The Labour party has suspended four MPs who were involved in the welfare rebellion, on the grounds that they were repeat offenders.

Neil Duncan-Jordan, Chris Hinchliff,  Rachael Maskell and Brian Leishman have all had the whip removed and will now sit as independent MPs until their suspension ends.

Three other rebel MPs have lost their unpaid posts as trade envoys:   Rosena Allin-Khan, Bell Ribeiro-Addy and Mohammad Yasin.

The move is seen as a warning to MPs:  one rebellion will be overlooked but don’t even consider doing it a second time.

With a large number of other welfare benefits changes in the pipeline, as well as other controversial issues such as planning law and special educational needs provision, ministers are clearly hoping to scare MPs into obedience.

Whether this is a tactic that will work, or whether it will simply increase the disconnect between the top of the party and backbenchers, remains to be seen.

You can drop an email of support to the punished MPs:

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

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.
    · 15 days ago
    So they're coming after the UC/LCWRA group now? My worst nightmare is coming true.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 15 days ago
    I'm watching the Universal Credit Bill debate and most peers are speaking out in support of disabled people. Lord Sikka has just called the bill "cruel". 

    Being a money bill this won't affect the outcome of the bill going into law but it should help to keep the pressure on for real co-production in the Timms review. 


  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 15 days ago
    Government has issued another consultation on proposed changes to disabled felicities grants 
    Closing date 15 September 2025

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 15 days ago
    Along with being removed in future from being assessed as eligible for the Severe Conditions Criteria group by the Universal Credit bill.

    Those receiving UC LCWRA due to substantial risk are also being specifically targeted from April 2026 in the restarted WCA reassessments. As they make up about one sixth of LCWRA recipients, all those overdue a reassessment might get reassessed by 2028/29 when the WCA gets abolished.

    This seems unfair. They are not simply reassessing everyone on LCWRA based on how short their award was or how overdue a reassessment they are. They are specifically targeting those receiving UC LCWRA due to substantial risk.

    And cruel, they are the very group most likely to suffer detrimental effects to their health from having to go through the reassessment process. And the government is abolishing the WCA in 2028/29 because it causes harm.

    It seems motivated by prejudice as those receiving LCWRA for substantial risk are going by government and media rhetoric mostly for mental health.

    And seems motivated by politics not economics. As when the WCA is abolished in 2028/29 and replaced by PIP daily living giving eligibility for UC health. They are a group most likely to lose their UC LCWRA/health anyway. So targeting them now may reduces the headline figure of how many lose UC health when the WCA is abolished.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 days ago
      @Yup
      My situation is very similar to yours. I'm also LCWRA only. Like you, I doubt I would get through the PIP test as things stand now, though I'm facing very risky major spinal surgery soon and I don't know how things will be after that. It's possible that I might qualify for PIP after that - I just don't know.

      One dilemma people in our position face concerns the severe conditions criteria. Since they will be tighter from April 2026 than they are now (unless there is a legal challenge, which is quite possible), is it worth the risk of asking for a WCA now, in the hope of qualifying for the severe conditions group under the current criteria? The risk is losing LCWRA completely, though that could be appealed. On the other hand, if we don't trigger a WCA now, we may not be reassessed for a while, but then we would have the hurdle of the tighter criteria if the next WCA happens after April 2026. 

      Either way, just as the campaign of sustained pressure on Labour MPs over the last three months forced a government climbdown on a scale we would hardly have thought possible, we need to make sure that we fight like hell again for current claimants not to be affected by the post-Timms assessment (as I said elsewhere, for future claimants a legal challenge is probably the best hope). For people like us this is a matter of life or death. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 days ago
      @tintack
      I'm LCWRA only (finally forced to migrate) for double incontinence. It's totally messed up my life even mentally. Because Ive always hidden away. Ive barely left the house in over 15yrs, Ive always masked my mental health on doctors and hospital visits. Which is actually going to go against me. But they are attacking the mental health of people anyway. 

