- Posts: 2
- Forum
- Members forums
- ESA, PIP, UC and DLA Queries and Results
- Serious flaws in the Pathways to Work Green Paper
× Members
Serious flaws in the Pathways to Work Green Paper
- Heisenberg
- Topic Author
- Away
Less More
4 days 6 hours ago #304789 by Heisenberg
Serious flaws in the Pathways to Work Green Paper was created by Heisenberg
Hi all,
I am noticing serious flaws in the proposed changes to sickness and disability benefits:
The most blatantly obvious one is that PIP can be claimed regardless of employment status, and, of course, the respective regulations were not drafted with employment in mind, or a Claimant's fitness to work. To that end, the new "assessment period" is going to be inherently flawed. For example, If a severely ill person puts a claim in for PIP, will they have to submit sick notes in the run up to the assessment? That, of course, makes no sense, not least because PIP can be claimed by employed Claimants. If they don't need to submit sick notes, presumably they won't get paid anything to tie them over whilst they are severely ill, and therefore have no social security. I can't see the government paying Claimants in the absence of any sick notes in the "assessment period", as that would invite abuse of the system.
Another serious flaw is the "required period" PIP regulations. If someone suffers a serious short-term illness such as meningitis, or gets into a car accident and breaks both arms and legs, they won't qualify for PIP, as they would be expected to recover in less than 9 months or a year. How is someone like that meant to survive if they can't work, especially if they were unemployed or self-employed at the time of the accident?
In terms of the "substantial risk" regulations, I can't see a reasonable solution there either, as all the government is essentially doing is reinventing the work capability assessment (WCA) in the form of a PIP assessment, or somehow curiously merging the regulations. That is certainly not scrapping the WCA. I suspect what the will probably attempt to do is simply replace the WCA descriptors with PIP descriptors, whilst moving the goal posts in respect to the latter in the form of the proposed 4 point rule, or they may simply abolish any "substantial risk" measures or protections altogether, which is obviously extremely barbaric.
None of this makes any sense at all, and any MP that supports it should not be let anywhere near politics in my opinion, let alone legislation that aims to protect the most vulnerable people in society. That obviously applies to the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer too.
It is also very worrying that there will probably be nothing the House of Lords can do to stop this barbaric madness.
I am noticing serious flaws in the proposed changes to sickness and disability benefits:
The most blatantly obvious one is that PIP can be claimed regardless of employment status, and, of course, the respective regulations were not drafted with employment in mind, or a Claimant's fitness to work. To that end, the new "assessment period" is going to be inherently flawed. For example, If a severely ill person puts a claim in for PIP, will they have to submit sick notes in the run up to the assessment? That, of course, makes no sense, not least because PIP can be claimed by employed Claimants. If they don't need to submit sick notes, presumably they won't get paid anything to tie them over whilst they are severely ill, and therefore have no social security. I can't see the government paying Claimants in the absence of any sick notes in the "assessment period", as that would invite abuse of the system.
Another serious flaw is the "required period" PIP regulations. If someone suffers a serious short-term illness such as meningitis, or gets into a car accident and breaks both arms and legs, they won't qualify for PIP, as they would be expected to recover in less than 9 months or a year. How is someone like that meant to survive if they can't work, especially if they were unemployed or self-employed at the time of the accident?
In terms of the "substantial risk" regulations, I can't see a reasonable solution there either, as all the government is essentially doing is reinventing the work capability assessment (WCA) in the form of a PIP assessment, or somehow curiously merging the regulations. That is certainly not scrapping the WCA. I suspect what the will probably attempt to do is simply replace the WCA descriptors with PIP descriptors, whilst moving the goal posts in respect to the latter in the form of the proposed 4 point rule, or they may simply abolish any "substantial risk" measures or protections altogether, which is obviously extremely barbaric.
None of this makes any sense at all, and any MP that supports it should not be let anywhere near politics in my opinion, let alone legislation that aims to protect the most vulnerable people in society. That obviously applies to the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer too.
It is also very worrying that there will probably be nothing the House of Lords can do to stop this barbaric madness.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Moderators: Gordon, latetrain, BIS, Catherine, Wendy, Kelly, greekqueen, peter, Katherine, Super User, Chris, David