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  And as amendments to the bill will not be published before Tuesday's vote, it means MPs will have to vote without actually knowing what they are ultimately agreeing to.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.
    · 3 hours ago
    What happens when reassessment is due for people on pip or other benefits in 2027
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 4 hours ago
    I understand that one of the amendments is people with severe health conditions may not be retested are there any more details of what they class as a severe condition my condition won’t ever get better because of this I don’t have a consultant as I’ve had the same disability level for 20 plus years I was awarded indefinitely but now I’m bieng told that’s only 10 Yeats’s
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 4 hours ago
    I for one do not believe them with these so called protections and concessions, It another lie to appease the rebel MP'S and they will change it down the line. 

    Also all the poor people who come after us with no protection in the future, all this tweaking is easy to hide the original changes in a different fashion. 

    This is not a win in anyway, a win was the bill was killed off for good, we have lost, we are not even second class citizens in the governments and most of the general publics. Now Starmer has won he and his dreadful cronies will be empowered and down the line I can see no financial support left for disabled community. Shame on the so called rebels for backing down, I hope karma catches up with you and your loved ones very soon as you spend your pay off's from Starmer. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 4 hours ago
    I nominate SLB to run for Prime minister in the next election! . He writes very articulately and with clarity, he would be very proactive advocating for disabled and vulnerable people.
    Thank you SLB for all your comments posted here. 
    Signed 
    One of your admiring fans 👍
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 3 hours ago
      @AJH I'll add John to the cabinet...
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 5 hours ago
    I really suggest that everyone with questions about migration benefits (and anything else)should write and ask their MP if they can guarantee protection in this circumstance? It may make them more likely to vote against a bill that they don't know important details about.

    I doubt all MP's know as much about benefits as we all do, and these questions may not be obvious to them. Therefore, they may currenlty think they know as much about the concessions as they need to. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 5 hours ago
    I really think we ought to start a movement around the hashtag #twotierkeir lol!!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 5 hours ago
    What happens when Timms does the review of PIP and turns it into the PIP/UC Health system, gives it a different name.  Just like the scrapping of DLA and introduction of PIP, PIP was treated as all new claims, no transitions, no protections.  Are they then going to say all existing PIP claimants have to reapply a new claim on the new renamed version when their current claim ends either through losing it through reassessment/MR/Tribunal or because they had a short 2 year award and this is not a reassessment but a full new claim?  

    Are they also going to start reviewing everyone as soon as possible, even those on 10 year awards, kick as many off as they can get away with, hope they lose at tribunal and then are forced to reapply under the new system.

    There are so many unanswered questions, no detail, no clarity.  MP's have no idea what they are voting for or against here and many barely understand the system as it is, let alone what any of these changes or concessions mean.

    My own situation with Veterans War Pension is even less clear and not a single person anywhere can explain or tell me the answers to any of it.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 3 hours ago
      @john I hope you're right and they honour everything they've said but I honestly have absolutely no faith whatsoever in anything they say or do!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 4 hours ago
      @Mick That would be contrary to the Pathways to Work green paper which has from 2028 UC health eligibility being based on receiving PIP daily living. And contrary to what the DWP has repeatedly stated about not changing reassessment/review dates for existing PIP awards. And contrary to what the DWP has repeatedly said about ongoing PIP awards not being reassessed unless a relevant change of circumstance is reported. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 5 hours ago
    "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."

    This appears to exclude those on ESA+PIP+HB who have not yet been "migrated" to UC - those are the most vulnerable as their entire income comes from or hinges on PIP and the severe disability premium.   Does "existing recipients of the UC...." mean literally that - if so, this is a SCAM. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 5 hours ago
    What about the proposed merger of ESA and JSA to what they are intending to call "employment insurance" with a time limit on how long you can claim for. How can they possibly propose to merge two benefits, one of which is for people who are too ill and/or disabled to work with one where people are able to work. This has hardly been picked up at all by the media and rebels.  It was quietly buried when the changes were proposed and has received barely any publicity, hence I expect that's why they haven't referred to it here - they just talk about two changes.  I'm in the support group of contribution based ESA and it terrifies me.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 4 hours ago
      @RosieC That change is not part of the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment bill. We will find out more about the end of contributions based ESA / new Style ESA and the creation of a new time limited contributions based Unemployment benefit when the Pathways to Work white paper is published. Which is expected to be at the same time as the autumn budget.

      We can only hope probably forlornly that as most new style ESA claimants are either also receiving UC or would be eligible for UC, that the government will make new style ESA a protected legacy benefit rather than abolish it for existing claimants.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 5 hours ago
    Dear all,

    I know many of you won’t feel the same way, but today’s concessions are a significant win given what today’s disabled community was facing. With the new eligibility rules no longer applying to current claimants when they reassess, 375,000 will keep their PIP and/or Universal Credit LCWRA for the foreseeable future. When you think of the cliff edge we were staring at just a week ago with no real hope of a win, that is a massive result.  

    Read that again: 375,000 people have been protected for the foreseeable future through our campaigning. 

    And that’s a worst case scenario – the bill, even with concessions, still might not pass.

    I know some of you are saying that there’s no security beyond this parliament. There never is. Whatever plans one party puts in place, the next will likely tear up – just look back at the last fifteen years for proof of that. There’s nothing we can do about that. We have to take it one parliament, one fight at a time. And I know many of you don’t trust the government to deliver on these concessions, but there’s not much we can do about that either.  Presumably, it will be written as part of the bill, and they been plastered all over the newspaper and MSM.  It would be very difficult to U-turn on the U-turn.

    I also know that many have questions about their own particular less-common circumstance (such as DLA or contributions ESA), but we don’t have the answers to those yet, and the bill was never going to include what will happen in hundreds of individual cases. That will come later, and hopefully it will come down on your side, and if it doesn’t then it’s time to fight again. Also, the questions about LCWRA eligibility can’t be answered here as it’s not in the current legislation. Another fight, another day.

    Note that earlier I said “today’s disabled community,” because tomorrow’s disabled community will still face the cuts. Yes, the government has agreed to more consultations over the “more controversial” elements of the bill, and we can only hope that those will also be altered in the coming weeks and months. However, just because 375,000 people’s own futures are, for now, assured, it doesn’t mean that campaigning groups and individuals will stop their fight for fairness and security for future generations and those that weren’t helped by today’s announcement.

    But, first, we deserve a break. The last three months have been scary, exhausting, devastating, and, at times, even exciting when it finally looked like things were turning our way.

    No, you can’t say it was a rollercoaster ride.
    I forbid it.
    Firstly, it’s a term that is used too much, and, secondly, a rollercoaster is taken voluntarily. Nobody asked or volunteered for this. And nobody voted for it, either. Labour will not be forgiven by anyone who has been caught up in this.

    But what has been remarkable is the way the disabled and non-disabled community has come together and worked together and consoled each other and given each other pep talks. Many have worked tirelessly in all kinds of ways to get these “concessions” today. But I would suggest that a key concession is missing – the sacking of Timms and Kendall.

    The 130 Labour MPs who nailed their colours to the mast this week need to be thanked. Many of them were new MPs, and “coming out” as going against your party on a flagship policy (albeit not in the manifesto) while being bullied and threatened by whips etc could not have been easy, and I salute you. We wouldn’t be here at this juncture without you.

    Meanwhile, the organisations and charities that have done such a good job of highlighting just what these changes would mean have been remarkable. Their facts, figures, research, and heart have been astounding.

    And there’s the individuals, too. Everyone who has written to MPs or councillors, or drummed up support on social media, or exposed what is going on, or has taken part in protests, or in the shambolic consultation, or given their heartbreaking stories of how the cuts would affect them via social media or forums, or simply supported others: ALL of you/us deserve a medal. Don’t expect one, though! 

    But soon the fight will start to protect the next generation of disabled people. You deserve what the current community has (hopefully) achieved – and you also deserve better. Better access, better transport, better infrastructure, better communication, better acceptance, and better understanding. The disabled community (whether now or in the future) cannot be collateral damage for failed policies, failed governments, and failed economics. We are not scapegoats, and we never will be. We might not win the fight for the next generation, but we will try.

    But now I’m pretty sure I’m not alone within the community in saying that I’m bloody knackered, and the next fight (and there will be many, no doubt) will have to wait a few weeks. By then, hopefully, Starmer will have sacked Kendall, Timms and Reeves and remembered he is a Labour prime minister. We can but hope.

    We have seemingly won a battle, but the war is likely to continue.  

    Sending best wishes,
    Shane
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 3 hours ago
      @SLB Oh dear, I'm fairly sure I said 'emotional rollercoaster' more than once I was ready to take that personally but I had a word with myself. I don't even get on actual rollercoasters voluntarily. 

      You speak a lot of sense and although my mental illnesses will keep pulling me towards fear I hope to try to rest this weekend and the positive points you have made will help. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 3 hours ago
      @SLB The bill should not pass. Unfortunately too many seem to have been swayed by the trickery of the latest "concessions" and it could well pass. The current development could be the worst that has come about since all our tremendous effort. We don't have security and it looks as though the government is going to be able to call this a success just as we have too little time to regroup and challenge them.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 4 hours ago
      @Gingin Well - Gingin I think that you should run to at least one gin each!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 4 hours ago
      @SLB Even if you are no longer personally impacted the current fight is not over as long as new claimants are going to have the 4pt PIP rule and are going to have their UC health element halved. The fight should continue at least until the bill is defeated or passes.  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 4 hours ago
      @SLB

      As far as existing PIP and UC claimants being protected for the foreseeable future. That is not true. The end of the protections offered can already be foreseen. The government is planning on having a new PIP assessment system from 2028 and is planning on making UC health dependent on receiving PIP from 2028.  
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 hours ago
    Smoke and mirrors, nothing has changed just words to fool us. New claimants will fall foul of the changes, which means the existing claimants will not be far behind  - just delayed by a  few years.  This may be the end of the welfare state and USA style system coming into affect.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 hours ago
      @Joe Blogs It would be delayed by a few months or years if the bill was pulled, too.  Another one would have been presented in the autumn.  And "a few years" is as far forward as anyone on benefits can see.  The next party in govt will change everything again.  375,000 people are now not going to lose their money during the rest of this decade.  That's a win. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 hours ago
    If the bill does say current PIP claimants will remain in the ‘current system’, that says to me they be exempt from Stephen ‘cretinous’ Timms PIP review, we will have to wait for Tuesday to see though. As a backup at least they will be consulting disabled people and their representatives, if of course they do!  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 hours ago
      @Joey
      Exempt until they're not.

      As for consulting disabled people and DPO's, I don't believe a word of it.  They claim they've worked with and consulted us all along and throughout already and they have done no such thing.  Complete lies.  They will only consult the so called stakeholders, representatives and 'charities' they already have.  The ones that they have chosen and selected specifically to agree with them, justify it all and make it look good.  They're all hearts and minds and are doing this for the good of ill and disabled people, after all, we've been told from the beginning "at the heart of everything we do".  

