Ben Golightly

Editor / Swansea DPAC.

Now’s the time to challenge Timms Review: write to your MP

Action, All Posts, Benefits, Disability Activism, DWP, Letters, News, PIP, welfare cuts, Welfare reforms, Write to your MP No Responses »

Oct 062026

A graphic urging people to write to their MP. It says "The Timms Review" in the Government's font on a blue background, and beside has the word "Rebellion" in the style of cut up newspaper letters. Also pictured are three women with a red flag and a placard. One of the women is a wheelchair user. "Write to your MP" is in bold rounded text overflowing a comic-book style yellow star shoutout.

Benefits and Work is urging readers to begin challenging the Timms review right now, rather than waiting until its final report is published.

We’ve carried the full article below.

Afterwards, we’ve provided some template/example letters that you might find helpful. There are also more template/example letters in the comments on the original article from Benefits and Work.

You can jump straight to our template/example letters here.

Benefits and Work said:

Benefits and Work is urging readers to begin challenging the Timms review right now, rather than waiting until its final report is published. We’re providing some suggestions about issues you can raise with your MP.

Many people feel that it is best not to speculate about what will be in the final Timms review and only respond when we see what it recommends. But there is a danger of leaving things too late if this approach is taken, for at least three reasons

Backbench opinion is changing

Firstly, it is clear that the government have been working hard to move backbench opinion in favour of welfare reform, having learnt the hard lessons of their disastrous four-point PIP proposal. Some of the MPs who were at the forefront of the rebellion last year are now talking much more positively about benefits change.

As far back as June of this year, Meg Hillier – a leading rebel against the PIP four-point plan – said that Alan Milburn’s interim report on youth unemployment was a “game-changer” and that opinion in the Labour party on welfare reform is “worlds apart” from last year.

Louise Haigh, another leading welfare rebel, who the Guardian calls “an influential adviser to Burnham”, said on the eve of the release of the Timms review interim report that welfare reform is essential to tackle the ballooning welfare budget.

Lack of real detail

Secondly, it seems increasingly possible that the final report will tell us very little more than we already know about two of the most important issues: assessment pathways and disability-related costs.

With so little time left after the current workshops conclude, it is now looking more likely that the Timms review will only set out the broad principles of a wholly new disability benefit. The details of how it will actually work – where pathways will lead, how eligibility for PIP or its replacement will be decided and how disability-costs will be calculated – may be left to the DWP to decide later, perhaps with some token consultation.

There is no point in waiting for a detailed report that may never appear.

Failure to consult

Thirdly, there is no need to even address the possible recommendations of the Timms report. The utter failure to genuinely consult with disabled claimants, let alone co-produce the report, is grounds for objections right now.

Once the final report is out, attention will be on what is in it, rather than how it was created. The opportunity to question the whole legitimacy of the report may be lost once it is published.

Challenge now

So, we are encouraging claimants to begin contacting MPs now, in order to challenge the legitimacy of the whole Timms review process before it is complete.

Because we can be certain that the Timms review final report will insist that disabled people have been involved at every stage of the review. This is one of the major ways they will aim to get backbench support.

This slide, shown to participants of the September to October workshops, demonstrates the kind of claims they will make.

It lists:

A Call for Evidence submitted by 38,713 people
A national survey with disabled people
DWP administrative data
Workshop in a box submissions
Sessions with experts and resources shared by SG [steering group] members

This is the kind of evidence that the DWP will be thrusting at MPs, but the reality is very different.

Above all, the DWP will claim that the report was co-produced with disabled people and Disabled People’s Organisations. Timms himself gave repeated undertakings to co-produce the review with disabled people, such as:

“The Timms Review will be co-produced with disabled people, the organisations that represent them and other experts to ensure that expertise from a wide range of perspectives is drawn upon. This means the Government will share ownership and responsibility for how the Review runs and what it recommends.”

(Stephen Timms, Parliamentary written answer. 20 October 2025)

“Hearing from disabled people across the UK is vitally important to inform the Review.

“That is why we are co-producing this review with disabled people every step of the way — to make sure that PIP is truly fair and fit for the future.”

(New engagement toolkit puts disabled people at the heart of the Timms Review 8 June 2026)

In reality, there is overwhelming evidence that this level of shared ownership and co-production never happened. Below are some of the issues we think are worth raising with MPs.

Co-chairs were recruited by an unexplained process

The two co-chairs were appointed by the DWP using a process that was never open to scrutiny, with no published selection criteria or account of how they were selected or by whom. That is secrecy, not co-production.

The steering group member selection criteria ruled out most PIP claimants

The Timms review steering group members were selected by Timms and the co-chairs using criteria that were always likely to rule out many ordinary PIP claimants who had much lived experience of the benefit, but not of policy or strategic engagement. One of the essential criteria was that applicants needed:

“Experience being involved in strategic engagement on matters relating to disability, long-term health conditions or social security-related issues.”

This was always likely to rule out most applicants, as the DWP would have been aware.

The steering group members are not representative of most PIP claimants

Because of the criteria used to select steering group members, they are extremely unrepresentative of the majority of PIP claimants. Around 80% of PIP claimants are not in employment, although many will have been employed in the past.

Yet the review steering group is made up of high-achieving Paralympians, company directors, academics, policy specialists and entrepreneurs. There is no reason why such people should not be on the steering group, but there is every reason for them not to make up the entire steering group.

Only two of the steering group members could be regarded as welfare benefits specialists, according to the biographies published by the DWP.

One of these, Jean-André Prager, was a Downing Street special adviser covering the DWP in 2024, when Rishi Sunak’s Conservative government published their infamous Modernising Support for Independent Living Green Paper, which called for a disability-costs based PIP system with some cash payments being replaced by vouchers, equipment or services.

He is also the lead author of a report published this October by a right-leaning think tank calling for savage cuts to reduce the number of children getting DLA for mental health, learning difficulties and neurodevelopmental conditions by up to 70%.

The other benefits specialist is Professor Ben Geiger who was seconded to the DWP in 2015-16 and who had already told Timms years before the review that the DWP should “have a look at the extra costs that people face and how those match up to the assessment”. If the DWP already had in mind a disability-related costs-based replacement for PIP, these are two experts they would have been happy to have on the review.

There has been no general consultation with disabled people

There has been no general consultation with disabled claimants about the September proposals for cost-based assessment system.

There was a confusing Call for Evidence with just four questions, including some extremely complex ones, such as:

“Does the PIP assessment, including the assessment criteria, effectively capture the impact of long-term health conditions and disability in the modern world, and provide fair access to the right support at the right level across the benefits system?”

The DWP have made much of the fact that the Call for Evidence received over 38,000 responses. But this was not a consultation and it did not set out options for change and ask respondents to say which they preferred.

The review also commissioned a survey of 2,000 working-age disabled people which allegedly asked for their views on welfare reform. But the survey ended on 17 August 2026, before the review unveiled its costs-based PIP awards recommendation in September, and absolutely no details of the questions or results have so far been made public.

Disabled People’s Organisations (DPOs) were not involved in creating the Timms review recommendations.

DPOs were not given any opportunity to shape the recommendations of the Timms review, according to Disability Rights UK, they are only being asked to comment on them now they have been published:

Sophia Kleanthous, Campaigns and Policy Officer at Disability Rights UK said:

“The Government has consistently failed to properly include Disabled People’s Organisation’s in decisions and processes that affect us, including a lack of notice of significant updates and decisions during the Timms Review process, and not co-producing any part of the Review with DPOs despite promises to do so. The next stage is for the draft Review recommendations to be considered by Disabled people, DPOs and charities at a number of round tables, to gain feedback on the draft Review recommendations”

DRUK have produced a briefing paper for disabled people who want to challenge the Timms review, which you can download from this page.

The Timms review workshops were not co-produced and the Timms review has admitted this.

The Timms review scheduled a series of workshops between 15 September and 7 October.

However, these were not co-produced with disabled people, as the DWP admitted in the slides sent out to attendees which explained:

“The steering group recognise that these workshops have not been co-produced but are important opportunities to hear directly from people who interact with PIP.”

The Timms review workshops asked for responses to proposals that were meaningless because of lack of detail.

Disabled people have never had an opportunity to give their opinions about the final proposals because these have never been set out in sufficient detail to be able to assess them.

On the massively important issue of PIP awards being calculated on the basis of disability-related costs in the future, the only information given at workshops was:

“The award will contribute fairly to the extra costs that arise from disability and long-term health conditions and reflect fluctuating and cumulative impacts.

“Cost categories used to discuss the person’s circumstances, and therefore determine their award, could include: equipment and aids; mobility and transport; clothing and bedding.”

It is nonsensical to claim that such scant information could form the basis of a genuine consultation, let alone co-production.

It’s also worth noting that when we put these few details to Benefits and Work readers, 80% of over 5,000 respondents did not support the idea of a disability-costs related award.

The DWP only wanted to fund Timms initiatives it selected

The DWP awarded £1 million to a private sector company, The Public Service Consultants (PSC), for assistance in the co-production of the Timms review. PSC facilitated the workshops at which attendees were asked to put counters on a stripey sheet of paper to show their degree of support for different proposals. Funding was provided to ensure venue accessibility, pay transport and support costs and make payments to each individual attendee.

By contrast, when it came to the “Workshop in a box” initiative in which disability groups were given access to some slides and other material to run their own workshops, the DWP initially failed to provide any funding whatsoever.

After protests, the DWP agreed to fund some “Workshop in a box” events, but only “up to 50” organisations selected by the Timms review itself and “proactively contacted by the DWP”.

In other words, these were not even necessarily the organisations that had initially wanted to run the workshops. Instead, cash-strapped organisations not hand-picked by the Timms review were left to cover all the costs of organising and facilitating the events themselves – or not run them at all.

The Commons Work and Pensions Committee (WPC) has concerns about the degree of co-production by the review.

On 17 September 2026, the WPC wrote to the Timms review asking a series of questions. The WPC said they were concerned that the review’s approach to co-production “does not ensure, for example, disabled members of the Review have shared power in decision-making”.

In other words, MPs are worried that even Timms steering group members may not have real power to decide how the review is run or what recommendations it makes.

Tellingly, the letter also asks for information about “how many of the 63 UK DPOs were engaged in the review” and “when you will publish proposals on assessment criteria and descriptors”

Contact your MP

It is overwhelmingly clear that disabled people and their organisation did not “share ownership and responsibility for how the Review runs and what it recommends”.

It is also the case that no detailed proposals will have been consulted on – they probably won’t even have been published – prior to the final report being passed to the secretary of state.

You might want to raise some or all of the issues above with your MP.

Or you may just want to tell your MP that you don’t consider that there has been any real effort to consult with disabled people about the actually recommendations of the Timms review and you want your MP to be clear about this when the Timms review final report is published.

There’s more on how to contact your MP here

If you do contact your MP, please consider posting a copy of what you wrote below – removing any personal details – to give other readers ideas and encouragement. It may be worth trying to avoid using AI to write your email, as MPs are probably getting very adept at spotting AI generated content and may pay it less attention. Something short and from the heart may be more effective.

And if you do get a response, we’d love to see that too.

Comments can be posted on the original article by Benefits and Work

Here are some template/example letters by DPAC:

How to contact your MP here

It is always better to use your own words, but these may help give you some ideas.

Always be respectful in your email, because otherwise the MP will have an excuse to not even read it.

Always give your postcode. Ideally give your full address. MPs will not respond if they cannot check you are their constituent.

Template/example 1

Dear [MP’s name],

The Government is looking at the money given to Disabled people. This is called the Timms Review.

The Government said it would listen to disabled people and we would work together to write the review. This is called coproduction.

But this has not happened properly. Disabled people are worried that some of the changes will be bad.

Please stand up for Disabled people like me. Tell the Government to listen to us. Don’t let the Government lie about coproduction.

From

[Name and address]

Template/example 2

Dear [MP’s name],

I am writing as your constituent about the Timms Review and potential cuts and changes to disability benefits like PIP.

Sir Stephen Timms promised that the review would be coproduced with Disabled people and our organisations. I want you to be clear that this has not happened at all.

Instead, £1 million of public money went to private consultants to manage us.

I hope that you will vote against any future disability cuts, even if purely on the principle that the promise that Mr. Timms made to MPs like you in parliament should mean something.

PIP needs to change, but please don’t support short-sighted proposals designed over the objections of Disabled people.

When PIP was first introduced, it was intended to save 20%. Instead, it delivered a punitive system that ended up costing even more.

I’m worried the same thing is going to happen again.

We need a genuine review, led independently by Disabled people and our organisations. That’s the only way we will create a better system that works for everyone.

Yours sincerely,

[Name and address]

Timms Review rebellion: reject youth disability cuts

Action, All Posts, Benefits, Disability Activism, DWP, local groups, News, PIP, Universal Credit, welfare cuts No Responses »

Oct 022026

A graphic about the Timms Review. Over the official government colours is the word "rebellion!" in ransom-style newspaper cut-out letters on a ripped scrap of paper. Two scraps of paper are presented below. The first is a newspaper clipping saying "Disabled people issue 'direct warning' over proposed benefit cuts for under-22s" with a black and white photo and some text about how attendees in Cardiff forced a vote over proposed cuts. The second scrap of paper is lined. Above, a caption says: "During the workshop, participants unanimously approved a counter-recommendation." The paper itself says, in a handwritten font: "That the PIP process works for you, whatever age you are, whatever condition or impairment you might have, whatever class you are, whatever ethnicity you are, whatever your circumstances." There are decorative foreground details such as a paperclip and tape. One of the pieces of tape is red, adding a rebellious splash of colour.

Graphic by DPAC Cymru – no AI used

In South Wales last week, Disabled people, including DPAC members and allies, asserted control of the Timms Review workshop to send a positive message of defiance.

Why?

‘Whitehall sources’ are briefing papers about possible future disability cuts:

– Removing the health element of Universal Credit entirely for claimants under the age of 25.

– A separate PIP system for under-25s with “reduced or withdrawn” entitlements.

Prior to this, Stephen Timms was frank that he still intended to cut some or all health and disability benefits for under-22s.

It is easy to feel afraid, upset and powerless when politicians talk about our lives like this. That’s why Disabled people need to make our own headlines.

In an indicative vote at our Timms Review workshop, we made clear our total opposition to any cuts aimed at young disabled people.

We said to tell Timms that those plans needed to be dead and buried.

We also discussed other groups of people that the Government demonises, like disabled migrants.

We unanimously approved our own positive counter-recommendation:

“The PIP process must work for you, whatever age you are, whatever condition or impairment you might have, whatever class you are, whatever ethnicity you are, whatever your circumstances.”

If the Government picks this fight with young disabled people, they will lose. Again.

We won’t leave anybody behind: an injury to one is an injury to all.

We urgently call on all disabled workers to hold the TUC General Council to account over its cowardly abdication in failing to implement TUC 2025 motions 38 and 39, and for individual trade unions to commit to emergency action.

Timms Review spends £1 million on sham-co-production consultants

All Posts, Benefits, Disability Activism, Disability Rights, DWP, News, PIP, welfare cuts, Welfare reforms No Responses »

Sep 242026

Government tender notices reveal that the DWP signed a contract worth at least £1 million with private consultants the PSC to manage “co-production” of the controversial Timms Review.

The Public Service Consultants website reveals it also holds lucrative taxpayer-funded contracts and interests relating to AI, the NHS, social care, the civil service, aerospace, satellite surveillance, and defence. [1]

Disabled People’s Organisations, meanwhile, had to fight for even minimal funding for accessible engagement with the Timms Review.

The Work and Pensions Select Committee has since written to Sir Stephen Timms MP “concerned” at the approach to co-production.

Protests in Wales organised by disabled people, carers, and trade unions, have forced the DWP to cancel an upcoming in-person workshop in Cardiff and move it online, in an almost blow-by-blow repeat of protests last year.

Disabled People Against Cuts Cymru (DPAC Cymru) had also previously also exposed how local Disabled People’s Organisations were told they would have no say over the running of Timms Review workshops.

A spokesperson for the group said:

The DWP need to ask themselves why Disabled people feel the need to protest a review that is supposedly “co-produced” with them.

The Timms Review won’t become another one of the Public Service Consultants’ glossy case studies. Instead of delivering co-production, the PSC is managing a top-down review that is proving politically radioactive. Even the DWP’s one million pieces of silver might not buy enough soap to wash off the stink.

We have not been given the co-production we were promised by Timms and MPs must hold him to account. What’s needed now is an independent disability review, democratically led by disabled people and our organisations, including our trade unions. The DWP should turn up, shut up, and listen.

