Contents
Government refuses to say if it is secretly working on how to implement assisted suicide bill 6
McFadden admits ministers are working on ‘key areas for improvement’ after years of DWP deaths. 8
McFadden refuses to explain why he misled MPs over back-to-work benefits system.. 10
Call for Transport for London transparency over secret ticket office closure references. 13
Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week. 16
Labour cuts to out-of-work disability benefits likely to have ‘devastating’ mental health impact, research finds
Next April’s cuts to out-of-work disability benefits are likely to have “devastating” consequences for disabled people’s mental health, and drive many into serious poverty, research into the impact of similar Conservative reforms has warned.
The Labour government’s cuts are also likely to impose major costs on other public services, such as the NHS, social care and other local authority support, the research says.
The research by public health experts at the University of Liverpool examined the impact of previous cuts to out-of-work disability benefits implemented by the Conservative government in April 2017.
The research paper has been described this week as “crucial” and “vital” by disabled people’s organisations (see separate story).
The new research* found that the 2017 cuts, pushed through parliament by Tory work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith as part of his Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, had a “serious” impact on disabled people who left work in that period.
It found that the reduction of nearly £30-a-week to the benefits paid to those placed in the work-related activity group (WRAG) of employment and support allowance (ESA) was linked to an extra 92,000 people with long-term conditions a year self-reporting “common mental disorders” such as depression and anxiety.
The researchers examined the impact of the WRAG cut on people with long-term conditions who had left their jobs and claimed ESA in the years after the act became law.
The WRAG cut – which meant claimants in that group received the same benefits as those receiving the mainstream jobseeker’s allowance – also led to 31,000 a year more disabled people in this group experiencing severe poverty.
And, because they only looked at the impact on disabled people who had left work and moved onto ESA, the researchers concluded that their results “probably underestimate the overall impact of the policy change”.
The researchers also concluded that the WRAG cut had no impact on the likelihood of sick and disabled people moving into work, a key reason for the Labour government pushing through similar cuts to the health element of universal credit, which will be implemented in just five months’ time.
They say in the paper: “We found no evidence that the policy improved the employment chances for people with a long-term condition or disability.
“Our results indicated that reducing benefit payments did not improve employment, and instead increased risk of severe poverty.”
The paper’s lead author was Professor Ben Barr, who specialises in applied public health research at the University of Liverpool’s Institute of Population Health.
He and his co-authors* warn in the new paper: “We do not know what the effect will be of the forthcoming plan to reduce the payment that new claimants for Universal Credit Health Element will receive; however it is similar to the 2016 reform that also reduced these payments.”
They conclude: “Although there is growing evidence that welfare reforms such as these can have major impacts on public health, they are introduced without any plans to monitor these impacts or modify them to minimise these effects.
“These adverse health consequences, alongside increased risks of poverty, are devasting for the individuals involved but also create a false economy of cost shifting.”
This is because the initial savings, they say, lead instead to major costs to other public services, such as the NHS and social care.
They add: “Our study shows that reducing payment levels for these benefits may have unintended but serious consequences for population mental health and increased poverty.
“These adverse effects may outweigh any costs savings from cutting benefits.”
And they warn that, rather than increasing the number of disabled people in jobs, the reforms could instead “reduce the social inclusion of people with disabilities” because the cuts increase levels of mental distress and poverty.
They add: “The UK government is introducing further reductions to these benefits.
“It is likely that these will not achieve their strategic objectives and will increase mental health problems and poverty amongst people with disabilities.”
The Conservative plans to cut WRAG payments were condemned in 2016 as “drastic”, “harsh” and “counter-productive” by disabled campaigners.
Duncan Smith and fellow ministers tried to justify the cuts by claiming they would “incentivise” sick and disabled people to find work, an argument described in the House of Lords at the time by disabled crossbench peer Baroness [Jane] Campbell as “deeply flawed and, frankly, quite offensive”.
She said the government was taking a “huge gamble with people’s lives and survival”.
Her fears, and those of other disabled campaigners at the time, appear to have been borne out by the new research.
The paper also points to previous research from 2015 – again co-authored by Professor Barr – which linked the coalition government’s programme to reassess people on incapacity benefit through the work capability assessment to about 600 suicides in just three years, and an increase of 290,0000 in the number of people with mental health problems.
That research – just like the new paper – showed no increase in employment among people with long-term conditions following the Duncan Smith reforms.
