Liz Kendall's letter to Labour MP's announcing the "concessions" the government has offered to win over rebels has been published.

It leaves a great many questions unanswered.  And as amendments to the bill will not be published before Tuesday's vote, it means MPs will have to vote without actually knowing what they are ultimately agreeing to. 

On first reading, one of the most obvious question is whether the guarantee relating to PIP means that current claimants will also be protected from the "ministerial review of the Pip assessment, led by the minister for social security and disability [Stephen Timms], to ensure the benefit is fair and fit for the future." If not, and Timms introduces much harsher conditions for PIP from 2028, then the PIP guarantee is good for only around three years.

We are sure readers will have many more queries.  Please post them in the comments section below - we won't be able to answer them, but we can begin to collate them.

Dear colleague,

We have always said we are determined to reform the social security system so it is fair, provides dignity and respect for those unable to work, supports those who can, and is sustainable so it is there for generations to come.

The broken system we inherited from the Tories fails all of those tests.

These important reforms are rooted in Labour values, and we want to get them right.

We have listened to colleagues who support the principle of reform but are worried about the impact of the pace of change on those already supported by the system.

As a result we will make two changes to strengthen the bill.

Firstly, we recognise the proposed changes have been a source of uncertainty and anxiety.

Therefore, 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.

Secondly, 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.

Colleagues rightly want to ensure that disabled people and those with ill health are at the heart of our reforms.

We will take forward a ministerial review of the Pip assessment, led by the minister for social security and disability [Stephen Timms], to ensure the benefit is fair and fit for the future.

At the heart of this review will be coproduction with disabled people, the organisations that represent them, and MPs so their views and voices are heard. The review will then report to me as work and pensions secretary.

These commitments sit alongside our raising of the standard rate of the universal credit – the biggest real-terms permanent increase of any benefit since the 1980s – the protection of the incomes of the most vulnerable who will no longer be reassessed and the introduction of “right to try”.

Our reform principles remain; to target funding for those most in need and make sure the system is sustainable for the future to support generations to come.

We believe those who can work, should, and those who cannot, should be protected.

We will front load more of the additional funding generated by these reforms for back to work support for sick and disabled people.

Taken together it is a fair package that will preserve the social security system for those who need it by putting it on a sustainable footing, support people back into work, protect those who cannot work and reduce anxiety for those currently in the system.

Thank you to colleagues for engaging with us on these important reforms to social security.

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.
    · 13 hours ago
    Does this mean that existing claimant's will still have separate pip/lcwra assessments, or will we be subject to the new rules when we are due to be reviewed? If this is the case, then we aren't any better off in the long run.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 10 hours ago
      @Cathedral city That is nothing to do with the current legislation. If Labour go ahead with scrapping the WCA, then actually those already on PIP might be more secure than we were before. Only one form to be tripped up by, and we keep on old eligibility rules.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 hours ago
    “We will take forward a ministerial review of the Pip assessment, led by the minister for social security and disability [Stephen Timms], to ensure the benefit is fair and fit for the future.”

    This must provide all those who will be involved in this process all the data& metrics and risks assessments so we are not talking blind as we have had to do with the current fiasco.

     It must give credible examples of the changes proposed and the impact on various demographs of claimants as well as protected characteristics.

    It should not demonise disability claimants either and the tone of the consultation should not be adversarial nor should it seek to alarm disability and health claimants who have suffered considerable harms since the government said it was reforming benefits to balance the books rather than to support better outcomes for claimants, who already struggle to meet the disability premiums attached to living some quality of life.


    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 11 hours ago
      @Boo This has been what I have been trying to ask.  How long will this ministerial review be likely to take, based on how long such things have taken in the past and ie how long it will take to go through parliament, and the further changes to PIP become law, again based on what has happened in the past.  The Government themselves have said it will take time.  I have a PIP review in 2027 and hope to escape even more changes. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 hours ago
    A fundamental observation. Liz Kendall, Stephen Timms, Rachael Reeves and Kier Starmer have made these ideals many months ago, it takes the threat of rebellion to alter their position. 

    What does this single observation tell us ? 

    My take is that, there are implications in the "desired outcomes" of the green paper, that has in no small part already caused anxiety. Is there no consideration beyond a tepid "Firstly, we recognise the proposed changes have been a source of uncertainty and anxiety".
    There is acknowledgement, I agree... there is also a clear failure to understand and take responsibility. No I don't want a trauma payment, however some guarantee, would do a good deal of lifting.  
    Beyond the original desired outcomes of this green paper, there is now a more favourable view of those already in receipt. Do future claimants who cannot wash below the waist or use the toilet without help, have some magical new power that us old fogies missed out on ?

