The DWP has launched an entirely bogus consultation on changes to personal independence payment (PIP) and universal credit (UC) by refusing to consult on almost everything that matters most to claimants.

The Pathways to Work: Reforming Benefits and Support to Get Britain Working Green Paper sets out proposed changes to PIP, including preventing anyone who does not score at least one 4 point or more descriptor from being eligible for the daily living component.

It also proposes to freeze the LCWRA (health) element of UC and abolish the WCA.

Non-consultation

Yet the list of things that the DWP is refusing to consult on, meaning there are no questions about them in the online consultation, includes:

  • Scrapping the WCA
  • Creating a single assessment for PIP and the UC health element
  • Freezing the health element of UC until 2029/30
  • Only awarding PIP daily living if you get at least one descriptor scoring 4 or more points
  • Restarting WCA reassessments until the WCA is scrapped

(You can find a full list of the issues the DWP will and won’t be consulting on at Annex A of the Green Paper).

Leading questions

Instead of asking for feedback on these vital issues, the consultation asks questions that make the assumption that participants accept that people should lose their PIP:

2. What support do you think we could provide for those who will lose their Personal Independence Payment entitlement as a result of a new additional requirement to score at least 4 points on one daily living activity?

3. How could we improve the experience of the health and care system for people who are claiming Personal Independence Payment who would lose entitlement?

Missing information

Vital information that would allow people to have an informed opinion even on questions like those above has been deliberately withheld from the Green Paper.

For example, the DWP knows precisely, or could make a very accurate estimate of, how many current claimants would lose their award on review if their condition remains unchanged and the new system is introduced.

It also knows what condition those claimants have: how many have physical conditions like arthritis, mental health conditions like anxiety and depression, neurodevelopmental issues like ASD or ADHD.

The DWP knows, but it’s not telling us.

Yet how can you properly answer questions like the ones above if you don’t know who is most likely to be affected?   

Benefits and Work has made a Freedom of Information request for these figures, but we suspect they will not be forthcoming.

The information may be included in the impact assessment due to be published on 26th March.

Otherwise, perhaps readers could ask their MPs or a friendly member of the House of Lords to ask for them?

Judicial review

In January of this year, the High Court found that a Conservative consultation on changes to the work capability assessment (WCA) was unlawful, meaning that the changes could not go ahead.

The judge held that the DWP had: failed to adequately explain the proposals; had failed to explain that the main purpose was to save money rather than to get claimants into work; had failed to provide sufficient time for the consultation.

At the time, many of us thought that this meant that the DWP under Labour would have to carry out an honest consultation on changes to PIP and UC.

Instead, the lesson that the DWP has learnt is not that it should be honest, but instead that it should just not consult on anything meaningful at all.

According to the House of Commons Library:

“In some cases, public bodies have a legal duty to carry out a consultation. There will be legal duty to consult where:

  • there is legislation which requires a consultation
  • a government department or public body has promised to consult
  • there is an established practice of consultation in similar cases
  • not consulting would lead to obvious unfairness (in exceptional cases)”

We would argue that there is a very definite ”established practice of consultation” in relation to major changes to disability and incapacity benefits and that the current exercise is an attempt to pass off a fake consultation as the real thing.

It was the Public Law Project which won the case against the DWP over the WCA consultation.  We very much hope that they will be able launch a similar judicial review over this Green Paper consultation.

Alternative consultation

In the meantime, we hope that a major charity or umbrella body with good standing amongst the public and MPs, such as the Disability Benefits Consortium, will launch an alternative consultation.

It doesn’t need to be long or complicated.  It just needs to ask the questions that the DWP is scared to ask, such as:

Do you agree that only people who score at least 4 points on one daily living activity should get an award of the PIP daily living component?

Do you agree that the WCA should be abolished and replaced with a single assessment for both PIP and the UC health element?

Whatever the results, they could be circulated to MPs and members of the House of Lords who wish to be properly informed before they vote on these issues.

