PA MediaPolitical Reporter
The government has confirmed it will make major concessions to rebels in its own party over its planned benefits reforms.
Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall told Labour MPs that claimants of the personal independence payment (Pip) will continue to receive what they currently get, as will recipients of the health element of universal credit. Instead, planned cuts will only hit future claimants.
The government made the climbdown after facing the prospect of defeat in the Commons if it failed to accommodate the demands of more than 100 backbenchers.
The move was welcomed by some rebels; while Kendall said the bill was now “in a good place” and she was hopeful it would be passed by Parliament.
Speaking to broadcasters, she said the government’s plans would provide “record levels of support” to help those who can work into employment, while protecting those who cannot.
Asked if the government’s climbdown would make it harder to make difficult decisions in the future she said: “There is strength in listening – you end up in the right position when you talk to all of those with knowledge and experience.”
But while the rebels told the BBC their colleagues are happy with the concessions – meaning the government’s welfare bill will not be blocked in a vote on Tuesday – some Labour MPs have said they will still vote against the proposals.
The government originally hoped to save £5bn a year by 2030 with its Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill – which would change who could qualify for certain disability and sickness benefits – aiming to slow the rise in claimants.
Working-age health-related benefits are estimated to cost an extra £30bn by 2029 without reforms.
But the government faced growing discontent from around 120 of its own MPs over the changes, who criticised proposals such as a requirement for Pip claimants to prove they need a higher degree of assistance with tasks such as preparing and eating food, communicating, washing and getting dressed.
Sir Keir Starmer spent Thursday making calls to shore up support among Labour MPs who backed an amendment to stop the government’s flagship welfare bill.
As well as changing who will be affected by the cuts, ministers are also expected to fast-track a £1bn support plan originally scheduled for 2029.
Dame Meg Hillier, who led the effort to block the government’s proposals, said she would now support the government’s welfare bill, telling the BBC ministers had offered “reassuring measures”.
Asked if her fellow Labour MPs would now back the bill, she said the news had arrived late on Thursday evening but she had “already had a flurry of messages from people saying this is a good step forward”.
She added that if the government had listened more to its MPs, “we might have been in a better place”.
Pressed on how the changes would be paid for, Dame Meg acknowledged it would be “a challenge” for the chancellor but added: “We cannot take the money out of the pockets of disabled people who have got no other options.”
While Dame Meg is now backing the bill, Nadia Whittome, Labour MP for Nottingham East, said she would still be voting against it unless disabled people received further protections – and that she would be “far from the only one”.
“All of the MPs I’ve spoken to who signed the recent amendment – across the party, not just on the left – are sticking to their position because we understand that we’re answerable to our constituents,” she told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
Asked several times on BBC Breakfast whether the row was over, Anna Dixon, chair of the all-party parliamentary group on carers and welfare cuts, said it was “very difficult” to say because the process had been “all quite rushed”.
One of the rebels, Alex Sobel, the MP for Leeds Central and Headingley, also told BBC Newsnight he was concerned the changes could create a “two-tier” system – a concern echoed by other Labour backbenchers.
Tuesday’s vote is the first opportunity for MPs to support or reject the bill.
The government could still face defeat if 83 Labour backbenchers, along with other opposition parties, attempt to block the bill.
If it clears this hurdle, it will then face a few hours’ examination by all MPs the following week – rather than days or weeks in front of a committee.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves had factored savings from the cuts into her Spring Statement – designed to help meet her economic plans – but it is now unclear how the fresh changes will affect these.
Ruth Curtice, head of the Resolution Foundation, said the government’s U-turn could cost up to £3bn.
Working-age health-related benefit spending has increased from £36bn to £52bn between 2019 and 2024, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) think tank.
It is expected to double to £66bn by 2029 without changes to the system.
A Downing Street spokesperson said details of how the changes would be paid for would be set out at the Budget in the autumn, but said that there would be “no permanent increase in borrowing”.
This is now the third government U-turn in a month – a major blow to the prime minister’s authority.
It follows on from Sir Keir reversing cuts to winter fuel payments and ordering a grooming gangs inquiry he initially resisted.
One of the main co-ordinators behind the welfare amendment, who did not wish to be named, told the BBC the winter fuel decision had emboldened many of the rebels this time.
They told the BBC that MPs “all voted for winter fuel [cuts] and have taken so much grief in our constituencies, so colleagues think: why should I take that on again?”
Asked whether there was a pattern to Sir Keir’s leadership in which he caves in if “enough people kick up a fuss”, a Downing Street spokesman said: “I don’t accept that. This is a government that listens.”
The Tories described the concessions understood to have been offered to Labour rebels as “the latest in a growing list of screeching U-turns” from the government.
Shadow chancellor Mel Stride said: “Under pressure from his own MPs, Starmer has made another completely unfunded spending commitment.”
The Liberal Democrats said they would continue to oppose the bill arguing it will “cause immense damage to some of the most vulnerable”.
