Scope's reply to the governments planned concessions to the green paper.
Comments
-
I think so yes, the bill wont be immediately in effect after the vote.
3 -
There has been zero to suggest that. The DLA of these ageing claimants has been preserved since 2013. Similarly, PIP claimants over retirement age are not being transferred to AA.
0 -
@Catherine21 I'm also worried re the iresa to uc migration situation, will we be classed as "New claiments " even though we are migrating.I really expect my letter very soon but who knows. Hopefully we will not be treated differently. The entire thing stinks. I hate the idea of what the future may hold for us and others.
0 -
True indeed.
1 -
It doesn't matter how much employment support they put in place I am still unable to work and no employer would employ me. I have worked my whole life up to 3 years ago when I became too ill to work and have deteriorated further since then. I am highly qualified so don't know what they would even do in my case! It's all a shambles and I'm still scared.
5 -
that's what neoliberalism does to people. remember Margaret Thatcher's quote that there's no such thing as a community?
and that's exactly why the insurance industry supports these cuts.
3 -
Anyway, to respond to Scope's statement, these "concessions" are mere smoke and mirrors designed to create a two-tier disability community. Pausing the bill is not enough. Anything that isn't "drop the cuts" isn't enough.
This is why more and more disabled people are supporting activist groups like DPAC and Mad Youth Organisers.
Scope, like all disability charities, should be lobbying MPs to vote for the bill wrecking amendment next week, alongside lobbying the Speaker so that he selects the amendment, and not help Kid Starver send more disabled people to their deaths via these cuts.
7 -
If it makes you feel better I expect migrations to be the same as existing UC in terms of the protection. Plus I think the starting date for change is after when the migrations are expected to finish. It doesnt start the day the bill is passed.
1 -
They as good as admitted they rushed this through as they needed the money asap to balance the books . But if they reckon they aren’t saving anything from existing claimants now why the rush ? Surely if it’s fire claimants who are their next victim’s they have plenty of time for a proper consultation and MPs to go through the concessions. Plus if the consultation ends on the 30th June and it’s already being debated how have they gone through the data to see how we feel ?
4 -
0
-
Greetings, all!
Thanks so much for your wise and insightful thoughts on this whirling dervish of a "government" that seems to do nothing but wind itself up into a frenzy and collapse in a heap..
.. or does it?
This latest 180º is not a complete climbdown, as you've all said, so I wrote again to my MP and asked her to vote against this latest chewing-gum-and-string insult to the intelligence. If anyone's interested, I paste in my new email that I have just sent:
(To Dear MP)
I write in connection with the very recent news regarding the vote on the above this forthcoming Tuesday.
Most unfortunate, it is, that our "government" has seemingly been dragged, kicking and screaming, into this unedifying volte-face, which even it cannot camouflage as a "win" and a "we are all on the right track" claim, which is still of course not true, even if there has been a change of heart. To consider that this government might even have a heart (much less a brain) is surely far beyond the wildest imagination, although it is at least "something" at this very late stage in the proceedings.
Having seen that the hastily-cobbled-together "response" is nothing more than an attempt to proceed with the original plans, albeit plans that now do not go far enough for this lot, it does now, unfortunately, risk the creation of the much-touted "two-tier" system in which those who, in future, try to request assistance due to disabilities, will possibly have 2nd class support, while those who — by dint of qualifying before the changes — will have support in its current form.
Please, however, accept my heartfelt gratitude and respect for your having signed the recent Reasoned Motion, which, together with reports of swelling opposition to his plans as they then were, has led to this belated "Road to Damascus" seeing of the light.
Is it possible, however, that his imminent defeat this coming Tuesday provided more of a reason to announce this badly-disguised "climbdown" only today? Does a vote and his continuing political survival (for the next few weeks at least) mean more than a vulnerable, disabled person? Unfortunately, it seems so. Perhaps, given his recent, woeful performances, he could request a pair of strong climbing boots from the donor of his nice and expensive-looking shoes of last year, as he will almost certainly need them in future.
In any case, may I take the liberty, please, of requesting — again with the greatest respect — that you vote against the plans, which will consign future applicants with disabilities to even more poverty than those who will not now (unless changes are made in future) be affected?
Again, I would respect and understand the decision, which you will make on the day.
Yours sincerely and most respectfully,
Etc.
2 -
From Benefits and Work
Questions the government needs to answer – and MPs need to ask
One of the major issues with the Pathways to Work Green paper is the number of questions it leaves unanswered. But now, with the government’s hastily created “concessions”, things are even more unclear. Especially whether the concessions mean current claimants are permanently protected or have just been granted a temporary reprieve.
Below are a number of questions, some of which you might want to ask your MP before Tuesday’s vote, because they should be clear what they are voting for. Or you may have others you want to ask. The important thing is to keep reminding MPs that there is still the option of voting to scrap the bill on Tuesday, regardless of any concessions offered.
But do bear in mind that many Labour MPs who signed the amendment have said they are still going to vote against the bill, as will many opposition MPs, so your MP may still be an ally.
In her letter to Labour MPs Liz Kendall writes: “Therefore, we will ensure that all of those currently receiving Pip will stay within the current system. The new eligibility requirements will be implemented from November 2026 for new claims only.”
This implies that current claimants will not be protected from the results of the ministerial review of the PIP assessment, due to make changes to PIP eligibility criteria in 2028. Given that the governments overriding concern is to halt the rising cost of disability benefits, the review can only result in a tightening of eligibility criteria – quite possibly including retaining the four-point rule . So, this concession may be no more than a short reprieve for current claimants.
Q. Will existing PIP claimants stay on the current test for life or be subject to the new criteria created by the ministerial review of the PIP assessment, to be completed in 2028?
