Britain’s welfare system is broken. Just about every labor MP – perhaps every member of Parliament – agrees.

But fixing the system is proving to be a problem.

The most divisive decision by work and pension secretary Liz Kendal so far is to ban the eligibility of people with disabilities for personal freedom payment (PIP).

Legislative to implement the deduction – part of a package with the aim of saving £ 5BN by 2030 – will be introduced in Parliament on Wednesday.

But a Major rebellion is drinking alcohol Labor benches – and some of the newly intake of the party are some of the MPs who are considering voting against the bill.

This is a big step for a new MP but emotions are running high. Some told us that they feared that there will be more deaths than profit cuts.

At the same time, there are some freshly chosen labor MPs who firmly felt that the party needs to use its giant commons majority to bring the system into over -time overdose.

We spoke to two MPs elected for the first time last year, and find themselves on different aspects of divided.

Cat Excels recently has the first hand experience of profit system.

In the West Midlands, before becoming an MP for Storbridge, he found herself dependent on profit when she was on long -term sick leave from her NHS job.

He was eventually allowed to leave and spent a year on Kalyan.

“If I did not have family and friends to support me, I could not eat,” she says.

“I could not pay my bills or even live in the property that I was, because it is a private fare property.”

His experience has given him an insight that some of his MPs do not share colleagues, they believe.

“There are people who have never touched their lives and so appreciating challenges is probably a little more difficult for them.”

He is in favor of measures to use physical or mental health conditions – but they believe that some ministers are using rose -tinted glasses while assessing employers’ will to help employers.

And she says that it has been wrong for the government to confuse people measures to work with cuts in pip, which she says that currently some of their components help to stay in work.

What is the intention of changing the bill of Kendal can have adverse effects, it argues.

“Many components are in employment for their PIPs. They can spend those payments on a career to support the preparation in the morning, or even top their salary, so they can work short hours and not so tired.

“My question from ministers: Will they potentially lose that payment and be therefore no longer able to maintain their employment?”

Although no one will lose his PIP payment by 2027, she says “the response to my components is one of the fear”.

Kendall is now Any offer of an olive branch For potential rebels to tell them that anyone who loses eligibility for PIP will maintain his payment for a three -month transition period.

Eccles have declared themselves “unaffected” and suggested that “this will not be enough to please MPs”.

Along with her around 100 colleagues, she wants to look at the increased limit in the law to claim to reduce PIPs at her current level.

Otherwise, she says, “People who cannot cut their food, or someone who cannot wash themselves can lose”. “This is a cruel system,” she says.

ECCles hope that if political logic has not persuaded some of his colleagues to come to his approach, it may be arithmetic.

He has about 3,000 majority in his stabridge seat, but suggests that more than 8,000 components receive PIPs.

David Pinto-Dusinsky does not subscribe to that argument. He won his handon seat in North-West London by just 15 votes.

They believe that it would be a political error for labor to avoid radical reforms – or the entire system may be unstable.

He worked as an advisor to the Treasury under the late Alastair Darling for the previous labor government, but is trying to struggle longer than the problems of unemployment and well -being.

He said: “I started working on this issue 25 years ago, in the new Deal Task Force of the then New Labor government, dealing with issues like welfare to work and getting long -term unemployed not only in jobs but also in good long -term continuous jobs.”

A quarter of a century, they believe that the entire system is in danger.

“We have a moral duty to improve welfare and protect the long -term future of that system. One of the 10 working -aged adults is out of work in our country.”

He emphasized the restrictions on PIPs – the glued points for several labor MPs who otherwise accept reforms such as “right to effort” without losing profit – was needed.

And as a former Treasury employee, he is equipped with data.

While he insists that the weakest people will be protected, they say: “The number of people claiming PIP is growing by more than 1,000 people in a day and its cost has increased by 50% since 2018 – it is not just durable.”

He argues that “employment rate among people with disabilities is about 30% less than those without disability”.

“If we are serious about dealing with low income and poverty among people with health conditions, we have to deal with those issues,” they say.

He also denied that the government is motivated by the need to save reforms fundamentally.

“Of course there are economic views but the main reason for changing things is moral.

“This is an emotional and difficult issue, but the current system is disappointing people. There is nothing kind about a system that is throwing three million people on the scrapy.”

Parliament will vote on a welfare bill in a few weeks. A major labor minister is confident of victory.

But the clear blue – or perhaps red – the water between the government and some of its MPs is unlikely to end.