Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak in favour of these regulations. Despite the case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, there was much in what she said about the purpose of reviews with which I agree: they are in the interests of the claimants and of the public, in that they fund these payments. They are clearly an important element of the system.

What was not mentioned is the reason for the backlog. Of course, we know about Covid, and that was out of our hands, but the problem with the number of assessments being undertaken at the moment is because of straightforward capacity constraints, which are a result of decisions made by the previous Government: they let contracts with an inadequate number of assessments, whether face to face or online, and they sold off too much of the estate needed for face-to-face assessments, which most people seem to prefer. To complain about the backlog takes a bit of nerve, to be honest, when it is very much their responsibility: it arose on their watch.

I also fundamentally disagree with the weight placed on the significance of these changes. Given the physical situation of the ability to undertake assessments, something needed to be done. There was a problem. It is possible to highlight potential problems with allowing the Secretary of State the discretion, but there was a real problem that needed to be addressed and was causing problems here and now. To me, this is a relatively narrow and sensible change to the process so that the problems faced by individuals could be addressed. It is a problem not so much for the Government and the DWP to undertake these assessments but for the individuals, who were losing their benefits in certain cases and certainly faced extreme concern and worry about their personal situation. That is the problem these regulations are intended to address. Talking about it in administrative terms is all very well, but the pressure and the effect that it had on individual claimants should be our major concern and why these regulations—which, as I say, are narrow—are required.

Here is what the regulations say, just to be clear to new readers. These changes are only required

“to safeguard the efficient administration of personal independence payment”.

You can ask what it means as many times as you like, but it means what it says. The Secretary of State cannot do it for any other reason; it is purely for “the efficient administration”, and we have already established that the assessments are good for both sides of the process.

When the assessment is made, the decision-makers will retain their existing discretion to set longer or shorter periods, including the 10-year light-touch awards when they think this is justified. Nothing in these regulations removes that judgment; they simply make their exercise more flexible, strictly—to repeat the point—for administrative simplicity. The practical case for this is straightforward: we had the backlog, and it needed to be dealt with for the benefit of claimants themselves. It is a fact that, in the worst cases, payments have been interrupted while a reassessment was pending, so I fully support providing the department with this discretion.

It is worth quickly highlighting two safeguards. Individuals have the right of appeal against the lack of an assessment: if they think their circumstances have changed sufficiently to warrant a further assessment, rather than being rolled over, they can make an appeal.

The question was raised about the under-25 year-olds. It is a clear fact, based on the experience of those who are undertaking the assessments, that under a given age there are far more changes in circumstances, and hence more need for reassessment, than in old age. That is simply a fact. It could have been 25, 26 or 24, but an age was practical and sensible.

I recognise that this measure gives the Secretary of State a discretionary power, and hence it is right and proper that we should give it detailed consideration. But this power is needed to extend support, not to curtail it, and it has to be exercised for administrative reasons not because of a change in policy in relation to personal independence payments. For that, we have to await the outcome of the Timms review. Let us not be overoptimistic, but I think that that review is very much heading in the right direction and will address the problems highlighted, as I said, by the failure of the previous Government.