Contents

Disabled MP who quit government over benefit cuts tells DNS: ‘The consequences will be devastating’ 1

Disabled peers plan to ‘amend, amend, amend, amend, amend’ after assisted dying bill reaches Lords 4

Minister finally admits that working-age benefits spending is stable, despite months of ‘spiralling’ claims 5

This bill opens the door to scandal, abuse and injustice, disabled activists say after assisted dying bill vote 7

Timms says cuts must go ahead, despite being reminded of risk that disabled claimants could die 10

Absence of disabled people’s voices from assisted dying bill has been ‘astonishing’, says disabled MP 12

Timms misleads MPs on DWP transparency and cover-ups, as he gives evidence on PIP review 14

Ministers are considering further extension to disability hate crime laws, after pledge on ‘aggravated’ offences 16

Making all self-driving pilot schemes accessible would be ‘counter-productive’ and slow us down, says minister 17

Involve disabled people ‘meaningfully’ from the start when developing digital assistive tech, says report 19

Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week 21

Disabled MP who quit government over benefit cuts tells DNS: ‘The consequences will be devastating’

Disabled Labour MP Vicky Foxcroft has described how she was left with “no choice” but to resign as a whip over government plans to cut billions of pounds a year from disability benefits. 

In her first interview since releasing her resignation letter last Thursday, she told Disability News Service (DNS) that the four years she spent as a shadow minister for disabled people had played a significant part in her decision.

And she also made it clear that the backbench rebellion over the cuts is “huge”, with many of the critics MPs who are “normally very loyal” to the government.

That became clear on Tuesday, when fellow Labour MPs – led by 11 select committee chairs – published a “reasoned amendment” which “declines to give a Second Reading” to the bill, although this is unlikely to be selected to be voted on by the speaker.

She has signed the amendment, which is currently supported by 162 MPs, including 126 other backbench Labour MPs.

Foxcroft says she was taken aback by the number of Labour MPs who approached her on Friday to share their concerns about the bill, as she came to the House of Commons chamber for the assisted dying bill debate (see separate stories).

“Many have come to me to share their concerns, to say they agreed with what I had said in my resignation letter,” she says. 

“And some of these were colleagues that you wouldn’t maybe have expected to have expressed concerns. 

“These are not the usual suspects from the left of the party, these are people who are normally very loyal and want to be loyal but know the government needs to change this.

“I mean, I’m the same myself, but I was left with no choice.

“I don’t want to speak out like this but the government needs to listen, so I will use my voice to amplify voices that are being ignored.”

It’s clear from Sunday’s interview that if she had thought she could effect change from within government, she would not have resigned, but she made her decision to quit when the bill was published last Wednesday, and she saw that ministers had made almost no changes since March’s green paper.

The next day, she resigned through a letter to the prime minister.

In fact, as DNS reported last week, the measures in the bill were in one respect even worse than those suggested by Pathways to Work, because of the misleading reference in the green paper to a premium for those in the “severe conditions group”, which the bill shows will only be a premium for new claimants.

This was confirmed by the minister for social security and disability Sir Stephen Timms, when he gave evidence to the Commons work and pensions committee yesterday (Wednesday).

Foxcroft’s criticisms of the bill are fuelled by her own lived experience as a disabled MP, but also by the evidence she gathered from meeting hundreds of disabled people, including many representatives of disabled-led organisations, during her time as shadow minister.

“We all know the benefit system desperately needs reform,” she says, “but PIP isn’t and has never been about getting people back to work. 

“PIP is there to help disabled people with everyday needs. It’s an in-work and out-of-work benefit, and it’s wrong to deny support from someone who needs help to wash, dress, or use a toilet.

“The cuts will literally remove this basic dignity.

“I couldn’t vote for cuts that would make 800,000 people worse off, with 250,000 pushed into poverty, including 50,000 children. That’s a real human cost. 

“And these cuts don’t make human needs disappear. They just shift the costs onto already over-stretched services such as the NHS, social workers and unpaid carers.

“It’s a false economy, with devastating consequences.”

She says she also understands disabled people’s concerns – evidenced in The Department*, by DNS editor John Pring – about the many deaths of claimants, including an estimated 600 from suicide during the incapacity benefit reforms, when there were similarly significant cuts and reforms to out-of-work disability benefits in the early 2010s under the Conservative-led coalition. 

She is reading the book and is aware that safety and safeguarding must be a key priority with any reforms, because of the risk of unintended consequences.

During Sunday’s interview, she repeatedly stresses the crucial part played in her decision to resign by her four years as shadow minister for disabled people, leading up to last year’s general election.

She says her engagement with disabled people while she was shadow minister showed her just how badly many of them had struggled through 14 years of Conservative government, and she stresses her admiration for those she worked with, even those who “shouted” at her when her party did not go far enough on disability policy.

“They were desperate to see the change that a future Labour government would bring for them,” she says.

“I said as shadow minister that we would work with them to ensure that changes that affected them improved their lives, but that has not happened.

“These changes we’ll be voting on have not been consulted on with disabled people and disabled people’s organisations, and it’s so important to make sure that consultation happens and their voices are heard when such big changes are taking place.

