Disability Living Allowance: Qualifying Period for Children

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Michelle Welsh]

I absolutely agree. Too often, the financial impacts of a cancer diagnosis are forgotten. People think about the hospital visits, the sickness and the endless tablets, but a disability or serious condition such as cancer has an impact on every single part of someone’s life. Following a diagnosis, families immediately have to deal with the financial impact. It is a sad fact of life that bills do not care whether a child has cancer; they will still be due.

But we can care. Cross-party, we can care. We can unite and do the right thing. Families with children with a disability or serious condition have to wait seven months on average before receiving a single disability living allowance payment. That is months and months of rent, mortgage payments, electricity bills and council tax, and it is weeks and weeks of food shopping. It is compounded by the fact that household income drops by an average of £6,000 per year. For one in three, that can reach over £10,000. Sadly, it gets even worse: the delay in receiving DLA means that a parent’s ability to claim any carer’s allowance as an additional or an alternative has a further impact on the financial strain. It is also important to note that parents in work are unable to apply for universal credit, and that that cuts out other potential streams of support.

All this leaves parents with an impossible choice, a cruel choice that no parent should have to make: do they leave their child alone in hospital to face this battle by themselves, or do they not go to work? Do they skip bills? Do they run the risk of losing their home? Do they not eat? Do they turn the heating off? This is the reality. These are decisions that families should never have to make, yet they happen daily for families up and down this country.

During my meeting with Rachael, she told me about a young boy of just six years old who was also on the ward. His parents were left with no option but to carry on working. As the nurses were unable to provide round-the-clock care, Rachael helped him to use the toilet, helped to dress him and helped him to eat. It is heartbreaking to think of the many children who have no one beside them—not just for the children, but for the mothers and fathers being left with no choice. I missed my son’s first day back at school today and have cried about it, but that is nothing in comparison with having to leave a child who is suffering from cancer in a hospital bed. Let me be clear: DLA is not designed to act as a source of income. It is there to help with the extra costs of looking after a child with a health condition.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her incredibly powerful speech. She is right that this is not a necessity; it can be addressed. Does she agree that the Department for Work and Pensions needs to ensure that parents get support from day one so that they can address the increased financial costs that they face from the beginning of a diagnosis, and the real need for parents to be present to support their child?

[Michelle Welsh]

I absolutely agree. Cancer is actually one of the clearest diagnoses that someone can get from day one.

Cancer does not wait, yet families have to. The three-month qualifying period does not reflect the realities that families face. In Mabel’s case, the family were informed that they would not qualify for any support, as Mabel’s condition had not lasted for more than six months. In other words, she had not had cancer for long enough. That is despite her having undergone multiple operations and chemotherapy; to this day, she must still attend regular hospital appointments. It is my understanding that the qualifying period is meant to establish that a health condition is long-standing in nature, but with a diagnosis of cancer surely support should be given from the outset.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

It starts with the issue of need. The point at which the child became eligible for disability living allowance marks the start of the qualifying period, even if that precedes the point at which parents make a claim. Understandably, when parents are in very difficult circumstances, their first thought is probably not about applying for disability living allowance. For children who are severely disabled at birth, the qualifying period can start at birth.

The date of claim is usually the date the request for a claim pack is received. Provided that the customer returns the claim form within six weeks, the date of claim will be treated as the date that the claim form was requested. The Secretary of State also has the discretion to extend that period beyond six weeks if the delay is considered reasonable. In the sort of circumstances that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest has described, we can understand how those issues can arise.

If a child sadly has an end-of-life diagnosis, special rules are rightly in place. Those claims are always fast-tracked and the three-month qualifying period does not apply. The highest rate of the DLA care component will be paid from the date of the claim. My officials are currently exploring options to enhance bereavement support for parents through the social security system, and we will continue to engage with stakeholders as that work develops.

Given that this debate stems from concerns about how quickly families get the support they need, it is worth highlighting that we have recently made significant improvements to waiting times for new child DLA claims. People are not waiting nearly as long as they did for their claim to be processed. My hon. Friend rightly highlighted the need to address long waits.

[Rachael Maskell]

In the light of the fact that we are moving into a new era of a can-do Government, will the Minister look, together with clinicians, at the opportunity and benefit of delivering DLA from day one, and then bring the evidence back to the House?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I will perhaps come later in my speech to what the Government are planning to do.

I am pleased to tell colleagues that between October 2024 and March 2025, the Department recruited and redeployed in excess of 100 case managers to improve clearance times for child DLA new claims. Between 1 August 2025 and 31 March this year, the Department cleared around 185,900 child DLA new claims, of which 68.3% were cleared within 45 working days. In that time, the percentage of claims cleared within these planned timescales rose from 4.7% to 90.7%. I hope that colleagues will recognise that that is a significant and necessary improvement.

The social security system exists to provide opportunity and security. It is there to help people to navigate the difficult circumstances that any of us can find ourselves in. There can, of course, be few circumstances more exceptionally difficult than those faced by seriously ill children and their parents. Along with the emotional strain, parents can understandably experience a significant impact upon work and household income, as well as facing extra costs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest very ably set out. It is understandable that many parents in this situation are likely to need additional support through the social security system.

It is worth reiterating that beyond the support that DLA provides in and of itself, it can also passport to a range of additional support. That includes premiums in income-related benefits, carer’s allowance, the Motability scheme and exemption from the benefit cap. That is providing comprehensive help for families. For those who qualify, financial support is available through universal credit, including for those who are in work but on lower incomes. If needed, that support can be available on day one through an advance. Alongside the universal credit standard allowance, additional amounts such as child element, disabled child addition, carer element or housing costs are added as appropriate. Although universal credit is means tested and therefore not available to households that are better off financially, it is there as a safety net should those financial circumstances change.

The social security system will always be a cornerstone of our support for unpaid carers and parents of disabled children, but it is not the only way we can help. Rightly, this is something that we have been thinking about across Government. Indeed, the Government have recognised precisely the issues that have been raised by both my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest and my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). As I am sure they are aware, only yesterday the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade closed its “Make Work Pay” consultation on employment rights for unpaid carers and parents of seriously ill children. That included seeking views on a possible new statutory entitlement to leave and pay for parents of seriously ill children, which is often referred to as Hugh’s law. That is in recognition of the campaigning undertaken by the family of Hugh Menai-Davis, who very sadly died aged six from cancer in 2021 but left this important legacy. I know that my colleagues will look carefully at the submissions to that consultation and will respond to it in the coming months, and I am sure that my hon. Friends present will look to colleagues in the Department and the work that they do.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest rightly highlighted the importance of parents being able to support their children at these incredibly distressing times. In April last year, the Government introduced a new element of up to 12 weeks of neonatal care leave and pay for parents of babies in neonatal care to ensure that they have appropriate support during that time. The national cancer plan for England was published in February and was warmly received, not least for its introduction of a children and young people’s travel fund, backed by £10 million, and its recognition of the specialist approach that is needed for cancer in children and young people. Of course, our goal across Government remains to relentlessly work towards improving outcomes and experiences for children and young people with serious illnesses and supporting their families. I give that commitment to my colleagues today.

Caring for a child who is seriously ill must be one of the most worrying and stressful situations that a parent can experience, which is why I am so glad that we have had the opportunity to discuss this issue today. Although there are no current plans to remove the three-month qualifying period from disability living allowance for children, my Department is already doing a significant amount of work and offering significant support. I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to search for the right levers across Government to further strengthen support for parents in these terrible circumstances, and that we will always approach these issues with compassion. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate on an important and sensitive subject and all Members who have contributed.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

11. What progress he has made on reducing levels of child poverty.

[The Minister for Employment (Dame Diana Johnson)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her interest in this area. Through our child poverty strategy, we are already taking substantial action, including the expansion of free school meals eligibility, the removal of the two-child limit and the introduction of the £1 billion crisis and resilience fund. Actions in the strategy will lift 550,000 children out of poverty in ’29-30, and the removal of the two-child limit could benefit around 1,650 children in York Central.

