New pip rules - can’t stop worrying

flour

Broreb1981 said:

I had to leave my job of 16 years last year due to an accident resulting in a crps diagnosis. 

Hi @Broreb1981 Did you look in to Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit? If you became ill or are disabled because of an accident or disease at work or on a training course. it sounds like you qualify.

Theres a section on gov.uk about it. Equally, if the accident/illness was out of work/traning then I'm sorry but this might not be of much help.

MrSt0rM

WhatThe said:

MrStOrM, certainly there are contracts in place for health assessors and far more than ever before. Is that what you're referring to?

No. When a government comes into power, it signs contracts - Which are TOO expensive to get out of. IF Rishi was able to push this new law on PIP through parliament and win, before the next General Election, Labour would not be able to overturn it. Tories are doing what they do every last year, they push the self destruct button incase they aren't voted back in, so the next party suffers the fall out.

ella1992

I would be happy qith vouchers or if they paid for therapy instead of money is nothing to me as it just goes anyways so I'm not worrying anymore as u spend ur life worrying it makes my mental health go even worser 

MrSt0rM

AKR said:

1. Dealing with the misinformation that a new government:-
 "....would not be able to overturn [this new law]"  [sic]

"Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution"

(copyright, the UK Parliament webpage www.parliament.uk - for all those whom are unfamiliar with the fundamental principle of Parliamentary sovereignty).

2. The Government (via the "Authority" of the Cabinet Office) issues contracts (after competitive tender, in accordance with prevailing procurement laws) under standard terms called the Model Service Contract, which is populated with the particulars of whatever "Services" are required from the Contractor(s) in question. Those contracts, like all, can be terminated upon (amongst other things) the Cabinet Office's convenience.

3. Those whom are not privy to the confidential terms of any contract (i.e. everyone, aside from the relevant ministers of the Government, the Government Legal Department, the Contractor(s), and the Contractors' legal advisors, are simply unable to comment on the level of any costs arising out of any termination or indeed whether those costs are [sic] "..TOO expensive" ).

3. If a new law is passed (as mooted in the Green Paper), before the next GE, and either:- i) repealed by the next Parliament following a victory for Labour in the next GE; or, ii) left in situ by the next Parliament following a victory for Labour in the next GE, then the relevant contractors - in this case the assessors contracted to undertake  assessments/reviews on behalf of the DWP- will still be required to undertake such assessments/reviews (paper based or otherwise) as are necessary to assist the DWP in determining whether a claimant is eligible for PIP in its current form, or any new-style award replacing the current PIP. Accordingly, there would be no termination event, the contract would simply continue, because the fundamental nature of the "Services" (i.e. to undertake assessments/reviews etc) would not materially change. Any change would be to the nature/level of any payment/benefit to a claimant, not a change in the "Services" required to be undertaken by the DWP contractors.


4. Those whom conflate the principles of Parliamentary sovereignty and contract law, are prone to repeated erroneous declarations. 

If Labour get in, Tories have buried us in too much debt. They will not waste money on overturning a contract when it is needed elsewhere, like the NHS. Anybody can copy and paste from the parliament website, but look into what you are pasting. And look into history. If a General Election comes before this passes, I don't believe Labour would go through with it, however, if it is out of their hands.. Lets just see what happens. Tories bombed in the May 2nd Elections, it might force him into an early election.

Amaya_Ringo

As a rule, I'm more inclined to trust the actual parliamentary statements than someone's opinion on a forum, no offence to anyone posting. I realise this is a very emotive subject. But I am fairly sure the govt mentioned these things being looked at in the next parliament. I know they have talked about bringing in the WCA changes later this year, but that also seems dependent on election timing. 

With the PIP thing, the consultation ends at the end of July. Even if an election isn't called by then, the MPs will go on summer recess, and by the time they reconvene, given the timescale, it will probably be a dissolution of parliament and campaigning rather than trying to rush through any kind of law.

As I understand our political process, they would have to compile the evidence from the consultation, prepare a white paper, put a bill through parliament, face any amendments that might be put forward by opposition parties, have it go through the Lords...

Yes, bills can be rushed through. This doesn't seem like one that can be, though, given the fact PIP was the Big Benefit Reform and yet there are still people on DLA. I think for me it was about 4 years after PIP was introduced that they got around to my claim, as a midpoint average.

I think it's much more likely that extensive discussions about the consultation, proposals or whatever will happen after the election, when whoever is in power has time and space (and potentially a majority) to vote through their ideas.

