Jobs Guarantee
Pat McFadden Excerpts(5 days, 21 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
Every young person deserves a fair chance to succeed. When given the right support and opportunities, they will grasp them. But for too long young people have not had access to the opportunities and support they deserve. Nearly a million young people are not in education, employment or training, locking them out of meaningful work, denying employers the workforce of the future and holding back economic growth.
At autumn Budget 2025, we announced an £820 million funding package to overhaul support and give a generation of young people a bright future through the youth guarantee. This investment will break down barriers to opportunity and ensure every young person can access the support they need to earn or learn.
Today I am pleased to announce the launch of the jobs guarantee grant application window for phase one, a central element of the expanded youth guarantee.
The jobs guarantee will provide every eligible 18 to 21-year-old who has been claiming universal credit and looking for work for 18 months a guaranteed, fully subsidised six-month paid job. This will include wraparound employability and in-work support to help participants succeed in their roles. The aim is to support young people in taking that crucial first step into sustained employment. Once fully rolled out, the programme is expected to support around 55,000 young people over the next three years, contributing to the Government long-term ambition to increase employment and reduce long-term youth unemployment.
We know that young people need support quickly and that is why we will begin the delivery of phase one from spring 2026 with over 1,000 job starts across six areas with some of the highest need: Birmingham & Solihull, East Midlands, Greater Manchester, Hertfordshire & Essex, Central & East Scotland, South-west & South-east Wales. This will be followed by a national roll-out of the jobs guarantee across Great Britain, later in 2026.
The application process for this stage of the jobs guarantee grant will be open from today until 28 February. Details can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/jobs-guarantee The Department for Work and Pensions will award grants to selected delivery organisations in the six defined geographic areas. Successful applicants will administer the grant on behalf of DWP, bringing their experience of the local labour market to source suitable jobs and match young people to roles. They will also use their expertise to provide ongoing support to young people while they are on the scheme.
I would also like to thank the more than 60 employers who have already committed to providing jobs for participants of the scheme, including E.ON, JD Sports, Tesco and TUI. Once delivery partners are in place, they will work with employers to help secure these employment opportunities, with support from DWP for those large employers with a national footprint.
[HCWS1290]
Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report
Pat McFadden Excerpts(5 days, 21 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
In November, I informed the House that the Government would make a new decision in response to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s report into the way changes to the state pension age were communicated to women born in the 1950s. This followed relevant evidence coming to light as part of legal proceedings challenging the original decision announced by my predecessor in December 2024. We have now concluded the process to make a new decision and are placing copies of the Government’s full response in the Libraries of both Houses.
Before I turn to the substance, I think it is important to be clear what this decision and statement is about, and what it is not about. There are legitimate and sincerely held views about whether it was wise to increase the state pension age, and in particular whether the decision taken in 2011 by the coalition Government to accelerate equalisation and the rise to the age of 66 was the right thing to do. But the issue we are discussing today is not the merits or otherwise of past policy decisions about the state pension age. What the ombudsman investigated was how changes to the state pension age were communicated and whether within a specific and narrow time period there was maladministration and injustice—and if so, whether that warrants compensation.
In March 2024, the ombudsman published its final report. As with so many other issues, the previous Government left the report on their desks, issued no response, took no decision, and left it to this Government to respond. In December 2024, the then Work and Pensions Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), set out the Government’s response, having considered all the information provided to her.
However, given that relevant research from 2007 about the effectiveness of sending letters subsequently emerged that had not been provided to my right hon. Friend, I wanted to ensure that the right and proper process was followed to take account of this alongside the information previously considered. Of course, I asked the Department not just to consider the 2007 report, but to undertake new searches as part of an extensive review of relevant historical documents to help inform the new decision.
We accept that individual letters about changes to the state pension age could have been sent earlier. For that, I want to repeat the apology that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West gave on behalf of the Government. I am sorry those letters were not sent sooner. We also agree with the ombudsman that women did not suffer any direct financial loss from the delay.
However, the question is about the impact of the delay in sending those letters. The evidence taken as a whole, including that from 2007, suggests that the majority of 1950s-born women would not have read and recalled the contents of an unsolicited pensions letter, even if it had been sent earlier. Furthermore, the evidence also suggests that those less knowledgeable about pensions—the very women who most needed to engage with a letter, and for whom it might have made a difference—were the least likely to read it. An earlier letter would therefore have been unlikely to make a difference to what the majority of women knew about their own state pension age. Indeed, the 2007 report concluded that automatic pension forecast letters had only a negligible impact on pensions knowledge and planning, and the Department stopped sending them.
The evidence shows that the vast majority of 1950s-born women already knew that the state pension age was increasing thanks to a wide-range of public information, including leaflets, education campaigns, information in GP surgeries, and information on TV and radio, in cinemas and online. To specifically compensate only the women who suffered injustice would require a scheme that could reliably verify the individual circumstances of millions of women, including whether someone genuinely did not know that their state pension age was changing and whether they would have read and remembered a letter from many years ago and acted differently. It would not be practical to set up a compensation scheme to assess the answers to those questions conclusively.
A flat-rate scheme would cost up to £10.3 billion and would simply not be right or fair, given that it would also be paid to the vast majority who were aware of the changes. I have heard calls for compensation aimed at lower-income pensioners, and we have focused in the past 12 months on raising pension credit uptake, but in the context of this decision, a scheme focused on any single income group still would not specify who may or may not have suffered injustice. That is why, in taking this new decision, we have come to the same conclusion on compensation as that announced by my right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State in December 2024.
I know that many people feel that the state pension age should not have gone up in the way that it did; indeed, Labour argued against the 2011 policy decision put in place by the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition that accelerated the increase. However, I repeat what I said at the start of my statement: that is a different issue to the one the ombudsman investigated and that I am responding to today, which relates to the communication of changes in the state pension age and, narrowly, to a delay in sending letters over a relatively short period.
The changes from 2011 underline the importance that decisions on the state pension age carry and the impact they have on people’s lives, and I take seriously the need to weigh carefully any future changes. That is why, together with the ombudsman, the Department has been developing an action plan for the future. Work on that had stopped pending today’s decision, but I can confirm that it will now resume.
