Many amendments have been tabled for the third reading of the Universal Credit and Personal independence Payment Bill.  There are now 18 pages of detailed amendments,  some on behalf of the government and some on behalf of those opposing the bill.

Below are a selection of the amendments. 

4-point rule

Government amendment (Gov 4) removes clause 5 – the PIP 4 point rule – from the bill.  If this is accepted (which it will be) it will be the end of the 4-point rule, unless it is resurrected in the Timms review which seems unlikely.

UC freeze

A new clause put forward by the government (Gov NC1) provides for the freeze to the universal health element not to apply to existing claimant, people who meet the severe conditions criteria and terminally ill patients.  This was one of the government’s earlier concessions to the rebels.

Name

Even the name of the bill is now subject to a government amendment (Gov 5), which would remove the words “and personal independence payment” from the title of the bill.  If the amendment passes, the bill will be the Universal Credit Bill.

Severe conditions criteria

Labour MP Graeme Downie has tabled an amendment (17) which relates to an issue that Benefits and Work has been highlighting.  The severe conditions criteria (SCC) as currently written require claimants to prove they meet the SCC “constantly”

Constantly is defined in the Bill as “at all times” or “on all occasions on which the claimant undertakes or attempts to undertake the activity”.

However, many degenerative conditions such as Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis and muscular dystrophy follow a slow path of decreasing ability, with periods of remission.  

At present, the bill would prevent people in these circumstances getting the higher payments and freedom from reassessment that the SCC provide, long after it is certain they will never work again.

The amendment would allow for the SCC to apply to claimants who have fluctuating conditions, such as Parkinson’s or multiple sclerosis.

Private doctors

An amendment (33) by SNP MP Kirsty Blackman, removes the requirement that, for the severe conditions criteria (SCC), a diagnosis must have been made by a health professional providing NHS services.  Many people are forced to resort to a private diagnosis because the NHS waiting list for an assessment for their condition is years long.  As the bill stands, having a private diagnosis only, appears to bar claimants from the SCC.

Date of UC cuts

An amendment (19) brought forward by work and pensions committee chair Debbie Abrahams, changes the date on which the universal credit cuts start, from April 2026 to November 2026.

More reports

A proposed new clause by LibDem MP Steve Darling would prevent most of the Bill coming into force until a range of reports and consultations had been completed.

What happens next

In a likely chaotic session on 9 July, these amendments – or as many as there are time for -will be considered by a committee of the whole House and voted on before a final vote on the whole bill, as amended, takes place.

The Speaker will make a decision on whether the Bill will be certified as a money bill only after all the amendments that are agreed have been included in the bill and it is now in its final form.

If it passes the commons, the bill will then be sent to the House of Lords. However, if it is certified asa money bill then the Lords will have no power to oblige the Commons to consider any amendments they suggest and the bill will automatically become law after a month.

You can download the latest amendments from a link on this page.

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.
    · 41 minutes ago
    UC & P 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.
    @ANGELA – Any updates?

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 2 hours ago
    With articles such as these appearing in the press it gives genuine disabled & chronically ill claimants a bad name, as if we are milking the system when we all know how difficult it is to get an award and the amount of effort involved in the whole pip process not to mention the impact on each of us in terms of our mental health while going through the assessment and reassessments.

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 3 hours ago
    We are being spoilt with another article in today’s guardian (5.07.2025) entitled 
    “We promised change but people aren’t feeling it yet’: Labour rues poor first year”
     
    An extract from the article, “
    especially if they are already saying hard choices are to be made in the autumn budget because of the 5 billion pound black hole in balancing the chancellor’s budget.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 9 hours ago
    I’m getting really fed up with government ministers, saying that the fallout from welfare reforms is “damaging” and have declined to rule out tax rises in the autumn.

    Disabled and chronic sick claimants who have lifelong illnesses are sick to the back teeth with ministers who failed to understand the damage and harms especially increased anxiety they have caused with their pip & UC reforms, where they have little regard to the harms the welfare reform bill would have caused if you lost pip entitlement, especially with the 4 point rule they had wanted to introduce, throwing disabled claimants into poverty with the loss of carers allowance as well as other passported benefits.

    This rhetoric is going to further exacerbate the stigma we are suffering by some of those who pay taxes who are having these messages reinforced that any tax rises will be the fault of pip benefit claimants and some commentators are also spouting the same rhetoric.

    We are no longer a compassionate nation!!

