Contents
Family say DWP has unanswered questions over death of disabled woman whose benefits were stopped 1
Death of disabled woman failed by multiple agencies ‘must be catalyst for change’, say family 3
Research that ministers sat on for three years shows no evidence to support call for PIP cuts 7
Government’s railways consultation has ‘betrayed’ disabled passengers, campaigners tell minister 13
Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week 19
Family say DWP has unanswered questions over death of disabled woman whose benefits were stopped
The family of a disabled woman whose body lay undiscovered in her flat for more than three years after her benefits were stopped say they have serious unanswered questions about the actions of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).
Laura Winham’s body was not found until May 2021, more than three-and-a-half years after she was last seen alive.
But her family say DWP appeared to have failed to carry out checks on her welfare before cutting off her benefits.
They spoke out this week at the end of an inquest and the publication of a safeguarding review into the multi-agency failures that contributed to her death.
She is believed to have starved to death in November 2017 in her council-owned flat in Sheerwater, Woking.
Her death has clear similarities with other deaths of disabled claimants, including those of Errol Graham, whose body was also discovered in his flat in June 2018 after starving to death when his benefits were removed; Mark Wood, who starved to death in his home in 2013 after being found ineligible by DWP for employment and support allowance (ESA); and Timothy Finn, who starved to death in his home in autumn 1998 after his benefits were stopped.
Laura Winham, who was living in Woking at the time of her death, had been receiving disability benefits since the age of just two, after being born with Goldenhar Syndrome and later developing several connected health conditions.
She was also diagnosed with persistent delusional disorder in 2009 and had two spells of detention under the Mental Health Act, in 2006 and 2010.
DWP wrote to her in early 2016 to say her disability living allowance claim would be ending and she would need to apply for the new personal independence payment (PIP).
But she told Woking Borough Council that she could not cope with the “invasive medical check-up” the application would involve, almost certainly a reference to the much-criticised PIP assessment process, and her DLA was stopped in March 2016.
Her ESA had been stopped three years earlier, although it is not clear why.
The coroner, Dr Karen Henderson, said there had been a “lost opportunity” to “proactively investigate” the loss of Laura’s benefits, but that it was not possible to say if this would have prevented her death.
She said DWP had since taken steps to be “more proactive” and to carry out more coordination with other agencies.
Both the inquest and the safeguarding review into her death – published this week (PDF) – stressed that she had cut her family out of her life due to her delusional disorder.
They had been forced to respect Laura’s wishes because every time they tried to contact her it caused her significant mental distress and put her safety at risk.
Over the 18 months after losing her DLA, her savings ran out, and her last food shop probably took place through a Tesco delivery on 4 September 2017. She recorded on her calendar against that day that she had no money left.
At some point, probably in early November 2017, she appears to have starved to death, although Dr Henderson concluded on Tuesday that it was impossible to determine the cause of death and recorded an open conclusion.
By the time DWP was eventually alerted to her death, several years later, many of her records had been destroyed.
The family of Laura Winham have shared with Disability News Service the secret internal process review (IPR) carried out by DWP into her death, obtained by her legal team and marked “Official Sensitive” by the department.
The case review and findings take up less than one page, with the document admitting there were “limited records of the customer’s interactions” with DWP because they had been destroyed, although it confirmed that her ESA stopped in April 2013 and her DLA in March 2016.
The records show she failed to attend two face-to-face work capability assessments (WCAs) before her ESA was stopped, so it is possible that DWP again failed to carry out safeguarding checks.
Despite the unanswered questions about DWP’s safeguarding actions, and the lack of remaining evidence, the IPR somehow concluded that DWP “acted appropriately during the customer’s benefit claims”.
This week, DWP did not challenge the suggestion that it failed to carry out any safeguarding visits when Laura Winham did not complete her PIP claim, and also when she failed to attend two WCAs.
It also did not dispute that there had been a “lost opportunity” to “proactively investigate” the loss of her benefits.
And it failed to explain how its IPR had concluded that DWP “acted appropriately during the customer’s benefit claims” when there were so many unanswered questions about its safeguarding actions, and when it had destroyed most of the relevant records.
It also failed to apologise to the family or say if it accepted the coroner’s criticism.
It declined to issue a statement, but instead produced a series of background briefing notes which suggested that the department’s “condolences” remained with the family, and that it had introduced measures to support “vulnerable” claimants since her death, and had introduced strengthened guidance around safely stopping payments to claimants identified as vulnerable.