      I wont pass the PIP test. I'm going to end up homeless (my parents are getting old) and I dont know what I'm going to do. But Im just "
      For the last note. If anyone is wondering why such a public post. I finally cracked on hiding how bad my mental health is, ended up telling my family today. Which ive always tried to avoid, because I didnt want them to worry about me. So thanks Starmer, Liz and co. Im just one of many here that is going to be severely affected.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 days ago
      @John
      "As when the WCA is abolished in 2028/29 and replaced by PIP daily living giving eligibility for UC health. They are a group most likely to lose their UC LCWRA/health anyway."

      That's just yet another reason to pressure Labour MPs not to accept anything from the Timms review that hits existing claimants, whether of UC Health or PIP. Hitting existing claimants proved to be the line many Labour MPs were not willing to cross when it came to the proposed November 2026 PIP changes, and the government had to agree to exempt existing claimants from those changes because of that, so we will need to man the barricades again to pressure them to stick to that.

      I wish they wouldn't accept anything that hits future claimants either, but since hitting existing claimants seems to be their red line, for future claimants I would assume the best chance is probably a legal challenge to the severe conditions criteria. Timms has probably made such a challenge much more likely to succeed - no doubt unintentionally - because of his statement at the despatch box.  
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 15 days ago
    I just emailed the our main Lords contacts and got an almost immediate response -

    Thank you for your email – I am speaking in the debate today. I am worried about the ad hoc nature of these changes

    Kind regards

    The Baroness Grey-Thompson DBE, DL
    The House of Lords
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 16 days ago
    https://news.sky.com/story/govt-gives-rebel-labour-mps-last-minute-concession-to-welfare-bill-13391080?utm_source=chatgpt.com


    I'm hoping this link works. I still find it astounding that Stephen Timms can announce proudly that the new PIP review would be named after him when he was the architect of so much distress and harm up to this point. He should never be in charge of the review what can we do about this? Him and Liz "taking the mickey" Kendall should go!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 14 days ago
      @CaroA Thank you all — this has been a galvanising thread. It’s clear there’s deep unease about both the people leading this review and the possibility of sweeping people into poverty via changes to criteria. We must stay alert to how disabled-led voices are (or aren't) represented and keep putting pressure on MPs and the Lords. And we can’t let Labour get away with claiming this is all in our best interest — especially while Timms and Kendall remain at the helm
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 days ago
      @JHF
      " Current Claimant Protection (CCP) already exists for UC."

      But we don't know if the government intends to subject existing UC claimants to the proposal to make receipt of PIP daily living the qualifying criterion for the UC Health element. As there are 600,000 of us currently on UC Health who don't get PIP daily living, that's 600,000 of us who would lose our UC Health and be plunged into poverty if that change were applied to existing claimants. 

      As it happens, I don't think they could get anything that would plunge anything like that many people into poverty past their own party, but we'll probably have to fight hard again to make sure it doesn't happen.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 days ago
      @tintack Current Claimant Protection (CCP) already exists for UC.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @JHF
      "The only thing that can be done is for us to have a say on the descriptors for PIP for New Claimants via Disability Organisations and to demand Current Claimant Protection (CCP) for PIP via MPs and Disability Organisation."

      It's not just PIP, the same protection for existing LCWRA claimants is also essential. If that doesn't happen the results will be catastrophic.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @CaroA Oh I don't believe it, I was just thinking the review shouldn't be named after him, he's neither capable nor caring.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 16 days ago
    My understanding from Dr Jay Watts’ message is that from April 2026 (new claimants only) -

    -    The new Universal Credit SCC (Severe Conditions Criteria) will be extremely hard to meet.
    -    Substantial risk will now only apply to this group.
    -    Therefore, many / most applicants will no longer have protection from conditionality.

