Relationship between Social Security Scotland and the DWP

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

In addition to all your work in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and so much behind the scenes, you are also a constituency MP. Like me, like the Minister, and like the other Members here this evening, you will be written to by your constituents, and I am sure that you and your team will know how incredibly frustrating it is when we cannot get Government systems right. That is why we are here this evening, and I hope the Minister will provide some constructive responses about departmental improvements.

The issue I want the Minister to address is the fact that Department for Work and Pensions systems are continually failing to understand and correctly account for Scottish carers who have an underlying entitlement to the Scottish carer support payment, but who do not receive the payment itself because of income—for example their state pension or part-time work. I am currently supporting two constituents who see continual wrongful deductions. One has passed state pension age, and the other receives employment and support allowance. They do not receive any payments for the carer support payment from Social Security Scotland, but the DWP continues to make those deductions from their universal credit—I hope colleagues are keeping up.

I want to pause at this point and reflect on how long it has taken for us to know what is causing the confusing and distressing deductions from my constituents’ payments. My fantastic caseworker Neve has spent literally months trying to unravel payments and deductions, while being told different things by different DWP and Social Security Scotland caseworkers. I have met the Minister for Social Security and Disability in relation to one of those cases, and he is aware from previous correspondence of the myriad communication problems that we had in one particular case, with DWP officers calling my constituent and causing considerable distress.

My constituent was inadvertently misled—I like to think it was inadvertent—about where and when voicemails could be left, and there was a general refusal to engage with my office, despite requests to do so because my constituent, in addition to having learning difficulties and being a carer for his family, was also going through cancer treatment. Those are all underlying issues within the Department for Work and Pensions and do not specifically relate to Social Security Scotland, but we see similar confusion with almost every case that comes through our office, and we need it to be sorted.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate—I spoke to her about it beforehand, just as I spoke to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In Northern Ireland we see the same breakdown in communication, the same bureaucratic black holes, and the same administrative friction when trying to cross-reference entitlements between devolved local structures and the central DWP database. Vulnerable carers and elderly citizens transitioning to the state pension are being left without income, simply because fragmented public services cannot talk to one another. Does the hon. Lady agree that we must ensure that the most vulnerable in our care are protected with greater success, UK-wide?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I agree with the hon. Member, and it is important to remember that on many occasions we are talking about our most vulnerable constituents. No doubt there is an onus on us as MPs, and indeed on the Government in Westminster, but Administrations in other parts of the UK also have a responsibility to ensure that they are working as constructively as possible.

I understand that the Department has recently recruited more complaints handlers, which I hope will go some way to improving things. I have a case that we raised in March, and we were told this week that it has not yet been assigned to anyone. I am deeply concerned about the state of the DWP, and by extension the welfare of the vulnerable constituents who the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) just referred to.

There are two key issues with the carer support payment that the DWP needs to help address. First, DWP staff need to be trained in what that payment is, how it works, and why keeping the underlying entitlement to it is important. That includes early stage call handlers, in addition to the specialist teams to whom difficult cases are allocated. I hope that the Minister, and the Minister for Social Security and Disability, are fully across this, but let me put on the record that the carer support payment is the benefit that replaced carer’s allowance in Scotland—we know there have been major issues with carer’s allowance in other parts of the UK.

Like carer’s allowance, earnings over a certain level remove someone’s eligibility to the payments. Carer support payment can also be awarded as an underlying entitlement that acts as a gateway for additional support. That should be a familiar concept. We see it with the DWP carer’s allowance, but also with other support such as child benefit. Parents are encouraged to apply for child benefit even if they are not eligible for the payment, because it is a gateway to the non-working parent getting national insurance credits.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you can imagine how frustrating it is when DWP case handlers give advice, as they have done to us, that the issue with deductions would be resolved by asking Social Security Scotland to remove the underlying entitlement. It fails to demonstrate any understanding of how many benefits work, and frankly demonstrates a willingness to let people be worse off because the DWP’s own rules are complicated to apply.

Secondly, DWP systems need to be set up to process correctly the information being provided to them by Social Security Scotland. I will not claim that Social Security Scotland is perfect by any stretch, and it is not within the purview of this place, but I would like to see more joined-up working from all sides. However, I have been assured, as much as I can be, by Social Security Scotland that its computer system is communicating properly with the DWP, and I have no reason to believe otherwise.

However, from the DWP side I have been varyingly told that its system shows a claimant in receipt of a payment of carer support payment, despite them never having received it, and that it is DWP policy to deduct carer support payment as standard unless explicitly told otherwise by Social Security Scotland. Worryingly, while acknowledging an issue in March, the Minister for Social Security and Disability told us in writing that wrongful deductions

“may cause confusion to customers and that they are exploring ways to make the process clearer”.

