Youth Unemployment

Andrew Pakes Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I will come on to talk a little about some of the accusations levelled at the Government in relation to national insurance contributions, so I shall deal with that point later in my speech, if I may.

The youth hubs will offer a helping hand, whether with writing a CV or with obtaining a work placement to include on a CV. We have announced that over the next three years, we will invest £820 million to support almost 900,000 young people who are on universal credit and looking for work. There will be new dedicated work support sessions, followed by intensive, tailored assistance to help those young people secure the right job, training or learning opportunity. We are backing that up by funding about 300,000 more opportunities for people to gain work experience and training in sectors such as construction and hospitality.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her great explanation of youth hubs. We have just opened one at the Peterborough United—Posh—stadium, bringing together all sorts of partnerships. A number of issues are raised by the young people I speak to there, which the youth hub addresses. One of those issues is an element of the Opposition’s record that they have not talked about, namely the decimation of in-work support, and of career services in schools to give young people advice and help. Opposition Members talked a lot about apprentices and undergraduates, but they did not talk about levels 2 and 3, and the engine-room apprentices we need. The youth hub will start getting us back to that in Peterborough.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

My hon. Friend has made his point very well indeed.

Let me return to the subject of the youth guarantee. There will be guaranteed jobs for about 55,000 people over the three years. Companies have already shown an interest in taking on such employees, including E.ON, JD Sports, Tesco and Tui, and we are grateful for the offers that they are making. We Labour Members have tackled these challenges before, under the last Labour Government, through the new deal for young people, and we will do it again now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

There are many ways that we can express it, but none of them are good: youth unemployment is at 15.9%; it is up 10%; it is up 1.5 percentage points; it is up over 100,000 in the last year; it is at a 10-year high—higher than in the covid era.

Let us be clear: this is not economic inactivity we are talking about; it is unemployment. The definition of unemployment is not about who is claiming benefits; it is about having had no income whatever—not having worked for a paid hour—in the reference week. It is about being available for work and actively looking for work. That is the number that has gone up. The increasing number of people who are both studying and seeking to work—for whom, by the way, zero-hours contracts are especially relevant—is a particular issue, and I will come back to that point.

Unemployment overall has gone up, but it is young people who have borne the brunt; the rate of increase has been almost twice as high for young people as it has overall. To be fair, that is usually the case—when there is rising unemployment, it is always young people who feel it first and hardest. Why? Well, as the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), said, the first thing that employers do when things look uncertain or difficult is to stop hiring. A hiring freeze is the quickest way to cut down the payroll.

Secondly, if companies have to let people go, I am afraid that redundancy is cheaper when it comes to younger people, so they sometimes deploy a LIFO rule —last in, first out. There is then the secondary effect that the more experienced workers can fill the vacancies. On top of that, we have the situation at the moment whereby sectors that disproportionately employ young people—in shops, restaurants, hotels and throughout retail, hospitality and leisure—have been particularly hard hit by the national insurance and business rates hikes.

I said that youth unemployment usually tends to rise faster and be higher than overall unemployment. That is true, but historically it is not as true in this country as it is in the rest of Europe. There are exceptions—in Germany and the Netherlands, for example—but it is the case in southern Europe. After the crash under the previous Labour Government in 2007-08, there was talk of a lost generation in southern Europe as youth unemployment rates soared so high.

Why should the situation in those countries be different from the situation in countries like ours? There is a fancy economics term for it: insider-outsider theory. That theory basically says that when there are economic troubles in a system that has very heavily regulated labour markets, very high levels of employment protection and the very heavy involvement of trade unions, all the help tends to go to the people in work, and it is those trying to get into work—the outsiders—who suffer as a result. Historically, our country has had more liberalised—although not totally liberalised—labour markets, which has meant that we have not had those problems with youth unemployment to the same extent as some of our near neighbours in Europe, and we have tended to recover more quickly when they do occur.

Right now, we have the historical rarity—I am not sure it is unique, but it is certainly a rarity—that the ratio of youth unemployment to total unemployment in the UK is higher than it is in the EU. That is before we feel all the effects of the Employment Rights Act 2025; I am sure that some effects were there already, but we have yet to feel the full effect. That Act will discourage taking on new workers, especially new untested workers, and that is of course what youth unemployment is.

