Liz Kendall's letter to Labour MP's announcing the "concessions" the government has offered to win over rebels has been published.

It leaves a great many questions unanswered.  And as amendments to the bill will not be published before Tuesday's vote, it means MPs will have to vote without actually knowing what they are ultimately agreeing to. 

On first reading, one of the most obvious question is whether the guarantee relating to PIP means that current claimants will also be protected from the "ministerial review of the Pip assessment, led by the minister for social security and disability [Stephen Timms], to ensure the benefit is fair and fit for the future." If not, and Timms introduces much harsher conditions for PIP from 2028, then the PIP guarantee is good for only around three years.

We are sure readers will have many more queries.  Please post them in the comments section below - we won't be able to answer them, but we can begin to collate them.

Dear colleague,

We have always said we are determined to reform the social security system so it is fair, provides dignity and respect for those unable to work, supports those who can, and is sustainable so it is there for generations to come.

The broken system we inherited from the Tories fails all of those tests.

These important reforms are rooted in Labour values, and we want to get them right.

We have listened to colleagues who support the principle of reform but are worried about the impact of the pace of change on those already supported by the system.

As a result we will make two changes to strengthen the bill.

Firstly, we recognise the proposed changes have been a source of uncertainty and anxiety.

Therefore, we will ensure that all of those currently receiving Pip will stay within the current system. The new eligibility requirements will be implemented from November 2026 for new claims only.

Secondly, we will adjust the pathway of universal credit payment rates to make sure all existing recipients of the UC health element – and any new claimant meeting the severe conditions criteria – have their incomes fully protected in real terms.

Colleagues rightly want to ensure that disabled people and those with ill health are at the heart of our reforms.

We will take forward a ministerial review of the Pip assessment, led by the minister for social security and disability [Stephen Timms], to ensure the benefit is fair and fit for the future.

At the heart of this review will be coproduction with disabled people, the organisations that represent them, and MPs so their views and voices are heard. The review will then report to me as work and pensions secretary.

These commitments sit alongside our raising of the standard rate of the universal credit – the biggest real-terms permanent increase of any benefit since the 1980s – the protection of the incomes of the most vulnerable who will no longer be reassessed and the introduction of “right to try”.

Our reform principles remain; to target funding for those most in need and make sure the system is sustainable for the future to support generations to come.

We believe those who can work, should, and those who cannot, should be protected.

We will front load more of the additional funding generated by these reforms for back to work support for sick and disabled people.

Taken together it is a fair package that will preserve the social security system for those who need it by putting it on a sustainable footing, support people back into work, protect those who cannot work and reduce anxiety for those currently in the system.

Thank you to colleagues for engaging with us on these important reforms to social security.

Comments

Write comments...
or post as a guest
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 days ago
    If I read it right then existing claimants are going to be protected but when you have a review you still will be an existing claimant and not a new claim not sure if this will be the case but in theory it should be. But will you be subject to the 4 point rule after nov 2026 im not sure but think you should be classed as existing and go under old rules like transitional protection.  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 days ago
      @tinytim I really do agree with you. My re-assesment is Feb 2027 so it will be Feb 2026. Even though it's before Nov 2026 is it subjected to the 4 point rule. Like you I do believe every-one that is on this 'old rule of assessment' should now stay this way for however long it's needed. But I feel awfully sorry and annoyed for new claimants that are not offered the same support.




    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 days ago
      @Peter Word up, Peter
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 days ago
      @tinytim Under the WR bill as originally written, that's exactly what would happen - existing claims continue but will be subjected to the new "four points" rule at any future re-assessment.   

      We do not yet know for sure what will be in the bill as amended by the government and anyone telling that "such and such" is definitely going to happen is really just making assumptions.    All we have at the moment is kendall's letter as shown above and third-party reports of conversation that involved "promises".  

      If - and this is NOT certain unless and until we see the actual wording of any amendment - the reports AND the interpretations of the reports and this letter are close to the mark, the situation is believed to that existing recipients - which appears to include claims started (or assessed - or completed - or awarded - who knows?) before the cut-off date in November 2026 will continue being subjected to the "old" rules, including when being re-assessed.   In that case, you could be re-assessed in 2030 and 2040 and still be awarded without needing "four points in one category".

