← Back to House of Commons Debates
Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill 2025-07-09
09 July 2025
Lead MP
Siân Berry
Debate Type
General Debate
Tags
NHSTaxation
Other Contributors: 84
At a Glance
Siân Berry raised concerns about universal credit and personal independence payment bill 2025-07-09 in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
I beg to move amendment 39, page 1, line 21, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
(4) The relevant uplift percentage for tax years 2026-27 to 2029-30 is 4.8%.
This amendment would apply the full standard allowance uplift percentage currently specified in clause 1 of the Bill for 2029-30 to all preceding years 2026-27 to 2028-29 as well.
(4) The relevant uplift percentage for tax years 2026-27 to 2029-30 is 4.8%.
This amendment would apply the full standard allowance uplift percentage currently specified in clause 1 of the Bill for 2029-30 to all preceding years 2026-27 to 2028-29 as well.
Siân Berry
Green
Brighton Pavilion
Amendment 39 proposes applying the full standard allowance uplift percentage for tax years 2026-27 to 2028-29, ensuring a consistent increase in benefits during those periods. This move aims to provide stability and support for individuals relying on Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means
Judith Cummins
Madam Chair reminded Members that they should not address the Chair as Deputy Speaker in Committee but use her name or titles such as Madam Chair, Chair, or Mr Chairman instead.
Amendment Authors
Various Parties
Various Constituencies
Various amendments proposed to the Welfare Reform Act, covering topics such as eligibility criteria for Personal Independence Payment, commencement conditions, impact assessments, consultation requirements, and human rights analyses. Each amendment includes specific details on policy proposals, timelines, financial implications, and impacts on various groups.
Siân Berry
Green
Brighton Pavilion
Calls for amendment 39 which sets an increase of 4.8% on the basic rate of universal credit for the period starting April 2026, aiming to help cover essentials like food and household bills. Argues that a wealth tax could offset cuts to welfare benefits.
Ian Lavery
Lab
Blyth and Ashington
Supports a wealth tax as an alternative to cutting welfare benefits for disabled people, questioning the specifics of such a tax.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Asked about the need for a more compassionate system when making decisions on PIP, universal credit and ESA applications. The hon. Member agrees that experts should review these decisions with compassion and understanding.
Debbie Abrahams
Lab
Manchester Gorton
Acknowledged the Government's concessions but expressed disappointment about excluding co-production of the review in the Bill. Supported new clause 11, which aims to delay changes to UC health and protect those with newly acquired conditions or terminal diagnoses.
Imran Hussain
Lab
Bradford East
Welcomed some concessions but expressed concerns about £2 billion in cuts impacting over 700,000 people, leaving them £3,000 less. Emphasised the need to protect those with newly acquired conditions.
Graham Stuart
Con
Beverley and Holderness
Critiqued the Bill as unaffordable due to a £5 billion gap, arguing for higher taxes to fill it. Highlighted concerns over welfare fraud and excessive spending without safeguards.
Stella Creasy
Lab/Co-op
Walthamstow
Asked about the hard-working families who use PIP to get to work, emphasising the need for a humane system. Cited an example of a constituent with a degenerative disease going through a brutal process.
Iqbal Mohamed
Ind
Dewsbury and Batley
Asked about the reduction in NHS investment leading to increased demand on PIP due to delayed mental health support, worsening conditions for patients.
Neil Coyle
Lab
Bermondsey and Old Southwark
Questions the Secretary of State on his past record regarding fraud in the benefit system under previous governments.
Carla Lockhart
DUP
Upper Bann
Highlights the impact of cancer on families and questions if the Bill will be devastating for many cancer patients by ensuring that they do not get the high rate universal credit health element.
Glasgow West
Questions what part of new clause 9 actually makes things better for people who need help, challenging the Secretary of State's claim to support vulnerable individuals.
Marie Tidball
Lab
Penistone and Stocksbridge
Points out that under the last Conservative Government there was a 29% disability employment gap, a 17% pay gap, and 4 million disabled people in poverty. She criticises the current government for having no credible plan to get the economy growing.
Rachael Maskell
Lab/Co-op
York Central
Discusses the impact of the Bill on sick and disabled people, stating that £2 billion is still to be stripped from up to three quarters of a million sick and disabled people by 2029-30 through slashing the health element of universal credit. She also highlights the UN's contention that sick and disabled people have not been consulted.
Ayoub Khan
Ind
Birmingham Perry Barr
Asks if stripping financial support from individuals with fluctuating conditions will have an enormous impact on their mental health, causing further drain on the NHS.