Asked if the research would be taken into account in assessing future policy decisions, and whether work and pensions secretary Pat McFadden was concerned about the findings, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) released a statement that failed to answer these questions**.
McFadden was yesterday (Wednesday) asked by Debbie Abrahams, chair of the Commons work and pensions committee, how he would use “evidence that is available, for example, from previous changes to welfare policy” in improving the department’s approach to “safeguarding” claimants (see separate story).
He told her that secret DWP reviews into claimant deaths, and the department’s serious case panel, “were not the answer to everything because they often happen after a tragedy has taken place, and I don’t just want it to be a rear view exercise, but I do think they are important in giving us the evidence of what has gone wrong somewhere and how should we learn from it.”
*The health, poverty and employment effects of cutting income replacement benefits for the disabled: A difference-in-difference analysis of the 2016 welfare reforms, by Benjamin Barr, Huihui Song, Roberta Piroddi and Philip McHale
**The statement is only included here as a footnote, as it ignored the questions put to the department by Disability News Service (DNS): “We want a welfare state that is there for those who need it and supports people into work, while delivering fairness to the taxpayer. We’re shifting our focus from welfare to work, skills and opportunities so more people can move out of poverty and into good, secure jobs as part of the Plan for Change.”
***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
20 November 2025
DWP ministers ‘must be shown’ new research which shows likely results of ‘obscene’ plans to cut benefits
It is “crucial” that the government is shown new research which highlights that “obscene” plans to cut out-of-work disability benefits are likely to have “devastating” consequences for claimants, say disabled activists.
Disability News Service (DNS) reports today (see separate story) how research into the impact of past Conservative cuts in this area has revealed the significant impact they had on mental health and poverty, and that they are likely to have imposed major costs on other public services, such as the NHS and social care.
The research* by public health experts at the University of Liverpool – led by Professor Ben Barr – examined the impact of cuts to out-of-work disability benefits implemented by the Conservative government in April 2017 following the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016.
It found that that the reduction of nearly £30-a-week to benefits paid to those placed in the work-related activity group (WRAG) of employment and support allowance (ESA) had a “serious” impact on disabled people who left work in that period.
The cuts were linked to an extra 92,000 people with long-term conditions a year self-reporting “common mental disorders” such as depression and anxiety, after leaving their jobs and being placed in the WRAG, and 31,000 a year more disabled people experiencing severe poverty.
The researchers also concluded that the WRAG cut had no impact on the likelihood of sick and disabled people moving into work, a key reason for the Labour government pushing through similar cuts to most new claimants of the health element of universal credit, which will be implemented in just five months’ time.
Linda Burnip, co-founder of Disabled People Against Cuts, said: “It is vital that this research is shared with the government before they go ahead with any proposed cuts to social security payments that will push many more disabled people into further and more extreme poverty.
“Not only does this research show that making people poorer will not in any way increase the likelihood of them getting into employment, but it will lead to higher overall costs to the economy as people become more ill than they already are.
“The probable increase in suicides and self-harm are also being ignored by a Labour government intent on reducing what they claim is too high a benefits bill.
“Of course, the government also seem to ignore the fact that the economy will only grow if people have disposable income to spend.
“Abject poverty does not lead to economic growth under any circumstances.”
Inclusion Barnet’s Campaign for Disability Justice (CDJ) agreed that it was crucial that the research was seen by the government.
Caroline Collier, from CDJ, said: “It’s important the government sees this (and reads it carefully).
“We all need the means to live decent lives.
“A key duty of government is to make sure those with the fewest resources and options are safeguarded from destitution, and successive governments have failed to do this.
“We welcome Professor Barr’s research, which paints a clear picture of the actual impacts of cuts: no improvement in employment rates and deteriorating mental health and income levels for claimants.
“This research, whilst important, is a damning indictment of policy to date, which has paid no regard to the income levels disabled people need to get by.
“In the light of this, we need MPs to decide to do the right thing rather than the easy thing.
“It’s easy to placate certain sections of the press by cutting benefits, but given that there are very few accessible roles, and many people are not well enough to do any work at all, the recently enacted cuts – due in April – were really just cruelty masquerading as incentivisation, just as much as those implemented in 2017.
“All MPs, particularly those that voted for the upcoming cuts, should read Professor Barr’s work and reflect on the actual consequences of that vote.”