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 12 hours ago
    Constantly is defined in the Bill as “at all times” or “on all occasions on which the claimant undertakes or attempts to undertake the activity”.

    There is case law showing that patients with certain distinct types of advanced diseases, whom can mobilise, or who can undertake an activity, but not on the majority of occasions, do still meet the criteria to be in the LCWRA groups, so the DWP know it would be easier to prove 'fraud' if they completely discounted the symptoms. And I suspect that idea is being driven by surveillance data they have compiled by nefarious means. This is a government crossing a line. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 hours ago
    With the government dropping the 4 point rule now. It wouldn’t surprise me if the timms review on pip when published will be constantly rather than majority of times now like they doing the u/c severe group. Just another way of cutting costs and harming the disabled people 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 hours ago
    The big flight here is going to be the Timms review. This is were they are going to make the cuts but it will be dressed up very differently than the 4 points disaster.

    Write to your MPs with the following 

    "

    I am writing in relation to the ongoing Timms Review of Personal Independence Payment (PIP). As a concerned constituent/disability rights advocate I urge you to ensure that current PIP claimants who have already been reassessed under the DLA-to-PIP process are not subjected to another round of reassessments as part of this review.

    Many disabled people endured great distress, uncertainty, and in some cases, loss of essential support during the original transition from DLA to PIP. Forcing individuals to go through this again would be retraumatising and wholly unjust.

    I ask that you raise this issue within Parliament and call on the Government and the review team to implement safeguards that protect existing claimants from unnecessary reassessment, particularly those who have already undergone this difficult transition.

    Thank you for your ongoing commitment to social justice and the rights of disabled people. I hope you will stand with us in ensuring the review does not repeat the harms of the past"

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 minutes ago
      @Broken Britain
      As things stand, the Timms review will also try to make receipt of PIP daily living the qualifying criteria for the UC health element, which would be utterly catastrophic for the 600,000 of us who currently get UC health but not PIP daily living. That needs to be fought bloody hard as well.

      The main concern with the Timms review is exactly which disability groups will take part in the "co-production". It's essential that whoever they are, they don't roll over and let the government get away with anything really damaging. That would be a disaster, because it would allow the government to say "well, we worked on this with disability groups and they signed off on it", even if many other groups opposed it. Whichever groups take part in this process need to be able to say no and walk away if necessary. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 14 hours ago
    Re: SCC. It scares me! It's not just fluctuating conditions but progressive conditions overall. My concern is jobs that are actively detrimental to one's health, speeding up disability to the point of total dependency and reduced quality of life, that then requires substantially more state resources to support over the long term than someone who is recognised as at risk for this and protected from ever reaching this point. 

    The SCC in it's current form seems to require one to have completely exhausted all possibility of work to the exclusion of being able to maintain basic daily living needs. I don't think this is in anyone's interest, be it disabled person, friends/family, or state?

    While jobs can be beneficial in some circumstances, they can also be harmful in others. The SCC seems harshly black and white. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 14 hours ago
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jul/04/rachel-reeves-tax-rises-damaging-week-tears-labour

    Reading between the lines reeves as good as confirmed that the timms review is most likely plan b to cut billions off disability benefits (esp pip)

    This whole episode seems to be just an inconvenient blip to her plans which do not sound like they’ve changed

    Starmer doesn’t seem to have much interest in the home front of being pm (he seems to only be interested in foreign affairs - would of made a good foreign security but is not in the uk enough, not often available to meet with his mp, and has lowest voting records in his first year compared to any other pm in recent years)

    I’ve read a lot of insider accounts of this gov by several journalists and what’s made clear is that reeves and Morgan mcsweeney are the ones running the show (country) in terms of home policy and starmer goes along with their recommendations.

    Mcsweeney believes that lowing the welfare bill via disability cuts (painting disabled as taking the mickey) to attract back voters swinging towards reform……..and well we all know reeves is the new Labour multiverse version of a Disney villain (we’ve all seen the memes of Kendall of cruella de vil - reeves is probably most like maleficent? - suggests below on timms alter ego)
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 9 minutes ago
      @SLB
      "Do they really want a rebellion (or welfare cuts in general) that close to an election? My hunch is that they wouldn't."