      I can only stress this - the whole thing is an absolute MESS.   There are so many openings for mistakes and loopholes - even phrases like "...those currently receiving Pip" could be twisted by a smarmy lawyer to justify ripping your rights and support away.    That letter is worthless and frankly, so is trying to amend this bill.  There are now only three options - continue with the original bill, amend the original bill at the last minute and expect 650 MPs to read, digest and fully understand every nuance of a LAW that they will then have to vote on, or pull the whole bill and start again, writing one specifically written to meet the requirements as now determined.   Any other than that last option is a mistake - one with dire consequences, intended or not.

      And I have to say - it sickens me to see some disabled people saying that we should be "grateful" for these supposed "concessions" just because those of us who already have PIP look set to continue being paid.   "I'm alright Jack" is NOT the way we should be talking about welfare policies and we should not support any attempts to divide and conquer.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 days ago
    I see the press are blaming the sick and disabled for this governments failings. Saying the U turn will result in £3 billion in tax rises. Another example of briefing from No.10. To demonise the sick and disabled for the U turn. Instead of the press pointing out where saving could be made instead of cutting benefits. Hundreds of billions are wasted every year on politicians pet projects. Do we need to send £11 billion to Africa to fight climate change. That is one example how billions leave the UK shores. That is where I would look to make the savings and not take money off sick and disabled people.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 19 days ago
      @Onyx123 Yes we need to send money to fight climate change, that is an issue that directly affects everyone regardless of where in the world they are - and Africa aren't exactly known for their wealth and ability to focus on environmentalism. Bad example. 

      A better example would be removing tax loopholes for companies, court judgements to reimbursements for fraudulent contracts during covid for PPE and raising tax on the top 1%.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 days ago
    Disability Labour - the Labour Prty's official disabled person's affiliate organisation has issued a press release calling all MPs to vote against the benefits bill on Tuesday

    https://disabilitylabour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Grandfathering-Response-Press-Release.pdf
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 days ago
      @Tracy Numb Do you (or anyone) have any idea whether all MP's will be sent this please?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 days ago
    Dear colleagues

    I write to you in a state of anguished gurning on account of how much I care about your concerns.

    I care enough to now offer a gimmick concession that won't reduce the harm caused by the bill, but will make enough of you feel like it might to allow us to pass the bill.

    Deal?
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 days ago
    How can a two tier system for PIP claimants not fall foul of the Equality Act?
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 days ago
      @Bronc So what?   Just because one system ISN'T exempted doesn't mean that others can't be.   That has absolutely nothing to do with this issue.   

      And for the record - the court's ruling applied because the changes to the pensions system was applied unequally to people ALREADY IN THE SCHEME - it had nothing at all to do with people who might join at some later date getting different T&Cs.

      The equality acts contain exemptions - they have to.  Think about it - we couldn't even have payments that are only for disabled people if the equality laws overruled all others.   

      Let's not get distracted or chase irrelevancies around.

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 days ago
      @Peter In 2015 the Tory government introduced a new final salary pension scheme for public sector workers. For example whereby new teachers would get a worse pension and teachers already in the pension scheme would be protected. 
      . The courts found this change to be illegal and the current government will have to find 3 billion a year to rectify this discrimination. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 days ago
      @Moose No - because the "discrimination" will be on the basis of the date of the claim - not on any protected characteristic of the claimant - unless you suspect a hidden example (which happens when, for example, a rule is more likely to affect women or a particular racial group even if that discrimination is unintentional).   If you're thinking of the age-based differentials - equality law allows for this in such circumstances - otherwise it would be impossible to set a state pension age or a limit on child benefits, amongst other circumstances.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 days ago
    This Government cannot be trusted .
    They had these concessions already in place weeks ago just in case for something like this.
    For them to offer them so quickly & still want the vote on Tues stinks of rotten eggs .
    Don't be fooled they will have other dirty tricks up their sleeves .
    Nasty Party because of Starmer ,Reeves ,Kendall  & Timms! 
    Reeves needs to be sacked for her incompetence with the finances of this country & starmer needs to go for allowing her to mess up time after time .
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 days ago
    What happens when reassessment is due for people on pip or other benefits in 2027
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 days ago
      @Amber As I said, we literally do not know what will be in the bill because all we have is the full WR Bill that passed the first reading and some weasel-worded blather about "concessions".    

      Until we see any amendment to that original bill, the sad truth is that NOTHING HAS CHANGED in any legal or other sense of the word.   

