Pension Schemes Bill

Andrew Western Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

According to the Order Paper,

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

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

[Andrew Western]

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

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

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

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

“would be likely to cause”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Andrew Western]

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

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

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

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

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

[Andrew Western]

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

[Helen Whately]

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

[Andrew Western]

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

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

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

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

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

Question put.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Western Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

[Vikki Slade]

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

[Andrew Western]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

[Iqbal Mohamed]

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

[Andrew Western]

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

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

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

[Andrew Western]

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

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

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

[Andrew Western]

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

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

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

[Andrew Western]

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

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

[Andrew Western]

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

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

[Dr Mullan]

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

[Mr Speaker]

What’s the lash, Minister?

[Andrew Western]

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

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

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

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

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

[Zöe Franklin]

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

[Andrew Western]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

[Andrew Western]

Yes, I will.

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

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

[Andrew Western]

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

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

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

Draft National Employment Savings Trust (Amendment) Order 2026

Andrew Western Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Western]

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

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

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

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

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

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

[Andrew Western]

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

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

Andrew Western Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

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

[The Chair]

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

[Andrew Western]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Western]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

DRAFT SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL (ADULT EDUCATION FUNCTIONS) REGULATIONS 2026

Resolved,

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

 DRAFT WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (ADULT EDUCATION FUNCTIONS) REGULATIONS 2026 

Resolved,

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

Work and Pensions

Andrew Western Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Written Corrections

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

The working-age benefits bill is set to reach £171 billion by the end of this Parliament, yet the Government are doing nothing to get it under control. In fact, by scrapping the two-child cap, they have added another £3 billion. It is time to stop spending and get saving. The Conservatives would stop benefits for foreign nationals and save £7 billion a year. Britain cannot be a cash machine for the world. With war in Ukraine and now in the middle east, we must boost our national security, so why are the Government continuing to bankroll benefits for migrants rather than investing in defence?

[Andrew Western]

The hon. Lady will be aware that the Conservatives created this system. On her specific question about what we are doing to restrict access to the benefits system by foreign nationals, she will also be aware that the Home Secretary has brought forward proposals to extend the period before somebody can achieve settlement from five to 10 years, and there is a consultation under way to move that point from the point of settlement to the point of citizenship.

[Official Report, 9 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 6.]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Western]

The hon. Lady will be aware that the Conservatives created this system. On her specific question about what we are doing to restrict access to the benefits system for foreign nationals, she will also be aware that the Home Secretary has brought forward proposals to extend the period before somebody can achieve settlement from five to 10 years, and the Home Office also consulted on moving the point at which public funds benefits can be accessed from the point of settlement to the point of citizenship.

Employment Support Funding: DWP and Welsh Government

Andrew Western Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Written Statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

[HCWS1454]

Work and Pensions

Andrew Western Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Written Corrections

The following extract is from the Opposition day debate on Student Loans on 18 March 2026.

[Andrew Western]

Turning to the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), we have had some serious chutzpah from the Tories today, opening with the fact that this Labour Government have increased fees—fees increased for sustainability purposes but certainly not trebled, as the Conservative party did. She spoke of the threshold freeze being unfair. April’s increase is our second in two years—as many as they managed in 12 years post introducing the plan 2 scheme.

[Official Report, 18 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 970.]



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

[Andrew Western]

She spoke of the threshold freeze being unfair. April’s increase is our second in two years—they managed four in 12 years post introducing the plan 2 scheme.

Student Loans

Andrew Western Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Let me begin by stating the obvious: the issues with plan 2 loans are a legacy of the previous Government. Plan 2 borrowers in England are undergraduate students who began their courses between 2012 and 2023. The loans were designed, implemented and operated by the previous coalition and Conservative Governments. When we were elected, we immediately recognised the pressure. We uplifted the plan 2 repayment threshold in 2025 to £28,470 and will increase it again to £29,385 next month, ensuring that it is higher than average graduate salaries three years after a course has finished. Before we came into Government, for most of the time that plan 2 loans have existed, the repayment threshold has been frozen—for 10 years during the Tory Government.

This is a system that we would never have designed. We have heard plenty today about its flaws, the worry it causes and the pressure on graduates. We have had, as we often do on Opposition days, a spirited debate. I will begin my comments on some of the contributions that we have heard by thanking my hon. Friends the Members for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for Erewash (Adam Thompson), for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia), for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre) for an especially powerful contribution.

