The Universal Credit Bill has completed its passage through he House of Lords in a single session, with an amendment critical of the impact of the legislation heavily defeated

Because it was certified as a “money bill, the Lords have no power to prevent the Universal Credit Bill becoming law, or even to make changes to it.

However, an amendment to the bill was voted on which, whilst accepting that it should have its second reading, also “regrets the impact of the Bill, particularly with regard to age discrimination, the impact on people with high levels of need and mental health conditions, and the overall impact on rates and severity of poverty among people with disabilities, and notes the human rights concerns expressed by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.”

Had the amendment succeeded, it would have been a rebuke to the Commons for creating such an unfair law.

In the event, however, the amendment was defeated with just 17 votes in favour and 120 against.  Those in favour were mainly LibDems, with a few crossbench peers.  116 Labour MPs voted against, along with three Conservatives and a bishop.

You can see a full breakdown of the votes here.

The bill completed has now completed its second reading, committee stage, report stage and third reading in the Lords and just awaits royal assent before it becomes an act.

Update:  You can now download the Hansard record of the debate from 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.
    · 1 months ago
    Can private a diagnosis now be used to support 'severe conditions criteria'?

    The Universal Credit Bill states that for the 'severe conditions criteria' the diagnosis needs to be made "in the course of the provision of NHS services".

    After several members of the House of Lords criticised the exclusion of private diagnoses the Minister of State for the DWP, Baroness Sherlock offered the following 'clarification':

    "To meet the severe conditions criteria, the condition needs to be recorded somewhere in the NHS, following a proper clinical investigation and a formal medical diagnosis in line with NHS best practice. That does not mean the initial diagnosis has to be done by the NHS, but it has to be recorded somewhere in the NHS system. For a person who has a severe, lifelong health condition, their diagnosis will be in their GP record, even if it was made privately. I hope that helps reassure noble Lords." [from Hansard, the official record].

    This 'clarification' seems quite different from what is actually written in the bill. 

    However, this may be something positive. Perhaps a private diagnosis will be accepted for the 'severe conditions' group. Hopefully some more definitive clarification will be forthcoming. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Tallbob2 I wondered about this. 
      If the diagnosis etc is part of your GP notes, then surely it has been accepted. Especially if it leads to prescription of meds/ further referrals etc. 

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Tallbob2 "Hopefully some more definitive clarification will be forthcoming."

       As if. Let's ask Timms, shall we? 🙄
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Tallbob2 Everyone who has a private diagnosis needs to get their GP to add it to their notes, & if you give the GP a copy of the diagnosis report they can scan them onto your notes as well. I’d also get any of your consultants to do the same.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Tallbob2 Just a little heads up. For every bill that becomes an act there are explanatory notes that accompany them which will be used to clarify the intents around every section. These are important as they will be ones that judges will refer to when looking at a particular section of an act! Hope this helps
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    At least i knew the conservatives were going to do away with pip benefits or try to . And being very open about it but I expected better from labour . Wasted vote never again 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Bob Unfortunately, if you read the various comments on social media or the right wing press, there is a large and very vocal, minority who hate anyone on benefits due to our current (and likely to increase) taxation rates in the UK. And Labour is scared stiff of Reform as many of their core voters are switching their allegiances.  Hence, as well as the Treasury wanting to save money, Starmer and McSweeney are keen to keep hold of as many voters as possible, on the assumption that the likely result of the next GE will be a very hung Parliament
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Bern400 Why would anyone expect Reform which is run by millionaires some of whom have padded their expenses at the cost of the public purse to be working class friendly or have any compassion for disabled and sick in this country. It's like expecting these people to understand compassion and caring. They only care about getting power at the expense of common people to make themselves wealthier still!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Yorry Yorry . Reform UK manifesto suggests huge cuts, threats to disability rights, and risks to safety of benefit claimants. See the below article from the respected Disability News Service website:

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Yorry
      In my opinion Reform is Farage and Tice.

