Green Paper Related Discussions

That’s the issue, isn’t it? There’s never a clear list of which conditions are considered “severe” enough to be exempt from reassessments. Everything is handled on a case-by-case basis. They consider whether a condition is lifelong, progressive, or incurable, whether someone is likely to remain out of work long term, and whether they meet the LCWRA criteria. But they never name specific conditions, so the system remains vague and inconsistent.

Something like ME might qualify if the evidence is presented strongly enough, but it all depends on how the case is written up and what the assessor decides on the day. Two people with the same diagnosis can be treated completely differently.

One of my colleagues was deeply distressed about her sister, who was wheelchair bound and suffering from small cell lung cancer. Just a week before she passed away, she was still required to attend a meeting with a job coach to prove she had been actively looking for work. It’s hard to comprehend how someone in such a clearly terminal state could be put through that process.

But because doctors couldn’t say with certainty that she would die within a year, she didn’t qualify for the Special Rules. So despite the seriousness of her condition, she was treated as eligible to look for work.

I want to believe that the new rules will offer better protection for people like my colleague’s sister in the future. But that’s the core of the problem. The rules are often written in ways that leave too much open to interpretation, depending on how the assessor views the situation. And that makes the system feel unpredictable and, at times, deeply unfair and even cruel.

This is how I am personally interpreting the latest proposals. Other members may interpret them differently.

To meet the new Severe Conditions Criteria, a condition must be permanent, unchanging and diagnosed by a qualified NHS professional. This diagnosis must also be recorded in your NHS records. The aim is to bring greater consistency and reduce how much individual assessors need to rely on personal judgement in the most serious cases.

For general PIP, LCWRA and LCW decisions, the process will still involve evidence and assessments, so assessor judgement will continue to play a role.

One example you mentioned in your post is around needing prompting to eat. Assessors will consider whether you need help every time you eat. If, for instance, you are sometimes able to eat something like a biscuit on your own, that could be taken as evidence that support is not always required, which might affect your eligibility, as it is not a constant requirement to have assistance.

When it comes to mobility, I really cannot answer. Labour is planning changes, but they have not yet said how mobility will be treated under LCWRA or whether there will be changes to the mobility component of PIP in the revised system planned for November 2026.

I do know the Conservatives had previously suggested removing mobility from LCWRA altogether, arguing that remote work reduces the impact of mobility issues, as people could work from home. Labour has not confirmed their position on this, so until we see the revised criteria or hear more during the debate in Parliament on 1 July, it is hard to say how they will assess people with mobility issues under LCWRA, but I do know Conservatives were of the opinion mobility was not a barrier to work in the age of remote working.