Court set to be told how DWP misrepresented plans to reform ‘fitness for work’ test

A disabled activist has begun a judicial review claim against the government that accuses it of misrepresenting controversial plans to reform the work capability assessment (WCA).

Ellen Clifford (pictured) said that a Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) consultation on the plans to tighten the assessment process – which ended on 30 October – appeared to have been used as a “smokescreen for cuts”.

She is also arguing that the eight-week consultation period on the changes – which will not be implemented until 2025 – was too short and that work and pensions secretary Mel Stride failed to make the consultation accessible to many disabled people.

Clifford is arguing that Stride presented the reforms as helping disabled people, when in fact they focused on cutting spending and will reduce income by up to £390 a month.

Confirmation of the changes to the assessment were made as part of the autumn statement – just three weeks after the consultation closed – with chancellor Jeremy Hunt saying it was “wrong economically and wrong morally” to provide support for so many disabled people without forcing them to look for work.

Hunt claimed the tightening of the assessment reflected “greater flexibility and availability of home working after the pandemic”.

The changes will cut DWP spending by an estimated £125 million in 2025-26, £500 million in 2026-27, £900 million in 2027-28, and £1.265 billion in 2028-29.

And, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility (PDF), this will mean 371,000 disabled people will lose their entitlement to extra support – and start being subject to conditionality and sanctions – as they are moved out of the LCWRA group (or the ESA support group) by 2028-29.

But the WCA reforms will increase employment by just 10,000 by 2028-29, the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates.

Clifford, a member of the national steering group of Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) and author of The War on Disabled People, said: “While I was originally frustrated with the proposals being consulted on and the short timeframe, which prevented me from being able to respond, the autumn statement seems to indicate that the goal may have been to save money all along.

“There is nothing in the proposed reforms that will actually help or support disabled people, and the consultation papers did not tell anyone that the DWP was looking to save money by bringing in the proposals.

“Having presented these reforms as support, the government’s consultation now looks to have been a smokescreen for cuts.

“Deaf and disabled people will also face more sanctions and risk losing money if they fail to comply with new and often absurd conditions and requirements, which will be imposed on them as a direct result of these reforms.

“The harm this will cause is bad enough, but to be told it is meant to help us as disabled people to ‘realise our potential’ is deeply patronising and an insult to anyone’s intelligence.”

The legal action is backed by disabled people’s organisations including Inclusion London, Disability Wales, Disability Rights UK, Inclusion Scotland, North West Forum of People with Disabilities (in Northern Ireland), Disability Action Northern Ireland (DANI) and Black Triangle.

Svetlana Kotova, director of campaigns and justice at Inclusion London, said: “We were shocked and dismayed at the proposed reforms and the consultation itself.

“We support this challenge as we believe disabled people should always be given a meaningful opportunity to have a say about reforms that will have a huge impact on our lives.”

Megan Thomas, policy and research officer at Disability Wales, said: “Disability Wales is appalled at the short timeframe to respond to the WCA proposals and the very limited information given on changes which could cause massive harm to disabled people in Wales and across the UK.”

Bill Scott, senior policy adviser at Inclusion Scotland, said: “Inclusion Scotland were appalled at how little time we were given to consult on changes which could have such devastating consequences for disabled people.”

And Nuala Toman, DANI’s head of policy, communications, information and advocacy, said: “Disabled people in Northern Ireland have been overwhelmed by the tidal wave of consultations on cuts to provision which severely and disproportionately impact on our lives.

“It was impossible to properly engage and respond to the consultation under these circumstances.”

Aoife O’Reilly, from solicitors Public Law Project, who is representing Clifford in the legal action, said: “If cost savings was the purpose of the reforms, it was unlawful for government not to have been upfront with that information as part of the consultation.

“These reforms were presented as a helpful support: the autumn statement even specifically mentioned the health benefits of work to explain why its focus was getting more long-term unemployed people into a job.

“But anxiety over losing financial support and fulfilling new requirements will not help anyone’s health.

“Considering that the consultation period was also far too short for many disabled people to engage with it, it seems to us that the government’s consultation was unfair and ultimately unlawful for a number of reasons.”

A note from the editor:

Please consider making a voluntary financial contribution to support the work of DNS and allow it to continue producing independent, carefully-researched news stories that focus on the lives and rights of disabled people and their user-led organisations.

Please do not contribute if you cannot afford to do so, and please note that DNS is not a charity. It is run and owned by disabled journalist John Pring and has been from its launch in April 2009.

Thank you for anything you can do to support the work of DNS…