The UC and PIP Bill: Part 1 - Does It Break Equality And Human Rights Law?

This is the transcript for my YouTube video "The UC and PIP Bill: Part 1 - Does It Break Equality And Human Rights Law?".

Before I start, this video is going to be quite long but I ask you to watch it in its entirety because it contains some very important information.

I will also say, up front, that I know the Starmer regime changed the name of the Bill to just the Universal Credit Bill, however, when the Bill was passed at the 2^nd and 3^rd reading stages, there were no legally binding agreements to implement the ‘concessions’ offered and the removal of the Personal Independence Payment eligibility criteria changes was only postponed until the Timms Review has been completed and there are no legally binding agreements to implement those findings either. As such, I’m basing all of this on the original Bill.

So, let’s get started then.

I have maintained that the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill breaches the law in England and Wales so I’ve done a quick bit of research aided by ChatGPT to see if it does breach the law and where the conflicts occur.

Let’s look at The Equality Act 2010 first.  The UC and PIP Bill comes into conflict with that Act of Parliament if the Bill

1. Treats disabled people less favourably than others without objective justification, or 
2. Introduces criteria that indirectly discriminate against people with disabilities or protected characteristics.

Now, the Starmer regime says that the Bill is designed to support people with disabilities or low income but if the 2025 Bill tightens eligibility or assessment rules in a way that disadvantages specific groups without proportionate justification, it may raise legal concerns.

Let’s add a little more detail to get the point across.  The proposed changes, particularly the introduction of a ≥4-point threshold on a single daily living PIP descriptor and the cutting/freezing of the UC health element, are likely to result in indirect disability discrimination contrary to sections 19 and 29 of the Equality Act 2010.

And the groups that these measures disproportionately disadvantage are:

• Individuals with physical disabilities (e.g., arthritis, chronic pain), who may score moderately across multiple descriptors but not ≥4 in any one.
• People with visual impairments who incur ongoing daily living costs but may not meet the revised threshold.
• Those with mental health conditions and neurodivergent profiles, whose fluctuating symptoms defy rigid assessment models.

The Bill also conflicts with The Equality Act 2010 because there was no published Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) was available at the time of consultation that the Starmer regime ran. This is a breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty (s.149 EA 2010), which requires public bodies to have “due regard” to the need to eliminate discrimination and advance equality of opportunity. This renders the decision-making process legally vulnerable to judicial review.

Now let’s look at the relevant key Rights in the Human Rights Act 1998 & European Convention on Human Rights that are open to be affected by the Bill:

• Article 8 (Respect for private/family life)
• Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination)
• Article 1 Protocol 1 (Protection of property, which includes certain welfare benefits)
• Article 3 (Freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment)

Due to its differential treatment of:

• New vs. existing UC claimants,

• Claimants meeting narrowly defined conditions vs. others with substantial needs,

The Bill is potentially unlawful discrimination under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, read in conjunction with:

• Article 1, Protocol 1 (right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions),
• Article 8 (right to family and private life),
• and possibly Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), in cases where support withdrawal leads to destitution or severe mental health crisis.

The Court of Appeal rulings in TP & AR v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2020] and TD & Ors v SSWP [2020] provide clear precedent:

“Cost-saving alone cannot justify discriminatory treatment of disabled people.”

In those cases, the Department for Work and Pensions was found to have unlawfully discriminated against severely disabled claimants by removing benefits without transitional protection.

The Bill conflicts with the HRA/ECHR if it:

• Removes essential support to a vulnerable group, e.g., disabled persons, without justification
• Results in destitution, hardship, or lack of access to basic needs
• Discriminates without objective justification or proportionate purpose

Sound familiar?

Now, let’s take a look at a structured legal assessment of how the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill could conflict with: The Equality Act 2010 and The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), embedding the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) with a breakdown by type of disability.

First, we need to provide an overview of proposed changes contained in the Bill and how the Starmer regime was warned about the possible effects.

1. PIP: New eligibility rule—claimants must score ≥ 4 points in at least one daily-living descriptor, in addition to the existing aggregate threshold. Estimated approximately 800,000 claimants could be affected, losing on average around £4,500/year.
2. Universal Credit (UC) health-related "top-up": Frozen for existing claimants; cut for new claimants from April 2026 (halved in amount) unless they meet "Severe Conditions Criteria". Approximately 2 million existing and 750,000 new claimants will be impacted.

