THE IMPLEMENTATION AND IMPACT OF PERSONAL INDEPENDENCE PAYMENT
Near-live transcript. Not the official record.
Automatic speech recognition of this debate. Verify wording against the official report in Hansard before quoting. When Hansard publishes, about three hours after the House rises, the text below is replaced by the official record.
- 15:49
Um, there's been a slight change of timing. Uh, I think there was a mistake made on the order paper, and so Lord Palmer of Childs Hall and Baroness
- 15:49
on each have 12 minutes. That means there are no minutes in the gap, so I'm sure we'll all be very grateful in the House if everybody will stick very precisely to time and then
- 15:50
Kennington
- 15:50
My Lords, I'm grateful for this opportunity in the aftermath of the Budget to debate one of the most pressing challenges facing our country, and I'm grateful to all noble Lords in the graveyardwho stayed to debate it. This is of course the sustainability of our welfare system and in particular disability benefits including Personal Independence Payment and the wider set ofpassported 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
- 15:50
those who cannot work because of illness or disability.
- 15:51
PIP has a particular role within that system. It is to cover additional costs associated with long-term disability or health condition. That is a legitimate purpose, but weknow that in practice it is not always how PIP is functioning.
- 15:51
When we look at the disability benefit system more widely, there are serious questions about whether it too is fulfilling its objectives. We have a system which too often fails to provide people with the practical help they need, which can leave people dependent upon financial support without addressingthe 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. And, my Lords, despite theIncreasing 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.
- 15:52
PIP itself is a generously conceived benefit. It is unconditional, non-contributory, not means-tested and does not need formal medical evidence.National 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, so it needs skilled assessors who can discriminate effectively and maintain thresholds.
- 15:52
needs strong support from immediate managers all the way out to ministers for some tough decisions as well as appeal mechanisms that consistently apply those same thresholds.It was also designed before courts interpreted the relevant law as encompassing a wide range of mental health conditions and before Covid and furlough normalised playingpaying healthy people to stay at home and not work.
- 15:53
Now let us now have a look at the figures. As of July 2026, some 4.1 million people were entitled to PIP in England and Wales, of whom approximately 3.4 million were of working age. Some 37% were receiving thethis level of award, while over the preceding five years, 42% of new claims made under the normal rules resulted in an award.
- 15:53
According to the Department for Work and Pensions statistics, 79% of planned award reviews resulted in an increase or no change in the award. For reported change
- 15:53
of circumstances that figure was 89%. Meanwhile, 27% of mandatory reconsiderations cleared, excluding withdrawn cases, resulted in a changed award. These are substantial
- 15:53
indeed enormous figures
- 15:54
And 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.
- 15:54
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
- 15:54
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,
- 15:54
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
- 15:55
may do far more to improve their quality of life. And, indeed,they might enable some to return to work.
- 15:55
The purpose of the disability benefit system should not simply be to recognise that someone is experiencing difficulty, rather it should help them overcome that difficulty wherever possible.And that brings me to how PIP awards are assessed and reviewed.
- 15:55
I just cited raise important questions about how consistently assessments are conducted, how effectively changes in circumstances are identified, anddecisions are made correctly in the right in the first place.
- 15:56
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 anA notable error was made in the initial assessment. I would therefore be grateful if the noble Baroness the Minister could explain what steps the government are taking to improve the accuracy and consistency of PIP assessments.
- 15:56
reviews respond appropriately to permanent, fluctuating and potentially treatable conditions.
- 15:56
There is a related point here about face-to-face assessments. Can the noble Baroness the Minister commit to restoring face-to-face assessments in their entirety rather than relying on assessments
- 15:56
the person concerned
- 15:57
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 the forecastin March, and thatup 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
- 15:57
central point which is sometimes overlooked in debates about public spending.
- 15:57
decision about government expenditure is ultimately a choice about whose interests we prioritize and who bears the costs, and this was made abundantly clear in the budget debate yesterday.And that is why fairness must be at the centre of this discussion.not just fairness to those receiving support, but fairness to those whose taxes funded it.And to those who depend on the other public services
- 15:58
competing for the same resources.My Lords, this brings me to the question of incentives.
- 15:58
We cannot consider PIP entirely in isolation from the wider benefits system.for who received 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.some people returning to employment or increasing their working hours can mean a substantial reduction in means
- 15:58
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.
- 15:58
And 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
- 15:59
can become a barrier in itself.There is something fundamentally wrong with a system which can leave people afraid that making progress in their lives might result in them being worse off. We should want people to recover where possible, to become more independent and to enteror remain in employment where their circumstances allow. And the welfare system should support those ambitions, not discourage them.If we want people to enter employment then work must offer a clear andworthwhile 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
- 15:59
to do
- 15:59
What does it say about the fairness of our system when people who work hard pay their taxesand contribute to the economy, can struggle to see the financial rewards of doing so. And what message are we sending when we ask thosefamilies to shoulder an
- 16:00
greater tax burden, while failing to demonstrate that the substantial sums being spent on welfare are delivering the best possible outcomes. Those people, my Lords, are increasingly impatient and intolerant about their
- 16:00
how their taxes are being spent. These are perfectly reasonable questions and ones we should not shy away from making from asking. My Lords, the welfare system ultimately depends upon a degree of trust and shared
- 16:00
Those who contribute must have the confidence that their taxes are being spent effectively, that support is going to those who genuinely need it, and those who are capable of working are given everyreasonable opportunity and incentive to do so.
- 16:00
Equally, those who depend upon 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
- 16:01
will be conducted fairly and consistently, that decisions will reflect their actual needs, and that they will not be penalisedsimply for attempting to improve their circumstances. These two principles are not in conflict, and indeed I would argue they are mutually dependent.Before I close, I have some straightforward questions to ask the Government. Are PIP assessments consistently and accurately identifying the practical difficulties people face and the additional support they need?be sufficiently distinguishing between permanent disabilities, fluctuating conditions and circumstances
- 16:01
in which someone's health or independence might improve. Are these re- are the reassessment periods we have sufficient to capture those people whose conditions improve, meaning they no longer require the benefit? Are we doing enough to connect people withrehabilitation and practical assessment assistance rather than relying upon financial payments alone. And are we ensuring that those who wish to
- 16:02
losing support, essential support. We cannot simply continue increasing expenditure without addressing these points, and nor should we allow legitimate proposals for reform to be dismissed as a lack ofpassion for people with disabilities. We need a disability benefit system which 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.is the balance which the Government should seek to restore. It is deeply concerning that they have yet to demonstrate either the political
- 16:02
the practical plan required to do so. Until we see meaningful reform, we risk not only growing pressure on the public finances but also a growing loss of confidence in the welfare system itself, and ultimately it is those who depend uponon that system most who have the greatest amount to lose. My Lords, I beg to move.
