Fear, anger and confusion as budget blundering creates chaos over government’s plans for ‘fit for work’ test

The new Labour government’s policy on social security reform is in chaos after it issued contrasting statements and briefings on budget day about whether – and how – it would press ahead with planned Conservative cuts to spending on out-of-work disability benefits.

Disabled activists warned that the government’s refusal to clarify the position on reforms to the work capability assessment (WCA) would only add to the distress being felt by hundreds of thousands of claimants.

The confusion surrounds whether the government would implement controversial reforms announced by the last government that would tighten the WCA.

The changes would be introduced next year and would see 424,000 disabled people lose their entitlement to extra support of up to £4,900 a year by 2028-29.

It came as a high court “disclosure hearing” is due to take place today (Thursday) as part of a legal challenge into whether last year’s consultation on these changes to the WCA were lawful.

The full hearing of the legal challenge, taken by disabled activist and author Ellen Clifford, will take place on 10 and 11 December.

Yesterday’s chaos started with comments by chancellor Rachel Reeves, who was delivering her first budget speech.

She spoke of the need to “reduce the benefits bill” and “ensure that welfare spending is more sustainable”, and told MPs that Labour had “inherited the last government’s plans to reform the work capability assessment”.

She said: “We will deliver those savings as part of our fundamental reforms to the health and disability benefits system that [work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall] will bring forward.”

Although many disabled activists assumed she was referring to the plans to tighten the WCA – as did mainstream media and charities – there was no mention of any such cost savings in the budget documents.

When Disability News Service asked the Treasury why no savings were mentioned in the budget report and to clarify Reeves’ comments, a spokesperson claimed the chancellor was referring to “the government’s already-stated intention to reform or replace the work capability assessment”.

He added: “We’re taking the time to review this in the round before setting out next steps on our approach in the coming months.”

It then emerged that social security and disability minister Sir Stephen Timms had been briefing some disability organisations about the budget after the Reeves speech.

Reports from those who attended the briefings suggest that the government has not yet decided whether to go ahead with Conservative plans to tighten the WCA.

Sir Stephen reportedly said that a similar level of savings on social security would have to be made, but not necessarily by reforming the WCA in the way proposed by the last government.

But he is also reported to have said in another briefing that he would not go ahead with the Conservative WCA plans.

The chaos follows months of confusing and misleading statements from the new government on its plans for reform of disability benefits and disability employment.

Only last week, employment minister Alison McGovern appeared to quash claims made by Kendall – her boss – in a BBC interview that she was planning to send work coaches onto mental health wards.

And earlier this month, DWP refused to clarify comments by the prime minister which suggested that all claimants of long-term sickness benefits would be expected to look for work under Labour’s social security reforms.

Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) expressed anger at the confusion and lack of clarity on the government’s plans, and at the apparent commitment to further cuts to disability support.

Bob Ellard, a member of DPAC’s national steering group, said: “Disabled people are scared and angry, having waited too long for the budget expecting the burden of government failure to fall yet again on us.

“We’ve been led to expect better from Labour, only to find their attitude is just as uncaring and vicious as before.

“Our needs have been ignored as usual, and now more of us will suffer and more of us will die due to Reeves’ callousness.”

Rick Burgess, a spokesperson for Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People, said: “The lack of clarity on the WCA causes distress, as does the messaging around benefits that ministers have engaged in.

“The savings the government envisage logically can only come from fewer people getting disability benefits, yet disabled people are not reducing in numbers, we are increasing – not least due to long Covid – so this can only mean disabled people will be refused the support they have a right to while being hounded and spied upon by the state.”

Caroline Collier, from Inclusion Barnet’s Campaign for Disability Justice, said a “cloud of uncertainty still hangs over disabled people and the financial support they are entitled to expect”.

She said: “The sooner that cloud is lifted, the better – and we shall be holding the government to its word that disabled people will be fully consulted.

