Spring Statement 2025: Universal Credit and disability benefits shake-up confirmed

MSE_Molly_G

A huge shake-up to Universal Credit, the eligibility criteria for Personal Independence Payments and a raft of other measures have been confirmed by Chancellor Rachel Reeves in today's Spring Statement.

Read the full story:

Spring Statement 2025: Universal Credit and disability benefits shake-up confirmed

If you haven't already, join the forum to reply.

donna_kebab

My daughter is on PIP and a legacy benefit, ESA.  There has been mention of her moving on to UC in the past but nothing has happened.  If she is moved to UC after April 2026, I presume she will count as a new claimant and lose £200 per month?  She has a moderate learning disability and autism and would never be able to work/travel without 1:1 support.

chrisw

Has has anyone seen anything regarding those on existing PIP? Will there be an early reassessment or will the new eligibility criteria kick in when it's up for renewal?

HillStreetBlues

donna_kebab said:

My daughter is on PIP and a legacy benefit, ESA.  There has been mention of her moving on to UC in the past but nothing has happened.  If she is moved to UC after April 2026, I presume she will count as a new claimant and lose £200 per month?  She has a moderate learning disability and autism and would never be able to work/travel without 1:1 support.

If she is on Income related ESA she will migrate by March 2026

HillStreetBlues

chrisw said:

Has has anyone seen anything regarding those on existing PIP? Will there be an early reassessment or will the new eligibility criteria kick in when it's up for renewal?

Renewal, and nothing said so far about early reassessment

Newcad

I'm slightly puzzled here.

How does this thread - started by an MSE staffer - fit in with the standard 'please avoid political debate' statement at the top of threads?

To me it appears to be a direct invitation to engage in political debate.

So should the standard note at the top be altered to add > "please avoid ..... unless we ask you for such political debate" ?

HillStreetBlues

Newcad said:

I'm slightly puzzled here.

How does this thread - started by an MSE staffer - fit in with the standard 'please avoid political debate' statement at the top of threads?

To me it appears to be a direct invitation to engage in political debate.

So should the standard note at the top be altered to add > "please avoid ..... unless we ask you for such political debate" ?

For this case I believe it's how the announced policies could affect people, rather than the rights or wrongs of said policy. This issue will always be there will be comments about the policy at some point.

HillStreetBlues

To get the main component of PIP, which is for extra daily living costs, you currently need between eight and 12 points in total (alongside meeting the other criteria).

That needs rewording.
There isn't a "main" component, the wording would tend to discriminate against those who only receive the Mobility component.
Also it would be 8 points or more as how it's currently written someone with 13 or more points wouldn't receive anything.

Newcad

There is a lot of misleading wording in the government statement today.

You might think it was even intentional to try and confuse things. (and confuse people).

PS. I still believe there is a possible double standard going on here with 'political comment' but probably not worth making too much of a fuss about. (Being a forum moderator myself I know it will now be being discussed 'backstage').

HillStreetBlues

I do think it's an important topic as (without commenting on the rights or wrongs) these policies are forecasted to leave an extra 250,000 in relative poverty.
Also these polices are nearly (96%) all about reducing income from disabled people (again not commenting on the rights or wrongs).

born_again

To me the statement today was just a echo of the other day, with noting stated that had already not been.

So we are left with the same old question & no answers.🤷‍♀️

Time will tell, & pointless worrying.