Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025: Codes of Practice

Andrew Western Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Written Statements

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

I, alongside Public Sector Fraud Authority Ministers, would like to advise the House that today the Government have launched two public consultations on the codes of practice associated with the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025. One is led by the Department for Work and Pensions and the other by the PSFA. These will consult on the following codes:

Public Sector Fraud Authority: Civil penalties.

Department for Work and Pensions: Eligibility verification notices, recovery of debt via direct deduction order and disqualification from driving and obtaining information to support fraud investigations in the welfare system.

The 2025 Act includes a statutory obligation for the PSFA to issue a code of practice on the administration of civil penalties, and for DWP to publicly consult on the codes for the eligibility verification measure and debt recovery measures before the powers are used for the first time. In terms of the code relating to the information gathering powers, the Secretary of State Work and Pensions similarly has a duty to consider representations on the draft code under section 3 of the Social Security Fraud Act 2001.

As we made clear through the passage of the Act, these codes are important safeguards that will support effective and proportionate application of these powers. They are necessary pieces of departmental guidance and will guide the operation and management of the new powers by outlining, in more detail, how the powers taken through this Act should be delivered, reflecting the newly passed legislation.

The powers granted through the Act will allow the Department to better identify, prevent and deter social security fraud and error and enable the better recovery of debt owed to the taxpayer. The launch of today’s consultations is another step towards delivering the Government’s manifesto commitment to safeguard taxpayers’ money and demonstrates that this Government will not tolerate fraud or waste in public services.

This Government are committed to full and thorough consultations to allow input from a broad range of perspectives, which will help to inform the final versions of the codes. Consequently, the consultations on these codes will take place over 12 weeks. This means that the code for each measure will be published ahead of the relevant measures commencing implementation.

During the passage of the Act, a statement was made during Committee in the House of Commons that the DWP codes would be laid in Parliament for a minimum of 40 sitting days prior to formal publication. Considering the extensive engagement that our officials had with stakeholders throughout the passage of the Act, which will continue through these consultations and beyond, we no longer believe that this is necessary.

In addition, we have made previous draft codes available on request to parliamentarians since 23 May 2025. This has provided ample opportunity for Members to review the draft codes, and Members will be able to consider these further during the consultation period. This approach will allow us to begin the important work of exercising these powers sooner to deliver the estimated benefits of £1.5 billion by 2029-30, as scored by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility.

The consultations will launch today, Monday 8 December 2025, and run until Friday 27 February 2026. These consultations can be found on www.gov.uk. The codes will be officially laid once the consultation, formal response and final versions are complete.

[HCWS1133]

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Western Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

9. What recent progress Skills England has made on its priorities.

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

Skills England is playing a central role in delivering the Government’s plan for change and industrial strategy. It is the authoritative voice on skills needs and is informing the post-16 education and skills White Paper; supporting the delivery of sector skills packages in digital, AI, engineering, construction and defence; and informing decision making through the labour market evidence group’s work on migration.

[Damian Hinds]

It really is not ideal to have the body responsible for upholding standards in qualifications inside a Department that will be judged on how many people it gets through to passing those qualifications. It was not ideal when it was at the Department for Education; it is even less ideal now that it is at the Department for Work and Pensions. Will the Minister give a commitment that once Skills England is up and running, he will make it independent from Government, with a guaranteed voice for industry, and will he set that out in statute?

[Andrew Western]

I appreciate the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. Clearly we want to ensure that Skills England is set up to be successful and to have a real impact in delivering the skills that we need in the workforce now and into the future. I am very happy to commit today to setting up a meeting for the right hon. Gentleman, should he so wish, with the chair of the board of Skills England, Phil Smith, to discuss his concerns directly.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Skills England has the potential to really make an impact in places like north Staffordshire, where there are skills that we need for the jobs of tomorrow. However, those programmes are too often piloted through mayoral combined authorities, and we are a long way from that in Staffordshire. How will the Minister ensure that areas that do not have mayors on the horizon can access the same exciting opportunities as everywhere else?

[Andrew Western]

I recognise that my hon. Friend takes a keen interest in the delivery of these courses and in various skills training sectors in his constituency. Indeed, I am writing to him today in response to his last question. He is absolutely right that we need to ensure that areas that are further away from the establishment of MCAs are not left behind. That is a valid concern, and I will be certain to share it with my noble Friend the Skills Minister on his behalf.

[Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)]

10. What steps his Department is taking to help to ensure that post-16 education provides the necessary skills to support the economy.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

17. What steps his Department is taking to help to ensure that post-16 education provides the necessary skills to support the economy.

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

We have already taken action: we published the skills White Paper in October and we are investing £1 billion in skills packages in sectors that will create hundreds of thousands of jobs over the next five years. The Budget set out more than £1.5 billion over the spending review period for investment in employment and skills support, including for the youth guarantee and apprenticeships for young people.

[Michelle Scrogham]

After 14 years of neglect, young people in Barrow and Furness are going to benefit from this Government’s commitment to supporting the apprenticeships that will drive our local economy. Does the Minister agree that Labour’s unprecedented investment in skills shows just how serious this Government’s commitment is to driving opportunity in communities like mine, and will he further agree that Barrow-in-Furness should be one of the locations for the Government’s new defence technical excellence colleges?

[Andrew Western]

I will take my hon. Friend’s two questions separately. I strongly agree with her on the first question, because this package of investment will fund new measures to support apprenticeships for young people, including by fully funding apprenticeships at small and medium-sized enterprises for eligible people aged 16 to 24 to boost small business starts and prioritise funding to young people, starting from the next academic year. We are working with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Education to deliver the £182 million defence skills package aimed at harnessing the skills needed for the future and meeting the needs of people at various stages in their training and career pathways. My hon. Friend is an exceptional champion for her community in Barrow and Furness. I will not be drawn directly on her question about the location of defence technical excellence colleges, but I would say that there is considerable and rich expertise in Barrow, and I am sure that a college there would be hugely successful.

[Perran Moon]

Cornwall has been identified as a strategically important region for renewable energy and critical minerals, but we currently have a worrying shortage of places at our outstanding further education colleges. Can the Minister reassure me that the necessary skills funding will be made available to support these growth industries in an area of high social deprivation that was neglected by the Conservatives for 14 years?

[Andrew Western]

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we published our clean energy jobs plan in October, which set out how we will deliver the pipeline of skilled workers that the sector needs. The plan includes five technical excellence colleges that will specialise in training skilled clean energy workforces as part of a £182 million investment to support engineering skills in clean energy occupations and other priority sectors. Local skills improvement plans will help to identify the key skills priorities for each area of the country, and clean energy and other green skills must be considered in the development of those plans.

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

Stuart, the managing director of GW Martin—a precision engineering manufacturing firm based in my constituency—welcomes the additional support for apprentice training in small and medium-sized enterprises, but asks that the Government ensure that training providers will receive adequate funding to strengthen the training available. Can the Minister assure Stuart that fantastic SMEs such as GW Martin will be supported so that they can employ more young people from Eastleigh and give them meaningful opportunities to start their careers?

[Andrew Western]

I can give the hon. Lady that clear assurance, using two specific examples of the work the Government are doing. First, we have provided £725 million of additional support for the delivery of the growth and skills levy in the Budget. Secondly—specifically to the hon. Lady’s question—the delivery of apprenticeships for small and medium-sized enterprises will be fully funded for young people moving forward. That crucial intervention will ensure that the funding that this Government are allocating to apprenticeships tackles the problem of young people not in education, employment or training.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

As was identified in the national food strategy, there is a shortage of skills in food and farming. The Liberal Democrats are proposing a “Farm First” scheme to give young people training and the incentive they need to choose a career in farming. Will the Minister outline the steps the Government are taking to create pathways to increase the number of post-16 learners who undertake training in food and farming?

[Andrew Western]

The hon. Lady will recognise the significant investment that this Government have put into agriculture more broadly since coming into office. I am not aware of the “Farm First” scheme, but if she would like to write to me about it, I would be happy to meet to discuss it further.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

11. What steps his Department is taking to support people with mental health illnesses into work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

T3. The Government’s new youth investment fund is supporting the charity Nacro in my constituency to build a youth hub in Wythenshawe park. The Minister knows my constituency well, so I am sure he will agree that this project shows that we have an Administration who are serious about investing in our nation’s young people.

