Many amendments have been tabled for the third reading of the Universal Credit and Personal independence Payment Bill.  There are now 18 pages of detailed amendments,  some on behalf of the government and some on behalf of those opposing the bill.

Below are a selection of the amendments. 

4-point rule

Government amendment (Gov 4) removes clause 5 – the PIP 4 point rule – from the bill.  If this is accepted (which it will be) it will be the end of the 4-point rule, unless it is resurrected in the Timms review which seems unlikely.

UC freeze

A new clause put forward by the government (Gov NC1) provides for the freeze to the universal health element not to apply to existing claimant, people who meet the severe conditions criteria and terminally ill patients.  This was one of the government’s earlier concessions to the rebels.

Name

Even the name of the bill is now subject to a government amendment (Gov 5), which would remove the words “and personal independence payment” from the title of the bill.  If the amendment passes, the bill will be the Universal Credit Bill.

Severe conditions criteria

Labour MP Graeme Downie has tabled an amendment (17) which relates to an issue that Benefits and Work has been highlighting.  The severe conditions criteria (SCC) as currently written require claimants to prove they meet the SCC “constantly”

Constantly is defined in the Bill as “at all times” or “on all occasions on which the claimant undertakes or attempts to undertake the activity”.

However, many degenerative conditions such as Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis and muscular dystrophy follow a slow path of decreasing ability, with periods of remission.  

At present, the bill would prevent people in these circumstances getting the higher payments and freedom from reassessment that the SCC provide, long after it is certain they will never work again.

The amendment would allow for the SCC to apply to claimants who have fluctuating conditions, such as Parkinson’s or multiple sclerosis.

Private doctors

An amendment (33) by SNP MP Kirsty Blackman, removes the requirement that, for the severe conditions criteria (SCC), a diagnosis must have been made by a health professional providing NHS services.  Many people are forced to resort to a private diagnosis because the NHS waiting list for an assessment for their condition is years long.  As the bill stands, having a private diagnosis only, appears to bar claimants from the SCC.

Date of UC cuts

An amendment (19) brought forward by work and pensions committee chair Debbie Abrahams, changes the date on which the universal credit cuts start, from April 2026 to November 2026.

More reports

A proposed new clause by LibDem MP Steve Darling would prevent most of the Bill coming into force until a range of reports and consultations had been completed.

What happens next

In a likely chaotic session on 9 July, these amendments – or as many as there are time for -will be considered by a committee of the whole House and voted on before a final vote on the whole bill, as amended, takes place.

The Speaker will make a decision on whether the Bill will be certified as a money bill only after all the amendments that are agreed have been included in the bill and it is now in its final form.

If it passes the commons, the bill will then be sent to the House of Lords. However, if it is certified asa money bill then the Lords will have no power to oblige the Commons to consider any amendments they suggest and the bill will automatically become law after a month.

You can download the latest amendments from a link on this page.

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.
    · 5 hours ago
    Try to avoid reading those rags. Cant trust press since the hacking scandal. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 8 hours ago
    In case it’s helpful -

    Can I contact other MPs?

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 hours ago
      @Cuckoo21 You may need to prove you are a constituent 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 hours ago
      @HL I think it has to be the MP for your area specifically. I contacted another MP in my town after I'd voted for my local MP and received a reply to say that I needed to be in her constituency.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 12 hours ago
    UC & P 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.
    @ANGELA – Any updates?

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 14 hours ago
    With articles such as these appearing in the press it gives genuine disabled & chronically ill claimants a bad name, as if we are milking the system when we all know how difficult it is to get an award and the amount of effort involved in the whole pip process not to mention the impact on each of us in terms of our mental health while going through the assessment and reassessments.

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 3 hours ago
      @Boo
      Standard fare for the Daily Mail. If we had a properly functioning system of press regulation which prevented these papers from lying and misleading with impunity this would be a far better country. Unfortunately we don't, so it's not.

      You'll find similar right wing slop plastered all over YouTube. "Preston Journalist" is one of them and he comes across as a really nasty piece of work. Definitely one to avoid. 

