• Search
  • You are here:  
  • Home
  • News
  • DWP launches entirely bogus Green Paper consultation

News

DWP launches entirely bogus Green Paper consultation

Details

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.

 You can try the proposed new PIP test here.

You can also:

keep up with what’s changing and when

find out what you can do if you are unhappy about Labour’s plans

follow the latest news about PIP and UC changes.

 

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.
    Justtrying2help
    · 1 days 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.
    Neil Cook
    · 1 days ago
    Just sent my email letter to my local LABOUR MP.. Alison McGovern 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Neil Cook
      · 17 hours ago
      @Jonno Big mate of Liz Kendall apparently so go figure but at least I've tried
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Jonno
      · 1 days 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.
    Not so Great Britain
    · 1 days 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.
    Justtrying2help
    · 1 days 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.
    Ella16
    · 1 days 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.
    Thatsnotmine.
    · 1 days 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.
      Thatsnotmine
      · 8 hours ago
      @Jonno Im going to write to the Lords, about it. 

      Up to five million people have taken out income protection policies over the last 30 years. 

      If those people only get £100 -£200 per week, (not enough to live on), they had the opportunity to apply for NS ESA as well.

      I get ESA and a small amount from my policy, and I am sure that I would have made a claim for other benefits, if I did not have my income protection policy.

      Those people will have their policies deducted pound for pound if they had to make a claim for UC instead of NS ESA.

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Jonno
      · 1 days 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.
    C shepherd
    · 1 days 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.
    pollenpath
    · 1 days 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.
      SLB
      · 1 days 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.
      AJ
      · 1 days 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.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Doomed by DWP
    · 1 days ago
    These cuts proposals were all drawn up by various rightwing think tanks! You can see where they originate from if you do a little research. For example, the policy about age-limiting and restricting. PIP is from a recent policy document by the Policy Exchange thinktank which was written with  involvement byLord” Blunkett.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Claire
      · 1 days ago
      @Anon2 He’s all for these cuts.Bit like Tony Blair.Hope the courts throw the lot out ,it’s blatant discrimination.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Anon2
      · 1 days ago
      @Doomed by DWP Lord Blunkett is a Labour peer and previous prominent labour MP. Doubt he's 'right-wing'
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Anon
      · 1 days ago
      @Doomed by DWP That's irrelevant, Labour chose to make these cuts, they didn't have to but they are.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Kate
    · 1 days ago
    Almost two years ago, I had to leave work and claim UC, after having suffered with bipolar type II and panic disorder my entire adult life. It was only two weeks ago that Citizens' Advice informed me that I should have been receiving PIP alongside the pittance I get from UC. 

    I really wish I could work. I have tried my hardest, but it always results in deteriorating mental health. I now have to live with parents in my thirties, I cannot afford to drive and have nothing to look forward to. Since claiming UC and being declared LCWRA, I have been hounded by the JobCentre, I have daily panic attacks, I feel to low to leave the house and my weight has dropped to less than 7 stone.

    The prospect of having PIP meant an opportunity to give me some independence and a way to improve my low quality of life. For the first time in years, I felt I had some hope. 

    That's gone now. I honestly feel that Labour have decided my life has no value and I am a burden on the taxpayer. I apologise for having to get this off my chest, but I fear that there is only one way this will end.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Neil Cook
      · 17 hours ago
      @Neil Cook ABSOLUTELY BLOODY DISGRACEFUL 

      Then I'm likely finished one way or the other , someone shoot me now and get it over with. Seriously not joking what's the ruddy point
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      sara
      · 1 days ago
      @Kate
      @Kate,

      1) The proposals have not been made law yet, and none will be for a while, if ever.
      2) You can still apply for pip under the current rules, so get help, darling, and start a claim asap. Knowing the proposals for new eligibility criteria will actually be an advantage as you will be able to lay a foundation for the future. You have already had contact with cab, so to go them again, they will understand how it all works/will work.
      3) If you are in lcwra group the job centre cannot 'hound' you. That is illegal. Again, get help, and stand up to them. Maybe a parent, or someone else, could go with you to cab?

      Best wishes and good luck xx
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Scorpion
      · 1 days ago
      @Neil Cook From the Green Paper of yesterday, not any longer.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Kate
      · 1 days ago
      @Neil Cook I was informed of this by Citizens Advice, but this was after going through the Work Health Programme and finding it so stressful that I sought advice. I hadn't realised it was optional - I told the Job Centre that I want to find work should my health improve and they signed me straight into it. They kept talking about sanctions and how they needed to get me in before spaces ran out so I was under the impression it was mandatory. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Neil Cook
      · 1 days ago
      @Kate If you have LCWRA shouldn't the DWP/jobcentre be obliged to leave you alone?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Pj
    · 1 days ago
    I did do the consultation. However,( and as said in the report above, the questions are not good) where it says how should we help people who will be losing pip, I wrote that they shouldn't be losing it. 
    So maybe it may be worth putting forward that input 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Carbow32
      · 1 days ago
      @Pj I put its barbaric
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      axab43
      · 1 days ago
      @Pj Yes! The questions are designed to intimidate people and throw them off the scent of objecting about these cuts. It is a ridiculous consultation and everyone should just write the same as you did. Don't anyone be intimidated by their game playing.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    ScotD23
    · 1 days ago
    I'm trying to figure out but cant really understand what would be the timeframe for them implementing this. It would have to pass Green paper then would presumably have to get passed by majority in commons and in lords? And then would they just cancel pip for claimants who don't have an individual 4 score, who then have to reapply, or call back for reassessment?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Anon
    · 1 days ago
    Just putting this information on here for all from Scope. Please do reach out to them:

    "If you’re concerned about these changes, you can contact our friendly helpline team for advice. Call us on 0808 800 3333, or email helpline@scope.org.uk.

