Oral Answers to Questions

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

21. What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the potential impact of future welfare spending on the economy.

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[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)]

2. What assessment he has made of trends in the level of unemployment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

3. What steps his Department is taking to reduce the number of young people not in education, employment or training.

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[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)]

4. What steps he is taking to improve the Motability scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

T7. The Budget introduced more taxes for people who work and more benefits for those who do not. Since the Government came into office, 1 million more people are claiming universal credit. We are now paying out almost £1 billion a month in benefits to foreign national households. Do the Government really think that their £16 billion benefits bung is fair on the hard-working people who have to pay for it?

[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)]

T6. I welcome the Government’s commitment to tackling the NEETs crisis in this country. Will the Secretary of State work on that with the Department for Education? Doncaster university technical college has been incredibly good at linking industry and education. I hope that, in the near future, the Government will agree to expand such work in my constituency and across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)]

T8. More than 400 16 to 24-year-olds across my constituency are not in education, employment or training, and are claiming unemployment benefits. That has the potential to cause lifelong damage and deprive them of vital skills and opportunities for development. How will the Government’s youth guarantee provide support to those young people and help them to get the skills and support they need to gain access to fulfilling opportunities?

[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)]

T9.   Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss the role that allied health professionals, such as physios, occupational therapists, speech and language therapists and others, can play in helping NEETs to overcome barriers and secure meaningful and lasting work?

[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)]

T10. Around 700 young people in Uxbridge and South Ruislip are not currently in employment, and that needs to change. I have met the local college, the jobcentre and employers in Uxbridge, and they are keen, eager and willing to support the establishment of a youth jobs hub in the constituency. Will the Secretary of State outline what support is available in constituencies such as mine to set up youth jobs hubs, so that every young person can reach their potential?

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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

Monday 8th December 2025 Written Statements

[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

Monday 8th December 2025 Written Statements

[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]

Statutory Review of State Pension and Benefit Rates 2026-27

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Written Statements

[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]

Young People and Work

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)]

I am pleased to make a statement today on the independent report into young people and on work I have commissioned, with support from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the Secretary of State for Education. This report forms part of the Government’s further action to maximise opportunities for young people.

This Government believe in opportunity for all, but too many young people are being denied the opportunity to further their education, skills or careers. Nearly 1 million young people—approximately one in eight young people aged 16 to 24—are not in education, employment or training. Over a quarter of NEET young people now cite long-term sickness or disability as a barrier to participation compared with just 12% in 2013-14.

This Government have already taken decisive action to address these challenges. We have committed to investing £25 million to double the number of youth hubs. We have launched eight youth guarantee trailblazers across England, backed by £90 million, to test new ways of improving co-ordination and accountability for young people’s opportunities at the local level.

We are developing a youth guarantee, which will ensure 18 to 21-year-olds are earning or learning. As part of that we are increasing skills training including short courses, expanding the number of youth hubs, and standing up a new jobs guarantee scheme to offer paid work for every eligible young person who has been on universal credit for 18 months without earning or learning.

For disabled people and those with health conditions we are introducing the pathways to work guarantee of work, health and skills support, but we know we must go further.

The report will examine the drivers behind the rise in NEET rates and economic inactivity among young people, including those with health conditions, and make recommendations for policy responses aimed at maximising opportunities. The report will be authored by right hon. Alan Milburn, former Secretary of State for Health and Chair of the Social Mobility Commission. He will be supported by a panel of labour market, health and clinical experts who will be announced in due course. This work will be grounded in evidence, shaped by the voices of young people, and informed by those who work with them every day.

I am determined to build a system that supports young people, not just in finding a job, but to build a better future—because when young people succeed, Britain succeeds.

The terms of reference will be published on gov.uk and placed in the Libraries of the Houses. The report will share its interim findings with Government in spring 2026, with final recommendations by summer 2026.

[HCWS1028]

Pensions

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)]

I would like to make a statement on the investigation by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman into the way state pension ages were communicated to 1950s-born women.

The background to this issue is well known to the House. It arises from how decisions to equalise and raise the state pension age were communicated over a number of years, and the impact that that may have had on the ability of 1950s-born women to plan for their retirement. It stems from the communication of changes in the Pensions Act 1995, which gradually increased the state pension age for women from the age of 60 to 65 to bring it in line with that of men. The Pensions Act 2011, introduced under the coalition Government, then brought forward the timetable for equalisation, and the rise to age 66 for both men and women. It is important to be clear that the ombudsman was not looking at those policy changes to the state pension age, but between 2018 and 2024, it investigated complaints from 1950s-born women about the communication of changes to the state pension age.

In March last year, following a lengthy investigation lasting six years, the ombudsman published its final report. In December last year, the then Work and Pensions Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), provided the Government’s response to the House. In coming to this decision, she gave the ombudsman’s report full consideration, and looked in detail at the findings, reviewing all the information and advice provided to her at the time by the Department for Work and Pensions. She did her job thoroughly and professionally in weighing up all the information before her, coming to a conclusion and informing Parliament.

Since then, as part of the legal proceedings challenging the Government’s decision, evidence has been cited about research findings from a 2007 report. That was a DWP evaluation of the effectiveness of automatic pension forecast letters. Had this report been provided to my right hon. Friend, she would of course have considered it alongside all other relevant evidence and material. In the light of this, and in the interests of fairness and transparency, I have concluded that the Government should now consider this evidence. That means we will retake the decision made last December as it relates to the communications on state pension age.

As the House will be aware, the decision announced last December has been the subject of Court action in recent months, and we have today informed the Court of the action we now intend to take. In retaking the decision, we will review the evidence from 2007 alongside evidence previously considered. I have of course asked the Department whether there is any further survey material or other evidence that should be brought to my attention as part of this process.

