Is “Right to Try” a Step Forward or a Step Towards Forced Labour?

Examining the UK’s Proposed Disability Benefit Reforms and the Fine Line Between Support and Coercion

Recent discussions in the UK have focused on proposed reforms to disability benefits, aiming to encourage long-term sick and disabled individuals to engage in work without the fear of losing their benefits. The Labour government, led by Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall, is considering measures to allow disabled individuals to attempt work without risking reassessment or loss of their benefits. This initiative, referred to as the “right-to-try guarantee,” seeks to support those who wish to explore employment opportunities while maintaining their financial support. The Times

The motivation behind these reforms stems from the rising costs associated with long-term sickness and disability benefits, which have increased significantly since the pandemic. Kendall emphasizes the need to reform the welfare system to assist those capable of working and to reduce dependency on long-term benefits, aiming for better financial sustainability and overall well-being. The Times

However, these proposals have sparked debate. Critics argue that emphasizing fiscal savings and framing the reforms as a moral obligation could stigmatize disabled individuals. They express concern that such an approach might portray benefit recipients as a moral issue, potentially leading to increased poverty levels among disabled populations. The Guardian

In assessing whether encouraging disabled individuals to work constitutes forced labor, it’s essential to refer to legal definitions. Article 4 of the Human Rights Act protects individuals from slavery, servitude, and forced or compulsory labor. Forced or compulsory labor involves work exacted under the threat of a penalty and for which the person has not offered themselves voluntarily. However, this does not include work required as part of normal civic obligations or during emergencies. Equality and Human Rights Commission The proposed “right-to-try” reforms aim to provide disabled individuals with the opportunity to attempt work without the risk of losing their benefits, thereby supporting their autonomy and choice. This approach does not align with the concept of forced labor, as it emphasizes voluntary participation in the workforce without coercion. Therefore, framing these reforms as a form of forced labor would be inaccurate.

What Does This Mean for Disabled Entrepreneurs?

The proposed changes to disability benefits, particularly the “right-to-try” initiative, raise critical concerns for disabled entrepreneurs running their businesses. While the government aims to encourage long-term sick and disabled individuals to explore work opportunities, a significant question arises—how will these policies affect self-employed disabled individuals who may struggle to increase their revenue due to their disabilities?

Under current welfare rules, self-employed individuals receiving Universal Credit are assessed for their “gainful self-employment” status. This means they must prove that their business is their main work activity and that it generates an income comparable to what they would earn in paid employment. If their income falls below the Minimum Income Floor (MIF)—a threshold based on what the government believes they should be earning—they can be required to seek additional work.

For disabled entrepreneurs, this poses a major issue. Many manage their own businesses because traditional employment does not accommodate their health conditions. The unpredictability of their conditions may limit how much they can work or how much revenue they can generate. If the government does not consider these factors, they could be classified as “not gainfully self-employed” and be forced to seek alternative employment, even if their business is their best or only viable work option.

This raises ethical concerns about whether the policy genuinely supports disabled individuals in pursuing financial independence or if it imposes an unfair burden, disregarding the realities of disability and self-employment. If the government’s focus is purely on economic productivity rather than reasonable adjustments and financial sustainability, many disabled entrepreneurs could find themselves pushed into an unsuitable job market rather than being supported to sustain their businesses.

Ensuring that disability benefit reforms recognise self-employment as a legitimate and flexible work option will be crucial in determining whether these policies empower disabled individuals or create additional barriers to their financial stability and autonomy.

Case Example: The Impossible Expectation – A Disabled Carer, Entrepreneur, and Student Under Government Scrutiny

Meet Sarah (a fictional example based on real-life circumstances). Sarah is a disabled individual who suffers from Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD), which affects her daily life and productivity. Despite her condition, she has built a part-time business, working 16 hours per week, allowing her to earn some income while managing her health. However, her responsibilities don’t end there—she is also a full-time carer, dedicating 35 hours per week to looking after a disabled family member, a role that is emotionally and physically demanding. On top of this, Sarah is studying part-time, investing 20 hours per week in education to improve her skills and future career prospects.

Under the government’s proposed disability benefit reforms, Sarah could face an unreasonable expectation to actively look for additional paid employment—despite already working, caring, and studying extensively. The government might argue that her business does not generate enough income to be considered “gainful self-employment”, potentially pushing her to meet work-search requirements. Similarly, her studies, though valuable for long-term career prospects, might not be seen as a valid exemption from looking for work.

Where does this leave Sarah? She is already contributing significantly to society—running a business, providing unpaid care, and furthering her education—yet she could be forced into a job search process that disregards her reality. This raises serious concerns about how disability, self-employment, caring responsibilities, and education are valued within the welfare system. Instead of recognising her workload, the government may insist she proves her “willingness to work”, pushing her into unnecessary and exhausting assessments or job-search programs. In effect, Sarah could be placed in a no-win situation, where her existing contributions are dismissed, and she is pressured into work she cannot manage—potentially worsening both her mental and physical health.

