Unemployed insurance proposals

This one may cause unexpected consequences if it goes through.
If a healthy partner has to run through all their joint savings after the 'unemployment insurance' runs out, that increases the incentive to divorce and retain their half of the assets. Younger women are far less likely to feel obliged to stay in the caring role due to social pressure.

I found this answer and letter template on a Facebook group. I think it raises valuable points. As not everyone will
Be able to claim universal credit afterwards. It seems risky to have to rely on someone else for all income. Makes me worried.

"End the indefinite entitlement to contributory ESA" – This means future claimants (not existing ones yet) would only get ESA for a limited time, even if they're seriously ill or disabled.

"Would be able to claim UC" – But only if their personal circumstances allow. This assumes that everyone has access to UC, which many don’t (e.g., due to partner income, savings, or immigration status).

"A route to financial support for those with temporary and short-term health conditions" – This seems to undermine those with long-term or fluctuating conditions, especially if they don't qualify for PIP or UC.

Why It’s Potentially Unlawful or Discriminatory:

1. Indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 – By assuming everyone can switch to UC, this change could disproportionately harm disabled people who can't, especially those ineligible due to non-financial reasons.

2. Breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty – There's no evidence they’ve considered the impact on people unable to access UC (e.g., people with a working partner or those already struggling with the benefits system).

3. Violation of human rights – Removing a benefit someone has contributed to through National Insurance, and offering no alternative, could breach Article 1 of Protocol 1 (right to possessions) and Article 14 (discrimination).

Suggested Wording for a Response (or Legal Challenge):

---

Re: Green Paper Proposal to End Indefinite Contribution-Based ESA – Paragraph 54

I am writing to raise serious concerns regarding paragraph 54 of the Green Paper “Pathways to Work”, which proposes to end indefinite entitlement to contribution-based Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) for new claimants, offering instead a time-limited award and potential access to Universal Credit (UC) “depending on personal circumstances”.

As someone who cannot claim UC, this proposal is highly discriminatory and potentially unlawful for the following reasons:

1. Indirect Discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 – This change will disproportionately affect disabled people who, like myself, are ineligible for UC due to non-disability-related criteria (e.g., a partner’s income or savings). It creates a two-tier system where disabled people who cannot access UC are left without support.

2. Breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty – There is no indication that the Department for Work and Pensions has properly considered the negative and unequal impact this policy will have on disabled claimants with long-term health conditions who fall through the cracks of UC and PIP eligibility.

3. Violation of Human Rights (Article 1 Protocol 1 and Article 14, ECHR) – Contribution-based ESA is an entitlement I have built up through National Insurance payments. Ending this entitlement without providing a viable alternative denies me a benefit I have paid for, purely based on my personal circumstances, which amounts to discriminatory treatment.

I urge the department to reconsider this policy, or at the very least exempt people who are not eligible for UC from this change. I would also like clarification on whether any equality impact assessment has been conducted, and whether legal advice has been sought about the potential for human rights violations.

Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]

Yes that is a good point. It makes the other person very vulnerable having no money at all. I don’t understand what would have been the point of them paying their NI contributions though? Where would they have gone if the safety net is removed. I don’t think this one (along with the others) has been thought out properly.