Labour were forced to abandon the PIP four point rule in the final hour of today’s debate, in order to save the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill.

In the end, the bill passed its second reading with a majority of 75, with 335 voting in favour and 260 against.  49 Labour MPs rebelled and voted against the bill.  You can see a full list of the votes here

This means that the 4-point PIP rule is effectively dead after Labour made its biggest concession yet. 

Little more than an hour before today’s debate ended and voting began, Timms told the House: 

"I can announce that we are going to remove the clause five from the bill at committee, that we will move straight to the wider review, sometimes referred to as the Timms review, and only make changes to Pip eligibility, activities and descriptors following that review."

Clause 5 is the 4-point rule.

It will no longer appear in the bill when amendments are made next week.

This means that the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill no longer has anything to do with Personal Independence Payment.

The main purpose of the bill is now to take money from future recipients of the UC health element, though current claimants will not be affected, and to introduce the severe conditions criteria.

The cut to the UC health element, in itself, should have been enough for MPs to vote the bill down, but it was an issue that received much less attention.

The Timms review will now decide the future of PIP.  And if, as Labour have promised, the review is genuinely coproduced with disabled people there is very little chance of the 4-point rule ever happening. 

There is undoubtedly still danger ahead, however.  Timms was asked twice if the changes to PIP made by the review would be put into primary or secondary legislation, Timms said that would depend on the result of the review.

But, if the government chooses to put any changes in secondary legislation, MPs would not be able to amend them and would not be given a vote on them, unless via arcane parliamentary procedure.  This may be a battleground for the third reading next week.

Nonetheless, as things stand, an enormous amount of distress has been caused to millions of disabled claimants, only to end up with a bill that has entirely abandoned its primary aim.

For Timms, Kendall and Reeves, however brave a face they put on it, today has been an enormous humiliation.  For campaigners, facing a government with a massive majority and an extraordinary degree of arrogance, it has been a remarkable – though by no means total - victory.

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.
    · 17 hours ago
    My youngest daughter has had cancer twice and is suffering PSTD very bad anxiety, and depression because of this her doctor has signed her off work for nearly 3 months off and on.she can’t go out even to the shops on her own. I have to help her most of the time which is hard for me as I’m 72 and a vulnerable pensioner, she desperately needs pip to help her as she pays £1000-450 pm high council tax plus other bills which makes her worse her Job is a teacher assistant looking after 2/3 years old please she needs help 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 18 hours ago
    As you say, the lack of scrutiny on the UC side of things is dangerous.

    The elephant in the room is that those of us who have Contributions based ESA who on the face of it were lucky not to get migrated to UC whichever way this goes will eventually see us counting as new UC Health claimants when the Insurance based short term benefit us brought out.

    In effect some of the most severely disabled people who were the ones placed on CB ESA will get expected to survive on a fraction of what current UC Health  claimants get.


    Another Atos style miracle! Take up thy bed and walk!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 23 hours ago
    I am 64 and struggle daily with pain as I have arthritis, spondylosis in my neck and spine, fibromyalgia, costochondritis, restless leg syndrome and diabetes. A long list, I know. Mostly hereditary. There are good pain days and bad pain days. I took early retirement as a teacher due to my health and losing my husband. I live alone. I should have received state pension at 60 but now shall receive state pension at 66 yrs and 7 months!  The Government's ideas of pushing pip claimants like myself, and other disabled people into work is ludicrous. Now I understand people born between 1951 and 1960 will lose out on their state pension too due to more political stupidy and tight fistedness. Is this a caring labour government? Really? The 4 point rule for pip was shocking and would have made a lot of people suffer in many ways. Does the government truly understand the meaning of the word disability which comes in many guises. Shame on the politicians who support cuts and reforms that hit those (young to old) who physically struggle in their daily lives. I feel for people who genuinely struggle mentally too. However, unfortunately since covid there are those that have jumped on the pip band wagon abusing the system making things difficult for genuine claimants. Weed them out but leave genuine claimants alone! I had to provide medical notes and be assessed face to face for pip but I know of someone who has never worked, takes drugs, provided no medical evidence, had no face to face assessment but was awarded pip. That is the fault of the DWP! Why are genuine claimants being punished? STOP the Bill now!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 hours ago
      @CAT I don't mean to be rude, but what is shocking is your comment that there are those gaming the system and getting pip. The fraud rate is infinitesimal and that is on the dwp site! You can't just claim it easily. A doctor has to diagnose you, probably a specialist as well. Please stop with the undeserving and deserving that mps come out with. I hope you get all the help you need. 