That's not to say we won't have issues to worry about in the future. But I think at least before the election it's unlikely that they will be able to get this through. This isn't a rushed bill kind of situation. It has a lot of parameters and I haven't even touched on the fact some disability organisations have mentioned the UN ruling and challenging it legally.

I have no idea about the potential for that, but I do remember that the government were taken to court once over their treatment of mental health and invisible disabilities by the UN, and were forced to include distress as a barrier rather than just physical obstructions. This happened somewhere in the middle of my claim, so around 2017-8 because before it did they were trying to dismiss my case based on mental health diagnoses I didn't have or try and claim for. So there is already a legal precedent challenging the disadvantageous treatment of mental health versus physical disability. That potentially makes it harder to just sweep in and try the same trick by another door. 

All these things may be true, but doesn't make it less stressful or unpleasant. 

Also, if we want to talk about other uses of govt money, we can talk about HS2, about PPE, about ministerial expenses. About unnecessary planes to Rwanda. But we don't need to make Ukraine part of that conversation. I've met a few Ukranian refugees in my job. They are people put in a difficult situation. We shouldn't forget that because we're under strain. 

apples

What is worrying me now is the bashing the conservatives have had in the mayoral and local elections, with Rishi now saying he is getting on with his job, to me in the next weeks we could see some action with regards to these changes, i hope im wrong but he knows when the general election comes hes out, so any changes will be on labour and they wont be amended

MrSt0rM

AKR said:

MrSt0rM said:

AKR said:

1. Dealing with the misinformation that a new government:-
 "....would not be able to overturn [this new law]"  [sic]

"Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution"

(copyright, the UK Parliament webpage www.parliament.uk - for all those whom are unfamiliar with the fundamental principle of Parliamentary sovereignty).

2. The Government (via the "Authority" of the Cabinet Office) issues contracts (after competitive tender, in accordance with prevailing procurement laws) under standard terms called the Model Service Contract, which is populated with the particulars of whatever "Services" are required from the Contractor(s) in question. Those contracts, like all, can be terminated upon (amongst other things) the Cabinet Office's convenience.

3. Those whom are not privy to the confidential terms of any contract (i.e. everyone, aside from the relevant ministers of the Government, the Government Legal Department, the Contractor(s), and the Contractors' legal advisors, are simply unable to comment on the level of any costs arising out of any termination or indeed whether those costs are [sic] "..TOO expensive" ).

3. If a new law is passed (as mooted in the Green Paper), before the next GE, and either:- i) repealed by the next Parliament following a victory for Labour in the next GE; or, ii) left in situ by the next Parliament following a victory for Labour in the next GE, then the relevant contractors - in this case the assessors contracted to undertake  assessments/reviews on behalf of the DWP- will still be required to undertake such assessments/reviews (paper based or otherwise) as are necessary to assist the DWP in determining whether a claimant is eligible for PIP in its current form, or any new-style award replacing the current PIP. Accordingly, there would be no termination event, the contract would simply continue, because the fundamental nature of the "Services" (i.e. to undertake assessments/reviews etc) would not materially change. Any change would be to the nature/level of any payment/benefit to a claimant, not a change in the "Services" required to be undertaken by the DWP contractors.


4. Those whom conflate the principles of Parliamentary sovereignty and contract law, are prone to repeated erroneous declarations. 

If Labour get in, Tories have buried us in too much debt. They will not waste money on overturning a contract when it is needed elsewhere, like the NHS. Anybody can copy and paste from the parliament website, but look into what you are pasting. And look into history. If a General Election comes before this passes, I don't believe Labour would go through with it, however, if it is out of their hands.. Lets just see what happens. Tories bombed in the May 2nd Elections, it might force him into an early election.

Why do you keep banging on about contracts not being "overturned" and laws not being "overturned" as is they are the same thing? You have no idea what you are spouting on about. Ina ny event, Legislation is repealed not "overturned", and contracts are terminated or varied, not "overturned". Your use of language demonstrates you are clueless. Pasting basic principles of constitutional law is quite legitimate to explain something to someone who has no idea what they are talking about. Have you worked as a lawyer? Did you work for the GLD ? I did.... so pipe down and stop leading people astray with illogical, unfounded and nonsensical diatribe.   