END

Please direct press enquiries to dpac.cymru+press@gmail.com

Footnotes

[1] The PSC are also really quite hawkish about space being “a warfighting domain” where the UK must “act fast or risk becoming a second – tier space power”; they also have their hand in privitisation, urging the government to “partner with the third and private sectors to co-fund projects.”

Oppose the Assisted Dying Bill

Action, All Posts, Assisted Dying Bill, Disability Activism, Events, News, Write to your MP 1 Response »

Sep 102026

With apologies that this has been posted with such late notice due to illness.

On the 11th of September, MPs will vote on whether to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales. If the vote passes, the bill will undergo edits at the Committee and Report stages, then MPs will vote again on the amended bill.

Take action

What you need to know before MPs vote on Assisted Dying – Disability Rights UK

Write to your MP

Join our protest

This is a flyer with a picture of the UK Parliament on it. In big red at the top are the hashtags 'Vote No' and 'No To A D'.

Text asks people to join disabled people against cuts at a protest against the Assisted Dying (AD) Bill on Friday 11 September 2026. Assemble at 8.30am for 9.30am start, at Parliament Square Westminster, London, SW1P 3BD.

The flyer advises to bring water, hat, power bank for phones, medication.

Poster for Disabled People Against Cuts protest against the Assisted Dying (AD) Bill.

#VoteNo #NoToAD. “Our lives are not up for a vote.”

Friday 11 September 2026 at Parliament Square, Westminster, London SW1P 3BD. Assemble at 8.30am. Protest begins at 9.30am.

Attendees are asked to bring water, a hat, phone power bank and any required medication.

“No to Assisted Dying. Fund social care, palliative care, pain management, give us dignity in life.”

The event is for disabled people, families, friends and allies. Step-free access is available.

“Together we fight for dignity, rights and a life worth living.”

Statement: why we won’t be “co-hosting” Timms Review workshop

All Posts, Disability Activism, DWP, News, PIP, welfare cuts 2 Responses »

Aug 242026

Welsh disability campaigners reject invitation to be “glorified doorstaff” in controversial DWP review.

DPAC Cymru statement

On Friday, the Timms Review Steering Group wrote to Disabled People Against Cuts Cymru (DPAC Cymru), inviting us to “co-host” one of the upcoming ‘shaping recommendations’ workshops looking at changes to the PIP disability benefit.

This put us in a difficult position. DPAC Cymru has consistently fought against the failings of the Timms Review. We have been clear that the review has repeatedly failed us as disabled people, and as Welsh people. We are clear that it is not the ‘co-production’ that was promised by Sir Stephen Timms to parliament last year – which even review co-chair Dr Clenton Farquharson acknowledges.

We did not want our name used to legitimise a review that was entirely unfit for purpose. But we also did not want to miss an opportunity to make it better.

Most importantly, we have consistently argued that we need an independent review, democratically led by disabled people and our organisations including our trade unions, that invites the views of non-disabled carers, volunteers, and workers in health, social care, housing, transport, education, and welfare.

Being ‘appointed’ by the DWP as co-hosts would take us no nearer to the independent review we need.

However, the briefing attached to the document made the decision easier for us. It explained what the DWP meant by “co-hosting.”

It said plainly that we would not be “deciding or designing workshop content” or “facilitating discussions during workshops” as these were “out of scope.”

Instead, this would be done by Public Service Consultants (PSC) facilitators and a West-England disabled people’s organisation.

We would also “not be part of the workshop participants in an organisational capacity” and would “not be expected to provide feedback on recommendations.” In other words, we would have even less input as co-hosts than as attendees.

Instead, our role on the day would be to “welcome participants to the venue and help them settle in”, “set the scene” at the start, and “thank participants at the end”, for which we would be paid £37.50 per hour.

What the Timms Review have described as an invitation to “co-host” a workshop, is instead a request for glorified doorstaff.

We are not boycotting the review. We responded to the Call for Evidence. Our members want to attend the workshops and have our say on the record. We also intend to simultaneously protest outside the workshops, as we did in high-profile protests last year during the sham Pathways to Work consultation.

But we will not be there to smile and take people’s coats.

—

Press queries to dpac.cymru+press@gmail.com

Timms Review complaint: Welsh call for independent review

Action, All Posts, Benefits, local authority cuts, local groups, News, PIP, Politics, welfare cuts, Welfare reforms No Responses »

Jul 192026

Click here for the Easy Read version

Logos of DPAC Cymru, Voices ADFOCAD, Don't Call Me Special, Social Workers Union, Unite Community Wales, Austerity Action Group, TSSA Wales No.1 Branch, Bakers Food and Allied Workers Union, PCS Cymru, Swansea and district trades council, Cardiff trades council, and the National Shop Stewards Network

A powerful coalition of Welsh disability, carers’, and trade union organisations wrote to the Welsh Government on Tuesday asking ministers to lodge their “strongest possible grievance” with the UK Government over the Timms Review into the PIP disability benefit.

The UK-wide review was announced in parliament late last year, with promises of “co-production” with disabled people, and a pledge of no further cuts until its conclusion. However, Welsh Disabled Peoples’ Organisations are adamant that co-production is not happening, with Welsh disabled people, they claim, treated with particular contempt.

The intervention came in the final week before the Senedd summer recess, after local authorities, including Swansea Council, admitted they have made “no provision” for impending disability cuts in their medium-term budgets.

The groups have asked the new Welsh Government to deliver on its promise of providing practical assistance in achieving a “long standing demand” of “a genuine disability review, led independently and democratically by disabled people and our organisations, including our trade unions.”

The letter was coordinated by Disabled People Against Cuts Cymru (DPAC Cymru). Co-signatories include Disabled Peoples’ Organisations, unpaid Carers’ Organisations, and trade union organisations.

Statements from signatories:

Disabled People Against Cuts Cymru (DPAC Cymru) led several high-profile protests against the disability cuts last year. A spokesperson for the group said they intend to hold the UK Government to the promises they made to parliament:

“The Timms Review was won by protest, but it is not what was promised. We are asking the Welsh Government to join us in setting out a clear expectation that the UK Government may not table further disability cuts while a genuine and independent review takes place in Wales.

“MPs, whatever their views, must also refuse, on principle, to vote for disability cuts for the duration.

“All we’re demanding from Westminster here is a fair fight. Enough with the broken promises, misdirection, and insults.”

VOICES ADFOCAD operates across Wales to promote and advocate for the rights of Unpaid Carers. A spokesperson said:

“Disabled people in Wales have been clear for years: we will not accept reviews that speak about us while shutting us out. The Timms Review has failed to meet even the most basic standards of co‑production, and Welsh disabled people have been treated with disregard throughout the process.

“We are asking Welsh ministers to intervene because our communities deserve a review that is democratic, accountable, and led by disabled people ourselves, not another exercise that reinforces the inequality we are fighting to dismantle.”

Plaid Cymru Anabledd is the disabled members’ section of Plaid Cymru, the party that leads Wales’ new minority government. A spokesperson for the section said:

“The Welsh Government must use every lever it has to demand a genuine, independent review — led by disabled people, our organisations and our trade unions. Anything less is not co-production, it’s a rubber stamp.

“Disabled people were told we would be worked with. Instead we’ve been worked around. That promise the labour Westminster government made has to mean something — or it was never made in good faith.”

Social Workers Union (SWU) General Secretary John McGowan stated:

“Disability benefits are not luxuries. The PIP disability benefit is a crucial support to help disabled people meet the extra costs of disability and long-term ill health and to support their independence. We urge the Welsh Government to join DPAC Cymru in demanding an independent review on PIP cuts which would impact on 275,000 people in Wales.

“No further cuts must be made until a genuinely co-produced disability review has been achieved, and the focus should be on improving the system rather than further restricting access to it. To do otherwise will cause significant hardship for people with physical and mental health conditions – pushing them out of work and into deep poverty – and put further strain on the social care system already stretched to breaking point by chronic underfunding and a staffing crisis.”

Sarah Woolley, General Secretary of the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers’ Union (BFAWU), said:

“Disabled people have the right to dignity, independence and a decent standard of living. If the Timms Review is to have credibility, it must genuinely be led with disabled people, not simply carried out in their name.

“Our members know the reality of low pay, insecure work and rising living costs. Personal Independence Payment helps meet the extra costs of disability, and further cuts would push more people into hardship while placing even greater pressure on public services.

“BFAWU stands in solidarity with Disabled People’s Organisations and supports the call for an independent review, led by disabled people and their organisations, including trade unions. No further disability cuts should be made until that work has been properly completed.”

Mark Evans is the secretary of Swansea and District Trades Council, which brings together affiliated branches and represents the community arm of the trade union movement in the Swansea area. He said:

“Our Trades Council thinks it is deplorable that a Labour Government has not properly and fully consulted Disabled People in compiling the Timms review. Many disabled people are members of trade unions that are affiliated to the Labour Party and many will rightly be considering why their union donates to a party that has attacked disability benefits in the past and given the lack of consultation is likely to do so again. If this is the case we will will be fully supporting disabled trade union members.”

Responding to the Timms Review interim report released last week, a DPAC Cymru spokesperson added:

“The Timms Review is badly dressed in the language of disability activism, but uses none of the methods. About the only thing the interim report gets right is that PIP is not fit for purpose.

“Disabled people, more than anyone, want a better system. The Timms Review will not deliver that because it is not designed to. The review is weaponising our concerns in order to justify cuts in a ‘caring’ way. Meanwhile, the ‘nasty’ arm of the UK Government is demonising us. Caught in that pincer movement, disabled people are a political football.

This has nothing to do with balancing the books. When the last attempt at welfare reform introduced a more punitive benefit system, it too ended up costing more than it saved. The Timms Review is about divide and rule, pure and simple. It is a cynical distraction from falling living standards and a failing economy. Defeating disability cuts is a fight for everyone.”

The letter text

Dear:

Rhun ap Iorwerth, First Minister of Wales
Sioned Williams, Deputy First Minister of Wales

14th July 2026

RE: disability cuts and the Timms Review

The new Welsh Government has made a welcome commitment to delivering a robust and action-oriented Disabled People’s Rights Plan. UK Government disability cuts are a serious risk to that plan, and a crisis in the making.

Concerningly, major Welsh local authorities like Swansea Council already admit they have made “no provision” for disability cuts in their medium-term budgets.

The UK Government was forced to promise in parliament that there would be no further cuts until the conclusion of a review, co-produced with disabled people – the Timms Review. The UK Government has proven itself, many times over, unable and unwilling to keep that promise. Despite its claims, the Timms Review is not delivering co-production, and cuts are continuing.

We are therefore writing to you, as Disabled People’s Organisations, unpaid Carers’ Organisations, and trade union organisations, with two requests:

1. We kindly request that the Welsh Government formally lodge with the UK Government our strongest possible grievance over the delivery of the Timms Review and disability cuts ‘consultation’ process since March 2025. It has been blatant: we have been treated badly because we are disabled people, and we have been treated badly because we are Welsh.

2. We also request the Welsh Government take concrete steps to provide practical assistance in achieving our long standing demand: an independent and genuine disability review, led by disabled people and our organisations including our trade unions, inviting the views of carers and the workers who deliver the services we rely on.

Despite themselves, we intend to hold the UK Government to the promise they made. We hope that you will join us in making clear the expectation that the UK Government may not table further disability cuts while a genuine and independent review takes place in Wales, and that MPs, whatever their views, must also refuse, on principle, to vote for disability cuts for the duration.

Specific points, such as what we suggest by the Welsh Government providing practical assistance, and our specific democratic grievances with the UK Government, are developed in the attached briefing.

Yours sincerely,

Disabled People Against Cuts Cymru (DPAC Cymru)
VOICES ADFOCAD
Don’t Call Me Special
Plaid Cymru Anabledd
Prof. Debbie Foster, Former co-Chair of the Welsh Government’s Disability Rights Taskforce.
Gemma Southgate, TSSA Wales & Western Executive Committee Member
Siân Boyles, PCS National officer for Wales
Mark Evans, Secretary, Swansea and District Trades Council
Cardiff Trades Council
TSSA Wales No.1 Branch
PCS Wales
PCS Proud
Unite Community Wales
Unite Community, Cardiff & Area
Social Workers Union (SWU)
Austerity Action Group (AAG)
Bakers Food and Allied Workers Union (BFAWU)
National Shop Stewards Network (NSSN)

The letter to the Welsh Government and attached briefing is available here

For press enquires contact dpac.cymru+press@gmail.com

DPAC response to TUC statement on PIP today

All Posts, Access to Work, Motability, News, PIP, Speeches, Universal Credit, welfare cuts, Welfare reforms 1 Response »

May 182026

We are disappointed with the TUC statement on PIP today calling for reform on PIP by linking PIP with work.

General secretary Paul Nowak says: “The Government has a vital opportunity to support more disabled people into work through the Timms Review…. Only a genuine reform of Pip will ensure that disabled people who can work receive the support they need to move into and stay in work.”

But PIP is paid to people who work and who don’t work. It is not paid on the basis of work – it is paid on the basis of daily living and mobility/getting around. Work does not come into the assessment, nor should it. It may help people to access work, but that is not the primary purpose of it.

The TUC statement suggests that PIP reform and the Timms review is justified and should involve consideration of work. It is now being reported in the media as ‘PIP rules should be changed to get disabled people into work.’

DPAC member Bill Scott says: ‘I’m a lifelong trade union member and long time activist but I feel utterly betrayed by what Paul Nowak has said and so will hundreds of thousands of other disabled people. Honestly I’ve spent over 20 years trying to build bridges between the trade union movement and disabled people and I feel as though I’ve totally wasted my time as all the suspicions that disabled people had about them are borne out.’

DPAC member Lee Starr Elliot moved a motion at the CWU conference calling on the TUC to do better when it comes to the gov attack on social security for deaf and disabled people: Recommitting to Action Against Disability Cuts. It was passed unanimously. Video and text below.

I stand before you today because we are witnessing a coordinated, systemic attack on disabled workers – an attack that is being dressed up as “reform” but feels like a declaration of war on our class. Last year, at the TUC Congress, we stood together. Motions 38 and 39 were passed unanimously. The entire trade union movement pledged coordinated and sustained action against disability cuts. The CWU was at the heart of that fight.

But today, there is a dangerous silence coming from Congress House.

The TUC leadership has suggested that because of minor concessions on PIP, the “emergency” has passed. They claim they no longer need to implement the actions we voted for.

Conference, they are wrong.

These concessions are a sticking plaster on a gaping wound. They are temporary, lasting only until the conclusion of the Timms Review. And let’s be clear: the promised “co-production” with disabled people is a sham. We aren’t being consulted; we are being managed.
While the TUC waits, our members are suffering. Cuts to Motability, the gutting of Access to Work, and the squeezing of the Universal Credit Health Element are not “policy adjustments” – they are life-altering emergencies.

And it’s not just the Department for Work and Pensions. Decades of austerity and the systematic underfunding of local councils have decimated social services, transport, and education. When a council can’t provide a bus or a carer, it is the disabled worker who is imprisoned in their own home.

Perhaps most sickening is the targeting of the next generation. Through the Milburn and Streeting reviews, we see a government obsessed with “over-diagnosis” and “work-readiness.” They are threatening to abolish Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) and forcing 55,000 young disabled people into compulsory placements under the shadow of sanctions.

This is not “support.” This is state-sponsored bullying.

That is why this motion is vital. We are instructing our NEC to stop the TUC from dragging its feet. We are calling for:

1. *A coordinated movement-wide campaign* that exposes the cumulative impact of these cuts.

2. *An accessible, static demonstration* and a mass lobby of Parliament. We need to show them our faces and our strength.

3. *A weekend demonstration against Labour’s austerity plans.* We must send a message to this government: You cannot balance the books on the backs of disabled workers.

4. And finally, we demand an *independent disability review* – one led democratically by disabled people and trade unions, not by Whitehall bureaucrats working for the benefit of their mates and their pockets.

Conference, we don’t just want a seat at the table; we want to change the menu.

The TUC must recommit and be led by the disability community not the politicians. We must support the movement to move united and We must stand with our disabled members, not just in words, but in struggle. I move. Solidarity

Fuel Poverty Action – protest against price hikes on July 1st

News No Responses »

May 152026

Last month Fuel Poverty Action launched our new campaign demanding our fair share of cheap, clean energy from our wind and sun.

After 60+ orgs backed our open letter and 10,000 of you signed our petition, government announced a raft of measures geared towards achieving some of our demands: an increase to the windfall tax; a small step towards breaking the link between gas and electricity; and a pilot of free plug in solar panels for people living in flats.

These are baby steps in the right direction – but we still face energy price hikes of up to £300. We need everybody to get behind this campaign, and force this government to take actions that should have happened in 2022.