      LIARS !!!!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 hours ago
    I keep getting texts from other affected people celebrating that 'we're safe'. I won't share my worries with them but I don't feel safe at all. I'm so disappointed that rebels are backing down, there seem so many more ways we could all get screwed over and I'm still not happy at what new claimants would be subjected to. I honestly don't think I'll feel safe again. I never thought I'd live in this country and be expected to do things that will cause me pain and my conditions to worsen just to receive basic survival. All assessments I've had as a disabled person are dehumanising and aimed at using absolutely any excuse to deny you help, even mental health services. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 hours ago
      @Kitty
      The key question is: What will happen at re-assessment? Are they going to keep two separate assessment systems going, 2-pointers for existing claimants and 4-pointers for new claimants?
      Frankly I doubt it. So the can's just being kicked down the road.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 hours ago
    Has any more  Mps removed their names yet? So worried this is just a spin and lose everything when brought back for review.  
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 hours ago
    Am I correct to assume that the concessions will not help those of us who have already applied for Pip - and are awaiting assessment?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 4 hours ago
      @HL I think your award dates from when the decision is made. As long as that's done before the changes come in (which seems very likely), you'd be treated under the current rules.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 hours ago
      @HL We will have to wait for the details to know for sure. But I would expect existing claimants (who will forever be exempt from the 4pt rule) will be anyone receiving PIP when the eligibility rules change in November 2026.

      Considering they are planning on changing the PIP assessment system again in 2028 how good this forever is remains to be seen. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 hours ago
      @HL If they stick to what they're saying at the  moment - never certain - then none of this happens until November 2026.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 7 hours ago
    From guardian live text just after 2pm:

    At least 50 Labour MPs still opposed to welfare bill, Starmer warned, amid claims Tuesday's vote could be very tight
    Ministers should not be confident that they will pass the welfare bill on Tuesday, despite the huge concessions welcomed by the MP who tabled the reasoned amendment to kill the bill, a backbencher told the World at One

    Cat Eccles, who was elected MP for Stourbridge last year, said that she was aware of around 50 to 60 Labour rebels who were still oppposed to the bill. But she said she could be more.

    Eccles is one of more than 120 Labour MPs who signed the reasoned amendment that would have blocked the bill at second reading. The government currently has a working majority of 165, which means that if 83 Labour MPs were to vote with all the opposition parties on a measure, the government would lose.

    Asked for her response to the U-turn, Eccles said:

    I’m glad that the government is finally listening, but it’s really disappointing that it is at the 11th hour. I and others have been raising our concerns since Liz Kendall first stood at the dispatch box to announce these policies back in March, so they’ve had three months to listen.
    So to say this week that they’re surprised that we’ve got these concerns is really disingenuous … I think they do need to start really being a bit more collaborative with their back benches, because we do have experience amongst us, we do have a lot of knowledge, and some of us really do know what we’re talking about, especially when it comes to the system.
    Asked if the changes were enough too get her to back the bill, Eccles replied:

    For me? No, it’s too little too late.
    We’re not going to be able to see the detail in advance … It’s not good enough for me.
    Asked if other Labour MPs felt the same way, Eccles replied:

    It’s quite mixed. Some people are feeling quite reassured by what’s been coming out since last night …
    But many of us still feel that it’s not OK – particularly around the Pip four points scoring criteria, saying that existing claimants will still get it, but new ones may not.
    There’s a worry there that we’ll create a two-tier system.
    And it’s looking like they’ll still be billions of pounds of brutal cuts.
    So it’s just too quick for MPs to be able to understand how these concessions will really work. And I think we should still be pressing pause and looking at this again.
    Eccles did not offer a firm prediction for how many MPs would vote against the bill. Asked how many backbenchers were, like her, still opposed to the bill, she replied:

    I know some, 50 or 60 that I’m aware of, but I think there’s a whole bunch of people that we’re not aware of who are feeling uncomfortable. We may not know what they will do until Tuesday evening.
    When it was put to her that the vote could be “really very tight indeed”, she replied: “Yes, I think so.”
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 7 hours ago
    And what if existing claimants get wrongly given a low or NO award during review, then they reapply and face the new rules anyway?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 3 hours ago
      @A I don't think the new rules would apply because the claimant could if they wished to go through the mandatory reconsideration and appeal process. If they were to go through these stages they wouldn't be making a new claim. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 hours ago
      @A I expect they will need to go through the mandatory reconsideration and appeals process so the award decision to deny them PIP is overturned and a correct decision backdated to the original erroneous decision.

