Labour ministers have resorted to online scam techniques to try to force their PIP and UC cuts through the Commons on Tuesday. And there’s a strong chance that their dubious promise to exempt current claimants from the cuts is, in reality, only a two year reprieve.

But its not too late to for you to try to stop them, as one MP has confirmed.

Blank cheque

Ordinarily MPs would know what they were agreeing to when a bill is presented for its first vote. 

And if they do vote in favour, there is then a committee stage at which a group of MPs look at possible amendments, consult with experts - -such as disability groups in this case – before presenting amendments to be considered by the whole House. 

This process usually takes weeks or, for a bill that will affect millions of people like this one, even months.

There is then a final vote on the amended bill, at what is called the third reading.  But it’s incredibly rare for the government to lose at this stage – the last time it happened was 48 years ago

After the final vote, the bill goes to the Lords, to be carefully scrutinised again.

But in the case of Tuesday’s bill, MPs won’t actually know what they are voting for. 

Because ministers have promised there will be amendments which will exempt all current claimants, but they probably won’t even have been published by Tuesday.

MPs will just have to trust ministers who say that what they are actually voting for – the 4 point rule applying to all claimants – is not what will really happen.

Chaotic few hours

And then, a week after Tuesday’s vote, the entire months long committee stage will be shrunk into a few chaotic hours in front of the whole house, voting on amendments they have barely seen and with no chance to get advice from experts.

And, what is more, the government have applied to have the bill certified as a money bill.  If the Speaker agrees, then the Lords will have no power to change any of it.  Even if they do try, it will automatically be passed without change after one month.

Online scammers

Isn’t this exactly how online scammers work? 

Promise to save you from losing all your money as long as you hand over your account details immediately.  Quickly, quickly.  No time to talk to anyone, don’t hang up the phone, do it now or it will be too late. You’ll lose everything.

And yet, in reality even if the PIP cuts are put into law this month, they don’t actually take effect until November 2026. That’s sixteen months from now.

So, why can’t they be properly discussed and put into a separate piece of legislation next year?

Unless Labour have things to hide.

Labour’s dodgy promise

Labour’s promise to exempt all current claimants from the PIP and UC cuts may not be all it seems.

Kendall’s letter says that in relation to PIP, “The new eligibility requirements will be implemented from November 2026 for new claims only.”

But she says nothing about what happens in 2028, when disability minister Stephen Timms has finished rewriting the PIP eligibility criteria and the new rules are put into law. 

Labour says the new PIP rules will be coproduced with disability organisations.  But who honestly believes those groups will be given a veto on anything, especially with the government determined to cut costs?

So, if Timms decides that the four-point rule is a good one and should stay, then under the terms of Kendall’s letter, it will apply to current claimants from 2028.

Kendall also says “we will adjust the pathway of universal credit payment rates to make sure all existing recipients of the UC health element . . .  have their incomes fully protected in real terms.”

But she doesn’t say what will happen in 2028, when the work capability assessment is abolished and only claimants with an award of PIP daily living component are eligible for the UC health element. 

If current claimants are not exempt from this change as well, then 600,000 who don’t get PIP daily living will no longer have their income protected.  And if the PIP four point rule is also incorporated in the new PIP assessment from 2028, then hundreds of thousands more current claimants who don’t get four points, will lose their health element when they lose their PIP.

Contacting your MP will make a difference

Now, none of this may be what ministers intend.  But MPs voting on Tuesday won’t have a clue what they do intend, because the whole process has become a chaotic shambles – in spite of the fact it has the power to plunge hundreds of thousands of disabled people into poverty.

So, please consider contacting your MP and asking them to vote for a planned Labour amendment – which, ironically none of us has seen yet – which will give MPs more time to consider the cuts.  And if that fails, then vote against the bill in its entirety.

You won’t be wasting your time.  There are still rumoured to be 50 or 60 determined Labour rebels, with many more unsure what to do.

And, as one MP told the BBC yesterday,

"it shouldn't be underestimated the potential effect of a weekend of emails from constituents, constituency surgeries etc".

