Contents
Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week. 9
DWP refuses to say who will lose out in £2 billion cuts to disability benefits, six weeks after budget
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is refusing to explain which disabled people it expects to lose out from nearly £2 billion in new cuts to disability benefits, six weeks after the “savings” were quietly revealed in budget documents.
Despite requests for clarity from both Disability News Service (DNS) and the Liberal Democrats, ministers have rejected repeated opportunities to say exactly where the £1.95 billion cuts will fall.
Treasury documents, published on the day of the budget, showed that ministers will cut £85 million in 2026-27, £310 million in 2027-28, £520 million in 2028-29, £580 million in 2029-30 and £455 million in 2030-31, from spending on disability benefits.
The documents show the changes, to be introduced from April, are linked to plans to increase DWP’s “capacity” to reassess claimants of out-of-work disability benefits through the work capability assessment (WCA), increase the number of face-to-face benefit assessments, and extend personal independence payment (PIP) “award reviews periods”.
Although DWP has now apologised for its initial incorrect response to questions from DNS about the cuts, it still refuses to say which disabled people will lose out, how many will be affected, and by how much.
It originally claimed the cuts would be delivered through measures such as “tightening eligibility for overseas pension accrual” and “reforming Motability”, as well as “reducing duplication in benefit administration”.
But it has now admitted that it “made a mistake” and has apologised to DNS – apparently for mistakenly referring to pensions and the Motability cuts, which were separate budget measures not included in the £1.95 billion.
Despite the apology, DWP is still refusing to explain exactly where the cuts will come, and how they will be split between those receiving PIP and recipients of out-of-work disability benefits.
Instead, a DWP press release issued last month provides some further detail of the reassessment, face-to-face assessment and award review measures, while failing to provide any figures to show how many disabled people will lose out, which benefit groups they belong to, and how much they will lose.
DWP said in the press release that the proportion of face-to-face assessments for PIP would increase from six per cent in 2024 to 30 per cent of all assessments, while face-to-face WCAs would increase from 13 per cent of assessments in 2024 to 30 per cent, which DWP says will produce “savings”.
Delaying award reviews for PIP could also lead to further savings, DWP has told DNS, as will increasing repeat WCAs.
As a result of the changes, most PIP claimants aged 25 and over will not have their award reviewed for at least three years after a new claim, and then for a further five years at their next review if they “remain entitled”.
PIP claimants will still be able to request a review themselves if they tell DWP about a change in their circumstances, while DWP could trigger an earlier review if it receives information suggesting there has been a relevant change.
6 January 2026
Support from across UK for CEO who turned down MBE over government ‘demonisation’ of disabled people
Disabled people across the country have backed the chief executive of a disability organisation after she turned down an MBE because of how successive governments have “demonised, dehumanised and scapegoated” disabled people.
Tressa Burke, founding chief executive of the disabled people’s organisation Glasgow Disability Alliance (GDA), received a letter from the UK government on the day of the budget, 26 November, telling her she would be awarded an MBE in the new year honours for services to disabled people.
But in her response to that letter – released on social media on 30 December – she said she could not accept such a “personal honour” at a time when disabled people were being “so dishonoured”.
Burke told Disability News Service (DNS) this week that she had been left in tears and “blown away” by the reaction to her decision to turn down the MBE from disabled people across the UK, both in emails and on social media.
She said this response had shown her that rejecting her MBE had left other disabled people – and disabled people’s organisations – “feeling heard”.
In her letter to the government, Burke highlighted “unfair, inadequate and inaccessible work”, “barriers to securing work”, inadequate benefit levels, and rising disability-related costs.
She said the “political choices” made in November’s budget had “supercharged the inequalities and unfairness disabled people face” while the budget was “another missed opportunity to make real changes which would have improved disabled people’s lives”.
Burke pointed to the “horrendous impacts” of 15 years of austerity, the Covid pandemic, and the cost-of-living crisis.
And she said GDA had lost hundreds of its members since the start of the pandemic, some of them by suicide, with some of these deaths caused by policy failures in poverty, housing, and social care.
