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.
    · 21 days 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.
      · 20 days ago
      @A
      Write to your MP – there are template letters available but personalised letters with information about how you will be personally impacted are the strongest. Even if they reply with the standard party line, it does make a difference what volume of correspondence they get on different issues.
      I saw this from DPAC - I’m going to try emailing my MP again.

      It’s very difficult for them to vote against their own party as they are meant to toe the party line. However, it’s still worth us keeping on expressing our views.

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 days ago
      @A Anything for a vote. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 days 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.
      · 21 days 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.
      · 21 days ago
      @A Challenge the copout 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 days 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 days ago
      @Mari Of course, the loss of protection if you can’t migrate within the deadline you’re given has always been unfair, cruel and punitive.  Many of us are too ill to mange it and don’t have help.  Having to apply online or via phone calls penalises those who struggle to go online or with phone calls for whatever reason. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 days ago
      @tintack Thanks for the clarification 👍
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 days ago
      @Lost and helpless If you are migrated by DWP to UC with transitional protection, you should maintain your benefits at the current level you receive prior to migration, if higher in value. Over time as UC benefits rates increase, you will still maintain that level until UC rates are higher than your current level. SDP effectively disappears out of the system over time determined by increasing UC rate levels. You have whatever is left of SDP while your current benefit levels remain higher than UC, so as to maintain your current income levels at time of migration. After that your benefits income will be the same as everyone else's, but you shouldn't have lost any benefit as a result of the transition to UC. That's my understanding of it.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 days 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.
      · 21 days 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.
    · 21 days 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.
      · 20 days ago
      @rookie I did. Labour was tough on benefits claimants in the middle/late 2000's I remember, in fact probably more so than later. I was left alone for many years under the Tories, not that they done that out of the kindness of their hearts, they just couldn't be bothered really and that suited me fine. Under Labour I was having face to face assessments every two years. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 days 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.
      · 21 days 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.
      · 21 days 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.
      · 21 days 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.
    · 21 days 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.
      · 20 days ago
      @SLB
      The thing that most concerns me about the Timms review is which disability groups will take part in the "co-production" and who will decide that. Some disability charities are great, but I seem to recall in years gone by reading on here of instances in which particular charities completely failed to stand up for the people they were supposed to represent. We can't have a review which ends up being a stitch-up because the government has picked some spineless yes-men to rubber stamp what they always wanted to do anyway.

      The last thing we need is a "co-production" which screws us over because the groups taking part lacked the backbone to say no to Timms and walk away if necessary. What would make it even worse is that the government would then say "well the disability groups we worked with have signed off on this". That cannot be allowed to happen. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 days 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.
    · 21 days 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 days 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.
      · 21 days 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 days 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.
      · 20 days 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.
      · 21 days 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 days 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.
      · 21 days 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.
      · 21 days 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.
      · 21 days 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 days 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!!!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 days ago
    Looking forward to it, the Little Ugly Bill.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 days ago
    If the bill includes clauses on severe conditions eligibility, then it can't be a money bill, can it?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 days ago
    Wow they really going to sort all this out in one day of committee meetings, that's going to be interesting. Hopefully it's not a private thing and we can choose to watch. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 days ago
    I am very concerned that this may be passed as a money bill. Plus I don't trust that they wont go back on changes in the Timms review. As we all know, these are a sneaky lot. I am afraid I still don't feel very optimistic about this. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 days ago
    The proposed severe criteria conditions amendments so far still do not match the current UC severe criteria do not reassess which applies to all who will meet LCWRA for the rest of their life. As the bill if amended would still exclude those who will always meet LCWRA due to schedule 9 substantial risk.

    This is very concerning as substantial risk are the very group likely to come to most harm if endlessly reassessed and if required to engage with DWP work coaches and be subject to conditionality and sanctions. People will end up in hospital or dead if the bill is not amended to protect them.  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 days ago
      @Radionoush *typo correction: I meant MY condition fluctuates not MH condition fluctuates 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 days ago
      @john Also, I have an extremely severe neurological condition which means I haven’t been able to work for over twenty years and am mainly bedbound.  However, as well as steadily worsening over the years, mh condition fluctuates unpredictability from day to day and even hour to hour.  I might be able to do some of the SCC things at some point in the day, but not at others, or not be able to do them at all that day.  So it’s not just conditions like MS etc.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 days ago
      @john You aren't wrong, I've never been able to work and when I tried twenty years ago I had a total breakdown. No way I'll ever be able to work again safely yet I'm always under threat of reassessment and rule changes.( Not to mention the constant retoric that people like me are scroungers, not really ill and  that work would magically cure us)  That's what happens when you are mentally ill and on benefits. 
      And they say this is the easy option, living in constant fear that everything will be taken away isn't any life anyone would choose

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.