New Green Paper Discussion - now includes accessible formats and consultation event sign up links!
Comments
-
No, unfortunately not, The letter appeared on my Facebook feed. My labour mp dosent bother to any emails.
0 -
I will sign but of course they already are lying claiming those who cant work will be protected.
3 -
If she is saying this and I have no reason to think otherwise, the media really need to fact check her on it, as she isnt qualified to claim this stuff.
In her local area she has gone out of her way to ignore constituents who will be affected by this, and when have we ever seen anything showing her meet up with claimants, instead she visits job centres to talk to DWP staff, and goes on tours with Reeves and Keir.
She also doesnt need to impose poverty to help people in to work, How the DWP has got away with calling poverty as support for so long I dont know.1 -
I suggest not using youtube as a source, I think there is a fair few videos on there not understanding whats going on, maybe thats why so many on here are confused.
The 4 points change is nothing to do with the WCA, it affects PIP daily living assessment and after Nov 2026, not right now.
Eventually when the WCA is scrapped PIP daily living will be used as one of two pathways to qualify for the health top up on UC, but thats nothing to do with LCWRA, as by then LCWRA will no longer exist.
3 -
Three firms of solicitors working with disabled people on possible benefit cuts legal cases
By John Pring on 10th April 2025Category: Benefits and Poverty
At least three legal firms are examining ways in which they could support disabled people and their organisations to challenge some of the government’s proposed cuts to disability benefits in the courts.
Public Law Project (PLP), Leigh Day and Bhatt Murphy – all of which have previously supported disabled people’s organisations (DPOs) to challenge the government – are examining the possibility of taking legal action.
The discussions follow last month’s Pathways to Work green paper, and the subsequent spring statement, which have proposed billions of cuts to disabled people’s support, particularly through £4.5 billion a year cuts to personal independence payment, and billions more from disabled people’s out-of-work benefits.
Some of these measures will now be consulted on, including plans to delay access to the health element of universal credit until a claimant has reached the age of 22, deciding which disabled people should be exempt from universal credit work-related requirements, and delaying the move from disability living allowance to PIP until the age of 18 (from 16 at present).
But other measures, including the £4.5 billion cuts to PIP, and cuts to the health element of universal credit, will not be consulted on – which will make it harder to challenge them in the courts – and will instead be included in a bill to be debated in parliament in the coming weeks.
Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) has been in discussions with PLP, the legal firm which acted for disabled activist and author Ellen Clifford in a groundbreaking high court victory that saw the last Conservative government’s consultation on plans to make “substantial” cuts to out-of-work disability benefits declared unlawful.
Linda Burnip, DPAC’s co-founder, said she was “certain” that there will be a legal challenge to the consultation, “given how dire the green paper’s layout is and the fact that accessible formats have only just become available”.
But she said there could also be a human rights challenge to any legislation that is taken through parliament, which could put pressure on the government to amend it.
Georgia Bondy, DPO Forum England’s secretariat – which is funded by Disability Rights UK – said the forum was “exploring a legal challenge to stop the incredibly harmful legislation proposed in the green paper.
“Labour failed to meaningfully engage with disabled people when putting together the green paper, despite the DPO forum’s continual attempts to facilitate co-production, starting from before they were elected.
“They continue to fail to engage meaningfully with disabled people, given that half the points in the proposed legislation are not part of the consultation.
“In no way does this represent Labour’s own commitment to ‘championing the rights of disabled people and to the principle of working with them, so that their views and voices will be at the heart of all we do’.
“Prior to the publication of the green paper, the DPO forum made it clear to the disability minister that no cuts to disability benefits would be in line with supporting disabled people to have a minimum quality of life. This has been ignored.
“We will fight the proposed cuts every way we can.”
Leigh Day solicitor Carolin Ott said: “We have been approached by both affected people and organisations that support affected individuals and… they have all expressed serious concerns.
“They are very concerned by the scale and depth of the cuts proposed, particularly the changes to PIP which will inevitably impact the most vulnerable in society.
“We will be looking very carefully as the details are unveiled and considering whether legal action can be pursued.”
