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

13»

Comments

  • michael57
    michael57 Online Community Member Posts: 1,627 Championing

    I will not comment about politics any further as its all going round in circles

  • sarah_lea12
    sarah_lea12 Online Community Member Posts: 399 Empowering

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

  • Catherine21
    Catherine21 Posts: 7,352 Championing

    What are we going to do I believe they was all put there to push through soon after starmer will go I'm getting panicky scared people saying 2028 I can imagine timms pushing through because he said he won't say if pip will go through primary legislation they don't care they are not listening and all those mps who backed off and so readily accepted concessions who will suffer us when timms works with no one it's already been written what they think we are dumb oh yes they do

  • Catherine21
    Catherine21 Posts: 7,352 Championing

    I've been emailing loads highlighting uc elements as well thier is a pertition I can't find saying stop timms from doing pip we don't trust him yes and attention going on send schools two child cap why don't they focus on one thing I worked on myself before this with intrusive thoughts and ocd labour has sent us all to hell and back it's the money bill as well they want this pushed through I believe when goes through starmer will leave after 14th July sign us into wef who convention psychological this is damaging

  • chiarieds
    chiarieds Online Community Member Posts: 17,155 Championing

    The World Economic Forum, about which there's a lot of misinformation, and the World Health Organisation are 2 completely different entities, which I've mentioned before (there's also been misinformation about WHO). Neither is relevant to the current discussion about the Gov'ts Green Paper, so I hope we can leave both the WEF & WHO out of this please.

  • Zipz
    Zipz Online Community Member Posts: 2,704 Championing
    edited July 8

    The Timms review of PIP has nothing to do with this topic. This thread is to do with proposals that are still at Green Paper stage.

  • Zipz
    Zipz Online Community Member Posts: 2,704 Championing
  • MW123
    MW123 Scope Member Posts: 1,408 Championing

    Apologies for the mix-up. I’d read the Scope blog that Albus shared in this thread, which outlines the latest on the Universal Credit and PIP Bill and urges us to contact MPs ahead of the 9 July vote. Since the blog focuses on the Bill’s current contents, including cuts to the health element and the PIP assessment review, I thought the thread had shifted toward those proposals. I didn’t spot the thread title at the time, so posting was my mistake. Apologies. I will ask the moderators to delete it and I’m genuinely sorry. I was simply hoping to reach as many members as possible. I certainly didn’t intend to hijack your thread or cause any upset.

  • Catherine21
    Catherine21 Posts: 7,352 Championing

    Its easily done I do all the time no malice intended and you definitely would be the last person to offend anyone dreading tomorrow let's hope it goes our way

  • mrsBB
    mrsBB Online Community Member Posts: 299 Empowering

    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 😊

  • Girl_No1
    Girl_No1 Online Community Member Posts: 370 Pioneering

    I think those of us on NS-ESA and in the position of having no UC access, need to work together and form a strategy to highlight this. It seems to me we are a smallish cohort, and far less glamorous/headline-grabbing than those on UC - despite the potential financial impact being just as, if not more, devastating to us.

    My intention is to write to trades unions. We NS-ESA group are in the position their membership may be unlucky enough to find themselves in in future. For myself, 40+ years of working, and now unable to work, I would have been entitled to basic NS-ESA should the Support Group not exist. The Support Group element has at times made a very real difference to me.

    Trades unions' membership are, literally, one accident, one illness, one mental break away from being us.

    The trades unions hold the purse-strings of (so-called) Labour. They are our best hope, along with people like Frances O'Grady, to fight our small, overlooked corner, imo.

  • Dav1D
    Dav1D Online Community Member Posts: 69 Empowering
    edited July 24

    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)

    Stage

    Weekly Rate (2025)

    Monthly Equivalent

    Notes

    NS-ESA (Support Group)

    £140.55

    ~£562.20

    Includes basic allowance + support component

    Time-Limited Insurance Payment

    £140.55

    ~£562.20

    Proposed to match NS-ESA rate but limited to 12 months

    UC with LCWRA (Pre-April 2026)

    £423.27 LCWRA + £400.14

    ~£823.41

    Full LCWRA element + standard allowance for single adult 25+

    UC with LCWRA (Post-April 2026)

    £216 LCWRA + £400.14

    ~£616.14

    Reduced LCWRA rate for new claimants after April 2026

    🧠 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

    Aspect

    LCWRA (Limited Capability for Work and Work-Related Activity)

    SCC (Severe Conditions Criteria)

    Frequency of limitation

    Must apply “the majority of the time”

    Must apply “constantly” or “at all times”

    Basis of qualification

    Based on functional descriptors (e.g. can't press a button)

    Must meet all four SCC criteria (lifelong, irreversible, etc.)

    Substantial risk clause

    Can qualify if work poses a substantial risk to health

    Cannot qualify under SCC if LCWRA is awarded via risk clause

    Reassessment rules

    Subject to periodic reassessment

    SCC claimants are exempt from future WCAs unless condition improves

    Payment rate (post-April 2026)

    £217.26/month for standard LCWRA

    £423.27/month for SCC-qualified claimants

    🧠 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?