Professor Barr* and his fellow authors warn in the new paper: “We do not know what the effect will be of the forthcoming plan to reduce the payment that new claimants for Universal Credit Health Element will receive; however it is similar to the 2016 reform that also reduced these payments.”
They add: “The UK government is introducing further reductions to these benefits.
“It is likely that these will not achieve their strategic objectives and will increase mental health problems and poverty amongst people with disabilities.”
The new paper also points to previous research from 2015 – again co-authored by Professor Barr – which linked the coalition government’s programme to reassess people on incapacity benefit through the work capability assessment to about 600 suicides in just three years, and an increase of 290,0000 in the number of people with mental health problems.
Disabled activist Rick Burgess, a spokesperson for Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People, said of the new research paper: “This is crucial research for this moment in time.
“The government’s approach to social security and employment incentives does not work; secondly, it harms people.
“This obscene policy trajectory has to end; this research proves it must.
“Disabled people’s victimisation by the DWP has to end.”
It was Burgess who originally came up with the idea for the 2015 research.
He said: “We also know at its extremity these policies are leading to deaths.
“The government know this and to intensify these policies shows it is engaged in democide against us.
“They must abandon the cuts to universal credit, and the Pathways to Work changes.
“Start with providing an adequate level of social security provided by a new department that does not have a long history of persecuting disabled people.
“And we must have justice for those we have lost and for the abusive conditions they are forcing upon people.”
Asked if the research would be taken into account in assessing future policy decisions, and whether work and pensions secretary Pat McFadden was concerned about the findings, DWP released a statement that failed to answer these questions**.
*The health, poverty and employment effects of cutting income replacement benefits for the disabled: A difference-in-difference analysis of the 2016 welfare reforms, by Benjamin Barr, Huihui Song, Roberta Piroddi and Philip McHale
**The statement is included here as a footnote, as it failed to answer the questions put to the department by DNS: “We want a welfare state that is there for those who need it and supports people into work, while delivering fairness to the taxpayer. We’re shifting our focus from welfare to work, skills and opportunities so more people can move out of poverty and into good, secure jobs as part of the Plan for Change.”
***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
20 November 2025
Government refuses to say if it is secretly working on how to implement assisted suicide bill
The government has refused to say if it is secretly working on how to implement assisted suicide legislation that has yet to be approved by parliament, despite repeatedly claiming it has taken a “neutral” stance on the bill.
The concerns emerged during the first day of the bill’s committee stage in the House of Lords last Friday.
Despite there now being nearly 1,000 proposed amendments to the terminally ill adults (end of life) bill, peers managed to debate only two of the amendments on 14 November, the first of just four planned Fridays put aside for its committee stage.
The Lords debated issues around the application of the bill to Wales, and whether “capacity” should be replaced with “ability” in the bill’s first clause.
The bill, which applies to England and Wales, has been sponsored as a private members’ bill by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater and Labour peer Lord Falconer.
The government – including the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) – claims it remains “neutral on the principle of assisted dying” and on the passage of the bill, and that whether the law should change “is absolutely and rightly a matter for parliament”.
But the disabled crossbench peer Baroness [Tanni] Grey-Thompson told fellow peers last Friday that a civil servant had introduced himself at the Lady Mayor’s Show on 8 November and told her he was “working full-time on the implementation of this bill”.
Speaking during the debate on how the legislation would apply in Wales, she added: “I am not sure he meant to tell me that.”
Baroness [Therese] Coffey, another opponent of legalisation and deputy prime minister during Liz Truss’s brief stint as prime minister in 2022, and a former work and pensions secretary, said she found this information “very interesting”.
The Conservative peer said: “I am very interested in that, because the response that I have had from the minister is that nobody should be working on this beyond the bill team, so nobody should be working on implementation.”
Baroness Grey-Thompson replied: “Is there far more going on behind the scenes?
“Is the presumption that very few amendments will be accepted, as happened [when the bill was debated and passed by MPs], or are the supporters of this bill really open to making it better?”
Baroness Merron, a junior DHSC minister, did not answer these concerns when responding to the debate on Baroness Coffey’s amendment on Wales.
A DHSC spokesperson repeatedly refused to say this week whether civil servants were working on the implementation of the bill, when asked by Disability News Service.
