The U.K. Parliament narrowly progressed a controversial bill on Tuesday evening that stands to limit access to key welfare payments, should it become enacted.
Titled the Universal Credit (UC) and Personal Independence Payment (PIP) Bill, the measure looks at increasing the requirements needed to access certain disability and mental health benefits. The proposal has been labeled “Dickensian” by some disapproving lawmakers.
Changes to PIP would apply to England and Wales, whilst UC adjustments would apply to England, Wales, and Scotland. The bill states that both changes would apply to Northern Ireland, with “corresponding provisions.”
Proposed changes to PIP mean that those with physical or mental illness, or disablement, would need to meet a higher threshold regarding their abilities and assistance needs in order to receive financial support.
The bill would also rebalance Universal Credit payments, removing access for disabled people under the age of 22 to additional funds, whilst slightly increasing the standard allowance for all UC claims related to disability affecting a person’s ability to work.
The Labour Party leader and U.K. Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, has faced significant backlash on the bill submitted by his own party. While strong criticism has come from his opposition—the Conservative Party—members within his own party have also rebelled against the measure.
Starmer faced a flurry of queries from Members of Parliament (MPs) during Prime Minister’s Questions in the House of Commons on Wednesday.
“We have to get on and reform, we have a broken system that is not working for those who use the system, it is not working for the taxpayer… we have to get on and reform it in the way that we set out yesterday,” Starmer said, responding to Liberal Democrat MP Victoria Collins, who argued that people are “living in limbo” as a result of the bill controversy and last-minute concessions.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves could be seen behind Starmer, seemingly becoming tearful at points during the session. Reeves now needs to produce solutions for a bill that may not save the government any money, despite that being its original hallmark. (The Chancellor’s spokesperson has since said that Reeves was upset over a personal matter, and that it will not be discussed in any further detail.)
Still, the turmoil caused by the welfare bill is making an impact across party lines.
Speaking out against the bill on Tuesday, Labour MP Imran Hussain said: “I have always promised my constituents in Bradford East that I will never vote for anything that will increase poverty, deprivation, or deepen the health inequalities in my constituency.”
Despite changes to the bill, the potential impact of the measure is “a ticking time bomb,” says Liz Howard, a social worker and professional officer for the British Association of Social Workers.
“There’s a real risk that people are going to fall through the gaps and that we might see an increase in deaths and homelessness,” she says.
Read More: Starmer, the Man Who Wants to Fix Britain
Here’s what to know about the controversial welfare bill that has prompted politicians across all major parties to speak out.
Why is the bill proving controversial?
The bill focuses on two aspects of welfare payments: PIP and Universal Credit claims.
PIP is claimed by 3.7 million people in England and Wales with long-term physical or mental health conditions, providing funds to help support those in need.
The bill is proposing higher thresholds for claims to help with mobility, whilst claims for daily living assistance will not change. As of now, people can claim either £29.20 ($40) or an enhanced rate of £77.05 ($105) a week in mobility payments. Claimants can receive the enhanced rate based upon their circumstances (such as if they have terminal illness).
Regarding Universal Credit, three million claimants currently have no requirement to find work due to their health. The base rate of UC is just over £400 ($548) for someone single and aged 25 or over.
Claimants of all ages can receive a top-up payment if they have difficulty working due to a disability or long-term health issue. This can be up to £423 ($580), but under the proposed bill, claimants aged under 22 will no longer be able to receive this top-up.
The most immediate impact of this would be claimants having to adjust their spending choices, such as much-needed assistance with cleaning, cooking, and transport, according to Dave Finch, assistant director of the UK-based Health Foundation.
“If people are expecting that they [might] lose entitlements in future, then that can create fear or anxiety, which could also have a negative impact on their health,” says Finch, highlighting the rippling effects of the bill.
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) initially estimated that another 250,000 people, including 50,000 children, could be pushed into relative poverty in the financial year ending 2030. That overall figure was reduced to 150,000 after some initial changes to the bill on Monday.
“People would be faced with a reduced budget and [difficult] decisions. Do you need to reduce some essentials, like your food, your heating bills, or do you reduce some of the healthcare support you receive?” Finch says.
Restricting access to PIP could also deprive people of access to other services in a system already described as “inadequate” after austerity and funding cut impacts have been felt in health and social services, according to long-time social worker Howard.
“PIP is what we call a ‘marker of need’ that can enable support to people provided by their local council or the NHS [National Health Service]. If PIP is cut, that’s going to mean that a lot of people who are very vulnerable are going to be erased from the system,” she explains. “Disabled people themselves have fought really hard to have that right to self determination and be in the workplace. It really feels like the welfare reforms that are being proposed are saying to disabled people ‘we don’t care about your future.’”