It also underlines why we are determined to ensure that all pensioners on lower incomes, the majority of whom are women, have a better life in retirement, just as Labour has done in the past—from the Wilson Government, who first formally linked the uprating of pensions to the higher of earnings or prices, to the previous Labour Government, who lifted 1 million pensioners out of poverty. Labour introduced pension credit, which is vital in topping up the incomes of the poorest pensioners, with women consistently making up the majority of those benefiting since we first introduced it in 2003. This Government are ensuring that more pensioners get that extra income with the biggest ever campaign to increase take-up, which saw tens of thousands more pension credit awards in the year up to November than in the previous year.
In addition, our commitment to the triple lock for this Parliament means that women will see their state pension rise by up to £575 this year, with incomes up to £2,100 a year higher by the end of the Parliament. Indeed, overall spending on the state pension is set to be more than £30 billion higher a year by the end of this Parliament than in 2024-25. We are also putting record investment into the NHS, meaning that thousands more pensioners are getting the operations and treatment that they need, rather than being left in pain on waiting lists. This is the positive difference our Government are making.
I believe it was right to review the evidence and that, having done so, we have made the right decision based on due process and the body of evidence. At the same time, looking to the future, we are taking important steps to support women in retirement and help them to build a better life for themselves and their families. I commend this statement to the House.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
As constituency MPs, we will all have met many campaigners from the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign group—the WASPI women. I am sure that many Members will have received a large amount of correspondence on this matter recently. If they are anything like me—I have had 150 emails recently about it—they will really feel the strength of opinion out there. It is safe to say that both our constituents and us as Members of Parliament have been left wanting by this Government.
In December 2024, the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), told this House that the Government would not compensate these women. Let me remind colleagues what her rationale was. She said that
“the Government do not believe that paying a flat rate to all women, at a cost of up to £10.5 billion, would be a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money”—[Official Report, 17 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 168.]
She also tried to argue that they could not afford it because of holes in the Government finances. However, as my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions rightly said:
“Government compensation should always be based on what is fair and just.”—[Official Report, 17 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 170.]
Before getting into government, it seems that Labour MPs did think that an injustice had been done. Let us remind our colleagues of what members of this Government have said in the past. The Prime Minister himself called this situation “a huge injustice”. The Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary slammed the “cliff edge” that he said faced WASPI women. The Foreign Secretary said that she was
“fighting for a fair deal for the WASPI women.”
The Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed to “want justice for WASPI women”. Even the current Secretary of State for Work and Pensions got in on the action, putting out a social media post with the caption:
“MPs campaigning for a better deal for WASPI women.”
It is therefore no wonder that the WASPI women, who were promised so much, are so angry; the people who used to stand beside them have now turned against them.
If the Government really believed that these women had faced a great injustice, they would have found a way to compensate them. They could have avoided a deal with Mauritius that will cost us all £35 billion, but they chose not to. They could have found savings on our country’s benefits bill, but they chose not to. They had 14 years to prepare for government and are messing up by doing nothing.
That brings us to the statement from the Secretary of State today. Is it not convenient that he should choose a sitting day when most MPs are not here? It is almost as if he does not want to hear the criticism from his own Back Benchers. In reality, all that the Secretary of State is doing is announcing that nothing has changed and that the Government will not be compensating WASPI women.
I have a few questions. Given that the Secretary of State previously campaigned for a better deal for WASPI women, does he think that today’s announcement provides that better deal? In his statement, he tried to argue that this issue is somehow the Conservatives’ fault. However, he forgets that the maladministration that the previous Secretary of State apologised for was committed under the last Labour Government, before 2010—the ombudsman’s report made that explicit. Can the Secretary of State hold up his hands and take accountability for those mistakes?
This is a really interesting point. The Secretary of State chose to mention the triple lock in his statement and to say that the state pension will go up by up to £575 this year, with incomes expected to rise by up to £2,100 a year by the end of this Parliament. We all know that there is no cap on the triple lock. [Interruption.] There is no cap on it, but he made the point that that would rise by “up to” £2,100 a year. Is he implying that the triple lock is about to be capped? Will he confirm that he is apparently U-turning on the Government’s policy on the triple lock by imposing a cap?
Is it not just a fact that, frankly, this Government resemble a bunch of joyriders pulling handbrake turns in a Tesco car park, when Labour should be a serious party of government? Their Back Benchers keep being marched up the hill, only to be told to march down again. The Government even take the Whip away from them for having a conscience, only to tell them later that Ministers are proud to support policies for which support was only recently a sackable offence. Does the Secretary of State really think that this constant back and forth is fair on WASPI women? I look forward to his comments.
Pat McFadden
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s questions. He is right that there has been a forceful and energetic campaign, which has resulted in lots of emails and contact with Members across the House, but his Government had this report from the ombudsman. They could have taken a decision before the election, but they chose not to, as with so many other issues. And perhaps the ombudsman had an inkling of how unlikely it would be to get a decision from the previous Government, because the ombudsman made the recommendations on remedy to Parliament rather than to his Government.
The hon. Gentleman refers to Labour, to me and to other MPs on this side of the House, and I remind him that we voted against the acceleration in the rise of the state pension age that was put through by the coalition Government.
On re-examining the decision, I thought it was right to do so, to make absolutely sure that we got this right, considering not just the 2007 report but a whole range of evidence and documents. I have repeated my predecessor’s apology for the maladministration found by the ombudsman. There is no change in our position on the triple lock, and the figures quoted reflect the estimates of the Office for Budget Responsibility throughout the Parliament.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
I am sure my right hon. Friend appreciates the enormous disappointment on this side of the House. Only two years before the general election, our now Prime Minister spoke in favour of a just settlement for WASPI women. I acknowledge that my right hon. Friend says that this was not in the manifesto on which we all stood, and that we did not make that promise, but he will recognise the real sense that an injustice has been done to these women. Today has not remediated that.