“And this absolutely needs to be an agenda that allows all disabled people a decent standard of living, provides genuine employment opportunities without compulsion and treats disabled people with respect.”

Budget failed on addressing systemic challenges facing disabled people, Treasury is told

Labour’s first budget for 15 years has failed to do enough to address the “systemic challenges” faced by disabled people across society, user-led organisations have warned the Treasury.

The first budget speech of chancellor Rachel Reeves included no serious attempt to address the crises in accessible housing, adult social care and inclusive education – although there was some new funding – or the huge barriers in accessible transport.

Instead, there was a clear focus on “cracking down” on benefit fraud and investing in new schemes to push “inactive” disabled people into work.

Reeves mentioned the government’s fraud, error and debt bill, which the chancellor said would provide “direct access to bank accounts to recover debt”, strengthening the powers of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

The budget report highlights how the bill will also introduce “new powers to check benefits are being paid correctly using data shared by banks and financial institutions”, which disabled campaigners have warned will see DWP ordering banks to “spy” on the accounts of benefit claimants.

Reeves also confirmed that next April’s annual increase in working-age benefits would be just 1.7 per cent, because of the low rate of inflation in September.

The only direct mention of disabled people in her speech was when she said ministers would deliver the cuts to out-of-work disability benefits planned by the last government, although her comments sparked huge confusion among activists, disabled people’s organisations, charities and the media (see separate story).

Despite the failure to place any focus on disability equality, Reeves did announce a £1 billion increase in spending on special educational needs (SEN), a real terms increase of six per cent; and £600 million extra in grant funding for social care, although it is not yet clear if this is solely for adult social care.

Her speech came just days after a report published by the government found that tens of thousands more disabled children could have their needs met in a mainstream setting rather than a special school, if there were major improvements to the SEN system (see separate story).

The budget report also reveals an £86 million increase in spending on the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG), which will support “around 7,800” more adaptations to disabled people’s homes, although Reeves made no mention of this in her speech.

That figure suggests DFG spending – which currently helps to adapt about 50,000 homes a year – will rise by nearly 14 per cent in 2025-26.

The budget report makes clear that work and pensions ministers plan to set out their plans for reforming disability benefits early in 2025.

Reeves said the government would soon publish its Get Britain Working white paper, which she said would take “an integrated approach across health, education and welfare” to addressing the “root causes of inactivity”.

The budget report says the government is providing “record levels of capital investment in health” to help reduce NHS waiting-lists and “thereby supporting people into work”.

And it says the white paper will show how the government will “test new approaches and collect robust evidence on how to tackle the root causes of ill-health related inactivity”.

It will set up eight “trailblazer” areas across England and Wales that bring together health, employment and skills services to “improve the support available to those who are inactive due to ill health and help them return to work”.

This will include NHS England “health and growth accelerators” in at least three areas to “develop evidence of the impact of targeted action on the top health conditions driving economic inactivity”.

The government will also spend £115 million next year on a new supported employment programme, Connect to Work.

From 2026-27, the Connect to Work programme will support nearly 100,000 disabled people a year, with councils able to “tailor their delivery” of the scheme “in ways that meet their local needs”.

In total, the budget report says, the government will spend more than £800 million on disability employment support in 2025-26.

The budget report also says the government will spend £120 million in 2025-26 to support the purchase of new electric vans and support the manufacture of wheelchair-accessible electric vehicles.

In response to the budget, DPO Forum England – whose members include nearly 50 disabled people’s organisations, such as Greater Manchester Disabled People’s Panel, Inclusion London and Buckinghamshire Disability Service – has written to the Treasury to express its concern at the measures announced by Reeves.

It said the budget “fails to address the level of poverty experienced by disabled people” and that it saw the focus on getting the “economically inactive” back to work as “targeting vulnerable groups like the sick, disabled, and young people with mental health issues”.

It told the Treasury: “The increases in disability benefits, social care, and special educational needs funding are a drop in the ocean compared to the actual funding shortfalls, which are estimated to be much higher.”

