Background

PIP is one of the two disability benefit assessments notorious for the stress, distress and trauma they cause to those who have to go through them and linked to avoidable harm, deaths and suicides since they were rolled out with the intention of realising considerable savings to the welfare budget by the Coalition government. Film-maker Ken Loach described the implementation of welfare reform measures, of which these were part, as “conscious cruelty” on the part of government while journalist John Pring’s book “The Department: how a government department killed hundreds and hid the evidence” documents the extent of the suffering knowingly inflicted by the Department for Work and Pensions through disability benefit processes.

In 2016 the UN disability committee made a finding of grave and systematic violations of disabled people’s rights due to welfare reform and austerity measures following initiation of an unprecedented special inquiry triggered by Disabled People Against Cuts. This was followed in 2017 with a general examination of disability rights in the UK by the committee and damning concluding observations accusing the UK government of causing a “human catastrophe” through cuts. A follow up to the special inquiry that took place from 2023 – 2024 found that no significant improvements had been made since 2016 and that there had been further regression in some areas, most notably welfare reform. At that time, proposals put forward in the Tories white paper threatened to cause further misery, poverty and inequality.

Starmer’s Labour government attempted to proceed with cuts to benefits for Disabled people unable to work, stopped only by losing a high court case. Although they abandoned the Tories white paper, they introduced the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment bill, attempting to use financial privilege to push it quickly through Parliament without scrutiny from the Lords. A back bench rebellion resulted in unprecedented scenes within Parliament with the government making concessions actually during the second reading debate in order not to lose the vote (which would have meant the fall of the government) on 1 July. The bill that was passed on 9 July had the PIP cuts entirely removed pending a review (although the remaining elements nevertheless mean cuts for hundreds of thousands of Disabled people).

One of the concessions was expansion of the Timms review of PIP to include a co-production element.

Over-view of the assessment process and why it needs improving

The Timms review interim report rightly describes the PIP assessment process as dehumanising and calls for its improvement. One of the improvements recommended is to make the assessment fairer for people with fluctuating conditions who are disadvantaged within the way that points are currently awarded.

The assessment process focuses on the support needs of applicants divided into two components: mobility and daily living. Points are then awarded on the basis of the level of support need that claimants have with tasks such as washing and getting dressed, preparing food and eating, taking mediation, continence, budgeting, planning and making a journey. Minimal points are given for prompting support with higher scores where a person can only do something either with full support from another person or needs them to do the task for them. Maximum points are only available to people with certain impairments, so for example full points for needing support with communicating is only awarded to people with cognitive impairments such as dementia.

There are two stages to the assessment process: a paper assessment and a face to face or telephone assessment. The PIP backlog has now reduced but at one stage a few years ago there was a waiting time of 12 – 18 months between the paper and the oral assessment. During this time period much can have changed which presents an added excuse for ignoring evidence given in the paper assessment. The gap remains at least a few months long which entails a very anxious wait.

It is common for assessment reports to be riddled with inaccuracies and errors and not to reflect the oral evidence given by the applicant and anyone supporting them in the assessment. Support groups advise applicants to expect to have to go to Mandatory Reconsideration and then appeal every time they are assessed. Re-assessments are due for the majority of claimants every couple of years.

The assessment requires applicants to focus on our very worst days when we are the most dependent on other people. We need to carefully go through everything we cannot do for ourselves and need help with. We have to ask family and friends who provide us with any informal daily support to write statements and give evidence of all the things they have to do for us.

As a Disabled person, mentally surviving in a society that emphasises the importance of individualism and self-reliance requires effort to focus on those things that we can do for ourselves and the positives of our situations. Spending so long and putting so much effort into presenting ourselves as burdens and dependents has a significant negative impact on our mental well-being.

To be going through this and then be treated by assessors as scroungers and liars (the starting assumption is designed to be that the claimant is fraudulent until we prove otherwise) can be nothing short of traumatic. When assessors lie and twist our words after we have shared with them our most personal and intimate details, we feel violated.

If an existing claimant is found ineligible, their benefits and any passported benefits (such as carers’ allowance) cease. This has serious financial implications for families. They may also be charged with benefit fraud for not having told DWP about improvements in their condition since their previous assessment and being required to pay back significant sums of money.

What this means is the threat not just of having your PIP stopped but of suddenly owing thousands of pounds is constantly hanging over your head if you are a claimant. You can never feel secure and that anxiety is always there.

