Scope's reply to the governments planned concessions to the green paper.
Comments
-
True. Because they don't meet the strict criteria for LCWRA based solely on their functional limitations, to start with. One has to first meet the criteria for LCWRA/Support Group before they become eligible to be considered under SCC.
2 -
there has to be a disability press group formed, that attends leaders/politicians press conferences at least during the run up to an election.
Cause many political parties are very vague in their manifestos when it comes to welfare and disability benefits. An issue that MSM never, never asked during manifesto presentation press conferences.
2 -
To be fair, the one thing that all disabled people want/need/would benefit from is a regulated, approachable, support-first DWP. Not an organisation where you're afraid to change your phone number in case it triggers a whole review of your entire claim, but an organisation where you can pick up the phone/go into a designated space and say, hey, can we talk about (x y z). A way of making amendments (improvements or deteriorations of condition) in which you could bring in a statement of evidence and have a chat with a (trained) person who would then, with your agreement, amend your record without the drama of forced reassessment, forced appeal, and threat of sanctions. An organisation where when you call their line you aren't lectured on fraud, despite there being next to no fraud from claimants in the disability support system.
The people who are genuinely trapped on benefits, the people on the wrong rate of benefits, the people living in fear all the time of losing their benefits…wouldn't it be so much better if the DWP were there to work with claimants, listen and support them rather than punish imaginary infractions and misplace their evidence?
Maybe this is why in other countries there is not so much drama over welfare as here :/ Maybe they have this and we don't.
Unfortunately I don't see that being an outcome of the Timms review. I have no idea why governmental conversations about disability are always so negative :/
5 -
Yep, I'm in the same situation as you. I'm also thinking like not to worry as much as I've been since 18Th March in particular, as reassessment will only restart from April 2026 and it'll mainly be for those who were previously given a short-term WCA decision (e.g., for pregnancy risk or cancer treatment with a short-term prognosis) and those who were previously placed in the LCWRA group under the substantial risk criteria. I don't they've now much interest in reassessing everybody as soon as possible since their detrimental infamous 4pt plan is now scrapped.
0 -
1 -
Just read that on X. I wonder who else will following her?
0 -
Daily mail
0 -
You’re getting your wish Catherine
0 -
SDP anyone? The Independent Group? I would love to believe this party can take off, but have they any billionaire non doms on board?
0 -
I''m 'pro-Palestine', oh DM troglodytes.
0 -
just seen on Facebook disability page, Darren Grimes Reform has posted stats people claiming pip for mh and autism etc 😡
0 -
I'm going to write to Jeremy Corbyn to share my thoughts with him in light of their new party.
Yep, a new chaos for Keir Starmer! Good for him.
0 -
Did they not claim you get PIP for having spots? The usual fact-free bullocks i bet!
0 -
As usual, far too many people have no understanding of these things at all.
Or they are people who have experience but their troubles are minimal so they give the 'if I can work like normal without claiming then so can everybody else.'
Then people congratulate them with 'you're one of the good useful ones.'
1 -
Unfortunately autistic people, people with MH conditions and with other invisible disabilities are always the butt of this kind of comment. Because instead of promoting inclusion and awareness, our media likes to peddle misinformation and overdiagnosis tropes that have no basis in fact.
Meanwhile Reform councillors have been costing the tax payer 10k per go each time one quits and forces a local by election. I forget how many it is now but it's more than ten. That's more money than any person gets on PIP for a whole year even on the very top level.
…So maybe they'd like to stop spewing about what disabled people are legitimately doing and ask their councillors why they're capable of playing a game of popularity contest but not actually doing the job that comes with it?
The people who say "I'm fine so you should be too" don't understand disability :/. But there are also a lot of barriers in place for people who can/want to work because of the assumptions about capability and the ignorance from employers. Buckland report did a great job of exposing those for autistic people.
As an autistic person who is working, I'm really lucky in my team and with my manager - but I have seen and experienced first hand the things employers will do to avoid employing a disabled person.
And that's if you even get to the interview. Even some disability charities don't practice very accessible recruitment :(
And just because I work, it doesn't mean that's always easy or that I glide through it then have a wild party on my off days. I literally have a list on my fridge right now reminding me which bus stop I need to use on which day to catch the right bus to work for each shift - because my navigation means I get easily disorientated and I have legit ended up at the wrong one before now. :/ And reminding me to go to work tomorrow because I have swapped a day and so am not on my usual timesheet. That's before I even get to work, so yeah.2 -
I understand the reasoning about prioritising the substantial risk group for assessment, but would that help for those on C-ESA plus PIP? Because, if they're going to using the PIP assessment in future how would turning you down for ESA help them?