      That said, the polling suggests that majority opinion is against disability cuts, so the propaganda from the likes of the Mail obviously isn't proving to be as effective as it used to.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 hours ago
      @The Dogmother Well said the dogmother 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 9 hours ago
      @Boo Yellow journalism at its finest in the daily fail! Anything to click bait and make outlandish unsubstantiated claims to get a braying mob and a kangaroo court. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 9 hours ago
      @Boo Was reading some of this early this morning. Its this drip fed venom from The Daily "Fail" and others of their ilk that brands us.
      Esp for the  brain washed who are already in the mindset that we all fake it,our gps and consultants are "in on it" and we should be left to rot.They always know a "Faker" and come to social media to cry about it, but when challenged to do something about it then,they suddenly go quiet. 
      Same for them that say pip is easy to get,too easy,I tell them ok then go for it, then get back to me. Tell me how easy it was.
      I'm sick to death of the utter rancid bull plop. I'll swap their able body for mine all day long. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 14 hours ago
    We are being spoilt with another article in today’s guardian (5.07.2025) entitled 
    “We promised change but people aren’t feeling it yet’: Labour rues poor first year”
     
    An extract from the article, “
    especially if they are already saying hard choices are to be made in the autumn budget because of the 5 billion pound black hole in balancing the chancellor’s budget.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 hours ago
    I’m getting really fed up with government ministers, saying that the fallout from welfare reforms is “damaging” and have declined to rule out tax rises in the autumn.

    Disabled and chronic sick claimants who have lifelong illnesses are sick to the back teeth with ministers who failed to understand the damage and harms especially increased anxiety they have caused with their pip & UC reforms, where they have little regard to the harms the welfare reform bill would have caused if you lost pip entitlement, especially with the 4 point rule they had wanted to introduce, throwing disabled claimants into poverty with the loss of carers allowance as well as other passported benefits.

    This rhetoric is going to further exacerbate the stigma we are suffering by some of those who pay taxes who are having these messages reinforced that any tax rises will be the fault of pip benefit claimants and some commentators are also spouting the same rhetoric.

    We are no longer a compassionate nation!!

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 hours ago
      @MJ Fault! Doh.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 hours ago
      @Boo Aww, but you must see that it's harder for people to lose £250 a year in extra tax than it is for a disabled person to lose £9000?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 4 hours ago
      @Boo Well they can seem to find the money for big public sector and doctor's pay rises and other things I can't mention but tax rises will be all our thought. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 9 hours ago
      @Boo They fail to include that many disabled people have paid taxes. Those who have never paid taxes 
      Because of disability have never used many services that others use but are likely paying other bills like council tax. Disabled people are some of the poorest people in the country and deserve respect kindness and to live without fear. They would also waste far less of their money if they listened to disabled people for once they find it worked for the benefit of all. But they have to stip treating everyone like shirkers liars idiots to be treated like muck. This hash discipline it’s good for you rubbish doesn’t work.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 10 hours ago
      @Boo Effectively telling hard working tax payers they are going to have to pay higher taxes because too many people are taking the mickey claiming benefits, and benefits are so generous disabled people live comfortable lives on more than full time workers and get free BMWs and have no need to work when many could. Does not just increase stigma. It increases hate crime.

      And alarmingly if a violent crime against a person is classed as a hate crime against a disabled person it is 5x less likely to be referred to the CPS by the police than the same offense not classed as a hate crime. Which points to either hate crimes being committed by random strangers the police fail to find, or the police opting to have a stern word with people who hit disabled people rather than referring the case to the CPS.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 23 hours ago
    Constantly is defined in the Bill as “at all times” or “on all occasions on which the claimant undertakes or attempts to undertake the activity”.

    There is case law showing that patients with certain distinct types of advanced diseases, whom can mobilise, or who can undertake an activity, but not on the majority of occasions, do still meet the criteria to be in the LCWRA groups, so the DWP know it would be easier to prove 'fraud' if they completely discounted the symptoms. And I suspect that idea is being driven by surveillance data they have compiled by nefarious means. This is a government crossing a line. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    With the government dropping the 4 point rule now. It wouldn’t surprise me if the timms review on pip when published will be constantly rather than majority of times now like they doing the u/c severe group. Just another way of cutting costs and harming the disabled people 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    The big flight here is going to be the Timms review. This is were they are going to make the cuts but it will be dressed up very differently than the 4 points disaster.

    Write to your MPs with the following 

    "

    I am writing in relation to the ongoing Timms Review of Personal Independence Payment (PIP). As a concerned constituent/disability rights advocate I urge you to ensure that current PIP claimants who have already been reassessed under the DLA-to-PIP process are not subjected to another round of reassessments as part of this review.