A very good evidence resource for how the assessments affect individual claimants is still the 2018 claimant testimony report published by the Work and Pensions Committee following their 2017 inquiry into benefit assessments. The inquiry was deluged with such an enormous number of submissions from individuals as well as organisations that they published this report alongside their main inquiry report. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmworpen/355/355.pdf

Timms Review

The degree to which this represents good practice co-production is debateable. There was a period of consultation before the terms of reference were announced, however the parameters are much more restricted than Deaf and Disabled People’s Organisations wanted. True co-production means Deaf and Disabled people involved at the very start whereas the review was part of the government’s original plans before any co-production was conceded. There are also non-Disabled people involved in the review panel which is not good practice.

The make up of the career panel includes committed activists and researchers and also Disabled careerists who specialise in working with government and who have views that are at odds with those of the disability justice movement.

What is especially notable is the way that the interim report was publicised by DWP with key messages that did not reflect the content of the report, which itself is very good.

For example:

• The report strongly states the fact that the welfare budget is not rising for there is no urgent need to make cuts yet this was not part of the DWP press release. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/first-comprehensive-review-into-pip-finds-it-is-not-fit-for-purpose
• Instead DWP messaging focused in on how PIP stops claimants from taking part in activities such as employment and socialising. The report itself says that this was commented on by only 2% of respondents and is illustrated by an anonymous quote referring to other people that the respondent apparently knows. This testimony is therefore highly unreliable given the invisible nature of some impairments and illnesses, stigma that prevents Disabled people from widely sharing personal information about our support needs, and the dominance of a scrounger narrative within popular perceptions.

The interim report publication was accompanied by a statement from Timms indicating that PIP could be replaced by access to therapy services. This was not part of the review report but rather the subject of research carried out by the Labour-aligned Good Growth Foundation. Although the idea was supported by one of the co-chairs of the review panel in an interview with BBC’s Today programme, it is not likely that all members will agree. https://inews.co.uk/news/pip-cash-payments-replaced-with-therapy-work-support-4635224?srsltid=AfmBOop8bNzY0r4y7CL4G8D96F4vwfsg3XEb1KUMNuagep-DuY5W2qNZ

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/pip-reforms-push-claimants-work-more-likely-4451998?srsltid=AfmBOoq9c9PE7B-SCBH99OasTIm0SaH8AphR_uioDzmDUyaqebJvMG4f&ico=in-line_link

Days before the report was published, DWP released figures showing how more than four million people now claim PIP and real-terms spending on it is due to rise from £26bn in 2024-25 to £45bn by 2031, according to government forecasts. This was clearly an attempt to build support for the idea of cuts and for the interim review report to be received within that mindset.

In the same week, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Pat McFadden claimed that the current PIP system is “struggling to keep pace with a surge in diagnoses of conditions that barely registered when it was built 13 years ago” and indicating that PIP is likely to be cut for claimants with conditions such as ADHD and anxiety. He also “gave the strongest hint so far that Alan Milburn, the government’s youth unemployment tsar, will recommend restricting access to benefits for 16 to 24-year-olds or attaching new work-related conditions to their payments” and “declined to rule out the possibility that savings from welfare reforms could help close the roughly £5bn budget shortfall reported in the wake of the Government’s Defence Investment Plan (DIP).”

This all confirms suspicions held all along by DDPOs and Deaf and Disabled activists that the review is nothing but a smokescreen for cuts and the coproduction element given as a last-minute concession in order to win the vote on 1 July with no intention of giving it any real power. It is unfortunate that individual back bench MPs allowed themselves to fall for this – whether due to naivety, concern for their careers or fear of the repercussions of the government falling at the time when Reform was high in the polls. 

The real danger has always been that the review’s inevitable findings regarding the problems with PIP and recommendations for an overhaul of PIP will act as cover for the government to do what it always intended to in making budget savings, with the review report being used as justification for changes to the benefit itself as well as assessment design that lead to dramatic cuts to eligibility, excluding certain groups of Disabled people from cash benefits entirely.

This will result in devastation for claimants and our families on one level and at a societal level to further exponential growths in disability poverty and inequality.

The prospect of an incoming Burnham government gives us no grounds for hope that cuts will be off the table, despite the good work and co-production he was responsible for alongside Deaf and Disabled people in Greater Manchester. He has already publicly expressed concern for the “NEET crisis” and been in talks with Milburn who is strongly committed to cutting disability benefits.

