Contents
Liz Kendall stops herself just in time from lying about PIP cuts, as she argues with disabled MP 1
New analysis shows disabled people’s strongest allies among MPs 4
Badenoch silence after ‘ticking time bomb’ claim is exposed as a lie by official figures 14
Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week 16
Liz Kendall stops herself just in time from lying about PIP cuts, as she argues with disabled MP
Work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall was on the verge of lying to MPs yesterday as she argued with a disabled MP about misleading comments she made in parliament on disability benefit cuts.
Steve Darling, the Liberal Democrat work and pensions spokesperson, had asked Kendall (watch from 9.43am) why she had repeatedly suggested to MPs in parliament that personal independence payment (PIP) was a work-related benefit.
But Kendall told the Commons work and pensions committee yesterday (Wednesday) that she had never done that.
Darling interrupted her and said: “You said it in the chamber.”
Two months ago, Disability News Service reported how Kendall had refused to apologise after repeatedly misleading MPs by suggesting that her planned cuts of billions of pounds to PIP – cuts that were later withdrawn – were linked to supporting disabled people into work.
On four occasions in just 23 minutes during work and pensions questions in the Commons in May, Kendall had replied to questions about her plans to cut spending on PIP by speaking about Labour’s plans for disability employment.
On one occasion, she was asked about the potentially devastating PIP cuts and told MPs: “We want to improve people’s chances and choices by supporting those who can work to do so and by protecting those who cannot.”
She then replied to three further questions about PIP in a similar way.
But yesterday she came within a moment of lying to committee members about those misleading comments.
Darling had told her she had promised last November, in an earlier evidence session with the committee, that there would be “genuine engagement” over her disability benefit reforms and that she would not be “led by cuts”.
But she then published the Pathways to Work green paper in March which he said would have introduced the “highest level of cuts in the last 10 years”.
He asked her what happened between November and March that led to an “abandonment of those core principles that you had in November? What went wrong?”
Kendall insisted she had “never started with pound signs or spreadsheets, I’ve always started with what I believe can help people with long-term health conditions and disabled people build a better life for themselves.
“Our reforms are based on helping those who can work to do so, instead of writing them off and then denying them any support.”
But Darling interrupted her and told her that PIP was “not to do with work”.
He added: “All throughout this narrative, it’s been suggested that PIP is an out-of-work benefit, when it’s not.”
Kendall replied: “I’ve never suggested that.”
Darling said: “I think you’ve given that impression, when responding to colleagues and myself in the chamber.”
Kendall replied: “I have never given that…” but then suddenly halted her denial, before saying: “Well, I have never believed it, because it’s not true, and that is not the argument I made.
“The argument I did make was that this absolutely crucial benefit is sustainable for the future, and that a doubling of the number of people on PIP over the last decade, if that were to continue into the future, that my real concern, is that the benefit, which is absolutely vital for people, won’t continue in future.
“Where we’ve ended up I think is a good position, where we will make sure that we work with disabled people, the organisations that represent them, to take a really good, long-term look at this benefit, to make sure that it really is there for those who need it.”
She said the terms of reference for the PIP review being carried out by Sir Stephen Timms, the minister for social security and disability, take account of “the big changes that we’ve seen in disability, in society, in the world of work, since PIP came into place over a decade ago”.
Darling then asked her why she had chosen not to consult on the cuts to PIP that were announced in March’s Pathways to Work green paper.
She replied that ministers were instead “consulting with parliament” on the cuts as they were included in the universal credit and personal independence payment bill, and she said consultation was taking place on other parts of the green paper, including measures on employment support.
But Darling said: “But on PIP, you didn’t consult, is that right? There was no consultation on the cuts to PIP.”
Kendall said: “Well, there was with parliament, and parliament took a different view.”
Darling replied: “But you said in November that you wanted to consult with disabled people and then it comes to the biggest cuts in a decade…”
Interrupting Darling, Kendall said they were consulting on other aspects of the green paper.
