Youth Unemployment

Andrew Western Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

If only the Conservatives had had 14 years to do much of what the shadow Minister just outlined. It seems as though they never tire of pulling apart their own abysmal record. Today they have chosen to focus on the crisis of opportunity that they handed down to young people, and that this Government are determined to address.

The Conservatives were perfectly happy, it seems, for youth apprenticeship starts to plummet by nearly 40%. They sat and watched as the number of young people neither learning nor earning spiralled upwards by 300,000 in three years, and they were devoid of ideas to help young people overcome the barriers to work that they face. Perhaps worst of all, when confronted with undeniable proof of their failure, they blamed young people, instead of supporting them.

This Government will never take that attitude to the next generation—an attitude of ambivalence at best, and contempt at worst. Instead, we are clearing up the mess that the previous Government left in their wake. We are giving young people opportunities to succeed, and the support that they need.

We are determined to meet the size of the challenge that we inherited, and to deliver on the huge scale that is required. That is why we are refocusing apprenticeships towards young people. We are also bringing support to where young people are by expanding youth hubs to over 360 areas across Great Britain. That is just part of our youth guarantee, which we are rolling out so that every young person gets the chance to earn or learn; and it accounts for part of the more than £1.5 billion that was made available for employment and skills support at the Budget, which will create around 355,000 new training or workplace opportunities. Our jobs guarantee will make available subsidised paid employment for around 55,000 young people. These are significant interventions, while the Conservatives offer nothing. The vision they have to offer young people is as bleak as the reality of their record: they offer low-paid, insecure work, and a cold shoulder instead of a helping hand. We have seen where that leads, and we have chosen a different path.

[Graham Stuart]

The Minister knows that youth unemployment was at 20% when the Conservatives came into power, and at 14% when we left. Can he commit that his Government, with their vast array of programmes, will bring youth unemployment back below the level that his Government inherited? Previous Labour Governments have failed to do that, and shoved up youth unemployment, with all the damage that goes with that. Will his Government ensure that the numbers come down, and if they do not, will the Government put their hands up and admit their failure?

[Andrew Western]

That is why we are making interventions in the form of the youth guarantee and increased investment in the growth and skills levy. I gently point out that, as the right hon. Member will be aware, the rate of youth unemployment rose by 4% in the Conservatives’ last two years in office. Today we have heard attack after attack, and excuse after excuse for youth unemployment rising, but it was rising when they left office. This is not a new problem. It is a significant challenge that we are serious about addressing, but if the Conservatives wish to continue with their policy of collective amnesia about the mess that they left behind, they will never have anything to offer young people.

I turn to Opposition Members’ contributions, beginning with that of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), who showed that the Conservatives have suddenly developed empathy for young people after leaving us with a NEET number of almost 1 million. We heard Tory Members compare the youth unemployment rate with those of other G7 countries, but we have the second-highest youth employment rate in the G7. We are not complacent, and we know that there is work to do. [Interruption.] I am aware that it is a different figure, but it is relevant when looking at the overall picture.

Several Members, but first among them was the shadow Secretary of State, said that nobody on the Government Front Bench had ever worked in a business. I suggest that she checks the record. Certainly, both the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), who opened the debate, and I worked for many years in the private sector. I managed a small business; I worked in a global business; and I did several other jobs in the private sector in between.

