Liz Kendall's letter to Labour MP's announcing the "concessions" the government has offered to win over rebels has been published.

It leaves a great many questions unanswered.  And as amendments to the bill will not be published before Tuesday's vote, it means MPs will have to vote without actually knowing what they are ultimately agreeing to. 

On first reading, one of the most obvious question is whether the guarantee relating to PIP means that current claimants will also be protected from the "ministerial review of the Pip assessment, led by the minister for social security and disability [Stephen Timms], to ensure the benefit is fair and fit for the future." If not, and Timms introduces much harsher conditions for PIP from 2028, then the PIP guarantee is good for only around three years.

We are sure readers will have many more queries.  Please post them in the comments section below - we won't be able to answer them, but we can begin to collate them.

Dear colleague,

We have always said we are determined to reform the social security system so it is fair, provides dignity and respect for those unable to work, supports those who can, and is sustainable so it is there for generations to come.

The broken system we inherited from the Tories fails all of those tests.

These important reforms are rooted in Labour values, and we want to get them right.

We have listened to colleagues who support the principle of reform but are worried about the impact of the pace of change on those already supported by the system.

As a result we will make two changes to strengthen the bill.

Firstly, we recognise the proposed changes have been a source of uncertainty and anxiety.

Therefore, we will ensure that all of those currently receiving Pip will stay within the current system. The new eligibility requirements will be implemented from November 2026 for new claims only.

Secondly, we will adjust the pathway of universal credit payment rates to make sure all existing recipients of the UC health element – and any new claimant meeting the severe conditions criteria – have their incomes fully protected in real terms.

Colleagues rightly want to ensure that disabled people and those with ill health are at the heart of our reforms.

We will take forward a ministerial review of the Pip assessment, led by the minister for social security and disability [Stephen Timms], to ensure the benefit is fair and fit for the future.

At the heart of this review will be coproduction with disabled people, the organisations that represent them, and MPs so their views and voices are heard. The review will then report to me as work and pensions secretary.

These commitments sit alongside our raising of the standard rate of the universal credit – the biggest real-terms permanent increase of any benefit since the 1980s – the protection of the incomes of the most vulnerable who will no longer be reassessed and the introduction of “right to try”.

Our reform principles remain; to target funding for those most in need and make sure the system is sustainable for the future to support generations to come.

We believe those who can work, should, and those who cannot, should be protected.

We will front load more of the additional funding generated by these reforms for back to work support for sick and disabled people.

Taken together it is a fair package that will preserve the social security system for those who need it by putting it on a sustainable footing, support people back into work, protect those who cannot work and reduce anxiety for those currently in the system.

Thank you to colleagues for engaging with us on these important reforms to social security.

Comments

Write comments...
or post as a guest
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 7 hours ago
    I'm on UC LCWRA without being on PIP. Does continuing protection for people currently only on LCWRA still apply past the proposed merging/abolition of the WCA assessment in 2028? And will the PIP assessment be changed to take into account the descriptors for the WCA or will it just stay the same?

    Have to say the way this whole "reform" has been handled has been as disgusting as it is incompetent.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 3 hours ago
      @tintack I think it is best to go by Liz Kendall's concession letter to MPs that states what the government has actually agreed to do. Not try to interpret what MPs are saying about it as being more. MPs are seeking to take credit for the concessions and justify no longer opposing the bill and are talking it up as is the government. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 hours ago
      @John You could read it that way, but that certainly doesn't come anywhere close to being a "massive concession" and it also does not sit easily - to say the least - with the way that this is being reported, including by MPs who had intended to rebel, as "existing claimants can rest easy, they'll be OK". Even B & W, who are extremely on the ball on questions of detail like this, aren't sure what the situation is. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 hours ago
      @tintack Meg Hillier's statement I think is just referring to Liz Kendall's concession "Secondly, we will adjust the pathway of universal credit payment rates to make sure all existing recipients of the UC health element – and any new claimant meeting the severe conditions criteria – have their incomes fully protected in real terms."

      Which I think just means the freezing of UC health element will not make them worse off in real terms. Be that either due to UC health not being frozen. Or more likely a backstop in case UC standard allowance with above inflation uplift + UC health frozen is less than UC standard allowance +UC health both increased by inflation.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 hours ago
      @Gawayn We don't know for certain.  But perhaps you could try claiming for PIP between now and November 2026, so you at least get assessed under the old rules.  That won't affect your LCWRA entitlement.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 hours ago
      @Gawayn
      Meg Hillier's statement implies she believes that existing UC Health claimants will not lose their UC Health because of the new qualifying criteria: 

      "This means that disabled people currently in receipt of Pip and the health element of universal credit will continue to receive the same level of support."

      Having said that, the WCA legislation hasn't come forward yet, so we need some clarity on this. Yet again, the government is putting out statements which are as clear as mud.

      If we do still stand to lose our UC Health when the criteria change then nothing has changed in that respect (that, after all, was the original proposal) and Hillier is trumpeting something as a major concession which is really no concession at all. If so, she's either lying or she's been duped. 

      Hopefully we'll get some clarity on Monday before the vote. If not, we'll have to wait for the WCA legislation to come forward. I do think the pledge that current PIP claimants will not be subjected to the new harsher PIP eligibility criteria sets a precedent: it's very hard to see how they could justify saying that existing PIP claimants will be protected from the new harsher PIP criteria but existing UC Health claimants will not be protected from the new harsher UC Health criteria. That would be blatantly unfair.   
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 7 hours ago
    Labour rebels who are now saying they will not stop the 2nd reading of the Universal Credit and PIP bill. Are in effect saying I was worried about disabled adults losing their benefits blaming Labour protesting and not voting for me. I am not bothered about the fate of disabled children when they grow up or anyone who in the future becomes disabled. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 hours ago
      @John I cannot have any respect for any MP who is bought off with "concessions" which amount to saying "we're going to impoverish a huge number of people, just not as many as we originally planned to".
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 8 hours ago
    While income related ESA is migrating to universal credit What is going to happen to contribution related ESA Will it just end as it can only be claimed for a year once the changes are in Or does this mean this will only be for new claimants ? As many on this type of ESA may not be entitled to universal credit So could still be a lot worse off after the new bill takes force Very little has been said about that and it is as clear as mud about the outcome
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 hours ago
      @CC Changes to UC eligibility are not due to come into force until 2028 - so anyone on a one-year award will have moved before then.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 hours ago
      @CC Article 54 of this suggests that the changes for contributory ESA only applies to new claimants, not that that makes it any better.



    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 7 hours ago
      @CC That is not part of the Universal Credit and Personal Independence bill. Part of this bill is the freeing of the uprating UC health element. Which will now have the concession that their UC will not go down in real terms / will at least be keep up with inflation. Which is being reported as existing UC claimants will get to keep their benefits.

      The abolishing of contributions based ESA and New Style ESA and creation of a new time limited contributions based Unemployment benefit. We will next find out about when the Pathways to Work white paper is published which is expected to be at the same time as the autumn budget. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 8 hours ago
    I strongly suspect they may weasel on some of these commitments, they are just 'rebel bait', if you like, and once on the statute books they can be rolled back quietly.
    Next up I'd suggest we'll see the folding of PIP into UC and the likely disappearance of the tribunal system.
    It really is the dismantling of the welfare state, the best thing ever in the UK, which my Dad's generation fought for for 6 years in WW2. I'm glad I'm not young - if I was, I'd be out of this country like a shot.





    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 hours ago
      @Pat753 I tend to agree - I dread the composition of the next Govt, although (luckily?) my next PIP review is not until May 2030.  As I'm employed i'm not on UC, thank God
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 8 hours ago
    NONE of this should have happened in the first place.

    Starmer, Reeves, Kendal, Stephen Timms, J. Reynolds have all proved themselves as liars and totally untrustworthy.

    That said there are very many decent Labour MP's.   
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 8 hours ago
    I feel a stitch up coming.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 8 hours ago
    Stephen Timms whould be fired, I do not under any circumstances trust him to lead a review of benefits, he is an abelist and would not "ensure the benefit is fair and fit for the future".

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 8 hours ago
    It's a magic show. Watch what this hand does while the other hand that no one is watching is doing all the trickery. I honestly don't believe starmer and his minions can be trusted. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 7 hours ago
      @Ste I agree Ste, anything said or written by Labour concerning this needs to be heavily scrutinised though like you say they only let you see what they want you to, even the rebels I would say won't be privvy to the full picture in a desperate attempt to push things through.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 8 hours ago
    So, am I understanding this correctly?

    As a current DLA recipient with a lifetime award, if I have not migrated to PIP before these new regulations take effect, my PIP claim will be assessed using the '4 point' criteria and I will have no transitional protection?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 hours ago
      @Slb Afraid not.  That was the uproar when PIP first came in. It's a new benefit, a new claim and no transition.