He asked her again why she chose not to consult on the PIP cuts, and she said they had taken those measures through parliament.
When he then asked her: “Why did you ignore disabled people, please?” she said: “Well, I have answered that question, you may not like the answer, but the answer is because we were consulting with parliament, parliament took a different view.”
Darling replied: “That’s not disabled people, why did you ignore disabled people?”
Kendall told him: “We are not ignoring disabled people, they will be at the heart of the Timms review.”
He tried one final time: “You ignored them in March, can you explain why?”
She said that, in the days after publication of the green paper, she and Sir Stephen had “roundtables with disabled people and the organisations that represent them, so we will just have to agree to disagree on this.
“I do not believe that we have failed to consult disabled people on the Pathways to Work green paper, and going forward we are going to be co-producing the review of PIP in the longer term.”
Meanwhile, the work and pensions committee has launched a new inquiry into employment support for disabled people.
The committee’s chair, Labour MP Debbie Abrahams, said yesterday: “The statistics show us that disabled people face higher barriers to getting into work, and they are more likely to fall out of work. There are also considerable differences across the country.
“This is a worrying trend given the impact it could have on people living in poverty and their health and wellbeing.
“The government has made getting more people into work a core policy focus, and has promised more funding for employment support for those affected by recent benefit changes.
“Its promise of more funding for employment support is an important opportunity to improve the prospects of disabled people, which the government must seize.
“We want to understand the root causes of the persistent disability employment gap and a way to hear ideas for making the routes into work smoother.”
She added: “We’re looking for help from the academic community, employment support providers, advocate groups and people with lived experience to submit evidence so that we can make reasoned recommendations to the government to help improve job prospects for disabled people.”
To submit evidence, visit the inquiry’s evidence submission page by 4pm on 29 September.
17 July 2025
New analysis shows disabled people’s strongest allies among MPs
New analysis shows a pool of just 28 MPs who have shown themselves to be the strongest allies to disabled people when voting on crucial disability rights legislation in the last month.
The group of 28 allies includes three Labour MPs – Brian Leishman, Chris Hinchliff and Rachael Maskell – who were yesterday (Wednesday) suspended by the Labour party for campaigning and voting against cuts to disability benefits.
Two others from the group of allies – Dr Rosena Allin Khan and Bell Ribeiro-Addy – were stripped of their trade envoy roles.
To compile the list, Disability News Service (DNS) has examined the voting records of MPs on the assisted dying bill and the universal credit and personal independence payment bill.
The disabled people’s movement has been strongly united in opposing both the private members’ bill that will legalise assisted suicide, and the government bill that was originally set to cut billions of pounds a year from both personal independence payment (PIP) and universal credit (UC) but will now cut billions only from the health element of UC.
The analysis shows just a small core of 21 Labour MPs on the left of the party, as well as one Plaid Cymru MP, and six Independent MPs, who voted to protect disabled people’s rights to the maximum extent possible across four Commons votes on 20 June, 1 July and 9 July.
DNS checked whether MPs voted against the terminally ill adults (end of life) bill at its third reading on 20 June; voted against the universal credit and personal independence payment bill at its second reading on 1 July; voted against a Conservative amendment to the bill on 9 July that called for harsher cuts for those with “less severe mental health conditions” and to remove entitlement for disability benefits from “foreign nationals”; and voted against the cuts bill at its third reading on 9 July.
The list of Labour allies who opposed all four includes three disabled MPs: Marsha de Cordova, Emma Lewell, and Marie Rimmer.
A handful of other MPs – including disabled Liberal Democrat MP Steve Darling, Independent MP Jeremy Corbyn, and Alliance MP Sorcha Eastwood – did not quite make it onto the list of allies because they voted against the assisted dying bill and against the government’s cuts to disability benefits but abstained on the Conservative cuts amendment, rather than voting against it.
The list of allies may make it easier for disabled activists and lobbyists to know which MPs are likely to be open to further approaches around disability rights in the coming months.