The forum said the budget had failed to “adequately address” the “systemic challenges” around inclusive education, carers’ support, and the institutionalisation of disabled children.

And it said the budget “appears to further the troubling regression of disabled people’s rights, falling short of the support required to rectify these issues and build a genuinely inclusive society”.

Julia Modern, senior policy and campaigns manager at Inclusion London, said the budget was “a huge missed opportunity to reset the relationship with disabled people”.

She said: “The chancellor claims her budget shows ‘no return to austerity’; she really should have added ‘except for disabled people’.

“While we are pleased to see modest increases in some budgets for essential services like the NHS and an additional £600 million for local government-provided social care (a drop in the ocean compared to the scale of crisis in the £28 billion a year system), there is nothing in the budget to address the huge rates of poverty among disabled people.

“Instead, our social security is being eroded.”

Disability Rights UK (DR UK) said the budget represented “a failure to make real change”.

A DR UK spokesperson said: “Despite the minimal uplift in spending to fund our crumbling public services, the budget doesn’t give disabled people the confidence that the services we rely on every day will tangibly get better.

“At the end of the day, the biggest announcement was one our community had been expecting: more disabled and working-class people seeing their benefits cut whilst there will be no real difference in our local services.”

Gabrielle Johnson, communications and membership manager for National Survivor User Network, said there was frustration “at the ongoing neglect of appropriate social security for those most in need of state support” and the government’s decision to “reinforce harmful rhetoric” through measures in its fraud, error and debt bill.

They said the bill would give DWP “access to benefit recipients’ financial records without their consent, criminalising disabled people and creating fear and anxiety around penalisation”.

And they said the Get Britain Working white paper evoked “familiar and damaging messaging around the inherent value of human life as a tool to economic productivity”.

Johnson said: “Seriously ill and disabled people, including those with lived experience of mental ill-health, distress and trauma, deserve dignity, care and personalised support, but our government seems unable to meet even the very basic needs of those made vulnerable by the policies they continue to implement.”

SEN improvements ‘could see tens of thousands more disabled children educated in mainstream schools’

Tens of thousands more disabled children could have their needs met in a mainstream setting rather than a special school, if there were major improvements to the special educational needs (SEN) system, a report published by the government has found.

The report, commissioned under the last government, summarises the first phase of the Delivering Better Value in SEND programme, which aims to find ways to improve “outcomes” for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) across 54 local authorities.

Each of the 54 councils received a £1 million grant to support their work.

The stories of more than 1,650 children and young people with SEND were analysed, leading to the conclusion that if the system was improved, 65 per cent of those children and young people could have had their needs met in a more effective way.

Such an improvement could lead to 35,000 more children having their needs met in a mainstream setting rather than a specialist placement, the report says.

The report concludes that the proportion of children and young people with SEND in mainstream schools would ideally increase from 42.3 per cent to 49.9 per cent, with those in resourced provision* and SEN units attached to mainstream schools increasing from 2.3 per cent to 12.9 per cent, and those in special schools falling from 37.9 per cent to 21.8 per cent.

The research also highlights 17 ways in which changes to the local education system had the biggest impact on outcomes for children and young people with SEND.

Nearly all of them related to improvements made by mainstream schools.

These included providing teaching assistants; adapting the curriculum; other children being inclusive of disabled children; disabled children being able to access after school clubs; making secondary schools a more welcoming environment for disabled children; and improving training for mainstream school staff in how to support disabled children.

The research was published as a National Audit Office (NAO) report concluded that, if left unreformed, the SEN system was “financially unsustainable”.

The NAO report also found that, since 2014, the Department for Education (DfE) has been aiming for mainstream schools to be more inclusive, but there was “limited evidence of progress”.

DfE said earlier this year that just 69 per cent of primary school and 73 per cent of secondary school leaders were confident that their schools could effectively support pupils with SEN.