I understand that people are impatient for this matter to be finally resolved, with the ombudsman’s investigation having taken six years before reporting last year, but it is important that we give this full and proper consideration. We will approach this in a transparent and fair manner. However, retaking this decision should not be taken as an indication that Government will necessarily decide that they should award financial redress.

The work will begin immediately, and I will update the House on the decision as soon as a conclusion is reached. Mr Speaker, I understand that Members will have a number of questions, but I hope that you and the House will also understand that I cannot say anything today that pre-empts the conclusion of the process I have set out. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pat McFadden]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for at least some of his response. I cannot pre-empt the conclusion of the process that I set out in my statement, because I want it to be undertaken fairly and transparently. I have to say to him that his own Government had many years to consider the matter and did not come to a conclusion, so I take his comments urging us to go more quickly with a little pinch of salt.

The hon. Member referred to pensioners. We said that we would maintain the triple lock, and we have kept to that commitment. That will mean an increase of some £1,900 a year in the basic state pension over the course of this Parliament. We remain committed to the publication of the action plan to which he referred.

He is right that the previous Minister for Pensions met the WASPI campaigners, but he was a little more coy about the last time a Conservative Minister met the WASPI campaigners. Perhaps a Conservative Member can tell us when that was? I believe it was many years before that and that our Minister was the first to meet the WASPI campaigners for some time.

Finally, on the broader economic record, he failed to join me in welcoming the UK having the fastest growth in the G7 for the first half of this year.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement—I appreciate its technical nature. Clearly, it is a concern that this evidence was not made available to our right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) last year and I know that he will investigate that. I appreciate that he will not be able to give a specific date as to when he may be able to decide what this evidence means for his final conclusions, but is he able to give a timeframe for when he will be able to report back to the House?

[Pat McFadden]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee for her question; I know that she has taken a long and keen interest in the matter. On timescales, when people hear this statement, I appreciate that they will want to know when the conclusion will happen, but it is right and proper that I look at all the available evidence. As I said in the statement, I have asked the Department if there is any other survey evidence or other kinds of evidence that should be brought to my attention. With that proviso, I can assure my hon. Friend that I will come to a conclusion and report to the House as soon as possible.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

I apologise for inadvertently using the word “you” the last time that I spoke, Mr Speaker.

Clearly, the clock is ticking for WASPI women. There are 3.6 million WASPI women across the United Kingdom, which is half a million more than the population of Wales. Sadly, a WASPI woman dies every 13 minutes.

I welcome the statement from the Secretary of State. When we have explored this subject in recent months, I have found it extremely disturbing how the ombudsman failed to engage with the previous Conservative Government because they knew that there would not be a deal to make around what the relevant approach would be on compensation for WASPI women. I plead with the Secretary of State to revisit that; after all, Government Members are on record as supporting WASPI women for many years. Will he look to meet with them and ensure that there is a fair deal? There is due to be a High Court hearing next month, and I implore him to engage positively and to get a fair deal for WASPI women.

[Pat McFadden]

The hon. Member is right; this issue has gone on for a long time. I took the view that, in the light of the evidence being cited, the right thing to do was to look again at it and at the decision in the round. I cannot speak for the previous Government’s failure to engage with the ombudsman—that is a matter for them—but I can tell the hon. Member that this Government are engaged with the ombudsman on the action plan discussed earlier, and we will continue to be engaged. As I said, I will come to a conclusion and report to the House as soon as possible.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State said that as part of the legal proceedings challenging the Government’s decision, evidence has been cited about research findings from a 2007 report. Who cited that evidence? Was it the Department for Work and Pensions or the Government, or was it the people opposing the Government in the court case? If it came from Government sources or from within the DWP, why was it not uncovered before? Can he give us every assurance that he is doing everything he can to ensure that all relevant evidence is uncovered in advance of the next decision being taken?

[Pat McFadden]

The hon. Lady asks about the nature of this evidence. It is a report from 2007 and, as I said, it is a DWP evaluation. The survey was not drawn to the attention of the previous Secretary of State because its potential relevance to the making of her decision was not evident at the time. I will consider this survey and any other relevant evidence in the process to which I referred in my statement.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am going to suspend the House until 5.15 pm due to the late notice of the next statement.

Women's State Pension Age: PHSO Report

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)]

I wish to update the House on the Government’s decision in response to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s investigation into women’s state pension age communication and associated issues. On 17 December 2024, my predecessor made an oral statement and deposited a copy of the Government’s detailed response in the House Library.

In coming to this decision, my right hon. Friend gave the ombudsman’s report full consideration and looked in detail at the findings, reviewing all the information and advice provided to her at the time by the Department for Work and Pensions.

Since then, as part of the legal proceedings challenging the Government’s decision, evidence has been cited about research findings from a 2007 report. This was a DWP evaluation of the effectiveness of automatic pension forecast letters. I am depositing a copy of this report in the Library of the House.

Had this report been provided to my right hon. Friend, she would of course have considered it alongside all other relevant evidence and material.

In the light of this, and in the interests of fairness and transparency, I have concluded that the Government should consider this evidence now. This means we will retake the decision made last December as it relates to the communications on state pension age.

As the House will be aware, the decision announced last December has been the subject of court action in recent months and we have today informed the court of the action we now intend to take.

We will approach this following proper process and in a transparent and fair manner. However, retaking this decision should not be taken as an indication that the Government will necessarily decide that we should award financial redress.

The work will begin immediately, and we will update the House on the decision as a conclusion is reached.

[HCWS1044]

Keep Britain Working Review: Government Response

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)]

I am pleased to make a statement today, jointly with the Business and Trade Secretary, on Sir Charlie Mayfield’s Keep Britain Working review, which he has submitted to the Government.

As ill health is one of the biggest drivers of economic inactivity in the UK—800,000 more people are out of work now than in 2019 due to health problems—the Government commissioned Sir Charlie to investigate the factors behind that and look at how Government and businesses can work together to turn it around.

