Green Paper Discussion (from 24th March, 2025)
Comments
-
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 -
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
1 -
I think that was a Tory idea that Labour haven't taken on. Stand to be corrected if I am wrong.
0 -
That's great! 👍
I hope that makes you feel a bit more optimistic that there is more being done for us than you think to defend our rights. 😊
0 -
I'm glad I could help to make you feel better! 🤗
1 -
DPAC I believe is on the case regarding these proposed changes.💪
0
