• Search
  • You are here:  
  • Home
  • News
  • Final version of the Universal Credit Bill now published

News

Final version of the Universal Credit Bill now published

Details

The final version of the Universal Credit Bill (formerly the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill) has now been published on the parliament website.

A copy of the updated explanatory notes has also been published.

Immediately below the title of the new bill is the following note:

[The Speaker of the House of Commons has certified this Bill as a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911.]

This confirms that the bill is a money bill and that, therefore, the Commons can ignore any amendments the Lords might attempt to make.

Readers can therefore assume that this is the final version of the bill which will come into force in April 2026.

You can download the final version of the bill and the explanatory notes from this page.

The version of the bill is “HL Bill 123 (as brought from the Commons)” – click on the Bill (4) link to get it.

The explanatory notes are “HL Bill 123 Explanatory Notes” – click on Explanatory Notes (3) to get them.

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.
    Lynn
    · 24 days ago
    Its not clear and I think they are taking people off PIP now so they wont fall in to the protected bit
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Lily
    · 1 months ago
    It's all as clear as mud.
    If your an existing pip claimant it appears you are protected under existing eligibility.
    If your an existing LCWRA it appears your protected until your reviewed which appears to be 2028/29 when the 'pip' new eligibility comes in and WCA is abolished.  However if your already 'protected' under the old pip eligibility and in receipt of standard pip you will qualify for the UC health element.  Is this correct? cause it's the only sense I can make out of it! 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      libra1
      · 28 days ago
      @John Thank you for that info. Very helpful. 

      The new assessment provider contracts took over in September 2024.  HAAS had a backlog even before the Pandemic. As you say, if they scale up, then getting through over 300k substantial risk WCA reassessments may well be doable before April 2028, but it depends on capacity because new claims and UC LCW deterioration cases will always be prioritised. Perhaps they have to step up recruitment of more assessors.  In any event, it is highly unlikely that they will ever be able to reassess all other categories of claims, if at all, before the WCA is abolished as intended. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 29 days ago
      @libra1 According to stat-xplore.dwp.gov
      March 2025
      Universal Credit
      Assessment phase, pre-WCA 323,830
      LCW 382,275
      LCWRA 2,631,705

      So UC LCWRA total 2,631,705
      If about 15% are for substantial risk that is about 394,776

      To reassess them all over two years would require about an extra 197,388 reassessments a year. The DWP currently does about 118,000 reassessments a year. So that would need to increase to 315,000 a year. Before the pause in reassessments the DWP used to do 611,000 reassessments a year. So in theory it looks doable. Depending on how many short duration awards they have to clear first.

      But in practice it makes me wonder if the DWP and perhaps more crucially its subcontractors currently have the spare capacity. The DWP has a staff shortage. And the contracts to do WCA were I think agreed to in 2023 during the reassessment freeze and I think runout in 2028. So how much money how many WCA do they cover doing. They are currently having to priories new claims due to lack of capacity can the DWP just turn on the money taps to its subcontractors and ramp up reassessments? 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      libra1
      · 29 days ago
      @John I think it is motivated by economics as much as it is by politics.  Most of the rhetoric from the Tories before they lost the election last year (and now taken up by this Labour government) has been a complaint about how many more out of work benefit claims there have been for mental illness since the Pandemic.  They have blamed mental health claims for the spiralling incapacity benefit bill.  The former DWP Minister Mel Stride disgracefully described mental health claimants with depression and anxiety as only being a 'bit down and bluesy', if you remember.  The Tories attempted to tighten the WCA substantial risk descriptors to restrict eligibility to only those with 'active psychosis'.  Those reforms were consulted on but the consultation was challenged in the High Court and ultimately ruled as unlawful in January 2025.  Shamefully, this Labour government had originally taken up those same Tory reforms to restrict eligibility for substantial risk and continued to fight the High Court challenge the Tories had started.  Once the Judgment came in, Labour abandoned those WCA reforms.

      The Spring Statement policy document I linked to says they intend to initially target short awards for reassessment, i.e. pregnancy risk and cancer claims because they expect to be able to end those claims?  They will then tackle 'substantial risk' claims.  I agree with you about the cruelty because of the extreme vulnerability of mental health claimants having to go through a reassessment process which is notorious for worsening health. 

