Young People and Work: Milburn Interim Report

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) for securing this debate. A lot has been said by hon. Members from across the House that I will seek not to repeat, but I would like to push the Minister on a couple of points coming out of the Milburn review. Its diagnosis shines a light on what was known to most of us. Indeed, Stoke-on-Trent has quite often been seen as an exemplar both of where things were terrible and of where things are getting better. Our NEET rate has dropped from 16% to below 10% because of work done by partnerships, but we still have more to do.

Part of that is because our local environment has flexed to do what it needs to, sometimes against Ofsted and Government guidelines. I commend to the Minister the work done by the CEO Futures Forum, which brings together multi-academy trusts from across the city to look at the pathways that young people need now for the jobs that will exist in the future, much as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) said. We are constrained by the fact that good apprenticeship providers are unable to take on the numbers of young people who want to do apprenticeships, because they are held back by the de minimis rules under the apprenticeship provider and assessment register regulations. I urge the Minister and her Department to look at how, if this is a moral crusade, we can use our entire arsenal to ensure that every young person has the right pathway. If need be, that should include liberalising some of the rules around the registration of apprenticeship providers so that groups such as Dan Canavan’s Spark Group can take on the young people they want.

I urge the Minister not to fall back on some of the rudimentary politics that suggests that artificially capping the wages we pay young people, in contrast to the wages we pay a full-time adult, is a way to address the NEET problem. People should be paid fairly for the work they do, regardless of their age or the way they do it. That was a Government manifesto commitment, but the siren voices are calling for it to be slowed down. I urge the Government to resist that as much as they can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

I agree with my hon. Friend that provision of affordable and convenient transport is vital. I shall leave that to my colleagues in the Department for Transport.

At the heart of the Government’s current approach is the youth guarantee, which will be backed by an additional £2.5 billion by 2029, alongside investment in the growth and skills levy. Together, that funding will support almost 1 million young people and create up to 500,000 opportunities to earn or learn. We are strengthening support at every stage of a young person’s journey, and through an expanded network of youth hubs and the youth guarantee gateway, young people will receive earlier and more intensive support.

We owe young people that support. As my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) said, this generation has faced, and is facing, a unique combination of challenges. They are not to blame for their predicament; it is the system that has failed them. As many hon. Members have said, the interim Milburn report found that 84% of NEET young people want to find a job, education or training—and I agree that we need to find a better acronym. The will is there, but it needs to be matched by support and opportunities. We are giving employers practical incentives to create those, including the £3,000 youth jobs grant and a £2,000 apprenticeship hiring payment. Also, I remind all hon. Members that employers pay zero national insurance on employees who are under the age of 21 and earn less than £50,000.

Our wider reform of employment support also matters. The new jobs and careers service will bring together employment, skills and career support, with stronger links between employers, local areas and people looking for work. The objective is simple: to have a service focused not on processing people, but on helping them to find work, build skills and progress. Personalised support will be at the heart of our approach, to help people to access the support that best meets their needs. We have launched new digital tools, expanded community-based delivery and strengthened our employer offer.

We are also increasing access to work experience and training, which will play a critical role in breaking that age-old cycle—no experience, no job; and no job, no experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) got her first chance at a vet’s, and my Saturday job was at the newly opened Superdrug in Bolton. Such opportunities help us to learn what work is like, but far too many young people have not been getting them. Therefore, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) highlighted, work experience is as important as, if not more important than, ever.

However, where unemployment becomes entrenched, we must go further. That is why the jobs guarantee will offer eligible 18 to 24-year-olds who have been claiming universal credit and looking for work for 18 months a fully subsidised, six-month paid job. That offer is already changing lives for the better. In August, the Secretary of State came to Boots in Nottingham to meet young people who are benefiting from the jobs guarantee. He spoke about how remarkable it was to see the transformation in their self-belief, confidence and hope for the future. We are going to see more of that. Following the first phase of the programme, national roll-out will begin this month across 25 areas. The programme is expected to support more than 90,000 young people over the next three years.

Crucially, we are also extending that opportunity to eligible young disabled people and young people with long-term health conditions. The hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) will be pleased to hear that from April 2027, eligible young people receiving health-related benefits can voluntarily take up that offer shortly after their work capability assessments. They are going to the front of the queue, because nobody should be written off because of their health. Through programmes including Connect to Work, WorkWell, Access to Work and disability employment advisers, we are bringing employment and health support closer together. Our approach recognises that different people face different combinations of barriers and that we must see people in the round and take a joined-up approach to how we offer support.

We also know that we cannot solve this challenge only when a young person walks through the jobcentre door. Prevention must begin much earlier. There is a strong relationship, as hon. Members have said, between disengagement from school and becoming NEET later in life. That is why improving attendance is fundamental to our approach. We have set a national ambition to increase school attendance to over 94% by 2028-29, and we are supporting schools through clearer expectations, better data and new RISE—regional improvement for standards and excellence—attendance and behaviour hubs. Alongside those actions, we are fixing the broken SEND system and reforming careers provision so that young people have greater exposure to the workplace before they leave education.

I mentioned earlier how crucial work experience is. That is why our ambition is for every young person to receive two weeks of meaningful workplace experience during secondary school, building progressively through key stages 3 and 4. There are 44 careers hubs supporting that work, while additional provision is targeted towards young people who face the greatest barriers.

[Gareth Snell]

The aspiration of work experience is laudable, but the guidance that came out in the recent keeping children safe in education update now requires, if a young person will be spending more than three days in a workplace, that workplace to undergo a Disclosure and Barring Service check, as part of its being an unregulated activity. That is a significant barrier for many small businesses, particularly those that have previously hosted young people, but now have to go through the burden of getting a check. Could the Minister take that back to the Department and work with the Department for Education to find a way of ironing out that kink, so that we keep children safe but do not preclude the opportunities they previously had?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I can assure my hon. Friend that we are aware of that issue and we are setting about addressing it.

