London Mayor Boris Johnson has objected to key aspects of Government welfare reforms - warning they could push disabled people "further into poverty".

The senior Conservative politician detailed a series of objections to changes to Disability Living Allowance (DLA) in his response to a consultation.

His highly-critical analysis was among more than 500 submissions obtained from the Department for Work and Pensions by campaigners using a Freedom of Information request.

They said his views matched those of almost everyone who responded to the plans to cut the overall bill by 20% and accused ministers of failing to admit the scale of opposition.

Among the changes challenged by Mr Johnson - as part of replacing DLA with a Personal Independence Payment (PIP) - are reducing the qualifying period to three months from six.

The Mayor, in a detailed six-page argument, said while reform may be needed there was a risk it could be driven solely by a cost-cutting agenda and fail to recognise needs.

"Many will suffer additional hardship and isolation" if that was the case, he said.

Johnson singled out several elements for particular criticism, including switching from having three rates of payment to two.

"The Mayor feels that the removal of one of the three care components will financially disadvantage disabled people and push them further into poverty," the City Hall submission said.

He also called for plans to reduce the qualifying period from six to three months, arguing that it would create serious difficulties for those suffering fluctuating conditions.

A similar argument was deployed by the Mayor against proposals that disabled people could be fined for failing to inform officials about changes in their circumstances.

"The Department of Work and Pensions statistics give the overall fraud rate for Disability Living Allowance as being less than 0.5%," he pointed out.

"For those with fluctuating conditions asking them to report every change to their condition would prove very stressful."

The disabled campaigners who obtained the responses - which had not been published by the DWP - showed 98% objected to the qualification period being raised, 92% opposed removing the lowest rate of support for disabled people and 99% were against a proposed new test.

Only 7% of organisations that took part in the consultation were fully in support of plans to replace DLA with PIP.

In a report - Responsible Reform - the group urged the House of Lords to impose a six-month "pause" on the legislation so that views could be properly considered.

And the group - which has the backing of several high-profile charities in the sector - accused the government of breaching its own consultation rules.

A spokesman for Disability Alliance said: "The government's mis-portrayal of the DLA consultation response is truly shocking and could represent a betrayal of the process of consultation and engagement with disabled people.

"The government has refused to provide a justification for a 20% cut in DLA expenditure and we fear that the same faulty rationale, misunderstanding of disability and higher costs of living and poor judgment exposed in this report sadly underpin the basis of the entire reform plans."

Sue Marsh, the disabled activist who writes the Diary of a Benefit Scrounger blog, led the research and said most people saw the reform as a "costly irrelevance during a time of austerity.

"We urge members of the House of Lords - across party political boundaries - to take note of this research and the strength of opposition to the proposals. It is not too late for them to halt these deeply damaging reforms," she said.