Addendum: Proposed Amendments to the UC and PIP Bill – Relevance for People with ME/CFS or Long Covid

What’s happening with all these amendments to the Universal Credit and PIP bill?

During the Committee Stage of a bill, MPs from all parties can suggest changes (called amendments) or propose new clauses—essentially ideas for what they believe should be in the final law.

Not all of these will be accepted, but they’re debated and voted on. Some are serious attempts to improve the bill. Others are put forward to challenge its direction or highlight major concerns.

That’s why some proposals seem to contradict each other—because different MPs are arguing for very different things. For example, one amendment might try to protect benefits for people with chronic illness, while another proposes stricter rules. It shows there’s still a fight over what this bill should do.

We’re watching this closely and pushing for changes that protect people with ME/CFS or Long Covid.

Committee Stage

Third Reading: 9 July 2025

These are the proposed amendments to the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill that are most relevant to people with ME/CFS or Long Covid. These conditions are characterised by “fluctuating” *, non-visible symptoms and complex care needs. The amendments have been assessed in terms of their likely impact on eligibility, fair access to support, recognition of fluctuating conditions, and associated safeguards.

*N.B. Where the use of the word ‘fluctuating' is used, this is to align with DWP terminology

2. Substantive Amendments Likely to Benefit People with ME/CFS or Long Covid

• Amendment 2(a): Retains the full LCWRA element (£423.27) for all new claimants.
• Amendments 2(b), 2(c), 20–30: Delay implementation of reduced LCWRA rate until 1 November 2026.
• Amendment 38 and 17: Ensure fluctuating conditions are included in ‘severe conditions criteria'.
• Amendments 32, 35: Remove requirement for descriptors to apply ‘constantly'.
• Amendments 33, 34: Permit diagnoses made outside of NHS services.
• NC2: Delays implementation until impact assessments and key reviews are completed.
• NC6: Requires accessible, personalised communication with all affected disabled claimants.
• NC7: Mandates consultation with disabled people’s organisations and carers before regulations are made.
• NC11: Establishes Disability Taskforce to oversee the Timms Review process and implementation.
• NC4 – Duty to Have Due Regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD)

– Proposed by: Stella Creasy and others

– Purpose: Requires the Secretary of State to have due regard to the UNCRPD when exercising any power under the Act.

Key implications

• Ensures that all regulations and decisions under the Bill consider disabled people’s rights to dignity, inclusion, and equality.
• Reinforces international human rights standards, including rights to independent living and adequate income.

NC10 – Pre-commencement Condition: Human Rights Analysis

– Proposed by: Nadia Whittome

– Purpose: Prevents most parts of the Act from coming into force until a full human rights memorandum is produced and laid before Parliament.

This memorandum must assess:

• Compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998 (Articles 3, 8, 14)
• Compliance with the UNCRPD (Articles 4, 19, 28)
• Impact under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
• Disproportionate effects on people with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010
• Additional condition: A 21 sitting-day period must pass without the House of Commons resolving to block the Act after the memorandum is laid.

Summary

Both NC4 and NC10 aim to embed human rights obligations into the implementation of the Bill.

– NC4 sets an ongoing duty to consider international disability rights.

-NC10 introduces a legal pause pending formal human rights scrutiny.

Substantive Amendments Likely to Pose Risks

The following amendments were originally proposed under Clause 5, which has now been withdrawn in full. As a result, these amendments are no longer in effect and cannot be implemented unless the clause is reintroduced in a future Bill.

Withdrawn Clause 5–linked amendments:

• Amendment 18: Would have restricted PIP eligibility to British citizens.
• Amendments 13, 43, 54: Would have delayed Clause 5’s commencement pending specific conditions (e.g. human rights review, co-production).
• Amendment 45: Would have required all PIP decisions to involve a face-to-face meeting.
• Amendment 56: Would have excluded claimants with mild depression, anxiety or ADHD from PIP.

Amendment 49: Excludes claimants whose only diagnosis is mild depression, anxiety or ADHD from the severe conditions list.

NC12: Requires government proposals to reduce entitlement for people with ‘less severe' mental health conditions and restrict PIP/UC to British citizens.

Ella Smith
Welfare Rights Consultant,
The ME Association