I single out my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting), who continues to be a champion in this place for young people not only in her constituency but up and down this country. When I came to this place, my maiden speech was about generational inequality. Based on her description, I think that I have timed out in my ability to call myself a young person, so I am delighted that we have my hon. Friend here holding that torch and continuing to fight and to make the case for young people.

Turning to the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), we have had some serious chutzpah from the Tories today, opening with the fact that this Labour Government have increased fees—fees increased for sustainability purposes but certainly not trebled, as the Conservative party did. She spoke of the threshold freeze being unfair. April’s increase is our second in two years—as many as they managed in 12 years post introducing the plan 2 scheme.

The shadow Secretary of State labelled the motion a new deal for young people, but why on earth is a new deal required? It is because the Conservatives trebled fees, scrapped maintenance grants, oversaw a 40% cut to youth apprenticeships, and drove the number of NEETs up by a quarter of a million in their last three years in government. By contrast, under this Government, young people are getting a new deal, with a new target of two thirds of young people in an apprenticeship or at university, our youth guarantee and our jobs guarantee, because we understand that young people need support to thrive, especially after 14 years of the Conservative party.

We then heard about the range of options that the Conservatives want to secure for young people, that it is a Conservative choice to be able to earn and learn through apprenticeships or to go to university, but that was not the choice that young people had. They hammered apprenticeships for young people, and that is one of the reasons why we face the challenges in the system that we do today.

We heard from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), in what I thought was a very considered contribution. I always think that it is incredibly brave for a Liberal Democrat to speak in any debate about fees, loans and so on.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andrew Western]

I will not because I am short on time—I am sorry.

While I do think that a Liberal Democrat should be wary, the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire made an important point in his defence of degree courses with which I agree.

The hon. Members for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) attacked the Government for acknowledging the problems of the system and for saying that we recognise that work is needed, there is much to do, but we will look at it. When we say there is much to do, there are messes left all over the place. What exactly are we talking about? We are talking about a legacy of starved further education funding. The Conservatives oversaw a 40% drop in youth apprenticeships. They drove up child poverty, ravaged Sure Start, scrapped Building Schools for the Future, broke the SEND system—and that is just their legacy for children and young people, before I even get to the fact that they left the NHS on its knees. Their damage, the mess they left, has a long tail, and we must never forget that that damage cannot be fixed overnight.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Given that the Minister has just listed a great big set of problems facing students, what does he say to students when the Chancellor has said that they are not at the front of the queue?

[Andrew Western]

What I say is that students, like everybody else, benefit from an improved NHS and from a range of interventions that this Government are making, but we cannot change everything overnight.

The hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) commented that young people not in employment has rocketed under this Government, which is an interesting take given that the number of NEETs is 14,000 lower now than it was at this point last year, but it increased by 250,000 in the Conservatives’ final few years in office.

We then heard from the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst). I simply reiterate the comments made in the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) about the rubbishing of the Conservatives’ proposal already done by the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) mentioned youth unemployment figures, and I absolutely agree that these are a concern. We are not complacent on this issue, so he will welcome the youth guarantee, the jobs guarantee, the increase to apprenticeship funding, the shift to more apprenticeships for young people, the revised target of two thirds of young people either in an apprenticeship or at university, and the update to our approach to encourage technical learning while earning. He will also be pleased to know that, unlike him, I do have a history degree, so I have no problem looking at the Conservatives’ record of the past 10 years. I absolutely appreciate that they do not want to be held to account for the mess they left, but sadly they devastated this system, and it falls to us to resolve the problems they left.

We then heard from the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), who said that all forms of education have intrinsic value, which leaves me somewhat confused given the Conservatives have made a compelling argument today for scrapping a number of degree courses and they ran down the number of apprenticeships available to young people.

I want to briefly come to the contribution of the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), because he is always considered in this area and, indeed, I consider him an expert on this subject. I cannot pretend to be familiar with the Brown and Cable plans, but it is important to pick up a point he made around the vast majority of apprenticeships being taken by people over 25. I believe that that is a problem in the system. That is why we are creating foundation apprenticeships and that is why—[Interruption.] I am not suggesting—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I want to hear what the Minister has to say.

[Andrew Western]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not attribute a time period to the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I am simply stating that it is a fixed intention of this Government to seek to address that and to ensure that more young people under the age of 25 can access apprenticeships.

