Relationship between Social Security Scotland and the DWP

Andrew Western Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Wendy Chamberlain]

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

[Andrew Western]

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

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

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

[Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on raising a very important issue that our constituents face. Does the Minister agree that the prolonged confusion and delay in Social Security Scotland taking over the administration of devolved benefits from the DWP has contributed to a sense of confusion among people about who is responsible for providing the support that they receive?

[Andrew Western]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I do not want to get into a tit-for-tat, in terms of determining responsibility between the Westminster Government and the Scottish Government, but it is certainly fair to say that the agency agreements we have entered into have been extended, in some cases on more than one occasion. That can lead to it taking a protracted amount of time for us to deliver as we would hope, and in the most aligned way possible.

[Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on the debate she has had tonight. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Elaine Stewart) on her new position in the Department. Does the Minister agree that at £600 million—or the cost of 5,000 motorhomes—the set-up of Social Security Scotland is a national scandal?

[Andrew Western]

My hon. Friend tempts me. I agree that it is not alone in being a national scandal up in Scotland—if, indeed, that is what it is. For the purposes of seeking to maintain a constructive relationship with my counterparts in Scotland, I may swerve the broader steer of that question. The focus should always be on ensuring that both systems work for those who use them, and that people get a clear, reliable and efficient service, even if they receive support from both DWP and Social Security Scotland.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for giving way—he is always constructive and helpful, and we look forward to his contribution and his answers, which I am sure will help the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) and others. I know the debate is about Scotland, but as I have mentioned, we are having similar problems in Northern Ireland. If we highlight our problems to the Minister, will he take them on as well?

[Andrew Western]

I certainly will. As I said earlier, I am the Minister responsible for devolution, and I have regular conversations with Gordon Lyons, the Minister for Communities. I am very happy to pick up any specifics, where there are kinks that need to be ironed out. I am happy to do that for any Member.

By March this year, DWP had completed its role in the transfer to Social Security Scotland of customers in receipt of four major devolved benefits. That involved around 730,000 benefit awards for personal independence payment, disability living allowance, carer’s allowance and attendance allowance customers. This was a hugely important undertaking, not only because of the number of people affected, but because of how vital that support so often is to people. It required close operational co-ordination, robust data sharing, careful communication with customers, and a shared commitment to ensuring continuity of support. I hear what the hon. Member for North East Fife says about her constituents’ experience of that transfer. Her point is well made, but crucially, in broad terms, it did deliver for people in Scotland; payments continued without interruption at point of transfer, and people were supported and kept informed throughout. That was a significant achievement by both organisations, and a clear demonstration of what effective, co-operative working can deliver.

Throughout that complex process, it was very important that Scottish customers should know how to access information, and who to contact about devolved benefits. DWP operational staff also needed to know how to signpost and support customers correctly—I will take away the hon. Lady’s point about strengthening training, because if that has not been delivered to full effect, we need to make sure that that happens going forward. To achieve this, DWP and Social Security Scotland worked together on customer communications, ensuring the messaging was clear and consistent wherever possible, with detailed information on the changes to devolved benefits published on both gov.uk and gov.scot. DWP operational guidance has been updated to ensure that DWP colleagues are aware of those changes, and of where procedures have been updated. Colleagues received specific guidance on handling customer queries about Social Security Scotland’s benefits and payments. Both organisations agreed that each would signpost to the other where appropriate, but should avoid providing guidance or advice on each other’s benefits. The hon. Lady also made a point about the level within the organisation that that training had been cascaded to. I will check and confirm that for her, to make sure it has rippled through to all levels.

While both DWP and the Scottish Government’s devolution programmes closed in March this year, nobody should take that as an indication that we do not continue to work together extremely closely. As I have already said, it is vital that co-operative relations continue. That is why DWP has created the Social Security Scotland liaison unit, a new function to support the ongoing relationship with Social Security Scotland. That liaison unit will ensure that future changes to devolved and reserved benefits are co-ordinated, and will support DWP business areas with any Social Security Scotland-facing matters. Alongside the work of that unit, DWP, the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland continue to join up at many levels. Senior leaders agreed to establish a joint forum for Social Security Scotland and DWP operations to exchange feedback, support continuous improvement and jointly resolve issues. The joint operational working group provides an opportunity to discuss the customer experience and the journey our shared customers are navigating to receive the financial support they are entitled to.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

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

[Andrew Western]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Milburn Review: Interim Report

Andrew Western Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to make a statement on the publication of the Milburn report on young people and work.

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

Last week, Alan Milburn produced a powerful report on the crisis of opportunity facing young people. The Secretary of State asked him to lead this work because it is a crisis that has been ignored for far too long. Far too many young people are leaving education and not getting the chance to work. The human and financial impact on individuals can last a lifetime, and the economic costs are significant. It is clear that this is not a feature of the last year or two but a deep-seated and long-term issue.

Unlike the Conservatives, we will not stand back and abandon young people in the face of this crisis. During their last few years in power, the number of young people not in education, employment or training rose by a quarter of a million—a shameful legacy. Rather than holding young people in contempt, we believe in them. We are making opportunity for young people a national cause. We have begun with the youth guarantee, more work experience, workplace training and apprenticeships, hiring bonuses for employers who take on young people in regular or apprenticeship roles, and subsidised employment for young people who remain out of work for 18 months. That means, in total, half a million opportunities for young people to work, train or undertake apprenticeships.

We have undertaken welfare reform to remove barriers in the benefits system that trap young people. We have changed the law so that claimants on sickness and disability benefits have the right to try work without the fear of automatically triggering a benefit reassessment. We have narrowed the gap between the health element and the standard allowance—a perverse incentive of the last Government’s making—and we are investing in genuinely personalised employment support.

We have made a good start, but last week’s interim report is a call to action. That is why this Government are putting work and opportunity at the heart of everything we do, and we will go even further as Alan Milburn comes forward with his final report and recommendations.

[Helen Whately]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question. It is a shame that the Minister had to be dragged here. Last week, the Secretary of State was only too eager to talk about this report on the telly. Where is he today? Why so quiet now? I think we all know.

The Secretary of State has been caught out telling the devastating truth about Labour MPs:

“who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others”?

That is what Labour MPs really think, and that is what the Government have done. They have put up people’s taxes, spent more on benefits and left hard-working people with less to live off.

Once again, Labour’s shenanigans are getting in the way of something we really should be talking about. Every morning, a million young people wake up in Britain with nothing to do and nowhere to go. This is a disaster for our country, our economy and, worst of all, for all those young people: Labour’s lost generation. The Minister said that it started under us—yes, the numbers did start going up from the pandemic, so this was not a surprise for Ministers—yet here we are after almost two years of Labour in office and it still has no plan. All it has done is make the situation worse, and of course commission this big report.

I welcome Alan Milburn’s contribution—it is a serious analysis—but Milburn himself says it is just a diagnosis; there are no solutions, actual answers or policies. In fact, he even tells us that the things the Government have been doing—their “piecemeal” programmes—are not going to work. He also says that after six months of inactivity, young people are far less likely ever to work. This is urgent, but where is Labour’s urgency?

This is not the first time Labour has let down young people: the number of NEETs soared to 17% after Labour’s last stint in government. The Conservatives turned that around to less than 10% in 2019. Of course, covid undermined that progress, but the Labour Government have turned a post-pandemic problem into a crisis by taxing jobs, tying up businesses in red tape, making it riskier and more expensive to hire a young person, and destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs in retail and hospitality. Like many young people, one of my first jobs was working in a local pub, but Labour has pulled the plug on that opportunity for this generation.

Whenever we do get to hear Labour’s plans, we know what they will be: spending more money and taxing people more to pay for it. That is the wrong answer. The answer is jobs, to back businesses, to cut taxes, to get rid of red tape, to get government out of the way and to reform welfare—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. You get two minutes. [Interruption.] Yes, it is two minutes, and it has always been two minutes. I have not changed the rules. When I grant an urgent question, please stick within the rules. That helps me, because we have said that we will try to adhere to that.

[Andrew Western]

That was a predictable set of questions from the hon. Lady, who has the audacity to label the NEETs of this country “Labour’s lost generation” when the number of NEETs increased by 250,000 in the Conservatives’ last few years in office. She tells us that there were no solutions in this report—that is hardly a surprise for anybody paying attention, given that it is an interim report, with further recommendations to follow.

The hon. Lady mentioned national insurance contributions. What does Alan Milburn actually say in his report? Let me direct the House’s attention to paragraph 268, which says

“the UK’s NEET crisis is much more long-term and deep-seated than any decisions taken in the last few years.”

Specifically on NICs, paragraph 266 says,

“it is worth remembering that those under 21 remain exempt from employer NICs and, as the review has already highlighted, the increase in youth inactivity long precedes any recent changes”. [Interruption.]

The hon. Lady chirps that I am in denial—this is the Conservatives’ record, their problem, and a mess that we will solve.

On that very point, there was no explanation—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Please, the urgent question has been granted, and I do not need Opposition Front Benchers thinking that they can shout the Minister down.

[Andrew Western]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Of course, there was no explanation or apology from the hon. Lady for the fact that her party left almost 1 million young people not in education, employment or training. That was a predictable omission, but an unacceptable one none the less, because discussing the rise in NEETs in recent years without discussing the actions of the past Conservative Government is rather like staging “Hamlet” without the Prince of Denmark.

On the Secretary of State’s comments, what he has said has been the same ever since he was appointed. He has said that we have to change the question and the system from “What benefits are you entitled to?” to “How do we help you change your life?” That is what matters and it is exactly what this Government are doing: fixing the broken welfare system that we inherited from the Conservative party, rebalancing universal credit, implementing right to try, tackling the Conservatives’ backlog on access to work, and, of course, providing our £2.5 billion investment in the youth guarantee. That is the welfare reform that this Government are delivering, with opportunity and work, especially for young people, at its heart, and the guarantee of a safety net for those who need it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I welcome Alan Milburn’s report. The Select Committee is in the concluding stages of its own youth employment, education and training inquiry. We take account particularly of the drivers, and the Minister is right. As the millennium cohort study has shown, more than half of NEETs have experienced adverse and persistent child poverty and family adversity over the last 15 years, which has contributed to the current level. I really think that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), should recognise that and apologise.

Is the Minister as concerned as me that we must not forget that, in addition to young people, hundreds of thousands of disabled people have had a lack of opportunity, and they have not had the profile that our young people are getting? They also need to be considered alongside young people, particularly in relation to employment support.

[Andrew Western]

I thank my hon. Friend not just for her question but for the work that the Select Committee has done on its inquiry. Indeed, I know that Alan Milburn was before her Committee recently, speaking to the work that he is doing. She is absolutely right to call for a focus on disabled people too. Our Connect to Work agenda provides significant support. There is, of course, always more that we can do, but on this—as with those not in employment, education or training aged 16 to 24—we are determined to act, we have a programme to do so, and we take this extremely seriously.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), who always has something of value to bring to the Chamber.