      The problem they have now is that their MPs know they have the numbers to defeat the government. If they try to use the Timms review to do anything which would push a significant number of sick and disabled people into poverty there will certainly be another major campaign of pressure on Labour MPs and another major rebellion. The only way they could get anything controversial through would be by relying on Tory votes. Considering the hammering which has just been administered to the authority of the PM, chancellor, secretary of state and minister, getting something massively controversial past their own party by relying on the Tories would be the final nail in the coffin for the government.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 56 minutes ago
      @SLB So are you saying that we don’t need to worry?

      In my opinion we need to be persistent and keep going with our campaign – because it's working.

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 8 hours ago
      @D  @D

      "As we move into the budget for the autumn, I do want to bring people into those trade-offs,”

      That's more the line, than 'between the lines'. Between the lies, more like.

      “I’m not going to apologise for making sure the numbers add up,” she said.

      I think you mean "making the numbers up", Rachel.

      “But we do need to make sure that we’re telling a story... "

      Oh you're doing that, alright.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 9 hours ago
      @D That probably rather depends on when they can bring in changes.  If his review doesn't report back until autumn 2026, when would any cuts/new form start?  Remember they were pushing the current bill through now so they could change UC in April 2026 and to PIP in 2027.  So, that's 13 months from the announcement of the green paper for the earliest change.  If the review reports back in, say Oct 2026, that has then to be fed into making a brand new form.  Let's say there's an announcement in January 2027 for something that would probably start in April 2028.  That's probably 13 months to the next election.  Do they really want a rebellion (or welfare cuts in general) that close to an election?  My hunch is that they wouldn't.   There also may be an influence from this apparent new leftist party that is being formed.  My guess is that that party will fail - as most new ones do - but you never know.  
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 18 hours ago
    Do the severe fluctuating conditions include epilepsy? I'm currently in the support group, but have to fight like hell because when people look at me I'm fine, they dont see what i go through. I've uncontrolled epilepsy.  No warning. Sometimes it's fine then it's not. I take several types of seizures. People are very uneducated 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 18 hours ago
    Are they trying to scrap any of the premiums in UC that people received on ESA in the LCWRA group? I just can't work out what is going on at all. It's just getting more confusing. The whole thing should be scrapped. Then start from scratch and do it again properly.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 hours ago
      @Cuckoo21 As it stands, those who are in the esa support group who claim severe disability premium will not be getting the severe disability premium payment. So that's £89 per week less. They will or rather pay  traditional payments for I believe 12 months. ( I could be slightly off as to how long) . But the new site of the proposed ammendments doesn't really make sense to me as yet . I'm waiting to transition from esa to uc and am dreading it. If I don't get into the lwcra group , I don't know how I'll cope, as I'll be expected to work , which I absolutely cannot. So let's wait to see what happens on July 9. Hope this helped.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 19 hours ago
    My MP said he'd oppose the bill, then he didn't sign the amendment, he stopped replying to my emails. He abstained from the 2nd hearing. 
    What do I do about this? Challenge him by asking him to explain his immaterial promises to support disabled claimants?
    Or stop emailing him?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 hours ago
      @A Email him and ask him to oppose any of the bill which disadvantages any disabled person in any way, ever.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 hours ago
      @A We have to keep trying because what else can we do? I'm convinced some MPs teams just mark down trends in emails received so the more they get on a topic them more they know folks are mad. I always challenge my MP often in long emails that I'm pretty sure no one reads but still it is more likely to do something that not emailing. Just remember to include your name and full address so they know you are a constituent otherwise they will ignore it
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 hours ago
      @A Challenge the copout 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 19 hours ago
    This part:
    “Severe conditions criteria” what exactly does it entails? 

    Will conditions like ME, fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis be included in this list?
    All of these health conditions are longterm without any prospect of getting any better.

    What happens to people who are migrating to UC and currently are in receipt of SDP element? 

    Is SDP different from Severe conditions criteria? 

    So many questions and with each amendment more rise.

    These last few months have taken a toll on my mental and physical health, my immune system seems to have shut down. I woke up this morning with the worst flu symptoms I’ve had in years. And I haven’t been in physical contact with anyone for over a week.

    The way it’s going I don’t think I’ll be here when the new changes come to force.


    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 19 minutes ago
      @Cuckoo21
      The B & W article on this lists the qualifying criteria:

      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Severe conditions criteria

      From April 2026, a new category of LCWRA is being introduced. In order to be in the severe conditions criteria (SCC) group, a clamant has firstly to meet one of the LCWRA criteria. You can find a list of the criteria here.

      In addition, all of the following criteria need to be met:

      The level of function constantly applies to the claimant. So, conditions that vary in severity may not meet this requirement.

      The claimant will have the condition for the rest of their life. So, conditions which might be cured by transplant/ surgery/treatments or conditions which might resolve may not meet this requirement.

      It must have been diagnosed by an appropriately qualified health care professional in the course of the provision of NHS services. So, it would appear that a diagnosis via a private doctor or consultant would not be acceptable.

      If a claimant meets all these criteria they will be classed as having a severe, lifelong health condition and will not be subject to routine reassessment.

      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

      I don't see anything here saying that the condition would have to be progressive, even though progressive conditions would hopefully qualify. There are many conditions which are not progressive in nature but could still meet the criteria listed above by B & W. It seems the crucial thing is not which condition you have but the extent to which it affects you.   
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 12 hours ago
      @Lost and helpless  Please dont say that, i know the uncertainty and stess is taking its toll on many of us. Hopefully they will. I'm currently on esa with fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis, bipolar affective disorder. I live in constant pain. The pain increases whenever I do any activity, leaving me in agony and immobile, and have to have a friend to help , actually nag me to eat. I don't even wash, as at these times I don't even have that cross my mind. It has lead to my brain not telling me I need to eat, which involves me wetting/soiling myself. I then need someone to clean me as I cannot do it for myself. I get terrible memory loss, and cannot tell if its fibro fog or a bipolar episode. I was assessed by consultants many years ago, they passed on the medication for all my illnesses, I no longer see consultants as my GP implants their meds etc. I only see a specialist when something new pops up, always related to one of my health issues. I am hoping that when I migrate they will accept that I'm never going to get better only worse. I assume and pray that this will be enough for my transition. And it would be a bonus if I were to get the yet to be passed new element
      I receive pip enhanced rate for both elements. So am hoping that they will consider both the qualifying PIP criteria and the ESA will help when I'm assessed for the migration.
      If you want to know the new proposed health conditions, just scroll down a little, as a person has posted them here
      Actually I forgot to mention that I'm in the support group with severe disability premium. When I transion i should qualify transitional protection. So if you can relate to any of my issues, I hope I've helped and made some sense . Hopefully I will also fulfil the criteria for the school. As I'm going to badly miss the severe disability premium £89 a week helps pay toward a lot of things that I'd have to without . As we know it's expensive having disabilities x
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 12 hours ago
      @tintack Hopefully they will. I'm currently on esa with fibromyalgia,  osteoarthritis,  bipolar affective disorder. I live in constant pain. The pain increases whenever I do any activity, leaving me in agony and immobile, and have to have a friend to help , actually nag me to eat. I don't even wash, as at these times I don't even have that cross my mind. It has lead to my brain not telling me I need to eat, which involves me wetting/soiling myself. I then need someone to clean me as I cannot do it for myself. I get terrible memory loss, and cannot tell if its fibro fog or a bipolar episode.  I was assessed by consultants many years ago, they passed on the medication for all my illnesses, I no longer see consultants as my GP implants their meds etc. I only see a specialist when something new pops up, always related to one of my health issues. I am hoping that when I migrate they will accept that I'm never going to get better only worse. I assume and pray that this will be enough for my transition. And it would be a bonus if I were to get the yet to be passed new element
      I receive pip enhanced rate for both elements. So am hoping that they will consider both the qualifying PIP criteria and the ESA will help when I'm assessed for the migration. 
      If you want to know the new proposed health conditions,  just scroll down a little, as a person has posted them here 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 hours ago
      @Cuckoo21 Hi cuckoo21 you’ve explained that perfectly more than this government have mate thank you 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 hours ago
      @Lost and helpless
      "Will conditions like ME, fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis be included in this list?"

      I don't think there is a list of specific conditions that claimants would have to have in order to qualify for the severe conditions group. What counts for the purpose of qualifying for the SCG is how the illness or condition affects the claimant, whatever that condition may be.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 20 hours ago
    Neil Kinnocks speech on Thatcherism 

    7 June 1983 , Glamorgan, Wales

    If Margaret Thatcher is re-elected as prime minister on Thursday, I warn you.

    I warn you that you will have pain–when healing and relief depend upon payment.

    I warn you that you will have ignorance–when talents are untended and wits are wasted, when learning is a privilege and not a right.

    I warn you that you will have poverty–when pensions slip and benefits are whittled away by a government that won’t pay in an economy that can’t pay.

    I warn you that you will be cold–when fuel charges are used as a tax system that the rich don’t notice and the poor can’t afford.