      Best wishes. 
      Elie.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    I do feel after looking into this more and more today that those of us that are being managed migrated across from ESA to UC with the shock announced that because of your historic class 1 contributions that we really do NEED to be vigilant as they have already done  a number on us calling it Transitional Protection that we ALL know will erode!

    I do NOT think we should have been migrated across until 2028, but this Government accelerated ahead at full speed for us ALL to be migrated across before Christmas this year!

    This is yet another reason WHY we NEED to keep our eyes wide open with the up and coming proposals to ESA and UC!

    As all eyes were and have been focusing on PIP I think we need to really look for the finer details or should I say the lack of them with this Shambolic Government! As all of these proposals move forward!




  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    Thank you for such a clearly written explanation.  It's much needed! I am going to forward it to my MP who voted for the bill because I dont think even the MPs know in its entirety what they voted on.  Just like Brexit.  I had not realised half of this happened yesterday.  I am so angry that the majority of Labour MPs voted for this shambolic, disgraceful bill that is now only focused on UC and has no credibility as a bill.  It sounds like they ran out of steam to seriously deliberate the UC part of the bill.  It seems that MPs made a political vote to support their own party rather than an ethical and honorable vote.

    My questions are:

    1 - for those aged under 22, will the initial proposed change to make them eligible for disability payments now be stopped?  I query this because I thought the under 22 rule was not in the range of consultation and it had been said this rule would go through regardless?  I havent seen anything about this.

    2 - they have said they want to introduce the severe conditions criteria.  Is this specifically linked to UC LCWRA claimants, or is this a separate part of UC?  
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago

    All my scores have been under 4 but will await further updates before believing anything.
    I’m so weary and stressed.  Nobody seems to know about pensioners on PIP.  I had my PIP removed a week before I reached retirement age (call me cynical but I reckon they did it so I wouldn’t get ongoing award).  Did MR still same. Decided to go to appeal and eventually DWP backed down just before hearing.  Gave me only two years award until my advocate wrote and said should be ongoing. Then got letter saying review in 2021 - this was in 2024. Phoned them wouldn’t send new letter until I got really upset and said I needed the letter to access other things. The system is not fit for purpose.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 hours ago
      @Little Dinky They did the same to my uncle who has uncontrollable epilepsy and a broken neck! At MR The judge threw it out and said it was a scandal he was being asked to rule on cases like his! You only have to see my uncle walk into a room to see how frail he is! 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    Complete farse it should have been scrapped entirely. All that stress and fear just as the Tories inflicted.
    It was a money saving measure and nothing else and now will the hopeless chancellor see her dream job down the toilet and get rid of Starmer as well.

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    I think they will now try to after backing down over the 4 point rule, NOW try to recoup that loss from UC 



    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @D2 The problem they've got now is that if they try to do anything with UC which would plunge a large number of people into poverty there will be another big campaign of pressure on Labour MPs and almost certainly another major rebellion. Labour MPs now know they have the numbers to defeat the government and force concessions - and the government knows it too.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    My Brain has turned to mush and am terrified about excisting PIP claimants??? Are we still protected from future " Spin the Bottle" changes???¿
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Lianne I don't know. There is nothing being said about whether existing claimants will still be protected, and assessed under existing/old rules, after new criteria are legislated on next Autumn. Or are existing claimants now in a worse situation than before the last minute climb down on clause 5?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    Nothing has been said about pensioners. I'm on an "ongoing" PIP award, due to be reviewed in 2027. 
    Does anyone know? Thanks
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 12 hours ago
      @Hilde Very welcome. I'm 62, nearly pension age, I hope my pip isn't taken away when I finally retired. Though they may up retirement age by the time I retire. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Hilde I don't know why some people are anti pensioner on here..its unpleasant
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Hilde Hilde, your welcome. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Gaddy Gaddy, thank you for your reply. I appreciate it. It's a nightmare for everyone involved.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Hilde I posted on the main forum a couple of days ago about a response I received from Stephen Timms. Basically he is saying that pensioners are not routinely assessed and therefore will be unaffected. He used the word 'protected' when referring to people reaching pension age by the time the reforms come into force. He didn't answer my specific questions one of which was will pensioners be subject to the 4 point rule- as of Friday the answer to that would have been no due to U turn no 1(as an existing claiment) We are now going to have to wait for what they come up with next but as someone who will become a state pensioner in 6 months I am more concerned for those of working age. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    Will this be again, the leveling down = transitional TEMPORARY protection...  just to shut us up.   And like with the ESA/UC move, no one will fight over us,  one, by one losing the Dissability Premiums....
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    Are the pip questions, descriptors and points going to change? I fear that a new pip form will be created with the focus on excluding or making it far more difficult for people with mental health conditions to qualify. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Cuckoo21 Well any change is unlikely to be to our benefit
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Cuckoo21 It's a already a nightmare to fill out, even for those of us who know how much detail we need to go into each time. Even when nothing has changed many of us find our PIP is cut with a new assessment. It's a very depressing and mental and emotional challenge before any of these new changes. My last assessment got my PIP cut because I was too mentally ill to fill it out properly. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Cuckoo21 This is what I'm petrified about to. But I don't think anyone knows what's going on :(
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    There are those saying that we won’t be touched till 2027 earliest but that’s not strictly true

    The reality is that the disabled community is back in limbo

    Our futures are hanging in the balance of the timms review - which may not need primary legislation to become law

    Timms these past few months has been dishonestly and totally void of empathy and shows no sign of listening or collaborating with the disabled community in this review

    Kendall herself suggested timms would be writing this review over summer recess and presenting his findings in the autumn - it’s possible he could present in September and primary or secondary legislation presented a few weeks later in October.

    Remember that Kendall said that this current bill had to achieve royal assent by nov 2025 in order for the 4pt rule to be implemented ‘on time’ in nov 2026 - the reality is that the gov still has time to rush through another (money) bill before nov 

    Also the 4pt rule is only shelved but after timms review it may not be needed if timms decimated specific descriptors (those of us who were safe under the 4pt rule may not be under the timms review)

    Yesterday may of had it’s victories but you know what they say about wounded animals - reeves will still want her savings off us and I think the major knock on effect of yesterday is that timms review will ramp up in speed and most likely contain more cuts (in the form of excluding many current claimants from qualifying with the new pip criteria) - this temporary ‘reprieve’ may of come at huge cost

    I think some of us may have to take advantage of this temporary clean slate and trigger our pip reassessment the moment timms review drops/pip reform legislation gets published to make sure we at least have one more review under the old rules - the only protection we have to temporarily protect ourselves from this increasingly uncertain future.

    In many ways yesterday may have been the worst result possible - we will find out for certain in the coming months
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    As i have always said from the very beginning [and posted all over the internet] PIP, is NOT the issue.. PIP has been used as a "smokescreen" to deflect attention from other MUCH more important changes.
    As we all know [but the general public and MP's do NOT know] People that were or are in the ESA support group, in particular those that LIVE ALONE, [as they are affected more] have been, [or will be very soon] FORCED to apply for UC instead.

    The thing is, UC does NOT have disability premiums like "enhanced disability premium" or "severe disability premium" this means that the person loses £236.74 a month.

    The government were beaten in the high court, and therefore had to bring out something called "transitional protection". This meant that EXISTING claimants would continue to get the same amount of money. BUT, and this is a very important BUT. 1, this "transitional protection" is frozen, so as benefits go up year on year, these poor people will recieve nothing until the £236.74 is "eroded" to nothing.

    Worse, let's say their rent goes up; Their UC will NOT go up to cover this, the increase will be taken from their "transitional protection" so they will lose that amount straight away.
    Not only that, but 2; Say it is deemed that there is a "change in their circumstances" which can be merely changing address, you will lose the £236.74 IMMEDIATELY.

    "New" claimants, they will not receive the £236.74 in the first place. Other people in different circumstances will lose differing amounts, for example, if a person in the "support group" does NOT live alone, then they would not have had "severe disability premium" in the first place, so they will lose less. Others, will lose MUCH more [up to nearly £450 a month] This is what MP's need grilling on. As i said, PIP is just a "smokescreen" to hide all this behind.

