Universal Credit Entitlement: Offenders Detained in Hospital
Pat McFadden Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
Our welfare system, through benefits like universal credit, provides a crucial safety net to millions of people across this country but it cannot be right that individuals who have been convicted of serious crimes continue to receive substantial support from this system while their living costs are being met in hospital.
It is important that the people of Great Britain see fairness in their welfare system and that it has their confidence. I have therefore made the decision that I intend to bring forward proposals that would remove benefit entitlement for offenders who are detained in hospital following conviction for serious violent offences. I will begin a programme of engagement this month, that will seek the views of experts and stakeholders including clinicians, victims’ groups and the mental health sector on the best way to do this. The Department for Work and Pensions will also work closely with the devolved Governments to ensure there is a consistent approach.
[HCWS1251]
Support for Young People
Pat McFadden Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
Today I am announcing the expansion of the Government’s youth guarantee and the next phase of the growth and skills levy.
This announcement is backed by more than £1.5 billion of investment over the next three years, funding £820 million for the youth guarantee to support young people to earn or learn, and an additional £725 million for the growth and skills levy.
Through the expanded youth guarantee, young people aged 16 to 24 across Great Britain are set to benefit from further support into employment and learning. This includes:
Support to find a job
For young people on universal credit who are looking for work, we are introducing a new youth guarantee gateway, which over the next three years will offer nearly 900,000 16 to 24-year-olds a dedicated session, followed by four weeks of additional intensive support with a work coach: This new support will identify specific work, training, or learning opportunities locally for each young person and ensure they are supported to take those up.
Further expanding youth hubs
This support could be delivered at a youth hub. We are establishing youth hubs in over 360 locations so that all young people—including those not on benefits—can access opportunities and wider support in every local area of Great Britain. Youth hubs will bring together partners from health, skills and the voluntary sector, working closely with mayors and local authorities to deliver joined-up, community-based support.
Creating 300,000 opportunities for workplace experience and training
We will create up to 150,000 additional work experience placements and up to 145,000 additional bespoke training opportunities designed in partnership with employers, known as sector-based work academy programmes—SWAPs. At the end of each SWAP, employers offer a guaranteed job interview to participants.
An ambition to support 50,000 more young people into apprenticeships in England
We are fully funding apprenticeship training costs for all eligible 16 to 24-year-olds, by removing the need for non-levy paying employers to co-fund these learners. We are also expanding foundation apprenticeships into sectors such as hospitality and retail, where young people are traditionally recruited. We will make available £140 million to pilot new approaches to better connect young people aged 16 to 24—especially those who are not in education, employment or training—to local apprenticeship opportunities.
Guaranteeing jobs
For long-term unemployed 18 to 21-year-olds on universal credit, the jobs guarantee scheme will provide six months of paid employment. This will reach around 55,000 young people over the next three years. We know that young people need support quickly, and that is why we will begin delivery of the jobs guarantee in six areas from spring 2026 in: Birmingham & Solihull, the East Midlands, Greater Manchester, Hertfordshire & Essex, Central & East Scotland, and South-west & South-east Wales. We will deliver over 1,000 job starts in the first six months. This will be followed by the national roll-out of the jobs guarantee across Great Britain.
Preventing young people from becoming NEET
We are making it easier to identify young people who need support, by investing in better NEETs data sharing, further education attendance monitoring, and new “risk of NEET” data tools, giving local areas more accurate insights to target support where it is needed most. We are also investing in work experience opportunities for young people at particular risk of becoming NEET, focused on pupils in state-funded alternative provision settings—education provided outside mainstream or special schools for children who cannot attend a regular school, often due to exclusion, health needs or other circumstances.
This builds on measures announced in the post-16 education and skills White Paper earlier this autumn. To make sure that young people move smoothly from school into post-16 education or training, we are working with schools to improve support for transitions and piloting automatic enrolment at further education providers for those without a confirmed place. This will make it easier for young people to stay on in education and succeed later in life.
The youth guarantee is part of a new social contract with young people, with opportunity matched by responsibility. Young people who can work will be expected to engage with the support offered. If the support is declined without good reasons, existing benefit sanction rules will apply.
[HCWS1137]
Safeguarding: Department for Work and Pensions
Pat McFadden Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
I wish to update the House on the actions my Department has taken following the conclusion of the safeguarding review, and consideration of consultation findings.
This fulfils a commitment made by the Department in response to the Work and Pensions Committee inquiry on safeguarding vulnerable adults in July 2025.
Safeguarding is a serious issue that demands transparency, accountability and collaboration across Government. I reaffirm my Department’s commitment to safeguarding and our responsibility to protect individuals from harm, abuse and neglect wherever we encounter it in the course of our work.
Actions taken since the Committee’s report
I thank the Committee for its thorough inquiry and for its recommendations, which have shaped next steps. Since the Committee’s report, we have:
assessed our safeguarding approach, defining safeguarding in line with key legislation including: Care Act 2014, Domestic Abuse Act 2021, Children Act 1989, and Human Rights Act 1998;
developed an approach built on three simple steps: Recognise, Respond and Report—a standard approach to safeguarding used by other organisations;
checked our approach against statutory standards, with support from an independent safeguarding expert;
listened to safeguarding professionals and the public through the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper consultation, and selected roundtables;
run a Department-wide safeguarding survey, as recommended by the Committee.
This assessment found some good practice, but also variation in awareness, skills and accountability. That is why we need a consistent, joined-up approach.
Delivering improvements
Safeguarding must be part of everything we do. As I stated to the Committee on 19 November, it should be systems based. Put simply, safeguarding should be a central part of how we deliver our services, making safeguarding everyone’s business.
