Office for Nuclear Regulation: 2024-25 Annual Report and Accounts
Andrew Western Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
Later today I will lay before this House the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) annual report and accounts 2024-25. This document will also be published on the ONR website.
I can confirm, in accordance with schedule 7, section 25(3) of the Energy Act 2013, that there have been no exclusions to the published document on the grounds of national security.
[HCWS840]
Welfare Spending
Andrew Western Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
Before I turn to some of the rawer politics as the debate demands, I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in this important debate. Like other hon. Members, I am appalled by the level of child poverty in this country. Running through the debate was an underlying and understandable anger at the unacceptable increase in child poverty since 2010, with 1.1 million children using food banks to eat.
Graham Stuart
I am sure that the Minister wants to give a fair and balanced overview, and we all wish to see fewer people in relative poverty, notwithstanding his support last week for a measure that would have put it up by a quarter of a million. Just to have balance on the record, does he recognise that, in absolute terms, between 2010 and 2024 the number of children in poverty dropped by 300,000, and the number of people in poverty overall by 800,000?
Andrew Western
I absolutely accept that the Conservative party, because of its shameful record, made a fundamental change to the way in which poverty is assessed. We have returned to the internationally recognised comparator that exposes that shameful record. We will not run away from that internationally recognised comparator. It is on that on which we will be judged, and the Conservatives must also be judged on that.
I thank Labour Members who spoke in the debate so passionately about the work that the Government have already done on child poverty and the Conservative party’s shameful record. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd North (Gill German), for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) and for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance)—and, yes, my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman). He and I may not agree on the process being followed by the Government to tackle child poverty wherever we see it, but I do not doubt his commitment and support to tackling it.
I thank in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) for his powerful personal testimony about his upbringing, and about the stigma of poverty and the shame that many parents feel when they require extra support. Like him, I grew up in modest circumstances, as one of five children. For a period, in a single-parent household, we were dependent on tax credits, child tax credits and the education maintenance allowance—remember that? I will not allow privately educated Conservative spokespeople to lecture us on the plight of struggling families up and down the country when they have shown no care at all about the part they played in putting many of those families into crisis.
Andrew Western
What is low is scrapping the Child Poverty Act in 2016. The Conservatives’ record on child poverty is cheap and low. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) can continue to chunter from a sedentary position; I could reel off their record all day.
Andrew Western
I will not at the moment.
Let me come to the shadow Secretary of State, who, like many Conservative Members, was in total denial of the Conservative record, not only on child poverty, but on the welfare bill, which has spiralled enormously since 2020. They put 4.5 million children in poverty, and they come here with this motion. There was no recognition of the fact that almost 60% of families affected by the two-child limit are in work. There was no understanding of the lack of clarity in their motion, which does not specify whether it relates only to universal credit and child tax credit. It says that children “should not receive” any “additional funding”. What of child benefit? What of disability living allowance for children? The motion is not worth the paper it is written on, unless that is now their policy.
The Conservatives have talked about personal and fiscal responsibility—quite unbelievable from the party that crashed the economy and left the welfare bill spiralling. They take no responsibility for their actions at all, but they seek to lecture others on how they should live their lives. The shadow Secretary of State talked about giving families broader support—for instance, through family hubs. How many Sure Start centres closed under the previous Government? In their first 10 years alone, it was 1,300. Then, we heard that only the Conservatives understand the importance of living within their means. I have two words for the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately): Liz Truss.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
In Wales, sadly, we have some of the highest rates of child poverty in the United Kingdom, and some of the highest across Europe. Why is that? Why is poverty so stubbornly high in Wales, and would lifting the cap not improve things for Welsh children?
Andrew Western
Lifting the cap is one of the many levers that the Government are considering. We will look at that in the round, and when we come forward with our child poverty strategy, we will look to lift children in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and here in England—children up and down this country—out of poverty, because that is a moral mission for this Government. Indeed, we have already started that important work, with free breakfast clubs, free school meals for families on universal credit, restrictions on branded school uniform items and, to the point made by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), proposed changes to the Child Maintenance Service. We will also abolish direct pay, which was created by the Conservative party. This will lift 20,000 children out of poverty.