Indications from Burnham and Milburn suggest that future cuts proposals will be more carefully spun as initiatives looking to holistically improve the life chances of Disabled people. However, policies aimed at improving life chances will have to be carefully thought through for any chance of real success while the risk of adverse impacts will be great. The Timms review heard from around 38,000 respondents but the findings do no more than go over well trodden ground in identifying the many problems with PIP. The devil will be in the detail of any proposals recommending any form of cuts or restrictions to the current benefit even when alongside improved access to services. This detail seems to be outside the scope of the panel.

As ever, campaigners need to be prepared to fight to save lives and protect our communities. More details at the end of this post.

To note

• The overall welfare budget is NOT rising. It has stayed largely flat for the previous decade. Numbers of disability benefits claimants are rising. One factor within this is the increasing of the State pension age which means more Disabled people staying on disability benefits for longer before moving onto their pensions. Another is the cost-of-living crisis. There are many more Disabled people eligible for disability benefits than claim at anyone time. Increasing pressures on finances, stagnating wages and the rise of low paid, insecure employment (in which Disabled workers are over-represented) mean more people applying for PIP for extra income just to get by each month. And yet another is the way that society is increasingly disabling through multiple factors which increase pressures on working class life. https://inequalities.substack.com/p/disability-benefits-and-the-budget
• Government plans to replace the PIP cash benefit with access to services are terrifying rather than reassuring. PIP was intended as an extra cash payment to help with the additional costs of being Disabled. Findings by the charity Scope show that households with a Disabled member need an extra £1,095 each month on average just to have the same standard of living as non-disabled households. This is less even the highest award of PIP. Claimants are increasingly forced to instead spend their benefits on ordinary living costs which are spiralling such as bills and food. Additional disability-related support is a bonus but cannot replace essential income without pushing high additional numbers into poverty. PIP is also being used to replace services which have suffered cutbacks such as social care support and Access to Work. Although currently a non-means-tested benefit, successive governments have sought to tie it to work in some way in order to ramp up pressures on the working class to take jobs regardless of pay and conditions. Quicker access to NHS services and access to services such as mental health support and support with domestic tasks is welcome. However, improved access cannot be linked in any way to cuts and must precede any reductions in eligibility to cash benefits. Only this can guarantee that the lives of Disabled people improve rather than worsen. An additional question is whether the investment required to improve access to services to the degree needed to retain rather than worsen living standards for claimants is not more costly than the status quo. It far more efficient and effective for claimants to source our own support with cash payments than to be forced into the one size fits all model of support we are used to being offered given the heterogeneity of needs across the Disabled population and even within individual impairment groups.
• Disability poverty has risen dramatically to what are crisis levels. In the UK, nearly half of all people in poverty are either disabled or live with a disabled person, with the poverty rate for families containing a disabled person sitting significantly higher than non-disabled households. In the UK, 28% of disabled people live in poverty—around 8 percentage points higher than the non-disabled rate. Disabled working-age adults (33%) are almost twice as likely to live in poverty. https://www.jrf.org.uk/uk-poverty-statistics/disability
• Politicians choose to ignore the adverse impacts of benefit cuts. Rather than engage with the factors behind rising need for disability benefits, successive government prefer to deny the realities of disability, demonise claimants and cut eligibility regardless of the consequences for those who will be adversely impacted. In my high court case against the government’s decision to make changes to the Work Capability Assessment in order to cut eligibility for out of work disability benefits for people with mental health support needs it was revealed that ministers had been advised the cuts would lead to worsening mental health including suicides. And they simply didn’t care. Their concern was rather to spin their proposals to disguise those impacts from the public.
• When politicians talk about “sickness benefits” they are referring to disability benefits for which only those with the highest levels of disability support need are eligible. This reframing allows them to sound reasonable and build public support for cutting them.

Action to Take Now

What we suggest people should do over the summer recess is to contact their MPs either by email or in person if possible to tell them why PIP is important to them and why it is vital it remains a cash payment rather than some other option like vouchers or therapy. You can find your MP’s contact details at

https://members.parliament.uk/members/commons

As a Labour government were the original signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (UNCRPD) in 2009 we are disappointed to find that this current Labour government appear to be continuing the grave and systematic violation of disabled peoples’ human rights which we were subjected to for 15 years by the previous Conservative governments.

Like other genuine organisations of disabled people (DDPOs) Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) support the implementation of an Additional Cost Disability Payment (ACDP) as recommended by the co-produced work of the Lived Experience Social Security Commission. This would be based on the Social Model of Disability and would provide a realistic financial contribution to the extra costs disabled people face on a daily basis. This would also be in line with Articles 27 (Work and Employment) and 28 (An adequate standard of living and social protection) of the UNCRPD.

As we suspect the current review is designed simply to reduce the number of disabled people who qualify for PIP and subsequently the health element in Universal Credit we cannot support any plans for reductions to either current inadequate payments or changes to restrict qualifying criteria. We are totally opposed to the plan to use PIP as a qualifying benefit linked to the health element in Universal Credit.

Both of these social security payments are provided for very different reasons and continue to require different assessments. Previous calls to reduce the number of assessments disabled people face made by some Disability Charities were a call to reduce the frequency of re-assessments people were facing, sometimes every 12 months, and not a call for the merging of 2 totally different payments.

While there is a false rhetoric that the social security budget is spiralling out of control this in fact is false if the findings of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) are correct as we believe they are.

Looking at the March 2026 Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) Economic and Fiscal Outlook report it showed the proportion of GDP spent on social security is predicted to be at the same level in 2030-31 as it will be in 2026-27, at 11.2 per cent.

This will be lower than it was in 2010-11 (12 per cent) and for every subsequent year under the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition until 2015-16, under a Conservative government, when it was 11.3 per cent.

The OBR report also shows that social security spending was lower in 2024-25 – the first year of the Labour government – than predicted by the OBR last March (10.7 per cent against a predicted 10.9 per cent).

The report points to increases in pensions and health-related benefits as the “main drivers of the projected increase in welfare spending” between 2024-25 and 2030-31, including higher than expected demand for child disability benefits and higher supported housing rents.

https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/new-official-figures-disprove-claims-that-social-security-spending-is-spiralling-out-of-control/

As has now been agreed in relation to Access to Work funding, we believe that as well as proper co-production with disabled people which is not yet happening, it is essential for the government to commission research into an in-depth cost-benefit analysis of PIP looking at the amount that is recouped for the Treasury by disabled people being able to work, having sufficient support to keep them out of hospital and not needing medical treatment, by reducing, not increasing, poor mental and physical health.

Further PIP is a social security benefit which passports to a range of other essential services which decrease the many societal and physical barriers disabled people face. This passporting to other services should also be improved.

The ability of Local Authorities to remove all or part of the Care Component of PIP to pay for social care must also be urgently reviewed as it makes the cost of social care unaffordable for many disabled people preventing them from accessing the social care they need and their human rights under Article 19 (A right to independent living) of the UNCRPD.

The PIP claims process

The claims process remains deeply flawed and does require urgent changes to be made. The current waiting times for a new PIP assessment to be completed and the lengthy appeals process also need to be drastically overhauled and improved.

It is Important to add the deep distress the entire PIP process causes often leading to the worsening of mental distress and physical health.  The entire process causes many cases of harm even when qualifying for PIP does not impact on qualifying for the health element of Universal Credit.

The increase of suicide ideation and attempts by some claimants to kill themselves because of assessors asking “why haven’t you taken your own life yet?” and the overall de humanising way people are treated at the assessment plus the way you’re treated as a fraud from the first time you apply must end.

There are also problems obtaining supporting medical evidence especially if not under a consultant secondary care service.  Many GPs charge extortionate amounts for supporting GP Letters, mental health support services are almost impossible to access and no-one has a social worker or OT allocated on a long term basis nowadays.  Very few people can now receive the 12 hours of therapy which they need to get any points for their conditions.

For people with fluctuating conditions qualifying is also almost impossible and the terms repeatedly, reliably and safely which should be considered about tasks people can carry out are far too often ignored completely even though they should be a major consideration.

Further it is very difficulty obtaining welfare rights advice due to local government funding cuts -welfare rights centres and benefits centres are closing their doors due to funding cuts. This leaves people who need support to make a claim without any help being available.

