Contents

Labour minister faces questions over sister’s move to cut PIP by billions, after ombudsman’s DWP death ruling 1

RNIB has ‘washed its hands’ of braille users after ending free service, says blind campaigner 3

Motability Operations stays silent over how much high street banks benefit from disabled people’s car scheme 5

Three firms of solicitors working with disabled people on possible benefit cuts legal cases 10

Disabled people’s organisations tell Kendall benefit cuts are ‘incredibly dangerous’ and consultation is a ‘sham’ 12

Angry response from campaigners as rail minister seeks to reassure MPs about government’s access plans 14

Starmer faces disabled people’s fears as senior MPs quiz him over benefit cuts 17

MP warns prime minister his social care delays risk reform being ‘kiboshed’ at next general election 19

Tory councillors silent over death of disabled man whose PIP was stopped, as council refers case for possible review 21

Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week 23

Labour minister faces questions over sister’s move to cut PIP by billions, after ombudsman’s DWP death ruling

A Labour minister – the sister of chancellor Rachel Reeves – is facing difficult questions after an ombudsman’s ruling linked a constituent’s suicide with the flawed personal independence payment (PIP) system, just as her sister announced £4.5 billion cuts to PIP spending.

Ellie Reeves, MP for Lewisham West and East Dulwich and a Cabinet Office minister and chair of the Labour party, had referred her constituent’s case to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman in December 2021.

Late last month, the ombudsman produced its long-delayed final investigation report, and it concluded that the failings of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) in dealing with the disabled woman’s PIP claim were a “significant contributing factor” in her decision to take her own life in March 2020.

But the ombudsman’s ruling was delivered to the woman’s widower just five days after Ellie Reeves’ sister Rachel, the chancellor, had announced huge cuts to PIP spending of £4.5 billion a year by 2029-30.

Only last month, a report by Disability News Service (DNS) of the death of another PIP claimant – also linked to the review process – led to warnings of the harm to come if the government goes ahead with its planned cuts.

Those cuts will affect hundreds of thousands of disabled people just like Tracie*, Ellie Reeves’ constituent, who died in March 2020, with DWP’s own figures suggesting 250,000 working-age people will be dragged into absolute poverty.

DWP eventually decided – after Tracie’s death – that she should have been entitled to the enhanced daily living rate of PIP.

DWP accepted that she 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 the ombudsman’s report shows that even someone with Tracie’s level of support needs would not qualify for the daily living part of PIP once the chancellor’s cuts to PIP are introduced from November 2026 onwards.

This is because to qualify for PIP daily living, a claimant will need at least four points in at least one “activity”, and the most Tracie qualified for in any single activity was three points.

Disability News Service contacted Ellie Reeves on Monday morning, and asked if she thought the PIP system was safe; if she had concerns about the harm that will be caused to other disabled people if the £4.5 billion cuts to PIP go ahead; and if she would now be taking action, such as writing to DWP with any concerns.

Reeves had not responded to the questions by noon today (Thursday), although it appears she may not yet have received a copy of the ombudsman’s report.

The ombudsman found that Tracie had had significant mental ill-health, including anxiety and depression, for many years but had been “doing extremely well mentally” before DWP’s decision to review her claim.

But in the run-up to her PIP review, she told mental health staff she was anxious about the process and the outcome, and her mental health then “began to deteriorate significantly” after DWP’s incorrect decision in July 2019 to remove her eligibility for the daily living element of PIP.

DWP confirmed its original decision on 12 September 2019 after Tracie requested a mandatory reconsideration.

A tribunal hearing was postponed in February 2020 because of her ill-health, and she took her own life the following month.

*Her widower, Mustapha, has asked DNS not to use their surnames, partly to protect their son

10 April 2025

RNIB has ‘washed its hands’ of braille users after ending free service, says blind campaigner

A disabled campaigner claims the disability charity RNIB has “washed its hands” of those with the most significant levels of visual impairment, after scrapping its long-established free braille transcription service.

Connor Scott-Gardner, a blind campaigner from Leeds, has accused RNIB of hypocrisy and discrimination after it called on other services earlier this year to do more to provide information in braille, and criticised the government’s cuts to disability benefits, but then removed its own free braille service.

More than 900 people have already signed an open letter which calls on RNIB to reverse its “devastating” decision, as part of a new Save Our Braille campaign.

Blind people were previously entitled to an annual allowance of free transcription into braille, audio, or large print.

But last week, RNIB quietly announced it would now be outsourcing its braille provision, and was scrapping the free braille allowance, although provision of large print would remain free.

In his open letter, Scott-Gardner describes RNIB’s actions as “deeply harmful and discriminatory” as RNIB is now providing a free service for those with higher levels of vision who need large print, but making those who have a higher level of impairment and rely on braille pay for that service.

Only three months ago, RNIB marked World Braille Day and the 200^th anniversary of the development of the tactile reading and writing system by calling for “UK organisations, businesses and services to review and improve their provision of braille in this anniversary year”.

It has also campaigned against government cuts to disability benefits, following the publication of last month’s Pathways to Work green paper.

But it is now cutting its own braille service, which supports about 500 blind people a year, and although it will subsidise the service after it is outsourced, this will only be for “a short period of time to support the transition”.

Scott-Gardner has been passed an internal briefing document – written by the charity’s chief executive, Matt Stringer – by several RNIB staff.

Stringer tells staff in the memo that providing the service was “resource-intensive, and costly to maintain” and “very heavily reliant on volunteers”.

