.40 an Hour for a Shower: The Story of Disabled People’s Struggle to Abolish Home Care Charging in Hammersmith & Fulham’, was directed, edited and produced by disabled film-maker, journalist and author Richard Butchins, and can be accessed with BSL and subtitles only, or with added audio description.

**Inclusion London is campaigning to persuade the government to scrap all social care charges.

9 October 2025

Minister admits signing off on order that led to widespread cuts to Access to Work

The disability minister has admitted signing off on orders that have led to widespread cuts to disabled people’s Access to Work support packages since Labour came to power.

Disabled campaigners have been warning for more than a year of DWP cuts and inconsistent decisions on their Access to Work (AtW) claims, while there have also been mounting concerns about lengthening waiting-lists for decisions on claims.

But when social security and disability minister Sir Stephen Timms was challenged by an MP on the apparent cuts earlier this summer, he insisted that no changes had been made to Access to Work policy, although work was “underway to improve Scheme decision-making by applying the guidance with greater consistency”.

He still insists that ministers have made no changes to AtW policy.

But Sir Stephen has admitted to Disability News Service (DNS) that he signed off on an order for Access to Work (AtW) staff to apply the guidance more “scrupulously”, after being presented with a “proposal” from civil servants which they submitted to him to approve.

The confusion over who was responsible for the move began when DNS asked him who in the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) had asked AtW civil servants to carry out the demand to be more “scrupulous” in applying the guidance.

He replied: “Well, the department, I guess.”

Asked if it was definitely not him, he said: “I’m not sure… I don’t want to give you a misleading answer.”

But when asked by DNS why he thought AtW staff were suddenly following guidance more scrupulously, he said he had no “no doubt seen a submission, which I have said ‘OK’ to, saying that it’ll be scrupulously applied, to achieve consistency apart from anything”.

He added: “The way things work is a proposal goes into a submission, which comes to me, and I say, ‘OK,’ and it’s very likely that I’ve been advised that we are going to apply the guidance more scrupulously.”

During the interview at Labour’s annual party conference in Liverpool, Sir Stephen said he could not remember when he signed off on the order, but that he would find out.

But when DNS suggested it would then be possible to secure this order through a freedom of information request, he suggested that DWP would resist this request because such an order would have been “advice to ministers” – which would not have to be released under the Freedom of Information Act – even though the instructions would then have been sent out to all relevant AtW staff.

Just minutes earlier, he had claimed that Labour DWP ministers were “very substantially changing the culture of the department in a pro-transparency direction” (see separate story).

Sir Stephen then claimed that the order to AtW staff might not have been written down, and that it might only have been passed on through “a conversation, a staff meeting; who knows how it’s promulgated”.

He later declined several opportunities to welcome the increase in AtW claims, which he called a “huge surge in the number of applications”.

He said the increase meant “people are having to wait longer” to have their claims dealt with, which was “a big part of why we need to reform Access to Work and why we’re consulting on it”.

Asked again if it was a good thing that more disabled people were applying to AtW, he said: “I think there’s a lot to be said for Access to Work and the opportunities it opens up to people.

“But we’ve got to have a system that works efficiently and does not keep people waiting for weeks and weeks and weeks.

“And that’s the aim of our reform that we consulted on in the [Pathways to Work] green paper.”

The government’s decisions on AtW reform are set to be announced later this year.

2 October 2025

All the evidence from Labour conference points in one direction: More cuts to disability benefits

Information from Labour ministers and other party sources has shown beyond any doubt that the government is preparing for further attempts to cut spending on disability benefits over the next 12 months.

As disabled people who rely on benefits await the publication of a disability benefits white paper in the next couple of months, it became clear at the party’s annual conference in Liverpool that further cuts are being planned.

Disability News Service (DNS) has this week interviewed the minister for social security and disability; spoken to disabled party members; attended fringe events; spoken (briefly) to a former employment minister; and listened to speeches by the prime minister and the new work and pensions secretary, Pat McFadden.

DNS has also received a Labour briefing; read articles by other journalists with better government connections than DNS; and listened to a broadcast interview with Sir Keir Starmer, in which he said there was a “moral case” for reducing the number of young people with “mental health issues” on benefits.

The weight of this evidence makes it clear that – despite this summer’s government U-turn over billions of pounds of cuts to personal independence payment (PIP) – further cuts to disabled people’s support are on the way.

Two key targets for cuts are likely to be PIP and the health element of universal credit, and almost certainly one focus will be on those receiving support on the grounds of mental distress and trauma, particularly younger people.

On Monday, the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, announced new details of a “youth guarantee” – first announced last year – through which every 18-to-21-year-old in England would be guaranteed either a place in college or university, an apprenticeship, or one-to-one support to find a job.

Any young person still out of work, education or training after 18 months would be given a paid work placement.

The party later confirmed to DNS that there would be “conditionality” – which is likely to mean their benefits would be cut or stopped if the placement was turned down – although there would be “exemptions”, likely to include some sick and disabled young people.

Details on whether those forced onto these placements would receive at least the minimum wage will not be announced until next month’s budget.

McFadden strongly linked “dignity” with work in his speech to the conference, and he said he wanted an “opportunity welfare state” rather than a “dependency welfare state”.

Opportunity, he said, “starts with work”, and he added: “Make work the pathway to dignity, security, and pride.”

McFadden had already alarmed many disabled people before the conference, when he claimed there were “incentives” in the system for people to declare themselves unfit for work so they can “double their money”, and also claimed people were “declaring themselves long-term sick”.

Asked about those earlier comments this week, Sir Stephen Timms, the minister for social security and disability, said he thought McFadden was “onto something here” and had not made a mistake with those comments.

He pointed to the increase in the universal credit basic allowance and the cut in the “health premium” which he said were designed to prevent “quite a serious problem in the current system that is forcing people to aspire to be designated LCWRA* as a kind of destination” so they receive more benefits.

But he did insist that Labour ministers “have the backs of disabled people who can’t work”.

He said: “We are determined to open up opportunities for those who can work, but also to make sure that those who cannot work, and there will always be people who cannot possibly work, and we well understand that, that they will be properly supported.”

He insisted that government ministers had not “dialled up the rhetoric” on disabled claimants, were “making a very good fist of managing a challenging situation”, and that they were not scapegoating disabled people.

He said: “That is not our intention, and I don’t think that’s what we’re doing.

“What we are wanting to do is opening up opportunities for disabled people who for too long have been barred from opportunities they ought to be able to take advantage of.”

But Ellen Morrison, one of the most influential disabled activists in the party, as the representative of disabled members on Labour’s national executive committee, told DNS this week that McFadden had been “hinting at the worrying direction that this is going to take”, which looks like “increased conditionality”.

She said: “They are consistently making young people the target. We have to be really careful in the disabled people’s movement not to allow young people to become the target.”

In combination with the existing cuts to the universal credit health element, to be implemented for new claimants from next April, she said the government’s new policies suggest there will be “people who might be forced into either taking inaccessible or unsuitable work, or they are going to be faced with sanctions or destitution.

“I don’t think you give people the support that they need by punishing them.”

She said this was combined with the government’s failure to commit to increased funding for the Access to Work disability employment scheme (see separate story).

Morrison said: “I don’t think it’s really about supporting people into work at all.

“I don’t believe that’s the motive behind this. It’s to get people off benefits and off any kind of financial support. It’s really short-term thinking.

“It’s going to be young people first and there’s more to come for disabled people. A lot more to come.”

The i Paper reported that McFadden was working with Reeves to “craft changes to the welfare system” as a replacement for the cuts the government had to abandon over the summer, and that they would be “laid out step by step over time rather than launched in one big package, in a bid to minimise the risks of a major political backlash once again”.

It also reported that Reeves told a conference fringe event on Tuesday: “A thousand people are going onto PIP claims a day, the majority of those are young people going on to disability benefits with mental health problems.

“I’m not denying there are mental health problems; there are massive mental health problems, especially post-Covid.

“But I would prefer to be using money to help support people to get into work and to get that treatment in the health service than to pay people to be on benefits and often have them trapped out of work without the support that they need.

“I didn’t win that argument, we didn’t win that argument this year, but we can’t go on like this and keep adding to welfare costs.”

The concerns that the government plans to target young people with mental distress were further heightened by the prime minister in an interview yesterday (Wednesday) with BBC Radio Four’s Today programme.

Sir Keir Starmer was asked by the BBC’s Nick Robinson if he was “prepared to say, as prime minister, that being anxious, even being depressed, is a terrible thing to have, but it’s not a good enough reason to stop looking for work”. 

In response, the prime minister made it clear that cuts were coming and he suggested that the government wanted to provide support services for those with mental distress instead of – as highlighted by at least one concerned disabled activist – both benefits and support.

He told Robinson: “I think we need to look again at this issue of mental health and ask ourselves a fundamental question, which is: would we not be better putting our money in the resources and support that is needed for mental health than simply saying it’s to be provided in benefits.

“And we’re not saying you shouldn’t have benefits for mental health issues, but I do think we need to examine this quite carefully.”

He said he was “particularly concerned about young people” and the number of young people who are on benefits for mental health reasons.

He said that was “wrong” because “if you are on benefits in your 20s, it is going to be extremely difficult to get off benefits for the rest of your life”, adding: “So there’s a moral case for changing that that I’m perfectly prepared to make.”

The government’s reluctance to reassure those unable to work was demonstrated by a brief exchange between DNS and former employment minister Alison McGovern, now a minister for local government and homelessness, who was speaking in a fringe meeting on the “dignity of work”.

Asked what her message was to those disabled people unable to work because they were not well enough to do so, and about the shortage of jobs that are available and suitable for sick and disabled people, she offered only half-hearted reassurance.

She said: “My message to disabled people is we believe in their right to work, like everybody else.

“All the discussions we have been having [are] about trying to make that work suitable and appropriate.

“We must always protect people who can’t work, but through new technology and forms of work I think that opens up chances and opportunities for disabled people and others and I want to make sure that people are able to take up those opportunities.”

After the meeting, DNS tried twice to engage with McGovern to ask her to provide further reassurance for sick and disabled people concerned about the government’s policy, but she twice declined to comment further, even briefly, saying she had another engagement to attend.

During the event she had heard from the non-profit organisation Timewise, which has just published research showing that only 2.5 per cent of sick and disabled people who are off work long-term move back into work in any given year.

Of the few that do, more than half (57 per cent) go into jobs that are physically demanding and are associated with higher levels of unpredictable, inflexible and excessive hours.

This contributes to another finding, that more than half of the jobs taken by those who were formerly “inactive or long-term sick” do not last for more than four months.

*Limited capability for work-related activity

2 October 2025

DWP paid nearly £90,000 to disabled claimant left homeless and at risk of harm after years of errors

A disabled person was left with “ongoing risks” of harm for more than five years – and was even left homeless – after the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) missed multiple opportunities to provide them with the benefits they were entitled to.

It took the intervention of the Independent Case Examiner to correct the years of errors with their various claims, which led to them receiving a payment of £55,000, as well as compensation of £3,000 for the “hardship” DWP had caused.

They had already received an arrears payment of nearly £30,000 in 2023, after their state pension had been wrongly stopped for four years.

The case was discussed in the annual report from the Independent Case Examiner, Joanna Wallace, who deals with complaints about DWP, and she revealed that years of errors by the department had caused “ongoing risks” to the claimant, who had “very poor physical health and housing problems”.

Her report shows DWP made at least nine significant errors with the case from 2018 – including multiple missed opportunities to rectify its mistakes – when it started the process to move the claimant from disability living allowance to personal independence payment (PIP).

The errors included a missed opportunity to consider if the claimant needed extra support with their PIP claim; failing to act on a letter explaining they had moved home; and failing to follow up a letter that was returned unopened.

DWP also failed to act in 2020, when the claimant asked why they had not been receiving any pension or benefits since the previous year.

Even when the claimant contacted DWP in 2023 to explain that the lack of benefits had caused a significant deterioration in their physical and mental health, which had left them homeless, the department “continued to miss putting things right” and failed to consider any reasonable adjustments for a new attendance allowance claim.

It also failed to review the claimant’s suspended pension payments.

It was only when the claimant contacted DWP again later in 2023 that their state pension was reinstated, and arrears of nearly £30,000 were paid.

But there was no evidence of an apology, and DWP still failed to consider the suspended pension credit claim, while making a further error with a new pension credit claim later that year.

Eventually, ICE was notified of the case, and it “took the exceptional step of reaching out to DWP immediately so we could work together urgently to put things right for our customer”.

This led to DWP making a payment of nearly £55,000 in connection with the claimant’s DLA, state pension and pension credit claims.

Wallace also recommended a “consolatory payment” of a further £3,000 because of “the errors and lack of vital support to an extremely vulnerable customer, which had clearly exacerbated the long-term issues with their health and their housing situation” while DWP had “continued to miss opportunities to put things right”.

Asked this week if the case showed there were still multiple problems with the benefits system, and how one claimant could have faced so many errors, DWP said it had introduced thorough procedures to investigate and learn lessons from cases where mistakes were made.

It also said that it used sources such as internal process reviews (see separate story) and its Serious Case Panel to identify and address systemic issues, as well as ICE’s reports.

A DWP spokesperson said: “We regret the mistakes that were made in this case and we are determined to learn from them.

“We support millions of people every year and our top priority is they get the benefits to which they are entitled as soon as possible, and to ensure they receive a supportive and compassionate service.”

The report says ICE cleared 2,232 complaints in 2024-25, of which 1,514 were investigated, 567 were resolved (an agreement reached before evidence in the case is requested), 97 were settled (an agreement reached after evidence is submitted but before any investigation is carried out), and 54 were withdrawn.

Of the 1,514 that were investigated, 892 (59 per cent) were fully or partially upheld, 618 (41 per cent) were not upheld and in four cases (less than one per cent) ICE was unable to reach a finding.

Of 205 cases relating to disability benefits that were dealt with in 2024-25, 73 were resolved or settled to the complainant’s satisfaction, 121 ICE investigation reports were issued, and 11 were withdrawn.

Of the 121 investigation reports, 53 (44 per cent) were upheld or partially upheld, 66 (55 per cent) were not upheld and in two cases ICE was unable to reach a finding.

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

2 October 2025

Disability minister struggles to point to any significant achievements in his first year in post

The minister for social security and disability has struggled to point to any significant achievements on disability equality after more than a year in post, but he insisted that the government does not need a separate minister for disabled people.

The Labour government has been consistently criticised for not appointing a stand-alone minister for disabled people and instead combining that role with the social security brief under Sir Stephen Timms.

But in an interview with Disability News Service (DNS) at this week’s annual Labour conference in Liverpool, Sir Stephen struggled to point to any significant achievements in the 14 months since his appointment, excluding employment and work and pensions issues.

Asked for three key achievements, he pointed first to the publication in July of new five-year plans to improve the use of British Sign Language (BSL) by government departments.

This followed the British Sign Language Act, a private members’ bill introduced under the last Conservative government, which legislated for the government to report on how departments use BSL in their communications.

He also pointed to the government signing the Solfagnano Treaty (PDF) – a watered-down version of the UN disability convention – during a G7 ministerial meeting in Italy last October.

The treaty appears to have been mentioned just once in parliament – last December – since it was signed, and has been almost completely ignored by politicians, the media, and disabled people.

Sir Stephen also highlighted the “preparations” the government was making for a “cross-government plan” on disability.

Asked why there did not appear to have been any discussions with disabled people’s organisations about this plan, he said: “Internally, there’s been lots of discussion, and the fruits of that will become apparent in the coming months.”

Asked about the lack of progress in his role as disability minister, he said: “I think a lot’s been done, actually.

“And I’m hoping that the fruit of that will become increasingly apparent as time goes on.”

He said he did not believe his job – with responsibility for both social security and disability – was too extensive, and he said predecessors under Conservative governments also had responsibilities that were “actually quite wide” and extended outside the “strict disability group”.

But disabled activists at the conference – and outside it – repeated the long-standing calls for a separate minister for disabled people.

Emily Pomroy-Smith, a member of Disability Labour’s executive committee, told DNS that disabled people had been calling repeatedly for a separate minister to cover disability, which was a “very, very important” demand.

She said: “The brief is massive, and it is too big for one person to do on their own.

“We would [also] prefer it wasn’t sat under the Department for Work and Pensions.”

Disabled activist Klint Durham, who took part in a Disabled People Against Cuts protest outside the conference on Monday (see separate story), said he would also like to see a stand-alone minister for disabled people.

He said the remit of that post would need to cover areas across government, including housing, transport, employment and community engagement.

2 October 2025

Labour ignores disabled people and accessible housing crisis – again – as it announces plans for new towns

Labour has again ignored disabled people when making a major housing announcement, after revealing plans for a “new generation of new towns” but refusing to explain how it will ensure they are designed to be accessible to disabled people.

Housing secretary Steve Reed told his party’s annual conference in Liverpool on Sunday that the 12 new towns across England would include GP surgeries, libraries, schools, green spaces and transport links.

Building work on three of the new towns will begin before the next general election, with the government working with “world class architects”.

Reed said he would do “whatever it takes” to build the homes.

But Labour this week failed to make any pledge that accessibility would be central to the design of the new towns.

Asked for Reed’s promise to disabled people on the new towns, the Labour party had refused to comment by noon today (Thursday), three days after Disability News Service (DNS) asked the question.

Nearly 15 months after the general election, disabled people are still waiting for the new government to say whether it will introduce stricter minimum accessibility standards for new-build homes in England, three years after a pledge by the last Conservative government – which was never fulfilled – to take action to address the critical shortage of accessible housing.

At last year’s conference, after DNS questioned the party on the failure of ministers to mention the accessible housing crisis, a Labour spokesperson had promised that the government would “set out its policies on accessible new build housing shortly”.

A year on, and disabled people are still waiting for that promise to be fulfilled.

Reed was also the latest Labour minister to say the government was fighting for “hard working people”, apparently ignoring those who are unable to work, including many disabled people who need accessible homes.

He was speaking as an independent report – commissioned by the government – recommended 12 potential locations for new towns across England, with at least 10,000 new homes in each location.

But a brief search through the 135-page report appears to show no mentions of disabled people or the accessible housing crisis, although there is a brief reference to the need for “homes for older people, as well as specialist housing built to accessible and adaptable standards”.

Emily Pomroy-Smith, a member of Disability Labour’s executive committee, said the new towns appeared to be a “really exciting opportunity to set the benchmark for accessibility” and it was crucial for disabled people to be involved in those plans from the beginning.

She said there was no reason why accessibility could not be built into the foundations of the programme.

Disabled activist Flick Williams, a retired disability equality trainer and access consultant, who was in Liverpool to take part in a Disabled People Against Cuts protest outside the conference (see separate story), said she was not at all optimistic about the new towns announcement.

She said the “signs were there” when there was no mention of the accessible housing crisis in last autumn’s National Planning Policy Framework.

She said: “We are just missing from everything they do.”

She said her message to Reed was: “If you want disabled people to be active in the labour market, you need to build us accessible homes.”

2 October 2025

Labour uses conference to sideline disabled people… unless they are working

The Labour party has used its annual conference to stress – once again – that its focus is on supporting “working people”, rather than disabled people who are unable to work.

In his 6,300-word speech to the conference on Tuesday, the prime minister did not mention disabled people once, other than in relation to the work of carers, care workers and volunteers, and a brief mention of his late disabled brother who he said was “badly failed by the education system”.

In contrast, he mentioned “working people” 17 times, including telling the conference audience that the state will be “accountable to working people”, that he wanted to see “working people in control of their public services”, and arguing that it was “working people who paid the price of Tory decline”, while stressing that “Labour is the party for working people” and that he would “fight for working people”.

The concerns about Sir Keir Starmer’s focus on “working people” date back to 2022 and a speech he made to Scottish Labour’s annual conference, at which he declared publicly that Labour was “the party of working people”.

His chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has an even longer troubling track record, having said 10 years ago that Labour did not want to be seen as “the party to represent those who are out of work” and that it was “not the party of people on benefits”.

In his own speech, earlier on Tuesday, health and social care secretary Wes Streeting stressed his determination to build a National Care Service “worthy of the name”.

Labour’s only significant social care announcement was the first ever fair pay agreement for care workers, with an initial £500 million in funding to deliver “better pay, terms and conditions” for adult care workers across England.

In contrast to the prime minister’s speech, Streeting mentioned disabled people three times, highlighting how many disabled people were now surviving with conditions “that would have cut their lives short thanks to breakthroughs in medical science that allows them to not only survive, but to thrive”.

He said that “if we want to match longer lives with better lives, then we must build a social care system to meet their needs”.

And he highlighted the government’s decision to provide more funding for disabled facilities grants, which has provided “safety, dignity, independence and quality of life”, as well as “the biggest uplift in carers’ allowance since the 1970s”.

It has been clear since at least 2022 that Labour’s priority in government would be lifting the pay of care workers before any moves to reduce or scrap care charges.

Any firm decisions on long-term reform will wait for the conclusions of an independent commission, led by former civil servant Baroness [Louise] Casey.

The first phase of the commission will report next year, but the second phase, with recommendations for longer-term reform, will not be completed until 2028.

Last year, Disability Law Service published research which found that disabled people across England were continuing to face unlawful discrimination and inequality on an “unparalleled” scale because of “unjust” social care charging policies.

2 October 2025

Labour’s attacks on rights ‘have led to massive resurgence’ in disability movement, protest hears

The Labour government’s attack on disabled people’s support has led to a “massive resurgence” in the disabled people’s movement in the last year, a protest outside the party’s annual conference has heard.

Monday’s protest highlighted Labour’s failure to stop the “slow violence” that has led to the killing of countless disabled benefit claimants at the hands of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), and the government’s refusal to act on the genocide in Gaza.

The Genocide Abroad, Democide at Home protest was held just outside the boundary fence of Labour’s annual conference in Liverpool.

The speeches were at one point being watched by nearly 100 protesters and passers-by.

The aim of the protest was to draw parallels and links between the genocide in Gaza and the “democide at home”, with activists believing that thousands of disabled people have been killed by Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) state violence in the last 15 years.

But it also expressed solidarity with trans rights activists and called for links between the three movements.

The protest began with a recording of the names of more than 100 disabled people who had lost their lives through DWP’s actions and failings, including Errol Graham, Jodey Whiting, Stephen Carré, Roy Curtis and Faiza Ahmed and more recent victims of DWP bureaucratic violence such as Tracie, Kevin Gale, and David.

The protest was organised by Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) branches from Merseyside, Leeds, Manchester and York.

Rick Burgess, from Manchester DPAC, said the Labour government had not tried to reverse the Conservative cuts to disability support but instead “attempted to push farther and further”.

He said the attempted cuts to personal independence payment would have led “to many more deaths”, but disabled people forced the government to back down.

He said: “We did that. We started the end of this absolutely pathetic and failed Starmer government.”

He then led a chant of “no more benefit deaths”.

Burgess added later: “We still have a political system that absolutely denies disabled people’s right to live a good life on equal terms with everyone else.

“We need social security, we need social care, and we need social justice.”

Referring to Gaza, he said: “If governments see genocide is a viable policy solution, they will start thinking about using it elsewhere.”

Billie Gibson, from Crips Against Cuts Merseyside, led a series of chants, including “Keir Starmer, disabled harmer” and “don’t cut PIP, tax the rich”, before telling the protest that the “warfare on disabled people needs to stop”.

Dr China Mills, who leads the Deaths by Welfare project at Healing Justice Ldn, told protesters: “Disabled people have been telling us for well over a decade that the welfare system is killing people, and Labour, from New Labour to now, have cooked up many of the policies that kill people.

“People are being killed because the government doesn’t think that disabled people matter or have any value and because to them work equals worth.

“We think that these killings go deeper than mistakes or flaws in the system.

“The system isn’t broken; it is functioning exactly as it was designed.”

Jessica Ryan, from Disability Rebellion, which helped promote the protest online for those who could not attend in person, highlighted the impact of Labour’s cuts on the next generation of disabled people, and the unfairness of the government’s treatment of disabled people.

Rhi, from Merseyside DPAC, but also a researcher for the Trans Safety Network, said: “This is a government that seems extremely determined to be remembered for its genocidal foreign policy and its democidal domestic policy, as well as attacking our right to protest.

“As a disabled and trans person, I have long insisted that disabled people’s liberation and trans people’s liberation will be one and the same fight, and that our oppression is built with the same tools, but these last few years have made this increasingly clear to more and more of us.

“It is a terrifying time to be a disabled person in the UK right now and it is a terrifying time to be a trans person here, too.

“Disabled people and trans people are under attack but when we join together to fight back, we are much, much stronger.”

Emma Hewitt, from Leeds DPAC, said she had been a disability rights activist for 20 years but it had only been in the last 18 months that she had “really seen the attacks on us”.

She said: “It’s not just the fact that they are cutting our services, it’s the fact that they are attacking us, they are attacking our right to live.

“It’s so painful that not only do they not care about us, but they are quite happy to spend the money that we need for our support on genocide (in Gaza).

“There has been a massive resurgence in the disabled people’s movement, and it just fills me with so much hope.

“Every town in this country, every city, has got a disability rights group, not just Disabled People Against Cuts, we’ve got Crips Against Cuts, who are this amazing new group, Disability Rebellion, you guys are my heroes, you’ve been finding new ways for us to be able to campaign so no-one gets left behind, so everyone has a voice.”

Disabled activist Flick Williams, from York DPAC, said it was “so important” to be at the protest because the imminent DWP white paper – which is expected to include a series of further cuts to benefits – will be published later this year.

She said she had been struck by the names of those who had been killed due to DWP “slow violence”.

She said: “I just thought: there are going to be so many more.”

Another disabled activist, Klint Durham, told DNS he had travelled to Liverpool from Leeds to show his “contempt for the Labour government and its attack on disabled people and the welfare cuts”.

After 14 years of Conservative austerity, he said, he could not believe that a Labour government “would think to introduce more cuts”, and that it was “very clear” that the Labour-run DWP needed to “listen to organisations of disabled people and not charities”.

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

2 October 2025

Minister asks DWP to consider releasing secret reports on deaths to grieving relatives

A minister has asked the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) whether it could release secret reports to families whose relatives’ deaths have been linked to DWP’s actions and failings.

Ever since Disability News Service (DNS) first revealed the existence of the secret reviews in October 2014, DWP has repeatedly refused to even alert the families of those who have died that an investigation has been carried out.

The department has insisted – as it did last week when it again refused to tell lawyers for the family of Jodey Whiting whether it carried out a probe into her case – that such reviews are “internal retrospective investigations focused on organisational learning, not public accountability”.

The probes were previously known as peer reviews but are now called internal process reviews (IPRs).

The only IPRs ever to be released to grieving relatives have come after orders made by a coroner or a judge.

DNS is aware of only two such cases, including the IPR ordered to be released by the coroner who heard the 2021 inquest into the death of Philippa Day.

But DNS told the social security and disability minister Sir Stephen Timms this week that safeguarding adults reviews and domestic homicide reviews are released to families and are published, although the identities of the subjects of the reviews are disguised.

DNS also pointed to the eight-year campaign for justice and accountability led by Jodey Whiting’s mother, Joy Dove, and her struggle to secure the IPR she believes was carried out into the circumstances surrounding her daughter’s death.

Speaking during an interview with DNS at Labour’s annual conference in Liverpool, Sir Stephen said: “Internal process reviews are what the name implies, they are for internal consumption within the DWP to look at where we got things wrong and how are we going to put them right.

“So that is kind of the nature of them, so I don’t think it’s surprising inherently that they are not shared more widely.”

But he then said that DNS was “raising a very reasonable issue here, and particularly asking whether families should, in certain circumstances, be able to see them”.

He said he had asked DWP civil servants “to take a look at this, and I am going to be receiving some advice on that subject”, although he said it was “difficult and there is a duty of confidentiality that the department owes to people”, even after they have died.

He added: “There might be a need to change the law here.

“Anyway, I’ve asked officials to have a look at this and to come back to me.”

His comments came after Steve Darling, the Liberal Democrat work and pensions spokesperson, told DNS last week that he was hoping to use the government’s new Hillsborough Law to force DWP to release IPRs to relatives.

During Sunday’s interview, Sir Stephen admitted that it was only because of a DNS news story that he became aware that a report – commissioned by Conservative work and pensions secretary Therese Coffey in 2020 – had called for DWP to reduce suicides of benefit claimants and other “very bad cases”.

The Complaints, Suicides and Other Matters report was written by Tory peer Baroness [Lucy] Neville-Rolfe, but DWP has told DNS that it would be too expensive to find out what happened in response to the 11 recommendations she made five years ago.

Among her recommendations was for DWP to set up a new register of “very bad cases”; to review its safeguarding system, including an analysis of its effectiveness in reducing suicides; and to review the IPR system.

Sir Stephen said on Sunday: “I actually did not know that Baroness Neville-Rolfe had done a report for the DWP until my office told me that you were likely to ask me about it.

“That’s the first time I was aware of this report having been done.”

DNS has been writing news stories about the report since May this year, but it appears that no-one in DWP briefed him on the report or those stories until the lead-up to the conference.

Sir Stephen said he would now ask civil servants what happened in response to the 11 recommendations made in the report.

He said: “I will find out about it.”

He said Labour ministers were now “very substantially changing the culture of the department in a pro-transparency direction.

“I’m not claiming that we’ve entirely got there yet, but we’ve made a lot of headway.”

Sir Stephen also confirmed that the disabled members of his new independent disability advisory panel would no longer be expected to sign non-disclosure agreements, following a backlash over the “completely unacceptable” measure.

Instead of an NDA, DWP said it would “collaboratively agree the confidentiality arrangements as part of the terms of engagement with the panel once the membership is confirmed”.

The deadline for applications has now been extended by two weeks to 13 October.

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

2 October 2025

No 10 meeting sees Labour hold out olive branch to disabled activists after breakdown of trust over cuts

Senior figures in the Labour party pledged to try to rebuild trust with disabled people at a meeting with activists earlier this month at 10 Downing Street, Disability News Service can reveal.