Andrew Western
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there was £1 billion worth of employment support alongside those measures, the impacts of which are yet to be scored by the Office for Budget Responsibility. We are serious about getting people back to work as a route to tackling poverty, as well as providing an important safety net for those who need it.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) asked why others should subsidise someone’s third, fourth or fifth child. I say gently to the Conservatives that it is never the child’s fault. A third child has the same right to thrive as the first two, and if they do not, all three children suffer. A hungry child is a hungry child, whatever their background.
Andrew Western
I am afraid I will not take any further interventions, as I only have a couple of minutes left. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) tempted me to speculate about decisions around taxation. He will appreciate that that is way above my pay grade, and I hope that he is patient enough to wait for the next fiscal event to get an answer to his question.
Graham Stuart
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given collective responsibility, is it in order for a Minister of the Crown to argue against a policy of his own Government? If I have understood correctly, it is the policy of the Government and the Labour party to maintain the two-child benefit cap.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The right hon. Gentleman will know that that is not a matter for the Chair, and he is seeking to drag me into the debate.
Andrew Western
It is also not what I said, Madam Deputy Speaker. I said that we on our child poverty taskforce are considering all available levers in the lead-up to the child poverty strategy, which will come in the autumn.
The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), made a point about controlling welfare spend. Yet again, we heard that the four years post-covid were not an appropriate time to tackle the spiralling welfare bill that the Conservatives created. In those four long years, the Conservative party got through three Prime Ministers, five Ministers for health and work, six Secretaries of State for Education and seven Sunak resets, yet the welfare bill continued to spiral. Child poverty worsened, and we had wasted years, so we will take no lectures from the Conservatives on welfare spend, and certainly not on the best way to tackle child poverty.
This party inherited the Conservatives’ shameful legacy of disastrous levels of child poverty and a broken social security system that fails to command people’s trust. Across Government, we have started the urgent work to fix these problems and to drive down child poverty once again, as the last Labour Government did, in partnership with the devolved Administrations, charities, local authorities and others, and to build a fairer, more sustainable social security system that helps people build better lives by giving them the right incentives and support. We will do that important work because tackling child poverty is a moral mission for this Government, and we will oppose this motion today because all levers are under active consideration as we seek to do so.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before I put the Question, I will just remind the Minister that, like the shadow Minister, he should not be referring to Members by their name in the Chamber but by their constituency.
Question put.
Pension Schemes Bill
Andrew Western ExcerptsMonday 7th July 2025
(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Pension Schemes Bill 2024-26 View all Pension Schemes Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
At the outset, I take the opportunity to declare my own interest. Unlike the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), I was elected prior to Lord Cameron ejecting councillors from the local government pension scheme. As a former member of Trafford metropolitan borough council, I also have savings in the local government pension scheme. I am therefore set to benefit from the improved governance of the LGPS initiated by the Bill.
These measures are testament to our dedication to building a resilient, efficient and fair pension system, galvanising and creating the potential to boost our economy at every opportunity. It is our aim to build a future in which every saver can look forward to a secure and prosperous retirement.
I welcome the broad, if not entirely universal, support for the Bill. The open discussion in which we have engaged today is important because, as a responsible Government, we want the House to be assured that the new powers in the Bill come with appropriate mitigations. We understand that Members will have questions, and I have listened carefully to those that have been raised. I remind everyone that the highly fragmented pensions framework has not served savers well, and there is a need for improvement as both the industry and savers demand a better service. The Bill goes to the core of what is needed, providing big solutions to the big problems that are undermining so much potential for savers and the economy.
