Green Paper Related Discussions

Disability and MH don't have a age so hope they don't do that it's all just wrong.

This Government is so Messed up

Fingers crossed we get some information as not letting us know anything is cruelty for us all

Totally agree the impact this must be having on our health.

It's like being in a bad zone all the time no break from it. Fingers crossed for tomorrow 🤞

Hope they don't get passed i really do

You were the one who mentioned a Freedom Pass, not me? I've not been to work today, so I'm pretty sure my brain didn't confuse that xD.

I'll reiterate, though. Back when they first introduced passes for over 60s (as was then), they took away the equivalent discount for disabled people, except those they deemed 'most severe'. So a lot of people who previous qualified no longer did, and a lot of carers also lost out. This was a direct consequence of funding the free over 60s passes.

In my area there is no charge for a bus pass, unless it is lost and a replacement is required. There is a processing charge for Blue Badges, but that's all. This may be the confusion as different areas have different rules.

In my area, people who have what is now the over 66 (pension age) bus pass usually use their active driving licences as their proof of ID to qualify for it. Once on the system it is sent out automatically every five years. Even if they never use it. Meanwhile disabled people need to provide evidence every time their pass comes up for renewal, and the criteria can change. This can be complicated, just like any other disability related claim.

I have 12 points on PIP planning a journey because of navigation but only qualify for a bus pass because my doctor wrote a letter stating why I am not safe to drive. While I broadly support older people having a bus pass, the reality is that the initial introduction made things harder for disabled people. So the reality is that not all disabled people who can't drive get a bus pass, while all older people, regardless of whether they can drive or not, are eligible.

Sorry everyone for the diversion from the main topic. Back to green paper now.

The 9million I thought was related to the WFA U-turn eligibility?

Its interesting they use the term substantial in substantial risk, since the Equalities Act defines disability as something that has a substantial and long term impact. The government do not seem to like that word as much as severe.

just read this in the mirror. Apparently labour are proud to scrap the vagrancy act , I guess they don’t want us breaking the law when we are all homeless. I will be sending this to Rayner and asking if she’s so proud of Labour for starting the welfare system does it mean she’s voting against cuts

Do you have a link to what Timms has said about 'substantial risk' @Passerby - as this is very concerning.

Admittedly this is now 2 months ago, but Timms didn't really seem to give any sort of definitive answer then when questioned about this by another MP: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-04-01/43367

One of the Advice for (DWP) Decision Maker's guides about PIP (Chapter 2) does say this about 'safely' - which means in a manner unlikely to cause harm to themselves or to another person, either during or after completion of the activity under para P2106 but I'm not sure that that goes far enough compared to UC, tho it should. I'd always thought/hoped that that part of PIP might offer protection to those who are at 'substantial risk.'

Thank you @Passerby - they're 'considering' rather a lot, as emphasis on, if they get their way, the daily living component of PIP seems to indicate that any mobility needs (including that part which is for those who have difficulty 'going out' which they deem non-functional, when it can severely impact on a person's functional ability) seem to be of lesser importance.

Whilst with PIP you need to have had difficulties for at least 3 months, & expect them to last a further 9 months, I fail to see how many that would currently be seen as having 'substantial risk' would not fall under this category, so they're hoping to change rather a lot, & not offer financial support for those undergoing cancer treatment. Tho they apparently 'might' still be eligible for UC, but not the so-called health element….

Let's hope none of this happens!