      They've revised this for a few health conditions, few being the word, but everyone will be reassessed.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 hours ago
      @Rick4545 Same here Rick. I've constantly fretted over receiving the impending letter to claim PIP fearing I'll get majorly stitched up. Now it seems we're going to get stitched up regardless.

      I'd contact my MP too but they're someone who tows the PM line regardless of their constituents and only gives interested when it creates headlines for him.

      Back to stress overload it seems
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 7 hours ago
      @Slb

      The eligibility criteria for DLA and PIP are different and different award levels can be given. And different award durations can be given while some people with lifetime DLA awards when the applied for PIP got ongoing/indefinite awards and some did not.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 7 hours ago
      @Bryan  Hello Bryan,
      I too am in the same position, and there seem to be a few of us on here alone. I'm thinking about emailing my mp, but don't want to prompt an  earlier date. We need some clarity about this.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 7 hours ago
      @Bryan If you have a lifetime award, surely they are likely to simply move you to the equivalent award in PIP without reassessment? 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 9 hours ago
    So I guess we are on rebel watch to see who flip flops (aka sells out) and who stays firm

    Could benefit and work publish an editable news update piece with these 2 lists and add to lists as rebels make their position clear throughout the day?

    Bad news is rebel amendment author? Meg Hillier has jumped ship so I presume many will follow her

    Good news is that I doubt the tories will loan support for this version of the bill so we are back to needing about 90 rebel Labour MPs to sink the bill

    ‘2 tier Keir’ is earning that nickname today.

    The problem with these ‘concessions’ (Apart from the obvious) is that a huge chunk of pip claimants don’t get enough points in their reviews/reassessments and have to go to mr and tribunal stress and pressure with sky rocket (plus more ppl will be ‘encouraged’ to go to tribunal which will create more delays and queue and cost more money)

    Also current pip claimants will be even less willing to upset the apple cart and (at least officially - aka tell the dwp/jobcentre) try things like work, volunteering, studying, etc……. as we all know (and have real experience of) the dwp twisting things and triggering a review/docking of points.

    Ironically the Labour gov may of just trapped all current disabled claimants on the system (and working claimants may still quit their jobs as a precaution) whilst at the same time ensuring the future uk disabled receive little support and condemned to poverty and a life really not worth living

    It is essential that those disabled who are good at emails use this weekend to contact the original 126? Labour rebels and politely demonstrate why these concessions could in many ways create more problems and the only sane action is for the bill to get pulled, gutted and redrawn up slowly and carefully 
    (And yes it’s worth contacting those mp rebels who are now saying they’ll support the bill as if they can flip flop once they can do so again)

    We’ve got 4 days to make our case with intelligent argument points against these concessions - let’s leave everything on the table 


  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 9 hours ago
    Once again, we're left with a statement which different people are interpreting in different ways and which raises far more questions than it answers. Does anyone think that we might get a statement from a minister which actually lays out in clear terms exactly what we need to know?

    No, me neither.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 9 hours ago
    “One rebel said on Friday they wanted further assurances on what Timms would be able to look at and when he would make his recommendations.”

    It was reported in the Guardian, and I agree we must know the full remit of Timms review and when we expect to receive his recommendations.

    It must allow disabled community to be able to participate and request data and be able to challenge the government’s or any of their chosen stakeholders assumptions, it should state clearly any and all reasons it fails to address claimants concerns and we should be given right to reply before it’s voted upon.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 9 hours ago
    From the contents of the letter I suspect she'll garner enough support to get the Bill through the second reading. Really not happy about the Govt ramming the Bill through the Commons in a day. surely this would be open to legal challenge in the future?  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 hours ago
      @MATT Maybe not - the tories are now angry because the revised bill isn't cruel enough so they look set to actively oppose it - meaning that it could now be blocked with just 80-odd Labour rebels voting against or even just abstaining.   At this stage, the tories will see that defeating starmer is their best opening to inflict maximum damage - not caring about the bill as such.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 9 hours ago
    Under the proposed amendments, if a review for an existing claimant is scheduled for post Nov 2026, does the 4-point rule still apply?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 hours ago
      @Slb I shudder to think of the errors likely to occur with this two teir system, by the jobcentre and dwp being assessed, it's bad enough already 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 7 hours ago
      @Peej No.  It will be under the old rules.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 7 hours ago
      @Peej Good question.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 7 hours ago
      @Peej I imagine that for those pip claimants having a review the 4 point rule would not apply (I don’t know what the circumstances are with going up or down in care and mobility element - or if you currently only has a pip mobility award that was never affected by the 4pt rule)

      If the 4pt rule still applied to those existing claimants due a review then logically this actually would not be a concession and just some naughty rewording. - it would be very poor play and sneaky from Kendall if it is the case 

      Therefore I think those existing pip claimants going through a review won’t get affected by the 4pt rule - however the devil is in the details (which I doubt will be published before Tuesdays vote) so these concessions are basically only a verbal agreement that until added to legislation aren’t worth the paper they are written on as ministers could easily backtrack after getting the votes they want


  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 9 hours ago
    It’s a whole lot of words full of air.
    It’s presented as being cooperative and thoughtful but in fact nothing is clear and no guarantees in long terms. 
    I see it as an hasty patch/fix to pacify the rebels and the public.

    This opening part: 
    “…social security system so it is fair, provides dignity and respect for those unable to work, supports those who can,” 

    It’s exactly what Labour has not done!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 9 hours ago
    Does this mean that existing claimant's will still have separate pip/lcwra assessments, or will we be subject to the new rules when we are due to be reviewed? If this is the case, then we aren't any better off in the long run.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 7 hours ago
      @Cathedral city That is nothing to do with the current legislation. If Labour go ahead with scrapping the WCA, then actually those already on PIP might be more secure than we were before. Only one form to be tripped up by, and we keep on old eligibility rules.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 9 hours ago
    “We will take forward a ministerial review of the Pip assessment, led by the minister for social security and disability [Stephen Timms], to ensure the benefit is fair and fit for the future.”

    This must provide all those who will be involved in this process all the data& metrics and risks assessments so we are not talking blind as we have had to do with the current fiasco.

     It must give credible examples of the changes proposed and the impact on various demographs of claimants as well as protected characteristics.

    It should not demonise disability claimants either and the tone of the consultation should not be adversarial nor should it seek to alarm disability and health claimants who have suffered considerable harms since the government said it was reforming benefits to balance the books rather than to support better outcomes for claimants, who already struggle to meet the disability premiums attached to living some quality of life.


    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 8 hours ago
      @Boo This has been what I have been trying to ask.  How long will this ministerial review be likely to take, based on how long such things have taken in the past and ie how long it will take to go through parliament, and the further changes to PIP become law, again based on what has happened in the past.  The Government themselves have said it will take time.  I have a PIP review in 2027 and hope to escape even more changes. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 10 hours ago
    A fundamental observation. Liz Kendall, Stephen Timms, Rachael Reeves and Kier Starmer have made these ideals many months ago, it takes the threat of rebellion to alter their position. 

    What does this single observation tell us ? 

    My take is that, there are implications in the "desired outcomes" of the green paper, that has in no small part already caused anxiety. Is there no consideration beyond a tepid "Firstly, we recognise the proposed changes have been a source of uncertainty and anxiety".
    There is acknowledgement, I agree... there is also a clear failure to understand and take responsibility. No I don't want a trauma payment, however some guarantee, would do a good deal of lifting.  
    Beyond the original desired outcomes of this green paper, there is now a more favourable view of those already in receipt. Do future claimants who cannot wash below the waist or use the toilet without help, have some magical new power that us old fogies missed out on ?

    The vote Tuesday will not contain any guarantee, yet it seems that is trustable ? I voted for Mr Starmer last year because I thought he would be trustable. I was wrong and will not make the same mistake again. Lightly political, the current Labour party is unrecognisable, from the socialist party that delivered the NHS and the welfare system. We might be kind ans say natural progression, but if we did we would be kidding ourselves.
    This green paper, was a full shift away from disability support, to disability indifference. Not acceptable. 
    Okay, so it will be altered and amended, seems to me the green paper needs to be completely reworked, and published before any vote is taken.
    Figuratively, "I'm going to put all my money on a horse, but don't know which one". 
    Is it just me or is the vote on Tuesday, now in a rather cynical sense of, the front bench desire to feel like that didn't fail? 
    Some will say I'm harsh, perhaps that is true. However, like so many people in this group, I live with multiple (4 ) significant life conditions and a slew of other health conditions that effect my daily life. My reply would be; "Harsh, yes it is". In fact disability, it has been my experience of both my own and of others, that disabled people are tough and stoic. Sorry, this has been so long. But we are not ready to accept this Green paper just yet. Hey, never buy a second hand car you have never seen!!!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 hours ago
      @Nige 60 . Absolutely Nige, you’re right on every point
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 10 hours ago
    I don't believe a word of it it needs to be scrapped period other ways to raise the money they have squandered in the past 
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.