    The vote Tuesday will not contain any guarantee, yet it seems that is trustable ? I voted for Mr Starmer last year because I thought he would be trustable. I was wrong and will not make the same mistake again. Lightly political, the current Labour party is unrecognisable, from the socialist party that delivered the NHS and the welfare system. We might be kind ans say natural progression, but if we did we would be kidding ourselves.
    This green paper, was a full shift away from disability support, to disability indifference. Not acceptable. 
    Okay, so it will be altered and amended, seems to me the green paper needs to be completely reworked, and published before any vote is taken.
    Figuratively, "I'm going to put all my money on a horse, but don't know which one". 
    Is it just me or is the vote on Tuesday, now in a rather cynical sense of, the front bench desire to feel like that didn't fail? 
    Some will say I'm harsh, perhaps that is true. However, like so many people in this group, I live with multiple (4 ) significant life conditions and a slew of other health conditions that effect my daily life. My reply would be; "Harsh, yes it is". In fact disability, it has been my experience of both my own and of others, that disabled people are tough and stoic. Sorry, this has been so long. But we are not ready to accept this Green paper just yet. Hey, never buy a second hand car you have never seen!!!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 9 hours ago
      @Nige 60 . Absolutely Nige, you’re right on every point
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 hours ago
    I don't believe a word of it it needs to be scrapped period other ways to raise the money they have squandered in the past 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 hours ago
    How can anyone be expected to vote for a bill without knowing what it means?
    Insane!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 9 hours ago
      @Ginny52 Those who do are downright stupid 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 hours ago
    Do not believe a word of it. A labour con job. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 hours ago
    What does this package for employment support mean are they going to push disabled people into work?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 10 hours ago
      @Anon No, that seems unlikely, and that actually can't if we are in LCWRA group of UC.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 hours ago
    dont believe a word of it, its a con trick, just like they did for our votes .

    the rebels must see this , stand firm, and not be fooled.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 hours ago
    It is good to see even a partial victory after all the campaigning; however, I remain concerned. As always with the DWP, the devil is in the details. Will this result in existing PIP claimants being treated less favourably in the long term? Many of us will remember that people on legacy benefits didn't get the £20 weekly uplift that UC claimants got during the pandemic. I also wonder if the DWP will make existing claimants wait for an interminably long time for mandatory reconsiderations and appeals, thus forcing some claimants to make a new claim to have enough money to survive. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 7 hours ago
      @Slb ESA lcwra was less than UC lcwra.
      Income support for carers was the same as UC for carers.
      But only those on UC got the extra £20 a week.

      The reason was to provide the influx of new claimants caused by Covid lockdowns with higher benefits than normal. Also they were subjected to less wait times, less hurdles to jump as far as applying and no conditionality. It is as if the government did not want them to experience what life on benefits is really like. Maybe they feared too many unhappy people or even people calling for benefits to improved. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 10 hours ago
      @Prudent The uplift didn't apply to legacy benefits because we were already on more money than those on UC.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 hours ago
    Isn't it considered a "New Claim" if you receive a short, 2 year or less award and then that stops? You don't get reassessed, you have to make a full new claim. So not all people currently on PIP will be protected... unless I've got my wires crossed there.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 10 hours ago
      @john My guess is that such things will be ironed out going forward.  The entire bill is only a dozen pages long, and such details aren't included at this stage normally 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 12 hours ago
      @Dannan Yeah that definitely needs to raised by MPs. As even if a new claim is put in 6 months before the existing award will end. It is a new claim form. So while it looks like in theory they should be protected as existing claimants as their would be no gap between the claims. In practice is the DWP going to do that when they receive the same form as a brand new claim. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 hours ago
    So what happens to those on uclcwra without pip when they merge the two? Are we classed as new? If we don't qualify under the new system how are we still protected ?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 12 hours ago
      @john Yet more uncertainty. Oh joy 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 hours ago
      @Sam The Universal Credit and Personal Independence bill does not cover the planned abolishing o the WCA in 2028 and making UC health element based on receiving PIP. That legislation is due latter this year or next year. So far their is nothing from the government indicating existing UC health element recipients not on PIP will be protected. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 hours ago
    Dear B&W,

    Thank you for all your excellent work, and for keeping us updated.

    My question, as requested –

    If these points are included in the new version, will this affect us all at tribunal level?

    UC & PIP BILL 2025 (draft)
    Points to note:

    5.4.(a). to make different provision for different cases or purposes

    (b) to provide for a person to exercise a discretion in dealing with any matter

    These may seem innocuous, but basically this blocks decisions made being used as Case Law.
    However.
    Common Law principles of ‘fairness’ could be applied by us when fighting in Tribunals. Which we will have to.

    These points were originally posted by another contributor.