Pat McFadden
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question, and I understand what he says, but it is also important to consider exactly what is at issue here. Many people are unhappy with the rise in the state pension age and the decision to equalise it, and this decision does not deal with that. The decision deals with the specific issue of how it was communicated over a specific period of time. It is really important to separate those two things. I believe that, on that ground, we have considered it very carefully—not just once but twice—and given it due and proper process. It is right to apologise for the maladministration, but I believe the decision we have taken on remedy and compensation is the correct one.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Pat McFadden
The hon. Member is certainly right about my allegiance to both Celtic and Bruce Springsteen, but there is no illusion about the position of the Liberal Democrats. He says, with a tinge of regret, that he wishes that they were in government, but they were in government —and that is the point. In 2011, they took the decision to accelerate the equalisation and raising of the state pension age, so they were in a position to take decisions on it.
At the heart of this issue is something different: how the decisions were communicated and whether people could have done something differently. The hon. Gentleman asks about engagement with the ombudsman. I have, of course, looked at the report, and the current ombudsman recently met the permanent secretary. As I said in my statement, we will pick up the work that was paused on the action plan so that in future when we consider the state pension age we fully consider not only the policy but all aspects of communication and the period of warning—things which were distinctly not done when the decision to accelerate the state pension age was taken by the coalition Government.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State knows just how disappointing many will find this statement, particularly the WASPI women who feel so strongly the injustice that they have suffered. I appreciate that the he has set out the reasons in principle and in practice and explained how the Labour Government will support low-income pensioners, but I want to talk about the personal aspect. I suspect that the Secretary of State, like me and many other Members, started full-time work in his twenties that was not physically arduous. I think of a constituent of mine who started work aged 15—hard, physical work—and found herself required to continue working many years after she expected to have retired and as her health deteriorated. What help and support can the Secretary of State offer her?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is right to say that as the state pension age has gone up, the way people have been affected is influenced by the kind of lives they have led and the toughness of the work that they have done. But that argument is about the raising of the state pension age, and while I appreciate that a lot of the correspondence has been about that, it is a different issue from the one that the ombudsman was looking at. In terms of our policy, the exactly reason why we have pension credit is to help lower-income pensioners; it is why we put it in place in 2003, and it is why we have put extra effort into making sure that the benefit is taken up by those who are entitled to it.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The Secretary of State is a fellow west midlands Member of Parliament, and he will know Shropshire very well. Many WASPI women born in the 1950s from my constituency will be very disappointed by today’s announcement. He talks about miscommunication and maladministration but, of course, says little about compensation, which means that the injustice continues. Could he give a little more detail on how the action plan will assuage some of the anger that will no doubt have come about as a result of this disappointing non-announcement? What real help can be given to WASPI women in different ways, including those who do not qualify for and are not entitled to pension credit?
Pat McFadden
I am grateful to my west midlands colleague for his question. He talks about disappointment. The shadow Minister could have, in the time allocated to him, promised to take a different decision were the Conservatives ever to return to power. They had the chance to take a different decision when they were in power, but they chose to not even respond to the report let alone outline what the decision might be.
On the action plan and specifically what it will cover, two things are at the heart of it: communications and the handling of complaints. If we are to raise the state pension age in the country over time, it is important that we get the communications right. That is what we want to do, and I will work with the ombudsman going forward.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
There are 300,000 WASPI women in Yorkshire and 6,500 in my constituency. In Yorkshire we believe that politicians should say what they mean and mean what they say. Labour opposed the proposal when it was first introduced. Our leading spokesman continued to say that Labour wanted to and would deliver justice to the WASPI women. This is not justice.
For the many women in my constituency and elsewhere who I have met and discussed this issue with, the idea that there would be an accelerated process of getting to a higher pension age came like a bolt out of the blue. They had no idea that it was coming so quickly. It disrupted families’ plans and the financial structures of their lives. It was a disgrace, and it was introduced by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. The Government still have a chance to put this right, and I say this to the Minister: he has not heard the end of this problem or of the voices of the WASPI women.
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that we were opposed to the acceleration. We voted against it and opposed many policies of the coalition Government and the Tory Governments who were in power over the past 14 years. He is also right to say that five years’ notice was not enough; that is why we voted to oppose it, and when it comes to our responsibilities now, it is why we have put such stress on looking after pensions properly and maintaining the value of the basic state pension. I outlined what that would mean for this Parliament in my statement. For poorer pensioners, we are making sure that there is maximum take-up of pension credit so that people can access the benefits to which they are entitled.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s apology for the maladministration and the Minister’s clarity today, but many Salisbury WASPI women will be very disappointed by the decision. Could the Secretary of State say a little more about what options he looked at to compensate the poorest, most vulnerable of the WASPI women? I recognise that the enormous cost would be too much overall, but what options did he pursue? When I was in government, the option to withdraw the winter fuel payment was one that I resisted, because of the impracticalities of doing it fairly. What options were put to him, and could he not have compensated the poorest? I think many would have been sympathetic to that.
Pat McFadden
I have great respect for the right hon. Member. He will have considered some of these issues in government because of his long service as a Treasury Minister. I like the right hon. Gentleman a lot, but I have to say that he could have taken decisions on this when the Conservatives were in power.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s question about the lowest-income pensioners, I repeat what I said in my statement: the problem with any flat-rate scheme is that it will compensate people who knew about the state pension age rise as well as those who did not. The reason we have pension credit is precisely so that pensioners who are living on particularly low incomes have access to another benefit. We introduced pension credit back in 2003, and since we came back into office in 2024 we have put extra effort into making sure that it is taken up. That has resulted in tens of thousands of additional pensioners having access to pension credit.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
I should declare an interest as a 1950s-born woman. This is a disappointing statement, and I can only associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), which I do not always do. I take the opportunity to thank all the WASPI women who have been campaigning and working so hard on this issue with many of us. How has this decision been communicated to the WASPI group?
