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.
    · 1 days ago
    Terry Jeremy MP labour South West Norfolk is giving a powerful speech from a position of his own family lived experiences of the welfare system and NHS.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    I watched all of 30 seconds of it. A Tory saying that welfare was too generous and that he had a constituent who wondered why he bothered working. I couldn't believe it. Why bother turning up for a debate to spit out an old Tory trope from about 40 years ago ?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 22 hours ago
      @phil Anecdotal evidence like this uses one case to tar and feather everyone. They do this not only with disability and sickness benefits and also human rights issues when one case is used against the whole idea of human rights itself specially when the government looses such as case in a court of law! It is disgusting and very childish way of argument against something 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    DWP minister for disability Timms has also said the bill UC severe criteria is identical to the current UC severe criteria. He does not understand that the current UC severe criteria of will always meet LCWRA eligibility just requires LCWRA descriptors apply most of the time, and is not the same as will constantly meet an LCWRA descriptor all the time. He also appears oblivious to the current UC severe criteria applying to schedule 9 substantial risk in addition to schedule 7 descriptors, and the bill only covering schedule 7 descriptors. And the MP he intervene likewise does not understand the benefits system, and thanked him for explaining it and reassuring people. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 22 hours ago
      @John
      "Timms has intervened on the issue twice so far during this debate. In his first intervention he said the bill's definition of severe conditions criteria is identical to the one currently used. It is not. In his second intervention you saw he goes on about safely, repeatedly, reliable. But thinks this has to constantly apply in the current definition, it does not, it just has to apply most days."

      Ah, I didn't see that first bit. And if anything it just makes it even worse. Wasn't he shadow minister for disabled people in opposition? If so, that means he's not new to this and has had plenty of time to grasp the detail of his brief. He clearly hasn't come close to doing so. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 22 hours ago
      @John
      "Timms thinks the current criteria is the LCWRA individual descriptor constantly (all the time, every day) applies that is always being unable to do the task safely, repeatedly, reliably."

      From the way he worded his answer, he implied that he believed that being able to do something, even if only for a minority of the time, wouldn't disqualify a claimant from the severe conditions group as long as they couldn't repeat the activity safely and reliably. That appears to be clearly contradicted by the bill stating that "constantly" means "all the time" or "every time the claimant undertakes the activity". 

      Whether that is actually what he thinks I don't know, and it's very hard to know what TImms himself thinks given how confused (and frequently badly worded) his statements are. Given his apparent lack of understanding of the current system I'm not convinced he knows himself what he believes.

      However, whatever he believes, there needs to be some urgent clarification. Kirsty Blackman certainly took his statement to be clearly at odds with the wording of the bill. She also took an intervention from a Labour MP who asked her if she welcomed the Timms review when she was actually talking about the UC health rate cut, at which point she had to point out to this MP that the Timms review was concerned with PIP and had nothing to do with that cut. So Timms is certainly not the only Labour MP who doesn't understand the system. Even Marie Tidball welcomed the impact assessment claimng that as a result of last week's concessions 50,000 fewer people would be in poverty, despite this being the result of including 150,000 people being supposedly "pulled out of poverty" by reversing the previous government's WCA changes, which never actually happened in the first place. When even a disabled MP can be conned like that the situation is grim indeed.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 23 hours ago
      @tintack Timms has intervened on the issue twice so far during this debate. In his first intervention he said the bill's definition of severe conditions criteria is identical to the one currently used. It is not. In his second intervention you saw he goes on about safely, repeatedly, reliable. But thinks this has to constantly apply in the current definition, it does not, it just has to apply most days.

      And earlier he made an erroneous statement about how UC health/LCWRA works with fluctuating conditions where people have periods where they are well for months to over a year.

      He does not understand the severe conditions criteria designed to protect claimants, and he does not understand the existing claimants criteria designed to protect claimants.

      It is staggering that he is the Minister for Disability in large part due to his supposed expertise having been on the DWP select committee for years. And that his expertise is being relied upon to write the legislation and give facts to MPs in the Commons, in Committee meetings, in written answers to MPs. And he is going to be relied upon to do the PIP review and change the PIP assessment system.

      If we had knowledgeable competent MPs they would be saying no your wrong, will you correct the record or amend the bill and making it obvious he is not the expert MPs think he is.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 23 hours ago
      @tintack Timms thinks the current criteria is the LCWRA individual descriptor constantly (all the time, every day) applies that is always being unable to do the task safely, repeatedly, reliably.

      When it is actually LCWRA eligibility constantly applies which means they will always be eligible for LCWRA. LCWRA eligibility just requires the descriptor applies most of the time (most days) being unable to do the task safely, repeatedly, reliably.

      Timms also appears oblivious to people who are always going to be eligible for LCWRA due to schedule 9 substantial risk being currently eligible for the severe conditions criteria. But not eligible in the bill as the bill only gives eligibility for schedule 7 descriptors. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 23 hours ago
      @John
      The bit I saw was Timms responding to Kirsty Blackman. He said that the question an assessor would have to ask is, can you do x,y,z safely, repeatedly and reliably. If the answer is no then even if you can do it at one particular time, or your condition doesn't affect you in the way laid out by the descriptor every single time, then the descriptor would still apply. His implication was that this would be enough to qualify for the severe conditions group, i.e. fluctuating conditions would still qualify even under the current definition of "constantly"as laid out in the bill.

      I think there is going to have to be some detailed clarification over this, because as things stand the wording of the bill and Timms' statement at the dispatch box clearly do not match.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    According to the DWP Minister for disability and major architect of the bill Timms someone whose health improves can carry on receiving UC health LCWRA so when their health deteriorates they are still an existing claimant. He does not understand how the benefits system works. Nor does the MP responding to his intervention. If your health improves to the point you would no longer be eligible for a benefit and you fail to notify the DWP of that relevant change you would be committing benefit fraud. You cannot carry on claiming on the basis that you think/know that sometime in the future in many months to over a years time you will again meet the eligibility criteria. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    Debate? What debate, there is no debate, this bill is already passed, they have circumvented the so called rebelion, rearranged the so called concessions to do exactly what they planned in the first place and they win, they always do and we the delusional victimised minority are the losers. 

    This is just the beginning of the end of financial support for disabled and especially mentally ill people. Democracy and the house of commons is a play house, the script is written and they play their parts to their conclusion. The idea we have any say or control is delusional thinking and as they government would say during World War 1, if you believe the war is mad you're mad. We are all mad for believing we live in a democracy and have any say over our pitiful lives that are about to come crashing down even further than before. I for one will not be around to see it as without this help ill be homeless and i'd rather be dead.  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 hours ago
      @kevin I feel the same. I despair. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 22 hours ago
      @kevin Don’t be so despondent. And please don’t say that. You have a great purpose and Jesus loves you. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 1 days ago
    Does anyone know what time the debate starts? I would like to watch it.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Slb :)
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @FloMcF 504 on Sky
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @FloMcF Thanks 👍
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Cuckoo21 It's on all afternoon.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 1 days ago
      @Cuckoo21 House of Commons

      Wednesday 9 July 2025 Meeting started at 11.33am

      You can watch the debate live on parliament tv here.  Not sure if the link will work, but it’s the 3rd paragraph down. 
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.