    The government bang on endlessly about the "cost of living crisis" Seems that disabled people do not count then, thay can freeze and starve...
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    Can I just check as I’m still really confused. Is the bill from yesterday that got voted through at the second stage still going to scrap esa in 2028/2029? 
    Are they still keeping it at the same amount it is now for the time being?
    Sorry I’m just really confused. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @john Thanks for clarifying 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Anniesmum That was never in this bill. That measure is in the Pathways to Work green paper. The consultation for which ended on the 30th June. The Pathways to Work white paper is expected some time this year maybe in the Autumn, and then there will be legislation put forward. With contributions based/new style ESA being abolished in 2028/29.  
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    The upsetting thing for me is that nobody seems to have really cared much in the media of in Governmrnt for LCWRA recipients. As we categorically cannot work we are just as vulnerable as PIP recipients and often cannot claim PIP as the criteria differ. I’m worried we are going to be hit even more aggressively now especially as they don’t seem to have promised to stop LCWRA being dependent on PIP- plus our payment is being cut despite not being able to work to make up the difference
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 hours ago
      @tintack And what does it mean for those who get CB ESA and therefore weren't moved to UC? Do they imagine we will all find work in thirteen weeks when they bring in this insurance based benefit? They seem to have forgotten we were the ones placed on this benefit when DLA was newly changed to ESA and a lot of us were CB because we have disabilities from birth and would therefore never get the chance to pay our contributions hence why they were paid for us! Now we are told that isn't fair!

      Should have made the NHS think of that before crippling us at birth really! 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @tintack Thank you, those are all really interesting points! 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Ala I technically could but honestly the process was so upsetting last time that I’m scared to do it again and potentially lose LCWRA! I totally appreciate you make a good point though x 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Pickle
      "I’m worried we are going to be hit even more aggressively now especially as they don’t seem to have promised to stop LCWRA being dependent on PIP"

      As there are 600,000 of us on UC health who don't get PIP daily living, that's 600,000 people who would lose UC health and be plunged into poverty. Given the almighty mess they've got into over a bill forecast to plunge 150,000 people into poverty, I think they would have a hell of a job getting something through that would push 600,000 people (at least) into poverty. 

      One of the key concessions they had to make to win yesterday's vote was that existing PIP claimants would not be reassessed for PIP under the harsher criteria which had been due to come into effect in November 2026 (that was before those criteria were then shelved completely at the last minute, but they had still been forced to make that concession about existing claimants before then). If they try to take UC health from 600,000 existing claimants that's a huge number of people who would be plunged into poverty. Another major campaign of pressure on Labour MPs would inevitably happen and another major rebellion would almost certainly follow. 

      At the very least, they would probably have to give a similar concession on existing UC health claimants as they did on existing PIP claimants, i.e. they would have to agree that making UC health dependent on PIP daily living would not apply to existing claimants. Without that concession I doubt they could get it through, especially as their MPs now know that they have the numbers to force concessions and defeat the government (the only way I can see that they could get it through without making such a concession would be if the Tories supported it, but winning a highly controversial vote by relying on Tory votes would probably be politically fatal). It seems to be generally acknowledged that when MPs vote against their own government once, it becomes easier to rebel on subsequent votes. That's even more true when the authority of the PM, chancellor, secretary of state and minister has taken such a battering.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Pickle Seams you have to find a way to apply for PIP.   I know what you mean, but you need to find a way to translate your health issues ino PIP disctiptors.   You need a good advisor to help you.   I was like this.  Didn't consider myself worthy of PIP.   But this was just me pushing so hard and making myself more ill!   
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    When they vote next week mps must scrutinise the new bill minutely. To vote through any elements which go back on government concessions, or any new elements unfavourable to the disabled, would be a catastrophic betrayal of all the efforts of campaigners and rebels and the failure would be down to the entire party. It is up to all of them to make sure they have the bill in correct form, and up to us to encourage them to do so.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @robbie seams the Party comes FIRST!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    I thought that before the election Labour had said it would also get rid of the private multi million pound us private insurance company Assessors and give it back to DWP instead which would be fairer. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @tinytim Good point - obviously money talks.  I fear we'll stuck with capita et al for all eternity because reform/Tory govt would back them
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    Those claiming the concessions are a great victory. Should pause and think the battle over PIP may have been won for now but the battle for new claimants of UC health has not. They will suffer cuts if the bill passes it's third reading without the government agreeing to more concessions.

    UC health for new claimants not in the severe conditions criteria will be halved and frozen.

    And the UC definition of severe criteria group is narrowed for new claimants. Currently anyone who is going to meet the LCWRA criteria for life is eligible. In the bill as currently written that is being changed to only be if they meet schedule 7 descriptors continuously. So people who would qualify due to substantial risk will not qualify, and people with fluctuating conditions that debilitate them most of the time but not continuously will not qualify.

    This is a substantial cut in comparison to the current system. A single person age 25+ on UC standard allowance + UC health will in 2029/30 be £226.53 a month worse off due to the cut. More if inflation is higher than forecast. 

Free PIP, ESA & UC Updates!

Delivered Fortnightly

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

 
iContact