Linda Burnip, co-founder of Disabled People Against Cuts, said: “It’s shocking how few MPs are on this list and we are grateful to those who have supported disabled people in the last month, but hugely disappointed in those that haven’t.”
Among those not on the list, she particularly highlighted former Labour shadow ministers for disabled people Vicky Foxcroft and Debbie Abrahams, who she said “know only too well what problems we face” but failed to vote against the government on the cuts bill.
Lindsey Ni Aodha, a key organiser with Crips Against Cuts, said: “Disabled people tell us how distressed they are that their pleas to their MPs have been ignored, or how betrayed they feel in having MPs who have chosen to vote for legislation many disabled people view as a death sentence.
“I feel deeply grateful to see my own MP’s name listed as an ally, but the low numbers of MPs voting to protect disabled people, despite widespread public outcry nation-wide, illustrates a picture of a political elite moving further and further right, whilst becoming increasingly detached from the realities of everyday life for the people of this country.”
She said the list was full of some of the “fiercest advocates for our rights” who are “MPs who have made it clear that the people of this country should always come before party politics”.
She added: “When disability rights are protected, so are workers’ rights, so are children’s rights, so are our rights to healthcare, so are women’s rights, so are the rights of people of colour – creating a society that is safer and fairer for all who live in it.”
The votes analysed by DNS only cover the two pieces of legislation on assisted suicide and cuts to disability benefits, with a much wider range of legislation likely to come before the House of Commons in the coming months and years, on issues such as accessible housing and transport, adult social care and inclusive education.
The full list of allies is: Diane Abbott (Labour); Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Labour); Richard Burgon (Labour); Ian Byrne (Labour); Marsha De Cordova (Labour); Mary Kelly Foy (Labour); Mary Glindon (Labour); Chris Hinchliff (Labour); Imran Hussain (Labour); Ian Lavery (Labour); Brian Leishman (Labour); Emma Lewell (Labour); Rebecca Long Bailey (Labour); Rachael Maskell (Labour); Andy McDonald (Labour); Abtisam Mohamed (Labour); Grahame Morris (Labour); Margaret Mullane (Labour); Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Labour); Marie Rimmer (Labour); Jon Trickett (Labour); Ann Davies (Plaid Cymru); Shockat Adam (Independent); Iqbal Mohamed (Independent); Apsana Begum (Independent); Zarah Sultana (Independent); Ayoub Khan (Independent); and Adnan Hussain (Independent).
17 July 2025
Government’s ‘weak’ evacuation plans for disabled high-rise residents ‘fail to learn the lessons of Grenfell’
New post-Grenfell regulations designed to ensure disabled people can safely evacuate from high-rise residential buildings will instead continue to put their lives in grave danger, the government has been told.
Inclusion London said it was “deeply concerned” that lives would be lost because of the new approach, and that it “fails to learn the lessons of Grenfell”, as well as failing disabled people.
The warning came after the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) confirmed that it will introduce a watered-down version of a recommendation made by the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.
The Grenfell Tower fire, which began in the early hours of 14 June 2017, led to the deaths of 72 residents, and analysis of the inquiry’s final report suggests about 20 of them were disabled people.
The subsequent inquiry called for a legal right to a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) for all disabled residents who might find it difficult to “self-evacuate” from a high-rise residential building.
But the new regulations show that the government is instead introducing new residential personal emergency evacuation plans (residential PEEPs), a watered-down version of PEEPs.
Inclusion London called on the government to scrap the regulations, and co-produce “new, robust evacuation plans” with disabled people’s organisations.
It said the new duties were “weak, inconsistent and risk becoming a tick box exercise, and are not a way to ensure all disabled people can escape to safety”.
And it said they were “a significant step backwards in the fight for equitable fire safety and disability justice”.
Under residential PEEPs, the owner or manager in charge of a high-rise building – known as the responsible person (RP) – will have to take “reasonable endeavours” to identify vulnerable residents.