    Many disabled people endured great distress, uncertainty, and in some cases, loss of essential support during the original transition from DLA to PIP. Forcing individuals to go through this again would be retraumatising and wholly unjust.

    I ask that you raise this issue within Parliament and call on the Government and the review team to implement safeguards that protect existing claimants from unnecessary reassessment, particularly those who have already undergone this difficult transition.

    Thank you for your ongoing commitment to social justice and the rights of disabled people. I hope you will stand with us in ensuring the review does not repeat the harms of the past"

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 4 hours ago
      @Broken Britain Timms is the wrong person for review. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 7 hours ago
      @tintack Yes it will be interesting to see which groups they use, bet it will be groups who are heavily funding by Government and will indeed roll over 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 11 hours ago
      @Broken Britain
      As things stand, the Timms review will also try to make receipt of PIP daily living the qualifying criteria for the UC health element, which would be utterly catastrophic for the 600,000 of us who currently get UC health but not PIP daily living. That needs to be fought bloody hard as well.

      The main concern with the Timms review is exactly which disability groups will take part in the "co-production". It's essential that whoever they are, they don't roll over and let the government get away with anything really damaging. That would be a disaster, because it would allow the government to say "well, we worked on this with disability groups and they signed off on it", even if many other groups opposed it. Whichever groups take part in this process need to be able to say no and walk away if necessary. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    Re: SCC. It scares me! It's not just fluctuating conditions but progressive conditions overall. My concern is jobs that are actively detrimental to one's health, speeding up disability to the point of total dependency and reduced quality of life, that then requires substantially more state resources to support over the long term than someone who is recognised as at risk for this and protected from ever reaching this point. 

    The SCC in it's current form seems to require one to have completely exhausted all possibility of work to the exclusion of being able to maintain basic daily living needs. I don't think this is in anyone's interest, be it disabled person, friends/family, or state?

    While jobs can be beneficial in some circumstances, they can also be harmful in others. The SCC seems harshly black and white. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jul/04/rachel-reeves-tax-rises-damaging-week-tears-labour

    Reading between the lines reeves as good as confirmed that the timms review is most likely plan b to cut billions off disability benefits (esp pip)

    This whole episode seems to be just an inconvenient blip to her plans which do not sound like they’ve changed

    Starmer doesn’t seem to have much interest in the home front of being pm (he seems to only be interested in foreign affairs - would of made a good foreign security but is not in the uk enough, not often available to meet with his mp, and has lowest voting records in his first year compared to any other pm in recent years)

    I’ve read a lot of insider accounts of this gov by several journalists and what’s made clear is that reeves and Morgan mcsweeney are the ones running the show (country) in terms of home policy and starmer goes along with their recommendations.

    Mcsweeney believes that lowing the welfare bill via disability cuts (painting disabled as taking the mickey) to attract back voters swinging towards reform……..and well we all know reeves is the new Labour multiverse version of a Disney villain (we’ve all seen the memes of Kendall of cruella de vil - reeves is probably most like maleficent? - suggests below on timms alter ego)
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 hours ago
      @tintack I disagree.  If we start work now on something that isn't going to happen for eighteen months, we're all going to go stark raving bonkers.  At the moment we don't know what is going to be recommended, and so we can't pressure people to do it through primary legislation.  For that, you need to know what's coming.  We don't.  

      Have a break.  Enjoy life for the next year.  There is plenty of time for fighting when we know what we're fighting for and against.  All of our worries prior to March of this year about what might or might not happen didn't really help us in the fight that followed - they just ruined our lives for months.  

      We do need to regroup a couple of months before the Timms report ends, to see if we can get the various disabled groups to work together in a way that didn't quite happen this time around - for example, one stonking great petition with a million signatures instead of dozens of them with 10,000.  And there will no doubt be things to fight for when we see the bill that will bring in the death of the WCA.  But that isn't yet.  We need to go away and relax and chill as best we can and enjoy what we have earned ovre the last three months. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 4 hours ago
      @Slb
      "We can't encourage MPs to vote against something when we don't know even the basics ourselves."