Our multi-year strategy starts with strong leadership and clear accountability. We have an executive lead, a dedicated safeguarding team, and clear governance.
Year one—which starts now—will focus on raising staff awareness of safeguarding responsibilities, building capability through training, and strengthening relationships with local authorities, health services and voluntary organisations. Year one deliverables include:
continue rolling out level 1 safeguarding training for non-clinical roles;
continue mandatory level 3 safeguarding training for clinical teams;
set out and communicate safeguarding roles and responsibilities so everyone in DWP understands the role they play, explained through internal guidance and communications;
enhance our existing processes so colleagues can more consistently recognise, respond to and report safeguarding concerns;
strengthen escalation routes for colleagues with safeguarding concerns;
review and strengthen existing internal process review processes to enhance clinical learning;
ensure our clinical workforce are recruited in line with NHS standards which includes undertaking an enhanced security check every three years;
by the end of year one, publish a DWP safeguarding policy framework which will set out our comprehensive approach.
From year two, work will focus on how safeguarding is being built into how the Department operates and assess how well the initial steps are working.
Over years three to five, we will focus on continuous improvement. We will explore digital solutions to capture safeguarding activity and further embed a learning culture that ensures safeguarding remains integral to everything we do.
Statutory safeguarding duty
Our immediate priority is to make safeguarding everyone’s business, with clear steps to recognise, respond to and report concerns. The Department remains open to adopting a statutory duty to refer safeguarding concerns appropriately. Our priority is to ensure that our internal safeguarding approach is robust, consistent and fully integrated across the Department.
Safeguarding must be a system-wide endeavour. It requires transparency, accountability, and collaboration across Government and with partners.
We have a clear way forward. We have recognised the gaps, we have identified solutions, and we have begun to deliver.
[HCWS1138]
Oral Answers to Questions
Pat McFadden Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
We inherited from the Conservative party a welfare system that forced too many people out of work and on to long-term benefits, while leaving millions of children in poverty. We have begun to address that through reforms to universal credit, increased employment support, more help for children in poverty and, now, a youth guarantee to offer work and training to young people who are unemployed.
Sarah Bool
The oldest law in economics is that if we tax something more, we get less of it. The inverse is also true: if we subsidise something more, we get more of it. Why do this Government believe that subsidising unemployment through huge increases to the welfare bill will not lead to more unemployment? Will the Secretary of State accept that those changes disincentivise work, and will he tell the House how much the Budget is expected to increase unemployment?
Pat McFadden
The Conservative party watched the number of those who are not in education, employment or training grow year by year and did nothing about it. The hon. Lady will find that, at the Budget a couple of weeks ago, the Office for Budget Responsibility projected that the levels of people in employment will rise in every year of the forecast.
Mr Bedford
In their first Budget, the Government hiked taxes on employers, leading to a sustained increase in unemployment. Earlier this year, we saw a botched attempt to reform welfare, which is now going to cost us more in welfare spending, and in the Chancellor’s “Nightmare before Christmas” Budget, she hammered hard-working families with yet more tax rises. Why do the Government loathe aspiration and hard work in favour of an economy based on welfare and state dependency?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Gentleman will find that the welfare budget had risen three times as fast as a proportion of GDP as it is projected to rise under this Government. We have begun to make changes through the reform to universal credit—that is more change in the system than his party introduced in many years—and, critically, to employment support for both the long-term sick and disabled and the young unemployed.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
Around 600 young people in Rochester and Strood are claiming unemployment benefits; many more are NEETs—not in education, employment or training—and are not known to the Department for Work and Pensions. Does the Minister agree that the best way to improve their futures and reduce the welfare bill in the long term is through targeted support programmes, such as the youth guarantee, which will get them into good, stable jobs and off benefits?
Pat McFadden
We have a very different approach to the issue of NEETs from the Conservative party. We are not going to sit and look at the graph rise year by year without offering young people hope and aspiration for the future. That is why we brought forward a package, with £800 million of backing, to offer training or work to the young unemployed, and ensure that they have options in life rather than a life on benefits.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
I welcome the child poverty strategy published on Friday. Will the Secretary of State outline what more needs to be done to end child poverty for good?
Pat McFadden
It is estimated that the child poverty strategy we published on Friday will lift more than 500,000 children out of poverty by the end of this Parliament. Critically, most of the children in poverty are living in households where someone works, so setting up the working against the non-working is completely contrary to the facts on child poverty.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
In the Budget last month, the Chancellor put up taxes in order to spend £16 billion more on welfare. The Government chose to make working people worse off in order to spend more on benefits. The sickness benefit bill is now set to skyrocket to more than £100 billion by the end of this decade. The Secretary of State likes to blame us, but his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), cancelled our reforms, and Labour Back Benchers stymied the Government’s. Working people are saying to me, “Why bother? I’d be better off on benefits.” The country cannot afford that. The Secretary of State must know this—he is no fool—so when is he going to come up with some welfare savings?
Pat McFadden
The Conservatives’ zeal for change is very touching; it is just a pity that they only discovered it the day they stopped having any responsibility for running the welfare system. Let me remind the hon. Lady that this is the system that they created, and these are the gateways to benefits that they created. The reform that they put forward was struck down by the courts, and the incentives in the system that she attacks are the ones that they legislated for. Now we have begun to change the system, with the first change in universal credit incentives for years, more support for the long-term sick and disabled, and a youth guarantee that offers hope where previously there was only neglect.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
When this Government came to power, we inherited a situation in which almost 1 million young people were not in education, employment or training. As we have said, the number rose by 50% in the last few years of the Conservatives’ time in government, and they did nothing about it. That is why we are acting. In the Budget we announced a youth guarantee, with £820 million of investment, to offer hope where previously there was only Tory neglect.