After carrying out a “person-centred fire risk assessment” with a resident, the RP must then use “reasonable endeavours” to agree an “emergency evacuation statement” with the resident, while the RP will have an “ongoing duty” to review the assessment and statement.
The RP will also have to share basic information about the disabled resident with the local fire and rescue service, including what assistance they might need to evacuate the building.
The government has made clear that it would be up to the RP to decide what measures are “reasonable and proportionate”, while the disabled resident may have to pay for some of those measures.
But Inclusion London said that any safety system “where only those who can afford to pay get protection is a two-tier safety system”, and that this was “not only unreasonable, it is inhumane”, as well as being discriminatory.
Inclusion London also accused the government of promising that RPs would have to use their “best endeavours” to identify residents who need an evacuation plan, but that this has been downgraded in the regulations to “reasonable endeavours”, which “fundamentally alters the responsibility expected of building owners and managers”.
It is also concerned that the new process will create too many hurdles for the resident to clear to secure a residential PEEP.
And it said the regulations should apply to all buildings where disabled people live, and not just those of a certain height.
Adam Gabsi, co-chair of Inclusion London, said: “We are extremely disappointed with what we see in the new regulations.
“This is not what the Grenfell inquiry has called for, and not what we have campaigned for.
“These are not PEEPs. They are tick-box exercises that shift responsibility away from those in power and onto individuals at risk.
“This will cost disabled people’s lives.”
He added: “This is another attack on our rights, along with proposed changes to disability benefits and assisted dying.
“We had hoped that PEEPs would finally serve as an example of fairness, safety, and equality being placed at the heart of government policy.”
But he said the regulations were instead “another reminder of how disabled lives are too often seen as optional, costly, disposable, or unworthy of protection.
“We cannot and will not support regulations that we believe will lead to disabled people falling through the cracks and dying.”
Caroline Collier, from Inclusion Barnet’s Campaign for Disability Justice, said: “Your home should be a place of ultimate safety and refuge.
“Yet, for disabled people living in high-rise flats, this has been fundamentally undermined by this watered-down version of the PEEPs regulations.
“With 1.8 million disabled people facing up to a 40-year wait for accessible homes and the lack of choice forcing many into dangerous high-rise flats, this tick-box approach to regulations is wrong and irresponsible.
“To ignore legitimate safety recommendations made by the inquiry is nothing short of discrimination.
“Disabled people absolutely must be involved in co-producing plans to ensure that everyone’s lives are valued and protected, and disabled people being required to pay for basic safety measures is utterly unacceptable.”
MHCLG had not commented by noon today (Thursday).
17 July 2025
Air travel accessibility report could lead to ‘tangible’ improvements, but progress depends on industry
Recommendations for widespread improvements to the way the air travel industry treats disabled passengers could make a “tangible real-world difference” to their experiences with airports and airlines, but only if the measures are implemented.
The Aviation Accessibility Task and Finish Group (AATFG) was set up last autumn by the Department for Transport (DfT) and is chaired by disabled crossbench peer Baroness [Tanni] Grey-Thompson.
It produced its report yesterday (Wednesday) with 19 recommendations for improvements across the industry, and the group will continue to monitor how they are implemented, with annual reports to DfT.
Its membership includes several disabled people with expertise in accessible transport, and representatives from across the air travel industry.
The report says the group found examples of “poor and inappropriate service, passengers being left onboard aircraft for long periods, damaged mobility aids, and discriminatory behaviour”, despite some improvements in recent years.
It also highlights “inconsistent” training of staff, and points to limited awareness of invisible impairments which contributes to “unintentional exclusion and undignified treatment”.
The report makes multiple recommendations for improvements across the industry, but one member of the group, accessible transport adviser and disability rights advocate Tony Jennings, warned that there was currently no budget to implement these recommendations, and no plans for government legislation, so progress now was “dependent on the goodwill of the aviation industry”.