    This doesn’t appear to fit the money bill criteria - as it would seem to be a potentially serious safeguarding concern? Any thoughts and would anyone be up for contacting one / some of these this morning about this? -

    The Lord Speaker

    The Main Speaker

    Baroness Bennett

    Any other Speaker - Tallbob2 mentioned these may be sympathetic -

    Baroness Grey-Thompson
    Baroness Lister of Burtersett
    Baroness Scott of Needham Market
    Baroness Browning 

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 days ago
      @John Yes, Kirsty Blackman made a similar point when Timms made his statement. I would be very surprised if there were not to be a legal challenge to the severe conditions criteria as currently worded in the bill, given what Timms said at the despatch box.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @HL It means that if in future you get lcwra due to substantial risk you will only get the reduced rate. Only SSC get the 97 a week. You will still be able to get lcwra from substantial risk assuming the timms review doesn't mess it up 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @HL Post got cut off by the website.
      I went on to say that if ever challenged in court it is what parliament intended that is of utmost importance. This would seem clear cut in regards to severe conditions criteria and schedule 7 descriptor eligibility not changing, just being enshrined into primary legislation. And arguable for substantial risk eligibility as parliament was told there was no change being made to severe conditions criteria eligibility, that the current system being used was being enshrine into primary legislation.   

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @HL The Universal Credit bill does not change the substantial risk eligibility for LCWRA.  So they should still get LCWRA. 

      The Universal Credit bill changes the severe conditions criteria group eligibility to only schedule 7 descriptors if they constantly apply and to the terminally ill (a schedule 9 qualifying condition). In effect removing substantial risk (another schedule 9 qualifying condition) from eligibility. 

      So from April 2026 new claimants who will always meet eligibility for LCWRA due to substantial risk, will no longer be assessed as LCWRA severe conditions criteria do not reassess. 

      It is unclear what is going to happen in regards to the severe conditions criteria and schedule 7 descriptors. As Timms assured the house of commons that there was no change in the eligibility criteria. But, in the legislation there is. 

      Parliament was told there was no change being made to the severe conditions criteria eligibility currently used, it was just being enshrined into primary legislation. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 16 days ago
    Steve Darling (lib Dem)MP holding Liz Kendle up to scrutny. what a Legend a Blind Mp not letting her get away with not answering why she ignored the Disabled in the Green paper.  
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 16 days ago
    Hi Nutcracker 
    Regarding the health element I'm not sure you'll have to contact DWP,however regarding DLA to PIP ( see below)

    On Morning Live program BBC Thursday 3rd July at approx 10 am 
    Their reporter,who had contacted DWP, comfirmed that :
    Existing claimants on PIP due for review will fall under old system ie don't need 4 points for one activity.

    Moving from DLA to PIP there is no change there either IE you don't need 4 points for one activity etc


    I personally would wait as long as possible to migrate from DLA to PIP especially if you're on an indefinite award.
    Me and many of my friends were on DLA indefinite awards and when changed over to PIP we had to go for reassessment whereby we was awarded lower for both Care and Mobility, thus appeals and stress etc 


    Avoid as long as possible hope this helps

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 days ago
      @Harry Thanks Harry for taking the time to read & most importantly reply to my post. Your advice has helped alot. So sorry to read that you had a stressful time of changing over to PIP. I have enough worry with the ESA to Universal Credit migration, so I'll avoid the change over for as long as possible. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @JHF "We need Confirmation from Timms and/or Kendall."

      Well, even those of us who can shouldn't hold their breath for that 🙄
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @Harry There is no confirmation from Timms nor Kendall for Current Claimant Protection (CCP) on PIP. There was Current Claimant Protection within UC and PIP Bill for PIP but clause 5 has been removed thus removing Current Claimant Protection (CCP) for PIP. There are so many people including MPs getting confused about this. We need Confirmation from Timms and/or Kendall.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 16 days ago
    Typical BBC, another government lackey, puts on Fraud Squad programmes whereby they manage to find Disability claimants defrauding the system even though those on disability benefits defrauding the system is virtually nil


    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @Harry Why don’t they do a program, it’s not the claimant’s defrauding the system, it’s some of the employees helping themselves to money they are not entitled to, more than £6m of taxpayers money defrauded since 2020 by DWP staff!!!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @Harry Of course, if you want to get rid of any protection like human rights you use one or two examples of someone abusing it to get rid of protection for everyone. It is the same with disabled people, find an extreme case to discredit all. We see the same process when it comes to refugees, immigration, housing, etc. Always use a minority of abuse to justify getting rid of things for the majority. That is how the government and more importantly bent politicians abuse us 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 16 days ago
    https://consult.defra.gov.uk/consumers-and-affordability/reforming-the-watersure-scheme/supporting_documents/WaterSure%20Consultation.pdf

    Government announces a 6 weeks consultation on extending watersure scheme to people in receipt of non means tested benefits if they have a qualifying medical condition and are in receipt of AA, DLA, or PIP. 