As well as delivering our plan to get Britain working, we need to help people to stay in work and prevent them from falling out of work in the first place due to ill health. With a further 600,000 people set to leave the workforce by 2030 if current trends continue, we need to keep Britain working.

Sir Charlie has engaged extensively with business, disabled people, health professionals and other key voices across the UK, ensuring that a wide range of voices and experience have shaped his recommendations. I would like to thank Sir Charlie, for his excellent work and collaborative approach, as well as everyone who has contributed.



As well as setting out the scale, nature and cost of inactivity on individuals, employers and the state, the review identifies three problems: first, a culture of fear felt by both employees and employers; secondly, a lack of an effective or consistent support system for employers and their employees in managing health and tackling barriers faced by disabled people; and thirdly, structural challenges for disabled people, creating barriers to starting and staying in work.

In response to these problems, the review sets out a fundamental shift from a model where health at work is largely left to the individual and the NHS, to one where it becomes a shared responsibility between employers, employees and health services.

To keep the momentum from employers, we are today announcing that we will be taking forward the recommendation to set up a vanguard phase. We will work with the businesses who have already stepped up to become a vanguard to test different approaches and build evidence for a better workplace. All employers taking part in this phase will be doing so voluntarily.



The vanguard phase needs to continue the spirit of collaboration with business and disabled people. We are pleased to announce that we will be appointing Sir Charlie Mayfield to co-chair a vanguard taskforce, alongside myself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, to lead this vanguard phase in partnership with Government.

The taskforce will also bring together representatives from business, disabled people, workers representatives and health experts to shape and deliver this work. We will bring forward more detail in due course.

The review rightly sets out that data, evidence and insight will be central to the success of the vanguard phase. We are today asking Sir Charlie and the taskforce to oversee the rapid set-up of a workplace health intelligence unit to work closely with business to systematically provide the data and insight that both businesses and Government need to support the vanguard and inform wider reform. Through the vanguard, we intend to work with businesses and disabled people to pilot and develop improvements and reform.

We agree with Sir Charlie’s diagnosis that the fit note system is not working as intended. It is currently a missed opportunity to get people the help they need to get in and get on in work. We are already piloting innovative approaches to the fit note and we are committed to further reform so that it works better for patients, employers and the health system. We will bring forward further detail in due course.

We agree that access to work needs improving. This is why, through the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper, we consulted on the future of the scheme. We are working with disabled people and people with health conditions, in addition to their representative organisations and people that support them, on a plan for reform.

We also recognise that Disability Confident needs to deliver more for disabled people and employers. The vanguard phase will test stronger standards and practical support, helping employers recruit, retain and develop disabled staff, making Disability Confident a mark of genuine inclusion.

This review gives us a clear roadmap for reform. We look forward to working with Sir Charlie Mayfield, with business, and with disabled people and people with health conditions to keep Britain working.

I will update the House on progress as this critical work moves forward.

[HCWS1020]

Oral Answers to Questions

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

1. What assessment he has made of the potential implications for his Department’s policies of the report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies entitled, “How do people already out of employment fare when the state pension age rises”, published on 17 September 2025.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)]

The clocks went back at the weekend, and you nearly put them forward again, Mr Speaker.

I am pleased to be here answering my first set of questions as the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. I look forward to my exchanges with the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), and the other spokespeople in the House.

The state pension age will rise to 67 from 2028. We continue to support later-life planning by helping people review their health, finances and skills—for example, by having specific work coaches for over-50s in our jobcentres. Consideration of the future of the state pension age is already under way, as asked for under the Pensions Act 2014.

[Mr Dillon]

I welcome the Secretary of State to his new position. In my seat of Newbury, over 5,200 women have been unfairly affected by changes to the state pension age. Those women were wronged through no fault of their own, and they deserve justice. With a High Court hearing due in December, this could be a crucial moment for the Government—a moment to finally do the right thing. Will the Secretary of State now listen to the ombudsman’s recommendations and commit to providing compensation to women of the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign?

[Pat McFadden]

I have to remind the hon. Member that when his party was in government, it supported the acceleration in the rise of the basic state pension age, and that has given rise to some of the questions he raises. You would not expect me to comment on ongoing litigation, Mr Speaker, and I will not, but I can assure the hon. Member and the House that we will take all relevant factors into account when considering the process for the future.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Previous to my election to this place, I worked for a homeless charity in Harlow called Streets2Homes. One of its cases involved a man who was homeless due to delays in getting his state pension. How is the Department ensuring that delays like that are not commonplace?

[Pat McFadden]

We hope that those entitled to the basic state pension receive a seamless and fast service. This is a pension that people contribute to throughout their life, and when they reach state pension age, we of course hope that they get it as soon as possible.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

2. What steps his Department is taking to assess the effectiveness of the Access to Work scheme in helping to enable long-term career progression for disabled people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

6. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help ensure that post-16 education provides the necessary skills to support the economy.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)]

Skills are vital to give young people opportunity, for economic growth and to our country’s renewal. That is why, as part of our youth guarantee, we are increasing short courses for high-demand sectors such as artificial intelligence and construction, expanding the number of youth hubs, and partnering with sports clubs to get help to people where they are in the community. Last week, we published the skills White Paper, which sets out the next steps for training the workforce of the future.

[Baggy Shanker]

I still want every young person in Derby to see technical education and apprenticeships as first-class, not second-best, routes to success. University technical colleges, from which students are four times more likely to progress on to apprenticeships, are key to unlocking that success. Will my right hon. Friend meet Pride Park UTC to discuss its plans to give young people in Derby real choice and real opportunity by rolling out a new technical centre in our city?