NAO said DfE had increased high-needs funding, with a 58 per cent real terms increase between 2014-15 and 2024-25 to £10.7 billion, but “the system is still not delivering better outcomes for children and young people or preventing local authorities from facing significant financial risks”.

The Alliance for Inclusive Education (ALLFIE), which submitted evidence to the NAO study, welcomed the report, and said it did not “shy away from the broken state of the SEN system and the urgent need for change”.

Michelle Daley, ALLFIE’s director, said DfE must take “concrete action to build public confidence in a system that truly serves all children and young people”, including those in under-resourced areas and for families of disabled children from marginalised communities.

And she said this action must include “phasing out funding for segregated provisions and establishing clear, sustainable, and long-term goals for inclusive education in mainstream settings”.

Dr Edmore Masendeke, ALLFIE’s policy and research lead, said the NAO report showed how government polices “continue to favour segregated provisions over inclusive education in mainstream settings” and highlighted how DfE had failed to make a “clear commitment” to define “inclusive education” or to set “specific, measurable outcomes for mainstream settings to support disabled pupils effectively”.

He said the NAO report suggested that DfE wanted to develop more segregated units attached to mainstream schools, which ALLFIE strongly opposed because it would perpetuate disablism and discrimination.

Daley said the NAO report highlighted a “troubling narrative” that blamed disabled children and young people for high spending on SEN and lowering school performance “rather than addressing the systemic inequities within the education system”.

She said this “scapegoating” diverted attention from the systemic failings within the SEN system, and the disablism in the assessment systems that hindered disabled pupils’ academic progress.

Despite the NAO report, Catherine McKinnell, the minister for school standards, said the Delivering Better Value in SEND research was “light at the end of the tunnel”.

She told MPs that it suggested that if the SEND system was “extensively improved through early intervention and better resourcing in mainstream schools”, it would mean tens of thousands fewer education, health and care plans would be needed, and tens of thousands more children would be educated in mainstream settings rather than special schools.

She said: “That can pave the way for a sustainable system in which schools cater for all children, and special schools cater only for those with the most complex needs.”

She said government measures to improve the system would include strengthening how schools are held to account over inclusion; improving SEND training for early years staff “to ensure that children’s needs can be identified at the earliest point”; a review of the curriculum and assessments; and changes to Ofsted inspections.

McKinnell told MPs that the current system had “totally lost the confidence of families” and that families and disabled children were “being failed on every measure”.

Munira Wilson, the Liberal Democrat education spokesperson, said the NAO report had confirmed that the SEND system was “in crisis and on the brink”.

She said: “The last Conservative government’s abject failure to tackle the systemic problems facing SEND provision has been laid bare for all to see.”

Wilson said MPs had been “inundated with casework from concerned and often desperate parents who just want to know that their children will receive the support they need without waiting for months or years”.

*Resourced provision is where a disabled child has a place at a mainstream school, but also has some support from specialist services based at the school

Government pledge to scrap discriminatory ban on online attendance ‘could be first step towards inclusion’

Disabled politicians have welcomed the government’s pledge to scrap the ban on councillors attending meetings online, which should see an end to some of the discrimination they face when trying to play a role in local government.

Labour’s deputy prime minister, Angela Rayner, has promised to change the law to allow disabled councillors and other elected members to take part in meetings remotely if they face barriers to attending in person.

Ministers believe that granting local authorities the power to allow councillors to attend hybrid or remote meetings* would both increase the diversity of local councillors and “enhance the resilience” of local authorities in the face of local or national emergencies.

They also believe it would “modernise democratic engagement, raise standards and widen the range of candidates standing for council by removing unnecessary barriers”.

The last Conservative government repeatedly rejected pleas to scrap rules that currently prevent disabled representatives and others from taking part in council meetings remotely, despite some Conservative MPs and peers urging them to change the law.

During the early stages of the pandemic, emergency regulations allowed council meetings to be held online – or in a hybrid combination of in-person and online attendance – but they were scrapped in May 2021.

