The Universal Credit Bill is now certain to become law, after being subject to some very significant amendments which removed all matters relating to personal independence payment (PIP).

However, this is just the start of years of proposed welfare reforms by the Labour government.

We’ve set out some of the major planned changes below.  Over the summer we will be creating a more detailed summary.

Autumn 2025:  Timms PIP assessment review begins work

At this point there is no certainty over whether Timms review of the PIP assessment relates to current claimants or only to new claimants, once the new assessment comes into force.

According to the terms of reference, the review will include will include consideration of:

  • The role of the PIP assessment.
  • The assessment criteria – including activities, descriptors and associated points. The review will consider both the Daily Living and Mobility elements of the PIP assessment.
  • Whether any other evidence should be considered alongside the functional assessment to fairly reflect the impact of living with a long-term health condition or disability, including related to an individual’s personal circumstances and environment.
  • How the PIP assessment could provide fair access to the right support at the right level across the benefits system.
  • What role the assessment could and should play in unlocking wider support

Timms says that he will “engage widely over the summer to design the process for the work of the review, including to ensure that expertise from a range of different perspectives is drawn upon.”

The actual work of the review will begin in the Autumn of 2025. At this stage we have no idea whether the review will share information about its work as it goes along or whether it will be kept confidential until its findings are handed over to the secretary of state in Autumn 2026.

Date TBC:  Pathways To Work  White Paper to be published. 

We don’t have a date for the white paper  yet.  It could be as early as Autumn 2025.  The white paper follows the Green Paper Pathways To Work consultation and should include proposals on:

  • Removing barriers to trying work
  • Supporting people who lose entitlement to PIP
  • Proposed Unemployment Insurance contributory benefit
  • Delaying access to the UC health element until age 22
  • Raising the age at which people can claim PIP to 18

Timms has said in his terms of reference for the review of the PIP assessment that the abolition of the WCA will also be in the white paper.

April 2026:  Universal Credit Act comes into force

The Universal Credit Act will introduce the cuts to the UC health element for new claims, the increases to the UC standard rate and the introduction of the severe conditions criteria as a means of deciding who gets the higher rate of the UC health element.

Autumn 2026: Timms review of the PIP assessment given to the secretary of state

The government has said they want to introduce changes as quickly as possible after the Timms review is completed.  How soon they happen will depend on whether they require primary or secondary legislation or no legislation at all.  But some changes could come in as early as Spring 2027.

2027/28:  Delaying access to the UC health element until age 22

This is one of the issues that was consulted on in the Pathways To Work Green Paper.  We should have more details, including whether Labour intend to go ahead with the proposal, when the White Paper is published.

2028/29:  Abolition of the WCA

The work capability assessment (WCA) is the current test which gives access to the limited capability for work-related activity (LCWRA) element of universal credit.

The LCWRA element of UC will be replaced for new claimants from April 2026 by the UC health element.

Then, from 2028/29, the WCA will be axed and eligibility for the UC health element will depend upon being in receipt of the daily living component of PIP.

There is currently no certainty about whether current LCWRA claimants who do not receive PIP daily living will be affected by the change.

2028/29: PIP/UC single assessment

At the same time as the WCA is abolished, the new PIP assessment that is created by the Timms review will be introduced if it has not been introduced earlier. This single assessment will give access to both PIP and the health element of UC.

2028/29: New Unemployment Insurance contributory benefit

The Green Paper gave sketchy details of a proposal to replace New Style Employment and Support Allowance (NS ESA) and New Style Jobseeker’s Allowance (NS JSA) with one new Unemployment Insurance benefit. 

We should know more when the White Paper is published.

There is no certainty about how this proposal might affect current claimants.

