The Green Paper Discussion (the document link is here too!)

@alexroda

This is the sad reality of politics……it’s all about numbers, not individual experiences. Why should MPs only be persuaded to act when they receive thousands of emails from disabled constituents? A true MP should be willing to act even if just one disabled person reaches out, because every life affected by these policies matters.

indeed, but I’m afraid there’s little morality left in society and less so around privileged circles.🤑

 PIP change to be pushed through primary legislation, despite there being no procedural or practical necessity. Is this to bypass Equality Act/HRA?

I watched dynamic duo on YouTube, he used to work at the dwp . He said he doesn’t think these reforms will go through . That in his opinion they’re not legal .

I read earlier that councils are now worried as they’ll be expected to take the strain of care once ppl start losing carers allowance. Imagine if it is over a million ppl losing out , that will surely lead to cut backs at councils if not bankruptcy. They haven’t thought this through. Once you add up more tribunal staff for appeals , NHS , council carers . It’ll cost them more than they save .

Why are there no point based systems for these consultation? What I mean is, its ok filling out the form saying you dont agree with this or that for whatever reasons but there should also be a points voting system such as:

1 agree
2 slight agree
3 undecided
4 slightly disagree
5 disagree!

The reason I think this is because I cannot see anyone actually reading through thousands up thousands of responses as this would take ages so a point scoring system would show the either discontent or not with what ever they want to do. Plus if they have loads of different people reading the responses how exactly is it recorded what the majority of opinions are?

independence payments Credit: House of CommonsEthan CroftSunday Political Correspondent22 March 2025 6:00pm GMT

Labour’s proposed benefit cuts will be investigated by a human rights watchdog for potentially breaking equality law.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has said it is considering whether the plans set out by Liz Kendall to cut disability benefits comply with the Equality Act.

A spokesman for the EHRC said: “The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) must consider the equality impact of the proposed benefit reforms on disabled people.

“The public sector equality duty (PSED) requires government departments to have due regard for how their policies and decisions affect people with protected characteristics.”

The Work and Pensions Secretary’s proposals include cuts to disability benefits and a higher age cap for claimants.

Ms Kendall announced on Tuesday that the eligibility age for the health and disability component of universal credit would rise from 18 to 22.

The age of eligibility for personal independence payments (PIP) may also rise from 16 to 18.

She also announced the Government could cut universal credit disability benefits almost in half from April 2026, which she aims to balance with a rise in the standard allowance element of universal credit.

Ms Kendall has delayed publishing equality impact assessments of the policies, which are required by law, until after the Chancellor’s fiscal statement on Wednesday.

Advertisement

The assessments are expected to show that over 2 million people will be affected by the cuts. They will also give an estimate of how many will be pushed into poverty by Ms Kendall’s reforms.

An EHRC spokesman said the watchdog is considering the green paper, including “its wider implications for people with protected characteristics”.

The watchdog has previously criticised the Government for delaying equality impact assessments for political convenience.

Last year Chancellor Rachel Reeves was accused of “breaking rules” by refusing to release an impact assessment of the cuts to winter fuel allowance.

The assessment, later disclosed under Freedom of Information laws, showed seven in 10 disabled pensioners would lose the allowance.

Ms Reeves was later reprimanded by the watchdog for providing an “insufficient” impact assessment of National Insurance changes which disproportionately hit women workers.

The release of the welfare reform impact assessments could spell trouble for Ms Kendall’s reforms.

She has already faced a wave of discontent about the cuts from Labour party colleagues, including senior Cabinet ministers.

Any potential watering down of the cuts as a result of the impact assessments will now come after the Chancellor’s fiscal statement on Wednesday.

This means that the promised £5 billion of cuts to welfare should be factored into the Office for Budget Responsibility’s (OBR) forecast of the country’s economic performance.

On Wednesday the Chancellor will respond to the OBR’s latest forecast.

Ms Reeves is preparing to make swinging public spending cuts in order to save her economic project amid expectations of the country’s economic growth falling by half.

The projected cuts to benefits are expected to form one part of this wider effort to balance the books.

The EHRC is currently undertaking a wider investigation of the DWP’s practices after concerns were raised about its compliance with equality law under the last government.

An EHRC spokesperson said: “As Britain’s equality regulator, we are currently undertaking an assessment of the DWP’s compliance with the PSED under Section 31 of the Equality Act 2006.

“This robust enforcement action involves assessing the department’s compliance with the duty when developing, implementing and monitoring policy guidance related to health assessment determinations for people with learning disabilities or long-term mental health conditions.

“We are also undertaking an investigation over concerns about the treatment of these disabled benefits claimants – focused on whether the DWP failed to make reasonable adjustments during those health assessment determinations.”

Join the conversation

I’m glad this is happening. What I think is disgraceful is Starmers background as a lawyer, he knows or should know this is an infringement on peoples rights and protected characteristics yet has gone ahead with it anyway which puts his whole integrity and imo leadership into question. If he’d have run on a manifesto of taking benefits from the disabled and sick and sweeping cuts to departments he wouldn’t have been voted in so it shouldn’t be allowed to go ahead at all