Let me talk about one aspect of the 2025 Act: zero-hours contracts. These contracts have a special place in Labour mythology, which comes from the time when the last leader of the party, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), used to bring them up every week at Prime Minister’s questions, saying that they were an epidemic, ripping apart our country. At the time, the Conservatives researched how big a deal zero-hours contracts were, and it turned out that fewer than 3% of workers had a zero-hours contract for their main job. There were others who had one for a second job, including many working as bank staff in the NHS. There were also lots of students on them. It turned out that the average number of hours on a zero-hours contract was 25, and—here’s the bit that nobody could accept—the average job satisfaction of people on a zero-hours contract was higher than it was for workers overall.

Those on the Government Benches have been grimacing a little, but I do not know how many of them know that the proportion of people on zero-hours contracts has gone up since the general election of 2024. They are just a part of our economy. They are also heavily skewed towards young people, such as students working in sectors like hospitality and other seasonal occupations. About 40% of people with a zero-hours contract job are under 25.

I myself was once a young person with a zero-hours contract—I just did not know it was called that. If colleagues across the House think back to their first job, perhaps washing up in a restaurant or working shifts in a shop, they probably did not know at the start if they would be working exactly the same number of hours every week and so on; it turns out that a lot of us probably had our first opportunity in the world of work through a zero-hours contract. It will be true for people even after the Employment Rights Act—those with such a contract will have some extra guarantees included in nit. However, it will also be a bigger deal, from an employer’s point of view, and it will add some risk to taking on young people. What will be the balance for employers and employees? It is, for Ministers, a leap of faith.

[Andrew Pakes]

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s knowledge and his passion for this subject. I would just suggest that he perhaps underestimates the impact that insecure work can have. In one of my brother’s last jobs, he had to get in the car and start driving to work each morning before he would get a phone call telling him whether or not he had a shift that day. Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it is reasonable that people like my brother should know their shift a day in advance? That is the issue we are really talking about with insecure work. I understand that he is making a political point, but we are talking about real people’s lives.

[Damian Hinds]

I am not making a political point. I think it is right and reasonable to give employees visibility, and all good employers who want to keep their employees will of course do the right thing and try to do so. The Employment Rights Act, however, does an awful lot more than just let people know some time in advance about the hours of their next shift.

The effects we see from the Employment Rights Act, taxation changes and other measures will not be mass lay-offs; it will be people—young people—not being taken on in the first place. Why does that matter? The Minister said it herself: it matters because of the scarring effect of youth unemployment. We know from studies that if someone is out of work in their early 20s, they can still be suffering the effects 20 or 30 years later.

There are things the Government could do to mitigate some of what is happening, including on the regulations coming out of the Employment Rights Act. However, I just wonder why they are doing it overall. I think it is because, in a world where there have been enough U-turns from this Government—actually, I do not think there have been enough yet, but there have been a lot—that legislation is something that Labour MPs can bring home and say, “This is a proper left-wing policy that we have enacted.” But do they really want to bring home higher levels of youth unemployment in their constituencies? That is what will happen.

The Government have introduced a number of schemes to try to mitigate what is going on, some of which are welcome. All Governments introduce somewhat similar schemes. However, the 55,000 people who will be eligible for the jobs guarantee should be seen in the context of the more than 900,000 young people who are not in education, employment or training. The scheme is limited in the areas it covers and, I think, people are eligible only after they have been searching for a job for 18 months or more, which would obviously count out many young people.

I welcome Connect to Work, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson), although I do not think it is meant particularly for young people; it might nevertheless be helpful for people who have been off on long-term sick. I thought the timings sounded ambitious when the Government first announced it, though, so I would welcome the Minister telling us what they expect the numbers to be at the end of this financial year, including in my county of Hampshire.