Alongside all those measures, we are reforming post-16 education so that young people can have clearer academic, technical and vocational routes. We are transforming the apprenticeship levy, backed by an additional £1 billion, supporting 50,000 more young people into apprenticeships. New foundation apprenticeships, fully funded apprenticeships for eligible under-25s and additional support for employers will all create more routes into skilled employment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) rightly said, the skills needs are changing in the world of AI.

These reforms represent significant action, but we recognise that the Government must continue to listen and learn. Alan Milburn’s interim report set out starkly the scale and complexity of the participation challenge facing this generation. Our ambition is straightforward: wherever a young person starts from, whatever barriers they face, they should have a genuine route into education, training or good work. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central.

Achieving that ambition means intervening earlier and joining up services across departmental boundaries, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) said. It means working with employers, colleges and local organisations such as those highlighted by many hon. Members, including Saints Works in Southampton, the Spear Programme in York and Making It in Aylesbury, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) said, place-based solutions show great results. It also means refusing to accept that any young person is destined to remain outside opportunity. I should have said that it also means better public transport, especially in rural areas, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) emphasised.

Jobs and Employment: Staffordshire

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Adam Jogee]

I will see my hon. Friend in 30 years—I will be sitting here and he will be sitting there.

Earlier this year, Craig announced that he was retiring after one heck of a stint. We will always be grateful to Craig for his commitment to our community, our young people, our county and our collective future.

We must look to our industrial heartlands to make the most of what we already have, ensuring that real growth, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would say, is felt in all postcodes in Staffordshire and that growth is translated into well-paid, meaningful career opportunities for local people. The growth potential that comes from investing in British industry and the skills required is massive in communities across our county, and there is no better place, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) noted, than our ceramics industry. It provides the building blocks of and for our United Kingdom, and without it we could not manufacture steel, glass, cement, bricks and many other important things.

I am grateful to Staffordshire chambers of commerce for its work helping deliver fully funded business start-up training for budding entrepreneurs across the county. By the end of this year, approximately 300 people will have completed that programme in 2026. Later this week, the chambers and I will welcome Baroness Foster and the board of Intertrade UK to Staffordshire, and to Newcastle-under-Lyme in particular, to meet Staffordshire’s businesses and employers to see what more we can do to increase trade between Northern Ireland and our fair county. Like the chambers, my colleagues and I from Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent want to see the establishment of a mayoral strategic authority for our area at the earliest opportunity. It will set us firmly on the path to helping unlock investment and the creation of well-paid local jobs and employment opportunities. I want to let the Minister address some of these points so will skip some of my speech, but I want to raise a couple of further issues.

There is a geopolitical need for us to get this right. Our international competitors—we know who they are—are investing in education, training and equipping the workforce of the future with the skills needed for that future, and we must do the same. It is vital that British manufacturing is at the heart of our trade agenda and that we redouble our efforts to buy British, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central would say, every step of the way, and all of that will help job creation in Staffordshire.

I ask the Minister to touch on a few specific areas. Staffordshire is home to many rural communities. I am proud to represent a number of them in Madeley, Audley, Betley and Wrinehill and would be grateful if the Minister could set out, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford did, what we are doing to ensure that rural communities do not fall behind. Will the Minister also encourage his colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to get on with giving us a mayoral authority and to prioritise that over local government reorganisation, and what is being done in Government to make sure that all relevant Departments are talking to each other? For those who live in a rural area and do not drive and who need a bus—there is some consistency of thought here, because I promise I had not shown my speech to my constituency neighbours—a chance would have been a fine thing over the last decade. So some clarity and inter-Government working would be helpful too.

How are we ensuring that Government understand what employers are looking for and ensuring that what they are looking for is reflected in our skills and training? I welcome the billions of pounds of investment in the youth guarantee and the growth skills levy, as well as new youth hubs from, as we have heard, Tamworth to Stafford to Newcastle-under-Lyme, but we need more of that.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is not just about the young people; it is also about the adult reskilling opportunities. The Chancellor’s announcement of the union learning fund was incredibly welcome, but with an ageing workforce in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, and with technological advances often outpacing the skills of the people already in work, we must make sure we keep those people who are in jobs trained to the level that means that they can carry on working. If the Minister could respond to that, I would be very grateful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Western]

I have heard my hon. Friend loud and clear, and I will ensure that DBIST colleagues do too. The industrial and logistics specialist Indurent plans to invest £800 million in Staffordshire over the next few years—a clear vote of confidence in the county. As he highlights, the ceramics industry remains central to the area’s identity, with companies such as Lucideon, Mantec and Ross Ceramics helping to apply north Staffordshire’s world-leading expertise in advanced materials to industries including aerospace, defence, electronics and nuclear energy.

We have recognised the contribution of advanced manufacturing in the Government’s industrial strategy and are working with industry to develop a jobs plan for the sector. This will help to address workforce challenges and strengthen recruitment pipelines, and it will also help to ensure that more people can access the opportunities being created in one of our most important growth sectors.

Turning to partnership, I welcome the role played by local colleges, training providers and employers across Staffordshire in developing the next generation of skilled workers. The selection of Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group as an advanced manufacturing technical excellence college demonstrates the important contribution the area is making to meeting future skills needs and helping people access high-quality technical careers. My colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions have been working with manufacturing employers to promote apprenticeships, work experience opportunities, careers events and employability activity, including activity targeted at young people who are not in education, employment or training.

[Gareth Snell]

I have spoken to the Minister about this issue before, and I have spoken to the Minister for Skills in the other place as well, but the DWP could help to move this forward by looking at the restrictions on apprenticeship provider and assessment register registrations for new apprenticeship providers, and by changing the £100,000 de minimis for subcontracting. There are companies and employers in Stoke that want to take on apprentices but cannot do so because the contracts are already at the limit. If the DWP could look at that, we could revolutionise apprenticeship providers in the county.

