UK: Disability benefits (UC, ESA and PIP) - news and updates 2024 and 2025

JellyBabyKid said:
This is very well put. Would you mind if I quoted it to my MP and in my green paper response?

One of our group has an MP meeting I have offered to right a briefing for, and this would be very helpful indeed.
Click to expand...
Be my guest. :thumbsup:
Chestnut tree said:
It seems the whole western political world seems obsessed with getting disabled people to work, but also are unwilling to improve healthcare or research to give us opportunities to do so.

If I were able to work I would do so because my life was a thousand percent easier when I was working.
Click to expand...
This, and this.
Kitty said:
Out of curiosity I looked up the daily living activities for which 8 points are available. There were more than I remembered.

Only the first one applies to me more than 50% of the time, but I wouldn't expect to be able to argue it—at least not if I want my assessment done on paper. And I already have enough points for an enhanced award.

Activity 1
Cannot prepare and cook food.

Activity 3
Needs supervision, prompting or assistance to be able to manage therapy that takes more than 14 hours a week.

Activity 4
Cannot wash and bathe at all and needs another person to wash their entire body.

Activity 5
Needs assistance to be able to manage incontinence of both bladder and bowel.

Activity 6
Cannot dress or undress at all.

Activity 7
Needs communication support to be able to express or understand basic verbal information.

Activity 8
Cannot read or understand signs, symbols or words at all.

Activity 9
Cannot engage with other people due to such engagement causing either - (i) overwhelming psychological distress to the claimant; or (ii) the claimant to exhibit behaviour which would result in a substantial risk of harm to the claimant or another person.
Click to expand...
That is extreme, and seriously out of touch. I have no doubt they know that.
 
Kiristar said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp3q7584v07o
Eye boggling attitudes amongst some.
Click to expand...
Wow

‘For Alex Ballinger, who was elected as Labour MP for Halesowen last year, his party is about "increasing opportunities for the most vulnerable people in society".

"We're about improving life outcomes and being ambitious for those people who maybe need a bit more encouragement," he said. "I think all those are things that could chime with Labour values."’

Yes because all disabled people need is a bit of ambition (sarcasm).

How can people be so dense. And then the former Left wonders why people are running away from them.
 
ME Association:


PIP assessments for people with ME/CFS: DWP training and guidance for PIP assessors

Obtained through a Freedom of Information request, this is the new training and information document on ME/CFS that has been prepared for people who are involved in assessing claims for PIP.

If you are making a claim for PIP, or challenging a PIP decision, you should find this information on our website helpful.

And thanks to the Sheffield ME and Fibromyalgia Group for passing on this document

Read Dr Charles Shepherd's (MEA Hon. Medical Adviser) comments on this document here:

https://meassociation.org.uk/lopp

#pwME #MECFS #MyalgicEncephalomyelits #WelfareReform #BenefitCuts #PersonalIndependencePayment #PIP

https://twitter.com/user/status/1925820584073539963
Click to expand...
 
Dolphin said:
ME Association:


PIP assessments for people with ME/CFS: DWP training and guidance for PIP assessors

Obtained through a Freedom of Information request, this is the new training and information document on ME/CFS that has been prepared for people who are involved in assessing claims for PIP.

If you are making a claim for PIP, or challenging a PIP decision, you should find this information on our website helpful.

And thanks to the Sheffield ME and Fibromyalgia Group for passing on this document

Read Dr Charles Shepherd's (MEA Hon. Medical Adviser) comments on this document here:

https://meassociation.org.uk/lopp

#pwME #MECFS #MyalgicEncephalomyelits #WelfareReform #BenefitCuts #PersonalIndependencePayment #PIP
Click to expand...
from Dr Shepherd at link

Firstly, it is very frustrating to find that almost everything from page 20 onwards has been redacted and I cannot understand the legal reason for doing this. We will try and find out why….
Click to expand...
Its obvious why... They are 'expected responses' - ie how the assessor chould expect a person w severe ME to respond to a question... so it'll have been redacted to prevent fraudsters simply saying whatever it says theyre expected to say!

I hope they stay redacted!! at least not for public consumption - otherwise when people give genuine answers that are too close to the guidance they'll be suspected of making it up!!
 
I do like a few of the details mixed in this mess of a PIP change, such as:

-the severe people or those with unchangeable conditions never having to be reviewed again
-actual good support to tackle obstacles to employment for those for whom that is appropriate
-people being able to have the chance to try without immediately losing benefits.

What I don't like is obviously this will come with a sweeping club that causes issues for many people who are in need who will lose it because the system doesn't understand.
 
PrairieLights said:
I do like a few of the details mixed in this mess of a PIP change, such as:

-the severe people or those with unchangeable conditions never having to be reviewed again
-actual good support to tackle obstacles to employment for those for whom that is appropriate
-people being able to have the chance to try without immediately losing benefits.