      Farage has said disability benefits are too generous, unfair to tax payers who "feel, why bother? I'll be as well off on benefits" and are bankrupting the country. That they are far too easy to claim and people are taking the Mickey. And that Labour's planned cuts do not go far enough.

      Tice has said mental health is the modern bad back and disabled people are swinging the lead. And that being on disability benefits is a lifestyle choice. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Matthew Pettigrew When did they say that?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    Something helpful - it was asked during the House of Lords debate if secondary legislation could be considered to sort out the issues of fluctuating conditions in relation to the 'severe conditions criteria' in the Universal Credit Bill.

    This was asked by Baroness Lister of Burtersett. She pointed out the discrepancy between the reassurances that had been offered about fluctuating conditions and what is actually written in the bill. She also said this gap had been flagged up in the civil society briefing. 

    I believe she was referring to the 'reassurances' given by Sir Stephen Timms about fluctuating conditions still being eligible for the 'severe conditions criteria' despite the fact that the way the bill is written makes it sound like they are not eligible. She also referred to similar reassurances given by Baroness Sherlock, Minister of State for the DWP. 

    Paragraph 6 of Scehdule 1 of the Universal Credit Bill was identified by the Baroness for potential WITHDRAWAL so that the House of Commons could write up clear legislation. It was pointed out that this paragraph was simply amending the existing regulations. She requested that this be considered.

    This question did not receive an answer from Baroness Sherlock, Minister of State for the DWP - the Minister said she could not pick up on all the points that were raised. 

    Possibly we can do something to push for secondary legislation to amend this part of the Universal Credit Bill. I will be writing to Baroness Lister of Burtersett and to my MP to see what they say.

    Anyone else have any thoughts or ideas?




    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Boo Thanks for that
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Tallbob2 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/apply-to-join-a-regional-stakeholder-network-for-disabled-people/how-to-apply

      It appeared on government’s website 23.07.2025, 

      The RSN ensures that disabled people have a routine route through which they can discuss the issues facing disabled people in their region. It provides a way in which they can share their insight into specific strands of government-led work.

      There are 9 regional groups in England:

      North West
      North East
      Yorkshire and the Humber
      West Midlands
      East Midlands
      South West
      South East
      East of England
      Greater London
      Each regional network consists of a chair and between 10 to 40 members made up of local disabled people, parents and carers of disabled people and disabled people’s representative organisations.

      They meet regularly, at least 4 times a year. The meetings provide an open forum to share views and experience of policies and services that affect disabled people.

      The link provides an hyperlink to apply to join.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Tallbob2 Well spotted @Tallbob2. This is exactly the sort of thing they try to sneak through. Let us know if you get any replies!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    F***!
    This is terrible news for the future of disabled people 😡
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Shadowcat you mean the people who are working now should not fall ill, have bad health, or have an accident and certainly not have kids who have serious illnesses. We will see how this attack on the working people will last when everyone realises they are the ones who are being deprived inspite of having paid NI contributions through their working lives. The key word is that NI is a premium contribution for having a national insurance system. They will have to get rid of it and replace it with a privately accountable system. The government cannot be allowed to get away taking the NI payments and treating it as a simple tax while not providing the cover that it is suppose to give. People need to be aware just how evil and rip off this is to them and their families
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Shadowcat It could yet be terrible news for current claimants too, I cannot shrug off the feeling this is all a play on words. I will only be convinced when everything is in place and up and running, assessments are under way and under the new rules including those for current claimants etc. Despite being told by many this current v future is all set in law etc, I am just having a hard time believing any of it. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    Democracy has gone, we are voiceless at the ballot box now, but we probably have the worst psrty that I can remember being in power in my adult life, I have never voted Labour and never will, having said that I would never vote for the Conservatives, frankly I find it hard to see who is worth voting for, and no not the Greens  or Lib Dems, as for looking at our bank accounts I wouldn't rule that out, don't mind a bit of fraud going on in the DWP.though do they.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @John Can you actually state what these far bigger cuts were between 2010 and 2024, not what they would have hypothetically been if they were elected last year. I don't wish to stand up for the Tories at all but I've been on benefits since 2008 and I have not received any cuts on my ESA or PIP over that time. And neither has a friend of mine over that time. I can honestly say the last few months has had me more worried and concerned about government cuts than anytime previously. I'm just trying to be honest here.  

