The Universal Credit Bill becomes law. Here are the changes to disability benefits you need to know
Comments
-
The fight for disabled rights will never stop. I for one, won't. The laws that they use are specific, one being that every agreement has to have a discussion period and a formulation period.
Sounds great on paper. But, in theory, this is one sided. (My opinion) Where is the signeed agreement that said the laws will change during the pandemic for assessment? And where are the laws that have taken back those same laws as we are no longer in a Pandemic.
PDF documents are agreed and signed documents that BOTH side must agree to. If one side, (our side) send in a White paper asking for certain things to be looked at, like the cost of Disability, home help, electric and gas capping for the disabled to name some, it's because some one (An Expert) has looked at the costing and said its not the same as able bodied people.
So why are 'our experts' not listened to yet some who is not disabled get to make the final call? No they don't. they have to show supporting evidence. I have seen none….. Professor Harrington wrote 1000 page plus documents as to what is wrong with the system, yet year after year the government produced a GREEN PAPER as to what they are going to do. I have read this and also the previous draft copies, and they are rubbish. (my opinion)
I have to keep writing MY OPINION since I have access to documents that others don't. And it is because of this I fight for disability rights with MP's and AM's in both the Senedd in Wales and beyond.
My first comment is that, we have been allocated a budget for disability rights and help, yet the green paper states that it is to help people who are stagnant on the dole. Since when is being stagnant on the dole a disability that requires extra help.
0 -
@MW123.
I am using my old computer to collate documents ready for the next stage for me.
I would like to say I appreciate the comments made, as I have said that this helps me stay on track.
However, I would like to clarify a few points about the assessment framework. While Bond Solon provides valuable training materials, the legal requirements for assessments and expert evidence are governed by the Civil Procedure Rules, Part 35, and its Practice Direction. The specific paragraph numbering you mentioned, 1.00 to 1.15, reflects a training guide,
not statutory law.This distinction matters because while Bond Solon's guidance helps practitioners meet legal standards, assessments can't be invalidated solely for not following their format, what matters legally is whether the assessment meets the core requirements set out in CPR Part 35 for expert evidence to be reliable, objective, and within the expert's area of expertise.
This is quite true, but as an Expert Witness for the court or Tribunal the judge would ask for the expertise of the report writer to show supporting evidence credence in their field of expertise.
Yes I always quote Bond Solon, and not CPR part 35 Section 2, but in actual fact the CPR are based on Bond Solon since it is of little use to the court when questioned that the supporting evidence is an opinion and that they have no 'expertise' to understand the content of the reports written my staff that look after you, including medical information and results.
This is the main reason for the assessment, since most, if not all assessors do not have a medical background, and that is why 'clarity' on things outside their remit is essential for an acceptable decision that both can use.
Keep the comments coming and thank you again for pointing out the above.
0 -
Firstly I would like to thank you for reading my post, and taking the time to comment.
How do you intend to approach the new proposals?
What do you believe will have the greater impact?
What specific actions can members themselves take to make the most difference?
All in one:
Firstly get involved, you and many others have and can continue to make a difference by finding out who is your constituent MP, or AM, as these are the people that represent you in your area.
Who put them their? You did, if you voted for them so they represent you. All MP's by now would have received the proposals of the Green Paper and should have already at meetings months ago discussed this as we would not have a discussion period now to put forward a White paper or manifesto.
You can write to your MP about anything, from waste disposal to up and coming events.
Find out when the have a surgery were you can go and have a coffee and talk about things that affect you. This includes how did you vote at the last call for a vote to support or as a rebuttal against………. you have to know whether you are being listened to, to have an input to anything, and ask questions again if the answer you are given is not explained, 'so you can understand'
On paper the manifesto is exactly what it says its going to do. In fact not all is as it seems. Allocation of budgets, and implementation of budgets are two totally different things. You can allocate a budget for say the NHS, but on this one point in reading the Green paper, about three paragraphs in it states something totally different.