      You say that UC LCWRA for substantial risk make up about one sixth of those on LCWRA.  Would you know how many UC LCWRA claims there are in total currently?  I am bad at understanding government statistics.  How many substantial risk claims will they have to reassess before abolishing the WCA entirely in 2028? Thanks for any insight.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 29 days ago
      @Sarah If they get awarded PIP daily living element and so continue to be eligible for UC LCWRA/Health element they would be an existing claimant and stay on the higher UC LCWRA/Health element.

      In theory things could change for all existing claimants as the government has not set out the legislation for abolishing the work capability assessment and along with it LCWRA and LCW status. And replacing the system with receiving PIP giving eligibility for UC Health element and UC Severe conditions criteria health element. But it is highly likely protection for existing claimants will remain as is. Otherwise the government would be seen as going back on it's promise to protect existing claimants, and it would incite a new rebellion by Labour MPs.

      The government's current plan seems to be to slowly erode UC LCWRA/health element. For existing claimants by increasing UC LCWRA/health by less than inflation as it increases UC standard allowance by more than inflation, so the combined total increases by inflation. So existing claimants are not worse off than they would have been. For new claimants by halving the UC LCWRA/health element and freezing it so it is eroded by inflation. So new claimants are a lot worse off than they would have been, unless they are in the severe conditions criteria group.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Sarah
      · 29 days ago
      @John What about people who are currently on LCWRA but never applied for PIP. When the reassessment comes, or it tells them to apply for PIP does that mean that they're a 'new' claim and they will lose the higher UC element of LCWRA (and the money that goes with it?) that they would have previously had or will it be a continued claim just moving over to the PIP daily living component?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    AshT
    · 1 months ago
    I'm totally confused by it all. Everything seems to be rushed through and people like me don't know what the heck is going on. My head's in a spin. Currently on pipy self and very worried by all the changes government are rushing through. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Jeannie
      · 1 months ago
      @AshT Ash, I feel exactly the same. Im totally confused by benefits, bills..... if you do get an assessment for anything, do book an appointment with Citizens Advice and take somebody to your assessment (possibly family member or carer) who is not easily intimidated and will speak up for you. Before your assessment, download a copy of the bill and go thru it with your companion, making notes to use in your assessment and so your companion has a good idea of the bills contents. The problems is, I haven't got a bloody clue which bill goes to which claimant, totally baffled. But good luck for when the time comes......
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Jenny Evans
    · 1 months ago
    What is classified as a severe condition? I have fibromyalgia will that be classified as one
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      tintack
      · 1 months ago
      @Jenny Evans
      B & W lists the criteria here:

      "From April 2026, a new category of LCWRA is being introduced. In order to be in the severe conditions criteria (SCC) group, a clamant has firstly to meet one of the LCWRA criteria. You can find a list of the criteria here.

      In addition, all of the following criteria need to be met:

      The level of function constantly applies to the claimant. So, conditions that vary in severity may not meet this requirement.

      The claimant will have the condition for the rest of their life. So, conditions which might be cured by transplant/ surgery/treatments or conditions which might resolve may not meet this requirement.

      It must have been diagnosed by an appropriately qualified health care professional in the course of the provision of NHS services. So, it would appear that a diagnosis via a private doctor or consultant would not be acceptable.

      If a claimant meets all these criteria they will be classed as having a severe, lifelong health condition and will not be subject to routine reassessment."


      So what counts is not which condition you have, but the extent to which it affects you.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Justin Rumsby
    · 1 months ago
    One thing I should have asked here ages ago. The denial of the health element to new UC claiments; Does that enclude those of us who are on ESA Support Group who will have to migrate to UC?
    Am I a new UC claiment in that respect?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John Edwards
      · 1 months ago
      @Justin Rumsby People who joined,  universal credit,  from support group esa, before , April 2026, are an existing claimaint, therefore, you will not see any reduction in your health element payments, from April, 2026, only new claimants from this time. Also as an esa support group, you will indeed have, " transitional payment " protection, with your money transferring from , esa support group.  So you will receive same monies, or more . You cannot lose anything. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 1 months ago
      @Justin Rumsby
      Parliamentary written question UIN 66883

      To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, whether people in the Employment and Support Allowance Support Group will be classed as being a new claimant when they migrate onto Universal Credit for the purposes of the Universal Credit Bill.

      Answered on 17 July 2025 by DWP minister for the disabled Sir Timms

      I can confirm that customers who move to Universal Credit from Employment & Support Allowance (Income-Related), with no gap between those awards, will not be treated as a new customer and will retain the higher rate of the LCWRA addition.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Jen
    · 1 months ago
    My son has just migrated from DLA to PIP and his claim is currently with the assessor. Will he be affected by the new changes or pass as an existing claimant?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Pixelmum
    · 1 months ago
    Hi all, hope you're all doing ok.
    I just wanted to ask a question regarding the severe conditions criteria.
    Is this just for new claimants after April 2026? 
    My son in just in the process of migrating over from ir ESA support group to Universal credit - he's in the LCWRA. Does this mean that he'll never be in the SCC as he won't be a new craiment after April? So will still be subject to reviews. Or could he be placed in the SCC group if he has a review after April? I'm hoping that there's someone knowledgable that can clarify this for me. Thanks in advance :)
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 1 months ago
      @YogiBear That is why I use the word expected rather than will.

      After Liz Kendall's replies in the debate on the 30th June, MPs appear to have taken her meaning to be existing claimants will be protected not just from the 4 point PIP rule but also from the Timms review changes in descriptors and points.

      But it is possible to read what she said as ordering things not by two groups but by timeline. And then repeatedly failing to realize MPs may have misunderstood the government's position, and repeatedly failing to clarify the government's position despite being asked multiple questions on the issue.

      If the government tries to change the assessment system for existing claimants I expect there would be a major rebellion of Labour MPs. As that was the main cause of the original rebellion. And they may feel they have been misled and as a result have misled their constituents when replying to them, they will be not happy to put it mildly.

      Personally I think the government has given up for now on changing PIP for existing claimants. And may look at increasing conditionality for those on UC health as a means to encourage them into work. Which they were planning on reconsidering anyway if too few got jobs after support conversations. Or go back for existing PIP claimants after the next general election especially if they can claim the changes for new claimants were beneficial. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      YogiBear
      · 1 months ago
      @John John I'm not to sure if existing PIP claimants will actually remain in the old system. Do we have any clarification on this from the government? Where these concessions not lost for existing claimants after the scrapping of the 4 point rule? 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Fiona
      · 1 months ago
      @John Thank you, John.
      You have helped to clear up many questions. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Pixelmum
      · 1 months ago
      @John John thank you for the indepth explaination and for taking the time to write, it's really helpful.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 1 months ago
      @Pixelmum
      Sorry I got a date wrong in my reply. 

      "From April 2026 the eligibility criteria for the group is being narrowed by the Universal Credit Act. Anyone already in the Severe Conditions Criteria group stays in it. Anyone assessed or reassessed in a Work Capability Assessment from April 2028 maybe placed in the group if they qualify under the new eligibility criteria."

      Should be 

      "From April 2026 the eligibility criteria for the group is being narrowed by the Universal Credit Act. Anyone already in the Severe Conditions Criteria group stays in it. Anyone assessed or reassessed in a Work Capability Assessment from April 2026 maybe placed in the group if they qualify under the new eligibility criteria."
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Anon
    · 1 months ago
    Hi I’m unable to understand all the info on the universal credit bill 
    please could some one simplify the info for me 
    Thanks 

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 1 months ago
      @Anon No changes to PIP.

      No changes for all existing UC health claimants.

      And no change for new UC health claimants starting from April 2026 if they are placed in the Severe Conditions criteria group defined in the bill (a narrower definition than currently used).

      Their UC health remains at the current higher level and their UC standard allowance + UC health combined go up by at least inflation each year. This may mean their UC standard allowance goes up by more than inflation, see below, and their UC health element goes up by less than inflation, but combined they increase by inflation, so no change, no better and no worse off than they would have been.

      All UC recipients have their UC standard allowance increased by more than inflation for the next 4 years. By 2029/30 they are £21.09 a month better off than they would have been.

