Personal Independence Payment and Disability Benefits: Implementation and Impact

Thursday 29th October 2026 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

15:49

Moved by

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington]

That this House takes note of the implementation and impact of Personal Independence Payment and other disability benefits and linked schemes.

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity in the aftermath of the Budget to debate one of the most pressing challenges facing our country. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have stayed to debate it in the graveyard slot. This challenge, of course, is the sustainability of our welfare system and, in particular, disability benefits, including personal independence payment and the wider set of entitlements passported by PIP.

The basic purpose of our welfare system ought to be straightforward. It is a safety net for those who need it, to help people who are out of work to return to employment where possible and to provide proper support to those who cannot work because of illness or disability. PIP has a particular role within that system. It is to cover additional costs associated with long-term disability or a health condition. That is a legitimate purpose, but we know that in practice it is not always how PIP is functioning.

When we look at the disability benefits system more widely, there are serious questions about whether it too is fulfilling its objectives. We have a system that too often fails to provide people with the practical help they need, which can leave them dependent upon financial support, without addressing the underlying difficulties they face, and which, through its interaction with other benefits, can create uncertainty and financial disincentives for those who might return to work. Despite the increasing sums being spent, the Government have yet to demonstrate convincingly how they intend to bring the welfare bill under control while improving the effectiveness of the support being provided.

PIP itself is a generously conceived benefit. It is unconditional, non-contributory, not means tested and does not need formal medical evidence. International comparisons by the TaxPayers’ Alliance show that PIP is a looser regime that also pays more generous rates than our nearest colleagues in the European countries we like to compare ourselves to. It needs skilled assessors who can discriminate effectively and maintain thresholds. Assessors need strong support from immediate managers all the way up to Ministers for some tough decisions, as well as appeal mechanisms that consistently apply those same thresholds. PIP was also designed before courts interpreted the relevant law as encompassing a wide range of mental health conditions, and before Covid and furlough normalised paying healthy people to stay at home and not work.

Let us now have a look at the figures. As of July 2026, some 4.1 million people in England and Wales were entitled to PIP, of whom approximately 3.4 million were of working age. Some 37% were receiving the highest level of award, while over the preceding five years 42% of new claims made under the normal rules resulted in an award. According to Department for Work and Pensions statistics, 79% of planned award reviews resulted in an increase or no change in the award. For reported changes of circumstances, that figure was 89%. Meanwhile, 27% of mandatory reconsiderations cleared, excluding withdrawn cases, resulted in a changed award. These are substantial—indeed, enormous—figures. They make it all the more important that we understand what is driving the growth in claims, how eligibility is being assessed and whether the support being provided is producing the outcomes we should expect.

PIP is designed to support people who find daily living or mobility more challenging because of a disability or health condition and there is an important question here about the distinction between recognising a condition and identifying the practical support that someone actually needs. Take, for example, conditions such as anxiety, depression or ADHD. We should also be asking whether the assessment system is sufficiently effective at distinguishing between different levels of impairment, identifying the additional costs people actually face and determining what form of support would be most beneficial.

The current system presupposes that a cash award is the most appropriate intervention. But surely, with the substantial rise in those claiming benefits on the basis of a mental health condition, should we not consider that timely therapy, appropriate treatment, occupational support, workplace adjustments or other practical interventions may do far more to improve their quality of life, and indeed that they might enable some to return to work? The purpose of the disability benefits system should not be simply to recognise that someone is experiencing difficulty; rather, it should help them overcome that difficulty wherever possible.

That brings me to how PIP awards are assessed and reviewed. The figures I just cited raise important questions about how consistently assessments are conducted, how effectively changes in circumstances are identified, and whether decisions are made correctly in the first place. Where a person’s circumstances have materially improved, there must be a fair and reliable means of recognising that change, and, where an initial decision is overturned, we must consider whether an avoidable error was made in the initial assessment. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could explain what steps the Government are taking to improve the accuracy and consistency of PIP assessments and how they intend to ensure that reviews respond appropriately to permanent, fluctuating, and potentially treatable conditions.

There is a related point here about face-to-face assessments. Can the Minister commit to restoring face-to-face assessments in their entirety rather than relying on assessments conducted over the telephone? If not, can she explain how the Government can be confident that they are accurately assessing an individual’s physical needs and their entitlement to support without ever seeing the person concerned?

According to the Office for Budget Responsibility’s report yesterday, spending on sickness and disability benefits alone is forecast to reach £100 billion by 2028-29, a year earlier than forecast in March. That is up from £85.6 billion in 2025-26. These are very substantial sums, particularly at a time when public finances are under such considerable pressure, and they bring us to a fundamental point which is sometimes overlooked in debates about public spending: every decision about government expenditure is ultimately a choice about whose interests we prioritise and who bears the costs. This was made abundantly clear in the Budget debate yesterday. That is why fairness must be at the centre of this discussion—fairness not just to those receiving support but to those whose taxes fund it and to those who depend on the other public services competing for the same resources.

This brings me to the question of incentives. We cannot consider PIP entirely in isolation from the wider benefit system. For people who receive PIP alongside other forms of support, particularly means-tested benefits, there is a serious question about whether the interaction between different payments creates the right incentives. For some people, returning to employment or increasing their working hours can mean a substantial reduction in means-tested support, at the same time as they face the additional costs of going to work. The result can be that someone takes on greater responsibility, works more hours and contributes more in tax but sees relatively little improvement in their disposable income. Where people are concerned that attempting to return to work or demonstrating an improvement in their condition might place their existing support at risk, that uncertainty can become a barrier in itself.

There is something fundamentally wrong with a system that can leave people afraid that making progress in their life might result in them being worse off. We should want people to recover where possible, to become more independent and to enter or remain in employment where their circumstances allow. The welfare system should support those ambitions, not discourage them. If we want people to enter employment, work must offer a clear and worthwhile reward. It should not be the case that the structure of the welfare system itself discourages people from doing precisely what the country needs and wants them to do. What does it say about the fairness of our system when people who work hard, pay their taxes and contribute to the economy can struggle to see the financial rewards of doing so? What message are we sending when we ask those working families to shoulder an ever-greater tax burden while failing to demonstrate that the substantial sums being spent on welfare are delivering the best possible outcomes? Those people are increasingly impatient and intolerant about how their taxes are being spent.

These are perfectly reasonable questions, which we should not shy away from asking. The welfare system ultimately depends on a degree of trust and shared responsibility. Those who contribute must have the confidence that their taxes are being spent effectively, support is going to those who genuinely need it and those who are capable of working are being given every reasonable opportunity and incentive to do so. Equally, those who depend on the system must have the confidence that it will provide them with proper support when they need it. For those receiving PIP, that means knowing that assessments will be conducted fairly and consistently, decisions will reflect their needs, and they will not be penalised simply for attempting to improve their circumstances. Those two principles are not in conflict. Indeed, I would argue that they are mutually dependent.

Before I close, I have some straightforward questions for the Government. Are PIP assessments consistently and accurately identifying the practical difficulties that people face and the additional support they need? Are we sufficiently distinguishing between permanent disabilities, fluctuating conditions and circumstances in which someone’s health or independence might improve? Are the reassessment periods that we have sufficient to capture those people whose conditions improve, meaning they no longer require the benefit? Are we doing enough to connect people with treatment, rehabilitation and practical assistance rather than relying on financial payments alone? Are we ensuring that those who wish to return to work or increase their independence can do so without the fear of abruptly losing essential support? We cannot simply continue increasing expenditure without addressing these points.

