Disability News Service December 11th

All Posts, Assisted Dying Bill, Benefits, DWP, Independent Living, legal challenges, local authority cuts, Mental Health, Motability, News, PIP, Politics, transport, UNCRPD, Universal Credit, welfare cuts, Welfare reforms No Responses »

Dec 112025

McFadden brags about cutting disability benefits, just as his own strategy warns of ‘deep material poverty’ 1

Minister misleads MPs as mystery deepens over new £2 billion cuts to disability benefits 3

Duty to disabled passengers in railways bill is ‘too vague’ and must be strengthened, MPs are told 5

Peers urged to ‘err on the side of caution’ and raise minimum age limit in assisted suicide bill 7

Scottish and UK governments are failing to uphold disability rights, says watchdog 9

Thousands of disabled people in one county should benefit from care charging legal case victory 11

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

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

Chancellor’s reported plans to impose VAT on Motability could add £3,000 to even the cheapest cars

The chancellor’s reported plans to target the Motability car scheme for new taxes in next month’s budget by removing its VAT exemption could impose an upfront cost of at least £3,000 on even the cheapest cars it offers, the company has calculated.

Motability Operations spoke out after an article in the Times – which has strong contacts within Whitehall – suggested that Rachel Reeves would be “dramatically reducing an exemption by which cars leased under the scheme do not have to pay VAT or insurance premium tax”.

The Times said that VAT tax breaks “worth about £1 billion a year are set to be scrapped in the budget”.

But targeting the Motability car scheme in next month’s budget by completely removing its VAT exemption would add thousands of pounds every three years to the bills of some of the poorest disabled people in the country.

The potential tax-raising measure – which would be aimed squarely at disabled people – follows months of mounting hostility aimed at disabled people and the Motability scheme in the right-wing media and on social media.

But Motability Operations, the company that runs the scheme, said this week that removing VAT relief “would make cars unaffordable for most disabled people, leaving only the wealthiest able to access the scheme – a result that would fundamentally undermine its purpose”.

It confirmed to Disability News Service (DNS) that, if Reeves placed VAT at 20 per cent on all Motability cars – and assuming no changes elsewhere in the scheme – it would increase the overall cost of a lease over three years by £3,000 for the cheapest cars it offers.

This would mean disabled people would have to find an advance payment of £3,000 for even the cheapest models, on top of having to contribute all their enhanced mobility component of personal independence payment (PIP) to fund their monthly lease payments.

It would mean the scheme would instantly become unaffordable to tens of thousands of disabled people seeking independent mobility.

Motability Operations said the median household income of a disabled person using the scheme is just £18,500, half the UK average.

Graham Footer, chief executive of Disabled Motoring UK (DMUK), told DNS: “DMUK is concerned by the recent reports in the national media that the chancellor is considering making changes to the Motability scheme, including removing the tax breaks.

“The fact this is even on the table for consideration is a worry.

“If the chancellor goes ahead with the changes, it will have a significant detrimental impact on Motability customers and for many it will put the scheme financially out of reach.”

A Motability Operations spokesperson said: “The scheme operates at scale, allowing bulk purchasing and strong manufacturer discounts.

“Removing the zero-rating would erode this efficiency and undermine the social purpose of enabling independence and affordable mobility.

“There would also be a knock-on impact to jobs in the automotive sector.”

Motability Foundation*, the charity that oversees the car scheme, has described some of the “recent, misinformed commentary” about the scheme as “profoundly disheartening” and said that it “unfairly stigmatises disabled people”.

It said the scheme “provides a vital service to disabled people, helping them to overcome significant mobility barriers” and “a foundation of independence which also helps to address the transport equity gap”.

Earlier this year, Motability Foundation’s disabled boss hit back at months of “hostile”, “harmful” and inaccurate media reports and online comments about how the scheme is run and its disabled customers.

Chief executive Nigel Fletcher said then that he believed the “climate of stigmatisation” of disabled people “risks rolling back decades of progress in promoting disability inclusion and understanding”.

He told DNS: “It creates an environment where disabled people are scrutinised and made to feel they must justify their right to mobility and participation. This is unacceptable.”

Coverage has included reports of comments made by Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, who claimed that new Motability vehicles were being leased by people with food intolerances.

Other reports have suggested that Motability vehicles are handed out “free” – rather than in exchange for most or all of the higher rate mobility element of PIP, and sometimes an additional advance payment – and with few if any checks on eligibility, misleading statements that were repeated today (Thursday) by Conservative shadow work and pensions secretary Helen Whately.

There have also been widespread reports in the media and on social media attacking Motability customers and accusing them of abusing the scheme.

*Motability Foundation is a DNS subscriber

23 October 2025

Psychologists’ charity fails to raise concerns over job coaches in surgeries, weeks after £640K DWP contract

The national charity representing psychologists failed to speak out about the serious risks caused by placing work coaches in GP surgeries, just weeks after it was awarded a £640,000 contract by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

There was alarm among many disabled people when DWP announced earlier this month that it was expanding a programme to “embed” job advisers in GP surgeries, mental health services and other healthcare settings.

They believe that for many disabled claimants of out-of-work benefits, particularly those with mental distress, ill-health and trauma, the idea of facing a DWP officer in a healthcare setting, at a time when they need support rather than pressure to discuss work, would be “horrifying”.

Among those speaking out was Dr Jay Watts, a disabled activist and herself a consultant clinical psychologist, who said: “It’s really dangerous for the government to put work coaches in GP surgeries.”

She said many mental health claimants already find it “scary” to visit their GPs because they “tend not to be believed”, while surveys show a substantial proportion of them are “absolutely terrified of the DWP”.

She said she feared the DWP scheme would prevent many claimants accessing healthcare.

Despite these concerns, the British Psychological Society (BPS) – which represents psychologists – appeared to be broadly supportive of the DWP scheme, in a statement it issued last Thursday (16 October).

It appeared to suggest that the scheme could be useful, given the right training for the job advisers, saying: “While a job adviser could act as an incentive and offer support to those with mental health problems to return to work, it is vital this isn’t to the detriment of a person’s recovery by adding further stress and anxiety.

“Ideally, all job advisers should be psychologically informed and work to identify a person’s strengths and support them in managing change.”

But it has now emerged that this statement was published just four weeks after DWP awarded BPS a £641,000 four-year contract to carry out accreditation of the department’s in-house work psychologists.

BPS yesterday (Wednesday) denied any connection between the award of the contract and its statement on the DWP scheme.

But one campaigner, who first spotted the contract award, told Disability News Service this week: “The BPS’s views on employment advisers are totally compromised by this and should not be regarded as objective.”

The grassroots, user-led mental health group Recovery in the Bin (RiTB) added: “The BPS have betrayed every person in need of mental healthcare and social security.

“We are being treated like livestock who either produce or are sent to the abattoir.

“The NHS will be polluted with work fetishism and people will not trust anything medical professionals do, as everything will be corrupted to a work outcome, instead of what is best for the person.”

Another disabled activist said the BPS response was “appalling” and “completely unethical”.

They said: “I would be terrified if I had to face a DWP officer in my GP surgery, or worse, during an inpatient admission under the Mental Health Act.

“The thought of anyone being in that situation when they need care, not pressure to discuss work, is horrifying.

“Health professionals should protect lives, not enable harm.”

A spokesperson for the British Psychological Society said: “There is no connection between the awarding of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) contract and the British Psychological Society’s (BPS) stance on the government’s roll-out of work advisers in GP surgeries.

“The BPS is an independent professional membership body, and our positions are shaped by our members, the best available evidence, and our ethical standards as set out in our charter.

“Contract negotiations between the DWP and BPS remain ongoing and as such it would be inappropriate for us to comment further.

“The BPS retains editorial and public independence and will continue to raise awareness where psychological evidence calls for challenge.”

There has been controversy for nearly a decade over DWP’s attempts to blur the lines between the health and employment systems by embedding work advisers in surgeries.

In March 2016, the Mental Health Resistance Network organised a protest about a year-long DWP pilot scheme which saw private sector job coaches placed in six GP surgeries in Islington, north London.

Denise McKenna, co-founder of MHRN, said at the time that the network would “never accept this scheme and we will never give up until it is abandoned”, and described it as a “drastic move” that would cause some people to stop seeing their GPs.

23 October 2025

Peers derail government plans to hand some DWP staff powers to use force against benefit claimants

Government plans under controversial new legislation to give some Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) staff “morally dubious” powers to use force against benefit claimants have been derailed by peers.

The public authorities (fraud, error and recovery) bill was set to give authorised DWP staff the same powers of search, entry and seizure as the police.

But unlike powers granted to the Public Sector Fraud Authority, the bill was also set to allow these officers to use “reasonable force” against benefit claimants when exercising their new powers.

Until now, one of the bill’s most controversial measures was that it is set to force banks to examine the accounts of claimants of means-tested benefits for potential breaches of benefit eligibility rules and then pass that information to DWP.

But a string of crossbench and opposition peers also raised concerns about the “reasonable force” measure on Tuesday during the bill’s report stage.

The crossbench hereditary peer Lord Vaux told the Lords: “This would make it lawful for a DWP officer – not a police officer, but a civil servant – to enter your home, seize your belongings and forcibly hold you down while doing so.”

He said this would be used against benefit recipients, a part of the population who are more likely to be disabled and are “more vulnerable” than the general population.

He said: “The use of physical force marks a far more serious infringement than the powers of search, entry and seizure alone.”

He was supported by Conservative peer Lord [Mark] Harper, a former minister for disabled people, who urged ministers to “not give power to use reasonable force to people who are not trained to use it and do not have proper oversight”.

The Liberal Democrat peer Lord Palmer said that “any exercise of physical powers must surely rest with the police.

“Are we going to train a new breed of DWP officers who have to be tough and able to act as police? It is quite nonsensical.”

Baroness [Claire] Fox, a non-affiliated peer and former Brexit Party MEP, added: “I do not want DWP civil servants, who might have been on a minor training course, to have that power. I think it is wrong.

“For them to have that power of physical force aimed at people on benefits seems wholly wrong and morally dubious.”

The Conservative shadow work and pensions minister Viscount Younger – a former DWP minister – said the government had “yet to offer a convincing explanation of why DWP officials need this power at all”.

He said Conservatives were “deeply concerned” by the new powers being granted to DWP investigators through the bill, and said the measures raise “profound questions about the limits of state power and the safeguards that ought to accompany it”.

Work and pensions minister Baroness Sherlock accepted that the bill would give authorised and trained DWP officers powers to use reasonable force against individuals, but she told fellow peers that the intention was for them “to be able to use that against property, not against people”.

And she said the search, entry and seizure powers would only be used for “serious organised criminality” and “where the DWP has a reasonable belief that someone has intentionally committed sophisticated, often high-value fraud against the DWP” and not against “an average benefit claimant who has accidentally overclaimed by £20”.

She said the “intention is that reasonable force will be used only against things, not people”, which “will be made clear in guidance and training”, and that the powers “will enable DWP-authorised investigators to use reasonable force to access locked cabinets and digital devices once they are lawfully on a premises”.

She said the law would also require that any application to the courts for a warrant to access a property would have to include “information about any vulnerable individuals who may be present on the premises”.

But an amendment proposed by Lord Vaux to remove from the bill the power to use reasonable force against individuals was approved by peers by 212 votes to 144.

Among the disabled peers voting in favour of Lord Vaux’s amendment were Liberal Democrats Baroness [Celia] Thomas and Lord Addington, and Conservatives Lord [Kevin] Shinkwin and Lord [Chris] Holmes.

No Labour peers voted in favour of his amendment.

It is not yet clear whether DWP ministers will attempt to re-introduce these powers into the legislation before the bill becomes law.

A DWP spokesperson said this morning (Thursday): “The amendment is subject to parliamentary process and will be discussed in the house in the next stages of the bill.”

The bill is due to return to the Lords today for its third reading, before it returns to the Commons for discussion of amendments made by peers.

23 October 2025

Reeves refuses to apologise for repeating false claim that social security spending is spiralling

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has refused to withdraw a misleading and inaccurate statement that scapegoated disabled people and other benefit claimants for the country’s economic problems.

In an interview with Channel 4 News, Reeves repeated the false claim that welfare spending was spiralling out of control.

She told the programme: “We can’t get to the end of this parliamentary session and have done nothing, because if more and more of our money that we spend as a government is spent on welfare, you’ve got less for the NHS, you’ve got less for schools.”

It came as government sources briefed the Times newspaper that Reeves was intending to raise revenue from the Motability disabled people’s vehicle scheme by £1 billion a year in the budget by attacking its VAT and insurance premium tax exemptions (see separate story).

Disability News Service (DNS) told the Treasury this week that Reeves should be aware that her statement on “welfare” was highly misleading.

This is because figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility reported last autumn* that welfare spending was stable as a proportion of GDP, and that it was lower than it was in 2015-16.

DNS shared figures with the Treasury that showed that the share of GDP was predicted to be 11.1 per cent in 2024-25; the same in 2025-26 and 2026-27; to fall to 11.0 per cent in 2027-28 and 2028-29; and to rise to 11.1 per cent again in 2029-30.

The Treasury, Department for Work and Pensions, and political parties, including Labour and the Conservatives, have been repeatedly shown these figures by DNS, and yet senior figures across the parties continue to claim that spending on social security is “spiralling”.

Last week, the Financial Times agreed with months of reports and analysis from DNS, academics and disabled campaigners, and concluded: “Costs are not spiralling.

“Projected total welfare payments, at around 11 per cent of national income a year, are lower than when David Cameron was prime minister even though there are more pensioners.”

Chris Giles, the paper’s economics commentator, added in his article: “The welfare system is far from perfect but it cannot be blamed for your taxes rising in November’s Budget.”

The Treasury this week refused to comment on why Reeves and fellow ministers repeatedly claim that social security spending is spiralling out of control when it is not, and whether she would apologise.

*Chapter five of OBR’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook – October 2024, chart 5.2, shows welfare spending as a percentage of GDP: https://obr.uk/efo/economic-and-fiscal-outlook-october-2024/

23 October 2025

Timms goes back on his word by refusing to provide crucial evidence of Access to Work cuts

The disability minister has gone back on his word by refusing to provide crucial information that would help expose a “perverse”, secret programme to restrict grants made by the Access to Work disability employment scheme.

Sir Stephen Timms told Disability News Service (DNS) at Labour’s annual conference late last month that he would provide the date on which he approved an order from senior civil servants for Access to Work (AtW) staff to be more “scrupulous” in how they applied guidance.

Now, three weeks on, he is refusing to reveal this date.

This will make it harder to secure the order through a freedom of information request.

Instead of responding to an email from DNS seeking the information, Sir Stephen forwarded the message to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) press office.

But DWP’s press office also failed to provide the information.

It said in a statement: “No changes have been made to Access to Work policy.”

Instead of providing the date of the order, it provided background information which failed to clarify when, or if, Sir Stephen approved a document about the guidance, but suggested that the changes were put into effect through additional training for AtW case managers.

The briefing did confirm that Sir Stephen had been made aware that this work was taking place.

The DWP press office had failed to clarify the information it provided by noon today (Thursday).

Last week, DNS reported how official government figures revealed the first signs that ministers had been engaged in a “perverse” programme to secretly restrict AtW grants.

The DWP figures showed that the number of people who had any AtW provision approved fell by more than 10 per cent in the year to March 2025.

The figures also showed that the number of disabled people who had AtW requests for aids and equipment approved plunged by 16 per cent on the previous year, while approvals for support for travel to work fell by 14 per cent, and the number of approvals for mental health support dropped by seven per cent.

Figures from the last six months – not due to be published for another 12 months – will eventually show how the cuts to essential funding are “far more severe” than those shown in last week’s DWP figures, one disabled expert has predicted.

In the interview at the Labour conference in Liverpool last month, Sir Stephen admitted that he had seen a submission, which he had approved, which stated that AtW guidance would now be “scrupulously applied”.

He said he could not remember when he saw the submission, but his special adviser told DNS: “I think we need to check.”

Sir Stephen then said he would check in DWP records when this took place, and he added later in the conversation: “But what I can check, John*, is when this happened.”

*DNS editor John Pring

23 October 2025

Disabled people describe impact of ‘very unfair’ extra costs caused by DWP’s universal credit migration

Disabled people have described their anger with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) for failing to warn them of the significant hidden costs – which can be more than £2,400 a year – of transferring onto universal credit from their old “legacy” benefits.

They have come forward to share how the unexpected hit to their finances caused by moving onto universal credit from employment and support allowance (ESA) has impacted their ability to cope with the cost-of-living crisis.

They are facing extra costs from their local authority as a result of the move, even though DWP has previously insisted that they would – at least initially – be no worse off on universal credit than on their previous benefits once they were forced onto the new system through the “migration” process.

But Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) revealed last week that it had been hearing from disabled people who have been hit hard in two different ways by this process.

Some disabled people have seen their care charges to their local council increase, sometimes by more than £50 a week.

Other disabled people are receiving a much lower discount under their local council tax reduction scheme after migrating onto universal credit.

DPAC said this week that disabled people had continued to come forward to describe the extra costs they were facing, which appear to vary across the country.

DPAC is hoping a legal action might be possible, and it is still looking for disabled people who are eligible for legal aid and might be willing to take a legal challenge with DPAC’s support.

It also encouraged those affected to complain to their MPs, and to continue to share their stories with DPAC.

Linda Burnip, DPAC’s co-founder, said: “Many people are losing over £200 a month which is more than £2,400 a year from already meagre social security payments and that has to be wrong.

“DPAC demand DWP explain what it knew and when about this added cost to the migration process.”

This week, disabled people have described to Disability News Service (DNS) the impact of the unexpected costs of migrating to universal credit from ESA.

Mark Catlin, from Hertfordshire, is now having to pay £30 a month in council tax – rather than nothing – after he was moved onto universal credit from ESA in May this year.

He assumed it was a mistake when he received the bill but when he called the council he was told that the council tax reduction for those on ESA was 100 per cent but was just 75 per cent if the same person moved to universal credit.

Catlin told DNS it was “not easy” to cope with the extra monthly cost.

He said he believed DWP did not care about the extra payments, and that most of its advisors were “not even aware of these changes; if they are, they’re not making people aware of them”.

And he said he was “pretty disgusted” with the council.

He said: “I don’t understand how they can justify the reduction change just because the name of the benefit changes, when there’s been no change in financial entitlement, especially with the cost of living being so changeable.”

Another disabled claimant, Lisa, from Plymouth, moved onto universal credit in June.

She told DNS: “I heard all the government statements saying those moving from legacy benefits would have their entitlement protected and income would stay the same.”

But she found out that the change meant her council expected her to pay 40 per cent of council tax charges, rather than the previous level of 20 per cent, which means an extra £41 a month.

Lisa, who has long-term health conditions, said the extra charge was “very unfair”.

She said: “It’s becoming more difficult to cover expenses and costs to just pay bills and food each month.

“It has become clear the DWP and government ministers have wiped their hands of any responsibility of this extra charge, saying it’s up to the individual councils what rates they set their council tax levels at.”

Labour’s Debbie Abrahams, who chairs the Commons work and pensions committee, was not available to comment on the concerns this week.

Meanwhile, DWP has again refused to say if and when it became aware of the issue, whether it was concerned, or if it would take any action.

Last week, it issued the following statement: “We support millions of people through universal credit every year – including those who have moved from ESA – and it’s a top priority for us to ensure that people receive the help they are entitled to.”

23 October 2025

Ministers’ refusal to raise limit on accessible housing grants is discriminatory, secret reports admits

The continuing refusal of ministers to raise the upper limit on a scheme that helps disabled people make access improvements to their homes is discriminating against some of those with higher support needs, a secret government report has admitted.

The internal review into how the upper limit on disabled facilities grants (DFG) is working was obtained by Disability News Service (DNS) through a freedom of information request, after care minister Stephen Kinnock refused to publish it.

The DFG scheme helps councils in England fund access improvements to disabled people’s homes, but the upper limit of £30,000 was set in 2008.

Councils have a legal duty to provide adaptations for disabled people, subject to a needs assessment, eligibility criteria and a means test, and can also provide funding above the upper limit at their own discretion.

Adaptations can include stair-lifts, level access showers, widening doors, ramps, grab rails, raised toilets, access to gardens, height-adjusted kitchens, heating systems, loft conversions and home extensions.

Seven years ago, an independent review commissioned by the government recommended increasing the limit in line with inflation, and introducing regional variations.

Last year, shortly before the general election, a report by the cross-party levelling up, housing and communities committee highlighted “many shortcomings” in the DFG system, and called on ministers to review the £30,000 upper limit and set new regional upper limits which took account of inflation and construction costs.

Now an equality impact assessment carried out as part of a secret internal review has found that the upper limit of £30,000 is “likely to be adversely impacting small numbers of disabled people in some groups, including children with complex needs and working-age adults”.

It also found that disabled people of all ages “with severe conditions such as multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease or those suffering from acquired brain injuries are also disproportionately negatively impacted by the current upper limit”.

It found that disabled people affected by the upper limit can see vital adaptations delayed as they seek additional funds for the work, “or in the worst cases, the adaptations are not provided”, which can have a “significant detrimental impact on disabled people and their families”.

But it concluded that this discrimination was “proportionate to achieving the aims of the upper limit” because it allowed councils to manage their DFG budgets and support “the majority of eligible individuals to receive an adaptation”.

The secret report added: “In reality, given the benefits of having an upper limit, it [is] unlikely that the DFG will ever be a suitable means of funding the entirety of high cost adaptations.

“There is always likely to be some impact on that high cost cohort, which is always likely to require some additional funding from alternative sources.”

The report concluded that ministers needed to “continually keep the policy under review and improve our evidence and analysis”, particularly to fill “evidence gaps” on disabled people who have “dropped out of applying for a DFG or experienced delays because of the upper limit”.

It also concluded that there were “clear benefits for keeping an upper limit in place” because it “provides a mechanism that helps ensure proper conversations are held about alternatives to adapting the home, and to control costs”.

But it said the government should decide “whether the current level of the upper limit is still appropriate and whether it should be raised”.

Mikey Erhardt, policy lead for Disability Rights UK, said: “The continued refusal of successive governments to raise the upper limit is as frustrating as it is counterproductive.

“Given the state of local authority finances, meaning top-up payments are unlikely, disabled people with the highest needs, whose lives could be changed by adaptations, will likely not get the changes they need to live safely in their own homes.

“The government’s continued housing policy of prioritising the needs of developers, private landlords, and big business necessitates the continued use of systems like the disabled facilities grant.

“Simply put – there are no accessible homes, and those actors have no intention to build them, so we need DFG to create them.

“This report makes clear the goals of the government: short-term cost saving and cost saving alone.

“The report makes clear the dangers of not raising the DFG ceiling.

“We are calling on the government to do the right thing and raise the ceiling and link it to inflation so no more disabled people have to live in dangerous, inaccessible homes.”

Svetlana Kotova, director of campaigns and justice at Inclusion London, also criticised the government for failing to increase the upper limit.

She pointed to Inclusion London’s Barriers at Home report, which found earlier this year that one in three people with mobility impairments do not have level access in their own homes.

She said the government’s failure to raise accessibility standards on new homes and its failure to increase the upper limit on DFGs meant that “new, inaccessible homes will be built, and the adaptations we need won’t be fully funded”.

She said: “It is a scandal that in our country, disabled and older people now have to fundraise to ensure they can access the bathroom, bedroom or get out of the house.

“The government can change this: make sure everyone who needs adaptations can get them, and raise minimum accessibility standards for new homes, so that 10 per cent meet the M4(3) wheelchair-user standard, and the rest meet the M4(2) accessible and adaptable standard.”

The government’s internal review found that most DFGs above the upper limit went to working-age adults (40 per cent) and disabled children (43 per cent), according to reports by councils from 2023-24, with older people receiving another 16 per cent.

The average cost of a high-value adaptation ranged from £47,206 in the north-east of England to £56,685 in the south-west.

The most expensive DFG to be reported by local authorities cost £159,000.

The average cost of a DFG in 2023-24 was about £10,000.

Landlords, the NHS and social services rarely contribute to higher-cost adaptations, so any additional funding must usually come from either the local authority or the disabled occupant.

Most councils told the government that their current budget was either not big enough to meet demand for DFGs, or that they would need to reduce their discretionary grants if budgets do not increase in the future.

DNS requested a copy of the internal review from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) after care minister Stephen Kinnock told Liberal Democrat MP David Chadwick last month that the report would not be published.

Last October’s budget saw an £86 million increase in central government spending on DFGs, which was set to reach £711 million in 2025-26.

DHSC and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) share responsibility for DFG policy.

They agreed to review the upper limit after a judicial review claim challenged its legality.

DHSC had failed to comment on the internal review by noon today (Thursday).

23 October 2025

Ministers finally announce progress on ‘liberty safeguards’, but also challenge vital definition

The government is set to push ahead with a long-delayed new system of safeguards that could have a significant impact on service-users who are unable to consent to restrictions placed on their liberty in health or social care settings.

There have been years of delays to the introduction of Liberty Protection Safeguards (LPS), which will replace the current Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) in England and Wales.

But care minister Stephen Kinnock finally announced this week that there will be a new consultation on the new LPS system “in the first half of next year”.

The announcement came as the Supreme Court this week heard a case brought by the Northern Ireland attorney general, which is examining the definition of “deprivation of liberty”.

The case challenges two 2014 rulings by the Supreme Court – one of which became known as the Cheshire West ruling – which significantly widened the definition of who would be protected by the DoLS system.

The Cheshire West ruling found that a disabled person was being deprived of their liberty if they were obliged to live in a particular place “under continuous supervision and control”, and they were not free to leave their homes or move away without permission, and they could not consent to decisions about their welfare.

It also found that such people needed “a periodic independent check on whether the arrangements made for them are in their best interests”.

But the Department of Health and Social Care has been heavily criticised for intervening in this week’s case and for asking the Supreme Court to set aside the Cheshire West ruling.

The 2014 rulings led to an increase in referrals from 13,700 in 2013-14 to 322,455 in 2023-24 and a backlog of 123,790 cases.

The rulings eventually led to the drawing up of the LPS system, based on a report by the Law Commission.

The last government had originally planned to bring in LPS in October 2020, but its implementation was repeatedly delayed by Conservative ministers.

The Department of Health and Social Care said this week that the new system would “deliver improved protection and an easier and improved system”.

It said the current DoLS system was “bureaucratic and complex” and led to “poor understanding and application of the law by professionals, unacceptable distress for families” and the lengthy backlog, which placed pressure on the social care system.

Kieran Lewis, rights and migration policy manager at National Survivor User Network (NSUN), said: “We urge the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Justice to treat their consultation on the Liberty Protection Safeguards with the care it deserves, making it genuinely accessible and actively seeking out people subject to deprivations of liberty, as well as their families and carers, to shape it.

“We also echo calls to defend the Cheshire West judgement and ensure that any changes in the law around deprivation of freedom are made in close collaboration with disabled people and their organisations.

“This is the bare minimum, considering the complete lack of trust that disabled people now have in this government, which continues to demonstrate its lack of real concern for them.”

Kinnock said the consultation was about “fixing a broken system by hearing directly from those with lived experience and their families”.

He said: “There is currently a shameful backlog in the system of unprocessed cases under the current system which means that people’s rights are not being protected.

“At the same time, we know that many people in the system and their families find these intrusive assessments distressing.

“This is about ensuring we are fully focused on the most vulnerable people in our society and their families – understanding their needs, ending the maze of referrals and paperwork, and delivering the best protections and safeguards possible.”

The responses from next year’s consultation will inform a new code of practice to the 2005 Mental Capacity Act, which will be laid before parliament.

23 October 2025

Minister admits signing off on order that led to widespread cuts to Access to Work

The disability minister has admitted signing off on orders that have led to widespread cuts to disabled people’s Access to Work support packages since Labour came to power.

Disabled campaigners have been warning for more than a year of DWP cuts and inconsistent decisions on their Access to Work (AtW) claims, while there have also been mounting concerns about lengthening waiting-lists for decisions on claims.

But when social security and disability minister Sir Stephen Timms was challenged by an MP on the apparent cuts earlier this summer, he insisted that no changes had been made to Access to Work policy, although work was “underway to improve Scheme decision-making by applying the guidance with greater consistency”.

He still insists that ministers have made no changes to AtW policy.

But Sir Stephen has admitted to Disability News Service (DNS) that he signed off on an order for Access to Work (AtW) staff to apply the guidance more “scrupulously”, after being presented with a “proposal” from civil servants which they submitted to him to approve.

The confusion over who was responsible for the move began when DNS asked him who in the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) had asked AtW civil servants to carry out the demand to be more “scrupulous” in applying the guidance.

He replied: “Well, the department, I guess.”

Asked if it was definitely not him, he said: “I’m not sure… I don’t want to give you a misleading answer.”

But when asked by DNS why he thought AtW staff were suddenly following guidance more scrupulously, he said he had no “no doubt seen a submission, which I have said ‘OK’ to, saying that it’ll be scrupulously applied, to achieve consistency apart from anything”.

He added: “The way things work is a proposal goes into a submission, which comes to me, and I say, ‘OK,’ and it’s very likely that I’ve been advised that we are going to apply the guidance more scrupulously.”

During the interview at Labour’s annual party conference in Liverpool, Sir Stephen said he could not remember when he signed off on the order, but that he would find out.

But when DNS suggested it would then be possible to secure this order through a freedom of information request, he suggested that DWP would resist this request because such an order would have been “advice to ministers” – which would not have to be released under the Freedom of Information Act – even though the instructions would then have been sent out to all relevant AtW staff.

Just minutes earlier, he had claimed that Labour DWP ministers were “very substantially changing the culture of the department in a pro-transparency direction” (see separate story).

Sir Stephen then claimed that the order to AtW staff might not have been written down, and that it might only have been passed on through “a conversation, a staff meeting; who knows how it’s promulgated”.

He later declined several opportunities to welcome the increase in AtW claims, which he called a “huge surge in the number of applications”.

He said the increase meant “people are having to wait longer” to have their claims dealt with, which was “a big part of why we need to reform Access to Work and why we’re consulting on it”.

Asked again if it was a good thing that more disabled people were applying to AtW, he said: “I think there’s a lot to be said for Access to Work and the opportunities it opens up to people.

“But we’ve got to have a system that works efficiently and does not keep people waiting for weeks and weeks and weeks.

“And that’s the aim of our reform that we consulted on in the [Pathways to Work] green paper.”

The government’s decisions on AtW reform are set to be announced later this year.

2 October 2025

All the evidence from Labour conference points in one direction: More cuts to disability benefits

Information from Labour ministers and other party sources has shown beyond any doubt that the government is preparing for further attempts to cut spending on disability benefits over the next 12 months.

As disabled people who rely on benefits await the publication of a disability benefits white paper in the next couple of months, it became clear at the party’s annual conference in Liverpool that further cuts are being planned.

Disability News Service (DNS) has this week interviewed the minister for social security and disability; spoken to disabled party members; attended fringe events; spoken (briefly) to a former employment minister; and listened to speeches by the prime minister and the new work and pensions secretary, Pat McFadden.

DNS has also received a Labour briefing; read articles by other journalists with better government connections than DNS; and listened to a broadcast interview with Sir Keir Starmer, in which he said there was a “moral case” for reducing the number of young people with “mental health issues” on benefits.

The weight of this evidence makes it clear that – despite this summer’s government U-turn over billions of pounds of cuts to personal independence payment (PIP) – further cuts to disabled people’s support are on the way.

Two key targets for cuts are likely to be PIP and the health element of universal credit, and almost certainly one focus will be on those receiving support on the grounds of mental distress and trauma, particularly younger people.

On Monday, the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, announced new details of a “youth guarantee” – first announced last year – through which every 18-to-21-year-old in England would be guaranteed either a place in college or university, an apprenticeship, or one-to-one support to find a job.

Any young person still out of work, education or training after 18 months would be given a paid work placement.

The party later confirmed to DNS that there would be “conditionality” – which is likely to mean their benefits would be cut or stopped if the placement was turned down – although there would be “exemptions”, likely to include some sick and disabled young people.

Details on whether those forced onto these placements would receive at least the minimum wage will not be announced until next month’s budget.

McFadden strongly linked “dignity” with work in his speech to the conference, and he said he wanted an “opportunity welfare state” rather than a “dependency welfare state”.

Opportunity, he said, “starts with work”, and he added: “Make work the pathway to dignity, security, and pride.”

McFadden had already alarmed many disabled people before the conference, when he claimed there were “incentives” in the system for people to declare themselves unfit for work so they can “double their money”, and also claimed people were “declaring themselves long-term sick”.

Asked about those earlier comments this week, Sir Stephen Timms, the minister for social security and disability, said he thought McFadden was “onto something here” and had not made a mistake with those comments.

He pointed to the increase in the universal credit basic allowance and the cut in the “health premium” which he said were designed to prevent “quite a serious problem in the current system that is forcing people to aspire to be designated LCWRA* as a kind of destination” so they receive more benefits.

But he did insist that Labour ministers “have the backs of disabled people who can’t work”.

He said: “We are determined to open up opportunities for those who can work, but also to make sure that those who cannot work, and there will always be people who cannot possibly work, and we well understand that, that they will be properly supported.”