Pat McFadden
I agree with my hon. Friend that, as I have said, the WASPI women have run an energetic, sustained campaign that has made a big impact on Members. We can see that from the questions being asked. On the communication, as soon as it became clear that there was relevant evidence that had not been shown to my predecessor, I decided to retake the decision, looking not just at that but at a wider body of evidence. I came to the House in November to inform Members that I would do that. I also told Mr Speaker and the House that when I had gone through the process and reached a conclusion I would come back at the earliest opportunity and announce those conclusions. That is exactly what I am doing today.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
The ombudsman’s ruling in March recommended that some women should get a payout and an apology. Now the WASPI women in my constituency have another apology, but they have not received a penny in compensation for the maladministration found by the ombudsman. Why have the Government chosen to accept one half of the recommendations—I think it is probably the easy half—but not the other? At £1,000 to £2,950 for each woman, it is hardly a high cost for justice in the grand scheme of Government funding considerations.
Pat McFadden
As I say, we accept the finding of maladministration. On the difference earlier communications would have made, particularly to those who knew the least about the increase in their state pension age, all the survey evidence in the round suggests that a majority of women knew the state pension age was increasing. The hon. Lady minimises the up to £10 billion that it would cost for a compensation scheme. I do not want to be excessively partisan today, but it is the easiest thing to come here every day to call for billions for this and billions for that and then oppose all the revenue-raising measures that have to be put through in any Budget. This is not a situation where we should do that and simply add to that pattern. It is a substantial amount of money. If we were to go down that road, we would end up compensating a significant number of women who knew that their state pension age was increasing and to whom no injustice has been done.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
The Secretary of State said that the evidence shows that the vast majority of 1950s-born women already knew that the state pension age was increasing. I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist), am also a 1950s-born woman. Does the Secretary of State honestly think there would have been such a massive campaign over all these years by WASPI women and their supporters if they believed that that was true and that they knew about their pensions? With particular reference to the 1954 women who were treated so unjustly by the coalition Government, surely the Secretary of State believes that they deserve compensation for the terrible shock they received back in 2011.
Pat McFadden
A decision document relating to the evidence that I have considered has been placed in the Library of the House, which sets all that out together with various surveys, all of which are in the public domain and which were considered in the course of my reaching the decision. I think the campaign is understandable because of the steep acceleration that was legislated for by the coalition Government. We opposed that at the time. The lesson for the future is to give good notice and predictability about rises in the state pension age. That is at the heart of the action plan that we are working on with the ombudsman.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The Secretary of State’s colleagues stood with WASPI women holding boards saying, “We support the WASPI women” and “We support compensation for the WASPI women”. He now stands at the Dispatch Box holding his hands up and saying, “I am very sorry that the previous Administration forgot to send out a letter, but we are not going to do anything about it because it would not have made a difference anyway.” Has he listened to the voices of WASPI women who have come to every single one of us and said, “I did not get that letter”? They said, “I did not know that the state pension age was increasing and I found myself”—as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) said—“having to work in a physical job far longer than I ever expected because I was not given notice.” Is that the change that the Labour Government promised when they came in last year?
Pat McFadden
I will defend to the hilt our protection of the state pension, our increase in the state pension of £575 for the new state pension from April and our extra help for poorer pensioners. There was a wide range of communications about this matter. Letters are one, but not the only, part of that. When we take into account the survey evidence as a whole, we find that most people knew that the state pension age was increasing. If the hon. Lady wants to pledge compensation in some way, she is entitled to do that, as I said to the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt). We have looked at the evidence in the round. I repeat the apology for the maladministration, but I think we have reached the right decision today.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is a very serious individual and his statement was very serious. It helpfully enumerated that the majority of pensioners on lower incomes are women and that women make up the majority of those depending on pension credit. The anger that WASPI women feel about the steep increase in age is very understandable. Many of those women paid what my mother used to call “the small stamp”, which makes their situation even more vulnerable. I accept that the Secretary of State’s statement is largely about the ombudsman’s decision. Will he indicate what conversations he has had with the ombudsman, specifically about why he made that recommendation? Will he also tell the Chamber what communication he has had with the WASPI women about his decision?
Pat McFadden
We are often encouraged to make our statements to Parliament first and that is what I have done. When I announced in November that I was retaking the decision, I made that statement to Parliament first and pledged that when I had reached a conclusion I would come back to announce it in Parliament first. That is the right way to communicate this decision.
My hon. Friend talked about women who paid “the small stamp”. That is right, and that is why we have moved away from the old system to a new state pension for the future. For the majority of pensioners on lower incomes, I stress again the importance of pension credit and our efforts to make sure that those pensioners who are entitled to it, the majority of whom are women, take advantage of their entitlement and make the application. That is what it is there for: to help lower-income pensioners.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I have thousands of WASPI women in my constituency, which is already very deprived. I cannot express how angry and disappointed they feel today. I am afraid that I will have to use strong language: this is simply gaslighting by this Labour Government. They know full well that it was not about whether the letters were sent earlier; it is about whether they were sent at all. Does the Secretary of State not need to accept that point?
Pat McFadden
It is right to focus on exactly what this is about and what it is not. We opposed the acceleration of the change to the state pension age. The ombudsman looked at the specific issue of when letters were sent over a time period, so I feel that I have been accurate in the statement I have made today. If we go back to the 2011 decision, the lesson for the future is that increases in the state pension age should be announced in good time, so that people have the chance to prepare. That is a policy decision; that is not the specific decision about communication that the ombudsman examined.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
This Government have rightly taken action for Hillsborough victims and sub-postmasters affected by the Post Office scandal, and on the mineworkers’ pension scheme, yet this situation seems to have been put in the “too hard to deal with” box. Why does my right hon. Friend think that these women should accept this outcome, and why is it always women who seem to get the rough end of the deal?
