Green Paper Related Discussions

1100101103105106115

Comments

  • Catherine21
    Catherine21 Posts: 6,232 Championing

    Probley say lost them but Debbie Abrahams on outside I think god can't think straight anymore

  • bton1968
    bton1968 Online Community Member Posts: 114 Empowering
    edited June 3

    "liars" ? not to mention the directives that will be sent down from parliament ….

    let's make no bones about it, they'll be under strict instructions to be very critical when it comes to point scoring ….

    the government will probably be worse off with all the ensuing appeals and tribunals ….

    bring it on ….. because i for one won't be accepting rejection of pip without a fight 💪

    i'll also be recording the assessment

  • jasminehoop
    jasminehoop Online Community Member Posts: 23 Contributor

    A FOI request will probably take a while, but I'm confident there are organisations out there already asking for one! We'll hear something before long, I just pray we'll like the direction the meeting went in 😔

  • MW123
    MW123 Scope Member Posts: 1,221 Championing

    Catherine, I'm not sure there was an actual meeting. Based on the letter from Debbie Abrahams to Liz Kendall on 21 May 2025, it appears that Liz had until 2 June 2025 to respond to the committee in writing, so I don’t believe it was an in-person session. Her response will be published once it is received.

    I’ve copied and pasted the link below. When you open it, click on: Correspondence with the Secretary of State, relating to the Pathways to Work Green Paper the entry dated 21 May 2025, as that’s the most recent correspondence. The links are not listed in date order.

    https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/164/work-and-pensions-committee/publications/

  • Passerby
    Passerby Posts: 447 Trailblazing
    edited June 3

    This engagement is the work of Alan Milburn, who recommended what he called "Periodical Duty to engage" in his "Pathways to Work Commission Report". In the Green paper, they said that they were consulting on whether to make such an engagement, which they also euphemistically call "participation in conversations", a requirement to benefits entitlement and that they would release the details of an such engagement at a later date.

    This is what the duty to engage is about:

    "Those in receipt of State support should be required to interact in an aspiration-focused conversation with a‘system navigator’ rather than simply a jobs coach. That process should aim to identify individual capabilities and needs in order to help more economically inactive people return to the labour market. The aim would be to equip individuals to access the support which they may be entitled to and to map out future transitions alongside any training or development they may benefit from.This would represent a big shift in how the system interacts with its users, primarily the cohort with little-to-no regular contact and support."

    See, it has nothing to do with calling you to ask you how you're doing or whether you would like a free pizza delivered straight to your door!😁😁

  • MW123
    MW123 Scope Member Posts: 1,221 Championing

    @Catherine21 I could not get the link to work so copied the letter at the end you will see Liz had until 02 June 2025 to respond.

    Rt Hon Liz Kendall MP

    Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

    Department for Work and Pensions

    (By e-mail only)

    Dear Liz,

    Pathways to Work Green Paper

    As you might be aware, my Committee is conducting an inquiry into the Pathways to Work Green Paper. We have taken oral evidence from a range of stakeholders, including disabled people’s organisations, disability charities, and academics, and received written evidence from other organisations. While we plan to publish our report in due course, we are writing now to set out key findings and recommendations in respect of two significant reforms—changes to eligibility for the daily living component of the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and the rebalancing of Universal Credit (UC) rates—because these are to be legislated for very soon.

    In summary, we strongly support the Government’s ambition to reform the social security system, including incapacity and disability benefits. We also recognise the financial challenges the Government faces and the desire to reduce spending on health-related benefits, particularly by supporting more disabled people into work. However, we have concerns about potential unintended consequences of the proposed legislative changes, the sequencing of reforms, and the lack of a full impact assessment.

    In light of these concerns, we ask the Government to delay any changes to PIP eligibility until it has completed its review of the PIP assessment. We also ask the Government to delay changes to UC rates, as evidence indicates these may not improve employment outcomes for most claimants, but instead risk pushing many into poverty and further away from the labour market.

    Changes to PIP Eligibility and UC Rates

    The Government will shortly legislate to require a PIP claimant to score at least four points in at least one activity of the daily living component to qualify for that component. It will also rebalance UC rates by freezing UC health support for existing claimants and almost halving it for new claimants from April 2026. In addition, the standard allowance will increase by £7 a month. For those receiving the reduced UC health rate after April 2026 who have the most severe, lifelong health conditions, the Government is proposing an additional premium and a guarantee that they will never be reassessed.

    However, it is unclear when legislation for the additional premium will be introduced, and the Green Paper provides no detail on how eligibility for this premium will be determined. These changes are the first to be implemented from a broader package of proposals.

    The Case for Reform

    The Government justifies these changes by stating that spending on health-related benefits is financially unsustainable, noting a £20 billion increase since the pandemic and a projected further £18 billion rise by the end of the Parliament. It also highlights that the number of working-age individuals receiving health-related benefits has increased at twice the rate of disability prevalence.

    While this concern is valid, evidence we received suggests the cost of working-age welfare should be viewed as a whole (including both health and non-health-related spending) and as a proportion of GDP. Measured this way, current spending levels are roughly the same as in 2007. Though spending on health-related benefits has increased by 0.9 percentage points since 2007-08, this has been offset by a 0.8 percentage point reduction in other areas, such as child and working-age adult support. The Green Paper acknowledges this.

    The rise in working-age health-related spending can also be partially explained by prior benefit cuts, including the post-2015 benefits freeze, the benefit cap, and the two-child limit—measures that have increasingly affected more people over time.

    The Government claims that changes to UC rates will promote work, reduce perverse incentives, and improve basic adequacy. In particular, it refers to issues in the incapacity benefit system that have incentivised people to claim higher support, such as the removal of the LCW payment in 2017 and the real-terms reduction in the UC standard allowance. These changes have significantly increased the value of support for claimants found to have limited capability for work and work-related activity (LCWRA). This point is supported by the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Lords Economic Affairs Committee. We are inclined to agree that the current benefit design likely creates incentives for some to seek LCWRA status.