      If instead they lose PIP and reapply for PIP their claim would end and latter a new claim start. Losing their exemption from the 4 point rule. Unless the government creates bridging rules for PIP claims. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 7 hours ago
    Sorry this is a bit unrelated but there is a petition for Ker starmer to tax the super wealthy if anyone agrees https://act.38degrees.org.uk/act/tax-the-super-rich-0924
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 7 hours ago
    This whole bill is immoral. Creating a two tier situation for disabled claimants. People don't need this help for the fun of it.
    What will happen to existing DLA Claimants who are still waiting to be invited to apply for Pip? I have searched and AI has informed me that Existing DLA  persons who are waiting to be invited to apply for Pip.... ( DLA to PIP ) will be treated as though they  are new claimants. This whole saga is beyond wrong. People are not ill and disabled to go through life expecting concessions. This is a situation that help is needed. Life is still much harder than before, but the help with DLA or Pip makes it a little more bearable. No one chooses to be ill, or to live with disability and chronic conditions however manageable they might be, the help that these benefits enable are an essential lifeline. Meanwhile people's anxiety levels are increased at a time, they don't need them to be.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 4 hours ago
      @SLB The move from ESA to UC was treated completely differently to the move from DLA to PIP.

      People on ESA were migrated onto UC complete with honouring LCWRA status and giving transitional protection to higher ESA legacy awards for example those with SDP.

      People on DLA were told DLA is being abolished you need to put in a claim for PIP. The PIP claim was treated as a new claim. No passporting of award status for example no high rate DLA automatically turned into enhanced rate PIP, and no passporting of award duration status no lifetime DLA award automatically turned into ongoing/indefinite PIP award. Many people saw their benefit drop when they moved from DLA to PIP and many people with life time DLA awards got fixed end date PIP awards.  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 4 hours ago
      @Rick4545 I applied for PIP before I was invited, and others could choose to do the same. If I were still on DLA I'd definitely consider applying for PIP now if I were able, so my claim would be treated under the existing rules. It's an individual decision of course, but given that everyone who wants to continue to claim will have to do it eventually, it might be worth thinking about.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 hours ago
      @Rick4545 Well, this is how they managed to bloat the figures and create fear inducing forecasts based on the amount of new daily claimants. What they failed to mention, were that the people being transferred from DLA were being included as new claimants. So their forecasts are wrong, but that doesn't suit the narrative or garner public support for the 'ballooning benefit bill'.

      As for being treated as a new claimant, whilst there is no mention of this specifically, I can't see how they can treat as you new claimants. However, this is something that I would recommend you write to your local MP about.

      I imagine many of these MP's don't know as much about the benefit system as we do between us all, and these types of questions won't be obvious to them. If they think that there are lots of potential flaws in a bill they are being asked to vote for without the details being clarified in advance, then this may encourage them to vote against it.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 hours ago
      @Rick4545 When ESA claimants are asked to claim UC instead, it flows straight on.  My guess is that this will be the same.  I'm sure this will be thrased out eventually.  But I would imagine you also would have the option to move to PIP voluntarily, in which case it might be in your best interest to do it before November 2026!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 hours ago
      @Rick4545 I think our politicians may have forgotten working age people on DLA still exist.

      I agree with the AI you asked. I expect when they claim PIP they will be treated as new claims. Unless politicians realise they exist and care. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 7 hours ago
    What happens to those of us on UC/LCWRA are we safe or screwed like I'm scared stiff of being?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 hours ago
      @Neil Cook There's nothing to suggest that you are screwed.  BUt the new eligibility rules for UC (via daily living PIP) are not included in this bill.  Another fight, another day. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 hours ago
      @Neil Cook If not on PIP then come 2028 when the WCA is abolished. If a cancer patient or likely detrimental effect to health you might be protected, Timms is unclear on this. What if any protection you will get will be revealed when the Pathways to Work white paper is published which is expected to be at the same time as the autumn budget. Then if that gets changed or not you find out when the legislation gets published and goes through Parliament later this year or possibly next year.