[Rachael Maskell]

Lifting children out of poverty will be this Government’s greatest legacy. However, we know that around 4 million children will remain in poverty, so it is really important to go further. Last year, the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown suggested a levy on the gambling and betting industry to raise £3 billion and lift another 500,000 children out of poverty. Will the Minister ensure we do even more so that we have a greater legacy and ensure that the lives of those young people are changed forever because of the decisions of this Government?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Like my hon. Friend, I am very proud of what the child poverty strategy will deliver. It may be worth reflecting on what the Chancellor said about child poverty at the end of last year in the Budget. She said that

“because I am tackling fraud and error in our welfare system, cracking down on tax avoidance and reforming gambling taxation, I can announce today, fully costed and fully funded, the removal of the two-child limit in full from April.”—[Official Report, 26 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 397.]

I hope that reassures my hon. Friend that that was taken into account in the decisions taken by the Chancellor.

Milburn Review: Interim Report

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

In York, 410 young people are not in education, training or employment, and we know from Alan Milburn’s report the causes of that. I particularly want to focus on mental health, and the fact that we do not have the right support in place for young people much earlier than the point at which they seek employment. Will the Minister work with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that we have systems in place to identify young people who experience mental health challenges, in particular children with adverse childhood experiences, so that they can be set on a stronger path and build more resilience throughout their childhood, enabling them to be prepared for work?

[Andrew Western]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to recognise that many of the challenges faced by young people not in education, employment or training start at school or even preschool. We need to ensure that there is early intervention in schools, with more mental health practitioners available to children and young people, and that they can receive the support needed at the first possible opportunity, because mental ill health blights and affects their future, not just in academic terms with exams, but often for many years beyond that. I absolutely agree with her. That point underpins many of the proposals put forward in the Department for Education’s special educational needs reforms. We need early intervention and greater mental health support for children.

Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am not sure what the effect will be. It is often said that a Labour Government has the effect of increasing the birth rate, but whether that will prove to be the case this time, I do not know.

Child poverty is a big challenge. Reducing it over the next 10 years will require commitment and collaboration across all four nations. The strategy, including removing the two-child limit, builds on plans under way across Government and devolved Governments. We will continue to collaborate with devolved Governments on the issue, particularly through the implementation phase that will now follow.

Clause 3 sets out the territorial extent of the Bill, the commencement dates for each of the sections, delegated powers and the short title of the Act.

The Government recognise the consequences of child poverty and the damage that it does to a child’s life chances. In the poorest 10% of areas, babies are twice as likely to die before they turn one as those in the wealthiest 10% of areas. Poorer children are more likely to have mental health difficulties by the age of 11, to be unemployed later and to earn less as adults. We estimate that the Bill will increase the universal credit award for 560,000 families, who will gain on average £5,310 per year. That is a much-needed change from the choices of the previous Government—they chose austerity, and children paid the price. Tackling child poverty is an investment in our economy and a downpayment on Britain’s future.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Before the House are four new clauses to the legislation. They set out a pathway through which we can generate data, particularly around the welfare cap, which we know holds back 141,000 children. In the assessments that the Government make, will the Minister draw out particularly the impact of the welfare cap on those children? Will he look to remove it to ensure that those children are not held back in poverty?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am sure that we will turn to the points that my hon. Friend makes in a few moments, but I reassure her that we will undertake a thorough evaluation of the impacts of the strategy. We will publish regular updates, and I think she will find there the information that she is interested in.

We cannot leave millions of children to succumb to the damaging impacts of poverty. The Government want instead to invest in children and in Britain’s future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Maynard]

Yes, I am. I congratulate the Chair and members of the Work and Pensions Committee on doing all that good work; many thanks to them.

Assessing the wider issues may encourage the Government to take steps beyond this welcome but narrow Bill to support children and their families who are struggling to get by from week to week. Those include auto-enrolment of all those eligible for free school meals, so that children are automatically considered eligible when their parents apply for relevant benefits or financial support, and giving people the ability to juggle caring responsibilities alongside work without falling into hardship by increasing the value of carer benefits, particularly for those on low incomes.

[Rachael Maskell]

There could be no greater cause for a Government than to lift children out of poverty, which is why I very much welcome the removal of the two-child limit. However, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has reported that 141,000 children will not see the full benefit of the change and 50,000 children—the poorest of our children—will get no benefit whatsoever because of the benefit cap. We must therefore examine the impact of the benefit cap on these families and how it is holding those children back in poverty.