He insisted that government ministers had not “dialled up the rhetoric” on disabled claimants, were “making a very good fist of managing a challenging situation”, and that they were not scapegoating disabled people.

He said: “That is not our intention, and I don’t think that’s what we’re doing.

“What we are wanting to do is opening up opportunities for disabled people who for too long have been barred from opportunities they ought to be able to take advantage of.”

But Ellen Morrison, one of the most influential disabled activists in the party, as the representative of disabled members on Labour’s national executive committee, told DNS this week that McFadden had been “hinting at the worrying direction that this is going to take”, which looks like “increased conditionality”.

She said: “They are consistently making young people the target. We have to be really careful in the disabled people’s movement not to allow young people to become the target.”

In combination with the existing cuts to the universal credit health element, to be implemented for new claimants from next April, she said the government’s new policies suggest there will be “people who might be forced into either taking inaccessible or unsuitable work, or they are going to be faced with sanctions or destitution.

“I don’t think you give people the support that they need by punishing them.”

She said this was combined with the government’s failure to commit to increased funding for the Access to Work disability employment scheme (see separate story).

Morrison said: “I don’t think it’s really about supporting people into work at all.

“I don’t believe that’s the motive behind this. It’s to get people off benefits and off any kind of financial support. It’s really short-term thinking.

“It’s going to be young people first and there’s more to come for disabled people. A lot more to come.”

The i Paper reported that McFadden was working with Reeves to “craft changes to the welfare system” as a replacement for the cuts the government had to abandon over the summer, and that they would be “laid out step by step over time rather than launched in one big package, in a bid to minimise the risks of a major political backlash once again”.

It also reported that Reeves told a conference fringe event on Tuesday: “A thousand people are going onto PIP claims a day, the majority of those are young people going on to disability benefits with mental health problems.

“I’m not denying there are mental health problems; there are massive mental health problems, especially post-Covid.

“But I would prefer to be using money to help support people to get into work and to get that treatment in the health service than to pay people to be on benefits and often have them trapped out of work without the support that they need.

“I didn’t win that argument, we didn’t win that argument this year, but we can’t go on like this and keep adding to welfare costs.”

The concerns that the government plans to target young people with mental distress were further heightened by the prime minister in an interview yesterday (Wednesday) with BBC Radio Four’s Today programme.

Sir Keir Starmer was asked by the BBC’s Nick Robinson if he was “prepared to say, as prime minister, that being anxious, even being depressed, is a terrible thing to have, but it’s not a good enough reason to stop looking for work”. 

In response, the prime minister made it clear that cuts were coming and he suggested that the government wanted to provide support services for those with mental distress instead of – as highlighted by at least one concerned disabled activist – both benefits and support.

He told Robinson: “I think we need to look again at this issue of mental health and ask ourselves a fundamental question, which is: would we not be better putting our money in the resources and support that is needed for mental health than simply saying it’s to be provided in benefits.

“And we’re not saying you shouldn’t have benefits for mental health issues, but I do think we need to examine this quite carefully.”

He said he was “particularly concerned about young people” and the number of young people who are on benefits for mental health reasons.

He said that was “wrong” because “if you are on benefits in your 20s, it is going to be extremely difficult to get off benefits for the rest of your life”, adding: “So there’s a moral case for changing that that I’m perfectly prepared to make.”

The government’s reluctance to reassure those unable to work was demonstrated by a brief exchange between DNS and former employment minister Alison McGovern, now a minister for local government and homelessness, who was speaking in a fringe meeting on the “dignity of work”.

Asked what her message was to those disabled people unable to work because they were not well enough to do so, and about the shortage of jobs that are available and suitable for sick and disabled people, she offered only half-hearted reassurance.

She said: “My message to disabled people is we believe in their right to work, like everybody else.

“All the discussions we have been having [are] about trying to make that work suitable and appropriate.

“We must always protect people who can’t work, but through new technology and forms of work I think that opens up chances and opportunities for disabled people and others and I want to make sure that people are able to take up those opportunities.”

After the meeting, DNS tried twice to engage with McGovern to ask her to provide further reassurance for sick and disabled people concerned about the government’s policy, but she twice declined to comment further, even briefly, saying she had another engagement to attend.

During the event she had heard from the non-profit organisation Timewise, which has just published research showing that only 2.5 per cent of sick and disabled people who are off work long-term move back into work in any given year.

Of the few that do, more than half (57 per cent) go into jobs that are physically demanding and are associated with higher levels of unpredictable, inflexible and excessive hours.

This contributes to another finding, that more than half of the jobs taken by those who were formerly “inactive or long-term sick” do not last for more than four months.

*Limited capability for work-related activity

2 October 2025

DWP paid nearly £90,000 to disabled claimant left homeless and at risk of harm after years of errors

A disabled person was left with “ongoing risks” of harm for more than five years – and was even left homeless – after the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) missed multiple opportunities to provide them with the benefits they were entitled to.

It took the intervention of the Independent Case Examiner to correct the years of errors with their various claims, which led to them receiving a payment of £55,000, as well as compensation of £3,000 for the “hardship” DWP had caused.

They had already received an arrears payment of nearly £30,000 in 2023, after their state pension had been wrongly stopped for four years.

The case was discussed in the annual report from the Independent Case Examiner, Joanna Wallace, who deals with complaints about DWP, and she revealed that years of errors by the department had caused “ongoing risks” to the claimant, who had “very poor physical health and housing problems”.

Her report shows DWP made at least nine significant errors with the case from 2018 – including multiple missed opportunities to rectify its mistakes – when it started the process to move the claimant from disability living allowance to personal independence payment (PIP).

The errors included a missed opportunity to consider if the claimant needed extra support with their PIP claim; failing to act on a letter explaining they had moved home; and failing to follow up a letter that was returned unopened.

DWP also failed to act in 2020, when the claimant asked why they had not been receiving any pension or benefits since the previous year.

Even when the claimant contacted DWP in 2023 to explain that the lack of benefits had caused a significant deterioration in their physical and mental health, which had left them homeless, the department “continued to miss putting things right” and failed to consider any reasonable adjustments for a new attendance allowance claim.

It also failed to review the claimant’s suspended pension payments.

It was only when the claimant contacted DWP again later in 2023 that their state pension was reinstated, and arrears of nearly £30,000 were paid.

But there was no evidence of an apology, and DWP still failed to consider the suspended pension credit claim, while making a further error with a new pension credit claim later that year.

Eventually, ICE was notified of the case, and it “took the exceptional step of reaching out to DWP immediately so we could work together urgently to put things right for our customer”.

This led to DWP making a payment of nearly £55,000 in connection with the claimant’s DLA, state pension and pension credit claims.

Wallace also recommended a “consolatory payment” of a further £3,000 because of “the errors and lack of vital support to an extremely vulnerable customer, which had clearly exacerbated the long-term issues with their health and their housing situation” while DWP had “continued to miss opportunities to put things right”.

Asked this week if the case showed there were still multiple problems with the benefits system, and how one claimant could have faced so many errors, DWP said it had introduced thorough procedures to investigate and learn lessons from cases where mistakes were made.

It also said that it used sources such as internal process reviews (see separate story) and its Serious Case Panel to identify and address systemic issues, as well as ICE’s reports.

A DWP spokesperson said: “We regret the mistakes that were made in this case and we are determined to learn from them.

“We support millions of people every year and our top priority is they get the benefits to which they are entitled as soon as possible, and to ensure they receive a supportive and compassionate service.”

The report says ICE cleared 2,232 complaints in 2024-25, of which 1,514 were investigated, 567 were resolved (an agreement reached before evidence in the case is requested), 97 were settled (an agreement reached after evidence is submitted but before any investigation is carried out), and 54 were withdrawn.

Of the 1,514 that were investigated, 892 (59 per cent) were fully or partially upheld, 618 (41 per cent) were not upheld and in four cases (less than one per cent) ICE was unable to reach a finding.

Of 205 cases relating to disability benefits that were dealt with in 2024-25, 73 were resolved or settled to the complainant’s satisfaction, 121 ICE investigation reports were issued, and 11 were withdrawn.

Of the 121 investigation reports, 53 (44 per cent) were upheld or partially upheld, 66 (55 per cent) were not upheld and in two cases ICE was unable to reach a finding.

*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, is published by Pluto Press

2 October 2025

Disability minister struggles to point to any significant achievements in his first year in post

The minister for social security and disability has struggled to point to any significant achievements on disability equality after more than a year in post, but he insisted that the government does not need a separate minister for disabled people.

The Labour government has been consistently criticised for not appointing a stand-alone minister for disabled people and instead combining that role with the social security brief under Sir Stephen Timms.

But in an interview with Disability News Service (DNS) at this week’s annual Labour conference in Liverpool, Sir Stephen struggled to point to any significant achievements in the 14 months since his appointment, excluding employment and work and pensions issues.

Asked for three key achievements, he pointed first to the publication in July of new five-year plans to improve the use of British Sign Language (BSL) by government departments.

This followed the British Sign Language Act, a private members’ bill introduced under the last Conservative government, which legislated for the government to report on how departments use BSL in their communications.

He also pointed to the government signing the Solfagnano Treaty (PDF) – a watered-down version of the UN disability convention – during a G7 ministerial meeting in Italy last October.

The treaty appears to have been mentioned just once in parliament – last December – since it was signed, and has been almost completely ignored by politicians, the media, and disabled people.

Sir Stephen also highlighted the “preparations” the government was making for a “cross-government plan” on disability.

Asked why there did not appear to have been any discussions with disabled people’s organisations about this plan, he said: “Internally, there’s been lots of discussion, and the fruits of that will become apparent in the coming months.”

Asked about the lack of progress in his role as disability minister, he said: “I think a lot’s been done, actually.

“And I’m hoping that the fruit of that will become increasingly apparent as time goes on.”

He said he did not believe his job – with responsibility for both social security and disability – was too extensive, and he said predecessors under Conservative governments also had responsibilities that were “actually quite wide” and extended outside the “strict disability group”.

But disabled activists at the conference – and outside it – repeated the long-standing calls for a separate minister for disabled people.

Emily Pomroy-Smith, a member of Disability Labour’s executive committee, told DNS that disabled people had been calling repeatedly for a separate minister to cover disability, which was a “very, very important” demand.

She said: “The brief is massive, and it is too big for one person to do on their own.

“We would [also] prefer it wasn’t sat under the Department for Work and Pensions.”

Disabled activist Klint Durham, who took part in a Disabled People Against Cuts protest outside the conference on Monday (see separate story), said he would also like to see a stand-alone minister for disabled people.

He said the remit of that post would need to cover areas across government, including housing, transport, employment and community engagement.

2 October 2025

Labour ignores disabled people and accessible housing crisis – again – as it announces plans for new towns

Labour has again ignored disabled people when making a major housing announcement, after revealing plans for a “new generation of new towns” but refusing to explain how it will ensure they are designed to be accessible to disabled people.

Housing secretary Steve Reed told his party’s annual conference in Liverpool on Sunday that the 12 new towns across England would include GP surgeries, libraries, schools, green spaces and transport links.

Building work on three of the new towns will begin before the next general election, with the government working with “world class architects”.

Reed said he would do “whatever it takes” to build the homes.

But Labour this week failed to make any pledge that accessibility would be central to the design of the new towns.

Asked for Reed’s promise to disabled people on the new towns, the Labour party had refused to comment by noon today (Thursday), three days after Disability News Service (DNS) asked the question.

Nearly 15 months after the general election, disabled people are still waiting for the new government to say whether it will introduce stricter minimum accessibility standards for new-build homes in England, three years after a pledge by the last Conservative government – which was never fulfilled – to take action to address the critical shortage of accessible housing.

At last year’s conference, after DNS questioned the party on the failure of ministers to mention the accessible housing crisis, a Labour spokesperson had promised that the government would “set out its policies on accessible new build housing shortly”.

A year on, and disabled people are still waiting for that promise to be fulfilled.

Reed was also the latest Labour minister to say the government was fighting for “hard working people”, apparently ignoring those who are unable to work, including many disabled people who need accessible homes.

He was speaking as an independent report – commissioned by the government – recommended 12 potential locations for new towns across England, with at least 10,000 new homes in each location.

But a brief search through the 135-page report appears to show no mentions of disabled people or the accessible housing crisis, although there is a brief reference to the need for “homes for older people, as well as specialist housing built to accessible and adaptable standards”.

Emily Pomroy-Smith, a member of Disability Labour’s executive committee, said the new towns appeared to be a “really exciting opportunity to set the benchmark for accessibility” and it was crucial for disabled people to be involved in those plans from the beginning.

She said there was no reason why accessibility could not be built into the foundations of the programme.

Disabled activist Flick Williams, a retired disability equality trainer and access consultant, who was in Liverpool to take part in a Disabled People Against Cuts protest outside the conference (see separate story), said she was not at all optimistic about the new towns announcement.

She said the “signs were there” when there was no mention of the accessible housing crisis in last autumn’s National Planning Policy Framework.

She said: “We are just missing from everything they do.”

She said her message to Reed was: “If you want disabled people to be active in the labour market, you need to build us accessible homes.”

2 October 2025

Labour uses conference to sideline disabled people… unless they are working

The Labour party has used its annual conference to stress – once again – that its focus is on supporting “working people”, rather than disabled people who are unable to work.

In his 6,300-word speech to the conference on Tuesday, the prime minister did not mention disabled people once, other than in relation to the work of carers, care workers and volunteers, and a brief mention of his late disabled brother who he said was “badly failed by the education system”.

In contrast, he mentioned “working people” 17 times, including telling the conference audience that the state will be “accountable to working people”, that he wanted to see “working people in control of their public services”, and arguing that it was “working people who paid the price of Tory decline”, while stressing that “Labour is the party for working people” and that he would “fight for working people”.

The concerns about Sir Keir Starmer’s focus on “working people” date back to 2022 and a speech he made to Scottish Labour’s annual conference, at which he declared publicly that Labour was “the party of working people”.

His chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has an even longer troubling track record, having said 10 years ago that Labour did not want to be seen as “the party to represent those who are out of work” and that it was “not the party of people on benefits”.

In his own speech, earlier on Tuesday, health and social care secretary Wes Streeting stressed his determination to build a National Care Service “worthy of the name”.

Labour’s only significant social care announcement was the first ever fair pay agreement for care workers, with an initial £500 million in funding to deliver “better pay, terms and conditions” for adult care workers across England.

In contrast to the prime minister’s speech, Streeting mentioned disabled people three times, highlighting how many disabled people were now surviving with conditions “that would have cut their lives short thanks to breakthroughs in medical science that allows them to not only survive, but to thrive”.

He said that “if we want to match longer lives with better lives, then we must build a social care system to meet their needs”.

And he highlighted the government’s decision to provide more funding for disabled facilities grants, which has provided “safety, dignity, independence and quality of life”, as well as “the biggest uplift in carers’ allowance since the 1970s”.

It has been clear since at least 2022 that Labour’s priority in government would be lifting the pay of care workers before any moves to reduce or scrap care charges.

Any firm decisions on long-term reform will wait for the conclusions of an independent commission, led by former civil servant Baroness [Louise] Casey.

The first phase of the commission will report next year, but the second phase, with recommendations for longer-term reform, will not be completed until 2028.

Last year, Disability Law Service published research which found that disabled people across England were continuing to face unlawful discrimination and inequality on an “unparalleled” scale because of “unjust” social care charging policies.

2 October 2025

Labour’s attacks on rights ‘have led to massive resurgence’ in disability movement, protest hears

The Labour government’s attack on disabled people’s support has led to a “massive resurgence” in the disabled people’s movement in the last year, a protest outside the party’s annual conference has heard.

Monday’s protest highlighted Labour’s failure to stop the “slow violence” that has led to the killing of countless disabled benefit claimants at the hands of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), and the government’s refusal to act on the genocide in Gaza.

The Genocide Abroad, Democide at Home protest was held just outside the boundary fence of Labour’s annual conference in Liverpool.

The speeches were at one point being watched by nearly 100 protesters and passers-by.

The aim of the protest was to draw parallels and links between the genocide in Gaza and the “democide at home”, with activists believing that thousands of disabled people have been killed by Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) state violence in the last 15 years.

But it also expressed solidarity with trans rights activists and called for links between the three movements.

The protest began with a recording of the names of more than 100 disabled people who had lost their lives through DWP’s actions and failings, including Errol Graham, Jodey Whiting, Stephen Carré, Roy Curtis and Faiza Ahmed and more recent victims of DWP bureaucratic violence such as Tracie, Kevin Gale, and David.

The protest was organised by Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) branches from Merseyside, Leeds, Manchester and York.

Rick Burgess, from Manchester DPAC, said the Labour government had not tried to reverse the Conservative cuts to disability support but instead “attempted to push farther and further”.