Conservative Members suggested that they cut the welfare bill and halved unemployment, using a pick ‘n’ mix of flattering figures from various moments of their time in office. However, we, like people up and down this country, will judge them on their legacy when they left office. They left a spiralling welfare bill that disincentivised people from looking for work, and they left us the only G7 country with a lower employment rate than before the pandemic. They are not prepared to face up to the mess that they left our country in, and they do that time and again. I admire their chutzpah for continuing to table Opposition day debates on subjects on which their record is absolutely appalling and by a considerable margin the most significant factor in what we face today, but that does not mean that the public will forgive or forget what they left behind.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), asked about the impact of artificial intelligence on the workforce. I assure her that the Government are cognisant and mindful of the need to keep a close eye on it. We have recently set up a new cross-Government unit that will look at AI’s impact on the labour market, and will offer free AI foundations training for all workers. She raised concerns about the defunding of level 7 apprenticeships. I will not pretend that the Government’s decision is not difficult. We have chosen to target the apprenticeship funding that this Government have to spend on young people. That is because they are less likely to have a relationship with an employer who might be able to fund their training, and less likely to be able to access some of the other opportunities that people who access higher-level apprenticeships might have, and because there are other routes, including a more traditional higher-education route, for people to access instead of a level 7 apprenticeship.

The hon. Lady asked about the timing of the roll-out of the youth guarantee. The first tranche—the first 55,000 opportunities—will be in place from April, and by September we will see the roll-out of the full 300,000. She went on to criticise the national insurance increase in the Budget and its impact, but then set out that the Liberal Democrats would cut business rates and VAT and scrap that national insurance contribution increase. I say to her gently that that is the problem with the Liberal Democrat position; they never say how they would pay for it, or what they would do. She lambasts the decisions taken in the first Labour Budget. Would the Liberal Democrats choose to withdraw the additional money that has gone into the NHS? It is not credible to set out only what they are against.

We heard a number of excellent contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald), for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin), for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan), for Harlow (Chris Vince) and for Banbury (Sean Woodcock). Those excellent contributions not only highlighted the toxic legacy of the Conservative party, but set out the range of key interventions that this Government are making, which include, but are not limited to, the youth guarantee.

I think the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) asked a question about the timing of Connect to Work, but I may have lost track.

[Damian Hinds]

It was about the Minister’s projection for the Connect to Work numbers by the end of this financial year, its first year in operation.

[Andrew Western]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that clarity. He will be aware that Connect to Work is already live in two thirds of delivery areas. By April, that will be all areas. In his area of East Hampshire, it is already live, and we expect that it will support up to 4,800 people.

[Damian Hinds]

Is that for this financial year?

[Andrew Western]

I will confirm for him separately the figure for this financial year. That figure is the aspiration in the round, using the £18.7 million funding that has been made available.

The right hon. Gentleman then launched a staunch defence of zero-hours contracts. He will know that we have a fundamentally different view of that. It is my view that insecure work is a blight. It is hugely problematic for those on challenging budgets not knowing what hours they have to work each week. This is the fundamentally different perspective that we have on this side of the House.

[Damian Hinds]

Would the Minister apply that principle to bank staff working in the national health service who have what is in fact a zero-hours contract—a bank staff contract—to top up in other roles in the NHS when that support is needed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Western]

The challenge in the NHS is markedly different—I would freely acknowledge that—but the right hon. Gentleman is talking about other roles in the NHS. It is not unusual for people to hold more than one job if they are operating as bank staff, so they do not have the uncertainty about receiving no funding at all.

The right hon. Gentleman also made the criticism that the jobs guarantee only kicked in after 18 months. That is the final stage of a range of new interventions that this Government are putting in place, including an additional supported conversation at 13 weeks, followed by four weeks of intensive work coach support with specialist teams. It is not just a question of a jobs guarantee after 18 months; a broad range of interventions are being put in place.

The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), who I do not think is in her place, said that apprenticeships were an opportunity for young people to find work, and I quite agree with her, but the reforms of the Conservative party had the effect of delivering a situation where, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson said, the average age of those entering into apprenticeships was significantly increased. We are seeking to reverse that trend, and it is important that we do so. This is a key mechanism for giving young people the skills that they will need in the future. I believe she also called this a youth unemployment crisis of this Government’s making. I fail to see how that can possibly be the case when there was such a stark increase in the youth unemployment figures in the final two years of the Conservative Government.