What concessions had to be made to get the bill passed the initial hurdle?
Before Tuesday’s vote, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Liz Kendall wrote to MPs, confirming that changes to PIP eligibility will not apply to those already claiming payments. Only new claimants from November 2026 would see the tighter restrictions.
This amendment means that an estimated 370,000 will no longer be affected by the changes that were previously set to miss out.
After Tuesday’s additional concessions, changes to PIP will now be under review, with the findings set to be published in Autumn 2026, before any adjustments can be made. The review will be conducted by the Minister for Disabled People, Sir Stephen Timms, and independent organizations.
But as many MPs have pointed out, this now leaves people in a sense of “limbo.”
Finch argues the last-minute concessions should have been part of the conversation all along, “rather than moving straight to making short-term cuts to try and change the trajectory of spending effectively.”
Read More: Keir Starmer Is on the 2025 TIME100 List
Dissent among Labour MPs
After much deliberation on the sidelines, 333 Labour MPs, alongside three independent representatives, voted in favour of the bill, giving it the majority it needed to advance.
But despite the bill passing its second reading on Tuesday evening, 49 Labour MPs showed their continued disagreement, voting no against it, even with the concessions made.
Alongside the Labour MPs who directly rebelled against Starmer, a further 18 from Labour abstained from the vote.
Labour MP Marie Tidball, who often campaigns on behalf of herself and others with disabilities, spoke in the House of Commons on Tuesday, tearfully saying that she would be rejecting the bill “with a heavy heart.”
“I need my constituents to know that I cannot support the proposed changes to PIP as currently drafted… PIP is an in-work benefit, designed to ensure disabled people can live independently. Low-level support like PIP builds the bridge to the de-institutionalisation of disabled people, keeping us out of the dark corners of hospitals, prisons, and social care settings,” she said.
Meanwhile, Labour MP Rachael Maskell called the cuts “Dickensian,” adding “they belong in a different era and a different party, they are far from what this Labour party is for… It is a matter of deep conscience for me to ensure that these precious people are treated, for once, with dignity.”
The wide-scale rebellion amongst Labour politicians will be a major concern for Starmer, who faces significant fragmentation within his party just under a year after winning a landslide general election.
What happens now?
The changes made to the watered-down bill have raised concerns over how much money the government expects to save from changes, the principal argument for enacting reform in the first place.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that after no immediate changes to PIP as a result of Tuesday’s amendments, the government stands to make no savings by 2030.
“The government’s original reform was set to save £5.5 billion in the short run (by 2029–30) and double that in the long run when fully rolled out. Without reform to Personal Independence Payment, the watered-down bill is not expected to deliver any savings over the next four years,” said IFS Deputy Director Helen Miller.
This estimation also considers that within the amended bill, savings made by reducing Universal Credit allowances to new claimants based on health grounds will be offset by the increase in the benefit’s standard allowance.
And if the bill is passed through further reviews and readings in both chambers of the British Parliament, any changes to PIP will have to wait until the government-led review publishes its findings in Autumn 2026.
“Disabled people haven’t been consulted on these changes, this would have provided a much better understanding about their impact. Making changes to the welfare system without really understanding where that fits within the rest of the [health and social care] system seems incredibly risky and damaging,” Howard says.
“As social workers, we’re committed to challenging social injustice. We must be very clear that we stand in solidarity with those people who are likely to be affected, which could also be members of our own profession.”
Now, there is a wider concern that taxes may be raised in order to fund the concessions. On Wednesday, Starmer did not rule out tax increases.
Leader of the opposition, Kemi Badenoch of the Conservative Party, queried whether the government would increase taxes in November to combat the new potential costs of the bill.
Starmer replied that it would be unusual for him to give an immediate update on budgets and tax adjustments. “She knows that no Prime Minister or Chancellor ever stands at the dispatch box and writes budgets in the future,” he said.
What else has Prime Minister Keir Starmer said?
Facing questions from MPs on Wednesday, the Prime Minister came under heavy criticism for the turmoil caused by the bill. Despite opposition from those both within and outside his party, Starmer staunchly defended the bill in its latest form.
Badenoch also asked Starmer how much the proposed bill would save. To which the Prime Minister replied that the bill “ends mandatory re-assessment of those with severe disabilities… rebalances Universal Credit that is long overdue, and it sets out a pathway to a reform of PIP.”
“It is consistent with the principles I set out,” Starmer maintained, falling short of directly responding to the question put forward.
The post Understanding the Controversy Over the U.K. Government’s Welfare Bill appeared first on TIME.
