Disability News Service December 18th

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

Dec 202025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inclusion London also criticised the move.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18 December 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**The Freedom of Information Act

18 December 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18 December 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Disability Wales is a Disability News Service subscriber

18 December 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18 December 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18 December 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18 December 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He also called for a national NHS wheelchair services strategy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18 December 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Motability Foundation is a DNS subscriber

23 October 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

23 October 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Labour peers voted in favour of his amendment.

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

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

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

23 October 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

23 October 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*DNS editor John Pring

23 October 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

23 October 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

23 October 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

23 October 2025

DPAC

Disability News Service December 18th

Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week

Disability News Service October 23rd

Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week