Comments

Write comments...
or post as a guest
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 5 days ago
    Thank you for all the information.  I, like everybody else, are worried.  There is nothing to say that after the review the government will want to cut benefits to existing PIP claimants, and then why should new claimants have to suffer.  There is little, or no, understanding within government as to what people claim for, the problems we have.  There seems to be no understanding that many disabled people do work, and if they don't the problems that we encounter in getting a job that is suitable.  The support that they keeping talking about is not there.  I also feel it is driving a wedge between disabled people and 'other's because there is a lot in the press about the taxpayers who are keeping us in what they seem to think is a life of luxury.  Many disabled people are taxpayers, I have always been a taxpayer but there is a complete lack of understanding out there.  I also worry about who is going to be consulted for the Timms report.  If it is anything like the DWP consultation about welfare reform then nobody will have any say.  All we can do is wait and see but in the meantime continue to worry that our lives are in the hands of people who do not seem to care
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 5 days ago
    I am on New Style ESA and I am very worried about what will happen. I can't claim UC because my partner works. I don't want to be 100% reliant on them. Surely they aren't going to kick us all of ESA with out some sort of legacy benefit rights? Does anyone have any clue as to what may happen?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 4 days ago
      @Mad Si I’m also ineligible for UC. I see nothing in the plans to provide anything to replace our lost benefit once Employment Insurance runs out at 6 or 12 months. So much for supporting those who can never work.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 days ago
      @YogiBear According to the government the aim of the new contributions based unemployment benefit is to remove the perverse incentive to be disabled and the welfare system creating idleness and dependency.

      Current system (incentive to be deemed too ill or disabled to work)

      Become unemployed

      JSA or UC able unemployed less money and full conditionality and sanctions regime or if you claim you are too ill or disabled to work you get no conditionality and get more money New Style ESA support group or even more money UC LCWRA. After 12 months of not working people are far less likely to get a job, especially if they are on ESA support group or UC LCWRA.

      New system (intensive effort to get you a job within the first 6 or 12 months, and a significant financial motive to avoid staying on benefits longer)

      Become unemployed

      Get contributions based unemployment benefit with up to full conditionality and sanctions regime at the discretion of a work coach. Contributions based benefits take precedence over means tested benefits so cannot opt to get UC health and reduced conditionality instead. After time limit of 6 months or 12 months move to means tested benefits.

      UC severe conditions criteria group. Very small group of severely disabled for life never expected to work. Get the same money as contributions based unemployment.

      UC standard allowance + health element. Get significantly less money than contributions based unemployment. And UC health element is frozen so being eroded by inflation, becoming worth less and less. Have support conversations and the government will look at increasing conditionality in the future.

      UC standard allowance no UC health element. Less money. Subject to full conditionality and sanctions regime. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 days ago
      @Mad Si The past actions of UK governments does not inspire confidence.

      Previously the government time limited contributions based ESA LCW (People assessed as effectively incapable of any and all paid employment, but capable of appropriate work related activities).

      Previously the government abolished DLA for working age recipients and the replacement benefit PIP has different eligibility criteria and no equivalent to DLA low rate care awards.

      So many people who would have got £92.05 ESA LCW + £29.20 DLA low rate care = £121.25 a week. Now get nothing despite not being capable of working and having care needs, and are now dependent on their partners.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 days ago
      @Mad Si I'm not to sure how we'll be affected. I'm on ESA (CB). We won't know until later this year when the white paper is published. 

      54. Alongside levelling up the rate, this change would end the indefinite entitlement to contributory ESA for those assessed as having limited capability for work-related activity (for new people claiming). Those unemployed after the time-limited period would be able to claim UC, depending on their personal circumstances. We believe this reform would align with the removal of the WCA, by offering a route to financial support for those with temporary and short-term health conditions, including for those who may not be entitled to PIP and therefore not entitled to the health element of UC.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 days ago
    I have just gone onto uc after getting transitional protection letter and having to argue with them about sdp and housing benefit elements also health capacity assessment which they now say don't have to do one but will not tell me how much I will recieve just how much they are paying my landlord but not me is my benefit a closely guarded secret even from me.It is ridiculous  as supposedly you get the same as previous benefit but still an unknown as they won't inform me till the end of this month.I did request 2 weekly payments same as before which they agreed to.I don't like the system and it kept locking me out and making up answers when I was doing it also think it is a disgrace that they are paying citizens advice to do their job for them as I rang helpline was told to go into jobcentre were they just gave me a leaflet for cab but ended up doing myself after a lot of false starts with the website.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 days ago
      @MJ I agree with you there, it's confusing and the trouble filling out forms a nightmare, I got a letter of migration and my advice is to ring up u.c and they will help you, they are pretty good, that's what I ended up doing, so confusing but give them a ring if your having trouble.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 days ago
      @Jen Knox This process isn't just a straightforward migration it feels like a review, deliberately done to hassle people into not doing it. I've read apparently 25% haven't migrated, 32% in their 60's. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 days ago
    From DPAC:

    Now there’s a “surprise’ not! Major Charities who have government funding invited to participate @stephenctimms PIP review. They won’t jeopardise future funding from government- we knew this review would be a complete sham Timms can’t be trusted

    ———————————————————

    Guess we know at least 1 loophole timms will using to bypass true disabled scrutiny and collaboration (finding the ‘yes men’ of the disabled organisation world)
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 days ago
    The whole history of money bills (scroll down - I was trying to see if there was any exceptions from the rule):

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 days ago
      @D Hi D, Thank you for this - were there any that didn’t get passed into law
      - after scrutiny by Lords?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 days ago
    From @WeeklyMosaic on twitter: 

     A tense exchange just unfolded in the Work & Pensions Committee.
    Blind MP Steve Darling directly accused Secretary Liz Kendall of ignoring disabled voices in planning UK benefit reforms.

    Here’s what happened: 👇

    📄 The “Pathways to Work” Green Paper outlines sweeping changes to:
    – Disability benefits
    – Employment support
    – PIP (Personal Independence Payment)

    Darling says: No disabled people were consulted.

    Kendall responds:

    > “We consulted with Parliament.”
    Darling, visibly annoyed, shakes his head.
    He repeatedly presses: “Why didn’t you ask us?”

    🧑‍🦯 Darling emphasizes:

    > “PIP is a lifeline. We are the ones affected. Why were disabled people left out of consultation?”

    💭 This isn't just bureaucracy.
    This is a disabled MP confronting the government about being excluded from policy that directly impacts their survival.

    It’s more than political — it’s existential.

    📊 This moment matters.
    Because if even a blind sitting MP is ignored in welfare reform planning…
    what hope is there for disabled citizens without power or visibility?


    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 days ago
      @D Hi
      I am not understanding and I need help as i am worried to know will my wife be affected about all the  changes comming after 2028 -2029  because she is on lcwra will she needs to be reassessed with pip after 2028-2029  if wca is abolished? 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 days ago
    Anything about those whose migration from ESA, who are currently in receipt of LCWRA plus PIP, to UC will not complete until post April 2026?  Will they be treated as new UC claimants and, therefore, subject to lower rate LCWRA rate?  The Gvt doesn’t seem to have considered this group or provided any information on their migration.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 days ago
      @robbie Because the last migration letters are due in September 2025, & the migration is a process staggered, it may be that some, especially those close to age 66/retirement may not have been migrated pre-April 2026.  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 days ago
      @Thomas That's been my concern too. There seems to be no information about tht anywhere.
      When I looked into transferring over myself, I got mixed answers as to whether I would keep or lose my SDA. I haven't dared apply because of that. I'm desperate to move areas, but that is classed as a change in circumstances.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 days ago
      @Thomas Is everyone not going to be migrated by April 2026?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 days ago
    I've had a force migration from ESA with SDP to UC, luckily they have given me my legacy payments but how long for I do not know. 

    Thank you for the updates on these issues, its important to get the information out there for people to be able to start to understand what they are playing at. 