[Andrew Western]

My hon. Friend makes an important and valid point. I will share his contribution with my noble friend the Minister for Skills.

In the interest of time, I will turn to the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. He was particularly keen to understand how we ensure that people in rural communities can access jobs and opportunities. The Government are supporting employment in rural areas through localised get Britain working plans, a reformed jobs and careers service with expanded digital, phone and in-person support, and increased outreach through a flexible delivery network, including jobcentre vans. We have over 650 visiting officers who carry out home visits for customers with complex needs who cannot engage via digital or telephone channels, or attend a jobcentre. We have outreach work in place with local providers and community organisations to help to reach rural areas so that customers who might otherwise miss out on jobcentre services can access facilities.

On a cross-Government approach, my hon. Friend is entirely right to talk about ongoing dialogue with the Department for Transport. Bus services are incredibly important, and it is key that we retain strategic routes wherever possible. A particular, broader example of cross-Government working is our new jobs plans, which is a key part of the industrial strategy. Last Monday, the professional and business services jobs plan set out an aspiration to deliver 100,000 jobs in the coming years, including 22,400 apprenticeships. Departments involved include not just DWP and DBIST, but the Department for Education as well as Skills England. Departments are really working together to shape these plans, ensure that employment priorities are built in alongside skills and identify where DWP’s employment offer can help sectors to recruit the workforce that they need.

Manufacturing Skills

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition and to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) for securing time in this House for this really important topic. I have heard a lot of very good speakers, and I agree with their sentiment. Although we may not always agree on every policy issue, I do agree that our best years are ahead of us.

Before I was a Member of Parliament, I was a director of the local enterprise partnership in the west midlands. I remember my first ever meeting, in which I spoke to the chair of an FE college, who told me that the time between what his college could deliver and what businesses said that they wanted was about three years. That told me two things, as a small business owner: that the skills landscape is incredibly complex and difficult for businesses to navigate, and that demand plays a huge role. I will talk about demand in a bit.

The UK’s manufacturing sector is hugely important, accounting for roughly 8.5% of total economic output across the country, and employing roughly 2.6 million people. I was delighted that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) mentioned the Lunar Society, because I was a member of a modern-day Lunar Society—in fact, I helped to write its constitution. I was pleased that she put that on the record.

I am the proud Member of Parliament for Meriden and Solihull East, a constituency in the heart of the west midlands. We are also a UK manufacturing powerhouse, because we are the home of Jaguar Land Rover. The west midlands remains the UK’s leading manufacturing region, and Jaguar Land Rover is right at the heart of that. The region contributes £10.4 billion and employs more than 200,000 people.

The shadow Chancellor and I recently visited Rolls-Royce, which has a huge facility in the west midlands. I invite the Minister to visit it, because it does a huge amount of work. I know it is said that the UK does not manufacture anything anymore, but I reject that; I do not think it is true. I saw at first hand engines and control panels being built for some of our most important and sensitive projects, and met a number of apprentices, who showed how important apprenticeships are. I am proud that the previous Government over 14 years created more than 5.2 million apprenticeships.

As shadow Minister of State for Education, I regularly hold meetings with businesses, further education colleges and others who are very concerned about skills shortages in the manufacturing sector. In July, I hosted a roundtable in Parliament with Enginuity, a charity focused on closing skills gaps in the UK’s engineering and manufacturing sector. It was clear from the businesses we met that they expect the Government to do much more to help support manufacturing, and help engineering businesses to recruit the best talent. We spoke at length about some of the findings in Enginuity’s recent “Mind the Gap” report. Its research found that around half of surveyed SMEs reported skills-related issues in the past year, with 36% experiencing skills gaps and difficulty recruiting workers. It estimates that the failure to plug that gap in manufacturing skills costs the UK economy £5.2 billion annually. That is clearly an important area that needs to be fixed, we must all agree.

I would like to know about the Minister’s relationship with the DFE and how she works to ensure that the advanced manufacturing workforce is skilled, not just at NEET-level but throughout careers and lifelong learning. I am confident about the future of the UK’s manufacturing sector. It is a growing industry that will offer varied and exciting jobs for the future, but there are significant challenges coming manufacturers’ way as a result of Government policy, which we already see.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister wrote in The Times about the prospect of Britain facing

“economic catastrophe and moral failure”

because a generation of young workers has been written off to a life on benefits. I agree, because youth unemployment is now 16.4%. When the Conservatives left office, it was 14.2%, so there has been a significant increase. There are currently one million 16 to 24-year-olds not in education, employment or training. I welcome the Government’s focus on reducing that number, because we will support them in the right policies; unfortunately, however, it is the view of His Majesty’s Opposition that the Government’s approach to tackling that grave injustice is entirely wrong.

I have talked about demand in this sector. The drastic shortage of jobs in sectors such as manufacturing is a result of the Government’s policy platform. I did not once hear Labour Members talk about the impact of national insurance, tax and the reduction in the national insurance threshold, or that the cost of employing an apprentice has gone up so much that is has become challenging for businesses to take them on. Where they are employed, the opportunity cost means that fewer apprentices are taken on, as a result of such policies. It is obvious to us that the Government’s tax policies are making it harder for young people to get into good jobs.

That is not just the view of the Opposition. Huw Pill, chief economist at the Bank of England, agrees that higher national insurance contributions and the Government’s increase in the national living and minimum wage have priced out entry-level workers, many of them young people.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Could the shadow Minister set out exactly, in pounds and pence, how much less he thinks apprentices and young people should be paid today than they are under the current minimum wage?

[Saqib Bhatti]

I reject the framing of the question. [Laughter.] No one finds youth unemployment funny. Many business owners talk to me about what happens when a young apprentice is interviewed. They say that if they have a 25-year-old with experience versus an 18-year-old with no experience, that hinders the prospects of hiring them. That is the reality. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is a conscientious MP, so I encourage him to pose that question to his small business owners in the way I framed it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

I will not because I am short on time. If I have time later, I will.

We have also announced new vocational GCSEs to give young people greater choice and equip them with practical knowledge and skills. After GCSEs, young people need routes that are easy to understand and valued by employers. This week is T-level week; these qualifications in engineering and manufacturing combine specialist classroom learning with a substantial industry placement, giving students experience of the workplace and a route into skilled employment, an apprenticeship or further study.

From 2028, V-levels in engineering design and engineering manufacturing will provide a broader applied route, while occupational certificates will offer a two-year route towards skilled roles such as engineering operative, autocare technician and welder. Foundation certificates will help students who need additional preparation before they progress to level 3 study. Together, the reforms will provide greater choice and clearer progression into manufacturing careers.

[Gareth Snell]

I declare an interest as a governor of City of Stoke-on-Trent sixth-form college. The previous Government decimated the BTEC programme, creating the gap that V-levels are filling, but V-levels are going to be short qualifications as opposed to larger qualifications that mirror BTECs. Given that the Department is looking at the roll-out of future V-levels, will the Minister consider making them a large qualification that could be studied independently—rather than alongside A-levels, or requiring three for a university application—as a way to make the breadth of opportunity mirror BTECs while keeping the values of the V-levels that the Government are going to try to introduce?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. The whole point is that we want to offer young people a range of options and choices.

Apprenticeships will remain central to our offer because they allow people to earn while they learn, and help employers to develop the skills that they need. I know there are calls for the maximum funding band levels to be reassessed in certain occupational areas, and we are working closely with the sector and Skills England to determine how best to use all available funding sources, based on robust evidence of cost of delivery.

Transforming the apprenticeship levy into a growth and skills levy is giving employers greater flexibility and supporting 50,000 more young people into apprenticeships. New apprenticeship units will also help the system to respond more quickly to changing skills needs. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for recognising that apprenticeship units in battery manufacturing, mechanical fitting and assembly, and mechanised welding were developed by Skills England in just three months, following consultation with employers and sector experts. I am sure the Skills Minister will be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the dedicated support that Skills England has established.

We are also increasing support for employers. We fully fund apprenticeship training for employers of all sizes for eligible young apprentices under 25, while smaller employers will receive a £2,000 hiring payment when they recruit an apprentice who is under 25. That support matters, particularly to smaller manufacturers, which are vital to local supply chains but can find it harder to meet the initial cost of recruiting and supporting an apprentice.

Alongside clearer routes and strong apprenticeships, colleges need the specialist facilities, equipment and teaching expertise required by modern manufacturing. That is why we have established four advanced manufacturing technical excellence colleges, including the one my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge) highlighted in her city. They are part of a wider network of 29 technical excellence colleges, representing an investment of £295 million, that is expected to benefit more than 100,000 learners by the end of this Parliament. The colleges will provide advanced facilities, expert teaching and training shaped by employer demand. Through a hub-and-spoke approach, they will share expertise with other providers, thereby strengthening technical education beyond their own campuses.

Fuel Duty

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

I understand why the hon. Member is asking that. I would gently point out that the level of petrol prices today is lower than at the time of the election, when the Conservatives had a temporary 5p freeze and explicitly did not include continuing that freeze in their manifesto. I offer that by way of indication of where we are today.

We will keep working towards a swift resolution, one that brings stability back to the region, security to Iran’s neighbours and relief to households in the UK, who are understandably worried about the effect of the conflict.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister rightly talks about household budgets, but the other impact, particularly of the gas price, is industrial energy costs in this country, not least for the ceramics sector, which is gas-dependent rather than electric-dependent. When the Chancellor was asked about gas prices in her statement last week, she pivoted straight to the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which is an electrical subsidy. What is coming down the line to help the gas-intensive sectors, which currently get no relief and which are seeing, as the Minister points out, a huge increase in the price per therm, particularly for those sectors looking to renegotiate their long-term contracts?

[Torsten Bell]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I regularly discuss exactly the kind of industries he raises today, because he is such a powerful champion on their behalf. Most firms, obviously, will be significantly more hedged than households against changes in prices, but he is absolutely right to say that the effect of energy price rises is very uneven across our industrial base. He is right to highlight energy-intensive industries and what the Government are doing when it comes to the increase in the discount delivered by the supercharger in the coming months and then the BICS in the years ahead. He is also right to make sure that we keep concentrating on this issue in the months ahead, and I am sure I will be talking to him and others about it.

We want the war to end as swiftly and quickly as possible, because the longer it goes on, the more dangerous the situation becomes and the greater the impact on the cost of living back here at home. A rapid de-escalation remains the best way to protect people from further fuel price increases—despite the bluster today, I think that is the goal of everybody sitting in this House—and that requires a return to the diplomatic process. It also means the security of vessels passing through the strait of Hormuz. On that front, the UK will play its part as the global hub of maritime insurance, but I want to be clear, given some of the things that have been said in recent weeks, that this is a complement—not an alternative—to the physical security of vessels.

As the Chancellor said following her call with G7 Finance Ministers last week, we are supporting a co-ordinated release of oil reserves. That has helped to some degree to stabilise international oil markets. We have also asked the Competition and Markets Authority to remain vigilant on price developments for essentials such as road oil and heating oil. On Friday, the Chancellor and the Energy Security and Net Zero Secretary met petrol retailers to make it clear that the Government will not tolerate anyone exploiting the current situation to make excess profits.

Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

Gareth Snell Excerpts

2nd reading & Money resolution
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Sandher]

The rise happened before covid; it happened after the two-child limit was introduced. I agree with the hon. Lady on one point: she is not across the statistics.

Opposition Members have advanced an argument that I think is fair. They ask why we do not just create lots of jobs, which is the way to get out of poverty. The way to get out of poverty is through work, right? I want to take that argument head-on. We are living in a different technological era. In the post-war era, we had the advance and expansion of mass-production manufacturing, which meant there were good jobs for people as they left school. They left school, went to the local factory and earned a decent wage, meaning that they could buy a house and support a family.

Then, in the 1980s, in this country and indeed across high-income nations, we saw deindustrialisation and automation, bringing the replacement of those mechanical jobs with machines. Like other high-income nations across the world, we have been left with those who can use computers effectively—high-paid graduate workers—and lots of low-paid jobs everywhere else. It is not just us confronting that problem, although it is worse here because of decisions made in the 1980s; we are seeing it across high-income nations. As a result, state support is needed to ensure that those on low pay can afford a decent life.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Sandher]

In a moment.

This is not, by the way, the first time in history that we have confronted this problem. In the early part of the industrial revolution, between 1750 and 1850, we saw machines replace human beings. What did we see then? The economy grew by 60% per person, but people had less to eat. Men were shorter in 1850 than in 1750 because of the change of the technological era. I think my right hon. Friend would like to intervene.

[Gareth Snell]

I am an hon. Friend, not right honourable, though I welcome the promotion.

I have listened to this debate from outside the Chamber this afternoon and heard many Conservative Members talk about how the route out of poverty is through work. I absolutely and fundamentally agree with that, so I find it completely incongruous that whenever they have had the opportunity to vote for our make work pay Act, to increase stability in work and create well-paid jobs, they have voted against it. Indeed, only last week, the shadow Secretary of State made an argument for cutting the minimum wage for young people. How does my hon. Friend think that someone can argue, on the one hand, for work as a way out of poverty, but on the other, restrict the opportunities for work, push down pay and reduce the opportunities created for working people?

[Dr Sandher]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Conservative Members have often spoken about their employment record in office and how many jobs were created. Yet while that happened, child poverty and child hunger rose. Something is not right in their model of the world and there is something to review there.

There is no law of economics that says that just because someone works hard and is a decent person, they will earn a wage that can support a family. That is not the technological era we live in today. That is why we are ending the two-child limit today and I am so proud that we are doing so.

In an economic sense—in pounds and pence—as Labour Members realise and have stated, when we ensure that children have enough to eat, they learn more today and they earn more tomorrow. The cost of child poverty every single year is around £40 billion. The cost of ending the two-child limit is about £3.5 billion. It makes sense to invest today so that our children can eat and learn more, yet this is not just a matter of pounds and pence; as an economist, I often talk about that and I get it, but it is about so much more. This is about the moral argument. No child in this country should go hungry—no ifs, no buts and no exceptions. That is why I am so proud of this Bill, I am so proud to vote to end the two-child limit and I am so proud to be sat on the Labour Benches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Pakes]

Certainly. Many of my food banks would support the single policy that we are voting on today, so I hope the right hon. Gentleman will join me in the Lobby tonight to vote to eradicate food banks. This Bill will put money into the pockets of families. It will not just lift their children out of poverty but—as my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), who is no longer in her place, said—put money into the local economy.

If we ever wanted a symbol of the legacy of Tory failure in government, it is this: in my city of Peterborough alone, nearly 43% of children are growing up in poverty. In the North ward of Peterborough, which is a two-minute walk from my house, six out of 10 children are growing up in poverty. That is a stain on our society, and I am dedicated to eradicating it.

I am proud of the work that my council does, but this policy will help. I am proud of the focus of Peterborough city council, pushed on by groups such as Peterborough Citizens, which has ended the practice of children sleeping in bed-and-breakfast and hotel room accommodation. I was equally proud in the autumn to welcome the Prime Minister to Welland Academy, where he made the national announcement of the roll-out of free school meals for all children on universal credit. An incredible 16,000 extra children will benefit from free school meals this September because of the action taken by this Government, which will be delivered in the coming months.

We all know that we need to do more. The Bill is an investment in our country’s future. The single act of voting for it will lift 450,000 children out of poverty, including 10,000 in Peterborough. As many hon. Friends and comrades in this place have said, almost half of the families on universal credit are in work. Child poverty makes it harder for children to get on in life, and that hurts our economy. I am pleased to see that some Conservative Members have returned to the debate. I thought for a while that the lights were on but nobody was home—it turns out that that applies just to their policy on child poverty rather than to them as individuals. The Conservatives would do well to remember that these figures are not merely statistics; they tell a story of lost opportunity, of lost moments of childhood, and of lost potential not just for the affected children but for our local economies.

[Gareth Snell]

My hon. Friend’s point about lost moments of childhood is often missed. It is all well and good to talk about the impact on parents and on the economy, but having grown up in poverty, I remember walking to school with a hole in my shoe, and not being able to ask my grandparents for anything because they could not afford it. I remember feigning not wanting to go on school trips because I knew that they could not afford it. I remember making sure that the holes in my jumper were hidden when I got home because I knew that they could not afford to replace it. Those memories stick with people throughout their lives and continue to have an effect on them once they have grown up. This is not just about the economics of the here and now; it is about the real-life impact on young people today and in the future. I thank my hon. Friend for ensuring that those voices are heard.

[Andrew Pakes]

I entirely endorse my hon. Friend’s comments. It sounds as if we may have had similar childhoods, only in different parts of the country.

