Forum Home → Discussion → Work capability issues and ESA → Thread
Permission granted for JR challenge to consultation process for WCA reforms
Reported in the Big Issue -
https://www.bigissue.com/news/social-justice/dwp-disability-benefits-judicial-review-ellen-clifford/
Update in the Big Issue - https://www.bigissue.com/news/social-justice/dwp-disability-benefit-reforms-cuts/ -
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has admitted it launched a consultation on disability benefit cuts – that it framed as helping disabled people into work – despite having made no estimate of how many disabled people would actually find work as a result…
As part of the proceedings around the judicial review, lawyers representing the DWP told the High Court on Thursday (31 October) that it had not carried any evaluation of the employment impact or disability impact of any of its proposals before launching the public consultation on 5 September 2023.
DWP lawyers even claimed that one reason for the consultation was specifically to gather information on the likely equality impact of the proposals.
They said the only work on the impact of the plans that was conducted before the consultation launched were audits of 300 previous work capability assessment cases to estimate how many people would be affected, which fed into “uncertain” calculations of potential financial savings from the different proposals that were then communicated to ministers.
What’s the betting that round about 9 December the Government will cave in on this one?
Further piece on the proceedings in the High Court from the Big Issue:
DWP wants to reform benefits to cut costs, not help disabled people into work, court hears
Judgment out:
137 ... I consider that the Claimant has surmounted the substantial hurdle of establishing that the consultation was so unfair as to be unlawful ...
We’ll publish a link and summary later ....
Judgment out:
137 ... I consider that the Claimant has surmounted the substantial hurdle of establishing that the consultation was so unfair as to be unlawful ...
We’ll publish a link and summary later ....
Thanks Shawn, is this the consultation that the Labour government has already said that it wouldn’t be taking forward?
I think it was the PIP consultation that they said they weren’t going to continue with (although see: https://www.bigissue.com/news/social-justice/dwp-pip-disability-benefits-reform-changes/)
They sort of sat on the fence on this one and said they would wait and see what happened at court. Whilst at the same time instructing Sir James Eadie KC et al to defend the JR at a two day hearing…
It will be interesting to see if they try and appeal this in outcome and - in any case - it will be interesting to see what the inevitable FOI tells us about how much in legal fees have been incurred in the failed defence of a previous government’s policy which the new government has not expressly endorsed.
Thanks for that Elliot.
Judgment now available online:
https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions
Pretty damning judgement overall.
Pretty damning judgement overall.
Mildly put
Thanks Shawn, in your summary it notes that the judge said “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.”
Important to note that they went onto say “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.
Nice one Paul ... we’ve updated ....
Govt response included in the Guardian’s'report:
A government spokesperson said: “The judge has found the previous government failed to adequately explain their proposals. As part of wider reforms that help people into work and ensure fiscal sustainability, the government will re-consult 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.”