    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 4 days ago
      @Jen @Jen TP doesn't just last a year. It erodes via any yearly increases you get on your benefits or if you have an occupational pension in payment OR if you have a change of circumstances. Given that the increases they give are minimal - for example single person over 25 in 2024 was £393 and in 2025 £400 it could take years to erode. It's right that they don't pay carers and lcwra. Have they removed you TP already? 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 days ago
      @Fibrogal I was on income support , am disabled and a carer. I had my migration notice and went to age concern to help me do it as I'm 65 and not good on computers.
      When I was there the worker asked if I had disabilities and I said yes so shoes her my nhs app and she filled in. This triggered a message for fit note which I did
      Then I was told you cannot get carers element and lwcra.
      I recieved a uc50 form and called the number I was told I would loose the transitional payment as it's a change . My mind was baffled so I said to the uc advisor it's not worth me filling in this uc50 then as I am a carer who gets the carers element so will not gain except for the stress.
      A letter came shortly after saying I missed deadline and to send the form.
      I contacted uc no on letter and was told you only get transition protection money for one year and said I would be worse of sending the uc 50 form of so she said she will send or put in my notes that I'm cancelling to claim for the health element lwcra.
      She said to ignore any letters that come as I'm a carer.
      This stressed me out 
      So I just have to wait and see

      Does anyone know if the uc advisor is right in what she told me
      Please let me know 
      Thankyou in advance
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 days ago
      @Andrew Andrew your transitional protection will erode over time. Or if you do a change of circumstance. So every April when they apply the yearly increases you will see say for example this year single person over 25 increased from £393 to £400 so your TP would reduce by this much same with anything else that increases this will continue until your TP becomes £0.00 so as long as you don’t have any change of circumstances it could be a few years until your TP zero’s out. Hope that helps :) 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 days ago
      @Andrew
      Thanks for the info @Andrew, you've done all you can for now and it's good to know not everything goes wrong all the time!

      As for 'what they are playing at', something we can all hang on to is that just because something is on it's way to being legislation does not mean it cannot still be challenged.

      I believe much of what the green paper proposed was based on ignorance of how the welfare system operates. Whatever materialises, we will always be able to oppose it when it is clearly inhumane and unworkable. There was such force behind the objection to the pip changes that for Timms et al to try something similar again is surely likely to fail.

      The introduction of different categories of lcwra is reminiscent of when they cut extra payments for esa wrag group for new claimants from 2017, but support group remained, and it looks as though Timms's plan is to offer severe conditions criteria to protect future claimants who would otherwise have their payments cut by half. I wonder how many wrag claimants managed to get into support group? When claimants access every aspect
      of the system this whole welfare reform will not save the treasury a penny.

      They've tried to do too much all at once without planning the implementation and we've checked that insane progress.

      Now we just have to remain alert and work with, or against, what emerges.

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 days ago
    Hi Tallbob2,
    Thank you for all your hard work to compile the Speakers’ list - which is extremely helpful, and much appreciated. Very interesting in particular about the Speakers with disability knowledge / experience. Did they give a deadline?

    I agree that it is so important that we continue to make our voices heard - especially at this vital stage when the Bill is passing and the Timms review is still being formed.

    My ideas of points to include -
    -    The UN Report
    -    The Amnesty press release
    -    Dickensian levels of childhood poverty
    -    1 in 5 people on UC disability are already using food banks
    -    The many organisations that are against the cuts - does anyone have the updated list?
    -    This has been put through at speed as a money bill and seemingly without due scrutiny - Roy Haynes’ point about severe conditions criteria seems pertinent here
    -    Timms Review - We don’t yet know if the aim is still to cut billions of pounds. UC Bill debate, 9 July - Kirsty Blackman (2.30pm)
    -    The divisive nature of the reforms

    Any thoughts?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 days ago
      @Tallbob2 Hi Tallbob2

      Thank you for getting back to me. I agree that this is an great opportunity for us to voice our concerns.

      The opinion of the Lords will hold weight, and alongside the rebuke from the UN, Amnesty and many other reputable organisations, can only help to turn the tide / keep the tide turned in our direction.

      I’d be really interested to hear your ideas - in your own time of course.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 days ago
      @HL Hi HL

      The bill goes through the House of Lords on the Tuesday 22 July, whatever we can manage to send before that date all helps. 

      I think your idea of listing talking points is really good. It took me ages to figure out what to write to my MP and I only managed that because I cribbed from Benefits & Work!

      I have a few ideas for talking points but will have to come back and list them once I've thought it through.

      Does anyone else have ideas for talking points?