When the proposals were announced disabled rights groups warned that the Bill will push hundreds of thousands into deeper poverty and undermine existing protections.  They ignored the warning.

The Equality Act prohibits both direct and indirect discrimination on the basis of disability so how does the Bill affect different groups based on their particular disability?

1. Physical Disabilities (e.g., arthritis, back pain, mobility impairments)

a.   Often score across several daily-living descriptors but rarely score ≥ 4 in any one.

b.   The 4-point rule disproportionately excludes them from PIP daily living and thereby UC health top-up.

c.   This is likely indirect disability discrimination, unless objectively justified and proportionate.

d.   Many such claimants may also lose Carer’s Allowance, compounding impact.

2. Sensory Disabilities (e.g., sight loss, hearing loss)

a.   Many blind or partially-sighted people score low in individual descriptors but rely on PIP to manage extra costs.

b.   Mencap and RNIB highlight that thousands would lose entitlement despite real need, with no sound justification in the criteria shift.

3.   3. Learning Disabilities, Autism, ADHD

a.   DWP analysis suggests these groups are less likely to be affected by the rule change.

b.   However, the Bill still reduces UC health support for new claimants under age-based thresholds and freezes; some may lose entitlement despite fluctuating conditions.

c.   Risk of disparate impact if the assessments fail to account for neurodiversity effectively.

4.   4. Mental Health Conditions (e.g., depression, anxiety, bipolar, schizophrenia)

a.   These conditions often fluctuate, affecting scoring reliability.

b.   Tightening PIP eligibility and linking UC health top-up to PIP creates heightened risk of being deemed ineligible during assessment review—even if long-term impact continues.

c.   Critics and MH charities label the Bill discriminatory and potentially driving deterioration of mental health, poverty, even mortality risk.

Let’s go back to our list of Rights that are under threat when viewed through the Human Rights Act 1998 / ECHR:

• Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with:
• Article 1 Protocol 1 (right to property): PIP and UC benefits are considered “possession” rights. Deprivation without justification may breach Article 1 P1.
• Article 3 (inhuman or degrading treatment): Severe impact of cuts may, in extremis, breach if leading to destitution or crisis.
• Article 8 (private and family life): If cuts impair independent living, dignity, or family support roles (e.g., carers), Article 8 may be engaged.

So how would the different groups be affected by this breaching of the Human Rights Act 1998?

• People with mobility/physical disabilities: losing support can mean loss of independence, community participation, and caregiver support. Reduced incomes may lead to forced reliance on others or institutional care - impacting Articles 8 and 1 P1.
• Visually impaired individuals and carers: loss of entitlement affects their autonomy and may breach property rights and Article 8 provisions.
• People with learning disabilities, autism, etc are possibly less affected - but neurodiverse nuance is lacking and there are eligibility disparities with regards to access to dignity and support
• Those with fluctuating/mental health conditions: unpredictable cuts disrupt stability, access to healthcare and support - raising possible Article 3 and Article 14 issues, especially given lack of meaningful consultation data or equality impact assessment at enactment.

Notably, MPs pressed the Starmer regime to publish a human rights memorandum alongside the Bill but no such detailed assessment has appeared. The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has already expressed concern that this Bill deepens systemic violations in the UK.

So, let’s summarise.

The Bill’s revised PIP criteria and UC health-element reductions are highly likely to conflict with both:

• The Equality Act 2010, via indirect (and potentially direct) discrimination against disabled individuals via inflexible scoring thresholds and age distinctions.
• The HRA/ECHR, through potential breaches of Articles 1 Protocol 1, 3, 8, and 14, especially due to disproportionate impact, lack of proportional justification, absence of proper equality or human rights impact assessments, and the failure to meaningfully consult or accommodate disability across groups.

Is it any wonder that disabled-rights organisations and disabled individuals themselves have uniformly opposed the Bill, citing systemic violation of rights and calling for repeal or significant revision - including co production of policies, which was what the Starmer regime stood on at the 2024 General Election but there is scant evidence of it in the Bill?

As we’ve already covered a great deal in this video, I’ve decided to record a separate video giving a detailed legal analysis of the Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) for the June 2025 Universal Credit (UC) and PIP Bill, and key case-law precedents under Article 14 ECHR and related equality provisions, focusing on discrimination and methodology errors.