Consultation not Cruelty

Written by Jen Clark, Economic Social and Cultural Rights Lead at Amnesty UK

Attempts to Sideline the Voices of Disabled People reflect the Conscious Cruelty and indignity baked in to our social security system.  

The Labour manifesto 2024 pledged to place disabled people’s views and voices at the heart of what they do: 

“Labour is committed to championing the rights of disabled people and to the principle of working with them, so that their views and voices will be at the heart of all we do”. Labour Manifesto 2024 

Nearly a year after the general election this idea seems to have fallen completely by the wayside. The Labour Government have actively moved to silence the views of disabled people, to drive harmful social security policy through parliament and find ways around the usual scrutiny and participation in the legislative process.  

Amnesty International UK and Disabled People’s Organisations Forum England wrote to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions,  before the consultation on the green paper, raising concerns. To date there has been no response. 

Based on information shared with us by disability rights activists who have taken part, and from Amnesty International UK observations outside of these meetings we believe that the DWP’s  ‘consultation’ process is not fit for purpose. Disabled activists have been refused access, the consultation is only looking at a narrow section that it deems  ‘in scope’ and we believe it does not meet the standards set out in the Cabinet Office’s own consultation guidance. Specifically: 

Timing: Consultations are not taking place at a stage where policies or implementation plans are still being developed. The proposals in the green paper were already largely formed by the time consultations began. 

Accessibility and inclusion: The in-person consultations did not adequately account for the needs of the groups being consulted. In some cases, DWP failed to make reasonable adjustments for access, transport, and communication. Venues were only disclosed at the last minute, making travel planning difficult. In several instances, ticket numbers were so limited that people who arrived could not enter.  The atmosphere has been intimidating with security guards, bag searches and even police present.  

Information access: Participants were not provided with all the necessary information in accessible and understandable formats. The partial nature of the published impact assessments limited people’s ability to provide informed responses. 

A participant shared her experience of the consultation in Newcastle with us:  

“Plans for this Clare a PIP claimanconsultation didn’t exist until 7 days ago even though the DWP have had 12 weeks to plan it. The venue is so far from me, that the only way I could get there is taxi which cost £50 each way and my mobility payment is only £25 a week. When I asked the DWP to cover this cost they did not respond until I copied my MP the day before the event threatening to tell the press. 

I arrived today in my taxi and 3 security guard surrounded us and searched our boot.   They made me get out at the gate and I had to walk the length of the large site it took 15 minutes.  I could have been dropped outside. I felt like being watched walking in by DWP staff who assess my claim. I arrived at reception and my bag was checked even opening my AirPods.  I had to sign in 3 times and I was escorted the whole time. I asked if I could have a drink of water to take my pills and they said no.  

There was only 8 people there, and I think they struggled to fill the places because it was such late notice.  I was told it’s anonymous, but I was made to wear a large name badge. There were no spaces for wheelchairs and had to move the room around. No BSL interpreter and no easy read versions of materials on the tables.    

It became antagonistic very quickly. Someone asked is this really a meaningful consultation? The facilitator held up their hand to stop them speaking. The question wasn’t answered. I felt patronised throughout the consultation, and it was clear that they had an agenda of what they wanted to discuss that they would not divert from. The questions were the green paper consultation on the website. After the second question was asked about what support people losing PIP need, I pointed out we’ve never been consulted on the cuts and that this consultation is not meaningful so I left.” 

Based on the views like these shared with Amnesty International UK so far, we believe the consultation process may also fall short of compliance with the Gunning Principles which are the legal principles against which consultations are measured to see if they are lawful.   These consultations have been dehumanising for claimants who feel mistrusted with a deeply troubling security presence.  We will support disabled persons organisations to explore formally raising this, once the consultation findings are published.  

We've also heard from participants that DWP representatives were clear that the contents of the Universal Credit (UC) and Personal Independence Payment (PiP) Bill were not allowed to be discussed. In some cases, where people raised concerns, facilitators actively shut down conversations or stated that comments relating to cuts would not be included in the final DWP consultation report. 

Politicians have suggested that although the cuts and changes to eligibility and assessment for the health element of UC and PIP in the Bill were not subject to formal consultation, there has been engagement with disabled people and their representatives.  For example, Lisa Nandy stated on the World at One on 25th June 2025 responded to a call for consultation stating “we’ve been talking to disabled people and their representatives for a long time both in government and out of it”.  

These "engagement" meetings do not meet the definition of formal consultation as set out in the Gunning Principles. These were not opportunities to influence policy development, but rather information sessions held after decisions had already been made and published in the Spring Statement and later the Bill. This falls short of the UK’s international obligations on the human right to participation. 

Critically, there has been no formal attempt to gather feedback from people directly affected about how these changes will impact the lives of Disabled People or exacerbate existing inequalities. As such, the risk of unintended consequences from making policy that is disconnected from lived experience is substantial. 

Finally, the DWP has undermined public understanding and democratic engagement by failing to publish accessible versions of the Bill, limiting people’s ability to discuss the proposals with their elected representatives. 

There is a reasoned amendment to the Bill which has is reported to have the support of over 100 parliamentarians which “declines to give a Second Reading to the Universal Credit and Personal Independent Payment Bill”.  “Because its provisions have not been subject to a formal consultation with disabled people, or co-produced with them, or their carers.”  These MPs have listened to their constituents and to disabled people where the government failed to.   

We urge those who have signed this to stand firm and for those who haven’t yet signed, we urge you to think, if you were disabled too, what would you want your MP to do.