There are widespread, but as yet unofficial, reports of “massive concessions” by the government in relation to planned benefit cuts, which will see current claimants protected and the backbench rebellion end.

According to reports in the Guardian and the BBC, cuts to PIP and the LCWRA element of universal credit (UC) will not apply to current claimants. 

In addition, a package of employment support measures worth £1bn will begin this year with more to come, rather than being introduced in 2029.

There will also be consultation with disability groups on other planned changes to benefits.

Future claimants, however, will be subject to the PIP four-point rule and to the reduction in the LCWRA element of UC.

It is claimed that the heads of government committees, who were leading the rebellion, have all accepted the government’s offer.  Though one campaigner, MP Peter Lamb, has said he will still not support the bill because the government is ignoring better options.

No official details of any concessions have yet been released and given the governments rushed timescale for getting the legislation through parliament, there will be little opportunity for MPs to scrutinise and debate the details.

Updatethe BBC are reporting that the protection of current claimants is now official, stating "Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall told Labour MPs that claimants of the personal independence payment (Pip) will continue to receive what they currently get, as will recipients of the health element of universal credit. Instead, planned cuts will only hit future claimants."

They also quote the leader of the rebellion, MP Dame Meg Hillier as saying she would now support the government's welfare bill.

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.
    · 9 hours ago
    I don't understand the point of the rebellion then. Apart from the fact there are ways to force current claimants into making new applications (lost paperwork/awards given by a tribunal meaning a new application next time for some), how can they create a system where disability is defined by a date?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 3 hours ago
      @john Yes I understand what an existing claimant would be classed as, but thanks for explaining. 

      I meant, I don't understand what the rebellion has achieved. If it was about genuinely disabled people being forced into work, and not supported financially, then that's still going to happen to future claimants.

      I thought the point of labour was to be different from the tories. I didn't know about the past not honouring of legacy benefits, so again, thanks for explaining. It's not morally right though is it? To define a disability by a date? In fact, it's ludicrous!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 hours ago
      @Leah Existing claimants are anyone who is currently receiving PIP any reassessment or review will not use the 4pt PIP rule.

      As for new claimants being treated differently to existing claimants. Prior to the Tories welfare reforms. Disability was always defined by a date. As legacy benefit awards were always honoured even when the legacy benefit was closed to new claimants and a new benefit created. When the Tories chose to not honour DLA life time awards and to not honour SDA do not reassess awards it was the first time the government failed to honour legacy entitlements of disability benefits.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 9 hours ago
    As expected.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 9 hours ago
    When they say current claimants does this mean that when PIP is reviewed the new rules apply? I thought this was always to be the case that current recipients retained PIP until reviewed? 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 hours ago
      @Jane63 that is the change,you will not be judged on future pips renewals using the new rules,so if you stay the same you need not worry about the four point rule.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 7 hours ago
      @Jane63
      Hi, If you get a PIP review before 2029 the old rules still apply on the 2 point, but once the WCA get abolished after 2029 current claiments will be subject to the new 4 point rule.

      This is my underdtanding of it anyway? 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 8 hours ago
      @Jane63 "The concession means that some 370,000 existing claimants who were expected to lose out following reassessment will now be protected, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) calculated it could reduce potential savings by at least £1.5 billion per year.

      However, new claimants from November 2026 will still be subject to these changes in eligibility requirements."
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 8 hours ago
      @Jane63 Yes, we need clarity on this.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 8 hours ago
      @Jane63 It's not clear, but probably not?. New claims usually means just that.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 9 hours ago
    whilst this is great for existing claimants, being one who was never going to be affected by these rule changes since i score 4 points in multiple categories, I never thought these proposals were fair to existing claimants, that being said, none of us know when coming up for reassessment, whether we would be assessed differently and lose the 4 points and have to go through appeals ( no dobt that will be the DWP stratergy next to get as many existing claimaints out of the 4 point brackets as possible, but since we should be exempt from these changes anyway, even if we do lose the 4 points, but still score enough to retain the daily living componant.

    That being said, this is truly still unfair to future disabled claimants and creates a 2 tier welfare system, which is unjust.

    I will never get my head around the fact that 24% of the population live with some kind of disability, and only 10% of those claim a disability related benefit and yet somehow this government and former governments seem to believe that this number is not credible and there must be people milking the system who do not deserve it...The numbers are tiny given the size of the population and considering the added costs of living with a disability and the day to day disadvantages that we face, living with a disability, how MPS can vote with a conscience implying that the most vulnerable people in society do not need help with extra daily living expenses, whilst at the same time, believing that they should be entitled to extra expenses to hep with their living costs to carry out their duties as an MP is astounding, these MPs and ministers are on extremely good wages, on top of that, many have second jobs and consultancy work and yet still feel its morally acceptable to claim money from the public purse to assist with their extra living costs, whilst at the same time denying that same public support for the poorest and most vulnerable in society...

    Great News for existing claimaints, but lets hope further changes can be made for future claimaints...