Yet again in these Opposition day debates, we see a Conservative party that continues to run away from its record and that brings forward overnight solutions that, in this case, have already been discredited. It is not fit to govern and would never solve this problem for young people.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

Child Maintenance Service

Andrew Western Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I am struck, as was the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), by the level of interest in this debate and, indeed, by the specifics of some of the cases that have been raised. I concur with her that this is an incredibly important debate, and one that perhaps could have used more time. I am sure that Members will look where they can at various mechanisms to ensure that we return to this in future.

I want to begin by recognising the vital role that the Child Maintenance Service plays in supporting families across the country, notwithstanding that we all have examples in our casework of challenging cases—cases where the service could do better. The CMS now supports more than 1.1 million children, a figure that rose nearly 5% in the 12 months to September 2025, through both family-based arrangements and arrangements made via the CMS. An estimated £2.9 billion is transferred each year to children in separated families, keeping around 120,000 children out of relative low income after housing costs.

I know that almost all parents want the best for their children, and that, in spite of the difficulties and conflicts inherent in family break-up, a majority of paying parents consistently contribute towards their children’s upbringing, helping to ensure that they receive the support they need. Compliance levels within the collect and pay service remain strong; in the most recent reporting quarter, 74% of paying parents under collect and pay paid maintenance.

To set the scene, it is worth explaining how the CMS operates. The CMS is statutorily obliged to consider all valid maintenance applications in accordance with relevant legislation. To ensure consistency and fairness across the system, the CMS applies a set of broad rules intended to secure the best overall outcomes for all parents. Clear, simple rules are essential; they make the system more efficient, improve customer service and are vital when dealing with hundreds of thousands of cases.

That is in stark contrast to previous schemes operated by the CMS’s predecessor, the Child Support Agency, which were notoriously complex and inflexible. Those schemes relied heavily on parents providing detailed financial information that was often difficult to obtain or keep up to date. The result was significant delays and, too often, families being let down.

That said, the Government recognise that there is more that the CMS can do to deliver a fair and trustworthy service that is more accessible to parents, and particularly to those who are vulnerable. That is why the CMS is continuing to make significant and meaningful improvements to the service wherever possible, to ensure that parents feel informed, supported and confident in the actions being taken on their case.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for setting the scene. Would he reflect back to the House that, notwithstanding what he has said, there is a clear pattern of a lack of reliable communication, a failure to enforce payments and what often seems like an inability to keep in line with legislation? Does he recognise that what we are all experiencing on behalf of our constituents is an organisation that does not seem to have basic administrative competence?

[Andrew Western]

I will come to the points about communication and enforcement momentarily. I acknowledge that we all have difficult cases, but the CMS does handle billions of pounds a year in payments to families, and it is important to recognise where it works as well as where change is needed. It is failing for some families, as in the cases that have been outlined, and we want to put that right.

I will now turn to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle). I will start with the three asks from Gingerbread. First, on the disclosure of domestic abuse and the handling thereof, the CMS recognises that both receiving and paying parents can be victims of domestic abuse, including coercive and controlling behaviour, and it has put a number of safeguards in place to help them use the service safely. All caseworkers receive extensive domestic abuse training, which has been refreshed to reflect the Home Office’s statutory guidance on controlling or coercive behaviour, so that they are equipped to identify risks and signpost parents to specialist support. The CMS also has a domestic abuse plan and a regularly updated list of resources to support victims.

Where safety concerns arise, though—I accept that they arise in some instances—the CMS can advise on non-traceable payment methods, such as accounts with centralised sort codes to ensure a parent’s location cannot be identified. The Government are also taking wider steps to minimise opportunities for abuse within the maintenance system, perhaps most importantly through plans to remove direct pay, reducing the need for any contact between parents and closing off avenues for economic control or coercion.

The second point concerned evidential standards for shared care, which is a contested area. I absolutely accept that it is a difficult space for our caseworkers to operate in. When a dispute arises regarding overnight stays, the CMS must avoid taking one parent’s word against the other and must consider certain types of evidence, such as a court order or an agreement between the parents, but it may consider other types of evidence as well, including in cases where a court order is not in place. Formal evidence will carry more weight than other evidence in establishing whether there is a pattern of shared care, but the CMS will consider each parent’s statements before making a decision.

Where the parties agree in principle that there is a level of shared care but cannot agree on a number of nights, the CMS can make an assumption of shared care of one night a week, but as I said earlier, shared care disputes are challenging. We understand the frustration and the concerns that they present for parents, and we are keeping the issue under active review and looking at how the process can be improved. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East is due a conversation with my noble Friend Baroness Sherlock. She may want to ask Baroness Sherlock for the specifics on that, given that she is the lead Minister on this issue.

