• Search
  • You are here:  
  • Home
  • News
  • Final version of the Universal Credit Bill now published

News

Final version of the Universal Credit Bill now published

Details

The final version of the Universal Credit Bill (formerly the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill) has now been published on the parliament website.

A copy of the updated explanatory notes has also been published.

Immediately below the title of the new bill is the following note:

[The Speaker of the House of Commons has certified this Bill as a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911.]

This confirms that the bill is a money bill and that, therefore, the Commons can ignore any amendments the Lords might attempt to make.

Readers can therefore assume that this is the final version of the bill which will come into force in April 2026.

You can download the final version of the bill and the explanatory notes from this page.

The version of the bill is “HL Bill 123 (as brought from the Commons)” – click on the Bill (4) link to get it.

The explanatory notes are “HL Bill 123 Explanatory Notes” – click on Explanatory Notes (3) to get them.

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.
    John
    · 6 hours ago
    Reading between the lines of the terms of reference for the Timms review it looks to be like they will be targeting.
    Those who would currently qualify for standard rate PIP.
    Young adults.
    Those claiming for mental health conditions.
    Those claiming for anxiety and depression.
    Those able to use disability aids.
    Those they deem able to work from home.
    Those who have someone in receipt of carer's allowance and those who live in care homes.
    Looking to reduce claimant numbers and maybe level of benefit and instead fund services for disabled people or health conditions or to "help" them towards and into work.
    Introduce conditionality and sanctions regime for those not working.

    Timms has previously said he expects only 10% of UC health claimants to be in the severe conditions criteria. That is indicative of what percent of current claimants he thinks deserve unconditional support. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    HL
    · 7 hours ago
    They should take the Severe Conditions Criteria out of the Universal Credit Bill and make a separate Bill for it which would not be a Money Bill so it can be debated in Lords many of which have relevant medical experience.
    @Roy Haynes - I agree, and the UK Parliament website states that -

    A money bill is a bill that in the opinion of the House of Commons Speaker is concerned only with national taxation, public money or loans.

    In case it’s of interest - here’s a link to the House of Lords Speakers on the Bill - 22 July.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Tim
    · 10 hours ago
    Like many people I’m still confused about the cuts to PiP. I can’t see that this link which went up on the internet yesterday about PiP cuts has been posted anywhere but it’s confused me even more. Is it just about limiting eligibility for PIP and the UC health element to the most severe cases of anxiety, depression and ADHD or will it also affect “anyone” on Pip?.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      JHF
      · 5 hours ago
      @Slb This would suggest NO Co-Production with the disabled community in anyway. This cannot be allowed to happen. Transparency in the Timms Review is needed at all times for Co-Production to work.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      JHF
      · 5 hours ago
      @Tim Just like the A.I. of google, the A.I. that produces the stories on msn are full of errors. But this is a whole other subject of debate.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      SevenLions
      · 6 hours ago
      @Tim This article supports my claim that Timm's review will make it harder for claimants to get the enhanced rate of PIP. As the new bill of UC in regards to the severe disability criteria focuses now on unambiguous diagnosis from NHS (only) and that condition has no fluctuation nature, they may apply this criteria to the claimants to get the enhanced rate and that will save them a lot of money.

      Anyway, we have received at least two letters from labour MPs to tell us that the existing PIP claimants will be protected from any changes and the new claimants will be affected after Timm's review. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 6 hours ago
      @Tim Your link going on about removing PIP & UC health from those with anxiety, mild depression, ADHD is quoting the Centre for Social Justice the "think tank" originally set up by Tory Ian Duncan Smith to do "research" (create evidence by doing such things as redefining words in their research to create misleading facts) to support his desired welfare changes. The Tories have said this is what they want to do. Labour have not. If Labour will also act on the "research" and policy suggestions of the Centre for Social Justice we do not know.

      Labour's Timms review is looking at PIP as a whole all the descriptors and points and the level of financial support given. Not just at those with anxiety, depression, ADHD. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Slb
      · 6 hours ago
      @Tim No changes to PIP will be announced until after the Timms review. Anything you read to the contrary is click bait.  This story is just that.  It's about a report from a right wing "think tank" that has no bearing on what will happen.  
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Roy Haynes
    · 18 hours ago
    Universal Credit Bill says under ' Severe conditions criteria claimant ' 40A.-(2)(b) at least one of the descriptors set out in schedule 7 constantly applies. So how can a Law say that you must meet one of the descriptors in the Work Capability Assessment when the Work Capability Assessment doesn't exist  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 6 hours ago
      @Roy Haynes The Work Capability Assessment and LCW, LCWRA status is being abolished in 2028 and receiving PIP daily living element will then give eligibility to UC health (paid at the same rate as LCWRA). According to Timms PIP currently has no similar group to the Work Capability Assessment system severe conditions criteria. Such a group will be created by the Timms review new PIP assessment system.