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 days ago
    Trying my hardest to stay positive. Want to help others to do the same. We support each other. It's really hard not to get ahead of our selves, because we're all stressed about the future. But some things are a case of wait and see, which is easier said than done. It shouldn't be like that. Speculation however can be unhelpful, but I get it. We're all going to wonder. Let's try to be proactive and do whatever we can. All info and suggestions are great. I learn a lot on this forum, which is really helpful.  Love & best wishes to you all.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 days ago
    I claim a very small stipend from a PPP, (payment protection policy) along with NS-ESA.

    Well over ten million of these PPP/Accident Sickness Unemployment/Income protection policies have been sold. The terms will differ somewhat, but the terms in my PPP take into account my overall income and state that my PPP will not be reduced if I claim Incapacity benefit.

    Which is part of the value proposition of the policy, leading me to believe I can claim Incapacity benefit, (replaced by NS-ESA) simultaneously with my PPP.

    The terms in my PPP make a distinction between means tested and non means tested benefits. Informing me that my overall income would be affected if I were to claim UC instead of incapacity benefit.

    (They marketed the benefit of being able to claim non means tested Incapacity Benefit, simultaneously with the PPP)

    The policy clearly states it will pay out up to 50%, of your final 12 months earnings.

    Acknowledging fluctuations of the amount you might receive from the PPP. In other words, you might get much less than 50%. (Which can very easily occur when you get serious illness, or for other reasons. These PPPs were marketed to self employed people, for instance whose income fluctuates drastically)

    Leading people to believe that they can combine PPP with NS-ESA.

    I would argue that the the removal of NS ESA and its replacement with a means-tested benefits undermines the value of the policy and it is a risk that the insurer should reasonably have foreseen.

    Whoever wrote this green paper cannot have taken into account the conflict between consultation question 4, and the terms in PPP.  

    I would hope the Financial Ombudsman would support the claimants and policy holders!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 days ago
    ''''2028/29: New Unemployment Insurance contributory benefit''''

    I was told that DPAC had spoken to a barrister, who thought that scrapping CB ESA would be something they may be able to challenge, (but that this could only happen when the green paper is final and the white paper comes out, if they could find someone who would lose CB ESA and who qualifies for legal aid)

    I asked her why the barrister believed it would be something that could possibly be challenged, and she told me that it was because we would probably be the only country in Europe that doesnt have a medical retirement scheme, for working people, who become ill and disabled and she compared it to private pension schemes for MPs which include provisions for medical retirement, and a lack of provision for disabled or ill workers could breach human rights obligations, and that other European countries provide medical retirement options, so removing CB ESA might stand out as uniquely harsh or regressive.

    (At least that was the gist of my understanding)

    But until plans are finalised they will not be sure what can and cannot be legally challenged.

    NS-ESA succeeded Incapacity Benefit, and Invalidity benefit, since 1911, there has been an earned entitlement based upon National Insurance contributions (serving a different purpose and underpinned by fundamentally different principles than Universal Credit), a kind of premium in the event of unemployment caused by sickness or incurable illness which must be fought for as hard as was the scrapping of the four point PIP rule.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 days ago
      @D-a-v-e Absolutely 💯
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 days ago
      @D-a-v-e Just read your post with interest. I am on CB ESA. I am confused as to what's going to happen with it, and haven't been able to find any definite information. Is it definitely going to be scrapped? Will existing claimants be protected? Are you able to refer me to any specific wording? Thankyou very much for any information you can give me.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 days ago
      @D-a-v-e I was also told that also.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 days ago
      @D-a-v-e Thank you for this information x
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 days ago
    For anyone who wants to write to members of the House of Lords about the Universal Credit Bill contact details of members who are listed as speaking during the debate are below. I know its a money bill and we can't stop it but every bit of opposition counts, and it helps build momentum to get something constructive done with the Timms review.

    I phoned the Lords Enquiry Service today and was told that the members of the Lords listed to speak in the debate are the ones to contact (listed below). This list has also been linked by other B&W members (thank you HL) but I have added contact details, political party and relevant interests that I could see. 

    The list is in alphabetical Order. Notably, Baroness Grey-Thompson (5) is a former Paralympian has listed a focus on Disability Rights on her Parliamentary web page. Baroness Lister of Burtersett (6) has listed a focus on inequality and poverty. Baroness Scott of Needham Market (10) has submitted several questions to the House in support of people with CFS/ME. And Baroness Browning (1) has submitted several questions to the House that seem to be broadly supportive of disabled people.