The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) said that the best welfare support of all was a job, so he will be delighted to see the additional 513,000 people who have entered into employment over the past 12 months. The hon. Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja), who is also not here, said that she was tired of hearing about this Government’s ambition, but the Conservatives had a paucity of just that. They left almost a million NEETs, a welfare system that disincentivised work—something we have begun to address—and an employment rate lower than before the pandemic. They can accuse us of being too ambitious if they like, but they had given up on delivering opportunity for our young people—something that this Government will never do.

The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) asked how we would encourage an employer to take a chance on a young person. We are doing that by not charging national insurance contributions for under-21s or for apprentices under 25, by fully funding apprentices at SMEs and by placing young people in six months of guaranteed work if they have been out of the workforce for 18 months so that they have the chance to prove themselves. That is a range of interventions that we are putting in place because we recognise that there is a challenge with youth unemployment. It is long standing and it is not new, but we take it very seriously.

[Gareth Snell]

On the point that the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness made, the natural extrapolation to what I believe the Conservatives are suggesting is that the way to incentivise that employer would be to allow them to pay less than the minimum wage or indeed cut the minimum wage rate for young people. I would oppose that. Would the Minister?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Western]

I certainly would. I also note that the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), having complained about the increase in the minimum wage in her closing contribution, failed to say what level the Conservative party think it is acceptable to reset that at. I personally could not look young people in the eye and justify such a cut to their wages, but the Conservatives seem happy to do so.

The shadow Minister also pointed to the lack of a plan of action, but that was set out comprehensively by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, underpinned by the £1.5 billion for the youth guarantee and growth and skills levy funding increase, but not limited to those interventions alone. The attacks on the national minimum wage increase are frankly a smokescreen for a party whose policies targeted young people for 14 years and would very clearly continue to do so now.

I cannot resist remarking that I thought it more likely for the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) to be in the young person category than in the 40-plus category. I note that he has had a change of employment status, because he was on the Front Bench on Monday but has returned to his previous position in the Parliamentary Private Secretary pigeonhole—there is a thriving labour market on the Conservative Benches, if nowhere else. He pointed to youth unemployment rising, homeownership falling and NEETs being on the up. That is a brave take given that every single one of those facts was true in July 2024. He then asked—again, this is daring, but I know that he is daring if nothing else—what that had done to the voting intentions of young people in relation to the Labour party. If I were a Conservative Member of this place—I have no intention of being one, and I do not know how much longer he intends to be one—I would not point to any other party’s polling among 18 to 24-year olds, because theirs is truly dire given the appalling legacy that they left behind.

[Andrew Lewin]

Speaking of daring, the Leader of the Opposition said today that the Conservatives do not want any more centrist ideas. What does the Minister make of that and their future with young people?

[Andrew Western]

If that is the position of the Leader of the Opposition, Conservative Members may need to find a new home other than Reform—[Interruption.] I am not sure where that comment came from, but I think it might have been my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), who knows a little about political journeys and will allow me to leave it there.

I, too, am concerned about the spiralling welfare bill and the rise in youth unemployment, about which we have heard a lot today, but the shadow Minister refused to set out what the Conservatives would do. If that is the best that they can offer on one of the few days a year on which they have control of the Order Paper—no idea, no clue and no plan beyond highlighting multiple problems in our society, which we inherited directly from them, as the facts show—I think they will have rather more Opposition days before they come back to the Government side of the House.

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Western Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Peter Swallow]

I welcome the commitment in the post-16 education and skills White Paper to support the development of skills passports, because supporting young people to develop essential skills such as media and financial literacy, communication and problem solving must be at the heart of our plans to tackle youth unemployment. What conversations has my hon. Friend had with the Education Secretary on developing and capturing skills before 16 as well?