    However, other factors may also be driving the increase in claims, including worsening physical and mental health, growing financial insecurity among disabled people, and exclusion from the labour market, exacerbated by the rising state pension age. If these are indeed key drivers, the legislative changes may not boost employment as hoped, but instead deepen poverty, worsen health outcomes—especially in more deprived areas—and move people further from the labour market, as previous reforms have shown.

    Timing of the Changes

    We believe the Government understands the complex relationship between work and health and the underlying drivers of health-related welfare spending. This is reflected in the Get Britain Working White Paper and much of the Pathways to Work Green Paper. However, we are not convinced that the Government should proceed with changes to PIP eligibility and UC rates before other measures in the Green Paper—such as the review of the PIP assessment—are implemented, or before more detail is provided about critical proposals like the additional premium.

    It is also problematic that MPs are expected to vote on these changes without a full impact assessment. The version released with the Green Paper, as well as the OBR’s costings, excluded the impact of many of the reforms, including the abolition of the Work Capability Assessment and increased investment in employment support.

    Conclusions and Recommendations

    We ask the Government to delay changes to PIP eligibility and UC rates, extend and expand the current consultation, and co-produce measures with disabled people and their organisations—reflecting the Government’s stated commitment to “nothing about me, without me.” We strongly recommend a precautionary approach, and that the Government immediately commission an independent, comprehensive analysis of the impact of the proposed UC health support reductions on employment, poverty, and health outcomes.

    We also urge the Government to delay its plans to amend the PIP daily living component eligibility criteria, and instead engage with disabled people and their organisations to co-produce any changes as part of the ongoing PIP review. It is essential that those who genuinely need PIP do not lose support. Once new proposals are developed, they should be published and opened to proper consultation.

    I would be grateful for your response to these conclusions and recommendations by Monday 2 June 2025. As is standard practice for Committee correspondence, I will be publishing this letter and your response on the Committee’s website.

    Yours sincerely,

    Debbie Abrahams MP

    Chair, Work and Pensions Committee

  • secretsquirrel1
    secretsquirrel1 Online Community Member Posts: 1,387 Championing

    Even with all medical evidence I’ve been given zero points . And it’s not just assessors either. The tribunal not only awarded no points but tried to remove points if been given by a MR. The worst person on the panel was the disabled person. I ended up going to the upper tribunal as the dwp admitted they erred in law .

  • charlie72
    charlie72 Online Community Member Posts: 221 Pioneering

    Thanks for that, I was worried it might be to force you into work (mandatory) surely there are those of us who just can't work because of mental or physical illness, can we just say thanks, but not interested, too unwell and they say no worries we'll contact you again in a few months?

    I know you don't know all the answers, you seem a bit more clued up than me about this green paper thing!!😊

  • Catherine21
    Catherine21 Posts: 6,232 Championing

    IIf I'm correct she doesn't have to listen to these recommendations? If that's the case she will press on with them doesn't it feel like this has been going on for years

  • Passerby
    Passerby Posts: 447 Trailblazing
    edited June 3

    Although Alan Milburn recommended the need of tough conditionality rules to apply to those who are healthy and able to work and not to "the cohort of economically inactive people who have complex barriers to overcome in order to return to work", I very much doubt that you could just say to them, "Sorry, mate, I'm not interested, I'm too unwell", and that they would say to you, "No worries, will contact you again in a few months' time"! This would be too good. The "Duty to engage" is equally imposed upon employment support services - that they would have a duty to engage with all working-age benefit recipients with a personalised support offer.

  • Passerby
    Passerby Posts: 447 Trailblazing

    Woow! They really gave you a hard time and I could feel it! Sorry to learn this.

  • lincsgranny
    lincsgranny Online Community Member Posts: 73 Empowering

    There is a article on GB news about Liz Kendall facing MPs behind closed doors I've tried to upload link on here but don't know if being checked as ain't come on

  • secretsquirrel1
    secretsquirrel1 Online Community Member Posts: 1,387 Championing

    They were playing up to the dwp rep who was also there .

  • Tumilty
    Tumilty Online Community Member Posts: 297 Empowering

    Yes I agree that it depends on how you come across which could be different each time and that depends on the vibes you get from the person doing the assessment and not putting over what you need to jepordising your claim. Last time I froze and panicked and went to appeal

    This is why paper assessment would eradicate this you'd be genuine to both people. Like a driving test as opposed to being judged over 30 mins get a better impression over a longer period of time like what would happen via GP.

    I sent a letter from my GP and they contacted her but all the info she gave could be insignificant depending on assessors impression of me who doesn't know me.

    I guess you keep getting pip until a decision is made as it takes a while I've heard too.

    Regards

  • MW123
    MW123 Scope Member Posts: 1,221 Championing

    Parliamentary committees have a lot of influence, even though the Government doesn’t have to follow their advice. I agree Catherine It does feel like this has been going on forever.

    It’s frustrating to hear all the political back-and-forth, especially for disabled people waiting on decisions about their future finances. But sometimes that talking is what stops bad decisions.

    The slow questioning, debates and delays help hold those in power accountable and give us a better chance of fairer outcomes. If the Government listens to the recommendations, we could see positive changes that truly support disabled people.

  • lincsgranny
    lincsgranny Online Community Member Posts: 73 Empowering

    https://www.gbnews.com/politics/liz-kendall-address-labour-mps-keir-starmer-revolt-dwp-benefits-crackdown

  • Catherine21
    Catherine21 Posts: 6,232 Championing

    Behavioural Effects ????? Haven't shared all