Will the Changes to Benefits System Bring Fairness or Chaos? Labour MPs Challenge Kendall's Plans

Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall finds herself under intense scrutiny as Labour MPs express concerns about the rollout of changes to the benefit system. The government’s recent U-turn clarified that stricter eligibility criteria for the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) will only affect new claimants after November 2026, leaving existing claimants untouched for now. Kendall emphasized that a review of the assessment process, led by disability minister Sir Stephen Timms, would be conducted in conjunction with disability organizations and completed by Autumn 2026. However, many Labour backbenchers are questioning the logic in altering qualifying criteria prior to the review’s results.

A major point of contention is the government’s requirement that new claimants must score at least four points on one activity to qualify for PIP, as opposed to a broader range of tasks. This has raised alarms among Labour MPs, including Debbie Abrahams, who argue that the parameters for the review should be determined collaboratively with disabled individuals instead of pre-establishing a four-point threshold. Calls for a clearer rationale behind the changes are echoed by MPs such as Sarah Owen, who is perplexed by the government’s proactive adjustments before the Timms review.

Despite the government’s concessions aimed at appeasing the opposition, about 50 Labour MPs still plan to vote against the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payments Bill. This dissent stems from a belief that the Timms review should be respected before implementing any new measures, as echoed by MP Connor Naismith.

Kendall asserts her attentiveness to concerns raised by her party and insists that changes made will protect existing claimants from descending into poverty, highlighting the need for fairness in the welfare system that remains sustainable for taxpayers. Initially predicted to save £5 billion by 2030, the revised concessions are expected to cost £2.5 billion instead. Critics across party lines, including Conservative member Helen Whately, decry the changes as a rushed and inadequate response to a failing system, originating from a chaotic compromise.

Further, the government acknowledges fears that the alterations could potentially lead to a two-tier system among claimants, a situation that is defended by Kendall, who believes that safeguarding existing claimants is crucial to preserving their quality of life. Although new modeling suggests that around 150,000 individuals might be driven into poverty due to the welfare changes—an improvement from an initial estimation of 250,000—the full implications remain uncertain. A Downing Street spokesman argues that broader efforts are underway to alleviate poverty and enhance living standards, particularly through employment initiatives.