If the government’s “right to try” initiative ultimately becomes mandatory, Sarah and others like her could face coercion rather than support, forced to stretch themselves beyond their limits just to satisfy a policy that fails to account for real-life complexities.

If Sarah were told to look for work despite her disabilities, caring responsibilities, business commitments, and studies, several legal issues could arise, particularly under UK equality and human rights laws.

Potential Legal Violations

Equality Act 2010 – Disability Discrimination
- The Equality Act 2010 protects disabled individuals from discrimination, including indirect discrimination—where a policy or rule applies to everyone but places disabled people at a disadvantage.
- If Sarah is forced to seek additional work without reasonable adjustments for her OCD, the DWP (or any enforcing body) could be indirectly discriminating against her by failing to consider the impact of her disability.
Human Rights Act 1998 – Article 8 (Right to Private and Family Life)
- The Human Rights Act 1998 protects Sarah’s right to a private and family life.
- As a full-time carer, she has essential responsibilities that the government should respect and support, rather than undermine by forcing her into employment.
- If the government’s actions disrupt her ability to provide care or affect her well-being, they could be seen as an interference with her Article 8 rights.
Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 & Care Act 2014
- The Care Act 2014 requires local authorities to assess carers’ needs and well-being.
- If Sarah is forced into work despite her full-time caring duties, it could contradict the government’s obligation to support carers, potentially violating her statutory rights.
International Labour Laws – Forced or Compulsory Labour (Article 4, Human Rights Act & ILO Conventions)
- If Sarah is pressured to search for work under threat of losing her benefits, this could amount to coercion, potentially violating Article 4 of the Human Rights Act, which prohibits forced or compulsory labour.
- While the government may not explicitly force Sarah into work, the threat of financial hardship could mean she has no real choice, which may be considered an indirect form of forced labour under ILO (International Labour Organization) Conventions.

If Sarah is ordered to search for work despite her disabilities, caring responsibilities, and existing commitments, the government may be at risk of breaking UK equality laws, carers’ rights legislation, and international human rights protections. Any enforcement of such policies would need to be carefully reviewed to ensure they do not result in discrimination, coercion, or undue hardship for disabled individuals and carers.

The Illusion of Choice: Is “Volunteering” to Work Truly Optional for Disabled Claimants?

The term “volunteer” in the context of the DWP’s new proposals may sound reassuring, suggesting that disabled claimants can choose to look for work without fear of losing their benefits. However, the real concern lies with those who do not engage in job-seeking—particularly self-employed disabled individuals who are already running businesses but face significant barriers, such as their health conditions and lack of funding. While the government claims that looking for work is not mandatory, will those who don’t “volunteer” be viewed as unwilling to work, ultimately facing pressure, reassessments, or even benefit reductions? Self-employed disabled individuals may wish to grow their businesses at their own pace, but if their earnings do not meet the Minimum Income Floor, the government may force them to seek traditional employment, even if it is not suitable for their condition. This raises serious concerns about whether the “right to try” is genuinely about empowerment or just a stepping stone to mandatory work requirements, creating additional stress and uncertainty for those already struggling to sustain their livelihoods.

Conclusion

While the intention behind the proposed reforms is to empower disabled individuals to explore employment opportunities without jeopardizing their benefits, it’s crucial to implement these changes thoughtfully. Ensuring that the reforms are supportive rather than punitive will help maintain the dignity and well-being of disabled individuals, aligning with both legal standards and societal values.

The government’s proposed reforms suggest giving claimants the “opportunity” to find work, but careful wording may conceal the reality that this could become mandatory over time. While officials claim that participation will be voluntary, there is no explicit assurance that individuals won’t eventually be pressured into work under the threat of benefit reassessments or stricter conditions. By subtly encouraging “volunteering” as a pathway to employment, the government could create a system where disabled individuals feel they have no real choice but to comply, fearing that refusal may lead to sanctions or financial hardship. This tactic—presenting something as optional while making non-compliance increasingly difficult—borders on coercion. It’s a classic case of reading between the lines, where political rhetoric about “supporting people into work” could mask policies that ultimately force disabled individuals into employment, whether or not they are physically or mentally capable. This could be seen as a smoke-and-mirrors approach, where the real impact of the policy is hidden behind reassuring but misleading language.

Debate Over UK Disability Benefits Reform Intensifies.

Sources:

We Are Available For Content Writing Assignments!

Andrew Jones

+ posts

Andrew Jones is a seasoned journalist renowned for his expertise in current affairs, politics, economics and health reporting. With a career spanning over two decades, he has established himself as a trusted voice in the field, providing insightful analysis and thought-provoking commentary on some of the most pressing issues of our time.