“That is one of the reasons I resigned.”

She made the same point in Friday’s debate on the assisted dying bill – which she voted against – when she spoke of the “negligible” consultation there had been with disabled people about the legislation, and told MPs: “Disabled people’s voices matter in this debate, and yet as I have watched the bill progress, the absence of disabled people’s voices has been astonishing.”

She is hoping ministers will receive this subtle message: that government must engage with disabled people right from the start of any policy-making process that will affect them.

Despite several questions from DNS, she refuses to criticise work and pensions ministers, including Liz Kendall.

But asked for her message to the prime minister, she is blunt. “He needs to revisit it,” she says.

Despite that bluntness, and her high-profile decision to quit as a whip, her resignation letter makes clear that she is fiercely loyal to the government, but just intensely frustrated at the deeply harmful proposed cuts to the universal credit health element, and particularly to PIP.

She points to government policies that would allow people on out-of-work disability benefits to try work without fear of having to go through the assessment process again if it doesn’t work out; reform Access to Work; introduce disability pay gap reporting; and ensure all disabled claimants have access to a supportive work coach if they need one.

But she says: “We need to be doing those things first before we even start considering how we are going to be reforming disability benefits. 

“And when we do eventually do that, we need to make sure that we do it with disabled people and organisations run by disabled people.”

She also lays a large part of the blame at the door of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) itself.

She knows from her time as shadow minister that many disabled people have zero trust in the department.

“This bill is most definitely not the right way to persuade disabled people to trust DWP,” she says, “and certainly not when we’ve not worked with them to ensure that we get this right.”

Speaking on Sunday morning, three days after her resignation letter was published, she says she is finally finding time to think after the “whirlwind” media storm it caused, but she insists she has no feelings of regret, although she is sad she had to take the step she did.

“I’m sad to leave my colleagues in the whips office, who I think are absolutely brilliant and do really good work,” she says. 

But there is also a keen sense that she knows time is running out to persuade the government to back off, with the bill’s second reading set to take place on 1 July.

“I want to see the government change this. Desperately. 

“They need to listen to what I’m saying, to what Labour MPs are saying, and what disabled people are saying.”

26 June 2025

Disabled peers plan to ‘amend, amend, amend, amend, amend’ after assisted dying bill reaches Lords

The disabled peer who has led UK opposition to the legalisation of assisted dying for decades has pledged to work to make a bill passed by MPs so “tight” that only a very few people will be able to take advantage of it.

Baroness [Jane] Campbell said she believed that if the legislation made it easy for people to take advantage of the new laws – if they are eventually approved by parliament – then “people for whom this bill was never intended will die in their droves”.

She was speaking to Disability News Service (DNS) just minutes after MPs had voted by 314 votes to 291 on Friday afternoon to approve the terminally ill adults (end of life) bill, which will legalise assisted suicide in England and Wales for some people diagnosed with a terminal illness, in certain circumstances.

The crossbench peer, who herself has a progressive condition, said she believes her task as a member of the House of Lords – which will now examine the bill in detail – will be to “amend, amend, amend, amend, amend, so it becomes so tight that anyone would find it difficult to get it”.

She also said her task will be to ensure there is no “slippery slope” that will allow the bill to be extended to an ever wider group of people.

But she said that even if she and fellow peers were successful in amending the bill to make it safer, they were “not miracle workers”.

Baroness Campbell, founder of Not Dead Yet UK (NDY UK), which sees legalisation of assisted suicide and euthanasia as “deadly forms of disability discrimination”, said: “There will be mistakes and people will die, whom if they’d had the right support could have lived a good life until they died, but what else can we do?”

She added: “Why choose people like us to help to die when they can so easily put in support and care to help people live dignified lives at home so that they can cope with the bad times, and get through them.

“Because people do get through them and it is possible to have a good death with a progressive or terminal illness. This is what people forget.”

Her fellow disabled crossbench peer, Baroness [Tanni] Grey-Thompson, who has also spent years opposing legalisation, supports Baroness Campbell’s strategy.

She said: “There are very few safeguards in [the bill] currently. Very few amendments were voted on.”

And she said there was no protection in the bill for people with Down’s syndrome or others with learning difficulties.

Before the vote, Baroness Grey-Thompson told DNS that there would be many amendments proposed in the House of Lords, if the bill was passed by the Commons.

She said: “There’s so little safety in this bill, and so little understanding of the lives of disabled people, and the current government’s plans for welfare.”

Last week, NDY UK released polling showing that two-thirds (65 per cent) of disabled people believe that if benefits are being cut – as they are currently through the Labour government’s universal credit and personal independence payment bill – disabled people living in poverty may be likely to seek an assisted suicide instead of struggling financially.

26 June 2025

Minister finally admits that working-age benefits spending is stable, despite months of ‘spiralling’ claims

A minister has finally admitted that spending on working-age benefits is stable, and is not spiralling out of control, despite months of claims from his own department and fellow ministers.