Join us protesting against price hikes on July 1st in Westminster!

I’ll be there

A photo of protestors carrying a home-made banner that says Fuel Poverty Action

Accessibility details for Together Alliance national demo against the far right

News No Responses »

Mar 072026

Saturday 28th March 2026

12 noon

London

The Together Alliance Against The Far Right have called a National Demonstration in Central London on 28th March 2026 at 12 noon.

DPAC are a supporter of the Together alliance and we know disabled people want to take part in this very important demonstration.

There is a main march, a short march, and an online protest.

If you’re coming to London this is the link to TFL journey planner: https://tfl.gov.uk/plan-a-journey/

All of the access information for the Together Alliance is here on the Together Alliance website, https://www.togetheralliance.org.uk/acccess

This includes details of accessible toilets, charging points for electric mobility aids, bus routes, maps of the route and what to bring on a demo if you’ve never been on one before.

Main march

The main March starts at Park Lane.

There will be a bloc for disabled people near the front of the March, which will be Bloc B: Deaf & Disabled People Against Fascism

It’s meeting at 11.30 am, outside the London Intercontinental hotel, 1 Hamilton Place, London. W1J 7QJ

The march will assemble at 12 noon and set off at 1pm

The bloc will have access stewards & BSL Interpreters from NUBSLI

Nicky Evans will be the contact point

Please bring your banners, placards and your family and friends.

Please see graphic below for Together Alliance Deaf & Disabled People Against Fascism Bloc for March 28th

The nearest accessible underground station is Green Park, Piccadilly, London W1J 9DZ – Victoria and Jubilee Lines.

If you’re coming on the Elizabeth Line, Bond Street is the Nearest Station to the march, which is located on Oxford Street, London W1R 1FE

Short accessible march

If you can’t participate in the full march, a short accessible march has been organised.

This will assemble at 1pm outside Waterstones, The Grand Building, Trafalgar Square, London WC2N 5EJ.

The short accessible March will have access stewards.

The nearest accessible underground station for the accessible march is Westminster, Bridge Street, London SW1A 2JR.

Rally

There will be a rally at Whitehall. The rally will have BSL Interpreters.

There will be a safe space in front of the stage for disabled people to access and listen to the speeches.

Online Protest

We know that not all disabled people can participate on the day, but want to be involved.

Therefore an online protest, in collaboration with Disability Rebellion and DPAC has been organised for 12 noon on Saturday 28th March.

Hashtags:

#DisabledPeopleAgainstTheFarRight #DisabledPeopleAgainstFascism

Tag:
@Dis_PPL_Protest @DRDisabilityReb @UKTogetherAll

More info here

Graphics and BSL

British Sign Language video by National Union of British Sign Language Interpreters (NUBSLI).

Accessible bloc poster

Easy read poster

Online protest supporting Together Alliance against the far right

All Posts, Action, anti racism, News 1 Response »

Feb 232026

Online protest against the far right

For disabled people who can’t be there in person to participate.

28th March 2026

12 noon to 4pm

With thanks to Disability Rebellion for collaborating with DPAC on this event.

Use the hashtags #DisabledPeopleAgainstFascism #DisabledPeopleAgainstTheFarRight #DisabilityRebellion #DPAC #TogetherAlliance

Tag @DRDisabilityReb and @Dis_PPL_Protest and @UKTogetherAll

Information about in-person accessibility to follow shortly.

Wales Deaf artist exhibition – Our Visual World: DeafNot

All Posts, News No Responses »

Feb 232026

Friday 21 November 2025 – Sunday 1 March 2026

10:00 am – 4:00 pm

Glynn Vivian Art Gallery, Swansea

Our Visual World: DeafNot brings together seven Deaf artists from across Wales

10 action points for West Northants disability activists

Action, All Posts, council cuts, local groups, News, Who2Vote4?, write to your local councillor, Write to your MP No Responses »

Feb 232026

1. Meet at 4:30 PM: Join us at The Steps of the Guildhall (NN1 1DE) on Thursday 26 February to intercept councillors arriving for the budget vote.

2. Bring an Empty Plate: Hold it high to symbolise the “Support or Food” choice WNC is forcing us to make.

3. Email the Cabinet: Tell Cllr Laura Couse exactly what tasks you are being “taxed” for (washing, getting out of bed, using the toilet).

4. Demand a Review: Email WNC today for a full individual DRE assessment. Do not accept the £23 “standard” rate.

4. Cite Kent: Remind the Council of the Dec 2025 Kent victory—they fold when their hidden overcharging is legally challenged.

5. Lobby Finance: Ask Cllr John Slope (Finance) how WNC justifies a Client Funds Team within a £1.02 billion budget.

6. CQC Challenge: Remind councillors that the CQC rated them “Requires Improvement” (59%).

7. Ask why failing support costs so much.

8. The Penny Parade: Save your coppers to pay your fee at the Guildhall—expose the administrative cost of the Disability Tax.

9. Voter Pressure: Demand all May 2026 local election candidates sign a pledge to abolish social care charges.

10. Tell Us Your Story: Email your testimonial of hardship to Northantsdpac@gmail.com we will keep this confidential but highlight issues anonymously.

Yours in solidarity

Northants Disabled People Against Cuts Northantsdpac@gmail.com

Disabled 72-year old anti-genocide protestor from Norwich forced to travel to London for court case

All Posts, News 1 Response »

Feb 152026

Mick Hardy a disabled pensioner from Norwich is being forced to travel to Westminster Magistrates Court in London, this coming Tuesday 17^th February, for protesting against the genocide in Gaza and the ban on Palestine Action. The court case is going ahead despite the High Court ruling that the ban is unlawful. Mick (72 this month) took part in the protest in Norwich city centre last August and was arrested under the Terrorism Act for holding a sign. All the court cases from across England are being dealt with at Westminster Magistrates Court forcing some people to travel hundreds of miles to attend even though the High Court has ruled the ban unlawful.

Mick who is in receipt of pension credits but is having to pay for his own travel and subsistence costs to travel to the capital. Hardy who has mobility and sight impairments is also having to pay the costs for a personal assistant to accompany him as he cannot make the journey alone.

Hardy said: “This should be dealt with in Norwich not making disabled pensioners pay large sums to travel to London for a court appearance that is potentially unlawful.” He continued: “I think ordinary people have all said the genocide and the ban is unlawful and unjust – who is for genocide? Nobody! This is about the criminalisation of peaceful protest. What comes next? Don’t forget Norfolk man Tom Payne wrote the Rights of Man – things have not changed since the 18^th century – this is a rising of the common people against the politicians, Lords and Peers against the criminalisation of peaceful protest.”

For interviews contact Mick Hardy on 07960 969762

Mick Hardy is taking the 9am train from Norwich to London Liverpool St station for his court appearance at 2pm on Tuesday 17^th February at Westminster Magistrates Court.

What do disabled people want from a Welsh Government?

All Posts, Benefits, Disability Rights, Events, local groups, News, Politics No Responses »

Feb 132026

Ahead of the Senedd elections, you are invited to this hybrid joint conference and discussion organised by Unite Community Wales and Disabled People Against Cuts Cymru (DPAC Cymru).

Saturday 21st February 2026, 11am to 3pm

Hybrid at the Unite the Union Office, 1 Cathedral Road, Cardiff, CF11 9SD, or online via Teams.

Please register in advance here

Note: if attending via Teams, please put this under Access Requirements.

This is a free event; you don’t have to pay anything to attend.

You don’t have to be a member of DPAC or of Unite to attend.

Unite Community is a section of the trade union Unite for anyone not in paid employment.

DPAC Cymru is the Welsh section of Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC)

Open appeal to the Timms Review panellists

All Posts, Benefits, Disability Rights, DWP, Letters, local groups, News, PIP, Politics, welfare cuts, Welfare reforms No Responses »

Jan 152026

As the UK Government review into the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) gets underway, a disability campaign group in Wales has today launched an open appeal to the panel members.

The ‘Timms review’, named for the Minister of State for Social Security and Disability Sir Stephen Timms, could affect more than 275,000 people in Wales claiming the disability benefit.

Disabled People Against Cuts Cymru (DPAC Cymru) have, however, raised a number of concerns over the fairness of the review.

They say there are longstanding unaddressed concerns with the way the Pathways to Work consultation was carried out last year, particularly in Wales, and they want the review to examine this to make sure those mistakes aren’t repeated.

They say they are also appealing to the panellists to make sure that the review is genuine, that the outcome is not predetermined, and are calling for participation to be widened.

DPAC Cymru’s call for an independent review, democratically led by disabled people and their organisations, received wide support in Wales from disability groups, trade union organisations, and politicians.

At a lobby of the Senedd late last year, Sioned Williams MS, Plaid Cymru, said “Plaid Cymru backs their call for an independent review of PIP, led by disabled people.”

Dr. Atlaf Hussain MS, Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Equalities & Social Justice, Conservative, also said “I fully support Disabled People Against Cuts Cymru (DPAC Cymru) and their call for an independent, disabled-led review of Personal Independence Payment (PIP).”

Click here to read the letter to the panel members.

Click here for the Easy Read version.

The six “headline” asks of the appeal letter are that:

1. The review should examine how disabled people in Wales were treated unfairly by the UK Government last year, and make sure those mistakes aren’t repeated.

2. The review must be genuine, not predetermined.

3. The review must be independent, democratically led by disabled people and our organisations.

4. The review must have wide participation.

5. The review needs a wider scope for it to be successful.

6. The review must engage with the 1.4 million disabled workers organised democratically in their trade unions.

No matter what the review concludes, the final say rests with ministers. DPAC Cymru will do our part to ensure that disabled people & carers are prepared to defeat the Government again if necessary.

Disabled artist Nnena Kalu wins 2025 Turner Prize

All Posts, Disability History, News No Responses »

Dec 212025

Nnena Kalu has won this year’s Turner Prize, the UK’s most high-profile art award, for her “bold and compelling” sculptures and drawings – and has made history as the first artist with a learning disability to win.

Via BBC.

Photo by Charlotte Hollinshead CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Disability News Service December 18th

All Posts, Assisted Dying Bill, Benefits, DWP, Housing, News, PIP, Politics, transport, welfare cuts, Welfare reforms No Responses »

Dec 202025

Labour accused of ‘horrifying’ betrayal of disabled people after slashing Tory accessible housing target 1

Watchdog dismisses DWP’s description of DNS editor as ‘vengeful’ and ‘vexatious’ for asking to see deaths email 3

Labour ministers considered means-testing PIP, but later ruled it out, watchdog’s report shows 6

Welsh government publishes 10-year plan for disability rights… but fails to include any long-term policies 8

Falconer dismisses attempts to protect four groups of disabled people in assisted dying bill 11

Government’s housing agency fails to mention accessible homes in new five-year strategy 14

Watchdog’s league table on rail passenger assistance is ‘misleading’, say accessible transport campaigners 16

Minister rejects pleas from disabled peers for national wheelchair and equipment strategy 18

Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week 20

Labour accused of ‘horrifying’ betrayal of disabled people after slashing Tory accessible housing target

The Labour government has been accused of a “truly horrifying” betrayal of disabled people after slashing an accessible housing target proposed by the last Conservative government.

On 18 March 2024, Tory housing minister Felicity Buchan finally promised to introduce new rules that would ensure all new homes were built to the strict M4(2)* standard of accessibility, except for cases where this was “impractical and unachievable”.

Conservative ministers had been considering and consulting on the measure – a long-standing demand of the disabled people’s movement – for at least five years, but the general election came before any further action was taken.

This week, the Labour government – after more than a year of delays and false promises – finally published its own plans for accessible housing in a consultation on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework.

But the consultation shows that Labour wants to cut the percentage of new homes that should be built to the M4(2) standard from 100 per cent – under the Tory plans – to just 40 per cent.

Housing secretary Steve Reed said the new framework would “get Britain building” and “place the key to homeownership into the hands of thousands more hardworking people and families”.

But instead of supporting plans for all new homes to be built to a decent accessible homes standard, the consultation document says the government is “proposing a national minimum that ensures at least 40% of new housing over the course of the plan period is delivered to M4(2) standards”.

There will also be no minimum level for the proportion of new homes that are suitable for wheelchair-users, which disabled housing campaigners believe should be set to at least 10 per cent.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves said the reforms “back the builders not the blockers, unlock investment and make it easier to build the 1.5 million new homes across every region – rebuilding the foundations of our economy and making affordable homes a reality for working people once again”.

The government’s press release announcing the consultation includes a string of approving comments from the home-building industry.

Disabled people and their organisations now have the opportunity to deliver their response to the consultation, which ends on 10 March.

But Fazilet Hadi, head of policy for Disability Rights UK, has already accused the government of a “lack of principle” and betraying disabled people.

She said: “The announcement that only 40 per cent of new build homes need to be built to improved accessibility standards is truly horrifying, leaving disabled people feeling betrayed and excluded, and questioning the government’s commitment to disability equality.

“In a society where the number of disabled people across all ages is increasing and in which only a tiny fraction of homes are accessible, it is absolutely incredible to witness the government’s lack of principle and lack of forward planning.

“Requiring 100 per cent of all new-build homes to be built to improved accessibility standards with 10 per cent to wheelchair-user standards would have been the right thing to do, creating a level playing-field for developers and sending a strong signal that our housing stock must change, to meet the needs of our older and disabled citizens.

“The government’s failure of resolve and watered-down proposal leaves a bitter taste, raising questions about whose interests are being served.”

Inclusion London also criticised the move.

It said the government’s proposal “falls short of what disabled people need” and would leave thousands with unmet housing needs.

Laura Vicinanza, Inclusion London’s senior policy and stakeholder engagement manager, said the government had “pledged in their manifesto to champion the rights of disabled people” and “promised to work with us and put our voices at the heart of decision-making”.

She said: “We believe the government should follow the London Plan approach on accessible housing, where 90 per cent of new-build homes are planned to be accessible and adaptable and [another] 10 per cent to be wheelchair-accessible.

“This approach delivers far better outcomes for disabled people than other areas in England.

“We urge the government to reconsider their approach, listen to disabled people and develop ambitious planning policies that leave no one behind.”

Asked how Reed justified slashing the accessible housing target, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government had not commented by 11am today (Thursday).

*Homes built to the M4(2) standard have 16 accessible or adaptable features, similar to the Lifetime Homes standard developed in the early 1990s to make homes more easily adaptable for lifetime use, while M4(3) homes are those that are supposed to be fully wheelchair-accessible

18 December 2025

Watchdog dismisses DWP’s description of DNS editor as ‘vengeful’ and ‘vexatious’ for asking to see deaths email

The information commissioner has dismissed attempts by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to describe a disabled journalist as “vengeful” and “vexatious” after he tried to obtain information about its years of safeguarding failings.

Disability News Service (DNS) editor John Pring was trying to secure an unredacted version of a DWP email that is likely to reveal key information about links between the department and hundreds, and probably thousands, of deaths over the last 15 years.

But DWP refused to release the email, accusing Pring of a “vexatious” request, and later telling the information commissioner that his years of investigations* suggested he was a “vengeful requester” and that his actions could cause distress to the department’s civil servants.

Information commissioner John Edwards has now concluded that DWP failed to provide any evidence for its claims.

His decision notice said Pring’s continuing freedom of information efforts were “clearly in the public interest” and that the department “cannot label a requester vengeful on the basis that they publish articles that do not agree with DWP’s actions”.

The email DNS has been seeking was sent from the office of Tory work and pensions secretary Therese Coffey in February 2021, but the document was almost completely redacted, with eight of its nine bullet points blacked out, when it was provided to Pring in response to an earlier request.

The email related to a secret “critical friend” report written for Coffey by Conservative peer Baroness Neville-Rolfe, which called on DWP to reduce the number of suicides of benefit claimants and other “very bad cases” linked to its actions.

DWP refused to release the unredacted email, telling DNS in response to a freedom of information request in February 2025 that the request was “vexatious”.

When DNS complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), DWP told the commissioner that Pring had imposed a significant “burden” on the department over “a period of years” relating to “the work the Department undertakes to support vulnerable customers”.

What DWP did not tell the commissioner was that these freedom of information requests, which date back more than a decade, have helped expose how senior DWP figures spent more than a decade covering up evidence linking the department with countless deaths of disabled people who relied on the social security system.

Pring’s book on these deaths, The Department, was published last year*, and was praised by the incoming Labour minister for social security and disability, Sir Stephen Timms.

The freedom of information requests have also led to numerous parliamentary interventions, national media coverage, and repeated public humiliation for senior civil servants and DWP ministers from both the Conservative and Labour parties.

But DWP told the information commissioner that Pring’s work indicated “a negative approach to the work that the Department undertakes to support vulnerable people” and “leads to the view that this request is part of a persistent and repetitive campaign and so vexatious in nature”.

It said this indicated that Pring could be considered a “vengeful requester”.

And after Pring described the initial claim that he was being “vexatious” as “ridiculous”, DWP told the information commissioner that the “repeated requests for information and the tone and language used by the complainant in communications… could be considered as harassment and has the potential to cause distress to DWP colleagues”.

Because the February 2021 email was written four years previously, DWP added, the freedom of information (FOI) request was “diminished in value and not justified”.

There was no mention in DWP’s evidence to the commissioner that many of Pring’s requests over more than a decade had exposed wrongdoing and cover-ups and how the department’s actions had led to the deaths of countless disabled claimants.

Edwards said in his decision notice that the department had failed to provide “any evidence or detailed explanations to substantiate its assertions”, while he was “not persuaded that the request can be characterised as vexatious”, and he was “disappointed at the paucity of DWP’s arguments”.

He said: “The complainant is an investigative journalist specialising in disability and welfare rights.

“Whilst FOI requests to DWP may cause a burden, they are a recognised part of the journalistic process.”

He added: “Scrutiny of information relating to previous decisions or actions by a public authority is clearly in the public interest, for example to aid understanding of actions taken and whether lessons were learned.”

And he concluded: “It is not the role of a journalist to cast a positive light on information obtained under FOIA**.

“DWP cannot label a requester vengeful on the basis that they publish articles that do not agree with DWP’s actions.”

The commissioner also dismissed any suggestion of harassment, saying in the decision notice: “It is well established that public officials should be open to scrutiny and criticism.

“Whilst they should obviously be protected from excessive or distressing criticism, DWP has provided no evidence that this has occurred in this case.”

DWP will now need to provide a new response to Pring’s FOI request to see the unredacted email.

It is just the latest in a string of DWP failures on transparency since Labour came to power, continuing years of similar failings under successive Conservative-led governments.

At Labour’s annual conference in Liverpool, in September 2024, Sir Stephen told Pring: “The department has absurdly refused to answer lots of the questions that you have asked and that is something that we want to change… because public scrutiny is a good thing, and it puts pressure on ministers and on civil servants to have the consequences of what they are doing known about publicly.”

Despite his words, the failures on transparency have continued in the last 15 months.

Asked to comment on the ICO ruling, the department’s refusal to follow his plea for greater transparency, and whether the department should apologise to Pring, Sir Stephen had not responded by 11am today (Thursday).

Asked if the department would apologise for its comments about Pring, if it accepted a culture change was necessary within DWP, and if it would now release the unredacted email, a DWP spokesperson said: “We are currently considering the ICO’s decision notice and will respond within the timescales set by the commissioner.”

Debbie Abrahams, the Labour chair of the Commons work and pensions committee, said in a statement: “One of the foundations of a thriving democracy is the publication of accurate information for scrutiny in a safe and timely manner.

“In its decision, the commissioner noted that the DWP had taken the wrong interpretation of the rules about which he had written to the department before on its poor FOI record, and it’s right it be made to look at its practices again.

“Freedom of Information rules are in place to hold the balance between the privacy of people and the sensitivities of information and the public interest in knowing that information, and they should be adhered to.”

*The Department: How a Violent Government Bureaucracy Killed Hundreds and Hid the Evidence, Pring’s book on the years of deaths linked to DWP’s actions and failings, is published by Pluto Press

**The Freedom of Information Act

18 December 2025

Labour ministers considered means-testing PIP, but later ruled it out, watchdog’s report shows

Labour ministers considered the possibility of means-testing personal independence payment (PIP) last year, but then ruled out the option, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has admitted.

A decision notice issued by the information commissioner reveals that ministers considered means-testing PIP in the “early days” of the Labour government, which was elected in July 2024.

But the potential policy, which has been under discussion within DWP for at least five years – and almost certainly much longer – was rejected by early this year.

The information came following a freedom of information request by welfare rights expert Finn Keaney, who asked DWP in May for reports produced since Labour came to power in July 2024 that discussed the possibility of making PIP a means-tested benefit.

When DWP responded, it admitted that it “holds information relevant to your request”.

It also admitted that there was “a legitimate public interest in understanding the rationale behind proposed changes to disability benefits, including whether and how the Department has considered the option of means-testing PIP”.

It then added: “The information requested includes early-stage analysis and internal advice that is directly informing live policy development.”

But it refused to release the documents, taking advantage of a Freedom of Information Act exemption that “protects the private space within which Ministers and their policy advisers can develop policies without the risk of premature disclosure”.

Keaney complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) about DWP’s refusal to release the documents.

Although the commissioner has now ruled in DWP’s favour, the ICO decision notice makes it clear that means-testing PIP was considered by Labour DWP ministers and then ruled out as a policy option.

DWP told the commissioner that the advice and analysis documents it held were “part of active policy discussions” that influenced the government’s decision-making on PIP and the broader system to support disabled people.

And it said the material included “advice and analysis developed during early policy formulation and was considered alongside other potential options”.

Keaney had previously pointed to the limited opportunity for public scrutiny of many of the government’s plans for welfare reforms, and to the risk that DWP was avoiding “meaningful scrutiny and feedback from those affected”.

He told DWP earlier this year that this meant there was “an increased urgency and importance for the public to have oversight of welfare policy at the earliest stages of its development”, to avoid undermining democracy and restricting the public’s ability to hold the government to account over policy development.

But DWP told the commissioner that the government has now “confirmed its commitment to maintaining PIP as a non-means-tested cash benefit”, and it warned that “publishing advice on policy options not pursued could lead to unnecessary confusion or concern”.

The department also acknowledged the “legitimate public interest in understanding the rationale for changes to disability benefits and how means-testing of PIP has been considered” but said that PIP reform was “highly sensitive and remains under active public and Parliamentary scrutiny”.

Despite DWP admitting that means-testing PIP had been ruled out, the commissioner said that releasing the documents “would have a direct and detrimental impact on the policy development process”.

He said there would be “a significant public interest” in the information because it would “aid the public’s understanding of policy considerations relating to welfare reform” and would provide “interested stakeholders” with an “insight into the analysis of the issues in question”.

But he concluded that “the balance of the public interest” meant the papers should not be released.

The government is currently reviewing the future of PIP, with the review led by Sir Stephen Timms, the minister for social security and disability, and two disabled co-chairs, Dr Clenton Farquharson and Sharon Brennan.

There has been mounting evidence that DWP civil servants have been keen – and possibly still are – to cut spending on disability benefits by means-testing PIP.

Two years ago, Disability News Service (DNS) was told that participants in focus groups had been asked questions about which groups of people “deserve” various benefits and what they think about the idea of means-testing “extra cost” benefits.

Questions about the “extra cost benefit” ended with participants being asked whether it should be means-tested on the grounds of “affordability”, although it was never clear who had funded the focus groups.

Two years earlier, the Conservative government had published its Shaping Future Support green paper, which suggested that ministers could create a “new single benefit” to simplify the disability benefits application and assessment process, which could “provide support for disabled people and people with health conditions on low income and with extra costs”.

Work and pensions secretary Therese Coffey later told DNS at a fringe meeting at the party’s annual conference in October 2021 that merging PIP with universal credit was “on the table”.

Just a month later, DNS reported how a DWP civil servant had told a disability charity that the Conservative government planned to merge PIP with universal credit, although not for at least six years.

Meanwhile, new official statistics show complaints about DWP have rocketed in the last year.

The number of complaints received rose from 5,260 in the quarter ending September 2024 to 8,005 in the quarter ending September 2025, an increase of 52 per cent.

The most striking increase related to universal credit, where complaints increased by 82 per cent compared to the September 2024 quarter (from 2,200 complaints to 4,005).

Complaints about DWP mistakes, delays, and a lack of respect from DWP staff all rose on the previous quarter.

Complaints to the Independent Case Examiner, which act as an appeal process for those not satisfied with the outcome of a DWP complaint, also rose steeply.

For the September 2025 quarter, ICE received 2,645 complaints, an increase of 13 per cent from the previous quarter (2,334 complaints), and an increase of 61 per cent from September 2024 (1,642).

18 December 2025

Welsh government publishes 10-year plan for disability rights… but fails to include any long-term policies

The much-anticipated disability rights plan for Wales has left it to the next Welsh government to come up with a strategy to tackle the long-term barriers disabled people face in their daily lives.

When the Welsh government published its long-awaited plan on Monday (15 December), following a 12-week public consultation, it was accompanied by no major announcements or new funding.

Instead, the Disabled People’s Rights Plan 2025 to 2035 offers more than 60 short-term actions, which the Welsh government expects to be completed by 2027.

Most of these are minor measures, listing actions the Welsh government is already taking, or promising reviews, to update guidance, conduct evaluations, improve engagement, or raise awareness.

There is no pledge in the plan to introduce a right to independent living, no promise to incorporate the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities into Welsh law, and no commitment to funding disabled people’s organisations, all demands made by Disability Wales in its new manifesto.

There is also no promise to create a new minister for disabled people, another Disability Wales demand.

The explanation for the lack of long-term action is hidden on page 24 of the 80-page document, with the plan admitting: “Future Governments will set the medium to long-term actions they will take to achieve the ambition and outcomes for disabled people set out in this 10-year plan.”

The plan does not even include details of how progress will be measured, with that still to be decided.

But in one of the few new measures announced in the document, a new external advisory board, which will be led by disabled people, will “provide independent advice and guidance” on implementing the plan.

Instead of detailing a long-term strategy, the 80 pages are filled with descriptions of the existing barriers disabled people face across neighbourhoods, places, and transport; employment, income, and education; independent living, health, and social care; and justice and supporting environments.

The plan also lists existing legislation, strategies, action plans, programmes, guidance, frameworks and reviews.

Among the short-term actions announced in a separate document, the government promises an update of anti-bullying and safeguarding guidance; to work with local authorities and transport operators to update data on blue badge parking spaces; and to “collaborate with disabled people’s organisations to design and deliver a new funding stream that addresses social care needs”.

On a right to independent living, it promises only “to continue to work with all providers, including local authorities, to ensure that disabled individuals are able to live independently at home, wherever possible”.

The roots of the plan lie in the ground-breaking Locked Out report, which was co-produced with disabled people, and commissioned by the Welsh government, and which exposed the levels of exclusion experienced by disabled people in Wales during the pandemic.

The report led to a Disability Rights Taskforce and now the Welsh government’s 10-year Disabled People’s Rights Plan.

Chairs of the taskforce’s working groups will be included on the plan’s new external advisory board.

Disabled campaigners who worked on the taskforce were reluctant this week to criticise the Welsh government’s plan, stressing instead the need to pressure future governments to fill out the long-term strategy.

They also highlighted the “unprecedented” level of co-production with disabled people that has taken place.

Disability Wales*, which is part-funded by the Welsh government, declined to comment on the content of the plan.

But DW’s chief executive Rhian Davies, a member of the Disability Rights Taskforce and chair of its independent living/social care working group, said the plan was “born from the dark days of the pandemic, where disabled people were an afterthought in public policy, resulting in high numbers of avoidable deaths and thousands more facing loneliness, isolation and hardship”.

She said: “Coupled with over a decade of austerity and the cost-of-living crisis, many disabled people are ‘barely surviving’.

“Nevertheless, the high level of engagement among disabled people in the work of the taskforce, together with the collective leadership demonstrated by the 10 taskforce working group chairs, shows the resilience and commitment within our community to creating a more inclusive future where disabled people ‘truly thrive’.

“With Senedd elections on the horizon, taking forward delivery of the plan will fall to the new Welsh government working co-productively with the external advisory board, including pinning down detail regarding the actions as well as the measurement framework.

“It is vital that the cross-party commitment secured to date follows through beyond the election to ensure that the demands of disabled people for an equitable and inclusive society in Wales are fully realised.”

Joe Powell, chief executive of All Wales People First, which is also part-funded by the Welsh government, described the plan as “a new and ambitious vision for Wales”, which was “unprecedented in its co-production with disabled people and represents the most detailed and comprehensive involvement and feedback from disabled people to date”.

He said: “For the plan to achieve its intended impact, it is vital that any incoming Welsh government builds on the existing short-term, micro-level targets and develops these into a fully realised macro-level approach over the plan’s 10-year lifespan.

“Without sustained commitment of time and resources, there is a significant risk that the plan will fail to deliver meaningful change, undermining the trust and goodwill of disabled people across Wales.”

Dr Natasha Hirst, a disabled activist who chaired the taskforce’s access to services working group, praised the “positive language and aspirations” of the plan, which were in “stark contrast to the deeply dehumanising and punitive rhetoric and policies of the UK government”.

She said the “long period of genuine co-production with disabled people and our organisations in Wales” had been “an important process for identifying the barriers that exclude us and damage our quality of life and has built an institutional and political commitment to the social model”.

She added: “There’s still much more to be done and it’s essential that we now secure cross-party support for this 10-year plan.

“Political parties must make a firm commitment to taking it forward in their election manifestos and supporting the funding of the work once a new government is in place.”

Jane Hutt, the Welsh government’s cabinet secretary for social justice, said in a statement alongside the plan’s publication: “We are committed to ensuring that disabled people can participate in Welsh society on an equitable basis, free from barriers, and to creating an inclusive and accessible environment for all.

“This 10-year plan represents our commitment to true inclusion and participation.

“I thank the Disability Rights Taskforce and everyone who contributed to the consultation, ensuring the plan is grounded in lived experience.

“We must now all work together to make sure the plan succeeds and that the values of accessibility, inclusion, and co-production are central in all that we do.”

*Disability Wales is a Disability News Service subscriber

18 December 2025

Falconer dismisses attempts to protect four groups of disabled people in assisted dying bill

The Labour peer trying to steer the assisted suicide bill through the House of Lords has rejected attempts to remove eligibility from disabled people who are homeless, in prison or pregnant, and from many young disabled people.

Lord Falconer rejected amendments – several of which were suggested by disabled crossbench peer Baroness [Tanni] Grey-Thompson – that would have prevented disabled people in all four groups from being eligible for an assisted death.

The amendments were dismissed by Falconer as the Lords again debated some of more than 1,150 amendments proposed to the terminally ill adults (end of life) bill, which would offer the possibility of an assisted suicide to terminally-ill people in England and Wales who have been found to have less than six months to live and are over the age of 18.

Baroness Grey-Thompson had proposed amendments that would have protected those impacted by imprisonment, pregnancy and homelessness, and which she said she had suggested to “invite debate” on how these groups could be affected by legalising assisted dying.

On homelessness, she said: “We have to understand the impact that homelessness might have on people’s decision-making abilities.”

Baroness [Sue] Gray, former chief of staff to prime minister Sir Keir Starmer, told fellow peers: “Not only are people who are homeless by definition cut off from and invisible to key public services, including healthcare, but they often have complex further needs, such as abusive relationships, poor mental health and addiction.

“How can we imagine that they will not be at risk of being offered an assisted death simply because those needs are judged too hard to meet, or because someone else has decided that their lives are not worthwhile?”

She said that had happened in Canada, where “the parameters for an assisted death were widened soon after the law was passed, and we duly saw examples of individuals dying by Medicaid explicitly because they were affected by isolation and homelessness”.

She said: “While I have other reservations about the bill and the pressuring effect it will have on disadvantaged groups, I am especially concerned that we are looking to introduce it at a time when the cost of living means that homelessness has reached critical levels throughout the UK.”

She added: “It is wholly impossible to justify leaving out safeguards that would prevent homeless people being coerced into an assisted death, whether through abuse, absence of choice or simply their despair.”

Baroness [Nuala] O’Loan, the human rights expert and former police ombudsman for Northern Ireland, told peers on Friday (12 December): “Solutions to things such as poverty and homelessness should not involve offering people assisted death rather than a home, possibly in sheltered accommodation, in which they may be able to flourish.”

On pregnancy, Baroness Grey-Thompson said: “A woman may or may not know that she is pregnant. She may be more or less than 24 weeks pregnant.

“A woman may prefer to terminate the pregnancy prior to requesting assisted death, or she may not; she may just choose to carry on to end her life.

“But having information available is a really important part of making an informed decision.”

She said states and countries around the world that had legalised assisted dying had come up with varied ways of dealing with the issue, which she said were “really important things that we need to have much more clarity on”.

On prisoners, Baroness Grey-Thompson said they “can be very vulnerable and prone to suicide” and can also “experience a lack of care and palliative care”.

Baroness [Claire] Fox, the former Brexit Party MEP, said prisoners should be omitted from any bill.