Nor should we allow legitimate proposals for reform to be dismissed as a lack of compassion for people with disabilities. We need a disability benefits system that protects those with the greatest needs, provides effective and practical support, helps those who can work to do so, and treats those who pay for it with fairness and respect. That is the balance that the Government should seek to restore. It is deeply concerning that they have yet to demonstrate either the political conviction or the practical plan required to do so. Until we see meaningful reform, we risk not only growing pressure on the public finances but a growing loss of confidence in the welfare system itself. Ultimately, it is those who depend most on that system who have the greatest amount to lose. I beg to move.

16:02

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin of Kennington, for securing this debate. I look forward to hearing other contributions and, in particular, the response to the debate from my noble friend Lady Dacres of Lewisham, whom I warmly welcome to the Front Bench.

I will particularly address PIP. The Motion goes a bit wider, but I think that it is really focusing on PIP. We will of course receive the final report of the Timms review next month, followed by a White Paper, and we expect legislation in the coming year. So, it is an appropriate moment for Parliament to discuss the principles that should guide reform and the questions to which the Government must provide convincing answers. The decisions taken over the next year will shape the future support for millions of people with disabilities.

The interim report of the Timms review reached a striking conclusion: although PIP remains highly valued by many who receive it, the system itself is no longer fit for purpose. The review drew on more than 38,000 responses from people with disabilities, charities, professionals and others, making it one of the largest exercises of its kind undertaken by the Government. More than 90% of responses concerning the claims process were negative.

Much of the public debate has focused on the rising cost of PIP. Costs matter, and no responsible Government can ignore them. However, figures on expenditure do not speak for themselves. They require proper analysis.

The overall case load at any point reflects three separate factors: how many people are making new claims, how many claims are being accepted and how many people remain entitled to the benefits. If we are to make sensible policy, we need to understand which of these factors is driving growth. Reviews and reassessments alone do not explain the increase that has been identified. There has been a genuine rise in reported disability and long-term health conditions, particularly among younger people. The interim review highlights the changing nature of disability and ill health since PIP was introduced in 2013 by the coalition Government. I therefore hope that the Minister will ensure that the forthcoming White Paper provides a detailed breakdown of case load growth, separating the effects of new claims, award rates and claim duration.

We also need to work on the quality of decision-making. The points-based descriptors that underpin PIP have changed little since the benefit was introduced. Throughout that period, they have struggled to deal properly with fluctuating conditions, multiple conditions and many less visible impairments. The result is a system that too often fails to capture the realities of the lives of disabled people. The consequences can be seen in the appeals process and the relatively high proportion of changes through that process. The most efficient way to administer any benefit is to make the correct decision at the outset.

This brings me inevitably to the question of fraud. Some recent media coverage has created an impression that abuse of PIP is widespread. That narrative deserves careful scrutiny. Stories about social media influencers explaining how to complete claim forms may generate headlines, but guidance on filling in what are, in truth, complex applications is not in itself fraud. What matters is what the department’s own evidence shows. The latest DWP estimates put PIP overpayments due to fraud at 1.4% of expenditure in the last fiscal year. That represents an increase and should be taken seriously. However, it also means that more than 98% of spending was not lost to fraud. The overall PIP overpayment rate at 2.3% remains below the average across the benefit system.

It is also important to understand the nature of the fraud that does occur. A substantial proportion arises where an individual’s condition has improved and the improvement has not been reported. This is plainly a risk where conditions may change over time. It is much less relevant where conditions are lifelong and progressive. Learning disability is lifelong by definition, and the same is true of many degenerative conditions, yet people with such conditions continue to undergo repeated reassessments. That was one of the major complaints exposed by the Timms review. More broadly, across all claimants, the great majority of planned reviews lead to either no change or an increase in entitlements. Those figures raise a legitimate question: are we directing administrative effort to the places where it is most useful? The sensible conclusion is not that everyone should be reviewed more frequently; it is that reviews should be targeted when needs are genuinely likely to change, while people with lifelong conditions should be spared unnecessary reassessment.

To turn to the review, many of the emerging recommendations point in exactly that direction. They include a redesigned, improved application process, improved treatment of fluctuating conditions, and the creation of an advocacy service to support claimants. These proposals are to be welcomed, but good intentions alone will not be enough. An advocacy service without adequate funding will achieve little, and better assessments will require assessors who understand learning, disability and other complex conditions. I hope the Minister can assure the House that both will be properly resourced.

The more significant question concerns the long-term future of PIP. The review is exploring a shift away from the current assessment of functional difficulty towards awards linked more directly to categories of disability-related extra costs, while retaining cash support as the foundation of the benefit and preserving its non-means-tested nature. There is an obvious logic here. PIP is described as a contribution towards the extra cost of disability, yet eligibility until now has been determined primarily by functional tests rather than by assessing the costs that people face. Aligning the assessment more closely with the purpose of the benefit has an intuitive appeal. However, Parliament should not endorse such a change without answers to some important questions.

First, there is the question of evidence. Extra costs can be difficult to identify and even harder to quantify. Many are indirect, intermittent or hidden. People who need support with communication, decision-making or money management may find it particularly difficult to document them. How will costs be defined? How will evidence be gathered? And how will the Government ensure that fixed categories do not exclude claimants whose circumstances fall outside a predetermined list?

Secondly, there is the issue of choice. The review suggests that some support could potentially be delivered through services or other non-cash provision. Services have a role, but they cannot offer the flexibility of cash. People with disabilities know best what support they need and any move towards non-cash provision should therefore be optional and claimant led.

Thirdly, there is the question of distributional impact. Reform has to operate within the government spending framework, but changes within a fixed budget inevitably create both winners and losers. Parliament will need to see detailed analysis showing the effects by condition, age and component of the award. That analysis should also consider employment outcomes. It is important to emphasise that PIP is not an out-of-work benefit; indeed, it is a benefit designed to directly enable people to work. PIP is payable both in and out of work and for many people it is precisely what makes employment possible.

The interim review has performed a valuable service by bringing together evidence and challenging assumptions. The test now is whether the Government respond to that evidence. Reform should be guided neither by expenditure figures in isolation nor by alarming stories in the press but by the realities of disabled people’s lives and by the goal of creating a system that is fair, accurate, sustainable and worthy of public confidence.

16:15

[Lord Willetts (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Jenkin on bringing this important subject to the House and on her important speech, with important facts and statistics within it. As well as welcoming her in leading this debate, I should say a word to welcome the Minister, because I believe that for the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres, this is her first engagement and speech in our Chamber as a Minister. I welcome her to that and look forward to what she is going to say. I have at the end of my speech some particular questions that I hope she may be able to address.