Scott-Gardner told the VI Talk podcast on Sunday that there were “many, many” RNIB staff who were unhappy at the charity’s decision.

And he said he had not ruled out organising a march to London to protest at the charity’s decision, which he said was taken by non-disabled people working for RNIB.

He said at leadership level there had been a “massive almost neglect of the community they should be serving”, and he called for blind people to be “trusted to lead our own community”, which would “resolve many, many of the issues we are seeing”.

He told Disability News Service: “This year, the RNIB has concentrated much of its social media output on two areas: celebrating 200 years of braille through Braille200, and speaking out against proposed cuts to disability benefits, which would disproportionately affect blind and partially-sighted people who face extra daily costs.

“It is deeply hypocritical for the organisation to publicly affirm that braille matters while simultaneously cutting the only free national transcription service available to blind people.

“You cannot claim to champion braille and then close one of the only accessible routes to obtaining it.

“At a time when disabled people are already under threat from government cuts, we need organisations like RNIB to protect the essential services that enable us to live independently and access information on equal terms.”

RNIB did not respond to his claims of hypocrisy and discrimination.

But in a statement, Stringer confirmed the changes to the braille service, which he claimed were part of the charity’s new strategy which was “designed to inspire and drive even more meaningful change for people with sight loss” and aimed to “reach more people and deliver more impact, in a sustainable way”.

He said: “We understand that these changes will be disappointing for people who have enjoyed our personal transcription service over the years.

“The new approach to the bespoke personal transcription service will offer an improved customer experience where people can email or phone our trusted provider with their specific requirements.

“We’re continuing to listen to feedback from blind and partially-sighted people and digesting the comments on the petition to ensure this transition is as seamless as possible.

“We’re taking this very seriously and considering how we can best support the provision of personal braille transcription in the future.

“We’ll continue to advocate, support and campaign for blind and partially sighted people to ensure they receive accessible information in the format they require.”

He said RNIB would continue to provide other braille services, through RNIB Bookshare, which provides educational materials and textbooks; its library collection, which has access to more than 11,000 braille books; RNIB Newsagent, which has braille versions of magazines and newspapers; and its music library, which has one of the largest collections of accessible format music for blind and partially-sighted musicians.

But Scott-Gardner said there were probably only about 20,000 people in the UK who read braille, and this group are more likely than other people with sight loss to be out of work and struggling financially.

He said that being able to call or email the new “bespoke personal transcription service” was no different to the existing service offered by RNIB.

He said: “We aren’t getting a better deal, we’re getting the same deal except now we’ll have to pay commercial prices for it.”

He said RNIB’s statement raised “serious questions about who is representing the needs of those of us who have total or near total, permanent blindness.

“It seems as though they’ve decided that impact should only be measured on the number of people who use the service, rather than the very real barriers that those with the most significant levels of visual impairment face.”

He added: “Effectively, they have washed their hands of us because we are too expensive and difficult to support.”

10 April 2025

Motability Operations stays silent over how much high street banks benefit from disabled people’s car scheme

The company that runs Motability has repeatedly refused to say how much money the four high street banks that own the business are making from the £7 billion-a-year disabled people’s vehicle leasing scheme.

Motability Operations, which is owned by Barclays, Lloyds, NatWest and HSBC, reported nearly £7 billion in revenue last year, but it has never been clear how much the four banks make from their long-standing ownership of the company.

Analysis of the company’s accounts suggests the banks receive tens of millions of pounds every year in fees, charges and interest, but Motability Operations declined to comment on that estimate this week.

Disability News Service (DNS) provided the company with four opportunities to clarify how much the four banks made from the scheme, but it had failed to do so by noon today (Thursday).

Motability Operations said the banks had allowed their dividends to be invested back into the scheme, and that they had cancelled about £10 million-worth of preference shares.

It also said that the banking services it used were subject to competitive pricing, and that the four banks were consistently the most effective at enabling access to the capital markets, while its funding and capital model had been independently reviewed.

It said the prices it paid to secure funding for the disabled people’s vehicle scheme were “commercial, arm’s-length and competitively tendered”.

A Motability Operations spokesperson said: “Like any organisation accessing capital markets for investment, we pay banking and financing fees on a competitive basis.

“These fees are not profits – there will be a cost associated with providing these services.”

The scheme – which plays a vital role in providing mobility to hundreds of thousands of disabled people across the UK – has come under increasing scrutiny from the mainstream media in recent months, particularly from right-wing newspapers that have used their articles as part of continuing attacks on the level of government spending on disability benefits.

But disabled campaigners have also raised concerns about the scheme over the years, including concerns over the size of the company’s reserves, and the level of bonuses and salaries paid to its senior executives, although these appear to have fallen significantly in recent years.

They continue to call for more to be done to reduce the advance payments many disabled people have to make to lease vehicles through the scheme, particularly wheelchair-accessible vehicles, and to increase the number of grants given to disabled customers.

Many of the scheme’s wheelchair-accessible vehicles, particularly drive-from-wheelchair vehicles, are unaffordable without such grants.

About 86 per cent of Motability’s customers lease a standard production car, but seven per cent need adaptations to their vehicle and four per cent take a wheelchair-accessible car or van, while three per cent lease a powered wheelchair or scooter.

There are also concerns about the impact of proposed government cuts to disability benefits on the scheme.