Jessie Brennan, from Bhatt Murphy Solicitors, said: “We are exploring all available legal avenues, having been approached about a number of significant concerns arising from the changes announced by the government that have left many feeling scared and anxious at the impact these cuts will have.”
And Aoife O’Reilly, from PLP, said: “We are disappointed that the government has opted not to consult on key welfare benefit cuts set out in the green paper.
“The government says that many of these proposals will be implemented via primary legislation.
“Parliamentarians must therefore ensure that they properly scrutinise the details of any draft bill, and we consider that MPs would be in a much better position to do this if they had the benefit of the output of a comprehensive consultation process, which sought views of those Deaf and disabled people who will be directly impacted.
“We also call on the government to be transparent about the labour market impacts, given that its stated motive for many of these reforms is the fact that it will lead to more people entering the labour market and not being reliant on benefits.”
The 12-week consultation on the green paper was officially launched this week, after DWP finally published accessible versions of the document, in British Sign Language, large print, audio, and easy read, as well as Welsh and large print Welsh versions.
Accessible versions of the green paper’s equality analysis and impact assessment have yet to be published.
Physical copies of the consultation can be ordered, including in braille, large print, audio and easy read.
The consultation applies to England, Scotland and Wales, although not all the proposals apply to Scotland and Wales.
DWP has also announced the dates and locations for nine in-person consultation events across England, Scotland and Wales in April, May and June, and six virtual events in May and June.
Meanwhile, the government has published a call for evidence of pay discrimination on the basis of race and disability, enforcement of the public sector equality duty, and other areas of equality policy, ahead of the publication of its draft equality (race and disability) bill.
https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/three-firms-of-solicitors-working-with-disabled-people-on-possible-benefit-cuts-legal-cases/
1 -
Their focus seems to be on the consultation, but I really hope they challenge the nasty stuff, they at least have to give it a go.
1 -
From my limited understanding of it all I think the Human rights challenge will happen once they have pushed it through Parliament. I’d give anything to have a little peace of mind but don’t think we will for years unfortunately. I always do my best to support everyone and pray that things get better as there is no coming back from this, a line in the sand has to drawn by us and we must fight, we have no choice.
4 -
from the I:
Labour MPs blast ‘morally wrong’ tax cut for Musk and Bezos while benefits are slashed
Politicians warn against letting US tech companies 'off the hook' to 'appease' Donald Trump in trade talks
blob:https://forum.scope.org.uk/032ff4e7-07c1-4c6e-909d-082b2b7320f4Elon Musk’s X could be in line for a tax cut, as the UK tries to negotiate a deal with the US to avoid tariffs (Photo: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)
April 10, 2025 10:11 am (Updated 3:07 pm)
share
Share
bookmark
Save
Labour MPs have criticised proposals to cut the tax paid by American tech billionaires as a price to secure a tariff-busting deal with Donald Trump.
MPs on the left of the party said it would be “morally wrong” to reduce the Digital Services Tax (DST) paid by companies such as Jeff Bezos‘s Amazon and Elon Musk‘s X while the Government cuts benefits for vulnerable people.
Under the DST, tech giants that generate more than £500m in worldwide revenues and more than £25m from UK users have their British revenues taxed at 2 per cent.
Google, eBay, Apple, and Amazon have publicly acknowledged paying the tax. X is also believed to qualify for the levy.
However, the UK Government is considering reducing the levy for the US tech giants as a quid pro quo for Trump lowering his tariffs on British goods.
Appearing before the Commons Liaison Committee on Tuesday, Sir Keir Starmer said the DST and online safety rules are on the table in trade talks with the US.
“In relation to trade talks, there are questions about the appropriate way to tax digital services,” he said. “There are questions about how technology impacts with free speech.”
However, the proposal has sparked anger among Labour MPs, who argue that it is unacceptable to give tech giants a tax cut while reducing benefits as part of the Government’s welfare reforms.
Jon Trickett, the Labour MP for Normanton and Hemsworth, told The i Paper: “There should be no question of Britain giving consideration to making tax concessions to tech billionaires when they are proposing to take billions of pounds from welfare benefit beneficiaries.
Amazon, founded by Jeff Bezos, has publicly acknowledged paying the tax (Photo: John Locher/AP)
“We were told the level of government debt is too high to help the poorest so how can we afford a giveaway to these corporate giants?”
Brian Leishman, the Labour MP for Alloa and Grangemouth, said: “We cannot let US tech companies off the hook to appease the likes of President Trump and Elon Musk while allowing the most vulnerable in our society to suffer due to welfare cuts.
“Giving some of the richest men and firms in the world a tax break while disabled people are seeing their lifelines cut is morally wrong and does not align with the true values of the Labour Party.
“Equally, the implementation of the Online Safety Act must be protected so that people, in particular children, are kept safe in the digital space.”
He added that the DST is “an important first form of global tax cooperation which ensures that the value tech giants derive from their engagement with the UK user base is taxed accordingly”.
Leishman said the tax “must be protected and developed until a sustainable, long-term solution to tax challenges which arise from digitalisation is found and implemented globally.”
Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall last month announced plans to restrict welfare for those on incapacity benefits, in particular people under the age of 22, and reduce the value of disability benefit payments for those with less severe conditions. Further cuts have not been ruled out.
Rachael Maskel, the Labour MP for York Central, said: “Labour has always had a moral purpose to protect the vulnerable, keep people from poverty and keep people from the injustice of inequality, underpinned by strong public services and personal support.
“This seems to have disappeared by the decisions being made, so there is no clarity as to the economic purpose of Labour.”
Alex Sobel, the Labour MP for Leeds North West, said: “Protecting children online and the existence of robust safeguards against misinformation, particularly from Russia, are non-negotiable red lines.
“Extremely wealthy and powerful tech giants must not be allowed to bully their way into avoiding regulations moderating content.”
0 -
Have you heard back from Scope? I agree with everything you said in your post.
One of the biggest frustrations for me is, that many disabled people, myself included, work. To attend, we need venue details well in advance to arrange time off, book train tickets, and since my nearest venue is in London, secure overnight accommodation as travelling there and back in a single day would be too exhausting. Without these details upfront, planning is impossible, which is why I’ve decided not to apply.
I also dislike virtual meetings as they don’t offer the same experience as being in the room. In-person events allow direct engagement and the opportunity to speak with representatives at the end, something that just doesn’t happen in virtual seminars.
I have written to Liz Kendall regarding the way this has been handled, and if I am not satisfied with her response, I will raise a formal complaint about the process, and if not satisfied with the reply will raise it with the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
6 -
Jeremy Corbyn is awesome!
3 -
No worries, @Andi66
My Labour MP replied twice-but honestly, it felt like hearing Starmer, Reeves, and Kendall 2.0, just with a local accent. I genuinely can’t wait to see the moment they get splitted! It’s a real shame for the nation, though!
Best Wishes
0 -
Hi @MW123 - unfortunately so far I haven't heard back from Scope. I emailed community@scope.org.uk & have asked them to pass my concerns onto the appropriate Scope team. I'm hoping that Scope as a disability charity will note that:
a) Eventbrite's website about both in person & virtual events is cumbersome to navigate & may dissuade our disabled members from keeping on checking back at a later time to see if even any virtual event may become available
b) that surely disabled people would need to know beforehand about an in person event's accessibility to make appropriate arrangements (tho I 'think' I briefly glimpsed mentioning any accessibility issues when I looked at the events yesterday). Your comments also illustrate the need for knowing more about an in person event beforehand.
I have attended virtual webinars in the USA about one of my conditions (about the only positive thing medically speaking during Covid; both of my questions were answered by a geneticist in one, & 2 of my 3 queries in another!)
This purported 'consultation' is limited in the extreme…
I have taken a leaf out of your book & also emailed Liz Kendall
0 -
Sadly in this case it wont be possible, once its pushed through parliament its supreme above the courts due to the way they are doing it.
If they are to challenge it, it has to be done before its voted in.1 -
Thank you so much for sharing the Disability news article . Really appreciated!
It’s incredibly heartening to hear that respected legal firms such as Public Law Project, Leigh Day, and Bhatt Murphy are actively exploring legal avenues to challenge these deeply concerning proposals. Their previous successes, like the judicial review that declared the last government’s consultation unlawful, give hope that there is still a path to justice, however steep.But I still find it deeply troubling,if not outright undemocratic-that a proposal of this scale, with life-altering consequences for disabled and vulnerable people, were published without meaningful consultation. And now, even the consultation process we do have feels deliberately diluted and the public consultations non-accessible , with many of the most harmful proposals excluded from scrutiny.
It seems as though decisions have already been made, and the consultation is merely ticking a box.To add insult to injury, as stated in this newsfeed, these reforms are being pushed forward via primary legislation—fast-tracked through Parliament-while MPs from the main parties debate with rehearsed rhetoric and point fingers, instead of truly standing up for the people whose lives are on the line. The voices of disabled people, who should be at the very heart of these decisions, have once again been sidelined.
That said, the legal firms’ involvement should serve as a rallying call to all of us: now more than ever, it’s critical that we respond to the consultation in whatever way we can. As flawed as the process is, they are legally obligated to present the results to Parliament. Every voice added strengthens the argument against these cuts and can help fuel public and parliamentary pressure.
Let’s stay strong and stand together. We are not powerless and we are not alone.
3 -
The fact she wants to freeze UC is deliberately putting us into more poverty , so when everything goes up again next year our benefits will not go up (deliberate poverty) .
1 -
The next step is to wonder why🤔😉
0 -
"She is claiming that everyone that has a reassessment after November 2026 will be assessed through the new criteria PIP assessment."
From what's written in the Green paper, this is NOT true at all. Claimants for sickness benefit, known for most of people as LCWRA, both new and existing ones will be assessed/reassessed via the WCA until it's scrapped, which is set in 2028.
"She also claims we will all be expected to look for work even if we somehow manage to pass the new pip assessment and get the health element...."
From the Green paper, again, this is NOT true at all. They want to introduce what they're calling, "a new baseline expectation of engagement." In brief, they're thinking of asking sick and disabled people to participate in conversations, or work preparation activity rather than the stronger requirements placed on people in the Intensive Work Search regime. But they say that they're consulting on how to determine who is subject to a requirement only to participate in conversations, or work preparation activity rather than the stronger requirements placed on people in the Intensive Work Search regime, whether to make such a participation a condition of receipt of full benefit award or of the health element in Universal Credit, and how to determine which individuals or groups of individuals should be exempt from requirements.
It DOESN'T say at all that they will be expected to look for work.
"She then states that even if we get the new health element we will be 200 pounds a month worse off than we are now on LCWRA...."
This applies ONLY to new claimants and not the current ones.
THIS IS ONE OF THE DRAWBACKS OF THE INTERNET. IT PROVIDES PLATFORM TO ANY SELF-STYLED GURU WHO DARES TO LECTURE ON ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING.
Hope this will help shed light on her claims.
5 -
Email your MP that you'll campaign against him at the next GE to take the **** out of him.
0 -
I’m unsure about the credibility of these petitions that came up in a Google search. They have relatively few signatures, and some could benefit from more support. Many appear to have been started by disabled people themselves.
PETITIONS (several)1 -
I've emailed him , no answer. Other people have emailed him in my town over other stuff, no answer. He even ignored a local counsellor email. He just comes out for photos.
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 14.9K Start here and say hello!
- 7K Coffee lounge
- 81 Games den
- 1.7K People power
- 99 Announcements and information
- 23.2K Talk about life
- 5.4K Everyday life
- 264 Current affairs
- 2.3K Families and carers
- 853 Education and skills
- 1.9K Work
- 498 Money and bills
- 3.5K Housing and independent living
- 992 Transport and travel
- 682 Relationships
- 72 Sex and intimacy
- 1.4K Mental health and wellbeing
- 2.4K Talk about your impairment
- 857 Rare, invisible, and undiagnosed conditions
- 915 Neurological impairments and pain
- 2K Cerebral Palsy Network
- 1.2K Autism and neurodiversity
- 37.9K Talk about your benefits
- 5.8K Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)
- 19.2K PIP, DLA, ADP and AA
- 7.5K Universal Credit (UC)
- 5.4K Benefits and income