Dr Clare Williams is Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Birmingham. Her work on law, political economy and disability is informed by her activism. https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/staff/profiles/law/williams-clare

Keywords: Disability, Access to Work, Labour, Welfare cuts, Ability capitalism

Figure 1- Image of an empty chair in front of a desk and laptop with the words ‘Access to Work is Being Dismantled’ overlayed.

[This is a follow up from my previous blog post on disability and welfare which you can read here. The image is from a LinkedIn post by Catherine Eadie who writes about her experiences of reapplying to Access to Work. Please read her post here]

The Background

In March 2025, the latest ‘labour market activation’ policies from the current government were announced. This is a polite and scholarly way of saying that the government planned to introduce policies to push people into work. Notably, the impact fell most acutely on disabled people through the proposals to cut disability welfare based on the moral panic of rising budgets and claimant numbers. This blog post asks whether the moral panic is justified, and explores what the centrally-administered ‘Access to Work’ scheme should be funding.

Labour markets are designed, typically, by and for non-disabled people. Those with impairments – be these physical impairments, mental distress, learning impairments or energy impairments – are disabled by the environmental and attitudinal barriers that continue to define markets, whether these are labour, housing, debt, or any other markets. The fact that such barriers to disabled people’s inclusion exist is attested to by the existence of the grant scheme ‘Access to Work’.

What is Access to Work?

Launched in 1994 and administered by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), Access to Work is a government grant designed to remove barriers to work. Those aged 16 and over who are either in work or have an interview can apply for funding to cover either ‘Assessments’ or ‘Elements’.[1] Assessments identify workplace-related barriers to employment and make recommendations on their removal. Elements are intended to supplement the reasonable adjustments that employers are required to make under the Equality Act 2010 and can include communication support for interviews, special aids and equipment, adaptations to premises or vehicles, travel to and in work, a support worker (including British Sign Language interpreters), and the Mental Health Support Service (MHSS).

Access to Work provision was approved for 61,670 people in 2024/25, although many disabled people and their employers still remain unaware of the scheme which has been described as ‘the government’s best-kept secret’.[2] Grants last for a maximum of 3 years, although it is worth noting that Access to Work is not an entitlement; there is no appeals process against a decision or the level of the award.[3]

In the year ending March 2025, the maximum annual amount that an individual could receive was set at £69,260 although the average annual payment received per customer across all provision was around £4000.[4] To be clear, the disabled person does not receive this money. Instead, they can use it to pay to remove barriers that prevent them from working. That means that disabled people in receipt of Access to Work not only have their jobs to think about, but the added burden of applying, justifying, claiming and paying to be able to access those jobs. For many though, due to the disabling barriers throughout labour markets, this support can make the difference between being in work or not.

What’s going wrong?

Since Labour came to power in July 2024, those relying on Access to Work began to notice a trend: applications (including renewals) rejected, grants cut drastically, and lengthy delays in the time to reach a decision. Still, the government denied any change in policy. Application rejections have been difficult to measure owing to government recalcitrance in publishing figures.[5] Nevertheless, ‘figures [that are available] show a sharp rise in Access to Work rejections since the change in government, with one in three applications now not approved’, a projected 22% increase from the previous year.[6]

In November 2025, Minister of State for Social Security and Disability Sir Stephen Timms admitted that he had signed off on instructions for DWP staff to apply the guidance ‘more consistently’, with the instructions that Access to Work staff should be more ‘scrupulous’ in their applications of the guidance.[8] Accusations of ‘stealth cuts’ to Access to Work were finally validated, with government denials of cuts described as ‘gaslighting on a national scale’.[9]

Worsening delays compound the uncertainty. Alexa Sage, Director at Inside Impact, recently posted that her Access to Work application took 494 days to be picked up by the DWP.[10] She was then given less than 2 hours’ notice that she would be receiving a call from the DWP to discuss her application. Yet while decisions are pending, lives are on hold; both those of the disabled person and the support workers they employ who inevitably fall out of employment. Often the support required to remove barriers to work cannot be funded by the employer, leaving the worker in limbo and at the mercy of an employer’s patience, and leaving their support worker relying on other sources of income or welfare. Employers that do choose to fund interim barrier-removal pending an Access to Work decision can find that their generosity backfires with the DWP asserting that if the employer has funded a provision for a year it must be ‘affordable’ and therefore covered by the employer’s obligations under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments; a fact that many employers are finding hard to stomach.[11]