    1) Baroness Browning (Conservative) - she has submitted numerous written questions to the House of Lords that appear to be broadly in the interests of disabled people
    email: contactholmember@parliament.uk (generic email address - Add F.A.O. Baroness Browning in subject line, address email to 'Dear Lady Browning')
    Parliamentary phone message service: 020 7219 5353


    2) Baroness Bryan of Partick (Labour)
    email: bryanp@parliament.uk (address email to 'Dear Lady Bryan of Partick')
    Parliamentary phone message service: 020 7219 5353


    3) Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell (Conservative)
    email: contactholmember@parliament.uk (generic email address - Add F.A.O. Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell in subject line, address email to 'Dear Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell')
    Parliamentary phone message service: 020 7219 5353


    4) Baroness Fox of Buckley (No party affiliation - Life Peer. )
    email: foxcr@parliament.uk (address email to 'Dear Lady Fox of Buckley')
    Parliamentary phone message service: 020 7219 5353
    Website: https://clairefox.org.uk (N.B This is the same Claire Fox who appears on Radio 4 The Moral Maze)
    Twitter: https://x.com/fox_claire


    5) Baroness Grey-Thompson - she has a focus on Disability Rights (Crossbench, Life Peer)
    email: greythompsont@parliament.uk (address email to 'Dear Lady Grey-Thompson')
    phone: 020 7219 3143
    website: https://www.tanni.co.uk (NB This is Tanni Grey-Thompson, the Paralympian)
    Twitter: https://x.com/Tanni_GT


    6) Baroness Lister of Burtersett - she has a focus on Inequalities and poverty (Labour)
    email - listerr@parliament.uk (address email to 'Dear Lady Lister of Burtersett)
    Parliamentary phone number: 020 7219 8984
    website: https://www.lboro.ac.uk/subjects/social-policy-studies/staff/honorary/ruth-lister/


    7) Bishop of Newcastle (her name is Helen-Ann Macleod Hartley)
    email address: hartleyh@parliament.uk (address email to 'Dear Lord Bishop')
    Parliamentary phone message service: 020 7219 5353
    website: https://www.newcastle.anglican.org/about-us/leadership/bishop-of-newcastle/
    Twitter: https://x.com/BishopNewcastle


    8) Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat, Life Peer)
    email: palmerm@parliament.uk (address email to 'Dear Lord Palmer of Childs Hill')
    Parliamentary phone number: 020 7219 2561
    Twitter: https://x.com/PalmerMonroe
    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/monroe.palmer


    9) Lord Rook (Labour, Life Peer)
    email: contactholmember@parliament.uk (generic email address - Add F.A.O. Lord Rook in subject line, address email to 'Dear Lord Rook')
    Parliamentary phone message service: 020 7219 5353


    10) Baroness Scott of Needham Market (Liberal Democrat, Life Peer) has submitted numerous written questions to the House in support of people with CFS/ME)
    email: scottrc@parliament.uk (address email to 'Dear Lady Scott of Needham Market')
    Parliamentary phone message service: 020 7219 5353
    Twitter: https://x.com/baronessros


    11) Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson (Conservative, Life Peer)
    email: contactholmember@parliament.uk (generic email address, put F.A.O Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson in subject line, address email to 'Dear Lady Shawcross-Wolfson' )
    Parliamentary phone message service: 020 7219 5353


    12) Baroness Sherlock (Minister of State Department for Work and Pensions) (Labour, Life Peer)
    email: sherlockm@parliament.uk (address email to 'Dear Lady Sherlock)
    Parliamentary phone message service: 020 7219 5353
    Twitter: https://x.com/MaeveSherlock


    13) Lord Sikka (Labour, Life Peer)
    email: contactholmember@parliament.uk (generic email address, put F.A.O Lord Sikka in subject line, address email to 'Dear Lord Sikka')
    Parliamentary phone message service: 020 7219 5353
    Twitter: https://x.com/premnsikka