    Or contact one of the community team Community@scope.org.uk"

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Lynne Molyneux
    · 1 days ago
    I would like to see the Equality Impact Assessment too, that’s not been published yet (another document which will be withheld no doubt until the last moment)…… so even if the consultation ‘was’ asking open questions, we’re being asked to comment without the data as well…..
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Dave Dee
    · 1 days ago
    I looked at the Green Paper and it will obviously receive negative feedback but Starmer and co don't care, someone linked an article from the Express saying that the State Pension is a contributory benefit, NOT an entitlement and I believe just the mention of that means that Starmer are going to go after the State Pension. 

    I warned the Daily Mail crowd but they're blinded by their hated of disabled people on benefits.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Dave Dee
    · 1 days ago
    Labour are just carrying on the Tories' plans but Kendall says cuts are an "act of kindness", I wonder if she learnt how to become an MP after watching Kathy Bates in Misery?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Foxyvala
      · 18 hours ago
      @Dave Dee I have been brought up to vote Labour and I wish I didn't. Ed davey should have got my vote !
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Scorpion
      · 1 days ago
      @Dave Dee Their plan is much worse than the Tory plan. The Tories were abolishing reassessment for current claimants on LCWRA, and were not cutting benefits to anyone, nor were they forcing claimants on LCWRA to engage with work coaches.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Barrie Cooper
    · 1 days ago
    I have answered the consultation pointing out that it is not a proper consultation. On a personal level I have also fed back that if my son loses his support - paid for by his PIP he will be unable to cope, become very unwell and end up needing support from the NHS - rather more costly in human and financial terms than his PIP. I also pointed out that his disability was caused by his birth in an understaffed NHS hospital so he is a victim of the State's incompetence. Unfortunately we were never able to prove this as his medical notes were altered after the event.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Cats
    · 1 days ago
    For those that don't know look at this 👇
    Still raises lots of questions 
    { I believe ALL should be in receipt, Not have barriers and conditions as obstacles put in their way}

    Under 22 highly disabled surly they should be entitled ?
    And cutting rates for the " most disabled"!!  Disgusting!
    It's downgrading disability Element top-ups
    And adding pennies in uprating for standard rate UC.

    Universal Credit (UC):

    The Health Element top-up will be denied to under-22s to prevent a direct path from education to benefits.

    The top-up will also be cut for new claimants - from £97 to £50 per week by 2026/27 - a cut of more than £2,000 a year - and frozen for existing ones –

    The top rate of Universal Credit for the most disabled will be cut (details to follow in Chancellor’s 26 March Spring Statement), but the standard rate will rise above inflation for the first time, reaching a £775 annual increase by 2029-30
    -----------
    Personal Independence Payment (PIP)

    The Green Paper proposes that PIP be more “focussed more on those with higher needs” but will remain non- means tested.

    However, there will be a shift face to face assessment “while ensuring we continue to meet the needs of our people who are claiming, who may require a different method of assessment (e.g., due to the need for a reasonable adjustment).”

    A new new PIP eligibility requirement is proposed to ensure that only those who score a minimum of 4 points in at least one daily living activity will be eligible for the daily living component of PIP. This requirement would need to be met in addition to the existing PIP eligibility criteria.

    This means that people judged to have lower needs only in the daily living activities (scoring 3 or less for each activity) will no longer be eligible for the daily living component of PIP. People with a higher level of functional need in at least one activity will still receive PIP.

    This change will be introduced through primary legislation. It will apply to new claims and for existing people who claim, future eligibility will be decided at their next award review. This change means that people could lose entitlement to the daily living element of PIP and potentially other entitlements linked to this award.

    The Green Paper is consulting on whether those who lose entitlement need any support and what this support could look like – for example transitional protection.

    The Government will also launch a process to review the PIP assessment: “This is a major undertaking which will take time and require extensive engagement, so any changes to the PIP assessment would only be introduced following the reforms set out in this Green Paper.

    “To make sure we get this right, we will bring together a range of experts, stakeholders and people with lived experience to consider how best to do this and to start the process as part of preparing for a review.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      WorkshyLayabout
      · 15 hours ago
      @Cats Those in their late teens and early 20s should get the exact same amount in benefits and wages as everyone who is older. It is unfair and discriminatory for a 19-year-old worker to be paid less for doing to same job as someone who is 35. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      James
      · 1 days ago
      @Cats It is ages discrimination 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Neil Cook
    · 1 days ago
    I currently receive UC/LCWRA if i lose the lcwra part will I lose my housing costs help aswell ? If so I'll be homeless with a mobility scooter and nowhere to go. Oh Christ please not this bad.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Cat
    · 1 days ago
    Been waiting for news on my pip review since August 2024 and just had letter to say they’re extending it for a year .They said next year they may extend it again .Wonder if it anything to do with the fact I score enough points at minute to keep my award but by Nov 26 2026 I won’t .
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Jo
      · 7 hours ago
      @Cat I’ve had the same letter, extended for a year.. my health has got worse with a diagnosis of cancer the treatment has made me so ill, aswell as other health conditions. It’s an absolute joke
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Ala
      · 1 days ago
      @Cat
      I've been waiting since March 2024.  In October, they've send me text about the 12 month extention.   This february, next one:
      "(..) We will look at the available evidence and will contact you with an appointment if we need to have a consultation with you. ...ingeus..."
      So, don't worry, too much, you still have a chance to get it before!

Free PIP, ESA & UC Updates!

Delivered Fortnightly

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

 
iContact

Latest news