The importance of this issue arises for many reasons. As we have heard from my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, the well-being of people who are disabled and claiming PIP is important, but so is the backdrop of a really shocking increase in spending on welfare benefits, which is estimated to rise by £38 billion in real terms between 2026-27 and 2031-32. It is worth reporting the components of that £38 billion increase: £12 billion is for non-pensioner health and disability benefits—what we are debating today—£21 billion, significantly more, is for increases in spending on the state pension, driven above all by the triple lock, and £6 billion is for all other benefit spending. It is absolutely right to look at what we can do to reduce the costs of benefits for disabled people where the money is not having the effect that we hoped, but we should just remember the wider context of where the money is going.

I should declare an interest because I am president of the Resolution Foundation, a think tank. We produced only earlier this month a report, Hard Truths, which is about the whole issue of PIP. It was written by my distinguished colleagues there, Lindsay Judge and Louise Murphy, and I am going to draw on our Resolution Foundation research heavily throughout my remarks.

The estimates of the costs of PIP are of course very significant, perhaps running at £35 billion a year or more. This was absolutely not what PIP was supposed to do; I was serving as a Minister attending Cabinet when PIP was brought in, and I can still remember that it was supposed to be a cost-cutting measure, in contrast to DLA, but claims and costs are surging. There were 36,000 claims a month in 2019 and it is running at 76,000 claims a month this year, so it is right to reform it. However, reform has to be careful and evidence-based. At the Resolution Foundation, we did a survey of 2,500 claimants of PIP to try to understand better exactly what was going on.

PIP, of course, is an unusual benefit. In many ways, it is like child benefit: it does not depend on whether you are working, although it is possible that the way in which PIP functions could be a deterrence or barrier to work. It is not means-tested. The aim is that it covers the costs of some key condition. It is rather like child benefit, which is aimed at covering simply the costs of having children. The difference is that knowing whether you have children is rather easier to ascertain than establishing exactly what your disability is, what the condition is and what the costs are. You could have a condition-based system or a cost-based system.

Perhaps one of the most striking findings in our report at the Resolution Foundation is that 16% of people claiming PIP do not report any costs associated with their condition. However, of those people we surveyed who are receiving it—and the survey was done carefully, so it was a representative sample—47% said that PIP payments helped or enabled them to do economically valuable activities and 82% said that it boosted their well-being. In other words, we should be careful as we try to find ways of saving costs and ensuring it goes only to the people who most need it. It also has some beneficial effects which must not be sacrificed.

There is a lot of talk about particular conditions. Another significant finding from our research was that 56% of claimants of PIP have two or more conditions and there is often a mix of physical and mental conditions. In fact, 30% of recipients seemed to have a combination, 28% seemed to have just a physical condition, and 18% had just what was broadly regarded as a mental condition.

We need to reform it but we need to reform it with care. At Resolution Foundation, the broad outlines of what we propose are, first, a functional assessment. The assessment of what you are capable of doing is currently a very domestic set of tests, and we say that it should be more outward-looking and more focused on what you can do in society and in the economy. We should also look carefully at a breakdown of PIP. There is a case for a capital element: certain costs which are not regular monthly costs but that could be paid for and that, in turn, make a condition more manageable.

I disagree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. We think there is some value in accessing services which help functioning and promote participation, including increasing the chances of getting into work. We think it could be useful if PIP were used as a contribution to the cost of receiving these services, and would help tackle the so-called notorious improvement trap. People are worried that, if they report that they are getting better or are helped to get better, this will cause them to lose the benefit entirely.

There needs to be more routine engagement with people on PIP and they should not be left totally disengaged from the system for years on end. We believe that there are some lower level conditions which, given the fiscal environment, should not of themselves lead to an entitlement to PIP. Put all this together, and the package we propose is one that we believe could save £4 billion to £5 billion in PIP.

I turn to specific questions on which I hope the Minister can give us some advice and guidance. The first issue is young people aged 16 to 24. This is a group whose claims for PIP are particularly scrutinised, and there are some who say that they just should not receive PIP—indeed, there are reports in the media that Alan Milburn may say they should not receive PIP at all. It is clear from our research at Resolution Foundation that one-quarter of young people receiving PIP say that they have no costs associated with a disability or no condition. There is absolutely a case for tightening up the regime. However, the other three-quarters say that they have some costs associated with their condition and that PIP enables them—this is relevant to Alan Milburn’s remit—to work, participate in education or volunteer. If there is to be a significant reduction in PIP entitlement for younger people, or it is to be removed entirely in favour of a new means of helping them work or participate in education, what assurances do we have that Alan Milburn’s report will ensure that simply removing PIP from all those young people who are using it—in exactly the way that he would like to get attention and support for to reduce NEETs—does not have the opposite effect from what was intended? For some young people, the risk of being NEET would go up rather than down. Young people matter.

The second point I turn to, and I hope that the Minister will forgive me for this, is education, particularly for young people aged over 16 or 18. This is something to which I attach a lot of value, and the links between education and disability benefits and work are very strong. If you have no qualifications and you are disabled, your chances of being in work are 40% lower than if you have no qualifications and are not disabled. Among people with no qualifications, sadly, the employment penalty for being disabled is severe. For those with a degree and who are disabled, the chance of working is 14% lower than for people who have a degree and are not disabled.

In other words, one of the many values of higher education—I was one of the people who unleashed and fought long battles to get out the evidence on specific pay returns—and some of the wider benefits to higher education are captured here. For people who participate in higher education and are disabled, it gives them a massive chance and opportunity of getting into work. I hope the Minister will assure us that those types of considerations will be very relevant as we look to reform PIP, including for people who have a mental disability. People with a mental illness or mental problem are significantly more likely to be working, despite their condition, if they are graduates than if they are not.

Finally, I put forward two other points to the Minister. Pensioners cannot apply for PIP but they can carry on receiving it. In effect, PIP becomes a lifetime award if you are a pensioner. There is an argument that attendance allowance is better suited to the needs of these people and it has a lower cost than PIP. There are already 700,000 pensioners on PIP. Will the Government consider this as an area for saving and looking at ways in which attendance allowance could be used, because this absolute lifetime caseload of pensioners claiming PIP will grow?

This is my final point to the Minister. The one point on which I disagree with my noble friend Lady Jenkin is that there is a lot of belief in face-to-face assessments. The evidence from our review is that your likelihood of making a successful claim from a face-to-face assessment is 39%, from a video assessment it is 40% and from a phone assessment it is 41%. The big gap is with paper claims, where the chances are 78%. We do not need to focus on particularly expensive face-to-face claims; there are other means as well. I look forward to the Minister’s response to our debate.

16:26

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Willetts, who has shaped progressive thinking on welfare for many years and has asked a number of penetrating questions. I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Jenkin on her choice of subject for this debate and on her thoughtful and balanced introduction. Some 47 years ago, I was a Minister at what was then the Department of Health and Social Security, and my boss was Patrick Jenkin, my noble friend’s father-in-law. Social security expenditure in that year was £19 billion; it is now £333 billion.

Although this is a Conservative-led debate, I want to look at the issue through the eyes of two Labour politicians, Stephen Timms and Alan Milburn. The Timms review asked whether PIP is fair, accessible and fit for the disabled. Those are the terms of reference, and we have the interim report and emerging recommendations. The Milburn review is broader, looking across welfare, health and skills, but it is more concerned with the interaction of welfare, including PIP, with incentives to work and the sustainability of welfare expenditure. Again, we have his interim report. The two reports have different remits and different priorities, which, in turn, represent the tensions within the Government on the way forward on welfare reform.

First, The press often quote the very words Stephen Timms used about PIP: “not fit for purpose”. Against the background of the current debate about welfare expenditure, some people think that meant it should be cut back. But that is not at all what he meant. I could find one mention in the interim review about finance, but the whole thrust is about making the journey more user-friendly. The emerging recommendations take forward the terms of reference: improving the experience for people applying for and receiving PIP, increasing the availability of accessible digital services across the PIP journey to streamline the process and improve accessibility, and ensuring that people who need help to navigate the process can access advocacy services—all highly commendable objectives.

After reading the report, I, along with other Peers, got an invitation to a virtual briefing session with Stephen Timms and his co-chairs, Sharon Brennan and Dr Farquharson. I joined that session and it reinforced the message of the Timms review that the process could be dehumanising, soul-destroying and degrading. There were some very moving stories.

The tone of the Milburn review is different. He approached the subject not so much from the point of view of the claimant but from that of society as a whole and the taxpayer in particular. He is concerned about the cost. He says:

“Benefit spend on young people for PIP alone is expected to rise to £6.5 billion by 2031/32. If spend on DWP employment support remains at the levels currently being funded through the Youth Guarantee, we estimate that by 2030/31, for every £1 that DWP spend on employment support for young people, around £10 will be spent on welfare support for young people. This is not a spread of investment that prioritises participation. It is an investment choice that prioritises income transfers”.


When he looked at PIP, he said:

“PIP is the welfare system’s first point of contact with disabled young people from the age of 16 and for many it is the only point of contact before an out-of-work claim … Analysis we have undertaken however, does not suggest that it is achieving good participation outcomes. Administrative data shows that PIP claims are getting longer in duration, with 87% of 16- to 24-year-olds in the 2019 cohort still on the benefit five years later, compared to 74% of the 2013 cohort … The employment prospects of a young person claiming PIP get 21% worse over six years, whereas for everyone else they get 31% better”.


He goes on to say:

“The data makes it clear that PIP does nothing to support this key point of transition from education to work. At no point in a young person’s application or journey on PIP are they asked about, or supported to, work. This is not an accident of delivery. It is how PIP is designed”.


That is very different from the Timms approach, which leaves the basic design alone.

The implication from Milburn is not that we should spend more on PIP, but that we should spend less. He concludes:

“It is a symbol of a wider failure on the part of the benefits system to provide practical help for sick and disabled youngsters into work. The consequence is that a disabled person who seeks support is offered a benefit assessment, not a conversation about their goals, their struggles, the support around them and the help they need”.


He goes on to say:

“It measures what someone cannot do and writes a cheque. It does not ask what they could do and build a plan. The benefits system is founded on a deficit model of disability, one that pays for what a young person cannot do rather than investing in what they could become”.


Then he says:

“For a young person with a health condition who is unemployed and potentially seeking work, taking a pathway to inactivity can offer higher income, less hassle and lower risk. This is a perverse incentive. It is the polar opposite of what a participation-first welfare system should be providing and means more and more people are being trapped on benefits”.


Based on that Milburn claim about higher income, I worked out what a young person aged under 25 could potentially claim, using figures on the government website. Universal credit standard allowance would be £338.58 a month; universal credit LCWRA—limited capacity for work—would be £429.80 a month; and PIP highest daily living and highest mobility allowance would be £843.27 a month. Combined, this would be £1,611.65 per month. It would be more were they getting housing benefit.

I then worked out how much a young person could earn doing the national average of 36.7 hours a week of work, on the minimum living wage of £12.71. The answer was £2,021, from which you have to deduct the costs of getting to work, which are on average £55 a week, so you are left with £1,800 against £1,600. However, the £1,600 is guaranteed and involves no effort; the £1,800 is not.

Then it is claimed that not everyone gets the maximum available. That is indeed the case. Here I come to my final point: the ability to game the system, something touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. I want to make one thing clear: I am entirely in favour of people getting proper advice about applying for PIP, as the noble Lord said. The application form is 20 pages long and it can be a daunting task to complete it. The Timms review makes the point that claimants are entitled to professional advice, and many organisations, such as the CAB, provide exactly that, which is absolutely right.

However, if you put into Google, “help with PIP”, the titles of some of the sites are clearly aimed at helping people to game the system. For example, “PIP assessors hope you don’t know this”, “Beat your PIP phone assessment”, “PIP telephone assessment masterclass”, “7 PIP mistakes—don’t get caught out”, “Secrets to scoring maximum PIP points”, “Unlock the secret steps for winning your PIP claims”, and so they go on. Some of them actually advise you to tell a lie. One site says: “Why do PIP assessors ask you if you have a dog or a pet? Even if you have a pet, just say, ‘No, I don’t’. They can’t prove you have or haven’t got one”. Another site gives the same advice and advises you to go into another room where your pet cannot be seen or heard. Another asserts—wrongly—that the assessor gets paid £85 for every refusal.

These sites—all on videos—have been seen by tens of thousands of people. Worse, they have been monetised by the advertisements that punctuate them—so people are making money by telling lies and assisting fraud. This underlines the point my noble friend made about a more robust assessment process. So, my final question for the Minister is: what is her department going to do about all these sites?

16:36

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will start with some statistics, some raw numbers that are sobering, alarming, and, in their way, shaming. Some 30,000 people every day are signing on for long-term invalidity and incapacity benefits. The largest rise, incredibly in every sense, is among people aged between 25 and 34, the cohort just above that identified by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts. Some 60,000 people every year go straight from university on to long-term sickness benefits.

Some 25% of people—25% of adults—identify as disabled, which suggests to me that the definition that at least some of them are using is very far from the definition traditionally understood. Then, of course, there is the cost. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, that 3.4 million people are claiming this benefit. That is, on the Government’s own figures, supposed to rise to 4.1 million by the end of this Parliament.

Why is this happening? Part of the answer was the lockdown, which introduced a lot of working people who up until then had never really claimed anything from the Government to a different way of living. We saw a large move away from employment and into other kinds of grants and benefits all over the world. But, for some reason, whereas in most western countries, and almost every other European country, that spike was reversed when the lockdown ended from the end of 2021, in this country, a lot of it has remained institutionalised. The huge improvements that were made between 2010 and 2020 in reducing the number of people who were out of work permanently were reversed almost overnight.

Why did that happen? As Warren Buffett’s right-hand man, Charlie Munger, used to say,

“Show me the incentive and I’ll show you the outcome”.


We just heard the incentives very ably adumbrated by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. If you can work and earn slightly more, but almost the same as you would be getting without doing anything—and the noble Lord, Lord Young, was too generous or polite to point out that, of course, within those benefits you could also be doing some side hustling which would push you over the limit—some people are going to follow the rational incentive, and we can hardly blame them. The real tragedy here is not so much for the taxpayer as for the people who get trapped in a life of low income and low expectations.

None of what I have said should be remotely controversial. Indeed, I think there is a cross-party consensus that the system needs to be tightened up. There was an attempt in another place to tighten up the system, and the reason that attempt failed and ended up extending some of the claims that were opened bears scrutiny. I remember talking to a Labour MP, a friend of mine, who showed me on her phone what the WhatsApp groups of some Labour MPs were saying. In particular, they were circulating a survey by a disability charity that tabulated by constituency the number of PIP claimants and showed in how many constituencies the number of claimants was bigger than the MP’s majority. Those of your Lordships who have served in another place will know that tends to concentrate the minds of parliamentarians. But we are doing people no favours if we shy away from reform. We are not just encouraging an atmosphere where mental health conditions become normalised; we almost serve as a vector for more of them.

I have noticed that this rise in mental health conditions has led to an extraordinary change in language among people. When did you last hear somebody under the age of 30 saying “I am unhappy” rather than “I am depressed”, which is almost always their go-to adjective? When did you last hear them saying, “This makes me nervous” rather than “This is giving me anxiety”? “This is giving me PTSD” is one I hear from a lot of my children’s friends. I say, “No, that’s really not PTSD. Someone said something mean to you; it is not quite the same thing”. But as we normalise the medicalisation of language, it is no surprise that people genuinely think they are succumbing to these conditions. I read that so many anti-depressants are being flushed into our sewage system that it is beginning to affect the fish in the channel. It must be true, because I read it in the Daily Mail.

Are we doing anybody any favours, other than those MPs worried about their majorities, when we shy away from tackling these conditions? I agree very much with what the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, said at the beginning: what is the rationale for having these personal independence payments? The clue is in the name: they are to deal with the additional costs that come from a disability. If, by disability, we understand what was traditionally understood—somebody who has a physical impairment—then there might be costs: they might need to adjust access to their house, there would be transport difficulties and there might be care costs. How does somebody who has anxiety or depression have a more expensive lifestyle than somebody who is unemployed but does not have those conditions? I do not mean for a moment to belittle those very unpleasant conditions, but it does not follow, unpleasant as they are, that they lead to a more expensive lifestyle. It is quite extraordinary that, as the definition of disability has expanded, we have not adjusted its financial consequences.

Perhaps the key point is this: for those who really suffer from anxiety, depression or related mental health conditions, are we helping them when we encourage them to stay home taking pills? When we give benefits payments that discourage people from working, we cut them off from the things that are usually the surest route—not in every single case—towards recovery. We all need to be needed. We all need to have others relying on us. Taking people out of employment takes that very real psychological prop away and often worsens the condition that we are purporting to care about.

I hope that we will have the courage and the vision properly to tackle this growing problem: a problem for the economy of the nation, yes, but, much more gravely, for that growing number of millions of our fellow citizens who are trapped in these lifestyles. Show me the incentive, and I will show you the outcome. The incentive for us should be to do the right thing by those of our fellow citizens who have been put in this situation, and to do the right thing by our own duty as parliamentarians.

16:44

[Lord Godson (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Jenkin of Kennington on securing this debate. I too welcome my noble friend Lord Willetts and congratulate the Minister on her new responsibilities on the Front Bench. It is important that we are debating this matter in advance of the publication of two significant forthcoming reviews: the Milburn review and the Timms review.

I declare an interest as director of Policy Exchange, which has undertaken extensive work on disability benefits over the past couple of years. I draw noble Lords’ attention to two reports by my colleague Jean-André Prager, who will be known to some and who played a significant part in policy-making on these matters under a number of previous Governments over the past decade. For Whose Benefit? and Lapse of Judgment? have examined both the purpose of PIP and the constitutional questions surrounding its administration. It is through those lenses that I will focus my comment today.

As Prager correctly puts it, there is sometimes a reductive quality to our desire to protect disabled people. Protection, although always well intentioned, can become a form of infantilisation at times, overlooking the great economic and creative potential of disabled people. Our disability benefits system embeds this paternalism in its architecture. Too often, it defines disabled people by their functional limitations rather than what their potential or capabilities are. If we focus exclusively on what disabled people cannot do, PIP can never act as a means of empowerment for disabled people. Therefore, our approach should be recalibrated, first and foremost, to enable disabled people and, then, to protect them where necessary.

This brings me to a second but equally important point. If we are to reconsider what PIP is intended to achieve, we must also ask some difficult questions about who exactly should be entitled to it. As the DWP Secretary of State said to the Times recently, we began this decade with 2.4 million people claiming PIP; today, that figure stands at 4.1 million, with projections suggesting 5.4 million by the end of the decade. Expenditure is forecast to double to £41 billion over the decade, which is more than double what we spend on the British Army. These are staggering figures. They underline the need for a benefits system capable of adapting to the changing world around it. That adaptation needs to take place in that way, rather than allowing eligibility criteria to evolve without regular parliamentary scrutiny, as has happened too often to date. Therefore, eligibility criteria should not be treated as immutable; they must be reviewed regularly to reflect changing medical understanding, technological advances and the objectives that Parliament intends the welfare system to serve. In short, it must be properly accountable.

Policy Exchange has recommended that the Government review PIP criteria every two years to ensure they remain an appropriate proxy for the additional costs that disabled people face. I implore the Minister to take forward this recommendation and the Government to create a more responsive PIP system. We need fundamentally to reform PIP to ensure that it meets the needs of disabled people, retains public consent and remains sustainable for many years to come. Our PIP system should be an enabler, and it is my firm belief in the enormous contribution that disabled people make to our society that motivates my comments today.

16:48

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, for setting this debate in process. I trust the Government will listen to the interesting comments that are being made. I welcome the new Front Bench team and wish them well.

I begin with a practical question about whether the benefits system responds when people tell it that their circumstances have changed. I recently raised with another Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, the case of someone receiving sickness benefits; he had reported that he had recovered but was still waiting for a reassessment four years later. I was not asking the noble Baroness then—and I am not now asking the Minister now—to discuss an individual’s personal circumstances; I am asking about the administration of the system.

Can the Minister say how common delays of this kind are? How many people who have reported an improvement in their condition are still awaiting reassessment? How long have they been waiting, and what has been done to put it right? If someone tells the department that their circumstances have changed, surely they should be able to expect a timely response. This is not a question about an individual; it is a question about how the department operates.

However, let me be equally clear about what I am not arguing. I am not calling for everyone to face more frequent assessments. We need fewer unnecessary reassessments, particularly for people with lifelong or degenerative conditions. Repeatedly asking someone to demonstrate needs that have not changed serves neither the claimant nor the taxpayer. We need to distinguish between reassessments that serve a purpose and those that simply repeat, again and again, what is already known. Reducing unnecessary reassessments and responding promptly to reported changes are not contradictory objectives; they are two elements of competent administration.

Turning specifically to PIP, we must distinguish between failures in the way the benefit operates and the value of the support it provides. PIP helps people meet the extra costs of disability. It is not an out-of-work benefit. People can receive it while working, and becoming able to work does not in itself mean that they no longer qualify. That distinction matters; otherwise, we risk discussing disability benefits as though everybody receiving them is in the same position, with the same needs and the same prospects. They are not.

For many people, PIP is a lifeline, not a luxury. Its purpose is to support independence and participation, helping disabled people exercise choices that others can take for granted. Payment in cash is an important strength of the system. By that I mean giving people control over how the money is spent. Disabled people should be able to decide how best to meet their own needs rather than having those decisions made arbitrarily for them. An extra journey, help with a daily task or a different way of managing life at home may seem a small matter to someone else; to the individual concerned, it may make the difference between dependence and independence. The freedom should be protected in any reform—I hope that the department will think about that.