Since then, it has been illegal for councils in England to hold hybrid or virtual meetings, although the Welsh government passed laws allowing remote meetings three years ago, while Scottish local authorities have been able to do so for 20 years.

Angela Rayner, who is deputy prime minister and secretary of state for local government, has now launched an eight-week consultation on plans that would allow both “remote attendance” and “proxy voting” at local authority meetings in England.

Proxy voting would allow an elected member to give their vote to a colleague to use on their behalf if they are unable to attend a meeting, for example during maternity, paternity or adoption leave.

Rayner said in a speech to the Local Government Association last Thursday that the measures would make it possible “for people from all walks of life to have a stake in local democracy, whether they have caring responsibilities or aren’t able to make it to the town hall in person because of illness or disability”.

Ministers say they believe the new laws “will encourage a wider diversity of people willing and able to stand and actively participate in local democracy by creating improved conditions where meetings are accessible and inclusive”.

Disabled former councillor Blossom Gottlieb welcomed the government’s announcement.

She was elected as a Green councillor for East Hampshire District Council in October 2021 but did not stand for re-election in May 2023 because of the current laws preventing councillors taking part in meetings remotely.

She was not allowed to vote or speak at meetings because she could not attend in person.

She helped the Green party campaign for a change in the law.

She told Disability News Service: “This ableist law did stop me from continuing as a councillor, which was exceptionally disappointing.

“I am utterly delighted change has finally been made, and am proud of the part I played.

“It will benefit so many people, not only increasing inclusivity in local politics by making it more accessible to the disabled population, but also to anyone who has caring responsibilities, such as those looking after their parents or children, or anyone experiencing temporary mobility issues.

“I had almost lost hope for my political career, but this news might just reignite it, who knows.”

Another former disabled councillor, Nico Reznick, also welcomed the government announcement, but only if it was a first step towards “meaningful” inclusion in society for disabled people and Labour did not use it as “a smokescreen to try and cover a larger issue”.

She became disabled after contracting Covid early in the pandemic while working in a care home, and was left clinically extremely vulnerable.

Wanting to continue to serve her local community, she became a member of her town council but was faced with “token” efforts to ensure access and inclusion, with meetings “cramped, poorly ventilated affairs, with no requirements for attendees to stay away if ill”.

Although she was allowed to attend meetings virtually, she was not allowed to table motions or vote unless she was physically present, even if she sat in an empty office in the same building.

She was told that the ban on remote attendance applied nationally, while her local Conservative MP refused to lobby on her behalf.

She eventually stopped taking part in council meetings as the experience was “just too demoralising”, and a waste of her time and limited energy.

She said the discrimination, apathy and lack of compassion she faced added to her sense of “exclusion, isolation and mounting depression”, when all she had wanted was “a way to serve my community within my limitations”.

Although she welcomed the announcement, she said: “The government needs to do far, far more to include disabled people in the conversations that end up deciding so much about our lives.

“The pandemic (still ongoing, if ignored) is creating more disabled people every day, and the last few years have seen us increasingly vilified in the media as burdensome scroungers and fakers.”

She pointed particularly to concerns around messaging on social security and the potential legalisation of assisted suicide.

Reznick said inclusion for disabled people had to be improved “at all levels of local and national government”.

She said: “We want and deserve a voice.

“Hopefully, this move will be the first step of many that will help disabled individuals take their rightful place in society.”

Another to welcome the announcement was Mike Jewkes, Labour’s disability officer for North Warwickshire and Bedworth, who said the current rules were one of the key reasons he did not seek to stand in the last county council elections.

He told DNS: “I felt I couldn’t stand in the county elections as public transport accessibility in rural areas is abysmal and for me it would be a trip of two or three trains or four buses with a mobility scooter to attend.

“I feel that [if hybrid meetings are allowed] not only will this assist in better representation from the disabled community but also will assist parents to be more involved, along with carers and anyone who leads a busy life but wants to add something to their community.”