What I don't like is obviously this will come with a sweeping club that causes issues for many people who are in need who will lose it because the system doesn't understand.
Click to expand...
I do actually wonder why they have gone about this like a bunch of idiots. They could have spun it differently and minimised the fallout, instead of sniggering and calling PIP pocket money etc.
I don’t love reforms but there’s some reasonable stuff as well as the massive cash grab.
 
PrairieLights said:
-people being able to have the chance to try without immediately losing benefits.
Click to expand...
This is one change I fully support. The poverty trap is very real.

I have not checked the rules for a while, but in Australia at least it also applies to other aspects of your life, not just employment status. It is also affected by relationship status, and often in a fairly punitive way that leaves the sick person worse off overall, particularly if the relationship lasts more than two years and then ends. IOW, it is a massive disincentive to enter into a relationship, particularly a cohabiting one.

Because apparently we just don't suffer enough social isolation and loneliness and financial deprivation and uncertainty to satisfy those with an insatiable lust to punish the sick and undeserving. So we get shafted in both directions.

Must be more of those wonderful generous secondary benefits of the 'sick role' I keep getting promised, that will come along any day now. Yep, any day. Been waiting more than 40 years already, but I am sure it will happen and my life will be all salads and sun forever after.

:bored:

MrMagoo said:
I do actually wonder why they have gone about this like a bunch of idiots. They could have spun it differently and minimised the fallout, instead of sniggering and calling PIP pocket money etc.
Click to expand...
Tells you everything you need to know about what they really think of us.
 
Last edited:
For anyone on Twitter/X concerned about the UK government DWP proposed Cuts, it's well worth following
Dr Jay Watts ('Consultant clinical psychologist/ activist ... ).

Dr Jay Watts is an NHS psychologist and also a totally Up Front/In Yer Face Patient Activist who doesn't hold back from criticizing Drs/NHS harmful treatments/behaviors (being also a patient herself)

Dr Jay Watts https://x.com/Shrink_at_Large

She has been fantastically pro-active in doing FOIs to the DWP and setting out the figures of those who will be most impacted by the government's proposed cuts.

Jay Watts focusses mostly on the impact on mental health patients/claimants. But most of her points apply equally to people with multisystem diseases, in fact her tweets are massively useful for all of the people who will lose out if the cuts go through - excellent figures for those writing to their MPs.

I use Dr Jay Watt's figures/info in letters to my MP about the DWP cuts. Invaluable.

.
 
Last edited:
I'd posted earlier about my MP never replying to my emails. I thought I'd try one last time. Among other points I highlighted the #TakingthePIP campaign (such a brilliant slogan).

To my surprise I got a reply and extensive one. Whaddayouknow, she's enthusiastically in favour of it all. She doesn't mention the 4 point requirement or it's effect on LCWRA/SG at all. As she rightly says Scotland has its own benefit, ADP, but the cuts will be passed on to the Scottish Government through the Barnett Formula, meaning either changes to ADP or cuts elsewhere in the budget. There is also an issue that I've never seen raised anywhere - if they abolish the WCA then a Scotland-only assessment for ADP would be the gateway for UK wide benefits. That could be a total minefield.
 
I wrote to my MP who then wrote on my behalf to Stephen Timms MP.

Here is the reply, edited to remove my personal info. Also it removed the formatting so is a bit annoying



________________________

Dear Alison, [my MP]
Thank you for your email of 8 May on behalf of [me and my info], about health and disability
benefit reforms.
At the heart of our reforms is a mission to give people a better life, by
protecting people who need it and helping people into work where they
can, particularly disabled people who deserve equal choices and
chances.
Our reforms intend, first and foremost, to protect the most vulnerable. We
are ensuring they are protected now, by maintaining their incomes and
investing in the NHS and social care, and protected in the future, by
putting our social security system onto a sustainable footing to enable it to
endure for the long term.
Personal Independence Payment (PIP) is an important benefit that
contributes to the extra living costs of a disability or health condition. This
support needs to be more targeted to protect this vital safety net for future
generations. We are taking action to focus PIP more on those with higher
needs. We will introduce a new requirement that, in addition to the
existing eligibility criteria, people must score a minimum of 4 points in at
least one daily living activity to be eligible for the daily living component.