We must also take care with the language of this debate. Rising claimant numbers deserve scrutiny. Ministers must explain expenditure, account for decisions and demonstrate that public money is being used properly. However, a debate dominated by numbers risks losing sight of the people behind them. We should not allow legitimate questions about administration and affordability—both of which I have made—to become a general suspicion of people who need support. Nor should we make someone feel that applying for help is an admission of failure. A fair system must command public confidence, but it must also command the confidence of those who depend upon it.

That brings me to the assessment process. In our 2024 manifesto, the Liberal Democrats called for greater transparency in PIP assessments and an end to unnecessary reassessments. Those remain important objectives, but transparency alone is not enough. We need decisions that are better informed, more accurate and easier to understand. Assessors need the training and time to understand how conditions interact. They must be able to recognise that the effects of disability and ill health can fluctuate.

An assessment should not reduce someone’s life to how they appear during a single appointment. Some may manage a task on one occasion but struggle to repeat it. They may present confidently while finding daily life extremely difficult. The question should be about what someone can manage in practice, not simply what an assessor sees, often in a brief encounter.

Supporting evidence must be properly considered, and decisions must explain clearly how that evidence has been weighed. When a decision is wrong, individuals should not have to become an expert in the benefits system to challenge it. Getting decisions right first time should be a central measure of success, not an aspiration left at the margins of reform.

We must also recognise the limits of what benefits reform alone can achieve. Changing an assessment process cannot substitute for timely NHS treatment. It cannot by itself make a workplace accessible or ensure that appropriate employment support is available. If the Government want more disabled people who can work to either remain in or enter employment, they must address those practical barriers, along with the benefits system. Disabled people must have a meaningful role throughout the reform process, not simply be invited to comment after the principal decisions have been made. Their experience should help shape the questions asked, the evidence considered and the way success is measured.

I ask the Minister for three assurances. The first is that unnecessary reassessments will be reduced while reported changes in circumstances are dealt with properly, and that the Government will provide information enabling us to judge progress. The second is that the assessor training and the use of supporting evidence will improve, with a clear focus on getting decisions right first time. The third is that disabled people will help design and evaluate reform, with their independence and dignity treated as essential tests of success. Lastly, after those three items, we must not forget the person who asked for a reassessment and was not given it. Is that a one-off?

We should not have to choose between compassion and competent administration. A properly functioning system must provide both. It should support people when they need help, respond when their circumstances change and explain its decisions clearly. That is how we build trust, not through repeated promises of reform but through a system that works fairly, accurately and with respect for the people it serves. Many points were made during this debate. That is not against PIP; it shows the value of PIP and how it needs to be administered.

16:57

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Jenkin for tabling this important Motion, and I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres, to the Front Bench. Yesterday the Chancellor delivered a Budget that left one of the greatest challenges facing this country untouched. He acknowledged that in an interview yesterday when he said:

“There will be a reduction in the benefits bill, we’ll do that in a Labour way”.


I can hardly express how inadequate this is as a statement of government willingness to tackle a real crisis.

Others have already rehearsed the terrifying arithmetic. The OBR has said unequivocally that the borrowing trajectory is unsustainable. But this is not just a financial crisis. It is a crisis for those who act rationally, using the safety net of sickness and disability benefits at points of real need, but for whom the net becomes a trap, confining them to worklessness as efficiently as a lobster-pot. It is a crisis for the young people who turn to benefits in a labour market where their job opportunities have been drastically curtailed by Labour’s poorly directed tax, national insurance and minimum wage measures, and by the Employment Rights Act.

It is a crisis for those with mild mental health conditions who could and should live and work normally with just a little extra help, but who are incentivised by the availability of these benefits to drop out of work or, worse, never start work. It is a crisis for those who see others exploiting disability benefits to achieve lifestyles that many working families cannot hope for. This is, understandably, breeding cynicism and disaffection, and moral corruption is contagious. It is also a crisis for those with real and serious disabilities who need a fair and stable welfare system and are unfairly tainted by the increasing suspicion and distrust around PIP and its claimants. All this is a disaster for the mutual trust and cohesion that are essential to sustain public willingness to pay for a generous welfare state.

Many people are now studying this, most recently Fraser Nelson in his excellent project at the Times. The Centre for Social Justice has been looking forensically at the problems for years. The Chancellor has done another media round today to respond to criticisms that his speech essentially ignored what must be a flashing red light on the Treasury dashboard. Now he has promised proposals before the end of the year, after the Milburn and Timms reviews are published.

What indications do we have of what the Labour way might be? First, we have the ill-fated Liz Kendall reforms. These were a serious, if modest, attempt to start tackling the growing problem, but the Government were unable to carry them through, forced to eviscerate their plans by their own Back-Benchers. This is not encouraging. Next, we have the Timms review. As my noble friend Lord Young pointed out, there is little in its interim report to give confidence. The Minister’s assertion when it was published was:

“My view is that the current level of spending is not a great concern”.


Yet the OBR has already had to revise its projections for PIP substantially upwards. The Green Paper from which the review arose rightly emphasised that good work is good for health and plays a vital role in recovery from illness. Not all disabled people can work but, for the majority who can, work gives more than just income. It gives purpose, social interaction and respect.

Much of the recent rapid growth in disability relates to ADHD, autism and other mental health conditions such as anxiety. In most cases, these conditions should not be a barrier to work. Yet the interim report quotes, without apparent concern, a recent finding that of non-working disability benefit recipients, only one in 20 believed they could work now—even with the right job or support. Only just over a quarter thought they might be able to work in future if their condition improved. That leaves more than two-thirds believing they will never be able to work, some of them very young or in the prime of life.

This finding, along with the facts that only 20% of PIP claimants are working and that the longer they claim, the less likely they are to work, casts serious doubt on the suitability of PIP for many of those currently claiming it, as my noble friend Lord Young also pointed out. Granting PIP to anxious teenagers may be downright cruel. It does not help young people into work. It does not convince them that they are capable of maturing into resilient adults. Instead, it confirms their own pessimistic self-assessments and very likely locks them into dependency for life. It is so easy for the state to be kind on a short-term view and so much harder to be honest about what will really help young people in the long term.

The Timms review should have asked about disability definitions. The UK uses a harmonised definition of disability based on individual self-perception rather than clinical diagnosis. The ONS has published a study showing that roughly three times as many people are categorised as disabled under our definition as under the UN-recommended Washington Group methodology. This may help to explain why reported disability has risen in Britain in recent years at rates not seen elsewhere.

Yet Britain is not unique. Other countries experienced similar levels of Covid. Others have similar levels of poverty. We have universal free health care. We do not carry any particular genetic disadvantage. So why do we have high and increasing disability? How much of it comes from perceiving as disability what has previously been considered normal variability in the human condition? How much comes from poor welfare system incentives? At the margin, does a disability label help or hinder? As my noble friend Lord Godson said, are we infantilising or empowering people here? This needs honest analysis and discussion. In the light of all this, it is indeed disappointing that the interim Timms recommendations were mostly about improving the claimant experience rather than addressing more fundamental concerns.

The Milburn review is more encouraging. Much of the Milburn diagnosis is accurate and expressed admirably clearly and frankly. He has said that welfare spending must come down to make way for better support to get young people into work. But this might translate, in the face of fractious Back Benches, into a minimalist approach—just enough welfare reduction to fund a support package but nothing that will make a real impact on our parlous national financial position.

A common theme from Government Ministers and reviewers is the importance of supporting people into work, which is true. But not acknowledged is the fundamental problem that too many people, if they can succeed with a PIP claim and the passported benefits that brings, including unlocking the benefit cap, are often better off financially on benefits. No amount of support and encouragement will stop most rational people on an unconditional package of benefits from doing that arithmetic. Even though PIP is not means-tested, people see working as a risk to maintaining their claim to the benefit.

The disappointing findings published this week from the Government’s Connect to Work programme, which is meant to help health and disability claimants back to work, show that support does not compensate for unbalanced incentives. Despite a budget of more than £1 billion for the programme, take-up has been very low, including from young people. NEET numbers were declining pre-Covid but have risen steeply since and stand at close to 1 million, yet only 6,000 young people in that age bracket have signed up for Connect to Work. That is less than 1% of NEETs. In the first 15 months of the whole scheme, fewer than 1,000 people have worked for more than 18 hours a week for at least 26 weeks. Sadly, the likelihood is that spending on support will make little difference unless the incentive to claim disability benefits is reduced.

As I touched on earlier, there also need to be jobs. A Government who destroy jobs will quickly build up a sticky welfare pipeline. That pipeline is starting much earlier than many people realise. I talk to head teachers who are profoundly uncomfortable about the pressure they experience from parents to have perfectly normal children labelled as SEND to help the parents claim child disability living allowance. Claims for child DLA have shot up in the last two years. Why? It is a generous cash allowance that also unlocks other benefits and disapplies the household benefit cap. I know of one case where a parent is refusing to potty-train their seven year-old because that would remove the justification for their DLA claim. That child is being betrayed by the parent. Most DLA children move on to PIP at age 16, even though many should have outgrown childhood problems by then. We should be ashamed of this.

I welcome the announcement of 2,000 additional DWP investigators to follow up on suspicious welfare claims. It may have been unwise for the Timms interim report to dismiss the distrust associated with PIP as a false and damaging narrative derived from stigma and misinformation. Since I took up this role, so many people have told me of someone they know personally who is claiming PIP but either is not meaningfully disabled or whose disability does not bring extra costs. My noble friend Lord Willetts has shown solid evidence that these cases are far from exceptional. But while extra investigators are a good thing—fraudsters are deterred by a high likelihood of detection and sanction—it does not begin to address the problems of a disability benefit system that is now, quite simply, incentivising worklessness and trapping the youngest adults, and now also children, in an indefensible way.

I am going to add a few more questions to those put by my noble friend Lady Jenkin and my other noble friends. What exactly does the Chancellor mean by reducing the welfare bill “in a Labour way”? What assessment are the Government making of the impact of our unusually broad definition of disability? What steps are the Government taking to identify and eliminate disability-linked welfare traps, as happens in Sweden with the FASIT model? What work are the Government doing to establish whether claiming child DLA improves or worsens the long-term outcomes for a child? I very much look forward to hearing the noble Baroness’s answers.

17:09

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Dacres of Lewisham) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. If I cannot respond to all points and questions that have been raised, I will review Hansard and write to noble Lords, and place something in the Library.

We have had a wonderful debate this afternoon. We have covered a huge variety of issues and touched on the lives of millions of people with disabilities and long-term health conditions across the country. Today’s debate has been an invaluable opportunity to address some of the topics that go beyond party-political debates and go to the heart of what really matters. It is about what we expect from our welfare state: how to recognise the lived experiences of those with disabilities and how to support and empower disabled people to live an independent, fulfilling life with opportunities and choices to participate fully in society. With that said, I would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin of Kennington, for bringing this debate to the House today. We truly appreciate it, as the noble Baroness could hear from all the contributions we have had today.

As has been commented by many Lords, there are millions of people who rely on the personal independence payment, or PIP, to help them meet the costs associated with daily living, mobility, communication, transport, equipment, support services, and countless other aspects of just living an everyday life. Entitlement to PIP is assessed on the basis of the needs arising from the health condition or disability, rather than the health condition or disability itself. The central purpose was, and remains, to help with the extra costs associated with disability and long-term health conditions. I want to acknowledge the noble Lord who, as a Minister, was at the genesis of PIP when it first came into being.

Similarly, the work capability assessment, or WCA, determines the eligibility for employment support allowances and additional health-related amounts of universal credit, and also assesses the individual’s capability for work. That is a key principle for both assessments: to consider the impact of that person’s disability or health condition, be it temporary or be it fluctuating, on their day-to-day life. While the purpose of these assessments has remained the same, the world around us has continually changed. The labour market has changed. Technology has changed. Healthcare has changed. Society’s understanding of disability has evolved.

Before discussing where reforms might be needed, it is important to be clear about the principle and values that underpin the Government’s approach. A successful state should prevent people falling into long-term economic inactivity; we should be helping more people into work, restoring trust through a fair and effective assessment system, and protect those who cannot work by supporting them to live independently with dignity. It also needs to ensure that the system is financially sustainable and to keep providing for those who need it most. The Budget on 28 October set out our latest forecast on government spending.

Before I go further, I will talk a little bit about the clearance times. We are committed to ensuring that people can access financial support through PIP in a timely manner. That has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords this afternoon. Reducing the time taken for the PIP claimant’s journey is a priority for the department and we are working constantly to make improvements to our services.

I would further like to assure noble Lords that we are always aiming to make an award decision as quickly as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and my noble friend Lord Davies mentioned this. We need to take into account the need to review all available evidence, including that from claimants, and I shall come back to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, regarding face-to-face assessments.

We have seen a decrease in PIP clearance time since August 2021, with the latest statistics showing that the average end-to-end journey has reduced from 26 weeks in August 2021 to 18 weeks by the end of July 2026. This is because we are using a blend of phone, video and face-to-face assessments to support claimants and to deliver a more efficient and user-centred service; increasing case manager and assessment provider health professional resources; making sure that we are improving training for those who are doing these assessments; and prioritising new claims while safeguarding claimants awaiting awards reviews.

Noble Lords will be aware of the Timms review, which the noble Lords, Lord Palmer, Lord Young and Lord Davies, have mentioned this afternoon. It is the very first full review of PIP, which some might say is long overdue, and it seeks to ensure that we have a system that supports disabled people to achieve better health and higher living standards, with greater independence, including through employment. On 9 September, the review shared a set of emerging recommendations. These are not the final recommendations—as we know, those will be published by the end of the year—but they were a starting point for the steering group to be able to test, challenge and improve, with feedback going back to the Timms review. That symbolises part of what might be considered the Labour ethos: nothing about us without us.

The Timms review is being co-produced with disabled people, the organisations that represent them and other experts. This means that the Government are sharing ownership and responsibility for how the review runs and what it recommends. The Timms review is not working towards a fixed set of outcomes; it is listening to the lived experience and expertise of disabled people, because that is critical to the review’s success. Today, we cannot pre-empt what the recommendations will be, but we shall patiently wait.

I acknowledge what the noble Lord, Lord Young, mentioned in his contribution: there needs to be a balance between the Timms review and the Milburn review. The Milburn review, as he said, has taken a broader look at welfare, health, education, skills and employment, and is focusing on the challenges facing young people who are not in education, employment or training. We look forward to the final report and its policy recommendations, which will help young people to access education, training and employment. As I said, these are not the final recommendations.

I move on to PIP expenditure and the caseloads, which have grown substantially over recent years. As has been mentioned, as of 2026, around 4 million people receive PIP. A responsible Government cannot ignore the long-term sustainability of the system. The system must remain capable of supporting future generations, as well as today’s claimants. Alongside this, we have been clear that we need to build a welfare system that supports participation and opportunity, and that is part of what the Milburn review is looking at.

Looking ahead, the Timms review and the Milburn review will play a central role in shaping the future direction of policy. The noble Lord, Lord Young, mentioned that there could be tensions in that, but we shall wait and see how that flows when we get the full reports. The onus will be on us, as Members of this House and the other place, to look at the reviews and to work together for the best benefit of those who we seek to help through PIP and by getting people into work and employment, regardless of age, with or without disabilities. I assure the House that the Government will consider the recommendations and the reviews very carefully.

I will now attempt to address other points raised during the debate, starting with the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, about yesterday’s Budget. The Chancellor and the Prime Minister have both said clearly that we have to bring the benefits Bill down and fix the broken welfare system we inherited. But you do not do that by crude cuts, especially when people are feeling cost of living pressures. As I have already mentioned, we have two ongoing reviews, which are due imminently. The Chancellor has set out that the Government will respond by the end of the year. But we are not complacent. We are already taking action and delivering on welfare reform in different ways.

We have been rebalancing universal credit to reduce the incentive to be labelled too sick to work and increasing face-to-face assessments for health benefits, which declined under the previous Government. We are reforming mobility and tax breaks, which is expected to save over £1 billion over the next five years, and we are acting to get young people into work, with record funding for apprenticeships, grants for businesses taking on unemployed young people and our youth guarantee programme.

I said that I would come back to the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, and the face-to-face assessments, which are sometimes the best way for some people to get their assessments. It allows for a more human approach, where people can sit down and better explain their circumstances or illustrate the condition that affects them in practice. It helps to ensure that decisions are fair, accurate and based on the whole picture. But that is just one part of the routes we can take to do such assessments. It is an important part and one that we have taken seriously. We plan to increase our face-to-face delivery by 30% and are already making steps to increase and improve face-to-face assessment. By July 2026, face-to-face accounted for 14.6% of PIP consultations and 23% of WCA consultations—so we are moving in the right direction and will continue to do so.

Another point raised was the PIP criteria for individuals’ abilities and fluctuating conditions. That was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, my noble friend Lord Davies and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. The criteria to consider an individual’s ability is over a 12-month period, ensuring that fluctuations are taken into account. It is essential for assessments to accurately reflect the impact of the variations in individual levels of impairment. This is important for all health conditions and impairments, not just typically fluctuating conditions.

The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, mentioned workplace capability assessments. Claimants who report a deterioration in their health condition, or a new condition, continue to be referred for reassessment but are waiting longer than we would like. We are prioritising initial assessments over reassessments, but we are also prioritising those who are seeking employment within a few weeks’ time, so that they can get their assessments and we make sure they are having the right assessment for when they go into work. That is another thing that we are doing.

We know that this is a very important issue for claimants and stakeholder groups, which is why we are urgently considering options for expediting reassessments of these cases as part of our wider intentions, set out in the Pathways to Work Green Paper, to resume assessments at scale when capacity in the system allows.

On awards durations, which was raised by my noble friend Lord Davies and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, it may be helpful if I explain that, once somebody has been awarded a PIP, which can be paid at one of eight rates, either the award can be reviewed or the claimant will be required to submit a new claim. Award rates and their durations are set out on an individual basis, based on the claimant’s needs and the likelihood of those needs changing.

The Government are also prioritising welfare reform. Putting work and opportunity at the centre of our system should support people to get into work and to get on in work while ensuring that those who cannot work get the support that they need. We have already discussed at length the Milburn and Timms reviews, but in the meantime we will continue reshaping the system into one that puts work at the centre, while we will always support those who may not be able to work.

My noble friend Lord Davies and the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, made points about accuracy. It is our aim to make the right decision as early as possible in the claimant’s journey. To support this, we have made improvements to our decision-making process to ensure that people get the support that they are entitled to without needing to appeal. This includes giving decision-makers additional time to contact claimants proactively if they think additional evidence is required and may support the claim. It is a fundamental principle of our legal and political system that citizens should be able to challenge decisions made by the Government through the legal system. Mandatory reconsideration is a key element of the department’s decision-making process. It offers claimants the opportunity to challenge decisions and provide additional information that may be relevant to their claim.

Since the summer of 2026, when claimants tell us that they no longer consider themselves to have restricted ability to work, their case is reviewed to determine whether their limited capability for work or limited capability for work and work-related activity status should continue. The review considers whether there is sufficient evidence that the claimant’s circumstances have changed. In clear cases, the decision-maker can remove the LCW or LCWRA status without further assessment. Where there is doubt, including where health conditions are complex or fluctuating, the claimant may be referred for reassessment. In some cases, following the review, entitlement remains unchanged—for example, where the claimant has reported a change in error or the available evidence does not support removal.

The Government are committed to giving disabled people and people with health conditions confidence that working will not trigger reassessment and a potential loss of benefit. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, and the noble Lord, Lord Young, about the principle of right to try. There are already rules in place that are intended to encourage working-age people who are in receipt of health and disability benefit—be it PIP, universal credit or the new style employment and support allowance—to try work. The DWP suggests that there is a lack of awareness of these rules, and we will be working to ensure that this is widely promoted and that those who wish to have the right to try take advantage of this opportunity as well as the welfare reforms putting opportunities at the centre of everything that we do.

I have not had the opportunity to mention the claims management system. The noble Lord, Lord Young, and my noble friend Lord Davies talked about the codes that we have online, claimants who are getting poor information and people taking advantage. We will be introducing a new code of practice in the coming weeks that clamps down on activity by claims management, as well as the work that we are doing in guiding people to the government website so that claimants get the right information first-hand.

I thank noble Lords for their contributions this afternoon. I assure noble Lords across the House that we will engage constructively with the process of building a fair and trusted sustainable welfare state that is centred on the needs of disabled people.

17:29

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her response and wish her luck in the many debates which lie ahead for her. I was glad to hear that she will be writing to us to address some of the many points she was unable to address in her remarks.

As I hope she takes from the powerful speeches by my noble friends Lord Godson, Lady Spielman, Lord Willetts and Lord Young of Cookham, who speak from considerable and relevant government experience, this is a topic about which there is tremendous concern on these Benches, especially given the delays in the publication of the Milburn review. I therefore hope that we will have time soon in this Chamber to debate both reviews and the concrete proposals to address the welfare budget that should follow swiftly.

Finally, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken today. I appreciate their commitment to this important topic and their willingness to be here for what I described earlier as the graveyard shift.

Motion agreed.