He said the involvement of disabled people, with their lived experience and accessible transport expertise, in collaboration with representatives of the industry, had been “fundamental” to delivering the report’s “inclusive” recommendations.
He told Disability News Service that implementing the recommendations would place accessibility “at the heart of aviation” and would make a “tangible real-world difference” to the experience of disabled air passengers, as well as delivering much-needed cultural change across the industry.
He said these changes, if implemented, would “break down the barriers disabled people encounter when travelling by air and give them more confidence to fly and be treated with dignity and respect”.
He said: “Improving the culture within the aviation industry, treating disabled people with respect and dignity, improving airports’ accessibility information and access to assistance throughout the journey, will give me more confidence to fly.”
Baroness Grey-Thompson, herself a wheelchair-user, says in the report that the experience of flying as a disabled person can be “ad hoc, inconsistent and sometimes catastrophic”.
She says: “What became clear is that there was no pattern of good and poor performances and while many journeys occur perfectly well there are still too many gaps and poor experiences.”
The issues her group uncovered include missed flights, lack of empathy from staff, use of “non-inclusive” language, mobility equipment being broken or lost, and disabled passengers facing extended waits to board or leave their flight.
In her introduction to the report, Baroness Grey-Thompson also highlights problems with the complaints system, while she says booking assistance is “not as simple as it could be”, and points to a lack of accurate data on disabled passengers’ experiences.
Among the report’s recommendations are calls for all airport and airline staff to receive basic disability and accessibility awareness training, and for that to be co-produced with disabled people; for better accessibility information to be provided by airports and airlines; for improved access to assistance throughout the disabled passenger’s journey through the airport; and for clear and accessible information on passenger rights.
It also calls for improvements to the way the industry captures the assistance needs of its disabled passengers; for clearer communication with disabled passengers about the handling of their mobility aids; for improvements to the “airworthiness” design of mobility aids; and for better oversight of the industry by the regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority, and improvements to its guidance to airports.
Jennings said that, as a mobility scooter-user, improving the way the industry collects information about access needs and uses it to provide personalised assistance, could ensure that assistance for him through the airport is booked and delivered, and he is then transferred appropriately onto a plane through the use of a “hi-lift” and to an aisle wheelchair, and is then transferred to his seat.
He highlighted the need for investment to ensure there are enough hi-lifts “in the right place at the right time to help reduce the length of time disabled people wait for assistance”.
He added: “I can’t stress enough just how important airport and airline staff training, co-developed with disabled people, is to improve the experience for disabled people.
“From ground handlers to airline crew, to security and assistance providers and retail, it touches every part of our journey and is critical to get that right.”
He said his nine months’ work on the group had convinced him the industry was “working hard to improve accessibility services to make them more inclusive” but that he “recognises there is more work to be done, and this is just the start and the hard work of delivering the changes starts now”.
Baroness Grey-Thompson said in a statement: “This report is the next critical step in making air travel more inclusive for disabled people.
“I’m grateful for the commitment the industry has shown to making change and breaking down barriers in aviation for everyone, bringing freedom to travel, whether for leisure or work, and to connect with friends and family.
“We know there’s more work to be done, and I look forward to seeing these recommendations turned into action which truly puts accessibility at the heart of aviation.”
Transport secretary Heidi Alexander welcomed the report and its findings.
She said: “I know industry is working hard to make services more inclusive for all and I look forward to seeing these proposals becoming a reality with the support of the group.
“Now is the time for action and to make a real difference so that people can travel with confidence.”
The report was also welcomed by AirlinesUK, AirportsUK and Aviation Services UK, which were all represented on AATFG.
Meanwhile, the Baywatch campaign has launched a new survey of the abuse of disabled people’s parking bays in supermarket carparks.
The campaign is run by Disabled Motoring UK (DMUK), which is calling on disabled motorists, and those travelling with them, to complete its survey every time they visit a supermarket between 21 July and 15 August.