While disabled people who receive the mobility component of personal independence payment have been protected so far from the proposed cuts, Labour is planning annual cuts of £4.5 billion a year to the daily living element of personal independence payment (PIP) by 2029-30.

Motability Foundation*, the charity that oversees the operation of the scheme, told DNS this week that some disabled customers could have to return their vehicles because of the cuts so they can use their PIP mobility payment** to cover some of their daily living expenses instead.

A spokesperson for the charity said: “It is possible that some people may need to reassess how they use the enhanced rate mobility component of their PIP award and make the difficult decision to stop using the Motability scheme, therefore the number of people using the scheme could fall.” 

Motability Operations declined to comment on the impact of the PIP cuts on the scheme, other than to say that there would be no immediate changes in how the scheme works or who is eligible.

A spokesperson said: “We do not publish forecasts or analysis of potential growth.” 

Paul***, a disabled campaigner who has spent weeks examining the financial and governance structure of Motability Operations, is highly critical of the scheme and believes it has become “a financial ecosystem using disabled people as a delivery mechanism for private sector profit.

“Disabled people are not customers with choice: Motability has a monopoly on benefit-linked car leasing, and users cannot seek alternative providers.”

He said the scheme also provided almost guaranteed demand for car manufacturers, and played a “significant role” in supporting the motor industry, with reports suggesting that one in five new cars sold in the UK every year are bought by the scheme.

Motability Operations said this week that it was for the government to decide if introducing competition would allow disabled people to continue to access the vehicle options that are currently open to them through the scheme.

But advance payments are continuing to rise, with wheelchair-users having to pay at least £4,000 to lease a vehicle, in addition to their monthly PIP mobility payments.

Paul said this has put a financial strain on many disabled people.

Motability Operations said it spent £85 million last year subsidising the price of wheelchair-accessible vehicles (WAVs), which are more expensive than standard vehicles, while the charity spent more than £27 million in grants to WAV customers.

Motability Foundation said rising motoring costs, inflation and changes in the car market had meant some advance payments had risen, particularly for the more expensive vehicles, although Motability Operations said the payments had not increased by as much as competitors.

Paul also highlighted the continuing increase in the level of Motability Operations’ capital reserves, which are now at £4 billion, and are held through ownership of nearly a third of its £14 billion fleet of vehicles.

Motability Operations said this level of reserves allows it to obtain different sources of funding, manage its risks – such as falls in the value of used cars – and reduce borrowing to fund the vehicles on the scheme, and are “essential to keeping the scheme stable, affordable, and open to more people”.

Seven years ago, when the company was at the centre of a political storm over its management and levels of executive pay, Motability Operations was criticised by the National Audit Office for holding £2.62 billion in reserves.

NAO called for it then to “hold a lower level of reserves and increase the level of funds available to distribute to the charity”.

Motability Operations said this week that the number of people accessing the scheme had increased by more than 30 per cent since 2018, and that its reserves were “independently set”.

But the level of reserves has increased by more than 50 per cent since 2018, much higher than the increase in customers.

The company said the risk associated with fluctuating used car prices had “increased significantly since 2018, particularly following the pandemic, supply chain issues and the transition to electric vehicles.

“We reported a £564.6 million loss in our 2024 annual report, in part due to changes in the residual values of vehicles on the scheme.”

Motability Foundation said any profits from the company are re-invested back into the scheme, or donated to the charity, which provides grants to individuals who need help to access the scheme, as well as funding research, innovation and grants to other charities.

Motability Foundation’s own level of general reserves – separate from an endowment set up in 2019-20 – were reported as £430 million 12 months ago, which was about four times the level of grants it hands out every year.

Its key source of income for its grants is from Motability Operation’s profits, but because of its loss last year the company did not make a donation in 2024, while the charity says further donations in the “near future” are “unlikely”.

A Motability Foundation spokesperson said: “We have sufficient funds to cover the next five years at current spend levels, which includes using investment income generated by the endowment during that time.

“Beyond 2030, if we do not receive a donation from Motability Operations we would need to reduce grant-making and use the money invested in the endowment to fund grants, reducing future income and potentially damaging future sustainability of the Foundation’s work.”

Motability Foundation said the size of the scheme, “alongside the universal access it affords, ensures that we are able to secure discounts from manufacturers to make the scheme as affordable as possible, whilst also supporting customers with more extensive needs through cross-subsidy”.

A Motability Operations spokesperson said: “The Motability scheme gives 815,000 disabled people the freedom to get to work, school, and medical appointments – helping them live independently and play an active role in society.

“We’re committed to ensuring the sustainability of the scheme during this period of change.

“Our business model is set up to ensure that our operations can adjust to any changes in demand and that we continue to keep people connected now and in the long term.”

Among critics of the scheme is Ian Jones, a Motability customer and co-founder of the WOWpetition, although speaking in a personal capacity.

He called on Motability Foundation to do more to support disabled people in the lead-up to the cuts in PIP, even though they will not affect the mobility component.

Jones said he believed that both Motability Operations and Motability Foundation should be doing more to make the scheme affordable.

And he said he had serious concerns about the transparency of Motability Operations, and that it was “worrying” that it was refusing to release information showing how much the banks were making from the scheme.

He said: “Disabled people feel like they’re being attacked and scapegoated again by the government, so I would expect the charity to be talking about how they will help people keep their cars.

“This is being portrayed by the government as a short-term financial crisis.

