Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn says it's a "crucial moment" for many.

He says the origin of the bill was a demand to save £5bn, which he claims was "wanted by the defence secretary for more armaments".

"No doubt other departments as well were making demands", he says.

"So the whole thing has been driven from a bad source at the very beginning," Corbyn tells the Commons, adding that he believes it would be better for the government to withdraw the bill and allow the Timms review to take place.

He adds: "If withdrawing the bill does cost us more money as a society, so be it."

Brian Wheeler
Reporting from the House of Commons

With just under three hours to go, there are still a lot of Labour MPs who want to speak.

By stark contrast, the Tory benches are practically deserted. A handful of Lib Dems, Greens and SNP members remain.

Joshua Nevett
Reporting from the House of Commons

We’ve heard a lot of MPs saying this bill would create a “two-tier system” for disability benefits. So what point is being made exactly?

In one of its concessions, the government said existing recipients of personal independence payment (Pip) will not be affected by the changes to the eligibility criteria.

But new Pip claimants will be.

That means to be eligible for the daily living component of Pip, claimants must score at least four points in a single daily living activity during their assessment.

This, some MPs say, could lead to disabled people with the same conditions being treated differently by the benefits system, depending on when they made their claim for Pip.

Image source, UK Parliament

Labour MP Richard Burgon tells the Commons he wishes he wasn't there today.

Burgon says the deadline for this bill is a way of solving a political problem. He says he believes that's why so many on the Labour benches have been pleading with the front bench to delay the bill and go back to the drawing board.

There is no need to ram it through except to save political face, he says.

Burgon says members are being asked to vote on the principles of the bill - to restrict Pip eligibility - and says he didn't come into politics to do that.

No Labour government should seek to balance the books of the backs of disabled people, he says, and "that's why so many people are so uneasy about this".

SNP MP Kirsty Blackman is on her feet, and begins by saying that too much of the discussion today in the Commons has not been about disabled people.

Calling the bill "wrong", she says it's "cutting money from disabled people" and being driven "entirely by the need to make cuts".

Why is Labour choosing to do this, she asks.

She repeats several times that reforming the benefits system was not part of Labour's general election manifesto last year.

Joshua Nevett
Reporting from the House of Commons

There's been a lot of talk during today's debate about the timing of the implementation of some of the government's welfare plans. Here's political reporter Joshua Nevett with more.

More than a few eyebrows have been raised by Labour backbenchers over the sequencing of the government’s welfare plans.

Many have questioned the wisdom of ploughing ahead with the welfare bill before a review of disability benefits by minister Sir Stephen Timms has been completed.

The review will look at the assessment process for people claiming the personal independence payment (Pip). It's not due to report its findings until autumn next year.

And yet in the meantime, ministers want to pass legislation that would allow them to change the eligibility criteria for Pip.

Already in this debate, MPs have questioned the logic of making changes to future Pip claimants before producing the Timms review.

It’s a question that won’t go away.

Joshua Nevett
Reporting from the House of Commons

Labour MP Meg Hillier, who led the rebellion that forced the government to make concessions last week, is now speaking in the chamber.

More than 120 Labour backbenchers signed her amendment, which could have killed the bill.

But she withdrew that amendment and is backing the government after ministers offered to soften the package of welfare changes.

She says it’s a “tragedy” that so many people are on benefits and aren’t given the support they need.

But she says the government needs to engage better with MPs, including with committee chairs like herself.

“A week is a long time in politics,” she reflects, saying that she believes major changes were made to the bill - and implores her Labour colleagues to “bank that”.

She adds that MPs are "not just voting fodder", but people with real expertise.

Liberal Democrat MP Ian Sollom is up now.

As others have said in the chamber today, he suggests the government's concessions will create a "fundamentally unjust two-tier system" for current and future claimants.

"Every person who might have a future lifeline taken away by these reforms is a human - but it's difficult to see if that government is treating them that way," he says.

He accuses the government of "creating different levels of support for identical conditions purely based on application dates", adding that he will be voting against the changes.

Image source, UK Parliament

Labour MP Rebecca Long-Bailey begins with a quote from Mahatma Gandhi, saying: "The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members".

But, she says, this bill will "push hundreds of thousands of vulnerable sick and disabled people into poverty".

Long-Bailey says she welcomes some of the weekend's concessions, but believes that they will "create a two-tier system" - where the amount of report someone receives will depend on when they made their claim.

She adds that there is an "endless" list of alternative methods of raising funds.

Joshua Nevett
Reporting from the House of Commons

More now from Conservative John Glen, who says he cannot support the bill, but he strikes a conciliatory tone and says he believes something his party did in government didn’t work.

He talks about the rise in the number of benefits claimants with mental health conditions.

And he appears to at least partially blame parity of esteem - which is the principle by which mental health must be given equal priority to physical health.

It was enshrined in law by the Health and Social Care Act 2012, when his party was in power.

“I believe that pathway has not worked,” he says.

Conservative MP John Glen says he doesn't think the changes are ambitious enough to deal with the scale of the challenges.

Glen says in his constituency of Salisbury there were 2065 Pip claims in 2019. In April 2025, that had risen to 4211, he says.

"I want to see those suffering and disabled receive that support in a timely way, but I don't want to see people written off permanently," he adds.

Next to speak is Tom Morrison, from the Liberal Democrats, who recalls the story of one of his constituents - Amy - who suffers from myalgic encephalomyelitis, commonly referred to as ME.

Her personal independence payment (Pip) was recently withdrawn by the Department for Work and Pensions, Morrison says.

He adds that Amy now faces mandatory reconsideration for the benefit, which she's been advised will take 15 weeks.

"Where will Amy get the support she needs during this wait," Morrison asks.

Image source, UK Parliament

Labour MP Emma Lewell, who is voting against the bill, says she is "sad that we've ended up here".

She says a vote for the bill "is a vote to plunge 150,000 people into poverty" - referencing this government modelling - as well as to tighten eligibility criteria for those who need support.

Lewell then goes on to compare the vote to a previous scenario under the Tories, where she says false assurances were given that a welfare bill could be changed once it had been passed.

The MP says this didn't happen and the savings promised "never materialised", while instead there was "an increase in poverty".

After a brief intervention, Lewell says that MPs are being asked to vote blind, with no fully updated impact assessment or formal consultation with disabled people.

"We are creating a two-tier, possibly three-tier, benefits system where we know for certain that disabled people are going to be worse off," she says.

Image source, UK Parliament

Conservative MP Stuart Anderson says he understands how people can have unforeseen circumstances that can impact them.

He talks about receiving a war pension and having part of his foot amputated. Anderson says he has previously been diagnosed with complex PTSD and has suffered for 15 years with "extreme mental health".

He adds that he once found himself in a situation where he couldn't put food on his children's table.

"There should be support for people when they need it, you never know what you could face," he tells the Commons, but adds he believes welfare is not an option for people to take when they don't want to work.

He says for some: "It's a career, they grow up having seen many years of people in welfare... I've had people openly admit that."

Joshua Nevett
Reporting from the House of Commons

Debbie Abrahams, the Labour MP who chairs the Work and Pensions Select Committee, was a key figure in pushing the government to make concessions on these welfare reforms.

Despite the climb down, she has remained critical of the bill and has reiterated her concerns in this debate.

Interestingly, she suggested the bill was being rushed through so the welfare savings could be scored by the Office for Budget Responsibility - the UK’s independent economic forecaster - ahead of Rachel Reeves’s Budget in the autumn.

It echoes a similar argument made by the Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, who earlier said the welfare changes were being “rushed for Rachel”.

Image source, UK Parliament

The chair of the Work and Pensions Select Committee, Debbie Abrahams, is next to speak in the Commons.

The Labour MP says that for the last 15 years the social security system has been punitive and dehumanising.

She says too many people relying on the system to survive have died through suicide, starvation and other circumstances exacerbated by poverty.

Abrahams spends some time acknowledging some of the positive measures in the Pathways to Work white paper - a government document focused on reforming benefits and support to get people back into work.

But, she says, the bill in its current state risks undermining some of those initiatives.

Maskell speech encapsulated Labour criticismspublished at 14:53 British Summer Time 1 July

14:53 BST 1 July

Joshua Nevett
Reporting from the House of Commons

Near the end of Labour MP Rachael Maskell's speech, her voice trembling with emotion, she turned to Disability Minister Sir Stephen Timms as she pleaded for the government's welfare bill to be withdrawn.

Maskell spoke of the “heavy duty on us all” - in an appeal to her Labour colleagues on the front and back benches.

The reforms to disability benefits have divided Labour and left many of its MPs pondering: what is the party for, exactly? And what does reforming welfare mean?

A “Labour cause” is how Keir Starmer has described the package of welfare reforms. But the Labour way on welfare is open to interpretation.

Earlier, Labour MP Richard Burgon told the BBC: “It’s not the Labour thing to do.”

For critics, the prospect of a Labour government taking away social security payments from some sick and disabled people is at best unpalatable, and at worst unconscionable.

And Maskell encapsulated this position in her speech.

Joe Pike
Political & investigations correspondent

Image source, UK Parliament

Liberal Democrat work and pensions spokesman Steve Darling confirms his party will back Labour MP Rachael Maskell's reasoned amendment, which attempts to kill the government's welfare reforms.

Darling, who is blind and is speaking with his guide dog Jenny asleep at his feet, says Labours changes would leave a two-tier system.

“It is almost Orwellian", Darling tells the Commons.

In a nod to Orwell's novel Animal Farm, he says it's as if "all disabled people are equal but some will be more equal than others".

Maskell tells the Commons stories of several of her constituents that rely on welfare benefits, who now "do not know where their future lies".

"At this eleventh hour, I plead withdrawal", she says, urging the government to consult and co-produce the changes, and take into account the recommendations of various reviews - including one to be undertaken by Sir Stephen Timms.

She gives way to Sorcha Eastwood - a member of the Alliance Party - who signed the amendment. Eastwood says she agrees the government must pause its plans.

Joshua Nevett
Reporting from the House of Commons

Rachael Maskell, the Labour MP whose reasoned amendment has been selected to be voted on, is speaking, setting out why she is opposing the welfare changes.

“These Dickensian cuts belong to a different era and a different party,” she says, pleading with ministers to withdraw the bill.