    I warn you that you must not expect work–when many cannot spend, more will not be able to earn. When they don’t earn, they don’t spend. When they don’t spend, work dies.

    I warn you not to go into the streets alone after dark or into the streets in large crowds of protest in the light.

    I warn you that you will be quiet–when the curfew of fear and the gibbet of unemployment make you obedient.

    I warn you that you will have defence of a sort–with a risk and at a price that passes all understanding.

    I warn you that you will be home-bound–when fares and transport bills kill leisure and lock you up.

    I warn you that you will borrow less–when credit, loans, mortgages and easy payments are refused to people on your melting income.

    If Margaret Thatcher wins on Thursday–

    – I warn you not to be ordinary

    – I warn you not to be young

    – I warn you not to fall ill

    – I warn you not to get old.

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 8 hours ago
      @Andy @Andy The green paper welfare proposals were adapted from the Sunak goverment's. That's the irony in who'd have thought Kinnock's warning would have applied to a 'Labour' government?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 8 hours ago
      @James But Blair was 'New Labour' and Thatcher's 'greatest achievement'. The privatisation of social housing was promoted by Thatcher, making home ownership an asset and since putting the cost of housing at the root of poverty. Until that is addressed no tinkering with welfare will ever solve things. It will never keep pace with the 'value' of 'property' as a house is now called.

      Sadly, Starmer's party is proving not to be Labour, either, more Blue Labour.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 10 hours ago
      @Andy Kinnock was old labour and he certainly was not into supply side economics of Thatcherism and neo liberalism. Blair however admired Thatcher as do his followers who are in Labour now like Starmer and Reeves. Its this economic policies that we have followed by the future brats of Thatcher in both Conservatives and Labour are the problem now and that course must be changed!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 10 hours ago
      @MJ It was forecasted at that time that resulted in what it is now. The neo liberalism that Thatcherism brought in and the subsequent following of that By Blair and his followers as well as the followers in the Tory party has resulted in this process. This is not soap boxing this is what was predicted at the time when Thatcher bought into Frederic Von Hayek's economic ideas about market forces will correct things in economics. This process which was started then was going to redistribute wealth and create efficiencies but it failed in that and created 1% rich and the rest as poor and getting poorer still. Stagflation still is the curse then as it is now and the obviously redistribution of wealth has failed. The reason I brought it up is because this neo liberalism or Thatcherism as it is called has failed us as a nation for some 45 years and it is high time something different is thought of because we are back to stagflation and redistribution of wealth is still the issue only far more acute! 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 11 hours ago
      @rookie
      Anyone whose been paying attention since Tony Blair came to power! 
      (Unfortunately, hey were blindsided when he bribed them, after their house tripled in value in under a decade, 1999-2007, pricing milliong of middle income earners who came afterwards...) creating the worst inequality for a century...
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 20 hours ago
    I'm really concerned about the Timms review, I hope someone puts forward an ammendment regarding the coordinating with disability groups parts as Timms certainly hasnt got a good track record previously! (Thinking about SLBs post re the FOA request)
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 11 hours ago
      @Pixelmum I don't think we can trust anyone at this stage.  I sent the FOA reply to Clive Lewis and landed up simply getting a routine "this is what I did" email, probably sent to hundreds of others and not relevant as to why I contacted him.  And he is meant to be one of the good guys.   But I think we have to be very concerned about the Timms report.  With the DWP admitting that not a single disability expert, organisation or charity was contacted before the Green paper with reference to the 4 point rule - and the way many disabled people were not able to attend or take part in consultation events for the green paper - I currently wouldn't trust Timms  as far as I could throw him.   The only way Labour will get trust back is to get Kendall and Timms out and replaced.  Perhaps we could even have a disabled person as disability minister?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 20 hours ago
    We need an amendment which removes the severe conditions criteria definition in the bill and replaces it with the current WCA severe group criteria exempt from reassessment. Which Is defined in this link.
    https://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2022-0860/137._Severe_Conditions_V3.0.pdf

    With the explanation being that the current definition in the bill does not do what the government said was its intent to protect more people with severe lifelong conditions who are never expected to work from UC reassessment. And does not do it the way the government in written answers said it was going to do it use the existing UC severe conditions criteria group eligibility rules. As the definition in the bill is narrower than the one already in use. As the bill as written excludes those who for life section 9 LCWRA substantial risk applies, and require section 7 descriptors apply continuously. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 hours ago
    This link that James posted in the last thread is so important for mps to be alerted to, in future if not in connection with the Universal Credit Bill in progress.

    The insidious benefit cap could impact many more claimants on all sorts of benefits. Abolishing the two child element of uc, for example, will not make families better off if the child element remains subject to the benefit cap.

    Every millimetre of every welfare reform must be scrutinised. Government and mps are ignorant of the complexities of the welfare system

    https://speyejoe2.wordpress.com/2025/07/04/ucpip-bill-and-1000-per-month-cuts-to-housing-benefit/
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 hours ago
      @sara A holistic approach to reform is needed with all the knock on issues that the benefit system has created which ultimately does more harm then good. When labour say they are committed to eradicating child poverty then they must look at all the issues that will impact that. The same is true of many passported benefits which instead of helping does just the opposite. Due the fact the whole system is based on sticky plaster approach and driven by some of our politicians who do not see the welfare of poor people as a important issue, and talk about how they are helping people by offering "tough love" so that somehow the problems of poverty will be erased is wholly wrong. 
      MPs and others need to look at society in a much broader context. With children it has to be seen as taking care properly instead of making their formative years as difficult as possible. By giving opportunities you will create tomorrows workers and thereby tax payers who will contribute for their children's future.
      In much the same manner treating people with variable conditions as if they are fit to work will only cause on outcome - they will end up being sicker and a greater burden on the state in the long run because of this approach of tough love. Instead of assisting everything has become designed to do just the opposite and this will never create conditions where disabled and sick will want to do more and may over come their issues because of a helping hand upwards and not a kick downwards!
      Pensioners too do not get the basic minimum wage, in fact they get half of that and this too must be addressed. Many will  end up become homeless as they will  not get pension credit or housing benefit if they are just above the threshold set for them to be eligible thereby putting a much greater burden on them and may even make them homeless.
      Is this the type of society we really want ? Where help is so rationed that it will cause more poverty and despair? or a society that encourages every individual to become better and a contributing member of society without the coercions.
      This is not the civilised behaviour of what the country should be aspiring to and if anything it needs to go back to the values of the past which will bring out the best rather then the worst in society!
      The whole of the benefit system must be looked in a much wider context with all the hidden traps and problems that are created as pitfalls and not stepping stones to a way of a better and less harmful society we all want!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 hours ago
    I like the “More reports” clause best.

    The Bill as it stands - cutting LCWRA UC payments of future claimants by 25%, in a cost of living crisis, seems outrageous.

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 hours ago
      @Neil Cook My understanding is that it’s half of the LCWRA top up - which reduces the overall amount by 25%?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 hours ago
      @HL Isn't the reduced amount half of the original and not just by a quarter?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 hours ago
    I'm still baffled as to why Hillier voted with the government after second reading. It makes me feel very insecure when someone so opposed to the measures can just back down like that.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 19 hours ago
      @godgivemestrength I was so frustrated by that because most, if not all, of the reasons given for that amendment still stand. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 hours ago
      @godgivemestrength She may have been scared into it or she was always a red herring to take support away! I was not pleased at the way she flip flopped about and was dismayed that she caved in so easily to what are only short term fixes and the threat hanging over people still looming till Autumn of next year when the so called Timms review is finished which I have no doubt will still bring in the changes again and the rollout from November 2026 may only change by a month or two if secondary legislation is used which takes 3 months from the time the regulations are laid before parliament either through affirmative or negative action
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 hours ago
      @godgivemestrength My MP, Helen Hayes, was on The Today Programme saying how bad the bill was, then voted for it.  In my view, she, Hillier and the like seized on any “concession” so they could pretend it was all ok now and not have to vote against it.  Afterall, their careers matter more than we do. 

      I even wonder if my MP speaking out was only ever a cynical ploy to get voters on her side come the election as I live in a leftwing constituency.  I think she may have thought many wouldn’t check the division list. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 hours ago
    for a start, it must not be allowed to be certified as a money bill full stop! That is not how a democracy works, the Lords must be allowed to pass to the Lords for scrutiny, if not - (and the bill will automatically become law after a month.) The way fascism lies!!!

Free PIP, ESA & UC Updates!

Delivered Fortnightly

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

 
iContact
We use cookies

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential for the operation of the site, while others help us to improve this site and the user experience (tracking cookies). You can decide for yourself whether you want to allow cookies or not. Please note that if you reject them, you may not be able to use all the functionalities of the site.