“If that is correct, why shouldn’t Motability Foundation and Motability Operations use these substantial reserves to help the people they are supposed to help?”

Paul fears that public funds meant to uphold disabled people’s rights are instead being “channelled into a closed system of financial accumulation — with no transparency, no competition, and no public control”.

He said: “The scheme has evolved away from its original purpose of directly supporting disabled people’s mobility needs.

“It now operates as a complex financial structure in which the role of disabled people is primarily as the mechanism through which public funds are channelled to private sector beneficiaries.”

*Motability Foundation is a Disability News Service subscriber

**Only those receiving the enhanced rate of PIP mobility, and other mobility benefits, can lease a vehicle through the scheme

***Not his real name

10 April 2025

Three firms of solicitors working with disabled people on possible benefit cuts legal cases

At least three legal firms are examining ways in which they could support disabled people and their organisations to challenge some of the government’s proposed cuts to disability benefits in the courts.

Public Law Project (PLP), Leigh Day and Bhatt Murphy – all of which have previously supported disabled people’s organisations (DPOs) to challenge the government – are examining the possibility of taking legal action.

The discussions follow last month’s Pathways to Work green paper, and the subsequent spring statement, which have proposed billions of cuts to disabled people’s support, particularly through £4.5 billion a year cuts to personal independence payment, and billions more from disabled people’s out-of-work benefits.

Some of these measures will now be consulted on, including plans to delay access to the health element of universal credit until a claimant has reached the age of 22, deciding which disabled people should be exempt from universal credit work-related requirements, and delaying the move from disability living allowance to PIP until the age of 18 (from 16 at present).

But other measures, including the £4.5 billion cuts to PIP, and cuts to the health element of universal credit, will not be consulted on – which will make it harder to challenge them in the courts – and will instead be included in a bill to be debated in parliament in the coming weeks.

Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) has been in discussions with PLP, the legal firm which acted for disabled activist and author Ellen Clifford in a groundbreaking high court victory that saw the last Conservative government’s consultation on plans to make “substantial” cuts to out-of-work disability benefits declared unlawful.

Linda Burnip, DPAC’s co-founder, said she was “certain” that there will be a legal challenge to the consultation, “given how dire the green paper’s layout is and the fact that accessible formats have only just become available”.

But she said there could also be a human rights challenge to any legislation that is taken through parliament, which could put pressure on the government to amend it.

Georgia Bondy, DPO Forum England’s secretariat – which is funded by Disability Rights UK – said the forum was “exploring a legal challenge to stop the incredibly harmful legislation proposed in the green paper.

“Labour failed to meaningfully engage with disabled people when putting together the green paper, despite the DPO forum’s continual attempts to facilitate co-production, starting from before they were elected.

“They continue to fail to engage meaningfully with disabled people, given that half the points in the proposed legislation are not part of the consultation.

“In no way does this represent Labour’s own commitment 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’.

“Prior to the publication of the green paper, the DPO forum made it clear to the disability minister that no cuts to disability benefits would be in line with supporting disabled people to have a minimum quality of life. This has been ignored.

“We will fight the proposed cuts every way we can.”

Leigh Day solicitor Carolin Ott said: “We have been approached by both affected people and organisations that support affected individuals and… they have all expressed serious concerns.

“They are very concerned by the scale and depth of the cuts proposed, particularly the changes to PIP which will inevitably impact the most vulnerable in society.

“We will be looking very carefully as the details are unveiled and considering whether legal action can be pursued.”

Jessie Brennan, from Bhatt Murphy Solicitors, said: “We are exploring all available legal avenues, having been approached about a number of significant concerns arising from the changes announced by the government that have left many feeling scared and anxious at the impact these cuts will have.”

And Aoife O’Reilly, from PLP, said: “We are disappointed that the government has opted not to consult on key welfare benefit cuts set out in the green paper.

“The government says that many of these proposals will be implemented via primary legislation.

“Parliamentarians must therefore ensure that they properly scrutinise the details of any draft bill, and we consider that MPs would be in a much better position to do this if they had the benefit of the output of a comprehensive consultation process, which sought views of those Deaf and disabled people who will be directly impacted.

“We also call on the government to be transparent about the labour market impacts, given that its stated motive for many of these reforms is the fact that it will lead to more people entering the labour market and not being reliant on benefits.”

The 12-week consultation on the green paper was officially launched this week, after DWP finally published accessible versions of the document, in British Sign Language, large print, audio, and easy read, as well as Welsh and large print Welsh versions.

Accessible versions of the green paper’s equality analysis and impact assessment have yet to be published.

Physical copies of the consultation can be ordered, including in braille, large print, audio and easy read.

The consultation applies to England, Scotland and Wales, although not all the proposals apply to Scotland and Wales.

DWP has also announced the dates and locations for nine in-person consultation events across England, Scotland and Wales in April, May and June, and six virtual events in May and June.

Meanwhile, the government has published a call for evidence of pay discrimination on the basis of race and disability, enforcement of the public sector equality duty, and other areas of equality policy, ahead of the publication of its draft equality (race and disability) bill.

10 April 2025

Disabled people’s organisations tell Kendall benefit cuts are ‘incredibly dangerous’ and consultation is a ‘sham’

Leading disabled people’s organisations (DPO) have written to work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall to express “serious concerns” about the human rights implications of her “incredibly dangerous” plans to cut spending on disability benefits.

They say in the letter that her consultation on the Pathways to Work green paper, launched officially this week after the long-awaited publication of accessible versions of the document, is a “sham”.