The 90-minute meeting between a delegation of seven disabled people and senior figures within the Labour administration took place on 2 September.

It came after a text message from Joe Watkinson, deputy vice chair of Disability Labour, to Claire Reynolds, who was at the time the party’s political director in Downing Street, but is now Labour’s executive director of stakeholder relations.

Watkinson had suggested the need for a meeting to try to rebuild Labour’s relationship with disabled people after the damage caused by the government’s attempts – later abandoned – to cut billions in spending from personal independence payment, and the cuts that will be introduced through its Universal Credit Act, and to ensure disabled people “have a voice and can be heard in a constructive way”.

He told Disability News Service (DNS) at this week’s Labour conference in Liverpool: “Disabled people cannot afford a Reform government.

“The only hope we have is via a Labour government. We need to reset the relationship with disabled members and that’s at the core of everything we need to do.”

Among the disabled people who attended the meeting were representatives of the Co-operative Party – where Watkinson is chair of the party’s disability network – union activists and representatives of Disability Labour (DL), including Kathy Bole, DL’s chair, and Emily Pomroy-Smith, another member of DL’s executive committee.

As well as Reynolds, other Labour representatives at the meeting included a work and welfare special adviser, and a representative of the party’s general secretary.

It is not yet clear what promises the party will make to those who attended the meeting, other than a pledge to hold further such meetings.

But Watkinson said: “It was a very constructive meeting. It was taken seriously. It was a very frank and honest discussion.

“For the majority of the meeting, they sat there and listened.”

Pomroy-Smith said: “It was about using our lived experience to inform what they were doing. They were ready and listening.

“Claire really did fight for this. She really fought for the meeting to happen, and she’s continuing that in her new role.”

She said the government representatives they met were aware of the level of anger among disabled people at the way the PIP and universal credit cuts had been handled earlier this year.

She said: “What we were coming with was solutions. The focus was how can we rebuild and what does that look like.

“It was about moving forward. How do we prevent it from happening again.”

Among the issues raised were the kind of language used by ministers, and inaccurate briefings on social security reform.

Pomroy-Smith added: “At the moment there is a real need to amplify the voices of disabled people and not be spoken about.”

2 October 2025

Activist tells conference meeting: Hostile rhetoric under Labour has left me feeling hounded and unsafe

One of the only disabled activists to speak at Labour’s annual conference has delivered a powerful rebuke to ministers who have failed to do anything to curb the rising levels of disability-related hostility.

Fingers, a disabled RAF veteran who campaigns with Crips Against Cuts and the new group Disabled Resistance, told a fringe event on Monday how her car had been attacked and she had been called a “scrounger” after a young man saw her blue parking badge on the dashboard.

She told an Amnesty International UK fringe event on fixing the broken social security system: “What the language of the last 18 months has done to me is, for the first time in my life… I feel hounded, I feel unsafe.”

She said she felt as though the hostile rhetoric directed at disabled people had turned her into “a non-person”.

She said: “You’re looking at someone who is unsustainable. Why do I have to be a unit of productivity in this country?

“The words we use are fundamentally important. Not one newspaper has run an editorial or article about how these words are making us feel.

“I fought for the country, I worked for the NHS, and now I am effectively a ‘useless eater’.”

Fingers, who also used to chair a mental health charity, told Disability News Service (DNS) after the meeting that four young men had walked past her car as she was waiting at traffic lights in Loughborough about a month ago.

They had seen her blue badge and one of them then bounced on the bonnet of her car and shouted: “Bloody scrounger!”.

She wound down the window and gave them a “stream of obscenities and invective”, but later her anger turned to fear for her safety and that of other disabled people.

She told DNS: “The rhetoric surrounding people who require support because of ill-health has become positively threatening.

“It has been encouraged tacitly by the government.

“It dehumanises people who can’t work and there has been not one shred of fightback by the government about the knock-on effects of their rhetoric.

“It has given a licence for anybody at all to pick on and say hateful things about disabled people, and it’s everywhere, and that makes me feel unsafe.”

The former Labour member, who joined the party to vote for Jeremy Corbyn as party leader and left when he was replaced by Sir Keir Starmer, said she had expected this kind of rhetoric from a Conservative government, but it was “shocking” that it had continued under a Labour government, which had even made the situation worse.

She was also critical that the fringe event had been held on an inaccessible stage without a ramp, as highlighted by Daily Mirror columnist Susie Boniface, who chaired an event in the same location within ACC Liverpool.

Although she is not a wheelchair-user, Fingers has a physical impairment and struggled with the inaccessible stage, which she said was “shameful for Labour”.

Because of the lack of chairs in the conference centre, she had already been forced to resort to sitting in the accessible toilet to prepare for her presentation at the fringe event.

She said: “I was in quite a bit of pain when I left that conference. It would have been alleviated if I had had anything other than a disabled loo to sit on.”

DNS reports elsewhere this week that Disability Labour – which often provides free access advice to the party at its annual conference – was priced out of attending this year’s event by the party.

Meanwhile, disabled Labour MP Nadia Whittome told the Amnesty fringe event that she was “really proud” to have played a small part in the backbench rebellion that led to the government withdrawing its planned cuts of billions of pounds to spending on personal independence payment.

But she pointed out that cuts to the health element of universal credit for most new claimants are still going ahead next spring.

She said campaigners must continue to fight against further government cuts to disability benefits, and against disability discrimination, and for investment in public services.

She echoed Fingers’ comments on the political rhetoric and told the fringe event: “People’s worth is not determined by their economic contribution.”

2 October 2025

Disability Labour priced out of conference after cash-strapped party withdraws financial support

The campaigning organisation that represents disabled people within Labour had to cancel plans to attend this week’s conference in Liverpool after the party asked it to pay thousands of pounds in fees.

Members of Disability Labour appealed for last-minute financial help during a visit to 10 Downing Street earlier this month (see separate story) but were told the party could no longer afford to help it cover its costs at conference.

For the first time since 2018, Disability Labour – which has spent years providing free advice to the party on access issues – was asked to pay for a space for a stand at Labour’s annual conference, but it was told this would cost £2,500.

Disability News Service (DNS) has been told that other Labour-affiliated socialist societies have also had to pull out of attending the conference this week because they could no longer afford the increasing cost and because of the lack of financial support from the party.

The party has told DNS that the changes to financial arrangements at the conference were applied equally to all 21 socialist societies and were not unique to Disability Labour.

Disability Labour said this week that it did not believe it had been singled out.

Last year, it had to pay only a few hundred pounds to cover the cost of electricity and other costs, including hiring a small stand where its members could provide advice to other disabled party members and use as a base to lobby politicians and delegates on disability issues.

It would likely have had to pay thousands more to hire a venue at the conference for a fringe event, and hundreds of pounds more for accommodation in Liverpool.

Emily Pomroy-Smith, a member of Disability Labour’s executive committee, said the party “did express regret” that it had not been able to offer the same support as in recent years, and Disability Labour was now in discussions with the party about future support.

She said: “We want to work with the party to get us back here.

“We are asking the party to meet us halfway and work with us so next year we can be back. It’s really important.

“In a year where we have seen difficulties and damaged relationships with disabled people and communities, it’s really important that we see a willingness to rebuild that, which we have had.

“Obviously, it’s disappointing that we are not able to be here in our normal capacity.

“The Disability Labour stand is a hub for disabled people. We end up supporting disabled members and visitors’ access issues and signposting them [to support].

“We do provide a service.”

She added: “Conference is getting more and more expensive. That’s not just for Disability Labour.”

Local hotels have increased prices by as much as six times their usual rates, she said.

Joe Watkinson, deputy vice chair of Disability Labour, said: “Disabled members need us to be here. It’s important that we are here.”

Pomroy-Smith and Watkinson were only able to attend because the independent transport trade union TSSA covered many of their expenses, paying for Pomroy-Smith’s accommodation and travel, and travel for Watkinson.

Kathy Bole, Disability Labour’s chair, said they were told at the No 10 meeting in early September that the party’s financial problems meant it could not support Disability Labour at this year’s conference.

Bole said Disability Labour executives had reluctantly decided not to use a large chunk of the society’s limited funds to hire a stand and host a fringe event.

Disability Labour is a socialist society affiliated to the Labour party, but has members from across the Labour spectrum, although its leadership and membership have traditionally supported causes on the left of the party.

It has a long history of acting as a “critical friend” of the party at its annual conference, raising concerns about access, policy and the need for co-production.

It has also spent years lobbying Labour to do more to address disability discrimination within the party.

Last year, it was critical of the new Labour government’s decision to appoint only a part-time disability minister, and supported a disabled delegate who was refused entry to the conference with her assistance dog.

In September 2022, its members supported calls for the party to do more on eliminating the barriers faced by its own disabled members.

It raised similar concerns the previous year, prompting a pledge from the party’s general secretary that he would put an end to the years of discrimination experienced by disabled party members.

And, as part of the party’s online conference in September 2020 – in the early months of the pandemic – Disability Labour pushed the party for a stronger commitment to plans drawn up by disabled people that would solve the social care crisis by setting up a co-produced National Independent Living Service.

Disability Labour has also hosted important fringe events, and in September 2023 its event was attended by four shadow ministers.

This event drew the promise from shadow disability minister Vicky Foxcroft that, if Labour won power, “every single one of our ministers will be ministers for disabled people”.

A Labour party spokesperson said in a statement this week: “We are committed to providing a safe and accessible environment at conference for disabled people.

“There are more accessibility stewards working at conference this year compared to last year, and we have also provided these stewards with an increased level of training.

“We also continuously engage with Disability Labour on a wide range of issues, including greater celebration of Disability History Month which the party has begun work on.”

2 October 2025

Take part at bit.ly/panel-protest

Plain text:

#NoShamPanel Online Disability Protest:

The government says it’s setting up a group of disabled people to give advice.

They are calling this the Independent Disability Advisory Panel.

But we are worried because it looks like the panel won’t be fair.

The government only wants a panel that will agree with them.

When?

Saturday 27th and Sunday 28th of September 2025.

How?

Follow our guide at bit.ly/panel-protest for instructions.

Then spread the word! #NoShamPanel

Tell everyone:

I’ve sent in my application to the sham government disability panel.

I’m letting them know that I refuse to accept their unfair rules.

You can do it too!

You can also share our social media graphics with Alt text from our Google Drive folder.

Organised by

Disabled People Against Cuts Cymru (DPAC Cymru) and Disability Rebellion

Disability minister Stephen Timms under fire in LBC interview

Action, All Posts, Benefits, Disability Activism, Disability Rights, DWP, Letters, local groups, News, PIP, Politics, welfare cuts, Welfare reforms, Write to your MP 2 Responses »

Sep 132025

Calls for an independent PIP review with UK minister under fire

A Welsh disability group is calling for an independent review of Personal Independence Payments (PIP).

Disabled People Against Cuts Cymru (DPAC Cymru) has accused the disability minister Stephen Timms of failing to properly lead his own review into the disability benefit, saying that “co-production is not taking place as promised.”

Speaking exclusively to LBC’s Welsh Correspondent Caitlin Parr, the group’s comments follow the Minister of State for Social Security and Disability, Sir Stephen Timms MP, meeting with the Welsh Government Disability Equality Forum on Tuesday 2nd.

LBC news reported that DPAC Cymru had long fought for disabled people’s voices to be heard in changes to welfare reforms, but were concerned that the minister, despite promises to engage widely over the summer, had so far left Welsh disabled people out of discussions around the review, outside of those forum meetings.

DPAC Cymru claims that Timm’s attendance at those recent forum meetings is “far too little and far too late for Welsh disabled people after months of stonewalling from Timms,” and said they were frustrated by “more promises but no action.”

Ben Golightly, from Swansea, is a coordinator for DPAC Cymru. He told LBC, “he [Timms] agreed in that meeting that it was important for Welsh disabled people and Welsh disabled people’s organisations to be heard. He was meant to talk about how he was delivering co-production. It was his job to do it. And he had no real update, because he hasn’t been doing that job.”

Despite promises from government ministers, DPAC Cymru say that co-production has not taken place, and they are “back to square one.”

Ben said, “We had hoped that after a major defeat in parliament that when he [Timms] promised co-production with disabled people, that we wouldn’t have to go through all of this again. There is so little trust in the way the government has treated disabled people that we need an independent review, led by disabled people, and Stephen Timms and the government should turn up and listen, but they should have no say over how it’s run because they’ve shown, throughout several months, that they’re unable to do it.”

Lee Ellery, an independent disability activist and lead press coordinator for DPAC Cymru, who has Cerebral palsy quadriplegic, agreed, telling LBC news it’s time more Welsh voices were heard.

Lee said, “people with disabilities, particularly in Wales, are left to the bottom of the pile so to speak, and we should be at the forefront of everything. I’m worried about what the result of the [PIP] review might come out to say, if the person who’s leading it doesn’t understand the whole process.”

LBC news reported that “the Timms review into PIP assessments is expected to conclude in Autumn 2026, when changes already decided on for new PIP claimants will come into force.”

DPAC Cymru’s calls for an independent review, made in an open letter released last Monday, has already received wide support, collecting 600 signatures and the support of representatives of more than twenty-five organisations.

Comments collected from respondents talk about their feelings of hurt, being “belittled,” “completely disregarded and isolated,” and the “harm and loss of trust” caused by Timms and the government.

Signatures on the open letter are open until the end of September.

Sign here

Disability motions at TUC conference

Action, All Posts, Benefits, Disability Activism, Disability Rights, Events, News, PIP, welfare cuts, Welfare reforms 1 Response »

Sep 062025

Trade unionists look after people at work and in the community. There are 1.4 million disabled trade unionists. There is a big trade union meeting starting Sunday and ending Wednesday called the TUC (Trades Union Congress)

That meeting is discussing lots of different things (motions) and voting on them. If you are a member of a trade union you might know someone who is going, called your delegate. You might want to talk to them about the following:

Sunday 7th, 1pm

National Shop Stewards Network lobby – The Old Ship Hotel, Brighton, BN1 1NR.

One of the speakers is from Disabled People Against Cuts and the lobby is asking the TUC to support disability motions. More info.

Tuesday 9th (scheduled late morning)

Motion 38 – Disabled workers oppose welfare reforms

from the

TUC Disabled Workers Conference

Tuesday 9th (scheduled late morning)

Motion 39 – Oppose disability benefits cuts emergency

from the

TUC Trades Councils Conference

See what’s being discussed

https://www.tuc.org.uk/Congress2025/programme-business-congress-2025

Watch live or recorded sessions

https://www.tuc.org.uk/Congress2025/congress-live

We want an independent PIP review!

Action, Access to Work, All Posts, Benefits, Disability Activism, Disability Rights, DWP, Letters, local groups, News, PIP, Politics, welfare cuts, Welfare reforms 4 Responses »

Sep 012025

This is an open letter from DPAC Cymru, produced with feedback from six Disabled People’s Organisations.

Disclaimer: DPAC Cymru didn’t have time to reach 100% agreed wording with DPAC UK, as we would have liked to. Even within DPAC Cymru, the letter wording is somewhat of a compromise. However, for important tactical reasons in Wales, we felt it was important to publish without delay. DPAC have therefore agreed to share the letter with this disclaimer.

