Committee publication · Correspondence · 11 March 2026
Correspondence with the Permanent Secretary, relating to the Department for Work and Pensions Supplementary Estimate 2025/26
Summary
The Work and Pensions Committee writes to the Permanent Secretary of the Department for Work and Pensions on 11 March 2026 expressing serious concerns about the quality and transparency of the DWP's Supplementary Estimate 2025/26 memorandum. The Committee identifies specific gaps in explanation, particularly regarding a £79.8 million reduction in employment programmes funding and the delayed rollout of Connect to Work, which was disclosed informally rather than in the formal memorandum. The Committee calls for improved disclosure standards and detailed responses by 18 March.
Key findings
- Connect to Work budget reduced by £79.8 million due to delayed rollout, but this was not disclosed in the memorandum or during ministerial appearances; Committee learned of it through informal email correspondence dated 27 February
- The Core Department spending subhead represents £7.5 billion (73%) of Resource DEL and £0.6 billion (89%) of Capital DEL but lacks sufficient disaggregation for effective scrutiny
- Many spending change explanations are purely descriptive without root-cause analysis; for example, ESA(C) increased £328 million but memorandum provides no explanation for why caseloads exceeded forecast
- Universal Credit forecast increased £3,278 million, predominantly from UC Health Element claims higher than forecast, with no departmental explanation provided
- Margin for error accounts for £6.3 billion of £12.9 billion total increase (49%); Personal Independence Payment margin comprises 76% of its requested increase with insufficient explanation
Tone
CriticalTopics
Key actors
Sir Peter Schofield, Debbie Abrahams MP, Pat McFadden MP, Dame Diana Johnson MP, Department for Work and Pensions, House of Commons Scrutiny Unit
Notable line
“It is unfortunate that we have learned this information at this point, in this way …”
Key Quotes
“… the overriding impression we have is that there is a lack of information”
“It is unfortunate that we have learned this information at this point, in this way, given that we have already raised the limited funding for the programme in the evidence session with the Minister for Employment.”
“It is also not appropriate that we, and the rest of the House, were not given this information in an open and transparent way in advance of being asked to approve the Estimates.”
“The suggestion that employment programmes will be cut, based on the information provided, damages confidence in the Government's ability to deliver on its promise to help more people into employment.”
“… as a whole we have found the standard of the Memorandum to be unacceptable”
“This lack of transparency raises further questions about the culture of the Department.”
Source · parliament.uk record ↗