WCA Abolished

Elliot Kent - 17 March 2023 09:58 AM

I don’t think there is anything to suggest that any version of the “substantial risk” rule would be retained at all and that group are not mentioned in para 153 of the white paper. It would, I assume, be left to a work coach to decide whether a person’s health would be put at risk by requiring them to participate in WRA. Perhaps a different picture will emerge when the legislation is produced.

(Para 94-100 of IM v SSWP (ESA) [2015] AACR 10 might be worth a look in this context…)

Doubtless it will take the usual highly publicised suicides and deaths from starvation before the DWP are dragged reluctantly (kicking and screaming all the way) to re-examine their cavalier attitude to their customer’s health and well being.

If, as they claim, the DWP are keen to listen to customer’s concerns, why has “substantial risk” been a perennial problem for almost my entire career? Every time they bring in a new benefit, we have to start from scratch. I note today that the DWP can produce figures for the number of ESA claimants classed as being at “substantial risk”, yet cannot do so for UC, because UC doesn’t record this statistic. Why not? I suspect because DWP thought they could unencumber themselves of the duty to register and support such customers, and are keen to “get them off benefits” by whatever means possible.