Share this post:

MPs have voted to pass the Universal Credit Bill — stripped of all meaningful safeguards and loaded with powers that may devastate the lives of sick and disabled people from 2026 onwards.

It may go down as one of the most brazen acts of political cowardice in recent memory,

Despite weeks of debate and dozens of amendments, Parliament failed to prevent the government from doing exactly what it originally intended: delay the cuts, dress them up as “reform”, and implement them at will — even if the long-promised Timms review advises against it.

The final vote saw the Bill pass by 336 votes to 242, effectively greenlighting a two-tier welfare system and leaving future claimants exposed to the same cuts MPs claimed to oppose just last week.

MPs knew the danger — and let it happen anyway

The Government’s original plan – to slash support for people with long-term health conditions and disabilities – was partially paused after a rebellion by Labour backbenchers during the Bill’s Second Reading on July 1.

Ministers promised that any changes to Personal Independence Payment (PIP) would wait for a review — the so-called Timms review, set to report in autumn 2026.

But there is no legal obligation for the government to follow the review’s findings – or even debate them, let alone have a vote.

And yesterday, when MPs had the chance to change that — they refused.

New Clause 8, tabled by John McDonnell, would have blocked the Government from using secondary legislation to impose PIP cuts.

It would have forced ministers to publish draft legislation and bring any changes before Parliament for full scrutiny.

And it was defeated by 443 votes to 130.

This was the only amendment that would have made it legally impossible for the government to ignore the review and press ahead with cuts anyway.

‘Meaningful engagement’ means nothing without power

Labour MP Marie Tidball tabled New Clause 11, calling for the review to be genuinely “co-produced” with disabled people and led by those with lived experience.

Sir Stephen Timms, the minister conducting the review, accepted parts of her proposal and promised to work closely with disability groups.

But he refused to guarantee them a veto. And despite appeals from MPs like Stella Creasy, he declined to give them any binding influence at all.

“We will aim for a consensus,”

Timms said from the despatch box.

That is not co-production.

That is consultation with extra steps.

If the Government doesn’t like what disabled people say, ministers can ignore it — just as they have ignored the United Nations, the disability charities, and the thousands of sick and disabled people warning that these cuts will cost lives.

Cuts delayed, not defeated

The only “concession” made was on timing.

The cuts to PIP have been deferred — not scrapped.

Cuts to the Universal Credit health element for new claimants will begin in April 2026, as originally planned.

• People diagnosed with cancer or MS after that date will receive up to £50 less per week than those diagnosed earlier.

• Fluctuating conditions like ME, epilepsy or bipolar disorder will be penalised, because the Bill legally requires conditions to affect people “constantly”.

• Attempts to fix that — including Amendment 38, which would have protected people whose condition worsens or relapses — were voted down.

All of this could have been stopped.

MPs were given the tools.

They chose not to use them.

BBC spins, MPs capitulate, disabled people pay

Meanwhile, mainstream media outlets like the BBC laundered the truth, reporting that the Government had “backed down” and “protected existing claimants” — as though that were enough.

There was no mention of the fact that the Timms review has no legal force.

There was no mention that Parliament voted against binding the Government to it.

There was no mention that the exact same cuts could still arrive in 2026, exactly as planned.

The Government got what it wanted, wrapped in the PR-friendly veneer of consultation and review.

Future disabled people will pay the price.

And Parliament will pretend it didn’t know.

But it did know.

MPs knew the dangers.

They debated them.

They named them.

Then they voted to expose disabled people to them anyway.

Share this post: