News

There but for the grace of God or fate, go I no longer applies.

Truly Hideous. 

Welfare not Warfare. 

# Analysis of Government Paper on Universal Credit Health Element Changes


## Legal and Human Rights Concerns

### Disproportionate Impact on Persons with Disabilities
The most significant concern is the clearly disproportionate impact on persons with disabilities:
- 96% of families negatively affected have someone with a disability
- An estimated 3.1 million families with disabilities will lose out, compared to just 0.1 million families without disabilities
- These represent 20% of all families reporting a disability member

This raises serious concerns under several legal frameworks:

1. **UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)**
- Article 28 guarantees the right of persons with disabilities to an adequate standard of living
- The proposed changes may constitute retrogressive measures that undermine this right

2. **Equality Act 2010**
- The Public Sector Equality Duty requires public authorities to eliminate discrimination and advance equality of opportunity
- The disproportionate impact on disabled people likely constitutes indirect discrimination
- The scale of the disparity (96% of those affected having disabilities) suggests an inadequate consideration of this duty

3. **Human Rights Act 1998**
- Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) read with Article 1 of Protocol 1 (protection of property)
- Social security benefits are considered "possessions" under human rights law
- The discriminatory impact may violate these provisions

### Gender-Based Discrimination
The assessment notes that single females (1.4m) are more likely to lose out than single males (1.1m), raising concerns about:
- Gender-based discrimination under the Equality Act 2010
- Potential violations of international commitments under CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women)

### Child Poverty Impact
The projection that 50,000 additional children will fall into relative poverty raises concerns regarding:
- UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
- Child Poverty Act 2010 (as amended)
- The government's legal duty to consider the best interests of children

## Specific Policy Concerns

### PIP Assessment Changes
Requiring a minimum of 4 points in at least one activity to qualify for a daily living award could:
- Exclude individuals with multiple less severe conditions that cumulatively cause significant disability
- Create arbitrary thresholds that don't reflect real-world disability experiences

### Universal Credit Health Element Reduction
- 50% reduction for new claimants creates a two-tier system
- Freezing rates until 2029-30 represents a significant real-terms cut due to inflation

## Broader Legal Considerations

### Proportionality
A key question is whether these measures are proportionate to their aims:
- The government's savings targets must be balanced against the severe impact on vulnerable populations
- The financial burden is being placed predominantly on persons with disabilities rather than being spread more evenly

### Progressive Realization
Under international human rights law, there is an obligation of progressive realization of economic and social rights:
- These measures appear retrogressive rather than progressive
- Such retrogression requires exceptional justification during economic constraints

## Conclusion
The proposed changes raise serious legal concerns regarding discrimination and human rights protections, particularly for persons with disabilities. The disproportionate impact (96% of affected families having disabilities) suggests these measures may fail legal tests of proportionality and non-discrimination under both domestic and international law.