This isn’t mere speculation, it’s happening now. In a House of Commons debate on 1 July 2025, Conservative MP Helen Whately explicitly endorsed returning to face-to-face assessments, saying:

“They support replacing remote or online assessments for claimants with face‑to‑face assessments, that simple change alone could dramatically reduce the number of new claimants.”

Meanwhile, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall confirmed the government is moving in that direction. Speaking in Parliament just days earlier, she stated:

“In talking about a two‑tier welfare system…they [Tories] ended [remote assessments], and…we are going back to face‑to‑face assessments.”

For campaigners and disabled people, these are not abstract policy shifts, they are declarations of intent that threaten the accessibility gains made during the pandemic.

For someone with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (M.E.), a condition characterised by post-exertional malaise (PEM), a severe worsening of symptoms after even minimal exertion, and debilitating exhaustion, a virtual assessment can be the difference between participating in a crucial part of their benefit claim and triggering a week-long crash. The energy required to prepare for, travel to, and endure a face-to-face assessment can be monumental, often leading to a significant deterioration in health. This isn’t just an inconvenience; it’s a direct and detrimental impact on a person’s wellbeing. Failing to attend an assessment, even due to a severe flare-up of a health condition, can result in a claimant’s benefits being stopped, leaving them with no choice but to push through the pain and risk their health. It is, quite literally, a system that punishes people for being too ill to comply with it.

Under the Equality Act 2010, there is a legal duty to provide ‘reasonable adjustments’ for disabled people. Retaining virtual and telephone assessments is not only a reasonable adjustment; it is a necessary one. When attending an assessment in person will foreseeably cause a significant worsening of a claimant’s health, forcing them to do so is not only unreasonable but discriminatory.

Beyond the immediate health impacts, there is a deep-seated and cynical reason why many disabled people fear a return to face-to-face assessments. Anecdotally, and increasingly backed by data, is the suspicion that the very act of attending an in-person assessment is used as evidence against a claimant. The logic is as perverse as it is simplistic: if you can manage to walk into the assessment centre and down the corridor, your mobility issues can’t be that severe. This crude “informal observation” fails to capture the reality: the excruciating pain, the necessarily slow pace, the reliance on mobility aids or companions, or the subsequent crash that made that single journey possible.

Recent data backs up these concerns, according to published figures referenced in the House of Commons debates, claimants undergoing face-to-face PIP assessments are nearly a quarter less likely to receive an award compared to those assessed remotely. The difference in success rates, up to 13% lower for in-person assessments, is more than statistical background noise. It reflects a systemic bias against those whose disabilities make attendance a burden and whose efforts to comply are turned against them. The move to roll back these accessible options is part of a broader, troubling narrative that frames the benefits system through suspicion rather than support. The belief that tougher assessments will “dramatically reduce” claims, as Whately suggested, betrays a policy approach driven more by numbers than justice.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) itself has acknowledged the existence and disabling effects of conditions like M.E., including the phenomenon of post-exertional malaise. It is an unforgivable contradiction to simultaneously recognise that exertion worsens symptoms, and then insist on an assessment process that demands precisely that exertion.

Let us be clear: the solution is not to abolish face-to-face assessments entirely. For some, they are the most appropriate and effective method. The key is choice. Claimants, in consultation with their medical professionals, must have the autonomy to select the assessment format that best suits their health and circumstances. The pandemic forced a long-overdue change, one that finally levelled the playing field for many disabled people. To now strip away this accessibility would be a callous and regressive step. We urge the government to listen to disabled voices, to uphold its legal obligations under the Equality Act, and to commit to a system rooted in flexibility, fairness, and trust.

Remote assessments should not be a temporary accommodation. They should be a permanent option, because accessibility is not a luxury; it’s a right.

✊ Call to Action: Demand Choice in PIP Assessments (BEFORE the 3rd reading on Wednesday please)

Disabled people should not be forced into assessments that risk their health. If you’re outraged by what you’ve read, don’t stay silent:

• Write to your MP today. Demand they support retaining remote PIP assessments as a permanent option and uphold disabled people’s rights under the Equality Act.
• Remind them: Accessibility is not optional. It is the law.
•  Share your story if you’ve been affected. Firsthand accounts are powerful, speak out on social media, tag your MP, and use the hashtag #EqualityActNow #WelfareBill

🔗 Find your MP and email them

Together, we can push back against policies that threaten hard-won accessibility and demand a welfare system that supports, not penalises, the people it serves.

Sources: House of Commons debate, 1 July 2025 (Hansard); Guardian Politics Live, 30 June–1 July 2025; Big Issue (1 July 2025); Benefits and Work, 2025

The post The Fight for Fairer Assessments: Why Remote PIP Reviews Must Remain first appeared on ME Foggy Dog.

As the Founder/Manager of M.E. Foggy Dog, I ensure that the voices of people living with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (M.E.) are heard and that their experiences shape the conversations I have about disability rights, access to adequate and appropriate care, and government policies. That’s why I’m asking for a little bit of help from you!

This week, proposed changes to the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) assessments have been causing a lot of concern within the disabled and chronically sick communities, including people living with M.E. I know these changes are complex (and at the moment, very vague), and the effects will vary from person to person depending on many factors. Still, I’m hoping to gather some informal data to get a rough idea of the percentage of people who will be negatively affected if the changes go on to be implemented at some point in the future. I get that this is a tricky thing to measure and that the data won’t be perfect. If you’ve been through a PIP assessment in the past and scored 4 points in any category, I would appreciate hearing from you. If you can, please email me with the following info:

1. Which category contained the 4 points in your assessment?
2. What was your overall score on the assessment?
3. What level of severity were you experiencing at the time of the assessment?

This isn’t about getting precise, polished data; it’s about creating a snapshot. With this info, I can better understand how many people are likely to face negative consequences due to these changes in PIP, and it will help us, as a community, fight back against the government’s cuts to disability benefits.

If you’re able to share your experience, please email me at sally@mefoggydog.org  Your input could make a real difference in my ongoing work pushing for welfare reform that is in keeping with the needs of people living with M.E.

Thanks in advance for your energy, time, and support.

Sally

The post Help to Establish the Impact of PIP Assessment Changes on People with M.E. first appeared on ME Foggy Dog.