Click here for the Easy Read version.

To:

The Welsh Government,

The Scottish Government,

The Northern Ireland Executive,

The UK Government,

1st September 2025

After a major, if partial, defeat in parliament over disability cuts, the disability minister Stephen Timms promised MPs that the PIP benefit review would be co-produced by disabled people and their organisations.

There is widespread skepticism if this will genuinely be the case. Promises to “engage widely over the summer” have not been met, and there has been no transparency over Timms’ plans for “ten people” to have “a lot of sway”. His comments reveal that he does not understand what co-production means. Timms has also repeatedly declined to acknowledge the many serious failures of the Pathways to Work green paper consultation process, particularly felt in Wales.

We counterpose this to the Disability Rights Taskforce, initiated in partnership with the Welsh Government, which brought together 350 stakeholders and 200 policy experts, as a model of what co-production can look like. However, many Taskforce participants were frustrated that much of their work was ultimately missing from the Welsh Government draft plan. This is a lesson that even co-produced policy will fall flat without accountability. Disabled people’s organisations must be given the necessary resources and powers to carry out the implementation and monitoring of decisions.

[Some of us] cautiously welcome[d] the announcement of the Government’s new Independent Disability Advisory Panel. This panel is separate to, but will feed into, the Timms review of PIP. However, trust remains very low, and the terms – of “up to 10” people – have already been set for us. [See update, below]

We the undersigned demand that:

• The new Independent Disability Advisory Panel must be genuinely independent, representative, transparent, and have real powers of oversight.

• The UK government must acknowledge its failures in delivering the Pathways to Work consultation and legislative process, as a precondition to rebuilding trust and ensuring those mistakes are not repeated.

• The PIP review must be independently led by disabled people and our organisations, inviting the views of carers, volunteers, and workers in health, social care, housing, transport, and welfare.

• Any review of welfare reform must also, in a process led by disabled people, involve trade unions as democratic organisations representing 1.4 million disabled workers as well as representing the workers responsible for the day-to-day delivery of services that disabled people rely on.

• The scope of the PIP review must be widened to all aspects of welfare and employment for disabled people, guided by the principle: from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

• Dedicated funding must be provided to Disabled Peoples Organisations to support outreach, accessible engagement, and the collection of views from disabled people, including those without internet access or digital skills.

• The devolved governments of Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, and councils, should recognise and support this independent review even if the UK government refuses to.

• The UK government must immediately halt all cuts to disability and incapacity benefits for the duration of the review, and urgently fix Access to Work.

• Parliament must be given time to properly scrutinise any new legislation.

• The UC bill should be repealed. It is flawed, and was rushed through in an abnormal and undemocratic way.

[Update 4th September] Statement from DPAC Cymru regarding the “Independent Disability Advisory Panel”:

“The recently published terms for the so-called Independent Disability Advisory Panel, including the requirement to sign a non-disclosure agreement, are completely unacceptable. We are going to go back to a full consultation with all of our members and allies and take time for discussion to correct the weakness in our compromise wording of ‘cautiously welcome’ and come back united, realigned on the strongest possible response. We hope you will continue to support the demand for an independent PIP review, led by disabled people, and support this letter with your signature.”

For a full list of signatures and footnotes, see here.

To add your support to the letter, add your signature here

Here are short URLs for sharing the letter:

Non-Easy Read: Bit.Ly/independent-pip-review

Easy Read: Bit.Ly/easy-read-independent-pip-review

Join disability protests at Labour party conference 2025

Action, All Posts, Disability Activism, Disability Rights, Politics, welfare cuts, Welfare reforms 3 Responses »

Aug 222025

From Merseyside DPAC:

Join Disabled People Against Cuts to protest against the Labour policies killing disabled people outside the Labour Party conference in Liverpool 29/09/2025 at 12pm. We will assemble near the Wheel of Liverpool on Keel Wharf L3 4FN.

We encourage those who can to a mask in order to protect immunocompromised members of our community and will have some masks available for those who do not have their own. We ask that political parties do not bring branded placards.

#GenocideAbroadDemocideAtHome #WelfareNotWarfare

Disability News Service 17th July

All Posts, Benefits, News, welfare cuts No Responses »

Jul 182025

Liz Kendall stops herself just in time from lying about PIP cuts, as she argues with disabled MP 1

New analysis shows disabled people’s strongest allies among MPs 4

Government’s ‘weak’ evacuation plans for disabled high-rise residents ‘fail to learn the lessons of Grenfell’ 6

Air travel accessibility report could lead to ‘tangible’ improvements, but progress depends on industry 8

Reviews into deaths and other harm linked to universal credit nearly double… as MPs vote for billions in cuts 11

Regulator’s report on rail assistance ‘shows it is still failing to acknowledge right to turn up and go’ 12

Badenoch silence after ‘ticking time bomb’ claim is exposed as a lie by official figures 14

Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week 16

Liz Kendall stops herself just in time from lying about PIP cuts, as she argues with disabled MP

Work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall was on the verge of lying to MPs yesterday as she argued with a disabled MP about misleading comments she made in parliament on disability benefit cuts.

Steve Darling, the Liberal Democrat work and pensions spokesperson, had asked Kendall (watch from 9.43am) why she had repeatedly suggested to MPs in parliament that personal independence payment (PIP) was a work-related benefit.

But Kendall told the Commons work and pensions committee yesterday (Wednesday) that she had never done that.

Darling interrupted her and said: “You said it in the chamber.”

Two months ago, Disability News Service reported how Kendall had refused to apologise after repeatedly misleading MPs by suggesting that her planned cuts of billions of pounds to PIP – cuts that were later withdrawn – were linked to supporting disabled people into work.

On four occasions in just 23 minutes during work and pensions questions in the Commons in May, Kendall had replied to questions about her plans to cut spending on PIP by speaking about Labour’s plans for disability employment.

On one occasion, she was asked about the potentially devastating PIP cuts and told MPs: “We want to improve people’s chances and choices by supporting those who can work to do so and by protecting those who cannot.”

She then replied to three further questions about PIP in a similar way.

But yesterday she came within a moment of lying to committee members about those misleading comments.

Darling had told her she had promised last November, in an earlier evidence session with the committee, that there would be “genuine engagement” over her disability benefit reforms and that she would not be “led by cuts”.

But she then published the Pathways to Work green paper in March which he said would have introduced the “highest level of cuts in the last 10 years”.

He asked her what happened between November and March that led to an “abandonment of those core principles that you had in November? What went wrong?”

Kendall insisted she had “never started with pound signs or spreadsheets, I’ve always started with what I believe can help people with long-term health conditions and disabled people build a better life for themselves.

“Our reforms are based on helping those who can work to do so, instead of writing them off and then denying them any support.”

But Darling interrupted her and told her that PIP was “not to do with work”.

He added: “All throughout this narrative, it’s been suggested that PIP is an out-of-work benefit, when it’s not.”

Kendall replied: “I’ve never suggested that.”

Darling said: “I think you’ve given that impression, when responding to colleagues and myself in the chamber.”

Kendall replied: “I have never given that…” but then suddenly halted her denial, before saying: “Well, I have never believed it, because it’s not true, and that is not the argument I made.

“The argument I did make was that this absolutely crucial benefit is sustainable for the future, and that a doubling of the number of people on PIP over the last decade, if that were to continue into the future, that my real concern, is that the benefit, which is absolutely vital for people, won’t continue in future.

“Where we’ve ended up I think is a good position, where we will make sure that we work with disabled people, the organisations that represent them, to take a really good, long-term look at this benefit, to make sure that it really is there for those who need it.”

She said the terms of reference for the PIP review being carried out by Sir Stephen Timms, the minister for social security and disability, take account of “the big changes that we’ve seen in disability, in society, in the world of work, since PIP came into place over a decade ago”.

Darling then asked her why she had chosen not to consult on the cuts to PIP that were announced in March’s Pathways to Work green paper.

She replied that ministers were instead “consulting with parliament” on the cuts as they were included in the universal credit and personal independence payment bill, and she said consultation was taking place on other parts of the green paper, including measures on employment support.

But Darling said: “But on PIP, you didn’t consult, is that right? There was no consultation on the cuts to PIP.”

Kendall said: “Well, there was with parliament, and parliament took a different view.”

Darling replied: “But you said in November that you wanted to consult with disabled people and then it comes to the biggest cuts in a decade…”

Interrupting Darling, Kendall said they were consulting on other aspects of the green paper.

He asked her again why she chose not to consult on the PIP cuts, and she said they had taken those measures through parliament.

When he then asked her: “Why did you ignore disabled people, please?” she said: “Well, I have answered that question, you may not like the answer, but the answer is because we were consulting with parliament, parliament took a different view.”

Darling replied: “That’s not disabled people, why did you ignore disabled people?”

Kendall told him: “We are not ignoring disabled people, they will be at the heart of the Timms review.”

He tried one final time: “You ignored them in March, can you explain why?”

She said that, in the days after publication of the green paper, she and Sir Stephen had “roundtables with disabled people and the organisations that represent them, so we will just have to agree to disagree on this.

“I do not believe that we have failed to consult disabled people on the Pathways to Work green paper, and going forward we are going to be co-producing the review of PIP in the longer term.”

Meanwhile, the work and pensions committee has launched a new inquiry into employment support for disabled people.

The committee’s chair, Labour MP Debbie Abrahams, said yesterday: “The statistics show us that disabled people face higher barriers to getting into work, and they are more likely to fall out of work. There are also considerable differences across the country.

“This is a worrying trend given the impact it could have on people living in poverty and their health and wellbeing.

“The government has made getting more people into work a core policy focus, and has promised more funding for employment support for those affected by recent benefit changes.

“Its promise of more funding for employment support is an important opportunity to improve the prospects of disabled people, which the government must seize.

“We want to understand the root causes of the persistent disability employment gap and a way to hear ideas for making the routes into work smoother.”

She added: “We’re looking for help from the academic community, employment support providers, advocate groups and people with lived experience to submit evidence so that we can make reasoned recommendations to the government to help improve job prospects for disabled people.”

To submit evidence, visit the inquiry’s evidence submission page by 4pm on 29 September.

17 July 2025

New analysis shows disabled people’s strongest allies among MPs

New analysis shows a pool of just 28 MPs who have shown themselves to be the strongest allies to disabled people when voting on crucial disability rights legislation in the last month.

The group of 28 allies includes three Labour MPs – Brian Leishman, Chris Hinchliff and Rachael Maskell – who were yesterday (Wednesday) suspended by the Labour party for campaigning and voting against cuts to disability benefits.

Two others from the group of allies – Dr Rosena Allin Khan and Bell Ribeiro-Addy – were stripped of their trade envoy roles.

To compile the list, Disability News Service (DNS) has examined the voting records of MPs on the assisted dying bill and the universal credit and personal independence payment bill.

The disabled people’s movement has been strongly united in opposing both the private members’ bill that will legalise assisted suicide, and the government bill that was originally set to cut billions of pounds a year from both personal independence payment (PIP) and universal credit (UC) but will now cut billions only from the health element of UC.

The analysis shows just a small core of 21 Labour MPs on the left of the party, as well as one Plaid Cymru MP, and six Independent MPs, who voted to protect disabled people’s rights to the maximum extent possible across four Commons votes on 20 June, 1 July and 9 July.

DNS checked whether MPs voted against the terminally ill adults (end of life) bill at its third reading on 20 June; voted against the universal credit and personal independence payment bill at its second reading on 1 July; voted against a Conservative amendment to the bill on 9 July that called for harsher cuts for those with “less severe mental health conditions” and to remove entitlement for disability benefits from “foreign nationals”; and voted against the cuts bill at its third reading on 9 July.

The list of Labour allies who opposed all four includes three disabled MPs: Marsha de Cordova, Emma Lewell, and Marie Rimmer.

A handful of other MPs – including disabled Liberal Democrat MP Steve Darling, Independent MP Jeremy Corbyn, and Alliance MP Sorcha Eastwood – did not quite make it onto the list of allies because they voted against the assisted dying bill and against the government’s cuts to disability benefits but abstained on the Conservative cuts amendment, rather than voting against it.

The list of allies may make it easier for disabled activists and lobbyists to know which MPs are likely to be open to further approaches around disability rights in the coming months.

Linda Burnip, co-founder of Disabled People Against Cuts, said: “It’s shocking how few MPs are on this list and we are grateful to those who have supported disabled people in the last month, but hugely disappointed in those that haven’t.”

Among those not on the list, she particularly highlighted former Labour shadow ministers for disabled people Vicky Foxcroft and Debbie Abrahams, who she said “know only too well what problems we face” but failed to vote against the government on the cuts bill.

Lindsey Ni Aodha, a key organiser with Crips Against Cuts, said: “Disabled people tell us how distressed they are that their pleas to their MPs have been ignored, or how betrayed they feel in having MPs who have chosen to vote for legislation many disabled people view as a death sentence.

“I feel deeply grateful to see my own MP’s name listed as an ally, but the low numbers of MPs voting to protect disabled people, despite widespread public outcry nation-wide, illustrates a picture of a political elite moving further and further right, whilst becoming increasingly detached from the realities of everyday life for the people of this country.”

She said the list was full of some of the “fiercest advocates for our rights” who are “MPs who have made it clear that the people of this country should always come before party politics”.

She added: “When disability rights are protected, so are workers’ rights, so are children’s rights, so are our rights to healthcare, so are women’s rights, so are the rights of people of colour – creating a society that is safer and fairer for all who live in it.”

The votes analysed by DNS only cover the two pieces of legislation on assisted suicide and cuts to disability benefits, with a much wider range of legislation likely to come before the House of Commons in the coming months and years, on issues such as accessible housing and transport, adult social care and inclusive education.

The full list of allies is: Diane Abbott (Labour); Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Labour); Richard Burgon (Labour); Ian Byrne (Labour); Marsha De Cordova (Labour); Mary Kelly Foy (Labour); Mary Glindon (Labour); Chris Hinchliff (Labour); Imran Hussain (Labour); Ian Lavery (Labour); Brian Leishman (Labour); Emma Lewell (Labour); Rebecca Long Bailey (Labour); Rachael Maskell (Labour); Andy McDonald (Labour); Abtisam Mohamed (Labour); Grahame Morris (Labour); Margaret Mullane (Labour); Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Labour); Marie Rimmer (Labour); Jon Trickett (Labour); Ann Davies (Plaid Cymru); Shockat Adam (Independent); Iqbal Mohamed (Independent); Apsana Begum (Independent); Zarah Sultana (Independent); Ayoub Khan (Independent); and Adnan Hussain (Independent).

17 July 2025

Government’s ‘weak’ evacuation plans for disabled high-rise residents ‘fail to learn the lessons of Grenfell’

New post-Grenfell regulations designed to ensure disabled people can safely evacuate from high-rise residential buildings will instead continue to put their lives in grave danger, the government has been told.

Inclusion London said it was “deeply concerned” that lives would be lost because of the new approach, and that it “fails to learn the lessons of Grenfell”, as well as failing disabled people.

The warning came after the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) confirmed that it will introduce a watered-down version of a recommendation made by the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.