    14) Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative, Life Peer)
    emails: stedmanscottd@parliament.uk or stedman.scott@outlook.com (address emails to 'Dear Lady Stedman-Scott')
    Parliamentary phone number: 020 7219 8919


    15) Viscount Younger of Leckie (Conservative, Hereditary Peer)
    email: contactholmember@parliament.uk (generic email address, put F.A.O Lord Sikka in subject line, address as Dear Lord Younger of Leckie)
    Parliamentary phone number:
    Parliamentary phone number: 020 7219 5353





    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 3 days ago
      @Tallbob2 Thank you so much for your brilliant guide to those to contact in the HoL.  I am part of an active group - the Haringey Claimant Justice Campaign - that has had street stalls about the Green Paper and then the Bill in our borough since April.  We decided - though with no illusions at all - that we should contact all the members of the HoL in your list.  We also included the Speaker of the HoL: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/apr/26/john-mcfall-labour-child-poverty-policy following a suggestion on a recent B&W chat forum
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 days ago
      @Tallbob2 Thanks great research - very helpful information! 👍
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 days ago
      @Tallbob2 Thanks for the info 👍
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 days ago
    Just rang Citizens Advice asking if they know anything about current claimant protection for the Timms Review. They said that I am not the only one asking them this question. The told me that Only Timms and Kendall would know this at this point. They said that I would need to contact them to find out. Does anyone have the contact details for Timms and Kendall?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 days ago
      @HL Thank you so much. I will post answer on the latest article once I get a reply.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 days ago
      @SLB You appear to be very negative in most of your posts. Your saying that there is nothing that any of as can do at the moment. But this is far from the truth.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 days ago
      @TK It's highly likely that writing to them will take your time but not give you any answers, as it's highly unlikely that they don't know yet either - and probably won't until the DWP decide what it's going to do with any recommendations.  As I and other have said, current claimants were only protected against the 4-point rule which is now gone.  We just have to sit and wait, sadly, as they can't tell you if current claimants are protected because they don't have a clue yet what we're wanting to be protected from.  I realise people want to know, but it's unreasonable to think we're going to find out before anything from the Timms review makes it to the NEXT Green paper or bill - probably in 2027.  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 days ago
      @TK Hi TK,
      Thank you for the update.
      As requested -
      Sir Stephen Timms
      Liz Kendall
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 days ago
    Sorry if the link for the petition doesn't work. Just Google: Richard Burgon wealth tax change.org where you can sign.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 days ago
    Wealth petition tax if anyone's interested.

    Petition update
    TAX WEALTH – DON'T CUT DISABILITY SUPPORT
    10 Downing Street Hand-In Confirmed: Tax Wealth, Don’t Cut Disability Support!

    Richard Burgon MP
    Leeds, ENG, United Kingdom

    15 Jul 2025
    Great news - the petition for a wealth tax, not cuts to disability support, will be handed into Number 10 Downing Street next week!

    Thank you for being an part of this important call. Can you help the petition reach 80,000 signatures ahead of the Downing Street hand-in next Tuesday? 

    🔴 Please take 30 seconds to share it today?
    Share the petition here


    The pressure placed on the Government from campaigners, disabled people’s organisations and MPs against the cuts forced a number of important concessions on the Government’s disability support Bill. 


    But we must be clear, this Bill still contains billions in cuts to disability support. 


    I voted against the Bill, and will vote against any cuts to disability support. We need to tax the wealthiest instead! 


    📢 Please help us hit 80,000 signatures before the Downing Street hand-in!

    Share the petition here

     

    All the best,

    Richard Burgon MP


    436 people signed this week
    Take the next step!

    Share

    Post


    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 days ago
      @Mr.Benn Wealth taxes do work, and it would be easy to implement, the reason why it’s not done is because the rich control governments and that includes tax avoiding Ministers and MPs 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 days ago
      @Cuckoo21 Wealth taxes don't work and would be extremely difficult and costly to implement. It's very complex to value all assets, especially business assets and would require enormous manpower to achieve. It's easier and less complicated to simply tax the income generated. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 days ago
    Hello, in December 2023 on this site I read the following statement:

    "the vast majority of current LCWRA / support group claimants will almost certainly be spared a further reassessment if the DWP follows through with it's current plans to end reassessments for existing claimants with LWRA in 2025"

    Do we know if this still stands? Or has there been news to the contrary?