No Recourse to Public Funds

The Co-Chairs have stated that consideration of disabled asylum seekers needs is not part of their remit yet it appears that no recourse to public funds will now be extended to those granted Indefinite Leave to Remain. PIP is already very difficult for many groups to claim, but especially for disabled migrants and refugees, with barriers to eligibility, assessor attitudes, problems with the DWP not accepting translated documents, language barriers, and being told their experiences and needs are too complex to be supported by other services e.g. mental health services. No recourse to public funds and the long term damage this can cause was raised by Sir Stephen Timms back in 2020 when in opposition.

https://www.stephentimms.org.uk/latest-news/2020/5/27/stephen-secures-promise-from-boris-johnson-to-look-at-no-recourse-to-public-funds-condition

Who we are

DPAC has campaigned vigorously against cuts and the attacks disabled people have faced for the past 16 years. The UK government was the first country investigated using the Optional Protocols in the UNCRPD and found guilty of the grave and systematic violation of disabled people’s human rights following an unprecedented UN inquiry initiated by us. Since then we have continued to work closely with the UN Disability committee who retain a close interest in the further regression of disabled peoples’ human rights in the UK.

We also provide peer support through our website, social media and mail enquiries. Often we can have over 100 requests for help a week and sometimes more.

Disabled people make up 22% of the population and the numbers are rising. Disabled people are the world’s largest minority and yet our lives remain largely hidden while public understanding of disability abounds with misconceptions

DPAC campaigns from the Social Model of disability which draws a distinction between disability and impairment. Disability is imposed on top of our impairments as a result of social oppression. Disabled People also cross every other equality strand so our work is by definition intersectional in nature.

DPAC has campaigned for independent living as outlined in article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Disabled People which refers to the right to live in the community with choice and control over your own life and enough support to enjoy the same opportunities as non-disabled people.

DPAC also believe in Rights not Charity a principle central to disabled people led organisations rejecting the tragedy model of disability and the exploitation of disabled people this causes.

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

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

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

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

I’ll be there

Poster information

reblogged from Benefits and Work.

Saturday 28th March 2026

12 noon

London

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

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

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

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

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

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

Main march

The main March starts at Park Lane.

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

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

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

The bloc will have access stewards & BSL Interpreters from NUBSLI

Nicky Evans will be the contact point

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

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

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

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

Short accessible march

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

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

The short accessible March will have access stewards.

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

Rally

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

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

Online Protest

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

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

Hashtags:

#DisabledPeopleAgainstTheFarRight #DisabledPeopleAgainstFascism

Tag:
@Dis_PPL_Protest @DRDisabilityReb @UKTogetherAll

More info here

Graphics and BSL

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

Accessible bloc poster

Easy read poster

ALLFIE raises serious and urgent concerns over the government’s newly announced Schools White Paper and SEND reform Consultation. The paper and consultation have actually been diluted by repeated leaks and countless news reports that have pre-empted them over the past six months. This demonstrates the low priority of Disabled children’s education on government’s agenda and no commitment to co-produce policy with Disabled Peoples Organisations.

The government today published two documents, SEND reform: putting children and young people first and Every child achieving and thriving, raising serious concerns about their commitment to Inclusive Education. The government says that “Children with special educational needs and disabilities must be able to attend their local mainstream school and have their needs met by highly trained teachers, leaders and support staff, driving the highest standards for all.” This echoes ALLFIE’s position that “Schools must be places where every child is included, where they are supported and challenged to achieve and thrive – regardless of their needs or background.”

It has been ALLFIE’s long campaign and a foundation of our 7 principles of Inclusive Education that “Every child deserves high-quality, inclusive education close to home, where they can learn, make friends, and participate in their community.”

We are, however, concerned that the proposed reforms will not streamline the system, improve standards, increase accountability, and promote inclusion for every Disabled child and young person. It will also not improve the work force, ensuring that their approaches dismantle structural and systemic oppression within the education system.

In fact, there is nothing new in this White paper and consultation. Almost everything had been leaked or already announced by the DfE in recent weeks. The DfE also contradicts itself, especially when it invites the public for “definitions of inclusion” but then also says that it is “crucial we go further to deliver inclusion for children with SEND” and that they will be “guided by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).” The UNCRPD already provides a definition on Inclusive Education, so this is a pointless exercise.

It is clear that the government is aware that the UK does not have “a truly inclusive mainstream system, which means children with SEND have too often been sidelined.” However, it still proposes to continue to invest in segregated provisions with no real commitment to phase out segregated education other than setting up an Inclusive Mainstream Fund of £1.6 Million over 3 years. This is no real commitment to Inclusive Education.