Blake Stephenson
About 1,200 people in my constituency are not in education, employment or training. With two job-destroying Budgets and the Employment Rights Bill on the horizon, does the Minister really understand the concerns of my constituents, who feel that this Government are simply making it so much harder for young people to find work and get on the career ladder?
Pat McFadden
If the hon. Gentleman cared about young people and opportunity, he might regret the fact that there was a 40% decline in young people’s apprenticeships over the last decade, when his party were in power. As well as the introducing the youth guarantee, we have brough forward £725 million more in investment for apprenticeships—again, to provide hope where there was previously Tory neglect.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I welcome the commitment to free apprenticeships for small and medium-sized enterprises if they take on under-25s, which was announced in the Budget, and I also welcome the commitment to apprenticeships in the hospitality sector. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be a focus on coastal communities such as East Thanet in these programmes, given the disproportionate number of young people written off by the Tories over the past 14 years and the significant number of small and medium-sized hospitality businesses, in particular, that are desperate to hire local talent?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is right to point out that the issue of youth opportunity is also an issue of inequality, and that the rate of NEETs is often highest where deprivation and inequality are highest. That is why it is essential that we have an active policy, through the youth guarantee, to offer training, work experience, subsidised employment and more apprenticeships for young people.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Since the Chancellor delivered her Budget, it has come to light that benefits have been extended for the parents of teenagers with disabilities or illnesses. Although on the face of it that may seem kind and compassionate, it is also contradictory. Parents and carers are no longer required to ensure that their teenagers are attending an educational setting at all to receive additional child benefit, which means that young people living with neurodivergent conditions such as ADHD are being enabled to stay at home and out of education, training or even work. This flies directly in the face of the Prime Minister’s words after the Budget:
“if you’re not given the support you need…or if you are simply written off because you’re neurodivergent or disabled, then it can trap you in a cycle of worklessness and dependency for decades.”
May I ask the Secretary of State how extending access to benefits for conditions such as ADHD in teenagers before coming up with a plan to ensure that young people remain in full-time education and training delivers on the Prime Minister’s point?
Pat McFadden
I hate to sound repetitive, but the rates of absence from school rocketed when the Conservatives were in power. Again, this is something that we have begun to address, because children cannot achieve unless they are attending school. That is why absence from school really matters, and why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has rightly made attendance such a high priority for herself and her Department.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
Since the last set of Work and Pensions oral questions, we have announced £820 million of funding to offer training and work to young unemployed people through the youth guarantee and £725 million more in apprenticeship investment, with 50,000 more apprenticeship starts for young people. We have responded positively to the Sayce review on carer’s allowance and we have published our child poverty strategy, which will lift more than half a million children out of poverty by the end of this Parliament.
John Slinger
I have been campaigning for a youth hub and working with officials in the DWP and local councils to try to secure a much-needed youth hub in Rugby. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this service, offering employment advice, wellbeing support and more, would help tackle the problem of youth dependency on benefits, which is at 16% in Rugby—roughly the national average? Does he further agree that, as young people would say: no cap, it is only this party that will do what is necessary to back young people?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is right to say that youth hubs can deliver vital help to get young people back on track. This is about getting the jobcentre out of the jobcentre, if you will, and making sure that we meet young people where they are in the community. We are expanding youth hubs; there will be a total of 360 around the country. Locations will be announced in due course, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will keep campaigning for one in his area.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Pat McFadden
The hon. Gentleman attacks the system, gateways and conditions that his Government created. When it comes to working people and non-working people, he will be aware that most children in poverty live in a household in which someone works, as are most of the children helped by the lifting of the two-child limit. Those who are not are often children under the age of three with a lone parent.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue. The numbers of people not in education, employment or training have been going in that direction for several years. That is why we brought forward the youth guarantee, which will offer work experience, training and, ultimately, subsidised work, offering hope where previously there was only neglect.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
We all know that disabled people often face higher energy bills. In my constituency, that is exacerbated by higher standing charges. The Government have now abolished the energy company obligation. Can the Minister tell me what support with bills will be available for disabled people this winter?
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Pat McFadden
It is always a pleasure to meet my parliamentary neighbour from Dudley. She is absolutely right to draw attention to the role of allied health professionals, because there is a strong link between good health and employment, and this problem has to be seen across departmental boundaries.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Following the Budget, a furious Labour voter, 30 years old, texted me to say, “I am furious about the salary sacrifice thing. I give up a lot of things to put 20% of my salary into my pension. That’s going to cost me almost two grand a year for being responsible.” Why are the Government so keen on punishing savers?
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
Pat McFadden
I applaud my hon. Friend’s campaigning for young people in his constituency. We are expanding the number of youth hubs, which will offer support across the country. The precise locations will be announced in due course.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I recognise, as do so many Members across the House, the injustice and maladministration suffered by the so-called WASPI women born in the 1950s. I welcome the recent development announced by the Secretary of State, but will he give an undertaking that if compensation is agreed, it will take into account the poverty suffered by so many of these women and include recompense for their significant legal costs?
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the child poverty strategy published last week, and I congratulate past and present ministerial teams on all they have done on that strategy. Can my right hon. Friend give details on when he expects to publish the targets, the detailed metrics and the monitoring and review framework? Those are essential if we are to reduce child poverty.
Pat McFadden
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her question. We estimate that the measure will lift 450,000 children out of relative poverty, and 550,000 for the strategy as a whole. She is absolutely right to say that, having published the strategy, we will bring forward the legislation and monitor its impact right across Government and well beyond the boundaries of the DWP.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
A lady came to my surgery the other week to tell me that she had been assessed at only the basic level of PIP and as fit to work. I was staggered, because she could barely walk and could barely breathe. Will the Minister meet me to see how we can rectify this crazy situation in which somebody who can barely walk to a surgery has been told that they are fit to work as a cleaner?
