The government has confirmed a major shift in its welfare policy, with changes expected to affect millions of people across the UK. The measures, introduced by Chancellor Rachel Reeves, are already drawing significant political and public attention.
According to Lancs Live, the reforms could have serious implications for those relying on disability benefits or Universal Credit. While ministers highlight long-term goals around employment and budget savings, early reactions suggest the proposals may be more controversial than anticipated.
Full details of the plan—and the backlash it’s provoking—are still unfolding as the wider implications become clearer.
Changes to PIP Eligibility and Universal Credit Payments
Under the new framework, eligibility for Personal Independence Payment (PIP) will be tightened.
Claimants must now accumulate at least four points in a single domain of daily living activity—such as managing medications, preparing food, or handling finances—to qualify. Those scoring three or fewer in each area will lose entitlement.
This measure will affect approximately 800,000 people, with an average financial loss estimated at £4,500 per claimant.
For Universal Credit, the health element will be cut by 50% for new claimants and then frozen. While the Standard Allowance will increase from £92 per week in 2025–26 to £106 by 2029–30, critics argue this uplift will not compensate for reductions elsewhere.
Face-To-Face Assessments and Benefit Integration
The reforms will significantly increase face-to-face disability assessments, which are expected to rise from 7% of all evaluations. The government argues this will enhance “trust” in the system, but campaigners warn it risks denying necessary aid to vulnerable individuals.
Meanwhile, the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) will be phased out. Eligibility for the health component of Universal Credit will now rely solely on the PIP assessment, aiming to streamline the process for the 1.7 million people currently undergoing both evaluations. The focus will shift from work capacity to daily life impact.
For individuals with lifelong or severe disabilities, the requirement for regular reassessments will end, ensuring a degree of income stability for this group.
Government Rationale and Economic Goals
Chancellor Reeves emphasized the need to address economic inactivity and reduce welfare spending. “It is a waste of their potential,” she told MPs, referring to the record 2.8 million people currently out of work due to long-term illness. She added:
Today, the OBR have said that they estimate the package will save £4.8bn in the welfare budget, reflecting their judgements on behavioural effects and wider factors.
This also reflects final adjustments to the overall package, consistent with the Secretary of State’s statement last week, and the Government’s Pathways to Work Green Paper.
While plans floated under the previous Conservative government to replace PIP with vouchers or introduce means-testing have been abandoned, the overall tone of the reforms has raised significant alarm.
Political and Institutional Backlash
MP Debbie Abrahams, chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, expressed deep reservations:
I recognise the difficulties that Ms Reeves is facing in terms of fiscal challenges and so on that she inherited, and I also support the reforms Liz Kendall has set out.
But all the evidence is pointing to the fact that the cuts to health and disability benefits will lead to increased poverty, including severe poverty, and worsened health conditions as well.
How will making people sicker and poorer help in terms of driving our economy up and people into jobs?”
Former Shadow Treasury Minister Richard Burgon was more direct, stating :
Making cuts instead of taxing wealth is a political choice, and taking away the personal independence payments from so many disabled people is an especially cruel choice.
Concerns From Research Bodies and Charities
The Resolution Foundation’s Ruth Curtice acknowledged the need for reform, but criticized the way it has been handled :
Reform to health and disability benefits is needed, but the scale and last-minute nature of many of the changes announced today suggest that long-term change is playing second fiddle to short-term savings.
She added that while increasing unemployment support was welcome, the lack of transitional protection could be damaging :
The boost to unemployment support is welcome and long overdue, and closing the gap between standard and health-related support should encourage more people into work.
But the Government will need to tread very carefully with disability benefit reforms, including transitional protection for those at risk of income shocks, not least as its own assessment suggests these measures will push a quarter of a million people below the poverty line.
Paul Kissack, chief executive of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, issued a similarly stark warning:
The Chancellor said today that she would not do anything to put household finances in danger, yet the Government’s own assessment shows that their cuts to health related benefits risk pushing 250,000 people into poverty, including 50,000 children.
This will harm people, deepening the hardship they already face.
Work Incentives and Income Allowances
To address disincentives to work, the reforms guarantee that benefits will not be reassessed or withdrawn simply because a claimant attempts employment.
This legal safeguard is intended to allow disabled people to try working without risking a total loss of support.
Under the new framework, individuals receiving the health element of Universal Credit can earn :
- Up to £404 per month if receiving housing support.
- Up to £673 per month without housing support.
These work allowances are designed to maintain support while encouraging workforce reintegration.
Following the announcement, charities and advice services have reported a sharp increase in calls and visits, reflecting widespread anxiety. Advocacy groups continue to press for transitional support and impact assessments, warning of irreversible harm to the UK’s most vulnerable populations.