The changes to the PIP eligibility criteria will mean that people with a
higher level of functional need - for example, people who are unable to
complete activities at all, or who require more help from others to
complete them - will still receive PIP.
There will be no immediate changes. Our intention is that the changes will
apply to new claims and award reviews from November 2026, subject to
Parliamentary approval. The OBR has taken into account expected
behavioural changes in its numbers and determined that 9 in 10 current
PIP recipients will still be entitled to PIP in 29/30. In keeping with existing
policy, people on State Pension age are not routinely fully reviewed and
will not be affected by these changes.
Even with these reforms, the overall number of people on PIP is expected
to rise by 800,000 by the end of this Parliament and spending will rise
from £23 billion in 24/25 to £31 billion in 29/30.
For those already getting PIP, it will not simply be taken away. Any
changes will only apply at their next award review. No one will lose PIP
without first being assessed by a trained assessor or healthcare
professional, who takes into account individual needs and circumstance.
Someone who does not score 4 points in an activity in a previous
assessment may well score 4 points in a future assessment, not least as
many conditions tend to get worse, not better, over time.
We are consulting on how we best support those who do lose entitlement
to PIP, and that this includes looking at passporting to Carer's Allowance.
We are committed to ensuring that anyone who is no longer eligible for
PIP still has their health and eligible care needs met, and we are working
closely with the Department for Health and Social Care.
We have also announced a wider review of the PIP assessment, including
the descriptors, to make it fair and fit for purpose, which I am leading. We
are bringing together a range of experts, stakeholders and people with
lived experience to consider how best to do this. We will provide further
details as plans progress.
The changes we are making will enable additional investment in
employment support for disabled people and people with health
conditions, rising to £1 billion a year by 2030. This support is essential in
helping disabled people and those with long-term health conditions into
work, which is the most effective route out of poverty for them and their
families. Disabled adults in work are less than half as likely to be in
poverty (DWP official HBAI stats 23/24).

We urgently need reform to protect disabled people, ensure our social
security system can be there for the future, and restore trust and fairness
in the system. We need to take decisive action to tackle a situation in
which claims are set to double from 2 million to over 4.3 million this
decade. Disability prevalence has already increased by 17 per cent in
England and Wales but is outstripped by demand for health and disability
benefits, where the caseload has increased at double the rate, at 34 per
cent.
With all best wishes,
 
I'm trying to read through the Green Paper and take notes pre to completing the consultation. I've sidetracked into looking at the DWP research paper

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...on-the-employment-outcomes-of-disabled-people

this is the paper that shows that more employment support only leads to an additional 3% going into work, but here's what the Green Paper says -

88. We also know that employment support makes a significant difference to the work prospects of disabled people and people with health conditions, as demonstrated by the evidence published alongside this Green Paper. Additional Work Coach Support, where people on the health journey spent more time with a work coach, found that voluntary participants in the LCWRA group were a third more likely to be in work than a comparison group 12 months later

and I'm sure I've seen claims that almost 40% of people started work because of it.

Interestingly almost 8% of both active and control groups were in work at the start of the intervention and that stayed pretty stable for the Control group. The Active Group increases gradually after a delay but appears to be falling at the end of 12 months. One third of this Group is working less than 16 hours, which could be a single hour on the National Living Wage.

The active participants were volunteers so could have been in better health, eager to work, motivated, with up-to-date skills and contacts.

Only started looking at this but it has a scent of aquatic life.
 
tornandfrayed said:
I'm trying to read through the Green Paper and take notes pre to completing the consultation. I've sidetracked into looking at the DWP research paper

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...on-the-employment-outcomes-of-disabled-people

this is the paper that shows that more employment support only leads to an additional 3% going into work, but here's what the Green Paper says -

88. We also know that employment support makes a significant difference to the work prospects of disabled people and people with health conditions, as demonstrated by the evidence published alongside this Green Paper. Additional Work Coach Support, where people on the health journey spent more time with a work coach, found that voluntary participants in the LCWRA group were a third more likely to be in work than a comparison group 12 months later

and I'm sure I've seen claims that almost 40% of people started work because of it.

Interestingly almost 8% of both active and control groups were in work at the start of the intervention and that stayed pretty stable for the Control group. The Active Group increases gradually after a delay but appears to be falling at the end of 12 months. One third of this Group is working less than 16 hours, which could be a single hour on the National Living Wage.

The active participants were volunteers so could have been in better health, eager to work, motivated, with up-to-date skills and contacts.

Only started looking at this but it has a scent of aquatic life.
Click to expand...
Someone should FOI the source figures for the claims!
 
tornandfrayed said:
I'm trying to read through the Green Paper and take notes pre to completing the consultation. I've sidetracked into looking at the DWP research paper

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...on-the-employment-outcomes-of-disabled-people

this is the paper that shows that more employment support only leads to an additional 3% going into work, but here's what the Green Paper says -

88. We also know that employment support makes a significant difference to the work prospects of disabled people and people with health conditions, as demonstrated by the evidence published alongside this Green Paper. Additional Work Coach Support, where people on the health journey spent more time with a work coach, found that voluntary participants in the LCWRA group were a third more likely to be in work than a comparison group 12 months later

and I'm sure I've seen claims that almost 40% of people started work because of it.

Interestingly almost 8% of both active and control groups were in work at the start of the intervention and that stayed pretty stable for the Control group. The Active Group increases gradually after a delay but appears to be falling at the end of 12 months. One third of this Group is working less than 16 hours, which could be a single hour on the National Living Wage.

The active participants were volunteers so could have been in better health, eager to work, motivated, with up-to-date skills and contacts.

Only started looking at this but it has a scent of aquatic life.
Click to expand...

It's always going to matter what the health issues or disabilities are and how obstacles that can be overcome are dealt with... they never seem to be that detailed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom