Machinery of Government: Skills
Andrew Western Excerpts(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
My noble Friend the Minister of State, Minister for Skills (Baroness Smith of Malvern) has made the following written statement.
I am making this statement to update the House on the transfer of the responsibility for apprenticeships; adult further education, skills, training and careers; and Skills England, from the Department for Education to the Department for Work and Pensions, as announced on 16 September (HCWS 930).
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is now exercising responsibility for these activities, supported by Baroness Smith of Malvern, the Minister for Skills, who serves jointly across both Departments. Formal accountability to Parliament for the resources used in support of these activities will continue to be through the permanent secretary of the Department for Education until the main estimate for 2026-27 is passed, rather than in the supplementary estimate 2025-26. Following the main estimate 2026-27, accountability will be through the permanent secretary for the Department for Work and Pensions.
[HCWS1079]
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill
Andrew Western ExcerptsWednesday 5th November 2025
(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill 2024-26 View all Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 5 November 2025 - (5 Nov 2025)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendment 1, and Government amendment (a) and (b) in lieu.
Lords amendment 75, and Government amendment (a).
Lords amendments 30 and 31, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu.
Lords amendment 43, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 84, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
Lords amendment 97, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (f) in lieu.
Lords amendments 2 to 29, 32 to 42, 44 to 74, 76 to 83, 85 to 96, and 98 to 121.
Andrew Western
The Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill delivers on this Government’s manifesto commitment to safeguard public money and ensure that every single pound is wisely spent. Fraud against the public sector is not a victimless crime. It takes money away from vital public services, eroding trust and harming innocent people. The Bill introduces new powers to enable the Public Sector Fraud Authority to investigate and deal with public sector fraud outside of the tax and social security system, using its expertise to act on behalf of other parts of Government.
The Bill also contains new powers for the Department for Work and Pensions to tackle fraud and error within the social security system, providing much-needed modernisation for our defences. At the same time, it includes significant safeguards, including new independent oversight to ensure the proportionate and effective use of the powers. As we now reach the final stages of the Bill, I am sure colleagues across the House will agree that it needs to receive Royal Assent as quickly as possible, so that we can realise the delivery of the estimated £1.5 billion of benefits by 2029-30.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for bringing the Bill forward and for all the hard work that the Government have done in relation to this. There is one thing that always concerns me. In my office, nearly every week I have people come to me who have inadvertently made mistakes. They perhaps do not understand how the online system works or how the paperwork has to be filled in, and sometimes they have ticked the wrong box and found themselves in a difficult position. This does not take away from those who deliberately defraud and try to get money that they should not be receiving. How can we be absolutely sure that those who make inadvertent mistakes will not find themselves in a difficult position alongside those who have done wrong? How can we ensure that they get the sympathy they need? I know that the Minister will be of the same opinion as me that we must make sure this is done right.
Andrew Western
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is enshrined elsewhere in legislation that claimant error is recoverable as part of universal credit. I can also assure him that, as part of this Bill, the eligibility verification measure will enable us to identify errors that are legitimate as well as illegitimate—deliberate, shall we say—in order to minimise the level of debt for individuals who have, I accept, done this accidentally and ensure that they are caught earlier. Any overpayments will be smaller as a direct consequence. One advantage of the Bill is that it can minimise suffering for people who have inadvertently made a mistake.
Before I turn to the Lords amendments, I thank my noble Friends Baroness Anderson and Baroness Sherlock who expertly guided the Bill through the other place. I share their appreciation for all the peers who contributed to its detailed scrutiny and their invaluable insights that have helped the Government to strengthen the Bill.
The Government made important changes to the Bill in the other place, and I now ask this House to endorse those Government amendments. They were made to ensure that the Bill delivers its aims and to clarify the operation of the powers, as well as to ensure that the safeguards this Government have introduced are strong and effective. More procedural yet still important amendments have been made to part 2 to reflect the Scottish Government’s position on how the powers should be applied to devolved benefits. Across the Bill, we have made amendments that are more technical in nature, including to reflect the recent Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and to ensure flexibility in the commencement of certain provisions of the Bill across the different nations of the United Kingdom.
In the interests of time, I will focus my update to the House on the most substantial and pertinent areas, on which there has been extensive engagement with external stakeholders and points have been made by peers in the other place. First, the Government tabled a group of amendments to part 1 to enable the Public Sector Fraud Authority to be merged with another statutory body, rather than necessarily being set up as a stand-alone statutory body, although the power to do so remains. That builds flexibility into the legislation, enabling the PSFA to achieve the aim of separation between investigators and Ministers in future, while avoiding the need to set up an entirely new statutory body if it is not considered proportionate to do so.
Linked to that, I would like to speak to a minor and technical amendment that I propose to make to Lords amendment 75 to schedule 2. Amendment (a) simply ensures that authorised investigators are captured within the regulation-making power set out in schedule 2 if or when the powers conferred under part 1 of the Bill are transferred to another public authority, or if the PSFA is set up as its own statutory body. It does not change the use of any powers laid out in the Bill.
The Government also amended parts 1 and 2 to ensure that the Government must disclose relevant information to the PSFA independent reviewer and the eligibility verification notice independent reviewer. Effective oversight is a critical aspect of this Government’s approach. These amendments do not represent a change in that approach; indeed, they further strengthen the commitments this Government have made to support open and transparent use of the powers. I will return to the point about oversight later in relation to Lords amendment 43.
The Government made several amendments to the debt provisions across parts 1 and 2. Those are a consequence of the extensive engagement by the PSFA and the Department for Work and Pensions with the financial sector, and they clarify important aspects of the operation of the powers, including in situations where a liable person might have a legal deputy managing their affairs. They also strengthen the rights of debtors by ensuring that a deduction order cannot be in suspension indefinitely, and that after a two-year period in suspension, it will not be resurrected. The Government have also responded to the continued confusion that seems to have arisen on the DWP debt recovery provisions in part 2 and who those powers apply to.
The Government have made amendments explicitly stating that a direct deduction order, as outlined in schedule 5, and a disqualification from driving order, as outlined in schedule 6, cannot be made where the person is entitled to and in receipt of a benefit from the DWP. That clarifies the existing intent that these powers are only for use with those who are not on benefits where the money cannot be recovered from a payslip and where the person can afford to pay and is refusing to do so. I remind the House that this power addresses an important point of fairness. It cannot be right that those who can pay money back can avoid doing so, and the amendments underline that point.
The Government also acted to strengthen the legislative safeguards around the use of the eligibility verification measure. I remind the House that that measure simply enables the DWP to ask financial institutions for limited data that will help the Department to identify incorrect payments and verify eligibility for specific benefits. The amendments made by the Government in the other place will introduce an explicit, necessary and proportionate test before an eligibility notice can be issued, and clarify the purpose for which an eligibility notice can be issued to only assisting in identifying incorrect payments. That puts the existing policy intent in the Bill. Again, I will return to the eligibility verification measure when I address Lords amendment 84.
I turn to the other amendments made in the other place. We welcome the challenge and scrutiny provided by peers’ contributions, but we cannot accept changes that risk undermining the powers. The Government’s position will continue to reflect that, including in our amendments in lieu. First, Lords amendment 1 would give the Minister for the Cabinet Office the power to initiate an investigation when they consider it necessary in the public interest. [Interruption.] Just so that he is sure of that power, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons), has joined me on the Front Bench.
We are proposing technical changes to Lords amendment 1 through amendments (a) and (b) in lieu. Those changes will give the Minister for the Cabinet Office the power to initiate an investigation when they consider it necessary in the public interest. The other place asked us to go further than the original drafting of the Bill allowed, and our amendments show that we have listened. The Government believe that it will almost never be necessary for the Minister to exercise that new power because of the collaborative approach in the normal working of government, but it will be available if there is a genuine need.
Our amendments in lieu also make consequential changes to clause 2 to preserve the intention that the PSFA should not take on matters assigned to the Secretary of State with responsibility for social security or His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. The reason for that is that the DWP and HMRC already have well-established functions and frameworks to tackle social security and tax fraud. Of course, it goes without saying that both Departments may still collaborate with the PSFA if a fraud crosses many departmental boundaries.
I turn now to Lords amendments 30 and 31. The Government wholeheartedly agree that the measures in part 1 of the Bill are powerful and must be used with care. We agree that staff must be appropriately trained before they are able to use these powers, and that robust oversight—both internal and external—is essential. Our amendments (a), (b) and (c) in lieu mandate statutory guidance and a new reporting requirement, and set internal record requirements. The amendments in lieu ensure strong ministerial and parliamentary oversight of the powers, as was called for by the other House, without involving Ministers unnecessarily in operational decisions.
The statutory guidance will detail how the Minister will exercise the function of investigating suspected fraud against public authorities. It will outline structures of internal oversight, the delegation of powers, standards for the training and appointment of all authorised officers and investigators, and the PSFA’s collaboration with an independent reviewer. New reports will be prepared following the end of each financial year and laid in Parliament by the Minister, stating how many times the investigation and enforcement powers in part 1 have been used. There is now a requirement in the Bill for the PSFA to keep internal records of the use of those powers, available for scrutiny by an independent reviewer. Together, those measures ensure that Ministers are accountable for the use of the powers, and show how they are delegated. In places, they build on processes that would already have been in place, but we have put them in the Bill.
Let me move on to part 2 of the Bill, focusing first on Lords amendment 84 on the treatment of information obtained under an eligibility verification notice. Although I understand the intent of the other place, I cannot accept the amendment as drafted, and I urge Members instead to back Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
Lords amendment 84 risks compromising the weight that the DWP may be able to attribute to information obtained through an eligibility verification notice. The Government have been clear that EVM information on its own has no tag of suspicion attached, and that the DWP must look within its own systems first and check for any inconsistency before taking further action. However, depending on the information held, EVM information may form an important part of any further action. We must not compromise that. The amendment also risks legislating for a person’s state of mind—in this case, that of a DWP-authorised officer. That is something that we should avoid where we can. It is far better to focus legislation on the actions that must or must not take place following receipt of EVM information.
The second part of the amendment, relating to the seniority of staff who must review EVM information, risks undermining the existing public law principle that staff at DWP take decisions on the Secretary of State’s behalf. There is also uncertainty about what would constitute a suitably senior person. In any case, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that officials are suitably trained and experienced to take decisions on their behalf.
Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 84 seek to address those risks and build on the amendments that the Government tabled on Report in the Lords. They more accurately reflect the policy intent and focus on the actions that DWP staff must take following receipt of EVM information. The amendments in lieu clarify that where the DWP has received EVM information, it must also have regard to all other relevant information that it holds before taking further actions.
First, the amendments in lieu require an authorised officer to consider all information held that is relevant to the question of whether to issue an information notice, as well as the relevant EVM information, before issuing the notice under the Department’s investigatory powers. Secondly, they require a DWP agent to consider all information held that is relevant to the question of whether to suspend a payment, as well as the relevant EVM information, before suspending that payment. Finally, they require a DWP agent to consider all information held that is relevant to the question of whether to change an earlier benefit decision, as well as the relevant EVM information, before making that change.
I believe that our amendments succeed in offering the necessary reassurances about the way individuals within the DWP will take decisions once EVM information is received by the DWP—namely that no decisions will be made using EVM information in isolation—and I therefore urge hon. Members to back them.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I am still not exactly clear why the Minister disagrees with Lords amendment 84. I understand that he is saying that DWP agents will look at EVM information and everything else, but what happens in circumstances when they have only EVM and not much else by way of information? Is he unable to agree with Lords amendment 84 because if the DWP has only EVM information, he wants decisions to be taken based only on that and not on anything else?
Andrew Western
There are a couple of issues with Lords amendment 84 as drafted. It could minimise clear evidence from an EVN that has been returned. The point about what information DWP agents would have to consider is pertinent, because it may answer a question about why, for example, someone has more than £100,000 in a bank account. It is about considering all information, not about having no further information on which to act. I am probably not explaining that tremendously well, but I am effectively saying that an EVN could provide information that is sufficient for us to launch a fraud investigation, but we would want to consider all relevant information, including that EVN, to see whether that information is valid or should be discounted for any reason of which we are aware.
I cannot accept Lords amendment 43, which would add three additional requirements to the role that the EVN independent reviewer would be required to undertake. On proposed new paragraph (d) in Lords amendment 43, regarding costs incurred by business, the Government are committed to keeping costs associated with the measure proportionate and to a minimum. Officials have discussed this part of the amendment with the finance industry, which acknowledges that it may place a significant burden on financial institutions if they are asked to report on costs every year. That is something we clearly would want to avoid.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
With the leave of the House, I call the Minister.
Andrew Western
I begin by thanking the Members who have contributed for what were thoughtful contributions, even where we fundamentally disagree on aspects of the Bill.
I have already outlined the benefits of the Government’s proposed approach, but I will respond briefly to some of the specific points made in the debate. First, I thank the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), for the constructive way that she and colleagues in both Houses have engaged on the Bill. She is correct that we have ended up in a better place, and I thank her and all Members who fed into that process—that is the point of it. I am pleased with where we have ended up.
The hon. Lady asked two specific questions. I can confirm that there will be a take-note debate at Grand Committee, as she referenced, at the point when statutory guidance is laid before Parliament. I can also confirm that Members will be able to meet with the PSFA independent reviewer.
I will briefly touch on some of the points surrounding Lords amendment 43, which has taken up the majority of the debate. I am grateful for the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), as well as the hon. Members for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and for Horsham (John Milne) and the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling).
First, I think we need to be clear about where we have already acted in other parts of the Bill or in amendments that have come forward today. On the question of costs, for instance, the independent reviewer already has to look at effectiveness and has already committed to updating the impact assessment within 12 months of the powers coming into force.
I will turn to the question of vulnerable people, which the hon. Member for Horsham in particular illustrated very eloquently indeed, with moving examples. I want to say something specifically on debanking, which is a concern that has been raised multiple times throughout the stages of the Bill. We are very clear that nobody—vulnerable or otherwise—should be debanked as a result of the Bill, as was made clear in the code of practice and in amendments we are considering today. There are many existing layers of protection in our existing processes. On vulnerable people, Lords amendment 82 clarifies that the use of the power must be “necessary and proportionate”, which I believe would cover this.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington made a specific point on whether EVM information alone is enough. We are baking in a human decision maker at all points throughout the process. We cannot take a decision based on EVM information in isolation; we must consider all other relevant information. Practically, that means that we must look at a benefit claim and check for disregards or for any other reason that someone may have capital in excess of £16,000—the limit—before taking any action.
However, as I said earlier, I do think that this Bill is much improved from where we started.
John McDonnell
I just want to clarify one point. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Government are resisting having contained within the annual review the question of whether harm is being done, because that is, to be fair, the only way we will learn whether the legislation is operating in the way the Government wish it to, and then whether any changes in the system are needed. When we had the work capability assessment, it took us 10 years and more than a thousand suicides before people accepted that there was a problem, because there was no review mechanism publicly available. That is all this amendment is asking for. All I am asking for today is for the Minister to put on the record very clearly that it is perfectly appropriate for the independent reviewer to look at the harms that could have been created by this legislation.
Andrew Western
I appreciate the point my right hon. Friend is making. As I have just said, the question of whether actions taken as part of the eligibility verification measure are necessary and proportionate is baked into the Bill, and I believe that would cover the points he is making. I strongly encourage my right hon. Friend to attend the meeting with the independent reviewer that I referred to earlier to stress that point. I will certainly go along, and I will undertake to press on that, too.
I understand where we are on Lords amendment 43, but with the additional safeguards that will be baked in through the amendments in lieu, I believe we have reached a point where the Bill will achieve what it needs to while being fair and protecting vulnerable people. I urge all colleagues to support the Government proposals today.
Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.
Government amendments (a) and (b) made in lieu of Lords amendment 1.
Government amendment (a) made to Lords amendment 75.
Lords amendment 75, as amended, agreed to.
Lords amendments 30 and 31 disagreed to.
Government amendments (a) to (c) made in lieu of Lords amendments 30 and 31.
Clause 75
Eligibility verification: independent review
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 43.—(Andrew Western.)
Welfare Spending
Andrew Western Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
The reason why we are having this debate is straightforward: the welfare system is broken. We have begun the job of fixing it, but the fact is that the system was broken by the Conservatives. They oversaw 14 years of failure on welfare until they were kicked out last year.
Johanna Baxter
Does my hon. Friend agree that we should take no lectures from the people who broke the system in the first place? In Scotland, one in six young people are not in education, employment or training; 12,000 Scots have been stuck on NHS waiting lists for over two years, and 8,300 people are economically inactive in Renfrewshire alone due to ill health. Far from lecturing us, should Conservative Members not look at themselves first?
Andrew Western
I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. [Laughter.] I see Members are surprised to learn that. She passionately makes the case that neither the SNP nor the Conservatives should be listened to on this issue. If I were in the Conservatives’ position, I might want to shy away from the subject, given their unenviable record. Their Government left us with a social security system that traps on benefits hundreds of thousands who could work and want to work. Fraud against the public sector was at eye-watering levels; some of the Department for Work and Pension’s powers to tackle fraud were over 20 years out of date; and a generation of young people have been neglected—there was a shameful rise in child poverty, and nearly a million young people were left out of work, education or training.
The Conservatives ignored every warning light on the dashboard while they drove down opportunity and drove up inactivity. They delivered the worst of all worlds, and now they have the cheek to come to this place and preach fiscal rectitude. We are cleaning up the mess that they left behind.
Let me turn to comments made in the debate, beginning with those by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). She talked of generations of families experiencing persistent worklessness, but this is a system that the Conservatives built. She gave an example of a young man in Bridgend who she says “fears” that he would be worse off in work, but who created that system? Where has that disincentive come from? The Conservatives entrenched that fear.
I fundamentally disagree with the shadow Secretary of State’s analysis, because the personal independence payment is an enabler of work for many people. It is there to meet the additional costs of disability and help disabled people with day-to-day living costs, and it helps many of them get to and from the workplace. She talked about the trajectory of welfare spend, but who set us on that trajectory? We heard that covid was to blame, yet 2022, 2023 and the first half of 2024 were not the ideal time to begin addressing the issue. Funnily enough, that ideal time was from July 2024. The Conservatives are running from their record, and they are right to do so.
We heard that the number of face-to-face assessments is too low. I absolutely agree that the number of face-to-face assessments needs to increase, but the shadow Secretary of State would do well to remember that the contracts we are signed up to were signed by the Conservatives, and they commit the contractors to 20% of assessments being face-to-face. This is the problem.
We also heard from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), who is not in his place. He was right to highlight the shocking way that economic inactivity spiralled between 2019 and 2024, and to reference the state of the national health service. However, I will briefly correct his suggestion that NHS spending is being cut under the Government. We are increasing day-to-day NHS spending in real terms by £18.5 billion by 2028-29.
The hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), whom I like very much, congratulated the shadow Secretary of State on her £23 billion package of savings. I hope he shares my concern about the fact that the shadow Secretary of State was unable to say how much of that was coming from proposed changes to housing benefit. I hope that he noted the same irony that I did: earlier, the shadow Secretary of State responded to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) by telling him that he thought he was so clever for knowing his statistics. If only she could say the same of herself.
We then heard from the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), who espoused the virtues of living within our means. That would have had significantly more clout had the Conservative party done the same in the welfare space in recent years.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) said that Britain under Labour had stopped working. I remind him that over 700,000 more people are in work now than were before the election, and economic inactivity is down by 363,000.
Andrew Western
I will not. The hon. Member said that we should respect the next generation and respect the fact, too, that taxes are too high, but the Conservatives left almost a million young people out of work and many trapped in a housing crisis, and they left the highest tax burden since the second world war.
As ever, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) gave a passionate speech about child poverty. I share her concerns about levels of child poverty, but it is my understanding that her SNP Government in Scotland missed their interim child poverty target in 2023-24.
I turn to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith). We face each other a lot across the Dispatch Box, and I know that she cares—I do not question that—but we fundamentally disagree on the best way to help people, and that is particularly shown by the motion before us. Let us go through it. It begins:
“this House regrets the failure of the Government to get people off welfare and into work”.
That was a failure of their Government. It continues:
“believes that reforming the welfare system is a moral mission”—
yes, the Conservatives do believe that, now that they are in opposition—
“and therefore calls on the Government to take urgent action to fix Britain’s welfare system by restricting welfare for non-UK citizens”.
They have given no explanation, either in any of their speeches or in the text of the motion, of who that applies to. That is vague. Does it include those covered by the withdrawal agreement, those here under the Ukraine and Afghan schemes, or just those who came over as part of the Boris wave? Without such specificity, how could anyone support the motion?
The same applies to the proposal to stop benefits for those with
“lower-level mental health conditions”.
Again, that phrase is poorly defined. What are lower-level mental health conditions? PIP is not condition-based, at any rate, and we would hope that the Conservative party would know that, because it created that benefit. The Opposition then call for an increase in the number of “face-to-face assessments”. As I said, we are keen to achieve that, and we will do so, but we are constrained by the contracts that they signed, which restrict face-to-face assessments to just 20%.
The motion mentions
“reforming the Motability Scheme so that only those with serious disabilities qualify for a vehicle”.
Again, what is a “serious” disability? It is impossible to know from the text of the motion, or indeed from any of the speeches made. The motion then mentions
“retaining the two-child benefit cap”.
Hon. Members across the House are well aware that we will shortly bring forward our child poverty strategy, and that all levers available are under consideration, so we could never support that statement at this stage.
All that is rounded off with the line:
“to get people into employment and build a stronger economy.”
What a joke when we consider that the Conservatives left us as the only G7 country with a lower employment rate than we had before the pandemic. The motion, like the plan that it aims to underline, is not worth the paper that it is written on. I urge all Members to oppose it.
Question put.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Western Excerpts(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State co-chairs the ministerial child poverty taskforce, which is leading our work across Government to develop the UK-wide child poverty strategy, which will be published later this year. We are considering all available levers to give every child the best start in life, building on work that is already under way across all four nations. Ahead of publication, the Government have already taken action for the whole UK, including introducing a fair repayment rate and improving the adequacy of the standard allowance of universal credit from April 2026.
Seamus Logan
The Child Poverty Action Group estimates that because of this Government’s policies—especially the two-child cap—more than 100 children are dragged into poverty every day. That equates to almost 3,400 children between now and the Chancellor’s autumn statement at the end of next month. Here is a lever: as child poverty in Scotland is falling, why does the Minister not finally listen to reason by scrapping this cruel policy? Why is he waiting? Why does he not just act now?
Andrew Western
This Government are acting now. We have already announced that all children in families in England that are in receipt of universal credit will receive free school meals, lifting 100,000 children out of poverty. We have capped the cost of school uniforms, and introduced a new crisis and resilience fund. Our Child Maintenance Service reforms will lift 20,000 children out of poverty, and much more will be done when the child poverty taskforce reports later this year.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Despite what those on the far right try to claim, the cost of living crisis remains the main issue that people face. One way to really help struggling families would be to lift the two-child benefit cap—that would lift hundreds of thousands of children across the country out of poverty, including many in my constituency. Is it not the case that the forthcoming Budget should announce that the two-child benefit cap will be scrapped?
Andrew Western
My hon. Friend will understand that I am not going to make policy from the Dispatch Box. What I would say to him, as I have already said to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan), is that all available levers are under consideration as part of our child poverty taskforce, which will report later this year. We will do what it takes to bear down on child poverty. There are many levers that we can look at using to do so; we have pulled some already, and we will continue that work.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Every Member in this Chamber shares a commitment to lifting people out of poverty, especially children; we just have different views on how to go about it. Children in workless households are nearly four times more likely to live in poverty than those in households where adults work. We know that work pays, yet we on the Conservative Benches find ourselves surrounded by parties that are just itching to scrap the two-child benefit cap, resorting to yet more sticking plasters, like universal breakfast clubs, to reduce uncomfortable figures without putting in the hard work to tackle their causes. Does the Minister share my concern that lifting the two-child benefit cap will increase worklessness, and can he guarantee that taxes will not go up in next month’s Budget for adults who work hard and make careful decisions about family size in order to pay for the £3.6 billion it will cost to lift that cap?
Andrew Western
I am stunned to hear that the fight that the Opposition Front Benchers are choosing to pick on this occasion is opposing universal free breakfast clubs, when we know that well-fed children have hungry minds. [Interruption.] For those chirping from a sedentary position, that is exactly what the shadow Minister. What I find even more staggering are the lectures from an Opposition who left almost 3 million people in this country economically inactive and around 1 million young people out of work. They dragged 900,000 children into poverty, when the last Labour Government lifted 600,000 out. It is the last Labour Government who we will be taking lessons from, not the last Tory one.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I note that last year the new Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said that it is open to debate as to whether the two-child limit is harmful. I note also that this policy has been the most impactful in driving children—more than 730,000 of them—into poverty. Will the Minister acknowledge that the two-child limit is harmful and work with Treasury colleagues to overturn it?
Andrew Western
I am happy to acknowledge the findings of the Child Poverty Action Group, which I think has put forward the statistics that the hon. Gentleman sets out. I remind him and all Members of this House that this is not the only lever available to us and that all levers are under active consideration. I also remind him, as I have reminded other colleagues, of the steps that this Government have already taken, including the roll-out of free school meals to all families in receipt of universal credit, which alone will lift 100,000 children out of poverty.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
It is unacceptable that 23% of children in Cornwall are living in relative poverty. We will set out measures to tackle its structural and root causes in our child poverty strategy later in the year.
Ben Maguire
Child poverty cannot be tackled if children have nowhere safe to live. One of the most shameful legacies of the last Tory Government was Cornwall being left with more than 700 children living in temporary accommodation, while only 1.4% of homes are now affordable to families receiving the local housing allowance. What assessment has the Minister made of the extent to which that shortfall in affordable homes is driving child poverty rates even higher, and what urgent steps will he take to reverse it?
Andrew Western
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the appalling living standards and conditions in which some children—and, indeed, some members of the broader population—find themselves living. My advice to any Liberal Democrat Member would of course be to stop blocking the homes that we so desperately need. Let me also remind the hon. Gentleman that this Government have invested £39 billion in the delivery of social and affordable homes, because, unlike the Liberal Democrats, the Labour party is determined to tackle the housing crisis and to “build, baby, build”.
Several hon. Members rose—
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras, Mr Speaker.
I represent the most deprived constituency in Cornwall, which is itself one of the most deprived areas in northern Europe. Child poverty shot up under the Conservatives. Today our local further education college—Cornwall college, rated “outstanding” by Ofsted—is turning away young learners in construction and engineering because of a lack of space. The college has a solution allowing it to expand, but will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the issue and help our amazing young people to break this cycle of deprivation?
Andrew Western
I am sorry to hear of the situation that my hon. Friend has outlined. If the Secretary of State is unable to meet him, I would be more than happy to do so.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The Government plan to consult on changes to the calculation that will automatically capture more income types within that calculation. Where parents wilfully avoid their financial obligations, the CMS financial investigation unit does have the powers to act and will investigate. Child maintenance is key to keeping children out of poverty, and we will use these powers wherever necessary.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
Andrew Western
The Department is prioritising ensuring that there is adequate staffing resource available to support claimants and deliver migration smoothly and on time. I am concerned to hear what my hon. Friend says about the experience of his constituents in Coatbridge and Bellshill. I will look into this issue further on his behalf and report back to him.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The Trussell Trust recently reported that three in 10 people who were referred to food banks in 2024 were in working households and that the majority, 72%, were on universal credit. What more can the Government do to ensure that work pays and we can take low-paid workers out of poverty?
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his office and thank the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western), for a recent visit to the DWP debt and fraud centre in my constituency. There are 95 jobs at the centre doing tremendous work across the UK, proving that civil service job dispersal does work. Is this not a template for other Departments and an example to the SNP Government in Scotland, who have dispersed no jobs, no power and no funds from Edinburgh?
Andrew Western
I endorse everything my hon. Friend has said. I had a fantastic visit to the very beautiful constituency that he is fortunate enough to represent, where I saw exactly what can happen through our places for growth initiative, which looks to relocate jobs out of London and into places such as Stornoway.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I have met many pensionable-age constituents, most of whom live on the Duck estate, who have lost their entitlement to pension credit because of as little as 50p. Does the Minister agree that pension credit, the employment and support allowance and PIP assistance could all do with more common sense and a little less of a “computer says no” mentality?
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
When my constituents move into new social housing, they find it stripped of perfectly good white goods, curtains, carpets and so on. What can the Government do to address this? It is driving my constituents further into poverty and benefit dependency. It is also environmentally destructive. Surely there is a way through this issue, so can I call on the Minister to work with others across Government to address it?
Andrew Western
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. It might be better raised at questions to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but as he asks me to pick this up with Ministers across Departments, I am happy to do so. I can tell him that the crisis and resilience fund—formerly the household support fund—is in place to support people setting up in their new homes, as are grants that are available from housing associations directly.
Statutory Maternity and Paternity Pay
Andrew Western Excerpts(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse, and to speak on an issue that is close to so many people’s hearts, as the response to the petition shows. I am speaking for the Government this afternoon, but after the previous contribution I think it is important that I set out that this is a matter of importance to all Ministers. I thank all the Members who have taken part in this hugely important debate, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier), who so eloquently set out on behalf of the Petitions Committee the various issues facing new parents.
We heard a number of excellent and thoughtful contributions. I had intended to attempt to run through all of them and respond individually, but what was most striking about the debate—until the closing contributions —was the significant unity in the room. Members have come together from across parties to speak with one voice. That shows why the Government’s review is so important. The myriad issues that new parents face—with health, finances, spending time with their children and so on—are so complex and the need for change is not lost either on me or on the Government more widely.
I will respond to a handful of the contributions—and how could I not begin with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre)? I am afraid I am not going to give his son a birthday present today, but I send my very best wishes and congratulations. I know that my hon. Friend is a loving and caring parent and I am sure that he has something lovely planned once we get away from the votes this evening. He and several other hon. Members asked whether certain aspects of the complex web of parental pay are in scope of the review, so let me clarify the eight areas that are in scope: maternity leave and pay; paternity leave and pay; shared parental leave and pay; unpaid parental leave; adoption leave and pay; parental bereavement leave and pay; neonatal care leave and pay; and maternity allowance.