      But we can, and should, encourage them now to pressure the government for a committment to present whatever comes out of the Timms review in primary legislation, so that it's subjected to proper scrutiny, debate, amendments and a vote. It's better to start applying that pressure now, at the start of the process, rather than risk leaving it until late in the day - partly so Labour MPs are aware at an early stage what the government might be planning to avoid proper scrutiny, thus giving them time to pressure the government themselves, and partly because the government has been badly damaged on this issue and is now in a weak position with its backbenchers because of that. 

      We may also need to apply similar pressure to whichever disability groups take part in this "co-production". These groups need to be people who have the backbone to stand up to the government and walk away if necessary. I don't know if any details have yet been given on how it will be decided who takes part, but if it's a case of the government picking and choosing groups who will just rubber stamp whatever the government was planning to do anyway, so that they could say "well disability groups have signed off on this", that would be a disaster. 


    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 7 hours ago
      @Slb So let’s get clear on the basics, as a community - so that we can continue to challenge this?

      I think between us we can do this - we have already achieved a lot.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 8 hours ago
      @Mari I would be surprised if the Tories had anywhere near the numbers to get their own amendments through though, unless it's on matters which are uncontroversial.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 8 hours ago
      @gingin It's definitely an issue that needs to be raised as much as possible. But yes, given how politically damaging the last week has been for them, it would be mad for them to try to sneak things through and risk sparking even more festering anger in their own party.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    Do the severe fluctuating conditions include epilepsy? I'm currently in the support group, but have to fight like hell because when people look at me I'm fine, they dont see what i go through. I've uncontrolled epilepsy.  No warning. Sometimes it's fine then it's not. I take several types of seizures. People are very uneducated 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    Are they trying to scrap any of the premiums in UC that people received on ESA in the LCWRA group? I just can't work out what is going on at all. It's just getting more confusing. The whole thing should be scrapped. Then start from scratch and do it again properly.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 4 hours ago
      @john Even though it isn't exactly a reassessment It It certainly feels like one with all the documentation required and questions that need answering. 

      Callous indifference to the pain and stress it causes, perhaps in fact cruelty in that it might be deliberate in order to put people off through the pain and stressful hassle of it.  

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 9 hours ago
      @Judyteen1960 Transferring from ESA to UC does not trigger a reassessment. Your ESA LCWRA status will be transferred to UC LCWRA status.

      When you are transferred from ESA to UC you get transitional protection if your ESA + LCWRA premium + SDP premium + Housing Benefit is more than UC + LCWRA premium + UC housing element. Your UC is increased so it is equal to the higher legacy amount . Your UC is then frozen at that amount until your eligible amount under the normal UC system exceeds you transitional protected legacy amount.

      Note that this mean you do not get any uprating so your benefit total so it is eroded by inflation until the eligible amount under normal UC catches up. And as housing is included if your rent goes up and with it your UC housing element under the normal UC system, then the amount you receive after rent in cash terms goes down. Transitional protection does not protect what you received after rent, it protects your total legacy entitlement including rent.

      Also note it is a postcode lottery as far as Council Tax reduction so moving from ESA o UC may cause your council tax reduction to be reduced, and you getting a higher council tax bill to pay.

      And also note housing benefit is paid two week or four weekly in arrears often directly to the landlord. While UC is paid colander monthly in arrears by default to the claimant, and the first payment takes 5 weeks. So the transition is likely to cause a gap that will cause a bit of rent arrears.

      And finally there are some differences between housing benefit and UC housing element. For example for housing benefit social housing tenants local authorities had discretion to give an extra room exemption to the under occupation penalty to disabled people not on PIP/DLA. The do not have that discretion with UC housing element. There are probably other differences that effect people in specific circumstances.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Cuckoo21 As it stands, those who are in the esa support group who claim severe disability premium will not be getting the severe disability premium payment. So that's £89 per week less. They will or rather pay  traditional payments for I believe 12 months. ( I could be slightly off as to how long) . But the new site of the proposed ammendments doesn't really make sense to me as yet . I'm waiting to transition from esa to uc and am dreading it. If I don't get into the lwcra group , I don't know how I'll cope, as I'll be expected to work , which I absolutely cannot. So let's wait to see what happens on July 9. Hope this helped.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    My MP said he'd oppose the bill, then he didn't sign the amendment, he stopped replying to my emails. He abstained from the 2nd hearing. 
    What do I do about this? Challenge him by asking him to explain his immaterial promises to support disabled claimants?
    Or stop emailing him?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 4 hours ago
      @A Anything for a vote. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @A Email him and ask him to oppose any of the bill which disadvantages any disabled person in any way, ever.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @A We have to keep trying because what else can we do? I'm convinced some MPs teams just mark down trends in emails received so the more they get on a topic them more they know folks are mad. I always challenge my MP often in long emails that I'm pretty sure no one reads but still it is more likely to do something that not emailing. Just remember to include your name and full address so they know you are a constituent otherwise they will ignore it
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @A Challenge the copout 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    This part:
    “Severe conditions criteria” what exactly does it entails? 

