Access to Work Scheme

Douglas McAllister Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Dame Diana Johnson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) on securing this important debate and thank him for sharing his personal experience, which is so valuable and helpful when we discuss this type of issue. I know it is not the first time he has raised this matter, and he is right to focus on it.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for sharing his personal experience. I am delighted that both hon. Members are in the House and were able to use Access to Work to help them in their rehabilitation and return to employment. The Department is looking very carefully at the report my hon. Friend referred to, and we will come back to that. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for their contributions, and, of course, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who brings an interesting perspective to every debate he speaks in.

To be very clear, we want to build on our welfare state. We want it to be a working state, so that everyone has a platform of opportunity as well as a safety net. That is because everybody, regardless of disability or health condition, deserves the chance to make the most of their life. We want to remove unnecessary barriers that hold far too many people back—barriers to accessing, staying in and progressing in work—and of course, we need to reduce the disability employment gap, which at 29.5% remains far too high.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

I wish to bring to the Minister’s attention the experience of one of my constituents, who has given me permission to provide this information. She is profoundly deaf—that is how she describes herself—and has relied on Access to Work for 25 years. Despite this, she was recently told, via a no-reply email, to telephone or risk losing support, even though email communication had already been agreed as a reasonable adjustment. She applied within the six-week priority window, yet is facing delays of more than 30 weeks. She has received repeated emails incorrectly claiming that she has not responded, and has no clear information or timescales or the support she will receive. Does the Minister agree that a scheme designed to support disabled people into work must itself be accessible, and will she ensure that agreed adjustments are followed, communications improved and priority cases are genuinely prioritised?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that case. The Minister for Social Security and Disability, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), has responsibility for Access to Work. He sadly cannot be with us this afternoon, but I have heard that particular case, and if my hon. Friend supplies me with the details, I will certainly raise it with the Minister.

Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

Douglas McAllister Excerpts

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

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

I rise to support the Bill and do so proudly on behalf of the families I represent in West Dunbartonshire. The two-child benefit cap makes poor children poorer. It punishes children for their circumstances and it has no place in our United Kingdom. Tackling child poverty is a proud Labour tradition and one that this Government have been proactive in pursuing from the very outset. This will deliver the much-needed change that we promised to my constituents.

West Dunbartonshire is a constituency with pockets of significant deprivation, but it is also one that is built on a proud legacy of hard work, fairness and a strong sense of community. For too long in my constituency, too many families have been held back by the two-child benefit cap—a policy that does not reflect my values. It is where I live, and it is where I want our children and young people to succeed. By scrapping the two-child limit, we will directly benefit 2,260 children in West Dunbartonshire. Last year, over 4,500 children in my constituency were living in poverty, and despite the claims of those who oppose the Bill, more than 60% of those households with children in poverty are working families. I see parents turning to food banks not because they have failed, but because the system has failed them.

In some parts of West Dunbartonshire, over 65% of people are living in relative poverty. In 2024, this meant that eight children in every classroom of 30 in my constituency were growing up in poverty, while more than 12,000 households struggled with fuel poverty. Those figures underlie why the Bill will make such a difference. There are many families in my constituency that struggle every single day to make ends meet, and I see children starting life on the back foot through no fault of their own. My wife works in education, and for many years she worked in a primary school in my constituency where it was common for children to arrive hungry, having had nothing to eat at home.

I remind the House that these are not just statistics. These are children skipping meals and living in cold, damp homes because their families cannot afford to buy sufficient food, never mind pay the heating bill. These children are the next generation in West Dunbartonshire, and they should not be denied the same opportunities as others. Every single child matters.

At the heart of Labour values is an inherent belief that background should not be a barrier to success, and the removal of the two-child limit is a clear and welcome expression of that commitment. This is the change that we promised and it will make a real, tangible difference to so many families in my constituency. The removal of this limit is only part of this Labour Government’s plan for change, and for tackling poverty in a sustained way. The Chancellor’s decision to reduce the level of debt repayments taken from universal credit means that 1.2 million of the poorest households keep more of their award each month. This is a straightforward change, but one that will have a real impact on family finances in West Dunbartonshire.