Disturbingly, the SEND reform consultation continues to reinforce segregation by rebranding SEN Units as “Inclusion Bases”, positioning segregated ‘Units’ within mainstream schools as progress. This ignores the lived experiences of Disabled children and young people, who often experience trauma and harm from being separated from their peers. ALLFIE warns that such measures could constitute a breach of the Equality Act 2010, as well as a failure to meet the UK government’s duty to advance the progressive realisation of Inclusive Education under Article 24 of the UNCRPD. We demand urgent scrutiny of this position.

This moment was a real opportunity to revolutionise the education system by dismantling disabling and intersectional barriers that continue to drive Disabled people out of mainstream schools. Instead, the Schools White paper and SEND reform consultation present the education of Disabled children and young people as an ‘add on’, reinforcing an outdated medical model of disability that treats Disabled pupils as a problem to be managed. The continued investment in separate provisions shows no commitment to realising Disabled people’s right to Inclusive Education as envisioned by the drafters of the UNCRPD, who were mostly Disabled people and Disabled Peoples Organisations. Continuing to frame education as “special” is both offensive and regressive. It positions Disabled people’s participation in education as a favour, rather than recognising it as a fundamental human right. ALLFIE calls on the government to remove the reservations on Article 24 of the UNCRPD, and implement an Inclusive Education Act.

What ALLFIE wanted to see:

• A clear plan to phase out segregated education with enforceable targets.
• Investment in inclusive teacher training, including recruitment and support for Disabled teachers.
• Action to end disablism, ablism and intersectional discrimination within education policy and practice.
• The development of monitoring systems to track progress towards genuine inclusion, rooted in rights and social justice.
• End the use of force, restraint and seclusion units in education settings
• Remove reservation on Article 24 on Inclusive Education of the UNCRPD

A Quote from ALLFIE:

“The Schools White paper and SEND reform reinforce the government’s contempt for Disabled people. They speak of inclusion while rebranding SEN Units as Inclusion Bases. This does not address the underlining structural issues that repeatedly exclude Disabled children and young people from mainstream schools. More must be done to implement the UNCRPD into domestic law and practice.”  Chairperson, Navin Kikabhai

ALLFIE demands the end of all forms of segregation that shuts Disabled children and young people out of mainstream schools. Additionally, ALLFIE calls for the introduction of a genuine Inclusive Education Act as set out in our report produced by the Coalition for Inclusive Education.

Notes to editors:

ALLFIE is the only Disabled People’s Organisation, which campaigns for Inclusive Education for Disabled pupils and students. ALLFIE is a unique voice. Formed in 1990, we are the only organisation led by Disabled people focused on campaigning and information-sharing on education, training and apprenticeship issues.

We campaign for the right of all Disabled pupils and students to be fully included in mainstream education, training and apprenticeships with all necessary supports. ALLFIE believes that Inclusive Education is the basis of lifelong equality. Children who learn and play together will grow into adults who can understand and respect each other’s differences.

Media enquiries: edmore.masendeke@allfie.org.uk

The Home Office has launched a consultation on the use of facial recognition and similar technologies.

Now is your chance to make your voice heard and tell the Home Office about the dangers facial recognition poses to our civil liberties.

You can use the tool we have provided below to tailor your response using your own background, experiences, skills, and concerns. The Home Office is more likely to consider responses that are unique instead of those that are copied and pasted directly.

You must respond by 12/02/2026.

https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/campaigns/stop-facial-recognition/#respond

