New Green Paper Discussion - now includes accessible formats and consultation event sign up links!

Can scope please clarify the pip / health element 4 point situation? My understanding was you don’t apply just for pip or lcwra or the new health element. Instead you have to apply for pip and score one 4 point descriptor and if you get the other 4 or 8 points you get pip plus a health element. I am seeing on YouTube you need 4 points to get lcwra / health element and same for pip . I’ve not heard of this before.

Issues not being consulted :

   •   Scrap the WCA (Chapter 2)

   •   Single assessment (PIP) - Chapter 2

   •   Rebalancing UC standard allowance and health element (Chapter 2)

   •   Focussing PIP more on those with higher needs (Chapter 2)

   •   Review of the PIP assessment (Process separate to Green Paper) - Chapter 2

   •   Switching back on WCA reassessments (Chapter 2)

   •   Increasing the number of face-to-face assessments in PIP and WCA (Chapter 2)

   •   Recording Assessments (Chapter 2)

   •   Reducing assessments for those with severe conditions (Chapter 2)

   •   Improving communications with those receiving an ongoing award (Chapter 2)

   •   Medical evidence and digitalisation (Chapter 2)

   •   A new ‘Pathways to Work’ support offer (Chapter 3)

Issues being consulted :

   •   Removing barriers to trying work (Chapter 2)

   •   Supporting people who lose entitlement to PIP (Chapter 2)

   •   Health and eligible care needs of those no longer eligible for PIP (Chapter 2)

   •   New Unemployment Insurance contributory benefit (Chapter 2)

   •   Safeguarding in DWP (Chapter 2)

   •   Implementing a new Support Conversation (Chapter 3)

   •   A new baseline expectation of engagement (Chapter 3)

   •   Delaying access to the UC health element until age 22 (Chapter 3)

   •   Raising the age at which people can claim PIP to 18 (Chapter 3)

   •   Reforming Access to work and the workplace (Chapter 4) adjustments system

It is deeply concerning that what is presented as a reform is, in reality, a non-inclusive cost-cutting proposal, deceptively guised under the language of support and improvement. This is why we must oppose this proposal by responding to the consultation, as these proposals are of no good to the disabled and vulnerable communities. The key issues have already been closed for consultation, further highlighting the exclusionary nature of this process.”

This gives us an even stronger cause to fight and stop this in its tracks by aligning our voices directly. By doing so, they would have no way to ignore us when the consultation results are presented in Parliament. Additionally, the Baroness debate link proposed by @Santosha12 could be leveraged to our advantage, allowing us to present compelling statistics and demonstrate how this proposal could severely impact us, our families, and our children if it were allowed to pass through Parliament.

Hello🙋

I have not yet sent my response in yet, but when I do I will be sending it to the email address.

I just wanted to post the email address again, because I kept finding it then losing it.

Consultation.pathwaystowork@dwp.gov.uk.

Rather than filling out the questions they have posed in their online consultation.

Pathways to Work: Reforming Benefits and Support to Get Britain Working

I have sent an email to my MP, specifically addressing my concerns over the cancellation of NS-ESA.

They cant do that!!!

I will be adding more info, and sending an email to the address above.

Best Wishes 🙂

@Dav1D

Yes, you can email! I’m going to be doing the same too.

If you’ve seen my last post, you’ll know that they’ve deceptively closed the consultation on several key issues that directly affect us. That’s why it’s so important that we align our thoughts and respond clearly — explaining why we believe these non-inclusive proposals are fundamentally flawed, and outlining the serious impact they would have if allowed to move forward.

We also need to make it clear that the government’s intention here isn’t true reform - it’s about cutting costs to balance budgets, and they’re doing it at the expense of the most vulnerable and disabled people.

There are certainly discriminatory elements in the proposals, and it’s obvious they haven’t thought them through. These measures threaten to deprive people of rights protected under the Equality Act 2010 -which remains our key legal safeguard.

(By the way - I’m not a lawyer, lol…just a fellow soul hellbent on seeing this through to the end!)
We can turn this around -but only if we stay united and speak out together.✌️

Best wishes,

Hi, Is the Substantial risk still being scrapped from the LCWRA (New health element) please, ie if Substantial risk was your reason for LCWRA will this element payment be Lost come Reassessment, either Before or after the new changes?

Thanks for adding the link, @mrsBB

Actually, after I messaged you, I had a look at the B&W website and found it there. They’re a great source of information too and do a lot of campaigning, much like Scope. I’ve used their 7-day trial in the past to access their guides, and I still pop over now and then to read user discussions.

Since my health took a hit, I haven’t been as sharp as I used to be. I’m sure our fellow members will also share more links and fill this one as well ,as they come across it. We can remind them !

One thing I do find tricky on Scope is locating older posts. I’ve put effort into writing a few, but then struggled to find them again in the sea of threads.

Anyways, thanks again - and hope you have a relaxing evening. Take care!

Go on to change and sign Richard Burgon mp petition against these cuts.

He asked the government about why people who need pip, who need help to wash, dress etc , why cut pip and Timms response was that people just need small interventions or the addition of aids and appliances.

He was appalled at Timms response. Timms has turned against disabled people