Many thousands of adult DLA claimants are still waiting to be reassessed for PIP through no fault of their own. If things had run to the original timetable they would by now be PIP claimants and protected from the 4-point rule.
Q. If current adult DLA claimants, awaiting reassessment for PIP for many years, are finally dealt with after November 2026 will they be assessed under the current rules or the new 4-point rules?
Kendall writes “. . . we will adjust the pathway of universal credit payment rates to make sure all existing recipients of the UC health element . . . have their incomes fully protected in real terms.”
How long does this protection last?
Q. Around 600,000 current UC health element claimants do not receive an award of the PIP daily living component. When the WCA is abolished in 2028 and receipt of PIP daily living becomes the qualifying criteria for UC health element, will they continue to have their income protected? Or is the protection only temporary?
If your MP is one of the Labour rebels, they may be considering withdrawing their name form the amendment, as a number have already said they will.
Q If you are considering withdrawing your name from the reasoned amendment, does this mean that you are resigned to many thousands of future claimants being plunged into poverty, even though you think it is wrong for current claimants?
Kendall writes in relation to the review of PIP assessment criteria: “At the heart of this review will be coproduction with disabled people, the organisations that represent them, and MPs so their views and voices are heard.”
Q. If it’s important that the views and voices of disabled people are heard in respect of future changes, why are their voices not important in relation to the enormous changes in the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill?
Q. If the main aim of the government is to put disability benefits on what they view as a sustainable footing, by cutting the rise in costs considerably, what possibility is there of disabled people genuinely being listened to as PIP criteria are rewritten?
Q. The PIP four-point rule does not come into effect until November 2026, almost a year and a half away. So why is it so important to get the legislation through the Commons in the next two weeks, without consulting on it?
Q. Given that there are so many unanswered questions about the proposed reforms, and that the government is already going to have to find £3bn to fund their concessions, would it not be wiser to scrap the whole Green Paper process and start again in genuine coproduction with disabled people?
https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/questions-the-government-needs-to-answer-%E2%80%93-and-mps-need-to-ask
2 -
You raise some excellent points. Many have criticised the speed and lack of proper consultation around the bill, especially since the consultation period isn’t even finished yet, but the proposals are already being debated and pushed through Parliament.
There are also widespread doubts about the reliability of the government’s promises, as financial pressures and changing priorities have led to policy reversals in the past. So, questioning the timing, transparency, and trustworthiness of these reforms is entirely reasonable and echoed by many others following this issue closely.
I have no trust in this government. This bill should never go through, but too many MPs seem content to support it as long as it keeps their disabled constituents quiet for now. It’s clear the priority is balancing the books, not protecting those who need it most. With the way things are being rushed and promises keep shifting, there’s every chance another fiscal crisis will lead to yet another U-turn.
1 -
@worried33 Thank you for that,I was hoping that was the case.
Bad enough I've ,and I know others have uc migration due,plus I've a pip review next yr,so guessing I'll be getting the form later this year or early next. 🙄🙁
1 -
My MP has emailed all disabled constituents who contacted her about the welfare reforms, inviting us to a public meeting tomorrow morning. I plan to attend and raise similar points with her. I’ve also reserved a seat for the following Saturday to discuss the recent vote, as she wants to give her constituents a chance to reflect and consider next steps together.
I know some members on the other thread were surprised I was bothering to attend, but for me this isn’t over. I believe it’s important to keep the door open for discussion and to continue advocating for our rights and concerns. I urge everyone to contact their MPs if they have concerns before the vote. Personally, I would like to see the bill mothballed, but it seems many are satisfied with the current concessions. Still, I can’t help but feel there may be a sting in the tail after the vote, when it’s too late to act.
Staying engaged and vocal is essential, especially when so much is at stake for current and future disabled people and benefit claimants.
6 -
The user and all related content has been deleted.0
-
MW did you happen to read the guardian as it first reported on the concessions? I ask because I read they were looking into making it easier for those with multiple conditions but I haven’t heard anything of it since . I’m really in a bad way right now and brain fogs crazy but I’m sure I read that .
0 -
Just wondering would the new rules and tighter conditions apply to the claimants now when their renewals for reassessment are due?
If this is the case then nobody is safe as many are only three year periods?
0 -
You’re right, when The Guardian first reported on the government’s concessions to the welfare reforms, there was mention of proposals to make things easier for people with multiple or complex conditions. This was part of the discussion around softening some of the harsher elements of the reforms, especially after considerable pushback from disability groups and campaigners.
However, since those initial reports, there hasn’t been much detail or follow up coverage about how these changes would work in practice, or whether they will be included in the final version of the bill.
0 -
The guardian as it first announced the concessions. If you read it it mentions making it easier for those with multiple conditions. Has anyone heard anymore of this
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 15.9K Start here and say hello!
- 7.6K Coffee lounge
- 107 Games den
- 1.8K People power
- 161 Announcements and information
- 25.3K Talk about life
- 6.2K Everyday life
- 504 Current affairs
- 2.5K Families and carers
- 874 Education and skills
- 2K Work
- 586 Money and bills
- 3.7K Housing and independent living
- 1.2K Transport and travel
- 644 Relationships
- 1.6K Mental health and wellbeing
- 2.5K Talk about your impairment
- 883 Rare, invisible, & undiagnosed conditions
- 942 Neurological impairments and pain
- 2.2K Cerebral Palsy Network
- 1.3K Autism and neurodiversity
- 40.9K Talk about your benefits
- 6.1K Employment & Support Allowance (ESA)
- 20.3K PIP, DLA, ADP & AA
- 9.2K Universal Credit (UC)
- 5.3K Benefits and income