New UC rules to force both partners to work ??

[Citrusmuffin]

I can’t find anything online about this but have heard it’s being changed as previously there had to be a certain number of hours worked but this could be by just one partner but now it’s being changed to make both work even though the total household hours don’t change??

This seems very unfair and taking away choice for some families in difficult circumstances. I just can’t find the official guidance is anyone able to link to it ? Thanks

Well no it won't exist. Pip will be the benefit that replaces it. So nee claimants will essentially have a pip assement to prove their lack of ability to partake in LCWRA. We can play around with language but that is the situation essentially the WCA will ( if bill is passed) be incoparated into the pip assement.

essentially the WCA will ( if bill is passed) be incoparated into the pip assement.

No it won’t. I posted ”They don’t plan to incorporate the UC WCA assessment into the PIP assessment. They plan to scrap it completely and only have the PIP assessment…” Which is correct. Link here with quote “By removing the Work Capability Assessment…” so they aren’t incorporating it with PIP assessments, they are scrapping it.

so nee claimants will essentially have a pip assement to prove their lack of ability to partake in LCWRA.

Again, no that isn’t how they plan to have it work. Being in receipt of PIP won’t automatically mean someone won’t have work commitments. I then went on to say “and then work commitments decided individually by work coaches.” Which is also correct. From the same link “allow Work Coaches to build a relationship with an individual and determine what, if any, work-related activities an individual can participate in.”

So how will it be "decided individually" without anybody assessing it?

Presumably making an individual assessment involves... making an assessment of some kind?

It will be down to individual work coaches to make the decisions rather than a formal assessment undertaken like now.

They say they don’t plan to but I would be very suspicious and I’d assume that assessors would also be looking for elements of the WCA during the PIP assessment whether they are clear about it or not

Of course what they say may not happen, just like it may not happen at all, I was pointing out there won’t be a WCA as part of PIP or otherwise based on the current plans.

I have no skin in this game but it's plain common sense that some people who genuinely are unable to work at all or only a small amount should be much better supported financially and some lazy buggers who actually think they can get by quite nicely with a bit of part time or not working at all but are 100% fit and healthy but totally happy just to let the state support them need to be back in work - if they can find it.

One thing to mention though there are a fair few people in that second category who are practically unemployable unfortunately- they are an actual liability for a business.

As I've mentioned before though a huge priority is to create a large amount of social housing of all kinds plus shared ownership of all kinds- so lower and middle/lower earners can get by without large amounts of HB being paid out- as is the case with private rentals in many parts of the country. this does not make financial sense at all . It should not just be for those in desparate straights either. It would help average earning young couples be able to save or start a family etc and give them a good start .

Out of interest I had a look at rentals in my original home town in the midlands and I can see why some people in these areas 'don't get it' - the difference between there and somewhere average like Swindon or Reading is staggering. However there are many reasons you may need to be in a particular part of the country. The wage differential in average jobs certainly doesn't cover the difference either.

But surely thats exactly what the Govn are trying to do.
To raise more taxes to support those who are in need, to support education and healthcare and the elderly. To ensure more people who can work pay into pensions.
That is why they are trying to encourage more into the workforce.
Theres a fine balance between taxing businesses and those who pay higher taxes already. Tax them too much and they just leave. Businesses are already leaving taking their taxes and jobs with them after Brexit.

If there is, for example, a sudden huge increase in the minimum wage to allow for todays cost of living explosion a lot of businesses will make redundancies or shut up shop.

So this is the slow burn. A gradual way of getting the economy back on track.

That doesn't sound very bright, does it?

Different people will have different attitudes, different prejudices and opinions. If there are no standard criteria it will be even more unfair than it is at the moment, surely?

I have PIP but work full time so no skin in the UC game, no means tested benefits. But I don't see how this will work. On what basis will these "work coaches", who have no medical training, be making a decision on how much people can work? How they happen to appear when they meet them? What happens with hidden disabilities, autism, masking, illnesses that have varying impacts in different environments or at different times? Somebody being able to meet a work coach one day and seem articulate and intelligent doesn't mean that their autism or ADHD or ME for example don't mean that they couldn't sustain a full time job. So how will these "job coaches" assess this? I've never claimed UC so never met one, so am genuinely interested what qualifications they have to do this and how they would go about forming their conclusions. How long will they meet people for? What will they assess? How someone "appears" for a half hour discussion?

If so that is massively discriminatory and will be another disaster of various legal cases waiting to happen, with them telling people with ME that because they dragged themselves to an appointment they can work, or someone autistic managed to endure meeting them they can deal with the demanda and interaction and sensory overload of a job on an ongoing basis, etc. People with no medical knowledge doing this? When PIP assessors get it wrong in the majority of cases and are meant to at least have basic medical knowledge?

Sounds like a really well thought-through plan. 😆

Surely the focus should be on making sure those who are NOT disabled work full time, including those that make excuses and prefer not to and find it inconvenient to arrange childcare or change their work hours to juggle it like everyone else has to, as discussed earlier in the thread.

Then use that money saved from paying tens of thousands per year to millions of non-disabled but workshy people to provide proper levels of support to people who are disabled and their carers.

That would require some common sense though. If the payments for disability benefits like PIP and DLA were set at the levels they should be then disabled people wouldn't even need to claim UC, so the whole issue would go away.

