Category: ESA, PIP, UC and DLA Queries and Results
MY FURTHER REPLY AWAITING RESPONSE
Dear Liz Kendall MP,
Thank you for responding to my previous 20-page letter regarding Labour’s Pathways to Work Green Paper. I recognise the time pressures that come with your role and appreciate that you took time to respond. However, I must express that your reply failed to meaningfully address the most pressing concerns, facts, and questions raised in my letter.
What you provided was a reiteration of government talking points - vague assurances, selective policy highlights, and political framing. What it did not include were any direct answers to the five specific questions I clearly laid out at the end of my long letter to you. Those questions were based on evidence, lived experience, and public accountability.
This email serves as a formal follow-up, and I respectfully ask that you or your office respond to each point in full.
1. Economic Priorities: Why Target Disabled People Over the Wealthiest?
Your letter offered no response to my question about alternative funding sources. Instead, you endorsed cost-cutting welfare reforms without acknowledging the broader fiscal context. I find this deeply troubling as will millions of others in our country.
The facts:
£90 billion is lost annually in tax avoidance (Tax Justice UK, 2023)
A 1% wealth tax on those with assets over £10 million could raise £50 billion per year (Wealth Tax Commission, LSE, 2024)
Closing tax loopholes and ending non-dom status could raise a further £14 billion annually (IPPR, 2023)
Meanwhile, the proposed disability reforms aim to save £3-5 billion over five years (OBR estimate)
These reforms are not fiscally necessary. They are a political choice - one that asks disabled people, carers, and those on low incomes to pay a price that billionaires, multinationals, and landlords are not asked to contribute.
You say Labour is “the party of the welfare state.” How does targeting the sick, while protecting extreme wealth, reflect that legacy?
2. Employer Accountability: Why Is There No Legal Enforcement for Disability Discrimination?
Your response failed to mention one of the central themes in my letter: that disabled people are routinely excluded from meaningful employment, not because of incapacity, but because of unchecked discrimination and non-compliance with existing laws.
70% of disabled employees report not receiving necessary adjustments when requested (TUC, 2023)
1 in 3 disabled workers have experienced harassment or bullying at work (EHRC, 2023)
52% of disabled people are in work, compared to 82% of non-disabled people (ONS, 2024)
My own experience includes being dismissed during training, forced out of jobs after requesting adjustments, and being silenced by NDAs after employer failures. This isn’t a rare story - it’s the norm.
Where is Labour’s policy to:
Introduce legal penalties for employers who fail to comply with the Equality Act 2010?
Reform Access to Work to reduce waiting times (currently up to 13 months - NAO, 2023)?
Require employers to publish disability pay gaps or inclusion metrics?
Expand legal aid for disabled workers pursuing discrimination claims?
Labour cannot talk about “getting disabled people into work” without enforcing employer accountability. Otherwise, these reforms simply funnel people into exploitative, short-term, or hostile workplaces — with no recourse.
3. Assessment Reform: Why Expand PIP When It Is Statistically Broken?
You referenced Labour’s plan to scrap the WCA and move to a PIP-based eligibility model. However, you failed to acknowledge the severe flaws in the PIP system that would be inherited under this plan.
54% of PIP appeals succeed — the most common reason being assessors ignored medical evidence (Ministry of Justice, 2024)
Face-to-face assessments have the lowest success rates: 44% in 2024 compared to 57% for telephone/video assessments (DWP, 2024)
Informal observations (e.g. how someone walks into the room) continue to trump clinical reports — an issue tribunal judges frequently criticise
Labour plans to increase face-to-face assessments in 2025, despite knowing they are the least accurate and most traumatic format for many claimants. You also failed to respond to my point about PIP changes being implemented without full consultation - particularly the proposed 4-point minimum for daily living eligibility, which was not part of the consultation questions.
This is not reform. It is cost-cutting by stealth.
How will you:
Guarantee medical evidence is prioritised?
Prevent face-to-face formats from being used punitively?
Ensure people with fluctuating, hidden, or neurodevelopmental conditions are not systematically excluded?
4. Real-Term Cuts Disguised as “Rebalancing”
Your response celebrated the upcoming £775 per year increase to the standard Universal Credit allowance by 2029/30. But let’s break this down in real terms:
£775 per year is £14.90 per week
Spread over five years, this means less than £3 per week extra, per year
Meanwhile, the LCWRA component - worth £390.06 per month or £90 per week - will be frozen, losing value each year due to inflation
This is not a net benefit for disabled people - it is a redistribution from needs-based support to generalised allowances. And from 2026, new claimants will receive reduced health top-ups, effectively penalising those who become disabled in the future.
Will Labour:
Reverse or pause this freeze until benefits rise in line with inflation?
Commit to inflation-linking the LCWRA element, as well as PIP and other health-related support?