Gingerbread’s third substantive point concerned the welfare of the child, and I want to offer reassurance on that. Clearly, the entire point of the CMS is to ensure the welfare of the child as it pertains to financial stability and to ensure the ability of parents to look after their children, but if specific safeguarding concerns arise, there are procedures in place to report them to the relevant authority, which is usually the local authority where the child lives.

There were a couple of other points that I want to touch on, including the question of enforcement. Clearly, there are always improvements to be made. There was a specific question about hidden income. There is a financial investigation unit in place. If there are specific cases that colleagues would like me to refer to that unit, I am happy to do so. We do have, for want of a better description, persistent offenders who are difficult to pin down. We will all have such examples in our caseload, and we are looking at what more we can do to track people down in those cases.

I am conscious of time. This has been an incredibly important debate. The door of my noble Friend Baroness Sherlock is always open to colleagues who want to talk about CMS reform. We are undertaking a calculation review. We are looking to abolish direct pay as soon as parliamentary time allows. That is a very important step to tackle coercive control and abuse in the system. We can always do more. I am happy to speak to colleagues at any point, but I also strongly encourage them, if necessary, to book in with my noble Friend.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Western Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Universal credit is primarily reserved for people settled in the UK. With regard to trends, overall the proportion of universal credit claimants in this country who are foreign nationals has fallen from 17% in January 2025 to 15.5% in the latest statistics from January 2026.

[John Lamont]

According to the Government’s own figures, most foreign nationals who are claiming universal credit are not in work. The Government do not seem to want to do anything to bring that figure down, so will the Minister tell us how much this is costing the UK taxpayer?

[Andrew Western]

The hon. Gentleman may be unaware that the proportion of foreign nationals claiming universal credit who are in work is one third higher than the proportion for people who are British or Irish claiming—[Interruption.] If he prefers to put the figures into the context that he has just suggested from a sedentary position, the figure is 10% lower in terms of people who are not in work. It is often difficult to extrapolate a specific number because universal credit figures, such as these, are calculated on a per household basis rather than on an individual basis. If I am able to provide the specific number, I will follow up with him in writing.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

The working-age benefits bill is set to reach £171 billion by the end of this Parliament, yet the Government are doing nothing to get it under control. In fact, by scrapping the two-child cap, they have added another £3 billion. It is time to stop spending and get saving. The Conservatives would stop benefits for foreign nationals and save £7 billion a year. Britain cannot be a cash machine for the world. With war in Ukraine and now in the middle east, we must boost our national security, so why are the Government continuing to bankroll benefits for migrants rather than investing in defence?

[Andrew Western]

The hon. Lady will be aware that the Conservatives created this system. On her specific question about what we are doing to restrict access to the benefits system by foreign nationals, she will also be aware that the Home Secretary has brought forward proposals to extend the period before somebody can achieve settlement from five to 10 years, and there is a consultation under way to move that point from the point of settlement to the point of citizenship. However, if it is the Conservatives’ position to suggest that somebody who has worked here for decades, contributed to the system and made a positive contribution to this country should have absolutely no access to support, we have a fundamentally different point of view.

[Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)]

5. What steps he is taking to support young people into employment, education or training.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

Sadly, I have been contacted by a number of constituents who are facing a hidden problem in the child maintenance system: their ex-partner has found ways of hiding their income to avoid having their monthly payments increased or paying the arrears that they owe. Can the Minister share with me the work that the Department is doing to ensure that income assessment of paying parents is accurate, agile and serves the children it is meant to support?

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

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that a range of interventions are under way, including reviewing the child maintenance calculation across the piece. If there are specific cases that are causing her concern, she can share them with me and I will ensure that they are referred to our specialist financial investigation unit, which looks into cases where we fear that there is hidden income.

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

T6. I recently met a constituent who is a victim of domestic abuse and, like too many others, has been let down by the Child Maintenance Service. She is experiencing severe financial pressure as her ex-partner refuses to make maintenance payments. She complained to the CMS 11 months ago and has not yet received a response. To make matters worse, the CMS has refused to communicate with her and has failed to provide her with documentation that is essential to an ongoing tribunal. Will the Minister meet me and my constituent to understand what has gone wrong in this case?

[Andrew Western]

Definitely—and soon.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

Powering Futures is a fantastic social enterprise based in Falkirk, and its oven-ready project will deliver at least £1.6 million in quantifiable social outcomes, including addressing youth unemployment in every local authority in Scotland. Funders have been identified, so will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss what support his Department may be able to offer Powering Futures?