Green Paper Discussion (from 24th March, 2025)
Comments
-
And ego driven imagine the pats on the back he will be getting
0 -
You may want to look at Disabled People Against Cuts. They are highly effective disability activists, they were the ones who fought the last government to have their disability green paper declared unlawful, mainly due to the finding by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Treasury watchdog that only 3% of us would actually get employed!
https://dpac.uk.net/
Hence why this government are trying to force this one through by an Act of Parliament, to minimise that sort of action against them. However, even the OBR have said that there isn't enough detail in proposals.
Also, Labour will make a big mistake in making the rest of the MP's vote in July when the OBR's own impact assessment is not likely to be completed until October.
They are making many mistakes, in fact, with the way they are totally misrepresentating our chances of being able to work between our disabilities, highly reluctant employers and a persistently great shortage of work coaches plus with the indecent haste at which they are doing it all, before due process has been followed.
I know that the DPAC will be doing their level best for us but I would try not to be too pessimistic, if you can. 😊 Even though the government seem so determined to get these proposals through and that the whole thing seems inevitable, that it will go through in it's current form, remember that they are doing it without following the correct protocol.
It's because we are so terrified of this succeeding that it seems so likely to happen to us. The reality is there is plenty to play for yet. 💪2 -
If reforms to Personal Independence Payment (PIP) are passed as a Money Bill, it limits the ability of the House of Lords to block or amend them. However, legal challenges in the courts are still possible under certain circumstances.
Judicial Review Possibilities
Even if a PIP reform is passed as a Money Bill, it could still be challenged in court if there are legal grounds, such as:
- Human Rights Violations – If the changes disproportionately affect disabled people and violate the Equality Act 2010 or Human Rights Act 1998 (e.g., discrimination under Article 14 of the ECHR).
- Breach of Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) – Under the Equality Act 2010, the government must assess the impact of policy changes on disabled people. If this duty isn't met properly, the reforms could be challenged.
- Unlawful Process – If the government fails to follow the proper procedures (e.g., inadequate consultation or failing to justify changes properly), a judicial review could argue the reforms are procedurally unfair.
- Ultra Vires (Beyond Legal Power) – If the reforms exceed the government's legal powers or contradict existing legislation without proper repeal, they could be struck down.
Limits of a Legal Challenge
- Courts cannot overturn a Money Bill itself, but they can declare specific aspects of the policy unlawful if they breach legal duties.
- Parliamentary Sovereignty means courts cannot challenge laws just because they are unfair—only if they are legally defective.
1 -
The UK government could try to pass PIP (Personal Independence Payment) reforms as a Money Bill, but it’s unlikely that all aspects of PIP reform would qualify.
What is a Money Bill?
A Money Bill is a type of legislation that can only cover government spending, taxation, or loans. It is fast-tracked through Parliament because the House of Lords cannot block or amend it—it can only delay it for up to a month.
Could PIP Reforms Be a Money Bill?
- If reforms purely change spending (e.g., benefit rates, eligibility for payments, or administration costs), they could be included in a Money Bill.
- However, if reforms change the structure of PIP (e.g., assessment processes, eligibility criteria, or definitions of disability), it likely wouldn't qualify.
What’s the Likely Route for PIP Reforms?
- If the government is making major structural changes, it would probably need a full Bill (not a Money Bill), meaning the House of Lords could debate and amend it.
- If they want to fast-track parts of the reform related to spending, they could split it into a Money Bill for budgetary aspects and a separate Bill for policy changes.
1 -
Iv'e put some information about the money bill on here somewhere in this thread, it would be difficult for them to try it as the reforms are mainly about changing eligibility for pip and not the actual financial aspects of it, like making changes to payments to certain groups etc, which is not in their green paper. They could do a seperate one for a money bill and include stuff in that, but that would take time too!! I think it's unlikely to pass at the moment with what they are are wanting to do to pip, and anyway this stupid reform policy will be taken to court and either stopped or slowed down for months, probably even years.
1 -
i think so too. I can’t see any part of the proposals being voted this summer
1 -
I've joined DAPAC.
1 -
Oh bless you thankyou now I'm worrying over substantial risk for lwcra god give us all a break x
2 -
Is the rise in basic rate UC not their way of attempting to avoid certain challenges ie disability discrimination? If everyone is affected, albeit to vastly differing degrees, they'll argue it IS only a money bill - winners and losers and all that!
The social contract seems so easily cast aside, and disposable, when they decide money needs to be saved. 😕
1 -
You might find this helpful too.
Removing the substantial risk safeguard from LCWRA could potentially raise legal and human rights concerns, particularly under:
- Equality Act 2010 (UK) – This protects disabled people from discrimination, including indirect discrimination if a policy disproportionately affects them. Removing substantial risk could disproportionately impact those with severe mental health conditions or disabilities.
- European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) – Articles such as:
- Article 3 (Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) – If removing substantial risk leads to serious harm, there could be a legal argument under this article.
- Article 8 (Right to private and family life) – If the change severely impacts someone's ability to live independently, this could be challenged.
- UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) – The UK has ratified this treaty, which requires governments to protect disabled people's rights, including access to financial support. A significant reduction in support could be seen as a violation.
Legal challenges could be brought if removing substantial risk results in severe harm to claimants. In past welfare reforms, courts have ruled against the government when changes had discriminatory or harmful effects (e.g., the Bedroom Tax cases).
1 -
Not really. It's just people leaping from one form of ignorance to another. Autism is not a disease, it can't be medicated (although some of it's co-occurring conditions can), it cannot be cured, it is with us from birth and most of us struggle to see a GP even when we are ill, much less work out how to explain what we need from them - so the majority of us have very little involvement with medical professionals post-diagnosis.
The ignorance problem is that "if it isn't medical, it doesn't exist".
I have no idea how this correlates to the experiences of other people with inborn disabilities that are not strictly medical - for example, someone born Deaf or with a visual impairment - and whether the same gaps in the 'medical evidence' are there for them or not.
The biggest problem is that we continue to use words that NT people understand in a different way, meaning you get people who think it's a spectrum that everyone is on somewhere (which ofc it isn't) and people who think that you're making a big fuss out of nothing.
Autism is not a disease. Can't do anything much about that.On another subject, today an article in the Times talking about how many more people will be out of work as a result of the cuts proposed. I am wondering how many of those are PIP claimants who will lose their ability to work from losing their gateway services.
There's a parallel here though. The same ignorance is still insisting that cutting PIP will get people into work, when of course, it won't.2 -
They pretty much know it wont get many into work; they simply use this as a cost cutting measure
2 -
The Govt, yes. But I'm talking about the wider public, who have been bombarded by articles conflating benefits and creating misconceptions about 'overdiagnosis', or disabilities not being real/being diagnosed online/used to 'avoid going to work'.
If you sway public opinion, then even if there's opposition to unfair policy, it's easier to push it through.
2 -
For 99.999999% of people, the state of the body "not a disease" means health and, therefore, the impossibility of classifying as disabled. Of course, you can organize a crusade to retrain society to use terminology that pleases you, but I'm afraid this is a failed undertaking from the start.
0 -
the only thing they "could" rush through as a money bill is the LCWRA cut for new claimants and freeze for existing ones.
if they attempt to throw anything in the consultation through before it's finished or the eligibility changes under "money" then they've screwed themselves massively.
1 -
I read they took it out 2023 tories did
0 -
I read tories took out in 2023 your very kind helpful thankyou x
0 -
So am I correct in thinking 2023 substantial risk was taken from esa and under uc there is no substantial risk so all passed on esa under substantial risk will be reassessed and highly likely put on lwc now I understand when they say thousands will lose when change to uc
1 -
If this were true, there wouldn't have been such a shift towards the social rather than medical model of many disabilities and how they are described.
I think you are trying to build from straw here, or attempting to create conflict. Ultimately, autism is not a disease, it is a disability from birth. Falsely medicalising it to pacify the ignorant helps nobody.
Something that affects the state or function of the body may correlate to health, but even that does not equal disease. Just as certain medical conditions, even if long-term, are not considered disabilities under the Equalities Act . Since the EA acknowledges the difference between disease and disability, it's obviously not "my personal crusade" but fact. Disability can be medical, but can equally not be. And medical/disease can be disability but can equally not be.Also, what people believe should never supersede what is true. Society has taught us that lesson over and over, but we apparently haven't learnt it yet.
On the flipside, better research into whether autism or other ND conditions do or can have co-occurring medical implications is absolutely necessary. I just don't think that this has been stymied by the social model of disability - I think it's more that society is obsessed with social and behavioural symptoms to 'normalise' rather than support or help autistic people, and so most of the research money goes onto that - or onto the search for a 'cure'. (Which, as it is not medical, is a waste of money that could be spent on determining why autistic people often have shorter life expectancies, despite not having a life-limiting condition.)
But we're going off topic. Let's go back to the point, which is the cuts from the green paper and how best we should be combatting them.2 -
Take to the streets (and other forms of nonviolent direct action, just likw what disabled people did in the 1990s)
Help with backroom organising if you cant take to the streets,
Mutual aid networks, which includes getting involved in your local community
if you have money, donate to groups who are fighting
there's more, but those are some starting points
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 14.8K Start here and say hello!
- 7K Coffee lounge
- 78 Games den
- 1.7K People power
- 93 Announcements and information
- 23K Talk about life
- 5.4K Everyday life
- 218 Current affairs
- 2.3K Families and carers
- 850 Education and skills
- 1.8K Work
- 486 Money and bills
- 3.5K Housing and independent living
- 972 Transport and travel
- 674 Relationships
- 65 Sex and intimacy
- 1.4K Mental health and wellbeing
- 2.4K Talk about your impairment
- 854 Rare, invisible, and undiagnosed conditions
- 911 Neurological impairments and pain
- 2K Cerebral Palsy Network
- 1.2K Autism and neurodiversity
- 37.6K Talk about your benefits
- 5.8K Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)
- 19K PIP, DLA, ADP and AA
- 7.4K Universal Credit (UC)
- 5.4K Benefits and income