As well as contacting your own MP about the proposed benefits cuts, you may be able to get your message to other MPs of all parties, if there is  an All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) which covers your condition.

The race to try to persuade MPs that the Green Paper provisions will be a disaster for many claimants is likely to be a short one.

There are growing reports that Labour aim to introduce a bill in May and, if it certified as a money bill, the Lords will not be able to amend or delay it for more than a month, meaning the PIP and UC cuts could be  on the statute book by the end of July, ready to be implemented next year.

So, the more MPs who hear from claimants who are going to suffer real harm from the changes, the better.

APPGs consist of members of both Houses of Parliament, from all parties, who share an interest in a particular topic.  A number of these groups relate to different health conditions.

We’ve listed some of the ones we think are most relevant below, but you can see a complete list of all APPGs here.

You should probably email the person listed as the Public Enquiry Point first and ask them to forward your concerns about the effects of the cuts to all members of the group.

As always, emails need to be polite and short enough that people will read them.  In this case, MPs should want to be informed about whether people with the condition they meet about are likely to be affected by the Green Paper cuts.

Acquired Brain Injury

Ageing and Older People

Autism

Brain Tumours

Carers

Deafness

Debt and Financial Inclusion

Dementia

Diabetes

Down Syndrome

Dyslexia

Eating Disorders

Endometriosis

Eye Health and Visual Impairment

Food Banks

Genetic, Rare and Undiagnosed Conditions

Health

Homelessness

Less Survivable Cancers

Liver Disease and Liver Cancer

Long Covid

Mental Health

Motor Neurone Disease

Multiple Sclerosis

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME)

Obesity

Obstructive Sleep Apnoea

Osteoporosis and Bone Health

Parkinson's

Prostate Cancer

Respiratory Health

Special Educational Needs and Disabilities

Spinal Cord Injury

Suicide and Self-Harm Prevention

Usher Syndrome

Vascular and Venous Disease

Comments

Write comments...
or post as a guest
People in conversation:
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 hours ago
    I have emailed the All Party Parliamentary Groups for Health, Carers, Debt and Financial Inclusion, Genetic, Rare and Undiagnosed Conditions and Poverty & Inequality, as follows: 


    These proposals will plunge families like ours into poverty, and we will not be able to ameliorate our circumstances through work. Under these proposals, our household is likely to lose around £900 per month, comprised of LCWRA, PIP daily living and Carer’s Element of UC.

    My husband, who has Myotonic Dystrophy, a progressive neurological disease, has significant daytime fatigue, frequent falls and swallowing difficulties, among other symptoms. Under PIP proposals he would be likely deemed ineligible for PIP Daily Living, as he would not currently score 4 points in one category. My husband is unemployable, due to the significant risk of choking or falling, as well as his daytime fatigue.

    I work part-time in a relatively low-paid NHS administrative job. As I have to care for my husband, I am unable to work full-time. I have calculated that if I were successful in gaining a more senior NHS role our financial position would be improved by £12 per month in the first year, and our total income would in fact drop by £300 per month in the third year.

    We are bringing up two daughters.

    The government has repeatedly said they are ‘putting disabled people at the heart’ of everything they do. But these proposals are only pulling the rug from under us, leaving us with nowhere to turn and nothing we can do to improve our financial outlook. No amount of support from a work coach will make my husband employable. What is more, we cannot even have our say, as the most important elements of the changes are not being consulted on.

    Family carers are doing a job that Social Care is unable to in these times, but these proposals are making that job near impossible to do.

    The headline loss average of £1700 per year does not apply to my family. The loss would be far greater and I do not see how we would manage at all.

    I implore you to see that these proposals are draconian, that they are discriminatory against the long-term sick and disabled, and that they will cause devastation for families like us. I respectfully ask that you use your influence to oppose these changes.

    Yours sincerely,
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 9 hours ago
    Which APPG do you think is the most appropriate for ADHD? The autism one?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    I have contacted Deafness, Eye Health/visual impairment, diabetes and Usher's syndrome (I have congenital Rubella Syndrome which has many of the features of Usher's, namely both sight and hearing loss).  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Matt I'm curious what us contacted deafness? I know it's a hearing impairment but I've never heard of that type before
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago


    Has any other veteran identified an anomaly concerning Veterans who receive either War Pensions Scheme (WPS) or Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) due to injuries/illnesses incurred through military service depending on whether they were injured before or after April 2005.

    I am in receipt of a 100% War Pension due to injuries received in Iraq in 2004.  As a consequence on discharge I applied  for and qualified for Higher Rate of DLA/PIP.  However I believe veterans receiving PIP are disadvantage because they are subject to reassessment under the new rules. Those injured after April 2005 receive a different scheme called the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) and as a consequence can also receive the Veterans equivalent of PIP known as Guaranteed Income Payment (GIP). This is a lifetime payment with no reassessments and is administered by the Veterans Agency not DWP.