Among the UK government’s planned changes to social security, she highlighted increased face-to-face assessments for personal independence payment, the halving and freezing of the health element of universal credit for most new claimants from April, and “unfair and unjust” changes to Motability, including tax changes that will add hundreds of pounds to upfront payments to cars leased through the scheme.
Burke said in her letter that the budget lacked commitments on social care, accessible housing and transport, education and wheelchair services, omissions which would “deepen existing inequalities and leave disabled people facing exclusion, isolation, homelessness and unsafe care levels”.
She said she had been forced to decline the MBE because of the lack of progress in addressing injustice and inequality and the impact of the budget which had left disabled people feeling “criticised, condemned and brutalised”.
In response to the letter, there was a flood of support praising her “profound act of leadership” and “courage and grit”.
Burke told DNS that she had been “completely taken aback” by the support from disabled people and allies across the country.
One disabled person told her that rejecting the MBE was “absolutely the right thing to do” at such a “terrible time” when there was a “government that has done so much not just to dishonour disabled people but to whip up anger against us and remove essential support on which so many depend”.
Another said it was “no time for medals and honours while disabled people are experiencing one of the worst attack on their existence and quality of life that I’ve seen in my lifetime”, while another said: “I’m writing to congratulate Tressa on her refusal to accept an honour from the UK government which continues to do all it can to make the lives of those with long term health issues and disabilities as difficult and miserable as possible.”
Another disabled person said: “I wanted to express my deep gratitude and respect.
“I’m a disabled person and it’s so nice to see someone being honest about the situation, bringing more awareness about the reality of our lives, and sticking up for what is right.
“It gives me hope.”
Others praised her “moral stance” and “rare and inspiring” integrity, and for sending “a strong message to Westminster and also to all people experiencing the impact of the punitive measures”.
Another said: “Disabled people face a maelstrom of negative media coverage, discrimination and downright hate and you and GDA members have been at the forefront of telling disabled people’s truth to those in power.
“So sincere respect Tressa and solidarity with your statement.”
And an autistic campaigner told Burke through the social media network LinkedIn: “The national narratives on so called over diagnosis, cuts to PIP, changes to Access To Work are chilling.
“I find it triggering and am in the 30 per cent who are… lucky enough to have paid work.
“Unless you live this I don’t think anyone gets how incredibly challenging 2025 was for us.”
6 January 2026
New Mental Health Act ‘offers no solution’ to abuse, exclusion and racism in mental health system
Controversial government legislation that has now become law provides no solution to the culture of abuse, neglect and exclusion within the mental health system, or its continued structural racism, say disabled campaigners.
The mental health bill received royal assent on 18 December and has now become the Mental Health Act 2025, despite continuing “crucial” concerns over its failure to ensure full human rights for disabled people.
It reforms the Mental Health Act 1983, which provided the legal framework to detain and treat people in a mental health crisis who are at risk of harm to themselves or others.
Despite being welcomed by ministers and others associated with its lengthy passage through parliament, parts of the legislation have been repeatedly criticised by disabled campaigners.
There have particularly been concerns that the legislation will not stop many disabled people being subjected to forcible detention and degrading treatment.
There have also been protests by autistic people and people with learning difficulties, who believe it will not do enough to keep them out of mental health hospitals, or protect them from badly-run hospital services that have led to cruelty, abuse, and even deaths.
Among those raising concerns was the user-led, rights-based organisation Liberation, which is run by people with mental health diagnoses.
It has highlighted concerns that the legislation has ignored, dismissed and misrepresented calls for “full human rights” for people experiencing acute mental distress or trauma, and autistic people and those with learning difficulties.
In July, following Liberation’s intervention, the UN’s committee on the rights of persons with disabilities wrote to the UK government to express its concerns that the legislation would breach the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).
The committee feared the bill would continue to allow disabled people to be detained in hospital on the basis of their mental health impairment; raised concerns about the provision of mental health services and whether they are based on “free and informed consent”; and questioned whether disabled people and their organisations had been “closely consulted and actively involved” in drafting the legislation.
Although the act will eventually halt the practice of autistic people or those with a learning difficulty being detained for treatment under the act without any associated mental ill-health, concerns were raised by disabled Labour MP Jen Craft last October that this measure will only be implemented when there is sufficient support available in the community.