5. NHS Crisis and Mental Health Delays: Ignored Barriers to Work
You acknowledged NHS underfunding but did not respond to my question: how can people engage with work-focused benefits when they are still waiting for treatment or diagnosis?
An estimated 7.6 million people are on NHS waiting lists (NHS England, 2024)
2 in 5 disability benefit recipients are currently waiting for medical treatment (DWP, 2025)
Waiting lists for therapy and surgery exceed 12–24 months in many areas (Mind, 2024). Private treatments a therapies costs from £80 into thousands per hour, leaving many like me with no option but to wait years for NHS treatment.
Conditions like endometriosis, menopause, Crohn’s, fibromyalgia and ADHD routinely go undiagnosed or misdiagnosed for years. The NHS often also has no cure, or way to manage these condition's, leaving people with no hope or positive outlook for their future.
People are being failed by a healthcare system that is already at breaking point. Until treatment is accessible, benefit reform that assumes work-readiness is premature, unrealistic, and dangerous.
How will Labour:
Delay benefit conditionality reforms until NHS access is improved?
Integrate NHS evidence directly into DWP systems to avoid repetitive assessments and delays?
Provide automatic benefit extensions for those awaiting treatment or diagnosis?
6. Unemployment Insurance: Why Create a Two-Tier Safety Net?
You referenced a new unemployment insurance model being considered by Labour. This raises several red flags. We already pay National Insurance and income tax to fund a public safety net - Universal Credit exists to serve that purpose.
Creating a elparallel, contributory insurance scheme risks mimicking US-style, income-based systems, where people must “buy in” to deserve support
This would disproportionately exclude carers, disabled people, gig economy workers, and others with unstable employment patterns
Key questions that remain unanswered:
Will this scheme be optional or mandatory?
Will those who cannot contribute due to illness or care duties be penalised or excluded?
Will this model lead to a lower base rate of UC for others in future - creating a two-tier welfare system?
Why is Labour proposing a system that shifts responsibility from the state to the individual - and implicitly blames those unable to work for their own poverty?
7. The Measures You Highlighted Raise More Concerns Than Confidence
Each of the “protective” measures referenced in your response - including the “Right to Try” policy, the new UC premium for those who will “never work,” and cash protections for existing claimants - sound superficially reassuring but lack any real substance, clarity, and/or safeguards.
The “Right to Try”
What legal protections will exist to guarantee automatic reinstatement of previous awards if the person’s health deteriorates or the job fails?
Will people have to go through reassessment again, or will their prior status be preserved?
How long is the “right to try” window - is it 1 month, 6 months, or more?
What support will exist if someone is dismissed due to disability-related performance issues?
Without detailed guarantees, this policy risks becoming a backdoor reassessment regime, punishing those who take a risk on work.
The New UC Premium for People Who Will “Never Work”
Who defines “never able to work”? Will this be based on PIP, which is already deeply flawed?
How will Labour protect those with fluctuating, degenerative, or invisible conditions from being excluded?
What reassessment protections exist for people wrongly excluded from this new category?
Will people be able to appeal or requalify - and what evidence will be accepted?
Categorising people into “always able” vs “never able” to work is reductive and risks harming those who don’t fit neatly into either label.
Cash Protections for Existing Claimants
If the health top-up is frozen while prices rise, this is a real-terms cut.
Why isn’t it being indexed, like the UC standard allowance?
What poverty monitoring will be in place to review this decision - and will Labour reverse course if financial hardship increases?
Final Request for Direct Clarification
I am again requesting full and direct written responses to the points raised above, and clarify with the following questions:
Will Labour commit to taxing the ultra-wealthy and closing loopholes before targeting disabled people for cost savings?
Will Labour introduce legal accountability for employers who fail to accommodate disabled workers, including penalties for Equality Act breaches?
Will Labour halt or revise plans to shift from WCA to PIP-based assessments, given the proven failures of both models?
Will Labour ensure that all disability-related benefits { including LCWRA } rise with inflation, and are protected from stealth cuts via freezes?
Will Labour pause all work-focused conditionality reforms until NHS waiting times and access to diagnosis and treatment are significantly improved?
Will the proposed unemployment insurance scheme be optional, universal, and inclusive of carers, disabled people, and insecure workers ~ or will it introduce a two-tier system that increases inequality?
What legal safeguards, appeal mechanisms, and reassessment protections will be built into the “Right to Try” and “Never Able to Work” categories, to ensure these systems are protective and empowering ~ not punitive or exclusionary?
These questions go beyond party politics, they are about policy integrity, human dignity, and the survival of people like me. We need and deserve definitive answers, not more vague reassurances.
This is your policy. This is your leadership. This is your time to be “The Change.”
I would appreciate a full written response within 28 working days.
Yours faithfully,