My view is that yes, DWP mistakes can be confusing, especially given the communication issues that I have already outlined; but that statement misses the point by stating the problem is the claimant’s understanding. We need a system that does not make these systemic errors in the first place, and I would argue that that is very squarely for the Department, not claimants, to sort out.

Just finally last week, the specialist DWP complaints team has either worked out, or come clean with us and owned up to, the systemic error impacting many Scottish carers. It wants to find a fix, but it does not have a timescale in which that will be achieved. Until then, it will be up to a claimant to realise that there is a problem and ask the DWP to correct the deduction each month. Let me repeat that: the DWP wants the claimant to ask the DWP to correct the deduction each month. We all know that unpaid carers are among the most overstretched groups in our society, yet the DWP is telling them to take on the burden of correcting its failures every single month. Carers Week is next week, and I do not think that that is the message that we want to be sending from this place, or indeed from the DWP.

That may all sound a bit dry and complicated, but benefit applications, overlapping payments and underlying entitlements have a real human impact on the lives of our constituents. Having their universal credit payment reduced to nil when they have food to buy and bills to pay is very difficult. There is no buffer to help them out while they battle with the DWP to find out why. I have seen constituents relying on credit cards for basics, or going without, to the detriment of their own health. The stress and distress that this situation causes are immense. The DWP’s computer error is the reason one constituent has been suicidal, and it is causing extreme anxiety to another. They are not alone, and fundamentally this is not their fault.

I will make a final addition to my remarks before I come to a conclusion. I had mainly prepared for this debate when we received an update this morning on one of the cases. My constituent had received a letter saying that he would be receiving a back payment of the best part of £3,000. He was confused—we were confused. My office had spelled out as clearly as it could to the DWP that he just needed his universal credit paid back for the period of December 2025 to February 2026, in which carer support payment had been incorrectly deducted. Being given a confusing payment of too much money can be just as distressing as receiving too little. I cannot stress enough the fear of relying on the DWP, spending the money and then being told that it has to be repaid—I am sure that we all, as constituency MPs, recognise that.

As it turns out, the DWP had got it wrong again. Despite everything it had been told, despite the months of investigating the claim, it thought that my constituent had never received carer support payment, which he had until December, and had repaid him for the whole period of the deduction. Now a further investigation has to be carried out, and then my constituent will have to pay back more than two thirds of what he has just been paid, so he needs to keep that money until then. I am sorry, but I find that unacceptable. What on earth is going on?

My constituents spotted the problem, came to my office and after months of back and forth we have understood it, but there are more than 30,000 carers across Scotland who have this underlying entitlement and could be missing out on universal credit as a result. It has been a battle to get to where we are today, and I would not be surprised if many carers in Scotland gave up their underlying entitlement to this payment if they were told by the DWP that that was the best thing to do—but there are consequences to that decision. I therefore hope the Minister can use his time to set out what the Department is doing to ensure that its staff properly know about and understand Scottish benefits.

What engagement is the Minister’s Department having with the Scottish Government to ensure that we can get working together? As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, how will the Department ensure that that happens on a UK-wide basis? What is the current understanding of the underlying error? What steps are being taken to fix it? What will the timescale be for that? Crucially, what steps are being taken to identify carers who are being underpaid or wrongly advised to drop their entitlement, and to offer proper support while those errors are rectified?

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

Let me begin by saying that I hope the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) saw me taking extensive notes. The speech I was planning to give is perhaps not as bespoke to the issues that she raises as she would like, so at the outset I will make it clear that if she wants to escalate specific cases to me, I am very happy to have a look at them. She has clearly been escalating cases through the usual channels to departmental complaints teams and so on.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I want to put on record that the Minister for Social Security and Disability has been very keen to work with me to understand the problems we have, and I have been very grateful for the support. We are looking at the fact that the issues are still happening, and I am grateful to the Minister for taking an interest in that.

[Andrew Western]

I understand that. I am the Minister with responsibility for the relationship with the Scottish Government and, therefore, Social Security Scotland, so if the hon. Lady would be kind enough to let me know about the issues, too, I would be very happy to see what we can do to seek a resolution. I think it would be helpful to set out a little bit of the background and context to this issue, before saying what I am able to say about the peculiarities of the system that she highlights, and the impact that they have had on some of her constituents.

We should all expect our welfare system to deliver for people as a safety net in difficult times, and to give people the opportunity to build better lives, wherever in the UK they happen to live, so it is only right that we pay attention to this issue. The hon. Lady is a powerful advocate for her constituents, but wherever colleagues are around the country, they should expect an effective and efficient service from the Department, as should their constituents.

Following the devolution of significant social security powers through the Scotland Act 2016, responsibility for the delivery of welfare support to people in Scotland is shared between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. That means that many people in Scotland receive social security support from both the UK Government, provided by the DWP, and from the Scottish Government, delivered by Social Security Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I thank the Minister for giving way again. Does he agree that the problem we have identified—and potentially the scale of the problem, given the number of unpaid carers receiving an entitlement to this allowance—should be looked at by that working group?

[Andrew Western]

If it is okay with the hon. Lady, I will come to the broad thrust of the problem she has identified later in my speech. It is quite complex, in that there are also some challenges in this space in England and Wales that were identified by the Sayce review, but I will say a little bit more about that in a moment. There is also continued ministerial engagement between the UK and Scottish Governments through the joint ministerial working group on welfare. That is a long-standing forum, providing oversight of the devolution of social security powers. That is in addition, of course, to bilateral meetings as required, and I am the Government’s representative on that working group.

Turning to the thrust of the hon. Member’s contribution about the plight of her constituents in receipt of carer support payments, she is correct that the number of complaint handlers has increased recently. It is also worth mentioning, for the benefit of all colleagues, that I have personally moved into holding a series of regular meetings on complaints and MP correspondence. It is fair to say that the Department recognises that more must be done urgently to get a grip of that. In the past two weeks, I have had two or three such meetings already, and they will continue until we reach acceptable levels of complaint handling and timeliness of response. In that vein, if she would like to send me the details of the case from March that she referred to, which she has been told is yet to be assigned to a case handler, I would be happy to look into that for her.

This issue has clearly been distressing for a number of the hon. Member’s constituents, and I acknowledge that. I also acknowledge that there will sometimes be cases where someone is given the wrong information by either my Department or by Social Security Scotland, or where our IT systems could join up more effectively. Where that happens, we need to work together to put that right.

Where I slightly disagree with the hon. Member is on the suggestion that this issue exists only in Scotland. I think the situation is rather more nuanced. From what she has said, there are clearly some issues that I need to take away and look at, but we have some of the issues that she has identified in England, too; I probably do myself no favours by saying that. I think that we have a broader DWP issue, rather than something I would pin directly on Social Security Scotland. For example, as I have just referenced, the issue with how carer’s allowance and universal credit work together was identified in the Sayce review of carer’s allowance overpayments in England and Wales. In respect of carer’s allowance, we are committed to delivering a change, in line with our plans to modernise DWP services. It will be for me as the Minister for devolution to ensure that the transition to the new arrangements also supports the Scottish mechanisms.

Work to automatically offset benefits, which is where we want to get to, will begin in the next financial year and is intended for completion within this Parliament, but I have heard the specifics of what the hon. Member has said for the first time today, and I will take that issue away. I am not able to make the commitment that this will be quickened up, but I want to see whether there is anything we can do. We will work specifically on CSP with Social Security Scotland, and will look at any issues around data sharing and the processes necessary for alignment that are specific to Scotland.

Briefly, the implementation of the social security powers in the Scotland Act 2016 has been a significant programme of work, underpinned by strong co-operation between the DWP and Social Security Scotland at every level. Ongoing work will be required to keep the two systems working effectively together, but my Department is committed to doing that work, in the spirit of a productive, customer-focused relationship with the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland.

The hon. Member has outlined many issues today—as I said to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I am happy to look at those in Northern Ireland, where he has them, too. Where issues arise, we will work together—in this case, as Social Security Scotland and the Department for Work and Pensions—to learn the lessons from navigating the complexities of creating a shared social security landscape. We will find solutions that are respectful of devolution, that maintain our commitment to working together constructively, and that always keeping in mind what really matters, which is the people who, the Department for Work and Pensions and Social Security Scotland are here to help, and their experience of our services.

Question put and agreed to.

Work Capability Assessment Timescales

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Work Capability Assessment timescales.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I welcome the Minister to his place to discuss this important issue. I am grateful to him and his office for their recent engagement with my office on this issue. I am sure he has gathered from our recent correspondence that the focus of my remarks today will not be about the timescales for first-time applications for work capability assessments, but those for people who have requested a new assessment or a reassessment.

There are lots of reasons why someone might need a new assessment. No health condition follows a set path. Although we hope that someone’s health might stay stable or improve, often that is not the way it works out. I do not know how many applicants are waiting for brand-new work capability assessments, but I know that the Minister wrote to me last month to tell me there was a backlog of 35,000 reassessments waiting to be seen. That is a lot of people struggling or unable to work and arguably not getting the support that they need. In response to recent parliamentary questions, I was told that the Department has no breakdown on that backlog, which I find quite concerning. I hope the Minister will take that away. I hope he will tell me in his remarks all the ways they are trying to fix the backlog, but I put it to him that we cannot add capacity if we do not know where to target, so we need a breakdown of that backlog.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. To add my support from a personal point of view, in my office I have a lady who looks after nothing else but benefits. She has told me that there are major issues regarding reassessment waiting times for those who are up for review. The official internal figures for Northern Ireland show that the mean average wait was around 290 working days—58 weeks—and some people are waiting as long as seven to eight years. I have to say, in all honesty, those are extremes, but it does underline the very issue that the hon. Lady is talking about. Does she agree that the one way to solve this problem is more staff? They must be hired to deal with the backlog, as applicants are feeling stressed and anxious that their financial stability might change.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. I will go on to talk about my own caseworkers’ experience. It is right that we recognise that they are the people dealing with the brunt of this. I am going to outline some of the challenges and what I hope the Minister might tell us he is doing to address those.

There are different assessment providers across the UK. Maximus serves my constituency of North East Fife, whereas other assessment contracts sit with Capita, Serco and Ingeus. I would be grateful for more staffing near North East Fife, but the Department for Work and Pensions seems to have no knowledge of whether the problems are greater in Scotland or Skegness. When I talk about delays, I am not talking about a service standard being missed by a few weeks or even a few months. Like the hon. Member for Strangford, I have cases where wait times are 18 months or more.

I want to talk about the impact of such delays on people on the waiting list. I hope the Minister and you, Mr Western, will understand that for the security and wellbeing of my constituents, I am not going to share individual details. There are common denominators across the cases that can paint a picture but, as most MPs know, the people we support are often vulnerable and have suffered considerably in their lifetimes, and it is important that we safeguard their welfare.

The common denominators are backgrounds of serious abuse, sometimes back to childhood—abuse that is hard to imagine and has a serious impact on adult mental health and wellbeing; severe anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder; physical symptoms and pain, sometimes linked to external factors like car accidents and other times linked to past and ongoing trauma. I also have at least one case waiting for a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. In general, there is extreme vulnerability across the board.

Summer 2024 seems like a long time ago. There were 243 happy and optimistic newly elected Labour MPs filling the Palace, the Paris Olympics were just kicking off, London was full of Swifties for the Eras tour, and my constituents were taking the difficult decision that their health struggles were too much to manage to hold down a job and starting the process of requesting support from the DWP. That illustrates how long they have been waiting. These extended waits are absolutely debilitating. The not knowing is incredibly difficult. I think all MPs know from experience that these people worry to the point of obsessive hyper-fixation that their existing benefits will be taken away. That is added to by the stigma people feel for not being able to support themselves or their children, relying on the food bank and not being able to meet their basic needs for energy or clothes, and the anxiety of being judged by those around them.

The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned his caseworkers. I spoke with my caseworkers in the run-up to this debate. I want to take a moment to appreciate our caseworkers, because we need to remember that they are not trained as benefit advisers, counsellors or welfare specialists, but they are the ones picking up the phones day in, day out, trying to unpick what has gone wrong and providing back-up to constituents who find themselves in crisis with nowhere else to go. That is true of all MPs’ offices.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

As a former caseworker, I can reflect on how it can impact you as an individual. I used to play ABBA after hearing about particularly traumatic events on the phone with constituents of the MP I used to work for. We need culture change, and to make sure that those who undertake this service to the public, whether it is Capita or other providers, use a trauma-informed approach. Have you seen such a culture change within these organisations? I hope the Minister will reflect on that in his remarks later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Chamberlain]

Culture does seem to be part of the problem in these circumstances. My view is that my caseworkers work incredibly hard, but if systems, processes and institutions worked the way they were supposed to, the casework often would not come to us in the first instance.

One of my caseworkers told me that, on the phone, someone can go from being completely fine and talking about their application and their health treatment to being in floods of tears and expressing suicidal thoughts with next to no warning. The DWP is not responsible for the underlying factors and histories of my constituents—let me make that clear—but it is here to provide a safety net. Leaving my constituents in limbo has made everything much worse. Mental and physical health are worse, and trauma responses are triggered. One of my constituents has been advised that there is no point pushing on with investigations and treatment for her pain while so many anxiety-inducing factors are ongoing, so recovery is being impacted too. Being unable to work without the additional health element of universal credit can make it incredibly difficult to make ends meet. As we all know, poverty and ill health is a terrible cycle.

The constituents I am working with are trying their best, and I am grateful to the local agencies that offer support. I would like to highlight the work of Fife Women’s Aid and Square Start. The former offers invaluable trauma support and counselling, and the latter can help with all sorts of essential life skills. Many of my constituents have particularly benefited from help with budgeting and managing their finances. However, the reality is that we are all stuck in a holding pattern until the assessments are carried out and decisions are made. My constituents are not alone; they are in a cohort of 35,000 others.

The Minister mentioned the steps the Government are taking to reduce the backlog in his letter to me last month. He will be unsurprised to know that I have some questions that I hope he will be able to address today. First, can he explain why his Department has prioritised new work capability assessments over applicants who have notified the DWP about a change in condition? I am not saying that existing claimants should be prioritised, but a “first come, first served” process, or some other type of prioritisation system, might be fairer. Can the Minister explain how the backlog has got so big? If it stems back from before the 2024 election, why is it taking so long to tackle it? What grounds does his Department use for considering expediting reassessment?

My caseworkers, coincidentally, went to an information session run by Maximus yesterday, and they, with the 50 or so other staffers on the call, were told that the DWP has the power to approve reassessments being processed if it thinks there are reasonable grounds for doing so. That was news to my team and me, because DWP case handlers have consistently said that Maximus is independent and that it has no influence over its operations.

However, we were told yesterday that Maximus is under instruction from DWP to prioritise all new applications, and to look at the backlog of reassessments only if it finds spare capacity. If we write to Maximus and make the case for a reassessment being prioritised, it can escalate it to DWP, and that is where the ultimate decision lies. I would be very keen to hear more about that and confirmation of what we were told yesterday from the Minister.

On making things faster, will the Minister please give more details of what is entailed in rapidly expanding reassessment capacity and accelerating the recruitment of health professionals? That goes to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford. Given work capability assessments are outsourced to companies such as Maximus, what conversations is the Department having with providers about increasing that capacity? How will that be carried out and how will it be allocated geographically? The DWP already carries out some PIP assessments in-house. Has the Department considered adding capacity to work capability assessments with in-house resource?

The Minister said in his letter to me that health professionals are being encouraged to make recommendations based on the papers, rather than in person, where possible. What is he doing to make sure those decisions are being made correctly? I am aware, for example, that at least one of my constituents is stuck on a very long waiting list for PTSD and ADHD diagnoses. There are NHS backlogs everywhere, and Scotland, regrettably, is no exception.

That leads me on to my next question: how does the Minister intend to ensure, with this rapid expansion, that the right decisions are being made overall? Rushing at this stage and getting it wrong will just push the backlog into mandatory reconsideration, which helps nobody, and will lead to more delays for our constituents and more administration costs for his Department.

On a final note, although this is not why I secured this debate, I am aware that the Minister might be minded to mention the planned long-term reforms for work capability assessments. I make a plea for him to think very carefully about what assessments will be used for Scottish applicants, and how those systems will be linked with the DWP. As he knows, we have the adult disability payment under Social Security Scotland, and there are already so many problems that need fixing in how these two systems talk to each other—or do not, as the case may be. My caseworkers have to be experienced in both of these systems. At the moment, failing to fix those foundations and ensuring that the right conversations take place between the Scottish Government and the DWP would be unhelpful for everyone.

To conclude, 35,000 people waiting sounds like just another number, but it is the size of a medium town in the UK, or just a little bit smaller than the population of Lichtenstein. There is a significant cost for every person left in limbo, to us as a population and to our wider economy. I hope I have demonstrated that today.

Youth Unemployment

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are groups of young people who are facing specific barriers to entering employment, and we need to do all we can to provide them with sustained support to get into and stay in the workplace.

Much of the UK’s current workforce challenges are due to the mistakes made by the current Government, with perhaps no bigger own goal than the surprise increase in employer national insurance contributions in the Chancellor’s first Budget. Almost every business that I, and I am sure many other Members, speak to tells me that the NICs rise blindsided it and has since seriously damaged its cash flow and ability to hire and retain staff. That policy alone has been so damaging to the business sector and has created an environment in which companies are discouraged from hiring young people.

Recent Government decisions include the devastating business rates hike in the Chancellor’s most recent Budget. This is causing huge damage to hospitality firms, with many now considering whether their business remains viable. Our hospitality businesses, which so frequently provide young people with their first jobs, are now on their knees. They need support from the Government. The Government’s statement yesterday on cutting business rates for pubs was a good first step, but we need wholesale reform of our business rates system. That is one more reason why the business community felt so betrayed by the previous Conservative Government, who promised reform but did nothing to help our struggling businesses.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is highlighting two important things. The increases in on-costs for businesses mean that they are not taking on young people. More importantly, they are not then able to support the supervisory roles that give those young people the development they need, because they cannot make the differentiation in terms of salary. I am standing here as a Scottish MP. The Scottish Government did not pass on the business rate relief the last time. They have confirmed that they will do so for Barnett consequentials, but does she agree that the Scottish Government are simply not doing enough in this area and that, in fact, we are in a worse position than what is being debated today?

[Sarah Olney]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. She speaks very passionately about businesses in Scotland and the situation they are facing. I am sure she is correct to say that it is even more challenging in Scotland.

I am concerned that the Government’s sole focus on pubs and live music venues ignores the other retail, hospitality and leisure sectors which also need support. I therefore urge the Government to adopt Liberal Democrat proposals to cut the rate of VAT on hospitality, accommodation and attractions to 15% until April 2027, which would give our businesses the boost they so desperately need. Our high streets and town centres are in need of urgent help, and I urge the Government to act with all swiftness.

With the hospitality sector struggling to employ new workers, damage is being done to the prospects of our young people who are struggling with unemployment levels, and that will be detrimental to the broader economy. At the heart of this debate is that regular people are finding it incredibly difficult to find a job to support themselves, their partners, their children and their families, and to pay rent, pay for groceries and pay for essentials. That is what must not get lost in this debate.

While the Government seem to be weighing up their options on the EU re-set, they should be reminded that negotiating a new UK-EU customs union is the single biggest step that the UK could take to boost our economy, our businesses and our young people’s job prospects. The appalling agreement negotiated by the Conservative party has been a complete disaster for our country, particularly for small businesses who are held back by reams of red tape and new barriers to trade. So many young people I talk to are simply frustrated that they are the first generation who have to start their career while reaping the consequences of the Conservatives’ botched deal.

It seems evident from the Liberal Democrat Benches that the Government know that the UK must rectify the dismal trade deal negotiated by the Conservatives, and I am yet to hear a compelling reason from the Government as to why Ministers keep refusing to negotiate a new customs agreement with Europe. The steps the Government are taking to rebuild our relationship with the EU are welcomed by the Liberal Democrats, but I urge the Government to be bolder. This House voted in favour of joining a bespoke UK-EU customs union just last month. I urge the Government to seize that momentum, reach out to our European allies and negotiate a deal that would be mutually beneficial, creating countless new jobs for our young people here in the UK.

The Government cannot ignore the difficulties facing our young people anymore. Our young people need to be provided with a pathway for success and fewer barriers to getting on to the career ladder, but I am afraid the Government are failing to facilitate that. I urge Ministers to listen and adopt a joined-up strategy to tackle youth unemployment, invest in young people’s skills, boost apprenticeships and work-based training, and support businesses to create quality jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naushabah Khan]

I will not give way at this point.

We are now left to rebuild what should never have been dismantled. It is promising to see that that is exactly what this Labour Government are doing. I welcome our youth guarantee that will create 350,000 new training and workplace opportunities, supported by 360 youth hubs across the country, and the investment of £750 million in apprenticeships that will equip 50,000 more young people with skills for the future.

We also recognise that the traditional path that allowed me to succeed—going to university—is not necessarily the right path for everyone. With a growing skills shortage, particularly in sectors such as house building that we need for building the infrastructure of the future, it is vital that we go further in encouraging young people to use their talents and feel confident that such career paths are valued and given the respect they deserve. I have made many visits to MidKent College—which serves my constituency—where young people are learning trades and are really passionate about what they do. They have skills in bricklaying, carpentry, welding, hairdressing and woodwork. Those are skills that my university degree could never have given me, and we must ensure that these avenues are fully supported so that young people can contribute meaningfully to our country’s future.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

The hon. Member is talking about further and vocational education, which is important. Another aspect of it is that it helps young people for whom school has not been a success. It is not just about the skills that they learn; it is about that arm that is put around them. Does she share my concern at the rural agricultural college in Cupar in my constituency of North East Fife effectively mothballing its building and moving a number of its courses online, meaning that young people studying animal care for, for example, are missing out on those arm-supporting opportunities that they desperately need?

[Naushabah Khan]

I completely agree that those routes offer young people an alternative. They offer them a space where they have an opportunity to thrive in a way they might not have been able to thrive in a traditional academic setting. I recognise the need for us to ensure that all those opportunities are protected in whichever way possible, and I recognise the work that the hon. Member is doing in her constituency to promote that.

I know that many of my young constituents in Gillingham and Rainham will welcome this Government’s approach. Jack, a 19-year-old constituent of mine, wrote to me to say:

“I am trying hard to build a future for myself, but without anyone giving me a chance it feels impossible to get started. I want to work, to contribute and become independent, but at the moment, I feel stuck and unsupported.”

My heart broke when I read that. I know that we have a lot of work to do as a Government to get this right, but Conservative Members should recognise their part in creating a legacy that has left thousands of young people living with despair or hopelessness.

We cannot have a generation stuck in limbo, truly struggling not because of their lack of talent or drive, but because the system has been deliberately dismantled. When I was 19, and living a few streets away from where Jack lives today, my future did not feel to me as his does to him. We must recreate a sense of hope and opportunity in this country. I am glad that, through my office and the actions of this Government, we may be able to give Jack the help that he needs, but is a moral stain on our country that we have allowed young people to reach the point of putting those words to paper because that feels like a reality to them. I hope that we get to the heart of this issue. I will back the Government in what they are doing to tackle youth unemployment as a matter of urgency.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the meeting that we had on this very subject just a few months ago and for raising the issue of how important it is to get people back into work. There are lots of good examples of GPs who are doing that around the country, and I look forward to seeing what more we can do to work with him and other GPs to ensure that we get as many people as possible back into work who are not in work at the moment due to ill health.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

T6. I have two constituents who have been awaiting work capability reassessments since July and September 2024. That is more than a year that they have been stuck in limbo, rather than preparing to get back to work. Will the Minister confirm what my team has been told—that extreme waiting times are now normal in the Department? Will he set out what it is doing to break that backlog?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

We are certainly addressing the backlog, but if the hon. Lady would like to send me the details of those two cases, I will certainly investigate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

As I just mentioned, our new jobcentres will create a universal service across Great Britain. We must make those changes to serve young people. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the pandemic generation, who deserve much better from us all. I know that his city of Edinburgh is full of chances and opportunities that we cannot let go to waste. Given the role of Edinburgh and Glasgow in our visitor economy, I am sure that he will be interested in the work we are doing with UKHospitality to help more young people to have an opportunity in that great sector.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

Struggling to make ends meet, paying bills, buying work appropriate clothing and paying for public transport all affect someone’s ability to get and keep a job. That is just as true for under-25s as it is for anybody else, but the Government continue to maintain a lower rate of universal credit for young people when there is no guarantee that they have financial support from their families. In looking at universal credit, will the Government consider that?

[Alison McGovern]

As the hon. Member will know, we are reviewing universal credit. I am particularly focused on ensuring that young people have a chance before they reach the age of 25. If they are out of work in those first years after leaving school or college, it is absolutely devastating for the rest of their careers. That is why we are making these changes.

PIP Changes: Impact on Carer’s Allowance

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s testimony to the value of the support that the system provides and the importance of maintaining that into the future. He is right about passported benefits. The availability of blue badges is not affected by anything in the Green Paper, because the mobility component of personal independence payment is not changed by any of the proposals we have made. Access to carer’s allowance, as we have said, certainly will be, and I would welcome a discussion with him about that.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I declare an interest as an honorary vice-president of Carers UK, and I sit on the board of the Fife Carers Centre. Last September, I had the Adjournment debate on support for unpaid carers. In that, the Minister for Care, the hon. Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), promised that we would

“forge ahead together with the promise of that future in which unpaid carers are visible, valued and supported.”—[Official Report, 3 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 288.]

That is not how unpaid carers are feeling today. The Minister referred to how the earnings limit for carer’s allowance has increased, but there is still a cliff edge. Are the Government planning to bring forward plans to link the earnings limit to the 16 hours of employment at the national minimum wage? We know that those are some of the things that caused the overpayments for carer’s allowance in the first place.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Yes, the earnings threshold will in future be set at 16 times the hourly rate of the national living wage, and that will continue indefinitely. In addition, the Chancellor announced in the Budget last year that we will look at the idea of an income taper in carer’s allowance to replace the cliff edge, which, as the hon. Member rightly says, is a feature of it at the moment. We are looking at that assessment.

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Savage]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Now I will make some progress.

As a result of the changes, between 6% and 15% of affected women have fallen into poverty. Recent surveys show that 84% worry about energy bills, 76% worry about their financial future and, tragically, 71% avoid leaving their home to save money. I want to highlight the case of Marion Bond, one of my constituents in South Cotswolds. During a lifetime spent as a teacher, Marion made many sacrifices, including turning down promotions and working part time to care for her children while her husband worked long hours. Despite supporting his career, her divorce settlement was based on the assumption that she would receive her pension at 60. Instead, she unexpectedly faced a delay, losing six years of pension. The small compensation recommended by the ombudsman is a fraction of the £40,000 that she calculates she lost as a result of the lack of communication.

Marion’s story is not unique. A survey on Facebook that asked “What would you have done differently?” yielded over 1,500 heartrending stories as women shared how their lives would have been different with proper notification. The stories include escaping abusive relationships, continuing with much-loved careers rather than taking voluntary redundancy, and fulfilling care responsibilities for grandchildren or other relatives. Although men and women should have equal retirement ages, that is not the issue here. The issue is the communication failure. The mishandled roll-out of the change left many women stranded, facing unemployment and reliant on benefits. That in turn affected their mental and physical health and placed financial strain on their families, impacting childcare and the social and healthcare sectors.

There is a fundamental question about how we value women in our society. We must recognise that women face invisible financial penalties due to gender, including pay gaps and unpaid labour burdens.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is giving a powerful opening speech. She mentioned the gender pay gap, which is why we have a gender pension gap of almost 40%. Does she agree that that is another reason for looking again at WASPI women? The lack of notification that they had means that the money means so much to so many of them.

[Dr Savage]

I thank my hon. Friend for a good point very well made. Women such as Marion and the rest of the WASPI women have devoted their lives to raising the next generation, contributing significantly to our economy. Ministers’ claims that women experienced no financial loss are false. Women lost the opportunity to make informed decisions, leading to significant material losses. The compensation sought is not a benefits payment, but redress for an injustice. It should not be means-tested, following precedents set by other Government compensation schemes such as those for the Windrush generation and Post Office sub-postmasters.

This debate centres on a core principle of good governance. When a Department fails to fulfil its own policy, it has an obligation to those affected. The DWP’s refusal to engage with victims or to even consider compensation violates that principle. The DWP has not even provided a reason for refusing compensation, demonstrating a deeply offensive lack of accountability. For many years, the Liberal Democrats have pushed the Government to fairly compensate WASPI women in line with the ombudsman’s recommendations. I know that WASPI will continue to take all actions necessary to help 1950s-born women to achieve justice through compensation, but only Parliament can make that happen.

As we debate this petition, we must consider the role that the Government play in providing a safety net for the most vulnerable members of our society. I am sure we will hear many stories today of inspirational women who have served their community, family and country, and then been fundamentally let down by the British Government. The clock is ticking. More than 300,000 women born in the 1950s have died since this campaign began, with another passing away every 13 minutes on average. The solution is clear: the Government must act now to compensate WASPI women fairly and swiftly. These women have served their community, family and country, and it is time that we served them.

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered compensation for women affected by changes to the State Pension age.

It is a pleasure to be able to speak in this Chamber and, as I often do, to draw a very substantial crowd. The genesis of betrayal is trust—the kind of trust that underpins the democratic legitimacy of Parliament and on which the authority of the Executive is founded, and the kind of trust that our constituents, when they send us to this place to exercise our judgment on their behalf, rely upon. Their faith in us is that we will honour what we say we will do and that when we make pledges, they are not empty pledges but are meaningful. When trust is breached and broken, the whole of that legitimacy is undermined.

That is precisely what has happened in the case of the so-called WASPI women—the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign. I will use the acronym, because it has become a familiar one to any of us who have taken an interest in this matter, as I have over some time, and as have the public. This campaign is a campaign for no less than justice, to restore trust.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

The right hon. Member is speaking eloquently about trust. Does he agree that it is really important for the Government to help us to have trust in institutions such as the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman by adhering to decisions made by it?

[Sir John Hayes]

Although that intervention was not orchestrated by me or choreographed by either of us, it leads me neatly to my next point, because there is an ethical case to be made of the kind the hon. Lady describes, there is a constitutional case to be made, and there is a practical case to be made. In the short time available to me—I know that many others want to contribute to the debate—I will try to make all three.

First, the ethical case is, exactly as the hon. Lady said, about honouring the pledges that were made and fulfilling rightful expectations. Not all expectations and hopes are well founded, but when people have worked all their lives and been told that at the end of their working life, they will be paid a pension at a particular time, it is not unreasonable for them to believe that that will come to pass.

Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

I believe that this is a difficult decision, but the right and fair one. We accept that there has been maladministration. Once the Department had reached its decision, those letters should have been sent out. For the reasons that I have explained, we do not accept the ombudsman’s approach to injustice, remedy or compensation. We have to take difficult decisions in government, but this is about what I think is right and fair. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter in more detail if he so wishes.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

It is a gross understatement for the Secretary of State to say that 1950s women will be disappointed, especially given that this new Government are setting a precedent by ignoring an independent resolution process. I signpost constituents to the ombudsman on a regular basis; we all do. It is one of the ways that we hold the Government and Government bodies to account, and it is a core part of our democracy. Can the Secretary of State explain how we can have faith in that process if the Government choose to ignore the ombudsman’s findings? Given the fact that, as a constituent MP, the Secretary of State herself supported the WASPI campaign, can she advise whether the £22 billion black hole has had any consequence on her decision making?

[Liz Kendall]

We did campaign against the acceleration of changes to the state pension age brought forward by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government, but that is not what this decision is about. The decision on the state pension age has already been taken. I do value the ombudsman’s role; I refer many cases myself. We accept his findings on maladministration, but we do not accept his view on injustice. None the less, the ombudsman continues to have an important role to play for many constituency MPs, and I for one will continue to refer cases to the ombudsman, as I always have done.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I can assure my hon. Friend that advances of up to 100% of potential universal credit entitlements are available urgently during the first assessment period of a claim, but she is right to raise concerns about the five-week wait. I commend to her the excellent report on this subject published by the Work and Pensions Committee in the last Parliament. The point she has raised is definitely one that we need to consider.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

Some of the farmers who work so hard to put food on our tables find it difficult to put food on the table themselves, and need additional Government support. That used to happen via tax credits, but the transition to universal credit has been hugely challenging for farmers, given the seasonal nature of their work. Will the Minister meet me to hear some of their concerns, so that we can incorporate those concerns into the Government’s review?