In a statement issued on Tuesday at the end of the inquest, Laura’s family – who described her as a “much-loved, much-missed daughter and sister” – said she had been left to “fend for herself” by agencies including DWP, Surrey County Council, Woking council, and Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (see separate story).
In a statement delivered by their solicitor, Iftikhar Manzoor, of Hudgell Solicitors, Laura’s family said: “The circumstances of Laura’s death have been absolutely devastating for her loved ones.
“They are a caring and loving family who I have come to know well over the past few years.
“Laura was a much-loved, much-missed daughter and sister.
“Her family did everything in their power to support her as she battled her mental health struggles until it became apparent she may harm herself unless they backed away.
“They believed Laura would be in the best possible hands when handing her into the care of professionals – people with much more knowledge and understanding of supporting those with serious mental health issues.
“Sadly, in this instance, that was not the case.”
27 February 2025
Death of disabled woman failed by multiple agencies ‘must be catalyst for change’, say family
The family of a disabled woman whose body lay undiscovered in her flat for more than three years say her death must be a “catalyst for change”, after the failure of multiple organisations to support and protect her.
They say Laura Winham was left to “fend for herself” by agencies including Surrey County Council, Woking Borough Council, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), and Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust.
The county council had been alerted to concerns about her “vulnerability” by the police, but all its adult social care team did was try to call her – before realising her phone was no longer working – and then send her a letter, before closing her case when she failed to respond.
In a statement issued on Tuesday at the end of an inquest into her death, her family – who described her as a “much-loved, much-missed daughter and sister” – said: “Laura was clearly a person potentially at risk, but she wasn’t deemed worthy of visiting.
“She was left to fend for herself. Even her own diary entries illustrate she was unable to cope.
“Had adult social care visited Laura’s home within a few days of the referral in October 2017, then Laura would be alive.”
Shortly after the end of the inquest, a local safeguarding review – commissioned by Surrey Safeguarding Adults Board – revealed widespread failings by agencies that had had contact with Laura.
It concluded that there had been “many missed opportunities” that could have helped her in the months and years before she died in her flat in Sheerwater, Woking.
Laura was born with Goldenhar Syndrome and later developed several connected health conditions, one of which led to open heart surgery when she was 18.
She was also diagnosed with persistent delusional disorder in 2009, and had two spells of detention under the Mental Health Act, in 2006 and 2010, through the Surrey and Borders trust.
But when she was discharged from mental health services in 2010, the trust provided her with no care plan, no crisis plan, and no offers of advocacy.
From 2007, she had been living in a flat on Woking’s Sheerwater estate, which was managed from 2012 by New Vision Homes on behalf of Woking council.
But in 2013, after her employment and support allowance was stopped by DWP – possibly because she had failed to attend two work capability assessments – she fell into rent and council tax arrears and was served with an eviction notice.
Her disability living allowance was also stopped, in March 2016, apparently after telling the council she would not be able to cope with the assessment process for the new personal independence payment.
DWP appears to have failed to carry out the necessary safeguarding checks, although most of the records connected with her case have now been destroyed (see separate story).
She began to receive support from Woking council, and referrals were made to her GP and the mental health trust, but she soon moved to a new GP practice, which never saw the record of her mental health referral.
By the autumn of 2017, Laura was living on her dwindling savings and obtaining food through online deliveries.
The review said she had clearly “found the outside world frightening and oppressive”, and that her family were “frequently and consistently rebuffed”, while she was “determined to exclude her family from her life”.
Although she had some money in a savings account, she felt unable to visit the high street bank in person, which would have allowed her to withdraw cash from that account.
The safeguarding review report and coroner said she had engaged for years in a one-sided email correspondence with a member of the clergy, but he failed to seek support for her and eventually contacted the police in September 2017.
As a result of his complaint, a police officer visited Laura on 7 October 2017 to ask her to stop the correspondence, which she agreed to do, but he also asked about her welfare, and she told him she was short of money and food.
He provided her with details of a local foodbank and raised concerns about her “vulnerability” and lack of access to services through an “adult at risk referral”, which was passed to Surrey County Council’s adult social care team six days later.
But after writing just one letter that offered information about local food banks and Citizens Advice, and offering further assistance if she got in touch, and trying to call her – before realising her phone was no longer working – the care team closed her case without an assessment of her needs when she failed to respond, which the coroner described as a “lost opportunity”.