- 16:03
Question is that this motion be agreed to.
- 16:03
I thank the noble Baroness, Baroness Jenkin of Kennington, for
- 16:03
securing this debate. I look forward to hearing other contributions, and in particular the
- 16:03
the Ayes to the right
- 16:03
Baroness D'SouzaLord Sham, who I very much welcome to the front bench.
- 16:03
very much welcome to the front bench.
- 16:03
I'm going to address particularly, uh, uh,
- 16:03
Parliament to discuss
- 16:04
and the questions which the government must provide to which the government must provide convincing answers.
- 16:04
The decisions taken over the next year will shape the future of support for millions of people with disabilities.
- 16:04
The system itself is no longer
- 16:04
others, making it one of the largest exercises of its kind undertaken by the government.
- 16:05
rising cost of PIP, costs do matter, and no
- 16:05
government can ignore them. However, figures on expenditure do not speak for them
- 16:05
require proper analysis.
- 16:05
The overall caseload at any point reflects three separate
- 16:05
Factors, how many people are making new claims?
- 16:05
How many are being claims are being accepted?
- 16:05
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
- 16:05
Now, reviews and reassessments alone do not explain
- 16:05
particularly among younger people.
- 16:06
Now the interim review highlights the changing nature of disability and ill health.
- 16:06
Since PIP was introduced in 2013
- 16:06
by the coalition government.
- 16:06
settle new claims, award rates and claim duration.We also need to work on the quality of decision making.
- 16:06
struggle to deal properly with fluctuating conditions, multiple conditions,
- 16:07
changes through the appeals process. The most efficient wayto administer any benefit
- 16:07
has created an impression that abuse of
- 16:07
is widespread. That narrative
- 16:07
deserves
- 16:07
scrutiny
- 16:07
evidence shows. The
- 16:08
Public Accounts Committee
- 16:08
should be taken seriously
- 16:08
However, it also means that over 98% of spending was not lost.
- 16:08
important to understand the nature of the fraud that does
- 16:08
A substantial proportion arises where an individual's conditionhas improved and that improvement has not been reported. This is plainly a risk.where conditions may change over time. It is much less relevant where conditions are
- 16:09
People with such conditions
- 16:09
continue to undergo repeated reassessments. That was one of the main
- 16:09
use lead either to
- 16:09
frequently it is the review should be targetedWhat needs a
- 16:10
Turning to view.
- 16:10
These proposals are to be welcomed, but good intentions alonewill not be enough. An advocacy service without adequate funding will achieve little, and better assess
- 16:10
hope that both will be properly resolved.
- 16:11
and the current assessment of functional difficulty towards address towards address linkedmore directly to categories of disabili
- 16:11
Yet eligibility to now has been determined primarily
- 16:11
to some important questions. First, there's the question of evidence. Extra costs can
- 16:12
difficult to identify and even harder to quantify. Mann
- 16:12
particularly difficult to document them.
- 16:12
How will Coffey The question is how will
- 16:12
How werebe gathered, and how will the Government ensure that fixed categories do not
- 16:12
and how will the government ensure that fixeddo not exclude claimants whose circumstances fall outside a predetermined
- 16:13
Secondly, there's the issue of choice. The review
- 16:13
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.
- 16:13
People with disabilities know best what support they need, and
- 16:13
any move towards non-cash provision should there be
- 16:13
Therefore be
- 16:13
We'll need to see detailed analysis.
- 16:13
in the effects by condition, age and component of the award. That analysis shouldAlso consider employment and outcome.
- 16:14
It's important to um emphasise that PIP is not an out-of-work benefit. Indeed, it's actually a benefit
- 16:14
design tools
- 16:14
directing an
- 16:14
people to work
- 16:14
papers payable both in and out of work and for many people it's precisely what makes employment possible.
- 16:14
The interim review has performed
- 16:14
a valuable service by bringing together
- 16:14
evidence and challenging assumptions. The test
- 16:14
Now is whether the government respond to that evidence.
- 16:14
neither by expenditure figures in isolation nor by alarming stories in the
- 16:14
confidence
- 16:15
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Baroness Jenkin on bringing this important subject to the House and also her very important speech with
- 16:15
very important facts and statistics within it. And as well as welcoming her in leading this debate, I should also say a word to welcome the Minister, because I believe thatI welcome Baroness Dacre as this is her firstengagement and speech yet in our chamber as a Minister and I welcome that to that and look forward to what she's going to say and indeed have at the end of my speech some particular questions I hope she may be able to address.
- 16:15
The importance of this issue arises for many reasons, as we've heard from the noble Baroness and indeed the Lord Davies, the, uh, the well-being of peoplewho are disabled and who are claiming PIP is important, but so is the backdrop of a really shocking increase in spending on welfare benefits, which is estimated to rise bythirty-eight billion pounds in real terms
- 16:16
between 2026-7 and 2031-32 and
- 16:16
of that £38 billion increase, it is just worth reporting the components of that
- 16:16
£38 billion, £12 billion is non-pensioner health and disability benefits.What we're debating today.
- 16:16
21 billion pounds significantly more is increases in spending on the state pension driven above all by the triple lock and 6 billion pounds is all other benefit spending.So absolutely it is right to look at what we can do on ensuring that we reduce the costs of benefits for disabled people where the money is not having the effect we hope, but we should just remember the wider context of where the money is going.