AKR said:

MrSt0rM said:

AKR said:

1. Dealing with the misinformation that a new government:-
 "....would not be able to overturn [this new law]"  [sic]

"Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution"

(copyright, the UK Parliament webpage www.parliament.uk - for all those whom are unfamiliar with the fundamental principle of Parliamentary sovereignty).

2. The Government (via the "Authority" of the Cabinet Office) issues contracts (after competitive tender, in accordance with prevailing procurement laws) under standard terms called the Model Service Contract, which is populated with the particulars of whatever "Services" are required from the Contractor(s) in question. Those contracts, like all, can be terminated upon (amongst other things) the Cabinet Office's convenience.

3. Those whom are not privy to the confidential terms of any contract (i.e. everyone, aside from the relevant ministers of the Government, the Government Legal Department, the Contractor(s), and the Contractors' legal advisors, are simply unable to comment on the level of any costs arising out of any termination or indeed whether those costs are [sic] "..TOO expensive" ).

3. If a new law is passed (as mooted in the Green Paper), before the next GE, and either:- i) repealed by the next Parliament following a victory for Labour in the next GE; or, ii) left in situ by the next Parliament following a victory for Labour in the next GE, then the relevant contractors - in this case the assessors contracted to undertake  assessments/reviews on behalf of the DWP- will still be required to undertake such assessments/reviews (paper based or otherwise) as are necessary to assist the DWP in determining whether a claimant is eligible for PIP in its current form, or any new-style award replacing the current PIP. Accordingly, there would be no termination event, the contract would simply continue, because the fundamental nature of the "Services" (i.e. to undertake assessments/reviews etc) would not materially change. Any change would be to the nature/level of any payment/benefit to a claimant, not a change in the "Services" required to be undertaken by the DWP contractors.


4. Those whom conflate the principles of Parliamentary sovereignty and contract law, are prone to repeated erroneous declarations. 

If Labour get in, Tories have buried us in too much debt. They will not waste money on overturning a contract when it is needed elsewhere, like the NHS. Anybody can copy and paste from the parliament website, but look into what you are pasting. And look into history. If a General Election comes before this passes, I don't believe Labour would go through with it, however, if it is out of their hands.. Lets just see what happens. Tories bombed in the May 2nd Elections, it might force him into an early election.

Why do you keep banging on about contracts not being "overturned" and laws not being "overturned" as is they are the same thing? You have no idea what you are spouting on about. Ina ny event, Legislation is repealed not "overturned", and contracts are terminated or varied, not "overturned". Your use of language demonstrates you are clueless. Pasting basic principles of constitutional law is quite legitimate to explain something to someone who has no idea what they are talking about. Have you worked as a lawyer? Did you work for the GLD ? I did.... so pipe down and stop leading people astray with illogical, unfounded and nonsensical diatribe. 


Sorry, forgot to put a full stop after my last post.

Remina

apples said:

What is worrying me now is the bashing the conservatives have had in the mayoral and local elections, with Rishi now saying he is getting on with his job, to me in the next weeks we could see some action with regards to these changes, i hope im wrong but he knows when the general election comes hes out, so any changes will be on labour and they wont be amended

The consultation period for the proposed PIP reforms ends on the 22nd of July, 2024, so they can't do anything as far as these proposals are concerned until at least after the consultation process is complete - but even then they would have to hammer out the details of the proposals which would be a very lengthy process sorting out the entire voucher/catalogue system, who is elligable for cash/not elligable, contacting all claimants to let them know of the possible reforms, etc, THEN if they managed to get that sorted fast enough they'd still have to put it through BOTH the houses of parliament and house of lords and be granted the motion to pass the official legislation - then bearing in mind that parliament generally dissolves a month prior to the election (which is expected to be in the second half of 2024), let's say for example the election is in november, in all I honestly doubt they'll pass these changes in time for the election, they would have to work extremely swiftly to accomplish it within the window of August - November, in that 3-month window there would be a huge amount of work to do regarding these proposals. Don't get me wrong they still could somehow manage it, but I highly doubt it..

coralfang

It is quite worrying times especially with the scaremongering on news articles etc. i think what irritates me  more is that they are claiming that PIP claims etc have skyrocketed all of a sudden and that's why they are reviewing this, but the same news companies are the ones who send out articles- and they do, almost daily i see them- "get £700 a month if you have these conditions" then go on to have a list of illnesses and signpost people to claim PIP. it is truly baffling and then they wonder why so many people are putting claims in, they are promoting and advertising it so much. but maybe that was their plan all along..