The Grenfell Tower fire, which began in the early hours of 14 June 2017, led to the deaths of 72 residents, and analysis of the inquiry’s final report suggests about 20 of them were disabled people.

The subsequent inquiry called for a legal right to a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) for all disabled residents who might find it difficult to “self-evacuate” from a high-rise residential building.

But the new regulations show that the government is instead introducing new residential personal emergency evacuation plans (residential PEEPs), a watered-down version of PEEPs.

Inclusion London called on the government to scrap the regulations, and co-produce “new, robust evacuation plans” with disabled people’s organisations.

It said the new duties were “weak, inconsistent and risk becoming a tick box exercise, and are not a way to ensure all disabled people can escape to safety”.

And it said they were “a significant step backwards in the fight for equitable fire safety and disability justice”.

Under residential PEEPs, the owner or manager in charge of a high-rise building – known as the responsible person (RP) – will have to take “reasonable endeavours” to identify vulnerable residents.

After carrying out a “person-centred fire risk assessment” with a resident, the RP must then use “reasonable endeavours” to agree an “emergency evacuation statement” with the resident, while the RP will have an “ongoing duty” to review the assessment and statement.

The RP will also have to share basic information about the disabled resident with the local fire and rescue service, including what assistance they might need to evacuate the building.

The government has made clear that it would be up to the RP to decide what measures are “reasonable and proportionate”, while the disabled resident may have to pay for some of those measures.

But Inclusion London said that any safety system “where only those who can afford to pay get protection is a two-tier safety system”, and that this was “not only unreasonable, it is inhumane”, as well as being discriminatory.

Inclusion London also accused the government of promising that RPs would have to use their “best endeavours” to identify residents who need an evacuation plan, but that this has been downgraded in the regulations to “reasonable endeavours”, which “fundamentally alters the responsibility expected of building owners and managers”.

It is also concerned that the new process will create too many hurdles for the resident to clear to secure a residential PEEP.

And it said the regulations should apply to all buildings where disabled people live, and not just those of a certain height.

Adam Gabsi, co-chair of Inclusion London, said: “We are extremely disappointed with what we see in the new regulations.

“This is not what the Grenfell inquiry has called for, and not what we have campaigned for.

“These are not PEEPs. They are tick-box exercises that shift responsibility away from those in power and onto individuals at risk.

“This will cost disabled people’s lives.”

He added: “This is another attack on our rights, along with proposed changes to disability benefits and assisted dying.

“We had hoped that PEEPs would finally serve as an example of fairness, safety, and equality being placed at the heart of government policy.”

But he said the regulations were instead “another reminder of how disabled lives are too often seen as optional, costly, disposable, or unworthy of protection.

“We cannot and will not support regulations that we believe will lead to disabled people falling through the cracks and dying.”

Caroline Collier, from Inclusion Barnet’s Campaign for Disability Justice, said: “Your home should be a place of ultimate safety and refuge.

“Yet, for disabled people living in high-rise flats, this has been fundamentally undermined by this watered-down version of the PEEPs regulations.

“With 1.8 million disabled people facing up to a 40-year wait for accessible homes and the lack of choice forcing many into dangerous high-rise flats, this tick-box approach to regulations is wrong and irresponsible.

“To ignore legitimate safety recommendations made by the inquiry is nothing short of discrimination.

“Disabled people absolutely must be involved in co-producing plans to ensure that everyone’s lives are valued and protected, and disabled people being required to pay for basic safety measures is utterly unacceptable.”

MHCLG had not commented by noon today (Thursday).

17 July 2025

Air travel accessibility report could lead to ‘tangible’ improvements, but progress depends on industry

Recommendations for widespread improvements to the way the air travel industry treats disabled passengers could make a “tangible real-world difference” to their experiences with airports and airlines, but only if the measures are implemented.

The Aviation Accessibility Task and Finish Group (AATFG) was set up last autumn by the Department for Transport (DfT) and is chaired by disabled crossbench peer Baroness [Tanni] Grey-Thompson.

It produced its report yesterday (Wednesday) with 19 recommendations for improvements across the industry, and the group will continue to monitor how they are implemented, with annual reports to DfT.

Its membership includes several disabled people with expertise in accessible transport, and representatives from across the air travel industry.

The report says the group found examples of “poor and inappropriate service, passengers being left onboard aircraft for long periods, damaged mobility aids, and discriminatory behaviour”, despite some improvements in recent years.

It also highlights “inconsistent” training of staff, and points to limited awareness of invisible impairments which contributes to “unintentional exclusion and undignified treatment”.

The report makes multiple recommendations for improvements across the industry, but one member of the group, accessible transport adviser and disability rights advocate Tony Jennings, warned that there was currently no budget to implement these recommendations, and no plans for government legislation, so progress now was “dependent on the goodwill of the aviation industry”.

He said the involvement of disabled people, with their lived experience and accessible transport expertise, in collaboration with representatives of the industry, had been “fundamental” to delivering the report’s “inclusive” recommendations.

He told Disability News Service that implementing the recommendations would place accessibility “at the heart of aviation” and would make a “tangible real-world difference” to the experience of disabled air passengers, as well as delivering much-needed cultural change across the industry.

He said these changes, if implemented, would “break down the barriers disabled people encounter when travelling by air and give them more confidence to fly and be treated with dignity and respect”.

He said: “Improving the culture within the aviation industry, treating disabled people with respect and dignity, improving airports’ accessibility information and access to assistance throughout the journey, will give me more confidence to fly.”

Baroness Grey-Thompson, herself a wheelchair-user, says in the report that the experience of flying as a disabled person can be “ad hoc, inconsistent and sometimes catastrophic”.

She says: “What became clear is that there was no pattern of good and poor performances and while many journeys occur perfectly well there are still too many gaps and poor experiences.”

The issues her group uncovered include missed flights, lack of empathy from staff, use of “non-inclusive” language, mobility equipment being broken or lost, and disabled passengers facing extended waits to board or leave their flight.

In her introduction to the report, Baroness Grey-Thompson also highlights problems with the complaints system, while she says booking assistance is “not as simple as it could be”, and points to a lack of accurate data on disabled passengers’ experiences.

Among the report’s recommendations are calls for all airport and airline staff to receive basic disability and accessibility awareness training, and for that to be co-produced with disabled people; for better accessibility information to be provided by airports and airlines; for improved access to assistance throughout the disabled passenger’s journey through the airport; and for clear and accessible information on passenger rights.

It also calls for improvements to the way the industry captures the assistance needs of its disabled passengers; for clearer communication with disabled passengers about the handling of their mobility aids; for improvements to the “airworthiness” design of mobility aids; and for better oversight of the industry by the regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority, and improvements to its guidance to airports.

Jennings said that, as a mobility scooter-user, improving the way the industry collects information about access needs and uses it to provide personalised assistance, could ensure that assistance for him through the airport is booked and delivered, and he is then transferred appropriately onto a plane through the use of a “hi-lift” and to an aisle wheelchair, and is then transferred to his seat.

He highlighted the need for investment to ensure there are enough hi-lifts “in the right place at the right time to help reduce the length of time disabled people wait for assistance”.

He added: “I can’t stress enough just how important airport and airline staff training, co-developed with disabled people, is to improve the experience for disabled people.

“From ground handlers to airline crew, to security and assistance providers and retail, it touches every part of our journey and is critical to get that right.”

He said his nine months’ work on the group had convinced him the industry was “working hard to improve accessibility services to make them more inclusive” but that he “recognises there is more work to be done, and this is just the start and the hard work of delivering the changes starts now”.

Baroness Grey-Thompson said in a statement: “This report is the next critical step in making air travel more inclusive for disabled people.

“I’m grateful for the commitment the industry has shown to making change and breaking down barriers in aviation for everyone, bringing freedom to travel, whether for leisure or work, and to connect with friends and family.

“We know there’s more work to be done, and I look forward to seeing these recommendations turned into action which truly puts accessibility at the heart of aviation.”

Transport secretary Heidi Alexander welcomed the report and its findings.

She said: “I know industry is working hard to make services more inclusive for all and I look forward to seeing these proposals becoming a reality with the support of the group.

“Now is the time for action and to make a real difference so that people can travel with confidence.”

The report was also welcomed by AirlinesUK, AirportsUK and Aviation Services UK, which were all represented on AATFG.

Meanwhile, the Baywatch campaign has launched a new survey of the abuse of disabled people’s parking bays in supermarket carparks.

The campaign is run by Disabled Motoring UK (DMUK), which is calling on disabled motorists, and those travelling with them, to complete its survey every time they visit a supermarket between 21 July and 15 August.

The campaign – supported by organisations such as Disability Rights UK, Transport for All, and Phab – focuses on Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda, Morrisons, Aldi, and Lidl.

The last time the campaign ran, in 2022, DMUK received more than 1,000 survey responses.

17 July 2025

Reviews into deaths and other harm linked to universal credit nearly double… as MPs vote for billions in cuts

The number of internal reviews into deaths and other harm linked to universal credit nearly doubled last year, according to figures released just hours after ministers pushed through billions of pounds of cuts to part of the working-age benefits system.

The number of “serious cases” accepted for a secret internal process review (IPR) in which the claimant was receiving universal credit (UC) rose from 31 in 2023-24 to 55 last year.

In all, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) agreed that 90 serious cases should be examined through an IPR in 2024-25, of which 59 followed a claimant’s death, compared with a total of 53 IPRs the previous year.

The figures were released through DWP’s annual report, published this week, which says that 42 of the IPRs involved personal independence payment (an increase from 27 the previous year), and 21 involved an employment and support allowance claimant (an increase on 15 in 2023-24).

DWP claims in the report that the increased number of IPRs followed “awareness sessions across the Department to increase understanding of IPRs and the learning process from serious cases”.

The report was published on 10 July, just hours after MPs had voted through the new universal credit bill that will cut the health element of UC for most new claimants from £97 a week to £50 a week, from April 2026.

There is no mention of these cuts in the introduction to the report by work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall, who instead says the department is “showing how an active government changes people’s lives for the better” and how it is “supporting struggling families, helping people to get into and get on at work, [and] giving disabled people the dignity they deserve or ensuring security in retirement”.

It is possible that some MPs might have voted differently last week if they had known how many “serious cases” involving universal credit claimants were being probed by DWP while they were being asked to vote for cuts to that support.

Disability News Service (DNS) reported last week that DWP was refusing to release recommendations from universal credit IPRs dating back as a far as 2020, despite telling the information rights tribunal that it would release at least some of that information by 31 March this year.

DWP has been promising for months that the reason it will not release the IPR information to DNS is because it is “intended for future publication”.

DNS understands that some of this information could be published later today (Thursday).

Asked why the IPR figures were released just hours after the cuts bill was voted through the Commons, and whether this was a coincidence, or if ministers had deliberately held back publication until the bill was passed by MPs, DWP had failed to comment by noon today.

17 July 2025

Regulator’s report on rail assistance ‘shows it is still failing to acknowledge right to turn up and go’

The rail regulator has been asked why it has failed to do more in an annual report to stress disabled people’s right to “turn up and go” when accessing the railway network.

The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) released new figures this week which showed that satisfaction with booked passenger assistance on the rail network had plateaued, with one in 10 disabled passengers still not even being met at the station after booking help.

The proportion of passengers who received all the assistance they booked also remained stable in 2024-25 at just 78 per cent.

This was even lower for passengers with a “learning, concentrating or remembering disability” (73 per cent); with mental health conditions (72 per cent); those who are neurodivergent (72 per cent); and passengers with a communication impairment (73 per cent).

There were also figures showing what proportion of passengers were satisfied with the assistance they received, with the booking process, and with the helpfulness and attitude of staff.

But there were no similar figures to show the levels of satisfaction for disabled passengers who turn up at a rail station and request assistance with their journey without booking it in advance, which is their legal right.

The report on disabled people’s experiences of Passenger Assist was released alongside ORR’s Annual Rail Consumer Report.

Accessible transport campaigners have been highlighting for years the failure of the rail industry and successive governments to ensure disabled people’s right to spontaneous travel by denying their right to turn up and go (TUAG) across the rail network.

The ORR annual report appears to underline that failure by focusing on pre-booked passenger assistance.

It says only that it is “working with industry to strengthen the quality of data on turn up and go assistance requests”, and that it expects the “quality and completeness to improve over time”.

The only TUAG figures released by ORR this week show the number of TUAG requests made in 2023-24 and 2023-24 (about 312,000 in 2023-24 and about 491,000 in 2024-25), although notes published alongside these figures show they are likely to be unreliable*.

It is the first time such TUAG figures have been published.

Doug Paulley, one of the disabled activists who has highlighted the right to TUAG in his campaigning, said he had a “significant concern” about ORR’s “concentration on assistance booking rather than TUAG” in its “uninspiring” report.

He said ORR did not have reliable or useful statistics on how well rail companies were doing on TUAG.

He said: “Everything they measure or do is about booked assistance: satisfaction with booked assistance, recompense for failed booked assistance…

“It feels like they try to avoid mentioning or acknowledging our right to turn up and go.”

He said this was a “disturbing and counter-productive trend”.

Responding to these concerns, ORR said it was exploring with rail operators “how we might get a better picture of the experience of passengers who request assistance on demand”, including the potential for TUAG passengers to be asked to take part in its existing passenger survey of experiences of assistance.

ORR released figures in the Passenger Assist report that ranked each rail operator on their performance on booked passenger assistance.

It showed that Northern Trains was the worst performer, with only 70 per cent of disabled passengers who were met at the station then receiving all the assistance they had booked, with Transport for Wales (74 per cent) and West Midlands Trains (74 per cent) also performing poorly.

The best performer was London North Eastern Railway (85 per cent).

The annual report notes how ORR has raised concerns through the year about passenger assistance; the reliability of help points at stations; communications between staff at boarding and destination stations when arranging passenger assistance; the reliability of passenger lifts at stations; the provision of accessible rail replacement vehicles; and the complaints process for disabled passengers.

The report points to annual data that shows a 42 per cent increase in the number of faults across the rail network that put lifts out of service for over a week, in 2024-25 compared with the previous year.

Commenting on the report, Stephanie Tobyn, ORR’s director of strategy, policy and reform, said: “Ensuring that disabled passengers consistently receive the support they need to travel by train requires clear focus, collaboration and a commitment to continuous improvement.

“Our latest survey shows that overall passenger satisfaction has plateaued, and we know that, in some instances, assistance failures can leave passengers feeling powerless and frustrated.”

She said that a new rating system on passenger assistance would “help us target our efforts and use resources effectively, focusing on working with those operators where improvement is most needed to deliver better outcomes for passengers”.

*ORR says in its notes that the only TUAG requests recorded are those noted by staff via the Passenger Assist system, while not all rail operators are yet using this system to record TUAG requests, and any requests booked less than two hours before departure are treated as TUAG

17 July 2025

Badenoch silence after ‘ticking time bomb’ claim is exposed as a lie by official figures

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has refused to explain why she whipped up hostility against disabled people by warning of the “ticking time bomb” caused by increased benefits spending, when social security expenditure has been stable for years.

Badenoch delivered a speech last Thursday that attacked claimants and was full of misleading statements about disability benefits.

