• Search
  • You are here:  
  • Home
  • News
  • Commons committee calls for UC cuts delay

News

Commons committee calls for UC cuts delay

Details

A report published this week by the Commons Work and Pensions Committee has called for cuts in the universal credit (UC) rate for new disabled claimants from April 2026 to be delayed, amid concerns they will push more people into poverty.

Under the Universal Credit Bill currently awaiting royal assent, the limited capability for work-related activity (LCWRA) or health element of UC will be reduced by almost half for new claimants, from £423.27 to £217.26.

The committee has recommended that the government consider further increases to the UC standard rate, above those already in the bill.

It has also asked the government to delay the reduction in UC health until it has carried out an independent and comprehensive assessment of the impact the change could have on disabled people

The committee also expressed concern that claimants with serious mental health conditions may not be covered by the serious conditions criteria.

Committee Chair Debbie Abrahams said,

“We welcome the concessions that the Government made to the UC and PIP Bill (now the UC Bill); but there are still issues with these welfare reforms not least with the cut in financial support that newly sick and disabled people will receive.”

“The Government’s own analysis published in March indicates that from next April approximately 50,000 people who develop a health condition or become disabled – and those who live with them - will enter poverty by 2030 as a result of the reduction in support of the UC health premium.”

“We recommend delaying the cuts to the UC-health premium, especially given that other policies that such as additional NHS capacity, or employment support, or changes in the labour market to support people to stay in work, have yet to materialise.”

“We agree in a reformed and sustainable welfare system, but we must ensure that the wellbeing of those who come into contact with it is protected. The lesson learned from last month should be that the impact of policy changes to health-related benefits must be assessed prior to policy changes being implemented to avoid potential risks to claimants.”

You can read a full copy of the report here.

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.
    Gingin
    · 6 days ago
     I listened to the Timms interview on Access All, BBC Sounds, and can’t believe Timms is still parroting tripe about the bill concessions being a success of democracy. Pull the other one, Steve.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      lesley
      · 6 days ago
      @Gingin ha ha ha.  Gingin you made me laugh! :-D
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 6 days ago
      @Gingin The obvious follow up question from the BBC should have been. If you think MPs opposing the bill and getting concessions was a triumph for democracy. Do you think Stammer suspending the ring leaders from the Labour party and sending those MPs who opposed the bill threatening letters was anti democrat. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    John
    · 8 days ago
    Timms continues to parrot the narrative that unique in the G7 the employment rate in the UK has failed to recover to its pre-Covid level. Creating the false impression the UK has a uniquely low employment rate, due to our disability benefits system.

    By omitting to mention the employment rate in the UK is the third highest in the G7. Only beaten slightly by Germany and Japan. Slightly ahead of Canada and far ahead of USA, France, Italy. And omitting to mention the government's target employment rate woud put the UK ahead of Japan and every other larger nation on the planet.

    And omitting to mention the reason the UK employment rate has not recovered to its pre-Covid rate. People taking early retirement thanks to government tax policy on private pensions, and on unearned income. That is the issue is not predominantly young people claiming to be too ill or disabled to work. But, older, better off people opting to no longer work. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Matt
      · 6 days ago
      @Fiona Well, the over 50's (and I'm one of them) are going to have a very nasty shock soon: rising pension ages, removal of the triple lock, means testing and probably some form of tax raid on private pensions. They won't be able to retire at 55-60.  Many will have to work until approx 70. Electorally this will be disastrous but if any Govt wants to invest in infrastructure, housing, the health service, it will need more employees paying tax. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      RookiesUncle
      · 7 days ago
      @John True
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Fiona
      · 7 days ago
      @John They never mention its older better off people who after working all there lives and saving are getting tired or start to struggle at around 60 then decide they can manage by taking early retirement , which they are entitled to do so, but the government can't have a go at them, because there not claiming anything, but they can target the disabled or ill who kendle and timms just think are taking the micky so they target young ill and disabled. why not call a pear a pear or is it because some of these folks that can't keep going after 60 which for woman was retirement age and chose to retire early which they can't stop them, but it takes them out of the job market are there constituents and voters is this not the reason......They give nhs and police pensions etc..... who retire early because they've worked damed hard but after the pandemic they just take the pension and don't stay in the jobs market.They have the pension to encourage people into these jobs which would be difficult for a older person to do them. they moan when they retire, they new this would happen. Don't worry the jobs market is kept up with unstable zero hours jobs etc, that next generation won't be able to retire early or lucky if get a decent pension.They don't moan about the health indifference and how many pay in all there lives and don't claim there pension because they die just before they get to 65 and this will only get worse how many 67 year olds can manage doing manual jobs and extending the pension age will only.make it worse. Sorry to rant 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Arthritic Annie
      · 7 days ago
      @John You forgot to mention the elephant in the room and the major cause of all the governments woes. The great act of self inflicted harm costing the economy billions. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Frances
    · 8 days ago
    No mention in list of 5 committees of how pip eligibility will be determined/altered or who on pip will be subject to conditionality for uc. 