The statistics cited in this debate do not sit in isolation. It is no coincidence that, alongside high levels of child poverty, Peterborough also has some of the highest levels of low-paid and insecure work in the country. At the last count, and going by the Government’s definition, one in three working people in Peterborough are in chronically insecure work—largely zero-hours shift work, which the Conservative party voted to keep in our economy, while we voted to eradicate it. Peterborough has one of the highest numbers of adults with no qualifications. Despite our city’s wonderful industrial heritage, nothing says more about the wasted opportunities of the last 14 years than the 70% drop in level 2 and level 3 apprenticeships in Peterborough—that comes at a cost to the country.

Although I have painted a picture of the difficulties that many families face in my city, I pay tribute to the incredible ingenuity, determination and grit that parents demonstrate—often in difficult times and despite the adversity that they face—to do their best, look after their children, raise ambition and give people jobs and opportunities. We were sent here to serve them, and we will help them by voting for the Bill.

To be honest, the Conservatives have some brass neck to talk about poverty, as do our colleagues and friends in Reform UK. At one point, I thought that they were plastic Tories, but now that the transfer window has closed, I just think that they are Tories. I represent a wonderful, brilliant and diverse city, so the naked racism in the Reform amendment, which talks about denying support for hard-working families based on the birthplace of the parents, is an affront to democracy and to British values.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Smith]

No, I will not give way; I am going to make some progress.

These mums and dads are the backbone of our economy, and we cannot afford to let them down. Scrapping the cap reduces incentives for parents to look for a job or work longer hours. Why would they bother going to work, or working more, when they could get more in benefits? A strong economy must provide incentive structures that help people to do the right thing, and we tamper with these fundamental structures at our own peril.

[Gareth Snell]

On the point of doing the right thing, the data suggests that in the shadow Minister’s own constituency there are 1,160 children living in a household that does not currently receive universal credit support for the additional children. Some of them will be listening this evening, and some will be teenagers. What would she say to them? Would she tell them that she could do something this evening, but she is choosing not to? What is her justification to those children?

[Rebecca Smith]

I also speak for the 60% of the population who do not think we should be scrapping the cap. No doubt a large proportion of those people are also in my constituency.

As Conservatives, we believe in personal responsibility and living within our means. Our welfare system should be a safety net for the most vulnerable, not a lifestyle choice, as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) has argued so powerfully. As I have alluded to, it seems that we are not alone; that principle of fairness is echoed across the country, with a recent YouGov poll finding that 57% of respondents believe that the cap should be retained.

The situation is particularly stark for self-employed mothers, who can only access statutory maternity allowance —a flat rate that falls far below what their peers can receive via their employer. I recently met one self-employed mother who told me that she is seriously weighing up whether to have a second child because she and her husband simply cannot afford it right now. This is a deeply personal dilemma, fraught with conflicting emotions. Equally, those not on benefits who have more children do not get paid more wages—they just have to absorb the extra costs within their budgets—so this idea that we need to give people more money because they have more children does not always make sense. However, this Government are determined to give families on universal credit a free pass; as a result, those families will not have to make those kinds of hard choices.

According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, for 70% of the poorest households currently subject to the two-child limit, any money they stand to gain from the scrapping of the limit will get partially or fully wiped out by the household benefit cap. How do the Government square that circle when they have been quoting the headline figures for poverty? As has been raised numerous times today by Opposition Members, if Labour truly followed its own logic on child poverty, it would also need to scrap the household benefit cap, at even greater cost to the taxpayer.

Conversely, 40% of those affected by the two-child limit will be exempt from the overall household benefit cap, because they have at least one claimant or child receiving health and disability benefits. This means that households with six children will get an additional £14,000 every single year. For larger families in particular, the financial gap between going to work and being out of work will shrink significantly. We are trapping good people in a bad system. Shockingly, one in four full-time workers would be better off on benefits than in work—that is 6 million workers across the UK whose neighbours on combined benefits are receiving more income than they are. It is no wonder that every day 5,000 people sign on to long-term sickness benefits. According to the Centre for Social Justice, a claimant who is receiving universal credit for ill health plus the average housing element and personal independence payment could receive the equivalent of a pre-tax salary of £30,100, and a family with three children receiving full benefits could get the equivalent of £71,000 pre-tax. How is this fairness?

At best, scrapping the cap is a sticking plaster that does not tackle the root causes of poverty. We know that work is the best route out of poverty—in fact, if this Government hit their ambitious target of increasing employment rates by 80%, that could lift approximately the same number of children out of poverty as scrapping the two-child limit. Instead, this Bill will be yet another strain on our ballooning benefits budget. If it had been retained, the two-child limit would have saved the taxpayer £2.4 billion in 2026-27, rising to £3.2 billion in 2030-31. Instead, the bill is being passed on to all those families I have spoken about already.

Youth Unemployment

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately]

My right hon. Friend makes the point so clearly. It is so obvious to the Conservatives, as the party of business, that if the Government keep taxing business, there will be fewer jobs—but they just do not seem to get it.

Labour Members do know that they are in trouble, though. That is why they are talking up their youth programmes, youth hubs and youth guarantees—[Laughter.] Labour Members are laughing, but they should listen. The hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race) says from a sedentary position that it was our programme —exactly that! Most of these things are just rebrands of programmes that the Conservatives started. We started youth hubs. Changing the name of the youth offer to the “youth guarantee” does not solve the problem. Of course there is part to play for training programmes and work placements in helping people to bridge the gap between school and work, but Government programmes are not the answer to the fundamental problem. Young people want jobs, and this Government are killing jobs.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The shadow Secretary of State is obviously well known for speaking clearly and candidly, which is refreshing. Can she clearly and candidly answer these questions? Which rights does she think young people should be denied in order to get into work? By how much would she cut the minimum wage to facilitate those young people getting back into work? Unfortunately, she cannot have it both ways. She has just made the point that those rights are hindering business, so what would she do to cut them? Will she make a clear commitment at the Dispatch Box?

