On 9 July, MPs have a final vote on the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill.

In spite of the concessions made by Labour yesterday, we are still recommending that you contact your MP and ask them to vote against the bill at third reading. 

We know that only 49 Labour MPs rebelled in the end.  But we also believe, given the speeches being made in the Commons yesterday, that a lot more would have rebelled if Timms had not announced at the last hour that they were going to remove the 4-point rule from the bill.

It may be, if your MP voted in favour of the bill, that after they have had time to consider things they will wonder if they made the wrong decision in the heat of the moment.

Below are some of the reasons you might want to give for voting against the amended bill, or you may have some of your own.  The important thing is that you make it clear, if you believe it is the case, that the bill still harms disabled people and it should not go ahead.


Hundreds of thousands of future disabled claimants still be harmed by their UC health element being almost halved, compared to current claimants, and then frozen.

The severe conditions criteria are extremely hard to meet.  The requirement that claimants meet them “constantly” rather than “for the majority of the time” is unreasonable and harsh. Claimants with degenerative conditions such as Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis and muscular dystrophy generally follow a slow path of decreasing ability, with periods of remission.  Long after it is clear they will never work again they will have periods of remission.  At the moment, a claimant in these circumstances would get the full health element. But from April 2026, new claimants in the same position will only get around half this amount.

Claimants have not been consulted on the changes in the current bill at all.

The Bill has become a confusing shambles with little resemblance to the original text.  MPs will have very little time to study the ever changing government amendments before they vote.

A committee process that should take weeks or even months, looking at amendments and getting advice from experts, will all be done in a single afternoon on 9 July, as the government rushes the bill through.

The government wants the bill to be certified as a money bill, preventing the House of lords from having any say over it.

MPs will be voting without seeing a formal impact assessment of the effect of the bill on health or care needs or the Office For Budget Responsibility assessment of how many people will move into work as a result of the changes.

The way in which coproduction with disabled claimants of the Timms review will work has not been explained.  Given the very poor standard of the Green Paper consultation, it’s vital that the government shows how it’s going to do better this time.

Disability charities and trades unions are still very much against the bill, even with concessions.

The UC protection may be only temporary for 600,000 current claimants who get the UC health element but don’t get PIP daily living component.  They may not be protected once the work capability assessment is abolished and PIP daily living is the gateway to UC health in 2028.

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.
    · 14 days ago
    I have emailed my MP several times, the latest being today, yet still no reply.  I can’t help but feel he’s evading the issue until after the fact and I did state that to him.  He also informed me back  in Nov 24 there were going to be reforms, but he stated that in response to my concerns. Little did I know then what reforms were planned. Certainly not related to the issues I presented to him.  He’s meant to represent his constituency yet I feel totally blanked.  So much for an elected official.  
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 15 days ago
    The severe conditions criteria are extremely hard to meet. The requirement that claimants meet them “constantly” rather than “for the majority of the time” is unreasonable and harsh.

    Is this being voted on on the 9h July?

    Theyre trying to kill us arent they? (My GP alluded to this once) Its crazy. 

    This rule will be misused by the DWP assessors.

    I.E. I've just typed this message, therefore I can do ........ 'something'.........as apposed to 'nothing', therefore the assessors can claim I am not eligible.

    Is this what is about to happen?

    I have an extremely severe disease, which is globally recognised by expert specialist doctors as being too disabling to work, but some unspeakable troll with 6 weeks training is about to make me homeless? 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 14 days ago
      @Peter. If its a "globally recognised' illness', you have nothing to worry about.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 days ago
      @Peter Establishing the severe conditions criteria group and giving them and terminally ill new UC LCWRA claimants £97/ wk whereas other LCWRA claimants get £50/ wk is currently in this bill (though, there are amendments against the lower payment and to expand the criteria somewhat). It also establishes them as a group with no LCWRA/ UC health reviews.

      The part about conditionality and who is exempt from conditionality/ has reduced conditionality was consulted on but is not part of this bill. Details on that may come out in future.

      I have sent the email at this link to my MP about the amendments and voting down the bill (you can edit it) and would recommend it  https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQaTeG8h-BoRgpV-WoIIWIAyPzlda8ajdlJRP_sWBBWtpimQF46X5wkYwFJFoJUt9cBUvgnm26YeR8u/pub 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 days ago
      @John Look Im following some of what youre saying, bits, sort of, but not fully, and I do not know how to write this in such a way to explain it to my MP within the next 24 hours. 
      This entire process has been set up to cause the maximum amount of stress to the sickest people. I dont know what to do, I want do anything, and theres a clock ticking with a deadline. 
      Theyre Evil and I hope they get what other Evil politicians have gotten over the centuries. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 days ago
      @Peter. Yes it is part of the bill being voted on 9th July.
      The Severe conditions criteria is the Work Capability Assessment group that are exemption from future Work Capability reassessments. And for new claimants from April 2026 the group who receive the same higher LCWRA element as existing recipients not the new lower LCWRA element all other new claimants get.

