Labour ministers have resorted to online scam techniques to try to force their PIP and UC cuts through the Commons on Tuesday. And there’s a strong chance that their dubious promise to exempt current claimants from the cuts is, in reality, only a two year reprieve.

But its not too late to for you to try to stop them, as one MP has confirmed.

Blank cheque

Ordinarily MPs would know what they were agreeing to when a bill is presented for its first vote. 

And if they do vote in favour, there is then a committee stage at which a group of MPs look at possible amendments, consult with experts - -such as disability groups in this case – before presenting amendments to be considered by the whole House. 

This process usually takes weeks or, for a bill that will affect millions of people like this one, even months.

There is then a final vote on the amended bill, at what is called the third reading.  But it’s incredibly rare for the government to lose at this stage – the last time it happened was 48 years ago

After the final vote, the bill goes to the Lords, to be carefully scrutinised again.

But in the case of Tuesday’s bill, MPs won’t actually know what they are voting for. 

Because ministers have promised there will be amendments which will exempt all current claimants, but they probably won’t even have been published by Tuesday.

MPs will just have to trust ministers who say that what they are actually voting for – the 4 point rule applying to all claimants – is not what will really happen.

Chaotic few hours

And then, a week after Tuesday’s vote, the entire months long committee stage will be shrunk into a few chaotic hours in front of the whole house, voting on amendments they have barely seen and with no chance to get advice from experts.

And, what is more, the government have applied to have the bill certified as a money bill.  If the Speaker agrees, then the Lords will have no power to change any of it.  Even if they do try, it will automatically be passed without change after one month.

Online scammers

Isn’t this exactly how online scammers work? 

Promise to save you from losing all your money as long as you hand over your account details immediately.  Quickly, quickly.  No time to talk to anyone, don’t hang up the phone, do it now or it will be too late. You’ll lose everything.

And yet, in reality even if the PIP cuts are put into law this month, they don’t actually take effect until November 2026. That’s sixteen months from now.

So, why can’t they be properly discussed and put into a separate piece of legislation next year?

Unless Labour have things to hide.

Labour’s dodgy promise

Labour’s promise to exempt all current claimants from the PIP and UC cuts may not be all it seems.

Kendall’s letter says that in relation to PIP, “The new eligibility requirements will be implemented from November 2026 for new claims only.”

But she says nothing about what happens in 2028, when disability minister Stephen Timms has finished rewriting the PIP eligibility criteria and the new rules are put into law. 

Labour says the new PIP rules will be coproduced with disability organisations.  But who honestly believes those groups will be given a veto on anything, especially with the government determined to cut costs?

So, if Timms decides that the four-point rule is a good one and should stay, then under the terms of Kendall’s letter, it will apply to current claimants from 2028.

Kendall also says “we will adjust the pathway of universal credit payment rates to make sure all existing recipients of the UC health element . . .  have their incomes fully protected in real terms.”

But she doesn’t say what will happen in 2028, when the work capability assessment is abolished and only claimants with an award of PIP daily living component are eligible for the UC health element. 

If current claimants are not exempt from this change as well, then 600,000 who don’t get PIP daily living will no longer have their income protected.  And if the PIP four point rule is also incorporated in the new PIP assessment from 2028, then hundreds of thousands more current claimants who don’t get four points, will lose their health element when they lose their PIP.

Contacting your MP will make a difference

Now, none of this may be what ministers intend.  But MPs voting on Tuesday won’t have a clue what they do intend, because the whole process has become a chaotic shambles – in spite of the fact it has the power to plunge hundreds of thousands of disabled people into poverty.

So, please consider contacting your MP and asking them to vote for a planned Labour amendment – which, ironically none of us has seen yet – which will give MPs more time to consider the cuts.  And if that fails, then vote against the bill in its entirety.

You won’t be wasting your time.  There are still rumoured to be 50 or 60 determined Labour rebels, with many more unsure what to do.

And, as one MP told the BBC yesterday,

"it shouldn't be underestimated the potential effect of a weekend of emails from constituents, constituency surgeries etc".

Let yours be one of them.

Comments

Write comments...
or post as a guest
People in conversation:
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 14 minutes ago
    In my opinion the alleged concessions have NOT been put in writing. Last minute shambolic attempt for Starmer, Reeves, Kendall to still rush this bill without proper scrutiny therefore, I do NOT trust them to deliver on their last minute attempt to bribe the rebel MP's with these latest concessions they propose. That existing claimants will NOT be subjected to the 4 point rule. 

    How can a 2 tier system work? It cannot!

    This is yet more trickery and bribery. In my opinion. 