Instead, the department said that the primary function of the team working within DHSC on the bill was to work on its legal and technical coherence, which included technical drafting support and advising on the workability of the legislation, while also supporting ministers to fulfil their parliamentary duties.
The spokesperson said: “The terminally ill adults (end of life) bill is a private members’ bill, with Kim Leadbeater MP and Lord Falconer of Thoroton as the sponsors.
“The government is neutral on the policy of assisted dying and whether this bill should become law.”
Meanwhile, several peers expressed concern last Friday at how the Lords would have time to debate the hundreds of amendments in the time allocated to the bill.
Lord Tyrie, a non-affiliated peer who said he was “a supporter of the intentions of the bill”, said: “What concerns me is that we are now going to try to improve a bill, which is demonstrably flawed, with 900 amendments – many of which seem to make sense to me – on the floor of the house between now and Christmas.”
He said he believed the government should now take control of the bill.
Crossbencher Baroness Stuart added: “The way the bill is written has so many flaws that I do not think that, however long we debate it, this house will be able to get it to a stage where it is legislatively fit to be passed, and that is our role: we should not vote for anything that cannot legislatively be properly implemented.”
Lord Kennedy, Labour’s chief whip in the Lords, said the government “remain neutral and will not be providing government time for this bill” and did not “have any government time to give it at the moment”.
He added: “I know how long it has taken on the bill. I know that views are sincerely held on both sides. I will work in the usual channels to deal with these matters.”
Among the amendments due to be debated tomorrow (21 November) are proposed improvements to the bill around coercion and financial abuse.
20 November 2025
McFadden admits ministers are working on ‘key areas for improvement’ after years of DWP deaths
The work and pensions secretary has admitted to MPs that his department has identified “key areas for improvement” in how it protects benefit claimants from harm, following years of deaths linked to its actions and failings.
In a letter to the Commons work and pensions committee, sent this week, Pat McFadden says that a “comprehensive review” of safeguarding within the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) had compared its approach with other organisations, such as those in health and education, and “identified key areas for improvement”.
He says DWP has now developed a “high-level strategy to prioritise short, medium, and long-term actions” to improve its approach, with a detailed plan of action to be released “in due course”.
The letter follows the committee’s inquiry on “safeguarding vulnerable claimants”, which reported in May and called on DWP to introduce a new legal duty for it to safeguard such claimants, after decades of deaths and other harm linked to its policies and procedures.
In his letter, McFadden says the government “remains open” to such a legal duty, which the last Conservative government repeatedly dismissed.
The committee’s report called for a deep-rooted cultural change across the department so it could address its current “deficient” approach to safeguarding.
McFadden says in the letter that the immediate steps it is taking on safeguarding include action to improve “leadership and accountability”; safeguarding training to be “offered” to all staff; improving how DWP works with other agencies; and improving the safety of how it recruits healthcare professionals who carry out benefit assessments.
He also says the department is looking at how it can improve the “learning” from deaths and other serious cases that are examined through its secret internal process review (IPR) system.
The committee’s chair, Labour MP Debbie Abrahams, told McFadden yesterday (Wednesday) in his first evidence session before the committee, that the number of IPRs following claimant deaths rose from 40 in 2023-24 to 59 last year, which was “not the trajectory that we would want to see”.
McFadden replied that, although it was “important to have… serious case panels [and IPRs]”, which “do help us learn”, DWP should not “just look at this with a rear-view mirror, learning from what’s gone wrong, but actually have an active process, to try to make sure that we deal with people in the best way that we can”.
He told Abrahams: “I’m not going to sit here and say it’s job done, it’s clearly not, but I think it is something that we take seriously.”
McFadden said one crucial measure it had taken was to offer higher-level training to its healthcare professionals, most of whom carry out benefit assessments for outsourced providers, as it was “important that they get that and they understand their training and their responsibilities”.
The committee’s report had also suggested a new independent body should be set up to investigate cases where claimants had been seriously harmed by DWP’s actions, but McFadden did not mention that recommendation in his letter or in yesterday’s evidence to the committee.
Abrahams later asked McFadden to write to the committee to explain what consideration ministers had given to the safeguarding impact of their decision to cut the health element of universal credit for most new claimants from next April, which will lead to work-related conditions being placed upon this group (see separate story).
She also asked how ministers would address the safeguarding concerns raised by the government’s potential plans – outlined in the Pathways to Work green paper earlier this year – to scrap the health element for sick and disabled people under the age of 22.