      Note Timms appears to be ignoring the current PIP ongoing/indefinite enhanced rate daily living component award. Which for working age claimants is for severely disabled for life expected to be on disability benefits for life.  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 6 hours ago
      @Roy Haynes
       

      Note Timms appears to be ignoring the current PIP ongoing/indefinite enhanced rate daily living component award. Which for working age claimants is for severely disabled for life expected to be on disability benefits for life.  
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Diceman24
    · 19 hours ago
    After reading pip review by Stephen timms I thought the pip reform was leaving pip moving around part alone but now looks like they will be changing criteria for this has well now. I really can’t believe this country who agrees with attacking  the  disabled and pensioners so wrong in life 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 5 hours ago
      @Slb The Timms review is looking at changing the descriptors and points for PIP Mobility as well as Daily Living.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      JHF
      · 5 hours ago
      @Slb This would suggest NO Co-Production with the disabled community in anyway. This cannot be allowed to happen. Transparency in the Timms Review is needed at all times for Co-Production to work.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      JHF
      · 6 hours ago
      @Diceman24 Even more reason to fight for Current Claimant Protection (CCP).
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Slb
      · 6 hours ago
      @Diceman24 No changes to PIP will be announced until after the Timms review.  Anything you read to the contrary is click bait.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    SLB
    · 20 hours ago
    OK.  Time to be controversial.  

    1.)  No-one knows what is going to be concluded within the Timms review.

    2.) No-one knows what kind of legislation will be used to get through any of those recommendations we don't know anything about.

    3.) No-one knows for sure which claimants will be affected by the legislation we know nothing about brought about by the unknown conclusions from the Timms report.

    So, PLEASE, stop scaring the crap out of each other by pretending you do know, or because you've read someone else who also doesn't know surmising on another site.   It's absolute madness, and will eventually drive people away from here.  And it's not fair on those who have been struggling.  Innuendo and rumour is not helpful.  If any concrete information on those subjects comes out, no doubt B&W will tell us about it. (I keep writing B&Q!)

    We've just had a year of constant worry.  It's now going to be well over a year before anyone knows anything about the outcome of the report.  Relax.  We honestly can do nothing over the next year or so except try to get involved in feeding into the report if we are given the opportunity, and doing our best to highlight anything we hear about it that suggests that the review isn't involving the people it says it will in the way it says it will.

    I'd also suggest that writing to MPs now about legislation that might happen in eighteen months time (or might never happen) probably isn't going to do anyone any favours either.  We have been yelling at MPs for months, and I should imagine that the last thing they want to see is their in-boxes still being filled up by us, wanting their attention about something that might or might not happen in the Commons in 2027 or later.  

    We will, at some point, get to see the legislation to scrap the WCA for UC - presumably before the Timms report concludes.  And I would suggest that is the time to properly start campaigning again and messaging MPs.  If we keep messaging MPs 365 days of the year, then we are not going to be listened to when there is something we desparately need them to hear (such as that next legislation).  Now is the time to chill out.  Relax.  Turn off.  Because these quieter months will pass very quickly.  And if you're feeling a bit lost after all the campaigning, there's plenty of a***holes in the press and social media who are vilifying us that we can go and shout at!  

    But we really do need to think about our community when we are posting things that we have no evidence of.  Many people have barely made it through the last few months.  Unnecessary worry caused by rumours is likely to have a significant effect.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Hilde
      · 6 hours ago
      @SLB SLB,  thank you so much for this rational account which everyone needs to read. Its so important to put this into perspective for our mental and physical health as well as that of others.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Neil Cook
      · 7 hours ago
      @SLB Slb, the calm presence in a mad chaotic world 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Tiggy8
    · 21 hours ago
    Is there any updates on what will happen with ESA contributions based?  Many on this form of ess are righty worried, no information to speak off regarding the abolishment details. I don’t wish to scare monger either as it’s a way off changing yet apparently. From I have read here surly the dwp cannot just remove you from ESA altogether and just have people receive UC basic payment? Confused on how this with pan out. Hopefully there is still IR ESA that can be claimed instead? 
    Thx 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      YogiBear
      · 5 hours ago
      @Michael If you claim ESA (CB) support group after the 12 months I take it this would stop altogether if you're not entitled to claim UC? I wonder if you'd still be entitled to NS credits for pension?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Michael
      · 13 hours ago
      @Tiggy8 I spoke to a (knowledgeable) work coach about this. If, for instance the contribution element ran out in 12 months time, that element simply moves over to UC. It doesn't effect your transistional protection, whatever you receive now, simply gets added to your UC amount.