We must strain every sinew to address poverty, looking at issues such as the sanctions in the welfare system; the spare room subsidy, which the Government championed in the bedroom tax campaign; and many more. We know that the impact of growing up in poverty, especially on disabled children, results in a greater cost to the state than were their poverty and destitution to be addressed.

Poverty is a source of many adverse childhood experiences, causing multiple disadvantages to children and changing their life trajectories. My work looking into the intersection of child poverty and the 1,001 critical days shows the causal link. When I recently met with a director of midwifery and discussed poor maternal outcomes, she impressed on me how addressing the multiple indices for which poverty is at the root is the most significant step we could take.

Low birth rate, domestic violence, substance abuse and intergenerational disadvantage lead to setting a baby, a child and then an adult on to a negative trajectory. When it comes to lifting children out of poverty, we have to look at what is currently holding 4.5 million children in poverty—2 million in deep poverty and 1 million in destitution. The steps that the Government have made are to be celebrated, but there is much more to do.

Last week, I had the privilege of launching Kate Pickett’s new book “The Good Society”, so I have spent the last couple of weeks engrossed in statistics and research on the impact of poverty on our society, its causes and the solutions. If the Minister has not read it yet, I suggest he makes it his priority. I describe the book as a manifesto because I believe it echoes our values and provides the evidence base that the Minister needs regarding why holding children down in poverty is a moral ill, when the evidence says that removing the cap will save the Government substantially, and lead to better outcomes for those children in health, education and employment, in the justice system and in society.

The Government said that they were going to invest in a decade of renewal and so would reap the benefits within two terms of office were they to remove the benefit cap. The four new clauses before us call for an assessment, which the Government must be keen to make. If we do not, academics will drive out the data and present it to us.

Conservative Members are wrong on the evidence base. We need to look at the number of children who have been pushed into poverty over the last 14 years. Life expectancy in our developed country is now ranked 24th out of 38 in the OECD, and our infant mortality is now ranked at 29th. There is a causal link. Whether it is health outcomes, educational outcomes, the impact on families, or the justice system, the roots of the issues can be traced back to poverty in childhood. If we are serious about cutting the social security cost or the prison population cost to the Exchequer, our only path is to invest in ending child poverty and taking our ambition beyond that of the child poverty strategy launched by our Government.

The evidence from York, where we have introduced free school meals, is that lifting children out of poverty has significantly enhanced their health and education outcomes.

[Rebecca Smith]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachael Maskell]

I am going to continue.

Risks including exploitation can be addressed if we put the right security around a child, so we must move all children out of poverty. A strong correlation exists between children in the justice system and poverty, with over half of children in secure accommodation being eligible for free school meals.

The evidence set out in “The Good Society” is powerful regarding why we need to lift children out of poverty. While we are rightly grateful for the steps that have been made, we have more to do. We know that 30% of disabled people live in poverty, and the risk of deep poverty is 60% higher in families with a disabled person. It is right, therefore, that in new clause 2 we seek to find deeper evidence. One reason to look at the benefit cap is that in my constituency we have among the highest costs of living in the country. The cost of housing is holding back families, as they do not have the resources to pay for the basics for their children. That is why I have worked with Citizens Advice in York, and said that I would raise these issues with the Minister.

As Pickett and Wilkinson point out in “The Spirit Level”, inequality is the root of each strand of social disadvantage, with the UK second worst in the world. Successive works of academics leading to two reports by Sir Michael Marmot have shown the impact on health outcomes, and whether in education, justice, housing or welfare, or indeed having any agency at all, we have a social and moral imperative to end the inequalities that widened following the 2008 economic crash.

I call on the Minister to look specifically at the benefit cap and to move those children forward and lift them out of poverty. We know that if we can turn the tables on their life outcomes, that can make such a significant difference.