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Elizabeth Vidler Sorry I meant 1935 and was left with very few labour MPs supporting him then! Starmer is a complete throw back to Ramsey McDonald and will fail in the end when the entire left devour him for what he has done.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @John This government is just as bad as the Ramsey McDonald Labour Government and look at what happened to them in the end! I hope all the unions stop backing this government and switch to the new progressive party and stand up for working people and their families unlike this fake bunch. Ramsey McDonald did pretty much the same and he lasted 9 months in 1937
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Paul My pointing out the 2010-2024 Coalition and Tory governments made far far bigger cuts to incapacity/disability benefits than what Labour has so far done. Is not intended to downplay what Labour has done by passing the Universal Credit bill.

      It is intended to remind people of the vast number of cuts to incapacity/disability benefits and support 2010-2024 and the huge numbers of people who suffered and died due as a result.

      I find posts saying the current Labour government are the worst ever government on incapacity/disability benefits annoying. So far it is simply not true. But if people so easily forget what government's do it may become true as government's think they can get away with causing mass suffering and deaths. With politicians carrying on their lives as respected public figures and media personalities. And come election time their party's candidates knocking on doors having friendly chats. 

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Elizabeth Vidler Don't despair the new Left party headed by Corbyn is coming soon. Several opinion polls give between 15-18% of the 'vote' before it has even been launched. Once it is launched disabled people will finally have a party which will fight their corner and oppose all of the attacks on benefits planned by the red tories in power.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    What happened to democracy?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    What happened to the mass surveillance of bank accounts Bill? It's all gone very quiet.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @bronc There's nothing new in this, and it's not what @Anon was asking about. If you want to keep your life private, don't broadcast it. Surveilling bank accounts is a long way from looking at someone's publicly accessible instagram account.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Fiona @Fiona, It would be truly terrible if our activity on this forum were monitored, when we are only seeking/swapping advice, news and support.

      However, sneaky though it is of dwp to look at social media, if people don't make their accounts private anyone can look them up. It's not just Big Brother watching when people want to broadcast their business to the world. They can't go 'look at me' then complain when that happens - they have to take some care over what they are sharing.

      It's not in my gift to guarantee your privacy, but I'd say if you find this forum helpful, it's a reasonable risk to use it!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @bronc I know it sounds really Paranoid but that's my middle name,they can't monitor the forum and names are hidden surely we are entitled to some privousy and advise without monitoring it's terrible I have to question it
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Anon That is already happening to people on benefits as revealed by a new report from Big Brother Watch. The DWP is secretly scrapping people's social media looking for 'evidence' against people. It has already used pics on social media to investigate people and stop their benefits. So be very careful what you post on social media.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Anon The Bill is still going through the Lords
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cost-of-living/universal-credit-claimant-fears-losing-32097195

    This terrifies me every single day - being able to afford a few ‘luxuries’ hugely impacts quality of life and wellbeing 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    Three conservatives and a bishop walked into a bar...but it doesn't end well.

    How could anyone not have the regrets expressed? It means anyone voting against the amendment thinks the impact of the Bill, as laid out in those regrets, is all fine, and that those who didn't vote at all couldn't care less.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @robbie The sins of Simony or sale of church office! Aristocrats would leave their wealth to their eldest sons but the other sons had to find their way and one of them was the sale of a church office knows as sins of Simony! This is nothing new and has been going on for a long time 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    A reminder that the management of the Church is nothing but a vehicle to funnel power to the ambitious.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    So the next issue for UC is what happens in 2028/29 when the Work Capability Assessment is abolished, along with LCW and LCWRA status. And the new system is the Timms PIP assessment system with PIP daily living giving eligibility for UC health and UC health severe conditions criteria.