Sir Stephen Timms made the admission as he told the Commons work and pensions committee that ministers had decided not to carry out a public consultation on the billions of pounds of cuts to personal independence payment (PIP) and the disability element of universal credit because of the “urgency of the changes needing to be made”.

He was giving evidence in the committee’s final session of its inquiry into the government’s Pathways to Work green paper.

Sir Stephen, minister for social security and disability, said that spending on PIP had risen in real terms from £12 billion in the year before the pandemic to £22 billion last year, which he said was “not a sustainable trajectory”.

But the committee’s chair, Labour MP Debbie Abrahams, asked if he accepted the evidence of Ben Geiger, professor of social science and health at King’s College London, who had told the inquiry that working-age social security spending had remained at about five per cent of GDP* for the last decade.

Abrahams also asked Sir Stephen if he accepted that the rise in the number of PIP recipients has been due to demographic change, the nation’s poor health, and the increase in the state pension age.

The minister replied: “Well, yeah, I mean, much of what you say, I completely accept.”

He added: “I think that working-age social security spending as a percentage of GDP isn’t much more now than it was before the 2008-2010 recession, but as you say, the share on disability and incapacity benefits is very substantially up.”

He said most of this increase was in the last six years, and that while the “incidence of disability” had risen by about 17 per cent since just before the pandemic, the incidence of “benefit claiming” had risen by 34 per cent. 

Abrahams suggested an explanation for this was that more disabled people were needing to claim PIP because of financial pressures.

Sir Stephen agreed, and suggested that the government needed to cut spending on PIP, even though disabled people were only claiming it because they were struggling due to the cost-of-living crisis.

He said: “I think you’re absolutely right. I’m sure that the cost-of-living challenges are a very big factor in what’s happened.

“The people who may well have always been eligible but have not in the past claimed benefit are now doing, and that’s what’s driven this very substantial increase.

“As I say, the current trajectory is not a sustainable one and it is not in the interest of people who depend on PIP for it to be on a financially unsustainable trajectory.”

Disability News Service reported in February that claims by ministers, opposition politicians and the media that social security spending was “spiralling out of control” were false and “ideological”.

Last August, chancellor Rachel Reeves said the previous government had “let welfare costs spiral out of control”.

In January, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) said in a press release on benefit fraud that it wanted to “tackle the spiralling welfare bill”.

And in February, in a press release on disability employment, DWP claimed again that benefits spending was “spiralling”.

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

26 June 2025

This bill opens the door to scandal, abuse and injustice, disabled activists say after assisted dying bill vote

Disabled people’s lives will be increasingly in danger because of MPs’ failure to understand the risks posed by the assisted dying bill, devastated activists warned on Friday after the legislation was approved by the House of Commons.

Disabled activists had started gathering outside parliament at 6.30am last Friday in preparation for a crucial debate on the terminally ill adults (end of life) bill before a vote that determined whether it passed to the Lords.

The bill was eventually passed by the Commons by 314 votes to 291 on Friday afternoon, although disabled MPs strongly opposed the legislation (see separate story).

Before the vote, supporters of Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) and Not Dead Yet UK (NDY UK) held up traffic in front of the House of Commons with a last-minute direct action, accompanied by chants of “we are not… dead yet”. 

Author and activist Ellen Clifford, who has helped lead disabled people’s opposition to the bill over the last year, said she trusted the Lords to improve the bill more than MPs, some of whom she said had acted on “naked ambition” and the principle of assisted dying, rather than what was in the bill.

She said she hoped the bill’s passage through the Lords would improve the safeguards and provide opportunities “to show what a shambles the bill is”.

Among those disabled people outside the Commons was musician and activist John Kelly, who said after the vote was announced: “The truth is, our voices haven’t been listened to. 

“What this does is open the door for injustice. 

“To rely on a panel to decide my life of social workers, and psychiatrists, have you not read how many injustices and mistakes those people have made, how much abuse and how many rights have been denied disabled people?

“And what they have done is open the door to allow in yet more scandals, yet more abuse.”

Disabled activist Anna Landre told Disability News Service (DNS): “A lot of us are scared about the prospect of enshrining a state-funded ability to die when we don’t have properly-funded state services to live with dignity, let alone to thrive, let alone to get disabled people into work, like this government claims it wants to do.”

She said: “I most certainly don’t feel safer now.

“I think it’s going to create an atmosphere for disabled people that is increasingly unsafe, when our services are being stripped from us, when we’re going to have to fight even harder to get the basics, the scraps that we can already barely access and now in any medical, in any doctor’s office we enter, we face the prospect of being offered a death, of being offered [an assisted suicide].”

She said it was particularly unsafe for disabled people who face multiple marginalisations, including disabled women, who are more likely to be in an abusive relationship; disabled people of colour, who are more likely to be doubted by their medical practitioners; and disabled people of low socio-economic status, “who are looking at not being able to pay rent next month”. 

She added: “As a disabled woman, I’ve been trying to access a cervical cancer screening for over two years. 

“I wish this government would work on that rather than working on streamlining my access to suicide.”

Another leading activist, Simone Aspis, said that, as a disabled woman with learning difficulties, it was “a very sad day for our community”.