    Of course we are moving from ESA support group to the UC equivalent. 

    Thank You.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 days ago
      @David I am also looking for more information on this. New style esa support group has rarely been mentioned so I am unsure what's happening with reassessments for those in this group. Also hoping for more information if existing claimants in the new style esa support group will be moved in to the new unemployment insurance, or just stay as is.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 days ago
      @David I think I answered my own question by looking through the forum and doing a keyword search on "reassessment". Although there is still a lack of certainty.

      WCA reassessments are part of a green paper that still has has to go through scrutiny. However, there is an expected start date of April 2026. Albeit, some people with short-term prognosis such as cancer or pregnancy may be reassessed before this date. 

      I have read there is a "5-year backlog" in terms of reassessments. Hardly any have been done since Covid. Another thing to add is that there are DWP staffing issues but I don't know by how much assessor numbers might be boosted. So, even though there is that anxiety at the back of the mind that a reassessment could appear on the doorstep, it could be a while away.

      Also there is the announcement that those with the most severe conditions will not be reassessed - these are conditions that are unlikely to get better.

      Is that what everyone else is reading?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 days ago
      @David I'm not sure but I think this won't stand now because it was a Tory proposal, labour seem to have dropped all Tory plans that would have been a good idea but kept or wanted to keep the worst Tory proposals.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 days ago
    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/other/dwp-explains-pip-rules-after-claimant-loses-award-despite-condition-worsening/ar-AA1IzB9C?ocid=sapphireappshare

    Looks like these are the signs of things to come.

    A claiment lost PIP for giving more evidence that his health has got worse.  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 days ago
      @GLB To be honest, this kind of thing has always happened - it's a sign of the past as well as the future.  Although it's also fair to say there is probably more to the story than the Express is telling us.  Did it get reinstated after appeal, for example. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 days ago
    Can someone tell me I'm in UC LCWRA just got pip award standard do I have to tell UC of this some people say I don't have to others say it's best to
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 days ago
      @Sue I have just searched this question and this is what I found. Hope it helps.
      No, you don't have to tell Universal Credit (UC) about a Personal Independence Payment (PIP) award if you're already receiving the Limited Capability for Work and Work Related Activity (LCWRA) element in your UC. However, it might be beneficial to inform them, as PIP can affect other aspects of your UC claim, such as the housing element or potential benefit cap. 
      Reasons to consider informing UC about your PIP award:
      Housing Element:
      If you are under 35 and single, or if you have a severe disability, PIP can affect how your housing costs are calculated in UC. 
      Benefit Cap:
      If you weren't already exempt due to LCWRA, being awarded PIP could remove the benefit cap. 
      Potential Additional Support:
      While LCWRA and PIP are separate, there might be other situations where the PIP award could trigger additional support or adjustments to your UC claim. 
      Clarity and Transparency:
      Informing UC ensures they have accurate information about your circumstances, potentially avoiding future complications or overpayments. 
      How to inform UC:
      Add a note to your online journal: Simply explain that you have been awarded PIP and provide the award details.
      Be prepared to provide evidence: You may need to provide copies of your PIP decision letter. 
      Important Considerations:
      LCWRA and PIP are distinct:
      LCWRA is an element within UC for those with limited capability for work-related activity, while PIP is a separate benefit for those with a long-term health condition or disability. 
      No automatic link:
      Being awarded LCWRA does not automatically mean you will be awarded PIP, and vice versa. 
      Speak to a benefits advisor:
      If you are unsure about the implications of your PIP award for your UC, consult with a benefits advisor or caseworker. 

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 days ago
    Although the government could ignore any amendments the Lords wanted, would it be politically wise to ignore them? Any opposition from the Lords will expose more government treachery.

    How do we get the Lords to dispute the bill, and should we petition the king?



Free PIP, ESA & UC Updates!

Delivered Fortnightly

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

 
iContact