    They are seeking the views should disability benefits be included in the financial calculation, which may mean even less claimants qualify. 

    I’ve provided a link to the consultation which closes 1st September 2025.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @Boo Exactly, tinkering round the edges now to scrape together what they've lost that they've already spent, all the while incurring extra costs. Absolutely s*dding useless.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @Boo
      Water Sure protects people for higher than average water bills. If they are on means tested benefits and have a disability that causes higher water use or have 3 or more children.

      The proposed changes look good
      1. Extending the list of qualifying benefits to include non-means tested disability benefits for those claiming through a qualifying medical condition.
      2. Updating the WaterSure bill cap to the amount of the average metered or unmetered bill (whichever is lower).
      3. Capping bills for single occupiers at the average bill for a single occupier.
      4. Removing the option for water companies to require a medical practitioner’s note for health conditions not specifically listed in the WaterSure regulations.
      5. Specifically listing more potentially qualifying medical conditions.


      On the subject of water bills. What is concerning is the government is proposing to have a national standard social tariff for water bills. Rather than the current postcode lottery. This is concerning because there could be winners and losers if the government does not make the current most generous scheme the national mandated standard scheme. For example Thames Water social tariff includes those on low incomes and gives 50% off bills. A new national mandated standard social tariff could reduce eligibility and the size of the discount. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @Boo Typical - extend eligibility to disabled groups then means test their disabled benefits so they're ineligible 😫
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @Boo Wondering if this is the start of a slippery slope where they include an option that they are seeking the views, “should disability benefits be included in the financial calculation, applying a household income threshold for those applying to the scheme on the basis of receiving a non means tested disability benefit, which it’s considering 60% of median income.” 
      Typical
       1. We can all say what 60% is in money terms, I haven’t got a clue!

       2. This money is awarded for the extra costs incurred due to your disability which you already are using to support your extra disability costs but if it’s includes both elements of pip or DLA it hardly fair if you incur additional costs in taxis or other mobility associated costs that it’s being suggested that all income is included for income calculation. 

      Once they slip this through how many other schemes currently available will start to have their criteria changed so potentially meaning less people qualify. 
      I can see slowly this could be applied in the future to means tested benefits in order to find the chancellor’s £5 billion 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 16 days ago
    And another ‘thank you for your thank you’:

    Thank you for getting in touch regarding the decision by the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) to remove the Labour whip from me and several of my colleagues.

    I have been overwhelmed by the flood of supportive messages from across the constituency and beyond since the whip was removed. Although I cannot reply individually to everyone, I have been reading them as they came in and would like to thank everyone for their kindness and solidarity, it has truly meant a lot.

    I want to reassure you that my commitment to serving the people of North East Hertfordshire remains unwavering. I will continue to fight every day for the needs of my constituents, and nothing will change in how I engage with and represent those I was elected to serve.

    I remain proud to have been elected as a Labour MP, and I am committed to supporting the government in delivering the bold and transformative agenda set out in the manifesto I was elected on last July.

    I hope, in time, to return to the Labour benches. However, in the interim, I will continue the vital work of a parliamentarian—scrutinising legislation, contributing to debates, and working constructively to improve the laws that affect us all. This is the approach I took with the Planning & Infrastructure Bill, the Universal Credit & Personal Independence Payment Bill, and other key pieces of legislation.
    Our parliamentary democracy works best when MPs are empowered to engage thoughtfully in the legislative process. I believe that when we do so, the outcomes are better for everyone.

    I assure you that I will continue to fight for a country that puts people and nature before profit. To those who ask how we can afford a fairer, greener future, I say this: we must take a hard look at the £200 billion in tax breaks handed out every year, the £20 billion in corporate subsidies, and ask ourselves whether we can truly afford to maintain the lowest corporation tax rate in the G7.