Let me now turn to some of the comments and queries that have arisen throughout the debate. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards), for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins), for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson), for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) and for Glasgow East (John Grady) for speaking in favour of some elements in the Bill, and for their recognition of the investment and growth opportunities that it can unleash.
I am grateful for the constructive support and consensus that we heard from both the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), who opened the debate for the Opposition, and the hon. Member for South West Devon, who closed it. They were right to mention the specular success of automatic enrolment, but that was half the job, as pointed out by the Pensions Minister, and I think the hon. Member for South West Devon acknowledged that we now need to move on to the pressing task of dealing with pension adequacy, which will be taken forward by the pensions review. They were also right to refer to the complexity and fragmentation of pension pots.
I welcomed the support from the hon. Member for Wyre Forest for the long-awaited pensions dashboard, and was particularly pleased to hear of his support for changes in the local government pension scheme, although he expressed concern about certain parts of the Bill and the potential for propping up a failing scheme that arises from those changes. Let me reassure him that no cross-subsidising between administering authorities would be caused by any changes made by the Bill. As for the question of safeguards in respect of surplus release, we cannot stop share buy-backs and the like, but we have confidence in the ability of trustees to adhere to their fiduciary duties.
I understand that mandation has given rise to the fundamental objection of not just the hon. Gentleman but a number of other speakers, but I do not believe that it undermines fiduciary duties, and I do not agree with that analysis. The Bill contains clear safeguards that are consistent with those duties, not least in clause 38, which refers to an opt-out in the event of material detriment to members of a fund. The hon. Gentleman also raised questions relating to gilts; we believe that nothing in the Bill would undermine a well-functioning gilt market. However, as I have said, I welcome the broad support for the Bill, particularly with regard to value for money, small pots, guided retirement products and terminal illness changes.
Kit Malthouse
I want to be clear—so that the House is clear—about the opt-out to which both Ministers have referred. Is it a correct interpretation to say that it is not an opt-out at the discretion of the trustees of the fund, and that the Bill requires them to apply to the regulator with evidence for the regulator to make a decision to grant them the ability to opt out? The idea that trustees are somehow free to make a decision in the interests of the fund is not actually correct, is it?
Andrew Western
The right hon. Gentleman is correct in his interpretation, although I do not entirely agree with his characterisation. It is, I think, perfectly reasonable that we would ask trustees to explain how they feel that what is proposed would be to the detriment of their scheme members.
I welcomed the support of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), for many of the general proposals in the Bill. I entirely agreed with his comments about the need to give savers the best possible advice and protections. I also agreed with what he said about the opportunities to deliver further investment in our economy. As for social housing, which others also raised, he will know that many pension schemes already make such investments, and I certainly support their continuing to do so.
We then heard an excellent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth. I particularly welcome her comments on the value-for-money changes, and she is absolutely correct to highlight the importance of looking at schemes in the round, not just on cost. On the pipeline of investments that she set out, I hope she is reassured by some of the steps that the Government are taking—for instance, through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill—to ensure that there are a range of exciting major projects, such a reservoirs and houses, that people will be able to invest in.
The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) is certainly correct to say that he punctured the air of consensus in outlining his reservations. I know that my hon. Friend the Pensions Minister has agreed to have a conversation with the right hon. Member next week, and I hope that he will find that incredibly helpful. Clearly, it is not for me to comment on whether this should be a hybrid Bill. On the question of megafunds, he is right that not all large schemes provide a better return, but the evidence shows that while that is not always the case, they do see better returns on average. That is an important point.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) was correct to raise how long we have been waiting for the pensions dashboard, and I am similarly excited and anticipate its arrival. I promise that it will be worth the wait when it finally arrives. On her point about the scope of the Bill, the pensions review will take forward a number of the issues on which she and other Members said the Bill could have gone further. The pensions review is under way, and we will say more about that incredibly soon.
Kirsty Blackman
On the pensions review, there is a massive cross-party consensus that there is an issue with its adequacy, and we want to see it tackled. Will Ministers agree to take this forward in as cross-party a way as possible? We all care strongly about it.