The point about discretionary payments by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) was well made. I have responded to a Westminster Hall debate before on that specific issue. I undertook then to take it away and feed it into the review, which is being led predominantly by the Department for Business and Trade. I did that then, and I will do so again now.
I want to recognise the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh), who is a champion on maternity and maternity rights. She is entirely right to set out the importance of the first few weeks, months and years—the first 1,001 days. I also recognise the challenge set down by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy).
Let me say at the outset that I will be disappointing hon. Members, because I will be pointing to the importance of allowing the review to run its course. I do so because an incredibly complex web of support has evolved since 1948, with significant changes since then—the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), set out the many changes made just by her Government. We have one chance to get this right. We have waited a long time for this review. We want to take the time not only to undertake the call for evidence, which we have already done, but to consult trade unions, employers, and parents and families before we have a public consultation.
Ms Creasy
I agree that there is complexity that we must deal with. Will the Minister update us on his Department’s view of the Women and Equalities Committee inquiry, which specifically took evidence about parental leave and six weeks at 90% of pay. Nobody is suggesting we can do everything overnight, but there are things that we could do now as a holding measure to start the change that everybody wants. Labour Members and those from other parties recognise the possible benefits to the economy and the country, so perhaps the Women and Equalities Committee offers an interim way forward.
Andrew Western
That is indeed one of a number of important pieces of work that we are feeding into the review. My hon. Friend tempts me to promise that we will go further immediately, but I am not able to do so today for the reason that I have set out: we want to get the review right and to take the time to bring forward changes and recommendations, and the pathway to change, in a measured way.
Andrew Western
I will, after which I hope that Members will accept that I need to make some progress.
Andrew Cooper
I am sure everybody recognises how important it is to do this once and do it right. Is the Minister able to commit to legislating in this Parliament?
Andrew Western
We will need to see what comes out of the review, but we are committed to setting out a roadmap to change as a result of the review. I understand my hon. Friend’s point and note his desire, and that of other Members, for action to be taken as swiftly as possible.
I appreciate that parental leave and pay are vital to new mums and dads, giving them the space to spend time together as a new family. The first months and moments are critical in ensuring that a child is happy, healthy and well adjusted. It is something that runs deeper than pound signs and percentage points. Bringing a child into the world or into our home is a major event in anyone’s life. It is one that parents should enjoy free from the stresses of the workplace. However, we know that the current system is not working for everyone.
It is almost 40 years since statutory maternity pay was introduced for working women in 1987. It is half a century since maternity leave was introduced in 1975, and almost 75 years since the start of maternity allowance in 1948. In the years since, the world of work and the world at large have changed beyond recognition. Gone are the age-old stereotypes about men belonging in the workplace and women in the home. The lines between home and work have never been more blurred. As times have changed, there have been tweaks and updates: paternity leave and adoption leave in 2003; shared parental leave and pay in 2014; and neonatal care leave just this year. But, like a road network that evolves over time, the process is no longer as simple to navigate. We need something that is purpose-built for people’s journeys today.
In July, in partnership with the Department for Business and Trade, we launched the parental leave and pay review. It is time to go back to first principles, to work out exactly what the system needs to deliver and for whom—mums, dads and others—and to consider all the options before mapping out a new way forward. That starts with our remembering why maternity pay was introduced in the first place. It was primarily about the health and safety of women and their babies during pregnancy and in the months following childbirth. That is why, as the review progresses, the first objective that we have in mind for the parental leave and pay system, although not the only one, is ensuring that it supports maternal health by making sure women have enough money and time off work to stay healthy—physically and mentally—during the latter stages of their pregnancy and while recovering from birth.
Secondly, the approach needs to promote economic growth. When we give more new parents the freedom to stay and progress in work, it is not just mums, dads and kids who benefit; employers, too, benefit from keeping parents’ skills and experience. At present, just over half of new mothers go back to their old job following the birth of their child. We want to build a system in which every mother feels supported if they make that choice. New figures show that five years after a first birth, the average mother’s earnings will have dropped by more than £1,000 a month. Mothers deserve better.
Our third objective is to help children to get the best start in life by giving new parents the resources and space to give the care and attention their new arrivals need. Fourthly, we need to support parents’ childcare choices so that parents can balance care and work in a way that works for them, enabling co-parenting and reflecting the realities of modern work. Ultimately, we want a system that is fairer and easier to use, and that works better for parents and employers.
Rachael Maskell
I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for his speech. Will he ensure that there is a matrix over the Government’s objective that measures inequality in family life and ensures that we close the inequality gap so that parents experiencing the greatest deprivation benefit the most from the policy?
Andrew Western
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. That is one of many really useful suggestions that have been made today, which I undertake to feed into the review for consideration.
Let me return to what I was saying about the requirement for a fairer system. We should not pretend that there will be easy answers as we go through this work—some difficult balances will need to be struck. The benefits of allowing parents flexibility must be weighed against the direct costs to employers and the public purse.
The petition asks us to increase the rate of statutory maternity and paternity pay to match the national living wage. We should note that maternity pay has never been intended to fully replace a mother’s earnings, and any moves in that direction should not be made lightly. The costs of statutory parental pay are largely paid by the taxpayer, with employers able to reclaim at least 92% of the cost from HMRC.
Lola McEvoy
I have raised many times in this Chamber the inequality of paternity rights when it comes to unfair dismissal. Addressing that would not cost the taxpayer or businesses anything, because protection is already in place for those who take shared parental leave, maternity leave and adoption leave. Will the Minister reflect that point in the review as well? He did not mention paternity when he gave us his overview of the review’s purpose, but I think that all Members here agree about the importance that dads feel they can take time off, especially when they are eligible to do so.
Andrew Western
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If I did not refer to that issue, it was because I was trying to respond to an intervention and it was an oversight on my part. It is incredibly important and I will ensure that it is considered as part of the review.
I return to the petition’s specific ask of matching parental pay with the national living wage. The Government currently spend about £3 billion a year on statutory maternity pay and maternity allowance alone. This petition asks us to more than double the rate of maternity and paternity pay—in fact, it seeks a 144% increase. That would be far from a trivial expense at a time of difficult fiscal choices. I am not saying that that will not happen at this point in time—I do not know; we need to go through the process of the review—but we have to take the time to carefully consider such questions, given the significant financial implications, before any decisions are made.
I am cognisant of the time, so I will skip forward by reminding Members that maternity and paternity leave are just one part of the wider picture of financial support for parents. Maternity allowance is available for self-employed women and employed women who do not already qualify for statutory maternity pay. Child benefit is available from the date of a child’s birth, and the Sure Start maternity grant offers a £500 lump sum to mothers receiving one of a range of qualifying benefits.
Andrew Western
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) and then take one more intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), but then I will really need to move on.
Sarah Russell
The interrelationship between maternity allowance, which I made a point about earlier in the debate, and the £500 Sure Start grant is a problem, because if someone is self-employed, they are not eligible for that grant.
Andrew Western
I absolutely agree. That is one of the things that I want the review to capture. A particular range of issues is specific to self-employed people. We have already heard about that in the context of adoption, and my hon. Friend raises another example. She is entirely right to champion the rights of self-employed people in this space.
Chris Hinchliff
Several colleagues have mentioned Hugh’s law today. As the Member of Parliament for Hugh’s parents, Ceri and Frances, may I welcome the fact that the Government have committed to a consultation on the introduction of Hugh’s law? I urge the Minister to speak to his ministerial colleagues to see whether we can get Hugh’s law in the next King’s Speech so that it is delivered for families who desperately need support.