    Thank you again for your support—it means a great deal.

    Yours sincerely,

    Chris Hinchliff MP
    Member of Parliament for North East Hertfordshire
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 16 days ago
    Thank you response received to my thank you email to rebel MPs:

    Many thanks for taking the time to email and for your message of support. It's one of many I’ve received since Wednesday – each one has meant a lot to me during this difficult time.

    Since losing the whip for speaking out against cuts to PIP and other benefits, more people have reached out than I expected. People from the constituency and beyond - disabled people, pensioners, miners and community organisers - have shown incredible solidarity. It’s greatly appreciated.

    I do not regret what I have said these last 12 months. I stood up because I believe MPs are there to represent people and communities, not just follow party orders - especially when it comes to vulnerable individuals already hit hard by austerity.

    The temporary suspension of the Labour whip has been confusing and even upsetting, but it doesn’t change things. My commitment hasn’t wavered. I remain proud to stand for Labour ideals: solidarity, respect and justice. That means continuing the fight for disability support, securing future jobs and investment at Grangemouth, and making sure every community voice is heard in Westminster. Constituents and country, not party, come first.

    Your support and everyone else’s means the world to me and my incredible staff. Thank you for standing with us.

    In solidarity,

    Brian
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 16 days ago
    Here’s a link to the Work and Pensions Committee’s 5 current inquiries - where we can track progress. The Safeguarding one seems particularly pertinent to our questions around Universal Credit SCC and substantial risk.

    -    Employment support for disabled people
    -    Get Britain Working: Pathways to Work
    -    Get Britain Working: Reforming Jobcentres
    -    Pensioner Poverty: challenges and mitigations
    -    Safeguarding vulnerable claimants

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 16 days ago
    The Work and Pensions Committee has now launched an inquiry to address the disability employment gap.

    It is calling for the views of disabled people, employers, and experts.

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 16 days ago
    ‘The exchange with Debbie Abrahams that we just witnessed was an example of the unique platform the Liaison Committee provides.
    We saw a Labour MP telling a Labour prime minister face-to-face that his welfare cuts have been "far removed from Labour values" and that they "must do better".
    It looked a little uncomfortable.
    Starmer stuck to the government's line that getting people into work was an "important Labour value".
    That was never the point though for the rebels - as the cuts they objected to were to benefits that also get paid to working people.’


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c0k7me1ymj5t


    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @Gingin
      I heard this, and she was powerful, but I was baffled - did she not vote for the (albeit much reduced) bill after 3rd reading?

      Also, "the cuts they objected to were to benefits that also get paid to" pensioners.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @Gingin We all get Starmer's ideas on tough love for the disabled and sick. He is the lowest of the low when it comes to abusing people and then telling them it's for their own good. It would be ironic if someone was to take his official car and residence away and tell him that would also be good for him as it will incentivise him to walk! He is using very unconvincing arguments to justify an evil action! The man does not have an ounce of compassion in him. Shudder to think if he eventually became a judge instead of entering politics as he would have been a proverbial hanging judge! I really detest this power hungry man and his arguments that harm people and then making out its for their good! What a manipulator! 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 16 days ago
    Hi all, although this is nothing to do with this subject, I feel that I need to ask, to see if anyone has the answer? Im on an indefinite DLA award & i thought that we'd all be changed over to PIP, by the time that the Universal Credit health related side of things comes into fruition, but apparently the change over has been delayed until April 2028. Im currently transitioning over from ESA to Universal Credit & will get LWRCA, but what happens when this new bill goes through. Do I lose the health element because I've not changed over to PIP? Im sure that there are quite a few people on here, who are in the same boat. I can't find any answers & im just wondering whether I should change over before all the amendments come into force? Any advice, information, opinions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @Nutcracker My guess is that you will continue with lcwra and dla until you are transferred to pip. Any review of your pip should then be subject to the rules as they are now, if the spirit of current claimant protection is honoured. However we don't know, and it probably hasn't been considered, like so much of these changes. There are so many unplanned elements.

