Autistic Adults: Employment

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tom Gordon]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman is highlighting some fantastic work. I completely agree; there are great examples out there. What we need is a system that holds those up and champions them, and encourages people to do the same and do better across our country.

That brings me to Access to Work, a system that is currently shutting people out. This is another part of the broken pipeline, and I want to be really clear: it is not fit for purpose. Everyone I speak to tells me that it is failing them. It was designed to support people but simply falls short. It is also failing the employers who want to do the right thing but cannot navigate the red tape. I have heard examples of businesses that reached out to try to secure training for staff, but that fell on deaf ears and was never taken up. And it is failing the economy by wasting talent that we desperately need.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

My constituent John has experienced prolonged periods of unemployment —he has been employed for only four of the past 14 years—and I think his experience is redolent of that of many other people with autism who feel that they are not getting the support that they need. Does my hon. Friend agree that not only do potential employees need support, but employers need education to help them facilitate economic independence for adults with autism?

[Tom Gordon]

I completely agree. This comes back to one of the systemic barriers that people face throughout the Access to Work system, and the barriers to employment for autistic people.

Access to Work sounds good on paper. In practice, it has become a bureaucratic maze that far too many autistic people simply cannot navigate. I have spoken to constituents who waited six months, nine months and even more than a year for applications to be processed. It is simply not good enough. I have heard from people who have lost job offers because the scheme could not provide basic adjustments in time, from others whose support was suddenly cut back without explanation, and from employers, especially small ones, who gave up trying to help because the process was so unclear and too slow.

Let us be honest: if Access to Work was a business, it would have gone under years ago. It is inefficient, unaccountable and detached from the lived reality of the people it is meant to serve. There is no consistency, no urgency and seemingly no understanding of autism. Many of the assessors have had little to no training in neurodiversity. Applicants are repeatedly asked to prove their condition and justify basic needs, and to fill in complex forms that would test the patience of anyone, let alone someone who suffers from communication or executive function issues that are daily challenges. It is not empowering; it is humiliating.

The worst part of all is that people’s lives are on hold while they wait. I met one man who was offered a job by a local company. He was up front about his needs, honest, open and hopeful, and the employer was supportive, but trying to get adjustments in place through Access to Work took so long that he ended up losing the job offer. His confidence was shot. There is nothing about that that is acceptable, in any way, shape or form. Worryingly, that is not an isolated story. This is happening up and down the country, and it is something that people regularly email me about. What makes it worse is that we have known for years how to fix it. Backlogs can be cleared with proper staffing and resourcing. Delays can be reduced by digitising the system and simplifying forms. Training can be improved so that assessors actually understand neurodiversity. But the Government are seemingly sitting on their hands.

The Buckland review made sensible suggestions and recommendations: awareness campaigns, better recruitment practices, inclusive workplace design and real career progression support. None of that requires new legislation. What did we get instead? Nothing. A review was launched and delayed, and now we are told that we might not get a proper Government response at all. It is really frustrating. Autistic people, who have waited long enough for change, are seemingly left out in the cold again.

I have heard about recruitment processes that are commonly exclusionary and job adverts with open-ended interview questions that just make it impossible for people. When I met the Harrogate branch of the National Autistic Society, we spent about an hour and a half talking through these barriers. What really resonated with me is the desire and passion of people with autism who want to contribute, and we are simply not letting them.

People’s fear of disclosure was also raised. They do not want to explain or even talk about their autism because they are not convinced that employers will help. One constituent of mine had been happily in employment for seven years, with the support of a really helpful line manager. When that manager left, there was seemingly a breakdown in the relationship with the workplace, which left her without the necessary adaptations and support. She ended up losing the job and has now been struggling to find alternative employment for two years.

What needs to happen? We need a complete overhaul of Access to Work—not tweaks or new guidance, but a root-and-branch rebuild. That means clear targets for processing times, so that people are not left waiting for months; dedicated neurodiversity teams who actually understand the conditions that they are assessing; transparency, so that applicants can track their progress and appeal decisions easily; automatic continuity of support, so that when people change roles, they are not thrown back to square one; and, above all, trusting autistic people that they know what they need. If we did that, we would not only help thousands into work, but restore faith in a system that currently does the opposite.

This is not meant to be about schemes and structures; it is about people. A woman in Harrogate told me that she had recently given up looking for work altogether—not because she does not want to work, but because the last time she tried to get support, she was made to feel like a fraud. She said:

“I can cope with being autistic. I can’t cope with being disbelieved.”

