UK: Disability benefits (UC, ESA and PIP) - news and updates 2024 and 2025

tornandfrayed said:
It's not over yet. There's still the Committee and Report Stages and 3rd Reading. I think it will still go to the Lords, but as it's a money bill they can't make any amendments.

The committee stage of a bill is a detailed, line-by-line examination of the legislation, where MPs or Lords propose amendments (changes) to the bill's clauses and schedules. In the House of Commons, this is typically done by a Public Bill Committee, while in the House of Lords, it's usually the whole House or a Grand Committee.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Purpose:
  • The primary aim of the committee stage is to scrutinize the bill thoroughly and make necessary amendments to improve its clarity, effectiveness, and overall structure.
  • It's an opportunity to address concerns raised during the second reading and incorporate feedback from various stakeholders.
Process:





    • Public Bill Committee (Commons): A smaller group of MPs, reflecting the party balance in the House, is selected to examine the bill in detail.
    • Committee of the Whole House (Commons & Lords): In specific cases, like with important or urgent legislation, the entire House may sit as a committee.
    • Grand Committee (Lords): A smaller group within the Lords that can be used for committee stage.
    • Clause-by-clause scrutiny: The committee examines each clause and schedule of the bill, line by line and debates potential amendments

    All these stages in the Commons are being compressed into one day when it would normally take months or even years for a bill like this. More dirty dealing.

    Some MPs have said that they always intended to wait and see what amendments were passed before voting against on the 3rd Reading if they weren't satisfied.
Click to expand...
It was just a live update on the live events in Parliament - the discussion moved on to next steps. I’m familiar with how bills and Parliament work, thank you.
 
tornandfrayed said:
I didn't want to say because obviously halving what people currently get is awful, but I wasn't aware until recently that LCWRA get so much more than us on CB-ESA. Why is that? Was it a bribe to get people to transfer. I did get a letter about claiming IR a few years ago. I have savings and I didn't think I'd get much. I was worried about the implications and I'm glad I didn't pursue it because I couldn't cope with transferring to UC now.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think it was a bribe, it's just that people who claimed C-ESA could have had substantial income or savings yet still qualify for benefits. For that reason, it didn't automatically passport people to other entitlements such as housing benefit, council tax reductions, free prescriptions, concessions on all kinds of services. I don't think the disability premiums applied either; these are why some people on LCWRA may get about twice the basic UC rate.

What usually happened when people applied for C-ESA is that they also applied for I-ESA. Both DWP and my local council told me to do that, even though I didn't qualify for I-ESA at the time. All it involved was ticking both boxes on the application form.

Turned out I did qualify just over a year later, because I'd had to use my modest savings to cushion the impact of losing a full time salary (e.g. I had a £350 a month car loan that still had 14 months to run).

For a time, part of my income was C-ESA and part I-ESA—that happened once my savings had come down under £16K. Eventually I reported I was under the £6K lower limit, and they switched me fully to I-ESA. My income went up quite a lot at that point.

Some people on C-ESA may have an underlying entitlement to I-ESA because they did tick both those boxes years ago. If they were under the upper capital limit but over the lower one, they could potentially receive some I-ESA*. What I don't know, though, is whether that is advantageous enough now to make it worth contacting DWP. It's possible it isn't.


* It's also possible to be receiving some I-ESA already and be unaware of it, as it's not really clear from the info they send you. I didn't know until I had to call DWP about something, and they explained it to me.
 
JemPD said:
Does anyone know where I can find out more about this bit?
Click to expand...

This reply to a question on Benefits & Work might help a bit. The link should take you straight to the answer—the question, from a B&W user, is immediately above.


ETA: in case it doesn't load quite cleanly, the name of the poster offering the explanation is john, and his comment starts "As you are receiving UC your money will not change if in the future ESA ceases to exist."
 
The ME Association has produced a template letter for sending to your MP about the welfare reforms:

Welfare Reform: Keep writing to your MP!​

July 4, 2025
We sincerely ‘Thank you' for all the letters you've sent to your MPs. However, please keep sending letters, as we need to ensure that they know the strength of feeling and hear the views of the disabled community, including those with ME/CFS and Long Covid moving forward.

