Sir Keir Starmer has asserted that his welfare reforms achieve “the right balance,” following concessions made to dissenting voices within his own parliamentary party.
The government’s initial proposals, designed to reduce the welfare expenditure, would have tightened eligibility criteria for Personal Independence Payment (PIP), a benefit currently supporting 3.7 million individuals with long-term physical or mental health conditions.
However, facing growing opposition from Labour MPs and the prospect of defeat in the House of Commons, the government announced that the stricter criteria would apply only to new applicants.
“We’ve engaged with colleagues who raised valid concerns, resulting in a revised package that I believe will be effective,” he stated.
Speaking to broadcasters, Sir Keir emphasized, “It’s crucial to get this right, which is why we’ve engaged in constructive discussions with colleagues.”
“We’ve now reached an agreement that upholds the core principles while incorporating necessary adjustments. This represents the appropriate reform, and I’m pleased that we can now move forward with it.”
The government originally aimed to achieve annual savings of £5 billion by 2030 through its Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, intending to curb the increase in claimants.
Absent reforms, health-related benefits for the working-age population are projected to cost an additional £30 billion by 2029.
However, the proposed changes sparked discontent among approximately 120 of the government’s own MPs.
While dissenting MPs informed the BBC that their colleagues are satisfied with the concessions, some Labour MPs have indicated their intention to vote against the proposals.
The extent of this rebellion remains uncertain, although it is estimated that around 50 Labour MPs may still vote against the bill, with several abstentions also anticipated.
Defeating the government would require the support of 83 Labour backbenchers, in addition to the other opposition parties.
Dame Meg Hillier, who spearheaded efforts to block the initial plans, told the BBC that ministers had introduced “reassuring measures” and that she would now support the government.
However, much of the opposition to the bill stems from MPs on the left of the parliamentary Labour Party, with several others expressing concerns that the changes do not go far enough.
For some, the primary concern revolves around the proposed cuts to disability benefits.
For others, this dispute exemplifies broader frustrations regarding a perceived lack of engagement between Downing Street and backbenchers deemed to be out of favor.
One senior Labour backbencher quipped that Sir Keir’s outreach had been so infrequent that, were he to call to discuss the welfare plans, “I’ll open with congratulations on winning the general election.”
Another Labour MP, who intends to vote against the government, argued that the views of certain dissenting voices were being given “more importance than others,” which they described as “a significant problem in itself.”
Some Labour backbench MPs are concerned that the revised proposals will create disparities in treatment for individuals with the same conditions, based on whether they are existing or new claimants.
The BBC has learned that some MPs have sought legal counsel to determine the permissibility of establishing a “two-tier” system.
The prime minister’s spokesperson declined to comment on whether the government had sought similar legal advice but emphasized that it is not uncommon for different sets of rules to apply to different benefit claimants.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Resolution Foundation, both think tanks, estimate that the government’s reversal could cost £3 billion. This means Chancellor Rachel Reeves will need to either raise taxes, reduce spending in other areas, or increase borrowing to adhere to her self-imposed fiscal rules.
The PM’s spokesman stated that the “changes will be fully funded, with no permanent increases to borrowing,” but did not dismiss the possibility of a temporary rise.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch described the concessions as “the worst of all worlds.”
She accused the government of “floundering,” adding, “I don’t see how they’re going to be able to deliver any of the things they promised if they can’t do something as basic as reducing an increase in spending.”
Tim Farron of the Liberal Democrats stated that under the new plans, “if you currently have a condition like Parkinson’s or MS then you will get support to wash and cook for yourself – but someone diagnosed next year gets nothing.”
“This is just utterly appalling.”
Richard Tice, deputy leader of Reform UK, asserted, “The welfare bill must be cut before it spirals out of control, but Starmer is playing party politics with the public finances.”
The Green Party argued that the changes would “create an unjust two-tier benefits system.”