    Will conditions like ME, fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis be included in this list?
    All of these health conditions are longterm without any prospect of getting any better.

    What happens to people who are migrating to UC and currently are in receipt of SDP element? 

    Is SDP different from Severe conditions criteria? 

    So many questions and with each amendment more rise.

    These last few months have taken a toll on my mental and physical health, my immune system seems to have shut down. I woke up this morning with the worst flu symptoms I’ve had in years. And I haven’t been in physical contact with anyone for over a week.

    The way it’s going I don’t think I’ll be here when the new changes come to force.


    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 hours ago
      @tintack Thanks for the clarification 👍
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 10 hours ago
      @Lost and helpless If you are migrated by DWP to UC with transitional protection, you should maintain your benefits at the current level you receive prior to migration, if higher in value. Over time as UC benefits rates increase, you will still maintain that level until UC rates are higher than your current level. SDP effectively disappears out of the system over time determined by increasing UC rate levels. You have whatever is left of SDP while your current benefit levels remain higher than UC, so as to maintain your current income levels at time of migration. After that your benefits income will be the same as everyone else's, but you shouldn't have lost any benefit as a result of the transition to UC. That's my understanding of it.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 11 hours ago
      @Cuckoo21
      The B & W article on this lists the qualifying criteria:

      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Severe conditions criteria

      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.

      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

      I don't see anything here saying that the condition would have to be progressive, even though progressive conditions would hopefully qualify. There are many conditions which are not progressive in nature but could still meet the criteria listed above by B & W. It seems the crucial thing 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.
      · 23 hours ago
      @Lost and helpless  Please dont say that, i know the uncertainty and stess is taking its toll on many of us. Hopefully they will. I'm currently on esa with fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis, bipolar affective disorder. I live in constant pain. The pain increases whenever I do any activity, leaving me in agony and immobile, and have to have a friend to help , actually nag me to eat. I don't even wash, as at these times I don't even have that cross my mind. It has lead to my brain not telling me I need to eat, which involves me wetting/soiling myself. I then need someone to clean me as I cannot do it for myself. I get terrible memory loss, and cannot tell if its fibro fog or a bipolar episode. I was assessed by consultants many years ago, they passed on the medication for all my illnesses, I no longer see consultants as my GP implants their meds etc. I only see a specialist when something new pops up, always related to one of my health issues. I am hoping that when I migrate they will accept that I'm never going to get better only worse. I assume and pray that this will be enough for my transition. And it would be a bonus if I were to get the yet to be passed new element
      I receive pip enhanced rate for both elements. So am hoping that they will consider both the qualifying PIP criteria and the ESA will help when I'm assessed for the migration.
      If you want to know the new proposed health conditions, just scroll down a little, as a person has posted them here
      Actually I forgot to mention that I'm in the support group with severe disability premium. When I transion i should qualify transitional protection. So if you can relate to any of my issues, I hope I've helped and made some sense . Hopefully I will also fulfil the criteria for the school. As I'm going to badly miss the severe disability premium £89 a week helps pay toward a lot of things that I'd have to without . As we know it's expensive having disabilities x
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @tintack Hopefully they will. I'm currently on esa with fibromyalgia,  osteoarthritis,  bipolar affective disorder. I live in constant pain. The pain increases whenever I do any activity, leaving me in agony and immobile, and have to have a friend to help , actually nag me to eat. I don't even wash, as at these times I don't even have that cross my mind. It has lead to my brain not telling me I need to eat, which involves me wetting/soiling myself. I then need someone to clean me as I cannot do it for myself. I get terrible memory loss, and cannot tell if its fibro fog or a bipolar episode.  I was assessed by consultants many years ago, they passed on the medication for all my illnesses, I no longer see consultants as my GP implants their meds etc. I only see a specialist when something new pops up, always related to one of my health issues. I am hoping that when I migrate they will accept that I'm never going to get better only worse. I assume and pray that this will be enough for my transition. And it would be a bonus if I were to get the yet to be passed new element
      I receive pip enhanced rate for both elements. So am hoping that they will consider both the qualifying PIP criteria and the ESA will help when I'm assessed for the migration. 
      If you want to know the new proposed health conditions,  just scroll down a little, as a person has posted them here 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    Neil Kinnocks speech on Thatcherism 

    7 June 1983 , Glamorgan, Wales

    If Margaret Thatcher is re-elected as prime minister on Thursday, I warn you.

