Day 26 · Proposal 25 · Part XI · Policy 28
25
Work and Independence Programme
Work and Independence Programme
Current policy — Manifesto 1.1
Proposal 25 would create an enhanced support programme for people receiving long-term sickness or disability benefits who want, and may be able, to return to suitable and sustainable work. Through retraining, transitional financial support, occupational assistance, workplace adaptations and transport support, it would aim to make work genuinely pay while protecting everyone who cannot safely work.
Published Manifesto 1.1 policy. The sections below set out the proposal as published. Questions and challenges are open questions, not settled answers.
1. Opening position
Long-term sickness can leave people disconnected from employment even when, with the right treatment, adjustments, training and flexibility, they may want and be able to return to some form of suitable work.
Proposal 25 would create a substantially enhanced support offer for people receiving long-term sickness or disability benefits. The objective is to make a safe return to work financially worthwhile and practically possible—not to punish illness, disability or periods of genuine incapacity.
This proposal sits within the wider economic settlement. More people being able to participate on realistic terms could strengthen household incomes, employment, productivity and the public finances. Success must be measured through sustainable outcomes, not by forcing people into unsuitable jobs or simply moving them off support.
Principle
SUPPORT FIRST. SUITABLE WORK MUST ALWAYS PAY.
2. Who the programme is designed to help
- People who want to return: Individuals who believe work may again be possible but need a practical and supported route back.
- People with fluctuating conditions: Support shaped around changing capacity, variable hours and the risk of relapse.
- People needing new skills: Free retraining where someone’s previous employment is no longer suitable or realistic.
- People facing practical barriers: Help with adaptations, transport, occupational support and the additional costs associated with returning to work.
Safeguard
This programme must never presume that every sick or disabled person can work. People who cannot work must remain protected.
3. The support package
Delivery should be personalised, coordinated and simple enough to navigate during illness or recovery.
- Additional return-to-work payments: Time-limited extra support intended to make the first stage of employment financially worthwhile.
- Temporary tax-free work allowances: A protected allowance during transition so that initial earnings create a clear financial gain.
- Return-to-work bonuses: A milestone payment when suitable employment is entered and sustained.
- Free retraining: Funded qualifications, digital skills and vocational training linked to realistic vacancies.
- Occupational support: Specialist advice, phased-return planning and condition-aware employment support.
- Workplace adaptations: Equipment, accessible technology and changes to duties or the working environment.
- Transport support: Help where disability, location or reduced mobility makes travelling to work a barrier.
- A named support contact: One accountable adviser coordinating benefits, training, health, employer and workplace support.
4. Making work genuinely pay
A slogan is not enough. The test should be a person’s real disposable income and financial stability after tax, benefit changes and the unavoidable costs of working.
Financial protection
NO ONE SHOULD BE ASKED TO RISK THEIR HEALTH OR FINANCIAL SECURITY FOR A RETURN TO WORK THAT DOES NOT LAST.
- A clear financial gain: Returning to suitable work should leave the person materially better off after transport, childcare and disability-related expenses.
- A gradual transition: Support should taper predictably as earnings and working hours become established, avoiding sudden cliff edges.
- Protection if work breaks down: Test a rapid route back to previous support where a medically supported return fails because of health.
- Transparent calculations: Give every participant a written better-off assessment before any move into employment.
5. Safeguards and exemptions
Illness and disability are not moral failures. The programme must distinguish between inability, uncertainty and unwillingness, beginning with medical evidence, individual circumstances and the risk that work could worsen someone’s health.
- No automatic presumption: A diagnosis, benefit award or time away from work must not be treated as proof that someone is ready for employment.
- Health-risk exemption: No participation requirement where work or work preparation would create a substantial risk of deterioration or harm.
- Severe or progressive conditions: Clear protection for terminal, progressive, severe and enduring conditions where employment is not realistic.
- Treatment and recovery: An exemption or pause during acute treatment, crisis, rehabilitation or a clinically significant recovery period.
- Fluctuating capacity: Plans must allow for bad days, relapses, reduced hours and changes in function without immediate penalty.
- Independent review: A right to challenge decisions, provide specialist evidence and receive support from an advocate.
6. What employers must contribute
Public funding should not carry the entire burden while workplaces remain inaccessible. Participating employers should meet clear standards.
The objective
The objective is sustained independence and better health—not a short-term reduction in the benefit caseload.
- Suitable roles: Matched to capability, realistic hours, skills and health needs.
- Flexible and phased returns: Including staged hours, predictable scheduling and remote or hybrid work where appropriate.
- Timely workplace adjustments: Accessible systems and reasonable changes to duties and communication.
- Fair pay and progression: With no second-class wages, dead-end placements or exploitation.
7. Core commitment
Core commitment
Create a support-first Work and Independence Programme that makes suitable work pay, removes practical barriers and protects everyone who cannot safely work.
8. Closing position
People should not be written off when the right support could help them rebuild independence. Equally, nobody should be pushed beyond their health or punished for circumstances they cannot control.
The programme should proceed through co-design, transparent pilots and published evidence. Detailed eligibility rules, payment levels, exemptions, costs, delivery arrangements and timetable remain open to scrutiny.
Questions for scrutiny
This proposal requires detailed testing with disabled people, people with long-term health conditions, employers, clinicians, occupational-health specialists, welfare advisers and employment-support organisations.
Nothing in Manifesto 1.1 is presented as settled fact. These are open questions the proposal must be able to answer — they are not answered here.
- 01How should “work always pays” be measured after tax, benefit withdrawal and the additional costs of disability and employment?
- 02Which payments or allowances would create the strongest incentive without producing unfair cliff edges?
- 03How long should transitional protection last?
- 04What happens if a return to work fails because of health?
- 05Which conditions and circumstances should create an automatic exemption?
- 06How should fluctuating and episodic conditions be reflected in hours, attendance and benefit protection?
- 07Who should make capability and health-risk decisions?
- 08What duties should employers accept in exchange for public support?
- 09How can small employers participate without facing unaffordable costs or complex administration?
- 10Which outcomes should be published?
- 11How should the programme be piloted, evaluated and revised before wider implementation?
Source basis: Manifesto 1.1, Part XI, Policy 28 / Major Promise 25 — Work and Independence Programme, read alongside Policy 29 on capability assessment and Policy 30 on hardship protection.
Read. Question. Challenge. Improve.
This is a public-scrutiny working proposal. Questions, evidence, objections and alternatives are welcome.
Have Your Say
What is your view on this proposal?
Scrutiny, not endorsement. Disagreement is as useful here as support.
Responses are counted anonymously and the running totals are shown publicly beside each option. One response per device, changeable at any time.
Have an objection, question or better alternative?
Set out your argument. Serious challenges shape later versions of the manifesto.