[Pat McFadden]

My hon. Friend has spoken often about this, and I believe that he started his career as an apprentice. As a former Rolls-Royce worker, he will have noted the skills White Paper, and of course he knows all about the importance of that company to the city of Derby. I congratulate Pride Park UTC on its plans for a new technical skills centre, and I will ensure that he gets a meeting with me or with the relevant Minister.

[Helen Hayes]

My Committee’s recent report on further education and skills highlights the poor amount of information on vocational and technical training opportunities, including apprenticeships, available to young people while they are in school. We recommend that UCAS be expanded to provide a single portal for information on academic, vocational and technical opportunities, so that every young person is aware of how they can train in the skills that they need to access a good job. Will the Secretary of State consider this recommendation, and work with the Department for Education to deliver it?

[Pat McFadden]

I welcome that question, as my hon. Friend raises a very important point. If we are going to have equal status for higher education and apprenticeship routes, we should look at how the information about them is disseminated to potential applicants. I hope that she will be pleased to hear that I have already asked the Department to begin work in this area.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

One of the worries about the new regime and Skills England is the loss of independence, and the loss of what we had in the former Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education: a guaranteed business voice, written into law. How will the Secretary of State ensure that business has a voice in setting standards, and in making sure that those standards are upheld, so that everybody can have confidence in the changed system?

[Pat McFadden]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the business voice and employers’ voice is very important in this. When I wrote the new remit letter to Skills England, I asked it to take into account the views of employers, because it is very important that the skills system is training people in a way that employers want, and that meets the future demands of the labour market.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State to his place, and to his new responsibility for skills. The Government recently reduced the amount of funding for level 7 apprenticeships, so can he tell the House what assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of this reduced funding on the number of nurses in training?

[Pat McFadden]

The apprenticeships and skills budget, like every other budget, demands choices. We are choosing to prioritise the level that we need in the economy, and the areas where the value is greatest. That does imply certain choices, and I am confident that the choices we have made will benefit the workforce as a whole, and future opportunities.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

4. What steps he is taking to support people with health conditions into work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

7. What steps he is taking to support young people into employment, education or training.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)]

When we came to office, almost 1 million young people were not in education, employment or training. This Government are determined to offer young people proper opportunities. Our youth guarantee will ensure that 18 to 21-year-olds are learning or earning, helping to prevent them from becoming economically inactive almost before their careers have even begun. As my hon. Friend might have seen, the Chancellor has announced that a jobs guarantee scheme will be a future part of this work.

[Kirsteen Sullivan]

With one in six young Scots not in education, employment or training, including hundreds across my constituency, I welcome the Government’s youth guarantee to give young people the training or job support they need. However, with stubborn youth unemployment, the Scottish Government’s swingeing cuts to the college sector and employers warning that Scottish apprenticeships are less favourable than those in England, how will the Secretary of State work to ensure that young people across the UK can benefit from this Government’s ambition?

[Pat McFadden]

Not for the first time, we have to point out that the Scottish Government have benefited from the biggest financial settlement since the introduction of devolution. It should not be too much to expect that at least a proportion of that should be spent on expanding opportunity for young people in my hon. Friend’s constituency and throughout Scotland. Scotland has given so much to the world in creativity and innovation, and it is absolutely critical that the next generation of young Scots get the chance to do the same.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Skills bootcamps in Cumbria have provided a great opportunity: 60 hours of training for young people in disciplines as varied as coding, scaffolding and project management. The cost to deliver those bootcamps across the whole of Cumbria is £2.7 million—chicken feed compared with the benefit that those young people and their future employers get out of them. What conversations has the Secretary of State had with his friends in the Treasury to ensure that that scheme is maintained and continued?

[Pat McFadden]

I am always having conversations with my friends in the Treasury. I agree with the hon. Member that flexibility and some short courses in the skills and training system are very important. Not everything has to be done according to the exact same formula and recipe, and shorter training courses have a big part to play.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State to his new job and wish him luck in it—especially because, with every day that passes under this Government, we see fewer people enjoying the chance to start a new job. Unemployment has gone up month after month. Nearly 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training because of this Government’s policies, jobs tax and business red tape; even the Pensions Minister’s former think-tank agrees with me. People all around the country are out looking for work—young people who want to get on in life and all those trying to provide for their families—so can the Secretary of State tell us and them when he will get unemployment down?

[Pat McFadden]

The hon. Lady has a short memory. The Government in which she served presided over the biggest slowdown in living standards in recent memory, and there are 358,000 more people in work now than there were at the start of the year. We will keep supporting young people into work and will change the system that we inherited, which had the wrong incentives and a lack of support. We are putting both of those things to rights.

[Helen Whately]

No surprises there, Mr Speaker; the Prime Minister can put new faces on the Front Bench, but they still do not have the answers. The right hon. Gentleman criticised the previous Conservative Government, but we got unemployment down to a 40-year low—a record Labour could only dream of. The Government do not want to be held to account. Worse still, the right hon. Gentleman knows that what he is doing will not work, because the country is looking down the barrel of more tax rises in next month’s Budget, which will kill yet more jobs and opportunities. Whether it is graduates looking for their first job or older people being made redundant, people are crying out for a Government who are on their side. What will it take to get the Chancellor to understand that it is businesses that create jobs, not the Government, and does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the more the Chancellor damages the economy, the bigger the welfare bill will get?

[Pat McFadden]

Since we came into office, interest rates have been cut five times, helping businesses and households. According to Lloyds, business confidence is at a nine-year high, and there is to be much more private investment, including the £150 billion announced during the recent state visit. Add to that the trade deals that the Conservatives could not secure—there are reasons to be optimistic about the future of the economy and I hope the hon. Lady shares them.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

8. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to reduce the number of children in poverty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

10. What steps he is taking to ensure that skills provision meets the needs of employers.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)]

The skills White Paper, which we published last week, will create more opportunities. As I said in response to an earlier question, my remit letter to Skills England makes clear the importance of working closely with employers. Employers have told us that they want more flexibility in the apprenticeships levy, so the growth and skills offer is delivering that, with more foundation courses and short courses launching next year.

