Green Paper and Benefits Reform Updates

Rosie_Scope

With all the speculation around in the press and on social media, it can be difficult to find clear information about Labour's benefits reforms. Misinformation can spread easily and this can create a lot of anxiety at a time when lots of people are already feeling worried by the proposals.

We wanted to create a discussion where we can all share updates that have been confirmed and verified.

Please try to keep this discussion to verifiable sources of information only. Another discussion will remain open for more general chat, speculation, sharing other links and supporting each other. You can find that discussion here:

Green Paper Related Discussions

What counts as verifiable information?

• Information from the government's website such as official press releases, documents, and written answers from politicians
• Information from the press containing official interviews or statements from MPs or the government
• Other press coverage that can be backed up with government sources
• Information from other sources that can be backed up by official facts and figures

Consultation links and information

• The consultation will be open until 11.59pm 30th June 2025 (just before midnight)
• You can see the Government's official consultation page including documents and upcoming consultation events here: Pathways to Work: Reforming Benefits and Support to Get Britain Working Green Paper
• Scope's page details what we know about the changes and how it may affect different benefits: Changes to disability benefits: what you need to know

MW123

@Rosie_Scope

Rosie, I thought I’d share this link in case we have any younger members who may be interested. The DWP released an update on 23 May 2025 about changes to the Youth Guarantee Trailblazers scheme. It aims to match young people to job or training opportunities and is relevant for anyone aged 18 to 21, offering new support to help them find work and training.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/thousands-of-young-people-set-to-benefit-from-new-support-into-work-and-training

chiarieds

May I add (again) Full Fact's website as an excellent resource. You can read their just published report here: https://fullfact.org/media/uploads/full-fact-report-2025.pdf

They have unsurprisingly seen an increase in misinformation, & how quickly it can spread (& the harm it can cause), the apparent influence Trump has had in perhaps why the Gov't isn't reacting as it should with ''meaningful reform.'' They say,

''In his first speech after winning the 2024 election, Sir Keir Starmer declared: “The
fight for trust is the battle that defines our age.” He was talking primarily about trust
in politics, but his argument resonates far more widely. And yet Labour’s 136-page
manifesto offers no plan on how to tackle misinformation, something there has been
no shortage of in the first year of this Parliament.

Artificial intelligence, on the other hand, features prominently in the manifesto. Labour
outlines a strategy to position AI as a driver of innovation, promising to ensure the safe
development and use of AI by introducing binding regulation for the small number of
companies developing the most powerful models.
But as this report highlights, these regulatory ambitions have shifted. The focus is now
on an ‘AI Opportunities Action Plan’—a pro-growth agenda that prioritises economic
potential over safeguards.''

The emboldened words are mine, as, without regulation, this is most concerning as the report highlights.

You can also see more on this site about politics, & how they 'fact check' politicians.

Their Gov't tracker launched in Nov 24 is also an interesting read as, ''Trust in British politics is at a record low—just 11% of Britons say they trust politicians to tell the truth, and 75% think elected parties break most or all of their promises. Politicians make promises and ask to be judged on their delivery. But then whether they’ve delivered those promises—and sometimes, what they actually promised—is often subject to debate and confusion, and sometimes false and misleading claims.

Access to verified, impartial information on this is vital. So to help, Full Fact’s new Government Tracker is monitoring the government’s delivery on its promises as it happens.''

https://fullfact.org/government-tracker/

Full Fact is regularly updated, so I hope we will see more verifiable info on this site as things with the proposed benefits unfold.

MW123

Thanks for sharing this @chiarieds I’d never heard of Full Fact before. I’m looking forward to having a proper read; just from clicking the link, there’s plenty to digest, so I’ll be very busy!

ashmere

From Benefits and Work site

News

Citizens Advice condemn Green Paper cuts in hard hitting report

 Published: 28 May 2025

Citizens Advice (CA) have condemned the government’s Pathways To Work Green Paper in a hard hitting report of their own, entitled ‘Pathways To Poverty’.

The opening paragraph gives a clear indication of the anger and frustration inside an organisation whose workload is likely to be massively increased by the effects of the planned reforms:

“By refusing to properly consult on its plan to cut billions from disability benefits, the government is choosing not to ask questions it doesn’t want the answers to. The cuts will have a devastating impact on disabled people (and their children), sending hundreds of thousands into poverty, and many more into deeper poverty. This will result from a series of arbitrary reforms that have been designed around savings targets rather than improving outcomes, inflicting hardship on people in ways that the government doesn’t yet fully understand.”

The 44 page report is carefully researched and referenced and draws together information from other reports, some of the many Freedom of Information Act requests that have been published and the experiences of its own advisers and clients.

One of the things it argues is that the impacts of the proposals are likely to be worse than the government suggests, because:

• The government used a dubious sleight of hand to reduce the number of people likely to be pushed into poverty. It counted people who would have been affected by the Tory WCA changes which never happened as having been lifted from poverty they were never actually put in.  So, rather than 250,000 being pushed into relative poverty by Labour, CA thinks it could be as many as 400,000.
• The Green Paper doesn’t attempt to work out how many people will lose both PIP and the UC health element as a result of the changes, or how much they will lose.
• The government document doesn’t analyse how many people already in poverty will be more deeply entrenched in poverty as a result of the cuts, although an FoI request has suggested this will be 700,000 people.