Moreover, disabled people have little recourse to shared knowledge about how to navigate the system. As the Access to Work Collective notes:

‘Access to Work decisions vary by assessor, by role and over time. What is approved for one person can be refused for another in an identical job. Guidance also changes without notice. […] No one outside the DWP has access to authoritative, up-to-date operational guidance. Even the published staff guidance is partial and redacted’.[12]

The UK government’s report on ‘The Employment of Disabled People 2025’, published in November 2025, notes that disabled people leave work at twice the rate of non-disabled people, a statistic that points to the flaws in Access to Work support.[13] This is in the context of a disability employment gap, or the difference in employment rates between disabled and non-disabled people, that remains at around 30%.[14]

So (how much) have budgets ‘spiralled’?

Media narratives and government statements have identified budgetary increases, in particular mental health awards, as responsible for unsustainable growth in Access to Work costs. Access to Work statistics for the financial year ending March 2025 provide some interesting context.[15]

In that year, the number of people who had any Access to Work provision approved decreased by 10% on the previous year.[16] However, as the DWP has so far refused to confirm when the instruction was given for criteria to be ‘more scrupulously’ applied, it is impossible to determine the extent to which altered guidance to assessors is responsible for this decrease.

At the same time, of those who had an Element approved, the most common was a Support Worker (54%), accounting for 71% of total expenditure, an increase of 23% in real terms. This could be a Job Coach (12%), a Job Aide (12%), BSL interpreters (6%), Communication (3%) or a Driver (1%). The customer group in receipt of the highest average payment amount are those who are ‘Deaf or hard of hearing’ (including those needing to pay for BSL interpreters) with average annual Element payments of £16,900 per customer. The Mental Health Support Service was the most common Element among customers who received a payment from Access to Work, increasing 10% on the previous year but accounting for only 4% of total expenditure; a 3% real terms increase and seeing average annual Element payments of £1,600.

As the DWP notes, ‘after removing the effect of inflation and discounting years impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, average annual payment amounts per customer for Any Provision have remained relatively stable over time’.[17] So while we can see more people who experience mental distress being awarded and claiming Access to Work, this cohort receives relatively small payments compared to the fraction of customers who require larger budgets to fund BSL interpreters and support workers.[18] Any moral panic over ‘unsustainable’ mental health claims numbers disregards the outsized impact that such small sums can have on helping people find and stay in work.

Disability and labour markets: what should Access to Work fund?

My research on ability capitalism demonstrates that the disability employment gap, far from being a market failure, is inevitable in (neoliberal) capitalist labour markets.[19] Markets require disability, both empirically and conceptually, for their effective and efficient form and function making disability an integral and essential technology of market governance.

Labour markets do not ‘clear’; that is to say, an efficient labour market will always have a level of unemployment.[20] As Marta Russell’s Marxian-Polanyian money theory of disability demonstrated, those least likely to generate the maximum surplus value for the employer are excluded from the labour market and transferred to the redistributive sphere (welfare).[21] Accordingly, they comprise a part of the ‘reserve army of labour’ and are transformed into consumers of goods and services. Depending on prevailing market conditions, and through the variable definition of disability in government policy and law, part of this reserve army can be transferred back to the productive sphere (employment), helping to increase competition for jobs and drive down wages. Thus, by changing policy guidelines or legal entitlements, governments can weaponise disability to regulate markets.

As I wrote previously, we have seen this in action with the proposed cuts to disability benefits in March 2025 by the present Labour administration. Yet, if the government wants disabled people to work, Access to Work remains one of the key modalities by which barriers to the labour market can be removed and it must be adequately funded. I would go further though.

Access to Work transforms ‘disabled’ (or market-excluded) labour into ‘profit making’ activities.[22] But it does this by focusing on barriers to and within the workplace. What Access to Work does not fund are the additional costs faced by disabled people in reproducing their labour power, or engaging in ‘life making’ activities, in order to enter and remain in labour markets.