Calum Miller
LD
Bicester and Woodstock
Advocates for compassion and care in the assessment system for people with fluctuating conditions to prevent mental distress caused by sudden changes in working hours or financial support.
Kirsty Blackman
SNP
Aberdeen North
The SNP Member thanks the disabled people's organisations that have worked hard to win concessions and expresses disappointment in the Labour Government’s actions, such as cutting winter fuel payments for older people. She agrees with amendments on co-production and essentials guarantee, urging the Minister to look at Scotland’s adult disability payment when planning the Timms review.
Anna Dixon
Lab
Shipley
The Member clarifies that the purpose of the Timms review is to ensure PIP assessment is fair and fit for the future, helping disabled people achieve better health and independence. She supports the Minister's role in leading this co-production.
Kirsty Blackman
SNP
Aberdeen North
The Member asks the Minister to clarify whether he is required to save money through the Timms review or if the aim is to improve the system based on dignity, fairness and respect. She questions the Bill’s wording regarding conditions that apply “constantly” compared to previous legislation.
Tom Hayes
Lab
Bournemouth East
The Member asks whether descriptors, activities, and associated points will be subject to the Timms review, as stated from the Dispatch Box last week.
I completely agree with the hon. Member for York Central, saying that this is not the first place to look when saving money and especially not by a supposedly progressive Government. I am deeply disappointed in the current situation.
Sorcha Eastwood
Alliance
Lagan Valley
This society's judgment lies in how it takes care of the most vulnerable, and there are other avenues to explore before implementing these cuts on disabled people. It appears as though people have simply decided on this without exploring alternatives.
John McDonnell
Ind
Hayes and Harlington
I will not vote for any legislation that cuts benefits to some of the poorest people I represent, stating my commitment to protect constituents from proposed cuts. He references past cuts under George Osborne's tenure and expresses concern over potential suicides resulting from current legislation.
Peter Bedford
Con
Mid Leicestershire
Supports amendments by his hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent, arguing against proposed welfare changes as they could further strain public finances and undermine social contract integrity.
Vicky Foxcroft
Lab
Lewisham West and Penshurst
Welcomes the amendment but argues for extending co-production principles beyond oversight. Supports new clause 11 that was co-produced with Disability Rights UK and others to ensure a strong link between Timms review and UN conventions on disability rights.
Anna Dixon
Con
Halifax
Commends Dr Tidball for her speeches and the work behind the scenes. Supports new clause 11 as it ensures meaningful engagement with disabled people before any changes are made to PIP, also suggesting including carers in the disability co-production taskforce.
Zarah Sultana
Ind
Coventry South
Critiques the Government's approach and highlights deaths of individuals due to welfare reform decisions. Opposes clause 2 which cuts universal credit health element for disabled people, arguing it will affect over 750,000 disabled people by £3,000 annually. Calls for economic alternatives such as a tax on extreme wealth.
Robin Swann
DUP
Fermanagh and South Tyrone
Raises concern about the severe conditions criteria and NHS diagnosis requirement excluding young people transitioning from children’s DLA to PIP due to record transfer issues.
Olivia Blake
Lab
Sheffield Central
I support amendment 37 which highlights the lack of value for money in the contracts for assessment. There are so many successful reassessments and appeals; it is clear that we are not getting value for money from these contracts, and this model should be looked at if Ministers are looking for savings. I strongly agree with new clause 8 by my right hon. Friend which would ensure any changes to PIP must be brought forward in primary legislation. We need more transparency and independent oversight, especially when it comes to co-production with disabled people.
Imran Hussain
Lab
Bradford East
My hon. Friend is making a passionate case against the Bill which will still balance the books on the backs of the most vulnerable and bring poverty to our streets. I agree that there is still time for the Bill to be withdrawn and come back with something better.
Graham Stuart
Con
Beverley and Swireby
A non-negotiable reality is that we have must economic growth to fulfil the Government’s priorities, yet under this Government, inflation has nearly doubled. We need private enterprise and economic growth to serve the most vulnerable who depend on it the most.
Ann Davies
PC
Caerfyrddin
Welcoming the removal of clause 5 which means that no one will lose vital personal independence payments so that the Government can save some money, but unlike other hon. Members, I do not believe that the UK Government’s concessions make the Bill any more worthy to become legislation. We need time to scrutinise the Bill fully and effectively before it is passed.
Graeme Downie
Lab
Dunfermline and Dollar
I will speak to amendment 17 which would ensure that if a person has a fluctuating condition such as Parkinson’s or multiple sclerosis, that is a factor in considering whether they meet the severe conditions claimant criteria.