He said the attempted cuts to personal independence payment would have led “to many more deaths”, but disabled people forced the government to back down.

He said: “We did that. We started the end of this absolutely pathetic and failed Starmer government.”

He then led a chant of “no more benefit deaths”.

Burgess added later: “We still have a political system that absolutely denies disabled people’s right to live a good life on equal terms with everyone else.

“We need social security, we need social care, and we need social justice.”

Referring to Gaza, he said: “If governments see genocide is a viable policy solution, they will start thinking about using it elsewhere.”

Billie Gibson, from Crips Against Cuts Merseyside, led a series of chants, including “Keir Starmer, disabled harmer” and “don’t cut PIP, tax the rich”, before telling the protest that the “warfare on disabled people needs to stop”.

Dr China Mills, who leads the Deaths by Welfare project at Healing Justice Ldn, told protesters: “Disabled people have been telling us for well over a decade that the welfare system is killing people, and Labour, from New Labour to now, have cooked up many of the policies that kill people.

“People are being killed because the government doesn’t think that disabled people matter or have any value and because to them work equals worth.

“We think that these killings go deeper than mistakes or flaws in the system.

“The system isn’t broken; it is functioning exactly as it was designed.”

Jessica Ryan, from Disability Rebellion, which helped promote the protest online for those who could not attend in person, highlighted the impact of Labour’s cuts on the next generation of disabled people, and the unfairness of the government’s treatment of disabled people.

Rhi, from Merseyside DPAC, but also a researcher for the Trans Safety Network, said: “This is a government that seems extremely determined to be remembered for its genocidal foreign policy and its democidal domestic policy, as well as attacking our right to protest.

“As a disabled and trans person, I have long insisted that disabled people’s liberation and trans people’s liberation will be one and the same fight, and that our oppression is built with the same tools, but these last few years have made this increasingly clear to more and more of us.

“It is a terrifying time to be a disabled person in the UK right now and it is a terrifying time to be a trans person here, too.

“Disabled people and trans people are under attack but when we join together to fight back, we are much, much stronger.”

Emma Hewitt, from Leeds DPAC, said she had been a disability rights activist for 20 years but it had only been in the last 18 months that she had “really seen the attacks on us”.

She said: “It’s not just the fact that they are cutting our services, it’s the fact that they are attacking us, they are attacking our right to live.

“It’s so painful that not only do they not care about us, but they are quite happy to spend the money that we need for our support on genocide (in Gaza).

“There has been a massive resurgence in the disabled people’s movement, and it just fills me with so much hope.

“Every town in this country, every city, has got a disability rights group, not just Disabled People Against Cuts, we’ve got Crips Against Cuts, who are this amazing new group, Disability Rebellion, you guys are my heroes, you’ve been finding new ways for us to be able to campaign so no-one gets left behind, so everyone has a voice.”

Disabled activist Flick Williams, from York DPAC, said it was “so important” to be at the protest because the imminent DWP white paper – which is expected to include a series of further cuts to benefits – will be published later this year.

She said she had been struck by the names of those who had been killed due to DWP “slow violence”.

She said: “I just thought: there are going to be so many more.”

Another disabled activist, Klint Durham, told DNS he had travelled to Liverpool from Leeds to show his “contempt for the Labour government and its attack on disabled people and the welfare cuts”.

After 14 years of Conservative austerity, he said, he could not believe that a Labour government “would think to introduce more cuts”, and that it was “very clear” that the Labour-run DWP needed to “listen to organisations of disabled people and not charities”.

*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, is published by Pluto Press

2 October 2025

Minister asks DWP to consider releasing secret reports on deaths to grieving relatives

A minister has asked the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) whether it could release secret reports to families whose relatives’ deaths have been linked to DWP’s actions and failings.

Ever since Disability News Service (DNS) first revealed the existence of the secret reviews in October 2014, DWP has repeatedly refused to even alert the families of those who have died that an investigation has been carried out.

The department has insisted – as it did last week when it again refused to tell lawyers for the family of Jodey Whiting whether it carried out a probe into her case – that such reviews are “internal retrospective investigations focused on organisational learning, not public accountability”.

The probes were previously known as peer reviews but are now called internal process reviews (IPRs).

The only IPRs ever to be released to grieving relatives have come after orders made by a coroner or a judge.

DNS is aware of only two such cases, including the IPR ordered to be released by the coroner who heard the 2021 inquest into the death of Philippa Day.

But DNS told the social security and disability minister Sir Stephen Timms this week that safeguarding adults reviews and domestic homicide reviews are released to families and are published, although the identities of the subjects of the reviews are disguised.

DNS also pointed to the eight-year campaign for justice and accountability led by Jodey Whiting’s mother, Joy Dove, and her struggle to secure the IPR she believes was carried out into the circumstances surrounding her daughter’s death.

Speaking during an interview with DNS at Labour’s annual conference in Liverpool, Sir Stephen said: “Internal process reviews are what the name implies, they are for internal consumption within the DWP to look at where we got things wrong and how are we going to put them right.

“So that is kind of the nature of them, so I don’t think it’s surprising inherently that they are not shared more widely.”

But he then said that DNS was “raising a very reasonable issue here, and particularly asking whether families should, in certain circumstances, be able to see them”.

He said he had asked DWP civil servants “to take a look at this, and I am going to be receiving some advice on that subject”, although he said it was “difficult and there is a duty of confidentiality that the department owes to people”, even after they have died.

He added: “There might be a need to change the law here.

“Anyway, I’ve asked officials to have a look at this and to come back to me.”

His comments came after Steve Darling, the Liberal Democrat work and pensions spokesperson, told DNS last week that he was hoping to use the government’s new Hillsborough Law to force DWP to release IPRs to relatives.

During Sunday’s interview, Sir Stephen admitted that it was only because of a DNS news story that he became aware that a report – commissioned by Conservative work and pensions secretary Therese Coffey in 2020 – had called for DWP to reduce suicides of benefit claimants and other “very bad cases”.

The Complaints, Suicides and Other Matters report was written by Tory peer Baroness [Lucy] Neville-Rolfe, but DWP has told DNS that it would be too expensive to find out what happened in response to the 11 recommendations she made five years ago.

Among her recommendations was for DWP to set up a new register of “very bad cases”; to review its safeguarding system, including an analysis of its effectiveness in reducing suicides; and to review the IPR system.

Sir Stephen said on Sunday: “I actually did not know that Baroness Neville-Rolfe had done a report for the DWP until my office told me that you were likely to ask me about it.

“That’s the first time I was aware of this report having been done.”

DNS has been writing news stories about the report since May this year, but it appears that no-one in DWP briefed him on the report or those stories until the lead-up to the conference.

Sir Stephen said he would now ask civil servants what happened in response to the 11 recommendations made in the report.

He said: “I will find out about it.”

He said Labour ministers were now “very substantially changing the culture of the department in a pro-transparency direction.

“I’m not claiming that we’ve entirely got there yet, but we’ve made a lot of headway.”

Sir Stephen also confirmed that the disabled members of his new independent disability advisory panel would no longer be expected to sign non-disclosure agreements, following a backlash over the “completely unacceptable” measure.

Instead of an NDA, DWP said it would “collaboratively agree the confidentiality arrangements as part of the terms of engagement with the panel once the membership is confirmed”.

The deadline for applications has now been extended by two weeks to 13 October.

*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, is published by Pluto Press

2 October 2025

No 10 meeting sees Labour hold out olive branch to disabled activists after breakdown of trust over cuts

Senior figures in the Labour party pledged to try to rebuild trust with disabled people at a meeting with activists earlier this month at 10 Downing Street, Disability News Service can reveal.

The 90-minute meeting between a delegation of seven disabled people and senior figures within the Labour administration took place on 2 September.

It came after a text message from Joe Watkinson, deputy vice chair of Disability Labour, to Claire Reynolds, who was at the time the party’s political director in Downing Street, but is now Labour’s executive director of stakeholder relations.

Watkinson had suggested the need for a meeting to try to rebuild Labour’s relationship with disabled people after the damage caused by the government’s attempts – later abandoned – to cut billions in spending from personal independence payment, and the cuts that will be introduced through its Universal Credit Act, and to ensure disabled people “have a voice and can be heard in a constructive way”.

He told Disability News Service (DNS) at this week’s Labour conference in Liverpool: “Disabled people cannot afford a Reform government.

“The only hope we have is via a Labour government. We need to reset the relationship with disabled members and that’s at the core of everything we need to do.”

Among the disabled people who attended the meeting were representatives of the Co-operative Party – where Watkinson is chair of the party’s disability network – union activists and representatives of Disability Labour (DL), including Kathy Bole, DL’s chair, and Emily Pomroy-Smith, another member of DL’s executive committee.

As well as Reynolds, other Labour representatives at the meeting included a work and welfare special adviser, and a representative of the party’s general secretary.

It is not yet clear what promises the party will make to those who attended the meeting, other than a pledge to hold further such meetings.

But Watkinson said: “It was a very constructive meeting. It was taken seriously. It was a very frank and honest discussion.

“For the majority of the meeting, they sat there and listened.”

Pomroy-Smith said: “It was about using our lived experience to inform what they were doing. They were ready and listening.

“Claire really did fight for this. She really fought for the meeting to happen, and she’s continuing that in her new role.”

She said the government representatives they met were aware of the level of anger among disabled people at the way the PIP and universal credit cuts had been handled earlier this year.

She said: “What we were coming with was solutions. The focus was how can we rebuild and what does that look like.

“It was about moving forward. How do we prevent it from happening again.”

Among the issues raised were the kind of language used by ministers, and inaccurate briefings on social security reform.

Pomroy-Smith added: “At the moment there is a real need to amplify the voices of disabled people and not be spoken about.”

2 October 2025

Activist tells conference meeting: Hostile rhetoric under Labour has left me feeling hounded and unsafe

One of the only disabled activists to speak at Labour’s annual conference has delivered a powerful rebuke to ministers who have failed to do anything to curb the rising levels of disability-related hostility.

Fingers, a disabled RAF veteran who campaigns with Crips Against Cuts and the new group Disabled Resistance, told a fringe event on Monday how her car had been attacked and she had been called a “scrounger” after a young man saw her blue parking badge on the dashboard.

She told an Amnesty International UK fringe event on fixing the broken social security system: “What the language of the last 18 months has done to me is, for the first time in my life… I feel hounded, I feel unsafe.”

She said she felt as though the hostile rhetoric directed at disabled people had turned her into “a non-person”.

She said: “You’re looking at someone who is unsustainable. Why do I have to be a unit of productivity in this country?

“The words we use are fundamentally important. Not one newspaper has run an editorial or article about how these words are making us feel.

“I fought for the country, I worked for the NHS, and now I am effectively a ‘useless eater’.”

Fingers, who also used to chair a mental health charity, told Disability News Service (DNS) after the meeting that four young men had walked past her car as she was waiting at traffic lights in Loughborough about a month ago.

They had seen her blue badge and one of them then bounced on the bonnet of her car and shouted: “Bloody scrounger!”.

She wound down the window and gave them a “stream of obscenities and invective”, but later her anger turned to fear for her safety and that of other disabled people.

She told DNS: “The rhetoric surrounding people who require support because of ill-health has become positively threatening.

“It has been encouraged tacitly by the government.

“It dehumanises people who can’t work and there has been not one shred of fightback by the government about the knock-on effects of their rhetoric.

“It has given a licence for anybody at all to pick on and say hateful things about disabled people, and it’s everywhere, and that makes me feel unsafe.”

The former Labour member, who joined the party to vote for Jeremy Corbyn as party leader and left when he was replaced by Sir Keir Starmer, said she had expected this kind of rhetoric from a Conservative government, but it was “shocking” that it had continued under a Labour government, which had even made the situation worse.

She was also critical that the fringe event had been held on an inaccessible stage without a ramp, as highlighted by Daily Mirror columnist Susie Boniface, who chaired an event in the same location within ACC Liverpool.

Although she is not a wheelchair-user, Fingers has a physical impairment and struggled with the inaccessible stage, which she said was “shameful for Labour”.

Because of the lack of chairs in the conference centre, she had already been forced to resort to sitting in the accessible toilet to prepare for her presentation at the fringe event.

She said: “I was in quite a bit of pain when I left that conference. It would have been alleviated if I had had anything other than a disabled loo to sit on.”

DNS reports elsewhere this week that Disability Labour – which often provides free access advice to the party at its annual conference – was priced out of attending this year’s event by the party.

Meanwhile, disabled Labour MP Nadia Whittome told the Amnesty fringe event that she was “really proud” to have played a small part in the backbench rebellion that led to the government withdrawing its planned cuts of billions of pounds to spending on personal independence payment.

But she pointed out that cuts to the health element of universal credit for most new claimants are still going ahead next spring.

She said campaigners must continue to fight against further government cuts to disability benefits, and against disability discrimination, and for investment in public services.

She echoed Fingers’ comments on the political rhetoric and told the fringe event: “People’s worth is not determined by their economic contribution.”

2 October 2025

Disability Labour priced out of conference after cash-strapped party withdraws financial support

The campaigning organisation that represents disabled people within Labour had to cancel plans to attend this week’s conference in Liverpool after the party asked it to pay thousands of pounds in fees.

Members of Disability Labour appealed for last-minute financial help during a visit to 10 Downing Street earlier this month (see separate story) but were told the party could no longer afford to help it cover its costs at conference.

For the first time since 2018, Disability Labour – which has spent years providing free advice to the party on access issues – was asked to pay for a space for a stand at Labour’s annual conference, but it was told this would cost £2,500.

Disability News Service (DNS) has been told that other Labour-affiliated socialist societies have also had to pull out of attending the conference this week because they could no longer afford the increasing cost and because of the lack of financial support from the party.

The party has told DNS that the changes to financial arrangements at the conference were applied equally to all 21 socialist societies and were not unique to Disability Labour.

Disability Labour said this week that it did not believe it had been singled out.

Last year, it had to pay only a few hundred pounds to cover the cost of electricity and other costs, including hiring a small stand where its members could provide advice to other disabled party members and use as a base to lobby politicians and delegates on disability issues.

It would likely have had to pay thousands more to hire a venue at the conference for a fringe event, and hundreds of pounds more for accommodation in Liverpool.

Emily Pomroy-Smith, a member of Disability Labour’s executive committee, said the party “did express regret” that it had not been able to offer the same support as in recent years, and Disability Labour was now in discussions with the party about future support.

She said: “We want to work with the party to get us back here.

“We are asking the party to meet us halfway and work with us so next year we can be back. It’s really important.

“In a year where we have seen difficulties and damaged relationships with disabled people and communities, it’s really important that we see a willingness to rebuild that, which we have had.

“Obviously, it’s disappointing that we are not able to be here in our normal capacity.

“The Disability Labour stand is a hub for disabled people. We end up supporting disabled members and visitors’ access issues and signposting them [to support].

“We do provide a service.”

She added: “Conference is getting more and more expensive. That’s not just for Disability Labour.”

Local hotels have increased prices by as much as six times their usual rates, she said.

Joe Watkinson, deputy vice chair of Disability Labour, said: “Disabled members need us to be here. It’s important that we are here.”

Pomroy-Smith and Watkinson were only able to attend because the independent transport trade union TSSA covered many of their expenses, paying for Pomroy-Smith’s accommodation and travel, and travel for Watkinson.

Kathy Bole, Disability Labour’s chair, said they were told at the No 10 meeting in early September that the party’s financial problems meant it could not support Disability Labour at this year’s conference.

Bole said Disability Labour executives had reluctantly decided not to use a large chunk of the society’s limited funds to hire a stand and host a fringe event.

Disability Labour is a socialist society affiliated to the Labour party, but has members from across the Labour spectrum, although its leadership and membership have traditionally supported causes on the left of the party.

It has a long history of acting as a “critical friend” of the party at its annual conference, raising concerns about access, policy and the need for co-production.

It has also spent years lobbying Labour to do more to address disability discrimination within the party.

Last year, it was critical of the new Labour government’s decision to appoint only a part-time disability minister, and supported a disabled delegate who was refused entry to the conference with her assistance dog.

In September 2022, its members supported calls for the party to do more on eliminating the barriers faced by its own disabled members.

It raised similar concerns the previous year, prompting a pledge from the party’s general secretary that he would put an end to the years of discrimination experienced by disabled party members.

And, as part of the party’s online conference in September 2020 – in the early months of the pandemic – Disability Labour pushed the party for a stronger commitment to plans drawn up by disabled people that would solve the social care crisis by setting up a co-produced National Independent Living Service.

Disability Labour has also hosted important fringe events, and in September 2023 its event was attended by four shadow ministers.

This event drew the promise from shadow disability minister Vicky Foxcroft that, if Labour won power, “every single one of our ministers will be ministers for disabled people”.

A Labour party spokesperson said in a statement this week: “We are committed to providing a safe and accessible environment at conference for disabled people.

“There are more accessibility stewards working at conference this year compared to last year, and we have also provided these stewards with an increased level of training.

“We also continuously engage with Disability Labour on a wide range of issues, including greater celebration of Disability History Month which the party has begun work on.”

2 October 2025

Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week

The family of a disabled man who died after not being given any food for nine days while being treated in an NHS hospital has told ITV News, “we thought he was having nutrition… but as it turns out, they were starving him.” This comes as an ITV News investigation has revealed a crisis in the care of people with learning difficulties and autistic people. Bereaved families have told ITV News they believe their children died due to failures in NHS care: https://www.itv.com/news/2025-10-01/i-dont-want-to-die-downs-syndrome-man-starved-to-death-in-hospital

2 October 2025

News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com

October News from Liberation

Mental Health No Responses »

Oct 272020

Thanks to Dorothy Gould at Liberation.

1) The Mental Health Act

The White Paper based on the Mental Health Act Review: I haven’t received any further information about the date when we can expect the White Paper. However, as I’ve said, it’s clear that the White Paper will be based on the Review recommendations and so non-compliant with the full human rights set out in the United nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). There will be some major issues to address therefore.

Easements of the Mental Health Act contained in the Coronavirus Act: The good news, as I expect you’ll now know, is that, as the Law Society itself has recommended, the government has dropped the provisions in the Coronavirus Act which make it still easier to use compulsory powers contained in the Mental Health Act. Secondary legislation is being produced to set aside the easements. That will prevent the further breach of human rights which the Coronavirus Act brought in, but will not resolve existing human rights breaches which the Mental Health Act represents. Other human rights breaches in the Coronavirus Act also continue to be concerning.

A plea against the increased use of a medical model during the coronavirus outbreak:

One of my concerns is that much of the media and a wide range of professionals are drawing still further on a medical model during this outbreak; for them, the very understandable stress and distress caused by the coronavirus/the government’s handling of it are ‘mental illnesses’. In an article forwarded by Mad in America (Link), Lucy Johnstone helpfully challenges this whole tendency, arguing that now, more than ever before, anxiety and depression need to be understood as ‘human reactions to difficult circumstances’ not as disorders. She thinks that current talk of a ‘mental health crisis’ and the increased emphasis on ‘looking after our mental health’ run the risk of confusing natural, unhappy feelings with a mental illness. She advocates full use of the survivor slogan: ‘What has happened to you?’, in place of ‘patient with illness’.

A challenge to the government about failing to address the disproportionate impact of the coronavirus on disabled people and Black, Asian and other minority ethnic communities:

Encouraging news is that Marsha de Cordova, the shadow women and equalities secretary, has written to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) urging the Commission to investigate the government for breaching the Equality Act in this respect. (You can find further information about this in an article from the Guardian.)

An important, worldwide report stemming from the COVID-19 Disability Rights Monitor:

The Disability Rights Monitor was developed by representatives of 7 organisations which advocate for the rights of Disabled people throughout the world. The survey on which the report is based collected information about the protection of key UNCRPD rights during the coronavirus pandemic. It focused especially on the right to life, health, independent living and inclusive education and there were additional questions about rights of people who experience particular discrimination. Most responses came from Disabled people and user-led organisations. Four major themes emerged: shocking situations faced by Disabled people in institutions, serious breakdowns of support, multiple discrimination and violations of Disabled people’s right to health, though the report authors have also highlighted practices which they thought were promising. The report authors have made a series of major recommendations, based on the UNCRPD, including the need to end institutionalisation. (Rather surprisingly, though, they mention only Article 19, not Articles 12 and 14 as well when calling for this.) They have also emphasised the crucial need to involve Disabled people and their organisations in all decision-making and to build on the Sustainable Development Goals. I was not aware of the survey when it occurred (and it seems that has been true of quite a part of the UK), but am now asking to be kept up-to-date with all further developments.

National hate crime awareness week

As you may be aware, the week of 10th -17th October was a national hate crime awareness week. During this week, Inclusion London launched an important report about disability hate crime: Still Getting Away with Murder: Disability Hate Crime in England . An easy read copy can be found at: Still Getting Away with Murder: Disability Hate Crime in England – Easy Read (pdf)

This report explores:

The extent of disability hate crime
The fact that we are often not believed when we raise issues
The role of a human rights approach in creating awareness
Institutional Disablism – the discrimination which we experience because of the whole structure of society
The effectiveness of working in partnership with Disabled people.

Because Disability hate crime so strongly needs tackling, I have also now joined Inclusion London’s Hate Crime Partnership. The focus of this group is what can be done to prevent Disability hate crime and to support Disabled people who encounter it. I will be particularly contributing from a mental distress/trauma perspective. If you have information or examples which I can take to the group, or are interested in being involved in any other way, please get in touch with me.

Information related to race

Setting up of the Narrative Black History Group: Doreen Joseph is asking for your support with this group which has just been launched. It’s a very important initiative, still more so given the extent of racism in this country, so please support the group if you can. It has been set up in recognition of the richness, beauty and diversity of culture in the 54 countries which make up the African continent and the worldwide influence of this since the start of history. The group’s aim is to provide high quality and dependable Black history memorabilia and fun, engaging ways in which to teach Black history and culture to both children and adults. You can follow the group and buy its products by using one of these links:

https://instagram.com/narrativebhg?

https://www.facebook.com/narrativebhg/

igshid=www.narrativebhg.com

www.narrativebhg.com

A powerful article from Raza Griifiths about racism in mental health services: Raza has forwarded this for circulation among Liberation members. Sadly and despite the fact that the UK government has signed up to the UNCRPD, racism remains all too prevalent in the NHS, as Raza’s article shows all too clearly. (Article printed in Asylum 27 (3) ).

Interesting international webinars

The International Society for Psychological and Social Approaches to Psychosis (ISPS): In case you haven’t see the information already, this is to let you know that the ISPS is putting on a webinar this Wednesday evening entitled ‘Alongside psychosis. Alternatives to psychiatric admission’. I’ve found ISPS somewhat mixed when I’ve attended its events previously and can find it too oriented to a medical model. However, this webinar looks promising. If you’re interested in a place, the web link to use is: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/o/isps-uk-15459228362
The Washington College of Law in partnership with the Academy on Human Rights and Humanitarian Law and the Special Envoy of the United Nations Secretary-General on Disability and Accessibility: a webinar this Thursday on protecting and empowering Disabled people in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The UNCRPD is being used as a basis for this, though, rather disappointingly, there does not seem to be a speaker with lived experience of the psychiatric system. I’m also unsure why the webinar has not been organised from within African countries. However, there are some interesting items on the agenda and it could be a good opportunity to raise our voices. If you’d like to attend, the relevant web link is: https://www.wcl.american.edu/news-events/events/detail/8773/
Joint webinar from the Commonwealth Disabled People’s Forum and Reclaiming Our Futures Alliance (UK): on Monday 2nd November. This will address the impact of COVID-19 on the fight for disability rights – in all countries, including the UK. Agreed Speakers are:Dr Sruti Mohapatra, India, Acting Vice-Chair CDPFRichard Rieser, UK, General Secretary CDPFEmile Gouws, South, Autism South Africa, Executive CDPFTracey Lazard, UK, CEO Inclusion London To book a place and get the link for the meeting you will need to register by 12 noon UK time this Friday 30th October by sending your name, email address, organisation and country to Gemma White at gemma.white@add.org.uk . For access reasons, Gemma has also asked anyone with a visual impairment to let her know about this.
International Sign language and Captioning is provided.
Michael Njenga, Users and Survivors of Psychiatry, Kenya CDPF EC
Abia Akram, Pakistan, CDPF Women’s Officer
Thandiwe Mfulo, South Africa, Vice-Chair CDPF

Giving your views to the Commission on Social Security about a better benefits system

The opportunity to take part in this important consultation has now been extended because there has been such a high level of interest. As you will probably know, both UNCRPD Committee members and the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights have also expressed huge concerns about the welfare benefit system in this country. If you would still like to take part in the consultation, you now have until this Saturday, 31st October, to reply. You can find the form to complete here.

Support with an important disabled parking campaign

Kush Kanodia is campaigning for a standard and compassionate parking policy for Disabled people. I will be forwarding the information later on today – separately so that I can include more information about it. When you receive the information, please support the campaign if you can.

Free Book Draw – The War on Disabled People

Access to Work, Bedroom tax, Benefits, charities, council cuts, Independent Living, Independent Living Fund ILF, local authority cuts, Maximus, Mental Health, Social Model, UNCRPD, Universal Credit, UNUM, WCA, welfare cuts, Welfare reforms No Responses »

May 262020

A picture of the front cover of the book titled: "The War on Disabled People: capitalism, welfare and the making of a human catastrophe by Ellen Clifford". Behind the text is the image of a man on crutches. The full background, including the image of the disabled man, is rendered in shades of red and black. The text is in white.

The War on Disabled People is now available to pre-order from Zed Books:

https://www.zedbooks.net/shop/book/the-war-on-disabled-people/forthcoming/

Zed are offering a discounted price but DPAC realises that the cost will still be beyond the reach of many people – not least because of the issues covered in the book.

We will be giving away a few free copies kindly donated by Zed to names pulled out of a hat on 15th June. To enter please email your name to mail@dpac.uk.net with ‘Book Draw’ in the subject line.

Very sadly the battle for accessible formats to be available is ongoing… watch this space.

protest against IAPT therapies – March 21st 8.15am onwards

Action, All Posts, Disability Rights, Mental Health, MHRN, NHS, Politics 2 Responses »

Feb 252018

The Alliance for Counselling and Psychotherapy has organised a demo at the New Savoy conference again this year. It’s an early start at South Kensington.

Here’s the programme for the conference – https://www.healthcareconferencesuk.co.uk/conf/uploads/brochures/1210_20180214-104528_Psychological_Therapies_2018_Brochure.pdf

Wednesday 21st March 2018 from 8.15am!

Millennium Conference Centre!

4-18 Harrington Gardens!

South Kensington, London, SW7 4LH

The New Savoy Conference is the annual gathering of professional and

charity bodies providing psychological therapies (IAPT) in NHS primary

care.

IAPT is an assembly-line service providing short-term therapies to over

a million people every year. Despite the commitment of its frontline

therapists and psychologists, IAPT is failing the mental health needs of

communities all over England, while working with government policies

that themselves generate psychological distress and social alienation.

Come and join therapists, mental health activists, psychologists and

welfare campaigners. Meet at the Harrington Gardens entrance of the

Millenium Conference Centre (Gloucester Road tube) from 8.15am to

greet conference goers.

Contact info@allianceforcandp.org for more information.

Some context:

• The hierarchy of IAPT and psychological services in the NHS who gather at these conferences continue to offer liberal mouthings about DWP welfare reform policies, WCA and PIP, sanctions, coercion around Work and Health. But they’ve actually taken no real action to boycott DWP/Health collaboration, despite all the developments re judicial reviews, UN condemnations, the recent Parl Committee report, and the UC debacle.

In his intro to the conference, in the programme link above, Jeremy Clarke (NS chair) says:

“The second issue is the running sore of welfare benefit reform, and its negative impact on mental health, that undermines whatever benefit we make to population wellbeing. Have we reached a consensus now for how we can turn the tide? The BBC’s Mark Easton will find out”

• The overall theme is depression; there are sessions on the crisis in the IAPT workforce, latest staff survey, impact of targets; session on Work and Health Unit; Wessely’s review of human rights and compulsory treatment; session on Employee Assistant Programmes (often run by people like Maximus); familiar faces in the list of speakers

•The scam of IAPT as a service in local communities. It has a massive evidence base, tons of statistics for every CCG in England including “recovery” rates; ethnicity stats; deprivation stats; etc etc No-one really analyses the figures. For IAPT it seems just collecting the stats is their claim to being evidence based and therefore their claim for funding from the Government. In fact, their stats reveal a shockingly failing provision.

For example, ot of 1,350,000 referrals a year 85% either never enter any kind of therapy, or never finish a course of treatment, or don’t “move to recovery” (as IAPT jargon has it). In my CCG (Tower Hamlets) only 6.6% of referrals to IAPT “recovered” and among the Bangladeshi community who make up over 30% on TH population only 3% “recovered”. Farmer’s Taskforce target for % of population who “need IAPT therapy” is 15%, rising to 25% by 2021. In TH about 2% of the pop were referred/referred themselves to IAPT, of whom as I say 6.6% “recovered”.

IAPT will be a major part of the propaganda around the NHS reorganisation now in progress, via the STPs and the ACOs they are developing . STP management have “the mental health crisis” high on their agenda – certainly their PR agenda – and selling more provision for IAPT services will be a major plank of the campaign. See Hunt on this role for IAPT here.

IAPT is rarely taken to task as a service that is massively failing communities all over England. This is true in the Labour Party as much as any where ekse. This has to stop. It is a propaganda service for neoliberal capitalism and its dissemination of psychological scapegoating and coercion across society

Tory MentalHealth scam- warning

All Posts, Disability Rights, Mental Health, MHRN 2 Responses »

Jan 132018

This is from a post sent to us asking us to make people aware of the issues

Brighter Berkshire/Conservatives for Mental Health

I am worried about labour politicians being co-opted into promoting Conservative mental health policy in mental health initiatives that have cross party support. There is metal health awareness campaign in Swindon started by a conservative and is using Conservatives for Mental Health to work under. The women who has started it is calling on people from all parties to work together. https://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/15559149.Activist_launches_cross_party_campaign_to_tackle_mental_health_issues/ This is the organisation that she is working with https://www.conservativesformentalhealth.co.uk/

There is a mental health awareness raising campaign called Brighter Berkshire that looks quite similar. It says it has cross party support but to my mind shows conservative bias and has Theresa May on the front page and Richard Benyon, Tory MP for Berkshire is heavily involved. They tweeted support for Richard Benyon in the run up to the General Election. They get involved at about the time they were both talking about new Conservative mental health campaigns.

Looking at this closely it seems there is an emphasis on cutting services and putting pressure on getting people back to work as cheap labour. Here is a link to Brighter Berkshire https://brighterberkshire.com/ Unfortunately a small number of labour politicians have got involved and endorsed the campaigns, one being Matt Rodda MP for Reading East.

I am worried that Brighter Berkshire become a model for mental health awareness campaigns across the country and that they will be used to promote Tory policy and make them look good. So I would be grateful if you could discuss this and address it at a national level and warn labour MP\’s to be careful before attaching themselves to any mental health campaigns to make sure they are not biased campaigns or promote Tory policies.

I have set up a facebook group about this. The founder of Brighter Berkshire is on group. https://www.facebook.com/groups/199827027227205/ Feel free to share it around or join.

Advice for Professionals re- exemptions for people facing assessments

All Posts, Benefits, Maximus, Mental Health, Politics 3 Responses »

Dec 112017

This guide has been produced by Winvisible with support from others. If your GP or support worker etc don’t know what to do this information should be passed onto them.