Let yours be one of 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.
    · 1 days ago
    Breaking on radio 4 news, UNITE calling the new concessions 'divisive and sinister'.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    That's another email sent to my MP. He must be getting sick of me. He was one of the rebels voting against the bill, but I have sent him this article so he can make an informed decision and hopefully not get taken in by these dubious concessions. Please can everyone do the same if able to. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Cuckoo21 Same my MP did vote against and I thanked him but last night also sent a email from scope with my own personal bit added to say why  not to  vote for the proposed bill .
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    The mere fact the government waited till the very 11th hour to "compromise" and then attempt to ram the bill through should raise suspicion about their intentions. Starmer's government has been the most deceptive there has been in living memory and nothing they say are worth believing or accepting as true or valid. This is a government that has mislead the electoral and has mislead the public about it's plans for growth which they had no plan for and instead it turned out to be an attack on the very welfare state it supposedly stood for. 
    If I were a MP in the labour party I would not believe a word that is being said about amendments unless it is put in writing within the bill in clear English language.  This government has been using double talk all the way and misleading everyone including themselves. 
    Starmer is a Shark who betrays people thinking this is the way to do politics but in the end he will lose all credibility and good will as a result.
    Liz Kendall, Stephen Timms, and Rachel Reeves along with Starmer should step down as they have mislead not only the people but also parliament so why would anyone think they would stop doing so now! 
    If things were credible then why the rush!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    In my opinion the rebellion grew too big. Then the senior Labour MP chairs of select committees look to have joined the rebellion and stepped in and taken charge of the rebellion by tabling the reasoned amendment. Led the rebels to the government and now are trying to lead the rebels into accept the government's concessions. Including by spinning the concessions as more than what they actually are and making it look unreasonable for the rebellion to continue in the media. Selling the bill to the public.

    They are selling concessions as:

    Existing PIP and UC claimants are protected forever. They are not the government have only committed to protecting them from the 2026 changes in the current Universal Credit and Personal Independence Bill. Not the changes planned for 2028, the new PIP assessment system and UC health element becoming dependent on receiving PIP daily living component.

    UC health element is going to not be frozen and will go up with inflation plus claimants will get the UC standard allowance with uprating boost. That might be the case but the government actually committed to their UC not going down in real terms which could just mean a backstop if UC standard allowance with uprating boost + UC health element frozen is less than UC standard allowance + UC health element both increased by inflation.

    New PIP claimants will be subject to the 4 point rule but the descriptors and points are those the disabled people and the government are coming up with together. No the 4 point rule comes into effect in November 2026 using the current descriptors and points. Also no mention of the fact that as written the Universal Credit and Personal Independence bill defines the UC severe conditions criteria group differently and more narrowly than the current definition used for that group by UC.

    They are also repeating the mantra that all Labour MPs agree the disability benefits system is unsustainable due to cost too high benefits (perverse incentive to claim disability) and due to too many people claiming to be incapable of paid employment who could do some work (people taking advantage of the hard working tax payers)  
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    I’ve just sent this follow-up email to my MP and thought I’d share it here in case it’s useful as a format for others. Please feel free to adapt or personalise it.


    ---

    Dear [MP's Name]

    New Information Deepens Concern
    I’m writing again so soon because further reporting — particularly from Benefits and Work this morning — has deepened my concerns about the lack of clarity and scrutiny surrounding Tuesday’s vote.

    Current Claimants Still at Risk
    As the article outlines, MPs are being asked to vote without seeing the amendments, based purely on promises that current claimants are protected. Yet we now know these protections may only last until 2028, when Stephen Timms’ review concludes and new PIP rules could be extended to all claimants.

    Devastating Impact on New Claimants
    In the meantime, the impact on new claimants from November 2026 would be devastating. The proposed 4-point threshold and other eligibility restrictions would exclude many people with chronic and fluctuating conditions from receiving the support they need — effectively locking out future generations of disabled people from vital financial and social safety nets.

    Health Element of UC at Risk for 600,000 People
    Many current Universal Credit claimants receive the health element via the Work Capability Assessment, not through PIP. Labour plans to scrap the WCA by 2028 and limit access to the health element to those on PIP daily living. Unless current recipients are explicitly exempt, around 600,000 people could lose vital income — especially if the new PIP rules make it harder to qualify.

    Lack of Proper Parliamentary Scrutiny
    Additionally, the entire committee stage appears to have been collapsed into just a few hours, with no expert consultation and minimal time for scrutiny. If this is also certified as a money bill, the Lords will have no power to amend it. This feels deeply undemocratic — particularly given the scale of impact on disabled people’s lives.

    No Justification for Rushing This Through
    Given that the new rules won’t apply until November 2026 — and the more sweeping changes not until 2028 — I struggle to understand the urgency unless, as Benefits and Work suggests, there’s something to hide.

    Request for Action
    I hope you will continue to challenge this rushed process, support any amendment that allows more time for scrutiny, and if necessary, vote against the Bill in its current form.

    Kind regards
    [Your Name]
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    While I respect the B&W team, this seems like a stretch and an attempt to panic.  

    As  Kendall's letter reads, the new PIP form of 2028 will use the 4 point rule.  We are exempt from the 4 point rule and so, while we might have to use the new form, we won't need the 4 points.  

    Meanwhile, she's not going to mention  the abolition of the Work Capability Assessment as it is not part of this bill.  As that presumably needs to go through the Commons at a later date, there is no point in that being discussed currently.