    Leaving loose ends to be written in later the small details being left out with the frenzied rush by the Government to get everything through. 

    We have or most of us have experienced the migration from ESA to UC whereby AGAIN different claimants falling into different categories of how the transitional element of UC protection is made up AGAIN finding out that you have contribution based ESA topped up with income related premiums. Just one example of how things were NEVER clearly explained or NEVER entered into legislation. Causing shocks to claimants even, with the managed migration from ESA to UC to be informed, that you have contribution NI attached to your claim as such more confusion to claimants and this rush, rush and details being missed.

    Those on LCWRA ESA who do NOT claim PIP again this rush, rush full details of where they stand being missed out.

    Then, people on this site being faced with shocks during migration with ESA to UC with their council tax. AGAIN because of this rush, rush and details being missed out. Then threatened with baliffs if they did NOT pay the council tax added on by THEIR ERRORS not the claimants! AGAIN this rush, rush, culminating in the small details, being missed!

    Therefore, have we all NOT had enough to sort out thus far over the small details NOT historically being made clear/included?

    In my lifetime this current Government has been the most slippery sly oppressive, cruel and inhumane to date so I think that the small details, the finer details DO NEED TO BE DRAFTED IN NOW. 

    As it is the lack of the finer details NOT being finalized that will cause the shambolic chaos further down the line. As such if this passes a money bill we WILL NOT have case  law to fall back on.

    Timm's installing of arrogance within his staff where they are NOT always correct because of this rush, rush failing to understand that claimants migrating in across in the support Group on ESA that status migrates with them so NO work commitments but then making demands all because of this constant rush, rush 

    To me it is suspicious and we have NO guarantee without the details being drafted in NOW that they will stick to their word. 


  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 46 minutes ago
    Amanda Akass from Sky News says Labour MPs planning to rebel on the welfare bill next week have set up their own WhatsApp group. She said it already has 50 members.

    One rebel tells me a 50 strong Whatsapp group has already been created for Labour MPs who are still planning to vote against the welfare bill - “so it’s perfectly plausible we’ll get back to bill killing numbers over the weekend” @SkyNews

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 hours ago
    Breaking on radio 4 news, UNITE calling the new concessions 'divisive and sinister'.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 hours ago
    That's another email sent to my MP. He must be getting sick of me. He was one of the rebels voting against the bill, but I have sent him this article so he can make an informed decision and hopefully not get taken in by these dubious concessions. Please can everyone do the same if able to. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 45 minutes ago
      @Cuckoo21 Same my MP did vote against and I thanked him but last night also sent a email from scope with my own personal bit added to say why  not to  vote for the proposed bill .
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 hours ago
    The mere fact the government waited till the very 11th hour to "compromise" and then attempt to ram the bill through should raise suspicion about their intentions. Starmer's government has been the most deceptive there has been in living memory and nothing they say are worth believing or accepting as true or valid. This is a government that has mislead the electoral and has mislead the public about it's plans for growth which they had no plan for and instead it turned out to be an attack on the very welfare state it supposedly stood for. 
    If I were a MP in the labour party I would not believe a word that is being said about amendments unless it is put in writing within the bill in clear English language.  This government has been using double talk all the way and misleading everyone including themselves. 
    Starmer is a Shark who betrays people thinking this is the way to do politics but in the end he will lose all credibility and good will as a result.
    Liz Kendall, Stephen Timms, and Rachel Reeves along with Starmer should step down as they have mislead not only the people but also parliament so why would anyone think they would stop doing so now! 
    If things were credible then why the rush!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 hours ago
    In my opinion the rebellion grew too big. Then the senior Labour MP chairs of select committees look to have joined the rebellion and stepped in and taken charge of the rebellion by tabling the reasoned amendment. Led the rebels to the government and now are trying to lead the rebels into accept the government's concessions. Including by spinning the concessions as more than what they actually are and making it look unreasonable for the rebellion to continue in the media. Selling the bill to the public.

    They are selling concessions as:

    Existing PIP and UC claimants are protected forever. They are not the government have only committed to protecting them from the 2026 changes in the current Universal Credit and Personal Independence Bill. Not the changes planned for 2028, the new PIP assessment system and UC health element becoming dependent on receiving PIP daily living component.

    UC health element is going to not be frozen and will go up with inflation plus claimants will get the UC standard allowance with uprating boost. That might be the case but the government actually committed to their UC not going down in real terms which could just mean a backstop if UC standard allowance with uprating boost + UC health element frozen is less than UC standard allowance + UC health element both increased by inflation.