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
The youth guarantee scheme represents a clear statement of intent from this Labour Government. Unlike the Conservatives, we will not abandon our young people to a lifetime on benefits, or allow the mental health toll of long-term unemployment to define their futures. Will my right hon. Friend outline how this policy will deliver for those young people by providing skills, confidence and meaningful work, and deliver for the wider economy by turning potential into productivity and reducing the cost of economic inactivity?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is right to say that purposeful activity, be it training or work, can be an answer to some of the mental health problems that we are seeing in society, so I welcome her endorsement of the youth guarantee and the intentions behind it.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Employers across the construction, care and manufacturing sectors have warned that Skills England’s dumbed down reforms mean that apprenticeships will not be recognised by professional bodies. Today’s announcement of 50,000 apprenticeships is meaningless if employers will not recognise those standards, so will the Secretary of State guarantee that reformed apprenticeships will still meet those standards? That is a particular concern in the construction industry—
Mr Speaker
Order. These are topical questions. I am trying to get everybody in but the hon. Member is not helping me. Hopefully, he asked at least three of his questions.
Pat McFadden
The hon. Member is right to say that apprenticeship standards are highly valued. Our constituents value what an apprenticeship means. As we take the scheme forward, it is important that the public and employers have trust in the high standards that an apprenticeship offers.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Nan Roberts is 92. She was widowed this year and is facing her first Christmas without her husband of 64 years, and she is feeling utterly fobbed off by a creaking DWP system. She is waiting for her “choices letter”, despite having ingoing state pension payments dating back to 1994. The threat of asking this question has already led to some action by the DWP, but will the Secretary of State outline how I can do more to support my constituent?
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Cornwall Marine Network in my constituency is a small and medium-sized enterprise members association that provides training and apprenticeship support. It recently celebrated providing 5,000 new jobs and apprenticeships. It will welcome the Government’s youth guarantee and the news that SMEs will not have to pay for apprenticeship training for under-25s. Will the Minister confirm how this Government will increase the capacity of such training providers?
Pat McFadden
I warmly commend my hon. Friend and the company she mentions. One of the apprenticeship reforms that we have announced is fully funding apprenticeships for SMEs for under-25s. That will help companies such as the one she mentions, and many more besides.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
The Injury Time campaign wants to classify brain injuries in football, such as dementia, as an industrial injury. The campaign wants former players to receive Government support and benefits and wants an increase in funding for research. Will the relevant Minister meet me and PFA Scotland to discuss this important topic?
Budget Resolutions
Pat McFadden Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
It is a pleasure to open today’s debate on behalf of the Government, and to respond to the shadow Chancellor. He went through his lines and, as I expected, he talked a fair bit about welfare. If only he had ever been in a position to do something about it. That is the essential problem with the position of Conservative Members. It is not even that they failed to reform the system, it is that they created it in the first place. Their system created the fork in the road between those judged fit to work and those judged unfit to work. Their system forced people into a choice between poverty and being declared incapable of work, often permanently. It is their system that left millions of people with no contact and no support from the system, other than the payment of benefits. Perhaps most damningly, it is their system that saw the huge growth in inactivity among the young, about which they did nothing while they were in office.
As the shadow Chancellor knows, there is a wall in the Department for Work and Pensions, carefully placed between the microwave and the toilets, on which there is a very fetching portrait of the shadow Chancellor, along with portraits of all his predecessors as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. They all sat in the same chair, in the same office as I do. They saw the same trends and the same graphs that I see, but they did absolutely nothing about the situation. He talked about the changes that he proposed to the work capability assessment, but he was a little quieter about those changes not happening, because they were so incompetent that they were struck down as being unlawful by the courts. He then said that he would have done more but he was interrupted by the general election—the Conservatives had 14 years and the election was called at a time of their choosing.
The shadow Chancellor is asking the House to indulge the fantasy that, having been relieved of the duties of ministerial office, he has suddenly stumbled upon the answer to the problem, like a reverse Nostradamus, granted a magical power that enables him to identify the solutions to problems, but only at the moment when he ceases to have responsibility for fixing any them. The Conservatives remind me of a messy 16-year-old who has turned his bedroom into a tip, but when his exasperated parents come in to clean it up, the teenager says, “I was about to do that.” No one believes the teenager and no one should believe the Tories, because they had their chance and did nothing about it.
On their watch, welfare spending went up by almost 1% of GDP over the last Parliament, the equivalent of about £22 billion a year. When they left office, did the OBR think that they had a credible plan to change the system? No, they did not. The OBR predicted that costs would rise by a further £100 billion. Sometimes the Tories say that they want more face-to-face assessments, which I want too. However, in September 2023, a little over six months before the election was called, they signed off a new set of contracts allowing 80% of the assessors to work from home. Who was the Secretary of State when those contracts were signed? We do not need ChatGPT to tell us—we just need to look on that wall between the microwave and the toilets, because it was the shadow Chancellor. And that was long after the covid pandemic.
The Conservatives created the system, but they did not change it when they had the chance and they increased the number of children in poverty by 900,000, so it falls to us to begin to change the system. We have begun. We are reducing the gap in universal credit between standard unemployment and the sickness rate, a change that the OBR estimates will get 15,000 more people into work and that starts to address the incentives for sickness built into the previous Government’s system, reform that we are carrying out that the Conservatives did not.