But despite the string of misleading statements, neither the Labour party nor the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) were willing this week to point out the errors, criticise the hostility, or stand up for disabled people on benefits.

Labour did put out a press release to journalists, but instead it attacked Badenoch for not promising to keep the pensions triple lock.

Delivering the speech at the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) – founded by former Conservative work and pensions secretary Sir Iain Duncan Smith – Badenoch claimed the economy would “collapse” if the government did not address the “ticking time bomb” of increased spending on social security.

Her party – and the Labour government – have been repeatedly reminded that Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) figures show that “welfare” spending is set to be lower this year – as a proportion of GDP* – than it was in 2015-16 and 2010-11, and is even set to fall slightly in 2027-28**.

And social security and disability minister Sir Stephen Timms admitted to the Commons work and pensions committee last month that working-age social security spending as a percentage of GDP “isn’t much more now than it was before the 2008-2010 recession”.

Even though Badenoch and her party will be aware of these figures, she still whipped up hostility towards disabled people in her speech, focusing on the rising number of claimants of disability benefits.

She attacked the increase without referencing the pandemic, increased NHS waiting-lists, the cost-of-living crisis, and the “dismantling” of preventive NHS care under successive Conservative governments.

She wrongly suggested that it was possible to claim benefits like personal independence payment (PIP) by “self-certification”, and she also misled her audience by suggesting that every disabled person in the country claims disability benefits.

She also pointed to new research by CSJ which found that disabled people receiving the health element of universal credit and PIP could receive £2,500 more a year than a worker on the national living wage, without pointing out that PIP was designed by a Conservative government to contribute to the extra disability-related costs a disabled person faces.

She claimed rising spending on disability benefits was “immoral” and supported the “brilliant” CSJ research, which suggests cutting disability benefits for those with mental distress by £9 billion a year.

The CSJ report suggests withdrawing PIP and the universal credit health element from the 1.09 million claimants with “milder” anxiety, depression or ADHD (the 69 per cent of claimants with these conditions who do not receive an enhanced rate of PIP).

And it suggests cutting health-related benefits for the remaining 31 per cent by £80 to just £103.10 a week, the equivalent of the standard rate of PIP for those receiving both the daily living and mobility elements.

Badenoch also attacked the rising number of disabled people on the Motability car scheme, claiming that new cars are handed out to people with food intolerances.

She also suggested that “eight weeks of retraining and physiotherapy, and getting them back into work, is a better solution for everyone than allowing them to languish on benefits”.

Asked by Disability News Service whether the OBR figures showed that Badenoch’s “ticking time bomb” was imaginary, a Conservative party press officer said: “I don’t think we are going to provide further comment.”

Instead of attacking Badenoch’s misleading comments and hostility towards disabled people, Labour instead blamed successive Conservative governments for causing the “broken system”.

A Labour spokesperson said: “The Tories broke the welfare system. The failures that they describe are their own and last week they voted to keep this broken system as it is and maintain the status quo.

“You can’t take anything they say seriously.”

DWP made no attempt to correct Badenoch’s claims on Motability, other than pointing out that disabled people can use some of their PIP to lease a vehicle through the scheme, which is run by Motability Operations, although it did point out that the scheme was provided at no extra costs to taxpayers.

A DWP spokesperson said: “People in receipt of an eligible benefit can choose to join the Motability scheme.

“Any misuse of the scheme is a matter for Motability and, where appropriate, the police.”

*Gross domestic product, the size of the country’s economy in a particular year

**See chapter five of OBR’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook – October 2024, chart 5.2

17 July 2025

‘Disastrous’ cuts bill that leaves legacy of distrust and distress ‘must be dropped’

Disabled activists have called on the government to scrap its “dangerous” and “disastrous” disability benefits bill, despite forcing ministers into last-minute changes that scrapped all their planned cuts to personal independence payment (PIP).

Chaotic events in parliament on Tuesday, and three months of activism since the publication of the Pathways to Work green paper, have left disabled people’s organisations (DPOs) appalled, shocked, and struggling to trust the government.

Their activism, together with the efforts of a small group of backbench MPs, forced ministers into a series of U-turns and concessions on the universal credit and personal independence payment bill.

The lack of trust in the government, and in the minister for social security and disability, Sir Stephen Timms, now creates a significant barrier as he begins a year-long review of personal independence payment (PIP), including an examination of its eligibility criteria and assessment process.

A chaotic few hours in parliament on Tuesday led eventually to ministers withdrawing all their proposed cuts to PIP, at least until the end of the review next autumn.

The bill passed its second reading by 335 to 260 votes, and it will return to the Commons on Wednesday (9 July) for its committee stage, with significant cuts to the health element for most new claimants of universal credit from next April remaining in the legislation.

Disabled people’s organisations were united yesterday (Wednesday) in their call for the “sham of a bill” to be dropped, with many expressing distrust in the government.

And there was little celebration that their successful activism – led by Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) and other grassroots groups such as Taking the PIP – had forced the government into gutting its bill.

DPAC described the bill as a “complete and utter mess”.

Paula Peters, a member of DPAC’s national steering group, said the process had done nothing but “cause more anxiety and more distress for disabled people”.

She told Disability News Service (DNS) that she did not trust Sir Stephen as he had “shown time and again he doesn’t listen to charities, DPOs or disabled people”.

And she pointed to the concerns – expressed also by some MPs – that the government will merely introduce a new series of cuts to PIP at the end of the review, through a parliamentary mechanism that means they will not need to be approved by MPs.

Svetlana Kotova, director of campaigns and justice at Inclusion London, was also distrustful of the government’s motives.

She said: “The social security system needs reform, but not like this.

“It is clear that this was never about reform, it was about balancing the books at the expense of disabled people.

“Removing PIP cuts from the bill is a positive step, but there is no guarantee the government will be open to true co-production; more likely, they will want us to engage in ‘co-producing cuts’.

“The bill still includes deeply harmful cuts to universal credit.

“The government should admit they made a mistake, drop this harmful bill and go back to the drawing board.”

National Survivor User Network (NSUN) said the decision to gut the bill was “the direct result of tireless campaigning by disabled people and their organisations in recent weeks”.

But it said that the chaotic and confusing way it was passed showed “callous disdain for the lives of disabled people”, while the bill “should have been withdrawn in its entirety”.

An NSUN spokesperson said: “It is vital that co-production through the Timms review meaningfully involves disabled people, putting power in the hands of those whose lives will be most impacted.

“We have seen the violence of the government’s rubber-stamp consultations so far and demand genuine co-production rather than inadequate and tokenistic consultation on an already-decided course of action.”

And it said the refusal to remove the cuts to the health element of universal credit for most new claimants from the bill showed the government “remains willing to attack disabled people” and was “a shameful attempt to divide the disabled community and stifle solidarity”.

The NSUN spokesperson added: “We will continue to organise with DPO allies, push for the rights-based reform which our deadly social security system needs, and ensure there are electoral consequences for those who go after disabled people in this way.”

Disability Rights UK (DR UK) said disabled people would be “enormously relieved” that the PIP cuts had been dropped from the bill, although “serious concerns” remained about the cuts to the health element of universal credit for most new claimants, which would make hundreds of thousands of the poorest people in the country even poorer.

A DR UK spokesperson said: “We’ve known all along that the public, disabled people and our organisations have found this bill to be unjust and unfair.

“Yet the government has used every tool in its arsenal, every procedural trick, to push this dangerous bill through.”

DR UK said the government’s “floundering and chaos” was “a direct result of the steadfast work of disabled campaigners and our allies, who have made it clear that this bill is unworkable.

“Despite attempts to silence us, through our collective campaigning, we made them drop billions of pounds worth of cuts, and we will continue to resist this disastrous bill.”

Rick Burgess, campaigns lead at Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People, said Tuesday’s events had demonstrated the “arrogance and disrespect” of the government, and he also called for the bill to be scrapped.

He said the bill still contained cuts to the health element of universal credit, and it imposed “extremely restrictive” criteria on those who will be offered some protection through the “severe conditions criteria”.

He said disabled people would seek to stop these elements of the bill through amendments.

Burgess added: “The PIP review must be to a specified standard of coproduction agreed with our organisations and be subject to statutory public consultation.

“Given our experience to date, however, we have low confidence in the government.

“However, it must also be said, while we lost the vote, we won a victory in gutting the bill and exposing the utter shambles of Starmer’s administration.”

The grassroots, user-led mental health group Recovery in the Bin (RITB) delivered a bleak assessment last night of the impact of the government’s actions.

An RITB spokesperson told DNS: “The whole sequence of events from the announcements, to constant vilification in the media, and from ministers, especially Kendall and Timms, has caused such distress that Labour have ended any hope of support.

“They are loathed and despised, and we have no trust whatsoever in them not to attack us.”

AJ Le Brun, a disabled activist with DPAC Cardiff and Valleys, said the bill had been “rushed through” with no thought for disabled people.

She said: “The changes and promises made in the final hours before the vote may have soothed the consciences of some MPs, but we see through these shaky promises.

“The changes to universal credit will push more of us into poverty, when we are already struggling with the rising costs of aids and support needed to live with dignity.

“I do not trust Stephen Timms and his department to conduct a fair PIP review.

“They have shown us they are not listening to disabled people by only providing one face-to-face consultation for Wales, and holding the vote the day after the consultation formally closed.

“What confidence can we have that this review will be any better?”

Because of the number of changes to the original bill, DNS asked DWP to confirm exactly what the bill would now do.

Here is the list provided by the department (edited for clarity by DNS):

The bill will make changes to universal credit (UC) from April 2026
It will not bring forward any changes to the PIP eligibility criteria

From April 2026:

The standard allowance of UC will rise above inflation in each of the next four years
The health element of UC for new claimants will be reduced to £50 per week
Existing claimants of the health element and those new health element claimants meeting the severe conditions criteria (SCC) or considered under the special rules for end of life (SREL) will see their UC standard allowance combined with the UC health element rise in line with inflation in the next four years
People in the SCC group will be exempt from future UC reassessments

3 July 2025

Four disabled Labour MPs stand up to government over cuts to disability benefits

Four disabled Labour MPs stood up to their government’s attempts to reduce vital disability benefits, despite ministers’ chaotic last-ditch concessions to rebels that removed a significant chunk of their cuts bill.

Marsha de Cordova, Marie Tidball and Emma Lewell all voted against the universal credit and personal independence payment bill, and each of them delivered powerful speeches in the House of Commons on Tuesday.

Another disabled Labour MP, Marie Rimmer, also voted against the bill.

But a fifth disabled Labour MP, Vicky Foxcroft – who had played a key role in the rebellion that forced a series of government concessions – voted for the bill and its significant cuts to the health element for many new claimants of universal credit.

She and many other Labour MPs who had previously opposed the cuts bill voted with the government after the minister for social security and disability, Sir Stephen Timms, suddenly announced at 5.25pm on Tuesday – nearly four hours after the debate began and just 95 minutes before MPs voted – that there was to be another concession.

Ministers had already announced that existing PIP claimants would not now be subjected to new rules that meant they would have to be awarded at least four points on at least one “activity” to qualify for the PIP daily living component, which were to be introduced from November 2026.

Work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall had also announced the previous day that the government would no longer freeze the health element top-up for existing claimants of universal credit, and that they and new claimants who were terminally-ill or were placed in the “severe conditions group” would instead see the combined value of their universal credit standard allowance and health top-up “rise at least in line with inflation”.

But in a dramatic intervention, Timms then also announced at 5.25pm that no cuts at all to PIP would go ahead until his own review into PIP – which Kendall said would be “co-produced with disabled people, their organisations, clinicians, other experts and MPs” – was completed in the autumn of 2026.

This final concession ensured that the bill passed by 335 to 260 votes.

The committee stage of the bill will take place in just a few days, on Wednesday (9 July), but without any measures to cut PIP.

Marsha de Cordova, a former shadow minister for disabled people, was one of the few MPs in the debate to warn how previous Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) cuts and reforms had led previously to the deaths of many disabled people.

Speaking before the final concessions were announced, she pointed to the many internal process reviews into deaths linked to DWP actions, and the long-delayed second inquest into the death of Jodey Whiting, which found last month that DWP’s decision to wrongly stop her benefits after a string of safeguarding failings was the “trigger” for her to take her own life.

De Cordova told fellow MPs: “I set that out because it is important that we understand that disabled people’s lives have not been valued or respected for the last 14 years.”

She also pointed to the findings of the UN committee on the rights of persons with disabilities, which last April found successive Conservative-led governments had made “no significant progress” in the more than seven years since a finding of “grave and systematic” violations of the UN disability convention.

Marie Tidball delivered an emotional speech, in which at times she appeared close to tears, in which she told MPs she would be voting against the bill “with a heavy, broken heart”.

She said she had been in discussions with ministers since April, “making clear that I could not support the proposals on PIP”.

She added: “PIP is an in-work benefit designed to ensure that disabled people can live independently.

“Low-level support such as PIP helps to build the bridge to the deinstitutionalisation of disabled people, keeping us out of the dark corners of hospitals, prisons and social care settings.”

Tidball voted against the bill despite the late concession from Sir Stephen Timms that ruled out all PIP cuts until the end of his review.

Emma Lewell also voted against the bill, despite the late concession.

She had told MPs that past Conservative social security reforms had not led to any cost savings but instead to “an increase in poverty, an increase in suicides, strain on the NHS and other public services, and, in the long run, higher welfare spending and reduced growth”.

But two other disabled Labour MPs, Liam Conlon and Jen Craft, voted for the bill, although they did not speak during the debate.

Steve Darling, the disabled Liberal Democrat MP and his party’s work and pensions spokesperson, voted against the bill, as did the rest of his party.

He had told MPs: “We all know that rushed bills are poor bills, and the law of unintended consequences will come to haunt the government if this bill goes through.”

Rachael Maskell, who was among leaders of the rebel Labour MPs – and proposed an amendment that would have killed the bill, but was defeated by 328 to 149 votes – told MPs in another passionate speech that she was voting against the bill because it was “a matter of deep conscience, as it should be and will be for us all”.

She was another MP who highlighted the harm caused by previous cuts and reforms to disability benefits, pointing to the 600 suicides between 2010 and 2013 that were linked to the programme to reassess incapacity benefit claimants.

Maskell said: “When they are managing discomfort, despair, pain and prejudice, are isolated and lonely, or their life has spiralled out of control, disabled people want anything but this bill.

“They are already discriminated and dehumanised, so I plead that we do not leave them desperate, too.”

There was disappointment among many disabled people that among those voting for the cuts to the universal credit health element was Labour’s Debbie Abrahams, chair of the work and pensions committee, who had been outspoken about her concerns about the “dog’s breakfast of a bill”.

She had told MPs that “too many people relying on social security support to survive have died through suicide, starvation and other circumstances exacerbated by their poverty” in the last 15 years as a result of the “punitive, even dehumanising, social security system in which not being able to work has been viewed with suspicion or worse, with devastating consequences”.

But she still voted for the bill, despite its significant cuts to the rate of universal credit that will be paid to most new recipients of the health element of universal credit from next April, who will see the health element nearly halved and then frozen.

Asked last night (Wednesday) why she had voted for the bill, despite the significant cuts to disabled people’s support that it still contains, Vicky Foxcroft referred Disability News Service to a statement on her website.