- 16:17
I should declare an interest because I am president of the Resolution Foundation, a think tank, and indeed we produced only earlier this month a report, Hard Truths.which is absolutely about the whole issue of PIP, written by my distinguished colleagues there, Lindsay Judge andMurphy and I'm going to draw on our Resolution Foundation research heavily throughout my remarks. The estimates of the costs of PIP, of course, are very significant, perhaps running at £35 billion a year.And absolutely, this was 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 it was the
- 16:17
claims a month in 2019, now running at 76,000 claims a month this year, so it's rightto reform it, but reform has to be careful and evidence-based, and at Resolution Foundation we actually did a survey of 2,500 claimants of PIP to try
- 16:18
exactly what was going on here. Pip of course is an is an unusual benefit. It's it's in many ways like child benefit. It is not
- 16:18
It doesn't depend on whether you are working or not, though it is possible that the way that PIPis it could be a deterrence or barrier to work. It is not means-tested. The aim is that it cover
- 16:18
key condition in it is rather like child benefit, which is also aimed to cover simply the costs of having children. The difference is that knowing whether or not you've got
- 16:18
easier to ascertain and establishing exactly what your disability is and what the condition is and what the
- 16:19
and you could have a condition based system or a cost based system. But perhaps one of the most striking findings in our report at theResolution Foundation is that 16% of people claiming PIP do not report any costs associated with their condition.
- 16:19
However, of those people that we surveyed who are receiving the condition and the survey was done carefully so
- 16:19
representative sample, 47% said that PIP payments helped themenabled them to do economically valuable activities, and 82% said that it boosted their
- 16:19
well-being
- 16:19
So, in other words, we should be careful as we try to find ways of saving costs and ensuring it only goes to the people who most need it. It does also have some beneficial effects which must not be sacrificed.There's a lot of talk about particular conditions, and another significant finding from our research was that 56% of claimants of PIP have two or more conditions. And indeedThere's often a mix of physical conditions and mental conditions. In fact, 30% of recipients seem to have a28% seemed to have just a physical condition, 18% just what we've broadly regarded as a mental condition.So we do need to reform it, but we need to reform it with care. And we have the broad outlines of what we
- 16:20
resolution foundation is first of all the functional assessment, the assessment of what you are capable of doing is currently a very domestic set of tests.
- 16:20
that should be more outward-looking, it should be more focused on what you can do in society and what you can do in the economy.
- 16:20
We should also be looking very carefully at a breakdown of PIP. We think that there
- 16:21
case for a
- 16:21
Which help function
- 16:21
and promote participation, including increasing your chances of getting into work. And if the PIPS could be PIP can be used for as acontribution to the cost of receiving these services. We think that could be very useful and help tackle the so-called notorious improvement trap
- 16:21
the dish they do report that they're getting better or helped to get better, this will
- 16:21
entirely
- 16:21
We think there needs to be more routine engagement with people on PIP, not left totally disengaged from the
- 16:22
for years on end, and we do believe that there are some lower level conditions which really, given the fiscal environment
- 16:22
should not of themselves lead to an entitlement to PIP. And put all this together, and we think that you can imagine we propose a package that we believe could save four to five billion
- 16:22
I'd like to now just turn to some specific questions where I hope the
- 16:22
Give us some advice and guidance.
- 16:22
The first issue is young people, and young people aged 16 to 24 are a group that whose claims for PIPare particularly scrutinized, and there are some people who say they just shouldn't receive PIP. Indeed, there are reports around in the media
- 16:22
the Melbourne might say they should not receive PIP at all. Now, it is absolutely clear and again from our research at Resolution
- 16:23
One quarter of young people receiving PIP say that they have no costs associated with a disability or no condition. So the
- 16:23
the regime there. However,
- 16:23
The other three-quarters do say that they have some costs associated with their condition and say PIP enables them, and this is very relevant for the remit that AlanThree quarters say PIP enables them to work, participate in education or volunteer.
- 16:23
So if there is to be a significant reduction in entitlement to PIP for younger people or it's to be removed entirely,in favour of some other new means of helping them work or participate in education, what assurances do we have that Allan Milburn'swill ensure that in some other way those young people who are currently using PIP for exactly the kind of purposes that he wants to beget attention and support in order to reduce NEETs. Well, how can we ensure that simply removing PIP from all of them doesn't have exactly the opposite effect intended? I mean, for some of these people, their risks of being NEET go up rather than going
- 16:24
So young people matter.
- 16:24
That leads me on to my second point to the Minister of our May, and I hope she will forgive me for this, but education, particularly education for young people aged over 16 or 18 is something thatI attach a lot of value to, and the links between education and disability benefits and work are very strong.If you have no qualifications
- 16:24
and you are disabled, your chances of being in work are 40% lower than if you have no qualifications and are not disabled. So
- 16:25
Among people with no qualifications, sadly, the employment penalty for being disabled is very severe.If you have If you look at people who have got a degree,The penalty for being disabled, your chances of working if you have a degree and a disabled is 14%, 14.
- 16:25
lower than for people who have a degree and are not disabled. In other words, one of the many values of higher education, and I
- 16:25
one of the people who unleashed the evidence and fought long battles to get out the evidence on specific pay returns, that some of the benefits to higher educationwider benefits are captured here, people who've participated in higher education and are disabled. It gives them a massive chance and opportunity of getting into work, and I hope the Minister will assure us that those type of
- 16:25
look to reform of PIP. And indeed, for people who do have a disability, including a mental disability, people with a mental illness or mental problem are more likelyin work significantly more likely also to be working despite this condition if they're graduates and if they're not. Finally, two other
- 16:26
points to the Minister. Pensioners?Pensioners can't apply for PIP, but they can carry on receiving
- 16:26
In effect, PIP becomes a lifetime award.
- 16:26
If you're a pensioner, there's an argument that actually attendance allowance is better suited for the needs of these people and it's actually a lower costPip, there are already 700,0
- 16:26
question is 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 life
- 16:26
We did it the one point on which I was going to disagree I have to say with my noble friend Baroness Jenkin.
- 16:26
is, and this is my final point to the Minister, is there's a lot of belief in face-to-face assessments. The evidence from our review is if your likelihood of making a successful claim from a
- 16:27
assessment is 39%, from a video assessment is 40%, from a phone assessment is 41%. The big gap is with paper claims.where the chances are 78%. So we do not need to focus on particularly expensive face-to-face claims. There are other means as well. I very much look forward to the Minister's response to our debate.