And they have called on her to withdraw the consultation, postpone imminent legislation – due within weeks – until all the proposed measures can be subjected to proper and accessible consultation, and provide accessible versions of all documents relating to the proposals.

The letter comes as the social security and disability minister, Sir Stephen Timms, told a Labour MP yesterday (Wednesday) that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is carrying out research into the disability-related needs of disabled people who receive personal independence payment (PIP).

But the research is not expected to “produce findings” until the autumn, months after a new bill that will allow the government to cut PIP spending by £4.5 billion a year is set to be introduced to parliament.

Labour’s Neil Duncan-Jordan, who has won praise for asking multiple questions of work and pensions ministers about the impact of their reforms, had asked what assessment Kendall had made in the green paper of the adequacy of sickness and disability benefits.

Sir Stephen told him: “DWP pays close attention to estimates of the extra costs faced by disabled people; including academic research, analysis by Scope, and DWP’s own commissioned research on the Uses of Health and Disability Benefits from 2019.

“In order to improve the evidence in this area, DWP is now undertaking a new survey of Personal Independence Payment customers to understand more about their disability related needs.

“It is expected to produce findings in Autumn 2025.”

This week’s letter, drafted by DPO Forum England, has been signed by 21 DPOs – including Disability Rights UK, Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People, Manchester Disabled People Against Cuts and Spectrum – and Amnesty International.

They argue that the green paper contains 22 policy proposals – which will force more than 400,000 people into poverty – but that DWP is only consulting on 11 of them.

The most harmful proposals are being introduced instead in the new government bill, without any consultation.

This bill will include measures to scrap the work capability assessment (WCA); create a single assessment for personal independence payment (PIP) and the universal credit health element; freeze the value of the health element of universal credit until 2029-30, with new claimants seeing their weekly premium almost halved to £50 in 2026-27; introduce “harsh” changes to the PIP daily living assessment criteria from November 2026; and restart WCA reassessments until the WCA is eventually scrapped.

These changes, the letter says, will cut the number of people receiving the PIP daily living component by 1.5 million, with an average loss of almost £4,500 a year; while 2.25 million recipients of the universal credit health element will lose £500 per year; and 730,000 future recipients of the health element will lose an average of £3,000 per year.

The DPOs say in the letter that the way the measures have been introduced “completely undermines Disabled people’s rights to participate in decisions affecting our lives, with the government likely to swiftly bring a bill to the house, with the whipping process for MPs removing Disabled people’s right to engage their local representatives”.

They said there were “striking similarities” to Ellen Clifford’s high court victory in January, which saw the court find that a consultation on a set of cuts proposed by the last government was unlawful.

The letter also criticises the delayed publication of accessible versions of the green paper, which were only made available this week, nearly three weeks after the green paper was published.

It says that disabled people with accessible information needs, who are “highly likely to be disproportionately impacted” by the proposals, have so far been “excluded from public debate and left with fears about their future”.

The DPOs also point out that there are still no accessible versions of the green paper’s equality analysis and impact assessment.

And they say the government has published its green paper without a “comprehensive” assessment of its equality and human rights impacts.

Meanwhile, in response to a written question from Labour MP Richard Burgon, the minister for social security and disability has suggested that disabled people who lose their PIP daily living eligibility could manage their needs “with small interventions or the addition of aids or appliances”.

The suggestion by Sir Stephen Timms caused anger on social media, with one disabled campaigner calling it “disgraceful”.

Burgon had asked ministers why it was their policy that people should no longer be eligible for the PIP daily living component if they still needed support with activities such as getting out of a bath, washing their hair, and cutting up their food.

Sir Stephen replied: “A high number of people get PIP by having multiple but low-level functional needs across several activities.

“These could individually be managed with small interventions or the addition of aids or appliances.

“This change will focus PIP more on those with the greatest needs, ensuring those who are unable to complete activities at all, or who require more help from others to complete them, still get support.

“Through the Green Paper we are consulting on how best to support those who may lose any entitlement because of this change.”

10 April 2025

Angry response from campaigners as rail minister seeks to reassure MPs about government’s access plans

Disabled activists have delivered an angry and dismissive response to a government minister who has tried to justify dropping plans to put accessibility at the heart of rail reforms from a critically-important public consultation.

In a letter to the Commons transport committee, Lord [Peter] Hendy appeared to dismiss evidenced concerns about the consultation that had been raised by accessible transport campaigners.

In February, the Association of British Commuters (ABC) spotted that a consultation on the government’s plans for rail reform failed to include any mention of a statutory accessibility duty or an environment duty.

And they realised it had dropped a key commitment that the introduction of Great British Railways (GBR) – which will eventually run both Britain’s rail infrastructure and its passenger services – would “maximise social and economic value”.

The Department for Transport also allowed only eight weeks for responses to the consultation, which closes on Tuesday (15 April).

But in his letter to the transport committee, Lord Hendy claimed the government was not “downgrading” its commitment to accessibility and the environment, and that it was “consulting openly on the new regulatory framework” and that the consultation document was “clear that accessibility will be central to GBR”.

He added: “Given the need to strike the right balance between getting the views of interested stakeholders and delivering improvements at pace, we feel that eight weeks is the appropriate length of time for this consultation.”

Emily Sullivan (née Yates), a disabled researcher in equality and human rights, and ABC’s co-founder, described the letter as “manipulative” and evasive.