*Remote meetings are those where everyone attends online; with hybrid meetings, some attend online and others attend in person

Government must reverse Tory policy on adapting to climate change, say disabled activists after court defeat

Disabled activists have called on Labour ministers to reverse the position of the last government on adapting to climate change, following a high court setback.

The high court ruled on Friday that the last government’s climate adaptation plan was lawful.

Doug Paulley, and fellow disabled campaigner Kevin Jordan, had joined with Friends of the Earth to challenge the UK government’s failure to protect people, property and infrastructure from climate change’s foreseeable impacts.

Their lawyers had argued that the current version of the government’s National Adaptation Programme (NAP) breached both the Climate Change Act and the Human Rights Act.

Paulley, Jordan and their lawyers are now considering an appeal against the ruling*.

Paulley had argued that disabled people were disproportionately affected by the impacts of climate change but had been “badly let down” by the last government’s NAP.

He said the Conservative government’s NAP completely failed to address the threats disabled people face from extreme weather, such as flooding and heatwaves, and power cuts during storms.

The legal case also argued that searing summer temperatures significantly impacted him because of long-term health conditions that make him susceptible to over-heating, causing distress and discomfort, and risking serious harm.

Jordan was made homeless shortly before last Christmas, when his house in Hemsby, Norfolk, was demolished after coastal erosion fuelled by rising sea levels and severe storms caused by climate change put it in severe danger of falling into the sea.

Friends of the Earth wants the new Labour government to agree that the NAP is inadequate and to amend it along the lines of recommendations from the statutory Climate Change Committee, the government’s independent climate advisor.

Paulley called on the new government to “ensure they include disabled people and our needs in all policy development from the beginning”.

He told Disability News Service: “Only by involving us and our organisations from the start can our experiences, expertise and needs be properly included.

“Climate change is happening, people are suffering, disabled people are always first against the wall in any crisis or emergency, and we need the government to do what it can to mitigate the impact and protect us as much as possible.”

He pointed to the disproportionate impact on disabled people of natural disasters caused by climate change, such as flooding in Germany in 2021 and Hurricane Katrina in the US.

Paulley, who praised the collaboration between environmentalists, disabled people and lawyers, added: “Climate change is an existential threat to disabled people.”

Jordan said he was “extremely disappointed” by the judgment.

He said: “Without a tougher set of government policies to protect us, more people will face the horror of seeing their homes, lives and livelihoods threatened by the growing impacts of our rapidly changing climate.

“It’s bad enough that communities like mine have already lost so much through the lack of foresight and planning for the foreseeable effects of climate breakdown.

“I don’t want anyone else to endure what we’ve been through. But many undoubtedly will, unless the government strengthens its adaptation plans.”

DEFRA declined to provide a statement on the new government’s position; on whether it would work with disabled people on this and other policies that would impact them; and on why the new government continued to fight the legal case when it appeared to align with Labour’s election manifesto promises.

But DEFRA said it understood that preparing for the future would mean tackling the climate and nature emergencies, but also adapting to the changes they will bring.

It welcomed the court’s judgment that the NAP was lawful but said it was committed to strengthening the approach to climate resilience and would bring forward plans in due course.

*Although they lost the case, the court ruled that the last government had breached the Equality Act’s public sector equality duty, but as it carried out an equality impact assessment after being notified of the legal case – even though this did not lead to a change in policy – it was found to have retrospectively met its legal duties

Regulator’s state of the nation report stays almost silent on safety and quality of adult social care

The care regulator’s annual assessment of “the state of health and care” in England includes almost no discussion of the quality and safety of adult social care services, analysis of the report has revealed.

Large sections of the Care Quality Commission’s State of Care report are devoted to discussion of the quality of care in the NHS, including in mental health services, cancer care, maternity care, dementia care, and services for children.

But there is no analysis or discussion of the safety and quality of a wide sweep of long-term adult social care services, such as home care and residential home provision, other than a small section that praises the work of the minority of “outstanding providers”.