    It's so wrong bringing pip into the frame for eligibility for means tested/work related benefits.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Frances
      · 7 days ago
      @John "Having a disability benefit give eligibility for a means tested income replacement benefit or disability premiums, is not new"

      doesn't make it acceptable.

      It's still so wrong bringing pip into the frame for eligibility for means tested/work related benefits.

      Even if uc replacing esa was, in literal terms, the end of disability benefits giving working age people eligibility for 'premiums' on an income replacement benefit, the principle of the receipt of a disability benefit giving entitlement to added elements in income related benefits will continue, when pip gives entitlement to the health element on top of standard uc.

      Labour is supposed to be progressive, not tinker with an existing concept and disguise that as reform.

      This whole nonsense has already failed to raise what the treasury initially hoped to save, and has already incurred costs in the making of something as yet not implemented.

      It is likely to be another shot in the foot for the government when, as in common with previous attempts to squeeze welfare, demands will burst out (wfa dependent on pension credit; rise in pension age prompting claims for incapacity and disability benefits) and more will be paid. There will be those who have never claimed pip who will qualify, possibly for mobility as well as daily living, and therefore keep the lcwra add on in the form of the health element.

      I wonder what the government's estimate of those costs, added to existing claimants retaining lcwra, compared to the projected saving gained by some claimants losing all their lcwra or being paid half with the new health element, looks like.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      pollenpath
      · 7 days ago
      @John Excellent analysis, John. The truth is dismal, eh? 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 8 days ago
      @Frances Having a disability benefit give eligibility for a means tested income replacement benefit or disability premiums, is not new.

      DLA used to give eligibility for Income Support on grounds of disability.
      DLA and PIP used to give eligibility for Income Support disability premium. And for Income Support and ESA give eligibility for enhanced disability premium, severe disability premium.

      ESA replacing Income Support on grounds of disability was the end of a disability benefit giving people eligibility for a income replacement benefit. UC replacing ESA was the end of disability benefits giving working age people eligibility for premiums on a income replacement benefit.

      Now the government for new claims is halving the LCWRA premium and freezing it. And from 2028 replacing UC LCWRA with UC health and start to impose conditionality and sanctions. At first just support conversations. But, with the level of conditionality being reviewed in the future. In effect they want to get rid of disability income replacement benefits.

      Except for those who meet the government's narrow view on what a truly genuinely disabled person is. Those who are terminally ill expected to die in 6 months or less, and those who are severely disabled for life and never expected to be capable of working. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    D
    · 8 days ago
    From the timms bbc radio interview:

    EMMA- Okay. So, how are you collaborating with disabled people on this? What are the committees made up of and how long are they meeting for etc?

    STEPHEN- There are five of them. They’ve got round about ten people on each of the committees. They’ve had their first meeting. They’ll have a meeting two or three hours or so every month between now and October. And at the end of that time we’re looking forward to having their recommendations and ideas for what we should do. Those will be presented to ministers and will be very influential in the final decisions that get made.


    So timms has already picked the 10 individuals for the 5 committee’s that will shape the timms review?

    Has any disability charity or organisation confirmed if one of their representatives has a seat in one of these very limited committee spots

    A list of committee members needs to be exposed/made public knowledge as timms promise of his review being written with full collaboration and/or input may have already been broken (to the surprise of no disabled person following this govs sorry saga towards disabled ppl)
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 6 days ago
      @Fiona
       

      But, will massively reduce the forecast future total spending. On the spurious justification of making the welfare system sustainable. When the reality is while disability spending is going up, total working age benefits spending as a percentage of GDP is not. It is lower than it was and is stable, and forecast to stay stable if the government did nothing.

