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

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, we all recognise that the control of public spending matters. It is right that Governments examine whether money is being spent effectively and whether benefits are achieving the purpose for which they are intended, but that must not be the starting point for today’s debate. It is about not simply whether the Government can reduce expenditure but whether the Government can use the system to better and more effectively support those who genuinely rely on it.

I do not recognise the negative views expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, and some of her colleagues. The personal independence payment is a lifeline, not a luxury. It exists because disabled people face additional costs in their everyday lives—costs that most of us never have to think about. It was never designed as simply an employment support payment, yet in practice it often enables disabled people to remain in work, maintain their independence and contribute to society. Surely that is an outcome we should all welcome.

It follows that any changes to the way in which PIP awards are assessed or managed must place the needs of the claimants first. Administrative convenience for the department can never be the overriding objective. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, gave examples of appeals, which are probably an example showing that the system does not work. It is about administrative convenience, which should not be the overriding objective. Does the Minister, whom I welcome to her position, agree that the guiding principle should always be ensuring that disabled people receive the support they need, rather than designing processes primarily around departmental efficiency?

I would also welcome some clarity from the Minister on the wider narrative surrounding welfare spending. Much public debate proceeds on the assumption that there has been an unsustainable explosion in the benefits bill—we recognise that—but that is not borne out by the overall figures. Welfare spending amounted to around 10.6% of GDP last year, compared with approximately 12.4% in 2009-10. Although spending on the state pension has increased, this has been accompanied by reductions in the share of spending devoted to working-age and housing benefits.

The real driver of increased expenditure has instead been disability-related support. This reflects a troubling reality, rather than an accounting problem. We have seen growing numbers of people, in particular younger people, experiencing poor mental health and other conditions that require additional support. Those trends should concern us because of what they say about the health of our society, not simply because they affect departmental budgets. What is the Government’s long-term strategy to address these underlying causes? If more people require disability benefits because of deteriorating mental health, delayed treatment, inadequate early intervention or barriers to employment, simply tightening employment cannot be the whole answer. The better approach is to reduce the need for support in the first place by investing in health services, mental health provision, employment support and early intervention. We on these Benches believe that disabled people deserve dignity, security and confidence that the support on which they rely will be there when they need it. We should judge any changes to the benefits system against that standard. I hope the Minister will be able to assure the House that this remains the Government’s guiding principle.

I see no merit in the regret Motion. There is obviously work to be done—I know that the Minister and her department know that—but we must not get away from the underlying principle that when people need support, that support should be there. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, we are not talking about going to appeal and winning there; we should be able to deal with this problem at the source. I therefore do not support the regret Motion.