I know that I have already spoken for 10 minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I just want to set the record straight on apprenticeships, which have come up a number of times. I hope I can help the House with a non-partisan description of what has happened in relation to apprenticeships over the past 20 or more years. The truth is that under the previous Labour Government, and under the first few years of the coalition Government, many tens of thousands of young people were doing an apprenticeship without even knowing they were doing so, so thin and flimsy were those apprenticeships. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) may screw up his face, but that is true; the research evidence is available.

The previous Government therefore reformed apprenticeships to be a minimum of one year, with a minimum of 20% time off the job, end-point assessments and qualifications designed by employers themselves, overseen by an independent Institute for Apprenticeships. Yes, when we did that, the number of apprenticeships went down, and the numbers that the Minister was quoting were all from after that change. Making the specifications of a qualification considerably more exacting will of course have an effect on the numbers. But guess what the new Government are doing? The minimum length for an apprenticeship will now be eight months. Try telling a German captain of industry that it is possible to do an apprenticeship in eight months. Will the numbers go up? Of course they will!

I recently met hairdressers in my constituency and was reminded of how all this comes together. Hairdressers, like hospitality businesses and others, bring people into our town centres. They are more than just employers, and their businesses cannot just move online. They are now facing seriously higher employment costs, including national insurance contributions and, in many cases, much higher business rates, and that is before we get to the looming impact of the employment regulations. Hairdressers also have a very strong tradition of taking on large numbers of young people and apprenticeships. My worry is that, with the increase in costs, it will be simply unaffordable for them to take on young people in nearly the same numbers. The same is true for pubs and many other employers.

We are seeing the early effects of Government policy in today’s youth unemployment numbers, and I take no pleasure whatsoever in saying this, but I am afraid that they are going to get materially worse. I ask the Government to take that seriously and to act, not by delivering some short-term programmes but by rethinking their approach in order to make it easier and less costly for companies to take on young people so that they can start their careers and build their futures.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Andrew Pakes Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lizzi Collinge]

I think the hon. Gentleman has missed the bit where the Government are taking out clause 5 and the measures on the PIP eligibility criteria, and are doing the review first, but I thank him for his intervention.

I will hold the Government to account for their promises about the review. I also endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), and support her new clause 11.

This debate has involved a huge raft of different issues, and they have been conflated at times, so before I talk about the other changes that I support, I want to emphasise that PIP is not just an out-of-work benefit. It is claimed by people both in and out of work, and it is there to help with the extra costs associated with disabilities and long-term conditions. However, there is also a huge disability employment gap, and a great many people who want to work cannot, simply for lack of a bit of support—some health treatment, or an employer who will make reasonable adjustments. I am therefore pleased that plans for employment support have been brought forward, and that there will be extra investment earlier.

I should make it clear that my concerns always focused on a small part of the broader reform package, but for reasons of time, I will not go into them. These are vital steps towards fixing the system. I will not say that I have no concerns left—I have, which is why I support amendment 17, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie)—but no policy or solution will be perfect. No Green Paper can address everything, and no legislation can get everything right.

In these past few weeks, I have been reminded of something that my friend Joe once said to me: “Politics is not a game to be played. It’s people’s lives, and people’s lives matter.” No wonder our constituents have so little faith in our political system, when what should have been a debate about the rights and wrongs of a policy and about the lives of those constituents has turned into a debate about the Westminster bubble, not the people we serve. The Westminster bubble ought to be popped, and quickly.

The views of the House have been made clear over the last couple of weeks, and I am glad that the Government have listened. I will always speak out, as I know my colleagues will, without fear or favour, and we will always fight for a better, fairer welfare system for everyone.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

I rise to support the removal of clause 5 and the associated amendments, and to comment on a few other amendments, based on what I have read and learned.

Many things have been said in this debate, in the Chamber and outside, but it is undeniable that the system is not working for far too many people. We see a welfare bill rising, people trapped on benefits, and opportunities lost. The most heartbreaking part of all this is not the monetary cost, which we seem to talk about too much, but the cost to people of being written off, and spending a lifetime in a failed, broken system. We all hear stories every week, through our casework and in our surgeries, of people who want to work but do not have the necessary support; of the intrusive nature of assessments; of bureaucracy that needs a human touch; of people fearing to try work for fear of losing their benefits; and of disabled people who need more support.

One of my hon. Friends, who is no longer in the Chamber, spoke about the broken social contract. While we approach this debate, and this subject, with the compassion and care that are needed, we should also be clear that the social contract is already broken. There is nothing honourable about denying or slowing down action to tackle the problem of 2.8 million people being thrown on the scrapheap for being sick, or long-term sick. There is nothing to cherish from the Conservatives, who left this Government a legacy of nearly 1 million young people thrown on the scrapheap, not in employment, not in education and not in any meaningful walk of life. No one can say that the system is not broken, and that is the spirit in which many of us in this Chamber have sought, from different perspectives, to approach this legislation. I want to speak against amendments that seek to delay or wreck this Bill, because whatever happens next, we need to get going.

One of the criticisms of this Government that I sometimes hear is that we do not move fast enough. Now that we have started to fix our broken welfare system, we are being told by some that we are going too fast. I think we can move forward with a Bill that begins to fix the foundations of our welfare system, and do so with compassion for those most in need, and I welcome contributions that we have heard today. I also welcome the fact that Ministers have listened to our concerns about the Bill and decided last week to remove clause 5, because it caused anxiety not just to Members of this House, but to many people outside who saw the risk.

Bringing the Timms review forward before any changes are made, and committing to fully involving disabled people and their organisations, is the right thing to do; the Government have listened. I recognise many of the points made in passionate speeches, and I support new clause 11, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball). I hope the Minister will address that, and assure the House that the sentiment has been taken on board, because the new clause will make the Bill better, not worse, and clear the fog.

It is important that we push ahead with this Bill. As colleagues have said, work is central to Labour’s mission, because dignity comes from good work and from employers who embrace their employees and give people the ability to work. There is no dignity in allowing 2.8 million people to be thrown on the scrapheap, with no ability to get off it.

[Tom Hayes]

I recognise exactly what my hon. Friend is saying, because both my parents were forced out of work. They were unwell, and could not get the support they needed from the NHS. They could not get a foot in the door of the social security system and, as their health got worse, they got further away from the workforce. I wish that we had had better support for them.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is positive that the Government are open to setting a disability employment target, which could drive action? In my constituency of Bournemouth East, the rate stands at an unacceptable 24% after 14 years of the Conservatives.

[Andrew Pakes]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He makes a powerful case for why our job today is to fix the Bill, not kill it.

We should be passionate about the centrality and dignity of work. Unemployed young people in my constituency, and those who are disabled, are frustrated by a system that does not work, and they want the Government to work with them to fix it. That mission was true 80 years ago, when the post-war Attlee Government were elected to pick up the pieces following the devastation of the second world war. Similarly, our Government’s mission today is to fix the foundations of a broken welfare system and a broken economy.

As I said on Second Reading, I am particularly concerned about the impact of the welfare trap on young people. I represent a city with one of the highest levels of—this is a horrible phrase—young people who are NEET, or not in employment, education or training, and who are starting their adult life on benefits. We know that the trend has not been helped by the failure of the mental health system and the health system, which has put pressure on people without offering them any help or support to get them through.

I am a passionate advocate of apprenticeships. It cannot be right that so many young people in Peterborough and around the country are starting their adult lives on benefits, and I agree that we should not be paying benefits so that young people can stay at home. We should be investing in young people’s ability to earn, learn and train.

I hope the Minister will expand on those points when he comes to respond to the debate, because it is morally, politically and economically right that young people should be earning and learning, and it is right that we proceed with this Bill. Following the removal of clause 5, I am content that this Bill begins the journey of fixing the system. It is the start, not the end, but it is a start we need to make.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Andrew Pakes Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

On a long, hot, sweaty day like this, one of my hearing aids has collapsed in the middle of this session, so I am only half hearing you, Madam Deputy Speaker—you did call me, didn’t you?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

indicated assent.

[Andrew Pakes]

Thank you—you have saved me the embarrassment.

