How Labour is Gutting 'Substantial Risk'

The government is quietly dismantling legal protections that keep vulnerable disabled people safe from DWP pressure

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."

---

Sources: DWP, Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill Impact Assessment, June 2025; Benefits and Work, 2023