      The ASSUMPTION is that settled (or maybe applications submitted - who know, it's all a massive mess) will not be subjected to any part of the new system at any point, including at and after re-assessment since that merely creates a new AWARD and is not a "new claim".

      But please understand - NO-ONE KNOWS FOR CERTAIN.  It's pretty pointless debating this - we need the whole thing CANCELLED and the government needs to submit a new bill which was written from scratch for the purpose - AFTER holding a genuine consultation with relevant parties.    All we know for certain is that a WR Bill was passed at its first stage a few weeks ago and will get its second reading on Tuesday and as at this precise point in time, the bill HAS NOT BEEN AMENDED.  The ONLY proposed amendment that exists is the Reasoned one which calls for a vote to block to the entire bill.   
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 days ago
      @Peter Oh, it would be under the 4 point rule? If a PIP award is set to be reviewed in 2027 then they send out the review form in 2016 (approximately one year prior to the award ending) for the person to return in 2016. The DWP take a long time to look at the review. So would this review be assessed under the current system or the new 4 point system as seeing as though the assessment was returned in 2016 but the actual award was due to end in early 2027? 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 days ago
      @Vic The current interpretation of kendall's letter is that existing PIP claims will be reassessed under the current system BUT that letter is totally worthless in terms of what version of the bill is debated on Tuesday - so until the expected amendment is published, the only factual answer is that Parliament is current on track to debate and vote on THE ORIGINAL BILL - which means you'd be assessed under the "four points" rules.    Hopefully the government will produce their amended bill so MP have time to actually read it before voting.   (and it's still possible that the bill will blocked or starmer will make further "concessions" or even choose to cancel the whole thing - for now).
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 days ago
    I understand that one of the amendments is people with severe health conditions may not be retested are there any more details of what they class as a severe condition my condition won’t ever get better because of this I don’t have a consultant as I’ve had the same disability level for 20 plus years I was awarded indefinitely but now I’m bieng told that’s only 10 Yeats’s
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 18 days ago
      @Bronc @Bronc Hiya, I have uncontrolled Epilepsy drug resistant and hard of hearing ( wear 2 aids) have Ptsd but other than the hearing aids I am now concerned. There is absolutely nothing on that form for people with epilepsy and it's severity.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 20 days ago
      @Bronc My sibling was SDA (80%+ disabled) never reassess + DLA high rate care and low rate mobility lifetime awards + income support on grounds of disability. Benefits for life we were told, no more having to deal with the DWP.

      Then the SDA got changed to contributions based ESA and the income support to income based ESA, with them being awarded support group longest possible award each time reassessed which at the time was 3 years. The reassessments were very detrimental to their health. Their reassessments stopped due to the government pausing reassessments due to Covid. Their last reassessment was before the end of 2017 when the government created the severe conditions criteria do not reassess group, so they are not in that group.

      Then the DLA got changed to a PIP ongoing/indefinite award enhanced rate daily living nothing for mobility. Which involved another reassessment that was very detrimental to their health. And they felt unable to appeal the loss of their mobility component.

      Then income based ESA got changed to UC and contributions based ESA to New Style ESA and while their was no reassessment the ID verification interview and talk through claim details at the jobcentre, and the new style ESA claimant commitment phone call were detrimental to their health.

      And now we have WCA restarting. And not knowing if they will be reassessed before the WCA is abolished in 2028. And the government changing/narrowing the criteria for the severe condition criteria group.

      And we have the prospect of New Style ESA being abolished and either people being moved onto a new time limited contributions based Unemployment benefit which requires a support conversation and individualised claimant commitment or more likely new style ESA being closed to new claims then a year latter abolished for existing claimants and in my siblings case UC increasing to replace it.

      Also concerning we have the principle that everyone on UC health should have periodic support conversations with a jobcentre work coach and in the future the government planning on increasing conditionality for those on UC health, at least if not enough of the people on UC health take up the offers of help towards and into work.