It is a great privilege to speak in this debate alongside so many passionate advocates who want to get this reform right. I think all of us on the Government Benches, whatever our differences of opinion on a point of policy, came into this House to make a difference and fix the welfare system, to liberate and create opportunities for people. I thank the Secretary of State for her statement yesterday and welcome news of the PIP assessment review, which moves us forward. It is vital that we engage those most affected by a failed welfare state in designing a successful one.

We have put off change for too long. That is particularly true when it comes to young people. If politics is about choices, condemning nearly a million young people to the scrapheap of unemployment was the choice of the Conservative party. I want to focus my contribution on how these changes can affect young people and their life chances.

Full employment and good-quality jobs have been a central part of Labour’s most successful Governments. That is why fixing Britain’s broken system of social security must be a priority for this Labour Government. There is no dignity in denying young people the opportunity to learn, earn or make a better life for themselves. As we approach the 80th anniversary of the 1945 Labour landslide, we must remember previous Governments who have dealt with such big challenges. Work was essential to that great 1945 Labour Government. William Beveridge’s landmark report in 1942 laid the foundation for Labour’s post-war welfare state, with an NHS, free education for all and full employment.

The vision of Labour leaders such as Attlee, Morrison and Bevin was that every citizen would live a life free from want, squalor, disease or poverty, with meaningful help when times were tough. In return, every citizen was expected to play a full part in the social and economic life of the nation. Looking at the high number of people not in education, employment or training—NEETs, that terrible phrase—in my constituency, I see an economy that is still letting people down, a mental health system that is letting young people down and an NHS system that is trapping too many young people on a life of benefits.

When the Minister winds up the debate, can he confirm that we will deliver the employment support that young people need and simplify the way that benefits and jobcentres work, so that young people get the support they deserve? Will the Secretary of State work with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to fix our broken mental health system, so that young people have a hand up rather than being pushed down? Our values should be about compassion, and our social security system should be about dignity for those who are unable to work or need support. That is why I welcome the protections that have been announced for people already on PIP.

There has been a common theme in the debate. Many Members have raised concerns not with the fact that the Timms review will happen—it will begin to embed co-production, as the Secretary of State and many others in this House have said—but, I think legitimately, about its timing.

[Anna Dixon]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Andrew Pakes]

I will give way.

[Anna Dixon]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and I am pleased that he could hear my desire to intervene. Does he share my concern that the Timms review is too slow and will not conclude under its current timetable until next autumn? Does he agree that the Timms review should be accelerated so that a package of measures that have been co-produced with disabled people and their carers, including young people, can be implemented in November 2026?

[Andrew Pakes]

I thank my hon. Friend for making an important point. I would, if possible, give my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability Duracell batteries to turbocharge his work in this area.

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

During this debate, my hon. Friend and others across the House have raised concerns that the changes to PIP are coming ahead of the conclusions of the review of the assessment that I will be leading. We have heard those concerns, and that is why I can announce that we are going to remove clause 5 from the Bill in Committee. We will move straight to the wider review—sometimes referred to as the Timms review—and only make changes to PIP eligibility activities and descriptors following that review. The Government are committed to concluding the review by the autumn of next year.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

The hon. Member will be aware that that is not a matter for the Chair, and the vote will be on the Bill as it stands. We have had a clear undertaking from the Dispatch Box as to what will happen in Committee.

[Andrew Pakes]

As a member of a party that often debates clause IV, I welcome today’s news about clause 5, which I think addresses many of the concerns that hon. Members across the House, particularly on the Government Benches, have raised.

There is an urgency to moving forward with the Bill and with change. Today’s system is broken. The legacy of the previous Government is shocking. Some 2.8 million people are outside the labour market due to long-term sickness. That is the same as the populations of Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield and Liverpool combined. One in eight young people are outside education, employment or training. The UK is the only G7 economy where sickness rates are higher than before covid, and as we have heard, health and disability-related benefits will cost around £100 billion over the next four years. That has a massive impact on our national resources. Economic inactivity not only holds back growth and makes us all poorer, but it blights the lives of those without work. That is why Labour Members believe that tackling worklessness is not just an economic case but a moral crusade.

In conclusion, I want to see real support for people to get skills, opportunities and jobs. I want every 18 to 21-year-old to be offered a life off benefits through an apprenticeship or training. I want real support for people with poor mental health so that they can access the care they want. We need Labour’s Employment Rights Bill to be fully implemented to change the culture of work, so that employers work with disabled people to create the opportunities we need. Most of all, we need a system of social security that is there for everyone with a genuine need, so that no one falls into poverty because they lose their job and everyone who can work is given a path back into employment.

Mansion House Accord

Andrew Pakes Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

I hear the point the right hon. Gentleman raises, and we have had those debates in this Chamber in recent months. The UK Government are doing what they need to do to invest in our security and defence and to support our defence industry more generally. We have made it very clear that private investment in those sectors is the right thing to do for our national security and our national economic growth. So far today, there have been calls for mandation and calls to oppose any mandation. There are choices available within pension funds for savers. The vast majority of funds—I think it is 99% within the National Employment Savings Trust, for example—invest in the broad defaults and do invest in the likes of defence companies.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the statement. One of the most woeful things about our national story has been the lack of investment in infrastructure, but that story is not just about GDP and productivity at a national level; it is also about places. In Peterborough, the lack of investment over the last decade has been woeful. I know that the public sector cannot do it all itself. While I put on record my thanks to the Department for Transport for this week announcing business case approval and funding for our station regeneration project, can the Minister explain how this policy will help investment in places like mine? Does it truly meet the definition of “further and faster”?

[Torsten Bell]

I am sure that Ministers in the Department for Transport will have heard my hon. Friend’s words and that his buttering up will have the desired effect over the years to come. He is right to highlight the synergies between public and private investment. We need to see higher levels of public investment, which is why this Government are putting in place £113 billion over these five years. That is being done because it will deliver real, tangible progress that people can see in their streets. Why do people think Britain went backward over the last 15 years? There are lots of reasons, but high up the list is visible potholes on every single road in Britain. We are turning that around as we speak. That wider investment also gives confidence to the private sector, and we see that across the piece—wherever we are delivering regeneration projects with public sector investment supporting them, it crowds in private investment in exactly the way my hon. Friend sets out.

PIP Changes: Impact on Carer’s Allowance

Andrew Pakes Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

It is very important that the system properly handles fluctuating conditions. One of the benefits of the proposal in the Green Paper to record by default PIP assessments is that we will be able to provide better assurance that the assessments get these judgments right, particularly in the case of fluctuating conditions.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

I know from speaking to charities, local groups and people from brilliant projects such as JobSmart in my constituency about the increasing complexity of the relationship between different forms of benefit, including carer’s allowance, and the rules around working. That makes it increasingly difficult for people to use the options they have. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the record amount of employment support will address the issue of the flexibility that we need to support sick and disabled people into some form of work, and will not just be for mentoring for those in other categories?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I join him in paying tribute to organisations such as JobSmart in his constituency. When the previous Labour Government introduced the new deal for disabled people in 1998—I was the Minister then, as I am now—the disability employment gap started to fall, and it fell steadily all the way until 2010, when it stopped falling. I want to get us back to that positive downward trajectory.

Welfare Reform

Andrew Pakes Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

Full details on the impact of these changes on the block grant will be available at the spring statement. The last Budget provided the biggest ever block grant settlement since devolution. I will be working closely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Executive to make sure we do everything possible to help people in Northern Ireland into work and off benefits, to ensure that they have the same chances and choices as people right across the United Kingdom.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

Peterborough is a youth unemployment hotspot. I know not many Members are left on the Opposition Benches, but one of the most shameful parts of their record has been writing off a generation, with one in eight young people not in education, earning or training. There is nothing progressive or good about a Government who write off young people and put them on benefits. I welcome the work that the Secretary of State has announced about employment support services for young people. Will she speak more about my passion, which is the Government’s youth guarantee and how we put into reality youth jobs for the future?

[Liz Kendall]

Young people in my hon. Friend’s constituency are much more likely to be unemployed than young people in the rest of the country, and I know his passion for the youth guarantee. We are investing extra support into the youth guarantee in his area, and I look forward to launching that youth guarantee very soon.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Pakes Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

As I have already mentioned in a number of responses, we understand the scale and seriousness of the problem the hon. Member mentions. We have already published the terms of reference for the child poverty taskforce, and we will continue to keep the House updated as we move forward, given the seriousness of the issue.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

T7. On Friday last week, we held our first NEETs—those not in education, employment or training—and youth opportunities summit in Peterborough, bringing together Peterborough college, Anglia Ruskin University Peterborough and employers to see how we can tackle our youth unemployment problem. Will the Secretary of State commit to working further with places such as Peterborough to ensure we can deliver decent apprenticeships and more opportunities for young people who need them?

[Liz Kendall]

Yes, I do commit to that, and I thank my hon. Friend for his tireless campaigning on the issue. With almost 1,000 young people unemployed in his constituency, or almost one in 10, I know what an important issue it is. His area is part of one of our youth guarantee trailblazers, meaning that every young person is earning or learning. I commit that the whole Government will continue to work with him and partners in his constituency to make sure that no young person is left behind.

“Get Britain Working” White Paper

Andrew Pakes Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

I 100% want young people, and all my hon. Friend’s constituents in Dartford, to have the same chances. As I said earlier, I do not have a combined authority in my city, so I am acutely aware of this issue. This will be for local councils to lead. They will be developing local “Get Britain Working” plans. They will be the responsible and accountable body over our youth guarantee. We have to deliver this everywhere because talent is everywhere but opportunity is not, and that is what we all came into politics to change.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

This is a momentous White Paper by a momentous Secretary of State. Yesterday, I had the great privilege to take my right hon. Friend to Peterborough college to meet excellent businesses and apprentices doing brilliant work, including EML, Baker Perkins, Taylor Rose, Codem and Gen Phoenix. Those businesses and learners are excelling in a system that has failed too many of our young people. Apprenticeships are down and youth unemployment is up in my city. Can my right hon. Friend tell us how quickly we can get going on these new trailblazers?

[Liz Kendall]

I thank my hon. Friend for an amazing visit yesterday, and I hope he will pass on my thanks to Rachel at the local college and to all the local businesses and apprentices. I agree with him: the number of apprenticeship starts for young people dropped by 38% under the previous Government’s apprenticeship levy, and in Peterborough more than 1,350 young people are claiming benefits, with the majority not in work, so we must act swiftly, and we will. These programmes are starting immediately in the new year. I look forward to working with him and all those businesses and the college in Peterborough to put our plans into action, because we are determined to deliver.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Pakes Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Indeed, she and I worked on an excellent Select Committee report on health assessments for benefits, which provides some very important and valuable recommendations to the Department. We will continue to look at this issue. I am not familiar with the case that she refers to, but I will dig out the details. Clearly, it is vital that the process should be accessible to people with sight impairments or any other impairments. I completely agree with her.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

3. What assessment she has made of trends in the number of young people out of work, education and training.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)]

The legacy we inherited is almost 1 million young people not in education, employment or training—nearly one in eight—with all the long-term consequences we know that can bring for their future earnings, job prospects and health. That is why our new youth guarantee will ensure that every young person is earning or learning, which is better for them, better for the economy and better for our country as a whole.

[Andrew Pakes]

The DWP has described Peterborough as a national youth unemployment hotspot. In September, the youth claimant count was running at nearly double the national average. Places like Peterborough college, through its Jobsmart provision, are already pulling together a coalition to respond to that challenge. I welcome the Government’s youth guarantee and “Get Britain Working” plans to ensure that young people in places like Peterborough are given the opportunity to earn or learn. Will the Secretary of State please confirm a timetable for the publication of the White Paper?

[Liz Kendall]

The “Get Britain Working” White Paper will be published imminently, backed by £240 million of investment announced by the Chancellor in the Budget. I look forward very much to talking to my hon. Friend and the organisations that are working so hard locally, because I believe that the man, or even woman, in Whitehall can never know what is best in Peterborough, Leicester or Leeds.