The third reading of the Universal Credit and Personal Independent Payment Bill has started.

MPs will be debating and voting on large number of proposed amendments before the vote on the whole bill, which is expected to be at around 7.00pm

You can watch the debate live on parliament tv here.

We won’t be giving a blow-by-blow account of the various debates and votes, but you are welcome to comment on proceedings below the line.

There is a very detailed guide to today’s proceedings, including which amendments will be voted on available on the parliament website.

Other documents relating to the bill are on this page

 This is the final list of amendments, running to 34 pages.


The government was not defeated at any point in the voting.  However, they did give a large number of concessions in relation to New Claus 11, moved by Dr Marie Tidball, relating to co-production of the Timms review.  As a result Dr Tidball withdrew her amendment.

At 17.50 onwards, Timms called the amendment "a helpful checklist" and said that the government would "closely consult with and actively involve persons with disabilities in carrying out the review."

He also said "I accept the proposal in section 4 of her new clause for a group to co-produce the review. Not so much to provide independent oversight as to lead and deliver it . . . I agree with her that the majority of group member need to be disabled people or representatives of disabled people's organisations and that they need to be provided with adequate support, including towards their cost of travel and taking part. . .  The outcome of the review will be central to the legislation that follows"


47 Labour MPs voted against the bill at third reading, 333 Labour MPs voted in favour, along with 3 independents.  This compares with the second reading, where 49 Labour MPs voted against.  The second reading had a majority of 75, so there has been a slight increase at third reading.


The bill has passed its third reading by 336 votes to 242.  Labour currently has 403 MPs, and a majority of 165 but this vote passed with a majority of just 84.


The question that clause 5 stand part of the bill was asked and the Noes had it without a vote.  Clause 5 was the PIP 4-point rule, so it is now officially no longer part of the legislation: there is not going to be a 4-point rule in the final bill.


After a short delay, votes on the amendments are available here.

So far, the government are very easily winning the votes. 

For example, the first amendment debated, a Green party amendment that would have increased the UC standard allowance by 4.8% every year from 2026 to 2030 had 35 votes in favour, 469 against.

A LibDem amendment that would prevent most of the Bill coming into force until a range of reports and consultations had been completed had 105 votes in favour and 370 against.


17.59 parliament tv  Stephen Timms, DWP disability minister on the severe conditions criteria:

"The severe conditions criteria in the bill exactly reflects how the functional tests are applied at present.  That is in guidance. It’s being moved in this bill into legislation.  It does take account of Parkinson’s.  It does take account of MS.  Because people need to meet the descriptors reliably, safely, repeatedly and in a reasonable time frame.  And so I can give a very firm assurance to those who are concerned about how the severe conditions criteria will work for those on fluctuating conditions.

"The word constantly here refers, as I said in my intervention earlier, to the functional criteria needing to apply at all times, not to somebody’s symptoms."

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
    I am angry and frustrated. The propaganda machine has done a good job of making us all feel like criminals for being sick or disabled. It’s not clear what happens next.

    This will cause so much harm and suffering for no reason other than to keep the public happy. It’s true some do commit fraud especially with the cars
    But that’s a minority of people. Some can and would like to work with the sympathetic support but we are all called lazy. 

    Good luck to you all




  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 5 hours ago
    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/millions-of-households-to-be-given-income-boost-as-bill-progresses-through-parliament

    Government issues statement, “Nearly 4 million households will see an annual income boost estimated to be worth £725 cash as a Bill to overhaul the welfare system completes the next stage of its passage through Parliament.”
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 6 hours ago
    😫 What just happened?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 7 hours ago
    Thankyou to everyone at BenefitsandWork for your tireless efforts to keep us informed.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 12 hours ago
    If the Speaker certifies the UC Bill as a money Bill we must Appeal against that decision
    so that the Severe Conditions Criteria can be debated in the Lords especially the Unambiguous diagnoses Clause. Unambiguous means Crystal Clear but the NHS cannot always afford it.
    SWAN UK say there are a few thousand born every year with unlocated mutations
    This Bill will create a Catch 22 situations for thousands of Genetically Disabled people with Unlocated mutations because the NHS has spending limits on looking for mutatioins forcing disabled people to have continuous reassessments until they die. If you meet the Severe conditions criteria the assessments stop but if the NHS cannot afford to produce a Crystal Clear Diagnoses then the reassessments continue indefinatly  
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 12 hours ago
    Has UC Bill  been certified as a Money Bill when its dealing with Human Rights
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 hours ago
    The NHS cannot always afford a Crystal Clear Diagnoses so how on earth can they make LaW which insists upon an Unambiguous Diaganoses forcing disabled people to be repeatedly frogmarched to Reassessment centres The Lords must debate this    
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 13 hours ago
    It's not a money bill as it deals with Human rights Severe conditions criteria insisting upon a Crystal clear diagnoses when there 1000's of Geneticaly Disabled people with Unlocated mutations
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 14 hours ago
    Can anyone explain why the House did not consider Amendment 17?  This was about including those claimants who suffer with fluctuating conditions.

    https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3988/stages/20048/amendments/10024964 states: This amendment would ensure that whether a person has a fluctuating condition such as Parkinson’s or multiple sclerosis is a factor in assessing whether the person qualifies as a severe conditions criteria claimant.