[Helen Whately]

I enjoyed the way in which the hon. Gentleman led into his question with a bit of flattery, but I will not be drawn on his attempt to make me talk about the minimum wage or down the routes that he asks me to take, as much as he may love me to do so.

However, I will talk about our record in government. We halved unemployment. We got record numbers of people into work. We backed businesses to create 800 jobs for every day that we were in government. We reformed welfare to make work pay. We brought down the benefits bill. None of those things are on the cards under this Labour Government. They are crushing businesses with taxes and red tape, destroying jobs and driving up unemployment. They U-turned on welfare savings and put up taxes on working people by £26 billion at the last Budget to pay for the ballooning benefits bill.

I will not argue that we got everything right. Some of the graduates struggling to get jobs have degrees that are not actually of any help to them, and they took those degrees when we were in government. Under us, through the pandemic and afterwards, the number of young people dropping out of work and on to benefits because of their mental health went up. We wanted to end the stigma around mental illness, but the consequences have been far-reaching. Our welfare system was not designed to support people with milder mental health problems or milder neurodiversity, or for a time when a quarter of people report themselves as disabled.

The system is not working; instead, it is funnelling people off work and on to benefits. Now, with the Government’s failure to reform welfare, young people are stuck in a benefits trap—they are better off on benefits and fearful of losing them if they get a job. Let us add to that the stress and misery of trying and failing again and again to get a job, because jobs are fewer and farther between. Most young people I have spoken to do not want to be on benefits, but that is where they are ending up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I am sad to see that the hon. Gentleman does not recognise that that young person will now be standing next to another young person who is unable to get a job. Surely he must agree that the level at which people are being paid has had an effect on the fact that there are fewer people in these jobs.

[Gareth Snell]

rose—

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

Government Members do not have to listen to me; they can listen to the Federation of Small Businesses, which said that those wage rises risk pricing young people out of the labour market. That is not me speaking; that is the Federation of Small Businesses, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree with it.

[Gareth Snell]

The Federation of Small Businesses will be looking for answers to those policy challenges that it is rightly putting to this place. What would the hon. Member’s answer be? By how much should young people’s pay be reduced in order to strike the balance that so many Opposition Members have talked about? By how much should the minimum wage be reduced for young people so that they can be guaranteed a job?

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I have news that will perhaps come as a bit of a shock to the hon. Gentleman: it is his party that is in power, and it should be his Front Benchers and the Chancellor he should be having that conversation with. Labour market economists at the Resolution Foundation—not normally considered to be right-leaning, by the way—have noted that when minimum wages rise faster than productivity, employers tend to favour experienced workers, disadvantaging young applicants. The very people Labour claims to champion are the ones being priced out of the labour market.

Thirdly, Labour’s business rates reforms have piled pressure on our high streets. As we have heard time and again in this debate, it is hospitality, retail and small firms that traditionally give young people their first job. Indeed, my first job was behind the bar at a now defunct pub; it taught me an enormous amount, and I was very grateful for the opportunity. The Confederation of British Industry has said that rising business rates “suppress investment and hiring”. When fixed costs for employers increase, their capacity to hire is reduced.

Lastly, and perhaps most damaging of all, is Labour’s Employment Rights Act 2025, which introduces sweeping day one rights across the board. The Government’s own economic analysis of the Bill says:

“higher labour costs could reduce demand for work, damaging the employment prospects of the same workers the package is trying to support…the risks are highest for workers with the weakest attachment to the labour market…and the youngest workers, since they are still gaining experience and skills.”

This is not a partisan point—this is the Government’s impact assessment of their own legislation.

According to the Youth Futures Foundation,

“the risk profile of recruiting young people has increased”.

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development reports that employers are already reducing recruitment plans, particularly for inexperienced workers, due to regulatory uncertainty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Western]

The challenge in the NHS is markedly different—I would freely acknowledge that—but the right hon. Gentleman is talking about other roles in the NHS. It is not unusual for people to hold more than one job if they are operating as bank staff, so they do not have the uncertainty about receiving no funding at all.

The right hon. Gentleman also made the criticism that the jobs guarantee only kicked in after 18 months. That is the final stage of a range of new interventions that this Government are putting in place, including an additional supported conversation at 13 weeks, followed by four weeks of intensive work coach support with specialist teams. It is not just a question of a jobs guarantee after 18 months; a broad range of interventions are being put in place.

The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), who I do not think is in her place, said that apprenticeships were an opportunity for young people to find work, and I quite agree with her, but the reforms of the Conservative party had the effect of delivering a situation where, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson said, the average age of those entering into apprenticeships was significantly increased. We are seeking to reverse that trend, and it is important that we do so. This is a key mechanism for giving young people the skills that they will need in the future. I believe she also called this a youth unemployment crisis of this Government’s making. I fail to see how that can possibly be the case when there was such a stark increase in the youth unemployment figures in the final two years of the Conservative Government.

The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) said that the best welfare support of all was a job, so he will be delighted to see the additional 513,000 people who have entered into employment over the past 12 months. The hon. Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja), who is also not here, said that she was tired of hearing about this Government’s ambition, but the Conservatives had a paucity of just that. They left almost a million NEETs, a welfare system that disincentivised work—something we have begun to address—and an employment rate lower than before the pandemic. They can accuse us of being too ambitious if they like, but they had given up on delivering opportunity for our young people—something that this Government will never do.

The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) asked how we would encourage an employer to take a chance on a young person. We are doing that by not charging national insurance contributions for under-21s or for apprentices under 25, by fully funding apprentices at SMEs and by placing young people in six months of guaranteed work if they have been out of the workforce for 18 months so that they have the chance to prove themselves. That is a range of interventions that we are putting in place because we recognise that there is a challenge with youth unemployment. It is long standing and it is not new, but we take it very seriously.

