WCA consultation ruled unlawful - White paper, part 2

WhatThe · February 3

Conclusion

137. I find that each of Grounds 1A, 1B (to the extent described above) and 2 are established by the Claimant. Taking them together, I consider that the Claimant has surmounted the substantial hurdle of establishing that the consultation was so unfair as to be unlawful. Indeed, had the Claimant only established Grounds 1A and 1B (together); or had she only separately established Ground 1A; or Ground 1B; or Ground 2, then I would in this case still have found that the Consultation was so unfair as to be unlawful.

MadMilan2019 · February 5

Great news re Richard Burgon, MP, Independent

(he was Labour and voted against the 2 child benefit cap, and suspended for doing so- so much for democracy' our governments are elected dictatorships, as Conservative Lord Hailsham said decades ago)

I wrote to him several times re WCA / WCA Tests etc. and re Israels genocide, and other matters.

Exactly what did he say?:

Today I called for an end to the scapegoating of disabled people on benefits. There is hardly any fraud in the disability benefits system.

MadMilan2019 · February 5

“Misleading”, “rushed”, and “unfair” consultation on work capability assessment reforms declared unlawful – an important victory for Disabled people

TagsNewsEllen Clifford, the disability activist and Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) member, has won her judicial case against the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) over its consultation held to justify benefit cuts.

The consultation was held in 2023 on proposed changes to the work capability assessment (WCA).

The DWP uses the WCA to evaluate whether Disabled people are eligible for the extra health component of Universal Credit or Employment Support Allowance and have restricted work conditionality.

The High Court has ruled that the DWP acted unlawfully by presenting controversial benefit assessment reforms as a way to support disabled people into work, without making clear that the proposals also included “substantial” cuts to disability benefits and that cost savings was a “primary rationale” for the proposals.

It also found that the consultation failed to explain that planned reforms would lead to around 450,000 Disabled people receiving lower benefit rates and that many would be worse off by at least £416.19 per month and was unlawfully short given the circumstances.

The Public Law Project, acting for Clifford, has argued that the consultation was unlawful for several reasons, including that:

It did not explain properly that many people would receive significantly less money if impacted by the reforms, and start being required to meet conditions (or, in some cases, meet more stringent conditions) in order to receive their payments, with a risk of sanctions if they did not meet them.
The true or primary motive behind the consultation was to reduce spending on disability benefits, which was not disclosed. The consultation papers had presented the proposals as being about helping people to move into or closer to the labour market, without providing any evidence at all to explain how this purported aim would be met.
A consultation that ran for just under 8 weeks was too short, given the importance of the proposals and the additional time that Deaf and Disabled people and their organisations need to engage meaningfully in this context.

Over the course of the judicial review, internal DWP documents revealed that:

The DWP had not carried out any employment, equality or disability assessment on the impact of the proposals prior to the consultation being launched, though civil servants had identified that almost 100,000 people could move into poverty, based on certain internal estimates. The equality impact assessment that was completed after the consultation was launched remains unpublished;
Civil servants were aware that the proposals would have a particularly strong impact on those with pre-existing, significant mental health conditions and suicidal ideation, and that the “reduction in income alone might be a bigger contributory factor to a deterioration in mental health than undertaking work preparatory activity”;
Civil servants made proposals to ministers on what changes to consult on based on the fiscal impact, with the emphasis being on scorable savings that could be announced for the Autumn Statement 2023. Internal documents recorded for example, that “… the Prime Minister indicated that the DWP should consult on reforms to the WCA gateway in time to score them for the Autumn Statement…”
The DWP was also aware that the proposals would be controversial and that there was a risk they’d be “perceived as purely cost-saving measures by influential disability rights groups, individual stakeholders and by SSAC”, leading to recommendations that “a wider narrative based on modern and home working” was also developed.
Internal documents demonstrate that the Secretary of State considered including particular proposals as part of the consultation, notwithstanding that they would not lead to savings, solely because this could be “useful” to support a narrative that the motivation for consultation was about the importance of getting more people into work and not saving money.

In his judgment, Mr. Justice Calver found that the consultation was “misleading”, “rushed” and “unfair”:

The consultation documents were misleading for failing to highlight the “substantial” loss of benefit payments that those impacted by the proposals would face and created a “misleading impression” that changes were required to ensure certain Deaf and Disabled People could access employment support. In reality, the changes were about compelling them to access this support, which they could already choose to access voluntarily. Mr. Justice Calver described this as a “false rationale”, relied upon by DWP in its consultation.
The evidence before him strongly supported the conclusion that “costs savings was at least one of the two bases, if not the central basis, on which decisions would be taken on which policies would be taken forward by the Government.” In the circumstances, the judge considered that the SSWP “ought in fairness to have made clear that AME cost savings were, together with work inactivity, the rationale for the proposals” and that “disclosure of this highly relevant fact, was required”.
A consultation that ran for just under eight weeks was unlawfully short in the circumstances, given the importance of the matters under consultation, the fact that DWP had already announced a significant consultation on the Disability Action Plan and the lack of any prior notice that SSWP wanted to consult on proposals of this nature, which was unexpected given the very recently published Transforming Support: The Health and Disability White Paper.
Mr Justice Calver observed: “The unfair burden upon vulnerable people of having to deal with a yet further consultation process at this time at such short notice cannot be overstated" and in setting the consultation period, the Defendant ought to have had more regard to the attributes of those people who would be affected by these proposals. These were proposals which, in particular, could potentially drive vulnerable people into poverty as well as adversely affecting disabled people and substantial risk claimants who have mental health conditions and suicide ideation.”

Ellen Clifford said: “Through this judicial review, it became clear that there was a complete disregard for equality or disability impacts in this consultation process. No disability or equality impacts, or even employment outcomes, were evaluated before or during the consultation. We now know that an equality impact assessment was produced, but it remains unpublished.

“The DWP did calculate cost savings, however, confirming what many disabled people feared: that cuts to disability benefits had been prioritised over lives. However, DWP chose not to admit this as part of the consultation.”

“Instead, we now know that civil servants and ministers were making desperate attempts to ‘find’ a rationale for the cuts, which they thought would be less controversial, and even considered consulting on particular proposals that would have generated negligible savings, to make it appear as though saving money was not their primary motive. It is heartening that Mr Justice Calver agreed with us that this is ‘back to front policy making.’”

“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.

She added: “But the crucial question is what lessons the Government should learn from this case. 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.

“DWP’s own civil servants acknowledged this internally when they recognised that the proposed reduction in income for people with significant mental health conditions and suicidal ideation could contribute to further deterioration in their mental health.”

“That is why we are calling for these harmful reforms to the work capability assessment to be dropped.”

Ken Butler, DR UK’s Welfare Rights and Policy Adviser said: “Disability Rights UK congratulates Ellen Clifford in bringing her legal action and achieving this important legal victory. Without her steadfast, principled and brave campaigning, the DWP would not have suffered the conclusive loss it has.

“The DWP consultation has been found to be unlawful as it was “misleading”, “rushed” and “unfair”. The ruling that cost savings were at least one if not the “central basis” that was the impetus to the proposed reforms should be a wake-up call for the current Government, who seem intent on bringing similar proposals forward in the Spring.

“It did not explain properly that 450,000 Disabled people would receive significantly less money (£416 per month) if impacted by the reforms and would be subject to tighter requirements around work-related activity. Although the Government is to publish a Green Paper on work capability assessment and personal independence payment reforms this Spring, it has remained tight-lipped as to its contents.

“Given the High Court’ ruling, we call on the Government to clearly state it does intend to pursue the last administration’s unlawful cost-cutting consultation proposals.

“Instead of pursuing the further impoverishment of Disabled people, it needs to co-produce reforms that will protect our rights to an adequate standard of living.”

The High Court’s judgement in R (on the application of Ellen Clifford) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is available from judiciaryuk.

For further information see our news stories:

worried33 · February 6

I watched the Youtube Ellen interview as well, she pointed out she had to deal with people saying she was fighting nothing as they thought Labour had no interest in this sort of thing, so glad she ignored them, the video shown the government's response as well which is not unexpected, they have confirmed already they will do consultation again, and also confirmed their chief motivation which is for spending cuts in the same statement.

Looking at MadMilan's post, (thank you for posting this), the evidence looks pretty damning at this point, I think that this stuff got made public might be as big a win as the judgement itself.

MadMilan2019 · February 7

Thank you girls guys in betweeners those of different gender and sexualities, other than heterosexual.

I feel honoured because I never meant to lead, and inspire the best in people, I mean I DID but

but just did not expect it would succeed so much.

Its not about ego, pride, because we all know where that leads don't we?

Its about our human rights, we are worth life, love, all the good things in life, life is for living.

And part of it is

our comradeship with each other as disabled people, boosting each others survivor thriver esteem, not suiciding, but battling on with love, even for our 'enemies' like Gandhi, Mandela, like the best in ourselves.

Thank you from the bottom of my heartmindsoul,

and

keep struggling and fighting on together, never give up do not give up.

We are all stronger than we know, and much stronger together.

Keep writing to the media, to your MP even the PM and DWP minister, keep taking legal action,

I DO strongly feel we need a mass lobby of Parliament with other disability organisations in the next few months, with other disability groups like Disability Alliance, Disability Rights UK, Mind, etc. etc.

And with a media storm of publicity to persuade our case for not stigma, but help not persecution, human rights, and support into work as defined by us, and more benefits for for with those with disability, who cannot work.

MadMilan2019 · February 11

Rebecca Solnit/joy is a strategy@RebeccaSolnit

“The very act of trying to look ahead to discern possibilities and offer warnings is in itself an act of hope." --Octavia Butler

JournalistPacific Coast

rebeccasolnit.netJoined March 20221,625 Following 61.7K Followers

They want you to feel powerless and surrender and let them trample everything and you are not going to let them.

You are not giving up, and neither am I.

The fact that we cannot save everything does not mean we cannot save anything and everything we can save is worth saving.8:47 AM · Nov 6, 2024·1.9MViews

MadMilan2019 · February 19

Ellen is Star of Compassion, a true survivor, a courageous woman and disability human rights activist; I SALUTE her Magnificent and wise self-compassion, and other-compassion.

I am launching another legal action against the govt, and have obtained civil legal aid to do.

so watch this space.

I encourage others to launch legal actions if any question arises in their minds about the ethical, legal wrongness of Getting Britain Working.

We CAN win this, at least partly, if not fully. YES WE CAN!!

As Ellen has so clearly demonstrated even the govt is NOT above the law, and cannot abrogate, or ignore basic constitutional rights, e.g. to a fair consultation on a whitepaper/ any proposed law.

Tonawanda17 · February 19

Hi

Hope you are all well. What will the new legal challenge relate to?

Well done Ellen Clifford

MadMilan2019 · February 19

Our heroine Ellen, I'm so glad to hear from you, joyful to.

You are SO inspiring.

In a nutshell, it about other basic constitutional laws of liberal democracy that govt our human rights which the govt is trying to break.

For example, I contend the govt cannot migrate every disabled person to UC, because they are not capable of any type of work, the bedridden, paraplegic, those of terminal diagnoses, and so forth. The govt cannot sanction them and stop benefits as we have a right to life - ALL of us have a right to life, right to a duty of care to preserve, and improve heath, right to dignity and respect right not to be bullied, intimidated and harassed, or misinformed by DWP and jobcentre staff (the right to informed choices, consent and participation, so basic to liberal democracy which includes the right to be consulted on new laws affecting our interest, by the way).

I will post the proposition/ my guess at legal and moral case to answer I have put to my solicitors and barristers tomorrow outlining many other basic and essential human rights tomorrow, dear friends, dear comrades, and they will assess it.

I will be consulting 7-8 sources of legal advice and representation:

Mind legal unit

pro bono unit
public health lawyers
disability rights lawyers
Equality and Human Rights Commission
etc.

If my case makes sense to anyone reading this, tomorrow, you are welcome to join me in a class legal action to be mounted against the govt, the more the merrier, and more people adds weight to a legal action. Also, I need the moral support, whilst I have more drive and compassion than most I am not enlightened, not nirvanic, thus I still suffer fear anxiety, despair, and I have 31 diagnoses 6 life threatening - I am fighting for my life, and maybe yours too!?

Someone once said my faith of Buddhism gives me an advantage is 'fighting' back - you win battles by not fighting, or being angry-bitter, you win them by poetic language, persuasive rhetorics, by making a watertight case, consistent and plausible, coherent and credible, by quoting other laws that are not being implemented, etc. etc.

You marshall all your resources, you do not take no for an answer and you are very very patience, kind to yourself, and other comrades in the struggle, and allies, and you thank them all the time for their help. You do not take them for granted, whether these allies are paid or not.

My faith is not a panacae, faith takes courage to practice everyday, it takes courage and patience to meditate, to do mantras, contemplations in daily living, to cultivate joy and courage of seeing that you too, Buddha said, could be enlightened, to do Dharma study, to not give in to ones personal suffering, and the massive suffering/ Samsara in this wonderful, horrible, but wonderful world of ours. Yes my faith helps, but it is not a formula or simple answer, it requires courage to not ony think compassion for ALL but to put it into practice.

I will show my lawyers the High Court judgement against the govt that our heroine Ellen Clifford won. It will build on that victory.

Nothing is certain yet, but if I, and we, do not try nothing can be won.

Usually I predict my lawyers case to answer. And have set 3 legal precedents in my life, without a lawyer, so incensed was I at the sheer inhuman, brutal abuse of my and others humanity, hat there was no choice but to act bravely, even if I was terrified, someone had to do it.

I salute you Ellen, a 1000 times, and anyone who wants to join in: legal action being more positive, taking heart, taking and giving compassion, supporting each other, finding and sharing any wisdoms of compassion such as inspiring quotes. I salute the best in humans, and bitterness resentment is not necessary we can all use our heart-mind to persuade a judge in court or by writing to the media, to persuade the public, with sweet reason, rigour charm, disability pride, and sheer determination, and tender, exquisite compassion.

We do not deserve this S***, this oppression, this disabalism, and mentalist bigotry and prejudice we are human beings deserving of support.

If you are feeling S** today its not your fault, its the govts prejudice cruelty, and baggage NOT yours, though we have to deal with it.

Love and solidarity

'Mad' Milan

MadMilan2019 · February 21

DailyMirrorFriday31st January 2025

£4bn of benefitsunderpaid

those in need missoutpoor service for disabled.

By Ashley Cowburnpolitical correspondent

Benefit claimants received£4bn less than they were entitled to last year putting them atincreased risk of hardship, MPs warn today.

The Public AccountsCommittee also said people claiming disability benefits are gettingunacceptably poor service – as they wait on average 10 times longerfor their calls to be answered.

The MPS report foundclaimants received £4bn less than they were entitled to in 2023-24 –a £500m rise on the previous year.

The highest rates ofunderpayment were for disability benefits, including PIP and DLA.

Claimants need to informthe DWP if their condition worsens, entitling them to more money, buta significant number of calls go unanswered, the report found.

In 2023-24, people on ESAwaited on average 26 minutes and 53 seconds for the DWP to answertheir calls.

This is compared to 2minand 45 seconds for those on UC.

The MPs said:

''These underpaymentsleave the claimant affected with less money than they should have,making their finances more precarious than they should be.''

[Since there are welfarelaws against hardship, poverty is there a legal and moral case toanswer, to take DWP to court, and get more staff answering Disabilitybenefit helplines down to the same time as minutes answering UC. Ithink so, its blatant indirect or direct disability discrimination.As part of this, to call for reasonable adjustments to increase DWPstaff capacity, under Equality Amendment Act 2010, UN DisabledPeople's Charter, and Human Rights Act?]

The report adds £9.5bnwas overpaid in the same year. This could be fraud by individuals ororganised crime groups – or unintended errors by claimants of theDWP. At the Autumn last year, the Govt. announced an extra £110million to combat fraud and error and an additional 3,000 staff. Lawshave been set out to give the DWP power to recover money directlyfrom bank accounts in cases of benefit fraud.

Committee Chairman SirGeoffrey Clifton-Brown said:

''In some cases, claimantsare literally calling for help and receiving no answer, resulting inincreased risks to their financial security. The British public wouldbe forgiven for thinking the state is AWOL just when it needs itmost.''

''The DWP must do more toensure claimants are reunited with the money to which they areentitled, as well as to understand the needs of vulnerableclaimants.''

He added:

''We are as concerned atthe picture of growing underpayments as we are with overpayments, andhave little sympathy for the DWP's argument this rise is driven by agrowing propensity for fraud.''

''This amounts to sayingthe DWP's job is too hard to do well – not a defence this Committeeis prepared to accept.''

Richard Kramer, of charitySense said: ''Disabled people have been paying the price of a brokenbenefits system for far too long.''

A DWP spokesman said: ''Wehave reduced phone line waiting times and are providing tailored helpfor customers with additional needs while also uprating benefits by1.7% this April.''

''The report does notconsider that we are already taking action on fraud and error.''

Reeves 'investigated overuse of bank's credit card'metro

Friday February 14th 2025

Rachel Reeves wasinvestigated over her use of expenses as a bank where she workedbefore becoming an MP, it has been reported.

The Chancellor used acompany credit card to buy wine, perfume and pay for a £400 leavingparty while manager at Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS), according tothe BBC.

A spokesman for Ms Reevessaid all expenses during her time at the firm were 'submitted andsigned off in the proper way.

Ms Reeves worked at HBOSbetween March 2006 ad April 2009. As part of her managerial role, shehad access to a 'Motivation' card, which could be used to buy rewardsfor workers. She is said to have used this to buy birthday gifts forcolleagues. BBC News cited 11 ex-employees who said they believed itwas against the rules to buy such items with the card – though amemo instructing how to use the card mentioned no such restrictions.

According to BBC News, thebank launched an investigation following a complaint from awhistleblower.

A 'senior source' told thebroadcaster that evidence of wrongdoing by Ms Reeves and 2 othersenior managers was found but the inquiry did not go further and itappears that a formal conclusion was never reached.

But another staff membernamed Jane Wayper told the broadcaster 'birthday gifts and Christmaspresents could be purchased using Motivation cards,' and 'staff wereencouraged to do so for their teams.' A spokesman for Ms Reeves saidshe left the bank 16 years ago and was not made aware of the claimsuntil approached by journalists. The spokesperson said she was neverinterviewed or disciplined and left HBOS 'on good terms.'

No. 10 said that KeirStarmer backed Ms Reeves, stating she has integrity and had noconcerns about her conduct.

Please write c/o ''find your MP, U.K.'' Google it please

re the double standrds of this govt and the above 2 articles.

MadMilan2019 · March 8

Sorry some illnesses flaring up, so I have not got back to you al re he progress of my legal case on your behalf.

Will do it by Saturday 15th March Saturday latest.

Thanks for your patience, dear kind, inspiring folks.

In the meantime, more articles or extracts fro the media - he pint of these last 2 and the 1 below is for you to quote in writing to your MP, if you do not know who your MP is, please Google ''Find your MP, U.K.''

May Thanks.

I f you have doubts of or fear about being assertive in this way, if it is your low self esteem brought about by a stigmatising politics, and society, well feel, th doubt , fear and anxiety, and do it anyway.

We CAN win this 'battle' (e win battles by not being angry but by making a sincere heartfelt, calm reasoned, rigorous case), - literally for some, disabled people our lives depend on it, I have felt suicidal, but choose courage, freedom and lifeand a fried of mine ha become severely depressed on receiving his Migration letter from the DWP/ Jbcentre to UC, and is sucidal. No amount of tender encouragement, or informing him of his/our universal human rights has brought him round to campaigning - yet there is a clear duty of care owed to us bt the DWP and govt, they cannot ignore the right to life, and other human rights. We all need to get that.

Abramovich 'owes Britain £1 billion' Metro.co.uk Thursday January 30th 2025

In unpaid tax. leaked documents suggest.

The ex-Chelsea FC Chief routed hedge funds investments worth £4.7 billion via frm i the British Virgin Islands.

Bu they were managed from the UK and should have been taxed here, the BBC reports.. for full article please Google it.

Thanks.

The sheer injustice, the £22 billion blackhole is myth, we disabled, and elderly people are being persecuted, some have already suicided, or gone even deeper into chronic, severe anxiety, suicidal depression, agoraphobia and paralysing fear, have gone to a mental hell.

SHAME ON LABOUR SHAME ON STARMER, he promised so many leftwing policies e.g. boosting women pensioners pay to equalise it with men, not to cut disability benefits, and at least 12 other redistributritive Socialist policies, then n election completely sold out, and accepted many gifts from businesses.

I have written to him, his DWP Minster 'Sir' Stephen Timms who has no disabilities as far as I know, and NO empathy for disabled people, he should be SACKED, AND A DISABLED PERSON should replace him, elected by disabled peoples organisations. Now that would be truly democratic. Rachel Reeves, Chancellor, and his whole cabinet, and thrown down the gauntlet, told them they have already caused massive immense suffering increased suicidal, anxious, agoraphobic symptoms of elderly, and disabled people, told them I'm taking the govt to court, that hey should be deeply ASHAMED f themselves, and their corrupt 2-faced power, and selling out of the left. That they are worse than the Tories on pensioners, and welfare, and that I WILL take them to court, and publicise their cruel, uncompassionate, unskilflness, hypocracy, and unkindness, in the media at large, even BBC, ITN, and social media, but not only these forms of publicity/ media.

I have thrown down the gauntlet, on behalf of disabled people, and will not let go, will not get bitter, even though I feel suicidal.

I will show my best kindest humanity and assertiveness, and so will others wronged by this 'Labour' government, and give them a chance to reverse this proposed cutting of benefits and attempted abuse of 8 human rights, and will not, never take no for an answer, or suicide, tempting as it may be.

Why? Because compassion for all - even my 'enemies, as a Buddhist-Socialist- Communitarian- Human Right Campaigner, is, as Mandela so rightly said:

''The struggle [for equality, equal opportunities, human and civil rights, the very best in humans, and not taking, or giving offence] is my life.''

What a man - what a human being, shining, radiating with euphoria and total love, and compassion, and unstoppability.

Anger is not a crime, its only a feeling, but to act on it is.

Even feeling bitter, down hearted suicidal and depressed, are not crimes, they are only feelings, with a cause, injustice, and indicate a lack of self compassion, and compassion for others.

We all need to develop more self compassion, most days, and nights, and transform them to self-love and peace of mind and wisdom.

Tantric Buddhism says thus:

''All demons are diamonds.''

Geddit, nothing is unsurmountable with the right insights, individual to or personality karma, and in common compassion with others.

We are not pieces of S***

and will not be treated as such, we are simply human beings with disabilities, distresses, sufferings and human rights - which latter were created against the horrors of abuses of genocide, against elderly, disabled, BAME people, Jews and others in the Second World War.

Never give up, do not give up. United we stand.

Solidarity, and courage.

MadMilan2019 · March 16

News

DWP loses WCA changes High Court battle

Published: 16January 2025

The DWP have today lost a major High Court battle over changes to thework capability assessment (WCA) which may have serious implicationsfor the Labour government’s plans for benefit reforms.

In September 2023, the Conservativegovernment launched an eight week consultation on a variety ofpossible changes to the WCA. The proposals were presented as away to help more disabled claimants into work.

In November 2023, the governmentpublished its response to the consultation and set out changes to theactivities and descriptors in the WCA which would make it harder fornew claimants to be found to have limited capability for work-relatedactivity.

The Office for Budget Responsibilityonly then revealed that whilst 450,000 new claimants would be over£400 a month worse off as a result of the changes, just 15,400 wouldfind jobs by 2029. In other words almost 97% of those affectedwould be worse off.

Disability campaigner EllenClifford launched a judicial review of the consultation lastyear, on the grounds that people talking part were not given enoughinformation to provide an informed response, but were instead misledinto believing that the changes were about helping people into work.

Today, the High Court found in Ellen’sfavour, ruling that “theClaimant has surmounted the substantial hurdle of establishing thatthe consultation was so unfair as to be unlawful.”

The judge found that the consultationwas unlawful on three grounds:

1. The DWP failed to adequately explainthe proposals. The judge agreed with Ellen that “bearingin mind the audience for the consultation, it was not made adequatelyclear that the legislative proposals for the affected groups were toreplace voluntary work related activity with compulsory work relatedactivity, and to reduce the income of a large number of claimants.”

2. The DWP failed to explainadequately the rationale for making the proposals. The judgeagreed with Ellen that saving money rather than getting people intowork was the main reason for the changes.

3. The DWP failed to providesufficient time for consultees to respond. The judge agreedwith Ellen that 8 weeks was too short a time for a consultation,given that “These were proposalswhich, in particular, could potentially drive vulnerable people intopoverty as well as adversely affecting disabled people andsubstantial risk claimants who have mental health conditions andsuicide ideation.”

In summing up, the Judge held that anysingle one of these grounds, let alone all three, would have beensufficient for the consultation to be so unfair as to be ruledunlawful.

The judgement relates to Conservativeproposals for the WCA, whilst Labour said they would be producingtheir own plans for benefits changes. Yet when Ellen’s case came tocourt, Labour fought hard to try to defeat it.

Because, the reality is that losingthis case means that Labour will have to be honest about theirproposals in the Spring, if they still intend to produce a greenpaper.

They will have to give clearinformation about the reasons for any changes, the number of peoplewho are likely to be worse off and how much they are going to loseout by. And they will have to give disabled claimantssufficient time to consult with professionals if they need to, beforeresponding.

Being open and honest about what theyare doing is something the DWP have avoided for many years, so thisruling will be a major blow.

You can downloadthe full 42 page judgement in Clifford v SSWP from this link.

You can be sure that DWP ministers havealready done so and are reading it with growing dismay.

Congratulations to Ellen Clifford onher courageous fight and genuinely important victory.

Facebook

16thJanuary 2025

TheHigh Court has ruled that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)acted unlawfully by presenting benefit assessment reforms as a wayto support disabled people into work, without making clear that costsavings was a “primary rationale” for the proposals.

Readthe full judgement here

Thejudge also found that the consultation failed to explain thatplanned reforms would lead to 424,000disabled people receivinglower benefit rates and that many would be worse off by atleast £416.19per month.The consultation, which ran for just under 8 weeks before thecost-saving changes were announced in the Autumn Statement, was alsounlawfully short given the circumstances.

PLPclient Ellen Clifford faced the DWP in court on the 10th and 11thDecember 2024 over the consultation held in 2023 on these proposedchanges to the Work Capability Assessment. The DWP uses thisassessment to evaluate whether Deaf and Disabled people are eligiblefor the health component of Universal Credit or Employment SupportAllowance.

Ellen Cliffordsaid:

“
Iam overjoyed that the court has recognised the importance ofproperly consulting Deaf and Disabled people on reforms that wouldleave many worse off by at least £416.19 per month.

“
Thisis a life-or-death issue. One internal DWP estimate (which we onlyknow about because of my legal challenge) indicates that 100,000disabled people who are classed as highly vulnerable would be pushedinto absolute poverty by 2026/27, as a result of the types of cutsthey proposed in this consultation.”

“
Wenow urge the Government to rethink these proposals and make thesafety and well-being of disabled benefit claimants their priority,as well as commit to consulting us fairly and lawfully in thefuture.”

AoifeO’Reilly, the Public Law Project lawyer acting for Clifford, hasargued that the consultation was unlawful for several reasons,including that:

Itdid not explain properly that many people would receivesignificantly less money if impacted by the reforms, and startbeing required to meet conditions (or, in some cases, meet morestringent conditions) in order to receive their payments, with arisk of sanctions if they did not meet them.
Thetrue or primary motive behind the consultation was to reducespending on disability benefits, which was not disclosed. Theconsultation papers had presented the proposals as being abouthelping people to move into or closer to the labour market, withoutproviding any evidence at all to explain how this purported aimwould actually be met.
Aconsultation that ran for just under 8 weeks was too short, giventhe importance of the proposals and the additional time that Deafand Disabled people and their organisations need to engagemeaningfully in this context.

Overthe course of the judicial review, internal DWP documents revealedthat:

DWPhad not done any employment, equality or disability assessment onthe impact of the proposals prior to the consultation beinglaunched, though civil servants had identified that almost 100,000people could move into poverty, based on certain internalestimates. The equality impact assessment that was completed afterthe consultation was launched remains unpublished;
Civilservants were aware that the proposals would have a particularlystrong impact on those with preexisting significant mental healthconditions and suicidal ideation, and that the “reduction inincome alone might be a bigger contributory factor to adeterioration in mental health than undertaking work preparatoryactivity”;
Civilservants made proposals to ministers on what changes to consult onbased on the fiscal impact, with the emphasis being on scorablesavings that could be announced for the Autumn Statement 2023.Internal documents recorded for example, that “… the PrimeMinister indicated that the DWP should consult on reforms to theWCA gateway in time to score them for the Autumn Statement…”
DWPwas also aware that the proposals would be controversial and thatthere was a risk they’d be “perceived as purely cost-savingmeasures by influential disability rights groups, individualstakeholders and by SSAC”, leading to recommendations that “awider narrative based on modern and home working” was alsodeveloped.
TheSecretary of State considered including particular proposals aspart of the consultation, notwithstanding that they would not leadto savings, solely because this could be “useful” to support anarrative that the motivation for consultation was about theimportance of getting more people into work, and not saving money.

AoifeO’Reilly said:

“
Weare delighted that the court has agreed with our client.

“
Thisjudgment has vindicated our criticism of the DWP’s unlawfulconsultation and we now urge the Government to scrap these plannedreforms, which were disingenuously presented to the Deaf andDisabled people who would be affected.

“
Consultationis a key way for the general public to participate in state decisionmaking and that crucial method of input should be respected. It isparticularly important that consultation processes are undertakenconscientiously when it relates to policymaking that impacts groupsthat are often marginalised.

“
Deafand Disabled people should have been given a fair opportunity toshare their input on sweeping and punitive proposals that, ifimplemented, will have a profound impact on all those

affected.”

Inhis judgment, Mr. Justice Calver found that the consultation was“misleading”, “rushed” and “unfair.”

EllenClifford said:

Thelack of transparency in this consultation was overwhelming and I amrelieved that the judge has recognised that this is not the rightway to engage the Disabled community.

“
Butthe crucial question is what lessons the Government should learnfrom this case. Measures to help the economy should not require theimpoverishment and suffering of hundreds of thousands of Disabledpeople. Such measures would simply represent a false economy inthat they will substantially increase pressures on public servicessuch as the NHS and lead to higher spending in other areas.

“
DWP’sown civil servants acknowledged this internally when they recognisedthat the proposed reduction in income for people with significantmental health conditions and suicidal ideation could contribute tofurther deterioration in their mental health.”

“
Thatis why we are calling for these harmful reforms to the WorkCapability Assessment to be dropped.”

Mr.Justice Calver relied on the views expressed and evidence providedby key stakeholders, including Deaf and Disabled People’sOrganisations, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Workand Pensions Committee and a number of welfare rights organisations,in reaching his conclusions.

The UKDDPO CRPD Monitoring Coalition said:

“
TheUK Coalition congratulates Ellen on her successful challenge, whichwe have been so proud to support. The UN Committee on the Rights ofDisabled People recently found that the UK was still in “grave andsystemic” violation of the Convention on the Rights of DisabledPeople. Misleading and unlawful consultations like the one Ellenchallenged demonstrate the disregard that the former Government hadfor its international obligations towards disabled people in thiscountry.

“
Inorder to begin to build a welfare system that works for all, thecurrent Government must start by properly working in co-productionwith disabled people and disabled people’s organisations, avoidingthe urge to rush through poorly-formed policy that purports to savemoney. We call on the Government to scrap these proposals, and towork with Disabled people and our organisations on policy-makingthat impacts them.”

InclusionLondon said:

“
Weare pleased the court saw beyond the DWP’s deceptive tactics andupheld the rule of law. The policy if implemented would bedevastating for at least 450,000 Disabled people. The judgewas clear today, If the government wants to inflict such harm, theymust be transparent in their consultation documents.

“Wenow call on the new government to fully hear Disabled people’svoices and consider our needs and rights. When our country ratifiedthe UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled people, it promised toprotect our right to an adequate standard of living and toco-produce policies with us. We urge the government to stop,rethink and drop this deeply harmful policy and start seeing socialsecurity support as an investment in people’s lives.”

DisabledPeople Against Cuts said:

“
We’redelighted Ellen has won her case, as it will mean so many disabledpeople will no longer be pushed into further poverty (unless by aLabour government re-introducing it, in which case they should beutterly and totally ashamed.)”

ThePublic and Commercial Services Union said:

“
PCShas long campaigned for a radical overhaul of the Social Securitysystem in the UK, with greater flexibility given to our members tosupport those that use DWP services. We welcome the judgement todaythat the government consultation on the WCA changes was not carriedout properly and was, we believe seriously flawed. We urge the newgovernment to scrap these proposed changes to the Work CapabilityAssessment, which will see more than half a million more Deaf andDisabled people at risk of sanction, and instead carry out ameaningful consultation on genuine welfare reform with all keystakeholders.”

Cliffordis represented by Public Law Project, Jenni Richards KC of 39 EssexChambers and Tom Royston of Garden Court North Chambers.

Readthe full judgement here

News& Updates

FEBRUARY 2025:This is my application for civil legal aid, let us see whatresults

MILANGHOSH,

DISABILITYBENFIUT CLAIMANT OF ESA SUPORT GROUP, PIP DP SDP

LEGALAND MORAL CASE TO ANSWER TO BE PUT TO STARMER'S 'LABOUR' GOVERNEMNET

MYGUESS OF LATTER, FOR SOLICITOR TO PERUSE AND STENGTHEN.

Iam not a lawyer but have set 3 legal precedents in my life:

1 being refused IS 44 years ago,when I left home after a row with violent mum

was estrange from her my single parent,

suffering hardship, living with friendswho fed me for 5 months

The DSS said Income Support wasonly for 18 year olds, I said to my solicitor, but there are lawswelfare against a citizen suffering hardship, which LAW ispredominant.

I received the 5 months backdate ofIncome Support in due course.

MadMilan2019 · March 16

This only a 3rd of my proposed legal case to my lawyers/ sources of legal advice e.g.

Disability Rights UK

Public Health Lawyers

Pro Bono Unit

Mind Legal Unit

I have only outlined a case proposal for 3-4 human rights that will be broken if GWB goes ahead, there are 5 more potentially material/ relevant legally pertinent universal human rights.

Sorry for bdelays I have many 31 illnesses, have been low, but chjoose to battle on andbe kind to myself, and other disabled people including YOU.

I am eternally grateful to everyone and SCOPE, and find your compassion and wisdoms touching, am in tears right now, but I have my friends, including YOU LOVELY PEOPLE, kind and courageous people; youare all stronger, and better, than you know.

A rebellion by many Labour MPs IS possible; so please keep writing to them

Google ''Find your MP''

if you do not know who your MP is.

And keep writing to the press, TV radio.

Don't give up never give up - we are all worth it - we are wrth supporting and worth disability benefits.

Be Positive. Be Strong. Survive.

Thrive.

WCA consultation ruled unlawful - White paper, part 2

Comments

DWP loses WCA changes High Court battle

TheHigh Court has ruled that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)acted unlawfully by presenting benefit assessment reforms as a wayto support disabled people into work, without making clear that costsavings was a “primary rationale” for the proposals.

Categories