Many thanks to everyone who has contacted me concerning the government’s Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill.
I would like to set out the background to the bill, the original proposals and why I felt unable to support them, the changes we were able to persuade government to make and why it was ultimately supported and what will happen next.
The context
Every country in Western Europe saw an increase in their welfare bill during and immediately after COVID, however whilst most other nations then saw their bill reduce in subsequent years, in the UK, the numbers claiming Personal Independence payments and other benefits continued to be stubbornly high.
The number receiving non work-related ESA or Universal Credit is up 54% since 2019, with PIP numbers up 30%. Currently, 23% of the working age population is in receipt of some sort of benefits and approval rates for PIP have gone up from around 40% of claims before COVID to 80% now.
Put in context, PIP cost the UK c. £12 Billion in 2019, £21.7 Billion last year and is expected to increase further to £32 Billion by 2029. Unsurprisingly, government are keen to reduce the amount being spent, and do more to help people with disabilities into work.
Currently those receiving Universal Credit due to unemployment will receive £316.98 per month (if under 25) or £400.14 if over 25. If they are deemed not fit to work they can receive a payment which is as much again (£416.19) on top. The government believe that paying people more if they are unfit for work than if they are simply unemployed is a disincentive for people to try and find work, as is the fact that when disabled people come off benefits to try employment, they a) lose money and b) have to go through a lengthy re-application process to get back on to benefits if they find themselves unable to work.
People with unchanging conditions are often called to be re-assessed which can be stressful when their condition has not changed.
The government considers that the current system fails to support severely disabled people,and is becoming uncontrollably expensive and disincentivises people from moving from sickness to work.
The original proposals
The government’s original proposals sought to equalise Universal Credit so that the basic amount was the same whether you were seeking work or in the unable to work category. It did so by increasing the payment made to those seeking work and reducing the payment to those who were signed off sick.
It also introduced lifetime awards to those who had non changing conditions meaning that people would no longer need to be constantly re-assessed.
It ensured that those who were on sickness related benefits and attempted to try work would not lose eligibility to benefits whilst identifying if they could work.
There were also a number of recommendations about how work support could improve to better support disabled claimants who wanted to work.
I supported these changes, however I was concerned with plans to continue to adopt the current descriptors that sought to identify who should receive PIP and who shouldn’t, and simply remove the payment from anyone who didn’t have four points in any category. I feel that the current descriptors are too narrow and need looking at more substantively.
The government were also committed to a more detailed review of what PIP should be for and how they should determine eligibility, but this would have been conducted by Ministers when I (and others) believed that it should have disabled people and their support groups co-producing this review.
Finally, we were concerned that the welcome changes to employment support were too far away and would only be provided after the PIP changes, funded with money raised from the savings made on PIP.
Following discussions with government sources, I notified them, that whilst I recognised the need for reform, I couldn’t support the bill in its current form. I produced this statement which spelt out my issues with the legislation: https://www.tobyperkins.org.uk/2025/06/25/statement-on-universal-credit-and-personal-independence-payment-bill/
The changes to the bill
I along with colleagues, continued to have dialogue with government about our reservations about the bill, and bit by bit, were able to win concessions that removed the areas of concern that I had.
The four key changes were:
- That the review of PIP would be co-produced by Minister Stephen Timms with disabled groups.
- That no changes to PIP would be implemented until the Timms review had completed.
- That the pathway to reducing universal Credit health element would ensure that all existing recipients of the Health element- and any new claimant who would never be able to work would have their incomes protected in real terms
- That the employment support would be brought forward so that it was in place ahead of any changes to the payments people received.
These changes dealt with the issues that I had raised when declining my support originally. Therefore, I was happy to support the legislation when it came before the house at 2nd reading last Tuesday.
Some people have asked why I signed an amendment declining to support the bill but ultimately voted for it. That is simply because the bill changed. Those who thanked me for declining to support the bill originally, knew the basis on which I was opposing it, as I had made that clear in my statement. None of those factors are now in place. I have always maintained that the current system is in need of reform, and I am glad that the representations that I and others made, have ensured that we introduce a bill that carries forward these improvements to the system whilst protecting disabled people from alterations that would have been damaging.
The bill will now enter its committee stage where specific amendments can be proposed before ultimately passing in to law. The Timms review will begin quickly after and is expected to report back in November 2026 and I anticipate at some point in 2027, the house will get a vote on the recommendations that review makes.
If anyone has issues that you would like to raise with regard to the specifics of the bill, or any suggestions for reform to our welfare system, then please feel free to contact me at [email protected] and I will consider them.