      And no information on how the severe conditions criteria group will be defined once the WCA is abolished. When this group looks like having the most protection from DWP engagement, and any conditionality or sanctions regime. And we are told if you get into this group you will have benefits for life with no reassessments. Heard that before.  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 days ago
      @john I have a long term neurological disease which fluctuates. Like many with my illness I am concerned that when I am reassessed I will fall foul of the new criteria. I do not trust the Red tories in power. They are inveterate liars. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 days ago
      @Gail The Universal Credit and Personal Independence Bill as currently written defines the severe conditions criteria group that will never be reassessed (never reassessed appears to just apply to reassessed for UC LCWRA) as:
      A schedule 7 LCWRA descriptor constantly applies (at all times or, as the case may be, on all occasions on which the claimant undertakes or attempts to undertake the activity described by that descriptor) and will do so for the rest of the claimant's life. And this arises from a medical condition diagnosed by the NHS. Schedule 7 descriptors are all the qualifying descriptors for LCWRA except undergoing cancer treatment, and substantial detrimental effect to health.

      This is despite the government repeatedly saying they would use the current UC severe conditions criteria do not reassess. Which was created on the 29th September 2017. Anyone placed in this group is supposed to have been told they will not be reassessed in their LCWRA award letter. The eligibility criteria for this group is:
      The level of function will always meet LCWRA.
      Lifelong condition, once diagnosed. The condition will always be present. Some lifelong conditions are present from birth, but others will develop or be acquired later in life.
      No realistic prospect of recovery of function. Advice on this should be based on currently available treatment and not on the prospect of scientists discovering a cure in the future.
      Unambiguous condition. They have been through relevant clinical examinations with their health practitioner and full investigations have been completed. There should be no doubt that the person is significantly and substantially impaired.

      It is unclear if the difference between the bill and the current UC severe criteria definition is a deliberate narrowing of eligibility or due to incompetence.

      It is also unclear what happens to people in the UC severe conditions criteria group as defined by the bill or as currently used by UC when UC health becomes based on being on receiving PIP daily living component. If they are not on PIP daily living.

      Not mentioned in the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Bill is that for PIP there is already a similar group. Those with enhanced daily living awards are called severely limited or severely disabled. Those with ongoing or indefinite awards the terms are used interchangeably are called for life.

      People with ongoing or indefinite PIP awards are expected to remain on disability benefits for life. Their PIP award has no end date. They are light touched reviewed every 10 years. A light touch review is primarily to determine if they are still alive and if their contact details are correct. It is a AR2 form with basically 3 questions. Have your health conditions changed, have your daily living needs changed, have your mobility needs changed. With the option of ticking no change. If no change is ticked they are basically rubber stamped and checked up on again in another 10 years. If a relevant change in circumstance is reported they maybe reassessed.

      The DWP minister for disability has repeatedly said that as long as no change in circumstance is reported those with ongoing or indefinite PIP awards will not be reassessed and the 4 point PIP rule will not be applied to them. Not that this is so important now as all existing claimants are being given exemption from the 4pt rule.  
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 days ago
    I for one do not believe them with these so called protections and concessions, It another lie to appease the rebel MP'S and they will change it down the line. 

    Also all the poor people who come after us with no protection in the future, all this tweaking is easy to hide the original changes in a different fashion. 

    This is not a win in anyway, a win was the bill was killed off for good, we have lost, we are not even second class citizens in the governments and most of the general publics. Now Starmer has won he and his dreadful cronies will be empowered and down the line I can see no financial support left for disabled community. Shame on the so called rebels for backing down, I hope karma catches up with you and your loved ones very soon as you spend your pay off's from Starmer. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 days ago
      @Pete. The problem with future claimants is something we can do nothing about at this stage.  370,000 of us will now not lose their PIP reassessment.  That's a win
      in this fight instead of treating us like lay about scroungers, then the system might have been better for them when they become disabled...
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 days ago
    I nominate SLB to run for Prime minister in the next election! . He writes very articulately and with clarity, he would be very proactive advocating for disabled and vulnerable people.
    Thank you SLB for all your comments posted here. 
    Signed 
    One of your admiring fans 👍
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 days ago
      @AJH I don't lie well enough!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 days ago
      @AJH CaroA should be the spokesperson
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 days ago
      @Hilde 👍
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 days ago
      @Hilde That may cause confusion in the cabinet as there are multiple people posting as John. User names are not unique on this forum. And the John's do not always concur. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 days ago
      @AJH I'll add John to the cabinet...
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 days ago
    I really suggest that everyone with questions about migration benefits (and anything else)should write and ask their MP if they can guarantee protection in this circumstance? It may make them more likely to vote against a bill that they don't know important details about.