She said: “Letting prisoners have access to and be eligible for assisted death would be very close to reckless state abandonment of those prisoners to something very deeply dark.”

The state “effectively putting a prisoner to death via lethal drugs” was “far too like capital punishment, which I have long opposed and do not approve of”, she said.

Lord [Kevin] Shinkwin, the disabled Conservative peer, supported an amendment that would have prevented any young disabled person with an education, health and care plan (EHCP) from being eligible for an assisted death.

He said it would protect “vulnerable young adults who deserve and need extra protection on account of their disability” and that such protection was “neither patronising nor discriminatory”.

But Lord Falconer dismissed all four sets of amendments, around homeless people, prisoners, those who are pregnant, and young disabled people with EHCPs.

On terminally-ill people who were homeless, he said he was “very strongly against that right to an assisted death being taken away from them, but the safeguards will apply, to be sure that it is their clear and settled view and not the product of coercion”.

He said he believed prisoners “should be entitled to exactly the same position as everybody else” because the safeguards in the bill were “sufficient” and it would “be wrong to exclude prisoners from this right”.

On pregnancy, he said that “safeguards can adequately deal with this, and I am not in favour of any change in relation to it”.

And he said he was also “very against” excluding anyone with an EHCP being excluded from the bill’s provisions, again because of the safeguards already within the bill.

He pointed to comments he made the previous week, in which he said it was right to consider whether “enhanced protection” was needed for all those under 25 – which will include those with an EHCP – although he believed 18 was the right minimum age for an assisted death.

The issues around further protection for prisoners, homeless people, disabled young people and pregnancy are likely to be discussed again at the bill’s report stage.

Peers have now dealt with only 10 of more than 80 groups they will need to debate to finish the Lords committee stage of the bill, with all the bill’s remaining stages needing to be completed by the time parliament’s current session ends, probably in May, for it to become law.

18 December 2025

Government’s housing agency fails to mention accessible homes in new five-year strategy

The government’s housing and regeneration agency has failed to explain why its new five-year strategy fails to mention disabled people, or the need to address the accessible housing crisis.

Homes England published its five-year strategic plan last week.

It came just days before the government launched a consultation on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework, which is set to slash targets for accessible new homes that were promised by the last Conservative government (see separate story).

The Homes England document brags of how the agency has “established itself as an essential delivery partner in tackling the nation’s housing challenges”.

And it says it will need to “radically increase” its activity so it can support the sector in delivering the government’s target of 1.5 million new homes by the end of the parliament.

The strategic plan also describes the agency’s responsibility to drive innovation in “modern construction methods”, design, environmental sustainability and building safety.

But none of its six objectives mention the urgent need for all new homes to be built to strict accessibility standards, or for more homes to be built that are suitable for wheelchair-users.

Not one of the 15 key performance indicators (KPIs) by which it will track its own performance mentions accessible housing.

Across the document’s 35 pages, there is not a single mention of disabled people or disability, or of accessible housing.

Since its election victory in July 2024, the Labour government has repeatedly failed to take action on the accessible housing crisis, despite promising soon after the election that it would do so “shortly”.

In October 2025, housing secretary Steve Reed failed to include any pledge on accessibility in a major announcement on delivering a series of new towns across England.

A subsequent report on new towns, commissioned by the government, also failed to mention disabled people, with the 135-page report containing only two brief references to the need for accessibility, either of the new homes themselves or the built environment surrounding them, and including no mention of working-age disabled people.

This week, more than 17 months after the general election, the government finally published its plans, which threaten to slash accessible housing targets promised by the Conservative government.

These plans saw the government accused of a “truly horrifying” betrayal of disabled people and of ignoring the accessible housing crisis.

Disabled campaigners and allies wanted the government to strengthen guidance so all new homes must be built to the strict M4(2)* “accessible and adaptable” standard, and a minimum of 10 per cent of new homes meet the M4(3) standard, which means they would be suitable for a wheelchair-user.

But the government wants to cut the percentage of new homes built to M4(2) standard from 100 per cent – under the Tory plans – to just 40 per cent, with no targets for wheelchair-accessible homes.

Mariella Hill, policy and campaigns officer for Inclusion London, which has campaigned for action on accessible housing, said: “Homes England’s failure to mention disabled people or accessible housing in its strategy is a serious omission.

“Only around 13 per cent of homes in England have basic accessibility features, meaning most disabled people cannot even visit, let alone live, in the existing mainstream housing stock.

“Government strategies that ignore this crisis will fund and deliver homes that many of the people who need them most simply cannot use.

“In the meantime, disabled people are trapped in homes that deny their right to an independent life, where they cannot access basic facilities or carry out everyday tasks like showering or cooking.

“The government and its housing agency must focus not just on building more homes, but on building the right kind of homes for the people who urgently need them – accessible social rent homes.”

Homes England refused to explain why it had failed to mention both disabled people and accessible housing in its five-year strategy, but it said in a statement: “As the government’s housing and regeneration agency, our focus is on delivering the high-quality, safe and sustainable homes England needs in vibrant, inclusive communities.

“It is important to us that as many people as possible have access to quality homes that are fit for purpose.

“Accessible housing provision is determined by local planning policy, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.

“Adhering to local planning policy is one of the conditions that all housebuilders must meet when receiving funding from us.”

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government had failed to comment on the Homes England failure by 11am today (Thursday).

18 December 2025

Watchdog’s league table on rail passenger assistance is ‘misleading’, say accessible transport campaigners

Disabled campaigners have dismissed a watchdog’s “misleading” new league table that claims to show the best performers in assisting disabled rail passengers.

The “benchmarking” report by the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) claims that two of the best-performing train companies for passenger assistance are Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) and Southeastern.

But GTR and Southeastern are the train companies that have gone furthest in running driver-only operated trains to unstaffed stations, often replacing onboard and station staff with roving “mobile” staffing units, say campaigners.

Three years ago, GTR admitted in a leaked document that it had been breaching access laws for more than 10 years across large parts of its rail network.

Southeastern and GTR were also highlighted three years ago by The Association of British Commuters (ABC) as key offenders for denying disabled passengers the ability to “turn up and go” (TUAG) without booking assistance in advance.

ORR claims Southeastern has the best score for reliability (based on the proportion of disabled passengers who received none of the assistance they had booked in advance) over the last three years.

It ranks the top five providers as Southeastern (eight per cent said they received none of the assistance they had booked), LNER (eight per cent), Network Rail (eight per cent), Avanti West Coast (nine per cent) and GTR (10 per cent).

The worst performer is Northern Trains, with 16 per cent, with South Western Railway (15 per cent) and West Midlands Trains (14 per cent) only slightly better.

Five of the top nine performers in the ORR league table – Southeastern, GTR, Great Western Railway, Chiltern Railways and Greater Anglia – were found by ABC research in 2022 to be discriminating against disabled passengers by regularly denying TUAG services to those who need boarding assistance.

Emily Sullivan, a disabled researcher in equality and human rights and co-founder of ABC, said she was “sceptical” about whether the ORR figures provided an accurate picture of equality and discrimination when it came to passenger assistance.

She said Southeastern and GTR were “the same two operators where driver-only operation and ‘mobile staffing’ are most progressed, after years of cuts to onboard and station staff”.

And she said that ranking train operators by their performance on pre-booked assistance was “a gift for potential train operator manipulation of the system, which could even make the worst for TUAG appear to be the ‘best’ for booked assistance.

“The use of a league table is also misleading due to the very different types of networks and patchwork of different staffing policies.

“The standards for data collection are themselves discriminatory and every time they publish data including only ‘booked assistance’ they are by implication telling disabled people they do not have the equal right to travel.”

Another leading disabled campaigner, Christiane Link, a consultant and adviser on accessibility, also criticised the ORR figures.

She said: “I don’t think these statistics are sound. They focus too much on booked assists and ask people after months about their travel experience.

“I think it’s overdue that the ORR focus more on the provision of Turn Up and Go, not just booked assists, and ask people directly after travelling about their experience, not months later.”

It is the first time ORR has attempted to rank rail passenger assistance.

The regulator particularly shamed South Western Railway (SWR), West Midlands Trains (WMT) and Northern Trains for their poor performance.

It said SWR and WMT “showed a pattern of sustained poor performance in delivering reliable passenger assistance” and have been asked to submit “detailed action plans” for improvement.

Despite already having been told to implement an improvement plan following concerns raised last year, Northern told ORR four months ago that about 800 passenger-facing staff had not completed disability awareness training.

ORR has now launched a formal investigation into this failing by Northern.

The regulator plans to expand its benchmarking framework next year to include new data sources and measures such as post-assistance passenger confidence, staff training compliance, TUAG reliability, and feedback on the Passenger Assist mobile phone app.

18 December 2025

Minister rejects pleas from disabled peers for national wheelchair and equipment strategy

The government has dismissed pleas by disabled peers for ministers to introduce a national strategy to address the “untenable” state of wheelchair and community equipment services.

A trio of disabled peers told ministers in the House of Lords how the current state of services was preventing the removal of key barriers to independent living.

But a Labour minister made it clear the government had no plans to draw up a national strategy for wheelchair provision, while also appearing to rule out a national strategy on community equipment.

Lord [Kevin] Shinkwin, a Conservative peer, and himself a wheelchair-user, highlighted the “delays in hospital discharge, loss of independence, social isolation, with the inevitable impact on mental health, and, of course, avoidable deterioration in health and well-being” that were caused by the flaws in the system.

He said that high-quality wheelchair provision provides “high value” to both wheelchair-users and wider society, and the current system “does not make economic sense”.

Baroness [Sal] Brinton, another wheelchair-user and a senior Liberal Democrat peer, called for a national strategy “that serves the needs of disabled people and their families, while offering value for money to commissioners and the public purse.

“What we have at the moment is the exact opposite.”

Two months ago, an inquiry by the all-party parliamentary group for access to disability equipment found an “inconsistent” community equipment system that was in crisis due to fragmentation, underinvestment, and a lack of leadership.

Baroness Brinton, a member of the all-party group, said the “forensically detailed” report showed how “systematic barriers” prevented millions of disabled children and adults across the UK from accessing the equipment they need to live “safely and independently”.

Another disabled peer and wheelchair-user, Lord Blencathra – former Conservative Home Office minister David Maclean – criticised the postcode lottery in services, with delays in assessment and delivery that can leave disabled people without mobility support for months.

He said many of the wheelchairs provided are “heavy, cumbersome or not tailored to users’ daily lives, forcing some to buy their own”, while assessments “often fail to consider lifestyle needs, reducing independence and social participation”.

He told fellow peers: “NHS England acknowledges variation in service quality and outcomes.

“Putting it simply, NHS wheelchairs are dirt cheap and for that you get big, heavy, ugly things which appal young people who may need to use them.”

He also called for a national NHS wheelchair services strategy.

The three disabled peers were responding to a debate secured by former Labour health minister Lord Hunt, who said the provision of wheelchairs and community equipment for disabled people was “a disgrace” and “absolutely woeful”.

Lord Hunt, a patron of the Wheelchair Alliance, said wheelchair services were “inconsistent and under-resourced”, with “a system that prioritises lowest initial cost over long-term value and reliability.

“There are no consistent national standards, no independent regulation and few clear paths for users seeking repairs, reporting faults or making complaints.

“As a result, many disabled people experience long waiting-times, delays in hospital discharge, loss of independence, social isolation and, tragically, avoidable deterioration in health and well-being.”

He said it was “the same dismal picture” with community equipment, which includes hoists, grab rails and medical beds.

The sharing of responsibility between local authorities and integrated care boards (ICBs) leads to “fragmented and inconsistent delivery”, he said.

And he said that community equipment was “the silent crisis at the root of the challenges we face in providing community and social care”.

Lord Hunt said he was “absolutely convinced that we need a national strategy, underpinned by the appointment of a national clinical director accountable to ministers and backed up by strong performance management”.

But the junior health minister, Baroness Merron, said there were “no plans to publish a national strategy for wheelchair provision”.

She said ICBs were responsible for wheelchair services “based on the needs of their local population”, and NHS England had developed “policy guidance and legislation to support ICBs” to ensure they commission “effective, efficient and personalised wheelchair services”, while a wheelchair quality framework was published in April.

She said local authorities had a statutory duty to provide community equipment, and the government’s 10 Year Health Plan for England provides them with the “freedom and autonomy” to do so.

She said: “In this regard, it is important that we are giving systems a greater degree of control and flexibility over how funding is deployed to get this done.”

She said the pandemic had contributed to a backlog of referrals to wheelchair services, but all ICBs and community health services now have a duty to “actively manage and reduce waits over 18 weeks, and to develop a plan to eliminate all 52-week waits”.

She told fellow peers: “The approach of the 10-year health plan identifies disabled people as a priority group.

“Our neighbourhood health service will support disabled people, and the 10-year plan focuses on choice and control over their care.

“I have heard what noble Lords have said, and I will take that back.

“I hope the steps we have made will make a difference, but I recognise that there is so much more to do.”

18 December 2025

McFadden brags about cutting disability benefits, just as his own strategy warns of ‘deep material poverty’

The work and pensions secretary has bragged about cutting disabled people’s support, three days after launching a child poverty strategy which warned that more than a million children in families where someone was disabled were living in “deep material poverty”.

Pat McFadden told the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg on Sunday that his government had halved the health element for new claimants of universal credit because “under the Tory system we inherited, people got double the money for declaring themselves unfit for work”.

And he said he did not rule out further cuts to benefits.

But his comments on Sunday morning came three days after his Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), alongside the Department for Education and the prime minister, had launched Labour’s new Child Poverty Strategy.

The strategy’s evidence pack states that “single parent families and families where someone has a disability (are) particularly overrepresented in deep material poverty”.

In 2023-24, according to the strategy, there were 1.3 million children in a family where someone is disabled (22 per cent of those children) who were in “deep material poverty”.

The evidence pack points to disabled people’s “high additional living expenses such as transport, home adaptations, or specialist equipment”, while “caring responsibilities or accessibility issues can mean that it is difficult or not possible to find work that suits [those families’] requirements”.

The report itself says that “deep material poverty is especially pronounced for children in single parent families and children in families with disability”.

And it adds: “There are parents who may not be able to work, for example due to severe disability, or who fall on difficult times outside of their control.

“It is not right that we have a system where children are penalised through no fault of their own.”

Three days later, McFadden boasted to Kuenssberg about doing exactly that by slashing the health element of universal credit for most new claimants by about £50 a week from next April.

Announcing the Child Poverty Strategy, the government said it would lift about 550,000 children out of poverty by 2030 and tackle the “root causes of poverty by cutting the cost of essentials, boosting family incomes, and improving local services”.

Measures include making it easier for new parents who receive universal credit to return to work by extending eligibility for upfront childcare costs to those returning from parental leave; ending the unlawful placement of families in bed and breakfasts beyond the six-week limit; introducing a new legal duty for councils to notify schools, health visitors, and GPs when a child is placed in temporary accommodation; and taking measures to help families buy more affordable infant formula.

The government had already announced at last month’s budget that it was removing the universal credit two-child limit that was imposed by the last government in 2017.

Asked by Disability News Service (DNS) to respond to McFadden’s comments, and to say whether he would apologise for his misleading statement about claimants “declaring themselves unfit for work” – when there is a lengthy and harsh “fitness for work” assessment process – a government spokesperson said: “We are reforming the broken system we inherited by tackling perverse incentives around sickness claims, increasing face-to-face assessments, and investing £1 billion to help sick and disabled people into good, secure jobs.

“We want a welfare state that supports those who need it while helping people into work and delivering fairness to the taxpayer.

“That’s why we’ve launched the Timms Review to make PIP fair and fit for the future, while Alan Milburn’s investigation into young people and inactivity will help us tackle the key barriers behind youth unemployment.

“Thanks to our decision to scrap the two-child limit and introduce a wider package of measures for families we will lift 550,000 children out of poverty by the end of this parliament.”

This week, McFadden also released a written statement updating MPs on his department’s plans to improve its record on safeguarding benefit claimants.

It details a series of actions taken since a report on “safeguarding vulnerable claimants” was published by the Commons work and pensions committee in May.

Much of the statement had already been included in a letter he wrote to the committee on 18 November, on which he was questioned by the committee the following day.

McFadden admitted in this week’s statement that an assessment of DWP’s safeguarding approach had found “some good practice, but also variation in awareness, skills, and accountability”.

He said the first year of a new five-year DWP strategy would focus on “raising staff awareness of safeguarding responsibilities, building capability through training, and strengthening relationships with local authorities, health services, and voluntary organisations”.

He will publish a DWP safeguarding policy framework next year, setting out the department’s “comprehensive approach”.