      As the group is deemed severely disabled for life never expected to be able to work, I would expect them to be the group with no or the least conditionality going forward.

      The government plans to extend conditionality and sanctions to those on UC health/LCWRA in 2027/28. At first only requiring recipients engage in periodic support conversations about their aspiration to work and how the DWP can help them achieve that aspiration. But if too few people take up the advice and help offered and move towards and into work, the government is going to consider expanding the conditionality and sanctions regime.

      The entire government narrative around this "new" severe conditions criteria group being about protecting the severely disabled and a new good thing the government is doing is utterly misleading. And relies on MPs and the media being ignorant of the current UC severe criteria group who are exempt from Work Capability reassessments. As the definition in the bill is far narrower than the one currently used.

      As the government plans to abolish the Work Capability Assessment in 2028/29 Timms has been asked who will be in this group when receiving PIP daily living gives eligibility to UC health element. Timms now claims no similar group exists in PIP and he will be creating such a group as part of his new PIP assessment system. This is also misleading as PIP currently has enhanced daily living ongoing/indefinite awards that are not reassessed just light touch reviewed every 10 years. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 16 days ago
    Are Current LCWRA recipients to be subject to Conditionality? 
    And is their LCWRA still to be Frozen?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 days ago
      @Gbh Here’s the source - UC and Pip Bill
      Point 3 - Freeze of LCWRA and LCW elements for tax years 2026-27 to 2029-30
      Subject to amendment of course - 9 July

      I hope that helps!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @Gbh LCWRA recipients remain exempt from conditionality. This bill does not change that.

      The part of the bill to freeze UC health for current recipients has been abandoned. Now instead current LCWRA recipients will have their total UC standard allowance + UC health element combined increased by at least inflation. So the bill will not make them worse off.


      This can mean the UC health element increases below inflation but only if the UC standard allowance which is increasing by more than inflation makes up at least the difference. So they are not worse off in real terms (inflation adjusted)
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 17 days ago
    What are you not allowed to tell your MP? As a member of any party?

    Objecting to the bill surely is a right?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 17 days ago
    What about a campaign to force a review on MPs allowances and expenses. Big savings could be made. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 18 days ago
    From @shanebrown74 on twitter (side note to admin - would it be possible to (and consider) adding an image attachment option for these posts? Copy and pasting text isn’t always the easiest and images help with context):

    Another "spread the word" and repost moment.
    Four weeks ago, I sent a Freedom of Information request to the DWP to determine which disabled organisations and charities they consulted about the proposed changes to eligibility rules for #PIP. Their reply this evening tells us that they "did not consult organisations specifically on the proposed PIP eligibility changes prior to the publication of the Green Paper." How in hell's name are we meant to trust them with the Timms report knowing they shut out disabled organisations from the discussions about PIP eligibility?


    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 days ago
      @D
      Actually, given the initials of the tweeter its probably the same person. 
      I'll stand down. This is what I get for being emotive instead of using my head.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 days ago
      @D
      That's someone on twitter who has stolen the hard work of @slb, passed it off as their own and given them no credit. What a scumbag. 
      See further down this page for the original.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 18 days ago
    Updated letter template from ME Association which can be updated for other conditions etc.:  https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=1190143933139637&set=a.148725343948173
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 days ago
      @Anon25 That one must be a first draft because it repeats itself and has strange formatting. Some great information in that I will certainly borrow so thanks for sharing.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 18 days ago
    UCPIP Bill and £1000 per month cuts to housing benefit

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 days ago
      @James
      Absolutely James, this is a very important, and generally unpublicised issue, with regard to many benefits and how one is impacted by another. I've reposted your link on the next thread. We need to be prepared for the next onslaught of government proposals!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 18 days ago
    A follow on to my last post - below are all the official amendment docs to the uc&pip bill (so far) plus the original bill for reference:

    Original uc&pip bill
    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0267/240267.pdf

    Amendments to bill
    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0267/amend/universal_rm_cwh_0702.pdf
    (Added 2nd July)
    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0267/amend/universal_rm_cwh_0703.pdf
    (Added 3rd July)
    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0267/amend/universal_rm_cwh_0704.pdf
    (Added 4th July)

    Interestingly at the top of all docs it says ‘committee stage’ (which I thought was happening on the same day as the report stage and 3rd reading on the 9th of July? in the house of commons where the public can watch a live stream?)