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

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for his question and for highlighting the record of the Conservatives on this issue. He knows that I know his constituency well. I also know the work of Nacro well, and I take this opportunity to commend that organisation. Youth hubs such as this one—along with our youth guarantee and other interventions—are a really important part of this Government’s work to bear down on young people not in education, employment and training.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

T5.   I have recently been contacted by constituents who are concerned that local jobcentres are not doing enough to get people back into work. What more can the Minister do to ensure that sufficient support and training help people back into employment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

T6. I welcome the Government’s commitment to tackling the NEETs crisis in this country. Will the Secretary of State work on that with the Department for Education? Doncaster university technical college has been incredibly good at linking industry and education. I hope that, in the near future, the Government will agree to expand such work in my constituency and across the country.

[Andrew Western]

My hon. Friend is correct. The Milburn review will consider all the interventions required to bear down on NEETs and to support institutions such as the Doncaster UTC. It will consider what is working, what is not, and what needs to change, given our shameful inheritance from the Conservative party of nearly 1 million young people not in education, employment or training.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

One of my constituents recently spent nearly two weeks calling the DWP every day to find out why his employment and support allowance had been stopped without warning. Each time he called, he waited for over an hour, only for the line to be cut off with no reply. Will the Minister explain to my constituent—and to the thousands of others who are out there hanging on a line somewhere—what action the Department is taking to ensure that vulnerable claimants can actually speak to a human when they need to?

[Andrew Western]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that important case. If she writes to me about it, I will be certain to look into the circumstances she has set out. On telephony more generally, there has been a significant decrease—of more than a minute—in the average waiting time, but clearly the case that she describes is unacceptable, and I will look into it on her behalf.

[Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)]

T8. More than 400 16 to 24-year-olds across my constituency are not in education, employment or training, and are claiming unemployment benefits. That has the potential to cause lifelong damage and deprive them of vital skills and opportunities for development. How will the Government’s youth guarantee provide support to those young people and help them to get the skills and support they need to gain access to fulfilling opportunities?

Young People not in Education, Employment or Training

Andrew Western Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) on securing this incredibly important debate.

Given the comments of the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), it is important to remind Members that we inherited a situation in which nearly 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training. That can have lifelong consequences for people. As he said, the “Keep Britain Working” review found that someone who leaves the workforce due to ill health in their early 20s can lose more than £1 million in lifetime earnings, and that the impact on their wellbeing is immense. It is bad for employers, too. They need the energy, talent and potential of our young people at a time of more than 700,000 job vacancies. And, of course, it is bad for the country. Failing to help people early in their lives stores up all kinds of problems and costs further down the line. Young people are the future of our country, so helping them to achieve their potential is central to our mission of national renewal.

I want to comment on some of the specific points that colleagues made, but I hope they will forgive me: with the two-minute limit, things came fast and furious. If I miss out anyone or any particular point, they should feel free to grab me afterwards or contact me, and I will provide a response where I can.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley for drawing out the examples of Shaun and Lily, which were indicative of stories I hear up and down the country. I offer my congratulations to Lily on securing the role at Nottingham Forest. My hon. Friend has clearly had a dialogue with Lily, so I wonder whether Lily might be willing to have a conversation with me about her experience in the jobcentre. I am always keen to hear about experiences on the frontline.

We are determined, through the standing up of the national jobs and careers service, to look at how we can make improvements to the support provided by our work coaches. In general, they do an important job well, but we are looking to modernise their approach through increased use of technology in support of young people and people who are looking for work across all age ranges. We want to upskill them to support people who might be from less-than-usual circumstances or are further away from the labour market. As we go through that, as well as our journey to increase the extent to which those closest to the labour market can self-serve, allowing work coaches to spend more time with people who really need the help, I am very keen to hear feedback, so if my hon. Friend would ask Lily whether she might consider it, I would be happy to have a conversation with her.

My hon. Friend was entirely right to mention the impact of artificial intelligence on the labour market. Some sectors in particular will be potentially negatively impacted, although overall, forecasters suggest that there will be a net increase in jobs as a result of AI. We need to look at particular sectoral impacts and what the Government can do over time to help. She and a number of other colleagues talked about access to mental health support, and I am sure that she will welcome the acceleration of the roll-out of mental health support teams to schools and further education colleges to ensure that we have full national coverage by 2029.

My hon. Friend took the opportunity, as did many colleagues, to make reference to the Milburn review into the drivers of youth inactivity and the number of young people not in education, employment or training. I hope that all colleagues welcome that review. Clearly, I cannot speak specifically to the SEND review that is happening alongside and separately to it, but given that education, health and care plans cover young people until the age of 25, while it is not directly part of that work, I hope that it is common sense to consider the implications of special educational needs and disability support as part of it.

My hon. Friend asked for an outline of the steps the Government are taking. I am sure she will have been pleased to hear today about the £820 million to implement the youth jobs guarantee and the £700 million-plus for the growth and skills levy, in addition to wider work already under way. That includes the eight youth inactivity trailblazers, which have been referenced, the auto-enrolment mechanism that is being put in place to ensure that anyone under the age of 18 who is not in education, employment or training is enrolled with a local education provider, and the shift in apprenticeship funding from all-age apprenticeships to those under the age of 22, where we have the most acute problem with people not in education, employment or training.

I want to assure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who called for greater careers advice and guidance, that the jobs and careers service that we are bringing forward will help to address that, certainly for over-18s. It is incredibly important that we recognise that jobs and careers advice extends not just to people not in education, employment or training, but to those in work who may be in sectors where there is not a huge opportunity for advancement or the pay is not particularly good. We are focusing on that as a key strand of our work to develop the service.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) talked about the lack of focus on vocational training. I am sure that he welcomed the Prime Minister’s recent announcement of a shift away from the 50% university target towards a two-thirds target for vocational training and university education routes more broadly, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) mentioned. That is overdue. If I have one criticism of the policy choices of the last Labour Government, perversely, it is that one, because it meant that apprenticeships in particular, and vocational training in general, lost their value in the eyes of many people up and down the country, to the detriment of young people, industry and, ultimately, our economy.

I am sure that my hon. Friends will also welcome the diversion away from level 7 apprenticeships to apprenticeships to support those aged under 22. That will ensure that while masters routes through university remain for those on level 7 apprenticeships, we are able to target support at those at the youngest end of the spectrum who perhaps have fewer qualifications.

The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) rightly linked the NEET crisis to the housing crisis. As somebody who could talk about housing for hours, I completely agree with him. Housing is the most fundamental building block in anybody’s development, so I was particularly pleased to note that our new foundation apprenticeships look to address skills shortages that will prove to be a blocker to the Government’s intention to deliver 1.5 million homes, by focusing on construction and engineering.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool rightly seeks to champion technical education. I fully agree, and I hope that he will recognise the positive step of scrapping and amending the target, and the significant £785 million of funding for the growth and skills levy. That shows how serious we are about taking this forward.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) said that the youth guarantee funding needed to be sustained and not short term. I totally agree with him both that the intervention given to a young person must be not a one-off, but lasting—the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) mentioned that—and about the Government’s commitment to that. I think that as we see the results from that, the Government will continue to develop it.

On the consolidation of FE colleges across Cheshire, much as I know Middlewich, Winsford and Northwich, and the area surrounding my hon. Friend’s patch, relatively well, I cannot claim to know all the FE colleges in his locality, but that is something that I have experienced in my area with the expansion of the Trafford college group, its merger with Stockport college and so on. That is something that we need to look at, and I will feed that back directly to the Minister for Skills on his behalf.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) is a passionate advocate for young people, and he had an inspirational journey to his place himself. He is absolutely correct about this Government’s investment in youth hubs, our youth strategy and the investment that we are making in children and young people’s mental health. From next year, 900,000 more children and young people will be able to access mental health support in their education setting. The holistic approach that he suggested is critical to tackling the level of NEETs. I will write to him on his specific question about findings from the trailblazers, which is a fair challenge and an important question.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) rightly mentioned the link between special educational needs and disabilities and NEETs. This is why those holistic interventions are so important. It is often forgotten that an education, health and care plan covers a young person until the age of 25, so we cannot look at this as purely a skills problem. Although the Department for Education and the Minister for School Standards are leading on that, with the joint ministerial role that my noble Friend Baroness Smith fulfils, working between the Department for Work and Pensions and the DFE, we can hopefully ensure that that is fully played in.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) highlighted care leavers and pointed out the particular problem for young people in supported accommodation, who are caught in a taper trap that disincentivises work. She will be pleased that there were measures in the Budget—hot off the press—that will start to address that. We will introduce a series of new disregards, which we think will lead to 5,000 more people who are currently in supported accommodation being able to enter work, and 8,000 receiving more housing benefit. I encourage her to look at the specifics, but this is something that I and the Minister for Social Security and Disability have been alive to for a long time. I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome those changes as more information becomes available.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) is absolutely correct to highlight the particular challenges faced by young people in his constituency—as he said, certainly at one point, it had the highest number of NEETs in the country—and to highlight the further education and training landscape across north Staffordshire. I join him in commending the Higher Horizons scheme at Keele University, but we need to see more of that. I will come back to him in writing on his question about how the introduction of V-levels potentially impacts other training schemes, and BTECs in particular.

I do not recall promising to come to one of the colleges in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), but if I did not do so, I promise now that either I or the Minister for School Standards will do that. It may be that I had other things on my mind or a pint in my hand when I agreed to that; none the less, I will make sure that we look to take it forward. I share my hon. Friend’s view of the importance of the Milburn review and the need to look at this issue in an all-encompassing manner to make sure that, as we look at the levers to prevent NEETs and the drivers causing them, we leave absolutely nothing behind. Whether I had agreed previously or not, it will now be recorded in Hansard that I am off to his constituency.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), mentioned the challenges facing sectors including hospitality—I know that he has a particular interest in that sector, given the constituency he represents—and their inability to hire young people. I appreciate the challenges that he set out, but I hope that he will be pleased to hear that the new foundation apprenticeships will have a particular focus on sectors including hospitality and will be fully funded.[Official Report, 3 December 2025; Vol. 776, c. 9WC.] (Correction) I agree on the need to avoid suggestions of demonisation as we look at the drivers of NEETs, and particularly when considering those who suffer with certain mental health conditions. We know that there is a problem that we need to investigate, but the language that we use in this space matters. I fully accept the need to recognise that young people need support, not abuse and demonisation. On the hon. Member’s point about the need for long-term support and not one-off schemes, he will be pleased to know that the youth jobs guarantee will guarantee six months of paid work for 18 to 21-year-olds. That will not be a single intervention; it will be ongoing.

Finally, I was in danger of being in violent agreement with the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) at the start of his contribution, but when he moved into an attack on the Government I had to disagree somewhat. This is not a new problem—indeed, the number of NEETs is down 0.3% against this point last year. This is a problem inherited from the previous Government; what is different is the action being taken to deal with it: our youth jobs guarantee, our roll-out of further youth hubs, our new foundation apprenticeships and the shift in funding there, and the development of the jobs and careers service. This Government are taking this matter seriously. We will deliver the urgency needed to address it, and I hope that all colleagues will be able to support our interventions.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered support for young people not in education, employment or training.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Andrew Western Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 5th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendment 1, and Government amendment (a) and (b) in lieu.

Lords amendment 75, and Government amendment (a).

Lords amendments 30 and 31, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu.

Lords amendment 43, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 84, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

Lords amendment 97, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (f) in lieu.

Lords amendments 2 to 29, 32 to 42, 44 to 74, 76 to 83, 85 to 96, and 98 to 121.

[Andrew Western]

The Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill delivers on this Government’s manifesto commitment to safeguard public money and ensure that every single pound is wisely spent. Fraud against the public sector is not a victimless crime. It takes money away from vital public services, eroding trust and harming innocent people. The Bill introduces new powers to enable the Public Sector Fraud Authority to investigate and deal with public sector fraud outside of the tax and social security system, using its expertise to act on behalf of other parts of Government.

The Bill also contains new powers for the Department for Work and Pensions to tackle fraud and error within the social security system, providing much-needed modernisation for our defences. At the same time, it includes significant safeguards, including new independent oversight to ensure the proportionate and effective use of the powers. As we now reach the final stages of the Bill, I am sure colleagues across the House will agree that it needs to receive Royal Assent as quickly as possible, so that we can realise the delivery of the estimated £1.5 billion of benefits by 2029-30.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for bringing the Bill forward and for all the hard work that the Government have done in relation to this. There is one thing that always concerns me. In my office, nearly every week I have people come to me who have inadvertently made mistakes. They perhaps do not understand how the online system works or how the paperwork has to be filled in, and sometimes they have ticked the wrong box and found themselves in a difficult position. This does not take away from those who deliberately defraud and try to get money that they should not be receiving. How can we be absolutely sure that those who make inadvertent mistakes will not find themselves in a difficult position alongside those who have done wrong? How can we ensure that they get the sympathy they need? I know that the Minister will be of the same opinion as me that we must make sure this is done right.

[Andrew Western]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is enshrined elsewhere in legislation that claimant error is recoverable as part of universal credit. I can also assure him that, as part of this Bill, the eligibility verification measure will enable us to identify errors that are legitimate as well as illegitimate—deliberate, shall we say—in order to minimise the level of debt for individuals who have, I accept, done this accidentally and ensure that they are caught earlier. Any overpayments will be smaller as a direct consequence. One advantage of the Bill is that it can minimise suffering for people who have inadvertently made a mistake.

Before I turn to the Lords amendments, I thank my noble Friends Baroness Anderson and Baroness Sherlock who expertly guided the Bill through the other place. I share their appreciation for all the peers who contributed to its detailed scrutiny and their invaluable insights that have helped the Government to strengthen the Bill.

The Government made important changes to the Bill in the other place, and I now ask this House to endorse those Government amendments. They were made to ensure that the Bill delivers its aims and to clarify the operation of the powers, as well as to ensure that the safeguards this Government have introduced are strong and effective. More procedural yet still important amendments have been made to part 2 to reflect the Scottish Government’s position on how the powers should be applied to devolved benefits. Across the Bill, we have made amendments that are more technical in nature, including to reflect the recent Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and to ensure flexibility in the commencement of certain provisions of the Bill across the different nations of the United Kingdom.

In the interests of time, I will focus my update to the House on the most substantial and pertinent areas, on which there has been extensive engagement with external stakeholders and points have been made by peers in the other place. First, the Government tabled a group of amendments to part 1 to enable the Public Sector Fraud Authority to be merged with another statutory body, rather than necessarily being set up as a stand-alone statutory body, although the power to do so remains. That builds flexibility into the legislation, enabling the PSFA to achieve the aim of separation between investigators and Ministers in future, while avoiding the need to set up an entirely new statutory body if it is not considered proportionate to do so.

Linked to that, I would like to speak to a minor and technical amendment that I propose to make to Lords amendment 75 to schedule 2. Amendment (a) simply ensures that authorised investigators are captured within the regulation-making power set out in schedule 2 if or when the powers conferred under part 1 of the Bill are transferred to another public authority, or if the PSFA is set up as its own statutory body. It does not change the use of any powers laid out in the Bill.

The Government also amended parts 1 and 2 to ensure that the Government must disclose relevant information to the PSFA independent reviewer and the eligibility verification notice independent reviewer. Effective oversight is a critical aspect of this Government’s approach. These amendments do not represent a change in that approach; indeed, they further strengthen the commitments this Government have made to support open and transparent use of the powers. I will return to the point about oversight later in relation to Lords amendment 43.

The Government made several amendments to the debt provisions across parts 1 and 2. Those are a consequence of the extensive engagement by the PSFA and the Department for Work and Pensions with the financial sector, and they clarify important aspects of the operation of the powers, including in situations where a liable person might have a legal deputy managing their affairs. They also strengthen the rights of debtors by ensuring that a deduction order cannot be in suspension indefinitely, and that after a two-year period in suspension, it will not be resurrected. The Government have also responded to the continued confusion that seems to have arisen on the DWP debt recovery provisions in part 2 and who those powers apply to.

The Government have made amendments explicitly stating that a direct deduction order, as outlined in schedule 5, and a disqualification from driving order, as outlined in schedule 6, cannot be made where the person is entitled to and in receipt of a benefit from the DWP. That clarifies the existing intent that these powers are only for use with those who are not on benefits where the money cannot be recovered from a payslip and where the person can afford to pay and is refusing to do so. I remind the House that this power addresses an important point of fairness. It cannot be right that those who can pay money back can avoid doing so, and the amendments underline that point.

The Government also acted to strengthen the legislative safeguards around the use of the eligibility verification measure. I remind the House that that measure simply enables the DWP to ask financial institutions for limited data that will help the Department to identify incorrect payments and verify eligibility for specific benefits. The amendments made by the Government in the other place will introduce an explicit, necessary and proportionate test before an eligibility notice can be issued, and clarify the purpose for which an eligibility notice can be issued to only assisting in identifying incorrect payments. That puts the existing policy intent in the Bill. Again, I will return to the eligibility verification measure when I address Lords amendment 84.

