As a Labour government were the original signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (UNCRPD) in 2009 we are disappointed to find that this current Labour government appear to be continuing the grave and systematic violation of disabled peoples’ human rights which we were subjected to for 15 years by the previous Conservative governments.
Like other genuine organisations of disabled people (DDPOs) Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) support the implementation of an Additional Cost Disability Payment (ACDP) as recommended by the co-produced work of the Lived Experience Social Security Commission. This would be based on the Social Model of Disability and would provide a realistic financial contribution to the extra costs disabled people face on a daily basis. This would also be in line with Articles 27 (Work and Employment) and 28 (An adequate standard of living and social protection) of the UNCRPD.
As we suspect the current review is designed simply to reduce the number of disabled people who qualify for PIP and subsequently the health element in Universal Credit we cannot support any plans for reductions to either current inadequate payments or changes to restrict qualifying criteria. We are totally opposed to the plan to use PIP as a qualifying benefit linked to the health element in Universal Credit.
Both of these social security payments are provided for very different reasons and continue to require different assessments. Previous calls to reduce the number of assessments disabled people face made by some Disability Charities were a call to reduce the frequency of re-assessments people were facing, sometimes every 12 months, and not a call for the merging of 2 totally different payments.
While there is a false rhetoric that the social security budget is spiralling out of control this in fact is false if the findings of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) are correct as we believe they are.
Looking at the March 2026 Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) Economic and Fiscal Outlook report it showed the proportion of GDP spent on social security is predicted to be at the same level in 2030-31 as it will be in 2026-27, at 11.2 per cent.
This will be lower than it was in 2010-11 (12 per cent) and for every subsequent year under the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition until 2015-16, under a Conservative government, when it was 11.3 per cent.
The OBR report also shows that social security spending was lower in 2024-25 – the first year of the Labour government – than predicted by the OBR last March (10.7 per cent against a predicted 10.9 per cent).
The report points to increases in pensions and health-related benefits as the “main drivers of the projected increase in welfare spending” between 2024-25 and 2030-31, including higher than expected demand for child disability benefits and higher supported housing rents.
As has now been agreed in relation to Access to Work funding, we believe that as well as proper co-production with disabled people which is not yet happening, it is essential for the government to commission research into an in-depth cost-benefit analysis of PIP looking at the amount that is recouped for the Treasury by disabled people being able to work, having sufficient support to keep them out of hospital and not needing medical treatment, by reducing, not increasing, poor mental and physical health.
Further PIP is a social security benefit which passports to a range of other essential services which decrease the many societal and physical barriers disabled people face. This passporting to other services should also be improved.
The ability of Local Authorities to remove all or part of the Care Component of PIP to pay for social care must also be urgently reviewed as it makes the cost of social care unaffordable for many disabled people preventing them from accessing the social care they need and their human rights under Article 19 (A right to independent living) of the UNCRPD.
The PIP claims process
The claims process remains deeply flawed and does require urgent changes to be made. The current waiting times for a new PIP assessment to be completed and the lengthy appeals process also need to be drastically overhauled and improved.
It is Important to add the deep distress the entire PIP process causes often leading to the worsening of mental distress and physical health. The entire process causes many cases of harm even when qualifying for PIP does not impact on qualifying for the health element of Universal Credit.
The increase of suicide ideation and attempts by some claimants to kill themselves because of assessors asking “why haven’t you taken your own life yet?” and the overall de humanising way people are treated at the assessment plus the way you’re treated as a fraud from the first time you apply must end.
There are also problems obtaining supporting medical evidence especially if not under a consultant secondary care service. Many GPs charge extortionate amounts for supporting GP Letters, mental health support services are almost impossible to access and no-one has a social worker or OT allocated on a long term basis nowadays. Very few people can now receive the 12 hours of therapy which they need to get any points for their conditions.
For people with fluctuating conditions qualifying is also almost impossible and the terms repeatedly, reliably and safely which should be considered about tasks people can carry out are far too often ignored completely even though they should be a major consideration.
Further it is very difficulty obtaining welfare rights advice due to local government funding cuts -welfare rights centres and benefits centres are closing their doors due to funding cuts. This leaves people who need support to make a claim without any help being available.
No Recourse to Public Funds
The Co-Chairs have stated that consideration of disabled asylum seekers needs is not part of their remit yet it appears that no recourse to public funds will now be extended to those granted Indefinite Leave to Remain. PIP is already very difficult for many groups to claim, but especially for disabled migrants and refugees, with barriers to eligibility, assessor attitudes, problems with the DWP not accepting translated documents, language barriers, and being told their experiences and needs are too complex to be supported by other services e.g. mental health services. No recourse to public funds and the long term damage this can cause was raised by Sir Stephen Timms back in 2020 when in opposition.
Who we are
DPAC has campaigned vigorously against cuts and the attacks disabled people have faced for the past 16 years. The UK government was the first country investigated using the Optional Protocols in the UNCRPD and found guilty of the grave and systematic violation of disabled people’s human rights following an unprecedented UN inquiry initiated by us. Since then we have continued to work closely with the UN Disability committee who retain a close interest in the further regression of disabled peoples’ human rights in the UK.
We also provide peer support through our website, social media and mail enquiries. Often we can have over 100 requests for help a week and sometimes more.
Disabled people make up 22% of the population and the numbers are rising. Disabled people are the world’s largest minority and yet our lives remain largely hidden while public understanding of disability abounds with misconceptions
DPAC campaigns from the Social Model of disability which draws a distinction between disability and impairment. Disability is imposed on top of our impairments as a result of social oppression. Disabled People also cross every other equality strand so our work is by definition intersectional in nature.
DPAC has campaigned for independent living as outlined in article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Disabled People which refers to the right to live in the community with choice and control over your own life and enough support to enjoy the same opportunities as non-disabled people.
DPAC also believe in Rights not Charity a principle central to disabled people led organisations rejecting the tragedy model of disability and the exploitation of disabled people this causes.
