Women’s Budget Group Response to Work and Pensions Committee Consultation on Employment Support for Disabled People

About Us

The UK Women’s Budget Group (WBG) is a feminist think tank that provides evidence and capacity building on women’s economic position and that proposes policy alternatives for a gender-equal economy. We act as a link between academia, the women’s voluntary sector and the social policy world of think tanks. We benefit hugely from our network of pro-bono experts from academia and the new economics and women’s movements, alongside a professional staff team, who are all essential to our work.

The testimonies of Disabled women included throughout the response to this consultation have been drawn from the evidence collected for WBG’s and Sisters of Frida’s June 2025 briefing: “Impact of Disability Benefit Changes on Disabled Women”[1].

Consultation questions

Why has progress with closing the disability employment gap slowed in recent years?

Progress on closing the disability employment gap has slowed because structural and cultural barriers within the labour market remain unaddressed. While headline figures show an apparent rise in Disabled people’s employment since 2017, this is driven largely by overall economic growth and more people reporting a disability, rather than genuine progress in reducing disadvantages and a meaningful tackling of barriers[2]. The gap itself has remained persistently high at around 30 per cent, with no real improvement since 2013 once the increasing prevalence of disability is taken into account[3]. This stagnation has been evident for decades, and without a fundamental shift in societal attitudes, it is unlikely that the gap will close.

Employers too often view Disabled people through a deficit-based perspective, focusing on perceived limitations rather than strengths and contributions. Disabled workers continue to be “managed out” of roles in large numbers each year, usually because employers fail to implement reasonable adjustments in a timely and effective way[4]. The Government’s Access to Work scheme has not succeeded at delivering the widespread change it set out to bring, and other initiatives like Disability Confident has been criticised for often operating more as branding exercise than a mechanism for inclusion. Meanwhile, employment tribunals remain prohibitively expensive and stressful, discouraging workers from enforcing their rights. Misconceptions among employers about costs, productivity, and the nature of disability further compound these problems, limiting both recruitment and retention.

Addressing Disabled people’s employment is crucial not only because work benefits them individually, but also because society is failing to harness significant talent. Drawing on this talent would boost economic growth through increased participation in the labour market and the knock-on effect on job creation, but the case goes beyond economics. Employment is vital for people’s financial stability and career development, but it also fosters community, provides a sense of purpose, and supports wellbeing for anyone who is able to work.

Women make up the majority (56%) of Disabled people in the UK: 27% of women (9.3 million) are disabled, compared to 7.4 million or 22% of men[5]. Disabled women experience a double disadvantage due to both sex and disability discrimination. The current disability pay gap is 17.2%, rising from 16.5% in 2021[6].

The employment rates for Disabled women have increased in recent years and are now at the same level of Disabled men. For the period from January to March 2024, the employment rate was 54.4% for Disabled women and 55.2% for Disabled men[7]. This contrasts with the non-Disabled population, where employment rates are 78.2% for men and 71.8% for women[8].

Disabled women face significant barriers in the job market, leading to lower earnings. While the rate of employment of Disabled women is similar to that of Disabled men (54%), it is significantly lower to that of non-Disabled women (71.8%)[9]. Disabled women are more likely to be in low pay than Disabled men (19% and 13%, respectively) [10], compared to 9% of non-Disabled men, and they earn on average £7,300 per year less than non-Disabled men[11]. The combined disability gender pay gap stands at 31%, compared to 17.2% for the disability pay gap[12] and 7% for the gender pay gap (for full-time employees)[13].

What barriers prevent disabled people who want to work, or to work more, from doing so? How do these vary for different disabilities? How do these vary across the country?

Disabled people who want to work, or to work more, face barriers at every stage of the employment cycle. The most significant obstacles are the failure of employers to provide or maintain reasonable adjustments, combined with a culture of mistrust and avoidance around requests for support[14]. Prejudice, biases and ableist misconceptions persist across the recruitment and employment processes, both in relation to Disabled people’s ability to be productive employees and to the investment into reasonable adjustments required to employ a Disabled person. Research shows that most adjustments cost little and are easily affordable for employers, and Disabled employees can be just as, if not more, productive than their non-Disabled peers[15]. For Disabled women, these misconceptions intersect with existing gender stereotypes about capability and commitment, and caring expectations. Precarious work models, such as zero-hour contracts, create additional difficulties, as they make it harder to request or sustain adjustments and leave workers more vulnerable to dismissal. Since women are already over-represented in insecure and low-paid jobs, Disabled women are doubly disadvantaged[16].