      All new UC health claims (not in the severe conditions criteria group) starting from April 2026 receive a lower UC health element of £217.26 a month and that element is frozen not uprated by inflation. By 2029/30 they are £226.53 a month worse off than they would have been even taking into account the above inflation increase in their UC standard allowance, see above.

      All figures above are for single aged 25+ claimant, using government/OBR forecasted inflation. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    JHF
    · 1 months ago
    There are clearly people out there that cannot handle anymore of this fight against disability cuts.

    Here is what we can all do except those that need to take a step back and relax:

    We can get involved with disability charities and put our voice forward for Timms Review of New claimants and make sure our voice is herd for Current Claimant Protection (CCP).

    More to do, More to say and more to fight. Ding Ding, step it up for round 3.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Diceman24
    · 1 months ago
    After reading speculations about what or coyld happen on this forum and other forums why worry now for something that could happen not very soon we need to start again once the timms review is done. So I’m defo having a break from here cause all the speculation comments on here are no good for our physical gealth and mental health so for now I wait until we need to fight again after all you cannot fight anything that’s not in solid form take care all until we meet again 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      SLB
      · 1 months ago
      @Jonno Sadly, a new party brings with it as many questions as answers.  If the "left" vote is split, that leaves plenty of room for Farage and his cronies to form the next government.  

      A much better option, I feel would have been for the unhappy Labour Mps to join the Greens - at least that's an established party, albeit with few MPs due to our first past the post system.  My fear with the new party is that, as leader of Labour, Corbyn made misstep after misstep.  In the world of social media  deciding who the next PM is, he simply isn't/wasn't a good enough player of the media to win over people's votes.  

      It may even be that, at the next election, there will need to be an alliance between the Greens, the Lib Dems, and the new party in order to remove the threat of Farage.  But the Lib Dems are largely ineffective, despite having 70 MPs.  They might have been against the cuts, but I didn't hear any of them making much noise about it.   On the other hand, Starmer has, perhaps, until Christmas to improve his performance before he's likely to face opposition as leader.  But opposition from who?  Our current crop of MPs on all sides of the house are pretty awful in the main.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      SLB
      · 1 months ago
      @Diceman24 Exactly.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 1 months ago
      @Diceman24 The Pathways to Work white paper and any legislation needed to implement it will come before the Timms review reports. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Jonno
      · 1 months ago
      @Diceman24 Indeed. We need to gather our inner strength for the battles to come. We don't know what the future holds but we gave this Government a bloody nose and now they know we won't take this lying down.

      Personally, I hope the new mooted Arise Party transpires and that lots of Labour MP's defect to it along with the Unite union. 

      This would put us in a much stronger bargaining position if the Government tries to push changes through. 

      In my opinion it would render the Government completely moot. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Helen Galloway
    · 1 months ago
    Are current PIP claimants still protected from changes after the Timms review comes into effect ?. What has actually changed since the bill became law facts only .
     Thank you 
    Helen
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      tintack
      · 1 months ago
      @Chazy What they want to do and what their own party will accept are likely to be two very different things, as recent events have demonstrated.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Chazy
      · 1 months ago
      @SLB I agree, do folk really think that PIP will be left alone for current claimants ! I strongly believe all PIP applications will be subject to new and possibly harsh new rules, that black hole still needs filling and it will be one way or another. Different name = same outcome, they will make PIP harder to claim but just not use the 4 point rule, they will give it a new name. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      tintack
      · 1 months ago
      @Helen Galloway
      No-one knows what will come out of the Timms review. My guess would be that they would want to subject existing PIP and LCWRA claimants to the post-Timms assessment if they thought they could get away with it. 

      That raises the question: could they get away with it? In the light of recent events it seems very unlikely. Before the November 2026 PIP changes were shelved completely at the last minute, they had already had to agree to exempt existing PIP claimants from those changes. If they hadn't agreed to that concession they would have lost the vote. If the post-Timms assessment looks likely to be harsher than the current PIP assessment then there would almost certainly be a large number of existing PIP claimants who would lose out if they were subjected to the new assessment. Having just had to agree to exempt existing PIP claimants from one set of changes, it does not seem likely that the government could then get away with subjecting them to a new set of changes which would cause them to lose out.

      In addition to this, there are 600,000 people like me who currently get the UC Health element but don't get PIP daily living. If receipt of PIP daily living becomes the qualifying criterion for UC Health, that is 600,000 of us who will lose our UC Health and be plunged into poverty if existing LCWRA claimants are subjected to the post-Timms assessment. Even if we assume that not a single existing PIP claimant loses out because of the new assessment - and we don't know if that will be the case or not - that still means there are 600,000 of us who would be pushed into poverty if the post-Timms assessment is applied to existing LCWRA claimants. Obviously, if existing PIP claimants also lose out because of the post-Timms assessment then the number of people who would be pushed into poverty would be even higher than 600,000, but even if it were "only" 600,000, it seems highly unlikely they could get that past their own party. The government has just suffered huge political damage because of a bill that was originally forecast to push 250,000 people into poverty. Even after the concessions that number was still 150,000. Anything that would push at least 600,000 people into poverty would therefore almost certainly cause a repeat of recent events. Politically they simply cannot afford that.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      SLB
      · 1 months ago
      @Helen Galloway No.  There is no evidence of that at all.  The protection offered was from changes to elibility - the 4 point rule.  That clause no longer exists - and so neither does the protection.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    CaroA
    · 1 months ago
    Latest Newsletter from Campaign for Disability Justice.

    Government Bill Pushes Forward – We Push Back

    Dear X

    This week, the Government has been pushing through the final stages of its Bill to cut disability benefits - which will still have a real impact, although much reduced in scope by the backbench rebellion and opposition from disability organisations, including the Campaign for Disability Justice. We have strong feelings, but we know where to put them: into our next steps.

    The Timms review
    The proposed cuts to Personal Independence Payment (PIP) have been dropped from the Bill. There will be no changes to PIP until after Disability Minister, Sir Stephen Timms, finishes his review of the PIP assessment process, probably in the Autumn of next year. It would be surprising – and hugely controversial – if the Government felt able to come back again with proposals to cut PIP. But we shall be vigilant.

    Meanwhile, we have met with Sir Stephen and urged him:

    to ensure that Disabled People’s Organisations are fully involved in co-producing recommendations; and
    to engage with hands-on welfare rights advisers with knowledge and experience of how the current system works (or doesn’t.)
    Sir Stephen appeared to take both points (the first of which has been widely called for already) and asked if we could provide some names and contact details of welfare rights advisers, which we have done.

    Our Role in the Pathways to Work Committee
    Our campaign CEO, Caroline Collier, attended the collaboration committee launch meeting with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) last week. Since the close of the consultation period for the Pathways to Work Green Paper on 30 June, the DWP has been analysing the thousands of responses it received, including ours.

    Ahead of publishing a White Paper that will set out the Government’s proposed changes, the DWP is establishing a set of committees. These groups will work closely with policy teams to help shape the recommendations that go to Ministers. The DWP says its aim is to ensure that Disabled people and the organisations that represent them are meaningfully involved in shaping health and disability reforms.

    This was just the first meeting, so we have yet to see what shape this will take. We will be talking to the DWP again later this month to present further feedback and share our advice and our shared concerns.

    A letter from the UN
    The UK Government from time to time finds itself in trouble with the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in the context of the effects of benefit cuts on Disabled people’s rights, living standards and wellbeing.

    The present Government, in keeping with that tradition, has been written to by the UN, expressing concern at the cuts to disability benefits still contained within the current proposals, requiring a response to their concerns by 11 August. UK Government representatives will then be examined between 11-26 August in the CRPD 33rd Session. For more detail, see the UN letter.

    We are keeping a close eye on this development.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      CaroA
      · 1 months ago
      @HL Thanks HL appreciated 👍😊
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      HL
      · 1 months ago
      @CaroA Hi CaroA,
      Thank you for sending this - much appreciated.
      This is sounding more positive.  
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    John
    · 1 months ago
    Reading between the lines of the terms of reference for the Timms review it looks to be like they will be targeting.
    Those who would currently qualify for standard rate PIP.
    Young adults.
    Those claiming for mental health conditions.
    Those claiming for anxiety and depression.
    Those able to use disability aids.
    Those they deem able to work from home.
    Those who have someone in receipt of carer's allowance and those who live in care homes.
    Looking to reduce claimant numbers and maybe level of benefit and instead fund services for disabled people or health conditions or to "help" them towards and into work.
    Introduce conditionality and sanctions regime for those not working.

    Timms has previously said he expects only 10% of UC health claimants to be in the severe conditions criteria. That is indicative of what percent of current claimants he thinks deserve unconditional support. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      tintack
      · 1 months ago
      @John
      "Timms has previously said he expects only 10% of UC health claimants to be in the severe conditions criteria. That is indicative of what percent of current claimants he thinks deserve unconditional support."

      That is uncannily reminiscent of what happened in 2008 with the introduction of ESA and the WCA. It later emerged that the government's original contract with Atos said that only around 11% (IIRC) of claimants were expected to be put in the support group. The proportion of claimants awarded support group status became much higher than that because, much to the government's irritation, those claimants had robust medical evidence proving that they met the support group criteria. I would not be surprised in the least if events play out in much the same way with the severe conditions group.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      tintack
      · 1 months ago
      @YogiBear As recent events have shown, what they intend to do and what they can get past their own party are likely to be two very different things. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      YogiBear
      · 1 months ago
      @John I always say to myself expect the unexpected when it comes to this government. I don't believe they have really any idea what they're going to do themselves. There main goal is to get the welfare bill down by any means possible. Hopefully we'll hear something 'factual' from them soon and then we'll all know what we're dealing with. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 1 months ago
      @SevenLions The government's original plans before they met resistance would have removed UC health from two thirds of recipients and removed PIP daily living from half of recipients. And would have been followed up with the Timms review removing PIP daily living component and mobility component and UC health from more recipients.

      In my opinion the government at best has given up on changing the eligibility criteria for PIP for existing claimants, and slightly delayed cuts so it can use the Timms review to help justify them.

      The end game to me looks to be

      1 : Time limited contributions based unemployment benefit for short term able and disabled unemployed. And the same amount of income replacement benefit also paid non time limited as a means tested benefit to lifelong severely disabled never expected to work group, who also get PIP daily living. (about 10% of those who would have qualified for LCWRA, about 10% of those who would have qualified for PIP daily living)

      2 : Unemployed disabled who get half the current UC health LCWRA premium and falling as uprating is frozen, also on PIP daily living. Required at first to just engage in support conversations but conditionality and sanctions maybe increased in future if too few get a job. (About 24% of those who would have qualified as LCWRA, about 40% of those who would have qualifed for PIP daily living)

      3 : Unemployed, no UC health and no PIP daily living. Full conditionality and sanctions regime at the discretion of work coaches. (66% of those who would have qualified for LCWRA, about 50% of those who would have qualified for PIP daily living.

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      SevenLions
      · 1 months ago
      @John I will reassure you, this will never happen.

      In my opinion what will happen is that tightening the criteria of getting the enhanced rate of PIP and for a claimant to qualify for it he has to get unambiguous diagnosis from NHS (only) and his condition is not flactuated in nature. The same criteria they are going to implement on UC in regards to severe disability group.

      Also, they may require a strong medical evidence from secondary care NHS or Private to qualify for standard PIP and remember they are still taking the outcome of the previous consultation into consideration.

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    HL
    · 1 months ago
    They should take the Severe Conditions Criteria out of the Universal Credit Bill and make a separate Bill for it which would not be a Money Bill so it can be debated in Lords many of which have relevant medical experience.
    @Roy Haynes - I agree, and the UK Parliament website states that -

    A money bill is a bill that in the opinion of the House of Commons Speaker is concerned only with national taxation, public money or loans.