There are 1 million youngsters not in employment, education or training; this has been brewing for many years, but sadly has been exacerbated by the new Labour Government. We have seen the sad decline of our high streets over the last 20 years, a quarter of a million jobs lost in retail in the last five years and, since the last Budget, 100,000 jobs lost in hospitality. The dual impact of the national insurance change—the jobs tax—and business rates has hit hard. Whitbread has cut 3,800 jobs across the United Kingdom, with the closure of two restaurants in my constituency—one in Torquay and one in Paignton.

I welcome most findings of the Alan Milburn review; the Liberal Democrats welcome the sense of direction. However, I have some key questions. Does the Minister have some clear economic plans to grow jobs for young people, and how can we develop greater connections with our European partners in order to grow our economy?

[Andrew Western]

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson will have heard the Prime Minister’s recent intent to work more closely with European colleagues, because of the economic benefits that working in partnership can yield. Further, the hon. Gentleman is right to recognise that this is a problem many years in the making. I welcome the broad support from Liberal Democrat colleagues for the interim review and I hope that will be the same when the final review comes forward with recommendations.

On plans to bring forward jobs for young people, I point the hon. Gentleman to recently announced interventions by the Secretary of State to provide £3,000 to small and medium-sized enterprises that hire apprentices and £2,000 to any employer who hires a young person who has been on universal credit for more than six months. This will make a significant difference and it is the right thing to do.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Too often, young people are written off as lacking ambition, when the reality is that they are lacking the opportunities for good work. More than 40% of young people not in education, employment or training have said that finding fulfilling work is their top priority. Despite that, in my area under the Scottish National party-run Renfrewshire council and the SNP-run Holyrood Government, employability services are being cut by 30%, failing too many of our young people. Can my hon. Friend set out what steps the Government are taking to work with the Scottish Government to protect vital employability services and ensure apprenticeship opportunities for young people in my area?

[Andrew Western]

My hon. Friend knows that I met an employment support provider in her constituency recently, and I was grateful for her welcome. She is absolutely right to say that young people do not lack the ambition to find work. This is a failure of the state’s making, not a failure of young people. If she has specific concerns about cuts to employment support in her area, I would very much welcome a letter from her setting out those challenges, and I will raise those issues on her behalf.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

As the report highlights, the number of NEETs is set to rise to 1.25 million over the next five years unless something is done. The Government need to listen to the wealth creators that create the jobs that so many of our young people need. Alan Milburn’s report says that 84% of young people really do want to get a job, education or training, but the policies of this Government are making that even harder. Given that the Government are looking for a reset moment, perhaps over the summer, will the Minister ask his Cabinet colleagues to look again at the increases in national insurance and business rates, and at repealing the most damaging aspects of the Employment Rights Act, which are doing so much damage to the life prospects of our young people?

[Andrew Western]

The hon. Gentleman has elevated me to Cabinet level—something that is at least premature, if not unlikely ever to happen, I suspect. I refer him to the Milburn report, because it sounds as if he has not read it. It states that

“the UK’s NEET crisis is much more long-term and deep-seated than any decisions taken in the last few years.”

Making particular reference to national insurance, it states that

“it is worth remembering that those under 21 remain exempt from employer NICs and, as the review has already highlighted, the increase in youth inactivity long precedes any recent changes to NICs.”

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

I welcome the interim report. My question is about work experience. When I was at school, this was typically organised by teachers and gave children a peek into worlds that otherwise would be unimaginable, but today children in my Bristol constituency are being asked to find their own placements, which obviously disadvantages children from families that are less well connected. Will we be likely to see more organised work experience placements for schoolchildren as a result of this review?

[Andrew Western]

My hon. Friend is entirely right to highlight the value of work experience, in particular for children from disadvantaged backgrounds who perhaps do not have the connections that others benefit from. He will be pleased to know that the Government are committed to reforming work experience to break down barriers to opportunity, so that every pupil will have access to two weeks-worth of multiple, meaningful and varied workplace experiences throughout key stages 3 and 4, progressively increasing their work-readiness as they move through secondary education.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

I welcome the Government’s youth guarantee scheme; something similar operates in a number of European countries. However, under the proposals, it will not kick in for 18 months. If someone is unemployed for 18 months, the damage is already done. Will the Government consider acting earlier?

[Andrew Western]

I can understand the hon. Gentleman’s trepidation, but I fear that he has not been made aware of the full range of activity before the 18-month intervention kicks in. This includes the addition of a reframed employment and skills review at two weeks and the maintenance of weekly appointments from weeks 3 to 12, with increased focus on personal support to address barriers to work. After three months, the specialist youth guarantee gateway kicks in, whereby young people are referred to one of six options, including sector-based work academy programmes, training, work experience and apprenticeships. At six months, the £3,000 youth jobs grant for employers recruiting young people kicks in. This is one part of a range of holistic interventions that we consider will make a significant difference to the challenge we face.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is it not the truth that Governments just do not respect working-class jobs, like apprenticeships? Since the apprenticeship levy was brought in, the number of starts has dropped by 35% and the number of level 2 starts has dropped by 68%. Of those that did take place, only 16% were advertised in the two months when young people were finishing their exams, creating the gap that young people fall through. The Milburn review is welcome and absolutely needed, and I am appreciative of the Government for starting this process, but can I ask two question? First, why can we not close the gap today by saying that every public sector employer, whether it is the Government, a council, the police service or the NHS, must advertise at the point that young people are leaving school? Secondly, does my hon. Friend agree that devolution has to be part of the solution, because we cannot command and control from the centre when so much of this is about localised economies?

[Andrew Western]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the power of devolution—it is something that he and I know only too well from our roles as leaders within the Greater Manchester combined authority—but I hope he will recognise that this Government are taking a very different approach on apprenticeships and technical education. That is underpinned by the Prime Minister’s revised target, not of 50% of young people going to university, but of having two thirds of young people in either an apprenticeship or higher education.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Many young people take time to adapt to new jobs and simply have not proved themselves after six months, but with the coming into force of the Government’s Employment Rights Act 2025, the period for dismissal without fault will be reduced from two years to six months. Many employers have told me that this will make them much less likely to employ young people, because they fear that they will not prove themselves in that time period, and that it will be much harder to get rid of them after six months. This provision is not due to come into force until the beginning of next year, so at this very late stage, can I urge the Minister to look at it again? It will make a bad situation so much worse for young people.

[Andrew Western]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but I have to say that I have rather more faith in young people in the workforce than he seems to. The Employment Rights Act is an important, once-in-a-generation opportunity to level up rights in the workplace, and this Government remain committed to it.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I very much welcome this report by Alan Milburn, who highlights the need to work cross-sectorally to support young people. I wonder if the Minister could take away the thought that he could test and learn by doing a pilot with Choice in Hackney, which works with disabled people, and with my local Mind, which has very good employment training schemes to help people into work. Their success rate is phenomenally higher than the DWP success rates, and we would be very keen to work with the Government on this matter.

[Andrew Western]

My hon. Friend makes the important observation that, for us to make successful change in this space, we need to work with a range of partners and providers. I am very happy to propose, on the terms that she has outlined, that Hackney be put forward to test some of the initiatives that we are looking towards in this space. We need to work not only with charities and employment support providers, but to work more holistically across Government, with Health, Education and other Departments, and we are determined to do that work.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Alan Milburn, in his excellent but devastating report, makes it clear that the young people most at risk of ending up out of education or employment are likely to go to a further education college, and he identifies that 32,000 of those FE places are currently unfunded. Just last year, in her skills White Paper, the Education Secretary promised

“increased funding to…16 to 19 providers to provide real terms per-pupil funding in the next academic year”,

yet I know from talking to my local college that per-head funding this year is going up by only 0.55%. That is a real-terms cut and a broken promise. Coupled with the lag in funding of up to a year for new students, this is disincentivising colleges to take on these pupils. How does the Minister explain that?

[Andrew Western]

The 0.55% increase in 16-to-19 funding rates is only one aspect of 16-to-19 funding. In the academic year 2026-27, we will provide nearly £9 billion in 16-to-19 funding, and overall funding per student will rise by 1.66%, meeting the White Paper commitment by reflecting inflation at the time that the spending review was settled.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

This excellent report makes it clear that exams can lead to early disengagement from school, particularly for children who are neurodiverse. The son of my constituent Danielle repeatedly failed his GCSEs, which left him stressed and undermined his self-confidence. She felt that his opportunities would be limited and doors would be closed for him, but thankfully he was encouraged to get functional skills and has now secured a place at Leeds College of Building to learn bricklaying. Does the Minister agree that early information on and awareness of alternative qualifications and pathways, such as functional skills, can help young people to fulfil their potential?

[Andrew Western]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. If she has any ideas about how we can extend the knowledge and availability of such information, I would be happy to hear them.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The Minister must understand that to create the jobs that we need, we must encourage the private sector to invest. In my constituency, every single hospitality venue has halved the number of staff it employs. When I ask why, the answers are national insurance, non-domestic rates and the new Employment Rights Act. Extending the national insurance holiday, as it were, from age 21 to 24 would enable people who leave school to get a job, enable those who leave university to get a job, and de-risk taking on young people for employers.

[Andrew Western]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that incentives are needed to encourage employers to hire young people. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently announced the incentives that I have already laid out: supporting young people who have been on universal credit for six months by financially incentivising employers to hire them, and incentivising small and medium-sized enterprises to hire apprentices under the age of 25 earning less than £50,000.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I have just had a group of year 8 pupils visit me in Parliament, and many of their questions were about the increasing numbers of young people on benefits, AI sweeping away jobs, and new opportunities and training for young people. The red wall MPs recognise that issues surrounding youth unemployment are not new, but I am hugely concerned that young people now see that as their future. I welcome the Government’s initiative for a youth hub in Worksop, and I am already working on that with partners, but does the Minister agree that we need to work with other partners beyond the DWP to resolve this problem?

[Andrew Western]

I do agree. I hope that my hon. Friend heard what I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) earlier about the need to work holistically, across Government and outside Government, with partners in the charitable sector, employment support companies and so on, to ensure that a range of interventions are available so that young people do not—exactly as she outlines—see a life not in education, employment or training as their future. That is something we must stop.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)]

Some 70% of graduates say that university just was not worth it—and is it any wonder, when we have seen an increase in low-quality degrees, people coming out with crippling debt, and lower job prospects for graduates? I welcome many elements in the Milburn review, but if we are to fix this crisis of youth unemployment, we need not tweaks, but an overhaul of vocational training and a correction to the Blairite obsession with university, so that fewer young people are scammed by the great university con.