She did not mention those cuts in the statement, but she said that securing the concessions was “a huge victory for Labour backbenchers” and that she voted for the bill because it was “now in a much better form than it was two weeks ago”.

She said she would only vote for the bill at its final Commons stage “if the final proposals reflect the commitments ministers have made”, and that she would be “looking for ministers to take these commitments forward and ensure we have co-production right across government”.

Because of the number of changes to the original bill, DNS asked DWP to confirm exactly what the bill would now do.

Here is the list provided by the department (edited for clarity by DNS):

The bill will make changes to universal credit (UC) from April 2026
It will not bring forward any changes to the PIP eligibility criteria

From April 2026:

The standard allowance of UC will rise above inflation in each of the next four years
The health element of UC for new claimants will be reduced to £50 per week.
Existing claimants of the health element and those new health element claimants meeting the severe conditions criteria (SCC) or considered under the special rules for end of life (SREL) will see their UC standard allowance combined with the UC health element rise in line with inflation in the next four years
People in the SCC group will be exempt from future UC reassessments

3 July 2025

Silence from MP sister of Rachel Reeves over suicide linked to PIP flaws, just as government was seeking cuts

Labour’s chair has refused to answer questions about a disabled constituent whose suicide was closely linked to flaws in the personal independence payment (PIP) system, just as her government was trying to cut PIP spending by billions of pounds a year.

Three months after an ombudsman found that failings within the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and its PIP system were a factor in the death of Tracie, from south London, her MP, Ellie Reeves, is still refusing to comment on that report’s findings.

Reeves is chair of the Labour party and a Cabinet Office minister, but she is also the sister of chancellor Rachel Reeves, who many disabled people blame for the government’s decision to attempt to slash spending on PIP and other disability-related benefits.

The ombudsman’s ruling was delivered to Tracie’s husband, Mustapha, just five days after Rachel Reeves announced, at the spring statement, that she would be making cuts to PIP spending of £4.5 billion a year by 2029-30.

It was Ellie Reeves, the MP for Lewisham West and East Dulwich, who referred the case to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman in December 2021, when Labour was still in opposition, and her office has supported Mustapha for nearly five years.

But since the ombudsman finally produced its report in March, Mustapha has not yet been able to discuss its contents with his MP.

He was originally told that Reeves was happy to discuss the report but had not yet received a copy, so he visited her office last month and posted a hard copy through the letterbox after an emailed copy apparently did not reach her.

Her office claims it did not receive a copy of the report until 18 June.

The ombudsman has apologised for not sending her a copy on publication, as it usually would; it finally emailed her a copy this week, but it is not clear why her office did not attempt to secure a copy of such an important report herself.

A member of her casework team has now told Mustapha that she – although not the MP – would be happy to discuss the report with him.

Mustapha has provided permission to Ellie Reeves to discuss the case with Disability News Service (DNS).

But the MP has so far failed to respond to questions from DNS, including what conclusions she has reached about the safety of the PIP system, in the context of the billions of pounds her sister has been trying to cut from PIP spending, and whether she would be taking any action on her constituent’s behalf.

Reeves has also refused to comment on the possible harm that could be caused to other disabled people like Tracie if the billions of pounds of cuts to PIP had gone ahead.

DNS first put the questions to Reeves on 7 April, nearly three months ago.

The ombudsman had concluded that DWP’s failings in dealing with Tracie’s PIP claim were a “significant contributing factor” in her decision to take her own life in March 2020.

Tracie’s mental health had been stable, but she “spiralled into a deep depression” after DWP removed the daily living part of her PIP following a review of her eligibility in July 2019.

The ombudsman concluded that DWP – which eventually admitted that its decision on her claim had been wrong – failed to consider the relevant evidence properly.

The ombudsman is now looking at whether DWP needs to make “wider changes to its service and the way it considers benefit claims”, as part of a broader piece of work which includes an investigation into the death of another disabled claimant.

Asked for an update on this work, a spokesperson for the ombudsman said: “This work involves an ongoing investigation.

“By law we investigate in private so we cannot comment further on this.”

DWP eventually decided – after her death – that Tracie should have been entitled to the enhanced daily living rate of PIP.

DWP accepted that Tracie had needed help from another person to get in and out of the bath; couldn’t wash all her body herself; relied on incontinence pads; needed assistance to take her medication; had paranoid thoughts and felt anxious when others were around; rarely left the house; avoided mixing with other people; and experienced significant mental distress and suicidal thoughts.

But despite her significant support needs, the report shows that someone with Tracie’s level of impairment would not have qualified for even the standard rate of the daily living part of PIP if the chancellor’s cuts had been implemented from November 2026.

This is because to qualify for PIP daily living, a new claimant would have needed at least four points in at least one “activity”, and the most Tracie qualified for in any single activity was three points.

The ombudsman’s findings have therefore been posing a political headache for Ellie Reeves, although that eased this week when a chaotic parliamentary debate saw ministers withdraw all cuts to PIP from the universal credit and personal independence payment bill, with future cuts not to be considered until after a ministerial review (see separate stories).

The ombudsman finally sent Reeves a copy of the report on Monday, three days after DNS had asked when the MP had received the report.

A spokesperson for the ombudsman said: “The usual procedure after a parliamentary investigation is closed is that the report would be sent to the referring MP on the same day as the complainant and organisation involved.

“In this case, human error meant the report was not sent to the MP.

“We have apologised to the complainant and MP for this error.

“We will learn from this mistake to prevent it from happening again in the future.”

*The following organisations are among those that could be able to offer support if you have been affected by issues raised in this article: Mind, Papyrus, Rethink, Samaritans, and SOS Silence of Suicide

3 July 2025

Disabled people receiving care were ‘ignored by design’ during the pandemic, Covid inquiry hears

Four national disabled people’s organisations (DPOs) have told the Covid inquiry that people who receive care and support were “ignored by design” during the pandemic.

The inquiry heard on Monday that there were more than 43,000 deaths involving COVID-19 in care homes across the UK between March 2020 and July 2022, although there were no figures given for how many disabled people died in their own homes while receiving care services.

The inquiry also heard that, during the first two peaks of the pandemic, before vaccines became widely available, people with learning difficulties were seven to nine times more likely to experience a COVID-19-related death than people without learning difficulties.

And more than a quarter of all deaths from COVID-19 in 2020 were in people with dementia, even though they only made up two per cent of the total adult population.

Disability Rights UK (DR UK), Disability Action Northern Ireland, Disability Wales and Inclusion Scotland have together been granted “core participant status” in module six of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, which is examining the impact of the pandemic on the adult social care sector across the UK.

Their opening statement for module six was delivered on Monday by barrister Danny Friedman, from Matrix Chambers.

He told the inquiry that the pandemic saw care settings become life-threatening, while “care services to sustain everyday basic quality of life were withdrawn”.

He highlighted how the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), which provides advice to government during emergencies, stated in May 2022 that no UK country was able to “routinely identify who is resident in care homes, who is receiving social care at home, and who works in or visits a care home or a person’s home”.

These data weaknesses meant the “recipients of care, the way they live, and the way that many of them died, was ignored by design”, said Friedman.

The DPOs’ opening statement said that care staff were allowed to move from care setting to care setting, spreading the virus, because those in charge knew the system would “collapse” if staff were forced to work only in one location.

Friedman said: “Care homes would go under. People would be abandoned. It was decided that the lesser of evils was hazardous movement of staff.”

The DPOs also highlighted how the “very first thing” the UK government did in the pandemic was to “legislate to take their rights away” under the Care Act.

But Friedman said that only eight local authorities in England lodged reports to show they were operating under these emergency care laws, even though the evidence showed there were “vastly reduced services across the country”, which meant local authorities must have “embarked on mass violations of the law”.

He said: “Some local authorities reduced their services to basic life and limb protection, social contact services were drastically cut, leaving people with dementia, learning disabilities and learning difficulties and mental ill-health totally isolated for long periods.

“The singular benefit of easements was that the law required reasoned, recorded, and open decision-making about withdrawal of services and disclosure of that fact to central government, but across the system, that is the one thing that local authorities near uniformly appear not to have done.

“Government then helped to misrepresent the human cost by finding false consolation that only eight reports were made.

“Rather than taking steps to enforce the law, the result is one of the singularly worst failures of accountability, and indeed illegality, across the period.”

The DPOs also highlighted that the government had focused on care homes and not domiciliary or supported care settings when it thought about issues such as providing personal protective equipment, testing for the virus, and getting hold of food.

Friedman said: “All these things were afterthoughts, grafted on to government responses far later than for hospitals and residential settings, if at all.”

The inquiry had heard earlier that its module six investigation had gathered more than 200,000 pages of evidence.

The hearings will last five weeks, and about 55 witnesses will give oral evidence.

Nearly 47,000 people have shared their experience of the care sector during the pandemic with the inquiry’s Every Story Matters listening exercise, the inquiry heard.

After the hearing, Georgia Bondy, who is working for DR UK on the inquiry, said: “The government needs to take responsibility for the fact that its lack of planning, consultation and care is part of the reason so many disabled people receiving care died and suffered during the pandemic.”

Rhian Davies, chief executive of Disability Wales, said: “Curtailing disabled people’s rights under the Social Services and Wellbeing (Wales) Act (2014) was one of the earliest decisions taken by Welsh government at the outset of the pandemic and paved the way for Wales experiencing the highest death rate from Covid-19 amongst disabled people in the UK.”

And Nuala Toman, head of accessibility at Disability Action Northern Ireland, said: “The pandemic exposed a brutal truth: disabled people were not only forgotten, they were disregarded through planning and service design failures.

“The UK and Northern Ireland’s fragmented and underfunded care system, combined with institutional ableism, led to preventable deaths and trauma.

“Unless our governments act now, we are knowingly walking into the next crisis with the same failures.”

Heather Fisken, chief executive of Inclusion Scotland, said: “If there was ever any emergency planning around these vital services and supports, disabled people were unaware and not involved.

“As a consequence, tens of thousands of disabled people lost vital support, often overnight, and were put at increased risk of contracting COVID.

“Today, some still don’t have the support they had prior to the pandemic.

“Governments need to take this learning forward and work with our organisations to ensure social care support is invested in and systems around it are strengthened and people-led so that this never happens again”.

3 July 2025

Disabled activists warn Labour MPs who vote for cuts: ‘The gloves will be off’

Labour MPs were given their final warning by disabled activists at a sweltering rally outside parliament on Monday that, if they vote for cuts to disability benefits, the “gloves will be off”.

Ellen Clifford, one of the key organisers of the rally and award-winning author of The War on Disabled People, warned MPs of the consequences if they voted for the cuts.

She told the #WelfareNotWarfare rally, which took place a day before MPs voted on the cuts in the universal credit and personal independence payment bill (see separate stories): “I know that disabled people will fight to the end.

“We are not going to let this through without one hell of a fight. And if it does, we are not going to forgive any Labour MPs who either vote for it or abstain.”

Paula Peters, from Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC), said any Labour MPs who voted for the cuts would be forced from their seats.

She said: “Let’s tell these MPs: the gloves come off. We turn the anger into action and we’re not going to back off.”

John McArdle, co-founder of the Scottish grassroots group Black Triangle Campaign, warned Scottish Labour MPs – including his own MP, Ian Murray – that disabled people would “wipe the floor” with them at the next general election if they backed the cuts.

“Any of these MPs that vote for this bill… if you vote to push us into the most appalling poverty and despair, we will wipe the floor with you at the general election, we will boot you out of Scotland.”

Among the speakers was Joy Dove, who has fought for justice for eight years for her disabled daughter Jodey Whiting.

She took her own life in February 2017 after the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) wrongly removed her out-of-work disability benefits following five missed chances to save her.

Dove read out part of the ruling given by the coroner at a long-awaited second inquest last month, which concluded that her daughter’s benefits had been “wrongly” withdrawn.

And she warned that other disabled people could die if the cuts went ahead.

She had a message for the department: “DWP, you killed my daughter, and I don’t want it to happen to anybody else.”

Dr Natasha Hirst, disabled activist and former president of the National Union of Journalists, also spoke of the harm the cuts would cause.

She said the bill would take money from disabled people “who are already struggling to survive.

“We know this will harm them, we know this bill will kill people.

“MPs need to listen to their disabled constituents. Take the money from those who can afford to pay, not those who can’t.

“We will not forget how you vote.”

Welfare rights adviser Emma Cotton told the rally of the damage already caused by 15 years of austerity.

She said: “I have seen the damage that austerity has done. I have been a witness to a near-total degradation of the UK social security system.”

Fazilet Hadi, from Disability Rights UK, was among those who mentioned the government’s pledge that it was now going to start co-producing policy with disabled people.

She said: “That is absolute rubbish. If they had wanted to co-produce with disabled people, they should have talked to us a year ago… they should have put these proposals in the green paper… they should have stopped rushing this bill through.”

She said earlier: “It is absolutely shameful what this government is doing to disabled people, and it will be shameful for Labour MPs if they vote with the government.

“Successive governments have made us poor, successive governments have put the NHS on its knees, successive governments have taken away social care, successive governments have made us a society where disabled people are becoming sicker and new disabled people are coming on stream because of homelessness, poverty, and lack of food.”

There were regular outbursts of anger among speakers, including from Mac, from Crips Against Cuts, who told the rally: “Tax the wealthy, instead of killing the crips.”

Several disabled speakers – including Clifford – also spoke of their pride in a disability community that continues to fight, despite 15 years of battling against austerity cuts.

The rally was led by DPAC, and supported by the Taking The PIP campaign and Crips Against Cuts, as well as mainstream campaign groups Stop the War Coalition, The People’s Assembly, The Trade Union Coordinating Group, and We Demand Change.

There were several speeches from members of the disabled people’s Taking the PIP anti-cuts campaign, including actors Cherylee Houston, Lisa Hammond and Cerrie Burnell.

Houston said: “How dare they try to reduce our futures, how dare they try to infer that we are of less value, a lesser part of society.

“We need to stand up and hold firm. They cannot strip away years of legacy within our community.

“I’m here alongside everyone else to say stop this bill, stop it now before more people die.”

Hammond said the concessions made by ministers were “nothing more than political spin.

“They are designed to buy off rebellion, not to protect our rights.”

Among others who warned of the consequences of the cuts was Angela Grant, president of the DWP group of the PCS union, who said: “Many of us, including me, depend on PIP to keep us in work.

“I would not be able to work if they came after PIP.”

She added: “They do not care, they are not listening, until we make them listen.

“We stand together because if we start letting them divide us, divide us in our communities, they will break us down one by one.”

Hamza spoke of the impact on fellow disabled asylum-seekers, and he told the rally: “We are here today to fight for our fundamental human rights.

“We fight to win, or we die fighting.”

The rally was temporarily disrupted by protesters from a rival rally who supported the right of Israel to continue its genocide in Palestine and to continue bombing Iran, and supported the son of Iran’s former Shah and want to see regime change in Iran.

They had edged closer and closer to the disabled people’s rally, and several of their supporters appeared intent on antagonising and intimidating disabled activists, with several reports of aggressive disablist abuse.