In order to understand policy you have to understand the difference. I am sorry this is where I need to explain so that there are no grey areas open to further interpretation and is in Plain English because this is how I teach. I hope you don't skip the explination but th last paragraph says it all.
Green papers are discussion documents aimed at gathering feedback on policy proposals, while white papers are authoritative reports that outline specific government policies or solutions.
Definitions and Purposes
- Green Paper: A green paper is a preliminary discussion document that presents various ideas and proposals for public consultation. Its primary purpose is to stimulate debate and gather feedback from stakeholders, experts, and the public. It is not a final or binding document but serves as an exploratory tool to open dialogue on potential policies.
- White Paper: A white paper is a more authoritative document that outlines a specific position or proposal. It is often used to present a solution to a problem and is intended to inform and persuade decision-makers. A white paper typically follows the green paper stage and reflects a stronger commitment from the government to move forward with the proposed policy.
Key Differences
- Stage in Policy Development:
- Green papers are usually the first step in the policy-making process, inviting public input before a more refined proposal is developed.
- White papers represent a more advanced stage, indicating that the government is ready to move forward with specific proposals based on feedback received from the green paper.
- Audience:
- Green papers target a broad audience, including the general public, industry stakeholders, and experts, encouraging wide-ranging input and discussion.
- White papers are typically aimed at a more specialized audience, such as policymakers, industry leaders, and academics, providing detailed information and analysis.
- Content:
- Green papers contain preliminary ideas, options, and questions for consideration, allowing for various interpretations and discussions.
- White papers present well-researched arguments, often backed by data and analysis, and outline a definitive set of proposals.
Conclusion
In summary, green papers and white papers serve distinct roles in the policy-making process. Green papers are exploratory and invite public consultation, while white papers are authoritative documents that outline specific policies or solutions, reflecting a commitment to implement those proposals. Understanding these differences is crucial for engaging effectively in policy discussions and decision-making processes.
Example of this is exactly the opposite, where the White paper is an 'upgrade' of policy that allows everyone a chance to have input, but the Government wait for the White paper to be submitted then 'alter' certain aspects, with a view of saying we have had discussions and listened to what STAKEHOLDERS, POLICY INDUSTRY LEADERS, (HOPEFULLY THE UNIONS) ACADEMICS, (LIKE PROFESSOR HARRINGTON, and the GRAYLING REPORT TO NAME TWO.) But I see it the other way round, where we are asked to resolve issues they can't so that when an idea is aired, if it goes wrong its your fault, and if it goes right it was because we listened to the voters and realise we have had hard decisions, but someone has to make them.
I have written many White papers and had input to them since before the 1990's, but the paragraph I referred to earlier said, We have allocated £650 Million to assist Disabled people to get the help they need and to assist them back into work 'when they are ready'
A few lines on and the word DISABLED, (WHICH SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE LONG-TERM SICK) had been changed to, we will include PEOPLE who ARE on the 'dole' and are stagnant without the prospect of getting employment…….
The courses run within the budget are for 'neurodiverse' people. Another change, since the word disability no longer explains the extent of the disability, and by using the words 'long term sick,' explains nothing. Disability, including long-term-sick have been grouped and have different problems.
A PDF File is the end result, where discussion has taken place, (another problem since they have also started implementing sections without prior negotiation.) and a 'mutual agreement' from both sides is formulated where all concerned sign and date that they agree to its content.
Once signed, it can only be altered when all agree to the 'new terms' as some agreements need to be tested, but there are clauses within the contract that states that should a review be completed, and the projected out come, or the costing of implementation out weigh's the results, that they would revert back to the original agreement. There are also clauses that state that in the original contract some issues were not budgeted for, like, document up grades, computer realignment with new legislation, or cyber fraud, where these can be discussed out side the normal contract life, and be 'tweaked' by mutual agreement.
If both parties do not sign then the original contract stands. The assessment process being one such document.
The assessment process changed before, but when the Pandemic struck, different ways to administer the assessment process took place. Powers were given to assessment companies by the DWP to assess people quicker. Since we are no longer in a Pandemic, why have the original rules of assessment been re-introduced.
Why am I having an assessment from the NHS, that allows me to get treatment from source, to include medication not sold over the counter, operations whether they are a 'quick fix' to help with a flare up, or whether they are only to prolong life, and those results, by people who are qualified to write in my medical history, to have another group hired by the DWP to assist them in a backlog, FOR FINANCIAL AID.
If they are hired by the DWP to assess me financially, then I do not need to except the outcome of their reports as they, unlike the NHS do not give their reports on headed paper, do not explain their expertise, in order to assess the many complaints that I may have, and lets be fair most, have more than one problem being delt with by the NHS, yet these assessors do not separate what is Medical Fact and what is their opinion, and can submit a report to the Decision Maker, as they are the ones that hired them because they do not have the medical expertise to understand some of the aliments sent in on a daily basis, to a decision Maker in a hope that the assessment goes right first time.
Bottom line, you have already made a start by asking the question, ask you MP what s/he thinks on how, or what you need to know to get involved. Your parliamentary MP is obliged to answer you.
What is the worse they can do….. nothing, but they know that when it comes to voting time, who they going to call….. YOU. ( or groups like, myth busters, benefits that suit you…) This was the reason I got my name, as no one actually sticks up for our rights…. Although this is now changing, where you can change anything if enough of you ask the same question.
What about asking: Since the pandemic and the new budget being allocated to the Neurodiverse and long-term sick, how many times have you sampled the assessment process to see whether we are getting value for money when the assessment company received £850 for a bog standard assessment that also requires more work, and who pays for that?
I already know the answers, see what they say and post here. YOU WILL BE SHOCKED. Trust me, it will allow them to do something for the money we pay them to do their job.
SORRY ABOUT THE LONG POST. BUT I WILL SEND THIS POST ELSEWARE, FOR OTHERS TO READ AND COMMENT.
0 -
I watched a clip of Kendall being questioned at one of those committee's.
She tried to claim she is not doing things via a spreadsheet, then minutes later started going on about how the current situation is unsustainable which pretty move proved she is working to a spreadsheet.
Also refused to accept she wasnt consulting on the proposals.
The new stuff do we know yet if its a proper consultation? or just a VIP access thing where its only with MPs and disability organisations, as ultimately we still going to see a bunch of people cut off from support as organisations wont accept a cut to the headline payment rate, meaning the cuts will still be on eligibility, but this time the organisations will have some say on where the axe falls.2 -
Things are changing all the time, and again thank those that have read and those that have commented. The comments made are your opinion, and that is great for me. By even people visiting the page and reading the comments made by others, may for them, (could be that they think that they haven't got a clicky comment to make to comment, SO DON'T?) I say, by reading It may give you an insite as to why we are on this site, and why you have joined. You need answers, and deserve them. Not because you are disabled or long term sick but because we here, can talk about every thing and anything.
Its not only about banging the drum, or joining the fight to get…….
Its about changing attitudes. I am not 'fighting' for anything, I am pointing out the laws and charters that have been applied to me incorrectly.
So why should I not be able to get answers?
Who will give them to me?
I have found if you don't ask the right questions then you don't get the right answers.
Here is a comment: Why when asked about people who have been granted DWP do they go back to 2013, and when quoting how many have been refused don't go back to the same date, or separate groups to half the amount.
Sorry guys, I have been doing this to long to not notice, as figures can be made to say anything that the interperter wants them to say.
The white paper is not just for me and people that I talk to its for anyone tthat want to read it.
Ask your MP who has already had input to it? And how long has itt been under discussion. Wait for anyones answer, since ours down here have never stopped looking at our access to benefits, its not something that comes round once a year or once a term.
1 -
🚨 URGENT: Please Raise Awareness of the Autumn White Paper Changes
Hi everyone,
Apologies for my absence – I’ve been focusing on health and campaigning elsewhere. But I urgently need to raise this.The government is pressing ahead with dangerous proposals in the 2025 Autumn White Paper, especially the 5 remaining “Pathways to Work” changes. These will severely impact chronically ill and disabled people, especially those on LCW/LCWRA and ESA cohorts that have been largely ignored in recent campaigns focused solely on PIP.
These are the 5 remaining Pathways To Work proposals in the Autumn White Paper :
Here are the 5 proposals:1: Scrapping the Work Capability Assessment (WCA)
2: Universal Credit Health (UC Health) entitlement via Daily Living Personal Independence Payment (DL PIP)
3: UC Health auto-disqualification for under 22s
4: Introduction of “Unemployment Insurance”
5: “Work Conversations” for UC Health & Unemployment Insurance
According to DWP StatXplore (Nov 2024):
• Only 1,940,853 of 3,025,135 Universal Credit Health Element claimants also receive Daily Living PIP.
This means over 1 million could lose support if the WCA is scrapped and replaced with PIP-only criteria.Many currently on WCA ESA awards wouldn’t qualify and risk losing their lifeline incomes.Full breakdown here:
https://lurgeelife.wordpress.com/2025/08/17/the-5-remaining-pathways-to-work-proposals-the-2025-autumn-white-paper-whats-the-likely-impact/These changes aren’t just harmful—they’re life-threatening. We’ve seen this before: deaths occurred under previous DWP policies. Unless urgently opposed and scrutinised, this callous government will rush these reforms through—just as it did with the UC Bill.
Please read, share, and raise awareness however you can. We must act now to protect lives. Thank you. 🙏🏽
2 -
Posting in support of my friend noonebelieves who has been tirelessly trying to raise awareness about the upcoming 2025 autumn White Paper.
Freedom of Information requests are DATA requests not speculative forms of information and the answers provided are all based on DATA the DWP holds. The DWP always refuse to answer any requests that are based on undecided policy or speculation.
The passage of the UC Bill was significantly affected by it being a Money Bill which meant that once it passed the House of Commons the process was effectively over. The route through the House of Lords was performative and no changes were made to the bill, but regardless of this the UC Bill had LITERALLY no impact on the data provided in the FOIs as they contain REAL DATA not speculative information based on undecided policy.
The FOIs obtained will ensure disability orgs have the DATA they need IMMEDIATELY rather than having to submit their own and wait the usual 4 weeks to get an answer. All my prep work will ensure immediate opposition is possible yet the message is that it's too much too soon? Nope.
Another key bit of information is that all the opposition to PIP before the UC & PIP Bill was even published was based on GREEN PAPER PROPOSALS. So no one was waiting back then for anything more "concrete" to be published before voicing their opposition.
Green Papers are used to gauge opinion and decide what to take forward. If no one is vocalising an opinion then guess what? They get taken forward into White Papers and Bills. And it's way trickier to get u-turns on proposals in White Papers and Bills than it is to get them dropped at Green Paper stage. Also White Papers often contain draft versions of bills and considering the Labour Government's motto is "further and faster" you can bet the autumn White Paper will contain the bill for at least the WCA scrappage and introduction of DL PIP as gateway because these two proposals were not part of the consultation. These are the most destructive proposals of all of the remaining ones.
Opposing now is the best way to get things dropped early so the Government aren't then grappling with the embarrassment of u-turning on White Paper proposals. But as I said it's highly likely a Bill will follow very quickly and be contained in the White Paper itself. It's clear that opposing Green Paper proposals for PIP is good and encouraged but opposing Green Paper proposals for Health Element is foolhardy and discouraged. Good to know 👍
2 -
Final point: the FOI screenshot earlier in the thread that someone seems to think is irrelevant because the date of the request was 1 day before the UC bill passed the House of Lords clearly hasn't read the contents of that FOI.