Pathways To Poverty goes through the effects of restricting PIP eligibility, cutting the UC health element and making PIP daily living the gateway to UC health.

It argues that the cuts could push people further from work, rather than helping them into employment.

It concludes by saying:

The government must reconsider its current approach. We are calling on the government to cancel proposed cuts to disability benefits. More immediately, we’re asking the government to:

• Reverse the decision not to consult on cuts to disability benefits.
• Delay parliamentary votes on disability benefit cuts until all relevant impact assessments have been published. This should include the impact on other public services and the voluntary sector, and estimated employment outcomes from measures proposed in the green paper.

The report is a must read for anyone campaigning on this issue and should be compulsory reading for any MP voting on it – though sadly they are the least likely group to ever open its pages.

You can download a copy of Pathways to Poverty here.

https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/citizens-advice-condemn-green-paper-cuts-in-hard-hitting-report

chiarieds

Thank you @ashmere - that's a very important read from Citizens Advice. It's not very pleasant reading, yet compulsive, as it clearly shows the impact of the proposed change to the PIP criteria & abolishment of the WCA, & how the Gov't didn't want to engage with these issues in their Green Paper.

MW123

@ashmere @chiarieds

I had hoped to attend one of the Green Paper Consultations and was very disappointed that the necessary details were not released in time for people to make proper arrangements. With all the talk about high demand, I was surprised to learn the event was limited to just 20 invited guests. For a consultation of this importance, I would have expected it to accommodate far more people.

After reading reports on the Benefits and Work website about how poorly the event was handled, including claims that the police had to be called, I was ultimately relieved I did not attend. One report even mentioned a DWP staff member eating their lunch during the meeting.

I have attended plenty of seminars over the years, but I have never known one to double as a picnic. For a session capped at just 20 attendees, it really sends a clear message about how much they valued everyone’s time, somewhere between not much and "pass the crisps."

Here is the link: https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/police-called-to-half-empty-green-paper-consultation

chiarieds

I emailed both Correspondence@dwp.gov.uk (who were organising these events) & Liz Kendall on 10 Apr saying, ''What I would like to query are these 'consultation events.'

Please consider that they will be difficult to navigate for many disabled people as I found that events appear closed, even the 'virtual' ones. How is a disabled person able to access an in-person venue if they don't know exactly where it is, & how accessible it might be?

If you would like to be seen as a party that's transparent, then I would appreciate your comments on this issue.

I hope you will be able to give some clarity about these events. I appreciate that there may be a limit to in-person events (tho this isn't mentioned), but know many of Scope's members would at least like to listen in to the virtual events.

I hope you 'listen,' as I have had the privilege to do, to many disabled people.''

I didn't get any replies.

I emailed Kemi Badenoch on the 4 May, & have just had a reply today (tho it was from her office). I'd sent a copy of Health Equity North's findings https://www.healthequitynorth.co.uk/app/uploads/PIP-REPORT-1.pdf & also a link to this open letter from Healthcare Professionals, academics, carers, advocates & disabled people: https://sites.google.com/view/openletterdisabilitybenefits/home

saying, ''Why no consultation upon the proposed additional 4 point rule for at least one activity of PIP's daily living component, nor the scrapping of the WCA? Is this working with disabled people, even listening to what they say, with this proposed harsher PIP eligibility seeming to be the only gateway to get help from the Gov't if disabled/becoming disabled?''

& mentioning seeing many Scope members with ''very genuine concerns & extreme worry. Many feel that there's not now a party that will support disabled people. My hope is that Conservatives will fight back & ensure that disabled people are properly consulted, together with charities such as Scope, Mind, etc.'

The reply I received said this at the end, ''Thank you for sharing your thoughts and ideas. I have passed them along to our policy team and the Leaders Office, who have read , acknowledged it and will take it into consideration. If you have any further policy suggestion I would recommend submitting it to our Policy Renewal Programme website. The link to which can be found here: https://policy.conservatives.com/   . This ensures our Policy Team receive the submission and will take it into consideration.  

We are listening.''

WhatThe

"While the previous government had consulted on reforming PIP, its proposals didn’t include the specific eligibility change proposed by the current government. The changes to the UC health element in terms of payment levels represent a significant policy upheaval, for which no consultation has taken place. The previous government’s plan to abolish the WCA didn’t encompass making the PIP daily living component the sole gateway to the UC health element."

(From the CAB report)

Except that's not true! DWP 's intention to introduce a Health Element has been in the public domain for two or three years with all but 'the most severely disabled' becoming 'disabled jobseekers' under UC.

Of course we're not talking about UC with all this huffing and puffing about what is only a Green Paper as though major reforms did not already pass without proper scrutiny, impact assessments, etc etc. They did in 2012. There was indeed a sleight of hand within the 2016 Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, work being the operative word.

No charity can be relied upon for accuracy. Benefits & Work, Full Fact, CAB, Scope can only tell you what the government tells them to tell you. Even Hansard is imprecise as I discovered during the benefits reforms, 10 years ago.

Thorough research is the only way to find facts.

WhatThe

I read an email reply to another member ands it's clear that Kemi Badenoch cannot even write or spell properly 😮 to imagine she might help the disabled community is fanciful.