    No matter what Labour promise, the deal is only good until the next election, because then the  next party will come along and change the benefits system again. But this article seems like scaremongering about what might happen in three year's time, with a form that hasn't been written yet by a minister who might no longer be in the job.  People have been scared enough, and this seems very unhelpful.  Sorry.


    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Reg Sealey How about putting that another way?  How about we have an offer to save 375,000 from losing their benefits, and you're willing to throw that away. For what?  Do you think if this bill gets voted down there won't be another one where everyone loses and are in a worse position than the current concessions?  Are you willing to risk the lives of 375,000 people on the roll of a dice, hoping it turns out OK?  And how would you feel if all those people end up losing everything because that dice was rolled?  Sometimes, you have to be pragmatic.  There are other bills to come where we can fight for the future claimants.  Not everything has to be done here and now.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @bronc But this article isn't the truth.  It's supposition, rumour, and a good imagination. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Eva Voting down the bill won't prevent the 4 points rule from happening.  In the autumn, there would likely be another bill, or even this one brought back and tied in with the budget.  And your scenario isn't going to happen.  If there is an exemption then that will remain.  It's plastered all over the newspapers and all over the MSM.  The government CAN'T go against it.  But a future one can.   
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Reg Sealey Yes, but there will be other times when we can fight for them
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @John Thanks John.

      I think there is good reason for distrust, but the current bill doesn't actually cover anything that might happen in 2028 or beyond.  So there is no way that any  concession can be totally airtight in that regard beyond the rules of the consultation. 

      I really don't think the govt will try to screw us over in this regard because they will want to avoid a repeat of this week.  Eventually they will learn by their mistakes.  What's more, it has been widely reported in the press, so any change will.come under scrutiny. 

      Sadly nothing with benefits is forever.  If Labour promise something in 2028, the next govt could ditch it in 2029.  The problem I have with this article from B&W is that it's getting people worried about things that might never happen - and there's nothing we can do about things three years in the future.  

      People are shattered, and had enough issues without worrying about things that might not happen, which is my issue with the article. Right now people need clear facts an
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    My sense is that this may have a significant impact on the tribunal process, and therefore our chances of a successful outcome - and I might be misunderstanding -

    The ‘arbitrary decision-making’ clause is still in there. So we will not be able to use other people’s wins as Case Law.

    @Gingin - any thoughts who would be the person in government to run this by?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago


    The ‘arbitrary decision-making’ clause is still in there. So we will not be able to use other people’s wins as Case Law.

    @Gingin - any thoughts who would be the person in government to run this by?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Gingin Thanks – my MP supports this.
      I’m thinking possibly Debbie Abrahams – worth a shot!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Neil Cook Hi Neil,

      My understanding is that this will affect our legal protections (regulations 4 and 7),
      which is especially concerning for those of us with fluctuating conditions.
      Thereby leaving us at the mercy of DWP / insurance company decisions.
      And I may be misreading this.

      This was originally posted by Angela -

      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.

      I hope that helps / makes sense?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Neil Cook Haha, no you’re not, you need a blinking PHD to understand this stupid benefit system. It’s designed to confuse.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @HL I’m no expert - I would just run this point by your MP but others may have more helpful suggestions
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @HL What does that clause mean exactly, sorry but I'm thick as shigpit.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    I’m still emailing my MP and Meg Hellier. It’s all too rushed and jumbled.
    Also. I don’t trust Kendall at all. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    It's like the vagueness over whether cuts would apply to pensioners. Not acceptable to keep evading giving unambiguous information.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    Reposting from previous thread, in the light of the urgency of keeping up the pressure and adding to the votes against the bill, in whatever form. Noone should be asked to vote for something they haven't had time to consider.

    Some 'rebels' are reported to have been swayed by government duplicity, but in Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr we're on to it!

    Steve Witherden, on facebook - thought at first he'd rolled over, but no, look

    "Speaking to BBC Radio Wales this morning, I welcomed the government’s decision to listen to the deep and sustained concerns from backbenchers, including myself, who had stated they could not vote for a bill that would arbitrarily take away support from many disabled people.
    The government has now said the new rules will no longer affect people currently claiming PIP, but that they will apply to people claiming from November 2026, meaning those who apply after that date will not necessarily be eligible for the same level of support.
    This will mean people who become disabled after that point will be treated differently to those already claiming. This is systematically unfair, and as such, I still cannot vote for the bill when it comes before the House on Tuesday."

    From the constituents' replies which can be read under his post, there's still plenty of rebel spirit.

    Gwaith da Steve, mor falch ohonoch chi!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Gingin That's great, @Gingin.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Frances Good to know, Frances, and rock on Steve Witherden!! I was privileged to be present at Diane Abbot’s debate about these cuts a couple of months ago and Steve gave an impassioned speech about what’s so wrong with these plans.

      What we need is for MPs to care this much to really look at the details and make an informed decision. We must not let up informing them!
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.