Changes to the Motability scheme will focus on value for money and ensure that if the UK taxpayer is paying for new vehicles, more of them are made here in the UK—reform that we are carrying out that the Conservatives did not.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Secretary of State talks about trying to ensure that cars available under the Motability scheme are made in the UK. I looked at the Motability website yesterday and some of the changes have already been implemented, but there are an awful lot of Chinese cars listed. Yesterday, Omoda and Jaecoo, two of the Chinese companies on that list, announced that they would be implementing a 20,000 mile rebate to individuals to pay for the electric vehicle tax introduced in the Budget. That will allow China to get an even greater foothold in the UK economy. Those cars are built with Chinese IP that sends information straight back to the state, allowing it to track where those vehicles are. What will the Government do to address the impact of the growing number of Chinese vehicles and about the fact that the Budget is, perhaps unwittingly, encouraging the use of Chinese cars in this market?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Gentleman should be supporting our changes because they have done two things: they are removing a number of luxury brands from the system and they are ensuring that more British-made cars are part of the scheme, and that will continue going forward.
By the end of the decade, we will have provided an additional £1 billion for employment support for the long-term sick and disabled through the pathways to work programme, so that people are not just signed off and written off—more reform that we are carrying out that the Conservative party did not. We are fixing the long-running injustice to carers that they ignored for years, which is more reform that we are carrying out that the Conservatives did not. There is more reform in this Budget than the shadow Chancellor implemented in his 20 months as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
But I know that we have to go further, because the greatest crisis is among the young. We inherited a situation with close to a million young people not in employment, education or training. That is terrible in human terms, expensive in financial terms and deeply unequal, because the numbers are often highest in the most deprived parts of the country. Those are often places where there are already multiple problems and where the loss of hope seems the deepest. Addressing this problem is a cause around which we should rally. That is why in this Budget we offer a youth guarantee, with £820 million of investment, that will offer the young unemployed a training place, work experience or ultimately a job, giving hope and opportunity where previously there was none—more reform that we are carrying out that the Conservative party did not.
Sir John Hayes
I am very interested in that part of the Budget and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for setting it out in more detail. One part of the youth guarantee is the boost for apprenticeships, particularly in small and medium-sized enterprises, but looking at the fine print, is that not already supplied by the apprenticeship levy? What small and medium-sized enterprises need, as I learned when I was the apprenticeships Minister, is some grant funding to get them started in the process. Does the Government have that in mind or is this simply a rehash of the apprenticeship levy?
Pat McFadden
I note the right hon. Gentleman’s request for more public expenditure and I am coming on to the growth and skills levy in a moment. What we will do with that is tilt it more towards young people and towards more short courses, and this Budget puts a further £725 million into that, which will enable the full funding of apprenticeships for the under 25s for small businesses. That is good for young people and good for employers. It is important, because no matter where they are from, what their background is or who their parents are, every young person should have the chance to make the most of their life. I want the country’s young people to know that through our youth guarantee, the apprenticeship support and the other measures outlined in the Budget and outside it, we will support them, we believe in them and we want them to succeed.
Even after that, I know that we need to go further, and that is why I have asked former Health Secretary Alan Milburn to report in the new year on the issues of young people, work and inactivity, looking across departmental boundaries and recommending policy responses that will offer young people more opportunity and a better chance in life.
After the Conservatives either neglected all that or opposed that which they did not neglect, what have they got left? Arguing that instead of our approach, people’s wages should be lower. We saw where that led during the last Parliament. The shadow Chancellor talked about living standards—during the last Parliament, living standards declined more than at any time in living memory. Now living standards are rising in this Parliament and wages have risen more in a matter of months than they did in 10 years when the shadow Chancellor’s party was in office.
As people sometimes remind me, I have been around for quite a while. I am proud to have served in the last Labour Government, which lifted 600,000 children out of poverty—and almost all the measures delivered were opposed by the Conservative party. In fact, the Conservatives’ record was a rise in child poverty of 900,000. Their argument was that the two-child limit would force people to make different choices about the number of children that they would have, but that is not what happened; it simply forced more children into poverty.
The real indictment goes deeper, because, as the right hon. Member for Central Devon knows, the two-child limit was not really a welfare policy at all. In the end, it was not even about saving the money. The truth is that it was about political dividing lines. It was a device used by the Conservative Government, in which children were the weapon of choice. That is what it was about, but not any more. Tackling child poverty is an investment in the future of those children and in the country, because children who do not grow up living in poverty will have a better life. This policy is not just about the distribution of money; it is an investment in opportunity. That is why the Chancellor announced the abolition of the two-child limit in the Budget. As my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) said, the clear majority of households that will gain from this measure already have someone in work. The policy will lift 450,000 children out of poverty, and that number will rise, thanks to other measures, such as the expansion of free school meals, help with energy bills, and the expansion of free childcare so that more parents can take up work.
This will be the largest reduction in child poverty over a Parliament since records began. As the Chancellor spelled out, it can be funded by a combination of tackling fraud and error in the system, the Motability and other changes, and the changes to online gambling taxation that she announced yesterday.
We understand that the health and welfare systems are deeply connected, so we will continue to get waiting lists down, and to treat more patients. We announced 250 new neighbourhood health centres in the Budget. Waiting lists and waiting times rocketed when the Conservatives were in office, and that was not just a health issue; it was an economic and benefits issue. A system that treats people more quickly, rather than having them wait in pain, is good for the economy, too. Through the reforms that we are making on incentives and support in the system, and on opportunity and tackling poverty, we are beginning to change the welfare state from a passive distributor of benefits to a platform of opportunities to get people back into work. However, we need to go further, and we will.
No one on the Labour Benches underestimates the scale of the challenges we face. There is no escaping the fact that the OBR’s decision to downgrade its assessment of productivity is the official verdict on the Conservatives’ years in office. They left this Chancellor with a £16 billion hole to fill. That hole is not because of the decisions she took, but because of the scarring effects of the Conservatives’ time in power. A botched Brexit deal, austerity that impoverished the public realm, and cuts to capital investment—the OBR is clear that they all caused long-term damage to the UK’s productivity and economic growth. That has to be owned by the Conservatives.