Campaigners also pointed out this week that the act will still allow many people with learning difficulties and autistic people who are caught in the criminal justice system to be detained in the mental health system, both for assessment and for treatment.
The act is based on draft legislation drawn up by the last Conservative government, and it passed almost unnoticed by the mainstream media through the Lords and the Commons, despite significant concerns raised by disabled campaigners and allies.
Amy Wells, head of communications and membership for National Survivor User Network, told Disability News Service (DNS) this week: “The process of reforming the Mental Health Act did not involve meaningful opportunities for challenge and change by people with lived experience and their organisations, which may have helped push it further towards truly rights-based care.
“While some of the reforms – such as improving access to advocacy and the processes around advance choice documents and the nominated person model – may improve some aspects of the experience of detention, they all rely on significant funding and implementation plans that are not yet in place.
“We share concerns that taking autistic people and people with learning difficulties out of the scope of the act will not necessarily decrease the number of detentions or improve the conditions of detention – instead, it may mean that disabled people are subject to detention under the Mental Capacity Act, or in assessment and treatment units, with fewer safeguards.
“Overall, we do not believe that the reforms offer a solution to the cultures of abuse, neglect, and exclusion, or the structural racism in the mental health system as a whole.
“We are left with a crucial concern around the absence of choice and agency for people experiencing distress, including a lack of alternative forms of crisis care that do not require detention under the act.”
Announcing that the bill had become law, health and social care secretary Wes Streeting said: “The new Mental Health Act will transform lives by putting patients back in control of their care, tackling the unacceptable disparities that have seen black people detained at disproportionately high rates, and giving NHS staff the tools to deliver care that truly helps people recover.
“This delivers on our manifesto commitment to finally bring mental health care into the 21st century.
“After years of neglect, we are rebuilding a mental health system to treat people with the dignity and respect they deserve.”
The government says the act will provide “stronger rights and greater control” for “patients” over their treatment through new statutory care and treatment plans; more involvement for carers in decisions around treatment; and address racial disparities in treatment through clearer guidance for mental health professionals.
It says the act will also strengthen the rights of children and young people to “make their wishes and feelings more central to decision making”; and ensure courts can no longer detain someone in prison as a place of safety while they wait for a hospital bed for treatment or assessment under the Mental Health Act.
But Dorothy Gould, founder of Liberation, told DNS: “Wes Streeting’s justification of the Mental Health Act 2025 is full of holes.
“He misleadingly states that the act will put ‘patients back in control of their care’ whilst also speaking of ‘patients’ having ‘stronger rights and greater control’. The two are not the same.
“The reality is that children and young people, adults and older people made subject to the act will continue to have fewer human rights than other citizens and that even its alleged ‘improvements’ have concerning flaws.
“The act completely fails to address the serious human rights concerns raised by the UNCRPD committee.
“So, far from bringing ‘mental health care into the 21st century’, the act flies in the teeth of these concerns and does so despite Liberation supplying the government with clear evidence (PDF) that there is not even an adequate research basis for maintaining involuntary hospitalisation and forced treatment.
“Equally shamefully, the act itself does nothing to address major racial disparities, let alone other forms of intersectional discrimination, but instead relegates these to forthcoming ‘clearer guidance’.”
6 January 2026
Consultation on electric wheelchairs, scooters and powered attachments could see end to legal confusion
A new consultation on outdated laws covering the use of powered mobility devices on public roads and pavements could lead to greater independence for disabled people across Britain and an end to legal confusion, say campaigners.
The consultation, launched by the government this morning (Tuesday), suggests options for updating legislation on the use of devices such as powered wheelchairs and mobility scooters that dates as far back as the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
The consultation, which applies to England, Scotland and Wales, follows a “rapid review” that has been taking place over the last few months and has involved disability groups and the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC).
The Department for Transport (DfT) says that powered mobility devices “are often a lifeline for people, offering freedom and independence”, but that some aspects of the law are now out of date, and “do not reflect the devices disabled people, and people with reduced mobility, need or want to use”.
DfT says that any reforms should allow people who need a mobility device to use it legally; lead to greater choice of devices; and enable people to feel and be safe when using roads and pavements.