If we are serious about our society gaining from the economic and social advantage of ending child poverty, we must look further, with a minimum income guarantee as a next step. We must also seriously consider a universal basic income so that no child experiences the deep and pernicious poverty that this place has for far too long held them in, suppressing their life chances and causing such harm.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, I have not seen the details of that particular case, but I would be happy to have a look at it if he would like me to. There is, of course, the opportunity for mandatory reconsideration and in due course for appeal, but I would be happy to look at those details.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

When the data is segmented, there is a strong correlation between NHS waiting lists and the number of claimants of personal independence payments, so what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that those people who are unable to work because they are on an NHS waiting list are having their health optimised so that they can engage with employment and be fast-tracked through the system?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend will welcome, as I do, the dramatic record fall in waiting lists that has been recently reported, but of course we need to make further progress in reducing waiting lists and we are determined that the assessment for PIP will be fair to everybody. As I have mentioned, the steering group will meet for the first time over two days at the end of this week, and I know that everyone on that group will be focused on ensuring that we can deliver a fair system for those who need it.

Poverty and Welfare Policies

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I absolutely agree—in fact, the hon. Member must have read part of my speech, because I will come on to that point a bit later.

There is now a wealth of evidence showing that there is a growing gap between what people have and what they need for a decent standard of living. Millions in the UK are falling well short of that standard, as costs continue to rise and our social security system fails to provide adequate and appropriate support.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for today’s debate. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s essentials guarantee sets a minimum that people should receive through the social security system. For a single person, it is £120, which is £28 more than they are receiving; for a couple, it is £205, which is £60 more than they are receiving. That is to achieve a minimum standard. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should be looking at the work of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation to ensure that people are lifted out of poverty?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

Yes, and I cover the JRF’s demands for an essentials guarantee a bit later in my speech—it will be one of the key points I make when I sum up.

Short-term support measures are of course vital for people in need, but they will only go so far. What we need is a social security system that is fit for the future. As the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) pointed out, some have argued that our benefits system is too generous, compared with those in other European countries. However, the rate of our benefits, such as unemployment benefit and the basic state pension, is incredibly low. According to a recent report from the Public and Commercial Services Union, unemployed workers in countries such as Ireland, France and Germany are entitled to more than double what UK workers get if they lose their job. It is no wonder, then, that almost a third of adults say they are unable to keep their home at the recommended minimum temperature of 18°C; that more than one in 10 UK households experienced food insecurity last year; and that the amount the poorest households have left after the bills have been paid has fallen by 2.1% in the last 18 months.

However, the weight of the cost of living crisis will not be lifted by boxing clever on single policies. One of the major structural changes we need in order to move beyond sticking-plasters and towards lasting change is the introduction of a protective minimum floor in our social security system, as supported by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the Trussell Trust and others. The principle is simple: if our welfare state is meant to be relied on when people need it, it has to cover the essentials they need to survive. Right now, five in six low-income households on universal credit are going without essentials, and nearly 90% of people referred to food banks are receiving a means-tested social security payment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his brief question. Pensioner poverty halved under the last Labour Government. It went up under the previous Conservative Government, but it is going to come down again under this Government.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

On Friday, I learned of an 81-year-old constituent who had had to return to work because of the cost of living in York. Will the Government take a deep dive and carry out an inquiry into poverty in later life, so that we can ensure that we deal with pensioner poverty once and for all?

[Torsten Bell]

I thank my hon. Friend for her important question. We have seen poverty rates fall less fast among people approaching the state pension age, rather than those over it. We need to look across the range of policy levers to address that, which includes growing the economy so that wages are rising and building houses so that people’s housing costs come down.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[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?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I can reassure my hon. Friend that the review of the PIP assessment, including the mobility element of that benefit, will be undertaken fully in co-production with disabled people and disabled people’s organisations. I will be setting out very shortly how the review I am going to be leading will be undertaken.

Statutory Maternity and Paternity Pay

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse, and I congratulate the Petitions Committee and all the petitioners on bringing this issue forward for debate.

I will home in on the specific issue of self-employed adopters. There is real inequality built into the system, where self-employed adopters are not able to access the pay or even the allowances that parents can. When someone takes a new child into their home through adoption, there are significant challenges, and it is important that they can build stability, attachment and security for that child. But without the resources to do that, many adopters have made the positive choice not to adopt a second child, and others in the process are not able to embark further on the journey. That is denying children access to a family, when we have so many children—over 80,000—in care at the moment. It is absolutely vital that we change the system to ensure that we give those parents, at least, equivalent and sufficient adoption pay.

Therefore, I ask that the Government engage with and listen to the work done on this issue by organisations such as Adoption UK and Home for Good. They have identified that although there are voluntary arrangements at the moment, they are simply not working, and we need statutory arrangements for adopters. Only 10% of adopters had their social workers tell them about the voluntary arrangements to access resources from a local authority, which are given on a discretionary basis. In fact, we found that 34% of local authorities did not even have a policy for how they would give that pay to adoptive parents. It is not for local authorities; we need statutory provision in place, and I trust that the Minister will take on that cause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Western]

We will need to see what comes out of the review, but we are committed to setting out a roadmap to change as a result of the review. I understand my hon. Friend’s point and note his desire, and that of other Members, for action to be taken as swiftly as possible.

I appreciate that parental leave and pay are vital to new mums and dads, giving them the space to spend time together as a new family. The first months and moments are critical in ensuring that a child is happy, healthy and well adjusted. It is something that runs deeper than pound signs and percentage points. Bringing a child into the world or into our home is a major event in anyone’s life. It is one that parents should enjoy free from the stresses of the workplace. However, we know that the current system is not working for everyone.

It is almost 40 years since statutory maternity pay was introduced for working women in 1987. It is half a century since maternity leave was introduced in 1975, and almost 75 years since the start of maternity allowance in 1948. In the years since, the world of work and the world at large have changed beyond recognition. Gone are the age-old stereotypes about men belonging in the workplace and women in the home. The lines between home and work have never been more blurred. As times have changed, there have been tweaks and updates: paternity leave and adoption leave in 2003; shared parental leave and pay in 2014; and neonatal care leave just this year. But, like a road network that evolves over time, the process is no longer as simple to navigate. We need something that is purpose-built for people’s journeys today.

In July, in partnership with the Department for Business and Trade, we launched the parental leave and pay review. It is time to go back to first principles, to work out exactly what the system needs to deliver and for whom—mums, dads and others—and to consider all the options before mapping out a new way forward. That starts with our remembering why maternity pay was introduced in the first place. It was primarily about the health and safety of women and their babies during pregnancy and in the months following childbirth. That is why, as the review progresses, the first objective that we have in mind for the parental leave and pay system, although not the only one, is ensuring that it supports maternal health by making sure women have enough money and time off work to stay healthy—physically and mentally—during the latter stages of their pregnancy and while recovering from birth.

Secondly, the approach needs to promote economic growth. When we give more new parents the freedom to stay and progress in work, it is not just mums, dads and kids who benefit; employers, too, benefit from keeping parents’ skills and experience. At present, just over half of new mothers go back to their old job following the birth of their child. We want to build a system in which every mother feels supported if they make that choice. New figures show that five years after a first birth, the average mother’s earnings will have dropped by more than £1,000 a month. Mothers deserve better.

Our third objective is to help children to get the best start in life by giving new parents the resources and space to give the care and attention their new arrivals need. Fourthly, we need to support parents’ childcare choices so that parents can balance care and work in a way that works for them, enabling co-parenting and reflecting the realities of modern work. Ultimately, we want a system that is fairer and easier to use, and that works better for parents and employers.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for his speech. Will he ensure that there is a matrix over the Government’s objective that measures inequality in family life and ensures that we close the inequality gap so that parents experiencing the greatest deprivation benefit the most from the policy?

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The health transformation programme that I mentioned will allow the introduction of a modern digital service, which is certainly not how the existing arrangements could be characterised. It is a big job—the programme will run until 2029—but the outcome from it will be a process that is simpler and easier to understand, which I hope will reduce the stress to which the hon. Member has rightly drawn attention, and shorten decision times.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)]

Over the summer, I have been doing a deep dive into children with special educational needs and disabilities, not least the transition points between education and work. As part of the Timms review—the Minister’s own review—will he ensure that that interface is looked at, so that there is a smooth transition for young people, as opposed to the cliff edges that many of them face when making the transition into work?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The review will look specifically at the PIP assessment, but one proposal in our Green Paper published earlier this year was increasing the age of transition from DLA to PIP from 16 to 18. I think that that change could assist with the concern expressed by my hon. Friend. We are looking at the consultation responses that we have received.