PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Topical Questions - 29 June 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

Since our last DWP questions, both Alan Milburn and the Pensions Commission have published their respective interim reports on young people and on the current state of saving for retirement. I look forward to receiving their final reports later in the year. Earlier this month, I visited the Netherlands to see the impressive work of the Dutch Government to ensure that youth inactivity is a last resort, and I think there is much that we can learn. Finally, I put on record my thanks and best wishes to Sir Peter Schofield, the outgoing permanent secretary of the Department. He leaves after more than eight years at the helm of the DWP. I look forward to working with his successor, Dame Sarah Healey, who will be joining us as the new permanent secretary shortly.

This Government have set out to change culture across the DWP in order to make it far more focused on people, not faceless processes. However, in my constituency of Worcester, people are finding that when DWP services have made mistakes, the reaction continues to be delay, denial and sometimes outright refusal to fix errors. What is the Secretary of State doing to improve the attitudes, values and approaches of frontline client-facing services?

It is important to treat customers properly and fairly and to remember that the DWP deals with some of the most vulnerable people in society. The Department takes safeguarding seriously. We have increased training, particularly for those involved in health assessments. If there are specific cases that my hon. Friend wishes to draw to my attention, I encourage him to provide me with the details.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

I associate myself and those on the Opposition Benches with the Secretary of State’s comments about the outgoing permanent secretary of the Department for Work and Pensions. I am sorry that this may be my last exchange with the Secretary of State, as we await the coronation of the king in the north and the appointment of his new team. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not sacked for telling the truth about his fellow Labour MPs, who just want to put up taxes to pay for more benefits. Does he think that our next Prime Minister will have the courage to take on those Labour MPs and bring down the benefits bill, or will the new PM bottle it like his predecessor did?

I enjoy our exchanges, and I welcome the opportunity that the shadow Secretary of State has given me to point out that in the past year I have said time and again that we have to change the question that the system asks from “What benefits are you entitled to?” to “How do we help you change your life?” The debate on how we reform the system has changed to one in which we are putting opportunity and work at the centre of what we do. That is what we are doing with the youth guarantee, and that is what we will continue to do.

I heard no commitment from the Secretary of State that the benefits bill was going to come down any time soon. Labour can change its leader, but it is still the same old welfare party.

The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) told us this morning that he is going to bring “Manchesterism” to the whole country. In Manchester, he is spending nearly three quarters of a million pounds on helping asylum seekers to claim benefits. British people are tired of seeing their hard-earned money being spent on handouts to foreigners. We cannot be a cash machine for the world. Does the Secretary of State think that this is a good use of taxpayers’ money?

Of course, people should only receive benefits if they are properly entitled to and qualified for them. All this has to be underpinned by our being as caring and as passionate about wealth creation as we are about fair wealth distribution. That is what unites Labour people. We are asking the right questions, while the hon. Lady is still asking the wrong ones.

My hon. Friend has made an important point. The Child Maintenance Service is committed to ensuring that separated parents support their children financially, and to ensuring that the assessment reflects the parents’ true income. I am not familiar with the specifics of the case that my hon. Friend has raised, but my general view is that while enforcement powers are adequate, case complexity is often the challenge when it comes to proving where money is owed. If my hon. Friend wants to write to me about that specific case, I would be happy to look into it further on his behalf.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I welcome the Government’s acceptance of a finding from the Liz Sayce review of carer’s allowance overpayments in respect of the underuse of waivers, given that the households concerned are often the most vulnerable in society. Has a review of the use of waivers been undertaken, and what changes have been made for frontline staff?

As the hon. Member knows, we are working through the cases of those who were required to repay an overpayment over recent years. I am receiving an update every week on the number of cases that have been gone through and the number of people who have had an overpayment reduced or cancelled, and I would be happy to give the hon. Member further information about the progress of that work.

My hon. Friend has raised an important point. This has to be a joint effort between the Government and employers. We had a great roundtable at No. 10 this morning with employers who are committed to expanding youth opportunity, and I have visited Merlin, an important leisure and hospitality business, which has agreed to take on 300 young people through our youth guarantee measures. Other businesses are signing up as well, and I encourage as many as possible to do so.

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point, and we need to fund the NHS to stop letting down older generations. Taxes have consequences that affect the whole population, including pensioners. The Chancellor has set out that the level of the personal allowance will remain above the level of the new and the basic state pension—the headline rates—throughout this year. In future years we will ensure that we ease the administrative burden for pensioners who have small amounts of tax due.

My hon. Friend and I have discussed this issue on a number of occasions, and she has been an important campaigner for pensioners in her constituency who have been affected by it. Although three quarters of schemes provide some degree of pre-1997 indexation, there is a very real impact on members of schemes that do not—indeed, we have discussed that with local pensioners in south Wales. The surplus reforms that this Government are bringing forward will make it easier for some trustees to negotiate for additional indexation. We launched a consultation on this issue on 10 June, and it runs until 2 September. I will take my hon. Friend’s comments as input for that consultation.

I can assure the hon. Member that my Department is working very closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to look at what we need to do between us to address the problem of homelessness. I note the point she raises, which is one of the points for discussion.

The youth hub will be able to help young people by treating them as human beings and bringing together holistic support to get them into employment, including in mental health, housing, and essential and vocational skills. As I said, it is about breaking down the barriers between Departments and seeing youngsters as people. So far, 67% of young people using youth hubs report that the support has met their needs.

There is a limit on how far back applications can be backdated, but if the hon. Gentleman would like to drop me a line with the details, I will make sure that we have a good look at the case he raises.

The Pensions Minister knows that there is no retirement on a dead planet, so will he commit to writing to the 50 largest UK pension funds to ask them to set out their timetable for divesting from fossil fuels?

My hon. Friend is a consistent campaigner on these issues in this place and in our regular meetings, and I always learn something from those conversations. I am not going forward with exactly the suggestion he brings forward, but I agree that there is more we can do, not least to provide clarity for trustees. We are working with industry to develop guidance clarifying that fiduciary duties allow trustees investing in members’ best interests to consider systemic risks, including climate change, and we will consult later this summer.

The increased PIP costs are expected to add an extra £5 billion to the welfare budget this year. As the TaxPayers’ Alliance has highlighted, the number of households earning over £100,000 and getting PIP has doubled to 200,000 claimants. Will the Minister make an assessment of the potential merits of means-testing PIP to ensure targeted support?

Together with disabled people, we are co-producing a review of PIP to ensure that it is fair and fit for the future. The review’s terms of reference reflect the view of successive Governments that PIP should be a non-means-tested cash benefit for people both in and out of work, because anybody can incur additional costs as a result of long-term ill health or disability.

Sadly, Dudley borough was named in Alan Milburn’s “Young people and work” report as the worst performing borough in the country for tracking 16 and 17-year-olds—for over a thousand 16 and 17-year-olds, it was unknown whether they were working, in school or in college, or what they were doing at all. Can the Secretary of State outline what the Department is doing to ensure that we do not lose sight of these young people, as we have done in Dudley, so that we can give them the opportunities they need?

My hon. Friend raises a really important point. We cannot allow young people to drop out and to drop out of sight of the system. It is really important, especially for 16 and 17-year-olds, because we want to see participation in education or training up until the age of 18. On my visit to the Netherlands, I saw how it takes this really seriously, with effort after effort to stop young people dropping out. I think we can learn from that and about tracking young people more closely.

There are now over 1 million young people not in education, employment or training, which is the highest number in more than a decade. When the history books are written on this period of Government, does the Secretary of State agree that the story will be of a lost generation?

When the history books are written about this, they will show that this number rose by a quarter of a million in the last three years during which the hon. Member’s party was in power, and the Conservatives did precisely nothing about it. That is what the history books will show. We are responding with a youth guarantee that puts work and opportunity at the heart of welfare reform. I wish they had done it—they did not—but we are.

One of my constituents is a former care leaver who is facing immense health conditions and he can no longer work. Given the lack of family and social support that many care leavers experience, they are uniquely vulnerable to financial insecurity. Can the Minister confirm that the experiences of care leavers are being considered as part of the Timms review?

If the care leavers are PIP recipients —I think that is probably the case in the example my hon. Friend has given—we are certainly considering that point. If this issue is one that she thinks we need to reflect on in the review, I would be keen to hear about such experiences.

Bereavement benefits have not been uprated for 10 years, and they simply do not recognise the lifelong impact of early bereavement on children and surviving parents. Will the Minister look again at uprating bereavement support benefits in line with inflation?

I appreciate the point the hon. Lady is making. I am not in a position to confirm an uprating from the Dispatch Box, but this will be considered in the usual way as part of the annual uprating process. There is a forthcoming debate in Westminster Hall in response to a petition on the adequacy of bereavement support payments, and I am sure she will participate fully in that debate, if she is able to, to make the case further.

Many young people and children on disability living allowance end up going on to PIP very readily. While it is of course important that people get support, what work is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that those young people are not written off, but given every opportunity to work?

My hon. Friend raises a really important point. There should not be an automatic transition. We also have to consider the life chances of people on long-term sickness benefits. So this is worth considering, while always making sure that people in need of disability benefits get the help and support they need to lead as full a life as possible.

I recently visited Grimsby jobcentre and met Nick Gregory and Jo Corney, two excellent officials. One piece of information they gave me was about the opening of a youth hub in Scunthorpe, which will serve many parts of my constituency, but many of the young people who go will be from rural areas. What new initiatives are the Government planning to help provide work for young people in rural areas?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the excellent DWP officials in our area. Youth hubs will be in areas where we are working with, say, sports clubs and other organisations. We are also looking at whether we can use buses to get mobile youth hubs out to rural areas in particular, so perhaps that is a conversation we can carry on outside to see what we can do.

Before being elected to this place, I spent many years looking at how we can tackle the NEET crisis. Does the Secretary of State agree that we should be ambitious for our young people and aim to have 0% NEETs?

I have discussed this with my hon. Friend. There are great schools I have visited that have a record of NEET zero. They do that by paying attention to employability and work right from year 7, so I believe there is more that can be done to reduce the figure and put work and opportunity at the heart of the reform of the system that we are bringing forward.

Unemployment is soaring and nearly 1 million young people are not in education or training. It is a terrible waste of human potential and an economic catastrophe. Reform is proposing that we scrap the damaging jobs tax and pay for that with a new levy on migrant labour, which would make it much, much easier to employ British workers. Will the Secretary of State consider this and put British workers first?

If the right hon. Gentleman has just noticed that there are 1 million young people not in education, employment or training, one has to ask what was he doing when he was a Minister in the last Government when the figures went up by a quarter of a million and he said nothing at all about it? We have brought forward a youth guarantee that will put work and opportunity at the heart of the reform of the system. That is in stark contrast to his record of complete inaction on this issue when he was in a position to do something about it.

Baroness Morris’s inquiry into white working-class children has identified how, from early years to future jobs, white British boys on free school meals are falling well behind. How will Ministers, with all the reviews going on and all the work under way, review and incorporate this inquiry’s findings into their work, particularly in relation to jobs and skills?

I welcome my hon. Friend’s question. The report published today is really important, and it shows the lack of opportunity for white working-class children at schools. Our agenda of maximum opportunity for young people and of not letting people drop out and be left behind is really important in getting more opportunity for this group of young people.

Local businesses in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton tell me that they are not recruiting due to the additional cost and uncertainty created by the Employment Rights Act 2025. Has the Secretary of State assessed the impact of Government policy? Employment rights count for little if people cannot get a job in the first place.

I encourage local businesses in the hon. Lady’s constituency to look at the new incentives available from tomorrow. They can access a hiring incentive of £3,000 to help them with the cost of taking on a young person, provided that person has been out of work for six months or more. We want to do that in partnership with business. It is an important policy and I look forward to her being a champion of it in her constituency.

Last week I attended the Warwickshire employer and stakeholder conference, where we heard from students, alumni and businesses who are providing time to young people so that they can gain the skills they need—it was very inspiring and moving. Does my right hon. Friend agree that more needs to be done to encourage businesses to provide even more hours? Warwickshire College has said that this is a real challenge.

I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to work with businesses. I want this to be seen as a national cause, a national endeavour, and a good partnership between business and Government, because it is in the whole country’s interests to make maximum use of the very best resource we have, which is the talents of the British people themselves.

Sadly, Leicester South is not immune to the unemployment figures for young people—1,000 young people and counting. My concern is that AI is about to make it even worse, especially as CEOs are citing lower human capital value as justification for replacing workers with AI. What is the Secretary of State’s Department doing to ensure that technological advancements create opportunity, rather than unemployment?

The hon. Member raises an important question, which young people themselves are alive to. AI is an all-purpose technology; it will both destroy and create jobs. The leadership task is to ensure that this country is best placed to use the technology and is a good home for investment in it, as well as ensuring that AI adds to the skills of our people.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on being a fantastic champion for Stafford and her constituents. The youth guarantee will help young people in her constituency through hiring incentives, apprenticeship changes and more work experience placements. I know that she will work with me and the rest of Government to be a champion of opportunities for the young people of Stafford.

Given that benefit fraud is estimated at around £9 billion, and that the WASPI women are apparently willing to have the cost of their just compensation claim capped at around a third of that figure, can someone from the ministerial team confirm that the Government are willing to change course and negotiate with the WASPI women?

The hon. Member will know that a judicial review claim has been filed, and that we cannot comment on live litigation. There are legitimate views on raises in the state pension age, particularly the 2011 acceleration put in place by the coalition Government, but the investigation that is being considered by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman is not about those increases; it is purely on the narrow point about communication. The Government have made their position clear on that and set it out in the decision document placed in the House of Commons Library.

Safeguarding has been a key focus of the Work and Pensions Committee, so I was shocked to hear that my constituent Barbara Skedd received a letter to her executors, incorrectly notifying them of her death. This resulted in Barbara’s benefits being stopped, including the personal independence payment and all her pensions. My team have been working hard to get those reinstated. Can the Secretary of State outline what steps he is taking to ensure that those kinds of errors are minimised, and that the appropriate package of support is put in place so that when errors do occur, they are dealt with quickly?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising what is an incredibly important case to highlight. I appreciate that it will have been a deeply distressing experience for her constituent and I apologise for that. I can confirm that all payments, thanks in part to my hon. Friend’s ministrations, have now been fully restored and any arrears owed have been issued. Given the seriousness of the investigation, the case remains under active consideration so that we can look into the circumstances that allowed it to arise and ensure that nothing like it happens again.