Scope's reply to the governments planned concessions to the green paper.

They will probably have to claim Attendance Allowance like OAP's who become disabled later in life and will not get anything to help with mobility.

Neither of our children get any Universal Credit, they are on ESA income related, support group. We are waiting for the migration letter. But my concern is will the get the same transitional protection in say 2 months time if this paper goes through on Tuesday or would they get a lesser amount.

I think so yes, the bill wont be immediately in effect after the vote.

That i can't say. They are possibly sacrificial lambs. Very unfair, and if we let them, these politicians may attempt to redraw the social contract.

I tell you what, if I thought it made any difference, I would lie down in the street in protest. I however don't live anywhere of import to even be noticed.

True indeed.

that's what neoliberalism does to people. remember Margaret Thatcher's quote that there's no such thing as a community?

and that's exactly why the insurance industry supports these cuts.

If it makes you feel better I expect migrations to be the same as existing UC in terms of the protection. Plus I think the starting date for change is after when the migrations are expected to finish. It doesnt start the day the bill is passed.

From Benefits and Work

Questions the government needs to answer – and MPs need to ask

One of the major issues with the Pathways to Work Green paper is the number of questions it leaves unanswered.  But now, with the government’s hastily created “concessions”, things are even more unclear.  Especially whether the concessions mean current claimants are permanently protected or have just been granted a temporary reprieve.

Below are a number of questions, some of which you might want to ask your MP before Tuesday’s vote, because they should be clear what they are voting for.  Or you may have others you want to ask.  The important thing is to keep reminding MPs that there is still the option of voting to scrap the bill on Tuesday, regardless of any concessions offered.

But do bear in mind that many Labour MPs who signed the amendment have said they are still going to vote against the bill, as will many opposition MPs, so your MP may still be an ally.

In her letter to Labour MPs Liz Kendall writes: “Therefore, we will ensure that all of those currently receiving Pip will stay within the current system. The new eligibility requirements will be implemented from November 2026 for new claims only.”

This implies that current claimants will not be protected from the results of the ministerial review of the PIP assessment, due to make changes to PIP eligibility criteria in 2028.  Given that the governments overriding concern is to halt the rising cost of disability benefits, the review can only result in a tightening of eligibility criteria – quite possibly including retaining the four-point rule .  So, this concession may be no more than a short reprieve for current claimants.

Q.  Will existing PIP claimants stay on the current test for life or be subject to the new criteria created by the ministerial review of the PIP assessment, to be completed in 2028?

Many thousands of adult DLA claimants are still waiting to be reassessed for PIP through no fault of their own.  If things had run to the original timetable they would by now be PIP claimants and protected from the 4-point rule.

Q. If current adult DLA claimants, awaiting reassessment for PIP for many years, are finally dealt with after November 2026 will they be assessed under the current rules or the new 4-point rules?

Kendall writes “. . . we will adjust the pathway of universal credit payment rates to make sure all existing recipients of the UC health element . . . have their incomes fully protected in real terms.”

How long does this protection last? 

Q. Around 600,000 current UC health element claimants do not receive an award of the PIP daily living component.  When the WCA is abolished in 2028  and receipt of PIP daily living becomes the qualifying criteria for UC health element, will they continue to have their income protected?  Or is the protection only temporary?

If your MP is one of the Labour rebels, they may be considering withdrawing their name form the amendment, as a number have already said they will.

Q  If you are considering withdrawing your name from the reasoned amendment, does this mean that you are resigned to many thousands of future claimants being plunged into poverty, even though you think it is wrong for current claimants?

Kendall writes in relation to the review of PIP assessment criteria: “At the heart of this review will be coproduction with disabled people, the organisations that represent them, and MPs so their views and voices are heard.”

Q.  If it’s important that the views and voices of disabled people are heard in respect of future changes, why are their voices not important in relation to the enormous changes in the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill?

Q.  If the main aim of the government is to put disability benefits on what they view as a sustainable footing, by cutting the rise in costs considerably, what possibility is there of disabled people genuinely being listened to as PIP criteria are rewritten?

Q.  The PIP  four-point rule does not come into effect until November 2026, almost a year and a half away.  So why is it so important to get the legislation through the Commons in the next two weeks, without consulting on it?

Q.  Given that there are so many unanswered questions about the proposed reforms, and that the government is already going to have to find £3bn to fund their concessions, would it not be wiser to scrap the whole Green Paper process and start again in genuine coproduction with disabled people?

https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/questions-the-government-needs-to-answer-%E2%80%93-and-mps-need-to-ask