A Care Quality Commission (CQC) press release says the report is supposed to look at “the quality of care over the past year”, but at no point in the 180-page report does CQC discuss the overall quality and safety of adult social care services in England, even though it should have access to that information through its programme of inspections.

Instead, the report’s adult social care section focuses on the number of requests for council support, the number of people waiting for care services, the number of delayed discharges, staff vacancies, recruitment of care staff, and bed occupancy rates in care homes.

In the report’s appendix, there are two tables which provide figures for how adult social care services were rated, but there is no comparison with previous years.

The report does discuss the safety and quality of intermediate care – short-term services usually provided by a mix of health and social care professionals.

And there is a section on “restrictive practice” in services for autistic people and people with learning difficulties, which includes concerns about the inappropriate use of chemical restraint and about “closed cultures” where staff do not speak up about abuse.

The report says that CQC analysis of information provided by care homes found that in settings where more than half of residents were recorded as autistic or having learning difficulties, the incidence of restraint was on average nearly 12 times higher than in care homes where nobody was recorded as being autistic or having learning difficulties.

Earlier this month, a review ordered by the last government found “significant failings” within the CQC.

The review of the effectiveness of the commission found an “urgent need” for a rapid turnaround in the way it operates, with the proportion of health and care settings that had never received a rating rising from 13 per cent to 19 per cent over the last five years.

The State of Care report found that, in 2022-23, the number of new requests for council-funded adult social care support that did not result in a service being provided had increased by 27 per cent since 2017-18.

And it said that people in black or black British ethnic groups were over three-and-a-half times more likely to be detained under the Mental Health Act than people in white ethnic groups.

The report also raised concerns over the increasing number of people who need the protection provided by the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) system.

The safeguards were introduced nearly 20 years ago and were designed to protect the human rights of adults in care homes and hospitals who do not have the capacity to consent to their care arrangements and need to be deprived of their liberty.

The report says: “Too many people are waiting too long for a DoLS authorisation, while variation in the level of knowledge of staff means that others may not have a DoLS authorisation in place when they need one.

“For many, the current DoLS system is not providing the vital safeguards they need.

“After a decade of chronic and widely documented issues, urgent action is required to ensure the system does not continue to fail people in the future.”

In response to concerns raised by Disability News Service about the report, a CQC spokesperson said: “This year our State of Care report focuses on the urgent issues facing care services for children.

“The report builds upon findings from previous years’ reports of which adult social care was a main focus.

“On adult social care we draw attention to the fragility of the sector, highlighting the delays in local authority support and the impact this can have on care.

“The report includes experiences of those living with and supporting people with dementia, as well as the impact workforce pressures are having on the sector.

“We also highlight significant concerns in the care provided to those with learning disability and autism, emphasising inadequate support, and the need for improved safety and quality of services.

“We continue to closely monitor adult social care services and the level of care being provided.”

The commission said it was working to improve and develop its approach to assessments, and was unable to compare ratings with previous years as they are in a transition period.

Title of assisted suicide bill is ‘misleading’ and ‘argumentative’, say disabled campaigners

A disabled people’s organisation has called on MPs to try to change the “misleading” and “argumentative” title of a bill that aims to legalise assisted suicide.

Labour MP Kim Leadbeater’s terminally ill adults (end of life) bill is set to be debated by MPs, and voted on, at the end of November.

But Buckinghamshire Disability Service (BuDS) believes the short title of Leadbeater’s private members’ bill does not accurately describe what the legislation would do if passed into law.

Whereas the bill’s short title suggests that the proposed legislation will assist with palliative care and other arrangements for those who are terminally-ill, in fact it would legalise assisted suicide in England and Wales for the first time.

BuDS has written to the speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, to ask him to intervene in the naming of the bill.

In the letter, BuDS says that parliamentary rules are clear that the title of a bill should not be misleading or “argumentative”.