    In case it’s of interest - here’s a link to the House of Lords Speakers on the Bill - 22 July.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Anon25
      · 1 months ago
      @HL Yes, the severe conditions criteria was definetely something that required consultation, scrutiny and debate.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Tim
    · 1 months ago
    Like many people I’m still confused about the cuts to PiP. I can’t see that this link which went up on the internet yesterday about PiP cuts has been posted anywhere but it’s confused me even more. Is it just about limiting eligibility for PIP and the UC health element to the most severe cases of anxiety, depression and ADHD or will it also affect “anyone” on Pip?.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      YogiBear
      · 1 months ago
      @John The Timms Review will not be for the benefit of disabled people. It's solely going to be a cost cutting exercise to restrict disabled people from claiming PIP.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Cuckoo21
      · 1 months ago
      @Slb Agree
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Cuckoo21
      · 1 months ago
      @Tim It's all very confusing. They are targeting mental illness because apparently there was a massive Increase in claims for mental health during and after COVID. The previous government locked everyone up for 2 years and frightened the hell out of everyone, that might well of affected people's mental health 🤔. There of course will always be a minute amount of people who take advantage of a system. Same old story the government mess up, we have to pay for it. People with mental illness are these easiest targets to go after. The government and media have also whipped up a frenzy of lies and hatred against those with mental illness with their rhetoric. I think everyone is going to be affected, but especially those with mental illness. Sorry I can't say anything more positive. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Slb
      · 1 months ago
      @JHF No, it wouldn't.  Because the think tank in question is not linked to the govt.  It is click bait and not worth your time or worry.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      JHF
      · 1 months ago
      @Slb This would suggest NO Co-Production with the disabled community in anyway. This cannot be allowed to happen. Transparency in the Timms Review is needed at all times for Co-Production to work.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Roy Haynes
    · 1 months ago
    Universal Credit Bill says under ' Severe conditions criteria claimant ' 40A.-(2)(b) at least one of the descriptors set out in schedule 7 constantly applies. So how can a Law say that you must meet one of the descriptors in the Work Capability Assessment when the Work Capability Assessment doesn't exist  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Roy Haynes
      · 1 months ago
      @John When you say Timms appears to be ignoring the PIP ongoing, Do you mean that he has no plans to Review the Ongoing Criteria 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 1 months ago
      @Roy Haynes The Work Capability Assessment and LCW, LCWRA status is being abolished in 2028 and receiving PIP daily living element will then give eligibility to UC health (paid at the same rate as LCWRA). According to Timms PIP currently has no similar group to the Work Capability Assessment system severe conditions criteria. Such a group will be created by the Timms review new PIP assessment system.

      Note Timms appears to be ignoring the current PIP ongoing/indefinite enhanced rate daily living component award. Which for working age claimants is for severely disabled for life expected to be on disability benefits for life.  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 1 months ago
      @Roy Haynes
       

      Note Timms appears to be ignoring the current PIP ongoing/indefinite enhanced rate daily living component award. Which for working age claimants is for severely disabled for life expected to be on disability benefits for life.  
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Diceman24
    · 1 months ago
    After reading pip review by Stephen timms I thought the pip reform was leaving pip moving around part alone but now looks like they will be changing criteria for this has well now. I really can’t believe this country who agrees with attacking  the  disabled and pensioners so wrong in life 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 1 months ago
      @Slb The government has not agreed to true co production. True co production requires equality in say and consensus in the final decisions, with the ability of those involved in the co production to veto. The government has agreed to listen to and take into account the views of disabled people and their organizations in writing the Timms review. The government then gets to read the Timms review and make decisions based on its recommendations. The decisions are made by the government. That is not true co production of government policy. It is just calling a consultation a fancy name.  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      JHF
      · 1 months ago
      @Slb Of course there is. You may have given up the fight but you do not need to try to persuade other people to give up the fight also. We can get involved with disability charity organisations and make sure our voices are herd for the Timms review.

      One sunken ship doesn't mean that you have to sink everyone else's ship.

      If you need to step back and relax, I wonder how many more times that you are going to comment with negative opinion on this site over the coming months.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Slb
      · 1 months ago
      @John Of course it is.  It would hardly be a review of PIP if it didn't.  But there's nothing.we can do about it.  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Slb
      · 1 months ago
      @JHF No it doesn't.  They agreed to co production within the Commons chamber.  They cannot roll back on it.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      John
      · 1 months ago
      @Slb The Timms review is looking at changing the descriptors and points for PIP Mobility as well as Daily Living.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    SLB
    · 1 months ago
    OK.  Time to be controversial.  

    1.)  No-one knows what is going to be concluded within the Timms review.

    2.) No-one knows what kind of legislation will be used to get through any of those recommendations we don't know anything about.

    3.) No-one knows for sure which claimants will be affected by the legislation we know nothing about brought about by the unknown conclusions from the Timms report.