Pat McFadden
I know that the equalisation of the state pension age has produced quite a lot of opposition. The 2011 decision was too quick; that is why we opposed it at the time. On the issue of compensation to which my hon. Friend refers, if we were to compensate everyone in this age group, we would end up compensating a significant number of people who knew that their state pension age was increasing. We do not think that would be the right and fair thing to do, and that is why we have reached the conclusion that I have announced.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On behalf of the 5,000 WASPI women in my constituency, I must register my deep concerns about the way that people are hiding behind the ombudsman’s report, and saying, “No, we can’t help the WASPI women.” The WASPI women back home speak to me every week about this subject. They ask, “Jim, what’s happening now? Where are we?” Unfortunately, the most vulnerable people, including the elderly and disabled people who have waited all this time, have nothing; I need to put that on the record. Some who are listening to the case that the Secretary of State has made will ask, “What does that actually mean?” The WASPI women need some explanation; is there some way of giving them that?
The last point the Secretary of State made was about the pension uplift, pension credit, and how they can help. Can I suggest one other way that the Government could help those people? It would not be in any way a fallback case, but it would be something. When it comes to self-assessment and letters, WASPI women and those over a certain age find it incredibly hard to go online. There has to be some methodology, so that elderly people can know that every penny they get will not be lost in tax beforehand. There must be a methodology and a system, rather than elderly people having to go online, which they cannot do.
Pat McFadden
I remind the House that by the end of this Parliament, due to our commitment to increase the basic state pension, we will be spending an estimated £30 billion a year more on the state pension. That is testament to our commitment to maintaining the value of the basic state pension and ensuring that people have a good and decent retirement. That is, of course, for the hon. Member’s constituents as much as for any other Members’ constituents.
On the full reasoning behind the decision, there is a full decision document, which I have deposited in the Library of the House today. That is available to the hon. Member. On online and face-to-face services, he is right that it is important that when people access a benefit, they can do so through a range of channels, so that people do not lose out for the reasons that he gave.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and the repeated apology on behalf of the Government, but like many Labour Members and other Members across the House, I have long supported WASPI women. I commend the WASPI women in west Lothian and Falkirk for their perseverance over many years. I have spoken to several women who have experienced significant financial hardship and emotional and physical strain, and I share their undoubted disappointment today. Has he considered the impact of the decision on perceptions and, indeed, the efficacy, of the ombudsman, which recommended that compensation be paid?
Pat McFadden
We take the role of the ombudsman very seriously. The report was fully and properly considered, but decisions on a compensation scheme of this scale will always, in the end, be for Ministers and Government to take, and I think that is the right and understandable approach.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
I have no doubt that my 6,000 WASPI women will be very angry about this decision. Will today’s announcement mean that the legal proceedings challenging the Government’s original decision will continue? What plans do we have, if any, to get round the table and try to avoid legal proceedings?
Pat McFadden
The initiation of legal proceedings is not a decision for me, and I cannot predict what will happen in future legal proceedings; that is a matter for others. My responsibility is to set out our decision to Parliament in the proper way, and I believe that in the statement that I gave in November, and in the one that I have given today, I have done that, and have given the House our reasons.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
In my constituency, I have 5,400 women affected by this decision. Not all of them know about it; my mum sort of shrugged her shoulders and went, “Oh, okay,” but some women do know, and they will be listening today and will be really disappointed. I was proud to put my name to, and campaign for, the brilliant support that the Government offered on the mineworkers’ pension scheme and the British Coal staff superannuation scheme—there were hundreds of beneficiaries in my constituency—but it looks like we are letting down women of a certain age, women who were so frequently on the back foot. The message sounds like, “It’s a little bit too tricky to address.” While I acknowledge that paying £10.3 billion in flat-rate payments might not be the right thing to do, is there not something we can do to acknowledge the campaigning of these women, whom we have supported for many years?
Pat McFadden
I mentioned the difficulties of a flat-rate scheme, but an individual scheme also would face great practical difficulties, which I set out in my statement. We would have to ascertain who did and did not get a letter, who can remember getting a letter, what they would have done differently, and so on. There are great practical difficulties in doing that, and there are difficulties in having a flat-rate scheme.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is an extremely significant matter to announce on a Thursday, when the House is usually light in attendance, with limited notice, and with a very detailed document having been lodged in the House of Commons Library. Through your offices, and through liaison with those on the Treasury Bench, can time be found over the next fortnight for a full and comprehensive debate on this issue? I know that when I get back to my constituency, there will be many very angry people who feel let down, if not betrayed. Members need the opportunity to reflect the concerns of their constituents here.
Oral Answers to Questions
Pat McFadden Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
Sympathies to you, Mr Speaker, on your recent injury. If you require a WorkWell appointment with a health practitioner, we recently had a national roll-out, and I am sure that we can arrange that for you.
We believe that work is good for people. That is why we are expanding youth hubs to more than 350 areas, ensuring that every 16 to 24-year-old, including those not on benefits, can access the support needed to earn or learn. That is part of our effort to take jobcentre support out of the jobcentres and meet young people where they are. It comes on top of the strengthening of our youth guarantee, backed by £820 million of investment to offer training, work experience and subsidised employment to young people who are out of work.
Paul Davies
I recently met with James Boyle, who runs Longwood FC, a grassroots football club for young people in my constituency. Longwood FC has had a really positive impact on the mental health and physical wellbeing of the young people involved, and is a great example of community-led youth engagement. I commend the Government for their investment in such youth engagement through youth hubs across the country. Can the Minister confirm the timetable for the roll-out of youth hubs in my constituency?
Pat McFadden
I congratulate my hon. Friend’s constituent James Boyle on his work running several teams at Longwood FC. That is a great example, and a number of youth hubs are located in football clubs and other sporting organisations. I understand that Huddersfield youth hub currently serves at least some of my hon. Friend’s constituents, but if he wants to explore further options, I encourage him to contact his local jobcentre so that it can work with local partners to see what is possible.
Patrick Hurley
Will the Minister join me in recognising the work of the Big Onion, which provides skills training, employment support and related services in my Southport constituency? It has supported more than 1,400 young people into careers across the wider borough. Will the Minister also set out what further support the Department can give to community organisations like that, and how its success can be shared across the whole youth hub programme?
Pat McFadden
The Big Onion is one of a number of organisations doing excellent work in trying to help young people into work. It is part of a larger partner group that the local jobcentre works closely with. In fact, one of our youth employability coaches is based with the partner group in the town hall once a week. This is exactly why we are expanding youth hubs across the country, so that we can work with other organisations to take the help where young people need it in the community.
Natasha Irons
The expansion of Department for Work and Pensions youth hubs and the roll-out of Young Futures hubs are a testament to the Government’s commitment to stand alongside young people and support them to succeed. The Centre for Young Lives has called for Government Departments to work jointly to ensure clear alignment across those hubs to prevent duplication and to stop young people falling through the gaps. What steps will the Government take to ensure that Young Futures hubs and DWP services share information effectively, align their programmes and provide seamless pathways to improve outcomes for young people?
Pat McFadden
One of my first visits in this post was to the youth hub at Selhurst Park, which is close to my hon. Friend’s constituency, as part of our partnership with the Premier League. When I was there, I heard the story of one young person, Erin, who had had a successful outcome: she increased her confidence, got a job and wanted to move on to another one. It is important that we put in place handover arrangements, particularly for 16 to 18-year-olds, to ensure a smooth transition from the earlier help they will get in a Young Futures hub to the kind of age group we deal with in youth hubs, which is more focused on employment and careers.
Jas Athwal
Two weeks ago, I had the pleasure of hosting a roundtable with the Jack Petchey Foundation, where young people from London and Essex spoke powerfully about the barriers they face, including feeling that there are fewer opportunities for them. What steps is my right hon. Friend’s Department taking to deliver on the Government’s targets for two thirds of young people to be in university or an apprenticeship, so that young people can gain the skills they need to achieve their goals?
Pat McFadden
One of the early steps we have taken is to change the way that the growth and skills levy—the apprenticeship levy—works, so that more of that money is directed towards young people. That step was necessary because there had been a 40% decline in youth apprenticeship starts over the past 10 years. If we want to focus on young people and on employment for young people, we need to ensure they have a good chance of getting an apprenticeship start.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I wish the Secretary of State well with this initiative, but does he share my concern that as his Department seeks to reduce youth unemployment, the Chancellor is doing everything she can to increase it, with her jobs tax increasing unemployment? Of the 170,000 payroll jobs lost since the election, until November 2025, some 45% involved young people. This Government have cost young people 150 jobs per day since they came into office. How does his scheme cope with that?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Member will be aware that 513,000 more people are in work compared with this time last year. He referred to the Chancellor. I am grateful to the Chanceller for the £820 million funding for the youth guarantee, which will bring training help to 300,000 young people and provide subsidised employment for those young people who have been out of work for 18 months. That is important to get young people into the habit of the discipline, pride and purpose that comes with having a job.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Bicester is one of the fastest-growing towns in the country, yet it currently has no dedicated youth hub. In the town centre sits the former Courtyard Youth Arts Centre, which remains largely configured for youth work. The courtyard currently serves a purpose as limited office space, but could clearly be repurposed back to its original purpose. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the funding announced in December for youth hubs should prioritise places such as Bicester, where existing public assets could be better used to deliver youth services at high value for money for the taxpayer?
Pat McFadden
I thank the hon. Member for his question. I am aware of the employment and growth generated by Bicester Village as a major retail and visitor location, and I understand his representations about having a youth hub that may be associated with that. We will look at all representations, because, as I said, we want to get the help to where people are in the local community.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
May I encourage the brilliant team at Kendal jobcentre, who already do a fantastic job reaching out to young people across the Westmorland area, but also congratulate the Secretary of State on what is a very positive initiative? Will he bear in mind, however, that in communities like mine where the distances to travel are enormous, we—and he—should be looking at having youth hubs outside the main towns such Kendal and Penrith, and look at Kirkby Stephen, Appleby, Grange and Windermere, so they are closer to the people who need those services? Will he also pay attention to, and discuss with his Cabinet colleagues, the fact that awful bus services in rural areas like ours mean that young people cannot get to appointments?
Pat McFadden
All the beautiful locations the hon. Member mentioned tempt me to offer a visit. I echo his thanks to the people who work in Kendal jobcentre and the other jobcentres around the country. The issue of transport and distances is an important one, which is why the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), is pioneering the roll-out of mobile jobcentres, located in vans, that can visit a small area, one or two days a week.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It strikes me as odd that rather than extolling the virtues of the Government’s flagship youth guarantee, we have had a number of Labour MPs asking about youth hubs. Is that because it is easier to defend the setting up of some youth hubs than feeding back on the roll-out of the youth guarantee? Since the Labour Government came into power, businesses have stopped hiring young people in roles where they could be paying someone more experienced the same amount of money. That has meant that youth employment has gone up since July 2024, with the most recent figures showing a 103,000 increase in unemployed young people.
Does the Secretary of State agree that rather than Back Bench-pleasing schemes tinkering around the edges of the youth unemployment crisis, what we need is a strong economy with confident businesses actively seeking to employ the hundreds of thousands of talented yet unemployed young people across the country?
Pat McFadden
It is very nice to see the Conservative Front Bench here—you can never be sure these days who is going to be turning up on the opposite side, Mr Speaker. I take it from the shadow Minister’s question that she is against youth hubs, but I have to remind her that the initiative began under her Government; we have expanded it. It also seems that she is for a cut in wages, but the Government do not think that is the way to go. I remind her that more people are in work than there were a year ago; the economic inactivity figures are down; real wages are rising; and as for unemployment, it was going up for the past few years, including while the shadow Minister’s party was in power.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
It is important that the welfare state is there to support disabled people. Too often in the past, disabled people have been signed off and written off. The state has paid benefits, but has not done enough to help disabled people into work, so we are now expanding employment support for the long-term sick and disabled through, among other things, the Connect to Work programme, which will deliver £1 billion for this purpose in supported employment over the next three years. We are also supporting the “Keep Britain Working” report by Sir Charlie Mayfield, which is aimed at keeping people in work through co-operation with employers.
Daniel Francis
Too many young people with education, health and care plans are being kept on them until they are 25 years old due to the complexities involved in offering them the specialist support required to place them into apprenticeships or work placements. Will the Secretary of State therefore provide an update on the work being undertaken across Government Departments to support these young people into career paths so that they can commence their working lives?
