Contents
Chancellor’s reported plans to impose VAT on Motability could add £3,000 to even the cheapest cars 1
Peers derail government plans to hand some DWP staff powers to use force against benefit claimants 5
Reeves refuses to apologise for repeating false claim that social security spending is spiralling 7
Timms goes back on his word by refusing to provide crucial evidence of Access to Work cuts 8
Ministers finally announce progress on ‘liberty safeguards’, but also challenge vital definition 14
Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week 16
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
Other disability-related stories covered by mainstream media this week
Families with children left disabled by long Covid have told a national inquiry “it’s almost as if we don’t exist”. Thousands of children have been left disabled and often bedbound due to the post-viral syndrome which their parents say much of the NHS still refuses to recognise. They told the Mirror of their shock at discovering from the UK Covid-19 Inquiry that medics were told during the pandemic not to “label” children with long Covid – meaning thousands have never been properly diagnosed: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/covid-19-inquiry-reveals-forgotten-36115749
Placing debt and benefits advisers in GP surgeries could ease pressure on the NHS and improve patients’ health across the country, a pilot scheme has shown. The Financial Shield project, run across 34 GP practices in south London, found that more than half of participants reported improvements in their physical or mental health after receiving tailored financial support, with around one in three saying they needed fewer GP appointments afterwards. The scheme has government backing: https://archive.ph/tbQWL
Teachers, not councils, will take a greater role in assessing children with special educational needs and disabilities, the education secretary has revealed in an interview with The i Paper. Bridget Phillipson insisted that “formal assessment processes” would still take place but signalled plans to shift responsibility from local authorities to schools and teachers as she seeks to bring in higher overall standards of support in mainstream schools: https://archive.ph/AKoZj
Long-awaited plans to overhaul the crisis-hit special educational needs and disabilities system have been delayed. The schools white paper had been due to be published this autumn but will now be released next year. The decision is understood to have been made extremely recently, with education secretary Bridget Phillipson having given a speech on the white paper just last week: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/long-awaited-send-plans-delayed-36116454
Decades of efforts by mainstream politicians to roll back welfare programmes have given rise to an “extremely dangerous” discourse that has helped fuel the rise of the far right and right-wing populists in countries around the world, a top UN expert has told the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/21/welfare-cuts-have-fuelled-rise-of-far-right-and-populism-top-un-expert-says
One in 12 secondary pupils report being put into school isolation rooms at least once a week where they often spend in excess of eight hours, missing more than a full day of lessons, according to research. Children with special educational needs were more than twice as likely to be placed in isolation, otherwise known as internal exclusion, while students from low-income backgrounds were also disproportionately affected: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/oct/23/one-in-12-secondary-pupils-put-in-isolation-rooms-at-least-once-a-week-study-finds
An autistic man who volunteered for four years at Waitrose has lost his role after his mum asked if he could be paid. Tom Boyd stacked shelves and emptied stock cages at a branch in Cheadle Hulme, Greater Manchester, while being accompanied by a support worker. He began in 2021 and has now racked up more than 600 hours of volunteering: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/waitrose-sacks-autistic-volunteer-after-36106706
23 October 2025
News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com