She said the bill was “really, really dangerous”.

She said she believed that, for her and other people with learning difficulties, assisted dying will become the “de facto” treatment option given to them by doctors.

She said: “The government keep saying that there is not enough money to go around, so we are going to spend money on creating an assisted dying service? 

“Where is this money going to be found? It’s going to be taken away from education, from care, from housing, from anything that supports us to have good lives.”

Aspis also pointed out that people with learning difficulties had been “excluded from this debate” because the bill had not been made available in easy read. 

Dermot Devlin, co-founder of DPAC Northern Ireland, said that, with the government’s cuts to disability benefits coming in, it was “a dangerous country now if you’re disabled… but we will keep fighting back.”

Chelsea Roff, a researcher and founder of the US-based charity Eat Breathe Thrive, who has fought for months to alert MPs to the risks the bill poses to people with eating disorders, said: “I’ve spent the last six months trying to raise awareness about this loophole, and hundreds of experts have warned parliament: charities, people with eating disorders, physicians, doctors, lawyers…

“I did that because I thought it was the right thing to do because I thought if MPs understood the evidence, they would act on it and amend the bill.

“I’m really disappointed and I think the evidence was minimised, it was dismissed, it was not meaningfully engaged with.”

Michael Lorimer, from DPAC Northern Ireland, said he was concerned that the bill gave ministers “massive executive powers”.

He said: “Given what they’re doing on benefit cuts, we can’t trust them to represent our best interests in terms of implementing this legislation. 

“It’s getting to the stage where Labour are a clear and present danger to disabled people’s lives here because of the benefit cuts and because this bill has gone through, giving them almost unlimited powers in terms of how they shape this legislation. 

“And they’ve been clear through the benefit cuts that they don’t value our lives.”

Jason de Souza said he believed the new law would be “a catalyst for a much wider agenda against disabled and vulnerable people, especially people who are in a situation where they need palliative care and support”.

Earlier, disabled activists had gathered nearby to share their final thoughts before the vote, after months of campaigning.

Devlin had told fellow protesters: “As a disabled person, this assisted dying bill breaks my heart. It terrifies me. 

“It tells me that my life, already pushed to the margins, already made harder by endless cuts and cruelty is… now disposable, it [turns] the language of choice and dignity into something darker.

“I want to live, I deserve to live, but this bill makes it clear to them that lives like mine are just too expensive to bother saving.”

The disabled crossbench peer Baroness [Tanni] Grey-Thompson fought back tears as she thanked disabled activists for attending the protest “despite the discrimination they face in their daily lives and inaccessible public transport”.

She said there was “so little safety in this bill, and so little understanding of the lives of disabled people, and the current government’s plans for welfare”.

Kevin Caulfield, former chair of Hammersmith and Fulham Coalition Against Cuts, said: “The bill, and what is happening with the universal credit and personal independence payment bill, really indicates disabled people’s position in society, because we have been sidelined all the way through this process. 

“People with life-limiting illnesses are disabled people and that’s in practice and in law and yet they have successfully managed to portray this bill as having very little to do with disabled people, and that’s a f*****g disgrace and it’s disgusting and the same is happening with the benefit cuts.”

Caulfield was given a terminal diagnosis 28 years ago, and says he “might well have decided to take the option” of an assisted death if it was available then “because I was a newly disabled person, I didn’t have access to other disabled people, I had no access to mental health support, and it may well have seemed like a reasonable option”.

But he said he was “still here 28 years later”, and there were “going to be many people in a similar situation to me, tens of thousands of people that will end up being dead as a by-product of this legislation”.

Disabled actor, writer and activist Liz Carr, said the number of disabled activists who had attended the protest was “amazing” in the context of spending cuts and “the struggle to survive”.

She told fellow activists: “You make me know that we’re right and that even if this goes through today and goes through to the Lords, we just keep going there because we know where this goes, we know what it means, we know how it will impact our community and other communities.”

Paula Peters, who had been the first to start the protest, at 6.30am outside parliament, said: “Whatever the outcome, we keep going, and we keep fighting, and we keep resisting… and we are not dead yet.”

Jamie McCormack, another disabled activist who refused to accept defeat, said: “We will fight on, we will fight for assistance to live, not to die. 

“We will fight to our very last dying breath.”

And George Fielding told fellow activists: “Our most precious public services, and the things on which we all rely, rely on doing no harm. 

“This bill will do harm; its very premise is to kill people, it’s a pre-designed process. 

“We are on the right side of history, always have been, and the resistance starts as soon as we hear the result today.”

26 June 2025

Timms says cuts must go ahead, despite being reminded of risk that disabled claimants could die

The minister for social security and disability has insisted that billions of pounds a year of cuts to disability benefits must go ahead, despite the risk that they will once again cause countless deaths of disabled claimants.

Sir Stephen Timms was giving evidence yesterday (Wednesday) to the Commons work and pensions committee about plans to cut billions of pounds a year from spending on personal independence payment (PIP) and the disability element of universal credit.

He was giving evidence to the committee’s final session of its inquiry into the government’s Pathways to Work green paper.