- 16:27
My Lords, it's a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Willis, who has shaped progressive thinking on welfare for many years and has asked a number of penetrating questions.
- 16:27
I also congratulate my noble friend Baroness Jenkin on her choice of subject for this debate and her thoughtful and balanced
- 16:27
Some 47 years ago
- 16:27
social security
- 16:27
Conservative led debate. I want to
- 16:28
issues through the eyes of two Labour politicians, Stephen Timms and
- 16:28
is fair, accessible and fit for disabled. Those are the terms of reference and we have the
- 16:28
report and emerging recommendations. The Millburn review is broader.across welfare, health and
- 16:28
is more concerned about the interaction of welfare, including PIP, on incentives to work and the sustainability
- 16:28
welfare expenditure, and again we have his interim report. The two reports have
- 16:28
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.And if you look at the emerging recommendations, they take forward the terms of reference.
- 16:29
Improving the experience for people applying for
- 16:29
and receiving PIP. Increasing the availability
- 16:29
of accessible digital services across the PIP journey to
- 16:29
Or highly commendable objectives.
- 16:29
And I joined that session and it reinforced the message of the Timms review that the process could be dehumanising,
- 16:30
on young people for pip loan is expected to rise to
- 16:30
by 2031-32
- 16:30
The employment support remains at the levels currently being funded.
- 16:30
Through the youth guarantee, we estimate that by 2030-31, for every £1 that DWP spend on employment support for young people,
- 16:31
It is an investment choice that prioritizes
- 16:31
income transfers
- 16:31
And when he looked at PIP, this is what he says. PIP
- 16:31
before an out of work claim.
- 16:31
as we have undertaken, however,not suggest this is achieving good participation
- 16:31
cohort still on the benefit five years later, compared to 74% of the
- 16:31
Frome education to work.point on the young person's application or journey on paper, are they asked about
- 16:32
all supported to work. This is not an accident of delivery, it is her
- 16:32
that we should spend less.
- 16:32
And this is what he concludes. It is a symbol of a wider failure on the part of the benefits system to provide practical
- 16:32
for disabled youngsters into work. The consequence is that a disabled person who seeks support is
- 16:32
not a conversation about their goals, their struggles, the support around them, and the help they need.And it 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
- 16:33
one that pays for what a young person cannot do rather than investing in what they could become.And then he says for a young person with a health condition who's unemployed and potentially seeking work, taking a pathway tocan offer higher income, less hassle and lower risk. This is a perverse incentive. It is the polar
- 16:33
at participation first, welfare systems should be providing and means more and more
- 16:33
or being trapped on benefits. Now, on that Millburn claim about higher incomeI worked out what a young person under 25 could potentiallyPlay usingfigures on the government website. Universal Credit standard £338.50
- 16:34
Universal credit LCWRA, that's limited capability for work.
- 16:34
£1,611.65
- 16:34
It would be more were they getting housing benefit.
- 16:34
I then worked out how much a young person could earn doing the national average, thirty-six point seven hours a week, on minimum living wage.£12.71
- 16:34
And the answer is 20,000 sorry, 2,021 pounds from which you have to deductthe costs of getting to work, which are on average £55 a week.
- 16:34
Then it is claimed that not everyone gets the maximum available, and that is indeed the case. And here I come to my final point, the ability to game the system.
- 16:35
Something touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Davies.
- 16:35
I want to make one thing absolutely clear. I'm entirely in favour of people getting proper advice.about applying for PIPAs Lord Davies said, the application form is 20 pages long and it can be a daunting task to complete.
- 16:35
The Timmins review makes the point that claimants are entitled to professional advice, and many organisations such as the CAB
- 16:35
Do exactly that. Absolutely right.
- 16:35
But.
- 16:35
If you put into Google help with PIP the title of some of the sites are clearly
- 16:35
hope you don't know this.reach your pitfall assessment
- 16:35
VoIP telephone assessment masterclass
- 16:35
Seven pip mistakes, don't get caught out.
- 16:35
Secrets to scoring maximum PIP points. Unlock the secret steps for winning your PIP claims.And so they go on.
- 16:36
Some of them actually advise you to tell a lie. One site says this.
- 16:36
Why do pepper sprayers 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.
- 16:36
Another asserts wrongly that the assessor gets paid
- 16:36
£85 for every refusal.
- 16:36
Now these sites, all on videos, have been seen by tens of thousands of people. Worse,
- 16:36
Now this does underline the point my noble friend made about a more robust um a
- 16:37
Some statistics, my Lords, some raw numbers that
- 16:37
sobering, alarming and, in their way, shame
- 16:37
thirty thousand people every day
- 16:37
are signing on for long-term invalidity and incapacity benefits.
- 16:37
The largest rise, incredibly in every sense,
- 16:37
is among people aged between 25 and 34, the cohort just above that identified by the
- 16:37
60,000 people every year go
- 16:37
from university onto long-term sickness benefits.
- 16:37
25% of people.25% of adults.
- 16:37
Understood. And then, of course, the cost. We heard from the noble Lady, Baroness
- 16:38
Now, why is this happening? Well, part of the answer was the lockdown.which introduced a lot of working people who up until then had neverreally claimed anything from the government to a different way of living.
- 16:38
We saw a large move away from employment and into other kinds of grants and benefits all over the world.
- 16:38
But for some reason, whereas in mostcountries and almost every other European country, that spike was reversed when the lockdown ended.
- 16:38
from the end of 2021
- 16:38
In this country, a lot of it has remained institutionalised. The huge improvements that were made between 2010 and 2020 inreducing the number of people who were out of work permanently
- 16:39
We're reversed.
- 16:39
almost overnight
- 16:39
Why did that happen? Well,
- 16:39
Warren Buffett's right-hand man Charlie
- 16:39
Within those benefits you could also be doing some side hustling which would push you over the limit.
- 16:39
Within those benefits you could also be doing some side hustling which would push you over the limit.
- 16:39
As for the people who get trapped in a life of low income and low expectations. Now,
- 16:40
And indeed, I think there is a cross-party consensus that the system needs to be tightened up.There was indeed an attempt in another place to tighten up the system.
- 16:40
circulating
- 16:40
parliamentarians
- 16:41
But we are doing people no favors if we shy away from reform.