She said it avoids any mention of the “all-important” socio-economic duty, which would have made public interest values the “primary factor” in decision-making by GBR and the Office of Rail and Road regulator.

This, she said, would have been the “best legislative route possible to both rights-based regulation and national investment plans for full infrastructure accessibility”.

She emphasised the difference between including the public interest duties in primary legislation, and the “only tangible commitment” now mentioned in Lord Hendy’s letter – that the details of the GBR license will eventually be subject to a separate consultation.

She said: “These commitments were supposed to be at the level of primary legislation.

“But this letter says that any such requirements will now drop down to the level of the GBR license. That’s leagues below what was originally promised.”

Sullivan said she and other campaigners now expect the government to “rush through the draft bill straight after this consultation”, which would mean “downgrading of accessibility in the best-case scenario, and deregulation and removal of duties in the worst”.

She said: “It needs to be said as loudly as possible: the government has pre-decided on a deregulated model of GBR and in removing all other options from the consultation has already manipulated the end result.”

Accessible transport activist Sam Jennings, who runs the campaigning website Disabled By the Railway, said the Department for Transport (DfT) appeared to have “returned to its obsession with deregulation”.

She said the duties must be “settled as essential core rights at the centre of the new railway model” through primary legislation and “not some deferred promise”.

She said: “We can’t let them start the GBR legislative process without these duties being consulted on – this is now a huge danger.

“I am also appalled to see Peter Hendy apparently controlling the GBR process, an unelected and unaccountable former Network Rail chair parachuted in as rail minister.

“Where was the actual transport secretary Heidi Alexander when disabled people were getting sold out by this consultation?

“Continuing in this way also means the government is brazenly ignoring the recent intervention of the transport select committee – the ‘Access Denied’ report.

“If we let them get away with stripping down GBR in this way, we can say goodbye to putting the right to ‘turn up and go’ at the centre of law and regulation.”

Doug Paulley, another influential accessible transport campaigner, said Lord Hendy’s “assurances are not a replacement for firm written commitments to accessibility set out in writing.

“His claim about the consultation being shortened to eight weeks for alacrity in achieving the change is ridiculous, given how long it has and is taking.

“As long as he has responsibility for the transition, accessibility will never be a genuine priority.”

Andrew Hodgson, an executive council member of National Federation of the Blind of the UK, said his organisation was “appalled to see such a complex consultation limited to just eight weeks” at a time when primary legislation is “being sped through for both rail and buses”.

He said: “The truth is the DfT is just not interested in our views, which is why all accessibility questions were cut out of this consultation in the first place.

“The lack of public interest questions and focus on a deregulated model shows they want GBR to go forward without such duties laid down in law.

“In other words, they are saying ‘trust us, we know better than you’, but how can we possibly trust them seeing the onslaught against disabled people in all areas of policy right now?

“This response to the transport committee will be a real test to see how much the committee is willing to challenge the government on its excuses.

“We hope the committee writes back to Lord Hendy explaining his justifications are not acceptable and demanding that all passenger and access issues be consulted on properly before the draft legislation.

“Otherwise, Great British Railways cannot be considered fit for purpose.

“It is imperative that outreach events are organised online and in person so disabled people get the opportunity to properly understand, question and feedback on this consultation.

“If that means starting it again, then so be it.”

Paula Peters, a member of the national steering group of Disabled People Against Cuts, also said an eight-week consultation was “not acceptable”.

She said it showed “blatant disregard and contempt for disabled people” at a time when “ticket office opening times on various rail networks are being reduced, impacting on disabled people’s access needs and right to travel and taking away disabled people’s right to turn up and go”.

10 April 2025

Starmer faces disabled people’s fears as senior MPs quiz him over benefit cuts

The prime minister has been forced to face the fears of disabled people who are unable to work and have been left feeling “full of panic” and “physically sick” at the thought of benefit cuts that could leave future claimants £3,000 a year worse off.

Sir Keir Starmer was appearing in front of the Commons liaison committee* on Tuesday when Labour’s Sarah Owen told him about some of the emails she had received from disabled people since the Pathways to Work green paper was published last month.

She highlighted that potentially 730,000 future members of the universal credit limited capability for work-related activity group could be £3,000 a year worse off under the plans.

She told the prime minister of three disabled people who had contacted her.

One said: “I am beyond stressed with anticipation of losing money. I have £700 to live on this month.”

Another told Owen: “The proposed cuts to disability benefits have left me feeling full of panic about the future and extremely let down.”

And a third disabled person said: “I feel so sick, physically sick. The whole process is horrid. Please represent me.”

Owen, who chairs the Commons women and equalities committee, asked Sir Keir what he would say to these three disabled people.

But although the prime minister said the question of “how people feel and values is really important”, he then defended the policy without expressing any empathy for the fears the three disabled people had expressed.

He said the “guiding principles” of the reforms were “really important, which is those people that do need support and protection should get support and protection, [and] those that want to bridge into work should be supported by the government to bridge into work” and that “those that can work should work”.

He added later that the government would stop reassessing those disabled people who will never be able to work “because certainly that’s something I’ve picked up as a constant cause of anxiety”.

Although the Pathways to Work green paper did announce a new “additional premium” for “those with the most severe, life-long health conditions, who have no prospect of improvement and will never be able to work”, there is no suggestion yet of how many will qualify for that group and how much the premium will be.