The shadow Chancellor attacked the Budget in the strongest terms, and he is right that it is a contrast with the Conservatives’ record, because they took the country to the very precipice of economic disaster. They used the British public as a test bed for a giant ideological experiment that saw mortgages go through the roof. The Bank of England had to launch an emergency rescue package for the country’s pension system. The Conservatives shook international confidence in the UK economy and destroyed whatever economic credibility they had by their own hand. There is a difference in our approaches—a very welcome one.
We have trade agreements with the world’s biggest economic powers—agreements that eluded the Conservatives. We have a reformed planning system, which will get the country building. Public investment is at its highest level for four decades, and inflation is coming down faster, as a result of the measures that we are taking. It will come down by a full 0.4 percentage points next year, according to the OBR. Borrowing is down in every year of the forecast. We are keeping corporation tax at the lowest level of any G7 country. We have help for high streets, and permanently lower tax rates for 750,000 businesses. We are doubling eligibility for our enterprise tax incentives, so that new businesses can not only be created, but can grow and scale up here in the United Kingdom.
We are cutting energy costs for 7,000 businesses to make manufacturing more competitive. We are providing help with the cost of living through the first rail fare freeze for 30 years. We are freezing prescription charges. Energy bills are being cut by £150 per year. We are raising the national minimum wage for millions of workers, as recommended by the independent Low Pay Commission. We are expanding free breakfast clubs, and there are free school meals for all children in families on universal credit.
This is a Budget for the whole country. It helps with living standards and helps people to meet their monthly bills. It fixes some of the problems of the past, and gives the country strong foundations for the future. It is a Budget that believes in maintaining the public square, and it continues the progress that we have made on the NHS. That progress is, for us, not just a social goal, but an economic goal. It is a Budget that protects the state pension and raises its value by £575 next year. It is a Budget that continues with welfare reforms, reduces child poverty and offers hope to young people for the future. That is the difference, and that is why we should support the Budget today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Statutory Review of State Pension and Benefit Rates 2026-27
Pat McFadden Excerpts(4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
I have concluded my statutory annual review of state pension and benefit rates under the Social Security Administration Act 1992. The new rates will apply in the tax year 2026-27, with most increases coming into effect from 6 April 2026.
I am pleased to announce that the basic and new state pensions will be increased by 4.8%, in line with the increase in average weekly earnings in the year to May to July 2025.
This delivers on our commitment to the triple lock, increasing these rates in line with the highest of growth in prices, growth in earnings or 2.5%. From April, the full annual rate of the new state pension will increase by around £575. The full annual rate of the basic state pension will increase by around £440.
The standard minimum guarantee in pension credit will increase by 4.8% in line with the increase in average earnings. From April, it will be £238 a week for a single pensioner and £363.25 a week for a couple, ensuring the incomes of the poorest pensioners are protected.
Other state pension and benefit rates covered by my statutory review will be increased by 3.8%, in line with the increase in the consumer prices index in the year to September 2025.
This includes most working-age benefits and other benefits for people below state pension age; benefits to help with additional needs arising from disability; statutory payments including statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay; and additional state pension. The pension credit savings credit maximum amount will also increase by 3.8%.
The Universal Credit Act 2025 removed the standard allowance and health elements of universal credit, as well as their employment and support allowance equivalents, from my review. The Act provided increases to certain rates. For example, the standard allowance for a single person aged 25 or over will increase by around £295 a year. That is over £110 more than if uprated by inflation alone. For couples, where one member is aged 25 or over, it will increase by around an additional £465 a year. That is approximately £180 more than if uprated by inflation alone.
These increases will apply across Great Britain.
In England and Wales, personal independence payment and other benefits to help with additional needs arising from disability, and the rate of carer’s allowance, will also increase by 3.8%. In Scotland, these are devolved matters.
All social security, including state pensions, is a transferred matter in Northern Ireland.
While not part of my formal uprating review, I can confirm that local housing allowance rates and the benefit cap will be maintained at their current levels and not increased for 2026-27.
I will place the full list of proposed state pension and benefit rates for 2026-27 in the Libraries of both Houses and on gov.uk in due course.
[HCWS1101]
Women's State Pension Age: PHSO Report
Pat McFadden Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
I wish to update the House on the Government’s decision in response to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s investigation into women’s state pension age communication and associated issues. On 17 December 2024, my predecessor made an oral statement and deposited a copy of the Government’s detailed response in the House Library.
In coming to this decision, my right hon. Friend gave the ombudsman’s report full consideration and looked in detail at the findings, reviewing all the information and advice provided to her at the time by the Department for Work and Pensions.
Since then, as part of the legal proceedings challenging the Government’s decision, evidence has been cited about research findings from a 2007 report. This was a DWP evaluation of the effectiveness of automatic pension forecast letters. I am depositing a copy of this report in the Library of the House.
Had this report been provided to my right hon. Friend, she would of course have considered it alongside all other relevant evidence and material.
In the light of this, and in the interests of fairness and transparency, I have concluded that the Government should consider this evidence now. This means we will retake the decision made last December as it relates to the communications on state pension age.
As the House will be aware, the decision announced last December has been the subject of court action in recent months and we have today informed the court of the action we now intend to take.
We will approach this following proper process and in a transparent and fair manner. However, retaking this decision should not be taken as an indication that the Government will necessarily decide that we should award financial redress.
The work will begin immediately, and we will update the House on the decision as a conclusion is reached.