Her case remained closed until the council was told of her death four years later.
Despite the council’s failures, the coroner concluded that it was not possible to conclude that this had made a “material contribution” to her death, partly because it was not possible to “speculate” on how she would have responded if the adult social care team had visited her, and because the cause of death “remains unknown”.
She also said there had been “lost opportunities” for Woking council to “flag up Laura as vulnerable”, but she again could “not find on the balance of probabilities that these lost opportunities contributed to her death”.
Evidence suggests her last food shop took place via a Tesco delivery on 4 September 2017, and she recorded on her calendar that day that she had no money left.
She crossed off the days as they passed on her calendar and the last day she marked was 1 November 2017.
Her family believe she died soon after that date, at the age of 38.
Laura’s housing benefit and council tax continued to be paid until 2021, while a gas safety certificate was issued for her flat in January 2018, although it is likely that this was not issued lawfully. Her gas supply was cut off in 2019.
Her flat and other nearby properties were due to be demolished and other neighbours gradually began to move out, and by autumn 2020 every other near neighbour had left.
But because Woking council’s housing records did not flag her “additional needs”, no attempt was made to check how she was managing during lockdown in the early months of the pandemic.
When her father became unwell the following year, her family visited her to try to let her know about his poor health, and on seeing a build-up of post behind her front door, they began checking local hospitals and contacted the council.
When her brother returned to the flat, he saw what appeared to be part of a body in the hallway and called the emergency services.
The safeguarding review said that agencies involved in her support had made changes to their practices since the events of 2017 – although not all of them as a result of her death – including the Church of England, DWP, Surrey and Borders NHS trust, and Woking council.
Surrey County Council carried out a review of its adult social care team in February 2023, which included an audit of 158 contacts received by the social care team between 2017 and 2021 “which were closed without apparent management oversight”. This review led to a “rapid improvement plan”.
The safeguarding review concluded that, as Laura “withdrew from contact with others, the extent of her challenges became less and less visible to people and agencies who might have been able to intervene.
“When her mental health needs did become visible on occasions, we can see with hindsight that services did not mobilise to respond in ways that secured help for [her]*.”
The review also found that, if the adult social care team had visited Laura, it would have had an opportunity to “form a view about her mental state and the precariousness of her existence, offer an assessment and attempt to take appropriate action”.
Among its conclusions, and despite changes made since 2017, the safeguarding review’s recommendations include action for Surrey’s adult social care department, Woking council and DWP, and for the results of the review to be used to improve national safeguarding work.
The safeguarding adults board, which commissioned the review and whose members include Surrey County Council, Woking council, Surrey and Borders NHS trust, and Surrey police, said: “We fully accept the findings of the review which examined the role of agencies before and after [Laura’s] death.
“The review found that there were many missed opportunities, which included the need for better communications across all agencies in order to support [Laura].
“We are reassured that agencies have taken steps to address much of the learning from the events of [Laura’s] life.
“We have shared the review with all relevant agencies and will hold them to account in making sure the recommendations are acted on.”
But in a statement delivered by their solicitor, Iftikhar Manzoor, of Hudgell Solicitors, Laura’s family said: “The circumstances of Laura’s death have been absolutely devastating for her loved ones.
“They are a caring and loving family who I have come to know well over the past few years.
“Laura was a much-loved, much-missed daughter and sister.
“Her family did everything in their power to support her as she battled her mental health struggles until it became apparent she may harm herself unless they backed away.
“They believed Laura would be in the best possible hands when handing her into the care of professionals – people with much more knowledge and understanding of supporting those with serious mental health issues.
“Sadly, in this instance, that was not the case.”
They added: “The safeguarding review made it clear that Laura was never failed by her family.
“They sought professional help, but input was lost from people who truly loved her.
“Laura and her family need a system that cared enough about a vulnerable person.
“Laura’s death must act as a catalyst for change.”
*The review did not use her real name
27 February 2025
Research that ministers sat on for three years shows no evidence to support call for PIP cuts
Ministers have sat on research for three years that linked the sharp increase in claims for disability benefits with a deterioration in disabled people’s health, an increase in the financial hardship they were facing, and their need for independence.
Successive governments have refused to publish the research, just as Conservative and Labour ministers – and prime ministers – and their contacts in the right-wing media have repeatedly called for action to clamp down on the “unsustainable” increase in spending on disability benefits.