It doesn't provide data on the dropped 4 point PIP rule at all. It's about those people in receipt of a Health Element benefit (LCW/LCWRA/ESA) who aren't in receipt of DL PIP who have tried and failed to qualify for DL PIP. The FULL AWARD, nothing about scoring 4 points in 1 section.
I requested this data to show how many people will lose their Health Element entitlement if the WCA is scrapped and DL PIP becomes the gateway for Health Element entitlement.
The date of the request is irrelevant to the purpose of the request and the UC Bill had no effect on the data provided in that FOI.
2 -
No, the FOI does not reflect PLANS from the time the response was given, it's DATA on who of the Health Element failed to qualify for DL PIP at their last attempt. So I have no idea why you keep saying it's not a guide to how eligibility will be decided, that's not the purpose of the FOI request!
People were doing the same thing (seeking FOI data) in response to the Green Paper proposals on the 4 point PIP rule and the data obtained from those are a major reason why PIP was dropped from the UC & PIP bill. That proactive set of actions to get FOIs were not based on knowing precise details either because the PIP review was always intended to go ahead anyway (as stated in the Green Paper) but only after the 4 point rule was included in legislation. Dropping that rule from the bill just flipped things around so that the review will now happen first.
So the idea that the FOI showing how many Health Element claimants failed to qualify for DL PIP doesn't have any applicability in this fight is pure nonsense.
The Green Paper specifically states that the scrapping of the WCA and using DL PIP as the gateway to the Health Element is not being consulted on and WILL be introduced via Primary Legislation. See paragraph 37 of the Green Paper specifically and I've attached the paragraph to this post too. So your belief that somehow this would be a surprise addition to what's coming up is baffling and totally misguided. Just because it wasn't included in the consultation doesn't eliminate it from existence. It's going to happen if it's not effectively opposed.
You can engage in this fight in whatever manner you see fit but don't encourage others to follow your lead based on misinformation.
Lives are at stake here.2 -
Thanks Catherine.
My main concern is the lack of protest and lead from disability orgs.
I've written a blog on the 5 remaining Green Paper proposals most likely to be in the autumn White Paper and what the implications are of each (see below link).
Very important point is that the WCA scrappage and introduction of DL PIP as the gateway to the Health Element will be going ahead if not effectively opposed so that is something that we can be 100% sure of.
So, if you feel able, share the blog below and try to rally support for opposing the autumn White Paper on any platform you're already engaging on. Even contact your MP if you feel safe and able to do so. But be very mindful of your own health and welfare, my main concern, as I've said, is the radio silence from disability orgs.
X
https://lurgeelife.wordpress.com/2025/08/17/the-5-remaining-pathways-to-work-proposals-the-2025-autumn-white-paper-whats-the-likely-impact/2 -
And just to add I back up everything in my blog with sources and provide links to those sources. I don't expect people to just take my word for it, I've done extensive research, data interrogation and analysis.
Have a read of it and share if you feel comfortable to.2 -
You have absolutely tapped into why I'm pushing so hard now to protest against the White Paper. The 4 point PIP rule was dropped *despite* the number of loyal MPs to Starmer only because of all vehement protest and lobbying from the disabled community.
The 'Health Element' were the sacrificial lambs in the UC Bill. The 48% cut for new claims after April 2026 went through because focus was mainly on PIP and MPs felt safe to support the cut because not enough protest and lobbying had been done to reinforce to them that this was a terrible idea.
We're in danger of letting this happen again by delaying any sort of protest or pressure on MPs. They need to know well in advance how many people are against these plans otherwise the same result will happen. A bill will be passed which will destroy thousands of chronically ill and disabled people's lives. I'm not standing by and I haven't done since the Green Paper was published. I'm disillusioned with the lack of unity and advocacy in the community for the Health Element.2 -
Let's not start with rumours please @Catherine21 it's best to stick to facts as we don't want people getting more worried than they have to be. 😉
1 -
Yeah it's not speculation though is it. It's as speculative as the 4 point PIP rule, but you do you.