Stephen Timms
Lab
East Ham
Clarifies existing guidance on how to interpret the severe conditions criteria, stating that individuals must be able to undertake activities in the descriptor 'repeatedly, reliably and safely' for the criteria to apply constantly.
Adam Jogee
Lab
Newcastle-under-Lyme
Supports Graeme Downie's calls for clarity. Mentions his personal experience with Parkinson’s disease through a family member who recently passed away, reinforcing the urgency of addressing concerns raised about the Bill.
Questions whether guidance given by the Minister is sufficient and if it will be subject to change, cautioning that such guidance may not reflect the Government's clear intentions in primary legislation.
Inquires about the suitability of provisions described by the Minister for individuals with relapsing-remitting MS who experience periods of good health and debilitating conditions, seeking further clarification.
John Milne
LD
Horsham
Supports amendment 36, stressing that the Bill risks excluding many individuals from vital support due to its restrictive definition. Argues for a needs-first approach in assessing eligibility and criticises arbitrary changes aimed at generating savings rather than addressing actual needs.
Argues that current concessions brought forward by the Government ensure fair and fit-for-the-future assessment, countering John Milne’s concerns about the Bill's motivations being primarily cost-driven.
I am concerned about some of the amendments before us today, in particular those that call for delays to legislation. We are one year into a five-year term—20% of this Parliament is gone—and the public need to see progress, not further delay. Ministers have already done a huge amount of heavy lifting to rebuild trust with disabled people and disability organisations since the election. In my constituency, the number of claimants for PIP will rise in this Parliament, spending on that will continue to rise in this Parliament, and 12,700 universal credit claimants will get an additional payment under this Government’s plans.
Iqbal Mohamed
Ind
Dewsbury and Batley
Rises to speak in support of amendments 2(a), 37 and 39, and new clauses 8, 10 and 11. Without going into a Third Reading speech, it is important to highlight that we are debating a Bill that will have a profound and, in many cases, devastating impact on thousands of families across our country. In Dewsbury and Batley, 7.9% of people claim personal independence payment.
Scott Arthur
Lab
Edinburgh South West
Points out that there is not a lot of demand to speak from Members from any of the other parties on the Opposition Benches: just two Conservative MPs, no SNP MPs and no Reform MPs. Observes that this process has been a legislative mess.
Mid Sussex
Talks about the difficulty faced by people with disabilities supported by family members who are unpaid carers. Agrees that although the Government have said they will work with disability groups and people who have disabilities, they should also co-produce whatever comes forward in conjunction with carers’ organisations.
Terry Jermy
Lab
South West Norfolk
Shared his lived experience of navigating the welfare system after his father's stroke, highlighting difficulties in accessing support and financial struggles. Supported amendments tabled by Labour colleagues to ensure values reflecting responsibility to help others are enshrined. Emphasised that public services need fixing before supporting disabled people into work.
North Norfolk
Proposed new clause 5 requiring the Government to publish an assessment of how Bill provisions impact coastal communities within six months. Highlighted high rates of PIP claims, unemployment, sickness, and poor health in coastal regions. Stressed need for investment in tourism, hospitality sectors, training opportunities, and fixing transport system.
Tewkesbury
Agreed with Steff Aquarone's concerns about lack of support to get people back into work due to transport barriers. Highlighted issues faced by rural constituencies similar to coastal ones.
Gill German
Lab
Clwyd North
Emphasised efforts in her coastal community to address transport barriers through a trailblazer project breaking down routes and paying for transportation costs to facilitate training and work opportunities. Agreed that similar solutions can be implemented nationwide.
Kim Johnson
Lab
Liverpool Riverside
The Bill remains dangerous for disabled people and economically reckless, despite concessions made. It will result in £2 billion of cuts impacting over 700,000 future universal credit recipients by an average of £3,000 each year by 2030, pushing 50,000 into poverty. The amendments I support would mitigate the worst elements but I urge to scrap the Bill entirely.
Adam Dance
LD
Yeovil
Supports amendments 12, 13, and 17 along with Liberal Democrat new clauses 2, 3, 6, and 7. The Bill lacks proper consultation, leaving constituents fearful of the proposed changes which are unfair and harmful to people in Yeovil.
West Dorset
Agrees with Adam Dance's concerns about lack of impact assessment and proper consultation. The Bill should be withdrawn or revised to include these requirements.
Liam Conlon
Lab
Beckenham and Penge
Disagrees with the Opposition new clause 12, arguing that the provisions in the Bill are welcome and necessary. The context of NHS cuts over a decade has led to increased waiting times and reliance on health-related benefits.
