The welfare bill still threatens even deeper cuts and is morally indefensible

‘This creates a two-tier welfare state: those lucky enough to qualify before the changes will receive support to live, though not necessarily with dignity’

Andy McDonald is the Labour Party MP for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East

Last week in Parliament, nearly 50 Labour MPs took a principled stand and voted against the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill. They did so because they could not support measures that will take billions from disabled people—many already struggling to make ends meet—and deepen the poverty that continues to scar our country. And I know many other colleagues shared our view.

This Bill will, even now, after last-minute concessions, strips £2 billion from future claimants of Universal Credit health-related payments. Around 750,000 people stand to lose an average of £3,000 a year—almost half of what they would have received under current rules. And we know that three-quarters of those people are living in material deprivation. 

That’s not trimming fat; it’s cutting through vital lifelines. The weekly top-up of £97 for those too unwell to work will be slashed to just £50 for those applying after the government’s cut-off date. Same condition, same need, two wildly different outcomes.

By design, this creates a two-tier welfare state: those lucky enough to qualify before the changes will receive support to live, though not necessarily with dignity. Those applying after—many equally unwell—will be expected to get by on far less. That’s not fairness. It’s not justice. And it’s not what we were elected to deliver.

Let’s be clear who this will affect. These are not abstract figures on a Treasury spreadsheet. These are people living with severe disabilities—those unable to walk more than 50 metres without pain or exhaustion; people who need supervision to prevent serious harm; those who physically cannot press a keypad with either hand. Right now, they receive £423 a month. Soon, it could be just £217.

This isn’t reform. It’s regression. And it will compound existing structural injustices. At the same time, policies like the two-child benefit cap—another legacy of Conservative austerity—continue to push thousands of children into poverty. Since the election, an estimated 40,000 more children are now living in hardship because of it. To press ahead with a bill that threatens even deeper cuts is not just bad policy—it is morally indefensible.

Ministers argue that their latest tweaks will, by 2030, result in 50,000 fewer people in relative poverty after housing costs, compared to projections. But respected organisations like the Resolution Foundation and NEF have rightly questioned these figures. The headline claim relies on creative accounting—comparing the bill not to the status quo, but to hypothetical Tory policies that were never fully enacted, to make the figure 150,000 better. The government should clarify that. Because, strip away the spin, and the reality is bleak: this bill will leave many with less.

That the cuts to PIP are now delayed pending the Timms Review, is a real step forward and the same logic must apply to Universal Credit. Why the rush to strip support from those too unwell to work, without first understanding the consequences? And why, yet again, are those most affected being left out of the conversation? That’s why I will support efforts to maintain the existing rate for future claimants, whilst a review is conducted and oppose efforts to cut it.

As my colleague Marie Tidball has powerfully argued, policy affecting disabled people must be co-produced—not merely consulted on after the fact. That means building a system with, not for, disabled people. It means hearing from those who live every day with the consequences of political decisions made in Westminster. If the government is serious about fairness, it must commit to a transparent, needs-based framework for uprating social security.

But more than that, we as Labour MPs must ask ourselves a deeper question: whose side are we on? Because this bill is not just about welfare. It’s about the broader philosophy underpinning government spending. The Pathways to Work Green Paper that spawned this legislation was rushed forward to meet arbitrary fiscal targets. These targets are not neutral—they are ideological. They are the same ones that, over the past decade, slashed councils to the bone, hollowed out the NHS, and decimated our social fabric.

As Neil Kinnock reminded us recently, welfare cuts, fuel allowance reductions, and shrinking international aid remain a cloud over this government’s early achievements. If we are serious about social justice, then alongside a serious approach to welfare reform,  we must look again at how we raise revenue—and who we ask to contribute. There is no economic or moral justification for taxing income more heavily than wealth. We should be considering a one-off or recurring wealth tax. At the very least, capital gains must be taxed at the same rate as earnings.

Labour now has a rare and precious opportunity. The country voted for change—for an end to austerity not just in rhetoric, but in reality. That means rejecting policies that ask the poorest and sickest to carry the heaviest burden. It means facing up to the hard choices on taxation and wealth. And it means reforming disability welfare with disabled people, not in spite of them.

We cannot build a fairer society by taking thousands of pounds from those who need our support most. So let us pause. Let us listen. Let’s stop these Universal Credit cuts. And let us act in line with the values that brought us here in the first place.

We said we would bring about change. Now we need to show that our government is ready to do so.