I turn to the other amendments made in the other place. We welcome the challenge and scrutiny provided by peers’ contributions, but we cannot accept changes that risk undermining the powers. The Government’s position will continue to reflect that, including in our amendments in lieu. First, Lords amendment 1 would give the Minister for the Cabinet Office the power to initiate an investigation when they consider it necessary in the public interest. [Interruption.] Just so that he is sure of that power, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons), has joined me on the Front Bench.

We are proposing technical changes to Lords amendment 1 through amendments (a) and (b) in lieu. Those changes will give the Minister for the Cabinet Office the power to initiate an investigation when they consider it necessary in the public interest. The other place asked us to go further than the original drafting of the Bill allowed, and our amendments show that we have listened. The Government believe that it will almost never be necessary for the Minister to exercise that new power because of the collaborative approach in the normal working of government, but it will be available if there is a genuine need.

Our amendments in lieu also make consequential changes to clause 2 to preserve the intention that the PSFA should not take on matters assigned to the Secretary of State with responsibility for social security or His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. The reason for that is that the DWP and HMRC already have well-established functions and frameworks to tackle social security and tax fraud. Of course, it goes without saying that both Departments may still collaborate with the PSFA if a fraud crosses many departmental boundaries.

I turn now to Lords amendments 30 and 31. The Government wholeheartedly agree that the measures in part 1 of the Bill are powerful and must be used with care. We agree that staff must be appropriately trained before they are able to use these powers, and that robust oversight—both internal and external—is essential. Our amendments (a), (b) and (c) in lieu mandate statutory guidance and a new reporting requirement, and set internal record requirements. The amendments in lieu ensure strong ministerial and parliamentary oversight of the powers, as was called for by the other House, without involving Ministers unnecessarily in operational decisions.

The statutory guidance will detail how the Minister will exercise the function of investigating suspected fraud against public authorities. It will outline structures of internal oversight, the delegation of powers, standards for the training and appointment of all authorised officers and investigators, and the PSFA’s collaboration with an independent reviewer. New reports will be prepared following the end of each financial year and laid in Parliament by the Minister, stating how many times the investigation and enforcement powers in part 1 have been used. There is now a requirement in the Bill for the PSFA to keep internal records of the use of those powers, available for scrutiny by an independent reviewer. Together, those measures ensure that Ministers are accountable for the use of the powers, and show how they are delegated. In places, they build on processes that would already have been in place, but we have put them in the Bill.

Let me move on to part 2 of the Bill, focusing first on Lords amendment 84 on the treatment of information obtained under an eligibility verification notice. Although I understand the intent of the other place, I cannot accept the amendment as drafted, and I urge Members instead to back Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

Lords amendment 84 risks compromising the weight that the DWP may be able to attribute to information obtained through an eligibility verification notice. The Government have been clear that EVM information on its own has no tag of suspicion attached, and that the DWP must look within its own systems first and check for any inconsistency before taking further action. However, depending on the information held, EVM information may form an important part of any further action. We must not compromise that. The amendment also risks legislating for a person’s state of mind—in this case, that of a DWP-authorised officer. That is something that we should avoid where we can. It is far better to focus legislation on the actions that must or must not take place following receipt of EVM information.

The second part of the amendment, relating to the seniority of staff who must review EVM information, risks undermining the existing public law principle that staff at DWP take decisions on the Secretary of State’s behalf. There is also uncertainty about what would constitute a suitably senior person. In any case, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that officials are suitably trained and experienced to take decisions on their behalf.

Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 84 seek to address those risks and build on the amendments that the Government tabled on Report in the Lords. They more accurately reflect the policy intent and focus on the actions that DWP staff must take following receipt of EVM information. The amendments in lieu clarify that where the DWP has received EVM information, it must also have regard to all other relevant information that it holds before taking further actions.

First, the amendments in lieu require an authorised officer to consider all information held that is relevant to the question of whether to issue an information notice, as well as the relevant EVM information, before issuing the notice under the Department’s investigatory powers. Secondly, they require a DWP agent to consider all information held that is relevant to the question of whether to suspend a payment, as well as the relevant EVM information, before suspending that payment. Finally, they require a DWP agent to consider all information held that is relevant to the question of whether to change an earlier benefit decision, as well as the relevant EVM information, before making that change.

I believe that our amendments succeed in offering the necessary reassurances about the way individuals within the DWP will take decisions once EVM information is received by the DWP—namely that no decisions will be made using EVM information in isolation—and I therefore urge hon. Members to back them.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I am still not exactly clear why the Minister disagrees with Lords amendment 84. I understand that he is saying that DWP agents will look at EVM information and everything else, but what happens in circumstances when they have only EVM and not much else by way of information? Is he unable to agree with Lords amendment 84 because if the DWP has only EVM information, he wants decisions to be taken based only on that and not on anything else?

[Andrew Western]

There are a couple of issues with Lords amendment 84 as drafted. It could minimise clear evidence from an EVN that has been returned. The point about what information DWP agents would have to consider is pertinent, because it may answer a question about why, for example, someone has more than £100,000 in a bank account. It is about considering all information, not about having no further information on which to act. I am probably not explaining that tremendously well, but I am effectively saying that an EVN could provide information that is sufficient for us to launch a fraud investigation, but we would want to consider all relevant information, including that EVN, to see whether that information is valid or should be discounted for any reason of which we are aware.

I cannot accept Lords amendment 43, which would add three additional requirements to the role that the EVN independent reviewer would be required to undertake. On proposed new paragraph (d) in Lords amendment 43, regarding costs incurred by business, the Government are committed to keeping costs associated with the measure proportionate and to a minimum. Officials have discussed this part of the amendment with the finance industry, which acknowledges that it may place a significant burden on financial institutions if they are asked to report on costs every year. That is something we clearly would want to avoid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With the leave of the House, I call the Minister.

[Andrew Western]

I begin by thanking the Members who have contributed for what were thoughtful contributions, even where we fundamentally disagree on aspects of the Bill.

I have already outlined the benefits of the Government’s proposed approach, but I will respond briefly to some of the specific points made in the debate. First, I thank the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), for the constructive way that she and colleagues in both Houses have engaged on the Bill. She is correct that we have ended up in a better place, and I thank her and all Members who fed into that process—that is the point of it. I am pleased with where we have ended up.

The hon. Lady asked two specific questions. I can confirm that there will be a take-note debate at Grand Committee, as she referenced, at the point when statutory guidance is laid before Parliament. I can also confirm that Members will be able to meet with the PSFA independent reviewer.

I will briefly touch on some of the points surrounding Lords amendment 43, which has taken up the majority of the debate. I am grateful for the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), as well as the hon. Members for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and for Horsham (John Milne) and the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling).

First, I think we need to be clear about where we have already acted in other parts of the Bill or in amendments that have come forward today. On the question of costs, for instance, the independent reviewer already has to look at effectiveness and has already committed to updating the impact assessment within 12 months of the powers coming into force.

I will turn to the question of vulnerable people, which the hon. Member for Horsham in particular illustrated very eloquently indeed, with moving examples. I want to say something specifically on debanking, which is a concern that has been raised multiple times throughout the stages of the Bill. We are very clear that nobody—vulnerable or otherwise—should be debanked as a result of the Bill, as was made clear in the code of practice and in amendments we are considering today. There are many existing layers of protection in our existing processes. On vulnerable people, Lords amendment 82 clarifies that the use of the power must be “necessary and proportionate”, which I believe would cover this.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington made a specific point on whether EVM information alone is enough. We are baking in a human decision maker at all points throughout the process. We cannot take a decision based on EVM information in isolation; we must consider all other relevant information. Practically, that means that we must look at a benefit claim and check for disregards or for any other reason that someone may have capital in excess of £16,000—the limit—before taking any action.

However, as I said earlier, I do think that this Bill is much improved from where we started.

[John McDonnell]

I just want to clarify one point. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Government are resisting having contained within the annual review the question of whether harm is being done, because that is, to be fair, the only way we will learn whether the legislation is operating in the way the Government wish it to, and then whether any changes in the system are needed. When we had the work capability assessment, it took us 10 years and more than a thousand suicides before people accepted that there was a problem, because there was no review mechanism publicly available. That is all this amendment is asking for. All I am asking for today is for the Minister to put on the record very clearly that it is perfectly appropriate for the independent reviewer to look at the harms that could have been created by this legislation.