[HCWS1044]
Young People and Work
Pat McFadden Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
I am pleased to make a statement today on the independent report into young people and on work I have commissioned, with support from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the Secretary of State for Education. This report forms part of the Government’s further action to maximise opportunities for young people.
This Government believe in opportunity for all, but too many young people are being denied the opportunity to further their education, skills or careers. Nearly 1 million young people—approximately one in eight young people aged 16 to 24—are not in education, employment or training. Over a quarter of NEET young people now cite long-term sickness or disability as a barrier to participation compared with just 12% in 2013-14.
This Government have already taken decisive action to address these challenges. We have committed to investing £25 million to double the number of youth hubs. We have launched eight youth guarantee trailblazers across England, backed by £90 million, to test new ways of improving co-ordination and accountability for young people’s opportunities at the local level.
We are developing a youth guarantee, which will ensure 18 to 21-year-olds are earning or learning. As part of that we are increasing skills training including short courses, expanding the number of youth hubs, and standing up a new jobs guarantee scheme to offer paid work for every eligible young person who has been on universal credit for 18 months without earning or learning.
For disabled people and those with health conditions we are introducing the pathways to work guarantee of work, health and skills support, but we know we must go further.
The report will examine the drivers behind the rise in NEET rates and economic inactivity among young people, including those with health conditions, and make recommendations for policy responses aimed at maximising opportunities. The report will be authored by right hon. Alan Milburn, former Secretary of State for Health and Chair of the Social Mobility Commission. He will be supported by a panel of labour market, health and clinical experts who will be announced in due course. This work will be grounded in evidence, shaped by the voices of young people, and informed by those who work with them every day.
I am determined to build a system that supports young people, not just in finding a job, but to build a better future—because when young people succeed, Britain succeeds.
The terms of reference will be published on gov.uk and placed in the Libraries of the Houses. The report will share its interim findings with Government in spring 2026, with final recommendations by summer 2026.
[HCWS1028]
Pensions
Pat McFadden Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
I would like to make a statement on the investigation by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman into the way state pension ages were communicated to 1950s-born women.
The background to this issue is well known to the House. It arises from how decisions to equalise and raise the state pension age were communicated over a number of years, and the impact that that may have had on the ability of 1950s-born women to plan for their retirement. It stems from the communication of changes in the Pensions Act 1995, which gradually increased the state pension age for women from the age of 60 to 65 to bring it in line with that of men. The Pensions Act 2011, introduced under the coalition Government, then brought forward the timetable for equalisation, and the rise to age 66 for both men and women. It is important to be clear that the ombudsman was not looking at those policy changes to the state pension age, but between 2018 and 2024, it investigated complaints from 1950s-born women about the communication of changes to the state pension age.
In March last year, following a lengthy investigation lasting six years, the ombudsman published its final report. In December last year, the then Work and Pensions Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), provided the Government’s response to the House. In coming to this decision, she gave the ombudsman’s report full consideration, and looked in detail at the findings, reviewing all the information and advice provided to her at the time by the Department for Work and Pensions. She did her job thoroughly and professionally in weighing up all the information before her, coming to a conclusion and informing Parliament.
Since then, as part of the legal proceedings challenging the Government’s decision, evidence has been cited about research findings from a 2007 report. That was a DWP evaluation of the effectiveness of automatic pension forecast letters. Had this report been provided to my right hon. Friend, she would of course have considered it alongside all other relevant evidence and material. In the light of this, and in the interests of fairness and transparency, I have concluded that the Government should now consider this evidence. That means we will retake the decision made last December as it relates to the communications on state pension age.
As the House will be aware, the decision announced last December has been the subject of Court action in recent months, and we have today informed the Court of the action we now intend to take. In retaking the decision, we will review the evidence from 2007 alongside evidence previously considered. I have of course asked the Department whether there is any further survey material or other evidence that should be brought to my attention as part of this process.
I understand that people are impatient for this matter to be finally resolved, with the ombudsman’s investigation having taken six years before reporting last year, but it is important that we give this full and proper consideration. We will approach this in a transparent and fair manner. However, retaking this decision should not be taken as an indication that Government will necessarily decide that they should award financial redress.
The work will begin immediately, and I will update the House on the decision as soon as a conclusion is reached. Mr Speaker, I understand that Members will have a number of questions, but I hope that you and the House will also understand that I cannot say anything today that pre-empts the conclusion of the process I have set out. I commend this statement to the House.
Pat McFadden
I am grateful to the hon. Member for at least some of his response. I cannot pre-empt the conclusion of the process that I set out in my statement, because I want it to be undertaken fairly and transparently. I have to say to him that his own Government had many years to consider the matter and did not come to a conclusion, so I take his comments urging us to go more quickly with a little pinch of salt.
The hon. Member referred to pensioners. We said that we would maintain the triple lock, and we have kept to that commitment. That will mean an increase of some £1,900 a year in the basic state pension over the course of this Parliament. We remain committed to the publication of the action plan to which he referred.
He is right that the previous Minister for Pensions met the WASPI campaigners, but he was a little more coy about the last time a Conservative Minister met the WASPI campaigners. Perhaps a Conservative Member can tell us when that was? I believe it was many years before that and that our Minister was the first to meet the WASPI campaigners for some time.
Finally, on the broader economic record, he failed to join me in welcoming the UK having the fastest growth in the G7 for the first half of this year.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement—I appreciate its technical nature. Clearly, it is a concern that this evidence was not made available to our right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) last year and I know that he will investigate that. I appreciate that he will not be able to give a specific date as to when he may be able to decide what this evidence means for his final conclusions, but is he able to give a timeframe for when he will be able to report back to the House?