[Claire Young]

At a recent roundtable meeting in my Thornbury and Yate constituency, small businesses told me about the particular challenges they face in delivering apprenticeships. Given that the Secretary of State’s Department is now responsible for this important policy area, what is he doing to reform apprenticeships to make them easier for small and medium-sized enterprises to deliver, and what support will he provide so that more can do so?

[Pat McFadden]

We want apprenticeships to be available to employers of all sizes. We have reduced the length of time an apprenticeship needs to take, and I think we can go further with short course flexibility, which should be particularly helpful to small and medium-sized employers.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

I recently visited Premier Forest Products in Newport to learn more about the vocational training and employment opportunities that the business is offering to care-experienced young school leavers in Newport, with some wonderful success stories. Will the Department look at the model that company is creating and can the Secretary of State say more about how the Government are working with businesses to make sure that such opportunities are more accessible for people from all backgrounds, including those who are care-experienced?

[Pat McFadden]

I am happy to look at the experience of that particular employer. I enjoyed a recent visit to a different part of south Wales to open an opportunity hub, which is aimed precisely at getting more young people into work, particularly those who have been out of the labour market through long-term sickness issues. We want to support Wales in doing that, and we have allocated an extra £10 million to this work over the coming year.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

12. If he will take legislative steps to ensure that companies who previously provided indexation of pension rights accrued before April 1997 but have since lapsed, reintroduce indexation from April 2026.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)]

The trailblazers are up and running and have been delivering support for young people since earlier this year. That includes, for example, mental health support and flexible work experience sessions. We have extended the programme for a further year, bringing the total funding to £90 million. The insights from those trailblazers will inform the national roll-out of our youth guarantee.

[Patricia Ferguson]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the actions of this Government, in supporting young people, are in stark contrast to the situation in Scotland, where we have had 18 years of SNP neglect, with the college sector suffering a 20% cut over the past five years? Does he also agree that, as the energy sector in Scotland transitions to greener forms of energy production, the jobs and skills needed to bolster that industry could be taught at those colleges, and that we risk having a double whammy of young people not being able to take on these important jobs, while lecturers are paid off and our colleges are in dire financial straits?

[Pat McFadden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the importance of the energy transition. As I said, the Scottish Government are receiving the largest spending review settlement in real terms since devolution was established. We know that young people in Scotland have the talent, but are their Government backing them by giving them the opportunity? We believe that a proportion of those funds should be devoted to that. I am pleased to say that, for example, BAE Systems will be a major beneficiary of the £10 billion deal to build Type 26 frigates for Norway—a critical investment in European security, and one that I hope the Scottish Government have got around to supporting.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I welcome the Secretary of State to his place and wish him well in his new role. I am quite confident that he will give us all the answers we wish to have. Northern Ireland continues to have a higher proportion of young people not in employment, education or training—some 11% to 13%—compared with the UK average, so what discussions has he had with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland to ensure that the necessary support and opportunities are provided to young people in Northern Ireland?

[Pat McFadden]

There should be no part of the United Kingdom in which we do not give young people the maximum opportunity. I had a good working relationship with the Northern Ireland Executive in my previous post, and I hope to have a good working relationship with them in this post, with the shared agenda of giving our young people the best possible chance in life.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

15. What steps his Department is taking to ensure that benefit sanctions are proportionate when considering neurodiverse claimants.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)]

I am very conscious of the responsibilities of the Department, which touches millions of lives in this country every month. We have joined up skills and employment support in the Department to bring the skills system closer to the labour market, and, as part of our youth guarantee, we have announced that it will include a backstop jobs guarantee. Together with that and Connect to Work, we are both tackling the incentives in the system and providing critical support, because my priority is to have a welfare state that looks after people when times are tough, but also provides a platform of opportunity to help get them out of welfare and into work.

[Catherine Fookes]

At the Conservative party conference, the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury called for the state pension to be means-tested. This has caused deep concern to pensioners in Monmouthshire who have worked hard all their lives and built up modest savings. Under the Conservative party’s plans, they would risk losing their state pension. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, under this Labour Government, the state pension will remain available to all?

[Pat McFadden]

I am happy to say that what my hon. Friend says about means-testing is not the Government’s policy, but can the Conservatives confirm whether it is theirs? The shadow Chief Secretary let the cat out of the bag. Can she confirm that this is not her policy, or is it that her leader still sticks to the position she set out earlier this year when she said:

“We are going to look at means-testing”?

Are they still looking at it, or are they not?

[Mr Speaker]

The good thing is that the Government are only responsible for their own problems. I call the shadow Secretary of the State.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

Indeed, questions are to be answered by the Government on this occasion.

The right hon. Gentleman has an important and not always easy job. I am sure that we all remember the fiasco before the summer when the Government tried to make welfare savings and ended up legislating for welfare spending. Since then, the Prime Minister has said that there is a “clear moral case” for welfare cuts, and the Chancellor has said that she “can’t leave welfare untouched”. Does the Secretary of State agree?

[Pat McFadden]

I notice that the hon. Lady did not want to clarify the position on means-testing the state pension. Welfare reform is happening all the time. We passed important changes to the universal credit system that were voted through by the House and, as I said, we are putting in place important employment support to help not only long-term sick and disabled people but young people into work through many of the policies that I have talked about today.

[Helen Whately]

I cannot help but notice that the Secretary of State continues to attempt to deflect from his job of answering the questions. The fact is, we just heard that he will not commit to making the welfare savings that his Prime Minister and his Chancellor have said they need to make. I thought the Prime Minister was meant to be in charge.

Getting people off welfare and into work not only saves money; it is morally wrong to condemn people to a life on benefits. Without welfare reform, this country is stuck on Labour’s broken record of higher taxes and lower growth. We have even offered to help the Secretary of State, so why will he not commit to making welfare savings?

[Pat McFadden]

We inherited a situation that had 3 million people inactive and almost 1 million people not in employment, education or training. We are putting in place critical employment support to help long-term sick and disabled people into work, we have changed the incentives through legislation on the universal credit system, and we are increasing the number of face-to-face checks in the system, which fell on the Conservatives’ watch. What do people think it fell by? Do we think it fell by 10%? Do we think it fell by 30%? No, it fell by 90% under the system over which the hon. Lady’s Government presided.

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

T2. Many other hon. Members have today outlined the proven track record of Access to Work in enabling disabled constituents to access employment, in addition to the challenges posed by the current shortfall in funding. Some £1 billion-worth of additional employment support funding has been announced this year. Can the Minister reassure the House that Access to Work remains one of the potential avenues for that funding?

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)]

T3. For too long, too many people in the north-east have been left behind due to stubbornly high unemployment, but the economic inactivity trailblazer offers an opportunity to tackle the often complex reasons that sit behind that. Can the Secretary of State set out how this will work alongside existing programmes such as the new deal for north-east workers to support people into fulfilling productive employment?

[Pat McFadden]

People should not be denied the opportunity to work, which is why the Department has backed the economic inactivity trailblazer in the north-east with £10 million this year and a further £10 million next year. It is testing new ways to help people overcome barriers to work. We are determined to turn around the situation that we inherited from the Conservative party, and we are working closely with the excellent Mayor of the North East to bring these policies together.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

T4. Only 30% of people with autism are in work, compared with nearly 55% of disabled people. Charlie, who is celebrating his 31st birthday on Saturday, lives in Baltonsborough with his parents, but like many young adults with autism, he has struggled to find employment. His mother, Jenny, told me yesterday that Charlie is a classic example of wasted talent, so what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that adults with autism and other special educational needs can find fulfilling and secure employment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

T7. Earlier this month I visited the Spear programme in north Kensington, which is doing fantastic work in supporting young people back into employment through programmes that the DWP data lab has found to have a significant impact. Could the Secretary of State outline how evidence produced by units such as the data lab will help guide the trailblazer funding to get young people back into work?

[Pat McFadden]

The Spear programme was one of the first organisations to go through an evaluation with the data lab a few years ago. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the findings from that were really positive, and I am delighted that his constituency is located in one of the youth guarantee trailblazer areas. As we have reiterated several times, it is crucial that we do everything we can to help young people into work and address the issue, which we inherited, of people not in employment, education or training.

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

T8. Many young care leavers living in supported housing want to increase their hours at work but find themselves caught in the benefits trap. YMCA Eastleigh tells me that this is impacting care leavers in my constituency. What recent discussions has the Minister had with Cabinet colleagues on reforms to the tax and benefit system to make work pay for young care leavers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

The Trussell Trust recently reported that three in 10 people who were referred to food banks in 2024 were in working households and that the majority, 72%, were on universal credit. What more can the Government do to ensure that work pays and we can take low-paid workers out of poverty?

[Pat McFadden]

I recently spoke at an event in Parliament hosted by that organisation. I am pleased to say that its report said there had been a small drop in the use of food banks over the past year. We have put the household support fund, now the crisis and resilience fund, on a proper basis for the next three years to support those families in the most desperate need.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)]

Giving sick and disabled people agency and drawing on lived experience sets the only path to getting policy right, so that they can access work appointments and get out of their homes, avoiding worklessness, health decline and isolation, with their mobility support needs recognised through PIP. Further to the Minister’s previous answer, will he ensure that any policy reforms to PIP mobility payments are fully co-produced with sick and disabled people?

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

Business is crying out that the Employment Rights Bill will cost jobs. Now, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, the spiritual home of the Secretary of State— [Laughter.]—says it will cripple the jobs market, especially for young people. It is not a laughing matter. What is the Secretary of State’s view? Will the Employment Rights Bill help his Department to increase employment, or will it cost even more jobs?

[Pat McFadden]

It should be no surprise that a Labour party supports better rights at work for people. History is replete with warnings that better employment rights would result in fewer jobs. Those were the warnings the Conservative party gave when we introduced the national minimum wage many, many years ago. Of course, it is important that when legislating on these issues we do it closely in consultation with employers. That is precisely what we intend to do.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

Some 47% of children in my constituency live in poverty. The Minister mentioned that he will consider all levers. Does that include speaking with the Treasury to look at a wealth tax to bring in much-needed money to the Treasury to remove the two-child cap?

[Pat McFadden]

As we have discussed a number of times, of course we want to reduce child poverty. My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that, when it comes to tax, that is a matter for the Chancellor and not for me.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I welcome the Secretary of State to his place and wish him well. Last week, I attended a drop-in for the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign where I was informed that there are currently 4,320 women in Dewsbury and Batley affected by the WASPI scandal. That number was previously higher, but many of the women have already passed away without justice. On 27 July I wrote to the former Secretary of State regarding her support for the WASPI campaign after being contacted by more than 40 of my constituents, but I have yet to receive a response. With the Government still refusing to engage in civil mediation to deliver justice to the WASPI women, will the new Secretary of State reconsider meeting campaigners to find a just way forward?

--- Later in debate ---

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I recently visited Drake Hall women’s prison in my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, which has the brilliant initiative of a Halfords training centre to support people into employment once they leave the prison estate. It supports people all over the country, not just in my constituency. Can the Secretary of State tell me what conversations are happening with the Ministry of Justice about supporting or expanding schemes like that?

[Pat McFadden]

That sounds like an excellent initiative. Of course, if we are to rehabilitate prisoners, it is important that they get training and the chance to get into constructive employment after their sentence. I am sure that that applies not just to the prison in my hon. Friend’s constituency but throughout the country.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Alan Marnes is a constituent of mine in Southoe who has staunchly campaigned since 2002 on the issue of the lack of indexation for pre-1997 pension rights, having been one of 140,000 people who lost their occupational pension. I wrote to the Secretary of State more than two months ago asking whether the newly revived Pensions Commission will address the issue of failed pension funds and I have still not received a response. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me and Alan to provide some much-needed clarity on such a long-standing issue?

[Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)]

One in three children in my constituency is growing up in poverty. With the Budget approaching, what discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about scrapping the two-child limit—a policy widely recognised as one of the biggest drivers of child poverty in Britain today?

[Pat McFadden]

We have already taken action to reduce child poverty, by extending free school meals to all families on universal credit, and we will of course explore other avenues. We want to reduce child poverty—in stark contrast to the record of the Conservatives.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

When my constituents move into new social housing, they find it stripped of perfectly good white goods, curtains, carpets and so on. What can the Government do to address this? It is driving my constituents further into poverty and benefit dependency. It is also environmentally destructive. Surely there is a way through this issue, so can I call on the Minister to work with others across Government to address it?

Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 22nd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

The hon. Member may be right. I simply put out the idea at this stage, and I hope Ministers will be sympathetic to it, that we should not just accept the sense that, following Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s report, the payment of compensation and the introduction by the FCA of this new consumer duty, everything is suddenly all right in the world of consumer financial regulation. Perhaps Ministers on the Treasury Bench are inadvertently suggesting that. I think another step needs to be taken to hold the feet of regulators to the fire.

I will briefly raise two other concerns about financial regulation and some of the lessons that need to be taken from the LCF debacle, which the amendment from the hon. Member for Glenrothes helpfully gives me the opportunity to raise. The first is the idea that all the information available to the boards and the management of companies that has to be shared with the FCA and the PRA from time to time should be regarded as commercially sensitive. Clearly, there is genuinely commercially sensitive information that it is right for companies and businesses to keep for themselves. However, I fear—certainly in the case of Liverpool Victoria, which I have been looking at—that the excuse that information is financially sensitive is being used to deny consumers’ legitimate rights to know what the future holds for the business in which they have invested their savings or money. I gently suggest that that topic is worthy of a review in itself, potentially with changes to regulatory practice and, if need be, to legislation.

Lastly, the existence in legislation at the moment of provisions for so-called independent experts to look at the decisions that boards are taking in the context of demutualisations are a recipe for regulatory failure. In the case of Liverpool Victoria, independent experts are being appointed by the board, paid by the board and briefed by the board. Obviously, it is fairly easy to predict what the outcome of the independent experts’ work is going to be: to recommend largely what the board wants to happen. That is another issue that needs to be looked at.

I put those points on the record to suggest that Ministers should not be complacent about the quality of the FCA’s performance. There needs to be a bit more of a robust challenge and a look again at how financial regulation works.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I want to use the opportunity provided by the amendment to raise a few points, particularly about clause 1, and to put them to the Minister. I thank Dame Elizabeth Gloster and both the Treasury Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee for the work they have done on this issue.

The issues covered by the Bill have been widely set out in debates on Second Reading and in Committee. They include: the wholly deficient practices at the FCA that meant that hundreds of reports of harm were not acted on, which was described by Dame Elizabeth Gloster as an “egregious” failure of the FCA to fulfil its statutory duties; the fact that this failure allowed LCF to continue in operation for years longer than it might otherwise have, thereby multiplying the harm to investors; the reassurance at one point from the FCA that what was happening was not a scam; the impact of the halo effect in having a regulated firm selling unregulated products, leading unsuspecting investors to believe that these products were far safer than they actually were; the loss of a whistleblower’s letter three years before the firm’s collapse, and the damning conclusion from Dame Elizabeth Gloster that the loss of that letter probably did not make any difference, because the FCA was so dysfunctional that, even if it had not been lost, it would not have been acted on; the repeated failure to join the dots and the treating of each LCF transgression—for example, on its use of financial promotions—as an isolated incident, when instead it was a pattern of behaviour designed to use its regulated status to bolster confidence in unregulated products; and the public disagreement between Dame Elizabeth and the Governor of the Bank of England about the issues of responsibility and personal culpability.

I served on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, which said that

“a buck that does not stop with an individual stops nowhere.”

That quote has been much used in the debate about this issue, which has raised sharply the limitations of collective accountability and the question of whether in this case the buck really stopped with anyone. Of course, most importantly of all, there is the issue of the distress and the financial loss to investors and the question of how they should be compensated. All of this has led to the Government stepping in with this Bill to authorise compensation up to a certain level for investors.

Based on the amendment, I want to put a number of questions to the Minister arising from the Bill. First, why has compensation been set at 80% of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme maximum of £86,000, not the full level? That is probably the main outstanding concern of LCF investors, who are grateful that compensation will come but who cannot understand the 80% cap given the manifest failures set out in Dame Elizabeth’s report. Are the Government completely fixed on this 80% figure, or is there any prospect of that being reconsidered?

[Rehman Chishti]

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way, and I will of course raise the same point with the Minister in due course. The right hon. Gentleman says that the victims will of course welcome the compensation coming their way, but the point raised with me by those who have suffered a loss is whether the Government can look to prioritise those who have suffered the most due to their loss. There has been a lot of data gathering by the FSCS, the FCA and the Serious Fraud Office, so that should be easily apparent. What is his view about ensuring that compensation is quickly given out and prioritised to those who have suffered the most?

[Mr McFadden]

The hon. Member raises a very fair point. It has already been referenced in the debate that this is not just about amounts, but about the timescale, and we all want the Government and whoever is administering this scheme to be able to get on with it.

[Sammy Wilson]

I understand the point, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that defining those who have suffered the most could be quite difficult? Are those who have suffered the most those who have lost the most, or perhaps those who are not all that well-off and have found that they had lost all of their savings, even though all of their savings would not have been the same as the loss of some of the bigger investors? Does he accept that that is a difficult definition?

[Mr McFadden]

The right hon. Member raises a very fair point. If we pluck a sum of money out of the air, it could be a lot of money to one person and perhaps less to somebody else, depending on their wealth.

Let me return to the questions for the Minister arising from the amendment and the Bill. The second is the important question of where the decision to compensate the LCF investors leaves investors in other firms where regulatory failure is alleged. Where has the bar now been set for future compensation in the event of regulatory failure? The taxpayer cannot stand behind every investment loss. Some investors will make money and some will lose. That is in the nature of a market economy. However, the question of compensation arises when there is a clear regulatory failure, because that is considered to be a different matter. Having come up with this scheme, where do the Government now draw the line?

How can we be sure this will not happen again? There are two aspects to this question. The first is the role of the regulator. The FCA is going through a transformation programme designed to ensure that changes are made to prevent a similar thing from happening in the future.

[Peter Grant]

There is clearly a need to specify which kinds of investment losses might be compensated, and which ones will not be. Given that the Financial Conduct Authority has outlawed the targeting of mini-bonds at retail investors, is that a clear indication that something was fundamentally flawed with all selling of those bonds, whether it was done by LCF, Blackmore Bond, or anybody else?

[Mr McFadden]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. On how we can be sure that this will not happen again, and the transformation programme, it is to be expected that companies would go through such a programme, given the damning nature of Dame Elizabeth’s findings. There is also, however—and this is not just about this specific case—understandable public scepticism when a scandal happens, people talk about lessons being learned, there are some changes to management, and the organisation moves on. How do we ensure that, while understandable, such public scepticism is not justified in this case because something different is happening, and that we will not end up back here, some time in the future, debating another investment scam that was not spotted and acted on in time?

The second aspect to the question of how we can ensure that this does not happen again relates to legislative protections. This scam was promoted by a lot of online advertising. The online safety Bill is coming up, and at the moment paid-for advertising is excluded from that. Why should that be the case? Surely the LCF case shows that paid-for advertising must be included. As the Minister will be aware, there is a growing coalition behind the argument that the online safety Bill must offer greater protection against financial scams and fraud, and that is bound to be a major issue as the Bill goes through the House.

That issue is important, because consumers are being targeted every day with adverts, text messages, emails, and phone calls geared either to obtaining their financial details, or promising get-rich-quick schemes. As covid has pushed more of our lives online, it is imperative that legislation keeps pace with the increased use of online scams that are designed to strip people of their money. It is becoming more and more difficult for consumers to ascertain the difference between a genuine approach and a scam approach. We in this House have a legislative duty to keep pace with what organised criminals are trying to do.

[Rehman Chishti]

rose—

[Mr McFadden]

I am coming to the end of my remarks; I hope the hon. Gentleman does not mind. I leave the Minister with this: is it not better to try to stop people being ripped off in the first place, than to have to ask the taxpayer or, as in clause 2, members of pension schemes, to compensate people after such scams have already happened? I will leave it there, although I will later have a few remarks and questions about clause 2.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McFadden]

We have just had a short debate on an amendment that was largely focused on clause 1. Before we finish the Commons stages, I want to put a few questions to the Minister, mainly relating to clause 2 and pensions.

We discussed some of these issues in Committee. Clause 2 imposes a levy on the pension schemes to pay for the consequences of the Dalriada case, which means that the pension fund compensation scheme has to raise what Ministers expect to be around £300 million. I have a few questions about that.

My first question is about the flat-rate way of raising such levies. It leaves schemes with large numbers of members, many of whom have small pension pots—for example, those on auto-enrolment schemes—paying a significant proportion of the levy, even though they are run in a completely honest way that has never been near any kind of pension fraud. Have the Government considered a more proportionate way of raising such levies, to protect pension scheme members with very small pots?

My second question is about the relationship between the greater pension freedoms in recent years and the risks of scams and financial fraud. The advent of these freedoms has resulted in a number of examples where unsuspecting pensioners have been persuaded to transfer their pensions in ways that were not in their interests or, even worse, that led to fraud and a loss of their hard-earned savings. The Select Committee on Work and Pensions has shown significant interest in the issue, and it has received estimates from the Pension Scams Industry Group that 40,000 people may have lost up to £10 billion since the pension freedoms were introduced in 2015.

Thirdly, great fanfare was made of advice and guidance when the pension freedoms legislation was introduced, but take-up has been very low, and efforts by the Department to improve it have not radically changed the proportion of people accessing good advice. Without good advice, pension scheme members are left much more vulnerable to unscrupulous sales pitches or, alternatively, bad decisions that are clearly not in their interests but may be in the interests of the financial adviser advising them. What are the Minister and his colleagues doing to change the situation with regard to pensions advice?

Finally, those accessing their pensions under the age of 55 are subject to a hefty tax charge, but sometimes people are persuaded to do this because they are advised that there is no tax charge and they will not have to pay any tax. They then find themselves not just victims of a scam but pursued by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. What can the Minister do to persuade HMRC to take account of the difference between someone acting on false information and someone knowing that they will incur a tax charge? I would be grateful if the Minister could address those questions before we finish.

In my last contribution to the debates on this Bill, I want to thank the Minister and his colleague the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for their consideration of the points that have been raised throughout by hon. Members. I also thank the Clerks and the Bill team for their responses to inquiries. We will support the Bill because we want this compensation to be paid out, but I hope that the Minister will consider some of the questions we have raised about the nature of scams and the need to do more to protect consumers. Although this Bill will go through tonight, I have no doubt that consumer protection, frauds, scams and the amount of things happening online will be raised again when we debate the Online Safety Bill in the weeks and months to come.