@AlienEgg I agree, leaving the decisions to individual work coaches will bring even more subjectivity into the process than there currently is.

It hasn’t been said exactly how work coaches will decide who has who voluntary or mandatory commitments or who does not.

Nor have they worked out how this is going to work in Scotland where PIP is being replaced by ADP.

One thing to mention though there are a fair few people in that second category who are practically unemployable unfortunately- they are an actual liability for a business.

Hmmmm... most European countries have contributory benefits for the most part, outside of illness/ disability, and this is time limited. It's amazing how many of such people decide to make themselves employable when they have to because everyone else won't continually fund their living costs just because they don't feel like working.

No. Our focus ought to be on creating a happier, healthier society where no one has to work full time, where work is fulfilling and useful, where families are able to spend time together and parents spend time with their children rather than children be exhausted from long hours in care and parents stressed, depressed and ill from exhaustion.

There's certainly no moral imperative to make life unpleasant, distressing and difficult for people. What a bizarre idea!

Exactly. There have been suicides and a lot of suicide attempts as a result.

No that’s not how it will work. Anyone in receipt of PIP will get the health element. But, that won’t mean all in receipt of PIP will not have work commitments, that will be decided individually.

This can't be correct either. Many who receive PIP do not receive UC obviously, because they work and earn too much. Are you saying that after these changes people who get PIP will receive the health element of UC automatically regardless of income?

Exactly. There have been suicides and a lot of suicide attempts as a result.

@Satsumastocking I don't understand: this is a recently proposed change, it hasn't happened yet? People have committed suicide about it?

No. Our focus ought to be on creating a happier, healthier society where no one has to work full time, where work is fulfilling and useful, where families are able to spend time together and parents spend time with their children rather than children be exhausted from long hours in care and parents stressed, depressed and ill from exhaustion.

There's certainly no moral imperative to make life unpleasant, distressing and difficult for people. What a bizarre idea!

What? You make life better for society by getting everyone who can work to work and contribute so productivity rises and salaries and living standards go up. People claiming benefits when they are not disabled and could work lowers living standards and net incomes and public services, health and education funding etc for the entire population. Expecting a small proportion of society to barely see their children so they can fund other people not working at all does the exact opposite of increasing living standards and general health and wellbeing. International data is clear on this.

It also entrenched a lack of social mobility, increases inequality and destroys social cohesion. The only way to improve productivity in the UK is through more of the working age population actually working (and not part time expecting top ups) cutting the tax burden to support able bodied people who could contribute, then more money will be available to support those genuinely in need of help and to invest in infrastructure and public services that increase productivity and living standards. As happens in the countries with better living standards. You'll find in those countries it's normal for both parents to work full time...

I can’t believe this issue is even being discussed.
Obviously people who can work should work.
If they don’t want to then that is of course their choice but why should working people pay for that choice.

Why would Any Govn who supports this idea. Why would anyone vote for a party that thought this was a workable solution.

When the changes were announced, I went to a very dark place, as did many others in my situation. I am in LCWRA, but not on PIP... so when this new change comes in, I will be expected to live off £80 per week and spend nearly 40 hours per week looking for work.

Obviously I was talking about UC claimants. I didn’t feel the need to add anyone who claims UC prior to “Anyone in receipt of PIP” as we were talking about UC claimants.

No, those who don’t claim UC won’t get the UC health element, just like those who don’t claim UC now don’t get the UC LCWRA element (not taking account of those still on ESA).

@AlienEgg - not sure who said that about everyone working part time and spending lots of time with family's. However I have no issue with that at all, sounds great, provided they are self funding and not expecting the state to fund it fully !! I do have an issue if certain people are doing all the contributing to enable others to have that luxury- and I'm not a Tory!

Having lived in Copenhagen ,they did work on the premise of shorter hours, more family time but to enable this it was expected that if able to both parents work (quality cheap childcare, after school, breakfast clubs, holiday schemes ) and it was very high taxation too to enable it plus lots of good quality social housing if wanted. Older Danes accepted this was the case even post child rearing years, because it then benefited their grandchildren etc - I think many Brits are too selfish to accept this system I'm afraid , apart from the very point in time when it's benefitting them

Folks can't have the moon on a stick- somewhere along the line, someone's paying.

Presumably you could apply for PIP, especially if they change the criteria. And for people currently getting LCWRA there won't be any kind of sudden drop to £80 a week, there will be transitional protection at least to the end of your current LCWRA award I would imagine.

When the changes were announced, I went to a very dark place, as did many others in my situation. I am in LCWRA, but not on PIP... so when this new change comes in, I will be expected to live off £80 per week and spend nearly 40 hours per week looking for work.

I am sorry to hear this. If you are too unwell to work then why can you not get PIP? I don't know anything about the LCWRA so forgive me but the requirements for PIP are very stringent and yet even some of us who qualify for that manage to work full time so it's hard to imagine what would mean you could not qualify for PIP at all yet were unable to work at all?

I can completely see the issue where it's ridiculous that a "work coach" with no medical training is supposed to assess whether someone who has already qualified for PIP is fit for work, that simply will not work. But the opposite issue I don't really understand: if you do not qualify for PIP, how could you be too sick to ever even look at working at any point in the future? If you were permanently incapacitated to that extent, you should get PIP?