The campaign – supported by organisations such as Disability Rights UK, Transport for All, and Phab – focuses on Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda, Morrisons, Aldi, and Lidl.
The last time the campaign ran, in 2022, DMUK received more than 1,000 survey responses.
17 July 2025
Reviews into deaths and other harm linked to universal credit nearly double… as MPs vote for billions in cuts
The number of internal reviews into deaths and other harm linked to universal credit nearly doubled last year, according to figures released just hours after ministers pushed through billions of pounds of cuts to part of the working-age benefits system.
The number of “serious cases” accepted for a secret internal process review (IPR) in which the claimant was receiving universal credit (UC) rose from 31 in 2023-24 to 55 last year.
In all, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) agreed that 90 serious cases should be examined through an IPR in 2024-25, of which 59 followed a claimant’s death, compared with a total of 53 IPRs the previous year.
The figures were released through DWP’s annual report, published this week, which says that 42 of the IPRs involved personal independence payment (an increase from 27 the previous year), and 21 involved an employment and support allowance claimant (an increase on 15 in 2023-24).
DWP claims in the report that the increased number of IPRs followed “awareness sessions across the Department to increase understanding of IPRs and the learning process from serious cases”.
The report was published on 10 July, just hours after MPs had voted through the new universal credit bill that will cut the health element of UC for most new claimants from £97 a week to £50 a week, from April 2026.
There is no mention of these cuts in the introduction to the report by work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall, who instead says the department is “showing how an active government changes people’s lives for the better” and how it is “supporting struggling families, helping people to get into and get on at work, [and] giving disabled people the dignity they deserve or ensuring security in retirement”.
It is possible that some MPs might have voted differently last week if they had known how many “serious cases” involving universal credit claimants were being probed by DWP while they were being asked to vote for cuts to that support.
Disability News Service (DNS) reported last week that DWP was refusing to release recommendations from universal credit IPRs dating back as a far as 2020, despite telling the information rights tribunal that it would release at least some of that information by 31 March this year.
DWP has been promising for months that the reason it will not release the IPR information to DNS is because it is “intended for future publication”.
DNS understands that some of this information could be published later today (Thursday).
Asked why the IPR figures were released just hours after the cuts bill was voted through the Commons, and whether this was a coincidence, or if ministers had deliberately held back publication until the bill was passed by MPs, DWP had failed to comment by noon today.
*The Department: How a Violent Government Bureaucracy Killed Hundreds and Hid the Evidence, DNS editor John Pring’s book on the years of deaths linked to DWP’s actions and failings, is published by Pluto Press
17 July 2025
Regulator’s report on rail assistance ‘shows it is still failing to acknowledge right to turn up and go’
The rail regulator has been asked why it has failed to do more in an annual report to stress disabled people’s right to “turn up and go” when accessing the railway network.
The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) released new figures this week which showed that satisfaction with booked passenger assistance on the rail network had plateaued, with one in 10 disabled passengers still not even being met at the station after booking help.
The proportion of passengers who received all the assistance they booked also remained stable in 2024-25 at just 78 per cent.
This was even lower for passengers with a “learning, concentrating or remembering disability” (73 per cent); with mental health conditions (72 per cent); those who are neurodivergent (72 per cent); and passengers with a communication impairment (73 per cent).
There were also figures showing what proportion of passengers were satisfied with the assistance they received, with the booking process, and with the helpfulness and attitude of staff.
But there were no similar figures to show the levels of satisfaction for disabled passengers who turn up at a rail station and request assistance with their journey without booking it in advance, which is their legal right.
The report on disabled people’s experiences of Passenger Assist was released alongside ORR’s Annual Rail Consumer Report.
Accessible transport campaigners have been highlighting for years the failure of the rail industry and successive governments to ensure disabled people’s right to spontaneous travel by denying their right to turn up and go (TUAG) across the rail network.
The ORR annual report appears to underline that failure by focusing on pre-booked passenger assistance.