Ella Smith, Welfare Rights Consultant to the ME Association has kindly written an updated version of the MP template letter post recent developments.

Please consider writing to your MP


https://www.writetothem.com/


​

 
I just happened upon the first post in this thread, which goes back to the proposed removal of the mobilising descriptor from the WCA assessment. Since the new severe conditions group requires that a claimant meets one of the descriptors all the time, this may be one where many people with physical conditions meet the threshold. However, when they merge the assessments, so that PIP becomes in effect 'the new WCA' (the passport to the health element of UC) then they will have effectively removed mobilising from the LCWRA by the back door. This is because they are saying that the health element will require the CARE element of PIP, and have excluded those with just a mobility award.

EDIT: I can't remember where I read this, but they are talking about requiring 'the daily living' element of PIP. It will no doubt be subtly changed from 'requiring a PIP award' to them limiting it to the care side.

Of course, many people with mobilising problems may be more likely to get the care element of PIP than to meet the other LCWRA descriptors, since these are so extreme. But this still won't passport them to the severe conditions group once the PIP care award replaces the WCA.

Who goes into the Limited Capability for Work-Related Activity (LCWRA) group and how?

Get the benefits you're entitled to: help with personal independence payment (PIP), universal credit (UC), employment and support allowance (ESA),disability living allowance (DLA). Claims, assessments, reviews, appeals.
www.benefitsandwork.co.uk www.benefitsandwork.co.uk

PIP points system

Get the benefits you're entitled to: help with personal independence payment (PIP), universal credit (UC), employment and support allowance (ESA),disability living allowance (DLA). Claims, assessments, reviews, appeals.
www.benefitsandwork.co.uk www.benefitsandwork.co.uk

When you compare the descriptors of two assessments, then it shows how the PIP care award is unsuitable for assessing a claimant's capacity to work. I suspect this is the ultimate purpose of the 'Timms review', so they can somehow try to combine the two to create another 'severe conditions' group (so they can claim they are not expecting the 'most severe' claimants to work or go through repeated reassessments). Of course, neither the PIP or the WCA have much bearing on a claimant's ability to work in 'the real world' (as opposed to the hypothetical 'modern workplace' or 'the modern world').

I think it's worth getting MPs to understand the potential problems here.

If they simply go for someone having to score an 8 in one of the descriptors it will likely weight it in favour of mental health, as many autistic people, those with depression and anxiety, etc., are able to score highly on this descriptor -

9. Engaging with other people face to face.​

  1. Can engage with other people unaided. 0 points.
  2. Needs prompting to be able to engage with other people. 2 points.
  3. Needs social support to be able to engage with other people. 4 points.
  4. Cannot engage with other people due to such engagement causing either –
    1. overwhelming psychological distress to the claimant; or
    2. the claimant to exhibit behaviour which would result in a substantial risk of harm to the claimant or another person. 8 points.
I'm autistic with ADHD, I only scored a 4 on this one despite having a Rethink mental health support worker and a council funded advocate with me in my home assessment, because the before and after effects aren't visible during a time limited assessment. I do actually meet the criteria for an 8 as if I am forced to engage with other people in any context, I can't sleep for a few days prior (if it's a planned appointment) and it takes weeks for me to recover. I was actually better when I was younger, it's a fallacy that autistic people can simply learn skills that will last their lifetimes. The accumulation of rejection, bullying, age related illness, autistic burnout etc., all makes things more difficult for many older autistic people. But I think as young people are more likely to have had their autism recognised in childhood now, their difficulties are accepted more by professionals.
 
Last edited:
Thanks @Kitty I too ill to take it in properly, but am i right in thinking it means that as i dont get any UC - not being migrated due to not qualifying for any IR component.

goodness just KMN!

I confused so foggy, says something about green paper ? is that not not the bill that going through now?