But the report, Triggers to Claiming Personal Independence Payment, provides strong evidence to explain the need for increased spending on personal independence payment (PIP).
And it even says the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) should do more to increase awareness of PIP with the public sector, charities and the general public, a suggestion that appears to have been ignored.
But successive work and pensions secretaries have hidden the report’s conclusions, which challenge the rhetoric of ministers and right-wing commentators.
The report was obtained through a freedom of information request by Disability News Service (DNS), which has been trying to discover what efforts DWP has made to research the reasons for increases in spending on disability support.
The existence of the report also raises further questions over the insistence of ministers such as Sir Stephen Timms – the minister for social security and disability – that they want to increase transparency and openness within DWP.
Earlier this month (PDF), Sir Stephen told the Commons work and pensions committee that he wanted DWP to be “much more open than has been the case in the past” and move “towards much greater transparency about how we are doing things”.
He said: “Things that ought to have been published and made public have been hidden, and that has contributed to a loss of trust.”
But the research, carried out in-house by DWP, was sat on for more than two years by Conservative ministers, and it has yet to be published nearly eight months into the new Labour government.
The continuing refusal to publish the research comes as reports suggests the government is set to announce plans to restrict future spending on PIP in next month’s disability benefits green paper.
The unpublished report suggests there are clear reasons for the increase in spending on PIP, with the “main triggers” for applying for the extra costs benefit being health deterioration, financial hardship and employment concerns, with some claims triggered by a “recent decay in circumstances”.
The research was commissioned by Conservative work and pensions secretary Therese Coffey, after she identified a “noticeable and sustained increase” in new PIP claims in October 2021, about 18 months into the Covid pandemic.
It was completed in March 2022 while Coffey was still work and pensions secretary, but she failed to publish it.
Three years after its completion, successive secretaries of state – Chloe Smith, Mel Stride and Labour’s Liz Kendall – have all failed to release the report.
The DWP researchers said: “Most of the interviewed individuals had not considered applying for PIP previously, either because of no previous need or because they were previously unaware of the benefit, although they may have been eligible.”
One of the report’s “key messages” was that disabled people were being made aware of PIP through their contact with formal services, including JobcentrePlus, and not through the media or social media.
Most of the 21 claimants interviewed by researchers – all new PIP claimants at the time – had multiple health conditions.
They spoke of daily living expenses, household costs and utilities as the “primary targets” for how they would spend their PIP, with some saying they were planning to buy aids and adaptations, or to pay for therapy or treatment.
The report said: “Most individuals cited financial support as the driving purpose of PIP, with bills and basic survival mentioned prominently.”
Many spoke of how PIP helped them maintain their independence, with some of those interviewed saying they needed it because they “felt stigma and shame associated with relying on informal care”.
One told DWP: “I didn’t realise working people could claim anything like that.”
Another said: “In a sense, DWP are helping people like me… survive.”
And a third claimant told researchers: “That’s why I applied – to try and get some of [my] independence back. I’m 31 my parents shouldn’t have to bail me out.”
Another claimant said: “I think it would make me more independent. It would allow me to get a bath or a shower without my husband having to help me.”
Paula Peters, a member of the national steering group of Disabled People Against Cuts, said the report showed again that there was “no evidential basis for these cuts to financial support”.
She said: “The Labour government will harm disabled people with their ideological austerity agenda.
“Cutting financial support will lead to more poverty and marginalisation of disabled people.
“How many disabled people will we lose before the end of this parliament as a result of these cuts?”
Caroline Collier, from Inclusion Barnet’s Campaign for Disability Justice, said: “Security in the face of disability or illness is something we should all be able to rely on.
“That’s why it’s so important that research like this is made public, so that we can make informed decisions as a society knowing how much benefits like PIP are needed.
“PIP allows people to live better lives, and this research demonstrates that.
“It helps people to maintain their independence and, in some cases, to manage without being driven into debt.
“At the Campaign for Disability Justice, we implore the government not to make unfair changes based on condition specific criteria, which can only lead to more uneven support, and to value PIP as the enabler of independence and security that we might all need one day.”
DWP declined to produce a statement, but it said the research would be published in due course, as well as a larger piece of work that built on the study.
It also claimed that it regularly promoted and raised awareness of the benefits that are available, while information on benefits is available through the gov.uk website.
But it refused to explain why the department has so far failed to publish the research, or whether ministers agreed with its suggestion that there are clear reasons for the increase in spending on PIP.