    I doubt all MP's know as much about benefits as we all do, and these questions may not be obvious to them. Therefore, they may currenlty think they know as much about the concessions as they need to. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 days ago
    I really think we ought to start a movement around the hashtag #twotierkeir lol!!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 days ago
    What happens when Timms does the review of PIP and turns it into the PIP/UC Health system, gives it a different name.  Just like the scrapping of DLA and introduction of PIP, PIP was treated as all new claims, no transitions, no protections.  Are they then going to say all existing PIP claimants have to reapply a new claim on the new renamed version when their current claim ends either through losing it through reassessment/MR/Tribunal or because they had a short 2 year award and this is not a reassessment but a full new claim?  

    Are they also going to start reviewing everyone as soon as possible, even those on 10 year awards, kick as many off as they can get away with, hope they lose at tribunal and then are forced to reapply under the new system.

    There are so many unanswered questions, no detail, no clarity.  MP's have no idea what they are voting for or against here and many barely understand the system as it is, let alone what any of these changes or concessions mean.

    My own situation with Veterans War Pension is even less clear and not a single person anywhere can explain or tell me the answers to any of it.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 days ago
      @john I hope you're right and they honour everything they've said but I honestly have absolutely no faith whatsoever in anything they say or do!
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 days ago
      @Mick That would be contrary to the Pathways to Work green paper which has from 2028 UC health eligibility being based on receiving PIP daily living. And contrary to what the DWP has repeatedly stated about not changing reassessment/review dates for existing PIP awards. And contrary to what the DWP has repeatedly said about ongoing PIP awards not being reassessed unless a relevant change of circumstance is reported. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 days ago
    "we will adjust the pathway of universal credit payment rates to make sure all existing recipients of the UC health element – and any new claimant meeting the severe conditions criteria – have their incomes fully protected in real terms."

    This appears to exclude those on ESA+PIP+HB who have not yet been "migrated" to UC - those are the most vulnerable as their entire income comes from or hinges on PIP and the severe disability premium.   Does "existing recipients of the UC...." mean literally that - if so, this is a SCAM. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 19 days ago
      @Slb March 2026 is a target date - nothing more.   If this bill goes through, there will be an increase in DWP workload that could cause backlogs and that target date could easily be changed - again.   If the bill is passed unedited, existing PIP claimants are likely to ask for a reassessment to get an award that runs as long as possible beyond Nov 2026.  If it is passed to only target new claims, there will be a rush to apply under the old rules.   And if forced to amend the bill - an amendment that we've not seen and which at this point does not exist - we could be looking at changes to this migration since kendall clearly only brought the end date forward from 2028 to fit with this bill and it's impact on the incapacity addition.

      If there's one thing we should all understand now it is that we "know" nothing - there are no absolutes and any announcement, proposal or policy can change tomorrow and again half an hour later.

    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 days ago
      @Peter All migrations to be complete by March 2026, so they will be current claimants by the time the new rules start.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 days ago
    What about the proposed merger of ESA and JSA to what they are intending to call "employment insurance" with a time limit on how long you can claim for. How can they possibly propose to merge two benefits, one of which is for people who are too ill and/or disabled to work with one where people are able to work. This has hardly been picked up at all by the media and rebels.  It was quietly buried when the changes were proposed and has received barely any publicity, hence I expect that's why they haven't referred to it here - they just talk about two changes.  I'm in the support group of contribution based ESA and it terrifies me.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 days ago
      @RosieC I too am in the support group of legacy contributions based ESA, and I don't receive PIP. There doesn't seem to be any information for people in our circumstances. Will UC claimants get an uplift whilst we are expected to continue to live on £7,300 pa? Will it be time limited? What happens upon reassessment? I am no less scared now than I was before these 'concessions' were published.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 days ago
      @RosieC That change is not part of the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment bill. We will find out more about the end of contributions based ESA / new Style ESA and the creation of a new time limited contributions based Unemployment benefit when the Pathways to Work white paper is published. Which is expected to be at the same time as the autumn budget.

      We can only hope probably forlornly that as most new style ESA claimants are either also receiving UC or would be eligible for UC, that the government will make new style ESA a protected legacy benefit rather than abolish it for existing claimants.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 days ago
    Dear all,

    I know many of you won’t feel the same way, but today’s concessions are a significant win given what today’s disabled community was facing. With the new eligibility rules no longer applying to current claimants when they reassess, 375,000 will keep their PIP and/or Universal Credit LCWRA for the foreseeable future. When you think of the cliff edge we were staring at just a week ago with no real hope of a win, that is a massive result.  

