Green Paper Related Discussions

I've been able to use a paywall unblocker and I've taken screenshots of the Times article so we can all read it. 😊 I've cropped them to remove photos of the usual smug looking politictions. They'd even included a picture of Farage! 🤢

I'd save yourself the walk. The so called concessions will do absolutely nothing to help us. 😡 About as much as we could expect from morally bankrupt low life like them. Please see the screenshots above.

Another labour MP has come out publicly & stated they will vote against any changes making pip harder to get then it already is. Peter Lamb MP for Crawley

I read that the claims that pip reforms would hurt young people with MH and neurodivergent was a smokescreen. Apparently it’s older people with physical conditions that will be most affected. Personally I don’t think it should matter what condition you have , if it stops you working so you can have a decent standard of living you should get pip.

PIP was set up to cover the extra costs of living with your disability. It is why the questions are being asked as to what we spend our PIP money on to see if it is actually being used to fund the extra costs associated with our disability or if it is being used to pay usual bills and housekeeping because it was never supposed to be used for those things.

Of course at the time cost of living was nowhere near as high as it currently is and we all have tough choices to make as to how we spend our PIP money. I cannot always afford the things I need to help make my life easier or better because when you have a fixed income and bills keep rising you have to make the difference up with your PIP money.

The government don't think PIP should be given to people with mental health issues as they shouldn't have extra costs so don't need PIP the same way people with physical disabilities do. I would say that people with some mental health conditions especially ones which make leaving home almost impossible use their PIP to pay for taxi's to and from doctors or counselling appointments so you do have extra costs even if you get PIP for mental health reasons.

Something does have to change though. The benefit bill is too high as it currently stands and one reason for it being so high is that the government has to subsidise people who work fulltime as their wages are not high enough for them to support their family or pay stupidly high rents. Investing in low cost social housing would eventually help the situation across the country but it is going to take huge levels of investment to build millions of affordable homes, social care needs huge investment, policing needs huge investment to keep communities safe, so many things in our country needs huge investment we are falling behind other countries and if we don't act eventually we are not going to be a first world country. We need more tax being paid so a wealth tax would help but not too high or people will just leave the country and then we lose all of their tax contributions it is a tricky situation but encouraging growth of small business is a start, actually making things in the UK again would help and create jobs.

Giving people hope and a way to move forward would also significanly improve the mood of the country we are fed a diet of doom and gloom daily and then people wonder why mental health is deteriorating. It is a viscous cycle and we need to break it.

The government should reduce all PIP payments by £100 per month to make the savings they say they want to make. I think we would accept it if it meant that nobody would be left absolutely destitute. Use the money to create job opportunities and help the disabled people who can work and want to work to find employment and maybe actually help people who cannot work to have a standard of living, improve access to counselling, improve community transport, improve social services etc etc.

Just my personal thoughts I would be interested to hear what other people think needs to be done or can be done to help the country as a whole get to where we need to be.

That's right, they've always got plenty of money for their own priorities. 😤

I've just read that with the upcoming Spending Review that they have suddenly announced that they are going to spend 93 billion on capital spending!! 😱

Capital spending is things like on new schools, hospitals, prisons, the rail system and even nuclear reactors. So it is needed but they are being so mean with money for government departments like the DWP, you'd think the country was bankrupt!

They can easily afford to do everything properly, this country isn't at all short of money.

Capital spending projects attract private investment where government departments are part of the public sector. Everything has to go into private hands, all the time, according to them.

Some "Labour" government!! They deserve to lose all their voters with their appalling attitude, I hope that they never get back into power. 😡

I have again been reading up on Liz Kendalls careless and incorrect comments that PIP was never designed for those with mental health issues. She's obviously not done her homework (yet again) as it's simply not true. This is what I found out again that completely contradicts her harmful and very untruthful comments.

Would It Be Lawful?

The UK government can lawfully change the eligibility criteria or descriptors for PIP through secondary legislation (statutory instruments) without requiring a full Act of Parliament. This has happened before. However:

• The changes must not breach human rights law, equality law, or disability discrimination law.
• They must comply with Article 14 (non-discrimination) and Article 8 (right to private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which the UK is still bound by via the Human Rights Act 1998.
• The Equality Act 2010 prohibits indirect discrimination against disabled people, including those with mental health conditions.

So: yes, the DWP can propose changes—but the legality depends on how those changes are framed and whether they disproportionately disadvantage people with mental health disabilities.

⚖️ Could a Legal Challenge Be Brought?

Yes. There are several legal avenues for challenging such a policy:

1. Judicial Review

• Affected individuals or organisations (like disability rights charities) could apply for a judicial review of the regulations.
• The court could find the changes unlawful if they are:
  • Irrational or unreasonable
  • Discriminatory under the Equality Act
  • Contrary to legitimate expectations (e.g., if the government previously committed to parity between physical and mental health)
  • In breach of procedural fairness or inadequate consultation

2. Discrimination Claims

• If the criteria systematically disadvantage claimants with mental health issues, they could be found to amount to indirect disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.
• The burden would be on the government to show that the changes are a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

3. Human Rights Challenges

• Discrimination against those with mental health conditions in access to financial support may also violate Article 14 of the ECHR, especially when linked to Article 1 of Protocol 1 (the right to property, including welfare benefits).

4. UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD)

• While not directly enforceable in UK courts, failure to uphold the rights of people with psychosocial disabilities could be used in legal arguments or international pressure (e.g., complaints to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities).

🧠 Background: PIP Was Meant to Cover Mental Health

PIP explicitly includes mental health in its legislation:

• The 2013 PIP assessment guide and regulations make clear that psychological distress, cognitive difficulties, and fluctuating mental health conditions are covered.
• Court cases (e.g., MH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions) have repeatedly affirmed that mental health issues must be given equal weight in PIP assessments.

Therefore, attempting to reframe PIP as being "for physical conditions only" could face strong legal opposition.

🧱 Examples of Successful Legal Challenges:

• RF v Secretary of State (2017): A successful challenge to PIP rules that unfairly excluded people who experienced overwhelming psychological distress from the mobility component. The DWP lost and had to change the law and reassess thousands of claims.
• Mathieson v Secretary of State (2015): The Supreme Court ruled that denying Disability Living Allowance to a disabled child in hospital was discriminatory.

🛡️ Summary

I hope this puts some peoples minds at rest just a little, whenever Liz Kendall opens her gob and spouts lies I'll reasearch it and show her for the dangerous, evil narcissist that she is.

If delayed though won’t the impact statement be out for them to see then as we know the impact statement will show what we all know and the uproar will be more ?

Morning Johnny ,

I wrote exactly this . That’s why they’re rushing it through. The fact there’s now talk of a delay / concession makes me think they’re panicking and trying to find a way to get this to pass . Please god they start to u turn in some way 🤞🙏

morning Squirrel So what is the gov saying there gonna delay exactly ? Not the vote then