    I warn you that you will have pain–when healing and relief depend upon payment.

    I warn you that you will have ignorance–when talents are untended and wits are wasted, when learning is a privilege and not a right.

    I warn you that you will have poverty–when pensions slip and benefits are whittled away by a government that won’t pay in an economy that can’t pay.

    I warn you that you will be cold–when fuel charges are used as a tax system that the rich don’t notice and the poor can’t afford.

    I warn you that you must not expect work–when many cannot spend, more will not be able to earn. When they don’t earn, they don’t spend. When they don’t spend, work dies.

    I warn you not to go into the streets alone after dark or into the streets in large crowds of protest in the light.

    I warn you that you will be quiet–when the curfew of fear and the gibbet of unemployment make you obedient.

    I warn you that you will have defence of a sort–with a risk and at a price that passes all understanding.

    I warn you that you will be home-bound–when fares and transport bills kill leisure and lock you up.

    I warn you that you will borrow less–when credit, loans, mortgages and easy payments are refused to people on your melting income.

    If Margaret Thatcher wins on Thursday–

    – I warn you not to be ordinary

    – I warn you not to be young

    – I warn you not to fall ill

    – I warn you not to get old.

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 4 hours ago
      @rookie I did. Labour was tough on benefits claimants in the middle/late 2000's I remember, in fact probably more so than later. I was left alone for many years under the Tories, not that they done that out of the kindness of their hearts, they just couldn't be bothered really and that suited me fine. Under Labour I was having face to face assessments every two years. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 hours ago
      @Andy @Andy The green paper welfare proposals were adapted from the Sunak goverment's. That's the irony in who'd have thought Kinnock's warning would have applied to a 'Labour' government?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 hours ago
      @James But Blair was 'New Labour' and Thatcher's 'greatest achievement'. The privatisation of social housing was promoted by Thatcher, making home ownership an asset and since putting the cost of housing at the root of poverty. Until that is addressed no tinkering with welfare will ever solve things. It will never keep pace with the 'value' of 'property' as a house is now called.

      Sadly, Starmer's party is proving not to be Labour, either, more Blue Labour.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 22 hours ago
      @Andy Kinnock was old labour and he certainly was not into supply side economics of Thatcherism and neo liberalism. Blair however admired Thatcher as do his followers who are in Labour now like Starmer and Reeves. Its this economic policies that we have followed by the future brats of Thatcher in both Conservatives and Labour are the problem now and that course must be changed!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 22 hours ago
      @MJ It was forecasted at that time that resulted in what it is now. The neo liberalism that Thatcherism brought in and the subsequent following of that By Blair and his followers as well as the followers in the Tory party has resulted in this process. This is not soap boxing this is what was predicted at the time when Thatcher bought into Frederic Von Hayek's economic ideas about market forces will correct things in economics. This process which was started then was going to redistribute wealth and create efficiencies but it failed in that and created 1% rich and the rest as poor and getting poorer still. Stagflation still is the curse then as it is now and the obviously redistribution of wealth has failed. The reason I brought it up is because this neo liberalism or Thatcherism as it is called has failed us as a nation for some 45 years and it is high time something different is thought of because we are back to stagflation and redistribution of wealth is still the issue only far more acute! 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    I'm really concerned about the Timms review, I hope someone puts forward an ammendment regarding the coordinating with disability groups parts as Timms certainly hasnt got a good track record previously! (Thinking about SLBs post re the FOA request)
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 11 hours ago
      @SLB
      The thing that most concerns me about the Timms review is which disability groups will take part in the "co-production" and who will decide that. Some disability charities are great, but I seem to recall in years gone by reading on here of instances in which particular charities completely failed to stand up for the people they were supposed to represent. We can't have a review which ends up being a stitch-up because the government has picked some spineless yes-men to rubber stamp what they always wanted to do anyway.