      Perhaps you should ask your mp to raise this before the Timms review.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 17 days ago
    email from mp has not gone on to the thread, I'll try again

    Dear Matthew,

    Thank you for your email regarding the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, and welfare reform more widely. I’m writing to you now because the Bill passed Third Reading in the House of Commons this week, undergoing many changes along the way, including on the day with new amendments accepted by government and Parliament.

    Firstly, I want to acknowledge that any change to the welfare system brings with it very strong feelings, and I understand why that it is. My sister was born with severe disabilities, and I know that people instinctively and rightly want to protect those who need the most protection. That is my instinct too.

    Like many of my colleagues, I have been in discussion with ministers about the Bill from the moment the initial proposals were published. So I welcome the recent changes announced by the Government to strengthen the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill. I believe in a welfare state that is there for all of us when we need it, now and in the future, that protects the most vulnerable, and that delivers equality and dignity for all.

    This Bill will now:
    •    Deliver a 16% increase to Universal Credit, the biggest ever permanent increase.
    •    Abolish repeated reassessments for people with severe conditions who cannot work, and introduce a premium payment.
    •    Lift 50,000 children out of poverty.
    •    Deliver record funding for employment support.
    •    Protect all people currently on PIP from any future changes.

    I also believe the welfare state should enable people to live their best lives, not one that traps them on a very basic income with no hope of being able to secure meaningful work. What we have at the moment, built up over 14 years of Conservative government, is the worst of all worlds – a system that is growing in size, costing far more every year, and failing the people within it. When one in eight young people is on out of work health-related benefits, and not in education, training or employment, we know that something has gone badly wrong. It is a monumental waste of human potential.

    We should also be clear that far from cutting the health-related benefits budget, it will continue to grow substantially. Specifically on Personal Independence Payments (PIP), by the end of this parliament there will be around 750,000 more people accessing this benefit than today, and spend will increase by £8bn a year to £31bn a year, from this year’s £23bn. So while I welcome that PIP has been removed from the scope of the Bill completely, I look forward to engaging with the Timms Review in the coming months.

    Changes to the Original Proposals:

    Following the changes, the Bill will now also ensure that:
    •    All existing Personal Independence Payment (PIP) recipients will remain on the current system and the proposed changes to eligibility as part of the bill will only apply to new claims from November 2026 following the Timms Review which will be coproduced with disability organisations. This change protects all existing claimants in receipt of PIP.
    •    People who meet the Severe Conditions Criteria – those with the most severe, lifelong conditions who are unlikely to recover - will not be called for a Universal Credit (UC) reassessment.
    •    All existing recipients of the UC health element and new customers with 12 months or less to live or who meet the Severe Conditions Criteria will see their standard allowance combined with their Limited Capability for Work Related Activity (LCWRA) rise at least in line with inflation every year from 2026/27 to 2029/30.

    Additional support:

    Additionally, nearly 4 million households – 6.7 million people - will receive an income boost with the main rate of Universal Credit set to increase above inflation every year for the next four years – estimated to be worth £725 by 2029/30 for a single household aged 25 or over. This is around £250, higher than an inflation only increase. It is the first time ever that UC has risen in this way. No-one who is already receiving an award of Universal Credit or PIP will be pushed in to poverty as a result of the direct impact on their current circumstances of the measures in this Bill.

    Comprehensive Review of PIP:

    The Government has also launched the first ever comprehensive review of the PIP assessment in over a decade. The Timms Review will be led by the Minister for Social Security and Disability, Sir Stephen Timms. Many people have reported poor experiences with the assessment process; the current system often fails to reflect the real-world impact of disability on daily life and is no longer fit for purpose - making reform urgent and essential. The review will ensure the system is fair, supportive and reflects the realities of modern life, and considers the changes in society since it was first devised and introduced. This government is committed to ensuring that PIP is a non-means tested cash benefit which is there for people now and for the long-term.

    The review will be co-produced with disabled people, the organisations that represent them, and MPs with the core objective of delivering better experiences and better outcomes for disabled people and people with health conditions. This review will include looking at the activities, descriptors and associated points to ensure these properly capture the impact of long-term health conditions and disability in the modern world.