- 16:41
I think we're indeed encouraging an atmosphere where mental health conditions
- 16:41
become not just normalised but almost we almost serve as a vector for more and more of them. I've noticed that this this
- 16:41
in mental health conditions, has led to an extraordinary change in language among young people. Ask yourselves, my Lords, when did you last hear somebody under the age of
- 16:41
nervous rather than this is giving me anxiety.or, you know, this is giving me PTSD, as one that I hear from a lot of my children's friends. No, no, that's really not PTSD. That someone
- 16:41
And so are we doing anybody any favors other than those MPs worried about their majorities?
- 16:42
when we shy away from
- 16:42
these conditions. I agree very much with what Lady Jenkin said at the beginning. What is the rationale for havingPersonal Independence Payments. Well, the clue is in the name. They are to deal with the additional costs that come from a disability. Now, we cansee that if by
- 16:42
Than somebody who is unemployed but does not have those conditions and I
- 16:43
lifestyle. It's quite extraordinary that as the word there's a definition of
- 16:43
disability has expanded, we haven't adjusted its financial consequences.
- 16:43
Perhaps the key point is this: for those who really do suffer from anxiety, depression, or
- 16:43
related mental health conditions. Are we helping them when we encourage them to stay home taking pills?
- 16:43
When we give benefits payments that discourage people from working, we cut
- 16:43
from the things that are usually the surest route, not in every single case, but usually the surest route towards recovery.
- 16:44
very real psychological need away or that very real psychological proper way and often worsens the condition that we are purporting to care about. So, my Lords, I hope
- 16:44
that we will have the courage and the vision properly to tackle this.
- 16:44
growing prob- problem yes for the economy of the nation but prob- a problem much more seriously much more gravelyfor that growing number of millions of our fellow citizens who are trapped
- 16:44
In putting this situation, and
- 16:44
to do the right thing
- 16:45
by our own duty as parliamentarians.
- 16:45
My Lord, I congratulate my noble
- 16:45
noble Baroness the Minister in her new responsibilities on the front bench and particularly important obviously that wedebating this
- 16:45
in advance of publication of two
- 16:45
which has undertaken extensive work on disability
- 16:45
couple of years. I draw noble Lords' attention in particular to two reports
- 16:45
by my colleague, Jim
- 16:45
As Jean-André Deluc correctly puts it, there is sometimes a reductive quality to our
- 16:46
in its architecture. Too often, however, it defines disabled people by their functional limitations rather
- 16:46
what their potential
- 16:46
what their capabilities are.
- 16:47
who exactly
- 16:47
entitled to it. As the Secretary of State for DWP has said to the Times recently, we began this decadewith 2.4 million people claiming PIP. Today, that figure stands at 4.1 million, with projections
- 16:47
on the British Army.These are staggering figures, and they underline the needs
- 16:48
be treated as immutable. They must be reviewed regularly to reflect changing medical understanding, technological
- 16:48
that the Minister
- 16:48
must face. I implore that the Minister take forward this recommendation
- 16:48
and for the government to
- 16:49
a more responsive PIP system
- 16:49
My Lord, we need fundamentally to reform PIP to ensure that itneeds it meets the needs of disabled
- 16:49
retains public consent and remains
- 16:49
should be an enabler, and it is my firm belief in theenormous contribution that disabled people make in our society that motivates
- 16:49
Our comments today.
- 16:49
welcome the new front bench
- 16:49
and wish them well.
- 16:49
My Lords, I want to begin with a practical question.
- 16:49
About whether the benefits system
- 16:49
the case of someone receiving sickness
- 16:50
I'm not now asking the Minister to discuss
- 16:50
What I'm asking is about the administration of the system.
- 16:50
an individual's personal
- 16:50
Could I ask the Minister how common are delays of this kind? How many people
- 16:50
This is not a question about an individual, it's a question about how the department operates.My Lords, let me be equally clear.
- 16:51
for everyone to face more frequent assessments.
- 16:51
We need fewer unnecessary
- 16:51
ordered degenerative conditions.
- 16:51
repeatedly asking someone
- 16:51
to demonstrate needs that are
- 16:51
not changed.
- 16:51
nor the taxpayer
- 16:51
My Lords, we need to distinguish between reassessments that servepurpose and those
- 16:51
simply repeat and
- 16:51
are not contradictory objectives.
- 16:51
There are two elements of a competent administration.
- 16:51
Turning specifically to PIP, we must distinguish between failures
- 16:51
in the way the benefit operates and the value
- 16:52
Helps people meet the
- 16:52
Local papers are a lifeline, not a luxury. Its purpose is to support
- 16:52
independence and participation, helping disabled people
- 16:52
Exercise choices that others can take for granted.
- 16:52
Payment in cash is an important strength of the
- 16:52
how the money is spent
- 16:52
By that I mean giving people control over
- 16:53
disabled people should be able to decide how best to meet their own needs rather than
- 16:53
I assume a small matter to someone else.
- 16:53
Think about that. We must also take care with the
- 16:53
individual concerned
- 16:53
this debate
- 16:53
Rising claimant numbers deserve scrutiny. Ministers must explain
- 16:53
expenditure, account for decisions and demonstrate that public money is being used properly.debate dominated by numbers
- 16:53
risks losing sight
- 16:53
or the people behind them. We should not allow legitimate
- 16:53
We make someone feel that applying for help is a division of failure.
- 16:54
For manifesto, the Liberal Democrats call for greater transparencypaper assessments and an end to unnecessary
- 16:54
those remain important objectives, but
- 16:54
reduce someone's life to how they
- 16:55
During a single
- 16:55
Some may manage a task on one occasion but struggle to repeat it. They may present
- 16:55
while finding daily
- 16:55
Supporting evidence must be properly considered and
- 16:55
to challenge it, getting decisions right first time.
- 16:55
should be a central measure of success.
- 16:55
NHS treatment. It cannot by itself
- 16:56
Make a workplace accessible.
- 16:56
to ensure that appropriate employment support is available.
- 16:56
If the government wants more disabled people who can work to either remain in
- 16:56
enter employment. It must address those practical barriers
- 16:56
along the benefits along with the benefits system.And disabled people must have a meaningful role throughout the reform process, not
- 16:56
and the way success is measured.
