I have taken some time to write out for constituents in more detail my thoughts on the government’s attempt to cut disability benefits  – changes which have now been dropped.

Constituents will know that I had consistently and vociferously opposed the UK government’s plans to impose deep cuts to benefits for disabled people, having criticised these plans on their announcement in March, committed to voting against them in May, and signed the ‘Reasoned Amendment’ last week, which intended to force the government to amend what had become the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill (UC and PIP Bill).

These efforts were a success, and the government softened its plans in the face of a major backbench rebellion. That climbdown on 26 June meant current recipients of the health element of UC would no longer have their payments frozen, which could have cost claimants £250 a year by the end of this parliament.

It was agreed the £1bn of investment earmarked to support people back into work was to be brought forward to spend this year, rather than later in the decade.

I welcomed these changes as I welcomed many other elements of the Bill: the abolition of three-yearly assessments for the most severely disabled; the ‘Right to Try’; the proposals on Unemployment Insurance.

My biggest criticism of the Bill as was, however, were the changes to the point scoring system for PIP which would have pulled support for current recipients who did not meet the amended criteria in such important areas as not been able to use a toilet unaided or eat food unassisted. On this came the major concession from the government last week.

This concession would have meant, however, that many people who become disabled after November 2026, or are currently disabled but do not attempt to claim until then, would not be eligible for the same support.

The result would have been the creation of two different systems treating people differently because they became disabled at different times. It would have also meant that disabled children on Disability Living Allowance would face losing the same level of support on turning 16 by entering the new system for scoring PIP.

I again committed to voting against the Bill after these compromises, because they would have baked an inherent unfairness into the benefits system.

On the day of the Second Reading of the Bill (1 July 2025) – around 90 minutes before MPs were due to vote on it – the government announced it would remove Clause V from the Bill, meaning that the PIP scoring changes would not be implemented until after a review by the disability minister, Stephen Timms. This would include consultation with disabled people, a key demand of mine.

Because MPs only had minutes to digest this further concession – which was given as a promise to amend the legislation rather than an actual amendment to the legislation as brought before the House, given the short notice – I could not be sure that my vote would not impoverish some of my disabled constituents. A ministerial reply to an intervention by a backbench MP, less than two hours before the vote (which is how this concession was formally announced) is no way to make a law that will affect millions.

As such, I voted against, alongside 48 other Labour MPs, with many more abstaining. The vote passed, meaning the Bill will proceed to committee stage, and then its Third Reading.

I now have reasonable confidence that the government’s dropping of Clause V and making any point scoring changes subject to consultation will mean that neither current nor future PIP recipients will lose out although, like many backbench colleagues, I will be watching closely for explicit confirmation of this in the coming days. The Bill will no longer make savings off the back of PIP recipients who cannot use the toilet without help, eat unaided, or even wash themselves.

It will also implement all the positive reforms I mention above, which I have been consistent in supporting. As a result I will now consider whether I can finally vote for a Bill at its Third Reading that will actually help support many people who should be able to work, into work, without cutting support from disabled children in receipt of DLA or any other future PIP claimants.

It is a great shame that the government did not go back to the drawing board in a more ordered and reasoned manner with this Bill. These changes originated from backbench pressure. This was not, in the first instance, a genuine attempt to help disabled people back into work and had always been framed through the prism of shaving billions from disability benefits.

This must be the origin point of any reforms in future, not the need to satisfy spreadsheets. The stability of the public finances must be ensured but there are alternatives. The tax system needs to properly tax wealth, it needs to be simplified, it needs major reform itself to be able to support a modern welfare state that truly looks after the most vulnerable, both now and into the future.

This Bill has, from the very beginning, started from a place of satisfying political objectives and satisfying the bond markets. It did not start from thinking big about sustainably funding disability benefits and getting people who can work, into work.

The government should try starting with how it wants to achieve transformational change in this country and go from there. I believe it has done so on wages, on rail and bus renationalisation, on greater rights at work for employees, on water, on trade deals, on EU relations, and much more.

This was not the case with this Bill. Thankfully, owing to backbench pressure, it looks like the vast majority of disabled people will no longer lose out.

This episode shows that local MPs like myself can make a difference when they stand up for their constituents.

I understand this is a complex and fast-moving issue, so if you have any questions about the Bill as it now stands, or need anything clarifying, please get in touch with me and I would be very happy to talk anything through with you. You can email me at steve.witherden.mp@parliament.uk to either correspond directly or to book into a surgery to speak with me in-person.