Barriers also differ depending on the type of disability, with gender shaping how these are experienced. For people with physical impairments, adjustments such as lifts and ramps are better understood, although gaps remain. Disabled women, especially those in lower-paid roles, may have less negotiating power to secure even these basic adjustments. Those with invisible or fluctuating conditions, including mental health issues or energy-limiting impairments, face particular challenges because their needs are less visible, vary over time, and are often misunderstood or dismissed. Workers with sensory impairments, such as hearing or vision loss, frequently report that their needs receive less recognition than those of wheelchair users, while people who are neurodivergent or have learning differences often encounter stigma and inadequate accommodations.

There are also important geographical and sectoral variations. Larger organisations and the public sector are more likely to have resources to support adjustments, while opportunities are more limited in smaller businesses or regions with less employment diversity. Precarious service sectors tend to provide fewer accommodations, whereas more stable sectors, such as the civil service, may have stronger formal procedures but still face cultural barriers. Disabled women are particularly affected in these areas, as they are more likely to work in sectors such as retail, care, or hospitality, where insecure contracts and poor workplace practices are common[17]. Local attitudes and levels of employer awareness also shape Disabled people’s experiences, with some areas benefitting from active engagement with disability organisations and champions, and others offering very little.

Many Disabled people also face lack of financial support with the additional costs of living with a disability as a barrier to participating in the labour market. For that reason, non-employment related support, such as Personal Independence Payment, is often an essential step to enable Disabled people who would otherwise not be able to afford to work to enter and remain in the labour market. As a Disabled person reflected in WBG and Sisters of Frida 2025 briefing, “PIP has been the most useful support I have had in employment (even though it does not begin to cover all the costs of working). It allows me to self-fund some support where the government will not provide it.”[18]

What kinds of support are most effective at supporting people with different disabilities (such as physical, mental or fluctuating conditions) to enter and stay in work?

Current government policy on disability and employment is heavily weighted towards recruitment, with an emphasis on what Disabled people must do to secure work. The focus is on improving interview skills, CVs, and applications, rather than on the changes and responsibilities that employers themselves could and should undertake when hiring Disabled workers.

From an employer’s perspective, hiring a Disabled person is often seen through the lens of legal compliance, particularly the requirement to make ‘reasonable adjustments’. Many employers mistakenly believe that such adjustments are prohibitively expensive, which can act as a deterrent to recruitment. In addition, structural biases within recruitment processes create further barriers. Affinity bias means that panels often favour candidates who resemble themselves, and since Disabled people are under-represented in the workforce, this perpetuates exclusion[19]. The growing use of AI in recruitment adds another layer of discrimination, as algorithms frequently replicate existing biases, which disproportionately affect Disabled candidates[20]. These challenges are compounded for Disabled people who are also part of racialised or otherwise marginalised groups.

Policy is even more limited when it comes to retaining Disabled workers. This is a serious gap in an ageing society, where many people become disabled throughout the course of their careers. Evidence shows that failure to implement reasonable adjustments leads to around 48,000 Disabled people being managed out of work each year, a figure likely to be higher today given the increasing prevalence of disability[21]. For many, requesting adjustments is comparable to playing a game of chance: outcomes depend less on rights and policy than on whether they encounter a supportive manager. Experiences vary widely, sometimes even within the same organisation, leaving Disabled workers’ careers subject to fortune rather than fairness.

A fundamental source of support for Disabled people to enter and stay in work is access to non-employment related benefits, such as PIP. PIP is a crucial enabler of employment for Disabled people, particularly Disabled women, because it helps cover the additional costs of disability that often determine whether someone can remain in or return to work. Precisely because PIP is non-means-tested and independent of work status, it supports Disabled people to have the financial autonomy and flexibility to pay for essential aids, therapies, and adaptations that make employment possible. As a Disabled woman shared with WBG, “without PIP we have no financial independence and are utterly reliant on our partners to provide us with care, and money to access essential disability aids which allow us to be independent and access help.”[22] For many, the mobility component of PIP pays for accessible transport or an adapted vehicle, while the daily living element supports the costs of care, specialist food, medical expenses, or assistance in the home. Without PIP, many Disabled people would not be able to work: “There is no chance I will keep my job without the support that PIP pays for. I am reliant on my wheelchair to get around. I need care to get ready for work in time. If my health suffers through poorer food or a lack of medication or exercise, I will be unable to work.”[23]

Alongside PIP, several other forms of support can meaningfully help Disabled people enter and remain in work. The Access to Work scheme, when functioning well, provides vital equipment, transport, or support workers that make employment sustainable. Reforms ensuring more efficient delivery of support, upfront payments, and flexibility for self-employed people or those with fluctuating conditions would allow the scheme to reach its transformative potential.

Effective workplace practice is crucial. Employers who engage with Disabled People’s Organisations and adopt a social model of disability show that accessible work environments are achievable. Practices like job carving, adapting roles to an individual’s strengths, and flexible or hybrid working to accommodate fluctuating energy levels or caring responsibilities can be useful[24]. These approaches are particularly valuable for Disabled women, who are overrepresented in part-time or insecure roles and may also have caring duties. Moving from a compliance mindset to a culture of inclusion transforms workplaces, as well as embedding accessibility in recruitment, retention, and progression.

Access to healthcare, rehabilitation, and social care allows Disabled people to manage conditions alongside work. Coordinated support between health services and employment programmes prevents people falling through the cracks, especially those with mental health conditions or long-term impairments. Co-located services and joint assessments between DWP and the NHS, for example, can reduce delays.

Greater involvement of Disabled people’s organisations (DPOs) in designing, monitoring, and evaluating programmes ensures policies respond to real needs. When Disabled people are central to decision-making, solutions are more effective and trusted.

How effective is the support provided by Disability Employment Advisers? Are they able to support across all disabilities?

n/a

What can the Government learn from the Work and Health Programme?

n/a

How successful has Access to Work been at supporting disabled people into work? How could it be improved?

The motivating principle and purpose of Access to Work (AtW) is incredibly welcome and needed. It provides vital, practical support through equipment, support workers, and travel assistance, enabling many Disabled people to secure and sustain employment. For those who receive timely and appropriate support, it can be career-transforming. For example, testimony shared with WBG from a Disabled woman in academia noted that without AtW funding for a support worker to drive her to work and assist her there, she would not be able to maintain her role as one of the very few physically Disabled women in her field. Stopping or scrapping the scheme should not be an option for consideration. However, reform is undoubtedly needed.

AtW’s implementation is deeply flawed. Caseworkers vary greatly in quality, and the system is bureaucratic, inconsistent, and excessively medicalised. Disabled applicants are often required to provide extensive medical evidence rather than being assessed on the barriers they face, which diminishes the quality of the support and reflects a failure to use a social model of disability. The scheme is also inflexible, struggling to accommodate self-employed people, those with multiple roles, or those who do not work standard nine-to-five hours. Waiting lists can stretch to 30 weeks, leaving many people at risk of losing their jobs before support is in place. In the meantime, some are forced to self-fund essential care or transport, often relying on Personal Independence Payment (PIP) to cover these costs. Payments are made in arrears, meaning Disabled people must have the capital to fund support upfront, something many cannot afford. As one user put it: “They owe me thousands of pounds. Claiming is an absolute nightmare.”

Gender shapes these challenges. Disabled women are more likely to be in insecure, part-time, or low-paid work, leaving them with less financial resilience to cover costs while waiting for reimbursement. This creates a barrier to accessing AtW at all, meaning those who might benefit most are the least able to participate. Delays and inflexibility are also particularly damaging for women balancing paid work with unpaid caring responsibilities, where loss of AtW support can have cascading impacts on their families[25].

The failings of AtW reach beyond individuals and directly harm the very businesses seeking to support Disabled employees[26]. Some organisations claim the scheme now owes them substantial sums and others report that delayed payments and backlogs are threatening their continued operation. Outstanding applications linger in the backlog, with tens of thousands waited months for assessment, and some individuals say they’ve lost job offers as a result. These challenges show that, beyond the burdens on Disabled workers, AtW’s delayed remittances and excessive bureaucracy undermine employer confidence and capacity, thereby weakening the scheme’s credibility and its ability to foster inclusive employment.

The scheme is also designed more around the needs of government administration than service users. It is too focused on specific impairments rather than recognising that the same condition presents differently in different people, requiring tailored solutions. Users describe the experience as clunky, slow, and often alienating for both employees and employers, discouraging wider uptake[27].

To fulfil its potential, Access to Work needs urgent reform. Improvements should include:

• Contracting delivery to specialist DPOs and charities who understand the needs of Disabled people.
• Moving to a case-based, co-produced model, where solutions are developed with Disabled people and their organisations.
• Streamlining the process by modernising systems, reducing paperwork, and enabling advance approvals so support is ready from the first day of work.
• Enhancing the quality of training received by support workers to achieve consistency across experiences.
• Reforming the system to ensure case workers are allocated a core group they can manage sustainably so that Disabled people interacting with the system are not passed on from one worker to another every time they make use of AtW.
• Ensuring payments are not solely in arrears, so workers are not excluded on the basis of income or capital.
• Building flexibility into the scheme to support self-employed people, those with fluctuating conditions, and those working multiple or non-standard roles.
• Removing the excessive reliance on medical evidence and embedding a social model approach that focuses on barriers and their impact.

Access to Work has the potential to be transformative, but in its current form it is undermined by delay, bureaucracy, and lack of flexibility. For many Disabled women in particular, the risk of losing AtW support is career-ending. Reform must focus on co-creation, responsiveness, and inclusion, not cost-cutting, if the scheme is to become a genuine driver of equality in the labour market.

How successful has the Disability Confident scheme been at improving employer practices? How could it be improved?

In principle, the Disability Confident scheme has the potential to raise employer awareness and encourage more inclusive practices. However, in practice, it has not delivered meaningful change for Disabled workers[28]. The criteria for becoming a Disability Confident employer are minimal, and organisations can achieve accreditation without employing a single Disabled person or demonstrating substantive action. As a result, the scheme is widely perceived as a “tick box exercise” that functions more as a public relations tool than as a driver of genuine inclusion. Disabled workers themselves report little confidence in the scheme, noting that it fails to challenge structural barriers or improve day-to-day workplace experiences.

The weaknesses of Disability Confident are compounded by the absence of robust monitoring or enforcement. Employers self-assess against the standards, and there are no independent checks to ensure that commitments translate into practice. This lack of accountability undermines trust in the scheme and creates a gap between branding and reality. DPOs have consistently argued that they should play a role in monitoring, evaluating, and co-designing Disability Confident to ensure it reflects lived experience and addresses real workplace barriers[29].

A gendered perspective highlights further concerns. Disabled women, who already face intersectional barriers in the labour market, benefit least from superficial accreditation that fails to address systemic inequality. Women are more likely to be concentrated in low-paid, insecure roles, and yet the scheme does little to drive change in these sectors. Without a stronger focus on gendered patterns of discrimination, Disability Confident risks reinforcing rather than challenging inequality.

For Disability Confident to be effective, it must move beyond awareness-raising and embed accountability, co-production, and measurable outcomes. Improvements should include:

• Introducing independent monitoring and evaluation, led by DPOs, to ensure employers are meeting real standards of inclusion.
• Raising the threshold for accreditation, requiring evidence of tangible actions such as recruitment, retention, and progression of Disabled staff.
• Embedding a gender and equality lens, ensuring employers consider the intersectional barriers faced by Disabled women and other marginalised groups.
• Publishing transparent data on the outcomes of Disability Confident employers, including Disabled people’s employment rates, pay gaps, and retention.

Without these changes, Disability Confident will remain more symbolic than substantive. With them, it could become a meaningful mechanism to drive cultural change and reduce inequality in the workplace.

How well is Connect to Work working? Does it work better in some circumstances, or for some disabilities, than others?

N/a

What effect does the Motability scheme have on employment outcomes for disabled people?

n/a

What should the Government prioritise with its additional employment support for disabled people arising from the Pathways to Work Green Paper?

Disabled women would be disproportionately affected by many of the proposed cuts to benefits like PIP, changes to Universal Credit, and stricter eligibility rules proposed in the Pathways to Work Green Paper[30]. Many women rely on these benefits to cover costs of adaptations, transport, therapies, and care that are essential to their ability to work. Losing this support would push many into poverty and could force them out of employment entirely[31]. Any employment support provided must not be implemented at the expense of Disabled people through cuts to benefits. The Government should prioritise measures that ensure Disabled women (and all Disabled people) retain sufficient income security, either by protecting existing benefits or by offering employment-linked subsidies that do not penalise them for taking up work.

Employment support programmes must be designed to smooth the transition from benefits into work, particularly for those with health fluctuations or variable capacity. The “Right to Try” or similar transitional supports must provide sustained, flexible support, longer than six months in many cases, for those whose conditions may take time to stabilise in a workplace. Benefit cuts will not be offset by employment support if only tens of thousands benefit while millions face reductions[32]. Priority should be given to scalable, long-duration supports rather than short pilots.

Disabled women are more likely to face poverty, care responsibilities, domestic abuse, and under-recorded health needs[33]. Employment support must not be generic: it should incorporate a gendered and intersectional lens, ensuring that barriers faced by women (for instance, precarious hours, caring obligations, or unsafe transport options) are explicitly addressed. For example, funding for travel and assistive transport must take into account safety, flexibility, and reliability, especially for women. Support offers must allow for flexible, part-time, or hybrid work.

As discussed earlier, employment success cannot depend solely on DWP initiatives: health, social care, and benefits infrastructure must function in alignment. Cuts to benefits will increase pressure on the NHS and social services over time. The Government must prioritise joined-up case management and co-located services: enabling Disabled people to access employment support, health care, rehabilitation, and social care in a more seamless and coordinated way.

It is fundamental to ensure that new employment support initiatives are co-designed with Disabled people and DPOs, and that the experience of women is represented in the co-creation process. Monitoring and evaluation should report disaggregated data by gender, ethnicity, disability type, region, and other axes. Transparent outcomes, such as differences in employment rates, retention, hours worked, and wage progression, should be publicly published.

Many Disabled people cannot take up or maintain work without continuing support for transport, adaptations, or care, especially early on. The Government should prioritise in-work subsidies or grants that cover these additional costs, without clawback for small income rises. For Disabled women, whose earnings are already often lower and more precarious, ensuring these support costs are reliably met is essential to prevent exit from work.

What should be the focus of the 1,000 Pathway to Work advisors?

n/a

Are there any international examples, or examples from the devolved nations, of effective disability employment support that the Government could learn from?

n/a

To what extent is the success of DWP’s plans to improve disability employment contingent on improvements made to other public services, in particular, health?

The success of DWP’s disability employment plans is closely dependent on strengthening other public services, especially health and social care, and this connection has profound gendered implications. Disabled people’s ability to enter and sustain employment is shaped by access to timely medical care, rehabilitation, mental health support, and social care[34]. Long NHS waiting lists for diagnosis and specialist services delay entry into work, while inadequate follow up care can undermine job retention. For people with fluctuating or hidden conditions, consistent access to therapeutic support is essential for maintaining the stability needed to manage work. Similarly, gaps in social care provision mean that some Disabled people cannot even consider employment because their basic daily support needs are not being met. Many Disabled women are carers and rely on the Social Care and healthcare systems functioning correctly to support them with their caring responsibilities so they are able to work.

Women spend a higher proportion of their lives in poor health or with disabling conditions compared to men, and more than 1.5 million women in the UK are economically inactive due to long term sickness[35]. Women are also more likely to experience common mental health disorders, while reproductive and gynaecological health services remain under resourced. These gaps in care lead to delays and inadequate treatment that can have serious implications for Disabled women, who are already more likely to be in insecure or low paid employment. For example, when a Disabled woman cannot access treatment for a chronic condition in time, she may be forced to reduce her hours or leave the workforce altogether, limiting her career and financial independence.

Because of these interconnections, DWP cannot expect employment strategies to succeed in isolation. Progress depends on cross government coordination and investment in health, mental health, and social care. Employment and health systems need to be integrated so that Disabled people can move seamlessly between them. This could be achieved through joint assessments and coordinated referral pathways between DWP and health providers. Without such integration, Disabled people, and especially Disabled women facing multiple inequalities, will continue to be excluded from employment opportunities regardless of the ambition or scope of employment programmes.

How can DWP apply a systems-based approach to safeguarding[1] in the design and delivery of employment support for disabled people?

We join other organisation’s calls for DWP to implement a statutory safeguarding duty, including Disability Rights UK and the Parliamentary Ombudsman[36], in line with the recommendations made by the Work and Pensions Committee [37]. This would move safeguarding from a discretionary function to a legal obligation, ensuring vulnerable Disabled individuals, those with mental illness, survivors of domestic abuse, and carers, receive consistent and proactive protection. Over 240 internal reviews since 2020 have highlighted preventable harm; a legal duty would embed accountability, require earlier intervention, and mandate clear referral pathways to social care, health, and domestic abuse services[38].

This duty should be based on existing frameworks such as the Care Act 2014 and Children Act 2004, applying principles of empowerment, prevention, and accountability. It must be supported by independent oversight, clear definitions of vulnerability, trauma-informed training for staff, and public reporting of serious incidents and safeguarding reviews[39]. Without this, systemic issues, like inconsistent application of support, unconscious bias, and a lack of trust, will continue to put lives at risk. A statutory duty is essential not just for better outcomes, but to rebuild trust with those who use DWP services.

12