- 16:56
So I today asked the Minister for three
- 16:56
And the government will provide information enabling us to judge progress.
- 16:57
don't have to choose between compassion and competent competent administration.
- 16:57
The concerns is changing and explain his decisions clearly.
- 16:57
in this debate. It's not against PIP.It's showing the value of PIP and how it needs to be administered.
- 16:58
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Baroness Jenkin for putting down this important motion, and
- 16:58
also welcome Baroness Dacre to the front bench.
- 16:58
Yesterday, the Chancellor delivered a budget that left one of the greatest challenges facing this country untouched.
- 16:58
Acknowledge this.an interview yesterday when he said there will be a reduction in thebill, and we'll do that in a Labour way.
- 16:58
The OBR has said unequivocally that the borrowing trajectory is unsustainable.
- 16:59
But this is not just a financial crisis. It's 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.
- 16:59
confining them to worklessness as efficiently as a lobster pot.It's a crisis for the young people who turn to benefits in a labour market where their job opportunities have been drasticallycurtailed by Labour's poorly directed tax, national insurance and minimum wage measures and by the Employment Rights Act.
- 16:59
a crisis for those with mild mental health conditions who could and should live and work normally with just a little extra
- 16:59
But who are incentivised by the availability of these benefits to drop out of work or, worse, never start work.
- 16:59
It's a crisis for those who see others exploiting disability benefits to achieve lifestyles that many working families cannot hope for. This isunderstandably breeding cynicism and disaffection, and moral corruption is contagious.It's 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 trust around
- 17:00
and its claimants.
- 17:00
And 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.
- 17:00
Mann people are now studying this, most recently Fraser Nelson in his excellent project at The Times. The Centre for Social Justice has also been looking forensically at the problems for years.The Chancellor's done another media round today to respond to criticisms that his speech essentially ignored what must be a flashing red light on the Treasury
- 17:00
But the government was unable to carry them through, forced to eviscerate its plans by its own backbenchers. This is not encouraging.
- 17:01
Next, we have the Times review.
- 17:01
As my noble friend Lord Young has pointed out, there's little in its interim report to give confidence.The Minister's assertion when this was published was, I quote, "My view is that the current level of spending is not a great concern."
- 17:01
Yet the OBR has already had to revise its projections for GDP substantially upwards.
- 17:01
The green paper from which the review arose rightly emphasized that good work is good for health and plays a vital role in recovery from illness.
- 17:01
disabled people can work. But for the majority who can
- 17:01
more than just income. It gives purpose, social interaction and respect.
- 17:02
Much of the recent rapid growth in disability relates to ADHD, autism and other mental health conditions such asanxiety and in most cases
- 17:02
These conditions should not be a barrier to work.Yet the interim report, quote, without apparent concern.
- 17:02
A recent finding that of non-working disability benefit recipients, only one in 20 believed they
- 17:02
If their condition improved. That leaves more than two-thirds believing
- 17:02
they will never be able to work, some of them very young or in the prime of life.
- 17:02
This finding, and the fact that only 20% of PIP claimants are working, and that the longer they
- 17:02
the less likely they are to work.
- 17:03
costs serious
- 17:03
Maybe downright cruel. It doesn't help young people into work. It doesn't convince them that they're capable of maturing into
- 17:03
confirms their own pessimistic self-assessments and very likely
- 17:03
them into defend
- 17:03
cifa 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
- 17:03
young people in the long term.The Timms review should have asked about disability definitions. The UK uses a harmonised
- 17:03
definition of disability based on individual perception
- 17:03
self-perception I should say rather than clinical diagnosis. BONS has published a study showing that rough
- 17:03
As under the UN recommended Washington Group methodology.
- 17:03
Three times as many people are categorized as disabled under our definition.
- 17:04
This may help explain why reported disability has risen in Britain in recent years at rates
- 17:04
seen elsewhere
- 17:04
Your position is not unique. Other countries experience similar levels of COVID, others have similar levels of poverty. We have
- 17:04
what's previously been considered normal variability in the human
- 17:04
condition? How much comes from poor welfare system incentives? At the margin, does a disability labelAs my noble friend Lord Godson said, are we infantilising or empowering people here?needs honest analysis and discussion. So in the light of all this, it is indeed disappointing that the interim Tim's recommendations were mostly aboutimproving the claimant experience
- 17:05
But this might translate, in the face of fractious backbenches, into a minimalist approach.
- 17:05
enough welfare reduction to fundsupport package, nothing that will make a real
- 17:05
impact on our powerless national
- 17:05
financial position
- 17:05
A common theme from government ministers and reviewers is the importance of supporting people into work, which is true.
- 17:05
But what isn't acknowledged is the fundamental problem that for too many people, if they can succeed with a PIP claim,and the passported benefits that brings, including unlocking the benefit cap, they are often better off financially on benefits. And no amount of support and encouragwill stop most
- 17:06
on an unconditional package of benefits from doing that arithmetic.
- 17:06
Even though PIP is not means-tested, PIP
- 17:06
working as a riskto maintaining their claim to the benefit.
- 17:06
The disappointing findings published this week from the Government's 'Health is Everyone's Business' consultation, meant to help health and disability claimants back to work, they show that support does not compensate forbalanced incentives
- 17:06
Despite a budget of over a billion for the program, take
- 17:06
has been very low.including from young people. NEET numbers were declining pre-Covid but have risen steeply since, andclose to a million, yet only 6,000 young people in that age bracket have signed up for Connectr work. That's less than 1% of needs.In the first 15 months of the whole scheme, fewer than a thousand 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
- 17:07
difference unless the incentive to claim disability
- 17:07
The incentive to claim disability
- 17:07
benefits is reduced.
- 17:07
And as I touched on earlier, there also need to be jobs. A government that destroys jobs quickly builds up a sticky welfare
- 17:07
About the pressure they experience from parents.
- 17:07
formal children labeled as SEND to help the parents
- 17:07
claim child disability living allowance. Claims for child DLA have shot up in the last
- 17:07
Why? Well, it's 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.
- 17:08
And most DLA children move on to PIP at age 16.Mann should have outgrown childhood problems by then. We should be ashamed of this.
- 17:08
And finally, I welcome the announcement of 2,000 additional DWP investigators to
- 17:08
crack down on suspicious welfare claims. It may have been unwise for the Timms interim report todismiss the distrust associated with PIP as a false and damaging narrative derived
- 17:08
information
- 17:08
Too many people have told me of someone they know personally who is claiming PIP but who either is not meaningfully disabled or
- 17:08
Since I took up this role
- 17:08
But while extra investigators are a good thing, fraudsters are deterred by a high likelihood of detection and sanction.
- 17:09
It doesn't begin to address the problems of a disability benefit system that is now quite simply incentivising worklessness.entrapping the youngest adults and now also children in an indefensible way.
- 17:09
So I'm going to add a few more questions to those put by my noble friend Baroness Jenkin and my other noble friends.
- 17:09
of the impact of our unusually broad definition of disability. What steps is the government taking to identify
- 17:09
eliminate disability-linked welfare traps, as happens in Sweden with the fasit
- 17:10
And what work is the Government doing to establish whether claiming improves or worsens the long-term outcomes for a child?
- 17:10
I very much look forward to hearing the noble lady's answers.
- 17:10
My Lords, I'm grateful toall of you have participated in this debate. If I cannot respond to all points and questions that have been raised, I will review Hansard and I'll write to noble Lords and place somethingin the in the library
- 17:10
Now we've had a wonderful debate this afternoon. We've covered a huge variety of issues and touched upon the lives of millions of people with disabilities and long-term health conditions across the country.
- 17:10
And today's debate has been invaluable opportunity to address some of the topics that go beyond party politicaldebates and go to the heart of what really matters, and it's about what we expect from our welfare state. How to recognise the
- 17:11
experiences of those with disabilities and how to support and empower disabled people to live an independent, fulfilling and a life withopportunities and choices to participate fully in society. And with that said, I would like to thank the noble Baroness,
- 17:11
of Kennington for bringing this debate to the House today. We truly appreciate it, as you could hear from all the contributions we've had today. Now, as has been commented by many Lords, there aremillions of people relying on Personal Independence Payment, or PIP, to help them meet the costs associated with daily living, mobility, communication, transport
- 17:11
equipment support services
- 17:12
and count this other aspects of just living an everyday life.
- 17:12
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 wasremains to help with the extra costs associated with the disability and long-term health health conditions and I just want to acknowledge if I can find my notes
- 17:12
Basically, the noble Lord too, I believe, was at the Genesis
- 17:12
from what he was saying as the Minister when PIP first came into being, so I just wanted to acknowledge that.
- 17:12
So similarly with work work capability assessments or WCA we that determines the eligibility for employment support
- 17:13
allowances and additional health-related amounts of Universal Credit, but it assesses an individual's capability for work. And that's a key principle for both assessments, is to consider the impact
- 17:13
of that person's disability or health condition, be it temporary, be it fluctuating condition on their day-to-day lives.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
- 17:13
devolved
- 17:13
My Lords, before discussing where reforms may be needed, it is important to be clear about the principle of and values that underpin the government's approach. A successful state well should prevent people from falling into long-term
- 17:14
We should be helping more people into work, restoring trust through a fair and effective assessment system, and protect those who cannot work by
- 17:14
in the economic activity inactivity
- 17:14
supporting them to live independently with dignity.
- 17:14
It also needs to be sure that the system is financially sustainable and to keep providing for those who need it most. The budget on the 28th of October set out our latest forecast on government spending.
- 17:14
Before I go further, my my Lords, I just want to just talk a little bit about the clearance times because we areto ensuring that people across can access financial support through PIP in a timely manner, and that's been mentioned
- 17:15
by a number of Lords this afternoon. Reducing the claimant's journey through the times for that a claimant, a PIP claimant, is a priority for the department and we're working constantly to make improvements to our services.I would further like to assure you that we are always aiming to make an award decision as quickly as possible. I know the noble Lord Palmer had mentioned this as well asLord Davies.
- 17:15
We need to take into account the needs to review all available evidence, including that from claimants, and I shall come back and return back to Baroness Jenkin's points regarding face-to-face assessments.
- 17:15
But we have seen a decrease in pip clearance times since August 2021, with the latest statistics showing that the average end-to-end journey has reduced from 26 weeks in August 2021 to 18by the end of July 2026, and this is because we have a blend of phone, video, face-to-face assessments to support claimants and deliver a more efficient and user-centered
- 17:16
increasing case manager and assessment provider health professional resources, making sure that we're improving on training those who are doing these assessments and
- 17:16
processing new claims whilst safeguarding claimants awaiting awards reviews
- 17:16
waiting awards reviews
- 17:16
My Lords, you, as I know you have, are aware of the Timms review because a number of noble Lords have mentioned it this afternoon.
- 17:16
It's been referred to by Lord Palmer, Lord Young, Lord Davies
- 17:16
It's the very first full review of PIP and possibly some might say long overdue.seeks to ensure that we have a system that supports disabled people to achieve a better health and high living standards with greater independence, including through employment. On the 9th of September, the review shared
- 17:17
Now, these are not the final recommendations, which will be, as we know, that will be published by the end of the year, but it was a starting point for the steering group to be able to testand challenge and improve with feedback going back to the Tim to Tim's review. And I think that sort of symbolises maybe possibly part of what might be a Labour ethos of nothing with about us without us.
- 17:17
a set of emerging recommendations
- 17:17
The terms of review, as you know, is being co-produced with disabled people, the organisations that represent them and other experts. This means that the government is sharing ownership and responsibility for how the review runs and what it recommends. The Tim review is not working towards a fixed set outcomeslistening to the lived experience and expertise of disabled people because that is critical to the success of this review. So we cannot this today preempt what the recommendations will be, but we shall patiently wait and I acknowledge
- 17:18
Lord Young mentioned in his contribution that there needs to be a balance between the Times review and the Milburn review. The Milburn review, as he said, has taken a broader look at welfare, health, education, skills and employment, and it is focusing on the challengesfacing young people who are not in education, employment or training, and we look forward to the final report and the policy recommendations that will help young people to access education, training and employment.