Shabana Mahmood
Lab
Birmingham, Perry Barr
The Member supports reforms that enable people with disabilities to test their work capabilities without fear of losing benefits. She cites her own experience and emphasises the importance of a supportive system that allows for trial periods before imposing penalties. She also highlights the need for co-production in policy-making, ensuring that disabled individuals have a meaningful role in shaping policies affecting them.
Terry Jermy
Con
South West Norfolk
The Member supports the 'right to try' provision and emphasises its importance in empowering disabled people. He argues that it dismantles fear and provides support for those attempting to return to work, allowing them to discover what adjustments they need without the threat of sanctions.
Liam Conlon
Con
Beckenham
The Member echoes the importance of the 'right to try' provision and supports its inclusion in the Bill. He emphasises that it is long overdue and will make a significant difference in enabling disabled people to return to work without fear.
Barbara Keeley
Lab
Worsley and Eccles South
The Member speaks about new clause 4, which aims to ensure that the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities are incorporated into the Bill. She emphasises the importance of an adequate standard of living for disabled people, including independent living arrangements and financial support.
Lilian Greenwood
Lab
Nottingham South
The Member highlights the potential negative impacts of new clause 12, which could deny support to migrants who have worked in the NHS and developed health conditions. She argues that such provisions are fundamentally un-British and discriminatory.
Stella Creasy
Lab
Walthamstow
The Member supports new clause 4, emphasising its importance in protecting constituents from policy vagaries and ensuring an adequate standard of living for disabled people. She argues that the Bill should be guided by principle rather than prejudice and highlights practical examples where welfare support is crucial.
Alison Hume
Lab
Scarborough and Whitby
Supports new clause 11 and amendment 38, praising the government's decision to remove clause 5. Advocates for a co-produced Timms review involving disabled people. Describes her personal experience with DWP decisions that worsened constituents' conditions.
Cat Eccles
Lab
Stourbridge
Supports new clauses and amendments to ensure proper scrutiny of PIP changes. Shares her own health struggles and the challenges faced by those relying on universal credit, advocating for alternatives such as stopping outsourcing assessments to private companies.
Deirdre Costigan
Lab
Ealing Southall
To be filled in based on further contributions from this speaker's remarks.
Andy McDonald
Lab
Middlesbrough and Thornaby East
Supports new clauses 8 and 11 and amendment 38. Argues that the Bill is a cut, not welfare reform, removing £2 billion from disabled people in the years ahead. Calls for a two-tier welfare system to be avoided by limiting condition descriptors to 'constantly' apply, as it discourages those with fluctuating conditions from taking up work opportunities.
Henley and Thame
Condemns a Conservative amendment seeking to strip foreign nationals of the right to claim benefits, using his father's situation as an example of why this is unjust.
Simon Hoare
Con
North Dorset
Acknowledges the importance of tailoring responses to individuals with permanent versus fluctuating conditions in order to effectively support them in getting into work, and looks forward to hearing from the Minister on this issue.
Nadia Whittome
Lab
Nottingham East
Supports new clause 10 and other amendments to ensure better protections for disabled people. The Bill will take around £3,000 a year from the disabled people of the future at a time when extra costs are rising by 12%. No single disabled people’s organisation supports the bill due to lack of analysis on human rights impacts.
Poole
Calls for removal of clauses 2 and 3 from the Bill, which propose cutting £2 billion from the universal credit health element. This will create a two-tier benefits system and force more people into poverty, increasing reliance on food banks.
Lizzi Collinge
Lab
Morecambe and Lunesdale
Initially concerned about proposed changes to PIP eligibility criteria but now supports the Bill as amended due to removal of these changes, positive amendments, and increases to basic universal credit. Welcomes ministerial review of PIP assessment in co-production with disabled people.
Andrew Pakes
Lab
Peterborough
Supports the removal of clause 5 and amendments, citing concerns about the welfare system not working for too many people, rising welfare bill, and trapping individuals on benefits. Emphasises the broken social contract and the need to fix it with compassion.
Supports the Government's openness towards setting a disability employment target and highlights the unacceptable 24% rate in his constituency of Bournemouth East after 14 years of Conservative leadership.
Clapham and Brixton Hill
Supports amendments to improve the Bill, criticising the removal of clause 5 as insufficient. Calls for more humane measures in the Bill, including protecting those with fluctuating conditions and ensuring co-production with disabled people.
Richard Burgon
Lab
Leeds East
The MP emphasises that voting against the Bill involves supporting sick and disabled people on low incomes. He argues that Labour MPs should vote based on their moral principles rather than party lines, citing potential negative impacts of £3,000 average cuts per person.
Hendon
The MP speaks against the amendments proposed to stop changes to universal credit. He argues for reforms that balance support with incentives for work, criticising opposition for not offering alternatives and highlighting the potential benefits of the Government's plan.
Torbay
The Liberal Democrat MP describes the process surrounding the Bill as chaotic and shambolic. He expresses caution about government figures, suggesting they may include pre-planned but unimplemented cuts from previous administrations.
Liberal Democrat Spokesman
Lib Dem
Torbay
The Liberal Democrats support reform of the welfare system but oppose this Bill as it is not an effective approach to address the issues. They emphasise investing in the NHS and adopting a holistic approach towards employment market challenges, welcoming the Charlie Mayfield review. However, they criticise the rushed nature of the legislation and express concerns over the two-tier element in Universal Credit, which makes some ill individuals more equal than others. The Lib Dems highlight that 50,000 people will be plunged into poverty due to the Bill and urge for proper engagement with disability groups and carers.
Danny Kruger
Con
East Wiltshire
The Conservative shadow Minister acknowledges Labour's criticism but points out the significant improvement in employment rates during the previous government, highlighting a 100,000 fewer economically inactive individuals every year. He criticises the current Labour government for failing to provide any plan for welfare reform despite having had ample time to do so. Kruger expresses concerns over the Bill's title being changed and its transition into a spending Bill rather than a savings one. He highlights that the Bill will result in additional costs of £120 million over four years, with an extra employment support cost of £1 billion. Additionally, he proposes amendments focusing on improving PIP assessments and addressing mental health claims.
Stephen Timms
Lab
East Ham
Timms acknowledges the need to reform the system urgently and notes that 2.8 million people are out of work on health and disability benefits, many wanting support back into a job. He states that the Bill aims to fix severe work disincentives in universal credit and protect those who will never work from reassessment, lifting 50,000 children out of poverty.
Paul Holmes
Con
Hamble Valley
Holmes questions the Minister about the fiscal impact of decisions made for PIP and UC health claimants. He notes that these measures would cost taxpayers an additional amount previously estimated as £5 billion, which was then reduced to £2.5 billion.
Jonathan Brash
Lab
Hartlepool
Brash expresses concern over the anxiety and confusion caused by the Government's proposed cuts for PIP and UC health claimants in future, urging a pause until the review is completed properly.
Graham Stuart
Con
Beverley
Mr. Stuart questioned the cost implications of the Bill, noting previous changes in estimated savings from £5 billion to £2.5 billion.
Vicky Foxcroft
Lab
Lewisham West and Penge
Ms Foxcroft requested that the universal credit health element be included in the co-produced Timms review and sought assurances regarding the scope of disability benefits in future assessments.
John McDonnell
Lab
Hayes and Harlington
MP John McDonnell proposed a clause requiring the Secretary of State to publish primary legislation within one month of the publication of the review into Personal Independence Payment assessment. He emphasised that no power should be exercised under Part 4 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 which adversely affects eligibility for personal independence payment.
Rachael Maskell
Lab
York Central
MP Rachael Maskell proposed an amendment to Schedule 1, aiming to ensure that claimants are entitled to the LCWRA element of Universal Credit continuously from a specific time or upon recurrence due to fluctuating medical conditions. She argued for preserving continuity and fairness in welfare support.
Stephen Timms
Lab
East Ham
MP Sir Stephen Timms proposed amendments to Schedule 2, including the removal of a paragraph concerning personal independence payment and alterations to the long title. He argued for clearer regulations and increased protections against inflationary pressures on welfare.
Government Response
Defends the Bill, stating that it protects individuals receiving the universal credit health premium and provides strong protections for those with fluctuating conditions. He claims that once they go into work, their protection will continue, and there are six months of further protection if income exceeds the universal credit level. Sir Stephen Timms clarifies existing guidance on interpreting severe conditions criteria to provide reassurance that individuals with fluctuating conditions will meet the constant application requirement. Timms affirms that reform is urgent and necessary. He addresses the Bill's clauses, detailing protections for existing claimants including those with fluctuating health conditions. The Minister commits to a co-produced review involving disabled people and aims for consensus among participants. The Minister provided detailed explanations on the amendments to universal credit arrangements, including protection for those transitioning into work, the increase in standard allowance, and the co-produced review process. He emphasised that the new legislation will repair a broken system by removing work disincentives.
Shadow Response
None
Shadow Response
The Conservative shadow Minister criticises the current Labour government for its lack of a welfare reform plan and highlights improvements made during previous conservative governance. He also raises concerns about the Bill's economic implications, stating it will lead to additional costs without significant savings. Kruger proposes amendments focusing on improving PIP assessments and addressing mental health claims.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.