[Andrew Western]

I confess that my hon. Friend has had more conversations with the Department for Education on this subject than I have, because he met the Secretary of State recently to discuss this. He will be pleased, I am sure, to know that the Department for Work and Pensions, working with UKHospitality, piloted skills passports in the hospitality sector last year, and that the role of my noble Friend the Skills Minister sits directly between the Department for Education and the Department for Work and Pensions specifically so that the sort of joined-up work to which he refers can take place.

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

Samee is a charity working in Dorset to support disabled young adults into self-employment. It has celebrated 10 years and supported 2,700 people, and it has what it tells me is the world’s only supported self-employed internship. Young people who have learning disabilities have great skills for self-employment. However, they cannot access the work because they cannot get a unique tax reference because they take more than 12 months to get to the relevant earnings levels. What is the Minister doing to help young people into self-employment so that they can fulfil their destiny?

[Andrew Western]

The hon. Member raises an important point. Can I begin by commending that charity in her constituency? There is an acknowledgment among the ministerial team that we need to look particularly at the support available for people looking to move into self-employment, and I would be happy to meet her to discuss the work of the charity further.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

10. What steps he is taking to support families with the cost of living.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am very sorry to hear about the case that the hon. Gentleman raises. If there is evidence of false claims made in applications, I would clearly be very grateful if he would share that information with me directly. I will be sure to come back on him—[Interruption.] I will come back to him on that to ensure that it is fully investigated. If we are coming back on anybody, it will hopefully be the gentleman to whom he has referred.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

T9. In Stroud, we have secured £90,000 in funding for a scheme that places employment social prescribers and occupational therapists into GP practices. They support people who are out of work and in receipt of benefits to return to employment, improving their health and reducing their reliance on welfare. Will the Minister consider rolling out that model nationally, recognising that work is often the best cure for sickness?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

People who come to this country and make it their home are welcome to work and pay their taxes. However, Ministers may have seen reports over the weekend of foreign career criminals who have been spared prison now claiming universal credit. Taxpayers are going to be outraged by this fact, so what action will the Minister take to ensure that only people who are entitled to receive universal credit do so, and that career criminals do not?

[Andrew Western]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very serious issue. Payment accuracy and ensuring that only those who are eligible to claim benefits do so are incredibly important for confidence in the system. I have not seen the specifics of the case to which he refers, but where we become aware that such errors have been made, we seek to claim that money back. We have taken further powers through the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025 to take action against the sorts of serious and organised criminals he refers to, and I am pleased to say that that Act received Royal Assent last month.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

What discussions has the Minister had on removing universal credit from convicted killers who are currently serving a sentence in a psychiatric hospital?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

My constituent Andrew co-founded Adzuna, a job search website built on artificial intelligence. Its research shows that existing AI tools could improve the DWP’s service and create 250,000 more jobs per year. However, it is reported that the new rebuild of the service is not going to include those AI tools. Can the Secretary of State give the House reassurance that we are going to incorporate those new tools into the rebuild of the service so that we get that employment boost?

[Andrew Western]

The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if, for commercial reasons, I do not confirm that Adzuna’s specific tool or any other would be part of the work we are taking forward. I can tell him that we will be bringing forward a new AI tool in the coming months that will include not only “find a job” options, but CV support, interview training and various other cutting-edge tools that will support people up and down the country into work, utilising the power of AI.

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

The UK shared prosperity fund currently supports about 20% of Renfrewshire council’s employability budget. Given that that funding is due to come to an end, can my right hon. Friend outline what steps he will take to support employability services in Renfrewshire going forward?

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

My constituent has been trying for more than five months to get a response from the DWP about his UC claim. Having now taken up the case, I too am experiencing unacceptable delays—it is now 15 weeks and counting, when the supposed turnaround is 15 days. Can the Minister please say what action he is taking to ensure that the DWP responds to constituents and to MPs within reasonable timescales?