The first question he was asked, by committee chair Debbie Abrahams, was about the health impact of the cuts on disabled people, and whether the planned new employment support and jobs would be available by the time the government begins to implement the cuts next year.

She highlighted how research in 2015 by academics at Liverpool and Oxford universities showed the reassessment of disabled people on incapacity benefit through the work capability assessment was linked to about 600 suicides between 2010 and 2013.

Unpublished research also showed how cuts in 2017 – of nearly £30 a week to payments to new claimants of employment and support allowance who were placed in the work-related activity group (WRAG) – were associated with 130,000 “new onset mental health conditions”, she said.

Conservative ministers were ridiculed when they first announced the 2017 cuts and argued that they would “incentivise” those in the WRAG to find work.

Abrahams had already asked Sir Stephen what estimates the government had made of the impact the bill would have on health, in the light of these two pieces of research, at work and pensions questions on Monday.

He said on Monday that the Department for Work and Pensions was “working very closely with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that the health and care needs of people who lose benefits as a result of this process are met”.

And when asked again yesterday about the risk of harm caused by the bill, Sir Stephen said the government needed to make sure that both “employment support” and “health and care support” were in place when the cuts were implemented.

He said that new investment in infrastructure and jobs would be “coming into place” in the next few years, and with “what we are proposing on all of those fronts that we will be seeing the progress that we need”.

He added: “I don’t think it would be a viable option to say, well, we’re kind of not going to do anything about the health and disability benefits for a few years and see how things go.” 

The minister was also asked by Liberal Democrat MP John Milne about government plans to halve the health element for new claimants of universal credit next year from £97 per week in 2024-25 to £50 per week in 2026-27, and to freeze it at £97 for existing claimants from 2026-27.

Sir Stephen claimed there was a “very big incentive” for disabled people to “seek to be classified” as having limited capability for work and work-related activity (LCWRA), and so eligible for the health element top-up.

He said: “If they are classified as LCWRA they get a premium which is worth more than the universal credit standard allowance, and that is unavoidably a massive magnet for people.”

He pointed to a letter he had seen in which an MP’s disabled constituent had said that being classified as LCWRA – rather than as having limited capability for work – would mean they would be paid £400 a month more, which would mean they would be “comfortable”.

But Sir Stephen Timms appeared to suggest that a disabled person being financially “comfortable” on benefits was a bad thing.

He said: “And I think this is a really serious flaw in the current system, that it presents this sort of LCWRA status as a sort of something to aim for, that ‘if only I could get to that, I would be comfortable’, when the system should not be doing that to people.

“That is a very bad feature of the current system. 

“What the system should be doing is encouraging people to aspire to work and providing the support to make work possible and feasible, and so, yeah, we are wanting to substantially reduce that incentive.”

He said this would partly be done by raising the standard allowance of universal credit by £5 a week, as well as reducing the health element.

But Milne suggested that the government was concentrating on “Treasury first, needs second”, when what it should be doing was focusing on “needs first, Treasury second”.

26 June 2025

Absence of disabled people’s voices from assisted dying bill has been ‘astonishing’, says disabled MP

Disabled MPs have voted overwhelmingly against the assisted dying bill, and warned that it poses a clear danger to disabled people if it eventually becomes law.

Although the terminally ill adults (end of life) bill was passed by the Commons by 314 votes to 291 on Friday afternoon, disabled MPs strongly opposed the bill.

By Disability News Service (DNS) calculations, those MPs who have publicly self-described as disabled people voted against the bill by seven to one.

Disabled MPs who voted against the bill were Labour’s Jen Craft, Marsha de Cordova, Vicky Foxcroft, Liam Conlon, Emma Lewell and Marie Rimmer, and Liberal Democrat Steve Darling.

The only disabled MP who voted for the bill was Marie Tidball, who spoke repeatedly in favour of the legislation during its committee stage, and whose support has likely persuaded some wavering MPs of its safety. 

Of the eight disabled MPs, only Craft and Foxcroft spoke in Friday’s debate.

Craft told fellow MPs that their vote would have “real-world consequences”.

She warned that the medical establishment placed a lesser value on disabled people’s lives, and revealed that when told of her daughter’s Down’s syndrome when she was pregnant, “the first thing the midwife said to me after ‘I’m so sorry’ was, ‘I can book you a termination within 48 hours.’”

She said she could not support the bill “because we cannot legislate against discrimination and we cannot legislate out inherent bias”, and the bill did not have “the adequate safeguards in place”.

She said: “We have been told that there are panels that will provide a safeguard and take into account all of someone’s circumstances, and whether they have capacity. 

“However, those panels may in exceptional circumstances – the bill does not set out what those are – opt not to even meet the person whom they are discussing. 

“We know that the panels do not allow for family members and carers and those who know that person – if they have limited capacity, a learning disability or are unable to make certain decisions themselves – to play a role in that process or have any right of appeal.”

Craft said it was not the job of MPs to send a flawed bill to the Lords and then “out into the world, hoping that others will do our job for us and that it will all just come out in the wash”.