McFadden said DWP “remains open to adopting a statutory duty” to safeguard claimants, one of the key recommendations in the committee’s report.

But there was no mention in his statement of the committee’s call for a new independent body to investigate cases where claimants have been seriously harmed by DWP’s actions.

DNS has previously shown how senior civil servants and ministers spent more than a decade covering up evidence that linked DWP’s actions with hundreds, and probably thousands, of deaths of disabled people who relied on the social security system*.

Documents secured through freedom of information requests, inquest reports, and investigations by bereaved family members show how DWP destroyed incriminating records, failed to share crucial evidence with its own independent reviewers and grieving relatives, and even lied to a coroner.

*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

11 December 2025

Minister misleads MPs as mystery deepens over new £2 billion cuts to disability benefits

The disability minister has refused to apologise after misleading MPs about concerns over nearly £2 billion in new cuts to disability benefits.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has added to these transparency concerns by itself providing misleading information about the cuts, and again refusing to clarify how many disabled claimants will be affected, and how much they will lose.

Two weeks on from the budget, it is still unclear how DWP and its ministers intend to cut £85 million next year, £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.

Treasury documents, published on the day of the budget, show the cuts are connected with increasing DWP’s “capacity” to carry out reassessments of claimants through the work capability assessment (WCA), increasing the number of face-to-face benefit assessments, and “extending Personal Independence Payment [PIP] award reviews periods”.

The budget costings document says these changes will “ensure people receive the right health or disability benefit and the system is sustainable”.

But it is unclear from budget documents exactly how these changes will cut spending on disability benefits, and how any cuts will be split between disabled claimants of PIP and universal credit.

Last week, Disability News Service (DNS) reported the government’s refusal to explain how it will cut spending through these measures, despite repeated requests for clarity.

Following the DNS story, the Liberal Democrat work and pensions spokesperson, Steve Darling, asked in Commons work and pensions questions for an explanation of how disabled people would be impacted by the cuts, which he said had been “quietly sneaked into the budget the other week”.

DNS has been seeking clarification on the cuts from DWP and the Treasury since 26 November, the day of the budget.

And on 1 December, DNS copied in Sir Stephen Timms – the minister for social security and disability – to an email to DWP’s press office, highlighting concerns that he was breaching the post-election pledge he made 14 months ago to improve transparency within DWP.

The email asked for an explanation of how the £1.95 billion in cuts would be achieved.

But responding in parliament on Monday (8 December) to Darling’s question about the DNS report, Sir Stephen told him: “I do not know what the honourable gentleman is referring to.

“I will happily look into the report he has spoken of.”

When DNS then asked if Sir Stephen would apologise for misleading Darling and fellow MPs, the DWP press office itself produced a misleading statement.

It said: “The £1.9 billion in welfare savings were announced by the chancellor at the budget and set out in full in the budget document.

“This will be delivered through measures such as tightening eligibility for overseas pension accrual, reforming Motability, and reducing duplication in benefit administration.”

This is not correct.

The budget costings document makes no mention of the Motability tax changes or pensions in its brief section on the £1.95 billion cuts to “health and disability benefits”.

Instead, the document refers to “operational improvements to health assessments”, including the WCA, “changing the frequency of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) award reviews”, and plans to “increase the number of face-to-face health assessments conducted across both PIP and the WCA”.

Asked why it had provided further misleading information on top of Sir Stephen’s misleading answer to Darling, DWP had not responded by 11.30am today (Thursday).

Meanwhile, Liberal Democrat MP John Milne asked Sir Stephen on Monday if he agreed that the widely-ridiculed claim by Tory shadow work and pensions secretary Helen Whately that “millions are getting benefits for anxiety or ADHD along with a free Motability car” was “clearly nonsense” and “one of the least accurate claims ever made by a politician”.

Sir Stephen said he agreed, although he said that “choosing the most misleading claim is a tough contest”.

Another minister was asked by Liberal Democrat MP Caroline Voaden why one of her constituents in South Devon had spent “nearly two weeks calling the DWP every day to find out why his employment and support allowance had been stopped without warning”, but “each time he called, he waited for over an hour, only for the line to be cut off with no reply”.

DWP minister Andrew Western said such service was “unacceptable” and he promised to “look into it on her behalf”.

The SNP’s Chris Law asked Sir Stephen what action he was taking after nearly 1,000 new and existing claimants had a work capability assessment cancelled by private sector contractor Maximus since 9 September 2024.

He said a whistleblower had told him cancellations were “a regular occurrence, largely because of IT services provided by the DWP”, with one of his Dundee constituents having their WCA cancelled five times.

Sir Stephen said he would be “happy to look into the details”.

11 December 2025

Duty to disabled passengers in railways bill is ‘too vague’ and must be strengthened, MPs are told

A statutory duty in the new railways bill to ensure ministers and public bodies promote the needs of disabled passengers is “too vague” and must be strengthened as the legislation passes through parliament, MPs were told yesterday (Wednesday).

The transport select committee was hearing evidence from experts a day after the government’s railways bill passed its second reading in the House of Commons.

Emma Vogelmann, co-chief executive of the disabled people’s organisation Transport for All (TfA), welcomed the inclusion in the bill of a statutory duty that will force those in charge of the railways to take account of “the needs of disabled persons”.

Labour had previously dropped plans to ensure there was a statutory duty on accessibility in the bill.

But Vogelmann told MPs on the committee that the duty’s wording was “very vague” and “too unenforceable” and “doesn’t guarantee improvements for disabled passengers”, despite the “desperate change that is needed in terms of accessibility”.

She said TfA wanted the bill strengthened so there was a duty to “actively and continuously improve accessibility across the rail network” and ensure there are “measurable outcomes” that show what progress is being made every year.

The bill currently says that ministers, Great British Railways (GBR) and the Office of Rail and Road will have a duty to carry out their roles – alongside other statutory duties – in “the manner best calculated to promote the interests of users and potential users of railway passenger services including, in particular, the needs of disabled persons”.

But Vogelmann told the MPs the legislation should be strengthened to “make sure that accessibility is enforceable and that it is an over-riding, consistent priority for Great British Railways as opposed to at the moment where we feel it is potentially not given enough enforcement power and it is subject to political will in some instances”.

She said the current wording of the duty was “almost purposefully vague”, which risked perpetuating the “tick box” culture and lack of meaningful action on accessibility across the rail system.

She added: “The lack of enforceable standards, the lack of enforceable actions, is really why disabled people feel excluded from the rail network at the moment and why many of us face so many barriers.”

The previous day, a string of MPs had highlighted the need for meaningful improvements to accessibility on the railways, during the bill’s second reading.

The bill will create GBR, a new publicly-owned company that will bring together management of passenger services and rail infrastructure.

The government also plans to use the bill to introduce a stronger passenger watchdog and to simplify fares and tickets.

Transport secretary Heidi Alexander told MPs the bill would “sweep away the fragmentation and dysfunction that have plagued the railway for too long and will bring the 17 organisations involved in running the railway together into one public body, Great British Railways, which is the directing mind that this industry has long called for”.

Many MPs in the debate called for improvements to the government’s Access for All programme, which funds access improvements at rail stations.

Conservative MP Mark Pritchard said “more needs to be done on step-free access” because there was “currently very little in the bill that suggests that more will be done, particularly for rural stations such as Cosford, Shifnal or Albrighton in Shropshire.

“If it cannot be done at every station, and there is no money for that, there at least needs to be step-free access and improved disability access somewhere along inter-county railway lines.”

Adam Dance, the Liberal Democrat MP for Yeovil, said: “Too many rural railway stations are not accessible for disabled people.

“Without support staff, constituents in Yeovil have had serious accidents at railway stations.

“Although the government’s accessibility priorities, which we are debating today, are welcome, does my honourable friend agree that we need a strengthened Access for All programme?”

Keir Mather, a junior transport minister, told MPs he had “heard the calls from colleagues across the house about the importance of the Access for All scheme”, and that the government was continuing to fund the scheme.

Disability News Service reported last month that the government’s new “roadmap to an accessible railway” – covering England, Scotland and Wales – appeared to suggest a reduction in real spending on the Access for All programme, with the roadmap promising a future commitment to only spend “up to” £70 million a year.

Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs voted against the bill receiving a second reading, but it was easily passed by 329 votes in favour to 173 votes against.

11 December 2025

Peers urged to ‘err on the side of caution’ and raise minimum age limit in assisted suicide bill

Peers have been urged to “err on the side of caution” and raise the minimum age limit for an assisted death from 18 to 25, as part of a controversial bill that aims to legalise the practice.

As the House of Lords again debated some of the hundreds of amendments proposed to the terminally ill adults (end of life) bill, peers were told that a minimum age of 18 was “contrary to the mounting evidence of when the brain is fully formed”.

Labour peer Baroness [Luciana] Berger told fellow peers last Friday (5 December) that social media had become “a powerful driver of harm” and that research showed young people in vulnerable situations were “disproportionately exposed to posts that glamorise suicide or present suicidal thoughts as normal, appealing or even fashionable”.

She said she was “haunted” by the words of a young disabled woman who had said in evidence at an earlier stage of the bill: “I’m in care. I’ve got disabilities. The government will pay for me to die under this bill, but it won’t pay for me to live.”

Baroness Berger reminded peers that the children’s commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza, had said she would “far rather that we erred on the side of caution, protecting those who have had terrible lives, terrible experiences, have been abused, have had their families turn them out, protecting those [with] extreme mental illness, protecting those with special educational needs and disabilities, protecting anorexic children who are heading into adulthood”.

Baroness Berger said: “I am clear that we must continue to say to children and young people: ‘Yes, your life matters. Even if it will be a short life, it matters.’”

Labour peer Lord Falconer, who is sponsoring the bill in the Lords, said he believed 18 was still the right age, but that “maybe the answer is some assurance that there is a more intense assessment for people aged between 18 and 25”.

The issue is likely to be debated again at the bill’s report stage.

Meanwhile, the disabled Conservative peer Lord [Kevin] Shinkwin warned of a further attempt to “weaken” the bill’s protections after Lord Falconer proposed an amendment that would affect the adjustments that must be made for those with language and literacy barriers, including people with learning difficulties.

The bill currently states that doctors assessing someone for an assisted suicide “must first ensure the provision of adjustments for language and literacy barriers”.

But Lord Falconer suggested in his amendment that doctors should instead “take all reasonable steps to ensure… effective communication”.

Lord Shinkwin said he failed to see how the change would “do anything other than weaken this bill” and would “fundamentally weaken one of the bill’s safeguards, such as they are”.

He said the bill “makes a mockery” of the Labour party’s “fine, noble and honourable tradition” of “advancing disability rights”.

He said: “It shreds a tradition that deserves to be preserved, not sacrificed in such a profoundly cynical and misleading way as to make out, as the amendment does, that this is somehow only a drafting change.

“There is a reason why not one organisation of or for disabled people supports the bill; they know that disabled people need the bill like a hole in the head.

“I marvel that the noble and learned lord does not seem to realise that the bill is dangerous enough already without the removal of provisions that would at least acknowledge the obligation to first ensure that communication adjustments were made; for example, for people with learning disabilities or users of British Sign Language.”

There was also criticism of Lord Falconer’s proposed amendment by Baroness [Nuala] O’Loan, the human rights expert and former police ombudsman for Northern Ireland, who said his amendment would introduce “a far less specific test, and consideration must be given to setting standards for the level of communication which is required”.

She asked Lord Falconer whether his amendment would “inadvertently disadvantage those with specific learning difficulties and similar vulnerable groups”.

Lord Falconer insisted that the amendment was “not a watering down at all” but he said he would discuss Lord Shinkwin’s concerns with him before the next stage of the bill, although “at the moment, it looks to me to offer just as good, if not better, protection”.

Peers have now dealt with only six groups of amendments, out of the – currently – 84 they will need to get through to move onto the next stage of the bill in the Lords, with further debate planned tomorrow (Friday).

The Hansard Society said this week that if the Lords continued at its current pace it would “far fall short of what is needed to complete the remaining groups in time”, with parliament’s current session due to end in the spring, probably in May.

11 December 2025

Scottish and UK governments are failing to uphold disability rights, says watchdog

The Scottish and UK governments are both failing to uphold the rights of disabled people in key areas, according to an annual report by Scotland’s human rights watchdog.

Two of the 10 areas of “urgent concern” highlighted by the Scottish Human Rights Commission in its State of the Nation 2025 report focus on continued breaches of disabled people’s rights.

The report – presented this week to the Scottish parliament – says the support for people with learning difficulties and autistic people to live in their own homes is “inadequate”, with many forced to live in accommodation that is “institutional, inappropriate, and not in the area that they would call home”.

The Scottish government has failed to put in place the necessary community-based support to deliver the right to independent living, it says.

It also points to the lack of “transparency and monitoring” to ensure action in this area meets human rights requirements.

The report also warns that disability benefits fail to provide a “decent standard of living” and are at risk of being cut, even though disabled people are more likely to live in poverty than people living in households where no-one is disabled.

Disabled people and disabled people’s organisations told the commission last year that social security payments that are meant to cover additional disability-related costs for daily living “are in fact being used to cover basic household expenses such as food”.

Disabled people are “going without enough income to meet costs” and facing rising debt, and are often unable to pay for fuel, including the cost of charging their medical equipment.

The report adds: “Despite these impossible choices, UK politicians have been actively considering further cuts and changes to disability support.”

And, it says, some of the proposed policy choices “actively undermine the rights of disabled people”.

It particularly highlights the £50-a-week cut to the health element of universal credit for most new claimants, from next April, which is happening at a time when disabled people “are struggling to make ends meet”.

The cut, it says, “is particularly inconsistent” with the UK government’s obligation to realise rights progressively under the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Despite the UK government failing to rule out future cuts to spending on personal independence payment (PIP), the Scottish government – which is now responsible for its own version of the extra costs benefit, adult disability payment (ADP) – has “indicated that it does not intend to change ADP to reduce spending”, the report says.

But it says that the Scottish government has still not demonstrated that it has taken a human rights approach to budgeting “that both aims to ensure there is no worsening of disability-related poverty” and, where there is such poverty, to reduce it.

It adds: “Devolution is no excuse for failing to respect, protect and fulfil human rights.”

Derek, a disabled person interviewed for the report, says: “It feels like a lot of the human rights are being chipped away.

“We keep working away to make sure disabled people’s voices are being heard, but sometimes it can be disheartening, and I feel like I don’t have the energy.”

He has been supported by Glasgow Disability Alliance, and he told the commission: “My confidence came, not as an individual but from being involved in and as an ally to a movement.

“The barriers affect so many areas of life. It took me 20 years of fighting my local housing authority to get information in an accessible format, never mind accessible housing.”

Among the report’s calls for action from the Scottish government, it says the necessary housing and social care support must be in place to ensure a right to independent living.

And it says ADP and “other forms of social security and financial support to cover the costs of disability” must “meet those specific needs”, in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Other areas of concern highlighted by the report include healthcare provision; the housing crisis that is denying people across Scotland access to “safe, affordable and adequate housing”; high levels of food insecurity and unaffordability; and changes to the UK social security system that “disadvantage the most marginalised people and families”.

Professor Angela O’Hagan, chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, said: “People are struggling to heat their homes, feed their families, or access basic services, and this is fuelling real frustration and tension across our communities.

“At times like these, human rights matter more than ever. They provide the framework that requires public bodies to act fairly, protect people’s dignity, and direct resources to those who need them most.

“The most effective way to rebuild trust and reduce anger is to make these rights a lived reality for everyone.”

She added: “This report is a clear call to action.

“We urge the Scottish parliament and all public bodies to use its findings to make better decisions about legislation, budgeting and service delivery.

“Human rights set the minimum standards that people in Scotland should be able to depend on, especially during tough times.”

Meanwhile, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has warned the UK government it is failing to uphold “fundamental” human rights, including access to healthcare for disabled people, the right to peaceful protest, and freedom from exploitation for migrant workers.  

In a new report, published on Human Rights Day, the commission assessed progress on some of the 302 recommendations (PDF) made by other UN member states at the UK’s Universal Periodic Review in November 2022.

The EHRC report says successive government disability strategies and action plans have failed to focus on improving health services for disabled people, despite data showing disabled people in England face greater barriers to healthcare and are more often on NHS hospital waiting-lists than non-disabled people.

11 December 2025

Thousands of disabled people in one county should benefit from care charging legal case victory

Hundreds, or even thousands, of service-users in Kent should benefit from a legal case taken by a disabled woman who spent years over-paying care charges because the county council failed to tell her about crucial rules.