Owen also suggested that it would have made more sense for the government to address issues such as “medical misogyny” and the crisis in women’s health – including conditions such as heavy periods, painful periods, endometriosis, fibroids and ovarian cysts – which costs the UK economy nearly £11 billion every year, before cutting disability benefits.

She said it currently takes an average of eight to 10 years for an endometriosis diagnosis, which is “eight to 10 years that a woman is potentially out of the workplace”.

She said: “If we are looking at effective ways to get people into work, perhaps there are other areas that we should be exploring as well.”

Sir Keir said he agreed that the delays were “completely unacceptable” and that this was one of the areas “the health service needs to be better set up to deal with”.

Labour’s Debbie Abrahams, chair of the work and pensions committee, asked the prime minister how the government would avoid causing similar increases in mental ill-health and disability poverty to those caused by the 2017 reforms introduced by the Conservative government.

Those cuts saw new claimants of employment and support allowance placed in the work-related activity group having their support cut by nearly £30 a week.

In his response, Sir Keir did not mention the risks to mental health or increased disability poverty, but instead he told Abrahams that he believed the government’s measures “could make a huge difference”, including the right to try work without a disabled person needing a reassessment if that was not successful and they needed to restart their universal credit claim.

Abrahams also asked the prime minister if he would promise not to implement measures set to be introduced in the government’s planned legislation until there had been a proper assessment of their impact on those affected, because “otherwise, potentially, we will have policy that won’t work and could actually do harm”.

The bill, set to be introduced to parliament in the coming weeks, will include measures that will cut spending on personal independence payment (PIP) by £4.5 billion a year by 2029-30, and reduce the health element of universal credit.

The rate of the health element will be cut from £97 per week in 2024-25 to £50 per week in 2026-27 for new claimants, while it will be frozen for existing claimants until 2029-30.

But Sir Keir told her: “We need an evidence base, but we also need to get on with the work that we need to get on to.

“So I’m not going to make commitments in relation to timetabling, but I absolutely take the point you put to me.”

*The liaison committee is made up of the chairs of Commons committees and usually questions the prime minister three times a year

10 April 2025

MP warns prime minister his social care delays risk reform being ‘kiboshed’ at next general election

The prime minister has been warned by a senior MP that his decision to delay reform of adult social care in England risks Labour’s plans being “kiboshed” at the next general election.

Sir Keir Starmer was appearing in front of the Commons liaison committee* on Tuesday when he was questioned about the delay by Layla Moran, the Liberal Democrat chair of the Commons health and social care committee.

Disabled campaigners reacted with despair and exasperation in January when the government announced it was setting up a commission to examine the future of social care, under former civil servant Baroness [Louise] Casey.

Although the first phase of the new commission will report next year, the second phase, with recommendations for longer-term reform, will not be completed until 2028.

Moran told Sir Keir: “When we’ve had social care reforms be kiboshed in the past, it has been during election campaigns.

“Surely the way to solve this would be to get this done and dusted during this parliament, not kick it into the long grass so that it can then be kiboshed at the next election?”

The prime minister said he understood her frustration at previous delays but the government needed to “take time to get it right” and ensure there was cross-party support for its plans.

He said it had already taken some initial steps, including a fair pay agreement for adult social care workers and measures to support carers.

And he confirmed that the government planned to take further steps after Baroness Casey published her first report next year.

He told the committee that the government had announced £3.7 billion additional funding for local authorities with social care responsibilities in 2025-26, including an £880 million increase in the social care grant.

But Moran told him that that £880 million would be swallowed up by the need for care providers to meet the increases in national insurance, announced at last year’s budget, so the extra funding “isn’t actually going to deliver anything new, it’s just going to pay you”.

She said: “The issue here is that we’re trying to shift a dial and the money that you are talking about is always welcome, but it’s barely shifting that dial.

“Do you recognize that there is a cost to not reforming the system as well, both in human costs, but also to getting people in work and keeping them in work?”

Sir Keir replied: “Yes. That’s why I want to reform the system.”

But Moran said the government had “barely looked at” the adult social care crisis from that perspective, which her committee is examining through an inquiry on the “cost of inaction” on adult social care reform.

She said: “So perhaps an undertaking from you to look at it through that lens would help the Treasury to see what you and I clearly both see, which is that social care is worth investing in.”

The prime minister replied: “I’ve always approached this on the basis that the health service and social care are important for physical and mental health and the support people need throughout their lives, but they’re also hugely important to the economy.”

*The liaison committee is made up of the chairs of Commons committees and usually questions the prime minister three times a year

10 April 2025

Tory councillors silent over death of disabled man whose PIP was stopped, as council refers case for possible review

Conservative councillors responsible for housing, social care, public health and safeguarding have all refused to comment on the death of a disabled man who was found dead in distressing conditions after the wrongful removal of his disability benefits.

David*, from Salisbury, was found dead in his home in Salisbury in February, just weeks after his personal independence payment (PIP) had been stopped when he failed to return a review form.

David, who lived on the ground floor of a two-storey council house, had left a handwritten note describing his deteriorating health and state of desperation, and how he had fallen over eight times since the start of the year.

It is believed he may have been left without enough credit on his mobile phone to call for help, and that he had not had enough money to fix his broken mobility scooter, after his PIP was removed in January.

David’s sister Susan* believes her brother was too ill to return his PIP review form, and that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) may have failed to make the necessary safeguarding checks before removing his PIP.

But she also believes Wiltshire Council must have known that her brother was living in vulnerable circumstances.

