The Universal Credit Bill becomes law. Here are the changes to disability benefits you need to know


THIS IS A LINK TO THE REPORT, PUBLISHED TODAY, 29TH JULY, BY THE WORK AND PENSIONS COMMITTEE, REGARDING THE PATHWAYS TO WORK GREEN PAPER:

Get Britain Working: Pathways to work

The Report above was attached to the following email I received from the Work and Pensions committee on 28th July:

From: Work And Pensions Committee <WORKPENCOM@parliament .uk>
Sent: 28 July 2025
Subject: EMBARGOED: Concerns new UC health claimants could face poverty

House of Commons    

Work and Pensions Committee

Concerns new UC health claimants could face poverty

A new report from the Work and Pensions Committee has raised concerns that planned cuts to the health component of Universal Credit (UC health) will push disabled people into poverty despite the above inflation rise in the UC standard allowance.

In its Pathways to Work report, the Committee repeated calls to delay planned cuts in UC health reform until the full impact of the changes are better understood. The Committee wrote to the Secretary of State in May calling for a pause of the planned reforms to UC health and Personal Independence Payments (PIP) and called for PIP policy to be co-produced with disabled people.

The Government subsequently dropped all the PIP proposals and agreed to co-produce a new PIP assessment process with disabled people and their organisations in a review led by Sir Stephen Timms.

However, under the planned reforms to UC health, from April 2026 although all existing claimants and new claimants with severe or terminal conditions will be protected, other claimants assessed as having limited capability for work and work-related activity will see their awards halved from £423.27 to £217.26.

This is part of the Government’s drive to get more people off welfare and into work, as described in their Pathways to Work Green Paper.

Although the intent to safeguard these people was welcomed, MPs on the Committee raised concerns that some conditions, particularly serious mental health conditions, might not be included under the severe condition criteria; this also applies to people with fluctuating conditions. The Committee also asked the Secretary of State why an assessment of safeguarding risks had not been conducted before the Green Paper was published.

Committee Chair Debbie Abrahams said, “We welcome the concessions that the Government made to the UC and PIP Bill (now the UC Bill); but there are still issues with these welfare reforms not least with the cut in financial support that newly sick and disabled people will receive.”

“The Government’s own analysis published in March indicates that from next April approximately 50,000 people who develop a health condition or become disabled – and those who live with them - will enter poverty by 2030 as a result of the reduction in support of the UC health premium.”

“We recommend delaying the cuts to the UC-health premium, especially given that other policies that such as additional NHS capacity, or employment support, or changes in the labour market to support people to stay in work, have yet to materialise.”

“We agree in a reformed and sustainable welfare system, but we must ensure that the wellbeing of those who come into contact with it is protected. The lesson learned from last month should be that the impact of policy changes to health-related benefits must be assessed prior to policy changes being implemented to avoid potential risks to claimants.”

ENDS

Notes to editors:

• The Universal Credit standard allowance is the minimum level of support received by people out of work. For those in work, and below this level, the standard allowance will top-up income to reach it. The minimum monthly levels for singles are £316.98 for under 25s and £400.14 for over 25s, and for couples under 25 £497.55 and £628.10 for over 25s.
• Non-pensioner health-related benefits spending has jumped £20bn since the pandemic.
• UC health as an incapacity benefit paid to people with conditions that limit their ability to work. There are others, including Employment Support Allowance. In total 3.3 million people now receive an incapacity benefit.
• Current spending on incapacity benefits as a % of GDP is currently significantly lower than its 1990s peak (1.3%).
• When published, the full report will appear on the inquiry website on the following link: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5901/cmselect/cmworpen/837/report.html

Committee Membership: Debbie Abrahams MP (Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour) is Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, a full list of Members can be found here.

You can follow the Committee on X (formerly Twitter) using @CommonsWorkPen  , and visit the Committee’s website.

You can also find the House of Commons Committees on Instagram at @UKCommonsCommittees  .  

Visit parliamentlive.tv to watch committees and parliamentary debates online   

Publications, Reports, Library research and much more can be found at www.parliament.uk

For information about how the House of Commons uses your personal data please see our privacy notices: www.parliament.uk/site-information/data-protection. Your data will be held until you let us know that you wish to unsubscribe.   

House of Commons | Palace of Westminster | London SW1A 0AA | + 44 (0)20 7219 8582 | Text relay: 18001 020 7219 8582

Works and Pensions Committee ;Website| Follow the Committee on: X @commonsworkpen   |parliament.uk

The House of Commons welcomes feedback. If you have any compliments, complaints or comments about the service that you have received please send an email to feedback@parliament .uk

UK Parliament Disclaimer: this e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. This e-mail address is not secure, is not encrypted and should not be used for sensitive data.

THIS is the evidence submitted to the Work and Pensions Committee by the ME (myalgic encephalomyelitis) association.

My housing association advisor is going through it with me, I hope she can direct me

could you please copy and paste some of what the article says, i can’t view properly because im not a member. Thankyou.

If anyone is using a computer it can be read by pressing the 'Print Screen' button before the 'To continue' banner comes up and stops you from reading, and then reading the screenshot you've saved, then you just refresh the page, scroll down to where you were, and press the Print Screen button again, etc.

Here's the screenshots that I've taken:

If can type on here like you have nothing to worry about. . No app it's government website on browser

how credible is the article? Is it set in stone? Or hear say? Has anything else been said to back it up?

It feels to me like it's the Torygraph taking a swipe at Starmer and his cabinet, implying that the select committee's intervention ultimately carries more weight and authority regarding the cuts than the government does. How true that is I couldn't say, but perhaps the writer of that opinion piece knows how these things work in practice. Or maybe they're just being dramatic 🙄

From the Benefits and Work site

No genuine co-production for Timms review

 Published: 04 August 2025

The promised genuine co-production of the Timms personal independence payment (PIP) review already seems to have been ruled out by disability minister Stephen Timms. Timms gave more details of the process in an interview with the BBC last week covering both the PIP review and the forthcoming white paper.

PIP review

It already seems clear that any possibility of genuine co-production of the Timms review with disabled people has been dropped.

Timms told the BBC that his idea of “co-production” is that:  “we are going to be taking a lead from disabled people and representatives of disabled people in this work over the next year or so. And what we’re actually doing over the summer we’re going to be planning in detail how that process will be taken forward. What I envisage is there will be a fairly small group of ten people, something like that, who will work very closely with me as the minister for the period of this review, and they will have a lot of say and a lot of sway over the form that the recommendations emerge in.”

This, however, is a very long way from the amendment to the Universal Credit Bill proposed but subsequently withdrawn by MP Dr Marie Tidball MP, following assurances from Timms in the committee of the full house debate.  

At column 1045 Timms called the amendment “a helpful checklist of the desirable features of our co-produced review”.

However, there is no indication that Timms intends to follow most of the items on that checklist, including:

The Secretary of State must establish a Disability Co-Production Taskforce (“the Taskforce”) to provide independent oversight of the conduct of the review and the preparation of the final report . . .

The Taskforce must—

(a)be provided with support by the Government Equalities Office,

(b)be chaired by an independent person appointed by the Secretary of State,

(c)have a majority of members who are disabled people or representatives of disabled people’s organisations; and

(d)include such other persons or representatives of such organisations as the chair considers relevant to the effects of the review and proposals developed for the purposes of subsection (3)(a) on disabled people.

Timms cannot in any way be considered to be an “independent person”.  He is a government minister who fought hard to remove the PIP daily living allowance from hundreds of thousands of current and future claimants.  He should not be chairing the taskforce, even if he is in charge of the review.

Yet Timms already seems to have decided that “the taskforce” will consist of just 10 people and it seems clear that he will make the final decision on who is on that taskforce, rather than those decisions being made by an independent chair.

When asked who was going to be on the taskforce, Timms replied “Well, we haven’t yet worked out who it’s going to be… I’m going to be talking to disability organisations, I mean, I do talk regularly to them of course, but I’ll be talking specifically about this point so that we can set out in the detail both the process and how it’s going to work.”

There is also a lack of clarity about one of the primary aims of the review:  is it a cost-cutting exercise?

Timms told the BBC:  “The review exercise that we’re undertaking is not designed to deliver spending cuts. I mean, we will certainly have to operate within the current projections for what spending is going to be. . . This review is not intended to deliver cuts. I think it’s quite important that that is well understood because I don’t think some of the people who we need to be involved in the review would be if they thought that that’s what it was for.”

Yet, in her welfare reform speech on 21 May 2025, secretary of state Liz Kendall told MPs that:

“And the number of people on Personal Independence Payments is set to more than double to 4.3 million.

There are now 1,000 new PIP awards every single day. That’s the equivalent of adding a city the size of Leicester every single year.

This is not sustainable or fair – for the people who need support and for taxpayers.

So unless we reform the system to help those who can work to do so…

Unless we get social security spending on a more sustainable footing…

And unless we ensure public money is focused on those with the greatest need and is spent in ways that have the best chance of improving people’s lives…

…the risk is the welfare state won’t be there for people who really need it in future.”

So, are the current projections that the PIP review will have to operate within,  the ones that Liz Kendall says are “not sustainable” and, if so, what is the likelihood of Liz Kendall implementing the recommendations of the review? 

Or are they the projections which take account of Labour’s original intention to cut £5 billion from the overall welfare benefits budget by 2030?

Whatever the reality, it is clear that the Timms review will be a carefully managed consultation and in no way a co-production in which disabled people have a clear say in what changes the government actually implements.

Five other committees

Timms revealed that five other committees have already begun work.  These cover:

• Pathways to Work
• Right to Try
• Access to Work
• Raising the age at which people can claim PIP to 18
• Delaying access to the UC health element until age 22

There are approximately 10 people on each committee, all of whom are currently operating under a cloak of anonymity.  They have all met once and will meet every month for two or three hours until October, when their recommendations will be presented to ministers and “will be very influential in the final decisions that get made.”

This means that each committee will have met a maximum of four times for a combined total of between 8 and 12 hours, before making recommendations that will affect the future of potentially millions of claimants.

No committees

There did not appear to be any mention of a committee to discuss the proposed new Unemployment Insurance contributory benefit, which was consulted on in the Pathways to Work Green Paper.

Nor was there any mention of a committee to consider the scrapping of the WCA, which was set out in the Green Paper, but on which there were no consultation questions.  Timms has said, however, in his PIP review terms of reference that “We will be setting out plans for how access to the health element of UC will work when the WCA is removed as part of the forthcoming White Paper.”

No confidence

It is hard to take an optimistic view of the consultation processes taking place. 

The fact that existing committees are operating anonymously, without any public information about their terms of reference or procedures, does not encourage confidence.  Clearly individuals may not wish to be identified, but there seems no reason why organisations should not be.

And the lack of any real element of co-production in relation to the Timms review suggests that it will be little more than a cover for whatever it is that the DWP plan to do anyway.

You can listen to the BBC programme Access All here.

https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/no-genuine-co-production-for-timms-review