    Read that again: 375,000 people have been protected for the foreseeable future through our campaigning. 

    And that’s a worst case scenario – the bill, even with concessions, still might not pass.

    I know some of you are saying that there’s no security beyond this parliament. There never is. Whatever plans one party puts in place, the next will likely tear up – just look back at the last fifteen years for proof of that. There’s nothing we can do about that. We have to take it one parliament, one fight at a time. And I know many of you don’t trust the government to deliver on these concessions, but there’s not much we can do about that either.  Presumably, it will be written as part of the bill, and they been plastered all over the newspaper and MSM.  It would be very difficult to U-turn on the U-turn.

    I also know that many have questions about their own particular less-common circumstance (such as DLA or contributions ESA), but we don’t have the answers to those yet, and the bill was never going to include what will happen in hundreds of individual cases. That will come later, and hopefully it will come down on your side, and if it doesn’t then it’s time to fight again. Also, the questions about LCWRA eligibility can’t be answered here as it’s not in the current legislation. Another fight, another day.

    Note that earlier I said “today’s disabled community,” because tomorrow’s disabled community will still face the cuts. Yes, the government has agreed to more consultations over the “more controversial” elements of the bill, and we can only hope that those will also be altered in the coming weeks and months. However, just because 375,000 people’s own futures are, for now, assured, it doesn’t mean that campaigning groups and individuals will stop their fight for fairness and security for future generations and those that weren’t helped by today’s announcement.

    But, first, we deserve a break. The last three months have been scary, exhausting, devastating, and, at times, even exciting when it finally looked like things were turning our way.

    No, you can’t say it was a rollercoaster ride.
    I forbid it.
    Firstly, it’s a term that is used too much, and, secondly, a rollercoaster is taken voluntarily. Nobody asked or volunteered for this. And nobody voted for it, either. Labour will not be forgiven by anyone who has been caught up in this.

    But what has been remarkable is the way the disabled and non-disabled community has come together and worked together and consoled each other and given each other pep talks. Many have worked tirelessly in all kinds of ways to get these “concessions” today. But I would suggest that a key concession is missing – the sacking of Timms and Kendall.

    The 130 Labour MPs who nailed their colours to the mast this week need to be thanked. Many of them were new MPs, and “coming out” as going against your party on a flagship policy (albeit not in the manifesto) while being bullied and threatened by whips etc could not have been easy, and I salute you. We wouldn’t be here at this juncture without you.

    Meanwhile, the organisations and charities that have done such a good job of highlighting just what these changes would mean have been remarkable. Their facts, figures, research, and heart have been astounding.

    And there’s the individuals, too. Everyone who has written to MPs or councillors, or drummed up support on social media, or exposed what is going on, or has taken part in protests, or in the shambolic consultation, or given their heartbreaking stories of how the cuts would affect them via social media or forums, or simply supported others: ALL of you/us deserve a medal. Don’t expect one, though! 

    But soon the fight will start to protect the next generation of disabled people. You deserve what the current community has (hopefully) achieved – and you also deserve better. Better access, better transport, better infrastructure, better communication, better acceptance, and better understanding. The disabled community (whether now or in the future) cannot be collateral damage for failed policies, failed governments, and failed economics. We are not scapegoats, and we never will be. We might not win the fight for the next generation, but we will try.

    But now I’m pretty sure I’m not alone within the community in saying that I’m bloody knackered, and the next fight (and there will be many, no doubt) will have to wait a few weeks. By then, hopefully, Starmer will have sacked Kendall, Timms and Reeves and remembered he is a Labour prime minister. We can but hope.

    We have seemingly won a battle, but the war is likely to continue.  

    Sending best wishes,
    Shane
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 days ago
      @SLB Well said. And future governments are now fully aware that we will not take attacks on our abilities to live independent lives lying down. We will make their lives difficult, we can organise amongst ourselves, we can campaign and a large part of the population support us.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 days ago
      @john The fight should carry on if it passes. That cannot be the end. And the fight will have to be resumed, even if the bill is defeated next week, when it is later revived, in whatever guise.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 days ago
      @SLB Thank you SLB.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 days ago
      @sara We are disabled.  
      We never have security beyond whenever the next election might occur.  