Although the council has refused to comment on the circumstances of David’s death, it has referred his case for a possible multi-agency safeguarding review.

The council initially declined to take any action, until Disability News Service (DNS) pointed out that Susan had twice phoned social services with concerns about her brother and was told they would not investigate his needs because he had to request support himself.

Susan also said David had lived in a council house for 20 years, that the council should have been aware of his status as a PIP claimant, and that it had installed hand railings in his bathroom after he had fallen several times.

She believes the council was aware of his status as a “vulnerable adult” and may have failed in its duty of care after his PIP was stopped.

DNS also told the council of concerns over the local actions of DWP and the NHS.

And it passed on the concerns raised by Debbie Abrahams, chair of the Commons work and pensions committee, who described David’s story last week as “a harrowing account of the social security system at its most inhumane”.

Abrahams had questioned why his PIP was removed, what help DWP had provided with his review, and whether the department had flagged him as a vulnerable claimant.

After being passed this information, Wiltshire Council agreed to refer David’s death to Wiltshire Safeguarding Vulnerable People Partnership (SVPP) for a possible multi-agency safeguarding adult review.

Under the Care Act, the partnership must carry out a safeguarding review “when an adult in its area dies as a result of abuse or neglect, whether known or suspected, and there is concern that partner agencies could have worked more effectively to protect the adult”.

Caroline Collier, from Inclusion Barnet’s Campaign for Disability Justice, which played a key role in exposing the tragedy, said: “I am pleased to hear that the Wiltshire Safeguarding Vulnerable People Partnership are considering a safeguarding adults review, and very much hope that this goes ahead.

“It’s vital that lessons are learned from David’s untimely and tragic death, and the terrible circumstances in which he died.

“I hope the authorities in Wiltshire will appreciate that there is a huge public interest in a proper understanding of this case, and that, as a society, we all have a stake in ensuring that such deaths are prevented in the future.”

The council declined to comment this week on why it had referred David’s death for a possible review.

A council spokesperson said: “We’ve made a referral and it will be a partnership decision regarding next steps.”

Emma Legg, the council’s corporate director of care and wellbeing, had said earlier: “Our thoughts are with the family of [David] and we send our condolences at this time.

“We are not able to comment on individual cases, however as a member of the safeguarding adults board (SVPP) we would always fully participate in any multi-agency safeguarding adult review process.”

Following the council’s refusal to comment on the case, and the serious safeguarding concerns, DNS asked for comments from the council’s leader, Richard Clewer; Phil Alford, its cabinet member for housing; Ian Blair-Pilling, its cabinet member for public health; Jane Davies, its cabinet member for adult social care; and Peter Hutton, its portfolio holder for safeguarding.

None of them had responded to DNS by noon today (Thursday).

All of them – except Hutton – are seeking re-election in the local elections on 1 May.

Salisbury’s Conservative MP, John Glen, refused to comment this week on the death of his constituent.

He refused to say if he was concerned about the circumstances of David’s death; refused to promise to contact DWP to seek reassurance over those circumstances; refused to support calls for a safeguarding review; and refused to comment on whether David’s death provided a warning of what could happen if the Labour government pushed ahead with plans for billions of pounds of cuts to PIP.

Instead, a spokesperson for Glen said it was “not something we have had prior awareness of, so John does not feel it is appropriate to give a speculative comment without having direct knowledge of the full circumstances”.

His office made no request to be put in touch with the family to obtain that information.

10 April 2025

Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week

The next Commons debate on the assisted suicide bill has been postponed to allow MPs more time to consider their positions, following controversy over amendments. Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP who introduced the bill, has sent letters to all 650 MPs saying the next debate will now take place on 16 May, instead of 25 April: https://news.sky.com/story/assisted-dying-debate-delayed-after-controversy-over-bill-amendments-13344574

Members of the Welsh Senedd are to get a vote over whether controversial Westminster legislation to legalise assisted suicide should apply to Wales. Senedd members will have to decide whether to give consent for Labour MP Kim Leadbeater’s legislation to apply in Wales, should it be agreed by the UK parliament: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy00n7w80po

Disabled people and their families have told ITV News that they fear lives are being put at risk by one of the UK’s largest private care companies. An ITV News investigation has found allegations of neglect across multiple residential and supported living homes run by Lifeways, the UK’s biggest provider of complex care in the community for people with learning difficulties: https://www.itv.com/news/2025-04-08/its-a-life-or-death-situation-new-allegations-of-neglect-at-care-company

Hundreds of thousands of seriously ill and disabled people will become “invisible” and cut adrift from local support services as a result of the government’s programme of disability benefit cuts, experts have warned. Claimants who do not qualify for personal independence payment or incapacity benefits would lose a “marker of need” with local councils and NHS bodies, making it “nearly impossible” for them to access help, said a consultancy: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/apr/08/ill-disabled-people-uk-benefit-cuts-policy-in-practice

A disabled man says he was kicked off an easyJet flight at Manchester Airport as he couldn’t walk to the toilet: https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/manchester-airport-easyjet-flight-man-31374208

10 April 2025

News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com

Related Posts

Reclaim the Power Summer Camp- August 16th-21st -moved to Balcombe, Sussex

August 13, 2013

DPAC who2vote4 & upcoming DPAC Revenge Tour

January 1, 2015

Exhibition: Rights Cuts Action – creativity of disabled resistance

September 12, 2025