Kent County Council – which is now run by the right-wing Reform UK party after a landslide election victory earlier this year – has now backed down and agreed to do more to tell disabled people in the county how calculating their disability-related spending could reduce their care charges.

A disabled woman known as PXA had been forced to cancel her council-funded support because she could not afford the higher charges imposed in September 2024 when the council changed its charging policy, leading to her and thousands more disabled people in the county seeing sharp increases in their weekly care charges.

After seeking legal advice, she learned that she had been overpaying her care charges for years because her disability-related expenses had never been assessed.

PXA won permission for a judicial review of the council’s actions, but the local authority backed down and settled the case, days before a trial was due to begin last week.

The case revolved around the council’s failure to do enough to tell disabled people about the disability-related expenditure (DRE) system.

When calculating a person’s social care charges, a local authority must – if it treats their disability benefits as income – deduct what that person spends in DRE.

But Kent County Council’s policy since 2003 had been to deduct a standard amount for DRE and only to carry out an assessment of their actual spending if the disabled person asked for one.

The council set this standard amount at £21 in 2003, and reduced it to £17 in 2011, failing to increase it to allow for inflation for the next 14 years.

Legal firm Gold Jennings, which represents PXA and three other claimants, found that between them they had overpaid tens of thousands of pounds in care charges.

The firm believes there are “hundreds if not thousands” of other disabled people in Kent who were unaware that they should request an assessment of DRE to try to reduce their care charges.

The council’s own statistics show that, of about 16,000 individuals paying for their care in the county, only a few hundred had requested a DRE assessment.

Gold Jennings said PXA’s case was assisted by “compelling” evidence from the disabled people’s organisation Inclusion London, which used its virtual DRE assistant to highlight how disability-related spending for many people was likely to be significantly more than the £17 per week used by Kent County Council.

Even the council’s own figures – using individual assessments carried out in the 11 months after the September 2024 policy change – put average DRE at £55.46 per week.

Disabled people with this average level of DRE would have been overpaying care charges by nearly £2,000 per year.

PXA provided evidence that she had “never properly been told about DRE or that she could request an assessment”, said Gold Jennings.

The council has now agreed to make significant changes to its policy, including referring to DRE in its annual charging letters; providing clearer guidance in its DRE factsheet; and changing guidance to ensure council staff tell claimants about DRE and its importance in cutting charges.

It has also agreed to credit a “goodwill” amount to PXA to reduce her future care charges.

Svetlana Kotova, director of campaigns and justice at Inclusion London, said: “We are pleased with the outcome of this legal challenge and sincerely hope the changes that Kent agreed to make will enable many disabled people who use social care to keep more of their money.

“This case shows very powerfully the problems in practice with the DRE assessment process, which in theory allows disabled people to prove their extra disability costs so that they can keep more of their disability benefits, but is often unworkable.

“People don’t know about DRE and the process of claiming it is very complicated and often demeaning.

“It is wrong that people with very high support needs end up being overcharged for the essential care they need.

“This just pushes disabled people into deeper poverty.

“This is why Inclusion London have been campaigning to scrap care charging altogether.”

Clare Jennings, head of public law at Gold Jennings, said the consequences of the council’s actions were that her clients had been overpaying by thousands of pounds a year for their care, for many years.

She said: “I am deeply concerned that my clients’ situation is not unique and that there will be hundreds, if not thousands, of others like them in Kent, and thousands more in other local authority areas who operate similar policies, who have overpaid for their care, enriching local authorities by tens of millions of pounds.”

A council spokesperson said: “Faced with increasing demands for complex care, rising costs of care and a lack of adequate funding from central government, we are having to take tough decisions to make sure future essential services are sustainable.

“Unlike a number of other UK councils, Kent County Council delayed using powers given to local authorities under 2014’s Care Act to take into account higher, or enhanced, rates of disability benefits when assessing how much people should contribute to the cost of their care.

“Following public consultation in 2024, the decision to change this policy and increase the amount some people contribute to the cost of their care was not taken lightly and we included a £900,000 contingency in the budget to help with increased disability-related expenses.”

11 December 2025

Panelists

David Achuroa is the chair of the panel. He comes from Ghana but now lives in Canada.

Luvuyo Zondani is from South Africa. He will talk about how disabled people had to challenge the local authorities in the courts to get their Dial a Ride service reinstated.

Rael Muli is a member of the local deaf community in Meru, Kenya. They hosted a local Deaf Awareness campaign.

Disabled People Against Cuts Cymru (Wales), represented by Ben Golightly and Lee Ellery. They are a group of disabled people who have come together to fight against the cuts to services and expenditure supporting disabled people in Wales and the UK. The topic they have chosen is “Nothing about us, without us!” How disabled people in Wales are demanding to be heard.

All welcome

You are invited to join us, whether you regard yourself as disabled or not. Come and learn something of what the disabled community has been doing in Wales and Africa. To register your ticket, and identify any access needs you have, please register here.

For questions or further information regarding the event or about Share Our Story (#SOS), send an email to shareourstoryinfo@gmail.com

Click here for the full agenda

Disability News Service December 4th

Access to Work, All Posts, Assisted Dying Bill, Benefits, DWP, News, Politics, Universal Credit, welfare cuts, Welfare reforms No Responses »

Dec 052025

DWP and Treasury silent over mystery of £2 billion cuts to disability benefits 1

‘Unacceptable’ new figures show rejections of Access to Work claims have shot up this year 3

Watchdog’s silence after removing figures that showed social security spending is not ‘spiralling’ 5

Manifesto calls on next Welsh government to enable disabled people to ‘flourish and thrive’ 7

Deaf people who use BSL face ‘entrenched’ health and social care exclusion, say government advisers 9

Years of scapegoating rhetoric has led to ‘envy and resentment’ of those with blue badges, research finds 11

Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week 14

DWP and Treasury silent over mystery of £2 billion cuts to disability benefits

The government has refused to explain the impact that last week’s budget will have on disabled people who receive benefits, despite repeated requests for clarity over cuts of up to £580 million a year.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the Treasury have both failed to provide any details of the cuts to spending on disability benefits of nearly £2 billion over five years.

It is just DWP’s latest failure of transparency since Labour’s new minister for social security and disability, Sir Stephen Timms, promised to improve its openness to public scrutiny in September 2024.

Treasury documents published on the day of last week’s budget showed that, from next April, the government will increase DWP’s “capacity” to carry out reassessments of disabled people’s capacity for work through the work capability assessment (WCA).

DWP will also carry out more face-to-face assessments, which have been drastically cut back since the early weeks of the pandemic, both through WCAs and assessments of eligibility for personal independence payment (PIP).

The Treasury’s budget costings document also said DWP would be “changing the frequency” of reviews of PIP awards, which would allow it to “complete award reviews on time, reducing the number of people who are called to a PIP assessment when their function has not changed, and allowing providers to redirect resource to WCA re-assessments”.

The budget document described this measure as “extending Personal Independence Payment award reviews periods”.

The budget costings document said these changes will “ensure people receive the right health or disability benefit and the system is sustainable”.

But there are significant question-marks over these measures, because the changes together are set to save the government £85 million next year, £310 million in 2027-28, £520 million in 2028-29, £580 million in 2029-30 and £455 million in 2030-31, a total of £1.95 billion over five years.

Disability News Service (DNS) has been asking the Treasury and DWP to clarify how these cuts will be made for more than a week.

The Treasury initially claimed that the budget documents were not announcing new policies, but were “just costing existing plans from planned welfare reforms – so nothing new from this”.

But neither department has been able to point to where or when these “existing plans” were announced by DWP, particularly the changes in reviews of PIP awards, and how these changes will affect PIP recipients and those on out-of-work disability benefits.

Although the government has previously made it clear that it wanted to increase reassessments through the WCA, and to increase the number of face-to-face WCAs and PIP assessments, these ideas were included in March’s green paper.

Green papers are supposed to lay out policy proposals for consultation, but they are not announcements of final decisions on government policy.

DNS has been unable to find any DWP announcements on these and the other measures in last week’s budget documents since the spring budget on 26 March 2025, other than a brief reference to carrying out more PIP face-to-face assessments in a speech by the then work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall in May.

Both DWP and the Treasury have refused to provide clarity on the budget changes, with DWP instead releasing a statement that failed to explain what measures it was taking on PIP award reviews*.

It is the latest in a string of DWP failures on transparency since Labour came to power, continuing years of similar failings under successive Conservative-led governments.

At Labour’s annual conference in Liverpool, in September 2024, Sir Stephen told DNS: “The department has absurdly refused to answer lots of the questions that you have asked and that is something that we want to change… because public scrutiny is a good thing, and it puts pressure on ministers and on civil servants to have the consequences of what they are doing known about publicly.”

Meanwhile, DWP’s controversial new anti-fraud bill – now to be known as the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error, and Recovery) Act – has become law after receiving royal assent on Tuesday.

Last month, cross-party MPs warned that ministers’ refusal to introduce a key protection into the bill could see a repeat of the countless deaths caused by the austerity measures of past governments.

And they warned that future “authoritarian” governments could misuse the powers the Labour government has claimed through the bill, which applies to England, Scotland and Wales.

One of those powers will allow DWP to force banks to examine the accounts of claimants of means-tested benefits and then provide details of any accounts where there have been potential breaches of benefit eligibility rules.

Disability Rights UK said it was “deeply concerned” at the “bank spying bill” becoming law.

It said on X/Twitter: “A government agency that is notorious for punitive sanctions and bureaucratic faults that have cost lives, this will have dire consequences.”

*The statement is included here as a footnote, as it failed to answer the questions put to the department by DNS: “We are increasing the number of face-to-face assessments and tackling the backlog of Work Capability Assessments we inherited, by changing the frequency of PIP assessment reviews. This will ensure claimants receive the right level of support while at the same time reducing unnecessary award reviews, as we shift our focus from welfare to work, skills and opportunities.”

4 December 2025

‘Unacceptable’ new figures show rejections of Access to Work claims have shot up this year

Ministers have been forced to admit that the proportion of Access to Work claims they are rejecting has leapt by more than a fifth this year, with disabled campaigners describing the figures as “unacceptable” and “clearly worrying”.

The figures, provided through a response to a written parliamentary question, show the proportion of applications rejected has risen by more than 22 per cent in 2025-26 so far, compared with 2024-25.

This follows a rise of more than 12 per cent in 2024-25, Labour’s first year in control of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)*.

It is the strongest evidence yet to support concerns being raised by disabled campaigners, who have been warning for months that Access to Work (AtW) support is being cut.

The figures came just days after Disability News Service (DNS) reported that DWP was claiming that “an issue” with data was preventing it releasing detailed monthly figures on AtW claims.

The new figures were released by Sir Stephen Timms, the minister for social security and disability, in response to a question from Labour’s former shadow minister for disabled people, Vicky Foxcroft.

Rather than requesting more detailed monthly data, as DNS had done, she had asked for the number and proportion of AtW claims that had been closed in each year since 2022-23.

In 2022-23, Sir Stephen told her, 31,482 applications were not approved, which was 30 per cent of all decisions.

The proportion of applications rejected fell to 24 per cent in 2023-24, the last full year of the Conservative government, but then last year under the new Labour government – which claims it is trying to increase the number of disabled people in work – it rose to 27 per cent of all applications being rejected (a 12.5 per cent increase).

And so far this year (April to October), the proportion of claims rejected has increased even more sharply, with 27,297 applications not approved, one in three (33 per cent) of all decisions, a rise of more than 22 per cent (six percentage points) on 2024-25.

Although he provided these figures, Sir Stephen failed to provide Foxcroft with data showing the frequency of reasons for rejections (which include “no contact from the applicant”, “insufficient evidence provided”, “applicant not eligible” and “application not pursued”.

Disabled consultant, broadcaster and campaigner Shani Dhanda, co-founder of the Access to Work Collective, said the increase in claims being rejected was “unacceptable”.

But she also called again for clarity from ministers on exactly what was happening within the AtW system.

She told DNS: “We still have no idea where people are being lost in the system, and the vague reasons given tell us nothing about what actually went wrong.

“What we see on the ground is chaos: phone calls going unanswered, people cut off mid-call, evidence repeatedly misplaced, and applicants waiting so long for approvals, change of circumstances or renewals, that work opportunities disappear.

“The fact that non-approvals have jumped to 33 per cent, the highest in recent years, while transparency has been stripped back, is unacceptable.

“Access to Work is meant to support disabled workers, not shut them out.”

David Buxton, chief executive of the disabled people’s organisation Action on Disability, which in October produced evidence showing the average AtW support hours of disabled people it had been working with had plunged from 22.5 to just four in two-and-a-half years, said the new figures were “clearly worrying”.

And he criticised the department for the lack of transparency over what was driving the increased rejections.

He said: “Without clear data, we are all being left to guess, but what’s absolutely clear is that disabled people need a system that works.

“We must push for workable, sustainable and effective solutions that genuinely support people to stay in work.”

He added: “The numbers point to a system that is struggling to meet disabled people’s needs.

“When more than 100,000 applications over recent years have not been approved, and when a third of decisions this year are non-approvals, that has a very real impact on people’s ability to stay in work or take up new roles.”

Catherine Eadie, a social enterprise founder and Access to Work claimant, and a member of the Access to Work Collective, added: “For those of us dealing with Access to Work daily, these figures match what we see: procedural errors, misinterpretation of guidance, misplaced evidence, and delays so long that people’s jobs and businesses become unviable while they wait.

“When approval rates drop this sharply and explanations get vaguer, trust is impossible.”

Foxcroft told DNS: “I encourage ministerial colleagues to investigate this concerning increase in the number of cases being rejected by the DWP and ensure that it feeds into their wider work on reform of the current programme.”

She said: “It has long been clear that Access to Work is not fit for purpose.

“I am pleased that ministers have acknowledged this and begun to take action through the Pathways to Work green paper.

“These statistics show, however, that there is still a long way to go towards removing the workplace barriers disabled people face every day.”

DWP is expected to announce its proposals for AtW reform in the next few weeks.

*It took control in July 2024, so the first three months of 2024-25 were under Conservative control

4 December 2025

Watchdog’s silence after removing figures that showed social security spending is not ‘spiralling’

The government’s “independent” spending watchdog has refused to explain why it removed figures from its crucial budget forecast report that proved spending on social security is not spiralling out of control.

The move by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) will help the government – and commentators – justify expected future cuts to spending, such as to personal independence payment and out-of-work disability benefits.

This week, the Sunday Times reported that the government was set to push ahead with plans, first proposed in March’s Pathways to Work green paper, to prevent disabled young people under the age of 22 from receiving the health element of universal credit.

And in a speech in London on Monday, the prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, said that the social security system had “trapped people in poverty”, particularly young disabled people.

Her said young disabled people were being “simply written off” and trapped “in a cycle of worklessness and dependency for decades” which “costs the country money” and was “bad for our productivity”.

Disability News Service and academics, other journalists and disabled activists have been using the OBR figures since early this year to dismantle claims that “welfare spending” is increasing at an unmanageable rate.

But these crucial figures have been omitted from OBR’s latest Economic and Fiscal Outlook report, which was published last week alongside the budget.

The figures were first highlighted by a disabled activist in February, after they were included in the OBR’s October 2024 Economic and Fiscal Outlook.

The October 2024 figures showed that the share of GDP* taken by social security spending was stable, and was even predicted to fall from 11.1 per cent to 11.0 per cent in 2027-28 and 2028-29, before rising slightly back to 11.1 per cent in 2029-30.

Updated figures were included in an OBR report in March this year**, and they showed that social security spending was predicted to be even lower – as a proportion of GDP – than previously predicted.

The figures were included in one of the charts released alongside the Economic and Fiscal Outlook report, which is published alongside every budget.

That chart (chart 5.2) tracked “welfare spending” as a proportion of GDP for every year back to 2010-11, when it was 12 per cent of GDP.

But last week’s version of chart 5.2 was substantially different.

Instead of showing how spending has changed year by year since 2010-11 as a proportion of GDP, table 5.2 now shows how the proportion of government spending in different areas has changed relative to 2010-11 levels, making it impossible to compare social security spending levels year-by-year and prove that it has not “spiralled”.

What last week’s OBR report does show (see table 5.1 in the main report) is that the chancellor’s spending decisions – including scrapping the two-child benefit cap – have not led to an increase in the proportion of GDP being spent on social security, compared with previous predictions.

The figures show that welfare spending for 2024-25 was significantly lower than predicted last year (10.8 per cent compared with a predicted 11.1 per cent) as a proportion of GDP, while the predicted spending for this year is also lower than was forecast by the OBR last year (10.9 per cent versus 11.1 per cent), while the forecast levels for the next four years have remained unchanged.

These figures show that any attempt by media, civil servants and politicians – such as chancellor Rachel Reeves last year, DWP in January, and opposition MPs such as Tory leader Kemi Badenoch in September – to make false claims that social security spending is spiralling out of control would be misleading, if not deeply dishonest.

This week, OBR’s press office refused three times to even acknowledge emails asking why it had removed the historic figures from the report.

The Treasury had also not commented by noon today (Thursday) on whether it requested OBR to remove the historic welfare spending figures.

OBR’s refusal to comment came in a week that its chair, Richard Hughes, resigned after the watchdog mistakenly published its outlook report before Reeves had delivered her budget speech to MPs.

*Gross domestic product, the size of the country’s economy in a particular year

**Chapter five of OBR’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook – March 2025, chart 5.2, shows welfare spending as a percentage of GDP: https://obr.uk/efo/economic-and-fiscal-outlook-march-2025/

4 December 2025

Manifesto calls on next Welsh government to enable disabled people to ‘flourish and thrive’

The national body for disabled people’s organisations (DPOs) in Wales has issued five major demands to political parties ahead of next spring’s elections to the Welsh Senedd.

The Disabled People’s Manifesto, published by Disability Wales, includes a call for the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) to be incorporated into Welsh law.

It also demands a “robust” disabled people’s rights plan – which should include the appointment of a minister for disabled people – ahead of the current Welsh government’s 10-year plan, which is likely to be published this month.

And it calls for Welsh politicians to champion disabled people’s leadership – supporting disabled leaders in public life, and ensuring they are represented in decision-making and policy development – and for government to fund the work of DPOs.

The manifesto demands a guaranteed right to independent living, with reforms to social care, health and housing that focus on dignity, choice, and accessibility, and for the new government to promote inclusion, and end the institutionalisation of disabled people.

And it calls for the social security system to be devolved from the UK to the Welsh government, as has been – partially – achieved in Scotland.

The manifesto, From Barely Surviving to Truly Thriving, has been developed with DPOs from across Wales and individual disabled people.

In all, more than 250 disabled people helped shape the manifesto, which outlines demands from politicians over the four years from the May 2026 elections.

Although the Welsh Labour government included a pledge to incorporate UNCRPD into Welsh law in its programme for government in 2021, Disability Wales says no progress has been made towards this goal, and so the convention remains “a guiding framework rather than a legally enforceable standard”.

A draft version of the Welsh government’s Disabled People’s Rights Plan, when it was published in May, saw the government accused of putting up a “smokescreen” with a document that lacked “teeth” and was full of pledges to carry out reviews and produce guidance while offering no new money.

The 61-page plan included no significant promises on key areas such as social care, accessible housing and transport, and disability poverty, and was short of concrete targets.

Disability Wales says in its manifesto that the draft plan “must be strengthened to ensure long-term impact and accountability”, while there must be “sustained investment and infrastructure” for DPOs so they can be “essential partners” in delivering the plan.

Disability Wales also says in its manifesto that disabled people “remain underrepresented in political and public life”.

It calls for all political parties to publish the percentage of their representatives who identify as disabled people and their targets for improving these figures in the run-up to the 2026 Senedd and 2027 local government elections.

The manifesto says that barriers to independent living “strip away autonomy and keep people trapped in unsuitable housing, inflexible care arrangements and discriminatory environments”, and it calls instead for accessible housing, inclusive health services, and an end to institutional care.

It also calls for a national campaign to tackle the “ableism, stigma, and discrimination” faced by disabled people.

Devolving social security systems to Wales would enable “more responsive, fair, and inclusive support systems, designed in coproduction with disabled people and DPOs”, the manifesto says.

It concludes: “Disabled people in Wales deserve more than mere survival.

“We deserve the right to truly flourish and thrive.

“We know that change is possible, but it requires commitment, collaboration and courage.

“We call on all political parties to adopt these five calls and work with us to build a Wales where disabled people are not just supported but celebrated.”

Disability Wales has also launched a “commitment form”, asking every political party and candidate to state clearly and publicly where they stand on each of the manifesto’s five calls.

Their responses will be updated during the Senedd election campaign and used afterwards to monitor delivery and implementation of the policy demands.

Rhian Davies, chief executive of Disability Wales (DW), said: “DW’s vision is for an inclusive, equitable and barrier free society.

“Disabled people in Wales deserve more than mere survival; we deserve the right to truly flourish and thrive.

“Following the recent module two Covid-19 Inquiry report, which criticised government failure to appreciate the level of risk faced by disabled people, resulting in escalating death rates and a reversal of rights, this manifesto is a call to action for all political parties to commit to real change.

“Together, we can move from surviving to thriving.”

Natalie Jarvis, DW’s policy and research officer, said: “As someone involved in the co-production of this manifesto alongside DPOs and the voices of hundreds of disabled people across Wales, I have heard stories of exhaustion, frustration and injustice but also of hope, resilience and vision.

“Disabled people know exactly what needs to change.

“What we need now is the political will to act and for parties to commit to our calls within their own manifestos ahead of the elections.”

4 December 2025

Deaf people who use BSL face ‘entrenched’ health and social care exclusion, say government advisers

Deaf people who use British Sign Language (BSL) face “entrenched” and “systemic” exclusion from health and social care services across Britain, according to a new report by government advisers.

The report* found that Deaf and Deafblind people’s lack of access to services costs the Treasury millions of pounds through “unmet needs, wasted appointments and delays in care”.

Better access to health and social care services would allow more Deaf and Deafblind people to find work and progress in their careers, and contribute more through taxation, says the report.

The report focuses on the experiences of Deaf and Deafblind BSL-users in England, Scotland and Wales, and is based on a review of their access to services carried out by the government’s BSL Advisory Board’s health and social care sub-group.

The report found a “deep-rooted lack of trust” within Deaf and Deafblind communities following repeated experiences of exclusion from services, which often left them “traumatised” by a lack of access to health and social care.

One Deaf woman spent five months sleeping in an accident and emergency cubicle because there was no bed available in mental health services that had BSL support.

Repeated access failures and exclusions often cause “accumulated trauma” over a person’s lifetime, says the report.

BSL users usually need “high levels of motivation, perseverance with inaccessible systems and patience with the inexperience of professionals trying to meet their needs” if they want to access services, the report found.

Many BSL-users avoid social care and health services completely due to their past experiences because they believe their communication needs will not be met.

There are believed to be about 87,000 Deaf BSL-users in the UK, and 25,000 people who use BSL as their main language.

The report makes a string of recommendations to the UK and devolved governments, including calls to establish national, 24/7 video relay services for England and Wales; set up national BSL complaints services within England, Scotland and Wales; provide mandatory deaf, deafblind and BSL awareness training for all NHS and social care staff; and address “language deprivation” in deaf children through “early and comprehensive” BSL provision and support for families.

The Locked Out report* follows the passing of the British Sign Language (BSL) Act in April 2022, which was introduced as a private members’ bill by Labour MP Rosie Cooper and recognised BSL as a language of England, Wales, and Scotland.

The act provided Deaf people with no new rights, but it secured significant support from the Deaf community, and it led the following year to the government setting up its BSL Advisory Board to offer advice to ministers on key issues affecting the Deaf community.

All the board’s members are deaf or deafblind, or have deaf parents or a deaf child.

Craig Crowley, the board’s co-chair, says in a foreword to the report that the document is a “powerful call to action and a roadmap towards a more inclusive and equitable future for BSL users within our health and social care systems”.

He says: “We acknowledge the distressing reality of delayed diagnoses, inadequate treatment, and the emotional impact of communication breakdowns, but we strongly believe these are challenges we can, and must, overcome.”

The British Deaf Association (BDA) welcomed the new report and its “stark” findings, describing it as the “most comprehensive examination ever undertaken into the barriers faced by Deaf and Deafblind BSL users across the NHS and social care systems”.

It said the persistent failures in communication access were causing avoidable harm, entrenched inequalities, and the denial of basic rights for tens of thousands of Deaf and Deafblind people across the UK.

Rebecca Mansell, BDA’s chief executive, said: “This is a ground-breaking report that lays bare the challenges that deaf signers face every day with the NHS and care system. 

“This report confirms what Deaf and Deafblind people have been telling government for decades: the health and social care system is not built with our communities in mind. 

“We are particularly delighted to see the strong focus in the report’s recommendations on the steps that governments must take to address language deprivation in deaf children and adults.

“We strongly endorse the recommendation that governments provide free BSL courses for the families of deaf children. 

“This recommendation backs up the recently published report, The Value of British Sign Language – An Economic Analysis, written by Rand Europe, the policy research organisation.

“This reports that the teaching of BSL to young deaf children and their families delivers an impressive economic return on investment – up to £14 for every £1 invested. 

“This report requires a strong and supportive government response, and we will be contacting BDA members to urge them to write to their MPs.” 

The Department of Health and Social Care had failed to comment on the report by noon today (Thursday).

*Locked out: Exclusion of deaf and deafblind BSL users from health and social care in the UK

4 December 2025

Years of scapegoating rhetoric has led to ‘envy and resentment’ of those with blue badges, research finds

Years of scapegoating rhetoric and politicians casting disabled people as “scroungers” have reinforced prejudices about the blue badge parking scheme and led to “envy and resentment” instead of equal access, according to a four-year research project.

Half-hearted implementation of the scheme has left disabled people who rely on it feeling worried, angry and frustrated, and like “second-class citizens”, because of the encounters they have had while trying to use their badges, the research concludes.

The research was carried out by Vera Kubenz, a disabled postgraduate researcher at the University of Birmingham, and herself a blue badge holder.

She said this week that she feared that recent rhetoric around disabled people receiving “free cars” through the Motability scheme, and the need for cuts to disability benefits, would lead to a fresh wave of such aggressive and hateful encounters.

In a summary report based on her research, Disabled People’s Encounters with Strangers in Accessible Parking Spaces, Kubenz concludes that, as long as there is wider societal prejudice, hostility and suspicion aimed at disabled people, “there can be no such thing as a truly accessible space”.

As part of her research, she surveyed more than 300 disabled people with experience of encounters – good and bad – while using their blue badges.

In the survey, 74 per cent of disabled people said they had been accused of “faking” their impairments while using their blue badges.

These types of encounters were particularly common for younger disabled people, with some told they were “too young” to be disabled.

One of those who took part in the survey, who is 49, said: “A member of the public stopped me as I was parking in a Blue Badge space.

“He knocked on my window, I wound it down and he told me I shouldn’t be parking there, and I had no right to be there.

“I explained I was disabled. He said I was too young and there was nothing wrong with me.

“I proceeded to get into my wheelchair and get out of the car, in fairness, he did look quite embarrassed when I got out of the car.”

The impact of such encounters was clear, with 91 per cent of disabled people who took part in the survey saying they worried about them, with 40 per cent always worrying and 35 per cent worrying a lot, while more than two thirds (68 per cent) said they sometimes did not use their vehicles because of the worry.

Another survey participant said: “A man in his 50s came over trying to take our car keys out of the car (luckily it was a keyless ignition Motability vehicle).

“When he realised he couldn’t get the key he came round to my side trying to grab my Blue Badge.

“We was called every name under the sun. The c word, the n word, lots of f yous.

“All because we had parked in the disabled bay… I was that upset with the whole incident I wanted to just leave and not have my operation.”

Common locations for encounters were supermarket carparks (87 per cent of those surveyed), near shops (70 per cent) and at hospitals or GP surgeries (58 per cent).

Most people (70 per cent) experienced encounters between a few times a year and a few times a month.

People with chronic illness, who were neurodivergent, or who had mental health conditions were particularly likely to be confronted over their use of accessible parking spaces.

Many of those surveyed said that being under constant suspicion meant they always felt on edge and worried that an encounter could happen at any moment.

Two thirds (67 per cent) of disabled people taking part in the survey had experienced hate and harassment in accessible parking spaces.

Negative encounters could involve staring, tutting, or hushed comments, while nearly half (46 per cent) of people had been insulted and a third (32 per cent) had been threatened, while some (six per cent) had been subjected to physical violence.

But most people (69 per cent) had also had at least one positive encounter, often a positive chat with another blue badge holder.

Kubenz says in the report that enforcement of blue badge spaces is often a postcode lottery.

Although some of those surveyed said their councils took action to enforce rules around the use of blue badges, many others said their council took no action.

One said: “I wish that Blue Badge parking was properly policed because what we have now is the worst of both worlds, people making assumptions and not looking at the badge and trying to police it for the benefit of those who do, but in doing so make lots of assumptions.”

Ultimately, says Kubenz, all disabled people who use blue badges risk confrontations because “nobody can live up to the impossible stereotype required for being truly ‘deserving’”.

The survey of 304 blue badge holders was carried out in 2023, while there were 20 follow-up interviews; it was open to holders of blue badges who had had at least one encounter, were over 18, and lived in England.

Kubenz told Disability News Service this week: “I am very concerned that the renewed government and media statements about disabled people’s ‘free cars’ and cuts to both in- and out-of-work benefits will intensify the resentment non-disabled people have against all disabled people, and that this will lead to more encounters because people feel entitled to ‘police’ blue badge bays because they are seen as a perk rather than essential for access.

“These confrontations can range from underhanded comments to intrusive questions, verbal abuse, and even physical violence.

“I fear the current government rhetoric will directly contribute to more aggression and hate towards disabled people.”

She added: “Many of the people interviewed had little faith that the government would change anything about blue badge policy or awareness, precisely because they are responsible for so many of the misconceptions that lead to encounters.

“I conclude in my research that currently the blue badge scheme only provides bare minimum access; it is not about equality, but about keeping disabled people ‘in their place’.”

On Friday 12 December, between 12pm and 1pm, Kubenz is hosting a webinar on the findings of her Politics of Parking project, with guest speakers Anjna Patel, a trustee of Disabled Motoring UK, and accessible transport campaigner Christiane Link

4 December 2025

Benefits and Work said:

Here are some template/example letters by DPAC:

Template/example 1

Template/example 2

Footnotes

Take action

Join our protest

DPAC Cymru statement

Statements from signatories:

The letter text

We are disappointed with the TUC statement on PIP today calling for reform on PIP by linking PIP with work.

Saturday 28th March 2026

12 noon

London

Main march

Short accessible march

Rally

Online Protest

Graphics and BSL

British Sign Language video by National Union of British Sign Language Interpreters (NUBSLI).

Accessible bloc poster

Easy read poster

Saturday 21st February 2026, 11am to 3pm

Hybrid at the Unite the Union Office, 1 Cathedral Road, Cardiff, CF11 9SD, or online via Teams.

Contents

Labour accused of ‘horrifying’ betrayal of disabled people after slashing Tory accessible housing target

Watchdog dismisses DWP’s description of DNS editor as ‘vengeful’ and ‘vexatious’ for asking to see deaths email

Labour ministers considered means-testing PIP, but later ruled it out, watchdog’s report shows

Welsh government publishes 10-year plan for disability rights… but fails to include any long-term policies

Falconer dismisses attempts to protect four groups of disabled people in assisted dying bill

Government’s housing agency fails to mention accessible homes in new five-year strategy

Watchdog’s league table on rail passenger assistance is ‘misleading’, say accessible transport campaigners

Minister rejects pleas from disabled peers for national wheelchair and equipment strategy

Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week

Contents

McFadden brags about cutting disability benefits, just as his own strategy warns of ‘deep material poverty’

Minister misleads MPs as mystery deepens over new £2 billion cuts to disability benefits

Duty to disabled passengers in railways bill is ‘too vague’ and must be strengthened, MPs are told

Peers urged to ‘err on the side of caution’ and raise minimum age limit in assisted suicide bill

Scottish and UK governments are failing to uphold disability rights, says watchdog

Thousands of disabled people in one county should benefit from care charging legal case victory

Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week

Panelists

All welcome

Contents

DWP and Treasury silent over mystery of £2 billion cuts to disability benefits

‘Unacceptable’ new figures show rejections of Access to Work claims have shot up this year

Watchdog’s silence after removing figures that showed social security spending is not ‘spiralling’

Manifesto calls on next Welsh government to enable disabled people to ‘flourish and thrive’

Deaf people who use BSL face ‘entrenched’ health and social care exclusion, say government advisers

Years of scapegoating rhetoric has led to ‘envy and resentment’ of those with blue badges, research finds

Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week

Saturday 29th November

1pm @ Swansea Castle

The budget is being written by the Swansea West MP.

We want to co-organise a protest with everyone affected by the budget.

20 Nov 2025, 1.30pm

A selection of short films from Gaza, focusing on the impact of the genocide on Disabled Palestinians.

Cefndy has given disabled people meaningful work for 50 years. Don’t let the council take that away.