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

Hi chiaried,

My brain fogs really bad and I’m fatigued so sorry if I don’t make sense . So regarding the scc they’re saying the descriptor used to get lcwra and scc must be constant. That is no good day for that descriptor ie mobility or eating and all day . My conditions may fluctuate throughout the day but they are there every day . I don’t get remissions from my fibromyalgia or ME and other conditions. Not sure how scc would affect me as how can we prove we have the same symptoms 24/7 ? I don’t know if it has any relevance but when it was first reported about the concessions the guardian mentioned they were thinking of making it easier for those with multiple conditions, but I haven’t heard anything of it since .

"Creating incentives" to participate?

Incentives as in DO IT or be Sanctioned?

You Cannot "INCENTIVISE" someone to NOT be Disabled.

Exactly this ☝️I'm on CBESA and lcwra but not pip .... I guess we will have to just wait and see what the finished bill will look like and see where we stand

As I understand it Existing Claimants are to be reviewed under Current Rules, Even after Nov 2026 their Awards will Not be subject to the 4point rule on Review?

Otherwise what's the Concession.

Only New claimants are to be assessed under New rules?

(PLEASE) Only those that know for a Fact. Much appreciated

Hi @secretsquirrel1 - that part about making it easier for 'people with multiple impairments' could just be the Guardian's impression/choice of words. I don't mean that in a negative way, as I'd guess many of us have more than one disorder, but I don't think we've heard those words in relation to these supposed 'concessions' from the Gov't. Don't lose any hope over this either, as we have many charities supporting us over these dubious reforms.

The Gov't are wanting to change the words about scc in their Bill, which hopefully won't get through, from a LCWRA descriptor applies 'the majority of the time,' to it applies 'constantly.' This obviously needs to be addressed, as we've discussed before.

Please don't worry, the question would be how would the DWP disprove that, even if your condition fluctuates, you don't have that condition all of the time, so you therefore 'fit' the descriptor? It's just a very poor use of words, & these have to be very clear to change legislation.

I've said that I'll question this use of the word 'constantly' when I email my response to the Gov't, & I promise I will - that's my homework for the weekend! 😊

You raise a point many of us are considering @emc123 - it reads like current claimants will not be subjected to the proposed PIP 4 point rule, but there's nothing to say this will carry on 'indefinitely.'

This 'possibly' because after the Gov't hopes this Bill is passed, changes to the PIP assessment & the descriptors used have already been proposed in their Green Paper. So, we can't know for sure how this will pan out.

As you say, with some uncertainties like this, how can a MP make an informed decision?

Yes. Mainly at risk are those trying for C.O.C , (Someone on Enhanced x2 for eg isn't likely to initiate one of these Unplanned Reviews).

A Planned Review for these people especially a NO Change AR1 would be Much harder to attack. (If it Is stopped, there's Tribunal, and Not a New Claim….they're gonna be Inundated).

What we Need Confidence in is a Planned Review initiated by DWP the reassessment would be under Current Rules, as Kendall Said 'Stay in the Current System".