She said that many of the young people affected by this cut would have experienced a decade of “living in absolute dire circumstances that has affected their childhood” and would have “gone through significant difficulties”.
She said: “They are now needing some attention in relation to that.
“It’s recognised that cash support is the only way that you can instantly alleviate the poverty that they’ve experienced.”
McFadden said the efficiency of using cash support to alleviate child poverty was a “point well made”.
But he said the government had not yet decided whether to scrap the health element for under-22s.
But he said that “the argument for it would be these benefits are sticky and if we can get more opportunity for people, and less chance of them going through that long-term sickness door and staying on it, that is better for them in the long run”.
He said this was one of the questions that would be examined by the investigation into the rising number of young people who are not in jobs, training or education (NEETs), being led by former Labour health secretary Alan Milburn.
DNS revealed last week that this investigation will exclusively focus on sick and disabled young people.
McFadden said this “whole issue of young people, sickness, unemployment, and work [is] all within the terms of what I’ve asked Alan Milburn to look at in the next few months.
“So it’s in there, and I don’t want to make a decision on it until we’ve looked at things in the round.”
But Abrahams told him it was vital that the government took an evidence-based approach to its decision, and she warned that a “conditionality approach rather than a supportive approach may have not the outcome that we would want to see”.
McFadden replied: “Well, you could argue that the evidence shows if you go on these benefits at a young age, you tend to stay on them, and that’s not very good for your life.
“There’s plenty evidence for that, too.”
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
20 November 2025
McFadden refuses to explain why he misled MPs over back-to-work benefits system
Work and pensions secretary Pat McFadden has failed to apologise after he misled MPs about his department’s system for pushing sick and disabled people into work.
McFadden yesterday (Wednesday) exaggerated the flaws in the current system, as he attempted to persuade MPs on a Commons select committee that it was necessary to cut benefit payments to disabled people applying for out-of-work benefits.
The current, longstanding system – which his government is attempting to reform – provides three groups for sick and disabled people who are assessed for their capacity for paid work.
They can be found fit for work – which places significant conditions on them, including spending 35 hours a week looking for a job – or found to have limited capability for work and work-related activity (LCWRA), which means claimants “do not need to look for work or prepare for work”.
McFadden told the Commons work and pensions committee yesterday (Wednesday) that there were only these “two doors” for universal credit claimants who are tested through the work capability assessment.
He told the committee: “You go through one door and you’re in the intensive work support group, where you have your mandatory 35 hours of job search activity and all of that, and you go through another door [and] you don’t have any of that, and you get double the money.
“That is the system that we inherited, and it’s the system that we are trying to change on a couple of fronts.”
But in fact, the current system has three “doors”, not two, as there is a third potential destination, which is for those universal credit claimants found to have limited capability for work (LCW).
Sick and disabled people placed in this group are expected to “prepare to work in the future” – ever since the introduction of universal credit*, despite misleading statements made by politicians – for example through meetings with a jobcentre adviser, taking part in training courses, or carrying out other tasks ordered by DWP.
Despite this, McFadden told the committee that the government’s proposed policy change was to “narrow that gap” between the standard universal credit allowance and the payment made to those who receive the health element of universal credit, and to “match that with more employment support for those in that group, partly because of the system that I just described”.
He had been responding to a question from Liberal Democrat MP John Milne, who had asked how many disabled people ministers expected to find work after most new claimants of the health element of universal credit have their payments approximately halved from next April, which he said ministers believe will “incentivise pathways into work”.
Asked by Milne whether ministers had analysed what impact the cut would have on the debt levels of those new claimants receiving the health element from next April, McFadden said: “For those who don’t get jobs, they will get the support that they’re entitled to going forward, just like anybody else in the benefit system.”
McFadden later told another committee member, Labour’s Johanna Baxter, that “the two door system that we inherited was too content to just leave people forever”.
Debbie Abrahams, the committee’s Labour chair, asked McFadden to write to the committee to explain why ministers had decided “to draw disabled people into conditionality” through its reforms, compared with the last Labour government’s New Deal for Disabled People, which proved successful in the 2000s with its voluntary approach that “still managed to get tens of thousands of disabled people into work, and successful work”.
Asked why McFadden misled the committee by failing to mention the LCW group and claiming there were only “two doors” for disabled claimants, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) refused to say, instead issuing a statement that attempted – inaccurately – to clarify the potential WCA outcomes**.