    Will the government maintain protection for existing claimants as is? With their UC standard allowance + LCWRA/health element combined going up by inflation. Or will they risk a backbench rebellion by instead just giving transitional protection for legacy LCWRA premium recipients who are not placed in the severe conditions criteria group? As their benefits under the new system would be lower.

    What is going to happen to those receiving UC LCWRA who are not receiving PIP daily living? Will the new Timms PIP assessment expand eligibility? UC LCWRA awards are technically ongoing (no end date), so will they be honoured as a legacy benefit or at least given UC transitional protection? Or will they see a cut in their benefits?

    For those on UC health, what is going to happen as far as conditionality and sanctions?

    What conditionality group will those with ongoing/indefinite PIP daily living awards be placed in? UC health or UC severe conditions criteria health. They will, in theory, never be reassessed for PIP, so will never have a new Timms PIP assessment. Or is some work coach going to decide their fate at a support conversation?

    How often are the support conversations going to be? Will they just be every time PIP is awarded/re-awarded? Or will they be the same frequency for everyone, and how often would that be?

    How soon does the government plan on reviewing the conditionality requirements for those on UC health? The government has said it will consider increasing conditionality beyond support conversations for those on UC health if too few move towards and into work.

    For those not on UC health, what is going to happen as far as conditionality and sanctions?

    How much interaction with the DWP are they going to be required to have? What activities could they be mandated to undertake? Are the ill and disabled really going to be at the mercy of DWP work coaches discretion? As to what the work coach thinks they can and cannot do and if they should be recommended for a benefits sanction. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 23 days ago
      @John That places the work coach in a position of fraudulent misrepresentation & Gross misconduct.

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @John I really can't think that far ahead because I don't know if I will still be here. But you have raised very good points. It's all very stressful.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    So come April 2026 or next assessment off to the scrap heap to die then. Which kendal and Reeves would love, one more of there list....

    Perhaps they could put a pay freeze on there fat extortionate wages. 😂😂😂😂
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @GLB They claim more in expenses for one meal than we get to live on in a week, it's disgusting.  These people are not working class, they're so out of touch it's unreal. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @GLB Existing claimants are not affected. Being reassessed and re-awarded does not affect your status as an existing claimant. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    Does this mean we're finished?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @James Sorry to sound so pessimistic but I'm so scared of all this
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Neil Cook We are not finished. We have to now wait for the Timms review and what secondary regulations come out which will have to be fought tooth and nail in the courts and during the so called consultations and woe they try to ignore the disabled people again!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    "the amendment was defeated with just 17 votes in favour and 120 against. Those in favour were mainly LibDems, with a few crossbench peers. 116 Labour MPs voted against, along with three Conservatives and a bishop."

    Big Daddy Starmer obviously threatened those labour mps with cuts to the summer holiday ice cream. All whip or no whippy.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @rtbcpart2 Starmer the harmer has harmed the children, old, and the sick and disabled in his first year in power so I am sure he will end up doing a lot more harm to others in due course. Lets see what he intends to "change" next for the worse!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @rtbcpart2 The Lib Dems are also shockingly 2 faced - taking into account Edd Davy's Programmes about him and his disabled Son and for the Dsabled People- he was Crusading for all the the Disabled, poor and vulnerable  ? - i Really cant think of a word to describe the lot of em - its unreal - yet played out in front of our own eyes 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @rtbcpart2 Maybe they're just choosing their battles?  It might be wishful thinking, but what's the point in voting against the party if it makes no difference?  The lords had no power to change this. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @James Snoozing @James. That's the danger of snoozing - I think the rebel mps who eventually voted with the government at 2nd reading were caught napping. We're going to have to keep them alert to the Trojan temptations of this Timms review.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @rtbcpart2 and where are the rest of the members of the house of lords? there are over a thousand of them! Tsk! Tsk!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    Well that's it then.😔. I feel like every draining effort has been for nothing. Although I knew this was going to happen it's still a massive blow.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Cuckoo21 It is a blow, @Cuckoo21, but our efforts really haven't been for nothing. The bill was massively weakened, and we've made it very difficult for the government to rush through damaging cuts in future. @John mentions Jesus, well he rose again, remember, and it's up to us to keep the good fight going, in our own interests and for the sake of new claimants who might be affected, so that we guard as many as we can against being included in new legislation.