      Nothing to worry about here.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Elizabeth Vidler
    · 22 hours ago
    I got a response from my MP, a Tory suggesting he thought that welfare needed complete reform, given what the conservatives had in mind I dread to think what they would be thinking of doing.  I  wonder as well given all the bad publicity that mobility is getting, whether it might be alot harder to get or have changes made to it.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Roy Haynes
    · 22 hours ago
    It's looking like ' Unambiguous Diagnoses ' has been dropped and been replaced by (3)(a)(ii) that has been diagnosed by an appropriately qualified health care professional
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Roy Haynes
    · 23 hours ago
    If you go to UK Parliament and put ' 2017 Severe Conditions ' in the Search bar the first item that comes up has a PDF attachment which clearly says ' Unambiguous Diagnose ' at the bottom of the second page
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Roy Haynes
    · 23 hours ago
    In October 2017 DWP announced the Criteria ( Four rules  that have to be met ) for a claimant to be classified as having a Severe Condition. The forth rule ' Unambiguous diagnose ' ( which means a Crystal Clear and Named medical condition ) is not showing in the Universal Credit Bill  
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Roy Haynes
    · 1 days ago
    They should take the Severe Conditions Criteria out of the Universal Credit Bill
    and make a separate Bill for it which would not be a Money Bill so it can be debated in Lords many of which have relevant medical experience.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    HL
    · 1 days ago
    The review will report to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, so that the Government can then make any decisions flowing from it. These could take the form of changes to primary legislation, secondary legislation, as well as a range of potential non-legislative actions.
    Here is a link to the Timms Review of the Pip Assessment - thank you SLB for sending.

    https://qna.files.parliament.uk/ws-attachments/1817526/original/Timms%20Review%20of%20the%20PIP%20Assessment.pdf
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Tim
    · 1 days ago
    This Lindsay Hoyle ?
    The Commons Speaker allegedly spent more than £180,000 of taxpayers’ cash in two years on first-class and business-class flights, with chauffeur-driven cars and stays at five-star resorts, according to the Daily Mail.

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      SalllyA
      · 17 hours ago
      @Tim £180,000 of taxpayers’ cash in two years on first-class and business-class flights, with chauffeur-driven cars and stays at five-star resorts, according,,,,,,, 
      £180,000 of taxpayers cash claimed by one MP. 




    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      James
      · 1 days ago
      @Tim Let us go back to 2009! Remember the MPs expense scandal? As soon as news broke out about it I was worried that they would quickly attack the people in order to divert attention away from themselves. It happened Labour introduced ESA and the disabled and sick became the focus in order to turn attention away from that! There had been widespread disgust as the expenses scandal and some MPs choose to stand down from the next election however it was the start of attacking the poor, disabled, and sick and began in the name of reforms, but I did feel at the time it was also a way to turn the public's focus from the corruption in Westminster to scapegoating the sick and disabled. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      SevenLions
      · 1 days ago
      @Tim The corruption in the political systems around the world is jaw dropping. 

      Sadly, in the UK I have never seen a politician prosecuted for corruption. Yes the media will make him the talk of the hour, but this is the fiercest punishment he could get, and you could correct me if I am wrong.

      Furthermore, countries like China has a severe punishment for corrupted politicians that could cost them their lives, if caught.
      It is sad to see the law discriminately imposed on the poor but not on the rich.

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Roy Haynes
    · 1 days ago
    The Severe Conditions Criteria determines whether a Claimant can have their continuous Reassessments stopped. Depending upon a Crystal-Clear diagnoses of a named medical condition which is impossible for the NHS that has spending limits on diagnostic tests for Genetic mutations that are difficult to find. So the UC Bill is also a Law about about the claimants Right to have continuous Reassessments stopped depending upon medical investigations. IT IS NOT JUST A MONEY BILL    
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 1 days ago
      @Roy Haynes For new claimants the severe conditions criteria group also results in the higher UC LCWRA/Health element. So if the Lords changed the definition so increasing or decreasing the number of people eligible to be in the group. It would not be cost neutral. So would be within the financial privilege of the House of Commons. Also Timms told the house of Commons that the definition in the bill is the same as the one currently used, it's not. But the Speaker could think there has been no change to the definition so the only thing the bill is doing is changing the benefit amounts.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Roy Haynes
    · 2 days ago
    There are still many disabled People presently receiving   ESA IR with the LCWRA element which is Promised by the Gov to be protected, BUT THERE IS NO MENTION OF THIS IN THE BILL 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Michael
      · 13 hours ago
      @John This is simply untrue.

      If and when the contribution element runs out, this element will simply be moved to UC without affecting your transistional protection. Your UC payment will simply increase by the value of the contributing based amount.