    What does this mean?

  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 14 hours ago
    Watching BBC parliament TV channel to me is useless. It causes more confusion and stress. I will await an update from other members on the forum who are more intelligent than me or the knowledgeable wonderful team at b&w. Otherwise I just end up more stressed. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 15 hours ago
    Is this result good for existing claimant's?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 16 hours ago
    I find all the amendments thoroughly confusing. Is there anywhere I can see a complete copy of the bill as it stands after all the amendments.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 16 hours ago
    Are the existing claimaints of LCWRA and PIP safeguard with full protected? I need to know please!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 minutes ago
      @Snuggles Sorry for the Timms review planned changes to PIP I wrote Autumn 2028 when I should have written Autumn 2026
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 minutes ago
      @Snuggles That is the government's current plan. That the Timms review changes to the PIP assessment system expected sometime in or after Autumn 2028 will only apply to new claimants. With existing claimants remaining on the current, old system for all their future reassessments.

      It is possible that plan will change but very unlikely. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 hours ago
      @John So does this mean existing pip claims won't be affected by the review changes only new?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 2 hours ago
      @John So existing pip claiments won't be affected by changes in the pip review? Is that what you are saying John? I read in one of the papers that's it was just new claims
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 3 hours ago
      @John So is that true John? That's what it says in the guardian that the review for pip the changes will only affect new claims?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 16 hours ago
    This just popped in my news alert!
    Headline: The proof that benefits pay more than a full-time job


    I did not read the full article but this paragraph bought my eye:

    “The CSJ also found that a jobless single parent claiming for anxiety and for a child with ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) would receive nearly £37,000 a year – £14,000 more than a worker on the national minimum wage.”
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 5 hours ago
      @Lost and worried It's an active media campaign to make working people hate us, and support the government's drastic cuts. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 11 hours ago
      @Lost and worried The beauty of the Daily Mail.  nuanced?  No.  Balanced?  No.  Truthful?  probably not.  Designed to create prejudice and division?  Of course.  No mention here that being disabled costs £1000 more a month than not being disabled. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 14 hours ago
      @Lost and worried Presumably the single mum with anxiety gets enhanced rate PIP daily living and enhanced rate PIP mobility and UC LCWRA and legacy UC SDP and Carer's element and housing element for a two bed home in a very expensive local authority area, and 100% council tax reduction and for her child that has ADHD high rate DLA care and high rate DLA mobility and UC high rate disabled child and UC for child care costs.

      So your typical disability/incapacity claimant household according to the media. Not one of the 75% of households on UC health in material deprivation that the clueless radical left-wing rebel MPs mention. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 14 hours ago
      @Lost and worried How did I know that link was going to send me to The Torygraph? 🙄
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 hours ago
      @Lost and worried The "trick" there is the disabled child, the disabled child would exist whther the parent were working or not. It's just smoke and mirrors.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 17 hours ago
    If I may ask after today's votes does a new pip claim still need to get the 4 point rule on top of the required points they need to qualify. Or is the 4 point rule gone now for everyone.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 6 hours ago
      @SimonC Until the Timms review, which is a great unknown. Unlikely he would dare include current claimants in any adverse decisions. We can only hope the pledge to include disability representatives in the process is genuine.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 hours ago
      @Charles Gone for everyone. They will decide the rules in the autumn after the Timms review
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 hours ago
      @Charles That’s to do with PIP not universal credit 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 hours ago
      @Charles It's gone for everyone - unless brought back after the Timms review, which seems unlikely as no disability group was consulted on it.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 16 hours ago
      @Charles Gone for everyone.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 17 hours ago
    So the cuts to UC have past? Does this Bill include the plan to scrap CB New Style ESA?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 3 hours ago
      @Anniesmum Yes they have not decided what will happen yet.

      We have had the Pathways to Work green paper that sets out their plan to consult on abolishing contributions based ESA/New style ESA.
      That consultation has now ended. And we are awaiting the publication of the Pathways to Work white paper which will set out what the government intends to go forward with.
      After the white paper is published we can expect legislation to be brought forward. That will require debate and vote in parliament.

      Even if they go through with their plan of abolishing contributions based ESA/New style ESA in 2028/29. We do not know what they will do about existing claimants. If it will be abolished for them, or if it will be retained as a legacy benefit for them.   
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 4 hours ago
      @John Sorry, do you mean they haven’t decided what will happen to people on LCWRA contributions ESA yet? So they still need to vote on it? 
      I’m so so confused with everything, 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 7 hours ago
      @Rik I claim NS ESA. 

      And having the sword of Damocles hanging over my head means I cannot make big decisions, like house buying, until I know what is going to happen.

      We seem to be worthy of special lengthier torture, in the eyes of these incompetent *********, as we wont know for a number of years yet.....

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 14 hours ago
      @Rik The cuts to UC health element/LCWRA for new claimants from April 2026 have past. Existing UC health element/LCWRA claimants are not affected.

      Abolishing Contributions Based ESA / New Style ESA in 2028 were not in this bill. That was in the pathways to work green paper and is expected to be in white paper later this year and in a bill latter this year or next year.  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 15 hours ago
      @Rik I think we'll hear later on in the year Rik.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 17 hours ago
    Will the bill go to the Lords?