Green Paper Discussion (from 24th March, 2025)

Hi @gamer1,

Your points absolutely have merit, and I completely understand where your confusion is coming from….I’m equally puzzled and, truthfully, none the wiser the more I try to untangle these proposals-301 points of nonsense to be precise . 
That said, I’ve tried to read through the full long-form version of the Green Paper to make better sense of it  though I must admit, like you and many others here, I find it completely overwhelming and exhausting. Still, I persist because I believe it’s important to challenge the rhetoric and share what I’ve understood with others in solidarity.
Coming to your very valid and important questions:
In relation to the WCA, they do state explicitly in point 155(see link above):
“In future, under proposals set out in this Green Paper, the WCA will be scrapped”
So, to your question : “There clearly is going to be some sort of WCA?”  based on what’s written, they are not proposing any form of WCA to replace it. In fact, the intent (as per their own wording) is to remove the WCA entirely.
They do expand on this in point 159, which says:
“Whilst the WCA is still in place, we will restart reassessments as they play an important role in taking account of how changes in health conditions and disabilities affect people over time. This includes where there is a deterioration in someone’s health condition but also any improvements, which may mean they would benefit from more active engagement and support to return to work.”
So for now, the WCA still exists and reassessments will continue until any proposed changes are legislated and implemented. But moving forward, under this proposal, it seems clear that the WCA would be phased out.
In regards to your question “There clearly is going to be some sort of WCA because they’ve added a 4 point descriptor to daily living, so PIP is still going to be used in some way. I was thinking abolishing the WCA meant the WCA for LCWRA.”
From their proposal, there will be no WCA or LCWRA, as both are to be abolished.As per the proposed plan, people who are on UC and meet the 4-point eligibility on the PIP assessment will determine access to the new UC health element.
Under the section “Reducing the initial assessment requirement in PIP for certain groups with very severe conditions” They go further in points 166 and 167 to outline how they propose reducing reassessments for people with severe disabilities claiming PIP. But as also alluded to in point 159, the entire process is still undefined, and it’s not possible (or)responsible to speculate on implementation at this time.
However, as someone from a health professional background (as I mentioned in my first post), even within clinical practice, the terms severe and complex have always been highly debated and subjective  and follows a structured ,reliable and validated medical  assessment and reasoning process . For the DWP to base a core element of their proposals on such vague, undefined terms without any evidence-based underpinning is concerning. It reflects a pattern: their rhetorical emphasis is shifting increasingly toward work-related consultations, while side-lining or outright ending public consultation on the abolition of key benefits for vulnerable and disabled people … with the only intention of cutting costs to straighten their budget.
Again in point 155, they state:
“PIP assessment becoming the single assessment to receive both financial support in PIP and any extra financial support related to health and disability through UC”
This indicates a shift to PIP being used as a single gateway for both PIP and Universal Credit health-related elements, effectively removing the dual-assessment system (WCA and PIP).
Then in point 156, they say:
“The PIP assessment needs modernising”
Which is a clear hint that the existing PIP framework will also undergo change,though they’ve not clarified exactly how.
Regarding your question:
“They are planning to merge both and call it the health element” 
There doesn’t appear to be a merge of PIP and LCWRA in the traditional sense. What’s happening is that PIP will replace WCA as the qualifying route for receiving the health element of Universal Credit. But they’re not creating a new combined assessment that incorporates both current PIP and LCWRA descriptors.
This brings us to your final and most crucial question:
“If you are saying they will remove the WCA completely for LCWRA and PIP, then how will they determine who needs benefits and who doesn’t?”
This is exactly where the concern lies - they haven’t clearly explained what the new system will look like. They’ve given vague suggestions about modernising assessments and “tailored support,” but nothing concrete about safeguarding people with fluctuating conditions, mental health difficulties, or complex needs.
As I’ve stated in several of my posts, this feels like a deliberately confusing and deceptive tactic , inviting us to respond to a consultation under the guise of reform, when in reality, it’s a dismantling of key support structures. I see no clear benefit to myself, my family, or the wider disabled and vulnerable community.
I’ve shared links and direct quotes from the Green Paper itself along with some of the core arguments I’ve been raising, so that others can reflect and align their personal experiences and challenges with what’s being proposed. I really believe we can use these valueless proposals to our strength in challenging them through our responses and solidarity.
For me, every email or response I write ends with this simple truth:There is not a single benefit to us as disabled people in these proposals.They have been written with one aim ….only to cut rightfully entitled support from vulnerable people. That is, and will remain, my central argument.

(Apologies for the alignment issues! It’s been very hard drafting this response due to my limited IT knowledge and hand issues)

Warm wishes,