That sentence should haunt this Government. We talk endlessly in this place about productivity, growth and getting more people into work, yet we actively exclude people who want and are ready to work, because our systems are so rigid and slow.

Fixing Access to Work will not solve everything, but it is one of the easiest, quickest and most practical steps that could make employment fairer for autistic people. If we linked that together with a proper SEND strategy that captures early need, supports families, trains teachers and equips young people with confidence, we would finally have a joined-up system that might be better at supporting people with autism from childhood into adulthood. That is what inclusion really means.

I will end with this thought. Another constituent told me that what makes work hard for them is not being autistic, but the world around them not understanding what they need to thrive. There is a thread running through everything we have heard today. Autistic people do not need to change who they are. It is the systems, services and structures that need to change. Access to Work could be a bridge between ability and opportunity, but right now it is a barrier. Until that changes, we will keep on losing potential, wasting talent and letting people down. I urge the Minister to fix Access to Work and SEND, and to start building a society that sees autistic people not as a problem to solve, but as part of the solution.

Disabled People in Poverty

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

The hon. Member has foreseen what I was about to say.

According to the New Economics Foundation, the Government’s projected savings could be entirely wiped out due to depressed economic demand in local communities. Cutting disability benefits will also inevitably lead to increased costs elsewhere through rising pressure on the NHS and local authority social care.

Most of all, people who are already under financial pressure will be even worse off. That is why virtually all major disability organisations are critical of the Government’s proposals. I am sure that I am not the only one who believes that the Government are rushing these proposals through, with MPs being asked to vote in a couple of weeks’ time, before the OBR’s estimates of the employment impact, the review of the PIP assessment, and the Keep Britain Working review into tackling health-related inactivity have been published.

Recognising that the benefits system needs to change, we should halt any proposals for cuts, redesign the system with disabled people and their organisations, and provide up-front investment to support those who can get into meaningful work.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

My constituency is the home of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and the Army Training Centre Pirbright, and is just next door to Aldershot, so veterans, many of whom have career-acquired disabilities, are an integral part of our community. According to recent statistics, 16% of disabled veterans are unable to heat their own homes, and the Trussell Trust says that more than half are considered to be food insecure. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is vital that we offer disabled veterans bespoke support to compensate them for their careers and the lives they have given in the service of our country?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

Veterans, like every disabled individual, should get the support they deserve.

Labour created the modern welfare state, underpinned by universalist principles, to provide dignity and fairness to people when they need a helping hand. That, in my view, is what we should be doing now.

Pension Funds

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Manuela Perteghella]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that important issue. Absolutely, we need to ensure that the Government have a long-term outlook, so that the young working British people of today will be able to retire on a comfortable pension.

We urgently need a full review of pension clawback practices. Many constituents have written to me about other unfair pension schemes, including former police officers and people on occupational pensions that are not protected from inflation.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Terry, one of my constituents, worked for a large American multinational company. As a consequence of the Pensions Act 1995, he found his pre-1997 pension contributions decoupled from inflation. Because of the nature of inflation, his savings, which he now depends on, have been gradually eaten away and he finds himself in increasing levels of destitution. Will the Minister look at the issue with the seriousness that it requires? It cannot be right that pensioners in our country are suffering as a consequence of decisions made by multinational companies that remain hugely profitable. The issue has a particular geography because so many multinational companies were located in the south-east of England.

[Manuela Perteghella]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. We need legal reform to ensure that pensions in payment are finally brought under the protection of equality law. We also need greater transparency and accountability from pension providers, especially those entrusted with the retirement futures of hard-working people. HSBC’s clawback policy is discriminatory in its impact, misleading in its language and fundamentally unjust in its effect. I therefore urge the Minister to bring forward legislation to put an end to this outdated practice and to finally stand up for those whose voices have gone unheard for far too long. Clawback is just one part of a broken pension system; we must also ask where our pension funds are invested and what future we are buying with that money.

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I thank the Petitions Committee for bringing this important debate before us today, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on her excellent opening remarks. In my constituency, there are almost 6,000 women in the age group affected by these pension changes. We have heard that only 43% of women knew that their pension age was changing. That translates to 3,416 women in North East Hampshire who were unaware of the pension changes, which impacted them significantly in the following years.

