The government suffered an extraordinary threefold defeat on its Welfare Reform Bill in the House of Lords last night (11 January 2012), as campaigners and peers combined successfully to oppose cuts that would hit sick, vulnerable and disabled people particularly badly.

With a few exceptions, the Liberal Democrats voted with the government as they generally have throughout the divisions in the Lords on the welfare bill, but their support was overwhelmed by a big turnout from Labour and crossbenchers. Crossbenchers Lord Patel and Baroness Meacher, and Labour peer Baroness Lister, were among those who fought an expert rearguard action against the coalition, with a few Liberal Democrats also rebelling. Crossbenchers have also been furiously lobbied by disability campaigners arguing that they should not be made to suffer for the economic crisis.

The votes are a huge triumph for Sue Marsh, Dr Sarah Campbell, Kaliya Franklin, and other disabled activists and researchers who, this Monday, published the ‘Responsible Reform’ report (#SpartacusReport). This research document caused an Internet sensation with their #spartacusreport campaign, as it galvanised charities, NGOs, politicians from all parties, churches, medical professionals and public figures into lobbying for a substantial rethink on welfare reform. Peers and MPs were subsequently inundated with pleas to stop welfare and disability cuts this morning, with thousands of copies of the report exposing the sham of the government’s consultation on Disability Living Allowance (DLA) being sent on to decision-makers and policy experts. The Catholic Archbishop of Southwark, Peter Smith, also expressed serious concern.

Plans to means-test employment and support allowance (ESA) payments for disabled people after only a year were rejected by peers. The means test would have applied to cancer patients and stroke survivors, and was denounced by Lord Patel, a crossbencher and former President of the Royal College of Obstetricians, as an immoral attack on the sick, the vulnerable and the poor. “If we are going to rob the poor to pay the rich, then we enter into a different form of morality,” He also said: “I am sympathetic to cutting the deficit, but I am highly sympathetic to sick and vulnerable people not being subjected to something that will make their lives even more miserable.”

The government was defeated by 224 votes to 186, even though Lord Freud, the welfare minister, claimed that the cost of the amendment would be £1.6bn spread over five years. The other defeats were over plans to time-limit ESA for those undergoing cancer treatment, and to restrict access to ESA for young people with disabilities or illness. Lord Freud countered that the 365-day time limit was not arbitrary and was similar to limits imposed in France, Ireland and Spain, and struck a “reasonable balance between the needs of sick, disabled people claiming benefit and those who have to contribute towards the cost”.

The defeats do not augur well for the government’s chances in future votes in the Lords on the bill, which includes housing benefit caps. The bill is at report stage before returning to the Commons.

In addition to last night’s humiliating defeat, the Conservative Mayor of London has been revealed to have opposed disability cuts; major charities, the TUC, the thinktank Ekklesia and others are calling for a legislative pause; and both the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly are declining to pass the traditional consent legislation for the UK parliament on the Welfare Reform Bill.

The House of Commons has the power to reverse the Lords amendments. Royal Assent is currently timed for March 2012.