Many non-disabled people are able to perform social reproduction tasks independently at no additional cost to themselves. By contrast, those with physical impairments, for example, may need additional assistance in reproducing their labour power. This may include paying for assistance to help with washing, dressing, cooking and cleaning, taking medications or collecting them from pharmacy, assistance attending hospital appointments and so on.[23] Social care budgets can meet some of these needs but require additional assessments, applications, hiring of care workers and so on, adding to the administrative burden. Social care budgets are also notoriously under-resourced, heavily gatekept, and inadequate for the dignified provision of social care and the reproduction of disabled labour power.[24]

It seems illogical that a scheme designed to eliminate barriers to labour market participation would seek to remove barriers to ‘profit making’ work but fail to fund the additional costs of the social reproduction of disabled labour power. I suggest that Access to Work should be expanded to fund not only workplace barrier removal, but the extra costs faced by disabled people that present wider social barriers to labour market participation.[25] In reality, it does not matter where the line is drawn between ‘profit making’ and ‘life making’ activities so long as the costs falling on both sides are the same for everyone. Currently they are not. This, in itself, is disabling.

Getting people into jobs is not simply a matter of fixing the barriers that exist in workplaces (or getting to them). It is a matter of eliminating the panoply of barriers that disable tens of thousands of qualified and willing individuals resulting in their exclusion, minoritisation and impoverishment every year. It is about justice.

To learn more…

If you would like to know more about the current campaigns highlighting the hidden dismantling of the Access to Work scheme, please follow the Access to Work Collective on social media channels, as well as InclusionLondon.

 

[1] Work must be for 16 or more hours per week.

[2] Leonard Cheshire, ‘Seven Things Everyone Should Know about Access to Work’ (Leonard Cheshire, 23 June 2022) <https://www.leonardcheshire.org/our-impact/stories/seven-things-everyone-should-know-about-access-work> accessed 2 January 2026.

[3] There is a right to one reconsideration by a different caseworker. Department for Work and Pensions, ‘Access to Work: Factsheet for Customers’ (gov.uk, 16 December 2025) <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/access-to-work-factsheet/access-to-work-factsheet-for-customers> accessed 31 December 2025.

[4] It is important to note that while these totals may initially seem generous, when paying for BSL interpreters or expensive equipment, the funding often does not stretch far. Furthermore, DWP delays in processing claims can mean support workers and interpreters waiting months for reimbursement.

[5] John Pring, ‘DWP Failure to Provide Up-to-Date Figures on Access to Work Cuts Is “Major Warning Sign”, Say Campaigners’ (Disability News Service, 28 November 2025) <https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/dwp-failure-to-provide-up-to-date-figures-on-access-to-work-cuts-is-major-warning-sign-say-campaigners/> accessed 31 December 2025.

[6] As the Access to Work Collective has noted, “For months, Ministers and the DWP have repeatedly denied any policy change to Access to Work, while at the same time, disabled people saw their support slashed by 60–80% or their award removed, forcing many out of work, into poverty, and into worsening ill health”. See Access to Work Collective LinkedIn Post, December 2025 https://www.linkedin.com/posts/accesstoworkcollective_accesstoworkcollective-accesstowork-accesstonowhere-activity-7406249182514122752-rxiJ?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAvTl1IBtvIrDi0GoPm5RjqdOkLzaneenz0. See also Rachel Charlton-Dailey, ‘DWP Forced to Admit 1 in 3 Access to Work Claims Have Been Denied This Year so Far’ (The Canary, 5 December 2025) <https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2025/12/05/dwp-access-to-work/> accessed 31 December 2025. See also Access to Work Collective LindedIn Post, October 2025, https://www.linkedin.com/posts/accesstoworkcollective_accesstoworkcollective-accesstowork-accesstonowhere-activity-7379976534553583617-rs9C?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAvTl1IBtvIrDi0GoPm5RjqdOkLzaneenz0

[8] John Pring, ‘Minister Refuses Once Again to Reveal Truth about Cuts to Access to Work’ (Disability News Service, 13 November 2025) <https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/minister-refuses-once-again-to-reveal-truth-about-cuts-to-access-to-work/> accessed 31 December 2025.