Among the changes proposed is to scrap the use of the term “invalid carriage” in legislation and replace it with “mobility device”.
The consultation also seeks views on which types of mobility device should be able to use cycle lanes on roads and off-road cycle tracks; if weight, speed and minimum age limits for different classes of powered mobility devices should be altered; and whether disabled people should be allowed to carry passengers on their devices in certain circumstances.
But it will also examine whether wheelchairs with devices such as power, hand cycle or hand e-cycle attachments should be recognised as powered mobility devices under the legislation for use on roads and pavements.
And it will look at whether pedal cycles, e-scooters and e-cycles should be recognised as mobility devices and treated differently when used on pavements and in public spaces by a disabled person.
The Department for Transport announced last summer that it would review the law on powered mobility devices.
Simon Lightwood, the minister for roads and buses, said the consultation was “the first step to delivering on that commitment as we seek views on the potential changes to legislation” and that it was “clear the legislation in its current form does not account for the modern mobility devices people need or want to use”.
The consultation follows years of lobbying and campaigning by the disabled people’s organisation Wheels for Wellbeing (WfW), including “intense work” after the confiscation of Israel Vidal’s wheelchair by the Metropolitan police last May.
He was left without his wheelchair for 19 days because police officers objected to him using a “not in class” powered wheelchair attachment at walking-speed, and impounded both his manual wheelchair and the clip-on powered attachment, treating them as an uninsured motor vehicle.
The law currently says such attachments can only be used legally on roads if they have an MOT certificate, insurance and licence plate, and the user has the appropriate driving licence.
Isabelle Clement, director of WfW, said: “We are delighted to see the Department for Transport consulting on modernising laws on ‘powered mobility devices’.
“Over 10 million people in the UK have mobility-related impairments and existing laws create confusion, restrict market innovation and limit disabled people’s freedom to travel.
“New high-quality regulations that meet disabled people’s needs will enable millions more disabled people to legally use a growing range of existing and innovative safe, convenient, cost-effective, low-carbon mobility devices to move around our communities.”
She said reform “has the potential to improve the independence, physical and mental health, employment, educational and social options of disabled individuals and our families” across Britain.
Sir Stephen Timms, the minister for social security and disability, said: “We are determined to break down barriers to opportunity for disabled people and improving access to assistive technology, as well as making sure that the laws around its use are up to date, is essential to this.
“I encourage disabled people to respond to the Department for Transport’s consultation so their views and voices are used to shape this policy.”
Nick Goldup, chief executive of the Wheelchair Alliance, whose board members include wheelchair-users – including its president, Baroness [Tanni] Grey-Thompson – and representatives of charities and service-providers, said: “The Wheelchair Alliance wholeheartedly welcomes this government review of powered wheelchair legislation.
“For too long, wheelchair-users have been sidelined by outdated legislation and offensive terminology.
“Many individuals using wheelchairs over 150 kg have been left feeling anxious and worried about breaking the law.
“Having worked closely with Simon Lightwood MP for over a year, we are beyond proud that our campaigning has secured this commitment to change.
“We will continue to amplify the voices of our community to ensure this review delivers a fairer, more inclusive future for all.”
The consultation will run for 12 weeks and closes on 31 March.
6 January 2026
Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week
People are dying in unsafe accommodation and communities are being irreversibly damaged, due to delays to a new law to clamp down on unregulated supported housing in England. It has been more than two years since the Supported Housing Act, a private member’s bill brought by the Conservative MP Bob Blackman that applies to England and Wales, was given royal assent but it has yet to be implemented due to delays in creating the regulations: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/dec/28/vulnerable-people-still-living-in-unsafe-supported-housing-in-england-two-years-after-law-was-passed
A council in west London has apologised after failing to provide adequate support for a Deaf man receiving social care who required British Sign Language (BSL) interpreters. Hammersmith and Fulham also agreed to pay the man’s granddaughter £450 and “review its processes” on BSL interpreters. The Local Government Ombudsman found several faults with the service provided by the council, including that staff at a care home were not trained in BSL, contrary to the man’s care requirements: http://bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2ez7zn78eo
6 January 2026