    New PIP claimants will be subject to the 4 point rule but the descriptors and points are those the disabled people and the government are coming up with together. No the 4 point rule comes into effect in November 2026 using the current descriptors and points. Also no mention of the fact that as written the Universal Credit and Personal Independence bill defines the UC severe conditions criteria group differently and more narrowly than the current definition used for that group by UC.

    They are also repeating the mantra that all Labour MPs agree the disability benefits system is unsustainable due to cost too high benefits (perverse incentive to claim disability) and due to too many people claiming to be incapable of paid employment who could do some work (people taking advantage of the hard working tax payers)  
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 hours ago
    I’ve just sent this follow-up email to my MP and thought I’d share it here in case it’s useful as a format for others. Please feel free to adapt or personalise it.


    ---

    Dear [MP's Name]

    New Information Deepens Concern
    I’m writing again so soon because further reporting — particularly from Benefits and Work this morning — has deepened my concerns about the lack of clarity and scrutiny surrounding Tuesday’s vote.

    Current Claimants Still at Risk
    As the article outlines, MPs are being asked to vote without seeing the amendments, based purely on promises that current claimants are protected. Yet we now know these protections may only last until 2028, when Stephen Timms’ review concludes and new PIP rules could be extended to all claimants.

    Devastating Impact on New Claimants
    In the meantime, the impact on new claimants from November 2026 would be devastating. The proposed 4-point threshold and other eligibility restrictions would exclude many people with chronic and fluctuating conditions from receiving the support they need — effectively locking out future generations of disabled people from vital financial and social safety nets.

    Health Element of UC at Risk for 600,000 People
    Many current Universal Credit claimants receive the health element via the Work Capability Assessment, not through PIP. Labour plans to scrap the WCA by 2028 and limit access to the health element to those on PIP daily living. Unless current recipients are explicitly exempt, around 600,000 people could lose vital income — especially if the new PIP rules make it harder to qualify.

    Lack of Proper Parliamentary Scrutiny
    Additionally, the entire committee stage appears to have been collapsed into just a few hours, with no expert consultation and minimal time for scrutiny. If this is also certified as a money bill, the Lords will have no power to amend it. This feels deeply undemocratic — particularly given the scale of impact on disabled people’s lives.

    No Justification for Rushing This Through
    Given that the new rules won’t apply until November 2026 — and the more sweeping changes not until 2028 — I struggle to understand the urgency unless, as Benefits and Work suggests, there’s something to hide.

    Request for Action
    I hope you will continue to challenge this rushed process, support any amendment that allows more time for scrutiny, and if necessary, vote against the Bill in its current form.

    Kind regards
    [Your Name]
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 hours ago
    While I respect the B&W team, this seems like a stretch and an attempt to panic.  

    As  Kendall's letter reads, the new PIP form of 2028 will use the 4 point rule.  We are exempt from the 4 point rule and so, while we might have to use the new form, we won't need the 4 points.  

    Meanwhile, she's not going to mention  the abolition of the Work Capability Assessment as it is not part of this bill.  As that presumably needs to go through the Commons at a later date, there is no point in that being discussed currently.

    No matter what Labour promise, the deal is only good until the next election, because then the  next party will come along and change the benefits system again. But this article seems like scaremongering about what might happen in three year's time, with a form that hasn't been written yet by a minister who might no longer be in the job.  People have been scared enough, and this seems very unhelpful.  Sorry.


    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 14 minutes ago
      @HL @HL I'm not legally qualified, but I think that's a phrase in a number of Acts. It means that, when making a decision, the decision maker should take all the circumstances into account and exercise discretion where appropriate, rather than just applying an unvarying approach.  If you are turned down for something and there are special circumstances that the decision maker didn't consider, you might be able to appeal on the grounds that they didn't exercise their discretion before making a decision.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 minutes ago
      @Slb I completely agree! You seem to be scaring people who have had 2 years experience f worry. This is a win for existing claimants and we need to take a breath. NO ONE knows what the future holds and it is terrible for new claimants but why scaremonger? I'm extremely disappointed ☹️ in this article and feel you need to be more optimistic for those who have suffered enough. We know labour are weasels and have lied but this is just wrong. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 37 minutes ago
      @John What is your take on this clause?

      5.4.(a). to make different provision for different cases or purposes

      (b) to provide for a person to exercise a discretion in dealing with any matter
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 hours ago
      @Slb I’m not sure you are right about the 4 point rule or that this is an attempt to panic. If the Labour amendment says something like “No-one with a current PIP claim can ever be required to score 4 points in order to qualify for the daily living component” then you might be right. Though even then it’s doubtful that a current group of MPs could legally bind the hands of all MPs in the future in this way.