Andrew Western
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I gave way because I expected him to raise that issue, given that it pertains to his constituents.
This is probably the most powerful debate that I have attended in Westminster Hall. I will certainly ensure that all the points that have been raised with me are fed back. This is a particularly important issue not just for my hon. Friend and his constituents, but more widely.
Moving through a child’s life, starting from this year, working parents—including those on maternity, paternity, adoption or shared parental leave—can now claim up to 30 hours of free childcare for children between the ages of nine months and four years. Tax-free childcare can also help parents to save up to £2,000 a year on the cost of childminders, play schemes, after-school clubs, nurseries and nannies. All infant pupils in Government-funded schools are eligible for free school meals, as are older children whose parents receive certain benefits. Our child poverty taskforce has been looking at what else we can do to drive down family costs, raise family incomes and give every child the best start in life. Our strategy will be published later in the year.
Work will be at the heart of our approach. Good work is vital to achieve lasting change and to our central mission of growth. That is why our review of parental leave and pay is a key part of our plan to make work pay. It will build on the progress we are already making through our work to tackle low pay, poor working conditions and job security. We are breaking down barriers for parents so that we can raise living standards, and so that they can raise the next generation.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Western Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
The Government have committed to significant measures to counter welfare fraud, error and debt. This is the biggest package of such measures in recent history, and the Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated that it will deliver an additional £9.6 billion of savings over the next five years. The package is underpinned by our Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, which contains a range of new powers to enable us to keep pace with offenders who exploit the social security system.
John Cooper
I think we can all agree that fraud strikes at the heart of the system, kicking away its underpinnings. I hope that the Government will undertake a zero-tolerance approach, unlike in Scotland, where we recently heard that £36 million of benefit money paid out in error is now not to be recovered. Does the Minister agree that that is deeply unfair to taxpayers?
Andrew Western
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to encroach on what are legitimately policy questions for the Scottish Government. The policy of this Government is clear and set out in the Bill, but I am grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice for continuing to work with me constructively to make the Bill as workable as possible, with alignment where possible, such that if we end up diverging we are still able to ensure that this Parliament does everything it can, and the Scottish Government do everything they choose to do, to bear down on fraud and error.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
Does the Minister share my surprise that a Member of the party responsible for more than a decade of rising poverty, record benefit delays, and billions lost to fraud and error is now suddenly concerned about tackling that? Across the House, while we recognise the need to tackle fraud in our welfare system, we should also recognise the huge issue with tax avoidance and evasion—as recently highlighted by the Public Accounts Committee—which requires significant attention.
Andrew Western
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. This Government are determined to bear down on tax evasion with 5,000 additional investigators. Wherever we see people ripping off the public purse, whether that is defrauding the Department for Work and Pensions or abusing the tax system, we are determined to bear down on them, and that is what we will do.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
The Department continues to provide a broad range of data to local authorities to enable fast, accurate assessments for services, including blue badges and free school meals. Looking ahead, the Department is committed to expanding real-time data sharing in critical areas, such as housing benefit and care homes, while also testing innovative models such as the WorkWell scheme, which bring together local and central services to deliver more joined-up support for citizens.
Sarah Hall
In Warrington South, too many children entitled to free school meals are missing out because of avoidable administrative barriers. No child should have to sit in a classroom hungry; every child deserves a full stomach and a fair chance. A simple change would make a big difference and ensure that every eligible child got the support that they are entitled to. It would ease pressure on families, help to reduce child poverty, and give schools confidence that pupils are ready to learn. Will the Minister commit to strengthening data sharing with not only local authorities, but the Department for Education, so that automatic enrolment for free school meals can be introduced?
Andrew Western
My hon. Friend is entirely right to raise this issue. We will look at that, working closely with the Department for Education, as part of the child poverty strategy. We of course share her ambition to ensure that families can claim the support that they need. Our expansion of free school meals to all children in households claiming universal credit will make it much easier for parents to know if they are eligible, as well as lifting some 100,000 children out of poverty.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his reply; as always, he is very positive in his responses. He referred to the anti-poverty strategy. What discussions has he had about the anti-poverty strategy for us in Northern Ireland? Levels of poverty and mental health issues have risen dramatically, and young people in particular are under great pressure. The Minister is always compassionate and understanding; what is he doing in relation to the Northern Ireland Assembly to make things better for us as well?
Andrew Western
The hon. Gentleman will understand that we want this strategy to be for England, Wales, Scotland and, of course, Northern Ireland. He will be reassured to learn that those leading on the child poverty strategy have held a number of meetings with Ministers in Northern Ireland to ensure that its specific needs are taken into consideration.
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the recent addition to his family. I hope he had a restful summer, although I doubt he did considering the likely lack of sleep. He is right to raise this issue. It is now past the date for the call for evidence, but if he wants to write to me directly about that issue, I will ensure it is fed in.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Office for Nuclear Regulation: 2024-25 Annual Report and Accounts
Andrew Western Excerpts(4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
Later today I will lay before this House the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) annual report and accounts 2024-25. This document will also be published on the ONR website.
I can confirm, in accordance with schedule 7, section 25(3) of the Energy Act 2013, that there have been no exclusions to the published document on the grounds of national security.
[HCWS840]
Welfare Spending
Andrew Western Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
Before I turn to some of the rawer politics as the debate demands, I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in this important debate. Like other hon. Members, I am appalled by the level of child poverty in this country. Running through the debate was an underlying and understandable anger at the unacceptable increase in child poverty since 2010, with 1.1 million children using food banks to eat.
Graham Stuart
I am sure that the Minister wants to give a fair and balanced overview, and we all wish to see fewer people in relative poverty, notwithstanding his support last week for a measure that would have put it up by a quarter of a million. Just to have balance on the record, does he recognise that, in absolute terms, between 2010 and 2024 the number of children in poverty dropped by 300,000, and the number of people in poverty overall by 800,000?
Andrew Western
I absolutely accept that the Conservative party, because of its shameful record, made a fundamental change to the way in which poverty is assessed. We have returned to the internationally recognised comparator that exposes that shameful record. We will not run away from that internationally recognised comparator. It is on that on which we will be judged, and the Conservatives must also be judged on that.
I thank Labour Members who spoke in the debate so passionately about the work that the Government have already done on child poverty and the Conservative party’s shameful record. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd North (Gill German), for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) and for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance)—and, yes, my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman). He and I may not agree on the process being followed by the Government to tackle child poverty wherever we see it, but I do not doubt his commitment and support to tackling it.
I thank in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) for his powerful personal testimony about his upbringing, and about the stigma of poverty and the shame that many parents feel when they require extra support. Like him, I grew up in modest circumstances, as one of five children. For a period, in a single-parent household, we were dependent on tax credits, child tax credits and the education maintenance allowance—remember that? I will not allow privately educated Conservative spokespeople to lecture us on the plight of struggling families up and down the country when they have shown no care at all about the part they played in putting many of those families into crisis.
Andrew Western
What is low is scrapping the Child Poverty Act in 2016. The Conservatives’ record on child poverty is cheap and low. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) can continue to chunter from a sedentary position; I could reel off their record all day.
Andrew Western
I will not at the moment.
Let me come to the shadow Secretary of State, who, like many Conservative Members, was in total denial of the Conservative record, not only on child poverty, but on the welfare bill, which has spiralled enormously since 2020. They put 4.5 million children in poverty, and they come here with this motion. There was no recognition of the fact that almost 60% of families affected by the two-child limit are in work. There was no understanding of the lack of clarity in their motion, which does not specify whether it relates only to universal credit and child tax credit. It says that children “should not receive” any “additional funding”. What of child benefit? What of disability living allowance for children? The motion is not worth the paper it is written on, unless that is now their policy.
The Conservatives have talked about personal and fiscal responsibility—quite unbelievable from the party that crashed the economy and left the welfare bill spiralling. They take no responsibility for their actions at all, but they seek to lecture others on how they should live their lives. The shadow Secretary of State talked about giving families broader support—for instance, through family hubs. How many Sure Start centres closed under the previous Government? In their first 10 years alone, it was 1,300. Then, we heard that only the Conservatives understand the importance of living within their means. I have two words for the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately): Liz Truss.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
In Wales, sadly, we have some of the highest rates of child poverty in the United Kingdom, and some of the highest across Europe. Why is that? Why is poverty so stubbornly high in Wales, and would lifting the cap not improve things for Welsh children?
Andrew Western
Lifting the cap is one of the many levers that the Government are considering. We will look at that in the round, and when we come forward with our child poverty strategy, we will look to lift children in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and here in England—children up and down this country—out of poverty, because that is a moral mission for this Government. Indeed, we have already started that important work, with free breakfast clubs, free school meals for families on universal credit, restrictions on branded school uniform items and, to the point made by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), proposed changes to the Child Maintenance Service. We will also abolish direct pay, which was created by the Conservative party. This will lift 20,000 children out of poverty.
Andrew Western
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there was £1 billion worth of employment support alongside those measures, the impacts of which are yet to be scored by the Office for Budget Responsibility. We are serious about getting people back to work as a route to tackling poverty, as well as providing an important safety net for those who need it.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) asked why others should subsidise someone’s third, fourth or fifth child. I say gently to the Conservatives that it is never the child’s fault. A third child has the same right to thrive as the first two, and if they do not, all three children suffer. A hungry child is a hungry child, whatever their background.
Andrew Western
I am afraid I will not take any further interventions, as I only have a couple of minutes left. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) tempted me to speculate about decisions around taxation. He will appreciate that that is way above my pay grade, and I hope that he is patient enough to wait for the next fiscal event to get an answer to his question.
Graham Stuart
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given collective responsibility, is it in order for a Minister of the Crown to argue against a policy of his own Government? If I have understood correctly, it is the policy of the Government and the Labour party to maintain the two-child benefit cap.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The right hon. Gentleman will know that that is not a matter for the Chair, and he is seeking to drag me into the debate.
Andrew Western
It is also not what I said, Madam Deputy Speaker. I said that we on our child poverty taskforce are considering all available levers in the lead-up to the child poverty strategy, which will come in the autumn.
The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), made a point about controlling welfare spend. Yet again, we heard that the four years post-covid were not an appropriate time to tackle the spiralling welfare bill that the Conservatives created. In those four long years, the Conservative party got through three Prime Ministers, five Ministers for health and work, six Secretaries of State for Education and seven Sunak resets, yet the welfare bill continued to spiral. Child poverty worsened, and we had wasted years, so we will take no lectures from the Conservatives on welfare spend, and certainly not on the best way to tackle child poverty.
This party inherited the Conservatives’ shameful legacy of disastrous levels of child poverty and a broken social security system that fails to command people’s trust. Across Government, we have started the urgent work to fix these problems and to drive down child poverty once again, as the last Labour Government did, in partnership with the devolved Administrations, charities, local authorities and others, and to build a fairer, more sustainable social security system that helps people build better lives by giving them the right incentives and support. We will do that important work because tackling child poverty is a moral mission for this Government, and we will oppose this motion today because all levers are under active consideration as we seek to do so.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before I put the Question, I will just remind the Minister that, like the shadow Minister, he should not be referring to Members by their name in the Chamber but by their constituency.
Question put.
Pension Schemes Bill
Andrew Western ExcerptsMonday 7th July 2025
(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Pension Schemes Bill 2024-26 View all Pension Schemes Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
At the outset, I take the opportunity to declare my own interest. Unlike the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), I was elected prior to Lord Cameron ejecting councillors from the local government pension scheme. As a former member of Trafford metropolitan borough council, I also have savings in the local government pension scheme. I am therefore set to benefit from the improved governance of the LGPS initiated by the Bill.
These measures are testament to our dedication to building a resilient, efficient and fair pension system, galvanising and creating the potential to boost our economy at every opportunity. It is our aim to build a future in which every saver can look forward to a secure and prosperous retirement.
I welcome the broad, if not entirely universal, support for the Bill. The open discussion in which we have engaged today is important because, as a responsible Government, we want the House to be assured that the new powers in the Bill come with appropriate mitigations. We understand that Members will have questions, and I have listened carefully to those that have been raised. I remind everyone that the highly fragmented pensions framework has not served savers well, and there is a need for improvement as both the industry and savers demand a better service. The Bill goes to the core of what is needed, providing big solutions to the big problems that are undermining so much potential for savers and the economy.
Let me now turn to some of the comments and queries that have arisen throughout the debate. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards), for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins), for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson), for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) and for Glasgow East (John Grady) for speaking in favour of some elements in the Bill, and for their recognition of the investment and growth opportunities that it can unleash.
I am grateful for the constructive support and consensus that we heard from both the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), who opened the debate for the Opposition, and the hon. Member for South West Devon, who closed it. They were right to mention the specular success of automatic enrolment, but that was half the job, as pointed out by the Pensions Minister, and I think the hon. Member for South West Devon acknowledged that we now need to move on to the pressing task of dealing with pension adequacy, which will be taken forward by the pensions review. They were also right to refer to the complexity and fragmentation of pension pots.
I welcomed the support from the hon. Member for Wyre Forest for the long-awaited pensions dashboard, and was particularly pleased to hear of his support for changes in the local government pension scheme, although he expressed concern about certain parts of the Bill and the potential for propping up a failing scheme that arises from those changes. Let me reassure him that no cross-subsidising between administering authorities would be caused by any changes made by the Bill. As for the question of safeguards in respect of surplus release, we cannot stop share buy-backs and the like, but we have confidence in the ability of trustees to adhere to their fiduciary duties.
I understand that mandation has given rise to the fundamental objection of not just the hon. Gentleman but a number of other speakers, but I do not believe that it undermines fiduciary duties, and I do not agree with that analysis. The Bill contains clear safeguards that are consistent with those duties, not least in clause 38, which refers to an opt-out in the event of material detriment to members of a fund. The hon. Gentleman also raised questions relating to gilts; we believe that nothing in the Bill would undermine a well-functioning gilt market. However, as I have said, I welcome the broad support for the Bill, particularly with regard to value for money, small pots, guided retirement products and terminal illness changes.
Kit Malthouse
I want to be clear—so that the House is clear—about the opt-out to which both Ministers have referred. Is it a correct interpretation to say that it is not an opt-out at the discretion of the trustees of the fund, and that the Bill requires them to apply to the regulator with evidence for the regulator to make a decision to grant them the ability to opt out? The idea that trustees are somehow free to make a decision in the interests of the fund is not actually correct, is it?
Andrew Western
The right hon. Gentleman is correct in his interpretation, although I do not entirely agree with his characterisation. It is, I think, perfectly reasonable that we would ask trustees to explain how they feel that what is proposed would be to the detriment of their scheme members.
I welcomed the support of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), for many of the general proposals in the Bill. I entirely agreed with his comments about the need to give savers the best possible advice and protections. I also agreed with what he said about the opportunities to deliver further investment in our economy. As for social housing, which others also raised, he will know that many pension schemes already make such investments, and I certainly support their continuing to do so.
We then heard an excellent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth. I particularly welcome her comments on the value-for-money changes, and she is absolutely correct to highlight the importance of looking at schemes in the round, not just on cost. On the pipeline of investments that she set out, I hope she is reassured by some of the steps that the Government are taking—for instance, through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill—to ensure that there are a range of exciting major projects, such a reservoirs and houses, that people will be able to invest in.
The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) is certainly correct to say that he punctured the air of consensus in outlining his reservations. I know that my hon. Friend the Pensions Minister has agreed to have a conversation with the right hon. Member next week, and I hope that he will find that incredibly helpful. Clearly, it is not for me to comment on whether this should be a hybrid Bill. On the question of megafunds, he is right that not all large schemes provide a better return, but the evidence shows that while that is not always the case, they do see better returns on average. That is an important point.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) was correct to raise how long we have been waiting for the pensions dashboard, and I am similarly excited and anticipate its arrival. I promise that it will be worth the wait when it finally arrives. On her point about the scope of the Bill, the pensions review will take forward a number of the issues on which she and other Members said the Bill could have gone further. The pensions review is under way, and we will say more about that incredibly soon.
Kirsty Blackman
On the pensions review, there is a massive cross-party consensus that there is an issue with its adequacy, and we want to see it tackled. Will Ministers agree to take this forward in as cross-party a way as possible? We all care strongly about it.
Andrew Western
This matter is important to everybody in this House, because it is important to the constituents of everybody in this House. I would be very open to ensuring that Members of this House are able to feed as much as possible into the pensions review. It is an incredibly important piece of work.
I return to the question of my age. As a millennial, I am terrified of admitting that I have now reached an age when I should be thinking about my pension, having just turned 40. In any event, some of the work around the consolidation of small pots and so forth will help people.
A number of Members have asked about the balance of the distribution of any surplus release, and it is ultimately for trustees to decide on that balance. On the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North about potential guidance coming forward—the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) touched on this as well—that is something that I will discuss with the Minister for Pensions. It may well be teased out in Committee.
I hope that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) will be a member of the Bill Committee and continue the dialogue with the Minister for Pensions. I am always keen to find volunteers, and I hope that he will put himself forward. On the question of regulatory decision making, I hope that the Pensions Regulator has heard what he said about pace.
On the issue of divestment from funds that invest in fossil fuels and so forth, it is a matter for trustees. Individual flexibility on investments is a cornerstone of the system, but we are consulting on UK sustainability reporting standards and on transition plans.
Finally, we heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—we always save the best for last. I am very grateful for his support for the Bill. If he was not 18 yesterday, I am sure it was the day before. None the less, I wish that everybody had a mum like his. We may not have had some of the challenges with the adequacy of people’s pensions had they all received such superb advice from their parents at the age of 18.
Today we embark on a transformative journey with this Pension Schemes Bill. This legislation underscores our readiness to deliver fundamental changes to the pensions landscape, an endeavour that is not only urgent, but essential for driving a future in which savers and, indeed, our economy can derive the benefits of a better organised, less fragmented and easier to navigate pension system, and I am pleased by the widespread support for the Bill across the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Pension Schemes Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Pension Schemes Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 23 October 2025.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Andrew Western.)
Question agreed to.
Pension Schemes Bill (Money)
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Pension Schemes Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.—(Andrew Western.)
Question agreed to.
Pension Schemes Bill (Ways and Means)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Pension Schemes Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
(a) the levying of charges under the Pension Schemes Act 1993 for the purpose of meeting any increase in the expenditure of the Pensions Regulator attributable to the Act;
(b) the amendment of section 177(5) of the Pensions Act 2004 so as to increase the limit in that provision on the amount that may be raised by pension protection levies imposed by the Board of the Pension Protection Fund.—(Andrew Western.)
Question agreed to.
Child Maintenance Payments
Andrew Western Excerpts(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
My noble Friend the Minister of State (Minister for Lords), Baroness Sherlock OBE, has made the following written statement:
I am pleased to inform the House that yesterday, the Government published their response to the “Child Maintenance: Improving the collection and transfer of payments” consultation. Releasing the response shows the Government’s commitment to reducing the number of children growing up in poverty, which holds back too many children, limiting their future prospects and holding back this country’s potential. This consultation was launched by the previous Government and extended by this Government to give as many people as possible the chance to respond.
The Government are delivering on our plan for change, and are reforming the Child Maintenance Service to help ensure that more children get the money they deserve. This consultation contains proposals that are part of the action we are taking that will lift more children out of poverty and support the Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity.
The consultation received over 2,700 public responses, and engagement from 28 stakeholder organisations across the UK. Additionally, we commissioned research with current CMS customers who use the direct pay service to help us quantify the impacts of the reforms and provide in-depth insight.
There will be two clear options for parents following the planned reforms. One is to make a family-based arrangement. We will provide parents with enhanced support to make and maintain these, and we are working to improve our communications to support parents in understanding the options that are available to them. Our ambition is that anyone with a stable and compliant direct pay arrangement should find this option meets their needs.
Of course, family-based arrangements are not appropriate for all separated parents, and where that is the case, or where people prefer to be part of the statutory system, it will still be available. The CMS will operate a single service, based on the current collect-and-pay model, in which it will manage all payments, with an improved ability to identify and act on non-compliance.
As part of these reforms, we will halve the fees for those using the CMS, while maintaining a 20% fee for non-resident parents who refuse to pay up on time and in full. Parents currently in the direct pay system will have the choice of keeping their CMS case, which will be moved to the new, improved service, giving them the peace of mind that maintenance will be paid and any problems will be followed up, in return for a small fee—or have improved support to make and maintain a family-based arrangement.
We plan to progress with these proposals and believe that they will address the fundamental issues with direct pay. This change will prevent parents getting stuck in ineffective arrangements, in which no, reduced or erratic payments go to children. We know from research with direct pay customers that only six in 10 receiving parents in direct pay report getting all the child maintenance that they are owed, and only four in 10 say that they always receive it on time. Removing direct pay will mean we can tackle this hidden non-compliance and get money flowing to children in these cases.
To have the best impact on child poverty, we need to ensure that more children are in effective arrangements, which we envisage these changes helping with. We estimate that this change could result in around 20,000 fewer children in poverty, on the “relative low income after housing costs” measure. To further support children receiving maintenance payments, a commitment was made to position child maintenance deductions higher up the universal credit deductions priority order as part of the fair repayment rate. The repositioning gives greater protection, ensuring that child maintenance is paid in cases where the deductions cap is reached.
The removal of direct pay will also represent a significant improvement to victims and survivors of domestic abuse using the CMS, by reducing contact with the other parent, and reducing the paying parent’s ability to financially control the receiving parent by paying too little or too late, as they currently can under direct pay.
I am committed to ensuring that victims and survivors of domestic abuse get the help and support that they need to use the CMS safely, and have outlined in the consultation response the work that the Department is undertaking to support victims and survivors of domestic abuse to use the service safely.
The reforms announced yesterday are just the first step in our plan to reform the Child Maintenance Service. Alongside action to modernise the service, increase ease of access, streamline enforcement, and better support victims and survivors of domestic abuse, the Government are undertaking a fundamental review of the child maintenance calculation.
I believe that the changes outlined in the Government’s response will help us to achieve a CMS that is fair, trustworthy and more accessible to parents, particularly those who are vulnerable. It will be better able to tackle non-compliance head-on by quickly identifying and tackling missed payments and, most importantly, it will lift more children out of poverty.
The changes to remove direct pay and reform the collection fee structure will require changes to legislation, which will be dependent on parliamentary approval. Subject to securing parliamentary time to make the necessary changes in legislation, we aim to implement them in 2027-28.
[HCWS735]