Meanwhile, McFadden also confirmed that he was not ruling out cuts to personal independence payment (PIP) at the end of the ongoing review of PIP being led by Sir Stephen Timms, the minister for social security and disability.
He had been asked by Liberal Democrat MP Steve Darling, his party’s work and pensions spokesperson, why ministers had published updated terms of reference for the review earlier this month and whether this suggested that those engaging with the review “may fear that they are aiding the axeman in respect of PIP”.
As reported by Disability News Service, the new terms of reference strongly suggest that spending on PIP would not be allowed to be higher than “projections” published by the Office for Budget Responsibility, but could be lower.
McFadden told Darling: “It’s important to signal that, you know, the job of the Timms Review can’t be to come up with more expenditure on this, that it has to work within the budgetary parameters of the rest of the government, within the fiscal rules that the government abides by, and it was important to signal that at the start of the work.”
Asked again by Darling whether he could rule out further cuts to PIP, he said: “I’m not ruling anything out.
“I’ve only been in the job for three months and if I start ruling things out, I just close doors in the future, so I’m not ruling anything out.”
*A similar group – the work-related activity group – has always existed for employment and support allowance (ESA) claimants since its introduction in 2008. Claimants of income-related ESA are now being “migrated” onto universal credit
**The statement is included here as a footnote, as it failed to answer the question put to the department by DNS: “A universal credit claimant who undergoes a work capability assessment will either be found fit for work or not fit for work and fall within the LCW or LCWRA categories where they will have reduced conditionality.” This is not correct, as there is no conditionality at all in the LCWRA category. DWP had not corrected this statement by noon today (Thursday)
20 November 2025
Call for Transport for London transparency over secret ticket office closure references
London’s transport authority is refusing to provide details of how it could potentially close nearly every ticket office along the new Elizabeth line cross-capital rail system.
The Elizabeth Line only opened three years ago but extracts from a contract – seen by Disability News Service (DNS) – suggest that Transport for London (TfL) could close the ticket offices of all “Operator Leased Stations” by 20 August 2027.
This would mean shutting ticket offices at all but the three major stations of Reading, Paddington and Liverpool Street.
DNS has been trying for more than two months to obtain the relevant section of the contract between TfL and the private sector GTS joint venture that runs the Elizabeth line, from which the extracts were taken.
Although the TfL contract is available online, the relevant sections have been redacted.
TfL has now told DNS that these sections have been redacted for reasons of “commercial confidentiality”, because they would “provide insight into prospective commercial service modification options and pricing options” and releasing them would “prejudice our commercial interests”.
It adds: “A disclosure of this nature would hinder TfL’s ability to fairly consider any future service modification options that maybe required to continue to operate a financially sustainable business successfully in a competitive industry.”
The Elizabeth line runs from Reading and Heathrow Airport to the west of London, through the city, and to Abbey Wood and Shenfield to the east of the capital.
TfL insisted that the potential “prejudice” caused by releasing the information outweighs the “strong public interest in openness” under the Freedom of Information Act.
TfL has previously said that the redacted section of the contract “examines how operation of the Elizabeth Line might change with future developments in technology, including in customer retail”.
But Laura Vicinanza, Inclusion London’s senior policy and stakeholder engagement manager, said the leaked contract excerpts “raise concerns about potential closures of Elizabeth line ticket offices, a move that would effectively lock many disabled people out of the transport network”.
She said this would “shut station doors to those already facing significant barriers to safe, reliable, and convenient travel – travel that enables us to stay in work, access education, and remain connected to our communities.
“We urgently need transparency and clarity about the future of Elizabeth line ticket offices.”
A TfL spokesperson said last night (Wednesday): “As part of the Elizabeth line concession procurement, TfL required bidders to price for a number of optional service changes that could be instructed by TfL.
“This approach ensured that TfL could obtain value-for-money submissions that would be driven by a competitive procurement and is in line with approaches taken on previous rail procurements and best practice.
“These options have been redacted in accordance with S43(2) of the [Freedom of Information Act] given there is sensitive commercial pricing information within the schedule and publication of the detail could prejudice TfL’s and its supplier’s ability to implement them if instructed.
“This would in turn prejudice the commercial interests of TfL and its supply chain.
“As previously confirmed, TfL does not have plans to close ticket offices on the Elizabeth line.”