      But the amendment is more likely to say something like “Section 5 of the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Act (the section that applies the 4 point rule) shall not apply to anyone who has an existing claim on the date of commencement, as long as their claim is uninterrupted.” Though in much more legal language.

      But in three years, Timms will have completed his review and Labour will introduce new legislation called, for example the PIP Assessment Act 2028. This could be a new PIP assessment with lots of new rules and some of the old rules. It would state that it supersedes previous legislation relating to PIP assessments. Section 7 of that Act might be the same 4 point rule.

      As far as I can see, there would be nothing to stop the government legally applying Section 7 of the PIP Assessment Act 2028 to all PIP claimants, including those who had been claiming pre-2026. Because they would still not be applying section 5 of the of the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Act to those claimants.

      Whether it would be voted through by MPs is another matter. Though if it was very tough on PIP claimants the Tories would probably support it so it would have a very good chance.
      So, I suppose the point is, until MPs have seen the amendment, had time to study it and get advice, they won’t know whether the promise is worth much. And the point of this article seems to be that MPs won’t get the chance to do that before voting on Tuesday. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 hours ago
      @Slb I was kind of thinking the same. Having said that, I don’t trust the govt. Basically we need to be concentrating on what we can do to protect new claimants. The next 3 days are critical.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 hours ago
    My sense is that this may have a significant impact on the tribunal process, and therefore our chances of a successful outcome - and I might be misunderstanding -

    The ‘arbitrary decision-making’ clause is still in there. So we will not be able to use other people’s wins as Case Law.

    @Gingin - any thoughts who would be the person in government to run this by?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 hours ago


    The ‘arbitrary decision-making’ clause is still in there. So we will not be able to use other people’s wins as Case Law.

    @Gingin - any thoughts who would be the person in government to run this by?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 46 minutes ago
      @Gingin Thanks – my MP supports this.
      I’m thinking possibly Debbie Abrahams – worth a shot!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 52 minutes ago
      @Neil Cook Hi Neil,

      My understanding is that this will affect our legal protections (regulations 4 and 7),
      which is especially concerning for those of us with fluctuating conditions.
      Thereby leaving us at the mercy of DWP / insurance company decisions.
      And I may be misreading this.

      This was originally posted by Angela -

      UC & PIP BILL 2025 (draft)
      Points to note:

      5.4.(a). to make different provision for different cases or purposes

      (b) to provide for a person to exercise a discretion in dealing with any matter

      These may seem innocuous, but basically this blocks decisions made being used as Case Law.
      However.
      Common Law principles of ‘fairness’ could be applied by us when fighting in Tribunals. Which we will have to.

      I hope that helps / makes sense?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 hours ago
      @Neil Cook Haha, no you’re not, you need a blinking PHD to understand this stupid benefit system. It’s designed to confuse.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 hours ago
      @HL I’m no expert - I would just run this point by your MP but others may have more helpful suggestions
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 hours ago
      @HL What does that clause mean exactly, sorry but I'm thick as shigpit.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 hours ago
    I’m still emailing my MP and Meg Hellier. It’s all too rushed and jumbled.
    Also. I don’t trust Kendall at all. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 3 hours ago
    It's like the vagueness over whether cuts would apply to pensioners. Not acceptable to keep evading giving unambiguous information.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 3 hours ago
    Reposting from previous thread, in the light of the urgency of keeping up the pressure and adding to the votes against the bill, in whatever form. Noone should be asked to vote for something they haven't had time to consider.

    Some 'rebels' are reported to have been swayed by government duplicity, but in Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr we're on to it!

    Steve Witherden, on facebook - thought at first he'd rolled over, but no, look

    "Speaking to BBC Radio Wales this morning, I welcomed the government’s decision to listen to the deep and sustained concerns from backbenchers, including myself, who had stated they could not vote for a bill that would arbitrarily take away support from many disabled people.
    The government has now said the new rules will no longer affect people currently claiming PIP, but that they will apply to people claiming from November 2026, meaning those who apply after that date will not necessarily be eligible for the same level of support.
    This will mean people who become disabled after that point will be treated differently to those already claiming. This is systematically unfair, and as such, I still cannot vote for the bill when it comes before the House on Tuesday."

    From the constituents' replies which can be read under his post, there's still plenty of rebel spirit.

    Gwaith da Steve, mor falch ohonoch chi!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 hours ago
      @Frances Good to know, Frances, and rock on Steve Witherden!! I was privileged to be present at Diane Abbot’s debate about these cuts a couple of months ago and Steve gave an impassioned speech about what’s so wrong with these plans.

      What we need is for MPs to care this much to really look at the details and make an informed decision. We must not let up informing them!
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.