The Government at the time failed to inform women affected by changes to their pension age. As we have heard, many people have harrowing stories. One of my constituents, now in her 70s, was a victim of this maladministration. She is forced to continue working to supplement her income, due to the lack of notice regarding her retirement age. Like many others, had she received clear, timely communication from the Department for Work and Pensions, she would have been able to make informed life choices and plan accordingly. If a private pension provider failed to inform someone about when they could start to receive their pension, that person would rightly expect compensation for decisions made based on incomplete information—in this case, they would be budgeting with the wrong number. The situation should be no different for those affected by Government errors.

The Government should be ashamed that they have rejected the financial payouts recommended by the ombudsman. North East Hampshire has one of the most significant gender pay gaps, heightened by the fact that men work disproportionately more in full-time jobs than women. Inequality in salary and employment opportunities then worsens the disparity at the point of state pension. That has led to women being less financially independent and increasingly vulnerable in their later years.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

My constituent, Carol, worked as a learning assistant throughout her adult life and was planning for a happy retirement—until she found out, with just a few months to spare, that she had another five years to work. That caused significant mental health challenges for her, and ultimately a stroke, which she attributes to the stress she endured during that difficult time. Does my hon. Friend agree that 1950s-born women experienced dreadful workplace injustices throughout their careers, such as lower pay, which she just referred to, and that this Government have a unique opportunity to undo one of the injustices they face in their retirement?

[Alex Brewer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I absolutely agree.

Let us be very clear: this generation of women faced discrimination at work—more discrimination than women today, with a larger gender pay gap, more glass ceilings, fewer promotion opportunities, lower pensions and lower savings. This generation of women did the vast majority of unpaid housework and caring responsibilities, and worked more hours for less pay for their whole lives, only to find that the goalposts were moved at the worst possible moment. The ombudsman’s reports have rightly said that WASPI women should be compensated fairly.

As a member of the APPG on state pension inequality for women, I have been part of the calls on the Government to address this injustice. We should not be living in a society in which promises are a campaign tactic abandoned at the first instance of power. We saw Labour MPs meeting many WASPI campaigners and expressing their heartfelt support before July. We know that maladministration occurred and that WASPI women have been harmed by this injustice. It is now time for the Government to act.

Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Relief

Al Pinkerton Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mrs Lewell-Buck.

My Surrey Heath constituency is home to many outstanding state schools and academies and to six small, extraordinary, highly performing independent schools: Hall Grove, Lyndhurst, Coworth Flexlands, Woodcote House, Knowl Hill and Fernways school. It is quite possible that no hon. Members have heard of those schools. They are not necessarily the big names, but they provide extraordinary education to an extremely loyal following. They provide not only excellent education but essential support, catering to a wide range of educational and pastoral needs. For children with special educational needs and disabilities, they offer tailored learning environments with small classes, dedicated learning assistants and specialist therapies that parents would otherwise have to battle to access through Surrey’s appalling state system—very often unsuccessfully.

Beyond academic provisions, the schools foster a nurturing environment that prioritises wellbeing. That is particularly crucial for children from military families, who rely on their schools for stability and continuity of education amid the turbulence of frequent relocations and parental deployments overseas. For those children, the stability offered by the independent sector—particularly independent boarding schools—helps to ease the disruption of constant change, providing a reliable support system that nurtures mental health and lifts academic achievement. By offering structure, stability and familiarity, the schools play a crucial role in helping military children to thrive.

Back in October, I stood in this Chamber to highlight the damaging impact that VAT rises would have on independent schools, and particularly on service families. I am pleased to say that the Government subsequently committed to increasing funding for the continuity of education allowance to offset rising private school fees. That adjustment is undoubtedly welcome, but does not adequately cover the full cost of the VAT increase. As the RAF Families Federation has pointed out, military families who receive continuity of education allowance for private schooling are required to provide and contribute a minimum of 10% towards tuition fees. With rising school fees that by necessity reflect inflationary pressures, business rates, national insurance increases and the new VAT imposition, that 10% minimum contribution is growing significantly in real terms for hard-working, committed service families.

As a country, we ask our military families to make extraordinary sacrifices on our behalf. With the rapidly shifting geopolitical landscape, it looks as though we will need to lean on those families even more in the future. Arguably, nowhere is that more apparent than in my constituency of Surrey Heath. The presence of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and Army Training Centre Pirbright means that my constituency plays a vital role in supporting and accommodating service families. The six independent schools in Surrey Heath, and many others beyond, are essential pillars of support for those families, whose lives are often marked by uncertainty in the service of the state.

I ask the Minister to look again at the continuity of education allowance and to ensure that it keeps up with rising school fees, while making sure that service families are not financially penalised for their continued commitment to the defence of the United Kingdom.