BuDS says the long title makes it clear that the bill is “concerned solely with providing assistance to terminally ill adults to take their own life”, so the short title is “misleading”.

It also says that the use of a “euphemistic” phrase like “end of life” is “both argumentative and sloganistic”.

BuDS suggests in the letter that a more “factual and straightforward” title for the bill might be the assisted suicide (terminally ill adults) bill.

Disability News Service has been told by the Commons that the “orderliness” of a bill’s title is considered by officials acting under the speaker’s authority before its first reading, but that it can also be debated during the bill’s passage through parliament.

MPs will have the opportunity to table an amendment to change the title of the bill at its second reading on Friday 29 November.

BuDS has also written to Leadbeater to ask her to withdraw the bill so the issue of legalisation can be considered in depth by a Royal Commission or a select committee inquiry.

Andrew Clark, chair of BuDS, said: “As a large network of disabled people, we continue to strongly feel that a private members’ bill is not an appropriate way to deal with such an important issue as assisted suicide.

“We have written to Kim Leadbeater MP asking her to withdraw her bill so that the issue of assisted suicide can be considered by Royal Commission or similar.

“Government legislation could then be brought forward to implement the commission’s recommendations, should it be necessary.

“However, if the lobby in favour of assisted suicide is determined to try to rush the legislation through in the form of a private members’ bill, we do think that the bill should at least be honest about its content.

“The long title of the bill (already published) makes it clear that it is not about general end of life issues.

“On the contrary, it deals only with assisting terminally ill adults to end their life.

“That is ‘assisted suicide’, and the bill should be called an assisted suicide bill.”

Leadbeater had not responded to a request for a comment by noon today (Thursday).

Meanwhile, opposition to the bill among MPs – or at least to plans by its supporters to rush it through parliament – appears to be growing.

The Guardian reported this week that there was anger among new Labour MPs “about the speed of the bill” and “a strong feeling that the vote should not take place until the government can show significant improvements to the state of the NHS”.

Among senior figures in the government who have raised concerns about the bill and plan to vote against it are health secretary Wes Streeting and justice secretary Shabana Mahmood, both of whom would have key responsibilities for implementing any new law.

The Guardian also reported that work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall and culture secretary Lisa Nandy are both in favour of the bill.

This week, Streeting told BBC Breakfast (watch from one hour 40 minutes) that it was “an incredibly difficult and complicated issue” and a “finely-balanced judgement”.

He said: “We are all wrestling with this across the political divide.

“I’ve made it clear that I’ll be voting against… that’s mainly because I don’t think that palliative care/end of life care is where it needs to be to give people a real choice.

“I am concerned about the risk of people being coerced into taking their lives sooner than they would have liked, or feeling – even without pressure from their families – sometimes guilt-tripped, feeling like a burden, and I’ve had to weigh up all of those issues.”

Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week

The earnings limit placed on people who claim government support for taking care of disabled, sick and elderly loved ones will rise by £45 a week, the chancellor has announced, after a six-month Guardian investigation into the carer’s allowance scandal. The changes will enable full-time unpaid carers who provide care for at least 35 hours a week to earn up to £196 a week from next April without forfeiting carer’s allowance benefit, currently £81.90 a week: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/oct/30/carers-earnings-limit-to-rise-by-45-a-week-in-wake-of-allowance-scandal

A woman whose nine-year-old daughter became the first person in the UK to have air pollution recognised as a factor in her death has settled legal action against the government for an undisclosed amount. Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah’s daughter Ella had a fatal asthma attack in 2013. In 2020, Southwark Coroner’s Court found air pollution “made a material contribution” to Ella’s death: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yx6leg4nqo

News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com

Related Posts

The Universal Discredit Show. – Online 7pm on Thursday 25th March

March 24, 2021

Fuel Poverty Action Group: Commitment on cladding is a breakthrough – but just a beginning

May 16, 2018

Disability News Service 21st March

March 21, 2024