[Andrew Western]

I appreciate the point my right hon. Friend is making. As I have just said, the question of whether actions taken as part of the eligibility verification measure are necessary and proportionate is baked into the Bill, and I believe that would cover the points he is making. I strongly encourage my right hon. Friend to attend the meeting with the independent reviewer that I referred to earlier to stress that point. I will certainly go along, and I will undertake to press on that, too.

I understand where we are on Lords amendment 43, but with the additional safeguards that will be baked in through the amendments in lieu, I believe we have reached a point where the Bill will achieve what it needs to while being fair and protecting vulnerable people. I urge all colleagues to support the Government proposals today.

Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.

Government amendments (a) and (b) made in lieu of Lords amendment 1.

Government amendment (a) made to Lords amendment 75.

Lords amendment 75, as amended, agreed to.

Lords amendments 30 and 31 disagreed to.

Government amendments (a) to (c) made in lieu of Lords amendments 30 and 31.

Clause 75

Eligibility verification: independent review

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 43.—(Andrew Western.)

Welfare Spending

Andrew Western Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

The reason why we are having this debate is straightforward: the welfare system is broken. We have begun the job of fixing it, but the fact is that the system was broken by the Conservatives. They oversaw 14 years of failure on welfare until they were kicked out last year.

[Johanna Baxter]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we should take no lectures from the people who broke the system in the first place? In Scotland, one in six young people are not in education, employment or training; 12,000 Scots have been stuck on NHS waiting lists for over two years, and 8,300 people are economically inactive in Renfrewshire alone due to ill health. Far from lecturing us, should Conservative Members not look at themselves first?

[Andrew Western]

I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. [Laughter.] I see Members are surprised to learn that. She passionately makes the case that neither the SNP nor the Conservatives should be listened to on this issue. If I were in the Conservatives’ position, I might want to shy away from the subject, given their unenviable record. Their Government left us with a social security system that traps on benefits hundreds of thousands who could work and want to work. Fraud against the public sector was at eye-watering levels; some of the Department for Work and Pension’s powers to tackle fraud were over 20 years out of date; and a generation of young people have been neglected—there was a shameful rise in child poverty, and nearly a million young people were left out of work, education or training.

The Conservatives ignored every warning light on the dashboard while they drove down opportunity and drove up inactivity. They delivered the worst of all worlds, and now they have the cheek to come to this place and preach fiscal rectitude. We are cleaning up the mess that they left behind.

Let me turn to comments made in the debate, beginning with those by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). She talked of generations of families experiencing persistent worklessness, but this is a system that the Conservatives built. She gave an example of a young man in Bridgend who she says “fears” that he would be worse off in work, but who created that system? Where has that disincentive come from? The Conservatives entrenched that fear.

I fundamentally disagree with the shadow Secretary of State’s analysis, because the personal independence payment is an enabler of work for many people. It is there to meet the additional costs of disability and help disabled people with day-to-day living costs, and it helps many of them get to and from the workplace. She talked about the trajectory of welfare spend, but who set us on that trajectory? We heard that covid was to blame, yet 2022, 2023 and the first half of 2024 were not the ideal time to begin addressing the issue. Funnily enough, that ideal time was from July 2024. The Conservatives are running from their record, and they are right to do so.

We heard that the number of face-to-face assessments is too low. I absolutely agree that the number of face-to-face assessments needs to increase, but the shadow Secretary of State would do well to remember that the contracts we are signed up to were signed by the Conservatives, and they commit the contractors to 20% of assessments being face-to-face. This is the problem.

We also heard from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), who is not in his place. He was right to highlight the shocking way that economic inactivity spiralled between 2019 and 2024, and to reference the state of the national health service. However, I will briefly correct his suggestion that NHS spending is being cut under the Government. We are increasing day-to-day NHS spending in real terms by £18.5 billion by 2028-29.

The hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), whom I like very much, congratulated the shadow Secretary of State on her £23 billion package of savings. I hope he shares my concern about the fact that the shadow Secretary of State was unable to say how much of that was coming from proposed changes to housing benefit. I hope that he noted the same irony that I did: earlier, the shadow Secretary of State responded to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) by telling him that he thought he was so clever for knowing his statistics. If only she could say the same of herself.

We then heard from the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), who espoused the virtues of living within our means. That would have had significantly more clout had the Conservative party done the same in the welfare space in recent years.

The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) said that Britain under Labour had stopped working. I remind him that over 700,000 more people are in work now than were before the election, and economic inactivity is down by 363,000.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andrew Western]

I will not. The hon. Member said that we should respect the next generation and respect the fact, too, that taxes are too high, but the Conservatives left almost a million young people out of work and many trapped in a housing crisis, and they left the highest tax burden since the second world war.

As ever, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) gave a passionate speech about child poverty. I share her concerns about levels of child poverty, but it is my understanding that her SNP Government in Scotland missed their interim child poverty target in 2023-24.

I turn to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith). We face each other a lot across the Dispatch Box, and I know that she cares—I do not question that—but we fundamentally disagree on the best way to help people, and that is particularly shown by the motion before us. Let us go through it. It begins:

“this House regrets the failure of the Government to get people off welfare and into work”.

That was a failure of their Government. It continues:

“believes that reforming the welfare system is a moral mission”—

yes, the Conservatives do believe that, now that they are in opposition—

“and therefore calls on the Government to take urgent action to fix Britain’s welfare system by restricting welfare for non-UK citizens”.

They have given no explanation, either in any of their speeches or in the text of the motion, of who that applies to. That is vague. Does it include those covered by the withdrawal agreement, those here under the Ukraine and Afghan schemes, or just those who came over as part of the Boris wave? Without such specificity, how could anyone support the motion?

The same applies to the proposal to stop benefits for those with

“lower-level mental health conditions”.

Again, that phrase is poorly defined. What are lower-level mental health conditions? PIP is not condition-based, at any rate, and we would hope that the Conservative party would know that, because it created that benefit. The Opposition then call for an increase in the number of “face-to-face assessments”. As I said, we are keen to achieve that, and we will do so, but we are constrained by the contracts that they signed, which restrict face-to-face assessments to just 20%.

The motion mentions

“reforming the Motability Scheme so that only those with serious disabilities qualify for a vehicle”.

Again, what is a “serious” disability? It is impossible to know from the text of the motion, or indeed from any of the speeches made. The motion then mentions

“retaining the two-child benefit cap”.

Hon. Members across the House are well aware that we will shortly bring forward our child poverty strategy, and that all levers available are under consideration, so we could never support that statement at this stage.

All that is rounded off with the line:

“to get people into employment and build a stronger economy.”

What a joke when we consider that the Conservatives left us as the only G7 country with a lower employment rate than we had before the pandemic. The motion, like the plan that it aims to underline, is not worth the paper that it is written on. I urge all Members to oppose it.

Question put.

Statutory Maternity and Paternity Pay

Andrew Western Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse, and to speak on an issue that is close to so many people’s hearts, as the response to the petition shows. I am speaking for the Government this afternoon, but after the previous contribution I think it is important that I set out that this is a matter of importance to all Ministers. I thank all the Members who have taken part in this hugely important debate, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier), who so eloquently set out on behalf of the Petitions Committee the various issues facing new parents.

We heard a number of excellent and thoughtful contributions. I had intended to attempt to run through all of them and respond individually, but what was most striking about the debate—until the closing contributions —was the significant unity in the room. Members have come together from across parties to speak with one voice. That shows why the Government’s review is so important. The myriad issues that new parents face—with health, finances, spending time with their children and so on—are so complex and the need for change is not lost either on me or on the Government more widely.

I will respond to a handful of the contributions—and how could I not begin with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre)? I am afraid I am not going to give his son a birthday present today, but I send my very best wishes and congratulations. I know that my hon. Friend is a loving and caring parent and I am sure that he has something lovely planned once we get away from the votes this evening. He and several other hon. Members asked whether certain aspects of the complex web of parental pay are in scope of the review, so let me clarify the eight areas that are in scope: maternity leave and pay; paternity leave and pay; shared parental leave and pay; unpaid parental leave; adoption leave and pay; parental bereavement leave and pay; neonatal care leave and pay; and maternity allowance.

The point about discretionary payments by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) was well made. I have responded to a Westminster Hall debate before on that specific issue. I undertook then to take it away and feed it into the review, which is being led predominantly by the Department for Business and Trade. I did that then, and I will do so again now.

I want to recognise the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh), who is a champion on maternity and maternity rights. She is entirely right to set out the importance of the first few weeks, months and years—the first 1,001 days. I also recognise the challenge set down by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy).