    In essence veterans injured in 2004 and before are thrown to the wolves of the DWP who have to experience of dealing with former members of the Armed Forces.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Mick
      Just to add, when I was dealing with the year and a half battle, I tried to direct and communicate everything through Amber Rudd, the DWP Work and Pensions minister at that time and also the Veteran's affairs minister Andrew Robathan.  It changed part way through the whole thing and I think Ben Wallace then took over, followed later by Johnny Mercer.

      The response I got with the excuses and fobbing off about WP having other supplements in place of PIP came from Alok Sharma who was the employment minister.

      Before PIP myself and my partner were both on indefinite DLA highest rates and no more  reviews.  PIP then reviewed me and took me to a 3 year enhanced.  A further PIP review later put me to the current indefinite 10 year.  My partner went to PIP from DLA and got indefinite 10 year.  Who the hell knows what will happen when our reviews come around under this new load of nonsense or what they are going to change the PIP system to after the review and redesign it again, as they have said they intend to do.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Les @Les, this is exactly the sort of specific case scenario which has been overlooked and which should be brought to the attention of Endall and Thieves. I hope you can get it to your mp at least because it's an example of how the government has not acknowledged the complex fall out of the proposals. The more concrete examples we can gather and present for scrutiny the better.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Les
      Hi Les, Yes, I am an RAF Veteran War Pensioner.  I receive PIP 10 year indefinite (enhanced rates for both but don't get paid mobility through PIP) with light touch review due in 2028.  As part of my WP I receive War Pensioners Mobility Supplement (WPMS) and Unemplyability Supplement (UNSUPP).  Underlying entitlement to Carers Allowance so I don't get paid it but receive the care element of UC.  Also receive UC but not the LCW or LCWRA.

      I have no idea how any of this is supposedly going to work with regard to War Pension.  WP is supposed to be entirely disregarded under UC but I have since found a case which went to both tier 1 and 2 tribunal which ruled that money can be taken from UNSUPP if you get LCWRA.  This case will have set a precedent now despite it previously being that the whole of WP is disregarded.

      As far as PIP goes, I have tried to argue several times previously that it is unfair and against equality law that Veterans on WP are treated differently than Veterans on Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) as far as PIP and AFIP are concerned.  I have argued that War Pensioners should be immediately placed in the Armed Forces Independance Payment (AFIP) scheme the same as those who served later and are receiving AFCS with AFIP.  All I got was fobbing off, excuses and claims it was not against equality law.  Also claims that WP has other supplements and alternatives to PIP that AFCS does not have.  This is nonsense as there is no alternative to PIP under WP, unless you can get WP Constant Attendance Allowance, which most cannot.

      I had a year and a half battle involving (Tory) MP's, DWP, Jobcentre, Veterans Welfare, RAF Association, RAF Benevolent Fund, Royal British Legion and became a DWP 'test case' to ensure no other War Pensioner would have to go through what we did.  Fat lot of good all that did.  I knew more about their own systems, rules etc. than they did.  For the most part I was proven right.  This was right at the time when they started migrations from legacy to UC and then lost the court battle over disability premiums and we had a change of circumstances which triggered us to have to go to UC.  They wouldn't let us because we had enhanced/severe disability premiums.  We were losing out on huge amounts of money because WP was taken into account under legacy systems, where under UC it was to be disregarded.  In the end we were forced to lose a month of Housing Benefit through the council, along with our disability premiums, in order to get onto UC.  Ultimately we were going to be much better off.  We lost that month HB along with our premiums and didn't get transitional protection payments for the premiums.  That was our only way forward.

      My partner has Cerebral Palsy (since birth) and receives PIP enhanced for both elements, indefinite 10 year award with light touch review due, I believe 2030, carers allowance, UC care element.

      This whole thing could destroy us.  We could lose our home as we wouldn't be able to afford to stay here with the rent and everything  being crazy.  We could alongside losing PIP, lose Carers Allowance, UC Carers Element and all the other passports.

      There is also the unanswered questions around WP UNSUPP and WPMS and how this will work in regards to the new PIP scoring and it being tied to the UC health element.  to get UNSUPP you have to be unable to work.  The clue is in the name Labour 🙄  UNEMPLOYABILITY SUPPLEMENT.  If they magically decide I don't qualify for the minimum 4 points PIP or the Mobility side under review, that then contradicts my War Pension WPMS and UNSUPP.  How the hell can that be correct?  I don't think they have even thought about any of this.  Are they then going to try to say my WP should be reviewed and taken away because some DWP assessor has magically changed my disability at the stroke of a pen?

      I have no idea who to turn to, who to ask about all this and if there is a plan somewhere for Veterans to not be subjected to this disgusting attack on disabled people.  I doubt whether any of the Veterans Welfare advisors or Veterans Champions (Pfft what a joke that is) at Jobcentres will know.  Or is the plan to target us as well?  There are approximately 80,000 Veterans  who receive War Pension in the country, as far as I know, and they left us all in the disgraceful PIP and DWP system to be subjected to it.  Whilst Veterans who served later are under AFIP and don't have to have an assessment at all, will never be reviewed and get the equivalent of the enhanced rates for life.

      What about the Military Covenant and all the promises??

      Wish I had answers for you but unfortunately I'm as clueless as you in regards to all this.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    The link was with reference to the question at the end of my post, which was:

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 22 hours ago
      @Dez Surely this green paper consultation is questionable too, though. B&W have called it 'bogus'. It is not a genuine attempt to engage with the public on the actual contents of the upcoming May bill (which the government is trying to certify as a money bill but which they have claimed is about supporting disabled people into work), and it's not supposed to end until 30 June.

      It just all looks procedurally irregular. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @keepingitreal Unfortunately, I believe it was the consultation and the way it was managed that was deemed unlawful, not the proposal itself. Hence why Labour have had no qualms about adopting it themselves. 

      The Tories were found to be not fully transparent about the fact that they intended to do away with the disability element of UC for those not eligible for PIP and this meant that people could not respond to the consultation properly. Because they didn't know exactly what they were responding to. Thus, it was deemed by these duplicitous actions that the Tories were not interested in helping disabled people but saving money and that was how the courts nailed them. 

      It was also easier to drag the Tories into court because the Tories were no longer in government at this point. Doing this with a government in power would probably be a different and much trickier process but let's hope those in our corner find a way of doing so. Honestly, I'd just be happy with Starmer being tripped up as much as possible. He responded like a complete child to this ruling so he clearly deems disability advocates and the courts a huge inconvenience and I hope he knows no peace while he pushes these awful proposals through. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @keepingitreal They did because it was a statutory instrument regulation of an existing act. This is why Starmer is bringing in a new act of parliament which the judges will not be able to over ride. This is also the reason why we must vote for a party that will stand up for us and not turn its back on us once in power. Frankly I do not trust anybody anymore and I also want to live in a society that is less technology based and more people based
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    1) How can they produce a bill in May when they've already said the green paper consultation will run until 30 June?

    2) How can they certify it as a money bill when they have claimed it is about supporting disabled people into work, giving them dignity, not writing them off, blah blah? 

    3) How can they go ahead without a proper impact statement? 

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @keepingitreal I wonder if Starmer & Co are panicking about possible legal challenges etc. Also, don't forget there are significant rumours that Reeves will have to increase taxes in the Autumn - and if there is one thing that scares Labour is the image that they are a high tax, high spend party.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 days ago
    It actually just gets worse doesn't it? They are hell bent on rushing this through before anyone can delay or stop it. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 days ago
    Is there any point when this is going on:

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 hours ago
      @Anniesmum 2024 spring, even a person from the ME charity, during a parliamentary work committee was mainly talking about HIMSELF getting a job at THAT charity! I was absolutely fuming after seeing his naïve believe, that they will be HELPING get suitable jobs! He didn't realise, he is setting all ME/CFS sufferers as “capable to get back into work”. I did ask him to correct this error, and I think, he did, but the damage was done! And no firm defence of sufferers not ever able to get back to work! I could see a year ago, what's on the DWP mind...
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 days ago
      @Mick Should we contact them anyway? Not sure what to do about this. This is one of the conditions I suffer with. Bloody hell! How can they sit on the board for M.E and then want benefit cuts. 😳
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 days ago
    Done. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 days ago
    How will they decide WHO with Autism qualifies & who DOESN’T?My Nephew is non verbal & non communicative and WILL never work, have a family or contribute to society do is HE expected to go out & be an Entrepreneur?😡
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 days ago
    Thanks for the list and info. Im writing to as many as seem relevant (my husband’s condition isn’t listed here)- 
    Poverty & Inequality
    Genetic, rare & undiagnosed conditions
    Carers
    Debt & financial inclusion
    Health
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 days ago
    Don't see anything about epilepsy or seizures on these lists but not really sure where it would be as it is a symptom not an illness in its own right.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 days ago
    Thank you for putting up the link so that we can send emails to relevant people regarding the proposed cuts that this labour government are proposing.

    I have emailed several people that covers several conditions that i have .

    This money bill that they are planning to introduce in may is absolutely appalling.

    Like thousands of us with health issues this is such a major worry for us all .    
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 days ago
    Thanks, will do. Alarmed at the prospect that Labour are going to make this a money bill, without any safeguards from the Lords (I suspect they know the strength of feeling already) and I presume if it's a money bill, there can be no Judicial Review?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Anon A money bill is (probably called) a finance bill brought in by the Treasury, usually at the time of the Budget, or Spring Fiscal Statement. It cannot be opposed by the House of Lords (1911 Parliament Act) and thus can secure Royal Assent very quickly (in months rather than years). Also, it would be very difficult to challenge this through the Courts. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 days ago
      @Neil Cook He will get a big payday when he leaves office, I'd bet my life on it.  They won't tax the rich, when it's obvious to everyone that this is what needs to be done. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 days ago
      @Matt Proves what a coward Starmers is
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 days ago
      @Matt What is a money bill?