HUMPHRYS: It's six months since MPs debated a new law which would cut incapacity benefits for people making a fresh claim. Many Labour MPs do not approve; there was the biggest revolt against the government of this parliament. This week the Lords get their turn and they are likely to throw it back to the Commons. Not a happy prospect for the Social Security secretary Alastair Darling. What will he do? Compromise... or confront them? Sarah Nelson's been trying to find out. SARAH NELSON: Adam Thomas is getting ready for work. He considers himself lucky to have a job. He had an accident in his teens and has been a wheelchair user ever since. Many disabled people find it hard to get any job, let alone a good full-time one, and now the Government is putting forward proposals which Adam believes, make work less attractive. Ministers want to cut payments to people who have to give up their jobs through disability. It's an issue that's already led to the biggest back bench revolt at Westminster under this Government and it could be about to result in another. Campaigners like Adam see the events of the next week as crucial. Ministers so far are refusing to compromise on plans to cut help to disabled people. But a vote in the House of Lords on Wednesday, is expected to show opposition to the proposal is stronger than ever. BARONESS HOLLIS: We believe that it is right that when we are spending two billion pounds more on disabled people, and I am delighted that we are, that it should go to those who need it, not to those who don't. LORD ASHLEY: The Government only has a few weeks to get this Bill through. There is a danger the Government will lose this Bill. I don't want that, nobody wants them to lose the Bill, but that's the danger. ROGER BERRY MP: The vast majority of us just want the Government to show an ability to compromise, to listen to what disabled people have said, and then hopefully we can all unite behind the Welfare Reform Bill, I very much hope we can. NELSON: A good salary and a nice car - but Adam's success now is relatively recent. He has always been keen to work full-time, but it's only in the last couple of years that that's been possible. ADAM THOMAS: I am doing basically what Tony Blair has asked, I've gone out, I've found a job, for the first time since 1981 I have actually found an employer who will employ me on PAYE. NELSON: Adam's prospects are very good. With his employer he set up a business designing and making accessible kitchens for disabled people and enquiries have come in from around the world. But his health is always a concern and Government plans to limit Incapacity Benefit could eventually leave him worse off if he loses his job. Rather than paying the same sum to all claimants, Ministers want to cut Incapacity Benefit for those who have a pension of more than fifty pounds a week. THOMAS: I really don't see the logic of it. National Insurance was set up as a safety net for people who, if they fall on hard times, they need help, it's there. I've done what has been asked, I've provided a pension, I'm actually paying a hundred and fifty pounds a month of money that I can't really afford, or money that I would much rather spend on other things, but I have decided to look after my future. If this rule comes in, then basically what I will personally do is I will cancel my pension, I'll just put it on hold, because I don't see why I should be penalised this way. NELSON: The last thing Ministers say they want is to stop Adam from saving for his future. Many of their policies for disabled people aim to encourage their independence, not limit it. But the changes go further, Ministers plan to link Incapacity Benefit more closely to work by only allowing those who have paid National Insurance for at least a year in the two years before they claim to qualify. The Government says this way limited state funds are targeted at those recently in work. HOLLIS: Originally, Incapacity Benefit was designed to replace earnings for those who fell out of work because of illness and had no other income and what has happened is too often it's become a top-up to an early retirement pension of good white-collar professional pensions and that was not the point, and it means as a result money isn't going to those who really need it. NELSON: At Westminster, Jack Ashley is considering his tactics. He's told fellow critic, the MP Roger Berry, he's tabling two amendments in Wednesday's debate. One would pay benefit to people who claim within seven years of leaving work, not two, the other more than doubles the pension allowed before the benefit is cut. ASHLEY: I am a political realist and the Government with it's vast majority and a democratic House of Commons will eventually get its Bill. And because of that I am trying to bridge the gap between the Government and disabled people. It's an honourable, reasoned, logical provision and the Government if they are sensible should grasp it with both hands. LORNA REITH: We feel that Lord Ashley's amendments really are the bottom line position in terms of compromise. We disagree fundamentally with what the Government are trying to do. They are going to be reducing the incomes of three-hundred-and-fifty-thousand people over the next ten years. That's not something we ever want to see a Labour or any other Government doing. HOLLIS: Jack's amendment will still produce Incapacity Benefit for those who have very high incomes and we don't believe that is the right priority or the right principle. NELSON: Not much sign of a compromise there then. Adam will have to wait until the issue returns to the House of Commons for any concessions. The rebels have designs on MP's who abstained or who voted with the Government reluctantly. Over the summer, some Commons Backbenchers have come under pressure from their constituencies to reconsider their support. JOE BENTON, MP: If the Government in its wisdom says no, we are not going to have it, I will have to examine my position. But I would hope, I would seriously hope that they will listen and concede to the two amendments. TONY McWALTER, MP: I don't believe this is a Government which is seeking a head-on collision with eighty-two of its backbenchers and I think that they realise that this Bill is immensely complex, it has a thousand implications and they got nine-hundred-and-ninety-six of them right. I don't think there is any mileage in not admitting that, four of them might need adjusting. NELSON: At the moment there's a stand-off. Neither the Government, nor its critics want to make the first move. Backbenchers want concessions but the Government appears to want to assess the scale of any revolt before making a compromise. So Ministers will almost certainly wait until after the House of Lords debate on Wednesday before making a new offer. Discussions are likely to focus on raising the level of pension a claimant can have before their Incapacity Benefit starts being reduced. Currently it stands at fifty pounds a week and backbenchers want a substantial increase. BERRY: If they are simply going to increase the threshold for means-tested Incapacity Benefit from fifty pounds per week to sixty pounds per week I have to say I cannot conceive how I can support that, I mean that's just not an attempt to compromise. McWALTER: I expect them to make the appropriate adjustments, not some kind of minimal adjustments. I mean if they increase the fifty pound limit to fifty-five, nobody will be convinced that that was a sensible response to the powerful arguments which have been made. HOLLIS: The Secretary of State, Alastair Darling, made it very clear early last summer that the precise figures are not set in tablets of stone. He is willing to listen to people, he has listened to people, he has consulted with people, and as a result he is reflecting on this and will make a statement to Parliament. NELSON: There are more than eight million disabled people in Britain and they have already shown they know how to embarrass this Government. There will be no climb-down on Incapacity Benefit in the House of Lords this week, but the whiff of compromise is in the air. Campaigners and MP's will be examining what's put forward very closely. Ministers will have to convince them it's a fair deal to avoid further rows.