DWP fails to publish accessible version of disability cuts to PIP benefits
The government has been accused of showing "disregard" for engaging with disabled people after it published a consultation document on reforms to the benefits system without making any accessible versions available.
A green paper inviting people to share their views was shared on the government website as Work and Pensions secretary Liz Kendall announced a host of reforms in Parliament on Tuesday.
Read our live coverage of reaction to Labour's cuts to disability benefits here
It seeks "views on the approaches government should consider around reform of the health and disability benefits system and employment support", except some people with certain disabilities may struggle to navigate the document in its current form.
The lack of any accessible formats was highlighted by Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion, Sian Berry, who in a post on X wrote: "If you want a clear illustration of the Government's disregard for really engaging with Disabled people, they have produced NO accessible versions of their plans today."
If you want a clear illustration of the Government's disregard for really engaging with Disabled people, they have produced NO accessible versions of their plans today. pic.twitter.com/2NXApqqJbW
— Sian Berry (@sianberry) March 18, 2025
On the consultation document, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) says further accessible formats will be shared online "in due course".
"The consultation will close 12 weeks after the point at which the accessible versions of this Green Paper are available," it adds.
"We have published this paper ahead of all accessible versions to put detailed information about the matters subject to consultation in the public domain at the earliest opportunity, although the production of accessible versions requires additional time.
"The consultation is currently set to close on 30 June, but this is subject to extension to ensure that the consultation will run for a full 12 weeks after all of the accessible versions of the paper are published."
Despite the DWP's explanation, the lack of any accessible version at the first outset is likely to be seen as an additional kick in the teeth considering disabled people will be among those most affected by the government's reforms.
Disability charity Scope described the changes as "most devastating cuts to disability benefits on record" and said the plans should "shame the government to its core".
It said that while it supports the government's plans to invest in "tailored, non-compulsory employment support", this positive step will be "completely undermined" by "ripping £5 billion out of the benefits system by 2030".
Read more
What are the key benefit changes in Labour's welfare overhaul? From PIP to Universal Credit (The Independent)
DWP disability benefit changes to Universal Credit, ESA and PIP confirmed (The Northern Echo)
What UK politicians get paid and how it compares to other countries (LoveMoney)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Verge
an hour ago
- The Verge
Anthropic launches new Claude service for military and intelligence use
Anthropic on Thursday announced Claude Gov, its product designed specifically for U.S. defense and intelligence agencies. The AI models have looser guardrails for government use and are trained to better analyze classified information. The company said the models it's announcing 'are already deployed by agencies at the highest level of U.S. national security,' and that access to those models will be limited to government agencies handling classified information. The company did not confirm how long they had been in use. Claude Gov models are specifically designed to uniquely handle government needs, like threat assessment and intelligence analysis, per Anthropic's blog post. And although the company said they 'underwent the same rigorous safety testing as all of our Claude models,' the models have certain specifications for national security work. For example, they 'refuse less when engaging with classified information' that's fed into them, something consumer-facing Claude is trained to flag and avoid. Claude Gov's models also have greater understanding of documents and context within defense and intelligence, according to Anthropic, and better proficiency in languages and dialects relevant to national security. Use of AI by government agencies has long been scrutinized because of its potential harms and ripple effects for minorities and vulnerable communities. There's been a long list of wrongful arrests across multiple U.S. states due to police use of facial recognition, documented evidence of bias in predictive policing, and discrimination in government algorithms that assess welfare aid. For years, there's also been an industry-wide controversy over large tech companies like Microsoft, Google and Amazon allowing the military — particularly in Israel — to use their AI products, with campaigns and public protests under the No Tech for Apartheid movement. Anthropic's usage policy specifically dictates that any user must 'Not Create or Facilitate the Exchange of Illegal or Highly Regulated Weapons or Goods,' including using Anthropic's products or services to 'produce, modify, design, market, or distribute weapons, explosives, dangerous materials or other systems designed to cause harm to or loss of human life.' At least eleven months ago, the company said it created a set of contractual exceptions to its usage policy that are 'carefully calibrated to enable beneficial uses by carefully selected government agencies.' Certain restrictions — such as disinformation campaigns, the design or use of weapons, the construction of censorship systems, and malicious cyber operations — would remain prohibited. But Anthropic can decide to 'tailor use restrictions to the mission and legal authorities of a government entity,' although it will aim to 'balance enabling beneficial uses of our products and services with mitigating potential harms.' Claude Gov is Anthropic's answer to ChatGPT Gov, OpenAI's product for U.S. government agencies, which it launched in January. It's also part of a broader trend of AI giants and startups alike looking to bolster their businesses with government agencies, especially in an uncertain regulatory