      The last thing we need is a "co-production" which screws us over because the groups taking part lacked the backbone to say no to Timms and walk away if necessary. What would make it even worse is that the government would then say "well the disability groups we worked with have signed off on this". That cannot be allowed to happen. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 22 hours ago
      @Pixelmum I don't think we can trust anyone at this stage.  I sent the FOA reply to Clive Lewis and landed up simply getting a routine "this is what I did" email, probably sent to hundreds of others and not relevant as to why I contacted him.  And he is meant to be one of the good guys.   But I think we have to be very concerned about the Timms report.  With the DWP admitting that not a single disability expert, organisation or charity was contacted before the Green paper with reference to the 4 point rule - and the way many disabled people were not able to attend or take part in consultation events for the green paper - I currently wouldn't trust Timms  as far as I could throw him.   The only way Labour will get trust back is to get Kendall and Timms out and replaced.  Perhaps we could even have a disabled person as disability minister?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    We need an amendment which removes the severe conditions criteria definition in the bill and replaces it with the current WCA severe group criteria exempt from reassessment. Which Is defined in this link.
    https://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2022-0860/137._Severe_Conditions_V3.0.pdf

    With the explanation being that the current definition in the bill does not do what the government said was its intent to protect more people with severe lifelong conditions who are never expected to work from UC reassessment. And does not do it the way the government in written answers said it was going to do it use the existing UC severe conditions criteria group eligibility rules. As the definition in the bill is narrower than the one already in use. As the bill as written excludes those who for life section 9 LCWRA substantial risk applies, and require section 7 descriptors apply continuously. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    This link that James posted in the last thread is so important for mps to be alerted to, in future if not in connection with the Universal Credit Bill in progress.

    The insidious benefit cap could impact many more claimants on all sorts of benefits. Abolishing the two child element of uc, for example, will not make families better off if the child element remains subject to the benefit cap.

    Every millimetre of every welfare reform must be scrutinised. Government and mps are ignorant of the complexities of the welfare system

    https://speyejoe2.wordpress.com/2025/07/04/ucpip-bill-and-1000-per-month-cuts-to-housing-benefit/
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @sara A holistic approach to reform is needed with all the knock on issues that the benefit system has created which ultimately does more harm then good. When labour say they are committed to eradicating child poverty then they must look at all the issues that will impact that. The same is true of many passported benefits which instead of helping does just the opposite. Due the fact the whole system is based on sticky plaster approach and driven by some of our politicians who do not see the welfare of poor people as a important issue, and talk about how they are helping people by offering "tough love" so that somehow the problems of poverty will be erased is wholly wrong. 
      MPs and others need to look at society in a much broader context. With children it has to be seen as taking care properly instead of making their formative years as difficult as possible. By giving opportunities you will create tomorrows workers and thereby tax payers who will contribute for their children's future.
      In much the same manner treating people with variable conditions as if they are fit to work will only cause on outcome - they will end up being sicker and a greater burden on the state in the long run because of this approach of tough love. Instead of assisting everything has become designed to do just the opposite and this will never create conditions where disabled and sick will want to do more and may over come their issues because of a helping hand upwards and not a kick downwards!
      Pensioners too do not get the basic minimum wage, in fact they get half of that and this too must be addressed. Many will  end up become homeless as they will  not get pension credit or housing benefit if they are just above the threshold set for them to be eligible thereby putting a much greater burden on them and may even make them homeless.
      Is this the type of society we really want ? Where help is so rationed that it will cause more poverty and despair? or a society that encourages every individual to become better and a contributing member of society without the coercions.
      This is not the civilised behaviour of what the country should be aspiring to and if anything it needs to go back to the values of the past which will bring out the best rather then the worst in society!
      The whole of the benefit system must be looked in a much wider context with all the hidden traps and problems that are created as pitfalls and not stepping stones to a way of a better and less harmful society we all want!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    I like the “More reports” clause best.

    The Bill as it stands - cutting LCWRA UC payments of future claimants by 25%, in a cost of living crisis, seems outrageous.

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 13 hours ago
      @Neil Cook My understanding is that it’s half of the LCWRA top up - which reduces the overall amount by 25%?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @HL Isn't the reduced amount half of the original and not just by a quarter?

Free PIP, ESA & UC Updates!

Delivered Fortnightly

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

 
iContact