      It is tragic that many will suffer, but the measures passed are complicated to implement and there are exceptions to be fought for. The more we can frustrate the government's intentions the more we can restrict them.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 months ago
    The Bishop who voted against the amendment needs to read up on the teachings of a guy called Jesus. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Caroline I was shocked by some that voted for it,was I seeing things or did grey-thompson and a load of lib dems think it was true and just or was I reading it wrong
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @MariW @MariW Great idea, become accustomed to the surroundings then move into the churches when they're made homeless. The bishop will then have all her flock gathered together so it should be an easy task for her to fulfill her mission and find them all well paid jobs. God be with them all.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @tintack Perhaps next time the Bishop of Newcastle preaches, there will be a large cohort of disabled people in the congregation.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @John From Hansard:

      7.04pm
      The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
      Sharethis specific contribution
      My Lords, I begin by offering my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson; I look forward to her maiden speech, and acknowledge the valedictory speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan. I also thank Ministers for listening to concerns about the Bill when it was initially brought forward.

      A functional social security system tackles poverty and supports people to live full lives. With that, the system needs to retain public confidence, expressing the best of our values. It must also strike a balance between supporting people who are able to work and ensuring that people who cannot work are protected and cherished for who they are. We need economic growth—that is not disputed; this is, after all, a money Bill—but I am concerned for those who are left behind or who do not fit the model of financial productivity at the rate that seems to be desired.

      There is a granularity to this debate about the complexity of people’s lives, which do not always fit into neat economic models. I therefore note the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in her amendment to the Motion about the rates of poverty among disabled people, who are already disproportionately likely to be living in poverty. This can have an impact on children, making their start in life all the more challenging and deepening systemic injustices.

      This landscape of poverty and economic inactivity is acute in the area covered by my diocese in the north-east. There are opportunities to make a difference in local communities—through devolved authority mayors, councillors, community leaders and citizens—but turning the tide on poverty still requires decisive leadership and vision from central government. One of dozens of emails I have received in recent days came from a father in the north-east, who told me about his son who has complex disabilities. He would like to work one day but is struggling to navigate what feels like a punitive approach in the changes to universal credit. His capacity to enter the workforce faces barriers even before he can contemplate exploring opportunities. Our values should hold us to account for how we raise up the most weak and vulnerable.

      What do we need? I suggest some joined-up thinking. I understand the Government’s desire to reform the system. It is becoming more expensive to administer, but even if it were not, proportionate actions should be taken to help people make the most of their gifts and skills, whether in the labour market or through volunteering in their community. As other noble Lords have pointed out, the fact that social security spending is rising, and more people receive health benefits, points to shortcomings elsewhere.

      On PIP, we should not shy away from the difficult questions that the Timms review needs to ask and answer about the assessment process, the treatment of physical and mental health, and a reasonable eligibility threshold. None of that can happen without tackling some of the causes of ill health: the under- investment in social security and social housing in recent decades; the shortage of mental health provision; the effects of insecure, demoralising work; and the many other areas that noble Lords have already spoken to. I am glad that the Government are addressing some of these challenges, but I hope they will not be considered in isolation, that the Government will monitor the impact of this Bill closely and that the lives of all our citizens can be improved so we may all flourish together, each according to their capacity and need.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 months ago
      @Caroline
      "Bishop Helen-Ann is not going to risk her chance of the top job by voting against the government."

      Always good to see Christian values uncorrupted by worldly ambitions.
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.