She said: “That is a dereliction of our duty as members of parliament. 

“If you have any concerns about this bill, now is the time to vote against it. You must do that. 

“You must not think that someone else will do your job for you. It is our decision.”

Foxcroft, who was speaking a day after resigning as a government whip over her concerns about the government’s disability benefit cuts, said she had previously been in favour of legalisation.

But she said that her four years as shadow minister for disabled people, during which she spoke to hundreds of disabled people and their organisations, showed they were “extremely fearful of assisted dying”.

She pointed to the huge numbers of disabled people who died during the pandemic, and those who had “do not attempt resuscitation” notices placed on their health records without their knowledge, which “made them fear for their lives”.

She said: “It made them fear that the authorities thought that their lives were worth less. It also made them fearful of what would happen if assisted dying was brought forward.”

She said disabled people “need the health and social care system fixing first” and “want us as parliamentarians to assist them to live, not to die”.

She said: “Disabled people’s voices matter in this debate, and yet as I have watched the bill progress, the absence of disabled people’s voices has been astonishing. 

“They have wanted to engage. Indeed, they have been crying out to be included, yet the engagement has been negligible. 

“I believe that only one disabled people’s organisation was given the opportunity to provide [oral] evidence to the committee.”

She also pointed to the failure to provide the bill in accessible formats, including easy read and British Sign Language.

She told MPs: “I will finish by saying that I am not opposed to the principle of assisted dying, but until we have a system that supports the right to life, I cannot support it. 

“Until we ensure that all safeguards are in place, I cannot support it. 

“And until the vast majority of disabled people and their organisations support the legislation that is being brought forward, I cannot support it.”

She added: “We are not voting on principles today. 

“This is real and we have to protect those people who are susceptible to coercion, who already feel like society does not value them, who often feel like a burden to the state, society and their family.”

26 June 2025

Timms misleads MPs on DWP transparency and cover-ups, as he gives evidence on PIP review

The social security and disability minister has misled MPs after suggesting he has ushered in a new era of openness and transparency in the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

Sir Stephen Timms told members of the work and pensions committee yesterday (Wednesday) that DWP was being “much more open” than under successive Conservative-led governments.

He had been asked by the committee’s chair, Labour MP Debbie Abrahams, about the review of personal independence payment (PIP) that he will shortly be leading. 

He was giving evidence to the committee’s final session of its inquiry into the government’s Pathways to Work green paper, which will see billions of pounds a year cut from disability benefits.

Abrahams highlighted how the department had previously failed to share its own secret reviews into deaths linked to the benefits system with independent experts commissioned by ministers.

Disability News Service had exposed how the department failed to share both peer reviews – now known as internal process reviews (IPRs) – and coroners’ reports with the experts commissioned to review the work capability assessment between 2010 and 2014.

Abrahams asked Sir Stephen to reassure the committee that data on deaths associated with PIP assessments would be available to whoever led the review.

He told the committee: “I’ll be undertaking the review, so yes, the information will be available to me, and actually, you know, we are being – not least thanks to your work, chair – much, much more open about all of this now than was the case in the past.”

He said the department “want people to see what’s going on”. 

He said: “There isn’t any benefit for the department in hiding these things. 

“They were hidden too often in the past. And I think that’s one reason why the trust in the department deteriorated so badly, because people can see that things were being covered up and hidden and it shouldn’t have been happening.

“And I’m determined that it won’t happen in the future.”

But despite his comments, the department is continuing to hide crucial information about deaths linked to the disability benefits system.

This week, Disability News Service (DNS) submitted written evidence to DWP’s safeguarding review to highlight how DWP was still hiding crucial information that would expose its past actions and failings.

Last month, DNS reported how DWP had unlawfully failed to respond to a freedom of information request to see a secret “critical friend” paper from 2021 on the department’s safeguarding failures.

It is also continuing to refuse to release recommendations made by IPRs following deaths linked to universal credit, dating back as far as 2020.

DWP is also appealing a decision made by the information commissioner that the department should release to DNS “a paper detailing the impact of errors on vulnerable customers” that was discussed at the 12 October 2022 meeting of the department’s serious case panel. 

And the department is continuing to refuse to release a transcript of a training session on human rights law given to DWP staff employed on working-age benefits. 

These are just some of the reports being hidden by DWP; there are likely to be countless other reports and data being kept from other disabled campaigners and allies.

Sir Stephen said he hoped the terms of reference for the PIP review would be released before MPs rise for their summer recess on 22 July.

26 June 2025

Ministers are considering further extension to disability hate crime laws, after pledge on ‘aggravated’ offences

The government is considering whether to strengthen disability hate crime laws even further, after ministers agreed to make a long-awaited improvement that will mean longer sentences for offenders.

Home Office minister Diana Johnson announced last week that the government would act to extend the law so that standalone “aggravated offences” would 

apply to disability hate crime and hate crime motivated by sexual orientation or transgender identity.

She said the government would add an amendment to the crime and policing bill to make this change when it reached its committee stage in the House of Lords, keeping a pledge made in Labour’s general election manifesto last year.

This would mean an offender could be charged with an offence – such as assault, harassment or criminal damage – that was aggravated by hostility towards a disabled person, and they would then face a tougher sentence if convicted.

At present, aggravated offences only apply to racial and religious hostility, and a disability hate crime can only be addressed by a court during sentencing, where the sentence can be increased if prosecutors can prove the offence was motivated by disability-related hostility.

The move was proposed in an amendment to the crime and policing bill by Labour’s Rachel Taylor, who told fellow MPs last week that the current discrepancy “cannot be right”. 

She said: “We cannot say, as a society, that some forms of hatred are more evil than others.”

The amendment was supported by disabled Labour MP Marie Tidball, who said the “opportunity to legislate to strengthen the law on hate crime offences must be seized”.

Disabled campaigners have been calling for the change for more than a decade.

But one leading campaigner said the government needed to go much further.

The aggravated offences change was recommended by the Law Commission in December 2021, but it also made two other key recommendations to strengthen disability hate crime laws.

It called for existing offences of stirring up hatred, which only apply to race and religion, to be extended to disabled and LGBT+ victims.

And the Law Commission also said an offender should be found guilty of a disability hate crime offence if they had been “motivated” by “hostility or prejudice” towards disabled people, rather than – at present – only by hostility.

Dr David Wilkin, a disabled activist, researcher, author* and support worker for survivors of disability hate crime, welcomed the move to extend aggravated offences.

But he was critical of the continuing refusal – following years of resistance from Conservative governments – to implement the two other Law Commission recommendations.

He said: “Now, with the perfect opportunity to bring disabled people into the 21st century by establishing legislative equality, they are choosing once again to make sure that disabled people are treated differently, with their hopes and needs once again relegated. 

“Hate crime campaigners have looked forward to disabled people being offered the same rights as other protected groups in new legislation. 

“But now, having reached this timely and convenient critical moment, the Labour government are deliberately excluding those with the greatest needs from attaining simple, fair, and much needed equality.”

The Home Office has told Disability News Service that it will be considering these two further recommendations carefully.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “This government has committed to making our streets safer for everyone and nobody should ever be harmed because of who they are.

“Criminals motivated by racial or religious hate already get tougher sentences. 

“Now we are making sure thugs who carry out vile attacks against someone based on their sexual orientation, transgender identity or disability will also spend longer behind bars.”

*Disability Hate Crime: Perspectives for Change, is published by Routledge

26 June 2025

Making all self-driving pilot schemes accessible would be ‘counter-productive’ and slow us down, says minister

A transport minister has told peers that it would be “counter-productive” – and take too long – to draw up rules that would ensure all pilot schemes of self-driving taxis are accessible to disabled people.

Labour’s rail minister Lord [Peter] Hendy was responding to concerns from disabled peer Baroness [Sal] Brinton, who had asked whether the government would make sure disabled people could use the self-driving vehicles when the pilots begin in England next spring.

The former president of the Liberal Democrats told Disability News Service (DNS) earlier this month that she was “very, very concerned” that the government was planning to allow companies to launch self-driving taxis and minibuses even if their vehicles were not accessible to disabled people.

She told fellow peers that the launch of driverless vehicles was a “once in an era moment”, and that contracts with providers should ensure that ramps and audio and visual announcements are “designed in right from the start”.

She said: “The government need to ensure that taxis and bus-like taxis will have accessibility designed into them. 

“Otherwise, it will be like everything else for disabled people: reasonable adjustments after the event that are expensive for the manufacturer and never perfect for the user.”

Lord Hendy told her the government would be subject to equality laws in deciding how granting a permit could “improve understanding of how these services should best be designed for and provided to disabled and older passengers”.

And he said permits could enforce certain conditions, while “accessibility considerations” would be set out in guidance.

But he said: “It would be counterproductive to specify detailed requirements in regulation for innovative new services.”

He said it was likely that the first driverless vehicles would be “the same sort of vehicles” already used for taxis and private hire vehicles.

He added: “In the medium term, clearly there will be new designs, and there are already some that are suitable for wheelchairs and people with disabilities. 

“We have to acknowledge that automated vehicles are part of an exciting future, but they have to be implemented safely, and she is right that they have to be implemented to benefit all parts of the community.”

He said he had “great sympathy” with Baroness Brinton “striving to make sure that disability is treated in the mainstream, but if we are going to do this quickly, we have to recognise that the early adoption under this act is likely to be using the same sorts of vehicles as are used now”. 

He said: “What we are looking for in the medium-term future is new designs, which should have the facilities such as audio-visual equipment and facilities for people in wheelchairs that she would expect.”

Lord Hendy said the government needed to “design in – as far as we can – facilities for disabled people among this”, but the government “have to get going with this, because it is such an exciting future”.

But another disabled peer, the Conservative Lord [Kevin] Shinkwin, pointed out that deputy prime minister Angela Rayner had spoken of the importance of getting disabled people into work, and he questioned how “the retro, ad hoc inclusion of disabled people facilitates the realisation of that worthy goal”.