      But 375,000 are now not going to lose PIP at their next reassessment.   
      A week ago we had no hope in hell of achieving that.
      Fifteen months ago, we thought PIP payments would be scrapped in favour of vouchers.
      So yes, this is a win.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 days ago
      @john I stated that very clearly about new claimants.   However, if more non-disabled had been vocal about our fight then the situation might be different for them when THEY
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 days ago
    Smoke and mirrors, nothing has changed just words to fool us. New claimants will fall foul of the changes, which means the existing claimants will not be far behind  - just delayed by a  few years.  This may be the end of the welfare state and USA style system coming into affect.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 days ago
      @SLB
      You bang on the money in my opinion.
      I started claiming IB a little over 20 years ago, when my health problems started in my mid 20s.
      I remember them trying to do WFA interviews illegally, then they made it legal by bringing in ESA which allowed them, then another government removed the WRAG premium, then DLA got replaced by PIP, and now we have the 3 biggest parties tripping over themselves to do more reform.
      The welfare system is never stable, they are never happy with it.
      Although this planned reform is by far the biggest since my initial claim all those years ago, reforming disability and sickness at the same time whilst merging the assessment.
      I agree with you, what we have now is a win, but we also need to stay on our toes, because I have a suspicion the PIP changes coming in 2-3 years wont be part of this exemption. 
      As you said the next time is a change of party it will be changed again then as well.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 days ago
      @Joe Blogs It would be delayed by a few months or years if the bill was pulled, too.  Another one would have been presented in the autumn.  And "a few years" is as far forward as anyone on benefits can see.  The next party in govt will change everything again.  375,000 people are now not going to lose their money during the rest of this decade.  That's a win. 
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 days ago
    If the bill does say current PIP claimants will remain in the ‘current system’, that says to me they be exempt from Stephen ‘cretinous’ Timms PIP review, we will have to wait for Tuesday to see though. As a backup at least they will be consulting disabled people and their representatives, if of course they do!  
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 days ago
      @Mick I doubt they will consult with individuals, they never do, at best it will be trying to get charities and other organisations on side.  But that doesnt assure anything, the charities themselves may agree to things that are cruel in return for funding, and even if they dont they might get duped like they did with ESA.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 days ago
      @Joey
      Exempt until they're not.

      As for consulting disabled people and DPO's, I don't believe a word of it.  They claim they've worked with and consulted us all along and throughout already and they have done no such thing.  Complete lies.  They will only consult the so called stakeholders, representatives and 'charities' they already have.  The ones that they have chosen and selected specifically to agree with them, justify it all and make it look good.  They're all hearts and minds and are doing this for the good of ill and disabled people, after all, we've been told from the beginning "at the heart of everything we do".  

      LIARS !!!!
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 days ago
    I keep getting texts from other affected people celebrating that 'we're safe'. I won't share my worries with them but I don't feel safe at all. I'm so disappointed that rebels are backing down, there seem so many more ways we could all get screwed over and I'm still not happy at what new claimants would be subjected to. I honestly don't think I'll feel safe again. I never thought I'd live in this country and be expected to do things that will cause me pain and my conditions to worsen just to receive basic survival. All assessments I've had as a disabled person are dehumanising and aimed at using absolutely any excuse to deny you help, even mental health services. 
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 days ago
      @Pat753 The 4 point change wouldnt have changed the assessment, the descriptors werent changed, so it would have just affected if an award was given or not.  So I expect reviews to carry on as normal, its not the same as when the PCA changed to the WCA.

      However when Timms changes come into play, that will actually be a new assessment.
    • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
      · 21 days ago
      @Kitty
      The key question is: What will happen at re-assessment? Are they going to keep two separate assessment systems going, 2-pointers for existing claimants and 4-pointers for new claimants?
      Frankly I doubt it. So the can's just being kicked down the road.
  • Thank you for your comment. Comments are moderated before being published.
    · 21 days ago
    Has any more  Mps removed their names yet? So worried this is just a spin and lose everything when brought back for review.  

Free PIP, ESA & UC Updates!

Delivered Fortnightly

Over 110,000 claimants and professionals subscribe to the UK's leading source of benefits news.

 
iContact
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.