Benefit assessments – exemption to protect ‘vulnerable’ patients
There is a great deal of evidence about the profound distress which face-to-face assessments for disability benefits can cause, especially for women and men with mental health conditions. The prospect of interview can induce overwhelming anxiety, panic and dissociative states, levels of stress and distress that can precipitate serious relapses, leading to psychiatric admissions and even suicides. Consultant psychiatrist Dr Jed Boardman said: “You see people relapsing as a consequence of getting distressed about being assessed.” (Fit-for-work tests linked to relapses in those with mental health problems Guardian 24 November 2015.)
Therefore it is vital that professionals know about the benefit system regulations on exemption from the face-to-face interview and for assessment on paper evidence.
They can quote these to protect vulnerable patients from harmful distress and deterioration, and/or enable them to stay out of hospital. Professionals who can state their opinion include: GP, care co-ordinator, psychologist, psychiatrist, key worker, support worker, therapist, counsellor, Independent Domestic Violence Advocate… Opinions from non-medical staff are relevant to describe people’s problems functioning.
It is important to recommend exemption from the face-to-face interview very clearly. Don’t recommend a home visit: this can be worse than an assessment centre interview, as for women rape survivors or others, their home is their safe space which would be violated by an official visit. You may be rung by the assessor as a follow-up, so make sure you are up-to-date with your patient’s situation.
Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) and Personal Independence Payment (PIP) are different benefits with different reasons for exemption:
 ESA is an out-of-work benefit based on limited capability for work where complete exemption from back-to-work conditions is possible. In places where ESA is replaced by Universal Credit (UC), this exemption is in UC regulations 2013 Schedule 8 and also applies to the compulsory “Health and Work Conversation”. Widespread opposition to the brutal UC regime has delayed national rollout.
 PIP is widely claimed by both unwaged and waged people for daily living/care and mobility needs, and is not part of UC.
Companies hold DWP contracts to open mail, scan and distribute it and to carry out assessments, but confidentiality is used to exclude evidence. If a support letter marked “Confidential” goes to the assessor company, the DWP says under confidentiality, it won’t then be disclosed to a DWP Case Manager (PIP Assessment Guide Part One, 1.4.13). As proper consideration often depends on DWP review, don’t mark your report confidential.
ESA
Under “Exceptional Circumstances”, you can say that there would be substantial risk to the patient’s health if they were put under work conditions for benefit, so they should be exempted from these and the exam. This regulation means the person is already accepted as satisfying the test for ESA (limited capability for work) so doesn’t have to be seen. Substantial risk to health can be mental health, or physical health e.g. risk of heart
attack from stress. Risk to mental health covers not only suicide risk, but also sudden deterioration in mental state: PTSD flashbacks, panic attacks, hearing voices, or similar.
Substantial risk regulations: https://wcainfo.net/issues/substantial-risk-lcw 1. A claimant who does not have limited capability for work as determined in accordance with the limited capability for work assessment is to be treated as having limited capability for work if paragraph (2) applies to the claimant. 2. Subject to paragraph (3) this paragraph applies if … (b) the claimant suffers from some specific disease or bodily or mental disablement and, by reasons of such disease or disablement, there would be a substantial risk to the mental or physical health of any person if the claimant were found not to have limited capability for work. 3. Paragraph (2)(b) does not apply where the risk could be reduced by a significant amount by – (a) reasonable adjustments being made in the claimant’s workplace; or (b) the claimant taking medication to manage the claimant’s condition where such medication has been prescribed for the claimant by a registered medical practitioner treating the claimant.
Regulation 25 (2013) (4)
(4) In this regulation ―medical evidence‖ means—
(a) evidence from a health care professional approved by the Secretary of State; and
(b) evidence (if any) from any health care professional or a hospital or similar institution, or such part of such evidence as constitutes the most reliable evidence available in the circumstances.
PIP DWP guidance states that assessors should determine if they can assess the claim from the paper evidence they already have, or if they should get further evidence from professionals, before proceeding to arrange a face-to-face exam — they call it consultation. (PIP Assessment Guide, Part One – The Assessment Process, 1.2.2/1.3.6, 2 November 2017) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/655611/pip-assessment-guide-part-1-assessment-process.pdf The assessor can make a decision from paper evidence where “there is strong evidence on which to advise on the case and a face-to-face consultation is likely to be stressful for the claimant…” (1.5.4) Assessors “should also consider the needs of vulnerable claimants”, that is “someone who has difficulty dealing with procedural demands” including “a previous suicide attempt, domestic violence, abuse or bereavement.” (1.3.11)
1.5.4 “Cases that should not require a face-to-face consultation” ―Although each case should be determined individually, the following types of case should not normally require a face-to-face consultation: […] • There is strong evidence on which to advise on the case and a face-to-face consultation is likely to be stressful for the claimant (for example, claimants with autism, cognitive impairment or learning disability) • The claimant questionnaire indicates a high level of disability, the information is consistent, medically reasonable and there is nothing to suggest over-reporting – (examples may include claimants with severe neurological conditions such as multiple sclerosis, motor neurone disease, dementia, Parkinson’s disease, severely disabling stroke) • There is sufficient detailed, consistent and medically reasonable information on function.
The medical evidence sent on paper has to be “robust” to enable the test for benefit to be met, and should include comments about how functioning is affected. WinVisible won exemption from the PIP exam for a rape survivor who felt suicidal and was at risk of flashbacks, based on “consultation may be stressful to the claimant”. The assessor rang the woman’s GP for his opinion after his letter was sent in. She was granted full rates for both daily living and mobility.
Where should support letters be directed?
ESA
Assessments are carried out by multinational company Maximus (under the name Health Assessment Advisory Service) on behalf of the DWP.
• If your patient is filling in the ESA50 form, attach your support letter to the form and make sure it is listed on the form.
• If your patient can’t cope with the form, or if an interview date has already been sent out, fax it headed FME (Further Medical Evidence) to HAAS London central fax: 0208 795 8647. This is the procedure recommended by HAAS call centre staff. It should have the claimant’s name and NI No. at the top of each numbered page.
• If your patient has an appointment date and HAAS are refusing to postpone this, or are still requiring her to attend despite your request for exemption, email the same correspondence with a cover note raising your complaint to the Centre for Health and Disability Assessments (Maximus head office). Ask them to put the appointment on hold pending the decision on exemption: email: customer-relations@chdauk.co.uk They usually reply within two days. Always cc the MP and ask them to follow it up on behalf of the claimant.
PIP
Assessments are carried out by Atos (or in some geographical areas by Capita). To send in your medical evidence requesting exemption, you can:
 Email Atos pip-customerservice@atos.net
 Write to the DWP’s Disability and Carers Service, address is on the patient’s PIP letter. And/or email them at blackpoolbc.customercomplaints@dwp.gsi.gov.uk
 If you are not sure where to send it, call the PIP helpline on 03458 503 322.
Getting support from MPs’ caseworkers
Ask if your patient is ready to contact their MP and ask for support for their exemption and paper-based assessment. Google “Find my MP” or search the Parliament website, choosing the constituency contacts. MPs’ caseworkers have direct lines to benefit officials and can often quickly resolve distressing situations. Involving the MP gets your concerns taken more seriously. Assessor companies have staff specifically for MPs’ enquiries. Ms A wrote to us: “I just wanted to let you know, it is with a happy heart I read the opened letter from the DWP this afternoon with my PIP results. I am most grateful for the advice that it is OK to ask my psychiatrist specifically for a paper based assessment. I know not everyone is like this and that particularly with the disabled people’s movement, a lot of work and effort goes into asserting good self-image. In mental health, addictions, abuse/domestic violence situations, I think there is something very unseen and unaddressed going on that makes women like me and others, more likely to be unable to meet the demands of the benefits system. More likely to fall between the cracks.”
Compiled by WinVisible (women with visible and invisible disabilities)
with warm thanks to: Diane Frazer, psychotherapist; Dr Jay Watts, clinical psychologist;
Marcin Brajta, Hackney Community Law Centre
Contact WinVisible:
Crossroads Women’s Centre
25 Wolsey Mews, London NW5 2DX
Email win@winvisible.org
Web www.winvisible.org
Tel: 020 7482 2496

April 29th East London, MH campaigning event

News, Action, All Posts, Mental Health, MHRN No Responses »

Apr 012017

A group in East London are putting on a MH event on Sat 29 April.

Here’s the eventbrite link.

Please book if you want to come, and circulate to anyone you think might interested.

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/the-irresistible-rise-of-mental-health-crisis-taking-a-stand-in-east-london-tickets-33110761178

This is a meeting for organisations and individuals involved in campaigning around mental health in East London. We want to offer a space for people to get together and talk about how we might support each other and share resources in the face of the growing crisis in the UK’s psychological welfare and mental health provision – in the boroughs of East London in particular.

We are a group of mental health professionals and service users campaigning around various aspects of mental health and welfare, some of us involved with the Mental Wealth Alliance and its campaigns around workfare and the psycho-compulsion of benefits claimants with mental health difficulties.

We have hired the Scott Room at Oxford House for the day, and will be putting on a free showing of I, Daniel Blake to help us tune in to the connections between psychological distress and austerity politics – poverty, homelessness, the housing crisis, benefit cuts and the dismantling of the welfare state, low wages and zero-hour contracts, ever-increasing inequalities of wealth, income and resources, cuts and privatisation in all public services.

The rough programme for the day is:

10.00 am arrive – coffee and tea
10.30 am introductions – who we are and what we are interested in.
11.15 am showing of Ken Loach’s I, Daniel Blake and discussion
1.15 – 2.00 pm lunch together – bring food to share
2.00 – 3.30 pm how can we support each other in our campaigns and our lives?

The event is free. We will be asking people on the day to donate what they can towards the costs.

Asks re- Mental Health from Labour Party

Action, All Posts, Disability Activism, Disability Rights, Events, Mental Health, MHRN, News, Politics 6 Responses »

Sep 262016

As well as general demands for improved rights of disabled people DPAC, Mental Health Resistance Network and Recovery in the bin have drawn up a set of specific demands for Mental Health.

After decades of oppression we believe that disabled people must be afforded self determination from the grass roots level. “Nothing About Us Without Us” must become a reality.

No Longer will we tolerate large disability charities which see us as nothing more than marketable commodities from which to make profits for their own benefit speaking for us and deciding our futures. We expect a Labour Party which claims to support disabled people’s rights to ensure that it is our voices that are listened to and not the empty voices of our oppressors. Without this guarantee DPAC cannot approve of the disability policies of any political party.

DPAC priorities for setting Mental Health Disability Policies.

We deplore the appropriation of the Recovery Model by statutory services and government departments in order to justify the withdrawal of services and benefits from people who need them.

Compulsory MH Training for Professionals in Various Fields

Mental health training should be compulsory for all health care professionals, including doctors and nurses, and suicide awareness training should be given to all health care professionals. Such training should be kept up to date.
All Police Forces should have full mental health awareness training, stop using section 136, and acknowledge that custody suites and lock-ups in police cells are not safe places.
Mental health awareness training and crisis awareness training should be available for all teaching staff in primary and secondary schools, and further education institutions.
A person suffering from mental distress should be treated with respect, courtesy, dignity, and consideration at all times as should and their families and friends.

Treatment Changes

We demand the abolition of forced treatment and Compulsory Treatment Orders (CTOs).

All treatment should be with the full agreement of the person being treated and with their full understanding of the side effects of treatment, both pharmaceutical and psychological.

7.We demand the right to refuse treatment as it is ratified under the United Nations Convention Rights People with Disabilities (UNCRPD)

8.We want recognition of the link between abuse and trauma, and mental distress. The British Psychological Society has already made this link.

9.We demand the recognition that child abuse prevention is also mental distress prevention.

We want the abolition of the medical model of mental distress to be replaced with an acceptance that mental distress is part of the human condition and is a normal response to adverse events and circumstances. Appropriate care and support should be the right for all people suffering from mental distress.
Long term psychological treatments should be provided freely to all who need them and talking therapies should not be restricted to short term interventions. We recognise that not everyone wants talking treatments and this should be respected.
The person experiencing mental distress should decide their care and always have their wishes respected.
There should be a recognition that the use of alcohol and drugs are a form of self medication for many in mental distress. Drugs should therefore be decriminalised.

14.Access to detox and drug rehab programmes should be available to everyone.

15.We demand recognition that many social values that are common place, such as competition being intrinsic to human relationships, are erroneous and cause harm to people’s mental health.

Bereavement counselling should be made available for all children who lose a parent or supporting person.

Financial Needs – Individual and Other Support

We demand recognition that the WCA and PIP assessment processes are detrimental to people’s mental health and should be scrapped. The money saved by not paying Private Companies to carry out these assessments should be re-invested into better services.
We demand guaranteed financial security and appropriate housing for everyone experiencing mental distress.
No aspect of the social security system should cause distress or deterioration in a claimant’s mental health condition.
Funding should be provided for Crisis Care to be made available for help and support 24 hours a day, 365 days of the year.
Funding should be made available for the setting up of Crisis Houses as safe spaces. Access to these should be every person’s right and should include ‘sitters’ who will be there to support people throughout these times.
We want hospital beds to be replaced with beds in settings similar to domestic environments.
More provision of services for children and young adults. 1 in 10 children are being denied mental health service support which is having a huge impact on the family and schools.
Concessionary travel passes should be made available to all people living with mental distress to enable independence in the community and to attend appointments with health care professionals, thus aiding mental wellbeing.
We want special support centres for young men who are suicidal and a paradigm shift away from the “norms” which are set as ideals of masculinity and may contribute to the high rate of suicide in young men.

26.Funding should be made available for research into mental health care that is based on a Social Model of mental distress; such funding should at least equal the current amount of money available for pharmaceutical research.

27.We demand the provision of special support for people with mental distress to ensure their children remain with them as a family.

We demand a holistic approach to care – where a person has both a physical and a mental health problem, such impairments should be treated equally with respect and with dignity and with full understanding that a physical impairment can impact on a mental health impairment and vice versa.
We want specialist support to be made available for ALL armed forces veterans who experience mental distress and for housing to be made available to them.
We deplore the underfunding of mental health services in the NHS and the current practice of discharging people with mental health problems from secondary care into primary care where their needs cannot be met. These services should be properly funded.

Other

Any crime against someone with a mental health condition should be treated as a hate crime.
We want an ongoing campaign to end all bullying in schools and work places and within families and general society where such bullying is linked to mental distress.
Action should be taken to end the ongoing discrimination against LGBT people as such discrimination can lead to mental distress.

Further Investigations Needed

We demand a full investigation into the effects of long term use of psychiatric medications and demand that mental health professionals treat reports of side effects of medication seriously.
We want a full investigation into the appropriateness of the continuous use of medication as the main form of treatment for people in mental distress.

We demand a full public inquiry into the impact on people in mental distress of being detained in Prison Environments.
We want a full investigation into why so many people from BME communities are being diagnosed with a mental health condition.
We want an investigation into the harmful effects of E.C.T.
We demand an inquiry into the success or otherwise of the use of personal budgets for day care provision for people living with mental health problems.
We demand a full public inquiry into the significantly shortened life expectancy of people with mental health conditions and a full report produced with recommendations which should be implemented.

Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC)

www.dpac.uk.net

mail@dpac.uk.net

@dis_ppl_protest

Stop Forced Treatments 26th June 1.30 Streatham

Action, All Posts, Mental Health, MHRN 2 Responses »

Jun 102015

Campaign against introduction of psychological therapies into Job Centres

MARCH ON STREATHAM JOB CENTRE – FRIDAY 26^TH JUNE, 1.30 pm

MEETING POINT: STREATHAM MEMORIAL GARDENS, STREATHAM HIGH ROAD/ STREATHAM COMMON NORTH, LONDON SW16

STREATHAM JOB CENTRE PLUS: CROWN HOUSE, STATION APPROACH, LONDON SW16 6HW

* A pilot project to bring CBT (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy) into Job Centres starts at Streatham Job Centre Plus in June 2015.

* In the same month, Lambeth “Living Well Hub” for Community Mental Health Services is due to open in the same building.

*Mental Health Resistance Network is unhappy with these developments which are part of the government’s brutal “back to work” agenda.

*Mental Health Resistance Network has called a demonstration which will march on Streatham Job Centre on Friday 26^th June.

*Mental Health Resistance Network is circulating an open letter to relevant individuals, charities and professional organisations stating our position and asking them to join us in our condemnation for these developments.

The text of the open letter is as follows:

Mental Health Resistance Network is organising a demonstration to take place at Streatham Job Centre Plus on Friday 26th June 2015, protesting against the opening there of Lambeth’s principal community mental health centre (“Living Well Network Hub”) the following Monday.

Streatham Job Centre also, from June 2015, hosts the first pilot of the DWP’s scheme to provide psychological therapies – specifically Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) – at Job Centres for people suspected of having mental health problems. This is the first of ten pilot schemes in advance of a national project planned to begin in January 2016.

We are calling on you/ your organisation to state your position on these issues, and we hope join us in our condemnation of these developments.

As mental health service users, we are extremely unhappy with these developments. We deplore the government’s brutal “back to work” agenda, which is a front for cutting disabled welfare benefits for the most vulnerable. Mental health service users are understandably terrified of Job Centres and the threat of losing their benefits through Sanctions, or degrading and unfit-for-purpose Work Capability Assessments. With the main point of access to Community Mental Health services in Lambeth on the 3^rd floor of a Job Centre, many of us will feel too frightened to ask for the help and services we need, and lose contact with services altogether.

Mental health service users are already reporting higher levels of fear, anxiety and anguish as a result of the increasingly difficult welfare benefits system, which is linked to an increasing rate of suicides. This situation will be exacerbated by the new developments.

We should not be put under pressure to look for work unless we feel capable. The competitive, profit-driven and exploitative nature of the modern workplace is not suitable for people whose mental health is fragile. But the location of the Network Hub at Streatham Job Centre put us under such pressure if we try to use mental health services.

Experts agree that CBT does not work for everyone; that psychological therapies are ineffective if they are forced on people; and that they need to take place in safe, unthreatening environments. We do not think making people have CBT at Job Centres will make anyone magically “fit for work.” We are concerned that people will be Sanctioned (i.e. have their benefits stopped) if they do not co-operate with this “therapy” either out of principle or because they are not well enough. “BACK TO WORK THERAPY” IS NO THERAPY AT ALL!

