Commons committee calls for UC cuts delay

Details: Published: 31 July 2025

A report published this week by the Commons Work and Pensions Committee has called for cuts in the universal credit (UC) rate for new disabled claimants from April 2026 to be delayed, amid concerns they will push more people into poverty.

Under the Universal Credit Bill currently awaiting royal assent, the limited capability for work-related activity (LCWRA) or health element of UC will be reduced by almost half for new claimants, from £423.27 to £217.26.

The committee has recommended that the government consider further increases to the UC standard rate, above those already in the bill.

It has also asked the government to delay the reduction in UC health until it has carried out an independent and comprehensive assessment of the impact the change could have on disabled people

The committee also expressed concern that claimants with serious mental health conditions may not be covered by the serious conditions criteria.

Committee Chair Debbie Abrahams said,

“We welcome the concessions that the Government made to the UC and PIP Bill (now the UC Bill); but there are still issues with these welfare reforms not least with the cut in financial support that newly sick and disabled people will receive.”

“The Government’s own analysis published in March indicates that from next April approximately 50,000 people who develop a health condition or become disabled – and those who live with them - will enter poverty by 2030 as a result of the reduction in support of the UC health premium.”

“We recommend delaying the cuts to the UC-health premium, especially given that other policies that such as additional NHS capacity, or employment support, or changes in the labour market to support people to stay in work, have yet to materialise.”

“We agree in a reformed and sustainable welfare system, but we must ensure that the wellbeing of those who come into contact with it is protected. The lesson learned from last month should be that the impact of policy changes to health-related benefits must be assessed prior to policy changes being implemented to avoid potential risks to claimants.”

You can read a full copy of the report here.

Comments

3 Comments
Terms
RSS
Register

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.
Aw · 16 hours ago
Something has just occured to me, I'm due to be migrated to UC and will not see an increase in my support until my TP is less than UC, in future what figure will they use? As it stands if nothing changed and the basic UC element and the health element continued to rise with inflation, eventually my TP would be nil and my income would start rising again. If they halve the health element, my TP will not reach nil for years, meaning every year I will be much worse off in line with the loss of the yearly uprating I would otherwise have gotten? It sounds wrong, but I think I'm correct? What worries me is on the face of it it looks like I will only lose the uprating but of course I will also lose my rent increases yearly. Can someone with a better maths head work thia out for me? Ta
- 1 Up 0 Down
- Reply
- Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  John · 12 hours ago
  
  @Aw Website edited out part of my first paragraph.
  
  You will be treated as an existing claimant. Entitled to the current higher UC LCWRA element, and having your UC standard allowance + UC LCWRA element combined total increased each year by inflation.
  
  Although as you say you will not see a rise in your benefits until your UC standard allowance + UC LCWRA + UC housing element exceeds your legacy entitlement to ESA + housing benefit.
  
  1 Up 0 Down
  
  Reply
  
  Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  John · 12 hours ago
  
  @Aw You will be an existing claimant.
  
  And if your entitlement for UC standard allowance + UC LCWRA + UC housing element is less than your current ESA + Housing Benefit you will have your UC increased by the difference as transitional protection. Until your entitlement under the current system exceeds your transition protected legacy entitlement.
  
  Note if you get UC housing and your rent goes up and your UC housing element increases the amount you get after rent will go down. As the transitional protection if for the total amount including housing not the money you get left with after housing.
  
  Yeah I know I am being optimistic about UC housing element going up, considering the Local Housing Allowance is currently frozen.
  
  What will happen in 2028/29 when the Work Capability Assessment system and LCW LCWRA are abolished and replaced with the Timms PIP Assessment system and for those on PIP daily living UC health or UC severe conditions criteria. We do not know. We assume existing claimants will be protected. But it is possible anyone not in the severe conditions criteria group could be treated the way you fear. That is as only entitled to the new lower UC health element, but having transitional protection.
  
  0 Up 0 Down
  
  Reply
  
  Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
D · 23 hours ago
From @areyoflight on twitter (I think she’s the founder of ‘disability rebellion’ organisation):

On 21st July, DR was one of several organisations/activists (represented by DPO Forum) who attended the APPG on Disability meeting via Zoom.

Stephen Timms later published this letter.

It presents itself as an update on the Government’s efforts to *support* disabled people - but it shows several limitations:

🫟 Re: The BSL Act 2022, the report only shows government departments 𝙩𝙖𝙡𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 about BSL use - not necessarily delivering services in BSL.

🫟 The new Plan for Disability is just a “vision” rather than concrete policies or legally binding commitments.

🫟 These actions are symbolic rather than designed to achieve anything meaningful.

👉 The research cited confirms what DPOs and disabled people have long been saying:

🫟 Widespread inaccessibility in buildings and services
🫟 Discrimination and negative attitudes from staff
🫟 Barriers created by automated and digital-only systems

👉 These are not new findings and there is no substantial policy or commitment to address these.

👉 The “Plan for Disability” is vague and offers no detail on:

🫟 Who is involved in shaping the plan
🫟 How DPOs and disabled individuals will be included meaningfully
🫟 What timelines or outcomes are expected

👉 Timms has shifted part of the burden of communication and awareness-raising onto DPOs - but there is no mention of new funding, support, or formal collaboration with DPOs.

👉 Timms claims the Government is “championing the rights of disabled people,” but shows no accountability mechanisms, performance targets, or reference to how progress will be measured.

👉 There's also no mention of:

🫟The UNCRPD (UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities)
🫟 Previous criticisms by the UN of the UK Government’s treatment of disabled people

👉 Basically, this letter is a PR document. It is of little substance. It highlights problems that are well-known without offering clear, funded, or enforceable solutions.

👉 Despite claims to put disabled people “at the heart of everything we do,” there’s little evidence here of systemic change, co-production, or accountability.

See below for ALT on the letter

(Can’t post the screenshot of timms letter on b&w blog - you’ll have to log on to twitter to read that one)
- 9 Up 0 Down
- Reply
- Share
Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
John · 1 days ago
Hollow words from the Committee considering 6 Labour members of the Committee voted for the bill and only 1 against Frank McNally who went against the Labour whip. And of the 4 non Labour members of the Committee whose party line was to oppose the bill, 2 abstained Tory Peter Bedford and LibDem John Milne. So overall the Committee members voted 6 for, 2 abstained, 3 against.

Universal Credit bill
Voted for Labour Debbie Abrahams, Johanna Baxter, Damien Egan, Gill German, Amada Hack, David Pinto-Duschinsky
Abstained Conservative Peter Bedford, LibDem John Milne
Voted against Conservative Danny Kruger, Labour Frank McNally, LibDem Steve Darling
- 11 Up 0 Down
- Reply
- Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  Sam · 21 hours ago
  
  @John Can't count Kruger since he had put his name to that awful amendment that was not chosen to exclude depression and anxiety from claiming
  
  7 Up 0 Down
  
  Reply
  
  Share
- Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  keepingitreal · 22 hours ago
  
  @John Exactly. Deborah Abrahams voted for it.
  
  5 Up 0 Down
  
  Reply
  
  Share

News