[Andrew Western]

May I begin by apologising to the hon. Lady for the experience that she and her constituent have encountered? She will be pleased to know that I recently met our newly appointed complaints lead and the independent case examiner, who is raising concerns about the trends she is seeing. We are putting in place a range of interventions that take us forward in a positive way to improve our complaints handling process, and I will be happy to share more detail with her directly.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Trussell Trust are campaigning for an essentials guarantee that would ensure that benefits cover the necessities for living. Does the Minister agree that the welfare state should be a universal safety net, not a trapdoor?

--- Later in debate ---

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

My constituent Sam has been failed by the Child Maintenance Service. Her ex-partner hid a load of his income. She knows that because the CMS sent her the evidence but then denied it. Any reference to onward referrals is denied, and she is stuck in the bureaucracy. This is an unacceptable situation. She says that by the time the back payment comes through for her children, she will be passing it straight through to her grandchildren. It is a total disgrace. Women should not be treated like this; they should not be subjected to this kind of failing bureaucracy. Will Ministers look into the matter and into Sam’s case?

[Andrew Western]

I will have a look at the general issue, and if the hon. Member could share details of Sam’s case with me directly, I would be happy to look at it for him.

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

Andrew Western Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Written Statements

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

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

Public Sector Fraud Authority: Civil penalties.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[HCWS1133]

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Western Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

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

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

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

[Damian Hinds]

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

[Andrew Western]

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

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

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

[Andrew Western]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Michelle Scrogham]

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

[Andrew Western]

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

[Perran Moon]

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

[Andrew Western]

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

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

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

[Andrew Western]

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

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

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

[Andrew Western]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

[Andrew Western]

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

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

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

[Andrew Western]

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

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

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

Work and Pensions

Andrew Western Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Written Corrections

The following extract is from the Westminster Hall debate on young people not in education, employment or training on 26 November 2025.

[Andrew Western]

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), mentioned the challenges facing sectors including hospitality—I know that he has a particular interest in that sector, given the constituency he represents—and their inability to hire young people. I appreciate the challenges that he set out, but I hope that he will be pleased to hear that the new foundation apprenticeships will have a particular focus on sectors including hospitality and will be fully funded.

[Official Report, 26 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 199WH.]

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

[Andrew Western]

…I appreciate the challenges that he set out, but I hope that he will be pleased to hear that the new foundation apprenticeships have a particular focus on sectors like construction and apprenticeships in SMEs will be fully funded for eligible young people.

Young People not in Education, Employment or Training

Andrew Western Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Westminster Hall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

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

Level 7 Apprenticeships

Andrew Western Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson) on securing this important debate and on her considered speech on a subject where she has considerable experience, as she set out. Before I respond, I should add a declaration of my own: prior to working in politics full time, I worked for a leading global civil engineering consultancy, and have a pension with them.

As colleagues know, apprenticeships are a new and very welcome addition to the Department for Work and Pensions from the Department for Education, following machinery of Government changes set out in September. Whether at debates like this or out and about in our constituencies, it is brilliant to hear about the incredible impact that apprenticeships can have for learners, employers and our communities. This Government are on a mission to create an apprenticeship and skills system that drives growth and leaves no place or person behind. Within that, we want to ensure a particular focus on young people, who for too long have not been able to access the apprenticeship opportunities they need to get ahead.

We all know how valuable apprenticeships can be for young people in building confidence and ability at the start of their working lives and the longer-term opportunities they offer for increased earnings and career progression. We also know the benefits that young apprentices in turn bring to businesses through fresh perspectives and the chance to mould a workforce motivated to make a difference from the get-go. That is why it is such a scandal that, under the last Government, apprenticeship starts for young people fell by 40%. We therefore want to balance the programme back towards young people at the beginning of their careers.

In order to create more opportunities for young people at the start of their working lives, we need to prioritise public funding towards them. That is why, as confirmed in June, from January 2026 the Government will no longer fund level 7 apprenticeships except for young apprentices under the age of 22 and those under 25 who are care leavers or have an education, health and care plan in place.