The Budget delivered record additional funding for Scotland, which will create opportunities to improve outcomes for families and children in places like West Dunbartonshire. However, it is disappointing that the SNP has too often failed to match increased resources with effective delivery when it comes to tackling child poverty in Scotland. Education is the quickest route out of poverty, but in my constituency and across Scotland, the educational attainment gap continues to widen. Meanwhile, further education colleges are being starved of funding, further undermining the life chances of young people in West Dunbartonshire. Removing the two-child limit is the right thing to do. It will give children a better start in life, regardless of how many siblings they have. This will increase their life chances. Not only that, but the decision will also ease the strain on our schools, our local charities and the NHS, and will therefore benefit all in society.

The solution to fixing the welfare system cannot be found in punishing those most vulnerable in society. Social security should provide stability and dignity for everyone, especially children. The Bill is essential to helping alleviate some of the burdens and daily struggles that families in West Dunbartonshire face, and it will lift 450,000 children nationally out of poverty by 2030. I was elected on a manifesto commitment to improve the life chances of every child, and supporting the Bill is consistent with that commitment. Labour has always stood for communities like West Dunbartonshire. Children are not a burden and poverty is not inevitable. I am proud to support the Bill and what it represents—hope, opportunity and fairness—and I commend it to the House.

Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report

Douglas McAllister Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

Statutory Maternity and Paternity Pay

Douglas McAllister Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jacob Collier]

I agree, and those are some of the themes that I will come on to. We know, from parents such as Grace and from the stories that we will hear throughout today’s debate, that the current system leaves huge gaps and does not support families or children in the way it should.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

My constituents Stacy, Caitlin, Julia and Alison maintain that the current rates of maternity and paternity pay are woefully inadequate. One advised me that they delayed having children until they were financially secure, and it is unlikely that they will consider having a second child. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that, while introducing parental leave as a day one right is a welcome first step, the review of parental leave should include a significant rise in the rates of statutory pay to at least the level of the national living wage, and six weeks for dads on 100% pay? Current pay is far below basic living standards, and families in my constituency cannot afford leave.

Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress

Douglas McAllister Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

I fully understand that the Government decision announced in December last year was not about the changes to state pension age from 1995 onwards, but rather about how decisions made by the Department between 2005 and 2007 led to a 28-month delay in sending out letters to people affected by those changes. In March 2024, the PHSO’s stage 2 and 3 reports found clear maladministration in the way the DWP communicated state pension age changes. That fact cannot be disputed. As a direct result, many women born in the 1950s were left with little or no time to make alternative plans and therefore suffered injustice. Again, that is clear and obvious, I would suggest, to all.

Figures from Age Scotland suggest that around 336,000 women were impacted in Scotland, and over 5,000 of those were in my West Dumbartonshire constituency—my WASPI women—including Elizabeth Daly, Elaine Newfeld and Maureen McGrath. I could list hundreds who have contacted me to share their personal stories, to help me understand that this is not just about figures or statistics. They include Liz, who cared for her desperately ill husband, her retirement plan wrecked and their lives destroyed by years of suffering, and Maureen, penalised because she retired at the age of 60 to care for her elderly mother, who lost out on accessing a full state retirement pension. All my WASPI women tell me that, at this stage, it is not about the level of need or the amount of compensation, but about justice.

The UK Government were right to recognise the injustice suffered by WASPI women in the statement to the House on 17 December, and to apologise for the maladministration that affected women across the UK. Of course, the steps set out by the Government to ensure this does not happen again are welcome, but we must learn the lessons and always set a clear timetable for notice of any future state pension age changes. However, an apology is not enough. I urge my Government colleagues to look again at the ombudsman’s report and all its recommendations.

Ignoring key elements of the report, by refusing to comply with its instructions and refusing to set up a compensation scheme for maladministration, not only undermines its role and function, but is unprecedented and sets us on a very dangerous path. For any Government to reject the recommendations of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman is extremely rare. Between 2018 and 2021, the PHSO made a total of 811 compensation recommendations—only one was not complied with and 99.9% were accepted. Therefore this is highly unusual and, in my opinion, corrosive.

To conclude, I suggest that we should avoid unnecessary court action. Let us get around the table with the WASPI women and avoid years of court battles, similar to other scandals over the past few decades. Let us urgently review and explore what schemes this Government can consider, and offer financial redress to the 1950s women who deserve justice and to be properly compensated for past Government maladministration.

Oral Answers to Questions

Douglas McAllister Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Western]

I hope the hon. Member has heard me say that we concur with the need for change. We have announced changes in the right direction today, and I will of course pick up with my fellow Minister about securing that meeting for her. I know they have already been in protracted talks about arranging it, and I will make sure it happens.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

My constituent, Deborah, should receive monthly child maintenance payments for her daughter, but her former partner withholds payments, despite my complaints and hers to the DWP Child Maintenance Service complaints team, advising them that he deliberately withholds payments for three months and then backdates them. That is a form of abuse and controlling behaviour, but the DWP complaints team have advised me today that there is nothing they can do to prevent it, despite a deduction-from-earnings order being in place. Does the Minister agree that that is a completely inadequate response that requires a ministerial review of the system?

[Andrew Western]

I am sorry to hear about the case that my hon. Friend has highlighted. He will have heard the reform that I announced earlier, but I absolutely understand why he wants to raise this issue for his constituent, and if he would like to meet me to discuss it further, I would be happy to do that.

Winter Fuel Payment

Douglas McAllister Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

My view is that all pensioners are being supported by our higher level of the basic state pension and the new state pension, supported by the difficult decisions that the Government have been able to take. All pensioners will be supported by a functioning NHS, which is what we are putting in place after the disgrace of the last 14 years. To answer the hon. Member’s question directly, we are setting out the system for future years and not for the past.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

This is welcome news that will bring even more money to Scotland on top of the record funding settlement that our Chancellor delivered in the Budget. Does the Minister agree that my constituents fear the Scottish Government and John Swinney’s plans to pay out just £100 in Scotland? Those who need it most will now get more in England and Wales than the SNP will pay out to pensioners in Scotland—double, in fact—because the Scottish Government seem determined to pay out to the very wealthiest millionaires in Scotland. Should they rethink that?

Pensions: Expatriates

Douglas McAllister Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on securing this important debate on an issue that is often overlooked, as I think we would all agree. It is fair to say that successive Governments have ignored this issue for decades and, understandably, many UK citizens are unaware of what would happen to their state pension if they were to relocate to one of the countries affected by this regressive arrangement.

It seems completely arbitrary that someone could emigrate to America and continue to receive an annual uprating in their state pension, but not if they went to Canada. We have heard that the blight of frozen pensions affects nearly half a million British citizens living overseas, despite the fact that they paid national insurance contributions for much of their working lives.

The impact of this arrangement is absolutely shocking. We have already heard that four in 10 frozen pensioners report that they struggle to afford items such as food and fuel. In my view, our state pension system is already insufficient to meet the needs of millions of existing and future pensioners, but let us imagine how inadequate it would be if the pension failed to rise at least in line with inflation or earnings for more than 20 years of someone’s retirement.

Most pensioners in this position were never informed that their state pension would be frozen in this way. The scandal therefore has a number of parallels with those behind other campaigns, such as that affecting women born in the 1950s, who argue that they saw their state pension age increase without due notice.

Such measures only end up hurting the most vulnerable in our society. Taken alongside recent decisions to means-test the winter fuel allowance, which was mentioned earlier; the refusal to pay compensation to the WASPI women; and the proposed cuts to disability benefits, it could appear that the Government are trying to balance the country’s books on the back of some of the poorest members of our society.

Although there will always be a cost to Government decisions, I ask the Minister to consider that beginning to uprate the frozen pensions at a future date would cost only around £55 million a year. Most commentators would understand that that is not beyond the realms of possibility. It would be a significant step not only in showing that the Government are on the side of older people who have made a contribution to our country, but in unravelling a long-standing anomaly that the public simply cannot understand.

Finally, the Government should also consider that with changes to the overseas voting rules, as was mentioned earlier, many of the UK pensioners affected by the frozen pension scandal are now in fact registered voters in the UK.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

My West Dunbartonshire constituent, Fraser, has now retired and lives in Australia. He is one of the half a million British citizens and voters now affected by this 70-year outdated and harsh practice. He is from my home town of Clydebank. He worked in the ordnance factory in Bishopton for decades, and then in the Govan shipyards. He paid his national insurance contributions for many years, but his pension is frozen. He tells me that every year it is getting harder and harder for him to make ends meet.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a scandalous injustice? We are not seeking a full backdating, but for the Government to introduce some form of yearly indexing to answer that injustice.

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Douglas McAllister Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. It is right that this House should consider compensation for women affected by changes to the state pension age. Before, during and after the general election, I pledged my support to the close to 6,000 women of West Dunbartonshire affected by this injustice. It was right and fair to do so then, and I cannot and will not turn my back on them now. I continue to support West Dunbartonshire WASPI women, who are led by their inspirational co-ordinator, Elizabeth Daly.

In March 2024, the PHSO stage two and three report found clear maladministration in the way that the DWP communicated state pension age changes. It is clear to me, based on the communication I have received from my constituents, that they did not know that their state pension age was changing, or, if they did, that they received that information far too late to make the necessary adjustments to their retirement plans. The PHSO instructed all of us in Parliament to consider the findings—it took the rare, but necessary, step of laying the report before Parliament, not just the Department or the Government. It was for us to consider the findings, apologise and issue compensation.

For the very welcome apology for maladministration to be in any way meaningful, there must be redress for the injustice. There must be compensation—not a handout for hardship. It should not be means-tested; it should be on the same basis as all the other recently announced Government compensation schemes. I urge my Government colleagues to look again at the ombudsman’s report and its recommendations. Current national financial challenges should never be a barrier to awarding compensation. To ignore the ombudsman’s report not only undermines its important role and function; it is unprecedented in this context and sets us on a very dangerous path. There is nothing right and fair about the statement to the House of 17 December 2024. I ask the Government to please review and explore what scheme they can consider to offer financial redress to the over 300,000 1950s women in Scotland, including the 6,000 in West Dunbartonshire.

They include my constituent Elizabeth, whose story I have permission to share. She said:

“I left school and started working in the summer of 1971, aged 15. I was expecting to retire on my 60th birthday, which was December 2015.

In the summer of 2014, my husband took gravely ill and was in ICU for several weeks and hospitalised for 3 months in total. He was discharged with a walking frame and tube feeding, which I had to be trained to administer. I was given compassionate leave when required and allowed to temporarily reduce my working hours for 6 months. After that period, I had a maximising attendance review and had to decide to return full time or permanently reduce my hours to 17.5. I had to choose the latter, as he was still very weak and dependent. After he had a relapse and I was absent again, I had another maximising attendance review. It was during this meeting that I discovered I would not be able to retire at 60 after all. I was distraught. I had reduced my hours and the other half of my post had been filled!

When my husband died in 2018,1 was earning half pay. I continued to work and, in fact…finding myself on the frontline at 65…My mental health deteriorated again and I was absent from work during the winter of 2020…I made the decision to give notice of my retirement. I wouldn’t receive my State Pension until mid December 2021…Choices were removed from women! If we had known about this change in age, we could have made different decisions. Every decision I made up to 2014 was made on the assumption I would retire at 60. I feel I have been a victim of injustice, with the PHSO confirming that women born in the 1950s suffered maladministration from the DWP…We have waited long enough.”

They have waited long enough, and it is time to act.

Oral Answers to Questions

Douglas McAllister Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the OBR report that says that overall, employment will go up.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

How does the Secretary of State envision the future of jobcentres in my constituency and across Scotland, and what role will technology play in that?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that any reform to our jobcentres must come with digital transformation. We are currently exploring schemes such as a “Jobcentre in your pocket” app, as well as looking for ways in which jobseekers can self-serve in terms of meeting the conditions of their conditionality regime.