There's lots of shifting of goalposts going on here and revision of points without acknowledging the revision so genuine engagement doesn't seem to be the aim on here so I'm out of this thread.
I'm over on X with the same handle if anyone else is interested in genuine & realistic engagement on this topic.1 -
It's this misuse of the word speculation that I have a problem with. You're undermining opposition to the White Paper now with the misuse of that word.
Speculation is defined as: taking to be true on the basis of insufficient evidence
There is sufficient evidence that DL PIP will be used as the gateway for the 'Health Element' as per the paragraph in the Green Paper I provided above. There is also sufficient evidence that this will result in at least 23% of 'Health Element' claimants becoming ineligile.
I'm adding this final statement because you're continuing to mislead people by using the word "speculate" incorrectly which has the effect of undermining efforts to oppose the White Paper now.
You communicate with such authority on here yet hadn't even read paragraph *37* of the Green Paper. That tells me everything I need to know about your ability to accurately gauge the situation for the 'Health Element'.1 -
Important additional point:
The PIP 4 point rule was going to be introduced prior to the planned PIP review so if you vocalised your protest of that rule then you were doing so based on "speculation" (applying your use of this word).
The PIP review, which was due to be undertaken AFTER the planned 4 point rule implementation (before it was dropped from the bill), may have changed eligibility criteria so if you protested against that policy then you are now a hypocrite for saying we should wait to know eligibility details for the 'Health Element'. It's exactly the same situation.
The Timms PIP review is due to conclude in August 2026 so we can only base failure rate figures on current criteria in exactly the same way people protesting the 4 point PIP rule did.
The Timms PIP review may result in eligibility changing but, by your method, that means we can't even protest the White Paper because that isn't going to tell us what the DL PIP eligibility criteria will be following the PIP review.1 -
Paragraph 37 *literally* states that the Work Capability Assessment will be scrapped in the first line of that paragraph and that access to UC Health will be via qualification of DL PIP. It *literally* states that this will be implemented via Primary Legislation.
Your revisionism of the facts is so easily disproven! Good grief. You really are so intent on believing your own fantasy version.1 -
0
-
I said that if you protested the 4 point PIP rule based on the Green Paper before the UC & PIP Bill was published (so between March and June) that would make you a hypocrite.
You've said you did raise concerns about the Green Paper with your MP so you did vocalise your opposition based on what you would call "speculation" (the Green Paper).
You've then contradicted yourself again by saying "the current descriptors remain the basis for scrutiny" but then in previous posts you've said that the FOI isn't useful for protesting because it's a snapshot of the eligibility criteria now.
Your apparent need to be right is blinding you to the actual evidence and reality of the situation and causing you to make multiple contradictions and illogical statements.1 -
I've already provided my reasons for not waiting for the publication of the White Paper so your suggestion is something I cannot inherently get behind. You have the option of not engaging with this thread if you find it jarring.
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 16.1K Start here and say hello!
- 7.5K Coffee lounge
- 114 Games den
- 1.8K People power
- 164 Announcements and information
- 25.3K Talk about life
- 6.1K Everyday life
- 399 Current affairs
- 2.5K Families and carers
- 881 Education and skills
- 2K Work
- 591 Money and bills
- 3.8K Housing and independent living
- 1.2K Transport and travel
- 657 Relationships
- 1.6K Mental health and wellbeing
- 2.5K Talk about your impairment
- 881 Rare, invisible, & undiagnosed conditions
- 943 Neurological impairments and pain
- 2.3K Cerebral Palsy Network
- 1.3K Autism and neurodiversity
- 41.2K Talk about your benefits
- 6.2K Employment & Support Allowance (ESA)
- 20.4K PIP, DLA, ADP & AA
- 9.3K Universal Credit (UC)
- 5.3K Benefits and income