Evidence suggests that the rail industry is intent on exploiting various loopholes in an attempt to close ticket offices across the country, two years after the Conservative government abandoned plans to close most ticket offices in England.
A public consultation on those plans in 2023 saw nearly 750,000 public objections to the proposed closures, with 99 per cent of those who took part objecting.
The RMT rail union described the potential closures two months ago as “reckless”, with RMT general secretary Eddie Dempsey saying: “After the biggest wave of public opposition we’ve seen in years to ticket office closures, it’s beyond belief that similar plans are being put back on the table for the Elizabeth Line.”
20 November 2025
Inaccessible transport is a growing barrier to enjoying live sport for disabled fans, survey finds
Inaccessible public transport is a “growing barrier” for disabled sports fans, according to the results of an annual survey by a disabled-led charity.
Level Playing Field said the results of its fifth online survey showed that the proportion of disabled fans who said “inaccessible public transport” and being “unable to travel to stadiums” were barriers they faced when attending live sport had both continued to increase since 2021.
The proportion of respondents who said inaccessible public transport was a barrier was now 22.5 per cent, while 20 per cent of disabled fans said being unable to travel to stadiums was a barrier.
Both were at 16 per cent in 2021 (PDF), the first year of the survey.
Of the three-fifths (61.5 per cent) of disabled fans who said they would benefit from accessible parking, nearly a third (29 per cent) said they had missed a match or matches because of a lack of suitable accessible spaces.
And 28.5 per cent of this group said they required accessible parking but none was available, while 25.5 per cent said it was always available.
Tony Taylor, LPF’s chair, said: “At Level Playing Field, we recognise the importance of live sports for their unparalleled ability to bring communities together.
“It is therefore deeply troubling that so many of the key findings from this year’s survey results point towards inaccessibility causing isolation in society.
“This gives us some key areas to work on, and we encourage service providers and supporters to join us in those efforts.”
He added: “‘Inaccessible public transport’ and being ‘unable to travel to stadiums’ have continued to increase in how commonly they are listed as barriers to attending, year-on-year since the first results were published in 2021.
“The impact of this is compounded by the findings on parking.”
Another key barrier is “attitudes of others”, the survey found, such as a lack of understanding of disability and incorrect assumptions about a supporter’s access requirements.
Those experiencing this as a barrier when attending live sport has almost doubled since the first survey in 2021, from 14.5 per cent to 28 per cent, with those experiencing a lack of support from club staff rising from seven per cent of disabled fans in 2021 to 12 per cent this year.
One result from the survey that was more encouraging was a drop in the proportion of disabled fans who reported “disability abuse” as a barrier to attending live sport, falling from 8.5 per cent of disabled fans last year to 6.5 per cent this year.
Taylor said there had been “a great deal of effort targeted towards combatting disability abuse and the concerning trend of year-on-year rises there has ended, with it now standing at a three-year low of 6.5 per cent”.
More than 2,000 disabled fans took part in the survey.
While most responses were from football supporters, there were also increasing numbers of responses from fans of rugby league, rugby union, and women’s football.
Level Playing Field, which campaigns to improve the experiences of disabled fans attending live sporting events in England and Wales, has sent club-specific reports – detailing responses from their own disabled supporters, feedback and suggestions – to about 120 clubs and organisations linked to clubs.
The results of the survey will also be used to offer advice to sports governing bodies.
20 November 2025
Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week
The health secretary has vowed to “put a stop” to the practice of NHS doctors giving people with learning difficulties automatic do-not-resuscitate orders, following an ITV News investigation. Wes Streeting said it was “repugnant and immoral” that people with learning difficulties were being treated “as being of less worth” by the health service. Multiple families have told ITV News that hospitals are still routinely placing Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation orders, or DNRs, on medical records without their consent: https://www.itv.com/news/2025-11-14/do-not-resuscitate-orders-given-to-learning-disabled-people-without-consent
Actor Sophie Turner has issued a stark warning regarding the “serious risk” she and other campaigners believe the proposed assisted dying bill poses to individuals with eating disorders. The acclaimed star, known for her role in Game of Thrones, who has previously spoken candidly about her own struggles with an eating disorder, is among the prominent figures who have co-signed a letter addressed to peers in the House of Lords: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sophie-turner-assisted-dying-bill-eating-disorder-b2867549.html
20 November 2025
News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com
