On Welfare Reform

The Second Reading of the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill is set to take place tomorrow, and as many people have been in touch to share their views on this legislation, I am writing this post to publicly set out how I intend to vote, my reasons for doing so, and how I have sought to influence the proposals over recent months.

In March, draft proposals for social security reform were leaked and were met with concern by a number of residents and charities. In the wake of this leak a series of meetings were held with MPs at Number 10 to discuss the case for reform of the current system, but no specific proposals for reform were discussed at any of these meetings. As was leaked to the media (https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/keir-starmer-labour-back-bench-job-creation#:~:text=When%20No10%20invited%20Labour%20MPs%20to%20book%20a%20slot%20for%20a%20Downing%20Street%20briefing%20on%20the%20controversial%20welfare%20reforms%2C%20the%20exchanges%20between%20aides%20and%20incisive%20MPs%20were%20described%20to%20The%20House%20as%20%E2%80%9Cbrutal%E2%80%9D.%20%E2%80%9CIt%20started%20with%20a%20question%20from%20Peter%20Lamb%20and%20got%20worse%20from%20there%2C%E2%80%9D%20according%20to%20one%20attendee.), I had concerns from the start.

From the publication of the green paper outlining the specific welfare reforms the Government proposed to make, it was clear to me that I could not support several of the policies set out in the proposals, most significantly the proposed eligibility changes for PIP, which would exclude people who by any reasonable definition had a high-level of need.

It is a principle of mine to never oppose a policy where I do not have a better alternative and, in April, I wrote a piece for LabourList—the main blog read by Labour activists and MPs—looking at better alternatives than the proposed changes to PIP in the hope that it would help to frame the debate around the green paper (https://labourlist.org/2025/04/personal-independence-payments-cuts-alternatives-peter-lamb/).

Over the months since the green paper was published, I have made use of every opportunity to raise concerns directly with decision-makers and to make the case for alternative approaches, including through meetings with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Minister of State for Social Security and Disability, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Chief Whip, and a very senior advisor at Number 10. I have been clear throughout that I would not vote for the bill in its current form and, as it became clear that words in private were having little effect, I began to say so more publicly in order to apply greater pressure (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/mar/26/reeves-accused–balancing-books-back-of-uk-poorest-spring-statement#:~:text=Peter%20Lamb%2C%20who,Crawley%20MP%20said., https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/ministers-must-get-a-grip-of-broken-benefits-system-rachel-reeves-insists-b2715051.html#:~:text=Peter%20Lamb%2C%20Labour%20MP%20for%20Crawley%2C%20told%20the%20Commons%20everything%20possible%20should%20be%20done%20to%20prevent%20the%20vilification%20of%20those%20receiving%20benefits. , https://labourlist.org/2025/03/mps-react-spring-statement-rachel-reeves-labour/#:~:text=Peter%20Lamb%2C%20the,considering%20other%20options.%E2%80%9D, https://x.com/iainjwatson/status/1926771751930761512).

Throughout this time, I have worked with other MPs to increase the internal pressure for change and in May I was a signatory to both the public and private letters to the Prime Minister making it clear that as backbench MPs we would not be supporting the proposed measures (https://labourlist.org/2025/05/disability-benefit-cuts-labour-mp-rebellion/). The culmination of this effort came last week with the publication of the ‘reasoned amendment’ to the Second Reading of the bill, demonstrating that the Government lacked the votes to pass the bill without concessions and of which I was one of the initial signatories (https://www.thenational.scot/news/25261789.see-full-list-labour-mps-rebelling-uk-welfare-pip-cuts/).

Following conversations with some of those involved in producing the amendment, on Thursday it was announced that the Government would make a number of changes to the bill at Committee Stage, and that those involved in the negotiations on the ‘rebel’ side agreed to put these concessions to other signatories without arguing for or against. Upon hearing the proposed concessions, I made it clear publicly that I would still be opposing the bill (https://x.com/PeterKLamb/status/1938296980771377581), setting out the case for continued opposition (https://peterlamb.org.uk/2025/06/30/labour-has-improved-its-welfare-bill-i-still-wont-be-voting-for-it-the-guardian-27-06-25/), and continuing to work with others to try to prevent any changes which would leave disabled people with lower levels of support.

I would encourage people to read the green paper which set out the full set of proposals and the case for reform (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67d84aa179f0d993dfb11f97/pathways-to-work.pdf). Part of the tragedy of the current situation is that the overwhelming majority of what is set out in the green paper is positive, deals with issues which disabled people have raised for many years and would deliver an improvement in the quality of life of those with disabilities. I believe these aspects of the reforms represent the best traditions of the Labour movement and the desire of ministers to fix broken elements of the welfare system.

Unfortunately, the benefits offered by these changes fall by the wayside due to the blunt way in which the Treasury has sought to make savings by scaling back support for disabled people. While the concessions made by the Government are an improvement, particularly the decision to maintain support for existing PIP recipients given the loss of life experienced when disability support was last reformed, the reality is that even if the new system is ‘co-produced’ with disability groups, so long as the Treasury is looking for reform to deliver savings, people with needs which would have been be met under the current system will no longer be met under the new system. It’s basic arithmetic.

While I agree with the Government that it is important that the fiscal rules are kept to and that something does need to be done to address the rate at which the social security bill is growing, by dealing with the reasons why disability is increasing in our society—particularly when it comes to the mental health backlog—we have the chance to make far greater savings to the public purse, without compromising on support for the disabled, while helping to improve the quality of life of vast numbers of our constituents.

As a Labour MP, why would I vote to removing support from vulnerable people when better alternatives clearly exist?