However, time is very short.  The official consultation does not end until 30 June.  But because the DWP have chosen not to consult on major changes, such as the new PIP scoring system, they can introduce new legislation as soon as they wish.  They have stated that they intend to bring forward legislation in this session of parliament, which ends on 21 July, so it could be as early as May that we see the new provisions. 

This means that, even though the change to PIP scoring will not be put into effect until November 2026, the law enabling it could be firmly in place very much sooner.

Silencing voices

The Green paper consultation is so dishonest that we feel unable to recommend that people take part in the way we normally would, though we also know that the DWP may argue that lack of response means that most people do not object to the changes.

In the Green paper, the DWP claim that “We are committed to putting the views and voices of disabled people and people with health conditions at the heart of everything we do.”

In fact, this bogus consultation is entirely about silencing the voices of disabled people and people with health conditions.

The reality is that the DWP under Labour is proving to be even more dishonest and devious than it was under the Tories.

The Green Paper consultation is online here or you can read all the questions in the consultation here.

Comments

Write comments...
or post as a guest
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 hours ago
    If the government need to save £5bn that urgently, an alternative would be to target some of the biggest beneficiaries of welfare who do little-to-nothing for the wider economy, but frequently raise private rents, in turn affecting even many working people who still need to claim Housing Benefit just to keep a roof over their heads. I mean private landlords. This could be achieved with the return of a fair rents policy, which many EU nations have & UK used to have before Thatcherism. That & adding a mere penny tax for the very highest earners would more than cover what the government claims is essential. - Respect to the much, but unfairly maligned Diane Abbott. A politician of principle & integrity. Pity that Labour no longer have more of her calibre. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 hours ago
    How can you do this to the most vulnerable people ? you can give money to other countries to help them but not your own people that suffer with diseases and disabilities and your criticising there needs 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 hours ago
    Just saw a worrying tweet that if they make the proposed 
    changes and remove the ESA support group - or whichever element this applies to on UC - that this will mean the national insurance stamp that used to be paid will be no longer? 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 hours ago
    I had a meeting with my Labour MP  in Nov 24 about what plans Labour had for disability benefits.  I told him about how bad the situiation has been over the last 14 years. He promised to 'speak to the relevant people' and arrange another meeting, with me but of course, did not.  I have emailed him several times to no avail.  Now I know why.  Yesterday's speech by Kendall left me in disbelief and  shock.  Things worse than ever with a sickening 'moral' right wing stance.  

    Does anyone know what the new discriptors for the Daily Living component of PIP will be?  How can hinging the uptake of PIP and the new health element of New UC and New ESA on this be justifiable?  It is clear- this is an ideological Green Paper.  Im going to send it to the UNCRPD Special Rapporteur.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 3 hours ago
    it is a awful scary time. there is just no support anymore. i can't even get a job no matter how much i try even with disability funded support. and now i will lose pip too? they just don't care. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 hours ago
      @Jem There is sometimes support in unusual places Jem - I understand though, it seems like the state is removing the foundation we depend on just to exist, but this won't last, nothing does and this is ill-thought out by committee, who don't seem to appreciate the complexity of actual needs that will fail to be met. What will happen if this goes through, is mass poverty, an overwhelmed and broken system, which "will collapse" in upon itself. Imagine the resulting chaos for the DWP, as those pushed off support, fail to attend interviews, fail to engage with coaches, because they aren't able to - only to be met with punitive measures, which result in health spiraling, which results in 999 calls etc. Which results in demands by the already burdened NHS for more robust systems of support in place for the mentally ill & disabled. The whole thing is absurd. The PIP side especially is utterly ludicrous.

      In the meantime, I think everybody here would be wise to step by step, day by day, look for a way to build a foundation of support "where possible" - through family, friends and even neighbors. I have also found a lot of people in the system do care, but they are frustrated at the rules they have to abide by, many leave because of stress.

      It's a huge problem and in my view, this extends into many aspects of the current culture and system, which is bereft of compassion. It's a greedy world we inhabit with murderous mis-leaders running the show. They can find money for bullets & bombs.

      If I were religious, I'd be praying for Jesus to come and sort it all out - as we need a miracle and global reset at this point in time.

      Tale care x
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 3 hours ago
    I did it, and said until a proper consultation with disabled was done, and more clarity and detail given to disabled to changes in benefit awards, any answer would be assumption, and unrealistic.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 3 hours ago
    I don't understand how the pip assessment can replace the wca in some areas, example, I have crohns disease, due to how that affects me, and daily impact the WCA picks it up, based on the current pip it couldn't. . This government accepted to not change the descriptor on WCA for incontinence as they recognised the daily impact, fluctuations, how it leaves. you and that could not be managed at home or by companies suitably.
    But the Pip if not need help would strike off, even though it impacts you all day, and by their own admission it be an issue for working!

    How would a current pip assessment to score match that, what the government agrees is suitable on the WCA!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 hours ago
      @Dave Elliot
      It all shows, they are not interested in anything working for disabled.   That's, why disabled charities were never consulted.   It's designed by people, who have no interest in exploring, how things work for us...    They have such contempt for us, they can't hide it.  
      We can't give up!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 3 hours ago
    Dear Keir,
    Could you give me the precise percentage of disabled staff you employ? Full time with reasonable adjustments, work aids support etc required? Because I’m struggling to notice them in your government party…
    Unkind regards….
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 3 hours ago
    i've only just had my pip renewed just before xmas. it took 8 months after completing the renewal form just to get a decision and even though i did eventually get it in the meantime it caused me so much stress my panic attacks got far worse, i could never sleep and i got a stomach ulcer due to all the worrying, also my blood pressure was so through the roof i got blurred vision so bad i couldn't see for most of the day,. i have anxiety & depression, im agoraphobic and i have also been diagnosed with mixed personality disorder with emotionally unstable and paranoid personality disorders which means on a good day with all my medication working life is somewhat bearable. i haven't been outside my house in years and due to not being able to look after myself completely i need help with everyday activities such as cleaning etc  when i was awarded this time round i got the higher rate on both components just like i had before. but i never thought to question the scores on the page because i scored high enough for the higher rates on both and was happy it was just done and dusted with but this morning i saw you now need at least a 4 on the daily living part to keep getting that side of the pip but after checking i have all 1s and 2s on almost all daily living parts and i noticed i was only scored a 2 on "mixing with other people" for some reason even though i never go out to mix with anybody and last year the only person i spoke to in the whole year was my psychiatrist, i even spent christmas alone....after seeing this change i've been in a right state and im even thinking of finishing it as it's now getting to much for me to handle...i feel like i'm constantly on edge with the dwp and every time something gets sorted they bring out another rule change that just throws everything up in the air again. is it was them that pushed me into applying for pip in the first place even though i didn't really want to because i thought i wouldnt be accepted for it. they kept sending letters telling me to apply and saying it would make things easier for me and ultimately it did and it really has helped but now they have decided im not entitled to it ...just recently they have also decided i need to be on U.C now where they told me the migration may take 6 weeks to sort out so now no payments and this pip thing hanging over me is driving crazy...once again.. just as things start to settle down they change up and i'm now back to my lowest point again constantly worrying
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 4 hours ago
    Neil Findlay MSP has resigned from Scottish Labour. His resignation letter is excoriating towards Starmer. Labour will get hammered in Scotland next year.

