So they want to replace PIP/DLA money with vouchers?

[moneyinthebinthatsmrtim]

I don't understand it. It is really worrying me.

This payment helps pay for so many things. I doubt these vouchers would cover that, or give the freedom to shop or buy from where you want or need to.

I included DLA because it's really just the child's version of PIP. Eventually, my profoundly disabled child will be an adult and will have to be on PIP

Is there really any truth in this? I can't see any articles directly quoting Labour or Conservative. I might just be in such a worry that I have missed that bit

Apologies if there is another thread on this too. I am happy to get this one taken off if that's the case

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/pip-disability-benefits-plan-rishi-government-critics-b2537209.html

Nothing wonderful about it@Whooper . I might be missing something here, but it is still a disability, whether it is permanent, or temporary.

True, but others it's clearly never going to improve (Cerebral Palsy, Parkinson's, MND, Huntingdon's, Paraplegia....).

It is but a temporary disability needs reviewing to see when the claim needs to end, or are you saying all Pip claims should be lifelong?

Not at all@Whooper . I have made many a post here saying that lifelong, progressive conditions should not be subject to constant reviews though.

Except it is surely very necessary to do so when conditions over time make coping more difficult.
Progressive conditions can get worse and need to be re assessed

Yes. If at diagnosis a person has basic level reassessment in 5 years time not to remove the benefit but to determine if they need a larger benefit. But the assurance needs to be there the reassessment is not to remove the benefit.

Yep, it makes no sense.

My DP's brother had a cancerous mole removed from his head. He had no follow up treatment or anything, as it was not needed.
How is he disabled?

I know one chap who no longer has reassessments as he already receives the highest award for both PIP components... and he will never get better (he will only get worse over time).
However, he seems to be rare in this, as most people get reassessed.
His PIP enables him to work and have a social life.

It could easily be done as a ‘please ask fir a reassessment if your needs get worse’ - as people are already told to do (but few do because if the fear if loosing what they have instead)

I know someone like that.
They finally went for a life long award after 40 years of assessments and him getting worse each time.
He needs full time care (given by a family member) and his condition is life long with very little hope of improvement.

The longest you can get pip for is 10 years. He'd still have forms to fill in but it might be a paper based assessment.

@IAmNotASheep

Except it is surely very necessary to do so when conditions over time make coping more difficult.
Progressive conditions can get worse and need to be re assessed

You can put in a change of circumstances form if your condition worsens.

Might he still be under the old DLA system rather than PIP?

My DM (finally) has a lifetime award with no more reviews. She has cerebral palsy. But she’s still on DLA, not PIP.

Under EqA, whether a condition is deemed disabling discounts the effects of any treatment. It's in Schedule 1 para 6. What would happen to someone with a cancerous mole who didn't have it treated?

That is all legal jargon to me that I can't make sense of. But you were probably counting on that.

Explain it in layman terms... how is someone who has had a cancer removed... had no treatment apart from the removal.... how on earth are they disabled?

Definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010
You're disabled under the Equality Act 2010 if you have a physical or mental impairment that has a 'substantial' and 'long-term' negative effect on your ability to do normal daily activities.

Having a mole removed did not have any of the above.

Paragraph six part one of https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/1: "Cancer, HIV infection and multiple sclerosis are each a disability."

Like literally, that is the words of the law as enacted. Cancer is a disability.

But you were probably counting on that.

Don't ascribe bad faith where there is none. I've been castigated as "patronising" for explaining things too often to risk giving unprompted explanations of anything.

I did, however, reference the wrong paragraph in my earlier post, for which I apologise. Paragraph five says, in part: "5 (1) An impairment is to be treated as having a substantial adverse effect on the ability of the person concerned to carry out normal day-to-day activities if—
(a) measures are being taken to treat or correct it, and
(b) but for that, it would be likely to have that effect."

5(2) makes it clear that "measures" includes medical treatment. 5(3) excludes visual impairments that are fully correctable with eye glasses.

So, schedule 1 para 6 makes cancer a disability, no further qualifiers needed. Schedule 1 para 5 makes the prompt treatment to remove the cancerous mole irrelevant when deciding that it's a disability, hence my rhetorical question "What would happen to someone with a cancerous mole who didn't have it treated?" because, untreated, it would spread and kill them, and it's the untreated effect of the condition that the law cares about. And section six para four makes most disability-related protections continue to apply to people who were disabled but aren't any more.

This makes more sense than it seems to on the face of it, because a) doctors can make mistakes and miss a bit of a tumour, and b) past cancer is a risk factor for future cancer. Making cancer be automatically a disability for EqA purposes accommodates that risk.

And none of this has any effect on PIP claims. It's EqA, it's about discrimination and reasonable adjustments. An example of a reasonable adjustment that a skin cancer survivor could request at work would be to have PPE or altered duties to avoid UV exposure that would increase the risk of the cancer recurring, say if working as an arc welder or in an outdoor job.

But the word substantial is key here. A cancerous mole that is removed and treatment ends there does not have a substantial impact on a person's life.

@MaidOfAle are you aware you're arguing Hugh Jackman should be eligible for PIP?

To be fair to that poster, meeting the criteria for PIP is not the same as meeting the legal definition of disability. Plenty of disabled people don't qualify for PIP as it is about how your disability affects you, not just that you are disabled.

Finally, someone who understands what I write!

The mole would have a terminal effect on the person's life if it were not removed.

5 (1) An impairment is to be treated as having a substantial adverse effect on the ability of the person concerned to carry out normal day-to-day activities if-
(a) measures are being taken to treat or correct it, and
(b) but for that, it would be likely to have that effect.

That is the quoted law, not my opinion.

are you aware you're arguing Hugh Jackman should be eligible for PIP?

I am not arguing that. You clearly haven't read my post. If you had, you would have read the bit that literally says: And none of this has any effect on PIP claims. It's EqA, it's about discrimination and reasonable adjustments.

As I then went on to say, there are circumstances where even an entirely-removed small cancerous mole would merit reasonable adjustments at work and in education: a skin cancer survivor could request at work [...] to have PPE or altered duties to avoid UV exposure.

PIP and EqA both support disabled people, but in different ways. PIP, being direct financial support, is rightly based on current need in a way that EqA, being discrimination protection, rightly isn't. But, changes to PIP claim processes that affect disabled people unduely would be challengable in part because they would be discriminatory under EqA, as well as dehumanising under HRA.

Hugh Jackman doesn't need PIP, but he should be able to request and get reasonable adjustments to his work in order to avoid UV exposure that increases his risk of skin cancer coming back.

By what i have read it sounds like labour will be carrying it on so they are no better

Going forward with the consultation doesn't mean implementing the same things.🙄PIP does need reform. Just not in the punitive way the Tories are salivating over. The consultation will bring in a lot of useful information that can inform any changes made. What Labour does with that is likely to be different from what the Tories want to do.

Yep. There is no way Labour will bring in a voucher system.

My guess is the consultation response will be kicked into the long grass at least for their first term.