DESPITE losing in the High Court over proposals to make changes to the Work Capability Assessment, the government is pushing ahead with plans that will further impoverish disabled people on a mass scale.

In January, the judgment was handed down in the legal case taken by disabled activist Ellen Clifford against the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. 

The judge, Mr Justice Calver, found in her favour, ruling that the consultation on the proposals was “misleading,” “rushed” and “unfair,” squashing plans by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) to cut nearly £5,000 a year in social security (“welfare benefits”) from almost half-a-million disabled people.

In response the government announced that they will reconsult and “deliver the full level of savings forecast” by the proposed cut. The fight continues. 

Background

In September 2023, prior to the autumn Budget, the previous Tory government unexpectedly launched a consultation on reducing the qualifying criteria for those claiming social security due to ill health or disability.  

It was presented as an essential change that needed to be made quickly because “too many disabled people and people with health conditions are stuck on incapacity benefits, without the support they need to access work.” It also claimed that the amount of claims awarded at higher rate had become disproportionately high.

The DWP estimated that the proposed cuts would remove £416 per month from 424,000 people, with the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) finding that only 3.6 per cent of the affected would move into employment as a result, with over £3 billion expected in government savings. 

Following the general election in July 2024, it was hoped that the new Labour government would concede the case. However, in the 2024 autumn Budget, the Chancellor confirmed that the government would continue and “deliver” the anticipated savings. 

The case continued, with DWP forcing a rare preliminary disclosure hearing to contest the documents that the claimant’s legal team were asking to be disclosed. The judge ordered in the claimants’ favour.

Disclosed documents revealed that the primary motive for changes was to generate “significant, scorable savings” in time for the autumn 2023 Budget. Internal data showed that in fact higher rate claims were as low as they had ever been, and that the proposed cuts would plunge an estimated 100,000 disabled people into absolute poverty. Civil servant memos acknowledged the harm the cuts would cause. 

The case and outcome

Clifford’s case was that the DWP failed to adequately explain that its proposals would mean cuts and mandatory work-related activity for large numbers of people; that the claim that those receiving the highest rates of benefit are prevented from working, seeking work or DWP support is false; that there was a failure to adequately explain the rationale for the proposals or their impact, and that it did not allow a long enough consultation period. 

Supporting evidence was provided from a wide range including deaf and disabled people’s organisations (DDPOs), charities, trade unions and social security advisers. Relying on this evidence and agreeing with Clifford’s arguments, Judge Justice Calver concluded that the consultation was “so unfair as to be unlawful.”

Responding to the judgment, Clifford said: “The lack of transparency in this consultation was overwhelming and I am relieved that the judge has recognised that this is not the right way to engage the disabled community. But the crucial question is what lessons the government should learn from this case.”

A government spokesperson said: “As part of wider reforms that help people into work and ensure fiscal sustainability, the government will reconsult on the WCA descriptor changes, addressing the shortcomings in the previous consultation, in light of the judgment. The government intends to deliver the full level of savings in the public finances forecasts.”

What now?

Since the judgment, there has been a flurry of activity by Labour around alleged spiralling levels of economic inactivity.

In an interview with the Sun the day after the judgment, the Prime Minister said he that he would be “ruthless with cuts” if necessary and would “fight” to convince his own MPs of the need for cuts to benefits, despite the fact that £23 billion of UK social security currently goes unclaimed. 

On January 25 Rachel Reeves wrote in the Sun: “We cannot keep footing the bill for jobless Britain — so I will bring forward a plan to cut sickness benefits in weeks” exemplifying the “political narrative that demonises disabled people” that Britain was reprimanded for by the United Nations earlier this year:

“Reforms within social welfare benefits are premised on a notion that disabled people are undeserving and wilfully avoiding employment (‘skiving off’) and defrauding the system.”

The British government has now twice been found to be in grave and systematic violation of disabled people’s rights since 2010 due to regression as a result of austerity, a path that Labour appear to be continuing to tread, despite evidence of benefit cut related deaths. 

Clifford’s bravery in challenging the government in this area seems more important than ever. 

“Measures to help the economy should not require the impoverishment and suffering of hundreds of thousands of disabled people. Such measures would simply represent a false economy in that they will substantially increase pressures on public services such as the NHS and lead to higher spending in other areas,” she said.

This article is written in a personal capacity.