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 hours ago
      @Jonno Lets hope Labour MPs in parliament oppose this government which is anything but labour!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 hours ago
      @Jonno I've been thinking about sending a letter to my local MP, to guarantee him, he has my vote as independent, if he would be kicked out of the party!   His office is known for supporting local people.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 4 hours ago
    I have a question about lcwra, from what I know I was due a review around August last year, I understand there is a backlog, however if I am asked for a review at some point this year will the new rules be in place and I’d have lcwra taken off of me? I don’t get pip, the work capability assessment caused me so much stress I just can’t face going through something like that again, even though im apparently entitled to it.
    This is all so scary! 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 hours ago
      @Lisa Same, the WCA caused me immense stress, starting from the day I unexpectantly received the ESA50 form, that I haven't bothered applying for PIP. Stress degrades people's health both physically and mentally.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 hours ago
      @Lisa Put in a PIP  claim now.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 4 hours ago
    Its a blanket attack on the most vulnerable people.
    The very sickest people, with very severe incurable illness and disease who have already been found by specialists, to be sick enough to be incapable of working again and have been entered into the support groups.
    This would no longer matter under the new proposals.
    They are proposing to remove the WCA and replace it with the PIP assessment.
    Instead, you have to score 4 points for the daily living components of PIP.
    There are many people with very severe illness, who have been found to be incapable of working, by specialists, who may only qualify for 2 points of a PIP descriptor instead of 4 points.
    I.E. You have to have supervision to 'prepare a meal'
    So in the real world what happens is a PIP assessor asks a guy dying of cancer, can you use a microwave?
    The guy doesnt think, and just says yes i can push a button.
    Right youre fit for work sunshine.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 5 hours ago

    Correction to last post please read  …
    Ignore any figures to let’s see the impact statements as to which group the cuts will fall upon asap 

    I personally Estimate the cuts will be extremely high amongst the older claimants currently on PIP opposed to younger claimants as i said i stand to be corrected on this we need transparency? Honesty ?

    I can agree with that sentiment where folk are fit enough to do so have no issue with it
    But the real steel here will come from 
    Old on the back of the headline as to why they see this as moral
    When in fact it’s not the truth at all
    I doubt many young folk trying to claim PIP have
    Close
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 5 hours ago
    Just sent my email letter to my local LABOUR MP.. Alison McGovern 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 hours ago
      @Neil Cook Good luck with that Neil. She comes across as totally uncaring. But kudos for trying.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 5 hours ago
    It's clear that they have used a mathematical method to ensure that low rate PIP care element will be a thing of the past. They have a ideological view of what a disabled person is and it's clear it's very limited. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 5 hours ago
    Some of the folk in this discussion are old and have severe illness and or associated disability as result of this inc MS /heart /severe lung conditions and other similar diagnosis have voiced their fears not least my dear wife who has now lost half her lungs with a horrid progressive disease with no cure that’s recked her life at now aged 74
    Due to changes she will loose all of the living allowance when this gets through along with many thousands of others in similar categories Inc ones I mentioned and many others for the sake of not meeting a 4 point although meet high scores never the less 
    Makes no sense and nothing moral under sir kier starmer argument that can ever justify any of this behaviour 
    This appears as they did their home work prior studying all the point scoring that even those in highest groups with those needs physically which I suspect are the bulk of the cuts will end up loosing thousands with no support financially at all to fill any cut made but just gestures of waffle hoping it all goes away later 
    I have no doubt many young people claim this Benifit also and have no truck with with genuine claimants at all
    However the head line in all this is using the young to justify the the cuts to the old which they would never have used the latter as the headline as politically this would not have helped their moral so called argument and they well know this also the case 
    So in essence the bulk of these cuts will come from the old and needy not dismissing here young folk at all but I’m afraid this 5 billion will come from pip that older end of claimant’s
    With small percentage from the young 
    With no impact statement at this point I stand to be corrected on the numbers involved here but it’s going to be vast amongst the old I feel 
    The headline for all this is getting the young into work ?
    I can agree with that sentiment where folk are fit enough to do so have no issue with it 
    But the real steel here will come from 6/7000
    Old on the back of the headline as to why they see this as moral 
    When in fact it’s not the truth at all
    I doubt many young folk trying to claim PIP have 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 5 hours ago
    I have been trying to not only share this article but also explain on a couple social media platforms how this isn't a proper consultation and my comments are being removed which is very interesting 🤔 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 5 hours ago
    More info for ESA (CB)

    53. Unemployment insurance would be a new non-means tested entitlement for people who have contributed into the system. It would be created by replacing contribution-based Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) and Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) with a new single entitlement, paid at the current ESA rate (currently £138pw) and will be time-limited. This would provide stronger income 54. Alongside levelling up the rate, this change would end the indefinite entitlement to contributory

    ESA for those assessed as having limited capability for work-related activity (for new people claiming). Those unemployed after the time-limited period would be able to claim UC, depending on their personal circumstances. 