    Could someone clarify if the committee stage is indeed being held behind closed doors and if so if that was expected with this particular bill (under both standard or money bill procedure)?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 18 days ago
    For work&benefits admin:


    Scroll down to ‘amendment papers’ - new amendments docs have been added to the uc&pip bill (I think most of us have only seen the 2ndjuly doc - not the 2 news ones from 3rdjuly and today on 4thjuly)

    These amendment docs are hard for may disabled readers to understand as you have to keep referring back to the orignal bill doc - so it may be helpful to highlight the fulfilment of a promised concession or small print that allows the gov to wangle out of a concession 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 18 days ago
    @Frances - thank you for your reply - and amazing suggestions! ⭐️

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 days ago
      @HL Croeso xx
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 19 days ago
    Reeves crying about PM question time in parliament and it just shows Starmer is incompetent and incapable running a cabinet office period…
    BTW the vote for a reform in the disability benefit system was a total and total SHAMBLES and my previous comment just before the MPs voting went on the way I stated whatever happens taxes, one way or another will go up and it’s not anyone’s fault at all it’s purely down to the Labour Government of mismanagement of the economy period…
    Love you All..
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 days ago
      @Robin Hood Reeves crying now she can feel the stress that claimants are subjected to on what now seems a daily basis
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 19 days ago
    Did u se all the labour mp put on a good show then vote for it 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 days ago
      @Review MPs expenses I wonder
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @Andrew the public could force their hand 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @Radionoush Mine too. Why are the press not reporting. Won't be getting my vote again. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @Andy72 What were they given promised in return. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 17 days ago
      @Radionoush Thats cause they dont work for us, they work for themselves. If they voted against benefit cuts, it would affect their wages and expenses and they will never vote for that, ever!!!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 19 days ago
    I know I'm meant to be on sabbatical, but I have news!  Four weeks ago, I sent an freedom of information request to the DWP asking for the list of disability charities and organisations that the govt consulted with explicitly about the proposed changes to PIP.  I now have a reply: the answer is zero.  

    Here's my  request:

    “Under the Freedom of Information Act, I would like to request the following information:
    Details of disability charities and organisations and experts that were consulted by the
    DWP on the proposals to change PIP eligibility rules (the 4-point rule) prior to the
    publication of the Pathways to Work Green Paper. Specifically, I would like to know what
    feedback they gave, and how much was positive/negative regarding the the proposed 4-
    point rule.”


    Their reply:

    Following a search of our paper and electronic records, we have established that the
    information you requested is not held by the department.

    Ahead of the formal consultation for the Green Paper, we met with organisations and started
    discussing the case for reform, including with representatives from the Disability Charities
    Consortium and the Disabled People’s Organisations Forum England alongside other
    stakeholders.
    However, we did not consult organisations specifically on the proposed PIP
    eligibility changes prior to the publication of the Green Paper, on 18 March 2025.
    The
    changes were announced in the Green Paper; we have met with many organisations and
    stakeholders since then about the reforms.

    If you have any queries about this letter, please contact us quoting the reference number
    above.
    Yours sincerely,
    DWP Central Freedom of Information Team
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 days ago
      @SLB Sent it to my MP Clive Lewis and got a pre-written reply back that doesn't address the issue. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 days ago
      @Slb Fingers crossed that it gets picked up soon!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 days ago
      @Gingin That's fine!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 days ago
      @Pixelmum News organisations have been copied in on social media posts. No takers yet.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 days ago
      @SLB
      Thanks for sharing with us SLB!

      Surely this is national news worthy? Everyone needs to know about this!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 19 days ago
    I will try again to contact my MP.  No response last time, or the time before……...  

    I wonder if it is worth trying 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 19 days ago
    So the Timms review will now decide the future of PIP?

    Let's not forget that this is the man who walked around a disabled woman collapsed on the floor at a recent campaigners meeting in order to leave the building without even helping her or checking that she was ok - what a horrible man!

    This guy has no empathy towards disabled people whatsoever, and is just interested in making cuts.  


    And/or removing all the 2 point (mostly the prompting descriptors) so that the next lowest point descriptor that would apply would be 4 points hence sneakily bringing back in the '4 point rule' and making it harder for us to qualify. 
     
    In the meantime, rogue assessments will continue to be carried out by the dishonest assessors, who provide inaccurate reports most of which are unfit for purpose.  
    And poor decision making made by DWP case managers and decision makers all with the aim to reduce or deny us entitlement to an award of PIP when we have clearly evidenced in our claim forms and the additional evidence attached that we meet the eligibility criteria. 

    However, all is not lost.  
    Cracks are beginning to appear in the governments 'ivory tower' with Reeves 'crying and losing it' recently.  I wonder who will be next?

    With supporting MPs on our side such as the likes of Rachel Maskell and Richard Burgon, we need to stay strong and continue fighting against this horrid treatment of our disabled society.

    Timms review must be properly scrutinised before it is forced upon us.

    Thank you for reading


  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 19 days ago
    Now, if they can get another 80-90 Labour MPS and the Unions to back them, then they are in business.


  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 19 days ago
    I was trying to look for a tool to write again to my MP  and found a link for this on the disability rights website - it’s by inclusion London. Hope the link works and is helpful 

Free PIP, ESA & UC Updates!

Delivered Fortnightly

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

 
iContact
We use cookies

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