Skills England was asked to provide insight into the impact of removing funding from level 7 apprenticeships. It engaged with more than 700 stakeholders from various sectors, employer representative bodies and young people. It was clear that, although apprenticeship training at level 7 is important for meeting the skills needs of the economy, alternative routes are well supplied. Skills England’s evidence suggested that there was unlikely to be a significant or unavoidable fall in the supply of these skills in the long term post defunding.

We are encouraging more employers to invest in upskilling their staff members aged 22 or older to level 7, which delivers benefits to both the business and the individual. Large numbers of level 7 training options, equivalent to master’s degrees, are available to employers, and those options include non-apprenticeship routes. It will be for employers to determine the most appropriate training, and that will enable Government funding to be rebalanced towards young people.

Skills England also did not find a strong enough economic rationale to exempt a small group of level 7 apprenticeship standards from de-funding. Although level 7 apprenticeships can be, and often are, a valuable route for some disadvantaged learners, a significant proportion of such apprentices are from non-deprived backgrounds, and they are significantly less likely to be deprived than those at lower levels. Compared with other apprenticeships, level 7 apprenticeships generally also have a higher proportion of older learners—particularly, for example, the senior leader apprenticeship. I recognise that the hon. Member for Chippenham was talking about architecture, and later in my contribution, I will refer to some of the points that she made on that subject. However, 99% of apprentices on that particular apprenticeship are over the age 25, so there is a specific issue there that the Government are seeking to address.

We have seen thousands of people take advantage of level 7 opportunities, and that will continue under our new approach, but we are shifting that focus to funding younger learners. As part of our ambition to rebalance apprenticeships back towards young people, it is vital that we also create more opportunities at lower levels for younger people. We know that currently it can be hard for people at such a young age who have a rough but not exact idea of what they want to do to access training that supports them to take the first steps in their careers. That is why we have introduced new foundation apprenticeships as a key first part of our growth and skills offer, to give young people a route into careers in critical sectors, enabling them to take a wage while developing vital skills.

The first foundation apprenticeships were launched in August in the construction, engineering and manufacturing, digital, and health and social care sectors. To support businesses to make the most of those opportunities, we are providing employers with up to £2,000 for every foundation apprentice that they take on and retain in their industry. It is great that there is already demand to broaden the availability of foundation apprenticeships, and work is under way to identify other sectors in which they would be welcomed.

I want to respond to some of the comments from the hon. Member for Chippenham about the architecture sector. As I said earlier, I recognise her specialism in the area and I understand her argument that level 7 apprenticeships have opened up access in architecture. In terms of the extent to which level 7 apprenticeships, compared with lower-level apprenticeships, attract people from more deprived backgrounds, we do not see anything like the number of people from disadvantaged backgrounds at level 7 that we do in other areas. I appreciate that there may be an impact when compared to the typical architecture student, but looking at level 7 apprenticeships in the round, we do not see that consistently.

The hon. Member for Chippenham is correct to highlight skills shortages in sectors that are key to delivering homes and infrastructure. As I said, the lower-level routes that we are looking at—foundation apprenticeships —have a particular focus on sectors such as construction and engineering. That will make a significant contribution to starting to address some of the skills shortages. However, I accept that for particular professions, such as surveyors and town planners, the level 7 apprenticeship route is a mechanism through which to fill key roles through which local authorities can build infrastructure.

On the subject of architecture—I appreciate that the hon. Member for Chippenham framed it as a prejudicial approach—student finance is available for people to undertake the masters qualification, subject to the usual criteria. However, overall, it is about this Government’s commitment to ensuring that apprenticeships are a mechanism to support people at the start of their careers. That is why we are so determined to make the change that we are making, to ensure that it is under-22s who benefit most from the support that is available.