    Support for People to Get Into Work:

    I believe that those who can work, should, and that those who cannot, should be protected. These reforms will be underpinned by a significant investment in employment support. Funding will be brought forward to accelerate tailored employment, health and skills support to help disabled people and those with health conditions get into work as part of the government’s Pathways to Work guarantee. £300 million will be brought forward over the next three years, increasing total employment support by £2.2 billion over four years. This will ensure the government’s commitment to spend £1 billion per year by the end of the decade.

    The Government is also taking decisive action to improve the lives of disabled people immediately. I welcome the £800 million investment in disability employment support announced in the Autumn Budget, as well as the redeployment of 1,000 work coaches to provide tailored help to sick and disabled people. It is also important that businesses are encouraged to create inclusive environments for disabled employees – so we can promote their recruitment and retention.

    Indeed, here in Exeter we also have a fantastic team at PLUSS whom I have visited on several occasions. Their disability employment specialists work closely with people with disabilities to help them find employment that works for them. The "Ability not Disability" (AnD) programme, led by Learn Devon, has also helped over 200 people with disabilities into education, employment, or training. The scheme includes a "Job Guarantee" initiative, matching disabled individuals with employers for three months of paid work and training. This has led to many participants securing full-time positions, significantly boosting their independence and confidence.

    Alongside this, the government is also legislating for the Right to Try, so that people can try work safe in the knowledge that accepting a job will not, in and of itself, lead to a reassessment or award review. The current system of complex rules governing whether people receiving disability benefits can work, can often leave them people confused and concerned – leaving them scared of trying a job in case they make errors and potentially lose the support they receive.

    Research clearly shows that many economically inactive people want to work, if given the right support. Indeed, the welfare charity Z2K notes that 90% of claimants they have dealt with are afraid of looking for work due to the risk of losing their health-related benefits. This is clearly a system that isn’t working for anyone.

    The new Right to Try Guarantee will mean that from next year anyone on PIP, new-style Employment Support Allowance or the Universal Credit health element will be able to try a new job with a guarantee that this will not be considered a relevant change of circumstances. As such, trying work will not trigger a PIP award review or Work Capability Assessment reassessment.

    Fixing Public Services:

    I also know that many people who are currently on PIP want to improve their mental and physical health, and that the state of the public services left by the Conservative governments has meant this has been difficult.

    Since this Labour government came to office one year ago, to better help those with mental ill health the government has recruited more than 6,700 extra mental health workers, while rolling out more access to occupational health services and developing digital resources, so employers better support their staff’s mental wellbeing. We have also invested an extra £29 billion into the NHS, to ensure that waiting lists come down and people receive the healthcare they need. We are also committed to the fight to eradicate poverty, which is why we have increased the National Living Wage, introduced the biggest package of workers' rights measures for a generation, rolled out free school meals to a further 500,000 children and rolled out free breakfast clubs, and we are currently developing our Child Poverty ActionPlan.

    It’s clear from listening to residents in Exeter that the welfare system is broken and must be fixed. I hear frustrations from those who want to work but don’t have the support to do so, and frustrations from those who are let down when the system fails. Labour values are built on a simple but powerful idea: that every individual, regardless of background or circumstance, should have the support they need to make the most of their lives. Everyone who is capable of working deserves the security, dignity and autonomy that employment offers. There are some people who are not able to work, and it is vital that they are treated with compassion and respect. For those that can, it is equally critical that we restore the pathways to opportunity which are currently lacking for millions of people.

    Sustainability of the Welfare System:

    It is also important to recognise that the welfare and benefits system must also be fair to taxpayers – it is unsustainable to allow a system to continue that traps people who can and want to work into unemployment and a life on benefits, while leaving people who work and pay tax to pick up an ever-larger bill. PIP now costs £23 billion a year – twice the amount it cost five years ago. Every day, 1000 people are newly added to the PIP system, meaning that three times the population of Exeter is added every year.

    Next Steps:

    Finally, in terms of the amendment that was tabled to the Bill, like most of my colleagues I did not sign the amendment as I believe the welfare system – designed and implemented by the last Tory and Lib Dem governments – needs reform. However, in advance of welfare reform announcements I spoke to ministers to make clear my position that there will always be people with severe health conditions or disabilities meaning that they cannot work – and that they should continue to be protected and supported.

    Since the proposals were announced in March, I have continued to make representations to Ministers and others, informed by my own views and those of residents in Exeter who have been in touch, to ensure we got the right outcome, that protects those who cannot work and helps those who can into work.

    At this stage having seen the amendments and the exclusions, I am content with the broad scope of the Bill, and the many good measures that are contained within it. It is for that reason I voted in favour. Thank you for writing to me with your concerns, which in aggregate I continue to raise with ministers.

    Best wishes,



    Steve Race MP
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 days ago
      @Boo The one thing that always stands out when talking about PIP is the cost increases but it never takes into account the cost of living increases or inflation as well as be measured as a ratio against government tax increases in revenues! This is cost accounting at its worst which simply does not look at the over all cost of living in a balanced and proportionate way
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @Sam @Sam It's the same old story - often "the only way you can get anything" is to claim something else, and losing one thing means you lose another. Government has missed this time and time again.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @Yup
      "That would be the 600,000 that are claming LCWRA only. Which will somehow have to now have to claim PIP."

      That's if they apply that change to existing UC Health claimants. They may well want to do that, but taking UC Health away from existing claimants because they don't get PIP daily living, thus pushing 600,000 people into poverty, does not look like something that is likely to be accepted by their own party. The original version of the UC/PIP bill was forecast to push 250,000 into poverty - and they couldn't get that through, which is why they had to agree to exempt existing claimants from the proposed November 2026 PIP changes before eventually scrapping those changes at the last minute. If they try anything which involves clobbering existing PIP and/or UC Health claimants there will almost certainly be another major rebellion and recent events will be repeated.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @Matt If MPs carry on with hearsay/misunderstanding, there will be even more deaths than previously thought. Timms nor Kendall has confirmed Current Claimant Protection (CCP). Until they do, I think that we can take this with a pinch of salt. It is unfair for an MP to confirm this without the Confirmation of Timms or Kendall. I believe that as no confirmation has been given by Timms or Kendall, we will all need to fight for it by demanding it from MPs and Disability organisations.

      Clause 5 was removed from the UC Bill therefore removing Current Claimant Protection (CCP) for PIP.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @sara I read the MP’s reply and it looks very much like a government machinery response, definitely looks to me, something liz Kendall department has circulated to MP’s in how to respond to their constituents concerns.

      When I was listening to the dates and the concession made, it is how I understood what had been said on the floor of the House of Commons. 

      Time will tell!!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 17 days ago
    Here’s a link to the 20 Speakers to contact before the Universal Credit Bill debate,
    22 July, 2.30pm.

    If you click on the name – it will take you to the Speaker’s contact details.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @Tallbob2 Thank you - and great you got a positive response!
      It will be interesting to see what happens tomorrow. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @HL Please note, 6 is the maximum number of emails you can send via the generic parliament email address - contactholmember@parliament.uk

      For members of the House of Lords with individual email addresses you can email as many as you like.

      More than 6 emails from the same account to the generic parliament address and they will be deleted as spam. This is 6 within a 24 hour period.

      Oh, and I got a response from one member of the Lords who says she will be speaking out against the bill!

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 17 days ago
    Dr Jay Watts, Consultant Clinical Psychologist and Activitist
    Twitter: @Shrink_at_Large
    Date: Jul 18
    LORDS REVIEW UC BILL ON TUESDAY
    Lords can't stop UC Bill BUT every speech in our support builds legal case and hopefully will encourage support for Baroness Bennett's fab 'motion to regret'.
    Please email the template or your version to speaking Lords (Email template and contact emails provided here):

    See full article here:
    https://thepsychopoliticalbody.substack.com/p/how-labour-is-gutting-substantial

Free PIP, ESA & UC Updates!

Delivered Fortnightly

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

 
iContact
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.