    With thanks
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 hours ago
    What is happen about actual job coaching if it is wanted for those that fall in the CB based ESA and who do not qualify for universal credit.  Also is there anything happening about looking at evidence given by consultants my consultant provides it, but I am never convinced it is actually read by assessors or decision makers.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 11 hours ago
      @Elizabeth Vidler Elizabeth I emailed my mp about cbesa,because I'm on it,she said that existing claimants will continue to recieve indefinitely unless there is a significant change in their needs and we are not subject to the new unemployment insurance,I read it ,felt relieved then my mind hit the better of me and the "what ifs " started floating around,I just need to believe it
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 hours ago
    The biggest question hangs over Timms. He's already shown himself to hold disabled people in contempt, so I might be safe for now, but who knows once he completes his 'review'. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 hours ago
    Will children currently in receipt of DLA who apply for PIP after November 2026 when they turn 16, be classed as existing disability claimants so want be subject to the new 4 point rule?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 12 hours ago
      @Boo I would doubt it. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 hours ago
      @Boo Probably no. As PIP is a completely different benefit to DLA according to the government. Which is how when PIP was originally rolled out for working age claimants they justified having no transitional protection for those having their DLA claims closed and being told to apply for PIP, and justified not honouring DLA lifetime awards. DLA and PIP are currently treated as completely separate benefits not linked.

      Hopefully MPs will raise this issue otherwise it creates a impending doom scenario for disabled children. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 hours ago
      @Boo Sadly I very much doubt it. Child DLA and PIP are two distinct benefits with different criteria in certain ways. As far as I know, once children on DLA turn 16 they are treated as new claimants if they apply for PIP. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 hours ago
      @Boo An interesting point. I am guessing they will be new claimants as they haven't previously claimed PIP.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 hours ago
    So if I understand right those who already get pip will have their review on the law as it stands now. Eg not the 4 point for one answer law. Am I right
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 11 hours ago
      @Prudent So two claimants with the same condition, affected in similar ways, will be assessed in different ways - the existing claimant on the old rules and the new claimant on the 4-point rules?? How can this possibly be fair?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 hours ago
      @Vicky pickard That is how I understand it, but we need more clarity.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 14 hours ago
    It's a trap, we all know it.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 14 hours ago
    You should never sign a blank cheque or agreement not should you vote for a bill that has not details of concessions on it as it will not be subject to scrutiny. The government must withdraw this bill, consult with all disabled and sick people and charities as well as medical practicioners and come up with a new complete bill that is subject to the normal safeguards and impact assessments. To vote for a bill without amendments is completely nuts
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 14 hours ago
    Another question is what does "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." actually mean.

    The BBC is reporting this as UC health element will not be frozen and will instead be uprated with inflation. So claimants get UC standard allowance uprated by inflation plus the above inflation uprating boost + UC health element uprated by inflation.

    But I read it as meaning they get a backstop in case UC standard allowance with above inflation uplift + UC health element frozen is less than UC standard allowance +UC health element both increased by inflation. And could in theory also get a benefit cap on UC health element if UC standard allowance with above inflation uplift + UC health element frozen is more than UC standard allowance + UC health element both increased by inflation.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 12 hours ago
      @john
      Meg Hillier's statement:

      "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."

      "The same level of support" could apply whether one or both of the standard and health elements of UC were frozen or increased with inflation. This sort of thing sounds like too much of a comparatively minor change - at least in comparison to the original proposed cuts - to be something that could be proclaimed a "major concession". 

      It sounds like Hillier and other rebels believe this is a pledge that existing UC Health claimants will not lose UC Health under the future change in qualifying criteria in 2028, just as existing PIP claimants will not be subject to the future tighter PIP eligibility criteria. I know WCA abolition is not part of the current bill, but then nor is the new PIP-based assessment (the first word of it hasn't been written yet), and yet one of the concessions extracted by the rebels concerns how that assessment will be formulated, so the things that will be in the WCA bill have clearly been brought up by the rebels in their negotiations with the government.  

      If the government says that existing UC Health claimants still stand to lose their UC Health under the new criteria in 2028 when it brings forward the WCA legislation then it is asking for trouble. Giving one impression to the rebels now to quell one rebellion is only likely to spark another major rebellion if they try to say, in Sir Humphrey-esque fashion, "we didn't actually give that pledge, if you read the wording very carefully you can see that we actually meant something totally different...."
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 hours ago
      @john this could be the way of making sure those still on legacy benefits who are still to be transfered to UC when these rules come in do not lose out. I will be asking my mp about it, though until now he's been good for just spouting the usual govt line.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 14 hours ago
    That is absolutely great news for those already in the system but how will it affect those waiting to be transferred from DLA?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 4 hours ago
      @Sara k This is my worry, Sara k. I am one of those people still on DLA. I know that claimants transferring to PIP are treated exactly like new claimants. So, I find myself feeling in a bit of a quandary. Should we apply as soon as we know what's actually happening, rather than wait to be invited? I'm worried that if I wait too long I'll slip into the new 4 point ruling post November 2026. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 hours ago
      @Sara k Good point...I am still on it with an indefinate award, and I have no idea what is going to happen when the transfer to PIP will occur. I will be a pensioner in 2029.