Green Paper Related Discussions

Catherine, I'm not sure there was an actual meeting. Based on the letter from Debbie Abrahams to Liz Kendall on 21 May 2025, it appears that Liz had until 2 June 2025 to respond to the committee in writing, so I don’t believe it was an in-person session. Her response will be published once it is received.

I’ve copied and pasted the link below. When you open it, click on: Correspondence with the Secretary of State, relating to the Pathways to Work Green Paper the entry dated 21 May 2025, as that’s the most recent correspondence. The links are not listed in date order.

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/164/work-and-pensions-committee/publications/

@Catherine21 I could not get the link to work so copied the letter at the end you will see Liz had until 02 June 2025 to respond.

Rt Hon Liz Kendall MP

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Department for Work and Pensions

(By e-mail only)

Dear Liz,

Pathways to Work Green Paper

As you might be aware, my Committee is conducting an inquiry into the Pathways to Work Green Paper. We have taken oral evidence from a range of stakeholders, including disabled people’s organisations, disability charities, and academics, and received written evidence from other organisations. While we plan to publish our report in due course, we are writing now to set out key findings and recommendations in respect of two significant reforms—changes to eligibility for the daily living component of the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and the rebalancing of Universal Credit (UC) rates—because these are to be legislated for very soon.

In summary, we strongly support the Government’s ambition to reform the social security system, including incapacity and disability benefits. We also recognise the financial challenges the Government faces and the desire to reduce spending on health-related benefits, particularly by supporting more disabled people into work. However, we have concerns about potential unintended consequences of the proposed legislative changes, the sequencing of reforms, and the lack of a full impact assessment.

In light of these concerns, we ask the Government to delay any changes to PIP eligibility until it has completed its review of the PIP assessment. We also ask the Government to delay changes to UC rates, as evidence indicates these may not improve employment outcomes for most claimants, but instead risk pushing many into poverty and further away from the labour market.

Changes to PIP Eligibility and UC Rates

The Government will shortly legislate to require a PIP claimant to score at least four points in at least one activity of the daily living component to qualify for that component. It will also rebalance UC rates by freezing UC health support for existing claimants and almost halving it for new claimants from April 2026. In addition, the standard allowance will increase by £7 a month. For those receiving the reduced UC health rate after April 2026 who have the most severe, lifelong health conditions, the Government is proposing an additional premium and a guarantee that they will never be reassessed.

However, it is unclear when legislation for the additional premium will be introduced, and the Green Paper provides no detail on how eligibility for this premium will be determined. These changes are the first to be implemented from a broader package of proposals.

The Case for Reform

The Government justifies these changes by stating that spending on health-related benefits is financially unsustainable, noting a £20 billion increase since the pandemic and a projected further £18 billion rise by the end of the Parliament. It also highlights that the number of working-age individuals receiving health-related benefits has increased at twice the rate of disability prevalence.

While this concern is valid, evidence we received suggests the cost of working-age welfare should be viewed as a whole (including both health and non-health-related spending) and as a proportion of GDP. Measured this way, current spending levels are roughly the same as in 2007. Though spending on health-related benefits has increased by 0.9 percentage points since 2007-08, this has been offset by a 0.8 percentage point reduction in other areas, such as child and working-age adult support. The Green Paper acknowledges this.

The rise in working-age health-related spending can also be partially explained by prior benefit cuts, including the post-2015 benefits freeze, the benefit cap, and the two-child limit—measures that have increasingly affected more people over time.

The Government claims that changes to UC rates will promote work, reduce perverse incentives, and improve basic adequacy. In particular, it refers to issues in the incapacity benefit system that have incentivised people to claim higher support, such as the removal of the LCW payment in 2017 and the real-terms reduction in the UC standard allowance. These changes have significantly increased the value of support for claimants found to have limited capability for work and work-related activity (LCWRA). This point is supported by the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Lords Economic Affairs Committee. We are inclined to agree that the current benefit design likely creates incentives for some to seek LCWRA status.

However, other factors may also be driving the increase in claims, including worsening physical and mental health, growing financial insecurity among disabled people, and exclusion from the labour market, exacerbated by the rising state pension age. If these are indeed key drivers, the legislative changes may not boost employment as hoped, but instead deepen poverty, worsen health outcomes—especially in more deprived areas—and move people further from the labour market, as previous reforms have shown.

Timing of the Changes

We believe the Government understands the complex relationship between work and health and the underlying drivers of health-related welfare spending. This is reflected in the Get Britain Working White Paper and much of the Pathways to Work Green Paper. However, we are not convinced that the Government should proceed with changes to PIP eligibility and UC rates before other measures in the Green Paper—such as the review of the PIP assessment—are implemented, or before more detail is provided about critical proposals like the additional premium.

It is also problematic that MPs are expected to vote on these changes without a full impact assessment. The version released with the Green Paper, as well as the OBR’s costings, excluded the impact of many of the reforms, including the abolition of the Work Capability Assessment and increased investment in employment support.

Conclusions and Recommendations

We ask the Government to delay changes to PIP eligibility and UC rates, extend and expand the current consultation, and co-produce measures with disabled people and their organisations—reflecting the Government’s stated commitment to “nothing about me, without me.” We strongly recommend a precautionary approach, and that the Government immediately commission an independent, comprehensive analysis of the impact of the proposed UC health support reductions on employment, poverty, and health outcomes.

We also urge the Government to delay its plans to amend the PIP daily living component eligibility criteria, and instead engage with disabled people and their organisations to co-produce any changes as part of the ongoing PIP review. It is essential that those who genuinely need PIP do not lose support. Once new proposals are developed, they should be published and opened to proper consultation.

I would be grateful for your response to these conclusions and recommendations by Monday 2 June 2025. As is standard practice for Committee correspondence, I will be publishing this letter and your response on the Committee’s website.

Yours sincerely,

Debbie Abrahams MP

Chair, Work and Pensions Committee