Additionally, we are concerned that this amounts to an extension of the coercive powers of the 1983 Mental Health Act amended 2007. Whereas at present people can only be forced into “treatment” under in-patient Sections of this Act or by Community Treatment Orders, making welfare benefits and by extension housing conditional on agreeing to psychological treatment broadens the principle of compulsion.

We condemn the involvement of IAPTS in this attempt to make people undergo “therapy” at Job Centres, which we believe goes against professional ethics. We are also unhappy that psychiatrists, occupational therapists, nurses, social workers and other mental health professionals are also expected to work at Streatham Job Centre, again compromising their professional ethics, and we call on individual staff and collective agencies representing them to publicly oppose this development.

For more information contact:

mentalhealthresistancenetwork@gmail.com

Middle Class Solutions To Working Class Problems: Why Charities Like MIND Keep Getting It Wrong

All Posts, charities, Mental Health 3 Responses »

Feb 132015

Reblogged from JohnnyVoid, with thanks

Iain Duncan Smith must be pissing himself. A report released at the end of last year by mental health charity MIND could not have gone further in endorsing the core ideas that lie behind his bungled and brutal welfare reforms.

The report is titled “We’ve Got Work To Do” and claims to demand ‘fundamental reform’ of the workplace and social security system to better support people with a mental health condition. Sadly it is calling for nothing of the sort and is underpinned by the exact same lies and toxic assumptions that have driven both Tory and Labour welfare reforms.

Just like the DWP, MIND have adopted the flawed medical consensus that work is good for your health. The charity does acknowledge that this isn’t actually always true, but falls short of saying that work can be bad for your health, instead arguing that “inappropriate or poor quality work can have as negative an effect on people’s mental health as not being in work”. They base this opinion on research carried out in Australia that found that “the mental health of those who were unemployed was comparable or more often superior to those in jobs of the poorest psychosocial quality.” In other words work can be worse for your mental health than being unemployed, rather than just equally bad as MIND claim.

It is not nit-picking to point out the discrepency between what this research found and what MIND say it found because it reveals the charity’s opinions to be based on ideology, not facts. This same factual slippage occurs elsewhere in the report when MIND begin by saying that most people with mental health conditions want to work, which later becomes everyone with a mental health condition wants to work. The truth, as revealed in the footnotes to the report, are that only around 58% of people out of work due to a mental health condition strongly agreed they wanted to return to work whilst 20% did not feel they were well enough.

These two distortions – or let’s call them lies – have allowed the despised Work Capability Assessment, benefit sanctions and workfare all to be misrepresented as ‘support’ or ‘help’. In truth these measures destroy lives. The medical consensus that work is good for you does often not apply to those on the lower end of the income scale who face being forced by Jobcentres into the kind of work likely to make them ill.

MIND’s Chief Executive Paul Farmer claims at the beginning of the report that there have been “improvements in how people with mental health problems are supported”, although it is unclear what they are. There then follows an emotive journey about someone’s journey through the benefit system after leaving work due to depression. This is actually where their journey would stop, because unless they could provide reems of medical evidence to the Jobcentre they would be disallowed benefits for giving up work. That this reports begins by misrepresenting the benefit system as it currently functions just shows how removed these giant disability benefits charities have become from the lives of those they claim to support.

Instead the ‘fundamental reform’ they call for is actually more of the same or worse – such as the dangerous idea that sensitive health information from the Work Capability Assessment should be passed over to Work Programme providers like A4e and G4S. This is like your boss having access to your medical history and appallingly MIND relaxed about this as well.

Much of the early part of the report is taken up by calling for improvements in the working environment for people suffering mental ill-health. Which is fine, everyone wants that, except greedy employers who worry it might cost them money or who harbour nasty little prejudices about mental health. According to MIND themselves this is about 40% of them. Yet one of MIND’s recommendations is that the Maximus run ‘Fit To Work’ service – the new telephone helpline which will be used to certify time off instead of GPs – should more effectively engage with employers. About the only decent thing about Fit To Work, which is designed to bully people back into the workplace before they are better, is that currently you have the right to keep your boss out of any discussions.

The final part of the report discusses what future welfare-to-work schemes should look like for those with a mental health condition. The charity are calling for “new specialist scheme for people with mental health problems on
ESA”. A scheme which should be run by those who “have expertise and experience of working with people with mental health problems”. And here lies the real reason for this report. It’s a fucking advert to any incoming Labour Government to give MIND a lucrative contract to run a new welfare-to-work service.

There is no longer any doubt that endless Atos assessments, workfare and benefit sanctions are creating a crisis in the lives of those with a mental health condition. The tragic death toll rises ever higher. Yet nowhere in this report does MIND call for these brutal policies to be scrapped. Even if MIND were handed a contract to be nicer to people on ESA this would still leave those who have been found fit for work abandoned and dumped onto mainstream unemployment benefits alongside those whose condition is at yet undiagnosed. On twitter yesterday MIND claimed they couldn’t call for sanctions to be scrapped for people who are unemployed because it wasn’t a key issue. If your mental health condition isn’t bad enough to be able to claim ESA then tough shit seems to be the charity’s response if you get sanctioned.

The thing is, naked profiteering aside, MIND are not bastards. They have dedicated front line workers who don’t get paid anywhere near enough and are sincere committed people. Workers who would probably agree that benefit sanctions and the Work Capability Assessment should be scrapped immediately. They see the carnage that is being caused everyday.

The problem is that reports like these are overseen and commissioned by highly paid charity executives who live lifestyles that their service users and lowest paid staff can only dream of. These lifestyles lead them to make assumptions based on their own distorted experience of the world. Over time they become unable to avoid inflicting solutions to the problems faced by working class people based on their own middle class values because that is all they know.

It is near impossible for someone on a huge salary who does a job they love to understand why someone may not feel up to working at present. That, to someone like MIND Chief Executive Paul Farmer, really does seem like madness. Likewise charity bosses have no real understanding of why it might be dangerous to allow other bosses to snoop around your health records. Bosses think bosses are lovely people who would never abuse their powers – or at least not without a damn good reason. And bosses know best, they tell each other that all the time.

Charity bosses in particular have their own view of themselves as benevolent experts confirmed everyday by politicians and journalists who would far rather talk to them than someone on the dole. Their whopping salaries provide further proof of their own ability. As do arse-licking middle managers who continually tell them how wonderful and clever they are, to their faces at least. So Paul Farmer must be is right because he’s Paul Farmer and MIND are right because they are MIND and anyone criticising them just doesn’t understand. Because they are not experts.

That’s how MIND alongside other disability and anti-poverty charities can so easily dismiss the demands of grassroots campaigns comprising of disabled people and benefit claimants. Groups which are more or less united in calling for benefit sanctions and the WCA to be scrapped completely. These people are not experts. At worst they might even be service users. And you don’t want them getting too uppity. Before you know where you are you’ll have working class people running organisations together to address working class problems. Then there’d be nothing at all for poor Paul Farmer to do. He might even have to get a real job.

Jan 032015

Different forms of Government Propaganda began and ended the year. We saw delays, backlogs, more cuts, more campaigns and direct actions. We reproduce some of the DPAC actions, research and call outs from 2014. Highlights included the Westminster Abbey Occupation against the closure of ILF as part of the #saveilf campaign, lowlights included the court case that arrived at the decision that Penning had taken appropriate process into account by saying that ILF users could be entitled to less under local authorities. Chaos with the DWP, PIP, ESA was compounded by misinformation, dodgy stats , backlogs and increasing sanctions. The brilliant Hammersmith and Fulham Coalition against Cuts achieved the abolition of ‘care’ charges by their local authority-proving it can be done. Esther McVey was awarded Scrooge of the year. DPAC was threatened with legal action for our support of the Anthony Kletzander campaign -in response we increased the campaign, and the relationship in the propaganda against disabled people between the DWP and the Mail was finally exposed

News that the UNCRPD Committee had initiated its first ever inquiry into grave and systematic violations of the UN Convention against the UK identified how far our disability rights and independent living had been eroded by the Coalition-although the Mail didnt seem to like it much

Our constant court cases against the DWP continued, and we have more lined up for this year too- yes, we could be talking to you Motability!

We look forward to 2015 and a change in the regime that has seen the poor grow poorer, while the richest grew richer. A year in which we launch Who2vote4? and the DPAC revenge tour. We will continue to fight for #saveilf with an event on 6^th Jan at the House of Commons and an online twitter event.

For an excellent review of the fight against cuts from 2010-2014 please download From Cuts to Resistance and if you want a count down to the election , then the DPAC downloadable calender can help

Here’s to a better year in 2015 with thanks to all our members and supporters. Keep up with news in 2015 by subscribing to posts through our website www.dpac.uk.net or follow us on twitter @Dis_ppl_protest

Some selected actions of DPAC in 2014

January saw the posting of a call for those who were waiting for PIP due to backlogs. This post has received over 40,000 views,shares and many comments. The situation has now been described as a backlog that , at the current rate , could take 42 years to clear. For those claiming ‘reforms’ are working have a look to see that they are not: https://dpac.uk.net/2014/01/have-you-waited-months-for-a-pip-assessment/ and let’s not forget the backlog in ESA either-in short complete chaos for disabled people.

In ‘Austerity Street: the real impacts’ we reproduced some of the stories we had received from those left without cash and homes via sanctions, delays and backlogs. This was in response to Love Production’s poverty porn , Benefits Street, part of the media’s continued demonization regime -the campaign incorporated a twitter fest against the format of biased programming. We supported our partners in Canada Sudbury Coalition Against Poverty (SCAP) and Ontario Coalition Aginst Poverty (OCAP). In an international campaign against increasing homelessness. Austerity is global. We supported Boycott workfare against CAPITA cashing in on poverty.

Through the excellent work of Nick Dilworth we exposed more BBC media double dealing and the fact that they weren’t publicizing the 88% success rates of those claiming ESA and asked ‘Are the DWP failing apart at every level? When a freedom of information response incorrectly claimed that PIP was subjected to sanctions. In another they claimed that the cap would be cut for those without children, both were incorrect. With Inclusion London we campaigned against the Care Act’s exclusion of ‘independent living’ and DPAC also joined Hands off London Transport against ticket office closures, as well as regional Rail protests

February We joined the many direct actions against the removal of legal aid. Raquel Rolnik ‘s report on the bedroom tax is published and recommends immediate suspension of the bedroom tax. The Government’s response is to accuse her of giving sacrifices to Marx and telling her to ‘sort out her own country’. We republish the excellent ‘Why the rise of UKIP is dangerous for disabled people’ and receive the usual abuse from Kippers proving the point. DPAC, Black Triangle and Wow publish a joint statement on Atos exit strategy , calling again for an end to the WCA. We expose how 9 out of 10 sanctions are dismissed when challenged

March More direct actions against proposed cuts in legal aid for judicial review.We publish ‘Punching Holes in Austerity’ an insightful analysis of DPAC and direct actions. DPAC supports #stopchanges2A2W against punitive changes in Access to Work. We publish an update on Anthony Kletzander and questions for HSE in Ireland with ENIL , a story of human rights abuse in Dublin, Ireland, a stand that we would later find invoked a threat of legal action against one of our co-founders.

DPAC joins protests against DWP and ATOS country wide. Protests that were reminiscent of the very first DPAC protests against Atos carried out by DPAC from 2011 onwards, culminating in the 2012 DPAC Atos games that saw Atos tarnished forever. DPAC leads direct actions and online protests against the despised disability Con-fident, leading to the highest number of tweets and retweets ever, exposing the scheme as no more than a Government gloss while they were cutting access to work and removing the means for disabled people to work. We produce a critical analysis of Pennings impact assessment regarding ILF. We reproduce the piece by John Pring asking ‘Where was your MP during the Wow Debate’

April The brilliant Ellen Clifford travels to Canada to embark on a successful speaking tour with raise the rates. We hold a well attended DPAC Grassroots Fightback conference. DPAC, Inclusion London, Equal Lives and the Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People promote the #saveilf postcard campaign. Top Corrie stars support the postcard campaign to #saveilf. DPAC supports Lifeworks and protests against cuts to mental health support. DPAC gives its response to Labour on reform of WCA

May DPAC releases its research documents for download. DPAC and ILF users block the DWP in protest. We learn that disabled students allowances are now under threat of cuts. DPAC publishes a powerful piece by one of our readers that sums up many peoples’ feelings: ‘I’ll never forgive or forget what this Government has done to me and thousands of others‘. We pay homage to the strength of Quiet Riot, celebrate the #dpactour and the success of the Freedom Riders.

June The Independent Living Fund’s Birthday protest happens in June with lots of action outside the DWP. We see JSA benefit sanctions sky rocket under the coalition Government. More actions happen to fight the bedroom tax.

We publish a piece by Angela 28 on how ‘care’ support has been threatened and why that threatens independent living and rights– legal representation was found for many people, but we were aware that this was happening to many more people through emails to dpac mail. Unlike some organisations we attempt to challenge these instances and reject the rhetoric that there is more ‘choice and control’ for disabled people.

At the end of June DPAC with UKUNCUT, and Occupy carry out a daring occupation of Westminster Abbey , after months of planning to highlight the #saveilf campaign. There were 3 police to every protester , and while we had no support from the dear old church , messages of support and publicity poured in

July We publish a joint statement in response to the Work and Pensions Committee on the WCA from DPAC, Black Triangle, the Mental Health Resistance Network, Pats petition, Wow and New Approach in which we again say the WCA should be scrapped.

An ILF user makes a plea to Disability Rights UK (DRUK) on ILF after he was denied the right to speak at their independent living conference. DRUK did not feel the need to offer any response. In Disability Rights UK : independent Living or new visions in Neo-Liberalism we ask why the DRUK ‘independent living ‘ conference was sponsored by an organisation running institutions, segregated schooling and ‘hospitals for those with mental health issues. We also launched a highly successful twitter campaign asking the same questions, again DRUK did not feel they owed disabled people any response to this outrage.

DPAC highlights more chaos at the DWP on appeals and sanctions. John McDonnell launches an Early Day Motion to #saveilf. Positive updates and actions on the WCA court case regarding mental health claimants by the Mental Health Resistance Network. We ask that people write to IDS to raise issues happening regarding mental health.

August Rethink calls people with mental health issues a ‘disease burden’ Mental Health Resistance Network respond to the outrage. We call for a stop to discrimination for those transferring from DLA to PIP who do not get backdated payments. DPAC continues to support anti-fracking protests with Reclaim the power.

We republish the excellent Nick Dilworth’s piece on how the media are ignoring what’s happening to disabled people https://dpac.uk.net/2014/08/a-national-scandal-4-million-people-face-chaos-in-this-country-and-are-ignored-by-the-media/

ILF user John Kelly speaks to BBC on the impacts of the potential loss of ILF. We ask what happens when ILF funds are not ring fenced to local authorities

September sees a national day of Protest against sanctions, bedroom tax and benefit caps.

The fantastic Brian Hilton produces a set of pics for party conference season on #saveilf. DPAC crash the Tory Party Conference via a successful tweet attack and in person. We do the same to Labour.

We publish The Great Farago: UKIP sleight of hand and receive more abuse from Kippers, Richard Howitt Labour MEP quotes the piece and receives even more abuse.

New short film launched with the Daily Mirror on ILF.

The first inkling that the DWP are wrongly asking those in the ESA support group to attend work focused interviews comes to our notice.

DPAC is threatened with legal action for supporting Anthony Kletzander and publicising the abuse of his human rights in Ireland, our response is to publish an interview with Anthony’s parents on the injustice Anthony and his family have endured.

October We reblog the excellent Johnny Void piece on the boss of Maximus https://dpac.uk.net/2014/10/meet-richard-a-montoni-the-five-million-dollar-maximus-boss-here-to-fleece-the-uks-benefits-system/.

We publish an open letter to Freud who declared that disabled people can work for less than minimum wage. DPAC and Occupy pay another visit to the DWP Caxton House building for ‘Freud must go!’ protest

In Secrets and Lies :maximus the new leader of the inhumans we ask why Disability Rights UK have agreed to a) be part of the Maximus testing process on the WCA and b) why they’ve teamed up with Unum and other insurance companies to develop a TV program showing how much better off disabled people will be if they take out private insurance- with user-led disability organisations like these we dont need enemies.

ILF users return to court to challenge the DWP on ILF. A successful #saveilf vigil happens with road blocks, many messages of support and some great pics.

Welfare assistance fund is next under threat of closure. Campaign to save it is launched.

November The Final Litchfield Review shows that the WCA should be scrapped.

One of our favourite reports of the year : IDS is chased around a building to drown out shouts of murderer at Ipswich- congratulations to the local dpac group for that one!