Pat McFadden
I am grateful to the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee for her question; I know that she has taken a long and keen interest in the matter. On timescales, when people hear this statement, I appreciate that they will want to know when the conclusion will happen, but it is right and proper that I look at all the available evidence. As I said in the statement, I have asked the Department if there is any other survey evidence or other kinds of evidence that should be brought to my attention. With that proviso, I can assure my hon. Friend that I will come to a conclusion and report to the House as soon as possible.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I apologise for inadvertently using the word “you” the last time that I spoke, Mr Speaker.
Clearly, the clock is ticking for WASPI women. There are 3.6 million WASPI women across the United Kingdom, which is half a million more than the population of Wales. Sadly, a WASPI woman dies every 13 minutes.
I welcome the statement from the Secretary of State. When we have explored this subject in recent months, I have found it extremely disturbing how the ombudsman failed to engage with the previous Conservative Government because they knew that there would not be a deal to make around what the relevant approach would be on compensation for WASPI women. I plead with the Secretary of State to revisit that; after all, Government Members are on record as supporting WASPI women for many years. Will he look to meet with them and ensure that there is a fair deal? There is due to be a High Court hearing next month, and I implore him to engage positively and to get a fair deal for WASPI women.
Pat McFadden
The hon. Member is right; this issue has gone on for a long time. I took the view that, in the light of the evidence being cited, the right thing to do was to look again at it and at the decision in the round. I cannot speak for the previous Government’s failure to engage with the ombudsman—that is a matter for them—but I can tell the hon. Member that this Government are engaged with the ombudsman on the action plan discussed earlier, and we will continue to be engaged. As I said, I will come to a conclusion and report to the House as soon as possible.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The Secretary of State said that as part of the legal proceedings challenging the Government’s decision, evidence has been cited about research findings from a 2007 report. Who cited that evidence? Was it the Department for Work and Pensions or the Government, or was it the people opposing the Government in the court case? If it came from Government sources or from within the DWP, why was it not uncovered before? Can he give us every assurance that he is doing everything he can to ensure that all relevant evidence is uncovered in advance of the next decision being taken?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Lady asks about the nature of this evidence. It is a report from 2007 and, as I said, it is a DWP evaluation. The survey was not drawn to the attention of the previous Secretary of State because its potential relevance to the making of her decision was not evident at the time. I will consider this survey and any other relevant evidence in the process to which I referred in my statement.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am going to suspend the House until 5.15 pm due to the late notice of the next statement.
Keep Britain Working Review: Government Response
Pat McFadden Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
I am pleased to make a statement today, jointly with the Business and Trade Secretary, on Sir Charlie Mayfield’s Keep Britain Working review, which he has submitted to the Government.
As ill health is one of the biggest drivers of economic inactivity in the UK—800,000 more people are out of work now than in 2019 due to health problems—the Government commissioned Sir Charlie to investigate the factors behind that and look at how Government and businesses can work together to turn it around.
As well as delivering our plan to get Britain working, we need to help people to stay in work and prevent them from falling out of work in the first place due to ill health. With a further 600,000 people set to leave the workforce by 2030 if current trends continue, we need to keep Britain working.
Sir Charlie has engaged extensively with business, disabled people, health professionals and other key voices across the UK, ensuring that a wide range of voices and experience have shaped his recommendations. I would like to thank Sir Charlie, for his excellent work and collaborative approach, as well as everyone who has contributed.
As well as setting out the scale, nature and cost of inactivity on individuals, employers and the state, the review identifies three problems: first, a culture of fear felt by both employees and employers; secondly, a lack of an effective or consistent support system for employers and their employees in managing health and tackling barriers faced by disabled people; and thirdly, structural challenges for disabled people, creating barriers to starting and staying in work.
In response to these problems, the review sets out a fundamental shift from a model where health at work is largely left to the individual and the NHS, to one where it becomes a shared responsibility between employers, employees and health services.
To keep the momentum from employers, we are today announcing that we will be taking forward the recommendation to set up a vanguard phase. We will work with the businesses who have already stepped up to become a vanguard to test different approaches and build evidence for a better workplace. All employers taking part in this phase will be doing so voluntarily.
The vanguard phase needs to continue the spirit of collaboration with business and disabled people. We are pleased to announce that we will be appointing Sir Charlie Mayfield to co-chair a vanguard taskforce, alongside myself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, to lead this vanguard phase in partnership with Government.
The taskforce will also bring together representatives from business, disabled people, workers representatives and health experts to shape and deliver this work. We will bring forward more detail in due course.
The review rightly sets out that data, evidence and insight will be central to the success of the vanguard phase. We are today asking Sir Charlie and the taskforce to oversee the rapid set-up of a workplace health intelligence unit to work closely with business to systematically provide the data and insight that both businesses and Government need to support the vanguard and inform wider reform. Through the vanguard, we intend to work with businesses and disabled people to pilot and develop improvements and reform.
We agree with Sir Charlie’s diagnosis that the fit note system is not working as intended. It is currently a missed opportunity to get people the help they need to get in and get on in work. We are already piloting innovative approaches to the fit note and we are committed to further reform so that it works better for patients, employers and the health system. We will bring forward further detail in due course.
We agree that access to work needs improving. This is why, through the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper, we consulted on the future of the scheme. We are working with disabled people and people with health conditions, in addition to their representative organisations and people that support them, on a plan for reform.
We also recognise that Disability Confident needs to deliver more for disabled people and employers. The vanguard phase will test stronger standards and practical support, helping employers recruit, retain and develop disabled staff, making Disability Confident a mark of genuine inclusion.
This review gives us a clear roadmap for reform. We look forward to working with Sir Charlie Mayfield, with business, and with disabled people and people with health conditions to keep Britain working.
I will update the House on progress as this critical work moves forward.
[HCWS1020]