Let me say at the outset that I will be disappointing hon. Members, because I will be pointing to the importance of allowing the review to run its course. I do so because an incredibly complex web of support has evolved since 1948, with significant changes since then—the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), set out the many changes made just by her Government. We have one chance to get this right. We have waited a long time for this review. We want to take the time not only to undertake the call for evidence, which we have already done, but to consult trade unions, employers, and parents and families before we have a public consultation.

[Ms Creasy]

I agree that there is complexity that we must deal with. Will the Minister update us on his Department’s view of the Women and Equalities Committee inquiry, which specifically took evidence about parental leave and six weeks at 90% of pay. Nobody is suggesting we can do everything overnight, but there are things that we could do now as a holding measure to start the change that everybody wants. Labour Members and those from other parties recognise the possible benefits to the economy and the country, so perhaps the Women and Equalities Committee offers an interim way forward.

[Andrew Western]

That is indeed one of a number of important pieces of work that we are feeding into the review. My hon. Friend tempts me to promise that we will go further immediately, but I am not able to do so today for the reason that I have set out: we want to get the review right and to take the time to bring forward changes and recommendations, and the pathway to change, in a measured way.

[Andrew Cooper]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Andrew Western]

I will, after which I hope that Members will accept that I need to make some progress.

[Andrew Cooper]

I am sure everybody recognises how important it is to do this once and do it right. Is the Minister able to commit to legislating in this Parliament?

[Andrew Western]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rachael Maskell]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Western]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. That is one of many really useful suggestions that have been made today, which I undertake to feed into the review for consideration.

Let me return to what I was saying about the requirement for a fairer system. We should not pretend that there will be easy answers as we go through this work—some difficult balances will need to be struck. The benefits of allowing parents flexibility must be weighed against the direct costs to employers and the public purse.

The petition asks us to increase the rate of statutory maternity and paternity pay to match the national living wage. We should note that maternity pay has never been intended to fully replace a mother’s earnings, and any moves in that direction should not be made lightly. The costs of statutory parental pay are largely paid by the taxpayer, with employers able to reclaim at least 92% of the cost from HMRC.

[Lola McEvoy]

I have raised many times in this Chamber the inequality of paternity rights when it comes to unfair dismissal. Addressing that would not cost the taxpayer or businesses anything, because protection is already in place for those who take shared parental leave, maternity leave and adoption leave. Will the Minister reflect that point in the review as well? He did not mention paternity when he gave us his overview of the review’s purpose, but I think that all Members here agree about the importance that dads feel they can take time off, especially when they are eligible to do so.

[Andrew Western]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If I did not refer to that issue, it was because I was trying to respond to an intervention and it was an oversight on my part. It is incredibly important and I will ensure that it is considered as part of the review.

I return to the petition’s specific ask of matching parental pay with the national living wage. The Government currently spend about £3 billion a year on statutory maternity pay and maternity allowance alone. This petition asks us to more than double the rate of maternity and paternity pay—in fact, it seeks a 144% increase. That would be far from a trivial expense at a time of difficult fiscal choices. I am not saying that that will not happen at this point in time—I do not know; we need to go through the process of the review—but we have to take the time to carefully consider such questions, given the significant financial implications, before any decisions are made.

I am cognisant of the time, so I will skip forward by reminding Members that maternity and paternity leave are just one part of the wider picture of financial support for parents. Maternity allowance is available for self-employed women and employed women who do not already qualify for statutory maternity pay. Child benefit is available from the date of a child’s birth, and the Sure Start maternity grant offers a £500 lump sum to mothers receiving one of a range of qualifying benefits.

[Sarah Russell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Hinchliff]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andrew Western]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) and then take one more intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), but then I will really need to move on.

[Sarah Russell]

The interrelationship between maternity allowance, which I made a point about earlier in the debate, and the £500 Sure Start grant is a problem, because if someone is self-employed, they are not eligible for that grant.

[Andrew Western]

I absolutely agree. That is one of the things that I want the review to capture. A particular range of issues is specific to self-employed people. We have already heard about that in the context of adoption, and my hon. Friend raises another example. She is entirely right to champion the rights of self-employed people in this space.

[Chris Hinchliff]

Several colleagues have mentioned Hugh’s law today. As the Member of Parliament for Hugh’s parents, Ceri and Frances, may I welcome the fact that the Government have committed to a consultation on the introduction of Hugh’s law? I urge the Minister to speak to his ministerial colleagues to see whether we can get Hugh’s law in the next King’s Speech so that it is delivered for families who desperately need support.

[Andrew Western]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I gave way because I expected him to raise that issue, given that it pertains to his constituents.

This is probably the most powerful debate that I have attended in Westminster Hall. I will certainly ensure that all the points that have been raised with me are fed back. This is a particularly important issue not just for my hon. Friend and his constituents, but more widely.

Moving through a child’s life, starting from this year, working parents—including those on maternity, paternity, adoption or shared parental leave—can now claim up to 30 hours of free childcare for children between the ages of nine months and four years. Tax-free childcare can also help parents to save up to £2,000 a year on the cost of childminders, play schemes, after-school clubs, nurseries and nannies. All infant pupils in Government-funded schools are eligible for free school meals, as are older children whose parents receive certain benefits. Our child poverty taskforce has been looking at what else we can do to drive down family costs, raise family incomes and give every child the best start in life. Our strategy will be published later in the year.

Work will be at the heart of our approach. Good work is vital to achieve lasting change and to our central mission of growth. That is why our review of parental leave and pay is a key part of our plan to make work pay. It will build on the progress we are already making through our work to tackle low pay, poor working conditions and job security. We are breaking down barriers for parents so that we can raise living standards, and so that they can raise the next generation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Western Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

8. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to reduce the number of children in poverty.

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

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State co-chairs the ministerial child poverty taskforce, which is leading our work across Government to develop the UK-wide child poverty strategy, which will be published later this year. We are considering all available levers to give every child the best start in life, building on work that is already under way across all four nations. Ahead of publication, the Government have already taken action for the whole UK, including introducing a fair repayment rate and improving the adequacy of the standard allowance of universal credit from April 2026.

[Seamus Logan]

The Child Poverty Action Group estimates that because of this Government’s policies—especially the two-child cap—more than 100 children are dragged into poverty every day. That equates to almost 3,400 children between now and the Chancellor’s autumn statement at the end of next month. Here is a lever: as child poverty in Scotland is falling, why does the Minister not finally listen to reason by scrapping this cruel policy? Why is he waiting? Why does he not just act now?

[Andrew Western]

This Government are acting now. We have already announced that all children in families in England that are in receipt of universal credit will receive free school meals, lifting 100,000 children out of poverty. We have capped the cost of school uniforms, and introduced a new crisis and resilience fund. Our Child Maintenance Service reforms will lift 20,000 children out of poverty, and much more will be done when the child poverty taskforce reports later this year.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Despite what those on the far right try to claim, the cost of living crisis remains the main issue that people face. One way to really help struggling families would be to lift the two-child benefit cap—that would lift hundreds of thousands of children across the country out of poverty, including many in my constituency. Is it not the case that the forthcoming Budget should announce that the two-child benefit cap will be scrapped?

[Andrew Western]

My hon. Friend will understand that I am not going to make policy from the Dispatch Box. What I would say to him, as I have already said to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan), is that all available levers are under consideration as part of our child poverty taskforce, which will report later this year. We will do what it takes to bear down on child poverty. There are many levers that we can look at using to do so; we have pulled some already, and we will continue that work.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

Every Member in this Chamber shares a commitment to lifting people out of poverty, especially children; we just have different views on how to go about it. Children in workless households are nearly four times more likely to live in poverty than those in households where adults work. We know that work pays, yet we on the Conservative Benches find ourselves surrounded by parties that are just itching to scrap the two-child benefit cap, resorting to yet more sticking plasters, like universal breakfast clubs, to reduce uncomfortable figures without putting in the hard work to tackle their causes. Does the Minister share my concern that lifting the two-child benefit cap will increase worklessness, and can he guarantee that taxes will not go up in next month’s Budget for adults who work hard and make careful decisions about family size in order to pay for the £3.6 billion it will cost to lift that cap?

[Andrew Western]

I am stunned to hear that the fight that the Opposition Front Benchers are choosing to pick on this occasion is opposing universal free breakfast clubs, when we know that well-fed children have hungry minds. [Interruption.] For those chirping from a sedentary position, that is exactly what the shadow Minister. What I find even more staggering are the lectures from an Opposition who left almost 3 million people in this country economically inactive and around 1 million young people out of work. They dragged 900,000 children into poverty, when the last Labour Government lifted 600,000 out. It is the last Labour Government who we will be taking lessons from, not the last Tory one.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

I note that last year the new Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said that it is open to debate as to whether the two-child limit is harmful. I note also that this policy has been the most impactful in driving children—more than 730,000 of them—into poverty. Will the Minister acknowledge that the two-child limit is harmful and work with Treasury colleagues to overturn it?

[Andrew Western]

I am happy to acknowledge the findings of the Child Poverty Action Group, which I think has put forward the statistics that the hon. Gentleman sets out. I remind him and all Members of this House that this is not the only lever available to us and that all levers are under active consideration. I also remind him, as I have reminded other colleagues, of the steps that this Government have already taken, including the roll-out of free school meals to all families in receipt of universal credit, which alone will lift 100,000 children out of poverty.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

10. What steps he is taking to ensure that skills provision meets the needs of employers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

13. What assessment he has made of trends in the level of child poverty in Cornwall.

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

It is unacceptable that 23% of children in Cornwall are living in relative poverty. We will set out measures to tackle its structural and root causes in our child poverty strategy later in the year.

[Ben Maguire]

Child poverty cannot be tackled if children have nowhere safe to live. One of the most shameful legacies of the last Tory Government was Cornwall being left with more than 700 children living in temporary accommodation, while only 1.4% of homes are now affordable to families receiving the local housing allowance. What assessment has the Minister made of the extent to which that shortfall in affordable homes is driving child poverty rates even higher, and what urgent steps will he take to reverse it?

[Andrew Western]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the appalling living standards and conditions in which some children—and, indeed, some members of the broader population—find themselves living. My advice to any Liberal Democrat Member would of course be to stop blocking the homes that we so desperately need. Let me also remind the hon. Gentleman that this Government have invested £39 billion in the delivery of social and affordable homes, because, unlike the Liberal Democrats, the Labour party is determined to tackle the housing crisis and to “build, baby, build”.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Meur ras, Mr Speaker.

I represent the most deprived constituency in Cornwall, which is itself one of the most deprived areas in northern Europe. Child poverty shot up under the Conservatives. Today our local further education college—Cornwall college, rated “outstanding” by Ofsted—is turning away young learners in construction and engineering because of a lack of space. The college has a solution allowing it to expand, but will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the issue and help our amazing young people to break this cycle of deprivation?

[Andrew Western]

I am sorry to hear of the situation that my hon. Friend has outlined. If the Secretary of State is unable to meet him, I would be more than happy to do so.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

14. What recent progress he has made on establishing the youth guarantee trailblazer scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

T6. I still have parents in my constituency coming to me because they are not getting the money their children need. One constituent reports her ex repeatedly self-declaring employment until the Child Maintenance Service catches up with them, switching on to benefits for a few months, dropping to £7 a week and then returning to self-employment to restart that cycle. Online forums openly trade tips about how to avoid child maintenance. What will the Minister do to close these loopholes and ensure that every child gets the support they need?

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

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The Government plan to consult on changes to the calculation that will automatically capture more income types within that calculation. Where parents wilfully avoid their financial obligations, the CMS financial investigation unit does have the powers to act and will investigate. Child maintenance is key to keeping children out of poverty, and we will use these powers wherever necessary.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

T5. The 25-year-old son of one of my constituents unfortunately lost his leg when it was amputated above the knee after a motorcycle accident, but he was awarded personal independence payment and a specially adapted car, and he has been able to rebuild his life. However, in August he was told that the PIP and the adapted car would be withdrawn from him. Sadly, he is clearly not going to get any better. How can we be in a situation where people whose condition is permanent are having their support withdrawn?

--- Later in debate ---

[Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)]

T9. Many of my constituents are experiencing delays in migrating to universal credit, due to years of Tory mismanagement of our welfare system. This is a stressful time for claimants and a very busy time for the Department. Will my right hon. Friend outline what steps the Department is taking to ensure it is fully resourced, so that delays are reduced and claims are processed?

[Andrew Western]

The Department is prioritising ensuring that there is adequate staffing resource available to support claimants and deliver migration smoothly and on time. I am concerned to hear what my hon. Friend says about the experience of his constituents in Coatbridge and Bellshill. I will look into this issue further on his behalf and report back to him.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

The Trussell Trust recently reported that three in 10 people who were referred to food banks in 2024 were in working households and that the majority, 72%, were on universal credit. What more can the Government do to ensure that work pays and we can take low-paid workers out of poverty?

--- Later in debate ---

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State to his office and thank the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western), for a recent visit to the DWP debt and fraud centre in my constituency. There are 95 jobs at the centre doing tremendous work across the UK, proving that civil service job dispersal does work. Is this not a template for other Departments and an example to the SNP Government in Scotland, who have dispersed no jobs, no power and no funds from Edinburgh?

[Andrew Western]

I endorse everything my hon. Friend has said. I had a fantastic visit to the very beautiful constituency that he is fortunate enough to represent, where I saw exactly what can happen through our places for growth initiative, which looks to relocate jobs out of London and into places such as Stornoway.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

I have met many pensionable-age constituents, most of whom live on the Duck estate, who have lost their entitlement to pension credit because of as little as 50p. Does the Minister agree that pension credit, the employment and support allowance and PIP assistance could all do with more common sense and a little less of a “computer says no” mentality?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

When my constituents move into new social housing, they find it stripped of perfectly good white goods, curtains, carpets and so on. What can the Government do to address this? It is driving my constituents further into poverty and benefit dependency. It is also environmentally destructive. Surely there is a way through this issue, so can I call on the Minister to work with others across Government to address it?

[Andrew Western]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. It might be better raised at questions to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but as he asks me to pick this up with Ministers across Departments, I am happy to do so. I can tell him that the crisis and resilience fund—formerly the household support fund—is in place to support people setting up in their new homes, as are grants that are available from housing associations directly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Western Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

7. What steps she is taking to help tackle fraud in the welfare system.

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

The Government have committed to significant measures to counter welfare fraud, error and debt. This is the biggest package of such measures in recent history, and the Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated that it will deliver an additional £9.6 billion of savings over the next five years. The package is underpinned by our Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, which contains a range of new powers to enable us to keep pace with offenders who exploit the social security system.

[John Cooper]

I think we can all agree that fraud strikes at the heart of the system, kicking away its underpinnings. I hope that the Government will undertake a zero-tolerance approach, unlike in Scotland, where we recently heard that £36 million of benefit money paid out in error is now not to be recovered. Does the Minister agree that that is deeply unfair to taxpayers?

[Andrew Western]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to encroach on what are legitimately policy questions for the Scottish Government. The policy of this Government is clear and set out in the Bill, but I am grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice for continuing to work with me constructively to make the Bill as workable as possible, with alignment where possible, such that if we end up diverging we are still able to ensure that this Parliament does everything it can, and the Scottish Government do everything they choose to do, to bear down on fraud and error.

[Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)]

Does the Minister share my surprise that a Member of the party responsible for more than a decade of rising poverty, record benefit delays, and billions lost to fraud and error is now suddenly concerned about tackling that? Across the House, while we recognise the need to tackle fraud in our welfare system, we should also recognise the huge issue with tax avoidance and evasion—as recently highlighted by the Public Accounts Committee—which requires significant attention.

[Andrew Western]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. This Government are determined to bear down on tax evasion with 5,000 additional investigators. Wherever we see people ripping off the public purse, whether that is defrauding the Department for Work and Pensions or abusing the tax system, we are determined to bear down on them, and that is what we will do.

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

8. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the personal independence payment application process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)]

11. What steps she is taking to improve data sharing between her Department and local authorities.

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

The Department continues to provide a broad range of data to local authorities to enable fast, accurate assessments for services, including blue badges and free school meals. Looking ahead, the Department is committed to expanding real-time data sharing in critical areas, such as housing benefit and care homes, while also testing innovative models such as the WorkWell scheme, which bring together local and central services to deliver more joined-up support for citizens.

[Sarah Hall]

In Warrington South, too many children entitled to free school meals are missing out because of avoidable administrative barriers. No child should have to sit in a classroom hungry; every child deserves a full stomach and a fair chance. A simple change would make a big difference and ensure that every eligible child got the support that they are entitled to. It would ease pressure on families, help to reduce child poverty, and give schools confidence that pupils are ready to learn. Will the Minister commit to strengthening data sharing with not only local authorities, but the Department for Education, so that automatic enrolment for free school meals can be introduced?

[Andrew Western]

My hon. Friend is entirely right to raise this issue. We will look at that, working closely with the Department for Education, as part of the child poverty strategy. We of course share her ambition to ensure that families can claim the support that they need. Our expansion of free school meals to all children in households claiming universal credit will make it much easier for parents to know if they are eligible, as well as lifting some 100,000 children out of poverty.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his reply; as always, he is very positive in his responses. He referred to the anti-poverty strategy. What discussions has he had about the anti-poverty strategy for us in Northern Ireland? Levels of poverty and mental health issues have risen dramatically, and young people in particular are under great pressure. The Minister is always compassionate and understanding; what is he doing in relation to the Northern Ireland Assembly to make things better for us as well?

[Andrew Western]

The hon. Gentleman will understand that we want this strategy to be for England, Wales, Scotland and, of course, Northern Ireland. He will be reassured to learn that those leading on the child poverty strategy have held a number of meetings with Ministers in Northern Ireland to ensure that its specific needs are taken into consideration.

[Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)]

13. What steps is she taking to support young people into employment, education or training in Bristol North East constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

T7. It is great to be back after taking paternity leave, and thank you for your support, Mr Speaker. I welcome the Government’s parental leave review, but currently partners only get unpaid time off work for two antenatal appointments. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a gap, and can he confirm that the review is looking at how we can better support parents at that crucial time?

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the recent addition to his family. I hope he had a restful summer, although I doubt he did considering the likely lack of sleep. He is right to raise this issue. It is now past the date for the call for evidence, but if he wants to write to me directly about that issue, I will ensure it is fed in.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

T4. Cruel cuts to the winter fuel allowance by both this Labour Government and the SNP Government in Edinburgh left thousands of pensioners cold in their homes last winter. When will the Secretary of State apologise for the misery her Government have caused for vulnerable pensioners in the Scottish Borders and across the United Kingdom?

Office for Nuclear Regulation: 2024-25 Annual Report and Accounts

Andrew Western Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Written Statements

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

Later today I will lay before this House the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) annual report and accounts 2024-25. This document will also be published on the ONR website.

I can confirm, in accordance with schedule 7, section 25(3) of the Energy Act 2013, that there have been no exclusions to the published document on the grounds of national security.

[HCWS840]

Welfare Spending

Andrew Western Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Before I turn to some of the rawer politics as the debate demands, I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in this important debate. Like other hon. Members, I am appalled by the level of child poverty in this country. Running through the debate was an underlying and understandable anger at the unacceptable increase in child poverty since 2010, with 1.1 million children using food banks to eat.

[Graham Stuart]

I am sure that the Minister wants to give a fair and balanced overview, and we all wish to see fewer people in relative poverty, notwithstanding his support last week for a measure that would have put it up by a quarter of a million. Just to have balance on the record, does he recognise that, in absolute terms, between 2010 and 2024 the number of children in poverty dropped by 300,000, and the number of people in poverty overall by 800,000?

[Andrew Western]

I absolutely accept that the Conservative party, because of its shameful record, made a fundamental change to the way in which poverty is assessed. We have returned to the internationally recognised comparator that exposes that shameful record. We will not run away from that internationally recognised comparator. It is on that on which we will be judged, and the Conservatives must also be judged on that.

I thank Labour Members who spoke in the debate so passionately about the work that the Government have already done on child poverty and the Conservative party’s shameful record. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd North (Gill German), for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) and for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance)—and, yes, my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman). He and I may not agree on the process being followed by the Government to tackle child poverty wherever we see it, but I do not doubt his commitment and support to tackling it.

I thank in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) for his powerful personal testimony about his upbringing, and about the stigma of poverty and the shame that many parents feel when they require extra support. Like him, I grew up in modest circumstances, as one of five children. For a period, in a single-parent household, we were dependent on tax credits, child tax credits and the education maintenance allowance—remember that? I will not allow privately educated Conservative spokespeople to lecture us on the plight of struggling families up and down the country when they have shown no care at all about the part they played in putting many of those families into crisis.

[Graham Stuart]

That is so low.

[Andrew Western]

What is low is scrapping the Child Poverty Act in 2016. The Conservatives’ record on child poverty is cheap and low. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) can continue to chunter from a sedentary position; I could reel off their record all day.

[Dr Mullan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andrew Western]

I will not at the moment.

Let me come to the shadow Secretary of State, who, like many Conservative Members, was in total denial of the Conservative record, not only on child poverty, but on the welfare bill, which has spiralled enormously since 2020. They put 4.5 million children in poverty, and they come here with this motion. There was no recognition of the fact that almost 60% of families affected by the two-child limit are in work. There was no understanding of the lack of clarity in their motion, which does not specify whether it relates only to universal credit and child tax credit. It says that children “should not receive” any “additional funding”. What of child benefit? What of disability living allowance for children? The motion is not worth the paper it is written on, unless that is now their policy.

The Conservatives have talked about personal and fiscal responsibility—quite unbelievable from the party that crashed the economy and left the welfare bill spiralling. They take no responsibility for their actions at all, but they seek to lecture others on how they should live their lives. The shadow Secretary of State talked about giving families broader support—for instance, through family hubs. How many Sure Start centres closed under the previous Government? In their first 10 years alone, it was 1,300. Then, we heard that only the Conservatives understand the importance of living within their means. I have two words for the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately): Liz Truss.

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

In Wales, sadly, we have some of the highest rates of child poverty in the United Kingdom, and some of the highest across Europe. Why is that? Why is poverty so stubbornly high in Wales, and would lifting the cap not improve things for Welsh children?

[Andrew Western]

Lifting the cap is one of the many levers that the Government are considering. We will look at that in the round, and when we come forward with our child poverty strategy, we will look to lift children in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and here in England—children up and down this country—out of poverty, because that is a moral mission for this Government. Indeed, we have already started that important work, with free breakfast clubs, free school meals for families on universal credit, restrictions on branded school uniform items and, to the point made by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), proposed changes to the Child Maintenance Service. We will also abolish direct pay, which was created by the Conservative party. This will lift 20,000 children out of poverty.

[Dr Mullan]

I am deeply moved by the Minister’s commitment to reducing poverty. Will he explain why, as a Minister, he supported the Government’s proposals in the Universal Credit Bill last week, which their own impact assessments said would increase poverty?

[Andrew Western]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there was £1 billion worth of employment support alongside those measures, the impacts of which are yet to be scored by the Office for Budget Responsibility. We are serious about getting people back to work as a route to tackling poverty, as well as providing an important safety net for those who need it.

The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) asked why others should subsidise someone’s third, fourth or fifth child. I say gently to the Conservatives that it is never the child’s fault. A third child has the same right to thrive as the first two, and if they do not, all three children suffer. A hungry child is a hungry child, whatever their background.

[Stuart Anderson]

On that point—

[Andrew Western]

I am afraid I will not take any further interventions, as I only have a couple of minutes left. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) tempted me to speculate about decisions around taxation. He will appreciate that that is way above my pay grade, and I hope that he is patient enough to wait for the next fiscal event to get an answer to his question.

[Graham Stuart]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given collective responsibility, is it in order for a Minister of the Crown to argue against a policy of his own Government? If I have understood correctly, it is the policy of the Government and the Labour party to maintain the two-child benefit cap.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman will know that that is not a matter for the Chair, and he is seeking to drag me into the debate.

[Andrew Western]

It is also not what I said, Madam Deputy Speaker. I said that we on our child poverty taskforce are considering all available levers in the lead-up to the child poverty strategy, which will come in the autumn.

The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), made a point about controlling welfare spend. Yet again, we heard that the four years post-covid were not an appropriate time to tackle the spiralling welfare bill that the Conservatives created. In those four long years, the Conservative party got through three Prime Ministers, five Ministers for health and work, six Secretaries of State for Education and seven Sunak resets, yet the welfare bill continued to spiral. Child poverty worsened, and we had wasted years, so we will take no lectures from the Conservatives on welfare spend, and certainly not on the best way to tackle child poverty.



This party inherited the Conservatives’ shameful legacy of disastrous levels of child poverty and a broken social security system that fails to command people’s trust. Across Government, we have started the urgent work to fix these problems and to drive down child poverty once again, as the last Labour Government did, in partnership with the devolved Administrations, charities, local authorities and others, and to build a fairer, more sustainable social security system that helps people build better lives by giving them the right incentives and support. We will do that important work because tackling child poverty is a moral mission for this Government, and we will oppose this motion today because all levers are under active consideration as we seek to do so.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Before I put the Question, I will just remind the Minister that, like the shadow Minister, he should not be referring to Members by their name in the Chamber but by their constituency.

Question put.