[Andrew Western]

I would not put it quite in the terms used by the right hon. Lady, but jingoistic rhetoric is a feature of her new place in this House. As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), this Government recognise that it should no longer be a target of any Government to send 50% of young people to university. That is why we have revised the target, so that this Government’s aspiration is for 66% of young people to be either in higher education or undertaking an apprenticeship.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

In York, 410 young people are not in education, training or employment, and we know from Alan Milburn’s report the causes of that. I particularly want to focus on mental health, and the fact that we do not have the right support in place for young people much earlier than the point at which they seek employment. Will the Minister work with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that we have systems in place to identify young people who experience mental health challenges, in particular children with adverse childhood experiences, so that they can be set on a stronger path and build more resilience throughout their childhood, enabling them to be prepared for work?

[Andrew Western]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to recognise that many of the challenges faced by young people not in education, employment or training start at school or even preschool. We need to ensure that there is early intervention in schools, with more mental health practitioners available to children and young people, and that they can receive the support needed at the first possible opportunity, because mental ill health blights and affects their future, not just in academic terms with exams, but often for many years beyond that. I absolutely agree with her. That point underpins many of the proposals put forward in the Department for Education’s special educational needs reforms. We need early intervention and greater mental health support for children.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

This is an important piece of work from Alan Milburn, but what principles will underpin the Government’s approach? Does the Minister think that, other things being equal, if we increase the cost of employing people, then that will come at the expense of jobs? Does he think that, with slack in the labour market, if we do things such as reducing probation periods at a time when the cost of employing younger people without experience is going up anyway, that will mean that those young people are less likely to be given the opportunities and the vacancies that exist?

[Andrew Western]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, in the current climate, incentives are required to encourage employers to hire young people, and I have set out the measures that we have taken to do that. However, he is one of a number of Conservative Members today who have raised the Employment Rights Act, which is the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. This Government are steadfast in continuing to support working people and ensuring that the Act is fully implemented.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

This generation of NEETs grew up under Tory austerity, suffered the closure of Sure Start centres and finished their education with per pupil funding lower than it was in 2010, and then many of them grew up in poverty. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a root-and-branch change from what we had under the Conservatives if we are to end the conveyor belt of young people finishing school and going into unemployment?

[Andrew Western]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct about the damage caused by the previous Government to a range of services on which children and young people rely. Child and adolescent mental health services—pertinent to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell)—are one example, but there are a range of others. A recent report highlighted the difference that Sure Start, which was ravaged by the Conservative party, had made to young people. He is absolutely right that we need root-and-branch reform, and this Government are committed to delivering it.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

The only country in the whole of Europe that has a NEETs crisis worse than the UK’s is Romania. That is quite shocking. For me, the issue is funding for further education. Mike Taylor owns Bond’s Barbershops and runs an award-winning academy, and he has far more students than he can give places to. Other local providers tell me that they are taking on students with no funding because they need to get them in place for next year, with no funding at all for this year. The youth guarantee is a great idea, but surely it is better to get ahead of it, provide the places for our young people and stop them becoming NEETs, rather than waiting until they have been out of work for 18 months.

[Andrew Western]

The sweeping range of this Government’s interventions means that we will deliver more than 500,000 opportunities for young people. The hon. Lady asked specifically about training for younger people. This Government have pivoted funding from older apprentices—level 7 and above—to younger ones, and introduced foundation apprenticeships so that we can better support people aged 16 to 24.

[Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)]

I welcome the report, which dismisses the long-held stereotypes that young people are lazy or do not want to work. This situation is not a failure of young people; it is a failure of the system. In the survey, 84% of NEET young people said they want to find a job, education or training. Will my hon. Friend set out how the Government believe that we can move to a system that recognises that fact and adopts a participation approach, and how employers can play their part?

[Andrew Western]

My hon. Friend asks an important question and underpins it with an extremely important statement: this is not the fault of young people. They are not lazy. They have been let down for years by a system that does not serve their needs. The Government are putting in place £2.5 billion for the youth guarantee. We continue to work with employers and employment support providers to talk about how we can tailor support to the specific needs of young people to get the number of young people not in education, employment or training down.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Returning to the important points about mental health made by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), I draw the Minister’s attention to paragraphs 424 and 425 of the report, which states:

“It is mental health conditions that are now the most commonly reported health condition among NEET young people…This explosion has primarily been in mental health issues such as anxiety and depression, rather than in serious mental illnesses”.

We can all have our different ideas as to what might be causing this upsurge—I think there has clearly been a loss of mental resilience among young people—but does the Minister agree that, given that this is such a large part of the problem, further detailed research and analysis need to be done on why so many young people are so much more anxious and feel that they cannot cope?

[Andrew Western]

The right hon. Member is absolutely right to highlight the importance of that point, and the Department of Health and Social Care is undertaking a review of mental health provision, the causes of poor mental health and so on. I agree that 40% of young people citing mental health conditions as a driver for their not being in employment, education or training is a concerning increase—it has almost doubled in recent years. That is clearly unacceptable. That is why some of the interventions being led by the Department for Education are so important: more mental health support in schools, getting those CAMHS waiting lists down and ensuring that children and young people get early intervention when they need help, because, as we see in those numbers and this report, poor mental health blights them not just at school, but in later life.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

This report powerfully illustrates the benefits of investing in our young people, as well as the costs and consequences of not doing so. It shows that children who are not school-ready at the age of 4 or 5 are nearly three times more likely to be a NEET at 16 or 17, and those young people who have the bank of Mum and Dad to support them financially to take risks are more likely to succeed, even if they are less talented. What discussions has my colleague had across Government about how we can ensure that every child can access early years education, and what thought has he given to restoring child trust funds so that every child can have a nest egg for their future?

[Andrew Western]

If it is okay with my hon. Friend, I will write to her specifically on the point about child trust funds, because it is not specifically in my domain. She is absolutely correct, though, to highlight the issue of school readiness and the link that that has to the likelihood of a child becoming a NEET when they turn 16. That is why, as I said in an earlier answer, the loss of Sure Start is such a tragedy, and that is why I am so pleased that this Government are reintroducing family hubs. On the bank of Mum and Dad, I hope that she heard the question that I answered earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North East (Damien Egan) about our intention to revolutionise work experience to ensure that it is not the opportunities that someone’s parents can provide them, but the opportunities that we can arrange that make a real and tangible difference and level the playing field.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It is the system that is broken, not the young people. Alan Milburn seems to have actually listened to young people when he wrote this, but too many people do not hear and value those voices. Nobody seems to be talking yet about co-production and the value of asking young people and working with them to make these changes. What will the Minister do to ensure that young people are involved in writing the policy, so that we know that they will work for this generation and not just for what we think this generation might want?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Western]

I spend a great deal of time talking to young people about what they need to support them into work. Clearly, at the moment, we are waiting for the recommendations of the Milburn review, but she will have seen the intent on co-production from the Timms review. I do not know what will be recommended in the Milburn review as yet but, if co-production is in there, I am sure that it is something the Secretary of State will look at.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

I was privileged to open our new youth hub in Thanet last week. It is a perfect example of how the DWP is working with third sector and private sector organisations to offer that wraparound help for young people, which of course we need desperately in places such as Thanet, where unemployment is 12%—among the highest in the south-east. In the light of the analysis both in the Milburn review and beyond that there is a particularly entrenched problem in coastal towns because of our poor connectivity, transport links and fewer chances to learn and earn, will my hon. Friend commit to a coastal and place-based dimension to the plans to turn around this moral and economic crisis?

[Andrew Western]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of place-based interventions. Of course—she sits next to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Chris Webb)—I am aware of the particular challenges facing coastal towns, and I will feed that request in. Whatever interventions we make, it is incredibly important that they are bespoke where needed and that they tackle this crisis in all parts of the country.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I listened carefully to the Minister’s answers to Conservative Members on national insurance, business rates and the Employment Rights Act, but I fear the Minister has been, at best, attempting to dance on the head of a pin. If he wants to come to Mid Buckinghamshire, I can take him to business after business that desperately want to take on new apprentices and young people, and would love to use the incentives of the national insurance provisions for under-21s, but cannot because of the overall impact of taxation from this Government, not least national insurance rises on employment. Can he at least accept that it is the overall impact and not the incentive that is the problem?

[Andrew Western]

Where I disagree with the hon. Gentleman is that I am here to answer questions about the interim report from Alan Milburn, who himself points to a problem that is longer and more deep-rooted than the changes that have been made in the last couple of years. I remind him, as I have already said in response to other colleagues, that under-21s do not pay national insurance. A range of incentives have been put in place for under-25s seeking apprenticeships with small and medium-sized enterprises and for young people who have been on universal credit for more than six months.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Lewell]

Please will my hon. Friend look at and speak to his colleagues about a VAT cut for the sector?

[Andrew Western]

In the interests of time, I will follow up with my hon. Friend directly in writing.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

My first job was in a local café washing pots when I was 13, and then in my 20s, I opened my own restaurant in that same location, offering young people in my local community their first job. But when I am out in Chichester, all my businesses tell me that they are so squeezed at every single angle that they cannot take risks on young people any more. Will the Minister lay out what he will do to support hospitality, specifically looking at reforming business rates so that those businesses can offer the right path for our young people to cut their teeth in work?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Please help me to get your colleagues in, because we are really struggling for time.

[Andrew Western]

The hon. Lady will be aware that business rates are a question for the Treasury, but we are looking at a range of interventions through the youth guarantee and other interventions that I have already outlined that will help to provide more opportunities for young people, including in work experience, in first jobs and in training and apprenticeships.

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

The reality is that a generation was lost and forgotten about under the previous Government, with NEETs increasing by 40% in Blackpool. Now, 3,000 young people are not in education, training or employment—double the national average and among the highest. Despite local initiatives, such as the Platform and the job fairs that I put on with the DWP, there is a lack of opportunity. If the Minister agrees that geography still shapes destiny, can he set out—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I call the Minister.

[Andrew Western]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work he does through jobs fairs and so on, and I suggest that we meet to discuss it further.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Youth unemployment in North West Norfolk has increased by 10% over the last year, and the Minister referred to paragraph 268 of the Milburn report on the jobs tax. It actually says that if policy aims to increase growth,

“it has to help minimise risks and maximise incentives. It needs to avoid creating a labour market in which costs of entry have risen”.

Will he listen to that and lift the costs on employers, so that they do not have to subsidise so many jobs?

[Andrew Western]

I refer the hon. Member to the rest of paragraph 268, because his selective quoting does not cover all that was in there. It also says:

“the UK’s NEET crisis is much more long-term and deep-seated than any decisions taken in the last few years.”

Milburn is very clear that action is needed, that there are a range of reasons for that and that he will bring forward a set of recommendations on which he expects the Government to act. We await those and stand ready to act.

[Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)]

It is brilliant to see an example in the interim report of a young woman who taught herself Shopify in order to start a business. This Government have prioritised growth, which comes from innovation and entrepreneurship. Given that young people have incredible ideas and often thrive when they can direct their own destiny, rather than adapting to another company’s culture, does he agree that encouraging entrepreneurship among young people needs to be a significant part of the solution?

[Andrew Western]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I know that the Secretary of State is interested in what we can do to increase the support available to self-employed people of all ages.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Many young people get their first job on the checkouts. The boss of Next, Lord Wolfson, said that two years ago Next received 10 applications for every job vacancy, but that number has since risen to 19 applications per vacancy. He said nothing about how retailers have stripped out jobs at checkouts. Next made a profit of over £1 billion last year. Does the Minister accept that retailers also have a responsibility to create opportunities for young people?

[Andrew Western]

I do accept that, and the hon. Member will be aware of our work with Charlie Mayfield. He may also be aware that we have recently appointed Marc Bolland, a former chief executive of Marks & Spencer, as the lead non-executive director in the Department. We are incredibly interested in how we can work in partnership with retail to deliver more job opportunities for young people.

[Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I am grateful to Alan Milburn for this sobering report. The proportion of young people aged 16 to 24 in south-east Wales who were NEET in the year ending June 2025 was 13.2%, and as the report indicates, that is only modelled to increase. Does my hon. Friend agree that tackling the increase in NEETs has to be a central mission of this Labour Government?

[Andrew Western]

Absolutely, and that is not just for this Department, but Education, Health and all other Departments.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Among the things that Tony Blair taught us in his essay last week was that apparently AI is where it’s at, and we just have to suck it up and fit in. Given the vast number of graduate and entry level jobs being lost to AI, as Milburn identifies, is it not time for us to demonstrate that we have agency? Technology does not need to be the king; we can be. Is it not time we built our economy and our technologies around our people, rather than building our people—especially our young people—around our technologies, with a lost generation of a million young people as casualties?

[Andrew Western]

The causes of those 1 million young people being NEET are deeper than the advent of jobs being lost to AI. None the less, the hon. Member makes an important point, and that is why the Government are undertaking a review of the impact of AI on the labour market.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Only around 5% of young people with an education, health and care plan end up in permanent employment, so any plan to address this issue needs to be better on that. Supported internships are an incredibly good way of supporting young people with EHC plans and others to find work—we have a great example in Derbyshire—but we need more funding for them. What will the Minister do to boost supported internships and support those young people with EHC plans?

[Andrew Western]

My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. As I have said in a number of answers, we need to work creatively and holistically with colleagues in the Department for Education and elsewhere to make sure we are joined up, so that there is an opportunity for all young people to find employment—whatever their background or their level of need. I look forward to working with him to deliver that.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

The social contract that we all had growing up was, “Work hard and you get ahead.” Now artificial intelligence is ripping that apart, and young people do not understand what their relationship is with the state. How would the Minister describe the new deal with young people?

[Andrew Western]

The current deal that this Government have with young people is that we will give them opportunities after the Conservative party did not. We will make sure they can find education opportunities, employment opportunities or training opportunities. We will not allow a lost generation to continue based on the failings of the Conservative party.

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

Tomorrow I am going to visit my former colleagues at the University of Nottingham to celebrate our first tranche of electromechanical engineering degree-level apprentices as they approach the end of their five-year course. Will the Minister join me in congratulating them and explain what this Government are doing to ensure that people can earn and learn through gold-standard apprenticeships like those being delivered by Dr Liz Bishop and my old team at Nottingham?

[Andrew Western]

I extend my congratulations to those young people. I know that my hon. Friend takes a significant interest in higher education, and I hope he will pass on my congratulations directly. As for what we are doing to ensure that high-quality apprenticeships are available, he will be aware of a significant increase in funding for the growth and skills levy.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I declare an interest as the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for young carers and young adult carers. The APPG published an inquiry earlier this year which found that 40,000 young adult carers are providing more than 50 hours of caring a week. They face significant financial and systemic barriers to going into higher education, training and employment, and almost half have turned down education or training opportunities. They are the best of people; they are balancing education, work and caring. I offer the Minister one suggestion that would help. Will the Government look at changing the eligibility rules for carer’s allowance, so that students studying for more than 21 hours a week are eligible?

[Andrew Western]

The hon. Lady will be aware that carer’s allowance is intended to offset lost income elsewhere, and students do receive finance from various sources, but I have not seen that report, so I would be very grateful if she could send it to me.

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

This is not just about work; this is about what it means to grow up as a young person in this country and meeting the ambitions of young people like those in my community in Croydon East. The Government have already announced a number of measures to support our young people. Can the Minister outline what can be done to bring together the national youth strategy, the Young Futures programme, the youth guarantee, youth hubs, health and education to ensure that our response to this emergency is joined up and across all of Government?

[Andrew Western]

I hope my hon. Friend has recognised a sincere conviction in the narrative around the publication of the report in recent days that this must be a key priority right across Government, working with both public and private sector partners to ensure that it is treated as a whole-system problem, so that we can get to the bottom of it and resolve it, to give opportunities to young people.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

The Minister proudly touts jobs, hiring bonuses, youth guarantees, Government-funded work experience and job placements, but these are all treating the symptoms of the problem. Frankly, it is all a bit old Labour. The problems are structural ones in the economy to do with investment, taxation and regulation. Is there anyone on the Government Benches who understands how an economy works?

[Andrew Western]

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have a debate on why young people not in education, employment or training are struggling as they are, he would do well to look at his party’s legacy in government between 2010 and 2015, because we are seeing the impact of things like cuts to Sure Start and opportunities for young people across the piece. It is a far more complex picture than that which he seeks to articulate, and his party’s fingerprints are all over it.

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

I welcome the report and my hon. Friend’s commitment to cross-departmental working, but I want to raise one area that his Department could put its weight behind. The Health and Social Care Committee has suggested an amendment to the Health Bill that would put the mental health investment standard into statute, so that we could increase investment in our mental health services, bring down the backlog of people waiting for mental health treatment and get more young people in Gloucester into work.

[Andrew Western]

I am very keen to look at all opportunities to bring down mental health lists, and if my hon. Friend wants to share information with me directly, I am happy to look at it further.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Last week I met Sophie and Matt, two young entrepreneurs aged 24 and 19 who have bucked the trend and opened Toploaf Bakery, but they are already terrified about the long-term viability of their business. I hear this time and again from entrepreneurs who say they have nothing left in the tank—pressure put on them by this Government means that they are at risk of closing their business. When are the Government going to start listening to those who actually employ people?

[Andrew Western]

As I said in response to an earlier question, we have the Mayfield review, we have a former chief executive of Marks & Spencer as a lead non-executive director at the Department, and we are talking to business all the time. That is how we have developed some of our initial thinking in this space, it is why we have brought forward the youth guarantee, and it is why we are incentivising businesses to hire young people. We are serious about helping them, and we will continue to do so.

[Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)]

I welcome Alan Milburn’s interim report, which is nothing short of totemic. Given the work that he will now do to develop recommendations, will it be in scope to consider how to support not only those currently impacted, but those most at risk of leaving education, employment or training, as identified according to the risk factors in this helpful interim report?

[Andrew Western]

I hope that Alan Milburn will propose a range of interventions that look not only at how we help people now, but at how we fix this problem for the long term. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: short-term fixes will not work. We have a structural problem that requires a structural solution.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

When 84% of young people are classified as NEET—or as LEET as I prefer to say, because they are all looking for education and training—it is heartbreaking that they feel they are the lost generation. The new Plaid Cymru Welsh Government have committed to aligning education and training with Welsh economic needs, so can the Minister set out how the UK Government will use their powers to address those challenges in Wales?

[Andrew Western]

I am due to meet the new employment spokesperson for the Welsh Government as the devolution lead for the Department, and I will be very interested to hear their ideas. This needs to be a partnership moving forward, and if sensible and credible solutions come forward from that Administration, I will look to work with them to deliver those.

[Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)]

We must not forget that hundreds of thousands of NEET young people are disconnected from traditional employment support, and hidden from the system entirely as a result. With youth workers and trusted adult relationships offering the missing link to help identify and bridge those young people into support, how will we put those relationships at the heart of the systems change that is needed to meet that challenge?

[Andrew Western]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, which has not been made so far today, about young people who slip through the net because they are perhaps living with their parents or not claiming—as he described, they are “hidden” NEETs. We are looking across the piece, and particularly talking with the Department for Education about interventions we can bring forward, and I will update him as soon as I can.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

Every week I meet young people with energy and ambition whose hopes are at risk of being crushed by a lack of opportunity. I also recently met Stuart Forbes, who set up Fairford Heating 42 years ago in my constituency. Stuart told me that this year, for the first time, they will not be taking on an apprentice due to the cost overheads of employment. What are the Government doing to make it easier and cheaper for local family businesses to take on apprentices?

[Andrew Western]

As I have said many times, we are introducing a new financial incentive to support SMEs to hire young people under the age of 25 as apprentices, providing that the earnings are below £50,000.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that what is needed is a complete cultural change in our schools, giving equivalence of practical skills to academic pursuits? We have masses of rebuilding in our country after the wreckage of 14 years, including in Suffolk, yet we have no welders. Let’s fix this.

[Andrew Western]

I agree with my hon. Friend. He is correct to say that we must make it easier for people to unlock technical as well as other forms of education, in support of the Prime Minister’s target of getting two thirds of young people into either an apprenticeship or higher education.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

We say we are going to listen to young people, but one young person recently said that they should be labelled as LEETs, not NEETs, because they are looking for education, employment and training. Positive framing is essential, especially as AI reshapes the labour market and we have the boss of Standard Chartered calling them “lower value human capital”. Does the Minister agree that we must rethink pathways into work, invest in new models of education, and provide a stronger safety net so that technological changes create opportunities, not exclusion?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Western]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and that is what we are seeking to do, not least with the youth guarantee.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

In Medway we have identified 240 NEETs as part of our local authority review. They have suggested that part of the solution is increasing the capacity of further education colleges so that people can be streamlined from school straight into college, as opposed to having to wait. Does the Minister agree that more investment in further education is a solution to this problem?

[Andrew Western]

That is one of a range of potential solutions, and I agree that it is an important one.

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

Milburn highlights the need for the cross-departmental working that the Minister has highlighted, but I wonder what structures are in place for that. We have already seen missed opportunities, for example through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, to put more local powers in place. This must be a focus of every Department of Government, so what is the structure to deal with that?

[Andrew Western]

I hope the hon. Gentleman appreciates that Milburn reported on Thursday, and recommendations from that report will not come for several months, but this is an important point and we will need a structure in place. I am committed to ensuring that this is a whole-of-Government intervention, but for the moment it is important to take time to get that right.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

Dudley has one of the highest levels of NEETs in the country, and the highest levels of deprivation. After my NEETs roundtable in February, stakeholders wanted better data, joined-up services with the Departments for Work and Pensions, of Health and Social Care, and for Education, and better SEND provision locally. What guarantees will my hon. Friend provide to ensure that places such as Dudley are prioritised, and the root causes of inequality are tackled holistically?

