The government’s Universal Credit & Personal Independence Payment Bill aims to cut around £5 billion annually by 2029–30 through measures including:

• Tightening PIP eligibility, requiring claimants to score at least 4 points in a single daily living activity, potentially disqualifying up to 800,000 people.
• Freezing or halving UC’s health-related top-up, hitting new LCWRA claimants with losses up to £3,000/year, and existing recipients with real‑terms cuts of at least £500/year.

Proponents argue these reforms ensure sustainability and promote work readiness. But front-line experience paints a starkly different picture.

As an organisation rooted in communities and contexts where people are daily gripped by financial challenges, we make the following observations:

1. This bill strips support from those most vulnerable.

Benefits advisors report that many with fluctuating conditions – such as chronic pain, mental health episodes, or energy-limiting illnesses – don’t consistently reach the stringent 4-point threshold. Yet even when they do, losing PIP threatens critical access to mobility aids, care packages, and daily essentials.

2. Hidden health harms, visible in spiralling crises.

Evidence from The Health Foundation warns that cutting health-related benefits exacerbates health problems and undermines employment support. Our advisors echo this experience as they continue to see individuals that they work alongside pushed into worse health, deeper anxiety, and often unstable housing once benefits are cut.

3. Administrative barriers multiply hardship

It’s a long held view of ours, and those who assist people to navigate the welfare system, that Universal Credit’s complexity – its rigid digital processes, long waits, and debt-inducing deductions – already sets claimants on unstable footing. Adding harsh PIP assessments and UC freezes only multiplies distress. Advisors find themselves treating system injury – apathy, debt, mental breakdown – in increasing cases, which adds to an already pressing need to support the most vulnerable in our communities.

What do we propose as the antidote to this? We would advocate considered reform, not cuts.

It is our opinion that  comprehensive welfare reform should be:

1. Evidence-led and safety‑first
The experiences from those that we’re connected to across the UK through Angels Connect, highlight how even small cuts can trigger crises. Rather than across-the-board savings, targeted support based on real need would be smarter and more humane.

2. Rooted in long-term outcomes, not short-term savings
Removing £4,500 from a PIP award today might “save” money, but the resulting mental and physical health deterioration, use of emergency services, and dependency on acute social support cost far more in the long run.

3. Strengthening administrative support
Reform means fixing digital exclusion, assessment fairness, and rapid decision systems, not punishing claimants for system flaws. This is where Angels Connect comes into its own – provide the support needed to enter, and navigate the system. we would add to this a call for investment in this type of programme (our data proves it works).

“We’ve seen how cutting PIP by even a few pounds can lead to clients skipping medication or meals. That isn’t saving; it’s shifting costs to hospitals, food banks, and families.

Our team finds itself constantly firefighting preventable emergencies, rather than supporting individual wellbeing, the building of financial resilience within communities, and potentially access to sustainable employment.”

– Rich Jones, CEO (St Andrew’s Community Network/ Angels Connect)

Our experience on the frontline leads to us making these three recommendations for policy makers to consider at this critical point for those in communities across the UK:

• Reinstate a compassionate entry threshold for PIP, recognising fluctuating conditions, not just strict point-scoring on a good day. Implement independent quality checks and allow early tribunal access to curb unfair denials.
• Ring‑fence health-related UC elements for those in need, and limit annual inflation-indexed increases only to sustainable sums. Introduce gradual tapering combined with proactive employment support, not abrupt freezes.
• Invest in tailored welfare navigation support (Angels Connect) and locally rooted advice services (like  St Andrew’s Community Network). This will empower claimants with clear, coordinated access to UC, PIP, mental‑health and housing support. This would reduce crisis spending and foster long‑term workforce integration.

We believe strongly that cutting welfare isn’t just fiscal, it’s social:

• Health benefits lost = more A&E visits, hospital admissions, and community distress.
• Mobility & inclusion lost = isolation of disabled adults; withdrawal from society.
• Economic opportunity lost = people lose confidence in their ability to work, deepening long‑term dependency.

Instead, expanding and improving access to welfare benefits, particularly health‑related ones, offers a foundation for resilience, not just survival.

A sustainable welfare state isn’t built on cuts, it’s built on investment in human potential, supported by thoughtful reform. That means fair assessments, responsive support systems, and lifting people, not penalising them.

Working closely with our partners across the UK, we will continue to  campaign for a kind, effective welfare state. To join us in adding your voice to this, get in touch today here. We are happy to provide further comment on the content of this article, please use the details at the foot of this page to make contact.