Kate Whanel
Political reporter
Jack Fenwick
Political correspondent
Pa media
Sir Keir Starrer said his social reforms beat “the right balance” after making concessions to his own Backbench MPs.
The initial plans of the government, which aimed to lower the welfare laws, would have made it more difficult for people to claim a personal independence payment (PIP), a service that was paid to 3.7 million people with long -term physical or mental illnesses.
In view of a growing rebellion of Labor MPs and a likely defeat in the Commons, the government announced that the stricter criteria would only apply to new applicants.
“We spoke to colleagues who made healthy representations that we have a package that I think he will work,” he said.
As part of its promotion, the government has reversed its plans for the freezing duration of the health -related component of the universal loan. The payment is now increasing in accordance with inflation for existing recipients.
The ministers will also carry out a review of the PIP assessment process with input from disabled organizations.
A support package of 1 billion GBP, which helps people at work, which is originally planned for 2029, is quickly pursued.
In conversation with broadcasters, Sir Keir said: “We have to do it right, so we spoke to colleagues and had a constructive discussion.
“We have now arrived to a package that provides the principles with some adjustments, and that is the right reform, and I am now very pleased that we are able to advance them.”
The government stood for growing dissatisfaction with around 120 own MPs compared to the changes.
While the BBC rebels have announced that their colleagues are satisfied with the concessions, some Labor MPs have announced that they will still vote against the suggestions.
The size of this rebellion is not yet clear, although it is assumed that around 50 Labor MPs could still vote against the bill, and there would be several distances.
It would need 83 workers – together with the other opposition parties – to defeat the government.
Dame Meg Hillier, who had attempts to block the plans, informed the BBC ministers that she had introduced “calming measures” and that it would support the government.
Debbie Abrahams, Labor MP, chairman of the working and pension committee, said the BBC said that the concessions were “a good start”, but there were still concerns about new applicants.
She said, “We believe that lessons had been drawn and I am sure that they will continue to be learned at the weekend.
“There was damage that people died in earlier changes to the admission criteria. It would not be right for me not to do anything, just to save the Prime Minister an inconvenience.
“It had to be raised and we did it as quietly and professionally as possible by using the levers that the government has, and Parliament, and we know that the message was heard.”
A number of MPs have also said that they do not believe that the changes go far enough.
For some, the concerns you focus on the cuts that the ministers for disability advantages want to bring.
For others, this series is the latest example of frustrations about a perceived lack of commitment between number 10 and Backbencher, which are considered to be out of favor.
Another Labor MP, who is still planning to vote against the government, said that the views of some rebels were “more important than others” what they said, “in themselves a big problem”.
Some MPs from Backbench Labor are concerned that the new proposals will treat people with the same conditions differently, depending on whether they are existing or new applicants.
The BBC was informed that some legal advice had requested whether the creation of a “two -stage” system would be allowed.
The spokesman for the Prime Minister refused to say whether the government had applied for a similar legal advice, but emphasized that it was not unusual to have different rules for different applicants.
The government originally hoped to save £ 5 billion a year by 2030 with its universal credit and personal independence payment bill in order to slow down the increase in applicants.
It is estimated that the health -related services in the workforce cost an additional 30 billion GBP by 2029 without reforms.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies and Resolution Foundation Foundation Foundation Think Tanks estimated that the U -turn of the government could cost £ 3 billion, which means that the Chancellor Rachel Reeves either increase taxes, reduce or borrow expenses elsewhere if it is supposed to fulfill its self -imposed output rules.
The spokesman for the Prime Minister said that the “changes are fully financed, there will be no permanent increases in borrowing”, but no temporary increase is excluded.
Abdi Mohamed from Disability's charity welcomed the government's concessions, but said that the measures should be completed until checking in PIP reviews.
Labor MP for North Somerset Sadik Al-Hassan said that he had accepted the compromises and told the BBC world about you that he believed that the promised review would make the PIP rating system “significantly better”.
“There will always be some of my colleagues who want to destroy this, but I am firmly convinced that you can't always get everything they want,” he added.
With regard to the same program, Cat Eccles – Labor MP for Stourbridge – said that the government's offer was “too little, too late”.
The conservative guide Kemi Badenoch said that the concessions were “the worst of all worlds”.
She accused the government of “flounding” and adding: “I do not see how they will be able to deliver one of the things they have promised if they cannot do something as fundamental as it reduces an increase in expenses.”
Tim Farron of the Liberal Democrat said that in the new plans “If you currently have a state like Parkinsons or MS, you will receive support to wash and cook yourself -but someone who has diagnosed next year will get nothing.”
“That is only very horrific.”
Richard Tice, deputy chairman of Reform UK, said: “The Welfare Act must be shortened before it gets out of control, but Starer plays party politics with public finances.”
The Green Party said that the changes would “create an unjust two -stage performance system”.