Pat McFadden
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. Ever since he came into this House, including in his maiden speech, he has made a powerful case on behalf of carers and children with disabilities. He makes the critical point that we should not give up on anyone. He is right that not all the conditions that are identified will be permanent and not all conditions should be seen as barriers to work, and that we should do everything we can to help disabled people into work.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Obviously, the ability to use public transport is vital to allow disabled people or others who are less mobile to access work. Inverurie station in my constituency has just been removed from the Access for All programme, which provides mobility aids in stations—in this case, a lift will now not be installed. I completely appreciate that Access for All is not a responsibility of DWP, but access and allowing disabled people to get to work is. What conversations has the DWP had with the Department for Transport regarding the removal of Access for All funding, and does the Department share my concern that disabled people and those who are less mobile in my constituency will now have less ability to get to work on public transport?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that mobility and public transport are essential in helping people to get to work. On the specifics of her question, the best thing that I can do is to get the Department for Transport to write to her with a proper response.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
Businesses are a really important partner in supporting workers’ health. This is not an issue just for government. I have seen excellent examples of employers doing this, including when I visited British Airways at Heathrow in November to mark the launch of the final report of the “Keep Britain Working” review. Sir Charlie Mayfield, who wrote that report, made a number of recommendations, including the launch of a vanguard scheme, in which over 100 employers are now taking part. They are playing a leading role in developing best practice when it comes to workplace health and keeping people in work for longer, even if their health declines over time.
Nick Smith
I am delighted that we have a trailblazer pilot in my constituency. In The Times at the weekend, Alan Milburn emphasised the importance of boosting young people’s life chances. Will the Secretary of State outline how data from the pilot will strengthen delivery to keep people healthy at work?
Pat McFadden
I opened the Neath opportunity hub in south Wales in October, and I announced further funding of £10 million for the trailblazer covering that area. Alan Milburn is doing important work in reporting on the whole issue of young people in activity and work. The thing that unites these efforts is the belief that work is good for you, and that we do not want to see young people graduating from education into a life on benefits. That work brings together current activity and the future changes that we will need to make.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
Last week I met Sir Charlie Mayfield, author of the “Keep Britain Working” report, to discuss progress. He reported that more than 100 employers are now onboard to act as vanguards, including British Airways, Sainsbury’s, Holland and Barrett, and a number of smaller employers. The aim is to develop a healthy life cycle of work throughout people’s careers. We are also setting up the health information and data unit that Sir Charlie recommended in his report.
Debbie Abrahams
As my right hon. Friend knows, Sir Charlie made a number of recommendations, including providing evidence of returns on investments that would incentivise more businesses to take part in preventive measures to ensure that their workers remain healthy and in work. Given the excellent network of academic centres across the UK, how will the proposed workplace health intelligence unit harness their expertise, and ensure that we are reducing health inequalities that also dampen productivity and economic growth?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend raises a number of issues. As I said, we are setting up the unit that Sir Charlie recommended, and I very much hope that it will work with academic expertise across the country. Her initial point about this being a win-win for employers is important, because if an employer lets someone go, they lose that experience and have to go through the effort of hiring somebody new and training them up. It is a worthwhile experience to try to help someone stay in work if they have a decline in their health over a period of time. That is good for the employee, and for the employer.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
Since the new year we have had the first expressions of interest from firms that want to participate in the youth guarantee scheme. We have announced our intention to change benefit entitlement for people in mental health hospitals who have been convicted of serious violent crimes. We have announced reforms to the disability confident scheme to encourage more employers to make their workplaces suitable for disabled employees, and we have introduced a Bill to lift the two-child limit, which will have its Second Reading in the House next week.
Baggy Shanker
Whether it is at Kia, Alstom or others, apprentices in Derby are thriving at our large manufacturing companies, but we also want our small and medium-sized businesses to take on more apprentices. Will the Government set out what is being done to help smaller businesses to take on more apprentices?
Pat McFadden
I congratulate my hon. Friend and everyone involved in Team Derby on their excellent training and employment record. Around 40% of all apprenticeship starts are in small and medium-sized employers and they will benefit from the £725 million in funding that we announced at the Budget, which includes fully funding SME apprenticeships for eligible people aged under 25. As he will be aware, employers are not required to pay anything towards employee national insurance for those apprenticeships.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Under this Labour Government the number of people on benefits is soaring, with nearly a million young people not in education, employment or training, and over 700,000 university graduates are now out of work and on benefits. Many young people are putting in hundreds of job applications and getting hundreds of rejections. This Government are killing their jobs and their dreams by taxing job-creating businesses into oblivion. What does the Secretary of State have to say to those young people?
Pat McFadden
What I have to say to those young people is that the rise in graduate inactivity happened under the last Government. Economic inactivity is down by 450,000 since the last election. There is a critical problem—the hon. Lady is right—in NEET numbers, which have been rising for four years. The difference is that we are doing something about that through the youth guarantee, which has £820 million behind it, and by changing her record on apprenticeships, which saw a 40% fall in youth apprenticeship starts over 10 years.
Helen Whately
Young people hearing that answer will not be reassured, but that is no surprise—what else can the Secretary of State say? The Prime Minister is too busy blocking rivals for his job, while a generation of young people pay the price for his weakness, and so are taxpayers, who are footing a ballooning benefits bill. Now is not the time for another review, scheme or slogan; what young people want is the chance to get a decent job and to get on in life. Surely he agrees that it is time to scrap the job-killing red tape in the Employment Rights Bill and cut taxes for businesses, so that they can give young people the chance to get off welfare and into work.
Pat McFadden
People want to stand for my party, but people want to leave the hon. Lady’s, and they are doing that day by day. We want to give hope to young people. That is why we have put the youth guarantee in place and we are changing the apprenticeship system: she could have done those two things while she was in office, while the NEET numbers were rising year on year, but she utterly failed to do so.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
Pat McFadden
The youth guarantee scheme will be delivered across Great Britain. That includes the jobs guarantee scheme, which I mentioned earlier. From the spring, we will provide more than 1,000 fully subsidised jobs in six areas across the UK, including central and east Scotland, ahead of the national roll-out, which will come later this year.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
Pat McFadden
Let me congratulate my hon. Friend on the fantastic work that he has done in campaigning for the investments in and around his constituency. Major infrastructure investments such as Sizewell should be an opportunity for local employment and training and for increasing the skills of local people, and we want our youth guarantee and the changes we are making in the apprenticeship system to support those aims.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Pat McFadden
I have had a number of discussions, including with victims’ families. It is important to stress that if someone is sentenced to a psychiatric hospital, their care and maintenance is paid for by the state in any case. We therefore propose a change to the previous system that will stop the build-up of—in some cases—large sums of money in continued benefit payments.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
My constituent Andrew co-founded Adzuna, a job search website built on artificial intelligence. Its research shows that existing AI tools could improve the DWP’s service and create 250,000 more jobs per year. However, it is reported that the new rebuild of the service is not going to include those AI tools. Can the Secretary of State give the House reassurance that we are going to incorporate those new tools into the rebuild of the service so that we get that employment boost?
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
The UK shared prosperity fund currently supports about 20% of Renfrewshire council’s employability budget. Given that that funding is due to come to an end, can my right hon. Friend outline what steps he will take to support employability services in Renfrewshire going forward?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend will have heard me refer to the youth guarantee being a GB-wide scheme, so it will help people in Scotland. She will agree with me when I point out that the Scottish Government have had the most generous financial settlement since devolution was introduced, and I would hope that some of that would go towards the kind of priority that she outlines.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
My constituent has been trying for more than five months to get a response from the DWP about his UC claim. Having now taken up the case, I too am experiencing unacceptable delays—it is now 15 weeks and counting, when the supposed turnaround is 15 days. Can the Minister please say what action he is taking to ensure that the DWP responds to constituents and to MPs within reasonable timescales?
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Trussell Trust are campaigning for an essentials guarantee that would ensure that benefits cover the necessities for living. Does the Minister agree that the welfare state should be a universal safety net, not a trapdoor?
Pat McFadden
I very much agree that the welfare state should be there to help people to change their circumstances, not just to keep them in their circumstances. I am pleased to report that we have now put in place the crisis and resilience fund, which will help people in the most desperate circumstances, and we have guaranteed its funding for the next three years.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
My constituent Harry has a learning disability, and he is so brilliant that he has not one but two jobs. His mum, Helen, is his appointee, and she is not allowed to access his Access to Work paperwork online. This means she has to print out 24 bits of paper, get it manually signed and pay to post it. That is crackers in 2026. Will the Minister undertake to look at Harry’s case and ensure that appointees, such as Helen, do not find it too hard to access Access to Work, so that we can keep brilliant people like Harry in work?
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
I wish you a speedy recovery, Mr Speaker—as I understand it, the other fellow came off much worse.
On the Isle of Wight, our NHS trust takes students who would otherwise have ended up NEET—not in education, employment or training—and puts them through a pre-apprenticeship scheme that gives them not only the skills but, more importantly, the confidence needed to start an apprenticeship and then go into work. I encourage the Secretary of State to visit the Isle of Wight to see the great work that the trust does. Will he encourage other employers to do the same thing?
Pat McFadden
I will certainly visit the Isle of Wight if I can—diary permitting. The issue he raises about confidence is crucial. When I speak to our work coaches, time and again they say that building the confidence of young people to get out there, to apply for things and to go into new and unfamiliar circumstances is a critical part of their work.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
My constituent Sam has been failed by the Child Maintenance Service. Her ex-partner hid a load of his income. She knows that because the CMS sent her the evidence but then denied it. Any reference to onward referrals is denied, and she is stuck in the bureaucracy. This is an unacceptable situation. She says that by the time the back payment comes through for her children, she will be passing it straight through to her grandchildren. It is a total disgrace. Women should not be treated like this; they should not be subjected to this kind of failing bureaucracy. Will Ministers look into the matter and into Sam’s case?
WorkWell Expansion
Pat McFadden Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
Today, together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, we are announcing England-wide expansion of the WorkWell service from autumn 2026 backed by up to £259 million of investment over three years. We have seen great success with the 15 current WorkWell pilots, which provide integrated employment and health support for local working-age people, helping them to get into and on in work. It is a voluntary service which saw over 25,000 disabled people and people with health conditions receive support to stay in and re-enter the workplace, within the first 14 months of launch.
Key to helping local working age people get the support they need to stay in work or return quickly following a period of absence is ensuring local services are joined up to provide an integrated, holistic approach to health and work support. WorkWell is innovative because although funded by central Government it is designed and delivered by our local health systems, who work in partnership with local government, jobcentres, and community and voluntary groups. This allows us to intervene early at the point an individual feels their health condition or disability will have an impact on the work they do or make it more difficult for them to return to work quickly.
Good quality work is a key determinant of health, and that is why keeping people in work is a core priority for the Government. We know that 2.8 million working-age people are now economically inactive due to health conditions, with 800,000 more people out of work due to health problems now than in 2019. There are more people currently in work with work-limiting health conditions or disabilities than ever before, with almost one in four of the working-age population classed as disabled. The £259 million expansion of WorkWell that we are announcing today forms a key part of our wider Pathways to Work offer for working-age disabled people and those with health conditions.
Helping people along their unique pathway to work is what we mean when we say we want an opportunity welfare state. This is why I am pleased to share that, alongside our existing pilot sites, WorkWell will be available to support our working-age population across all of England from autumn 2026.
[HCWS1257]
Universal Credit Entitlement: Offenders Detained in Hospital
Pat McFadden Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day 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]
Oral Answers to Questions
Pat McFadden Excerpts(1 month, 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?
Safeguarding: Department for Work and Pensions
Pat McFadden Excerpts(1 month, 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]
Support for Young People
Pat McFadden Excerpts(1 month, 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]
Budget Resolutions
Pat McFadden Excerpts(2 months, 1 week 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(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)
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]