- 17:19
As I said, these are not the final recommendations, but moving on to PIP expenditure and the caseloads, which have grown substantially over recent years, and as of 2006, umwhich has been mentioned earlier, around four 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. But alongside this, we
- 17:19
to be we've been clear that we need to build a welfare system that supports participation and opportunity and that is part of what the Melbourne review is looking at.
- 17:19
So looking ahead, both the Timms review and the Milburn review will play a central role in shaping the future direction of policy. Lord Young mentioned that there could be tensions in that, but we shall wait and see how that
- 17:20
flows when we get the full report, but 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 bestof those who we seek to help through such, you know, through PIP and through getting people into work, into employment, regardless of age, with disability or without disabilities. But I can assure the
- 17:20
Government will consider the recommendations and the reviews very carefully. I'll now try attempt to continue to address other points that was raised during this debate.
- 17:20
So I'll make my first stop regarding the budget yesterday that was brought forward by Baroness Spielman The Chancellor and the Prime Minister have both said clearlythat we have to bring the benefit bill down and fix the broken welfare system we inherited. But you don't do that by crude cuts, especially when people are feeling the cost of living pressures.as I've mentioned already, we have two ongoing reviews which are due imminently and the Chancellor has set out the government will respond by the end of the year. But we aren't complacent. We are ready already taken action. We are already deliveringon the welfare reform but in different ways. We have been rebalancing Universal Credit to reduce the incentive to be labelled too sick to work, increasing face-to-face assessments for health benefits, which declined under the previous government. We are reforming
- 17:21
over one 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 unemployed young
- 17:22
I said that I would come back to Baroness Jenkin and the face-to-face assessments, which are the sometimes the best way for some people to get their assessments. It allows for morean approach where people can sit down and better explaincircumstances or show what they illustrate their condition which affects them in practice.It helps to ensure that decisions are fair and accurate and based on the whole picture, but that's just one part of the routes that we can take.to do such assessments. It's an important part and much one which we have taken seriously, and we plan to increase our face-to-face delivery by 30% and we are already making steps to increase and improve that face-to-faceassessment. By July 2026, face-to-face accounted for 14.6% of PIP consultations and 23% of WCA consultations. So, as you can see, we are moving in the right direction and we will continue to do so.
- 17:22
and our youth guarantee programme
- 17:23
Another point that was raised was regarding the PIP criteria for individuals' abilities over and the fluctuating conditions that was mentioned by Baroness Jenkin orand Lord Palmer. So the criteria to consider individual disability 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 variation
- 17:23
in individual levels of impairment. This is important for all health conditions and impairment, not only those with more typically fluctuating conditions.
- 17:24
Lord Palmer, you mentioned, sorry, Lord Palmer mentioned regards mentioned about workplace capability assessments. Now claimants who report deteriorations in their
- 17:24
continue to be referred for assessments but are waiting longer than we would like. We are prioritiesthe initial assessments over reassessments, but we're also prioritizing those who are looking to get seek employment in a few weeks' time so that they can get their
- 17:24
conditions or new conditions
- 17:24
having the the rights assessments for when they go into work, so that's another thing that we are doing. We know that this is a very important
- 17:24
to make sure that they
- 17:24
issue for claimants and stakeholder groups, which is why we're urgently considering options for expediting
- 17:24
to work green paper to resume assessments at a scale when
- 17:25
Regarding awards durations, which was raised by the noble Lord Davies of Oldham, it may be helpful if I explain that once somebody has been awarded PIP, which can be paid at one of eight rates, the awards can either be reviewed or the claimantbe 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.
- 17:25
in the system allows
- 17:25
at the centre of our system should support 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.
- 17:25
We've already discussed at length the Milburn and Timms review, but in the meantime we will continue reshaping the system into one that puts work
- 17:26
while we always support those who may not be able to work.
- 17:26
I'd also like to discuss about accuracy. That's a point that has been made by Lord Davies and Baroness Jenkin. It is our aim to make the right decision as early as possible in collecting the claimant's journey. To support theWe have made improvements to our decision-making process to help ensure that people get the support that they are entitled to without needing to appeal. This includes giving the decision makers additional time to proactivelycontact claimants if they think additional evidence is required and may support their 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
- 17:27
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 which may be relevant to their claim.
- 17:27
Since the summer of 2026 where claimants tell us that they no longer consider themselves to have restricted ability to work, their casesrefused 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 a
- 17:28
including where health conditions are complex or fluctuating, the claimant may be referred for a reassessment. In some cases, following the review, entitlement remainschange, for example where the claimant has reported a change in error or available evidence does not support removal.
- 17:28
I'd like to also bring to the chamber this this afternoon that the government is committed to giving disabled people and people with health conditions the confidence that working will not trigger a reassessment and potential loss
- 17:28
of benefit. I hope that reassures Baroness Jenkin, Lords Young.
- 17:28
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 benefits, be it PIP or Universal Credit or the new-style employment and support allowance, to try work, yet the DWP
- 17:29
and we shall be working to ensure that this is widely promoted and that those who wish to seek and have the right to try take advantage of this opportunity as well as what we do um as well as the welfare reformsputting opportunities at the centre of everything that we we do. I haven't had the opportunity to um to talk about or to mention about the umthe claims management system, Lords Young and Lord Davies talked about, you know, the code of that we have
- 17:29
online and payments that are getting sort of poor information or people taking advantage. We will be introducing a new code of practice in the coming weeks that clamps down on the activity by claim managements as
- 17:30
this afternoon. We want to I want to ensure the noble Lords across the House that we will engage constructively with the process of building a fair and trusted social welfare state that is centered on the need of
- 17:30
to address some of the many points that she was unable to do so in her remarks. As I hope the noble Lady takes from the
- 17:30
people
- 17:30
Powerful speeches by my noble friends Lord Godson, Baroness
- 17:31
Lords Willetts and Young of Cookham who speak from considerable and relevant government experience. This is aabout which there is tremendous concern on these benches, especially given the delays in the publication of the Millburn review. I therefore hope that we'll have time soon in this chamber to debate both
- 17:31
both reviews and then the concrete proposals to address the welfare budget that should follow swiftly. So finally I thank all
- 17:31
Northwood who have spoken today. I appreciate their commitment to this important topic and their willingness to be here for what I think I described earlier as the graveyard shift.
Automatic speech recognition (AI-generated text). Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.