    ------------------------------

    I disagree with the above statement.

    I get a very small monthly amount from an 'income protection insurance policy', (I lost out on receiving the full amount, due to a client not paying me in my final 12 months working, and receiving a delayed diagnosis)

    I am only able to claim NS-ESA alongside my monthly income protection payment.
    Because NS-ESA is non means tested, contributory based.

    For any new applicants, who get any stipends from an 'income protection, or payment protection policy, they would not be able to claim UC, as UC is means tested....they would lose out and very probably end up claiming for more benefits than they would have done otherwise!!!

    All the big insurance companies, Aviva, Bupa, etc, have been selling working people, self employed, and employees, 'income protection insurance policies' for decades now, which pay out a certain percentage of your final 12 months earnings, if you contract a serious illness, and are unable to work.
    Usually 50% or less.

    These policies have been sold to millions of working people in the UK.

    None of these people would be able to claim the full amount of UC as well as receive their income protection policy. 

    I bet this aspect was not even taken under consideration by the DWP when they were preparing this paper. 

    Did they consult with the insurance companies? 



    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 54 minutes ago
      @Thatsnotmine. There appear to be so many mines within these proposals it is hard to keep up. Surely this Green Paper would be torn to shreds in the High Court?

      In my opinion the Government is chancing their arm here to see how much they can get away with.

      If the courts give them a bloody nose then they can always say that the judges are the enemies of the people  and the right-wing press such as the DM will back them up.

      Politics is all about the optics. Be seen to be tough, be seen to be taking the hard decisions when all it really is, is smoke and mirrors.

      Let's hope the High Court tears these "plans" to shreds.👍
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 hours ago
    But I thought keir starmers government  were in the courts 2 times with the same. Since then 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 hours ago
    I don't know much about how legal obligations regarding provision for and definition of disability works. But even so, it feels very fishy that Labour are suggesting that many, many disabled people with mobility difficulties now cannot assert that they also have significant needs around certain daily living and self-care tasks - tasks that may realistically be considered (demonstrated even) to be inextricably linked with their mobility limitations. The whole question of repeatedly, reliably, safely and in a timely manner is generally inseparable from the capacity to mobilise, surely? It's as though they're artificially separating a disabled person's capacity for daily living activities from their capacity to mobilise, as though the two aren't actually related. The image I have is of those children's books where you can turn half-pages to give them mismatched legs and bodies.

    This can't be logically or morally defensible, can it? 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 3 hours ago
      @pollenpath I'm not sure it's even legal.  By not allowing those with mobility issues access to UC higher level, surely that is discrimination against that group of ill and disabled people?  The Tory government lost a high court battle over cuts that would have affected those with mental health issues back in 2017.  I don't see how this is different.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 4 hours ago
      @pollenpath Its not just mobility issues which I have I also have had 3 heart attacks, diabetic, and unable to walk due to a childhood accident and on loads of medications and yet just because I can use a microwave to prepare a unhealthy meal which would be bad for my diabetes and heart conditions I may lose the care element when I go into retirement next year and loose the pension credit and thereby rent housing allowance. I may have to end up living on the street.

Free PIP, ESA & UC Updates!

Delivered Fortnightly

Over 110,000 claimants and professionals subscribe to the UK's leading source of benefits news.

 
iContact
We use cookies

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential for the operation of the site, while others help us to improve this site and the user experience (tracking cookies). You can decide for yourself whether you want to allow cookies or not. Please note that if you reject them, you may not be able to use all the functionalities of the site.