The hon. Member for Chippenham asked a specific question about what assessment was done on architecture. I hope that she will forgive me for having not done my homework about her background, as I thought that I was responding to a general debate on level 7 apprenticeships. I will write to her separately to ensure that I address the points she made about flexibility and more time. I did not know I needed to be specifically equipped to respond, so I will come back to her. I hope, however, that I have explained the rationale on level 7 apprenticeships more generally.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Will the Minister outline the possible impacts on local authorities taking on a town planning role? There are serious budget constraints on local authorities. It is hard to keep and retain staff in a planning department, especially when they are attracted to the private sector. Local authorities use level 7 as a key tool to upskill the workforce, which aids retention. If the Government are to achieve their mission to build all those new homes, does the Minister agree that the apprenticeship route is important?

[Andrew Western]

I certainly agree that apprenticeships are an important route. The hon. Lady will be aware that there has been a significant shortage of town planners for some time, and I do not think it is reasonable to characterise these changes as the cause. I am not suggesting that that is what she is doing, but we need to be careful. She is arguing that this may exacerbate an existing problem.

We have a broader challenge with town planners that needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, they tend to qualify and go to the sort of civil engineering consultancy that I used to work for, to earn lots more money. Based on the call for evidence and the information collected by Skills England last year, we are hopeful that we can work with a number of employers, including local authorities—accepting funding constraints—and the NHS, because specific nursing routes have been excepted, having been considered a challenge early on, to look at whether they can fund level 7 apprenticeships directly. We think that is more feasible than at a lower level of apprenticeship, because there is often a long-standing existing relationship between the employer and the potential apprentice. The evidence suggests a greater willingness to invest in individuals, because employers recognise their skills and talents, and have been working to develop them for some time.

[Sarah Gibson]

My specific point earlier was about some of the built environment professions being different from big engineering firms; they are not Jaguar Land Rover. A large architectural firm—even the largest ones in London—probably has no more than 50 to 60 employees. They are small businesses and, in the same way that local authorities are constrained, they are not in a position to finance their apprentices. They rely on the levies because they are just not big enough as businesses. That makes a difference to the sector, as does the fact that it is one qualification, not a separate thing. The constraints in the profession are quite acute because of the size of the business. That makes a difference—it is not the NHS.

[Andrew Western]

If I suggested it was the NHS, I apologise, because that was not my intention. Established long-standing relationships, where an employer has invested, mean that level 7 apprenticeships may be a space to encourage conversations between employers and existing staff members, because they have proven their value.

I appreciate that architecture has a particularly long, challenging and incremental qualification route, which is the best way to describe it. That is why it is important that, when there are challenges and employers are not in the position to offer a post-graduate financing route, that that remains available. As I said, I will come back to the hon. Member for Chippenham on the questions she raised about her sector, as I had not realised we were going to drill down so particularly. She is right that architecture firms come in all shapes and sizes, from large consultancies that have an architecture or built environment function embedded in them, to out-and-out architecture practices that may not be that large. I undertake to come back to her in writing on those issues.

Question put and agreed to.

Machinery of Government: Skills

Andrew Western Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Written Statements

[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 Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 5th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

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

Lords amendment 75, and Government amendment (a).

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

Lords amendment 43, and Government motion to disagree.

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

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

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

[Andrew Western]

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

[Andrew Western]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

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

[Andrew Western]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

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

[Andrew Western]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[John McDonnell]

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

[Andrew Western]

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

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

Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.

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

Government amendment (a) made to Lords amendment 75.

Lords amendment 75, as amended, agreed to.

Lords amendments 30 and 31 disagreed to.

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

Clause 75

Eligibility verification: independent review

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

Welfare Spending

Andrew Western Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Johanna Baxter]

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

[Andrew Western]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andrew Western]

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

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

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

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

That was a failure of their Government. It continues:

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

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

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

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

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

“lower-level mental health conditions”.

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

The motion mentions

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

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

“retaining the two-child benefit cap”.

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

All that is rounded off with the line:

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

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

Question put.