Future of CB-ESA & other Green Paper proposals not included in the UC & PIP Bill

That is how it works and why nothing is ever discussed , its a form of silencing us .

You have not offended me at all MW, you have been excellent with all your input throughout this whole debacle, in fact you have really been a fab front runner with your factual knowledge. We all post under wrong headings at times, I know I have, everything at the moment is extremely confusing and about as clear as mud ! Don't stress about it, it wasn't an intentional infraction on your behalf, as Catherine says, we have all done it at some point 😊

Nothing new here. Just present understanding of situation.

Copilot:

Based on page discussions and interpretations of statements from Stephen Timms, it seems there’s a two-part expectation emerging for LCWRA treatment under the proposed timeline.

🕰️ LCWRA status before April 2026

• Claimants already on UC with LCWRA classification, or those newly awarded LCWRA before April 2026, are expected to retain it.
• Timms reportedly said the definition of “severely disabled” will remain unchanged during this phase, which many interpret as preserving LCWRA protections under existing criteria.

🔮 LCWRA status post-2028 migration from NS-ESA (if it’s scrapped)

Now here’s the hazy bit:

• If NS-ESA is replaced by time-limited insurance payments in 2028/29, and then those claimants are migrated to UC, the situation might not guarantee continuity of LCWRA status.
• Why? Because if the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) is scrapped—as proposed—there may be a replacement health assessment, with different (likely narrower) criteria.
• Although Timms mentioned protections for those currently defined as “severely disabled,” it's unclear if that umbrella extends to:
  • Those moved from the insurance-based benefit, or
  • Those reassessed under new criteria post-WCA

🧠 Forum sentiment (from Scope page)

“The LCWRA criteria may not change for current UC claimants—but future assessments could be stricter, especially if WCA is removed.”

Many are hoping continuity will apply across the board—but without formal wording, there’s worry that legacy NS-ESA Support Group members won’t be mapped automatically onto LCWRA.

If someone is transferred from New Style ESA (NS-ESA) to the proposed time-limited insurance payment, and then onto Universal Credit (UC) while retaining LCWRA status, here's how the payments would compare across each stage:

💷 Payment Comparison: NS-ESA vs Insurance vs UC (with LCWRA)

🧠 Key Insights

• The time-limited insurance payment is expected to mirror NS-ESA rates, including the Support Group component, but will be capped at 12 months.
• If the claimant retains LCWRA status upon moving to UC:
  • Before April 2026: They receive the full LCWRA rate (£423.27/month).
  • After April 2026: They may receive the reduced LCWRA rate (£216/month), unless they qualify as “severely disabled” or terminally ill under the Severe Conditions Criteria (SCC).
• The drop from £823.41 to £616.14/month represents a loss of over £200/month if the reduced LCWRA rate applies.

—the Severe Conditions Criteria (SCC) and LCWRA overlap in purpose but differ significantly in how they're judged.

⚖️ Key Differences Between SCC and LCWRA

🧠 What SCC Requires (All Must Be Met)

1. Lifelong condition – Present from birth or acquired, with no cure.
2. No realistic prospect of recovery – Based on current NHS treatments.
3. Unambiguous diagnosis – Fully investigated and clinically confirmed.
4. Function always meets LCWRA – Not just most of the time, but always.

🔍 Why This Matters

If someone qualifies for LCWRA today due to fluctuating symptoms or substantial risk (e.g. seizures, mental health crises), they won’t automatically qualify for SCC. That means they could:

• Receive lower payments under UC reforms
• Face future reassessments
• Lose protections unless their condition worsens to meet SCC

Would you like help mapping your own descriptors against SCC criteria?

SCC vs LCWRA?

🧠 The Apparent Dichotomy

Stephen Timms’ statement during the PIP Bill third reading seems to offer reassurance that the Severe Conditions Criteria (SCC) will accommodate fluctuating conditions, because:

“People need to meet the descriptors reliably, safely, repeatedly and in a reasonable time frame... The word ‘constantly’ refers to the functional criteria needing to apply at all times, not to somebody’s symptoms.”

This implies that fluctuating symptoms can still qualify—as long as the functional impact is consistently present when assessed against the descriptors.

⚠️ But What the SCC Legislation Actually Requires

The bill itself, and accompanying DWP guidance, still outline four strict conditions for SCC eligibility:

1. Lifelong condition with no cure
2. No realistic prospect of recovery
3. Unambiguous diagnosis
4. Function always meets LCWRA descriptors—not just “most of the time,” but always

And crucially:

• Substantial risk clause (used for many fluctuating conditions) does not qualify under SCC
• The phrase “function always meets LCWRA” is interpreted by many as excluding those whose limitations vary—even if they meet the descriptors most of the time

🧩 So What’s Going On?

Timms appears to be reframing “constantly” to mean that functional limitations must be assessed using the same reliability standards as current LCWRA guidance. That would include:

• Fluctuating conditions, if they meet descriptors on more than 50% of days
• Conditions like MS or Parkinson’s, which may vary but still meet descriptors reliably

However, the bill’s wording and DWP’s own impact assessments suggest that SCC is far narrower—and many claimants currently qualifying under LCWRA (especially via substantial risk or fluctuating symptoms) will not meet SCC.

🧭 What This Means for Claimants

• If you qualify for LCWRA today due to fluctuating symptoms, you’re not guaranteed SCC protection under the new rules.
• Timms’ statement may reflect intent, but the legislation and guidance still lean toward stricter interpretation.
• Advocacy groups are calling this reassurance disingenuous, and pushing for clearer alignment between policy language and ministerial assurances.

And crucially, substantial risk (Regulation 35) is not accepted as a route into SCC. So while Timms says fluctuating conditions can qualify, the guidance and impact assessments suggest many current LCWRA claimants—especially those qualifying via substantial risk—won’t be protected under SCC.

Baroness Lister even raised this contradiction in the Lords debate, urging secondary legislation to resolve it.

Timms has publicly stated that fluctuating conditions should be eligible for SCC. But unless the bill’s wording and guidance are amended to reflect that, many claimants may still be excluded in practice.

Would you like help drafting a letter that cites Timms’ statement and calls for alignment between policy intent and legal wording?