    So, PLEASE, stop scaring the crap out of each other by pretending you do know, or because you've read someone else who also doesn't know surmising on another site.   It's absolute madness, and will eventually drive people away from here.  And it's not fair on those who have been struggling.  Innuendo and rumour is not helpful.  If any concrete information on those subjects comes out, no doubt B&W will tell us about it. (I keep writing B&Q!)

    We've just had a year of constant worry.  It's now going to be well over a year before anyone knows anything about the outcome of the report.  Relax.  We honestly can do nothing over the next year or so except try to get involved in feeding into the report if we are given the opportunity, and doing our best to highlight anything we hear about it that suggests that the review isn't involving the people it says it will in the way it says it will.

    I'd also suggest that writing to MPs now about legislation that might happen in eighteen months time (or might never happen) probably isn't going to do anyone any favours either.  We have been yelling at MPs for months, and I should imagine that the last thing they want to see is their in-boxes still being filled up by us, wanting their attention about something that might or might not happen in the Commons in 2027 or later.  

    We will, at some point, get to see the legislation to scrap the WCA for UC - presumably before the Timms report concludes.  And I would suggest that is the time to properly start campaigning again and messaging MPs.  If we keep messaging MPs 365 days of the year, then we are not going to be listened to when there is something we desparately need them to hear (such as that next legislation).  Now is the time to chill out.  Relax.  Turn off.  Because these quieter months will pass very quickly.  And if you're feeling a bit lost after all the campaigning, there's plenty of a***holes in the press and social media who are vilifying us that we can go and shout at!  

    But we really do need to think about our community when we are posting things that we have no evidence of.  Many people have barely made it through the last few months.  Unnecessary worry caused by rumours is likely to have a significant effect.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      axab43
      · 1 months ago
      @SLB Thank you.  I so appreciate your posts and have been saying this for a long time now.  Especially for people who have severe depression/anxiety, scare mongering links to things which may or may not happen could seriously affect someone's mental ill health.  Even their life. The Government seems to ignore talk of suicide when they talk about mental ill health but it is very real and a very real danger for people with severe conditions.  All this should be borne in mind when posting things which may or may not happen and worse case scenario guesses.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Gingin
      · 1 months ago
      @SLB You’re right,SLB. I’m exhausted after the morning to night thinking about this from the start of the year at least,, and much effort put into campaigning. I need to rest and regroup and you’re right that we’ll be more effective coming back to this later than badgering MPs from now until the autumn. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Hilde
      · 1 months ago
      @SLB SLB,  thank you so much for this rational account which everyone needs to read. Its so important to put this into perspective for our mental and physical health as well as that of others.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Neil Cook
      · 1 months ago
      @SLB Slb, the calm presence in a mad chaotic world 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Tiggy8
    · 1 months ago
    Is there any updates on what will happen with ESA contributions based?  Many on this form of ess are righty worried, no information to speak off regarding the abolishment details. I don’t wish to scare monger either as it’s a way off changing yet apparently. From I have read here surly the dwp cannot just remove you from ESA altogether and just have people receive UC basic payment? Confused on how this with pan out. Hopefully there is still IR ESA that can be claimed instead? 
    Thx 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Tiggy8
      · 1 months ago
      @Michael @Michael  Does this include ESA being full contributions based? (No element of IR included). 
      Thx 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      YogiBear
      · 1 months ago
      @Michael If you claim ESA (CB) support group after the 12 months I take it this would stop altogether if you're not entitled to claim UC? I wonder if you'd still be entitled to NS credits for pension?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      Michael
      · 1 months ago
      @Tiggy8 I spoke to a (knowledgeable) work coach about this. If, for instance the contribution element ran out in 12 months time, that element simply moves over to UC. It doesn't effect your transistional protection, whatever you receive now, simply gets added to your UC amount.

      Nothing to worry about here.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    Elizabeth Vidler
    · 1 months ago
    I got a response from my MP, a Tory suggesting he thought that welfare needed complete reform, given what the conservatives had in mind I dread to think what they would be thinking of doing.  I  wonder as well given all the bad publicity that mobility is getting, whether it might be alot harder to get or have changes made to it.

Free PIP, ESA & UC Updates!

Delivered Fortnightly

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

 
iContact

Latest news

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.

Ok Decline
More about cookies