      The problem in regard to spiralling welfare spending is pensioner benefits including state pension. And that is due to population age demographics. The solution being to increase the number of working age people in the country, working and paying taxes. Rather than doing that by the tried and true method of increasing immigration, the government instead wants to force the ill and disabled into work. That choice being primarily due to politics not economics. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Fiona
      · 7 days ago
      @D Did you notice he made a point of saying the "intention of this review is not to make cuts" as the people involved in it wouldn't want to be in it if cuts were the aim. ( I bet they get plenty of cuts but obviously unintentionally ) And earlier he said he didn't know who was in it, but later said they had already has the first meeting with him. He even lies in the same interview it's obviously a tic box they have no control of what goes in it,  I just hope whoever is helping with the reviews had read what he just said in that podcast. I honestly wonder if they trust him or are they in it together
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    D
    · 8 days ago
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0ltkvh7

    Scroll down for transcript of timms interview with bbc radio
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Fiona
      · 8 days ago
      @D I'm unsure of this.... does Steven timms and the government think employers are going to foot the bill.  "it's employers responsibility" to get all of these disabled people into jobs and foot the bill to make it happen,   I thought that was the governments job not employers. Because we already know how difficult it is if you appear slightly different or if you won't be expected to to be well all of the time. Because in the real world this is not how it works, they will be even less lightly to employ a disabled person if it costs them more and employers are tied up legally.   If this is the case as disability minister he,s he just making it less likely, if you have a fluctuating illness it's very difficult to work as part of a team when you don't know when you're going to be unwell without constantly letting the rest of the employees down, and when other employees are unable to take leave etc.... because they don't have enough staff, because 1 is often off sick,then you understand why employers pick employees without any issues, does he not realise that. Not all employers are big companies and have lots of staff to cover and statutory sick pay is impossible to live on if you keep taking time off due to  a fluctuating illness....so why would employers try to take on someone with these issues. He either doesn't understand or he,s passing the buck onto employers and we know what they,'ll do... And disabled people will have even less chance
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    D
    · 8 days ago
    From @lurgeeliz on twitter:

    Timms today BBC

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0ltkvh7?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

    PIP Review

    ▶️ Summer 2025: planning review process, expect to select ~10 people to work with Timms

    ▶️ Review needs to operate within spending projections

    UC Health Cuts

    ▶️ Employment Support package used to justify 48% new claims cuts


    Access to Work

    ▶️ Demand means DWP struggling to deliver timely personalised assessments

    ▶️ Timms hoping to develop less personalised assessment to speed up grants

    ▶️ Results of AtW consultation due later in year

    ▶️ Mayfield review due in autumn re: employer responsibilities


    5 Collaboration committees:

    ▶️ Pathways to Work

    ▶️ Right to Try

    ▶️ Access to Work

    ▶️ Age of PIP

    ▶️ Youth Employment

    ~10 people per committee, 1 meeting per month until Oct, recommendations will then be given to MPs to influence the final decisions made in each area

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      pollenpath
      · 8 days ago
      @D And still, every single inch of the so-called review pretends PIP is tantamount to an unemployment benefit. I'd say I'm shocked, but we already know the whole performance is utterly shameless. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    D
    · 9 days ago
    https://www.bigissue.com/opinion/timms-review-pip-assessment-disability-rights-uk/?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1753952683
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Nutcracker
    · 9 days ago
    Hi all, this whole Universal credit thing is totally depressing. Im just migrating over from ESA, can anyone advise if my council tax will increase alot. All ive been hearing is that I won't be able to afford it. If this is the case then I'll be homeless. Hoping someone can give me some hope. Thanks in advance 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      ANGELA
      · 7 days ago
      @Nutcracker Every council is different. Email yours for clarification and/or read their ‘Council Tax Support’ page. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Sam
      · 9 days ago
      @Nutcracker It depends on your council, you haven't I re apply when you migrate. Made no difference to my bill 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Aw
    · 10 days ago
    Something has just occured to me, I'm due to be migrated to UC and will not see an increase in my support until my TP is less than UC, in future what figure will they use? As it stands if nothing changed and the basic UC element and the health element continued to rise with inflation, eventually my TP would be nil and my income would start rising again. If they halve the health element, my TP will not reach nil for years, meaning every year I will be much worse off in line with the loss of the yearly uprating I would otherwise have gotten? It sounds wrong, but I think I'm correct? What worries me is on the face of it it looks like I will only lose the uprating but of course I will also lose my rent increases yearly. Can someone with a better maths head work thia out for me? Ta
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 9 days ago
      @Aw  Website edited out part of my first paragraph.

      You will be treated as an existing claimant. Entitled to the current higher UC LCWRA element, and having your UC standard allowance + UC LCWRA element combined total increased each year by inflation.