1 -
They had only one plan, which is now in tatters. It was to make the 4pt system a law and assess as many claimants as possible both from PIP and ESA/UC on the 4pt criteria and cut sickness and disability benefits to as many claimants as possible and claim that they had reduced the number of claimants, even if they didn't save as much as they had claimed to.
The whole saga revolved only around PIP and nothing else, as cutting and freezing the rates for the new claimants for sickness benefits was an easy defenseless target.
They asked people to fill in consultations only on PIP and they didn't even bother to go through what people wrote in these consultations, as the vote took place one day after the consultations period had ended.
3 -
I agree with @Passerby that they had zero intention of taking onboard anything individuals or disability groups/charities had to say.
I would go further and say Timms has already written his review and will ignore any and all input from experts, fellow mps, and disability organisations. He has already recognised people with life-long and/or degenerative conditions as being 'worthy' disabled and, as such, should not be further assessed. (Which is how it should always have been, imo.)
The rest of us (the vast majority) will be ground through his mill whenever our name comes up in his lottery. The vast majority of us are most likely to be considered 'unworthy' in order to balance their books, and get him a seat in the House of Lords.
5 -
There has been absolutely no mention of 'substantial risk' or any change to it in the 'UC & Pip Bill,' nor it's amendments.
Substantial risk is considered when a claimant already has LCW but doesn't (otherwise) fit the criteria for LCWRA, but they, or others would be at 'substantial risk' if they weren't placed in the LCWRA group (if such a claimant was asked to engage in looking into work/actual employed).
Links about this & 'severe conditions' previously quoted from Benefits and Work were from 22 June just after the Bill was first published on 18 June.
The 'severe conditions' criteria (which already exists) is completely different; you need to meet one of the LCWRA descriptors & all 4 of these need to apply:
- the level of function will always meet LCWRA
- it's a lifelong condition with
- no realistic prospect of recovery of function
- it's an unambiguous condition (with a medical diagnosis)
The latest amendment to the UC & PIP Bill on 3 July has added that fluctuating conditions such as Parkinson's & multiple sclerosis will also apply. [There had been concern that the Bill said that a 'severe condition' had to 'constantly' apply]
I have no way of knowing if the statement B & W made about those with 'substantial risk' not meeting the criteria for 'severe conditions' is correct, for, as I say, 'substantial risk' isn't even mentioned in this Bill.
3 -
Claimants in the "substantial risk" category, which is a ****-group to the limited capability for work and work-related activity (LCWRA) category, do not meet "Severe Conditions criteria", and the answer to why they do not meet is this:
- The level of function will always meet LCWRA criteria.
In other words, they were awarded LCWRA not on the basis of their functional limitations, but on substantial risk.
This is quite similar to the refugee status.
Asylum seekers who meet the strict criteria for refugee status under the 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention (persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or social group membership) are granted a refugee status.
But there are many other asylum seekers who fail to meet such strict criteria due to a number of reasons, which are beyond the scope of my comment. But they still face serious threats to their life or well-being if returned to their home country. This often includes those fleeing widespread violence, armed conflict, or other situations where their life or safety is at serious risk, even if not due to individual persecution. A small number among this group are granted a refugee status due to humanitarian reasons, even though they haven't met the strict criteria under the 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention.
2
Categories
- All Categories
- 15.5K Start here and say hello!
- 7.3K Coffee lounge
- 89 Games den
- 1.7K People power
- 122 Announcements and information
- 24.1K Talk about life
- 5.8K Everyday life
- 426 Current affairs
- 2.4K Families and carers
- 873 Education and skills
- 1.9K Work
- 533 Money and bills
- 3.6K Housing and independent living
- 1.1K Transport and travel
- 627 Relationships
- 1.5K Mental health and wellbeing
- 2.5K Talk about your impairment
- 867 Rare, invisible, and undiagnosed conditions
- 923 Neurological impairments and pain
- 2.1K Cerebral Palsy Network
- 1.2K Autism and neurodiversity
- 39.9K Talk about your benefits
- 6K Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)
- 19.7K PIP, DLA, ADP and AA
- 8.5K Universal Credit (UC)
- 5.7K Benefits and income