    Sort out the NHS first, bring down waiting lists, provide proper access to mental health support, not a paltry 12 session course of CBT and then wipe off those suffering from mental health and anxiety related health, once you have that in order, then maybe you can look at further welfare reforms, but not before 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 8 hours ago
      @matt The fact is when they start tinkering around with PIP descriptors it doesn’t matter about the 4 point rule. They will knock the cooking a meal down to 3 points rather than 4. Engaging with people from 8 to 6. I suspect a lot of people will lose the enhanced and get standard. Some will even lose the standard. This government has shown themselves to be duplicitous and Starmer is just like Putin and Netanayu and Trump. They just want to stay in power because that’s what they crave. They can’t be trusted on anything they say right now. Every labour MP who failed to stand up and support the disabled should hang their heads in shame. They were clearly on the wrong side of history and they knew it. But their jobs and pay packet meant more to them.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 9 hours ago
    What about all the people on lcwra? Many of my friends are without being on pip. Actually most of them probably qualify but either couldn't face applying or couldn't face appealing. Not to mention all future claimants. The 4 points rule is still completely unfair and doesn't do what they claim. It's all very divisive. I'll be 'ok' but that doesn't give me even a shred of comfort. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 hours ago
      @john
      Meg Hillier certainly seems to think the UC health element concession means that existing claimants will not be subject to the change in UC Health qualifying criteria:

      "This means that disabled people currently in receipt of Pip and the health element of universal credit will continue to receive the same level of support."

      If the government tries to wriggle out of this by saying that existing UC Health claimants still stand to lose their UC Health when the new PIP-based assessment becomes the UC Health gateway in 2028, having given quite the opposite impression to the rebels, they will probably have another major rebellion on their hands when the WCA legislation comes forward. They would have to be insane to risk that, given the political damage this rebellion has already inflicted. 

      And if existing UC health claimants stand to lose out under the new criteria in 2028, that would be no different to the original proposal. In which case this would not be a "massive concession" - it would not be a concession at all. Hillier and co clearly don't believe that is what the government is saying - there would be no point in trumpeting a concession as a reason for not rebelling if that "concession" is no more than a rewording of existing policy.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 7 hours ago
      @Kitty The Universal Credit and Personal Independence bill does not cover the planned abolishing of the WCA in 2028 and making UC health dependent on receiving PIP daily living component. That legislation is expected later this year or next year. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 8 hours ago
      @Kitty It includes those on the health element of Universal Credit, which is LCWRA. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 8 hours ago
      @Kitty . I’d like to see what this new consultation and co production will produce- but of course it will be too late once the 4 point rule and gateway to other benefits aspects are written into law, if the co production process doesn’t improve these changes for new claimants. New claimants could well be my own family as we’re talking about an inherited condition
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 9 hours ago
    Still not good enough. New claimants are no different to the rest of us and the Labour party leadership still needs to be turfed out on their ear.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 8 hours ago
      @Peeved Be careful what you wish for. Who knows what the others have planned? 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 9 hours ago
    I don’t for one minute trust them that current claimants will be protected. 
    It also makes no sense to have people with the exact same conditions treated so differently just due to a timeline..
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 9 hours ago
    If true, this is fantastic news and while there is still much to protect, contest and fight for, I hope everyone can rest a little easier now. Huge thanks to everyone who has spoken out, supported and campaigned on behalf of the vulnerable. I’m immensely grateful. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 9 hours ago
    “We will ensure that all of those currently receiving PIP will stay within the current system. The new eligibility requirements will be implemented from November 2026 for new claims only."

    So what happens when they change the PIP assessment system again possibly as soon as 2028. After their planned consultation headed by Timms for which they are hoping to announce the terms of reference for by July 21st Summer Recess. They are according to Timms looking at the descriptors, points, and if the levels of financial support are appropriate.

    The current PIP recipients look like they might still lose PIP from 2028.

    "we will adjust the pathway of Universal Credit payment rates to make sure all existing recipients of the UC health element - and any new claimant meeting the severe conditions criteria - have their incomes fully protected in real terms."

    So they get a backstop in case UC standard allowance with above inflation uplift + UC health frozen is less than UC standard allowance +UC health both increased by inflation. And could in theory also get a benefit cap on UC health if UC standard allowance with above inflation uplift + UC health frozen is more than UC standard allowance + UC health both increased by inflation.

    The around 600,000 existing recipients on UC health who are not on PIP look like they are still going to lose UC health from 2028. As do those on UC health who will be under 22 years old in 2028.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 hours ago
      @john
      "The current PIP recipients look like they might still lose PIP from 2028."

      "The around 600,000 existing recipients on UC health who are not on PIP look like they are still going to lose UC health from 2028."

      The way this is being reported, not least by (now former) rebel MPs - that benefit cuts will not apply to existing claimants - means that if either of these things happens the rebels will look like complete idiots and will probably go ballistic. If the government really is duping them it is playing with fire, which doesn't seem like a great idea considerng how badly they've already been burned.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 9 hours ago
    I’m still not sure the bill will pass the votes. I can’t see the conservatives backing these changes. Who knows though the whole thing, as you say, is ridiculously rushed. I don’t understand why it needs to be so rushed. It should be carefully looked at and a measured decision made. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 7 hours ago
      @Anniesmum I'm afraid I read recently that the conservatives don't think the cuts were going far enough, Kemi Badenoch, in particular. I am really grateful to the rebels for their efforts but I don't know if I can be even slightly hopeful for sick and disabled people like myself who are simply unable to work - end of.

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 9 hours ago
      @Anniesmum Oh, and carefully considering a bill like this would imply they are looking through the lens of consequences to disabled people, but they aren't. they are looking through the lens of how much money they can save. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 9 hours ago
      @Anniesmum It needs to be rushed for two reasons in my mind 1) so the government can breathe easy about their budget. It's all about money. 2) to stop campaigners highlighting cracks in the bill and stirring things up again with MP's.

      There won't be much anyone can do once this is in, that I know of, at least.
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.