      A knowledgeable work coach confirmed this to me previously.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Slb
      · 21 hours ago
      @Roy Haynes No, they can't do that because all managed migrations get, and will  continue to get, transitional protection.   The migration process is happening very quickly now.  There's things to worry about, but I very much doubt that this is one of them.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Yorry
      · 1 days ago
      @Roy Haynes This is my concern atm as I haven't received my migration from ESA to UC yet. The DWP could cease all migration now & say they are catching up with current claimants. We need clarity on this! I'm going to email my MP (Henry Tufnell) & ask him to clarify with Sir Timms if Legacy claims after the deadline are "Protected". 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Roy Haynes
      · 1 days ago
      @SLB They could leave migration to UC after March 2026 and then say you are a new claimant and only get half. They are in control of the timing of the migrations
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Roy Haynes
      · 1 days ago
      @robbie You are right robbie it must be confirmed
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    tom
    · 2 days ago
    They don't make it an easy read do they
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      James
      · 1 days ago
      @tom It is not meant to! 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Robin
    · 2 days ago
    We need to change the narrative. We didn’t bankrupt the country the cons did why should we pay it. We are not the problem or the solution.

    Timms prejudiced against us so his review will be another farce. We will all get reassessed just in time for April. I hope this evil government pays a high price for this 

    I have only just transferred from ESA to UC expect forced labour anytime especially having read the dogs dinner of a bill. Unfortunately for me I don’t get PIP which would have been helpful.


  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    SevenLions
    · 2 days ago
    I just received a letter from my MP, and I want to highlight some points from that letter, and I will put my interpretation between brackets,  which may or may not be true. 
    1. Nothing will change for people currently receiving PIP. (Now and Forever)
    2. The pip eligibility criteria for news claims will remain the same until the Government has concluded its review of the assessment process in Autumn 2026. (New claims only will be affected after that review)
    My MP is Under-Secretary of State  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      JHF
      · 8 hours ago
      @Matt When you think about it, all that is really needed in the Timms Review to make cuts, is to raise the eligibility threshold of final qualifying points. So, to get the standard rate, you would need to score a minimum of 12 points and to get the enhanced rate, you would need to score a minimum of 16 points. However, this would only realistically work if the DWP stopped Robbing points off of everyone. 

      We could also use this system to test the integrity of the current system and vice versa. That is providing Current claimants get protection from new system and the DWP stop robbing points from everyone.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Slb
      · 21 hours ago
      @Scorpion You have no evidence for this.  The review has barely started, there is no way that you know it's conclusions or who they apply to.  We HAVE to stop with the habit on here of people scaring the shit out of others based on absolute nothing.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      SevenLions
      · 1 days ago
      @SLB I agree with you about using the word (Forever) but what I meant is (Now and after Timm's review).

      I just tried to give what it it seems a hope for all of us.

      But we still need to fight and storm our MPs inboxes will emails arguing against any reform that will undermine the disabled rights. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      SevenLions
      · 1 days ago
      @Scorpion Maybe I am wrong, but at least I have a solid evidence I rely on.
      * Existing claimants will be protected.
      * New claimants will be affected after the review.
      Otherwise, the letter will be nonsense. 
      The question is, could that be practical? Yes and we have seen that before.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      SevenLions
      · 1 days ago
      @Matt As I had a look at the conditions that qualify for severe disability criteria in the new bill of UC, I could say that they may make it harder for anyone to qualify for the enhanced rate in PIP and remember that will make them pay less and save a lot of money. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Matt
    · 2 days ago
    Just received a very long email from Steve Race, MP for Exeter who has backed the cuts from the start. I'll try to get it scanned onto the forum so others can read. I also see GP's, in a pilot scheme, are not to issue sick notes but send patients to either the Job centre or the gym!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Frances
      · 19 hours ago
      @Fiona @Fiona Of course you're allowed to comment, and a very pertinent comment it is too - not everyone who needs a fit note is unemployed - good for you pointing that out.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      HL
      · 1 days ago
      @Matt So we’re not allowed to be sick anymore -
      Did they give us a date?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Fiona
      · 1 days ago
      @Matt Surely this cannot be right if a worker go,s to his gp for a sicknote after he,s been ill for 7 days and they send him to the job centre or gym the worker still has a job..... but employers won't be insured to drag the employees back to work esp if it's contagious or a risk to his health or others. This pilot hasn't been thought threw. I wonder if this happens to MP or are they exempt. I hope I'm allowed to comment if not I appologise.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Anniesmum
      · 1 days ago
      @lesley Yes I think you are right, they haven’t thought about the DWP staff in this at all. I think it will be stressful for them too. I do wonder how all this will actually be rolled out in practice. Does anyone know if there is still a backlog in reassessments? 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Bud
      · 1 days ago
      @rookie I read it on the news on my phone yesterday. 

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