We ask people to come forward to launch a legal challenge on cuts to the disabled student allowance

£86 million goes missing from Pudsley’s children in need account BBC to blame for mislaying -complainants are actually advised to write to Pudsley via his BBC email

DWP increase attacks on disabled benefit recipients with claims they can harress them off benefits. We put out an urgent call-out https://dpac.uk.net/2014/11/urgent-people-awaiting-wca-assessments-particularly-in-birmingham-please-read/

Work Providers A4E are exposed again in relation to ESA and workfare. The Rev Paul Nicolson wins in court against council tax. Class War’s continuing protests against ‘poor doors’ get to the authorities who make arrests- and Boris is burnt. Meanwhile DPAC discovers Motability’s sneaky backdoor changes to individuals needing to be in work to qualify for support https://dpac.uk.net/2014/11/motability-and-the-deserving-and-undeserving-charity-not-rights/

December ILF users lose court case on ILF but its not over.

DPAC launches an Open letter to Ed, Kate and Rachel on ILF– we’re still waiting for a response

Hammersmith and Fulham abolish home ‘care’ charges, showing it can be done. Congratulations for a great campaign to the excellent Kevin Caulfield and Debbie Domb and all at Hammersmith and Fulham Coalition against Cuts

Esther McVey is named scrooge of the year, which we though was a little too kind to the creature

Unsurprisingly the Work and Pensions report slammed the Government ‘mismanagament of Access to Work – the stop the changes to Access to Work campaign continues.

Questions are asked on the Government costs in fighting against disabled peoples’equality

The link between the DWP and the Mail propaganda is finally nailed and exposed as the DWP is caught out https://dpac.uk.net/2014/12/dwp-caught-giving-disability-propaganda-to-daily-mail/

#saveilf Open Letter to Ed Miliband, Rachel Reeves and Kate Green

Action, All Posts, council cuts, Disability Rights, Independent Living, Independent Living Fund ILF, legal challenges, local authority cuts, Mental Health, Social Model, UNCRPD, welfare cuts, Who2Vote4? 5 Responses »

Dec 102014

Please Help Us. Save Our Independent Living Fund

We, disabled people, family, friends, supporters and allies, are asking for your help. We are asking you to pledge to keep the Independent Living Fund open to existing applicants, pending a review of Independent Living for all disabled people.

As you may know, on the 8th of December at the High Court, a ruling was given against our challenge to the closure of the ILF [1], and we were not given leave to appeal.

The closure of the ILF effectively signals the end of the right to independent living for disabled people in the UK. Whilst never perfect the ILF represents a model of support that has enabled thousands of disabled people to enjoy meaningfully lives and to contribute to society as equal citizens.

Since the closure of the Fund to new applicants in December 2010 we have seen disabled people left with their most basic needs unmet and unable to seek employment, to volunteer or go into education or simply even to leave the house.

But we have vowed to fight on against the ILF closure, disabled people will not be pushed back into the margins of society, we will not go back into the institutions, our place is in the community alongside our family and friends and neighbours and we are fighting to stay.

We ask you to imagine what it will be like, for people who have been enabled to live a full life, be with friends and family, go out, work, study and enjoy recreation, to have all that taken away, and find themselves trapped inside, all day, every day, with choices over what they do, when and how, removed.

To severely disabled people the Independent Living Fund represents the difference between having an existence, and having a life.

Please Ed, keep our Independent Living Fund open. Keep Our Lives Open. It means the world to us.

References

[1] https://dpac.uk.net/2014/12/disabled-people-vow-to-continue-the-fight-to-save-

to sign as an organisation or individual please go to

https://docs.google.com/document/d/11ZpbvcgSdYeOciEj9NZtnHFaI-3gGzMvRKLX4RblGTs/edit

or email: mail@dpac.uk.net

deadline for all signatures is 12pm Tues 16th Jan

Background: The Government won a case in the Royal Courts of Justice on Monday 8th December, which made their decision to close the ILF – Independent Living Fund – lawful; and this closure will now go ahead on 30th June next year.

Unless, of course the families, friends, supporters and others stand in solidarity with ILF Users campaign to Save the ILF, and together apply the sort of political power which changes minds and policy. You can do that today by signing the Open Letter to Ed Miliband (full text below), asking him, that should he become Prime Minister in May’s General Election, to keep the Fund open while ordering an independent review into the benefits of a model such as the ILF.

We know that many disabled people will lose some or all of their support, isolating people in their homes – at best. For many more, being institutionalised in residential homes is once again a grim reality. To save on average just over £300 per person. Don’t let this happen. Stand in support with ILF Users in this action, and the many more on-going & to come

World Mental Health Day – Lets talk mental health. #WorldMentalHealthDay #WMHD2014 #StopStigma

Mental Health 1 Response »

Oct 092014

Lets talk mental health, raise awareness, challenge stigma and discrimination.

World Mental Health Day is on Friday 10th October 2014.

You can follow World Mental Health Day on twitter

#WorldMentalHealthDay #WMHD2014 #StopStigma

One in four people will suffer from a mental health condition at some point in their lives.

Depression, anxiety, panic attacks are some of the most common mental health conditions a GP will see.

One in 10 children will develop a mental health condition in some point in their childhood.

9 out of 10 people with mental distress has suffered discrimination from family, friends, and other groups of society.

Depression affects 1 in 5 older people living in the community, 2 in 5 older people living in residential care.

1 in 20 women are in secure care purely because of self-harm i.e. no danger to others/index offence.

Higher rates of self-harm generally are clearly linked to loss of support and attacks on social justice on all fronts.

Suicide rates show that men are three times as likely to die by suicide than women. (suicide statistics report 2014)

Depression is a serious illness, people suffering cannot snap out of it cheer up, or see the brightness of the sun, but dreadful disabling darkness which is a constant struggle.

Only 10 per cent of doctors have any mental health training, mental health training is not compulsory and doctors can opt out of this training

64 per cent of claimants in the work related activity group of E.S.A who have been sanctioned to date have a mental health condition.

70% of working age adults with a mental health condition in England are unemployed.

Only 8.9% of adults in contact with secondary mental health services are in paid employment

The WCA Judicial review court case for mental health claimants was ruled discriminatory and placed claimants at a substantial disadvantage as it did not take into account a claimants suicide risk and use regulations 29/35 or that a claimants mental health condition can fluctuate, or that a claimant may lack the insight into their condition and cannot accurately report how their impairment impacts on their daily lives or how it impacts on their capacity to work.

Many claimants have died due to the stress, fear and uncertainty with the work capability assessment. We don’t know how many, the government refuses to release these figures.

Many have died due to the welfare reforms due to cuts in benefits, being sanctioned and left in destitution and dire poverty. Again, the government refuses to release figures of how many people have died, or made homeless.

Those are the numbers. Hard, stark figures. But they only give a clue as to what might be really happening in the real world that people live in.

That’s where we need you to help out, we want to compile a report of the real world experiences of people with Mental Health conditions.

If you have a mental health condition and you wish to share your testimony with us, please either email us at mail@dpac.uk.net or if you wish to submit your testimony as a comment at the end of this page.

Your testimony might be about:

Your experience of living with a mental health condition
Your experiences of local mental health service provision
Your experience with housing provision and access to local services
Your experience of the Work Capability Assessment as a claimant with a mental heath condition

Or there may be something else that you wish to tell us.

You might be a mental health service user, a friend or family member of someone who as a mental health condition, a mental health campaigner or a mental health professional. As long as its related to mental health we are interested in your experiences and views.

We will compile the testimonies into a document for publication, each testimonies will be anonymised so that your personal details are removed and we may edit down some of the testimonies but other than that we will not change the text.

We will not disclose your personal details to anyone without first getting your permission to do so, with the only exception to this being that if you send us text that leads us to believe you are at risk of harming yourself or others, we reserve the right to contact emergency services.

Some testimonies that we’ve already received:

Bus Passes for people with mental health conditions:

“I live in Bromley, and the freedom pass bus form has changed since two years ago, two years ago the cmht stamped the form and cpn signed it, you needed a supporting letter.

Now you need to describe how your illness affects you day to day, get a supporting letter from the mental health team to explain illness and how it affects ability to drive, list medication, put in a proof of id with a picture on it driving licence passport and many people do not have either.

You need a letter from the last 12 months from the DVLA saying that you cannot drive due to condition and reasons why and that is automatic qualification you do not need to fill the rest of the form out.

The form from Bromley is 6 pages long, you have a month to fill it out and may be assessed by and OT in a face to face assessment. Two years ago the bus pass forms were sent out in November/early December, they have moved that forwards to middle of September. My friend who has schizophrenia dropped her form back yesterday with letter from psychiatrist, her care co ordinator said a care plan was enough and refused to write a letter for her, how many will be in this position?

The form has tightened up from two years ago, if on pip dla high mobility automatic entitlement to pass, my friend did ask the civic centre how long would it take to process her application and they said it could take as much as five months!

Bromley has the highest application of freedom passes for older people in the borough, they are about to make a further £60m cuts here after £65m of cuts done to date”

Personality Disordered

“So much of benefits descriptors are not MH specific enough or are squeezed into LD i.e setting an alarm clock & people have to make MH ‘fit’ into physical problems.

A major issue is obtaining letters/reports when discharged given MH services are now very short term, you present and if ‘serious’ enough get diagnosed/medicated/CBT’d for a while then off you go till the next crisis. 70% of MH SU’s are unemployed through multiple disadvantages which means after discharge it’s quite likely to remain on benefits long term. Yet MH services make no provision for continuing letters/reports to be made available.

A really nasty underhand card being played out within MH services by commissioners/front line staff is to reclassify people as ‘personality disordered’ because that justifies discharge and not offering support because PD is viewed as pretty much untreatable (despite DH rhetoric). People have found themselves reclassified overnight to this diagnosis and this magically coincides with being discharged. The line of preventing “dependency” is also used to justify mass CMHT discharges instead of being honest and saying it’s down to cuts.”

Living with someone who has severe depression:

“I cannot pretend representing here all the partners, families of people who suffer from mental illness. My experience is with severe depression. What I still find the most difficult, is to comprehend what depression is. I can understand what a toothache feels like, or a headache, but the insufferable pain I witnessed for the past 6 years is as incomprehensible to me as it was on the first day. I can see the pain, the drawn features, the hand holding the face, all signs that the demons are torturing him, but I cannot get close enough to know what it feels like. And something in me does not what to get too close, in case too much empathy would also make me vulnerable to depression. I need to stay strong for both of us. And for my children too, it brought fears of their own vulnerability

I also became during these six years the repository of all the memories we shared together and that he had forgotten. And it was a lonely place to be.

Fortunately, he is getting better, and we can share again the memories of a bygone time. I can see a point where we will start looking at this period as a new beginning. We have not reached the end of the road yet, and there will be more bumps on the way but suddenly there is the prospect of a new future, even if it is with depression as a fellow traveller. “

My wilderness years:

“This is very difficult for me to write the memories are still very raw and painful, this is the first time I’ve told anyone what it was like, and I’m doing it so that it might help others.

I had had a severe breakdown in 2000, and I spent the next several years hiding from the world, I gave up work, let everything go and just basically slept all day. I’d lost all sense of caring about anything. With no income coming in the mortgage and loans stopped being paid, credit cards got maxed out, I stopped opening letters and answering the phone and I eventually had my house repossessed and got evicted.

I was lucky in one sense, my mother took me in and so I wasn’t’ out on the street, and my family were very supportive and understanding. I realise that that doesn’t happen to everyone and I still believe that if it wasn’t there for me I would have been sleeping on the streets.

You know the oddest thing about it all was that I still didn’t think that I had mental illness! I didn’t associate it with myself, I just thought that I was tired and if I rested a bit longer I would get my energy back and get myself back on my feet.

One thing you need to understand if you haven’t had clinical depression, is that there is no sense of time passing, you can live in a sort of limbo where minutes become hours become days become weeks become months become years, and you don’t really have any sense of that. You don’t really have any sense of anything, taste, sound smell, feeling, are all deadened senses. The world is in black and white, in a kind of fog.

So I moved in with my mother, and said to her I was tired and I needed to rest and then I would get back to normal. She was fantastic, she was patient, she was loving, she was there for me.

She gently said that I ought to go and see a doctor and I said no I’m alright, I’m tired I just need to rest a little longer, I’m not ill.

She would say the same thing to me every so often and I would give the same reply, I don’t know how many times this conversation was repeated.

Then I explained later to her that I was scared of going to see the doctor because he would tell me not to be lazy and tell me off.

So I carried on like that, after my house had been sold and the loans and credit cards payed off, there was some money left, and I lived off that as long as I could. People suggested that I should go onto benefits but I was too scared to do that, the thought of going to see people at the jobcentre who would tell me I had to get a job and and shout at me that I was being lazy.

This carried on for, I don’t know how long to be truthful, its back to having no sense of time passing, and I have little memory of those years at all.

But eventually the money run out. I had just enough self respect left to realise that I couldn’t bring myself to live off my retired mother. And having no other option, I applied for benefits and went to see my GP. I can’t remember what year this was, but I have clear flashbacks of moments from those times.

I remember phoning up to apply for benefits, I thought I should apply for JSA, but the lady on the phone asked about my situation and said I would be better off applying for ESA. I said, I’m not really ill, I’m just tired, I’m going to see a doctor I’m going to be better soon. But the lady on the phone said, well why don’t you apply for ESA and then when you are better you can move onto jobseekers. I thought she was very kind and asked her to send me the forms.

So then I made an appointment to see my GP, I was terrified. I knew, I was certain, it was going to go badly that he would tell me to stop being lazy and that he was going to shout at me even for wasting his time. But I had told my mother I would go to see him and so I did.

He didn’t shout, he didn’t tell me I was lazy. He listened. And then he asked me a series of questions – I know now they were a set of screening questions to see how severe my condition was and if I was suicidal. And then we discussed things that we could do about it, to help me.

After we had the discussion and I had a few things to try out, like he suggested trying to go out every day and we had a discussion about medication, and I was going to try out citalopram (which I still take to this day, its very good), he said come back and see me every month and we’ll see how you are getting on.

That day at the doctors was several years ago, and since that day, everything has slowly steadily and sometimes painfully, been getting a little better, and a little better. Its been a slow but sometimes wonderful recovery, I’m not ‘well’ yet, and I may never be fully recovered.

What I have done though, is learned coping mechanisms, so that my depression (and later I discovered) severe anxiety disorder, can be managed. And I’m using those coping mechanisms, that toolbox in my head, so that I can, in spite of my impairments, take part in the world around me and I’m even starting to learn to enjoy it. Sometimes.

And I have hope for a continuation of my recovery, as I get better and more practised at using my coping mechanisms I can do a little more, a little more and stretch my boundaries. Gently and with tolerance to myself I’m learning to not only live with my mental health condition but to have a life with my mental health condition.

There is much more to write, I would like to write more about my recovery but writing this far has been exhausting enough! I may return another day and write part 2 about that recovery.

But mostly I would like people who have mental distress and who are suffering alone with it, to read the message I most want to send:

You can’t deal with this alone. Please reach out for help. There is good help available and it can make a real difference to your life. It did for my life, it can for yours.”

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

Contents

Chancellor’s reported plans to impose VAT on Motability could add £3,000 to even the cheapest cars

Psychologists’ charity fails to raise concerns over job coaches in surgeries, weeks after £640K DWP contract

Peers derail government plans to hand some DWP staff powers to use force against benefit claimants

Reeves refuses to apologise for repeating false claim that social security spending is spiralling

Timms goes back on his word by refusing to provide crucial evidence of Access to Work cuts

Disabled people describe impact of ‘very unfair’ extra costs caused by DWP’s universal credit migration

Ministers’ refusal to raise limit on accessible housing grants is discriminatory, secret reports admits

Ministers finally announce progress on ‘liberty safeguards’, but also challenge vital definition

Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week

Contents

Minister admits signing off on order that led to widespread cuts to Access to Work

All the evidence from Labour conference points in one direction: More cuts to disability benefits

DWP paid nearly £90,000 to disabled claimant left homeless and at risk of harm after years of errors

Disability minister struggles to point to any significant achievements in his first year in post

Labour ignores disabled people and accessible housing crisis – again – as it announces plans for new towns

Labour uses conference to sideline disabled people… unless they are working

Labour’s attacks on rights ‘have led to massive resurgence’ in disability movement, protest hears

Minister asks DWP to consider releasing secret reports on deaths to grieving relatives

No 10 meeting sees Labour hold out olive branch to disabled activists after breakdown of trust over cuts

Activist tells conference meeting: Hostile rhetoric under Labour has left me feeling hounded and unsafe

Disability Labour priced out of conference after cash-strapped party withdraws financial support

Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week

You can follow World Mental Health Day on twitter

Some testimonies that we’ve already received: