Pat McFadden MP: speeches

Speeches

• 9 Mar 2026 · Support for NEET Young People · Hansard source

  More

  We have a lot of dialogue with businesses about the nature of the growth and skills levy and how it is used. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that we are making a choice to prioritise young people. It is precisely because the previous Government did not prioritise young people that we saw a 40% decline in apprenticeship starts. I do not think that is an argument for the status quo; it is an argument for change. That is the slogan upon which we were elected, and it is change to the system that we will bring.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Support for NEET Young People · Hansard source

  More

  I suspect we could be here for some time talking about what the best service station in the country is, but I have to say that Rugby services, between London and Wolverhampton, has taken things to another level. Gloucestershire Gateway Trust has helped create over 400 jobs for local residents. It continues to provide invaluable support, and I am very happy to take the opportunity to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency at some point—diary permitting, as they say.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Support for NEET Young People · Hansard source

  More

  The statistics for the second half of 2024 show the scale of the situation that we inherited from the previous Government. The number of young people not in education, employment or training had increased by around 300,000 since 2021, but, unlike the last Government, we are doing something about that. Over three years, the Government will invest some £1.5 billion to improve opportunities for young people through both the youth guarantee and more youth apprenticeships. We are expanding the number of youth hubs to more areas of the country, and we aim to add about 50,000 more starts through the change to youth apprenticeships. That is in stark contrast to the situation we inherited.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Support for NEET Young People · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the valuable work of Wiseup Networks. He is absolutely right; work experience and mentoring can play a very important role in helping young people to find work. Confidence can be an issue for young people, so building that up is really important. I am happy to arrange a meeting between him and a Minister from this team.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Young People and Work Report · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member has posed a very good and important question, and the issue of graduate unemployment is by no means confined to the UK. In the United States, for example, a similar debate about graduate unemployment is taking place. The truth is that structural developments are happening in the labour market. Technology is undergoing a big shift, and I think that all Governments must ask themselves how to help young people through this transition. The one thing that we cannot do is abandon them to it: we have to train people, and we have to ensure that the UK is best placed to take advantage of this big technological shift.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Young People and Work Report · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend brings valuable experience to this matter, including his experience of teaching engineering apprentices at the University of Nottingham. We are committed to ensuring that disadvantaged young people have access to high-quality apprenticeships and can benefit from the new jobs being created in places such as Erewash as a result of the changes in how the growth and skills levy is used—as I have explained in response to earlier questions—and the extension of youth hubs in the region to give young people who may not be claiming benefit or undertaking an apprenticeship the chance of finding that vital first job.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Young People and Work Report · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Alan Milburn is making progress on his report. He brings valuable experience as a former Secretary of State for Health and former chair of the Government’s Social Mobility Commission. He is engaging with stakeholders across the country to increase the understanding of what has driven the increase in NEETs in recent years, and his interim report is due later in the spring.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No, I do not regret anything I have ever said on this issue. All along in this debate, there has been an attempt to divide workers from non-workers—

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will come on to the timing of our decision, and exactly why it is right.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Not at the moment. As I said, around half the families who will benefit were not on universal credit when they had any of their children. These are people who found themselves in need of help long after any decisions about family size had been taken. No account was taken of the costs of the policy further down the line, such as lower educational attainment, worse mental health and lower earnings, perhaps for the whole of people’s working lives.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Not at the moment. We spent plenty of time in opposition writing those lists—we had many years to do it—only to see them turn to dust on the morning of an election defeat. Good intentions were written off by the voters because the hard yards of winning their trust on the essentials of exercising power had not been done. Change comes only by earning the trust that is essential to victory, and it is because we did that that we are able to sit on the Government Benches and change anything at all, whether for children, low-paid workers or anyone else. Our first job when we came into office was to stabilise the economy after the irresponsibility and chaos of the Tory years, and even after my right hon. Friend the Chancellor had done that, change still has to be paid for. That is why she was right to spell out at the Budget that this policy can only be introduced now, and can only be funded through a combination of savings from fraud and error in the benefits system, changes to the Motability scheme, and reform of online gambling taxation.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Not at the moment. This is not a static group; people’s circumstances change, marriages break up, spouses die and jobs can be lost. In fact, around half of the families who will benefit from the lifting of the two-child limit were not on universal credit when they had any of their children. This is not a static group of people, which drives directly at the heart of the argument that the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) tried to make.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Timing matters, and if the right hon. Gentleman shows a little patience, I will tell him exactly why we have done this in the timeframe that we have. All the policy did was force more children into poverty, alongside the Conservatives’ other key welfare measure of trapping the sick out of work. Even some voices on the right recognise the damage that this policy did. Former Tory Welfare Minister Lord Freud described it as “vicious” and said it had been forced on the Department for Work and Pensions by the Treasury at the time, and the former Conservative Home Secretary and new recruit for Reform, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), has said, “Let’s abolish the two-child limit, eradicate child poverty for good”. I do not know whether that is still her position—we will find out at tonight’s vote—but it seems that the party she has now joined wants to restore the two-child limit. Reform is importing not just failed Tory politicians, but failed Tory policies. Between 2010, when the Conservatives came into office, and the summer of 2024 when they left it, the number of children in poverty had risen by some 900,000. That is something to ponder as Members on the Opposition Benches have their debate about whether or not Britain is broken. If it is, who was responsible? Who designed the welfare system that they tell us on a daily basis is broken? They did. Who broke the prisons system that we have had to rescue? They did. Who shook international confidence in our economy and its key institutions? They did. This is the inescapable problem with the Conservatives’ current position: an attack line that says, “We trashed the country and left you with a terrible inheritance,” might just not be the winning argument they think it is. Let them have their debate about whether Britain is broken while we get on with the task of fixing what they left behind.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor spelled out at the Budget how this was going to be paid for. If the right hon. Lady did not hear me the first time, I am happy to repeat myself: savings from fraud and error in the benefits system, changes to the Motability scheme—which the Conservatives did not make when they were in power—and reform of online gambling taxation. It was also right that we took the time to do the work on the child poverty strategy, which was so ably co-chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education. That work meant that the strategy included wider policies on childcare, school holidays help and a number of other measures, as well as those that are in today’s Bill. The Bill is about ensuring that children have the chance of a better life. It will mean 450,000 fewer children in poverty in the last year of this Parliament and, taken together with the other measures in the child poverty strategy, will lift an estimated 550,000 children out of poverty. This Labour Government will reduce child poverty, just as the last Labour Government did.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman is very keen, so I will give way.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. Core to our belief is the idea that no one, no matter their background, should be trapped by their circumstances. People should have the chance to make the best life they possibly can. Poverty is a barrier to that ambition, and it makes it much harder for people to achieve their full potential. This legislation has its roots in the change made during the Conservative years to introduce the two-child limit on support for families on universal credit. Let us be clear at the start about what this was always about. It was never really about welfare reform, nor was it even about saving money. No, this was always, first and foremost, a political exercise—an attempt to set a trap for opponents, with children used as the pawns. This was all about the politics of dividing lines: between the so-called shirkers and strivers, or the old distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor. Politics first and policy second, every time.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right, and the point she makes is that we also tackle these issues piece by piece and over time. I turn now to the question that people have asked: “Why not do this right away?” Here is the difference between government and opposition. The truth is that in opposition, it is easy to tally up everything that is wrong with the country and promise to reverse it, but a winning manifesto has to be more than a list of what is wrong.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I shall if the right hon. Lady shows a little patience. Around 60% of the families affected by the current policy are in work, and of those who are not working, a significant number are affected by serious health conditions or caring responsibilities—circumstances in which any of us could find ourselves. As I have said, this was never really about work, decisions about family size or saving money; it was political through and through. It was children who paid the price, with 300,000 more of them going into poverty as a result.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman has set out the previous Government’s justification. I am about to explain why that did not stack up at the time, and why it certainly does not stack up after the experience of the policy. We should begin by considering why no other neighbouring country has this two-child limit. Given that the policy was always primarily about politics, it is no surprise that it did not achieve the objectives that the right hon. Gentleman just tried to set out. The Tories claimed that this would lead to people making different choices about the number of children to have, but that did not happen. The family size premise was itself based on the fundamental misconception that there is a static group of people who are always on universal credit.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I remind the hon. Lady that the benefit cap does not apply to families who are in work or who have a disabled child. It is in place, and that approach balances support and fairness without undermining incentives to work. The Bill removes the need for the vile policy known as the rape clause, which is a feature that we inherited from the Conservative regime. Women will no longer have to relive terrible experiences to get support for their child. For the families who will benefit, this measure will help all children, regardless of the circumstances of their birth. My understanding is that it is the current position of the Conservative party to bring back the limit, and therefore to bring back that provision. Perhaps the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), can clarify that when she comes to speak, and perhaps Reform Members can clarify their position when they contribute to the debate. The policy change made by this Bill is not just about the redistribution of money—it is not just about placing children on the right side of an income line in a spreadsheet. It is about changing the story of children’s lives. That is an investment worth making for the whole country. It is about giving children a genuine shot at life, so that they can do well at school, stay healthy, and contribute to their country and community as an adult. That is harder when children grow up poor, as they are less likely to do well at school, with less than a quarter of children in the lowest-income households getting five good GCSEs. By the age of 30, those who grew up poor are likely to be earning about 25% less than their peers. They are four times more likely to experience mental health problems, with growing consequences for worklessness and for the benefits bill that we are seeing in today’s system. They are more likely not to be in education, employment or training—those numbers grew rapidly in the final years of the Conservatives’ time in power, and they did nothing about it. That is why we are reforming the system by changing the incentives of universal credit, ending a situation in which the sick have been signed off and written off, and increasing support to get disabled people into work. As Sir Charlie Mayfield estimated in his recent “Keep Britain Working” report, “Someone leaving the workforce in their 20s can lose out on over £1 million in lifetime earnings—with the state incurring a similar cost” to support them. These are the kinds of consequences that were not thought through when the Conservatives’ policy was introduced, but it is essential that they are part of our debate about changing it. Investing in children’s potential today is about changing lives through better educational attainment, improved health and a better chance of a decent job. The most radical thing that a Government can do is enable people to change their own story. Our ambitions should go well beyond providing financially for people; they should be about providing the platform for that change, so there is a direct link between this Bill and the other things we are doing. We are providing more help with childcare for working parents in order to make work pay and to ease the choice between looking after children and taking up a job. That is in their interests and in the national interest—why should we lose the talents of those who have children? The youth guarantee will help the young unemployed with training, work experience and ultimately a subsidised job, so that they know the pride and purpose that comes with having work. That is in their interests and in the national interest. We have more apprenticeships for young people, stopping the 40% decline in youth apprenticeship starts over the last decade. That is in their interests and in the national interest. Better life chances are part of the battle against the human and social cost of more and more young people being signed off sick and declared unfit for work. All these things will become more urgent as the population ages and we need more young workers to support the country. A better start in life is a bond between the generations. A good childhood is in all our interests and in the national interest. This debate is part of a wider one in politics. In this debate and in others, we have seen a politics of division in this country that wants to set person against person and group against group, and I believe we are only in the foothills of it. We will see more of this division, both home-grown and imported from overseas, becoming ever harsher as it seeks to use rage to fuel itself and to win support. That is the battle to come, not just on this issue, but much more widely—and I want to make it clear today that we set ourselves against that politics, and make a clear and explicit choice to reject it. Anger and division are not the fuel upon which this country’s future must be built. They will produce nothing. They will solve nothing. Indeed, they will only perpetuate the chaos in the country that people are so tired of. Instead, we embrace the mantle of hope to offer a chance and not a grievance—a society where we help each other up, rather than try to tear each other down, and where we say to those born into poor circumstances, “We will help you be the best you can be, not through altruism, but because we need you, we believe in you and we want your contribution.” That is in our interests and in the national interest. This is the fight to come between these two kinds of politics; that is what the change in this Bill is all about, and it is why I commend the Bill to the House.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report · Hansard source

  More

  I know that the equalisation of the state pension age has produced quite a lot of opposition. The 2011 decision was too quick; that is why we opposed it at the time. On the issue of compensation to which my hon. Friend refers, if we were to compensate everyone in this age group, we would end up compensating a significant number of people who knew that their state pension age was increasing. We do not think that would be the right and fair thing to do, and that is why we have reached the conclusion that I have announced.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report · Hansard source

  More

  A decision document relating to the evidence that I have considered has been placed in the Library of the House, which sets all that out together with various surveys, all of which are in the public domain and which were considered in the course of my reaching the decision. I think the campaign is understandable because of the steep acceleration that was legislated for by the coalition Government. We opposed that at the time. The lesson for the future is to give good notice and predictability about rises in the state pension age. That is at the heart of the action plan that we are working on with the ombudsman.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is certainly right about my allegiance to both Celtic and Bruce Springsteen, but there is no illusion about the position of the Liberal Democrats. He says, with a tinge of regret, that he wishes that they were in government, but they were in government —and that is the point. In 2011, they took the decision to accelerate the equalisation and raising of the state pension age, so they were in a position to take decisions on it. At the heart of this issue is something different: how the decisions were communicated and whether people could have done something differently. The hon. Gentleman asks about engagement with the ombudsman. I have, of course, looked at the report, and the current ombudsman recently met the permanent secretary. As I said in my statement, we will pick up the work that was paused on the action plan so that in future when we consider the state pension age we fully consider not only the policy but all aspects of communication and the period of warning—things which were distinctly not done when the decision to accelerate the state pension age was taken by the coalition Government.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report · Hansard source

  More

  I will defend to the hilt our protection of the state pension, our increase in the state pension of £575 for the new state pension from April and our extra help for poorer pensioners. There was a wide range of communications about this matter. Letters are one, but not the only, part of that. When we take into account the survey evidence as a whole, we find that most people knew that the state pension age was increasing. If the hon. Lady wants to pledge compensation in some way, she is entitled to do that, as I said to the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt). We have looked at the evidence in the round. I repeat the apology for the maladministration, but I think we have reached the right decision today.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question, and I understand what he says, but it is also important to consider exactly what is at issue here. Many people are unhappy with the rise in the state pension age and the decision to equalise it, and this decision does not deal with that. The decision deals with the specific issue of how it was communicated over a specific period of time. It is really important to separate those two things. I believe that, on that ground, we have considered it very carefully—not just once but twice—and given it due and proper process. It is right to apologise for the maladministration, but I believe the decision we have taken on remedy and compensation is the correct one.