Top of Form

Step 2: Personalise message

I am writing as a member of the public in response to the Home Office’s consultation on a new legal framework for law enforcement use of biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies. I believe that the lack of legal framework governing new and emerging biometric technologies is a significant threat to civil liberties. Live facial recognition (LFR) technology is an affront to privacy at both the individual and societal level. It has no place in a free society and it is my hope that the Home Office considers banning LFR deployments altogether when considering responses to Questions 5-8 and Question 13. LFR deployments subject the public to mass biometric identity checks without any basis for suspicion. The technology turns high streets into perpetual line-ups where the presumption of innocence is reversed, as every person who walks by the camera is treated as a suspect-by-default. In 2025 alone, police in the UK have scanned the faces of more than 7 million law-abiding citizens during LFR deployments. In the past several years, politicians across the political spectrum, civil rights, racial justice and equalities groups, and technology experts worldwide have recommended that the use of LFR be halted. I wholeheartedly agree with this recommendation. If the Home Office insists, against my wishes and the wishes of millions of British people, to allow for police to regularly use facial recognition technology, I would expect safeguards such as a warrant and serious crimes (e.g. murder, terrorism, human trafficking, kidnapping) requirement at least as strong as those in the rest of Europe under the EU AI Act. The widespread use of LFR will have a dystopian chilling effect on me and many other law-abiding people. Facial recognition technology, like DNA and fingerprinting technology, is a biometric technology that measures unique features of our bodies that can be used to identify us. Unlike DNA and fingerprint tools, facial recognition does not require that police have physical access to you or a crime scene in order to discover who you are. It disturbs me to think that I might soon be having my face scanned for going about my day. It is not good enough for the police to argue that just because my friends, family, and I “have nothing to fear” that we should not be concerned. I am particularly concerned about how the widespread use of facial recognition will affect racial minorities and women, who have been well-documented to be disproportionately more likely to be misidentified by the technology. For example, in the Metropolitan Police Service’s annual 2025 report, 80% of those wrongly identified during its LFR deployments were black people. I am also concerned that LFR will deter law-abiding people engaged in peaceful and legal protests. I know that police have used facial recognition at protests before, and at a time when the police have been arresting many protestors it is reasonable for law-abiding people to think twice before attending a protest if doing so means subjecting themselves to biometric surveillance. The use of LFR at protests and other legal gatherings must be among your central considerations while you consider answers to Question 7. It is appropriate for the consultation to consider emerging technologies, but the current state of affairs is especially concerning and in need of urgent reform, especially when it comes to facial recognition. Facial recognition software is a uniquely dangerous technology with the potential to end anonymity in public. Not only can it be used to identify me in real-time as I go about my life, it can be used retrospectively to track and monitor the movements and behaviour of individuals across time. All police forces have also been using retrospective facial recognition (RFR) technology, which operates after the fact using still images or video recordings taken in the past and comparing the detected faces to photographs of known individuals held on databases. In 2024, civil society investigations revealed that police forces had secretly been using the UK’s passport database to conduct hundreds of facial recognition searches. As a result, in the words of the former Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, “It’s almost impossible for the citizen to understand who is using what to watch whom.” Like LFR, RFR suffers from racial bias. Unfortunately, despite known biases in the RFR algorithm, police forces successfully lobbied to continue using RFR at settings which were discriminatory to people of colour, women and young people. Retail outlets have increasingly been using facial recognition in attempts to deter and investigate shoplifting. There have been countless media reports about people who have been misidentified by this technology or wrongly placed on watchlists, prompting innocent people being blacklisted from shops across the country. In one particularly harrowing case, a teenager was misidentified in a Home Bargains store, accused of shoplifting, searched, removed from the store and told she was banned from all retailers using the technology. The LFR company later wrote to her, confirming their error. The retail use of facial recognition is not governed by primary legislation and enforcement by the data regulator has been seriously lacking. I am very anxious at the prospect of my grocery shopping trips turning into a nightmare where I am falsely accused of being a thief, publicly humiliated, and banned from shops in my community. The history of police use of facial recognition in the UK is unfortunately one that shows police deploying a mass biometric surveillance technology without any governing legislation. In this respect, the UK is sadly alone among liberal democracies. Multiple US jurisdictions have imposed restrictions on facial recognition, and the EU AI Act broadly prohibits the use of police facial recognition. • Live facial recognition technology is an indiscriminate surveillance tool by design with the capacity to end anonymity in public spaces. It has no place on our high streets or shops and must be prohibited in primary legislation. • Retrospective facial recognition should only be permitted if used in line with new primary legislation that sets out strict restrictions and safeguards, subject to strict limitations on the circumstances in which it can be used and only on lawfully held custody images. • Operator-initiated facial recognition must be prohibited in primary legislation. When you consider Questions 1-4 please keep in mind that a new legal framework must account for significant technological changes that have taken place in the years since DNA and fingerprinting matching became regular features of policing. Given that there is ongoing research into gait and voice recognition as well as odour detection it is critical that lawmakers provide a legal framework that accounts for current technology and anticipates new and emerging biometric technologies. While voice and gait detection are not a regular feature of policing today, technology could improve to the point at which it becomes very attractive to police. The history of police use of facial recognition unfortunately shows clearly that police will use biometric surveillance technology without adequate safeguards when it is tempting for them to do so. Please halt the UK’s descent into a dystopian nightmare and consider the threats, risks, and concerns I have outlined.