[9] Access to Work Collective LinkedIn Post, October 2025, https://www.linkedin.com/posts/accesstoworkcollective_accesstoworkcollective-accesstowork-accesstonowhere-activity-7379976534553583617-rs9C?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAvTl1IBtvIrDi0GoPm5RjqdOkLzaneenz0

[10] LinkedIn post: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/alexasage_accesstowork-workplacesupport-publicservices-activity-7402980174277042176-GDka?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAvTl1IBtvIrDi0GoPm5RjqdOkLzaneenz0

[11] Angela Matthews, ‘Access to Work: How Employers Can Navigate the Uncertainty’ (HRmagazine, 23 July 2025) <https://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/content/comment/access-to-work-how-employers-can-navigate-the-uncertainty> accessed 2 January 2026.

[12] Access to Work Collective LinkedIn post, December 2025, https://www.linkedin.com/posts/accesstoworkcollective_accesstoworkcollective-accesstoworkcollective-activity-7408789674422562818-vkLz?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAvTl1IBtvIrDi0GoPm5RjqdOkLzaneenz0

[13] Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), ‘Official Statistics: The Employment of Disabled People 2025’ (2025) <https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/the-employment-of-disabled-people-2025/the-employment-of-disabled-people-2025> accessed 31 December 2025.

[14] ibid.

[15] Department of Work and Pensions, ‘Official Statistics: Access to Work Statistics: April 2007 to March 2025’ (gov.uk, 14 October 2025) <https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/access-to-work-statistics-april-2007-to-march-2025/access-to-work-statistics-april-2007-to-march-2025>. The guidance notes that ‘These statistics have been developed using guidelines set out by the UK Statistics Authority and are new official statistics undergoing development. They have therefore been designated as statistics in development’. Methodology changes over time have made pre-2017 data incommensurable. For further details, see Department for Work and Pensions, ‘Guidance Access to Work Statistics: Background Information and Methodology’ (14 October 2025) <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/access-to-work-statistics-background-information-and-methodology/access-to-work-statistics-background-information-and-methodology> accessed 2 January 2026.

[16] Department of Work and Pensions (n 15). Statistics vary in timeframe, so may not align. The 22% decrease indicated earlier projects estimates over the full year.

[17] ibid. Emphasis added.

[18] It is worth noting that BSL interpreters are highly trained and qualified professionals who require appropriate remuneration for their time and expertise. The same argument applies for support workers. Most are also self-employed and therefore responsible for their tax, national insurance, pension contributions and so on, and any drive to reduce Access to Work budgets will inevitably impact these workers.

[19] Clare Williams, ‘Ability Capitalism: Law’s Constitutive Role in Constructing Disability’ [2024] Industrial Law Journal <https://academic.oup.com/ilj/advance-article/doi/10.1093/indlaw/dwae043/7826570> accessed 18 February 2025.

[20] Wolfgang Streeck, ‘How Will Capitalism End?’ (2014) 87 New Left Review 35.

[21] Karl Marx, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Vol. 1 (Ben Fowkes tr, Penguin Books 1976); Marta Russell, ‘Disablement, Oppression, and the Political Economy’ (2001) 12 Journal of Disability Policy Studies 87.

[22] In understanding social reproduction work, I draw on the analytical distinction outlined by Battachariya between ‘profit making’ and ‘life making’ work. See Tithi Bhattacharya, Social Reproduction Theory: Remapping Class, Recentering Oppression (Pluto 2017); Alessandra Mezzadri and others, ‘Pluralizing Social Reproduction Approaches’ (2025) 27 International Feminist Journal of Politics 6.

[23] Consequently, in contrast to much work on social reproduction theory (SRT) or approaches (SRAs), the distinction here is not between waged and unwaged labour. In the context of disability, ‘life making’ work may be either, with waged life making labour in particular a cause of the additional costs faced by disabled people.

[24] One argument would be that increased social care funding could indeed help to reduce the disability employment gap.

[25] I want to be very clear: this is not at all to claim that social care funding should be premised on work activity, and there are urgent and desperate needs to reform and adequately resource social care funding throughout the UK.