It says only that it is “working with industry to strengthen the quality of data on turn up and go assistance requests”, and that it expects the “quality and completeness to improve over time”.
The only TUAG figures released by ORR this week show the number of TUAG requests made in 2023-24 and 2023-24 (about 312,000 in 2023-24 and about 491,000 in 2024-25), although notes published alongside these figures show they are likely to be unreliable*.
It is the first time such TUAG figures have been published.
Doug Paulley, one of the disabled activists who has highlighted the right to TUAG in his campaigning, said he had a “significant concern” about ORR’s “concentration on assistance booking rather than TUAG” in its “uninspiring” report.
He said ORR did not have reliable or useful statistics on how well rail companies were doing on TUAG.
He said: “Everything they measure or do is about booked assistance: satisfaction with booked assistance, recompense for failed booked assistance…
“It feels like they try to avoid mentioning or acknowledging our right to turn up and go.”
He said this was a “disturbing and counter-productive trend”.
Responding to these concerns, ORR said it was exploring with rail operators “how we might get a better picture of the experience of passengers who request assistance on demand”, including the potential for TUAG passengers to be asked to take part in its existing passenger survey of experiences of assistance.
ORR released figures in the Passenger Assist report that ranked each rail operator on their performance on booked passenger assistance.
It showed that Northern Trains was the worst performer, with only 70 per cent of disabled passengers who were met at the station then receiving all the assistance they had booked, with Transport for Wales (74 per cent) and West Midlands Trains (74 per cent) also performing poorly.
The best performer was London North Eastern Railway (85 per cent).
The annual report notes how ORR has raised concerns through the year about passenger assistance; the reliability of help points at stations; communications between staff at boarding and destination stations when arranging passenger assistance; the reliability of passenger lifts at stations; the provision of accessible rail replacement vehicles; and the complaints process for disabled passengers.
The report points to annual data that shows a 42 per cent increase in the number of faults across the rail network that put lifts out of service for over a week, in 2024-25 compared with the previous year.
Commenting on the report, Stephanie Tobyn, ORR’s director of strategy, policy and reform, said: “Ensuring that disabled passengers consistently receive the support they need to travel by train requires clear focus, collaboration and a commitment to continuous improvement.
“Our latest survey shows that overall passenger satisfaction has plateaued, and we know that, in some instances, assistance failures can leave passengers feeling powerless and frustrated.”
She said that a new rating system on passenger assistance would “help us target our efforts and use resources effectively, focusing on working with those operators where improvement is most needed to deliver better outcomes for passengers”.
*ORR says in its notes that the only TUAG requests recorded are those noted by staff via the Passenger Assist system, while not all rail operators are yet using this system to record TUAG requests, and any requests booked less than two hours before departure are treated as TUAG
17 July 2025
Badenoch silence after ‘ticking time bomb’ claim is exposed as a lie by official figures
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has refused to explain why she whipped up hostility against disabled people by warning of the “ticking time bomb” caused by increased benefits spending, when social security expenditure has been stable for years.
Badenoch delivered a speech last Thursday that attacked claimants and was full of misleading statements about disability benefits.
But despite the string of misleading statements, neither the Labour party nor the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) were willing this week to point out the errors, criticise the hostility, or stand up for disabled people on benefits.
Labour did put out a press release to journalists, but instead it attacked Badenoch for not promising to keep the pensions triple lock.
Delivering the speech at the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) – founded by former Conservative work and pensions secretary Sir Iain Duncan Smith – Badenoch claimed the economy would “collapse” if the government did not address the “ticking time bomb” of increased spending on social security.
Her party – and the Labour government – have been repeatedly reminded that Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) figures show that “welfare” spending is set to be lower this year – as a proportion of GDP* – than it was in 2015-16 and 2010-11, and is even set to fall slightly in 2027-28**.
And social security and disability minister Sir Stephen Timms admitted to the Commons work and pensions committee last month that working-age social security spending as a percentage of GDP “isn’t much more now than it was before the 2008-2010 recession”.
Even though Badenoch and her party will be aware of these figures, she still whipped up hostility towards disabled people in her speech, focusing on the rising number of claimants of disability benefits.
She attacked the increase without referencing the pandemic, increased NHS waiting-lists, the cost-of-living crisis, and the “dismantling” of preventive NHS care under successive Conservative governments.
She wrongly suggested that it was possible to claim benefits like personal independence payment (PIP) by “self-certification”, and she also misled her audience by suggesting that every disabled person in the country claims disability benefits.
She also pointed to new research by CSJ which found that disabled people receiving the health element of universal credit and PIP could receive £2,500 more a year than a worker on the national living wage, without pointing out that PIP was designed by a Conservative government to contribute to the extra disability-related costs a disabled person faces.
She claimed rising spending on disability benefits was “immoral” and supported the “brilliant” CSJ research, which suggests cutting disability benefits for those with mental distress by £9 billion a year.
The CSJ report suggests withdrawing PIP and the universal credit health element from the 1.09 million claimants with “milder” anxiety, depression or ADHD (the 69 per cent of claimants with these conditions who do not receive an enhanced rate of PIP).
And it suggests cutting health-related benefits for the remaining 31 per cent by £80 to just £103.10 a week, the equivalent of the standard rate of PIP for those receiving both the daily living and mobility elements.
Badenoch also attacked the rising number of disabled people on the Motability car scheme, claiming that new cars are handed out to people with food intolerances.
She also suggested that “eight weeks of retraining and physiotherapy, and getting them back into work, is a better solution for everyone than allowing them to languish on benefits”.
Asked by Disability News Service whether the OBR figures showed that Badenoch’s “ticking time bomb” was imaginary, a Conservative party press officer said: “I don’t think we are going to provide further comment.”
Instead of attacking Badenoch’s misleading comments and hostility towards disabled people, Labour instead blamed successive Conservative governments for causing the “broken system”.
A Labour spokesperson said: “The Tories broke the welfare system. The failures that they describe are their own and last week they voted to keep this broken system as it is and maintain the status quo.
“You can’t take anything they say seriously.”
DWP made no attempt to correct Badenoch’s claims on Motability, other than pointing out that disabled people can use some of their PIP to lease a vehicle through the scheme, which is run by Motability Operations, although it did point out that the scheme was provided at no extra costs to taxpayers.
A DWP spokesperson said: “People in receipt of an eligible benefit can choose to join the Motability scheme.
“Any misuse of the scheme is a matter for Motability and, where appropriate, the police.”
*Gross domestic product, the size of the country’s economy in a particular year
**See chapter five of OBR’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook – October 2024, chart 5.2
17 July 2025
Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week
The health secretary is under mounting pressure to release a long-delayed report into the deaths of learning disabled and autistic people in England. The Department of Health and Social Care is being accused of “dragging their feet” and “sitting on” the findings by parliamentarians and disability campaigners, who describe the delay as “appalling”: https://www.itv.com/news/2025-07-16/government-accused-of-sitting-on-delayed-report-into-learning-disabled-deaths
A decision to provide assisted dying services in the Welsh NHS would not come until after the next Senedd election in May 2026, a minister has said. A committee heard on Tuesday that if the UK parliament decides to legalise the practice, the Senedd would have to vote on whether the service is available in the public sector. Health secretary Jeremy Miles said a “significant amount of work” will be needed to prepare, with most of it falling to the next Welsh government: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz6gv00lwvzo
Five-year-olds with special educational needs in England are lagging a record 20 months behind their peers, according to a report that says the country’s youngest learners face a “deepening crisis”, five years after the pandemic. Since Covid closed schools, disrupting learning and triggering falls in attendance, there has been widespread concern about the growing attainment gap that leaves disadvantaged pupils and those with special educational needs significantly behind their peers: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/jul/15/five-year-olds-in-england-with-special-educational-needs-20-months-behind-peers-report
17 July 2025
News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com
