Last Tuesday, the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payments Bill had its second reading in the House of Commons. The Bill, which forms part of a wider set of welfare reforms, sought to change Universal Credit rates and restrict eligibility for Personal Independence Payments. During Tuesday’s debate, the Government committed to drop the latter, pending a related review.   

On Wednesday, 9 July, the Bill will return to Parliament for Grand Committee. Information published alongside Tuesday’s debate suggests that thereafter it is ‘expected to be certified as a Money Bill’.

If certification goes ahead, it means Wednesday will likely be the last opportunity for amendments to be made to the Bill before it becomes law – further limiting the opportunity for it to be informed by the expertise, voices and experience of the disabled people it will impact.

What is a Money Bill?

All Bills must be considered by both Houses of Parliament before they can become law. For most Public Bills this means being scrutinised and amended via a series of stages in both Houses.

However, the process is different for ‘money bills,’ defined as bills whose only purpose is to authorise expenditure or taxation or the granting or raising of loans and matters incidental to those subjects. In contrast to other primary legislation, Money Bills may be presented for Royal Assent a month after being sent to the Lords whether the Lords pass it or not. 

Money Bills face considerably less scrutiny than other bills. According to parliamentary practice they are heard by the Lords in a single day, with no committee, report stage, or formal third reading – and no amendments. 

There have been exceptions to this. For example:

  • The Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grants Act 2010 where Labour peers tabled an amendment to the effect that the Bill should go through its usual stages (the amendment was defeated),
  • The European Communities (Finance) Act 1995 which went to committee in the Lords.

Minor amendments were agreed between the Houses in relation to the China Indemnity (Application) Bill 1925, the Unemployment Assistance (Temporary Provisions) Extension Bill 1935-6 and the Inshore Fishing Industry Bill 1946. However, although amendments and the holding of a House of Lords Committee stage following certification as a Money Bill is possible, it is very unusual and unlikely. 

Certification as a Money Bill

Whether a bill is certified as a Money Bill is a decision of the Speaker of the House of Commons. Section 1(3) of the Parliament Act 1911 provides that before doing so they should consult, if practicable, two members of the ‘Chairman’s Panel’ (now the Panel of Chairs) appointed for this purpose. In making that decision, they are advised by Parliamentary Counsel who should first seek the views of the House Authorities, Public Bill Committee and the Whips. 

In practice, that decision is not taken until the bill is ready to be sent up to the Lords i.e. after third reading in the House of Commons. In this case, this is currently scheduled for Wednesday 9 July.

It is possible that amendments made at the House of Commons stage, for example at Committee stage, would take the Bill outside the definition of a Money Bill.

However, once that decision is taken, under s.3 of the 1911 Act that certificate is ‘conclusive for all purposes, and shall not be questioned in any court of law’.

A financial purpose?

Money Bills are ‘narrowly’ defined under s.1(2) of the 1911 Act as Bills that are exclusively concerned with financial matters such as taxation, public money and loans.

As set out in both Erskine May and Parliamentary Counsel guidance, if the main object of the bill is to create a new charge on the Consolidated Fund or on money provided by Parliament (one of the categories that falls within the definition), the Bill will not be certified if it is apparent that the primary purpose of the new charge is not purely financial.

The guidance notes that in identifying whether the primary purpose is financial ‘it may be necessary to look beyond the text or form of the Bill to ascertain the underlying policy aims’ – to distinguish between whether a Bill is imposing a charge primarily for a financial purpose, such as cutting public expenditure or reducing the budget deficit, or whether it has a wider social or economic purpose. 

In the Green Paper that preceded the current Bill, and in the statements to the House, government has emphasised that the objective of the current Bill is not just to reduce the welfare budget, but to ‘reduce the perverse incentives, promote labour market engagement over inactivity and improve the adequacy of the standard allowance whilst supporting those with most severe needs’. 

PLP recommends that MPs at third reading clarify with Government which it views as the principle purpose of the current Bill.

The wider context

The current Bill sits within a much wider context of welfare reform involving multiple different proposals, spanning two different parties of Government, and a concern throughout from Disabled People’s Organisations that their voices are not being heard.

Earlier this year, Ellen Clifford, represented by Public Law Project, successfully challenged the Conservative government’s consultation on one of these earlier government proposals.

In responding to the judgment, the UK DDPO CRPD Monitoring Coalition (a coalition of Deaf and Disabled People’s Organisations (DDPOs) working together to monitor the UK’s implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities) emphasised the need for Government to work ‘in co-production with disabled people and disabled people’s organisations, avoiding the urge to rush through poorly formed policy that purports to save money’.

In its 2025 manifesto, Labour appeared to have heard that call, committing to champion the principle of working with disabled people, so that their views and voices were ‘at the heart of all we do’. 

It was therefore disappointing that of the 22 measures announced by the Government in its Green Paper earlier this year, over half of them, including some of the most controversial, would not to be subject to consultation. Measures are being taken forward at different stages, through different pieces of legislation, the first of which is the current Bill. 

Further, the timetable that has been set out for this deeply controversial Bill is very, very tight. As part of the House of Commons stage, it has been scheduled for Grand Committee rather than a Public Bill Committee. While all MPs will get the chance to discuss the Bill, it means proceedings will be restricted to a single day with no opportunity to hear external evidence.

If the Bill is certified as a Money Bill, and the Government meets its aspiration of having it passed by the summer recess, this highly controversial Bill will have made its way through parliament at expedited pace in less than a month, after only three days of substantive debate, and with no opportunity to take external evidence.

Comparatively, the last major piece of welfare reform legislation, the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 took eight months to pass. This included six days of House of Commons Committee debate with written evidence from 85 different organisations and individuals and oral evidence from a range of experts, followed by scrutiny in the Lords and consideration of a wide range of amendments.

More haste, less speed

Most MPs become MPs because they want to get things done; to make a positive difference for their constituents and the country that they serve. In that context, it can no doubt feel frustrating to be faced by processes and procedures that take time. 

But rushing through policy without adequate scrutiny rarely results in better policy or more speed – as was borne out last week, with last minute amendments announced at midnight the night before the second reading debate and a mid-debate concession that the reforms for Personal Independence Payment (PIP) would be delayed, pending a wider co-produced review into PIP assessments.

Parliamentary scrutiny should not be a substitute for meaningful consultation and co-production – but it does provide an opportunity for views to be heard, albeit indirectly. The debate in the Commons last week was full of the questions, representations and stories of MP’s constituents. The reasoned amendment that nearly saw the Bill not pass second reading had been co-produced with 128 disabled people’s organisations. The concern about lack of consultation is compounded when that scrutiny is also cut short.

It remains to be seen whether the certification as a Money Bill goes ahead, given both the narrow definition for these bills and the implications for scrutiny. However, given the statement of intent, MPs may want to use tomorrow’s session to clarify what the primary purpose of this Bill is, and approach the session in the knowledge that it may well be the last chance for amendments to be made.