[Gareth Snell]

On the point that the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness made, the natural extrapolation to what I believe the Conservatives are suggesting is that the way to incentivise that employer would be to allow them to pay less than the minimum wage or indeed cut the minimum wage rate for young people. I would oppose that. Would the Minister?

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Western]

I appreciate the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. Clearly we want to ensure that Skills England is set up to be successful and to have a real impact in delivering the skills that we need in the workforce now and into the future. I am very happy to commit today to setting up a meeting for the right hon. Gentleman, should he so wish, with the chair of the board of Skills England, Phil Smith, to discuss his concerns directly.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Skills England has the potential to really make an impact in places like north Staffordshire, where there are skills that we need for the jobs of tomorrow. However, those programmes are too often piloted through mayoral combined authorities, and we are a long way from that in Staffordshire. How will the Minister ensure that areas that do not have mayors on the horizon can access the same exciting opportunities as everywhere else?

[Andrew Western]

I recognise that my hon. Friend takes a keen interest in the delivery of these courses and in various skills training sectors in his constituency. Indeed, I am writing to him today in response to his last question. He is absolutely right that we need to ensure that areas that are further away from the establishment of MCAs are not left behind. That is a valid concern, and I will be certain to share it with my noble Friend the Skills Minister on his behalf.

Young People not in Education, Employment or Training

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) on securing this debate. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a governor of Stoke-on-Trent sixth-form college and chair of the APPG on sixth-form education.

I pay tribute to the leadership of the colleges in Stoke-on-Trent—Lesley Morrey at Stoke-on-Trent sixth-form college and Hassan Rizvi at Stoke-on-Trent college. They are doing amazing work to reduce what has traditionally been a stubbornly high rate of NEETs in Stoke-on-Trent. In fact, at one point I think we ranked No. 1 in the country for the number of NEETs, but that is coming down because the colleges are working to make sure that every young person in Stoke-on-Trent knows that there is a route for them somewhere, whether it be academic, vocational or technical, into a job in the city.

However, we also recognise that part of that work must start further downstream, with young people in our secondary schools who have an idea of what they want to do and an aspiration to achieve it, but are not necessarily sure how to go about doing it. Under the leadership of Heather McLachlan and Simon French, the CEO Futures Forum is bringing together multi-academy trusts to consider how the curriculum review announced a couple of weeks ago can be used locally to create those academic, vocational and technical gateways into the right subject areas, where we know the jobs will be in the city, so that young people have something to look towards, strive and aspire to. Those are the good things that I wanted to mention today.

We also know that for young people in north Staffordshire who want to go to university, widening participation is incredibly important. The Higher Horizons programme, run by Keele University in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), demonstrates how young people from across north Staffordshire can go to university if they are given the right opportunities and understandings.

Briefly, the key point that I want to make to the Minister today is about V-levels. With the introduction of V-levels, there is a real possibility that a small group of young people will lose out in the next two years by not having access to BTECs, which are being defunded before V-levels come online. That could lead to a large spike in the number of NEETs in the next couple of years. What will his Department do to ensure that those young people are not lost in the transition to what could be an exciting new qualification?

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Gareth Snell Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

I speak as a signatory to the reasoned amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), because I recognised, as many across the House did, that there were serious problems with the original version of the Bill. Welfare reform, which we all believe in, has to be fair, compassionate and grounded in evidence, and I am afraid that the Bill, as first published, failed on all three counts. I acknowledge that there have been significant and welcome changes, and I genuinely thank Ministers for meeting me and for listening. We all know that scrapping or reducing PIP for people who are already in work was always the wrong target. It risks making employment harder, not easier, for many disabled people, and it is right that current recipients of PIP—there are over 7,000 in my constituency —will now be protected.

If we are to avoid repeating the mistakes of this recent period, we need a proper process for consultation and co-production. Ministers have said that they will now do that through the Timms review, and that is the right vehicle. I welcome another concession around the £300 million of employment support that is being brought forward. In my view, that should always have been front and centre to this reform. Intentions alone are not enough, however, and while I welcome the removal of clause 5, which will mean introducing no changes before the Timms reviews reports, I am concerned that this process remains open-ended.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I, too, welcome the commitment that was given from the Dispatch Box on the removal of clause 5, but I wonder whether my hon. Friend shares my hope that, when the Minister sums up this evening he will categorically state that those people grandfathered in today, to help get past that clause 5 moment in the Bill, will still be grandfathered in without clause 5 and despite whatever comes out of the Timms review, so that they are not put back into the pool of potentially being reassessed in the future.

[Darren Paffey]

My hon. Friend makes an important point that I hope the Minister will confirm.

There are other assurances that many of us would like to hear from the Dispatch Box today, including a defined timetable for the report. In wrapping up the debate, will the Minister confirm that November 2026 is now no longer a relevant date at all? I am glad that we will now avoid the absurd situation of having potentially three different assessment regimes running in parallel. What has been announced will, I hope, give clarity to claimants and will, I hope, in good faith demonstrate that the Government are serious about introducing reform properly.

Welfare Reform

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

That is exactly what we committed to in our Green Paper.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Presumably, the outcome of the Timms review will require some form of primary legislation to enact the changes to the system that will come from the Department for Work and Pensions. In which case, I suggest to the Minister that removing clause 5 from the Bill tomorrow and putting it into any future legislation means the Department can still have its thresholds in the future if it wants to, but only once everybody knows against what criteria those judgments will be made.

[Liz Kendall]

We are co-producing this review, and it may result in changes that require primary or secondary legislation or other action, and I do not want to pre-empt that. Let me just bring my hon. Friend and the House back to the purpose of these changes: to ensure that we have a system that is fair for those who need support and fair for taxpayers, and to try to put the welfare state on a more sustainable footing for the future. If we do not do so, my real fear is that it will not be there for the very people who really, really need support going forward.