27 February 2025
Bank surveillance bill could lead to greatest miscarriage of justice in British history, disabled activist tells MPs
A disabled activist has told MPs that parliament could set in train the greatest miscarriage of justice in British history, if it approves new laws that would force banks to carry out mass surveillance of millions of disabled people.
Rick Burgess, from Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People, told a Commons committee on Tuesday that the proposed new powers were adding to an “absolutely enormous” level of “anger and distress in the disabled community”.
He said the bill appeared to be a new “attack” on disabled people and to be motivated by “ableist assumptions about how disabled people run their lives, or whether they’re more or less honest, or whether they’re more or less genuine than people who are not disabled”.
He told work and pensions minister Andrew Western, Cabinet Office minister Georgia Gould, and backbench MPs: “It’s really, really hard going for us. I have to tell you that.
“Disabled people in Britain have had a decade and a half of being the scapegoat of this country. And it has to stop.
“And this measure is actually making it worse, as opposed to stopping that scapegoating.”
He was giving evidence to the Commons committee examining the government’s public authorities (fraud, error and recovery) bill.
The government plans to use the bill to force banks to examine individuals’ accounts for potential breaches of benefit eligibility rules and then pass that information to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).
The government currently plans to use the new powers to focus on claimants of universal credit, pension credit, and employment and support allowance (ESA).
Burgess told MPs on the committee that, even if there was an error rate of just 0.1 per cent during this process, that would still mean thousands of people showing up as “false positives”, even if it just examined those on means-tested benefits.
He said: “Bear in mind, the Post Office scandal is less than a thousand people.
“You are at the inception stage of something which could be the greatest miscarriage of justice in British history.”
He also warned of the impact of the new powers on people with diagnoses such as paranoia, schizophrenia, depression or anxiety, as it would add to their feeling of “being monitored, of being followed, of being surveilled, because you quite literally are being surveilled by your bank on behalf of the government”.
And he said the bill treated disabled people as “a separate population who should have lower rights to privacy than the general population” and was “further marking disabled people for additional state oppression and surveillance”.
He said: “Give that the United Nations has condemned the UK twice in a row for grave and systemic human rights abuses, this is further going in the wrong direction and failing to address those failures identified by the United Nations.”
He added: “We’ve continued to go down a road that is removing rights and not respecting them and subjecting disabled people to greater scrutiny, greater surveillance and greater tests of their basic rights to be a citizen of this country.”
Western, the minister for transformation in DWP, said he accepted that the new powers may lead to “some indirect discrimination against disabled people” because they were over-represented in the three groups subject to the new powers.
But Burgess said he believed it was even worse than that and would cause direct discrimination of disabled people, and he called for “public and transparent equality impact assessments”.
He said there was an over-representation of disabled people among the groups who will be subject to the new powers, and they were already “exhaustively monitored, reviewed, tested, having to provide proof, whether it’s for a blue badge, for PIP, for ESA, for universal credit, for a concessionary pass on public transport.
“I mean, the life of a disabled person is to be constantly tested, examined, having to produce proof, and this is another step in that.”
Burgess suggested that it would be fairer – although still a significant breach of privacy – if the government applied the new laws to everyone.
This is because the tax gap – the proportion of tax owed that the government is unable to collect – is more than £39 billion a year, more than four times bigger than the benefit fraud and error the government is targeting through the bill.
He told Western: “I would suggest that the reason you don’t subject the whole country to it is because there’d be outrage because people would find their rights to privacy being completely abused.
“If you’re happy to have your bank account monitored in this way, fine, but you’ve not suggested this should apply to the general population.”
In response to Burgess’s concerns, Western said that, although there were “some things there that I don’t recognize as part of the bill, but clearly that is how people are feeling and the people that you represent are feeling.
“I’m very happy to ask officials to pick up a conversation to go through the detail there.”
The committee also heard from Geoff Fimister, head of policy for Inclusion Barnet’s Campaign for Disability Justice.
He said the new powers would “disproportionately affect disabled people because disabled people are more likely to be on low incomes than others”.
He also raised concerns about the risk of “false positives” when banks trawl people’s accounts.
Fimister said that “even a small percentage of a big number is a lot of people, and people being left without any income, if the technology triggers the cessation of the benefit, it’s a serious business.
“Not having any income can cause hardship, death, and lots of stress.”
