Spinal Injuries Association issues statement in response to Government PIP announcement

By Published On: 3 July 2025
Spinal Injuries Association issues statement in response to Government PIP announcement

The Spinal Injuries Association has issued a statement in response to the UK Government’s PIP Bill vote.

The charity stated:

The Spinal Injuries Association (SIA) welcomes the Government’s confirmation that Clause 5 of the Universal Credit and PIP Bill will be removed at committee stage next week.

Clause 5 would have introduced a damaging and restrictive new minimum points threshold for PIP eligibility from November 2026, a change that risked excluding many disabled people, including those with spinal cord injuries, from the vital support they rely on. In addition, this change would have disproportionately affected disabled women, by not considering the specific challenges they face.

Dr Dharshana Sridhar, Campaigns Manager at SIA, said: “This is a significant victory for our community.

“People with spinal cord injuries made their voices heard through letters, posts, and powerful testimony and decision makers listened.

“It shows the real impact of lived experience, collective action, and focused lobbying.”

However, this should never have come to this.

The rushed and unclear nature of the process surrounding this Bill caused unnecessary fear and distress for disabled people.

It was a failure of policymaking that has shaken trust in the system.

We now call on the Government to honour its promise to pause any changes to PIP until the Timms Review concludes in autumn 2026, and to co-produce any future reforms in genuine partnership with disabled people and the organisations that represent them.

Only by listening and working with lived experience can we build a fair and compassionate benefit system that is fit for purpose.

Find out more about the Spinal Injuries Association at spinal.co.uk

The consequences of a delayed or missed diagnosis of a stroke
The efficacy of DTI MRI scans in English personal injury litigation: A critical analysis