@sorry you been sobbing @tornandfrayed you not alone :heart:

It makes me wonder if it was intentonal to put a bill that be defeat/consessons - so they coul blame us for tax rises

its just evil regardless
 
Simbindi said:
I was actually better when I was younger, it's a fallacy that autistic people can simply learn skills that will last their lifetimes. The accumulation of rejection, bullying, age related illness, autistic burnout etc., all makes things more difficult for many older autistic people.
Click to expand...

And energy.

I technically qualify for 8 points, but wouldn't try to argue for it because my difficulties would be near invisible at assessment. I'm able to mask my autism very well; not only that, but after 60-odd years of living with it (40 of them in professional jobs), I've forgotten how not to mask it.

What they can't see is that I can only keep it up for a couple of hours. Then I need days to recover from the fantastically high energy demand.

Even though I choose to spend time playing music with other people when I'm able, I'd still suffer harm if I had to engage with them for a whole day, or every day. Also, we're playing music in a pub, which couldn't be more different to socialising in a pub. Music has rules that are almost 100% predictable.

But even a sympathetic tribunal judge would struggle to understand that, unless they knew autistic people with ME/CFS.
 
JemPD said:
Thanks @Kitty I too ill to take it in properly, but am i right in thinking it means that as i dont get any UC - not being migrated due to not qualifying for any IR component.
Click to expand...

Yep!

But...that reply to someone on B&W was interesting. They got both new-style ESA and UC, so they'd be migrated to UC without any immediate loss of income.

The question it raises is, what happens if C-ESA is made a time limited allowance, and someone isn't migrated to another benefit after 12 months because they haven't claimed income-related allowances?

I suspect the answer is likely to be that current claimants stay on C-ESA until they age out of it. But if I were entitled to any income related benefits, even if it were only £1 a week, I might think of claiming them just in case they decide to end it. That's why I posted that reply, I thought it might be useful to someone who's in that situation

It's not so easy for severely ill people pull together all the evidence they'd demand, even if they might qualify. I guess in that case it's best to wait—nothing's going to happen till the 2028 review.

God it's a pain in the neck, though.
 
Whether or not the UN statement influences MPs when voting for the BiIl, it is extremely embarrassing to the Government at this point. The letter includes:


'In particular, the Committee [UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities] requests clarification on the following :

9 'Public statements by politicians and authorities portraying persons with disabilities as making profit of social benefits, making false statements to get social and disability benefits or being a burden to society.'

.
 
Last edited:
In response to Kirsty Blackman, Stephen Timms said repeatedly, reliably, safely etc will still apply for descriptors to qualify for the Severe Conditions criteria although it specifically says that they have to apply constantly in the Bill. She replied that him stating that at the Despatch Box would be useful in legal challenges. Wording won't be exact but this is significant.
 
'Lurgee Liz at 2.44 pm
(twitter)
'Kirsty Blackman bringing up the requirement to "constantly" have a Schedule 7 descriptor apply qualify for Severe Conditions Criteria. Timms comes back indicating it will be up to DWP assessor to probe further to ascertain if it's a reliably occurring issue. Too subjective, NO!!!'


 
'Lurgee Liz' 3.16 pm:

'Why does Kirsty Blackman think we'll be relieved to hear Timms' ridiculous explanation of "constant" requirement actually meaning "reliably occurring" for SCC qualification, it relies too much on discretion of DWP assessor. Bill says "constant", DWP will rely on this definition!'


 
Kirsty Blackman's points here apply to ME as well

LurgeeLiz at 3.51 pm@

'Kirsty Blackman intervention vocalising problem of Severe Conditions Criteria requiring NHS diagnosis plus lifelong diagnosis. Highlights those with schizophrenia or bipolar won't ever likely receive lifelong diagnosis due to HCWs not wanting to tie people to such a prognosis.'


 
I don't think Kirsty Blackman was impressed by what Timms said or thinks we should be relieved. But he did open up a gap whether it's a concession or he just hasn't a clue what's in the Bill. It isn't anything that should change anyone's vote, but I think Blackman was thinking about legal action in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom