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
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.