The Universal Credit Bill becomes law. Here are the changes to disability benefits you need to know
Comments
-
Thank you so much Catherine for everything that you're doing.
1 -
Oh no we're all doing what we can x
1 -
I sent a couple of emails with the template off X which Catherine posted, haven't received a response but hey oh, they are busy. I didn't have the energy to send more.
I also received a response from my local MP about my concerns with regards to PIP which I sent to her BEFORE the vote, she voted in favour anyway then about 2 weeks later or so decides to email me about it with a letter from Mr Timms. So I'm now in the process of trying to draft up a letter but need someone to read it for me to make sure the info is accurate as I'm trying to address various things to do with PIP and LCWRA.
0 -
0
-
1
-
0
-
Wont stop thier wicked plans but it's a big statement I'm hoping now all be put in law then organisations can take to court even though it's a money bill can be challenged legally if goes against human rights and leaves people desperate well I think it does more than that and taking substantial risk !! I think be more than one law suit
1 -
Hi Catherine
I'm new to scope so forgive me if I sound a bit muddled. I've read a few things about esa and migration to u. c., but for some reason today I'm not so sure. not going into financial dealings with our esteemed dwp, what exactly, is the new rules this government have supposedly "relented" to? Before April /may, of this year I was on iresa. payment /fortnightly. h.b.paid direct to council. I then migrated as said above in April. very straightforward. no mither. they put me on cbesa(dunno why) and classed me as a new style esa claimant. BTW before and after migration I was and am still in support group, but the more I read the more I'm not sure. Is the government saying because I migrated in 2025 my support group allowance is under threat from next year. an info would be gratefully received.
thank you take care. socrates.
0 -
3 -
No no this is all for new claimants I haven't even migrated yet but apparently if I do after april 2026 I still be classed as exsisting claimant so from April 2026 new claimants will get 50 a week we will still keep 97 a week the wca will be abolished 2028/2029 sorry hope I make sense
0 -
I'm emailing fir new claimants and tbh can labour be trusted so I keep emailing and next will be pip read today looking at 2026/2027 tomorrow the uc will be debated by Lords but as a money bill they can put recommendations but as we know labour will ignore alot of disability groups scope still keeping our voice heard so no your perfectly fine sorry my posts are confusing and welcome great group always someone to help
1 -
Hi @Socrates63, As you're an existing claimant on new style ESA, your rates should stay the same. Here's Scope's blog about the Bill in case that helps clear things up:
0 -
Good to know theu carry on fighting the good cause and won't be forced into submission this is true labour values
1 -
Hi Catherine 21
Many thanks for your help with info bout my concerns about newstyle esa and next year. Much appreciated. for some reason or other, was starting to doubt myself about what I do or don't know. Much appreciated. Thanks again
socrates.
0 -
Hi Rosie_scope
thank you so much for taking timeout to read my enquiry re:now and next year for new esa claimant migrating to u.c. belive me it was very much appreciated and also thank you for the link to appropriate article. Don't know about other folk, but to me it always looks and feels better in black and white rather than what I see on TV these days. as I said thank you so much for that. best wishes, take care,
socrates
0 -
How Labour is Gutting 'Substantial Risk'
The government is quietly dismantling legal protections that keep vulnerable disabled people safe from DWP pressure
Jul 19, 2025
TW: This article is about changes that will affect new Universal Credit claimants only, not current claimants. I think we can do a lot to stop these changes - but only if we make a lot of noise now.
I need to talk to you about 'substantial risk'.
It's a legal safeguard inside Universal Credit—designed to protect people at risk of suicide, hospitalisation, or medical collapse if the DWP puts pressure on them. That might be pressure to get a job, start preparing for one, or even just face a reassessment when their system can't bear it.
I've been on substantial risk myself. I've also written the paperwork to get others onto it—because here's the thing: it's not easy to get, despite what the DWP might want you to believe.
It's not for laziness or avoidance.
It's for the woman with schizophrenia who hasn't left her flat in weeks because she's sure the DWP has cameras on her street. It's for the man with heart failure who could collapse from the stress of a jobcentre appointment he's too scared to refuse. It's for the teenager who opens the post with shaking hands, knowing one reassessment letter could send them back to hospital.
"Substantial risk" is a standalone route. Even if someone doesn't meet the usual test scores for mobility or memory or self-care, they can still qualify for LCWRA—if engaging in work, or even being asked to prepare for it, would put them at serious risk.
It's the quiet clause, enshrined in law, that's kept people alive.
And now it's under threat.
The Great LCWRA Split
To understand why, we need to telescope back to what's happening to LCWRA under the new Universal Credit Bill.
LCWRA is being split in two. Only 1 in 9 new claimants who would qualify for full LCWRA now will continue to get it under a new category called the Severe Conditions Criteria (SCC)—according to the DWP's own impact assessment.
SCC is almost identical to LCWRA as it is. People in this category will continue to get the same weekly amount—£97. They'll be free from work-related demands, safe from jobcentre harassment, and exempt from reassessments.
But the criteria will be almost impossible for most new disabled claimants to meet.
Why? Not only must someone meet all the existing LCWRA criteria, they must also prove their condition is lifelong, with no fluctuation, diagnosed through an NHS provider.
This excludes nearly everyone with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, Parkinson's, muscular dystrophy, ME/CFS, autism, and FND. It excludes people with private diagnoses. It excludes almost everyone whose impairments aren't mechanically visible and unchanging.
Labour is drawing a line between deserving and undeserving disability—based on a narrow, medicalised caricature of what illness looks like.
The rest—8 out of 9 new claimants—will be relegated to a degraded version of LCWRA. They'll get only £50 per week, with no protection from jobcentre demands and no guarantee against frequent, destabilising reassessments. That amount will be frozen as inflation rises, widening the gap both between claimants.
How They're Killing Substantial Risk
Which brings us to the disappearance of "substantial risk."
Substantial risk has always been a legal safeguard. It appears in Regulation 35 of the ESA Regulations and in Schedule 9 of the Universal Credit Regulations. The principle is clear: if requiring someone to work—or even to prepare for work—would seriously endanger their health or life, they must be exempt.
This principle isn't vague. It's written into law. And it's a life-saver.
In 2022, 14.6% of new LCWRA awards were granted on the basis of substantial risk. That includes people with suicidal ideation, those at risk of collapse from heart failure or epilepsy, and those whose distress might result in harm to themselves or others.
The stakes couldn't be higher. The ESA group—very similar to UC health claimants—shows the exceptional suicide risk among this population. The 2014 NHS Digital's Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey revealed that more than 43% of ESA claimants had attempted suicide at some point in their lives, compared with about 7% of non-ESA claimants. Despite knowing the exceptionally high suicide risk of this group, ministers have failed to include adequate protections for them in the new system.
But here's the trick. The new Bill can't legally delete "substantial risk"—but it guts it.
SCC is the only route that carries full LCWRA protections: the £97 rate, exemption from demands, and protection from reassessment. And "substantial risk" no longer gets you there.
Instead, the DWP quietly relegates it to the lower LCWRA tier—stripped of those protections. So yes, technically, the law remains. But the protection is gone.
This is how safeguards die—not with repeal, but with redefinition.
A Consultation That Wasn't
Here's what makes it worse: there was no consultation on this division of LCWRA into two tiers. Not with disabled people. Not with clinicians. Not with academics who assess loss of function or risk.
The Pathways to Work consultation was supposed to be about improving the system. Instead, it asked vague questions like "How should we determine which individuals should be exempt from requirements?" No mention of SCC. No mention of restructuring LCWRA. No mention of gutting substantial risk.
The consultation deliberately hid the scale of what was coming. But here's the smoking gun: the consultation deadline was one day before the UC Bill's first reading—which contained all the SCC changes and the gutting of substantial risk.
Think about that. Twenty-four hours between consultation close and first reading. Not enough time to read responses, let alone consolidate feedback or change the Bill. The consultation was pure theatre—designed to provide democratic cover for decisions already made.
Twenty-two leading DDPOs (Disabled People's Organisations), including Amnesty International, condemned it as a sham. They were right.
The government pushed ahead without meaningful input, because the real reason is clear: they believe protections like "substantial risk" get in the way of "incentivising" work. That's the official line from Liz Kendall, at least since a call from Number 10 to retreat from justifying disability benefit cuts on the basis of balancing the public purse.
But there is no evidence that removing protections helps people work—and a mountain of evidence that it not only harms people who can't but increases indirect costs such as coroners' inquiries, days in hospital and increased social care. This is not policy. It's a cost-cutting exercise in disguise.
The DWP Knows They're Vulnerable
And the DWP knows it. They're more anxious about this change than almost any other in the Bill. We know because:
- Question 10 of the Pathways consultation asks whether the public agrees with prioritising "conditions that will not improve"—an oblique reference to SCC that deliberately concealed the government's intention to strip substantial risk of its legal protections.
- The only tweet the DWP directly responded to during the entire three readings of the Bill was one of mine—about SCC
They know they're vulnerable. So what's their fix? They're toying with "reasonable adjustments" to soften the blow—claimants on the downgraded LCWRA might have work demands paused through some to-be-confirmed process of discretion.
But let's be clear: that fails completely.
These protections were enshrined in both ESA and UC law because only legal rights can guarantee safety. Not vague promises. Not administrative flex. And not the whim of a work coach.
Without a statutory route from substantial risk into full LCWRA (now SCC), claimants will be at even greater danger—from assessors who have consistently misunderstood both mental illness and risk, and from work coaches under pressure to push people toward the labour market.
The Stakes
This is a crisis for those already hanging on by a thread.
A clause that once recognised the unbearable cost of pressure on fragile bodies and minds now leads only to half the money, no legal exemption from demands, and no legal shield against reassessment.
This loss can't go unanswered.
What You Can Do
Write to the House of Lords before their 22 July 2025 debate on the Universal Credit Bill, if you have the spoons. Your own words on the importance of protecting the 'substantial risk' category will be more powerful than mine ever could be, but if you are exhausted, or do not have blood in this game, please use this email template and peer contact list to demand they make "substantial risk" a direct route to SCC—ensuring full £97 weekly support and legal protection for those at risk of suicide, collapse, or hospitalisation.
Then, tell the Timms review to enshrine this in law. DWP promises without statutory backing—like those during managed migration—have repeatedly failed us.
Act now to save "substantial risk."
0 -
Is the linked article below still accurate/applicable/happening?
DWP Announces Major WCA Changes for New ESA and UC Claimants from 2025 | Disability Rights UK
Despite its work capability assessment (WCA) descriptor consultation only ending on 30 October, the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) has now published its full response.
While the WCA for existing claimants is not subject to change, new claimants of Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) and universal credit (UC) will be subject to a revised test from 2025.
The WCA is used in ESA and UC to determine what work-related conditions a Disabled person must meet to keep getting their benefit.
If you are found to have a ‘limited capability for work-related activity’ (LCWRA), no work-related activity conditions will apply to you, and you will also be entitled to an extra amount of benefit.
If you are found to have a limited capability for work (LCW) while you have no work search conditionality, you are expected to undertake work related activity.
The DWP says that following responses to the consultation, most of which opposed the proposals, it is to take forward the following changes:
Chance to Work Guarantee for existing claimants on UC and ESA with LCWRA
This change will be effective from 2025, at the same time as WCA changes are introduced. This change will in effect abolish the WCA for the vast majority of this group and is allegedly aimed at “giving people the confidence to try work” without fear of reassessment.
Reassessments will only take place under very limited circumstances, which are:
- When a claimant reports a change of circumstances in their health condition;
- If a claimant has been awarded LCWRA for pregnancy risk, or cancer treatment where the prognosis for recovery is expected to be short-term;
- If a claimant has been declared as having LCWRA under the new risk provisions; and
- In cases of suspected fraud.
Changes to be made to the WCA:
From 2025 onwards, the following changes will apply to WCA activities and descriptors:
Amending the LCWRA Substantial Risk regulations to realign Substantial Risk with its “original intention” of only applying in exceptional circumstances.
The DWP says: “We will specify the circumstances, and physical and mental health conditions, for which LCWRA Substantial Risk should apply. This will include protecting and safeguarding the most vulnerable, including people in crisis and those with active psychotic illness. We will work with clinicians to define the criteria and what medical evidence is required from claimants and people involved in their care, to ensure the process is safe, fair, and clear.
Removing the LCWRA Mobilising activity “because new flexibilities in the labour market mean that many people with mobilising limitations can undertake some form of tailored and personalised work-related activity with the right support”.
“To ensure those with the most significant mobilising needs are protected we will retain the current LCWRA Substantial Risk regulations for physical health. This means that where work preparation would lead to a deterioration in a claimant’s physical health, they would still meet the eligibility for LCWRA. We will not change the LCW Mobilising activity or descriptors.”
Reducing the points awarded for the LCW Getting About descriptors, “because new flexibilities in the labour market mean that there is less need to get to a place of work, and so limitations in getting about are less of a barrier to being able to work for some people.
“We will retain the highest scoring descriptor, to protect those claimants who have the most significant limitations under the getting about LCW activity.
However, the DWP will not make changes to the following WCA activities and descriptors:
- LCWRA or LCW Continence,
- LCWRA or LCW Social Engagement
DR UK says: “We are dismayed that the Government will be going ahead with proposals to restrict eligibility for the LCW and LCWRA categories within UC and the Work-Related Activity Group and Support Group within ESA.
“Whilst we recognise that the DWP does not intend to take forward all of the most extreme measures proposed in its recent consultation, those it is now proposing to implement are also unacceptable.
“The decision that this will apply only to claimants newly undergoing a WCA from 2025 is of no comfort to those people who will develop severe difficulties with mobilising or getting about in the future, nor those who, in the future, are at substantial risk of self-harm, suicide, or harm to those around them but are nonetheless forced to undertake work-related activity.
“Given the weight of opposition during the short consultation period, it is unfortunately hard to avoid the conclusion that in part its outcome was already determined.
“The proposed changes to the WCA are less to do with helping Disabled people into work than a cynical attempt to impose conditionality and to reduce benefit expenditure."
The Government Response to the Work Capability Assessment: Activities and Descriptors Consultation is available from gov.uk.
See also our related news stories:
1 -
When you think about how health and safety mad this country is it's crazy that they want to remove substantial risk, apparently health and safety suddenly doesn't matter for disabled, ill, and mentally unwell people and for the people around them who are able bodied and mentally well, even though it could cause damage to mental health, physical health and death/suicide.
Yet the floor in a school or supermarket is just a tiny bit wet? Suddenly all the signs go up and cones with tape around them, wouldn't surprise me if they started blaring out sirens too with flashing lights.
Putting some flatpack furniture together? The booklet will advise you to wear safety goggles when screwing in the screws, and when using the wood glue (no joke, this was in the manual for some flatpack furniture I was putting together).
1 -
I'm not on UC so I admit I don't have detailed knowledge of all of the categories and regulations, but it's worth noting that the wording in the Equalities Act defining disability is something that has a substantial and long term impact on someone's life. The word substantial is written into equalities legislation, and I am wondering whether that is also why substantial is used in the existing UC regulations.
There is no legal basis for the word severe, it is something invented for this bill by the opinions of non-medically trained individuals. I have no idea whether that is something that could be taken on and challenged or whether it will be so well tied up that there'll be a get out clause for the DWP - but severe is an unqualified personal opinion. You surely can't base all new welfare benefit claims on that.Also Catherine, the Yahoo article you linked above still seems to think the 4 point rule is alive. We need to make sure we're alert to the possibility of a sham review, which ultimately pushes through the same criteria at the end. There's been very little real discussion so far on how disabled people and organisations will be involved in this review, which makes me wonder whether we will be.
1 -
The content of this link is no longer valid, as it has vanished with the cons.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 15.3K Start here and say hello!
- 7.2K Coffee lounge
- 87 Games den
- 1.7K People power
- 120 Announcements and information
- 24.2K Talk about life
- 5.8K Everyday life
- 412 Current affairs
- 2.4K Families and carers
- 865 Education and skills
- 1.9K Work
- 524 Money and bills
- 3.6K Housing and independent living
- 1K Transport and travel
- 884 Relationships
- 256 Sex and intimacy
- 1.5K Mental health and wellbeing
- 2.4K Talk about your impairment
- 863 Rare, invisible, and undiagnosed conditions
- 923 Neurological impairments and pain
- 2.1K Cerebral Palsy Network
- 1.2K Autism and neurodiversity
- 39.4K Talk about your benefits
- 6K Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)
- 19.6K PIP, DLA, ADP and AA
- 8.2K Universal Credit (UC)
- 5.7K Benefits and income