Baroness Brinton told DNS afterwards that Lord Hendy’s response was “very disappointing” and that she would now seek a private meeting with him to discuss her concerns.

Transport for All (TfA), the disabled-led accessible transport charity, said the government’s plans, which could exclude disabled people from the pilot schemes, were “unacceptable”.

Megan Barnett, TfA’s policy and public affairs officer, said: “Equal access to transport allows us to be part of society. 

“If self-driving vehicles are allowed to develop without disabled people, they will only deepen existing inequalities.

“We need a strong national policy to ensure that the design and rollout of this exciting new technology includes disabled people from the start, so our whole community can benefit from driverless vehicles, now and in the future.”

The Department for Transport announced earlier this month that firms would be able to pilot small-scale “taxi- and bus-like” services without being monitored or controlled by a human for the first time next spring, before a potential wider rollout when the Conservative government’s Automated Vehicles Act is implemented in the second half of 2027.

The government believes self-driving vehicles could help reduce deaths and injuries on the roads, add new public transport options in rural areas, and have the potential to improve mobility, accessibility and independence for those who cannot drive, including many disabled and older people.

26 June 2025

Involve disabled people ‘meaningfully’ from the start when developing digital assistive tech, says report

There must be “meaningful participation” of disabled people in the initial stages of developing new digital assistive technology, if its potential for supporting their independence is to be realised, according to a new report.

The Royal Society concluded that tech companies, researchers and governments should do more to remove barriers and engage disabled people in the design of digital assistive tools and services.

Among the recommendations made by the Digital Technology report*, launched this week, is that governments should not consider smartphones as any less a form of assistive technology than hearing aids, manual wheelchairs, or white canes.

But it also warns that many disabled people globally experience lower levels of income compared with non-disabled people, so digital assistive technology needs to be affordable if it is to be useful.

It calls on governments, technology companies and research funders to explore ways to ensure affordability.

As part of the research, the Royal Society – the UK’s national academy of sciences – commissioned the Research Institute for Disabled Consumers to survey a panel of 850 disabled people.

Three-fifths (62 per cent) of them said they used digital assistive technology, with more than half of this group doing so throughout the day.

The survey found that more than half of users of digital assistive technology (53 per cent) said they could not live the way they did without it.

The report defines digital assistive technology as “any technology that processes information to help make people’s lives easier”, such as audio-to-text apps, wayfinding and navigation apps, wearable health devices, smart home devices, sight assistance apps, and screen-reading software.

The report also calls for statistics bodies to collect more data on the daily barriers many disabled people experience with their sight, mobility, and memory, rather than solely focusing on their self-reported disability identity. 

Sir Bernard Silverman, emeritus professor of statistics at the University of Oxford and chair of the report’s steering committee, said: “As a statistician, I would particularly stress that the data we record, and how we categorise it, affects everything and everyone.

“Data on the functional challenges experienced by disabled people would help researchers and providers to ensure that digital products and services, especially in the AI age, are genuinely responsive to their needs.”

The report was developed by a committee of international researchers and technology experts, several of whom are themselves disabled.

Dr Hamied Haroon, a research fellow at the University of Manchester and a member of the Royal Society’s diversity and inclusion committee’s disabled scientists subgroup, said: “We shouldn’t be developing assistive technologies or policies without disabled people being front and centre of the process.

“How do you capture the day-to-day challenges faced by disabled people, or ensure you’re offering solutions that actually work, unless you talk to disabled people?”

Dr Haroon, a member of the report’s steering committee, added: “These assistive technologies are fundamental to the workplace and our daily tasks – but they can be prohibitively expensive or unusable in some settings.

“We need to look at removing these barriers, whether that’s costs, additional training, or infrastructure improvements – like addressing patchy mobile data services that can cut off disabled people in rural and deprived areas.”

*Disability Technology: How data and digital assistive technologies can support independent, fulfilled lives

26 June 2025

Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week

Nearly 100,000 adults have been denied government-funded social care because of a decade’s worth of spending cuts, a Guardian analysis has revealed. The figures highlight how a range of government cuts have put so much pressure on the English social care service that it is leaving tens of thousands of people without the access to long-term care that they would have received 15 years ago: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jun/25/adults-england-denied-state-social-care-due-to-cuts 

Heathrow “needs improvement” in how it assists disabled passengers, a regulator has found. The Civil Aviation Authority, which conducted the assessment, also gave the same rating to Edinburgh and Glasgow Prestwick airports. It said the three airports have “clearly more to do” in their provision of additional support. Fourteen UK airports were rated as “good” and 11 as “very good”. None were rated “poor”: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/heathrow-civil-aviation-authority-frank-gardner-edinburgh-terminal-b2776464.html 

The mayor of London has said the government must think again about its plans to cut benefits for disabled people. Sir Sadiq Khan said the proposed changes would “destroy” the financial safety net of many disabled and disadvantaged Londoners: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn9y3q7eergo 

Downing Street’s disability cuts will have a “devastating” impact on women’s health and dignity and could breach equality laws, the government has been warned: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/24/labours-benefit-cuts-may-discriminate-against-disabled-women-say-charities 

26 June 2025

News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com