(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that they may only make a speech with the prior permission of the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up. The debate will end by 5.40 pm.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Access to Work scheme.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. A disability can happen to any one of us at any time. That was a lesson that I learned the hard way, when I became fully paralysed by Guillain-Barré syndrome aged 22. I was unable to walk for five months, and it took me more than two years to walk steadily on my feet again. I remember feeling utterly exhausted and I worried about how I would ever work again. I am grateful to have made a near full recovery, but not everyone does. For many disabled people, the greatest barrier to work is whether the right support will be in place to make work possible and sustainable for them.
The Access to Work scheme should enable disabled people to enter work, to stay in work and to contribute fully to their communities and to our economy. Disabled people can have complex needs, but achieve remarkable things despite them. The scheme enables more than 74,000 disabled people to work by providing support such as specialist equipment, support workers and specialist job coaches. A study commissioned by the Royal National Institute of Blind People found a £1.48 return for every £1 spent on the Access to Work scheme, so it is excellent value for money.
I have mentioned previously in the House that some of my constituents have been waiting more than nine months just for an assessment of their needs. Since then, the situation has deteriorated further. The waiting list has grown to 66,000 people, an increase of 4,000, and 32,000 payments are now outstanding. Applicants are being told that they may wait up to 37 weeks just for a decision, and some, in particular the self-employed, for more than a year. Let us be clear what that means. It means that someone offered a job cannot take it, that someone already in work cannot do the job properly and, in too many cases, that jobs are being lost unnecessarily.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Megan was offered 15 hours of employment through an internship with Silver Lining in Ilminster, which was fully funded by Access to Work, but the scheme only offered funding for three hours. Megan now has to claim universal credit as she cannot find accessible employment. Does my hon. Friend agree that such funding decisions are totally senseless and are keeping disabled people out of work and from contributing to our economy?
David Chadwick
I agree wholeheartedly that that is a great waste of the undoubted talent that Megan has and should be able to bring to the table.
Demand for the scheme has risen sharply. That should be welcomed, because it shows that people want to work and want to get back into work, but the system has not kept up with their demands. Backlogs are growing, processing times are getting longer and confidence in the scheme is falling away.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I met the Disability Poverty Campaign Group, which points to the fact that in recent years average support has fallen sharply and, as a result, job retention has dropped from 88% to 43%. That is fewer people in work as a result of the broken system the hon. Gentleman describes. That is counterintuitive when we want to strengthen our economy and ensure that people are in work.
David Chadwick
The hon. Member is right to focus on retention, which is an equally important part of the scheme.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate to the Chamber. He is right to underline the issues for people who are disabled and want to get into work. Many employers wish to ensure that those people have the opportunity, but they are unable to expedite the system, through no fault of theirs. They want to employ people, but they cannot because the Government are falling short. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there has to be a better arrangement and better co-operation in relation to not just those who want to work, but those who want to give them jobs?
David Chadwick
Yes. The hon. Member is right to mention how everyone can benefit from people getting back into work—both employers and disabled people looking for work can benefit—but the system is not enabling that to happen. Self-employed individuals, in particular, are losing their businesses, and employers—in particular smaller employers—are being left with costs and uncertainty. A scheme designed to support work is, in its current state, preventing it.
Alongside the delays, there are growing concerns about how the scheme operates in practice. My constituents report being forced to reapply from scratch at renewal, even when nothing has changed. We know that we have the technology to deal with that problem. They face long reconsideration processes, struggle to contact caseworkers and in some instances cannot even access the system properly, because of their needs. This does not sound like a system working with people; it feels like one that they are having to fight to get through.
There are also serious concerns about funding decisions. I have been made aware of cases in which support has been cut significantly, not because needs have changed, but because funding is benchmarked against generic regional job market rates, which will punish people living longer, particularly in Wales, where we have lower than average salaries. That misunderstands the entire purpose of the scheme.
We are seeing a convergence of problems: delays getting into the system, barriers to navigating it and reductions in support once people are in it. The result is clear: people are being kept out of work because the Government’s system is not working for them. That creates a fundamental contradiction: the Government want more disabled people in work, and disabled people have plenty to offer, but encouragement without support does not represent opportunity.
When Access to Work fails, people fall out of employment, businesses miss out on talent, and more people are pushed into economic inactivity. At a time when we must indeed focus on growth, we should be strengthening the system, not allowing it to fall behind. We need urgent steps to tackle the backlog. We need a system that is faster, clearer and accessible. We need funding decisions that reflect the reality of specialist support.
Ultimately, this is about whether disabled people can participate equally in working life. Many disabled people are desperate to work, but they are being let down by this scheme, which has helped so many people over the years. I urge the Minister to recognise the urgency of the issue and set out how the Government will act.
Several hon. Members rose—
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. I am very keen to call the Minister by 5.30 pm, so may I ask Members to keep their comments short?
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I wholeheartedly commend the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) for securing today’s debate, for his eloquent description of the problems facing the Access to Work scheme and for allowing me a few minutes to contribute—in support of the views that he expressed.
I wanted to contribute to today’s debate as I am another example of an MP who has personally benefited from the Access to Work programme. My story has remarkable similarities to the hon. Member’s. In 2009, I was hit by a sudden-onset neurological illness. In my case, it was one called POEMS syndrome—POEMS stands for polyneuropathy, organomegaly, endocrinopathy, monoclonal gammopathy, and skin changes—but I am very familiar with GBS, the syndrome that the hon. Member experienced, as I was on the same hospital ward as patients with that condition.
My illness affected my mobility. I was in hospital—the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery on Queen Square—for five months. I was unable to stand, let alone walk, and spent a year using a wheelchair. It was during my five-month stay in hospital that I first learned about the Access to Work scheme. Without my physiotherapists and occupational therapists, I would not even have known that it existed. I worry that patients in other hospitals might not necessarily receive the guidance that I did at the National.
The Access to Work team worked closely with my then employer, making adjustments to my office environment to make it wheelchair friendly and helping to access funding to pay for taxis to and from work and to meetings outside the office. That support was crucial in allowing me to go back to work after my illness. Without it, I do not know what I would be doing now or whether I would have managed to achieve elected office. Recent reports, however, suggest that I was lucky then and even luckier compared with people now trying to join the Access to Work scheme. Stories and personal testimony mount of a scheme increasingly letting customers down, with more than 66,000 applications remaining unprocessed.
Last month, I was proud to write the foreword, alongside the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), to a report by the Disability Policy Centre, the UK’s only disability think-tank, about the Access to Work scheme. The research showed that, without the scheme, up to 50,000 disabled people across the country could find themselves out of work. At a time when the number of people out of work due to long-term illness is at a record high, I want to join hon. Members in urging the Government to give Access to Work significantly more funding, so that it can achieve faster processing and much greater visibility for its potential users.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) for securing this debate and allowing me time to speak in it.
The National Audit Office report published earlier this year tells a story of a scheme under serious strain. Applications have more than doubled, the number of applications waiting for a decision has almost trebled, and outstanding payment requests have more than quadrupled. The NAO is clear that the backlog will not fall significantly without policy change, yet the scheme has not been substantially updated since 1994.
I want to give two examples from my constituency. The first is a self-employed artist—a young autistic person with selective mutism. She has been awarded support at £15.33 an hour, but the specialist support she needs costs between £25 and £40 an hour. Nobody will provide it at the awarded rate, so her family is stepping in unpaid. Her father can no longer work full time as a result. Not only does that have a knock-on effect on the family finances, but, if translated across the country, it would have a knock-effect on the economy.
The second example is a local business that supports autistic and ADHD adults into work. Many of them are professionals, academics and business owners—people who are very capable and want to work, but who need nuanced, skilled support with communication, executive function and workplace relationships. This business is regulated, VAT-registered, employs staff and maintains proper safeguarding, but it cannot provide services at £15 an hour, so it has had to stop taking on new Access to Work clients. The worry is that when reputable, safeguarded providers that are working with very vulnerable people withdraw from the market, the gap will be filled by those without those protections.
Those cases point to the same conclusion that the NAO reached: without real reform, this scheme will continue to fail the people it exists to serve. Rates must reflect the real cost of support. The comprehensive update the scheme has needed since 1994 cannot wait any longer.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Dame Diana Johnson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) on securing this important debate and thank him for sharing his personal experience, which is so valuable and helpful when we discuss this type of issue. I know it is not the first time he has raised this matter, and he is right to focus on it.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for sharing his personal experience. I am delighted that both hon. Members are in the House and were able to use Access to Work to help them in their rehabilitation and return to employment. The Department is looking very carefully at the report my hon. Friend referred to, and we will come back to that. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for their contributions, and, of course, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who brings an interesting perspective to every debate he speaks in.
To be very clear, we want to build on our welfare state. We want it to be a working state, so that everyone has a platform of opportunity as well as a safety net. That is because everybody, regardless of disability or health condition, deserves the chance to make the most of their life. We want to remove unnecessary barriers that hold far too many people back—barriers to accessing, staying in and progressing in work—and of course, we need to reduce the disability employment gap, which at 29.5% remains far too high.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
I wish to bring to the Minister’s attention the experience of one of my constituents, who has given me permission to provide this information. She is profoundly deaf—that is how she describes herself—and has relied on Access to Work for 25 years. Despite this, she was recently told, via a no-reply email, to telephone or risk losing support, even though email communication had already been agreed as a reasonable adjustment. She applied within the six-week priority window, yet is facing delays of more than 30 weeks. She has received repeated emails incorrectly claiming that she has not responded, and has no clear information or timescales or the support she will receive. Does the Minister agree that a scheme designed to support disabled people into work must itself be accessible, and will she ensure that agreed adjustments are followed, communications improved and priority cases are genuinely prioritised?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that case. The Minister for Social Security and Disability, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), has responsibility for Access to Work. He sadly cannot be with us this afternoon, but I have heard that particular case, and if my hon. Friend supplies me with the details, I will certainly raise it with the Minister.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
In the light of the previous intervention, I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the case just mentioned is not unique. Many such cases are happening in my constituency. People are not getting into work, and firms have gone out of business because work coaches are not being paid. Will the Minister stress upon on the Minister for Social Security and Disability the need to get this sorted?
Dame Diana Johnson
I fully appreciate that the case is not unique, and that far too many people are not getting the service we want them to have through Access to Work. I will say a little about what we are already doing and what we plan to do next.
Access to Work is key to delivering this Government’s objectives. It removes the barriers to work for disabled people and people with health impairments, and provides essential support that people need beyond the reasonable adjustments that employers are already required to make under the Equality Act 2010. As well as being important for individuals, Access to Work is important for businesses because it helps employers to recruit disabled people confidently and, very importantly, to retain them.
The National Audit Office report has been referred to a number of times. It announced its investigation into Access to Work on 1 September, and published its report, which I warmly welcomed, on 6 February. The report highlights that Access to Work is supporting more people than ever—particularly those with mental health conditions and learning disabilities—but it also documents the pressures of administrative backlogs, delays and rising costs, and the impact on people and their employers.
The report also recognises the Department’s efforts to improve decision making and productivity within existing operational, budgetary and policy constraints, including our intention to make improvements following the consultation on last year’s Pathways to Work Green Paper. The NAO’s findings and recommendations are important, and we are reviewing them very carefully. They are a key contribution to ensuring that the scheme meets the needs of those who depend on it, while also delivering value for money.
The NAO is right to point out that “data systems hamper productivity” and do not provide officials with “an integrated view” of all customer information. There have been some improvements, for example, to allow customers to view their claims history—a response to customer feedback. Improvements are also being made to the case management system, but there is much more to do. A new standard operating procedure has been introduced to improve consistency and quality in application processing. That needs to be fully bedded in before the new work study called for by the National Audit Office is carried out, so that it can reflect the environment in which caseworkers will be operating in the future.
I want to talk about the growing demand for the scheme. As we all agree, Access to Work does a really important job, but it has come under serious strain from a major surge in demand since the pre-pandemic period. In 2024-25, although they were down somewhat that year, approval volumes were 59% higher than they had been in 2019-20. Spending on Access to Work in 2024-25 of £321 million was, in real terms, twice what it was in 2018-19 before the pandemic. The number of people receiving a grant—74,190—was almost double, and the number of applications in 2024-25—157,000—was more than double the number in 2018-19. Many more people are seeking support, particularly for mental health impairments, and that is now the largest group approved for payment, at 31%.
Funding for support workers represents the largest share of expenditure, at 71%. The job aide support worker category replaced British Sign Language interpreters in 2024-25 as the category with the highest expenditure, at £63.9 million. Spending on BSL interpreter support workers was £62.8 million. Some of the increased demand has arisen from better public awareness of Access to Work. I know that hon. Members were concerned about people knowing about the scheme.
Caroline Voaden
Are the Government evaluating the difference between the cost of paying Access to Work at a higher rate, so that people can actually get the support they need, and the cost of them being on universal credit if they are unable to work?
Dame Diana Johnson
The Department for Work and Pensions will always be looking at and evaluating the schemes we have, and what the cost is if a scheme is not available to people, so that work will be underway.
I want to go back to the issue of people being aware of the Access to Work scheme. Some will remember that Access to Work was once talked about as the Government’s best-kept secret, but the figures I have just read out show that it is not anymore. That is a positive thing; we want more disabled people being supported to move into and stay in employment. However, managing that surge in demand has damaged customer service. It has caused a substantial backlog in applications, which many service users have been inconvenienced by. In response, we have substantially increased the number of staff working on Access to Work, from 500 in March 2024 to 648 this March. We have streamlined the process by removing some routine requests for information, but I agree that serious problems remain.
To protect employment opportunities, case managers prioritise applications where the customer is due to start a job within four weeks. In 2025, staff allocated 96% of those applications within 28 days. We have also heard of cases where someone who previously received Access to Work is denied it, or where awards have been reduced even though the circumstances have not changed. To be clear, the policy has not changed. There has been some misunderstanding about that, so it is important that I make it very clear: there has not been a change in the policy. There will be policy changes, but they have not happened yet. What is true is that, over the past year, officials have worked to apply the existing guidance more consistently. That means that some awards have changed at the point of renewal, but the policy itself has not changed. It is just that the existing policy has been applied more consistently.
Another issue that has caused concern is the withdrawal of routine email access. The reason for that was concern about the security of the often very sensitive data being sent in relation to Access to Work, and the risk to data privacy. We are working on a new digital capability for Access to Work, which will allow documents to be uploaded online. Email correspondence is still available for those who need it as a reasonable adjustment.
On the reform of Access to Work, as I have said, there is no doubt that serious problems remain with the programme. Since it was first designed over 30 years ago, the style, scope and cost of the support that people require has changed significantly, yet Access to Work has stayed largely the same. As a result, there is a strong case for reform. In last year’s Pathways to Work Green Paper last year, we consulted on the future of Access to Work and how to improve it to help more disabled people into work. Reform needs to be informed by the views and experiences of those who use or could use the service. We recently concluded the Access to Work collaboration committees, with disabled people’s organisations and lived-experience users, to inform and to challenge the design of the future Access to Work scheme.
We will work closely with the Department’s recently formed independent disability advisory panel on the next phase. The panel, under the chairwomanship of the disability activist Zara Todd, will connect the expertise of disabled people and people with long-term health conditions with the design and delivery of our policies, particularly around employment support. The panel has made clear its interest in Access to Work, and has already had its first meeting specifically on the topic. Once we have a reform proposal, we will look at the timescale and work closely with stakeholders to make the transition from the current arrangements to the new ones as painless as possible. We are taking some time over the changes, but I think the House will agree that it is important to get them right.
In conclusion, Access to Work is vital to our mission to break down the barriers to the workplace for disabled people and those with health conditions. We need to continue improvements to the NHS so that people can access the treatment and support that they need earlier and more consistently. Reductions, at last, in NHS waiting lists are really good news. We need Sir Charlie Mayfield’s “Keep Britain Working” review, working closely with employers, to shape future workplace environments where disabled people can thrive. We have also set up the Pathways to Work service, and we need Connect to Work and WorkWell to deliver personalised employment and health support. Through the Timms review, we need personal independence payments to support disabled people to achieve better health, higher living standards and greater independence, including through employment.
Our goal is that everyone who can work gets the support, confidence and opportunities that they need to realise their full potential. Those who have spoken in this debate have been absolutely right to highlight the importance of Access to Work in achieving that goal.
Question put and agreed to.