He called for a safeguard where benefits could not be stopped “unless and until it had been established” that there was an overpayment of benefits, rather than the proposed “shoot first and ask questions later approach” where DWP thinks there might have been fraud “because the tech spotted something”.
He told the committee: “There is a really raw feeling among disabled people that they are being targeted, and in the context of quite a lot of negative media publicity around the interface between employment and unemployment among disabled people, it is an unpleasant atmosphere for disabled people.”
27 February 2025
Government’s railways consultation has ‘betrayed’ disabled passengers, campaigners tell minister
Disabled campaigners and allies have accused the government of “betrayal” after it dropped plans to put accessibility at the heart of rail reforms from a hugely important public consultation.
In a letter to transport secretary Heidi Alexander, they warn that current plans for the new Great British Railways (GBR) now risk sacrificing the chance of a “proper equality, human rights, and climate framework for the railway”.
They say the consultation has dropped the key commitment that the introduction of GBR – which will eventually run both Britain’s rail infrastructure and its passenger services – would “maximise social and economic value”.
They have also demanded an extension of the consultation from eight weeks to 12 weeks, and for Alexander to do much more to make the consultation accessible to disabled people.
Representatives of four national campaigning organisations have signed the letter, which tells Alexander of their “shock and concern” at the consultation document’s failure to mention a legal duty that would have ensured GBR puts accessibility “at the core of its strategic decisions”.
Disability News Service reported last week that the consultation document includes only a handful of sentences about disabled passengers and the accessibility of the rail network.
The letter has been signed by Emily Sullivan (née Yates), co-founder of The Association of British Commuters; Paula Peters, member of the national steering group of Disabled People Against Cuts; Jan Shortt, general secretary of National Pensioners Convention; and Andrew Hodgson, immediate past president of National Federation of the Blind of the UK.
Last February, in The Plan for Rail (PDF), the Conservative government confirmed earlier pledges that it would introduce a statutory accessibility duty for GBR.
But the letter says that last week’s consultation, issued by the new Labour government, removed the accessibility duty, and a statutory environment duty, from these plans.
It adds: “Disabled people’s rights have been betrayed by this consultation, with most commitments relating to accessibility being dropped, and proposals for regulation noticeably confused.
“There are no questions whatsoever on passenger experience, nor any of the transport policy issues of most concern to the public, for example: fare reductions; ticket office closures; or disabled people’s right to ‘Turn Up And Go’.”
The letter also raises serious concerns about the accessibility of the eight-week consultation process.
It points to the consultation’s “heavy technical jargon and absence of passenger questions”, and it says the Department for Transport (DfT) must extend the consultation to 12 weeks, and publish it in all the necessary accessible formats, provide a helpline, and carry out online and face-to-face seminars, as part of a “systematic and comprehensive engagement strategy”.
The letter also calls on the government to publish equality impact and cost assessments of the reforms.
It adds: “The Department should turn back from this new idea of a stripped down, deregulated GBR, and must not sacrifice the chance to create a proper equality, human rights, and climate framework for the railway.”
A DfT spokesperson said: “Accessibility will be a key focus under Great British Railways and we want to hear the views of disability groups to shape its future.
“These duties are still under consideration, and we will set out more details once the consultation has concluded.”
DfT also claimed the consultation was clear that accessibility would be central to GBR, that GBR’s functions and duties would be informed by responses to the consultation, and that it welcomed views on whether there should be an accessibility duty.
It said it was consulting on whether a passenger watchdog should set minimum standards in areas like passenger accessibility or passenger information, with the ability to refer issues to the regulator for enforcement.
DfT claimed it had ensured the consultation was accessible for disabled people, with accessible formats for those who use assistive technologies and need large print.
It said an equality impact assessment and a broader impact assessment would be published when legislation was introduced.
27 February 2025
Government claims of ‘spiralling’ spending on benefits are false and ‘ideological’, official figures show
Official figures prove that government claims that social security spending is “spiralling out of control” are “not based on any real facts”, say disabled activists.
The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) figures show instead that total spending as a proportion of GDP* is predicted not to increase at all next year, and then to stay at the same level for the next four years.
It is also predicted to be lower this year, again as a proportion of GDP, than it was for every year from 2010-11 to 2015-16.
This provides a stark contrast to claims from the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), of “spiralling” spending on benefits.
The figures were originally highlighted on Twitter/X by Ratigan, a disabled welfare rights campaigner.
He told Disability News Service: “It’s perplexing to me that the government is choosing to push a narrative that can be so easily discredited by publicly available information.
“Data from the OBR clearly shows that not only is welfare spending lower than a decade ago, it’s also not forecast to rise over the next five years; saying that welfare spending is ‘out of control’ is simply false.”
Linda Burnip, co-founder of Disabled People Against Cuts, said the figures “show that the continuing attacks against disabled people are purely ideological and not based on any real facts.
“Their behaviour is the cause of an increasingly hostile environment for disabled people and unlikely to facilitate people getting into work and remaining in employment.”
The government’s repeated claims of “spiralling” spending are likely to be aimed at softening up the public ahead of announcing cuts to future spending on benefits in next month’s spring statement, and DWP’s imminent green paper on disability benefits.
Caroline Collier, from Inclusion Barnet’s Campaign for Disability Justice, said: “At the Campaign for Disability Justice, we are pleased to see Disability News Service highlighting this important OBR finding, and helping it get the attention it deserves.
“This is an important counterbalance to unhelpful narratives about welfare affordability, and supports our view that a decent benefit system is a vital – and affordable – building block in ensuring that we can all access support in times of need.”
Last August, chancellor Rachel Reeves said the previous government had “let welfare costs spiral out of control”.
In January, DWP said in a press release on benefit fraud that it wanted to “tackle the spiralling welfare bill”.
And earlier this month, in a press release on disability employment, DWP claimed again that benefits spending was “spiralling”.
DWP refused to confirm that the figures were accurate, or to say if Kendall would now correct the record to show that the social security bill was not “spiralling”.
Instead, it offered figures relating to spending on disability benefits, and on total “welfare spending for Great Britain” over a different time period – and without putting it in the context of rising GDP – which it said had risen from £97.3 billion to £137.5 billion “since the pandemic” and was “expected to be” £164.6 billion by the end of the decade.
*Gross domestic product, the size of the country’s economy in a particular year
27 February 2025
Rayner to push ahead with evacuation plans that are ‘insult’ to disabled people who died at Grenfell
The government has confirmed that it will push ahead with “watered down” proposals for the emergency evacuation of disabled people who live in high-rise residential buildings, in response to the Grenfell fire inquiry.
In its “full response” to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry’s final report, the government yesterday (Wednesday) set out plans to act on the inquiry’s 58 recommendations.
One of the recommendations was for the government to further consider the inquiry’s call for a legal right to a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) for all residents who might find it difficult to “self-evacuate” from a high-rise residential building.
That recommendation was made by the inquiry in October 2019.
But both the last Conservative government and the new Labour government refused to accept this recommendation in full and instead came forward with their own weakened versions of PEEPs.
Labour yesterday confirmed that it will go ahead with implementing its watered-down plans, which it calls Residential PEEPs, and which will apply to all high-rise residential buildings, and some medium-rise residential buildings.
This will impose a duty on the building owner or manager to engage with their “vulnerable and disabled residents”, consider how to improve their fire safety and evacuation, “enable” all residents to be clear on what they should do in the event of a fire, and give fire and rescue services information “in case they need to support their evacuation”.
It would be up to the building owner or manager to decide what measures are implemented, while the disabled resident may have to pay to ensure some measures “within their flat” are carried out.
The government will introduce these measures through secondary legislation later this year, and it said it would “engage widely” on producing the statutory guidance that will underpin the new requirements.
When the plans were announced in December, Adam Gabsi, co-chair of Inclusion London, who himself is a wheelchair-user who lives on the sixth floor of a high-rise building, said the government had “gone back on its word”.
He described the plans then as “a misrepresentation of the original recommendations but also an insult to those who lost their lives at Grenfell and to all disabled people still waiting for meaningful action”.
And he said PEEPs, as recommended by the inquiry, were “an essential safeguard for disabled people, particularly those living in high-rise buildings” and would ensure that those who face barriers to evacuation are not left behind in emergencies.
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 by Disability News Service suggested about 20 of them were disabled people.
The English Housing Survey estimates that up to three-fifths (59 per cent) of social rented households in England “contain someone with a long-term illness or disability”, the government report says.
Despite the report confirming that Labour will water down the inquiry’s PEEPs recommendation – against the wishes of disabled people – deputy prime minister Angela Rayner told MPs yesterday: “In September, the prime minister rightly said that this tragedy poses questions about what social justice means in Britain today, and whether the voices of working-class people, those with disabilities and those of colour are ignored and dismissed.
“I am here to say that we will not be that country.
“We will be a country where decent housing, security, safety and peace of mind are shared by all and are not just the privilege of a few.”
27 February 2025
Labour assembly members reject plan for disability equality champion for London, despite previous backing
Labour politicians have rejected plans put forward by a disabled people’s organisation that would have created a disability equality champion for London, despite backing the idea last year.
The plans were drawn up by the disabled people’s organisation (DPO) Inclusion London and Liberal Democrat London Assembly member Hina Bokhari, and received cross-party support from the assembly last September when they were voted through unanimously.
Inclusion London believes the mayor needs to appoint a disabled person to coordinate and develop policies that address the barriers faced by the 1.2 million disabled Londoners.
The plans would also have seen the development of a new London Disability Action Plan, covering policy areas such as energy, climate change, technology, health, housing, transport, the environment, police and emergency planning.
Inclusion London said last year that disabled Londoners were “tired of empty commitments” and urgently needed “real meaningful action”.
An online petition, launched in December by Inclusion London, which calls for a disability equality champion, has secured more than 1,400 signatures.
Bokhari told Tuesday’s assembly meeting – which was discussing mayor Sir Sadiq Khan’s proposed budget for 2025-26 – that appointing a disability equality champion would hold the “threads” of policy together.
She said a London disability action plan would “ensure actions are followed through and [hold] decision-makers to account and [create] a flagship model of policy co-creation”.
And she told fellow assembly members that Inclusion London had said the mayor’s existing forum of Deaf and disabled people’s organisations appeared to be “all talk and no action”, with “little scrutiny and no co-creation of policy”.
Bokhari said the new disability equality champion – who would be a disabled person – would be a “ground-breaking and transformative” position.
The assembly’s Conservative group also suggested appointing a disability champion, as part of its own proposed amendment to the budget, but it called for the position to be independent of the mayor as a non-executive director.
Both the Liberal Democrat and Conservative amendments were defeated.
Adam Gabsi, co-chair of Inclusion London, said after the vote: “Inclusion London have been working closely with the Liberal Democrats and other political groups on the assembly to get this amendment through.
“Though we are disappointed by the outcome, housing, transport, the built environment, are among many things in London that continually fail to meet disabled people’s varied needs, and this is mainly down to the lack of meaningful engagement with the disabled community.
“It is our hope that, despite this outcome, the mayor will take note of the amendment and ensure that disabled Londoners finally have a seat at the table, taking a leading role in policy formulation and implementation.”
A spokesperson for the mayor said he was “committed to creating a more equitable, accessible and inclusive city for all Londoners” and had “worked closely with organisations representing those with disabilities to ensure City Hall is placing their needs at the heart of its work”.
She said the mayor’s forum and his equality, diversity and inclusion advisory group, both “scrutinise policies and programmes, while representing, championing and advocating for disabled Londoners”.
She added: “The mayor will continue to do all he can to support disabled Londoners.”
Len Duvall, the London Assembly’s Labour group leader, said he welcomed ongoing discussions to strengthen the work of the forum, and he said that his group was “clear that the needs and voices of disabled Londoners must be at the heart of any decision making”.
He said: “Given ongoing conversations, it would not have been right to make changes to the budget to commit a specific amount to this issue.
“However, we will continue to work with disabled Londoners, and welcome the opportunity to work cross-party across the assembly to lobby the mayor to make sure City Hall is working to make our city accessible and open to everyone.”
27 February 2025
Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week
The first round of cross-party talks on social care in England have been postponed, BBC News has learned. The meeting was due to take place on Wednesday but those due to attend were emailed on Monday evening to say it was off and would be rescheduled: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg5d2jg8dr1o
Ministers and councils have failed to plan effectively for the soaring numbers of pupils needing extra support in the classroom, according to a spending watchdog. Audit Scotland found around 40 per cent of Scottish pupils are now receiving additional support for learning, most of it delivered within mainstream schools. The report calls for ministers to “fundamentally rethink” how they fund and staff provision to meet demand: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0q1wyeevvgo
An academy trust is launching an independent investigation at a Solihull school for disabled children after the BBC contacted them about allegations of “bullying by teachers”. The Heights Academy opened in September 2023, promising a “unique educational approach” tailored to pupils who are autistic or have mental health needs. But some parents have expressed concern about the school’s culture, with one accusing bosses of “mis-selling them a dream”: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyze5lky7ko
27 February 2025
News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com