When disabled activists saw this begin to happen, they linked arms with allies to protect disabled people and their rally and continued to chant “welfare not warfare” until the pro-Israel protesters eventually melted away.

Although police officers had been seen dragging away at least two members of the pro-Israel rally, the Metropolitan police said afterwards that they were not aware of any arrests.

Several of the pro-Israel supporters refused to talk to Disability News Service, but one of them claimed they were opposed to Stop the War Coalition, which was supporting the anti-cuts rally, and he criticised the argument that cutting spending on bombs would allow increased spending on social security.

The disabled people’s rally also included songs from disabled activist and singer-songwriter Sophia Kleanthous, who minutes earlier had been part of the human barrier.

Her songs included a new anti-cuts anthem written for the rally: Cut Us Until We Bleed.

As she introduced the song, she told the rally: “We will not allow people to divide us.

“We will not support war, and we will not support these cuts.”

At the end of the song, activists displayed a huge new banner, which said: “You Cut We Bleed.”

A string of MPs spoke at the rally to express their solidarity with disabled people, including Labour’s Ian Lavery, Andy McDonald, Richard Burgon, Lorraine Beavers and Brian Leishman, former Labour leader – and now an Independent MP – Jeremy Corbyn, and fellow Independent MP Adnan Hussain.

Burgon told the rally: “You’re saying, and we support you, that enough is enough.

“Let’s be clear: this bill was brought to save money. This bill was brought to do that by making things worse for disabled people in this country.”

And he sent a message to fellow Labour MPs: “Certain votes in parliament define you, certain votes in parliament will be remembered not only for the rest of your political career, but probably for the rest of your life.

“It’s about time that my colleagues got an inch of the guts, an inch of the courage of disabled people outside here today, and did the right thing.

“Don’t talk to me about agonising over the vote – the people agonising are disabled people across the country who are worried about the future.

“Don’t talk to me about agonising on £93,000 a year, do the right thing for God’s sake.”

3 July 2025

GB News says it has nothing to apologise for, after guest suggests starving disabled benefit claimants

A British news channel has said it has nothing to apologise for after a right-wing commentator and comedian suggested the best way to cut the number of disabled people claiming benefits was to starve, or even shoot, them.

It is just the latest example of disability hate speech broadcast and published by mainstream media organisations over the last 35 years that have run in parallel with government attempts to cut spending on disability benefits.

GB News presenter Patrick Christys had told viewers that “welfare needs to be cut” – while ignoring the evidence that working-age social security spending is stable as a proportion of GDP* – before claiming that the prime minister was not “doing much” to cut disability benefits.

He then asked his guest Lewis Schaffer how he would “get them off their backside”.

Schaffer replied: “Just starve them, that’s what people have to do, that’s what you’ve got to do to people, you can’t just give people money.”

He then added: “What else can you do? Shoot them? I mean, I’d suggest that, but I think that’s maybe a bit strong.”

Christys then replied: “Yeah, it’s just not allowed these days.”

On his X/Twitter profile, Schaffer describes himself as a “virologist, cardiologist, climatologist, historian”, but elsewhere he is described as a “comedian and broadcaster”.

One of the earliest commentators to pick up Schaffer’s comments was “Maximilien Robespierre”, who described the comments on his YouTube channel as “dangerous rhetoric”.

GB News originally refused to comment, but it eventually produced the following statement for Disability News Service (DNS): “Having reviewed the comment, which is clearly comedic, GB News does not consider there is anything that requires an apology, or further explanation.”

But Dr Natasha Hirst, disabled members’ representative for the National Union of Journalists, told DNS: “It is appalling and unacceptable for an Ofcom-regulated broadcaster to encourage and allow discriminatory and harmful commentary about disabled people.

“Suggesting violence towards disabled people is no joke and has real-life consequences by emboldening hate speech and harassment.

“We expect Ofcom to do its job as a regulator and investigate the complaints raised with a recognition of the wider context of exclusion and abuse that disabled people experience in their daily lives.”

Disabled campaigner Ben Scott called for GB News to be shut down by the broadcasting regulator Ofcom because of the “astronomically shocking” and “appalling” rhetoric.

He said Schaffer’s comments reminded him of Nazi “useless eater” rhetoric from the 1930s, which eventually led to the targeted killing of hundreds of thousands of disabled people in Germany through the Aktion T4 programme.

After Scott criticised him on X, Schaffer repeated some of his comments, posting: “I’m suggesting ‘starving’ or and then ‘shooting’ the disabled, to lower costs!”

This week, Schaffer’s website appeared to have been taken off-line, but Wikipedia describes him as “an American comedian and broadcaster” who is also a GB News presenter.

The comments come just three months after the Department for Work and Pensions drew horrified comments after publishing figures that showed the total cost to the economy of disabled people who cannot work, which was described as a “chilling” echo of the propaganda of 1930s Germany.

Ofcom confirmed that there had been complaints about Lewis Schaffer’s comments, but because there were less than 50, it was unable to say how many.

An Ofcom spokesperson said: “We are assessing complaints about this programme against our broadcasting rules before deciding whether or not to investigate.”

*Gross domestic product, the size of the country’s economy in a particular year

3 July 2025

SEND inspections find services in just one in four areas usually lead to ‘positive’ outcomes for disabled children

Only one in four inspections of local services for disabled children in England last year concluded that they usually lead to “positive experiences and outcomes” for those young people, the education regulator has announced.

The findings from Ofsted showed that 28 inspections of special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) services in local areas were carried out in 2024, but only seven led to a positive report.

Six of the inspections – which do not involve inspections of schools – concluded that there were “widespread and/or systemic failings” in local services which led to “significant concerns”, while the other 15 concluded that there were “inconsistent experiences and outcomes” for children and young people with SEND.

The inspections are carried out jointly by Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission, a process which began in January 2023, with every area supposed to be inspected at least once every five years.

Only about a third of 153 local areas have been inspected so far.

Dr Edmore Masendeke, policy and research lead for The Alliance for Inclusive Education, said the figures were “not surprising” and reflected the continuing segregation and exclusion of disabled children and young people within the education system.

He said: “What ALLFIE sees is a growing investment in segregation and deliberate dismantling of any progress made towards inclusive education.”

He said this was happening in areas such as Newham, in east London, where Sir Stephen Timms, the minister for social security and disability, is MP for part of the constituency.

In January 2024, there were 576,000 children and young people aged up to 25 with an EHC plan, and another 1.2 million pupils receiving SEN support in school.

The worst-performing area since the inspections began in January 2023 is the East Midlands, where four areas were found to have “widespread/systemic failings” and just one was found to be “typically positive”.

The North West has also performed poorly so far, with four failing areas, three inconsistent, and one positive.

The best was North East, Yorkshire and the Humber, with four positive, five inconsistent and none found to be failing; London is not far behind, with three positive, six inconsistent, and just one failing.

Masendeke said: “For years, ALLFIE has repeatedly warned that disabled children and young people are being harmed by all forms and practices of segregated education, which continue across all areas of learning but does not lead to inclusive education experiences, where all students are taught together in the same classroom and settings alongside their peers.”

He added: “ALLFIE is also deeply concerned that just a third of local areas have been inspected so far.

“How many more disabled children and young people are enduring the same poor educational experiences, or worse?”

He said the findings came at a time when there were serious threats to the legal protections provided by education, health and care plans.

And he said there appeared to be a “wider move by government to disrupt inclusive education by reducing disability provision and support, redirecting funding from mainstream settings to expand segregated provisions, including building more units within mainstream schools and increasing the number of segregated schools”.

An Ofsted spokesperson said: “These statistics highlight that the outcomes and experiences of too many children with SEND are not as positive as they should be.

“We recognise the SEND system is under significant pressure; however, it is vital that improvements are made so children get the support they need.”

The inspections evaluate arrangements for all children and young people with SEND aged up to 25, including those who have an education, health and care (EHC) plan and those who receive special educational needs (SEN) support.

They examine the education, social care and health services provided to disabled children and young people in the local area, including the structure of the local education system, school attendance figures, school transport, employment data for those who have left education, provision of short breaks, transition into adult social care, and performance data on health services.

As part of the inspections, they visit schools and other settings and services, and gather the views of parents and carers, children and young people.

CQC had not commented by noon today (Thursday).

The Department for Education had also not commented by noon today.

3 July 2025

Government Welfare plans create unfair two-tier system, say Unite

Unite, the UK’s leading union, has warned that the government’s U-turn on welfare cuts would create an unfair two-tier system and will prevent disabled people in future entering work, college and university.

The government made a much-heralded U-turn at the end of last week when it scaled back its plans to cut the welfare bill.

However, Unite believes that the planned changes in fact create greater injustice. The proposal to limit Personal Independence Payments (PIP) to new claimants will create a two-tier workforce and will create a massive barrier to work for newly disabled people.

Unite is further concerned that reducing PIP payments for younger people as currently planned will mean that they will be effectively excluded from university and colleges as they can’t access the funding needed to offset the higher costs they generate in order to study.

Unite general secretary Sharon Graham said: “Why do Labour keep making the same mistakes, attacking the most vulnerable in our society. The government’s latest plans for disabled benefits cuts are divisive and sinister. Creating a two-tier system where younger disabled people and those who become disabled in the future will be disadvantaged and denied access to work and education, is morally wrong.

“We need a system which ensures that disabled people get the support they need to enter the workplace and receive an education, the government’s plans specifically prevent this happening.

“The government needs to drop its entire welfare bill and start again with the principle of social justice and helping people into work at its heart.”

Unite for a Workers’ Economy said:

These changes were not in Labour’s manifesto – in fact they flatly contradict what Labour promised: “Labour is committed to championing the rights of disabled people and to the principle of working with them, so that their views and voices will be at the heart of all we do.”

Exeter protest – kill the bill before it kills us

Action, All Posts, Disability Activism, local groups, News, PIP, Universal Credit, welfare cuts, Welfare reforms, Write to your MP No Responses »

Jun 292025

1st July 15:00 to 17:00. Bedford Square, Exeter.

Kill the Bill Before it Kills Us!

Bust Cards, chants, statements for Starmer, Myth-busting, speeches, community first.

Masks are required for those who are able to use them, limited spare masks and bottles of water provided.

Coventry TUC is organising a protest on Tuesday, 1st July, at 5 PM in Broadgate, Coventry, coinciding with the discussion of the welfare cuts bill in Parliament.

They have also contacted the three Coventry MPs to voice their opposition.

If anyone would like to speak at the demo, they would be most welcome.

A poster with a white background and red text and graphics. It says, in very big letters: stop. Disability benefit cuts. Tuesday, 1st July, 5 PM. Broadgate, Coventry (to oppose Labour's Welfare Cuts Bill due to be voted on at 7pm). Hashtag Welfare not Warfare. There is then a poster of protestors holding placards. Several placards say Welfare Not Warfare. One says no genocide, no cuts, no war. One says They Say Cut Back We Say Fight Back. Underneath, in black, says: Organised by Coventry TUC and local campaigning organisations - further info 07970 294 237.

Older Entries

Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week

Contents

McFadden brags about cutting disability benefits, just as his own strategy warns of ‘deep material poverty’

Minister misleads MPs as mystery deepens over new £2 billion cuts to disability benefits

Duty to disabled passengers in railways bill is ‘too vague’ and must be strengthened, MPs are told

Peers urged to ‘err on the side of caution’ and raise minimum age limit in assisted suicide bill

Scottish and UK governments are failing to uphold disability rights, says watchdog

Thousands of disabled people in one county should benefit from care charging legal case victory

Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week

Contents

DWP and Treasury silent over mystery of £2 billion cuts to disability benefits

‘Unacceptable’ new figures show rejections of Access to Work claims have shot up this year

Watchdog’s silence after removing figures that showed social security spending is not ‘spiralling’

Manifesto calls on next Welsh government to enable disabled people to ‘flourish and thrive’

Deaf people who use BSL face ‘entrenched’ health and social care exclusion, say government advisers

Years of scapegoating rhetoric has led to ‘envy and resentment’ of those with blue badges, research finds

Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week

Saturday 29th November

1pm @ Swansea Castle

The budget is being written by the Swansea West MP.

We want to co-organise a protest with everyone affected by the budget.

Contents

New official figures expose how politicians and media have repeatedly lied about social security spending

Ministers listen to disabled campaigners and return key accessibility duty to railways bill

Government review calls for ‘safer, more supportive’ workplaces for disabled people

DWP refuses to rule out cuts to PIP next year

Safeguarding probe launched after veteran disabled activist reports ‘terrifying’ care home experience

Tens of thousands tell government: We reject any plans to cut PIP

Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week

Contents

DWP’s plans ‘in tatters’ as McFadden scraps white paper on further disability cuts

‘Shocking’ figures show parents linked to DWP service face death rates up to three times higher

Former detective exposes culture of disability discrimination within ‘institutionally disablist’ Met

Committee calls cuts bill ‘discriminatory’, even though all its Labour MPs voted for it

Disabled people warn of ‘severe’ consequences if chancellor removes Motability VAT exemption

Disabled people face ‘systemic’ barriers in accessing community equipment, parliamentary inquiry finds

Regulator’s annual report shows impact of social care crisis on disabled people

Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week

Contents

Chancellor’s reported plans to impose VAT on Motability could add £3,000 to even the cheapest cars

Psychologists’ charity fails to raise concerns over job coaches in surgeries, weeks after £640K DWP contract

Peers derail government plans to hand some DWP staff powers to use force against benefit claimants

Reeves refuses to apologise for repeating false claim that social security spending is spiralling

Timms goes back on his word by refusing to provide crucial evidence of Access to Work cuts

Disabled people describe impact of ‘very unfair’ extra costs caused by DWP’s universal credit migration

Ministers’ refusal to raise limit on accessible housing grants is discriminatory, secret reports admits

Ministers finally announce progress on ‘liberty safeguards’, but also challenge vital definition

Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week

Contents

Tory trio mislead party conference on disability benefits as they stir up hostility towards disabled claimants

Government ‘has lost its way’ on accessible housing, after new towns report ignores disabled people

Alarm over government’s choices to lead ‘over-diagnosis’ review that could help ministers cut benefits

Coach firm to pay thousands to accessible transport activist after driver lied that he threatened violence

Access to Work dossier of evidence shows ‘real harm’ and job losses caused by DWP cuts and failings

Greens show contrast with other major parties on disability cuts and refusal to stir up hostility to claimants

New film celebrates 10 years since ‘moment in time’ victory over care charges in London borough

Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week

4pm to 4.15pm

Tuesday 14th October

Outside the Senedd (Welsh Parliament) in Cardiff

If you are able to, would you consider…

Access requirements

Social media graphics

Contents

Minister admits signing off on order that led to widespread cuts to Access to Work

All the evidence from Labour conference points in one direction: More cuts to disability benefits

DWP paid nearly £90,000 to disabled claimant left homeless and at risk of harm after years of errors

Disability minister struggles to point to any significant achievements in his first year in post

Labour ignores disabled people and accessible housing crisis – again – as it announces plans for new towns

Labour uses conference to sideline disabled people… unless they are working

Labour’s attacks on rights ‘have led to massive resurgence’ in disability movement, protest hears