      Although as you say you will not see a rise in your benefits until your UC standard allowance + UC LCWRA + UC housing element exceeds your legacy entitlement to ESA + housing benefit. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 9 days ago
      @Aw You will be an existing claimant. 

      And if your entitlement for UC standard allowance + UC LCWRA + UC housing element is less than your current ESA + Housing Benefit you will have your UC increased by the difference as transitional protection. Until your entitlement under the current system exceeds your transition protected legacy entitlement.

      Note if you get UC housing and your rent goes up and your UC housing element increases the amount you get after rent will go down. As the transitional protection if for the total amount including housing not the money you get left with after housing. 

      Yeah I know I am being optimistic about UC housing element going up, considering the Local Housing Allowance is currently frozen.

      What will happen in 2028/29 when the Work Capability Assessment system and LCW LCWRA are abolished and replaced with the Timms PIP Assessment system and for those on PIP daily living UC health or UC severe conditions criteria. We do not know. We assume existing claimants will be protected. But it is possible anyone not in the severe conditions criteria group could be treated the way you fear. That is as only entitled to the new lower UC health element, but having transitional protection.  
       
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    D
    · 10 days ago
    From @areyoflight on twitter (I think she’s the founder of ‘disability rebellion’ organisation):

    On 21st July, DR was one of several organisations/activists (represented by DPO Forum) who attended the APPG on Disability meeting via Zoom.

    Stephen Timms later published this letter.

    It presents itself as an update on the Government’s efforts to *support* disabled people - but it shows several limitations:

    🫟 Re: The BSL Act 2022, the report only shows government departments 𝙩𝙖𝙡𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 about BSL use - not necessarily delivering services in BSL.

    🫟 The new Plan for Disability is just a “vision” rather than concrete policies or legally binding commitments.

    🫟 These actions are symbolic rather than designed to achieve anything meaningful.

    👉 The research cited confirms what DPOs and disabled people have long been saying:

    🫟 Widespread inaccessibility in buildings and services
    🫟 Discrimination and negative attitudes from staff
    🫟 Barriers created by automated and digital-only systems

    👉 These are not new findings and there is no substantial policy or commitment to address these.

    👉 The “Plan for Disability” is vague and offers no detail on:

    🫟 Who is involved in shaping the plan
    🫟 How DPOs and disabled individuals will be included meaningfully
    🫟 What timelines or outcomes are expected

    👉 Timms has shifted part of the burden of communication and awareness-raising onto DPOs - but there is no mention of new funding, support, or formal collaboration with DPOs.

    👉 Timms claims the Government is “championing the rights of disabled people,” but shows no accountability mechanisms, performance targets, or reference to how progress will be measured.

    👉 There's also no mention of:

    🫟The UNCRPD (UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities)
    🫟 Previous criticisms by the UN of the UK Government’s treatment of disabled people

    👉 Basically, this letter is a PR document. It is of little substance. It highlights problems that are well-known without offering clear, funded, or enforceable solutions.

    👉 Despite claims to put disabled people “at the heart of everything we do,” there’s little evidence here of systemic change, co-production, or accountability.

    See below for ALT on the letter

    (Can’t post the screenshot of timms letter on b&w blog - you’ll have to log on to twitter to read that one)

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    John
    · 10 days ago
    Hollow words from the Committee considering 6 Labour members of the Committee voted for the bill and only 1 against Frank McNally who went against the Labour whip. And of the 4 non Labour members of the Committee whose party line was to oppose the bill, 2 abstained Tory Peter Bedford and LibDem John Milne. So overall the Committee members voted 6 for, 2 abstained, 3 against.

    Universal Credit bill
    Voted for Labour Debbie Abrahams, Johanna Baxter, Damien Egan, Gill German, Amada Hack, David Pinto-Duschinsky
    Abstained Conservative Peter Bedford, LibDem John Milne
    Voted against Conservative Danny Kruger, Labour Frank McNally, LibDem Steve Darling
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Sam
      · 10 days ago
      @John Can't count Kruger since he had put his name to that awful amendment that was not chosen to exclude depression and anxiety from claiming 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      keepingitreal
      · 10 days ago
      @John Exactly. Deborah Abrahams voted for it.

Free PIP, ESA & UC Updates!

Delivered Fortnightly

Over 110,000 claimants and professionals subscribe to the UK's leading source of benefits news.

 
iContact

Latest news

We use cookies

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential for the operation of the site, while others help us to improve this site and the user experience (tracking cookies). You can decide for yourself whether you want to allow cookies or not. Please note that if you reject them, you may not be able to use all the functionalities of the site.

Ok Decline
More about cookies