
Welfare reforms: What concessions has the Government made?
Here, the PA news agency takes a look at what the changes are and how Labour MPs and disability groups have reacted.
– What had the Government originally planned?
In March, reforms to the welfare system – aimed at encouraging more people off sickness benefits and into work – were announced.
The Government said the changes, including restricting access to the main disability benefit known as Pip (personal independence payment) and the sickness-related element of universal credit (UC), were expected to make welfare savings of £4.8 billion by 2029-30.
With around 1,000 new Pip awards every day – 'the equivalent of adding a city the size of Leicester every single year', the Government argued the current situation was unsustainable.
An impact assessment published alongside the Bill included estimates that changes to Pip entitlement rules would see about 800,000 people lose out, with an average loss of £4,500 per year.
Changes to UC were expected to see an estimated 2.25 million current recipients of the health element impacted, with an average loss of £500 per year.
Overall, as a result of the changes, it was estimated some 250,000 more people, including 50,000 children, across Great Britain were likely to fall into relative poverty after housing costs by the end of the decade.
– What concessions have been made?
In a late-night letter to MPs, Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall conceded two changes she said would 'strengthen the Bill'.
In recognition of the 'uncertainty and anxiety' caused by the proposed changes, she said all current Pip recipients would keep their benefits, saying only new claims from November 2026 will come under the tightened eligibility requirements.
An impact assessment had stated that 370,000 current recipients were set to lose Pip entitlement across England and Wales.
Ms Kendall also vowed all those currently receiving the UC health element, as well as new claimants meeting the severe conditions criteria, will have their incomes 'fully protected in real terms'.
The Work and Pensions Secretary has also promised a review of the Pip assessment, led by social security and disability minister Sir Stephen Timms, which will have input from disabled people 'to ensure the benefit is fair and fit for the future'.
– What are disability groups saying?
Mikey Erhardt, from Disability Rights UK, accused the Government of 'playing politics with our lives', insisting the Bill must still be pulled.
He said the changes will mean 'a benefits system where future generations of disabled people receive less support than disabled people today' and added that, in making the original announcement of cuts, the Government had 'prioritised balancing its books over improving the lives of disabled citizens'.
Mr Erhardt added: 'Despite seemingly rowing back on some of the worst aspects of its plans, the Government is still attempting to slash billions of pounds from a system that doesn't provide enough support as it stands.'
The MS Society said the Government was simply 'kicking the can down the road and delaying an inevitable disaster', and urged MPs 'not to be swayed by these last-ditch attempts to force through a harmful Bill with supposed concessions'.
Food bank network Trussell welcomed the 'significant' concessions but said the proposals 'still present a bleak future for future claimants and still risk placing the Government's commitments to end the need for emergency food and tackle poverty in serious jeopardy'.
– What are Labour MPs saying?
Dame Meg Hillier, one of the leading rebel voices, described the concessions as 'a good deal' involving 'massive changes' to protect vulnerable people and involve disabled people in the design of future reforms.
She said: 'It's encouraging that we have reached what I believe is a workable compromise that will protect disabled people and support people back into work while ensuring the welfare system can be meaningfully reformed.'
Health minister Stephen Kinnock said he is confident the welfare reforms – being brought under the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill – will pass a vote in the Commons on Tuesday in the wake of the concessions.
But some Labour MPs are still not satisfied, with Nadia Whittome saying the concessions are 'nowhere near good enough', vowing to still vote against the Bill unless 'serious' proposals are made to 'protect the dignity of disabled people'.
Speaking to the Today programme on BBC Radio 4, she said MPs she had spoken to 'are sticking to their position because we understand that we are answerable to our constituents'.
Ms Whittome added: 'If the Government doesn't pull the Bill, doesn't consult properly with disabled people and come back to MPs with a serious proposal that protects the dignity of disabled people, I will vote against and I will be far from the only one.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Powys County Times
22 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
Judges to rule on Palestinian group's legal action over Israel military exports
A Palestinian human rights group will discover on Monday whether it has won a legal challenge against the Government over decisions related to exports of military equipment to Israel amid the conflict in Gaza. Al-Haq is taking legal action against the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) over its decision to continue licensing exports of components for F-35 fighter jets. In September last year, the Government suspended export licences for weapons and military equipment following a review of Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law in the conflict. But an exemption was made for some licences related to parts for F-35s, with lawyers for Al-Haq telling the High Court in May that this 'carve-out' was unlawful and 'gives rise to a significant risk of facilitating crime'. The DBT is defending the challenge, with its barristers telling a four-day hearing in London that the carve-out is 'consistent with the rules of international law' and that suspending the licences would negatively impact a wider international programme. Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn are due to hand down their ruling at 10.30am on Monday. At the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, Raza Husain KC, for Al-Haq, said the case came 'against the backdrop of human calamity' in Gaza, describing the conflict as a 'live-streamed genocide'. In written submissions, he said that the Government misunderstood relevant parts of the Geneva Conventions when there was a clear risk that the parts might be used to commit or facilitate violations of international humanitarian law by Israel. F-35s are part of an international defence programme which produces and maintains the fighter jets, with the UK contributing components for both assembly lines and an international pool. An earlier hearing in the case was told that the decision to 'carve out' licences related to F-35 components followed advice from Defence Secretary John Healey, who said a suspension would impact the 'whole F-35 programme' and have a 'profound impact on international peace and security'. In written submissions for the May hearing, Sir James Eadie KC, for the Government, said that this 'provided justification to take exceptional measures to avoid these impacts and was consistent with the UK's domestic and international legal obligations'. He continued that some of Al-Haq's criticisms 'are not based on a balanced appreciation of the facts' and did not consider 'the true depth and range of the information-gathering and analysis' by the Government when it made the decision.

Rhyl Journal
an hour ago
- Rhyl Journal
Judges to rule on Palestinian group's legal action over Israel military exports
Al-Haq is taking legal action against the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) over its decision to continue licensing exports of components for F-35 fighter jets. In September last year, the Government suspended export licences for weapons and military equipment following a review of Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law in the conflict. But an exemption was made for some licences related to parts for F-35s, with lawyers for Al-Haq telling the High Court in May that this 'carve-out' was unlawful and 'gives rise to a significant risk of facilitating crime'. The DBT is defending the challenge, with its barristers telling a four-day hearing in London that the carve-out is 'consistent with the rules of international law' and that suspending the licences would negatively impact a wider international programme. Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn are due to hand down their ruling at 10.30am on Monday. At the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, Raza Husain KC, for Al-Haq, said the case came 'against the backdrop of human calamity' in Gaza, describing the conflict as a 'live-streamed genocide'. In written submissions, he said that the Government misunderstood relevant parts of the Geneva Conventions when there was a clear risk that the parts might be used to commit or facilitate violations of international humanitarian law by Israel. F-35s are part of an international defence programme which produces and maintains the fighter jets, with the UK contributing components for both assembly lines and an international pool. An earlier hearing in the case was told that the decision to 'carve out' licences related to F-35 components followed advice from Defence Secretary John Healey, who said a suspension would impact the 'whole F-35 programme' and have a 'profound impact on international peace and security'. In written submissions for the May hearing, Sir James Eadie KC, for the Government, said that this 'provided justification to take exceptional measures to avoid these impacts and was consistent with the UK's domestic and international legal obligations'. He continued that some of Al-Haq's criticisms 'are not based on a balanced appreciation of the facts' and did not consider 'the true depth and range of the information-gathering and analysis' by the Government when it made the decision. Charities Oxfam and Amnesty International, as well as Human Rights Watch, all intervened in the case.


The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Judges to rule on Palestinian group's legal action over Israel military exports
In September last year, the Government suspended export licences for weapons and military equipment following a review of Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law in the conflict. But an exemption was made for some licences related to parts for F-35s, with lawyers for Al-Haq telling the High Court in May that this 'carve-out' was unlawful and 'gives rise to a significant risk of facilitating crime'. The DBT is defending the challenge, with its barristers telling a four-day hearing in London that the carve-out is 'consistent with the rules of international law' and that suspending the licences would negatively impact a wider international programme. Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn are due to hand down their ruling at 10.30am on Monday. Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn addressed demonstrators before the hearing began (Ben Whitley/PA) At the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, Raza Husain KC, for Al-Haq, said the case came 'against the backdrop of human calamity' in Gaza, describing the conflict as a 'live-streamed genocide'. In written submissions, he said that the Government misunderstood relevant parts of the Geneva Conventions when there was a clear risk that the parts might be used to commit or facilitate violations of international humanitarian law by Israel. F-35s are part of an international defence programme which produces and maintains the fighter jets, with the UK contributing components for both assembly lines and an international pool. An earlier hearing in the case was told that the decision to 'carve out' licences related to F-35 components followed advice from Defence Secretary John Healey, who said a suspension would impact the 'whole F-35 programme' and have a 'profound impact on international peace and security'. In written submissions for the May hearing, Sir James Eadie KC, for the Government, said that this 'provided justification to take exceptional measures to avoid these impacts and was consistent with the UK's domestic and international legal obligations'. He continued that some of Al-Haq's criticisms 'are not based on a balanced appreciation of the facts' and did not consider 'the true depth and range of the information-gathering and analysis' by the Government when it made the decision. Charities Oxfam and Amnesty International, as well as Human Rights Watch, all intervened in the case.