[Andrew Western]

I can assure my hon. Friend that we are absolutely committed to delivering that holistic intervention and ensuring that all areas of the country see progress in this space. As colleagues would expect, we will particularly target those areas where this issue is the greatest problem, and if that includes her constituency, she will see some action.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The concept of paying our dues, working long hours and bad shifts, and working our way up are principles that founded the British work ethic, but they now appear something to be embarrassed about. What steps can the Minister take with education Ministers and the voluntary sector to train our children from a young age that working hard at any level is something to be proud of, and that not working if they are able to is not a choice that anyone should profit from?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Western]

I am reluctant to respond in the strongest terms possible because it is the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) who has made the point, and I hold him in the highest regard. The Milburn review says loud and clear that this is not about a fecklessness in young people, and neither are they proud of not being in education, employment or training. Young people want those opportunities, and it is a failure of the state and the system. Whole-system reform is needed, and we are determined to bring it forward.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

The Milburn report identifies a state failure to provide timely and appropriate mental health support—and this is just about child and adolescent mental health services, up to adult services. Most tellingly, it states that there are no waiting time targets for mental health services. Will the Minister have a conversation with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to supplement the jobs guarantee with a mental health support guarantee, and ensure that young people are not waiting more than 18 months for mental health support?

[Andrew Western]

I will raise that with the Department of Health and Social Care and come back to my hon. Friend.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

We have excellent alternative learning providers in Bristol, from the Enemy of Boredom Academy, which is about developing video games, to the Wheels Project, which is about stripping down cars and rebuilding them. They are a lifeline for young people who are struggling with mainstream education. As part of the Milburn review, will the Government look at supporting ALPs so that young people can be set back on the right path towards a job in the future?

[Andrew Western]

We are still waiting for the recommendations, but I will feed in my hon. Friend’s suggestion because I think it is a good one.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

One legacy of the previous Government was that it is easier to keep disabled people on an education, health and care plan until they are 25 because there is no adequate support to get them into work. Equally, other young disabled people became NEETs, because there is no adequate support to get them into work. Does my hon. Friend agree that any reforms need a cross-departmental approach to support disabled young people into work and ensure lifelong work opportunities for them?

[Andrew Western]

I agree with my hon. Friend: sometimes this can feel like a vicious circle for young people with disabilities, and we must ensure that we get this right.

[Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

My generation and the generation after me have been systematically failed. The scale of the NEETs crisis is not because of young people but, as the Minister said, due to a widespread problem across education, health and the welfare system. May I take this opportunity to welcome the report, praise the work of the excellent jobcentre staff in Castlemilk in my constituency, and invite the Minister to come to a jobs fair for young people that we are hosting later this year?

[Andrew Western]

I join my hon. Friend in his praise for local jobcentre staff. He knows that I would never refuse him, and I look forward to that visit.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I was disappointed earlier to hear the condition of anxiety being downplayed, and we must accept that it can be absolutely debilitating. To solve the problems presented in the Milburn report, we will have to break down silos within Government, and work with the devolved Governments. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline his approach to doing that. Also, there is a tendency—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think the Minister has the question to answer.

[Andrew Western]

As I said in response to an earlier question about conversations with the Welsh Government, I am due to meet my Scottish counterpart next week. Such conversations take place regularly and routinely, and we will ensure that there is a joined-up approach so that everybody across these isles can benefit from the changes.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

I recently visited the jobcentre in Bournemouth town centre with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, and we saw the great work it is doing to build skills and confidence in young people through work experience with organisations such as the National Trust. I am delighted that we are also getting a youth hub, but will the Minister please tell us how young people in my constituency will benefit from that?

[Andrew Western]

Youth hubs are an incredible way for specialists to reach out and work with young people through a range of different interventions. They provide a single space from which we can drill down and target the needs of individual young people, in individual communities, such as those in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment enjoyed her visit, because she told me so.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

In my constituency, major Government-funded infrastructure projects are providing strong opportunities for young people, including skills training, permanent jobs and careers. Does the Minister agree that as we renew our homes, bridges, crossings, railways and infrastructure, we have to maximise the opportunities for young people?

[Andrew Western]

I absolutely agree. That is significant Government investment that presents a significant opportunity to do just as my hon. Friend suggests.

[Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)]

The report identifies the importance of the home learning environment, a dry term that recognises that children do not grow up in isolation but are in rich relationships, and that parental skills, parental relationships and secure attachment all matter. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on family hubs, I am pleased that the Minister has mentioned the Government’s investment in family hubs. With the new guidance, they are set to be a rich network of partnerships to support families. Does he agree that that should be cause for us to double down on our plans to roll them out quickly and successfully?

[Andrew Western]

I agree, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that the Department for Education lead on family hubs.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

The majority of young people not in employment, education or training in West Dunbartonshire want a job or training, but they are not getting the support they need. Does the Minister agree that one way to tackle the challenge of youth employment is through our youth hubs, such as the one in West Dunbartonshire that is opening this month, which is one of 10 across Scotland? Will he come and visit the youth hub in West Dunbartonshire?

[Andrew Western]

It sounds like I will be having a day out in Scotland, so yes, I will take that in at the same.

Work and Pensions

Andrew Western Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Written Corrections

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for this and previous answers on the CMS. I hear the Government saying “when time allows”, but this really is important for the families who have suffered for too many years. My constituent, for example, has successfully appealed at tribunal, with both the judge and the Child Maintenance Service agreeing that the parent’s declared income did not reflect their true earnings, and arrears were awarded. Yet after receiving a substantial redundancy payment and despite holding significant assets, including property and substantial pension investments, no maintenance is being paid, and enforcement has not taken place. Does the Minister accept that this exposes a gap in how redundancy payments are treated by the CMS and the wider enforcement framework, and will he urgently review both to ensure that children are not left without support and no longer suffer?

[Andrew Western]

Part of the challenge here is that the legislation currently requires us to use earnings information and figures provided by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and, because redundancy payments of up to £80,000 are exempted from tax, they do not show up in that way…

[Official Report, 27 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 562.]

Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western):

[Andrew Western]

Part of the challenge here is that the legislation currently requires us to use earnings information and figures provided by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and, because redundancy payments of up to £30,000 are exempted from tax, they do not show up in that way…

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

Andrew Western Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2026 Written Statements

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

I would like to advise the House that today the Government are publishing the response to the public consultation on the codes of practice associated with the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025. The response explains how the public’s views were considered and, where appropriate, reflected through changes to the codes. Alongside this response, the following codes have been published:

Eligibility Verification Notices

DWP Direct Deduction and Disqualification from Driving Orders

DWP Obtaining Information to Support Fraud Investigations in the Welfare System

These codes have been developed as essential safeguards to support the effective and proportionate application of the newly enacted PAFER legislation. I am grateful to all those who took the time to contribute their views on these documents. The feedback provided was detailed, considered and constructive and the codes have been strengthened as a result of this engagement.

The powers in the Act and the publication of these codes affirm our commitment to root out fraud and waste in public services and safeguard taxpayers’ money. These codes will guide the operation and governance of the new powers by setting out, in more detail, how DWP will apply these new powers to improve its ability to identify, prevent and deter social security fraud and error, and will support more effective recovery of debt.

Today’s action takes us one step closer in delivering the estimated benefits of £2.1 billion over the next five years, as scored by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. I have every confidence that each code of practice provides a solid and effective foundation to ensure the safe and proportionate use of DWP’s new powers.

[HCWS1553]

Benefit System: Fraud, Error and Debt Statistics 2025-26

Andrew Western Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2026 Written Statements

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

The annual statistics for fraud and error in the benefit system for the financial year ending 2026, were published on Thursday 14 May 2026, at 9.30 am.

Universal credit overpayments have now dropped to the lowest level since the pandemic, at 8.5%. This is below both pre-pandemic levels and the OBR forecast of 9.1% for this year. It is also a significant drop of 42% from the record level of 14.7% in financial year 2022, showing the Government are committed to driving down fraud and error.

Today’s figures confirm continued progress to drive down fraud and error, with the overall rate of overpayments at 3.2%, or £9.9 billion,, for 2025-26, compared with 3.3%, or £9.4 billion, in 2024-25. This shows we are on track to meet the OBR forecast of 2.8% in 2028-29, which would be the lowest rate since tax credits were first introduced in 2003.

Overpayments due to fraud stand at 2.2%, claimant error at 0.6% and official error at 0.4%. The total rate of benefit expenditure underpaid in financial year 2026 stands at 0.4%.

This Government made a manifesto commitment that it will safeguard taxpayers’ money and not tolerate fraud or waste anywhere in public services. With welfare benefits paid to 24.3 million people, the welfare system is a deliberate target for both organised crime groups and opportunistic individuals. That is why we continue to take robust action and to strengthen our ability to drive out fraud and error, wherever it occurs. From investigating and prosecuting fraudsters where appropriate to supporting customers to make sure their claims are correct. This will ensure that support goes to those who need it most, and that the right people are paid the right amount, at the right time.

Through recent Budgets, this Government have committed to deliver savings of £14.6 billion up to the end of 2030-31. This will be delivered through a suite of measures, including periodic redeclaration reminding universal credit claimants of the requirement to confirm any change in circumstances, continuing to check accuracy of UC claims at risk of being incorrect through targeted case reviews and, building on the success of TCR, reviewing pension credit claims that are at risk of being incorrect through pension credit case review.

As part of this wider action, the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act received Royal Assent on 2 December 2025 and is estimated to deliver benefits of £2.1 billion by 2030-31. Powers contained within the Act will help address overpayments in the social security system, be tough on criminals, fair for claimants and will safeguard public money by reducing public sector fraud and error. Measures also allow the more effective recovery of moneys owed to Government and help spot and stop errors by requiring banks and other financial institutions to share data with DWP. This will help identify any potential overpayments earlier and avoid claimants getting into debt.

Today we have also published our unfulfilled eligibility statistics following reclassification in 2024 from customer error underpayments. Unfulfilled eligibility measures how much a customer could have been eligible for had they told us their correct circumstances. The total unfulfilled eligibility rate in financial year 2026 was 1.2%, or £3.7 billion, compared with 1.3%, or £3.7 billion, in financial year 2025.

The Department will report more on both overpayments and underpayments in its annual report and accounts, which are due to be published in July 2026.

[HCWS1572]

Pension Schemes Bill

Andrew Western Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88, insists on its amendments 88A, 88C and 88E to 88P to the words restored to the Bill by that disagreement, but proposes further amendments (a) to (f) to the words so restored to the Bill.

I thank the rather shrinking number of peers and hon. Members who have been engaged in the scrutiny of the Bill. It has clearly come a long way since I closed the Second Reading debate. I am glad, in particular, to see that some progress has been made in recent days with the other place’s agreement to this House’s amendments on the approach to defined contribution schemes achieving scale and on the transparency of public sector pension liabilities. That leaves one issue remaining: the Lords amendments on asset allocation. This House has already considered that question twice, and on both occasions it has rejected the Lords’ position by majorities of over 100. At each stage the Government have reiterated the need for the core policy intent to be delivered, while responding with changes to primary legislation that directly address specific issues raised.

I hope the House will bear with me while I explain what we are now proposing, and why I believe it is time for these exchanges to conclude. Let me deal first with the amendments to which we have previously agreed. The reserve power is capped at the Mansion House accord targets: no more than 10% in qualifying assets, and no more than 5% in UK-specific assets. It explicitly applies only to main default funds. Regulations cannot concentrate the requirement in any single asset class. The power can be used only once, and, if unused, lapses entirely in 2032.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

According to the Order Paper,

“The Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru have approved Legislative Consent Resolutions”.

Some of my colleagues in the Assembly back home have expressed some of the concerns that the Lords have expressed. I am conscious of where we are going and where we will end up. Can the Minister please give me some indication of the content of the discussions that took place with the Northern Ireland Assembly? Members of the Legislative Assembly tell me they expressed concern. I am trying to understand how a consent motion could be conveyed and agreed.

[Andrew Western]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that conversations are always ongoing to ensure that any legislation that comes from this place can be adopted by all the nations of this great country. I hope that some of the concerns that have continued to be raised by his colleagues, and by peers in the Lords as well, will be addressed by some of the detail that I am about to set out.

As I have said, that power can be used only once, and, if unused, lapses entirely in 2032. Even if it is used, however, the entire asset allocation regime falls out of effect and the statute book at the end of 2035. These provisions rule out any of the more lurid uses we have heard it claimed that the power would be used for, restricting it narrowly to underpinning the Mansion House accord.

As well as insisting on that package, the Government are today introducing further amendments to the savers’ interest test in the proposed new section 28G of the Bill. I remind the House that the reserve power exists because providers have said that they struggle to do something that is in savers’ interests, namely invest in a wider range of assets. However, the savers’ interest test exists for circumstances in which schemes can show that even investing as little as 10% in private assets—far below the levels that we see internationally, or in open defined benefit schemes here in the UK—might not be in their particular savers’ interest. In those circumstances, it allows them a route to seek an exemption from any requirements imposed by the reserve power. Arguments have been made, here and in the other place, about whether the test as drafted included sufficiently clear and strong protections. The Government have reflected on those arguments, and the further amendments before the House today respond to them. There are four changes.

First, we are lowering the threshold for an exemption. The Bill as drafted would have allowed regulations to require a scheme to show that compliance “would cause” material financial detriment. We are changing that to

“would be likely to cause”.

A scheme will need to show that detriment is the probable consequence, not a certain one.

Secondly, the Bill now makes it explicit that when a scheme meets the threshold, the regulator must grant the exemption. That has always been the Government’s intention, and the amendment ensures that there is no room for doubt.

Thirdly—here I want to respond directly to arguments raised by noble Lords about the weight that should be given to the judgment of trustees and scheme managers—we are proposing a change to put their assessment of savers’ interests centre stage. The new text makes clear that the responsible regulator must not only receive the scheme’s own assessment of why compliance would be likely to cause material financial detriment, but be required to have due regard to it. Schemes must set out their reasoning, and the regulator must engage with it properly and thoroughly. “Due regard” is established statutory language with legal weight: it means that the regulator cannot simply pay little or no attention to the scheme’s analysis.

Fourthly, the regulator must give reasons when it refuses an application. That matters because schemes have a right of appeal to the upper tribunal, a right that is strengthened if applicants know why they were turned down.

Let me draw this together. The savers’ interest test now provides a lower threshold, an explicit guarantee that exemptions will be granted when the test is met, a requirement for the regulator to give proper weight to the scheme’s own analysis, and transparency and accountability if an application should fail. Taken alongside the constraints on the power itself—the percentage caps, the single-use restriction, the 2032 sunset and the 2035 full repeal—this is a framework of strong and explicit protections.

There are those, here and in the other place, who would prefer the reserve power not to exist at all. As Members of this House know, we respect that position, but it is not a position that we share and it is not the position of the Government. There is a well-evidenced collective action problem in the defined contribution market, and the consequences of leaving it unresolved would fall on pension savers. That is not a risk that the Government are prepared to take.

This House has made its view clear on two occasions, and the Government have responded by baking in a raft of additional safeguards to primary legislation. This is now a third round of material changes, which I suspect this House may again endorse with a decisive majority. At some point, the question before the House is no longer the detail of the amendments, but whether the other place should continue to reject the clearly expressed view of the elected House and delay the passage of a Bill that delivers for savers in a whole host of ways. I urge the House to send these amendments back to the other place, and to bring these exchanges to a close.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

Last week, I described mandation as a Trojan horse that had been sneaked into this Bill. Ministers have been sawing three legs off that Trojan horse, but it is still attempting to hop over the finish line at this late stage, and it still has something within it that is not welcomed by our pension industry. The pension industry has grave concerns about mandation, and that is why we Liberal Democrats will vote against these Government proposals.

[Andrew Western]

I recognise, as the shadow Secretary of State set out, that there has been a great deal of consensus on many aspects of the Bill, and that we are wrangling merely over this one remaining issue. The Opposition argue that this power is wrong in principle, but we fundamentally disagree. We have had this debate on a number of occasions, including on Second Reading. I set out in my opening speech why this continues to be the Government’s position, and we have heard the arguments against.

I gently point out that the shadow Secretary of State’s letter to industry last week conceded that in the absence of this sort of power, funds are understandably cautious about being first movers, and that is a legitimate concern. That is the collective action problem that we have. The Mansion House compact has been running since 2023, but progress has been modest. The industry has identified competitive pressure to keep costs low as the single biggest barrier to delivering on its own commitments. In other words, providers want to diversify in their members’ interests, but they risk being undercut on cost by competitors that do not. The reserve power gives the market confidence to move together.

We have also heard that the power undermines fiduciary duty—it does not. Trustees’ duties of loyalty and prudence, and to act in members’ best interests, remain.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

With the greatest respect, the Minister is talking nonsense. At the end of the day, every trustee has a fiduciary duty to get the best return for their members. By putting in these mandation powers, the Government are fundamentally going against the most basic principle of the City of London, which is dictum meum pactum—my word is my bond. The Government entered into a pact with the industry, and they are now reneging on that pact by introducing mandation and not allowing the industry to move things forward. The Government are so wrong on this whole point. The Minister should withdraw the mandation powers and get rid of clause 40.

[Andrew Western]

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but that is not going to happen. We have to deal with the collective action problem that we are facing, to ensure that providers can move forward with the commitments that they have made. The power gives them assurance, but we hope that we will never need to use the power. The fact of the matter is that the industry requires that certainty; without it, it will not be able to move forward, given the collective action problem that exists. That point has been accepted by the shadow Secretary of State.

[Helen Whately]

The hon. Gentleman is quoting selectively from a letter that I have written to the industry. We had this exact debate with the Pensions Minister last week. There is an acknowledged and debated collective action problem; on that, there is a level of consensus, but there is no consensus that mandation is the right answer. In fact, there is a consensus in the sector that mandation is the wrong answer. This Bill contains measures that will make a difference, and will go towards fixing this collective action problem, such as the value for money framework. The Mansion House accord was only signed last year, and the Government should give it time to work. We do not need mandation in this Bill.

[Andrew Western]

On the consensus in the industry, I say to the hon. Lady that it wants this Bill done and taken through this House. Tonight’s amendments make the savers’ interest test easier to pass, create a lower threshold for an exemption, and give certainty that the exemption will be granted where the threshold is met, with due regard being paid to the scheme’s assessment. Reasons for any refusal will be set out.

The House has now considered this Bill three times. On each occasion, it has endorsed the Government’s position. We have listened to the concerns raised in the other place, and we have responded with numerous material changes to the primary legislation across three rounds. The power is capped, neutral across asset classes, restricted to a single use, completely sunsetted in 2035 and subject to a savers’ interest test that tonight’s amendments have materially strengthened.

The TUC has said that it is “vital” that this Bill passes. Age UK has said that the measures in this Bill

“will help both today’s and tomorrow’s pensioners”.

The industry wants to get on with implementing these reforms. The Association of British Insurers and its members have said the same. They have welcomed the safeguards that the Government have put in place on the reserve power. It is time to get this Bill passed, and I commend the Government’s position to the House.

Question put.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Western Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

2. What steps he is taking to improve his Department’s response times.

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

Our annual report and accounts 2024-25 states that, in that year, we answered some 43 million calls—up from 37 million in the previous year. Our call-answering rate increased to 86%, and the average answering time improved by one minute and 12 seconds. However, we do of course want to make further improvements where we can. We have continued to prioritise the service by focusing extra resources, and are currently making a systematic effort to clear agent work queues to free up capacity. We hope to see that progress lead to further improvements very soon.

[Vikki Slade]

I am glad that the call answering has speeded up, but, like those of many other Members, my office is constantly dealing with very long delays on the part of the DWP. Back in September 2024, my constituent Jackie appealed against a personal independence payment assessment for her husband, who died a couple of months later. In January, she received a letter saying that she had been overpaid by £7,000. I became involved in the middle of last year, when it was established that the figure was £75. The DWP confirmed that in January, but in April—so we are now nearly two years on—my constituent received a letter saying that she now owed £4,086. Given the radical plans to cut civil service numbers, what steps will the Secretary of State and his team take to deliver a better service in order to ensure that constituents such as Jackie do not suffer emotional or financial distress?

[Andrew Western]

I would be happy to look into that case if the hon. Lady writes to me. I am sorry if she feels that her constituent has been let down. We are taking additional steps—beyond those relating to call handling—to look at responsiveness more broadly. I apologise: it was not clear from the wording of her original question that she was referring to correspondence as well as telephony.

[James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)]

4. What steps he is taking to help increase the number of apprenticeships available to young people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

5. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Child Maintenance Service in resolving cases in a timely manner.

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

The CMS publishes several metrics regarding how quickly it responds to parents. In the quarter ending September 2025, on average, 96% of applications were cleared within 12 weeks and 83% of changes of circumstances were cleared within 28 days. Those are targets for the CMS set by the Department.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I have constituents with court orders confirming genuinely shared care who are none the less required to pay full child maintenance for extended periods while disputes are resolved and/or system processes are completed. How does the Department ensure that evidence of shared care is applied consistently, fairly and speedily by the CMS? What support is available to constituents who face continued financial liability and hardship while they wait for delays in CMS decisions or tribunal outcomes to be resolved?

[Andrew Western]

Shared care can be incredibly contested, and questions about the suitability of evidence and which evidence takes precedent are often disputed. The hon. Member suggests that he has particular cases that he would like the Department to take a look into. If he writes to me with them, the responsible Minister, my noble Friend Baroness Sherlock, or I will provide a response.

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

The Government’s planned major changes to CMS payments are welcome, but my casework inbox is inundated—absolutely chock-a-block—with complaints about the CMS’s poor customer service, which is damaging the lives of dozens of my constituents in the process. What steps can my hon. Friend take to rapidly improve the effectiveness of the CMS?

[Andrew Western]

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that there is a significant improvement journey under way in the Child Maintenance Service. I am always keen to point out to Members that while we see a large number of CMS cases in our caseload due to the more adversarial nature of the cases it deals with, it is a fraction of the overall number of cases that the Department deals with. We continue to ensure prompt payments to more than a million children.

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

My office deals with hundreds of Child Maintenance Service cases. In one case, a mum applied to the CMS in June last year and was initially awarded just over £100. She applied for a mandatory reconsideration and the figure was increased. However, the increased payments have still not been made, and she is experiencing significant financial hardship and stress as a result. Has the Minister considered how failings in the service facilitate post-separation abuse?

[Andrew Western]

My noble Friend Baroness Sherlock takes a very keen interest in this issue, in particular how we can look at the abolition of direct pay to subvert some of the instances of financial abuse and coercive control that we continue to see. If the hon. Lady would like to write to me about her specific case, I will ensure she receives a response.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

My constituent Rebecca and her now 13-year-old have not received child maintenance for over a decade. Arrears exceed £10,000, but because her son’s father has moved in and out of employment he has evaded enforcement, even where deduction from earnings orders have been made. I welcome that child maintenance systems are being reformed, but will the Minister tell us what action will be taken so that Rebecca and parents in similar situations across the country get the support they are entitled to?

[Andrew Western]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I know that she has been representing Rebecca for some time in seeking a resolution to that case. We seek to introduce a range of changes when parliamentary time allows, but clearly there is further work to do to ensure that enforcement processes are also strengthened. Baroness Sherlock would be happy to discuss that with my hon. Friend if she feels that would be appropriate, and I would be happy to facilitate such a meeting.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

The Child Maintenance Service is not working for parents and it is not working for children. My own casework shows that the majority of those getting in touch about the CMS believe it to be ineffective, with systemic issues in communication, timeliness and case handling. My constituents are not alone. The independent case examiner received 1,827 complaints about the CMS in 2024-25, up from 1,519 in 2023-24. In November 2024, the charity Gingerbread published a report, “Fix the CMS”. In October 2025, a House of Lords Public Services Committee report recommended a range of changes to do the same. The Government have responded to both, but when will the Government enact the changes to bring forward the recommended and acknowledged improvements to the service?

[Andrew Western]

As I said in a previous response, we will do so when parliamentary time allows. My noble Friend Baroness Sherlock is also considering a calculation review. There is a range of issues with the CMS that need to be looked at and resolved to ensure that the children in the middle of this get the support to which they are entitled.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

6. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the proportion of disability living allowance for children applications that have been approved by his Department within its target timeframes in the last two years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

7. Whether he plans to introduce curfew orders for parents who are non-compliant with child maintenance payments.

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

The Government are committed to reforming the Child Maintenance Service to get more money to children by removing direct pay to combat hidden non-compliance, streamlining enforcement by introducing administrative liability orders and improving our most serious enforcement measures. That said, there are currently no plans to introduce curfew measures; doing so would require amendments to primary legislation and raise significant safeguarding concerns for paying parents and those who live with them.

[Dr Mullan]

Every year, millions of pounds of child maintenance go unspent, not including deductions for money hidden away and parents who pretend they cannot work. As far as I am concerned, if someone has children and they can pay towards their maintenance, they absolutely should. Enforcement is not working, because the Government treat it like an unpaid utility bill rather than a moral obligation that people have towards their children. I would like the Minister to revisit his suggestion that the Government would need primary legislation to use curfew orders, as that is not my understanding. If all the other measures are not working, why should someone who does not pay for their own children be able to go out on the lash on a Friday and Saturday night when the Government can stop that happening?

[Mr Speaker]

What’s the lash, Minister?

[Andrew Western]

I will handle that question with care, Mr Speaker. [Laughter.] I know that the hon. Gentleman has been consistent on this matter for a very long time. A range of serious enforcement powers are already available to the Department, including disqualification from driving, removal of a passport, taking control of people’s goods and even, in some cases, commitment to prison, but very serious safeguarding concerns can arise as a result of the use of curfew orders; in one very tragic case recently, an individual subject to a curfew order murdered members of his family. On the hon. Gentleman’s specific question as to whether use of the orders requires primary legislation, I will follow up in writing to confirm that or otherwise.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

8. If his Department will review the adequacy of the treatment of redundancy payments by the Child Maintenance Service.

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

Redundancy payments are not taken into account in the standard maintenance calculation, which is based on gross taxable income from earnings, although the capital may be considered through an asset variation if the paying parent holds the income in a bank or savings account and the amount is at least £31,250. The Child Maintenance Service may also take the redundancy payment into account when considering any maintenance arrears.

[Zöe Franklin]

I thank the Minister for this and previous answers on the CMS. I hear the Government saying “when time allows”, but this really is important for the families who have suffered for too many years. My constituent, for example, has successfully appealed at tribunal, with both the judge and the Child Maintenance Service agreeing that the parent’s declared income did not reflect their true earnings, and arrears were awarded. Yet after receiving a substantial redundancy payment and despite holding significant assets, including property and substantial pension investments, no maintenance is being paid, and enforcement has not taken place. Does the Minister accept that this exposes a gap in how redundancy payments are treated by the CMS and the wider enforcement framework, and will he urgently review both to ensure that children are not left without support and no longer suffer?

[Andrew Western]

Part of the challenge here is that the legislation currently requires us to use earnings information and figures provided by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and, because redundancy payments of up to £80,000 are exempted from tax, they do not show up in that way. However, I hear what the hon. Lady is saying and the wider mood of the House with regard to the Child Maintenance Service, and I will share the concerns that she raises with my noble Friend Baroness Sherlock.

[Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)]

9. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of rates of statutory sick pay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Restore Britain)]

T6. A staggering £10.1 billion of the £61.2 billion spent on universal credit in 2024 was gifted to foreign nationals. Does the Minister agree that the solution is really quite straightforward? We should ban all foreigners from claiming any benefits, remove from our country those migrants incapable of financially supporting themselves and hand that money back to the tax-paying British men and women who are actually keeping our economy running?

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

I fundamentally disagree with the perspective of the hon. Gentleman on people who have been here for years, made a contribution and paid their taxes, and then require some help back from a state that they have paid into, sometimes for decades. Not only that, the figure that he uses is a complete conflation and a significant overestimation. He shows his ignorance if he does not understand that it is impossible to suggest that that money has all been paid directly to foreign nationals because the figure that he uses is drawn from the total number of households with a foreign national in them, and many of the individual claimants could in fact be British or Irish citizens.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

The Timms review is supposed to be shaped by disabled people and disabled groups, but I am hearing constantly that this is not the case, and that they are feeling sidelined. Can the Minister explain how we will ensure that there is true co-production, and that this is not just a tick-box exercise, and how the regions and diverse groups will be represented?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I am dealing with a constituency case in which an individual has paid £23,000 during a dispute about being the parent of a child. He was not on the birth certificate, and the mother refused a DNA test. After three hearings in the family court, the court has ruled in his favour. I am sure the House will appreciate that £23,000 is an incredible amount of money for someone to pay for a child who is not theirs. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how my constituent can have it reimbursed?

[Andrew Western]

Yes, I will.

[Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)]

BriggsAmasco in my constituency invests heavily in apprenticeships for the next generation of mastic asphalt tradespeople. According to BriggsAmasco, only 11 people in that part of Scotland are fully qualified in this work, and the only route to qualifying is through training programmes in England. The only training provider in Scotland stopped accepting apprentices last September. Will the Minister meet me to see if we can find a way to back employers that want to employ, and apprentices who want to train? There is a shortage of workers in that profession.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

Twelve weeks ago, I raised four cases with the DWP, and I am still waiting for a response, despite chasing. These delays are upsetting for my Wokingham constituents. What is the Minister doing to address this backlog, and when can my constituents expect a response?

[Andrew Western]

We are increasing the resources available to handle Members’ correspondence, but given the delays that the hon. Gentleman has outlined, if he wants to write to me with those details, I will look into them urgently for him.

[Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)]

Around half of working-age people are under-saving for retirement, which is why I welcomed the relaunch of the Pensions Commission last year. Can the Minister update the House on how the commission’s forthcoming interim report will set out a credible path to raising contribution rates, in a sustainable way, for those who need that most?

Draft National Employment Savings Trust (Amendment) Order 2026

Andrew Western Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft National Employment Savings Trust (Amendment) Order 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. The draft order was laid before the House on 26 February 2026. Automatic enrolment is a major policy success that has substantially increased workplace pension participation. The National Employment Savings Trust has been central to that progress and remains critical to the system’s continued effectiveness. NEST now supports nearly 14 million members, around one third of the working-age population, providing a low-cost, accessible pension scheme for employers and workers across the UK.

Subject to Parliament’s approval, the draft order amends the National Employment Savings Trust Order 2010, which sets out the legislative framework for NEST’s operation. The amendment will allow NEST to expand its retirement options to include flexi-access drawdown. FAD is a retirement income option that allows individuals with a defined contribution pension to withdraw any amount from their pension pot, while keeping the remaining funds invested.

The draft order also enables NEST to offer a scheme pension paid directly by the scheme administrator, or through an appointed insurer, and it gives the trustee authority on a member’s death to provide a dependant’s scheme pension or drawdown pension to eligible individuals, including dependants, nominees and successors.

Together, these measures give NEST the flexibility to offer a full range of retirement and post-death benefits consistent with other major pension schemes and wider industry practice. The Pension Schemes Bill includes guided retirement measures that will require pension schemes to design and make available default pension plans with a sustainable income for the majority of savers. The reforms made through this amendment will ensure that NEST can deliver on those expectations and provide its members with a level of choice, flexibility and support comparable to those of other large-scale providers.

NEST members currently have three main options at retirement: they can buy an annuity; take an uncrystallised funds pension lump sum; or take their pot as cash or transfer to another provider. Since NEST was created, we recognise that pension freedoms have transformed the market. Savers elsewhere can access a far wider and more flexible range of retirement choices—flexibilities that the 2010 Order prevents NEST from offering. As a result, 14 million NEST members are left with fewer in-scheme options than those in comparable pension arrangements elsewhere, which cannot be right or fair.

In the 2023 consultation, “Helping savers understand their pensions choices”, most of the 46 industry and member groups that responded supported allowing NEST to provide default pension options. They recognised NEST’s scale and unique role, and they agreed that its members should receive fair and equivalent treatment, while also being clear that NEST should not gain any commercial advantage. Since the consultation, the Department for Work and Pensions has worked closely with NEST and the wider pensions industry to uphold the principle of fairness.

That work culminates in the amendment before us today, which will allow NEST’s 14 million members to benefit from modern, flexible retirement choices, without distorting competition across the market. Without this change, NEST—as the largest master trust in the country—would be unable to offer flexi-access drawdown or fully meet the expectations of guided retirement, including providing the vast majority of its members with a simple, dependable default income in later life. That would fall hardest on NEST members, many of whom are lower-paid workers, and therefore most in need of secure and straightforward retirement income options.

I am sure all Committee members would agree that we cannot allow that group of savers to miss out on a safe, dependable default pension income, particularly at a time when rising cost of living pressures make a reliable and predictable retirement income more important than ever. I commend the draft order to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Western]

I welcome the broad support from both colleagues who have spoken. I was surprised that the hon. Member for St Albans resisted the temptation to point out that describing the coalition Government as the Cameron Government when things are positive is a particularly interesting tack; I credit Steve Webb for a lot of the positive work on auto-enrolment and broader pension changes.

On the FAD changes, I welcome the Opposition spokesperson’s support. This is an important set of changes, and I am delighted that he is supporting them—not least because his Government consulted on the issue back in ’22-23. Given the broad support, I think we can all agree that this is an overdue change. It is one that I welcome.

On the question of the use of secondary regulations and the concern that the industry has in that regard, I will take that on the chin: the industry is making a fair criticism and we will engage with it on that. On the particulars of this change, as a result of the consultation we know that the industry is broadly content with what is proposed here; I hope that that is part of the reason why the Opposition has determined not to oppose these changes.

On the question of revisiting previous amendments, including the Liberal Democrat one, we will not be looking to reverse previous decisions that the Government have made—the shadow Minister is clearly doing his job in asking us to do so—and that includes decisions on mandation changes.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

If we are going to offer flexi-access drawdown, does the Minister agree that it would be better if members of defined contribution schemes had greater awareness of what their pension schemes were invested in? The latest research suggests that more than 50% of people in DC schemes do not know what they are invested in. To make informed decisions, does it not behove all pension fund holders to make themselves aware of what they are invested in?

[Andrew Western]

I suggest that it is always good practice for an individual to look at how their pensions and other investments are invested. I am more than happy to ask the pensions Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), to come back to the hon. Gentleman on the specifics of whether we are looking at any work in this space to enable people to have greater access to that information. It is best if I take that question away and come back.

It is also best if I come back to the hon. Member for St Albans on her question about behavioural change. As the hon. Member said, 77% is a significant number when we are talking about 14 million members. Guided retirement sets out the principles and framework for how schemes should support the vast majority of members with the big decisions as they move into saving for retirement. We will clearly need to do a range of work to ensure that proper support is available in the necessary amount, but I will ensure that she receives an update on the specific activities that the Department is undertaking to move us forward in that regard. It is a reasonable question, and I will ensure that she gets a detailed response.

The amendment itself simply enables NEST to provide for the accumulation options required to deliver on the broad principles of the changes that we are seeking to make. Given the overall support for the measures, I commend the instrument to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Buckinghamshire Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026 Draft Surrey County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026 Draft Warwickshire County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026

Andrew Western Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Buckinghamshire Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Surrey County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026 and the draft Warwickshire County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026.

[Andrew Western]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I am very grateful for the opportunity to debate these three statutory instruments, which were laid before the House on 25 February 2026 under the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016. If they are approved, the Department for Works and Pensions will transfer adult education functions and the associated adult skills fund to these local areas for the start of the new academic year, 1 August 2026. These local areas will then have the freedom to use their adult skills fund to help their residents meet their skills needs, fulfil their potential and contribute to the growth of their region.

Since 2018, a portion of the adult skills fund has been devolved to local bodies who have exercised control over the spending in their area. For the most part, those organisations have been combined authorities, although functions and funding were devolved to Cornwall council a year ago.

The previous Government agreed devolution deals with the three local authorities we are considering today in March 2024. Those deals, taken forward by this Government, committed to full devolution of the adult education budget, now called the adult skills fund. That was to be exercised from academic year 2026-27, subject to readiness conditions and parliamentary approval. It has been judged that all three authorities have demonstrated readiness to acquire functions, and therefore these instruments are the final step in ensuring that they are able to deliver from August this year.

The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill will confer the same functions on strategic authorities to be exercised from at least one full academic year after the authority’s establishment. The package of these instruments and that Bill will increase the percentage of the adult skills fund that is devolved from 67% to 76%.

Six further areas agreed devolution deals through this Government’s devolution priority programme. The Government are going through the legislative process to form these areas, with the intention that they will deliver adult education functions from August 2027, subject to ministerial approval. Taken together, those actions deliver on the Government’s commitment to empower local leaders and unlock growth.

The adult skills fund supports millions of adults across England to develop the skills they need to equip them for work, an apprenticeship or further learning. We know that local areas are best placed to identify what their local people, communities and businesses need. Strategic authorities decide how they spend their funding to deliver opportunity and growth in their area. They will be able to respond in a more agile way to local priorities and emerging challenges and to address any barriers more effectively.

Local areas can apply the flexibility that devolved adult skills funding functions offers, for instance to identify adults in their region who are most in need and invest more funding to support those groups. They can work directly with employers, training providers and other local partners to commission new provision to meet local needs and set funding rates that incentivise the delivery of provision that offers the most positive impacts for their region.

Within that local flexibility, strategic authorities must offer free courses for adults to deliver national statutory entitlements in English, maths, digital courses, level 2 and 3 qualifications for those who do not yet have those skills and free courses for jobs. This funding provides an essential stepping stone for adults with the lowest skills. I recognise that the nature of skills challenges, and the solutions, will be different in every region, and I am pleased that three new areas are poised to take the opportunities and develop new thinking and priorities for the adult skills fund in their areas.

If the statutory instruments are approved, Buckinghamshire, Surrey and Warwickshire will be responsible for managing their adult skills funding allocations efficiently and effectively to deliver for their local residents. Each area has consented to the transfer of these powers and to the making of these statutory instruments. They have also provided assurances that permanent skills teams are in place to manage delivery effectively. They have each developed a strategic skills plan, setting out how they will use their devolved adult skills funding to meet key priorities.

I can also confirm that, on the basis of the evidence submitted, Ministers have concluded that the statutory tests have been met. Each area has given its consent and demonstrated that devolution is likely to improve the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of the people who live and work in the region. A report has been laid before Parliament explaining how these conditions have been met. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all our partner organisations and, in particular, colleagues at Buckinghamshire council, Surrey county council and Warwickshire county council for their expertise and input in getting to this important milestone.

To conclude, these statutory instruments will give these three authorities the opportunity to shape their adult education provision, address local barriers, focus provision to meet local needs, enhance economic growth and bring greater prosperity to their areas. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Western]

I thank colleagues for their broad support for the principle of more localised decision making and the flexibility it brings to local areas to shape the delivery of skills to meet the needs of the local labour market and community. Ordinarily, I would respond separately to each Member who has contributed, but the theme of all the questions was accountability, readiness and the practicality of the three local authorities, and in some cases the individual areas, delivering adult education provision from as early as this academic year.

It is worth acknowledging the question asked by both the Opposition spokesperson and the hon. Member for Woking about the proposed future shape of Surrey, which will be split into two local authority areas. The Government recognise that the change may present challenges, with a new system and new local authorities to work with. However, at the same time, the pressing need for local decision making means that we are minded at the moment to make arrangements for a new body in the form of a foundation strategic authority. That will ensure that we can continue to deliver this through the local prism and that residents across the whole of Surrey, including key stakeholders and partners, will have certainty that the transition will be seamless, not just in terms of the devolution we are talking about now, but in terms of the new structure of two local authorities.

On the question of accountability and readiness more broadly, and how we would satisfy ourselves that local areas were behaving wisely in the decisions they take in this space, it is perhaps important to recognise that accountability arrangements for devolved organisations are set out in the English devolution accountability framework. As part of that, local areas with devolved powers are required to submit annual assurance reports to the Department for Work and Pensions and to publish them on their own organisation’s website. Those reports set out what a devolved area has delivered against its strategic skills priorities over the previous academic year. They include an assessment of key outcomes, local partnership work, achievements, challenges and lessons learned.

Key data that local areas are expected to report against include adult skills, data on spend and the number of learners in their local areas taking up statutory entitlements. Skills England uses that information to undertake annual skills stocktakes, which each local area can use to discuss key findings, including how many issues can be addressed.

However, if significant or persistent issues are identified, the Government would take further action. That could include undertaking a further diagnostic review or, in serious cases, escalating to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which is able to intervene under measures set out in the Local Government Act 1999. I think we would all hope to not be in that position, and my view is that it is unlikely, but we need to be mindful that this is a significant change alongside the other significant changes that Members have mentioned. For instance, I recognise that the position on Warwickshire is not yet fully settled, but we anticipate changes. We have come up with an option to enable continued delivery in the Surrey area, and we would hope to work through something similar for Warwickshire.

On balance, I respectfully disagree with colleagues who propose a delay, because I want to get these powers down to the best possible local footprint so that areas continue to have a greater say in shaping decisions in their region. On that basis, I commend to the Committee the regulations pertaining to Surrey, Warwickshire and—how could I forget—Buckinghamshire.

Question put and agreed to.

DRAFT SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL (ADULT EDUCATION FUNCTIONS) REGULATIONS 2026

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Surrey County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026.—(Andrew Western.)

 DRAFT WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (ADULT EDUCATION FUNCTIONS) REGULATIONS 2026 

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Warwickshire County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026. —(Andrew Western.)

Employment Support Funding: DWP and Welsh Government

Andrew Western Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Written Statements

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

The UK and Welsh Governments have agreed how they will deliver the UK Government manifesto commitment to devolve employment support funding to the Welsh Government over the course of the current UK Parliament.

That devolution has already begun with the agreement to transfer up to £20 million for the economic inactivity trailblazer pilots across two years, 2025-26 to 2026-2027.

Further funding from agreed new employment programmes being delivered by the Department for Work and Pensions will be transferred to Welsh Government to design and deliver employment support schemes closer to the communities they affect using the Welsh Government’s employability support programme. UK Government employment support already available or with a funding agreement in place will continue and will not be in scope.

This funding will strengthen the Welsh Government’s ability to assist people in Wales to move closer to employment and enter the workforce, helping to improve living standards across Wales and support economic growth.

The memorandum of understanding is available online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2026-03-25/HCWS1454/

[HCWS1454]