landscape. When OpenAI announced ChatGPT Gov, the company said that within the past year, more than 90,000 employees of federal, state, and local governments had used its technology to translate documents, generate summaries, draft policy memos, write code, build applications, and more. Anthropic declined to share numbers or use cases of the same sort, but the company is part of Palantir's FedStart program, a SaaS offering for companies who want to deploy federal government-facing software. Scale AI, the AI giant that provides training data to industry leaders like OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, and Meta, signed a deal with the Department of Defense in March for a first-of-its-kind AI agent program for U.S. military planning. And since then, it's expanded its business to world governments, recently inking a five-year deal with Qatar to provide automation tools for civil service, healthcare, transportation, and more.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Is the end of the dreaded airport queue in sight? Not quite
Last week, British passengers arriving at Tenerife South Airport reported 'inhumane' conditions after queueing for more than two hours without access to water or loos. 'We couldn't move our arms, we could barely breathe, and people were sweating. Some parents lifted their children onto their shoulders to stop them from suffocating,' one passenger told local media. It's a frightening image, and one that has become more common at European airports since British air passengers became 'third-country nationals' after Brexit. This effectively gives us the same rights as arrivals from, say, Venezuela, banishing us to the often snail-paced 'All Passports' queue to get a stamp on arrival. When flying home we must also pass through border control to get a second exit stamp before proceeding to the gate. This can lead to scenarios where passengers are kettled at the gates with no access to refreshments if a flight is delayed, and no way to go back to the main terminal area. Change, it seems, is on the horizon. The Labour party has struck a deal with the EU to allow British passport holders to pass through e-gates, and the introduction of the Entry/Exit System (EES) in October will automate identity checks and remove the need for manual passport stamps. So will these images of British passengers snaking out of arrival halls at European airports soon be a thing of the past? Yes, but it may take a while. When it first rolls out, EES will require British (and all non-EU) travellers to provide fingerprints and facial images when entering or exiting the Schengen Area. This process has been much-delayed, not least because implementing it requires a continent-wide tech overhaul. And as we all know, airport IT systems, often operated by third-party firms and alongside multiple other systems, have a tendency to buckle at inopportune moments. If the new tech doesn't create hold-ups, the data capture process could. Pressing thumbs on sensors and having a photograph taken may sound like a simple process, but how many times have you seen somebody push their passport into the e-gate sensor the wrong way up? Such are the fears of hold-ups that airports are planning 'safety valve' procedures, where the requirement to capture everyone's data will be temporarily waived if a checkpoint gets too busy. On e-gates, I have found this new Labour/EU e-gates 'agreement' to be somewhat smoke and mirrors. The wording in the relevant document says that 'British passengers will be able to use more e-gates in Europe'. But this does not necessarily mean we will be able to use fast-track EU e-gates. Instead, it might be that we remain in the naughty ('All Passports') queue that happens to have an e-gate at the end of it. This will ultimately be up for individual countries and airports to decide. I will allow you to decide whether we are likely to receive sympathy on this matter, or not. Perhaps I'm being overly negative. Let's say that the EES roll-out isn't as clunky as feared, and that through some miracle the majority of European airports do kindly allow Britons to use their fast-track e-gates. Surely the airport queues will have simmered down by next summer? Maybe. But we will still face the additional border check when flying home (albeit with biometrics rather than a passport stamp). And hold-ups like those seen in Tenerife are as much to do with poor scheduling as anything else. I checked the arrivals board on Tuesday June 2, and at 10.40am there were scheduled flights from Manchester (Jet2), Liverpool (Jet2), East Midlands (Tui) and Bournemouth (Ryanair). Ten minutes later, flights from Birmingham and Leeds (both Jet2) were scheduled to land, plus another from Paris. That's seven 180-or-so capacity flights touching onto tarmac, one after the other, in the space of ten minutes, at a single-runway, single-terminal airport. Even the sleekest, AI-powered biometric arrivals system would struggle to process all those passengers without the formation of a queue. There are some changes to the airport process that we can feel optimistic about. Soon, we'll be able to take greater quantities of liquids through security at all UK airports. A shake-up of UK flight paths promises to reduce air traffic delays before the end of the decade. And yes, all this new tech will eventually reduce friction at borders. But when you are stuck in a packed arrivals hall with a child on your shoulders and no access to water, you will be praying for progress now – not at some ambiguous point in the future. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Trump tax bill would add $550 billion in interest payments to national debt
President Donald Trump's massive tax and immigration proposal would lead the federal government to spend hundreds of billions of dollars extra paying new interest on the soaring national debt, congressional bookkeepers reported Thursday, as lawmakers come to grips with the gargantuan cost of the GOP's policy agenda. The Congressional Budget Office projected that new borrowing the legislation would force the government to make would also lead to $550 billion more in interest payments. That would raise the overall price tag of the measure, titled the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, to $3 trillion over the next decade.