Andrew Western
This matter is important to everybody in this House, because it is important to the constituents of everybody in this House. I would be very open to ensuring that Members of this House are able to feed as much as possible into the pensions review. It is an incredibly important piece of work.
I return to the question of my age. As a millennial, I am terrified of admitting that I have now reached an age when I should be thinking about my pension, having just turned 40. In any event, some of the work around the consolidation of small pots and so forth will help people.
A number of Members have asked about the balance of the distribution of any surplus release, and it is ultimately for trustees to decide on that balance. On the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North about potential guidance coming forward—the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) touched on this as well—that is something that I will discuss with the Minister for Pensions. It may well be teased out in Committee.
I hope that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) will be a member of the Bill Committee and continue the dialogue with the Minister for Pensions. I am always keen to find volunteers, and I hope that he will put himself forward. On the question of regulatory decision making, I hope that the Pensions Regulator has heard what he said about pace.
On the issue of divestment from funds that invest in fossil fuels and so forth, it is a matter for trustees. Individual flexibility on investments is a cornerstone of the system, but we are consulting on UK sustainability reporting standards and on transition plans.
Finally, we heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—we always save the best for last. I am very grateful for his support for the Bill. If he was not 18 yesterday, I am sure it was the day before. None the less, I wish that everybody had a mum like his. We may not have had some of the challenges with the adequacy of people’s pensions had they all received such superb advice from their parents at the age of 18.
Today we embark on a transformative journey with this Pension Schemes Bill. This legislation underscores our readiness to deliver fundamental changes to the pensions landscape, an endeavour that is not only urgent, but essential for driving a future in which savers and, indeed, our economy can derive the benefits of a better organised, less fragmented and easier to navigate pension system, and I am pleased by the widespread support for the Bill across the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Pension Schemes Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Pension Schemes Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 23 October 2025.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Andrew Western.)
Question agreed to.
Pension Schemes Bill (Money)
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Pension Schemes Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.—(Andrew Western.)
Question agreed to.
Pension Schemes Bill (Ways and Means)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Pension Schemes Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
(a) the levying of charges under the Pension Schemes Act 1993 for the purpose of meeting any increase in the expenditure of the Pensions Regulator attributable to the Act;
(b) the amendment of section 177(5) of the Pensions Act 2004 so as to increase the limit in that provision on the amount that may be raised by pension protection levies imposed by the Board of the Pension Protection Fund.—(Andrew Western.)
Question agreed to.
Child Maintenance Payments
Andrew Western Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
My noble Friend the Minister of State (Minister for Lords), Baroness Sherlock OBE, has made the following written statement:
I am pleased to inform the House that yesterday, the Government published their response to the “Child Maintenance: Improving the collection and transfer of payments” consultation. Releasing the response shows the Government’s commitment to reducing the number of children growing up in poverty, which holds back too many children, limiting their future prospects and holding back this country’s potential. This consultation was launched by the previous Government and extended by this Government to give as many people as possible the chance to respond.
The Government are delivering on our plan for change, and are reforming the Child Maintenance Service to help ensure that more children get the money they deserve. This consultation contains proposals that are part of the action we are taking that will lift more children out of poverty and support the Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity.
The consultation received over 2,700 public responses, and engagement from 28 stakeholder organisations across the UK. Additionally, we commissioned research with current CMS customers who use the direct pay service to help us quantify the impacts of the reforms and provide in-depth insight.
There will be two clear options for parents following the planned reforms. One is to make a family-based arrangement. We will provide parents with enhanced support to make and maintain these, and we are working to improve our communications to support parents in understanding the options that are available to them. Our ambition is that anyone with a stable and compliant direct pay arrangement should find this option meets their needs.
Of course, family-based arrangements are not appropriate for all separated parents, and where that is the case, or where people prefer to be part of the statutory system, it will still be available. The CMS will operate a single service, based on the current collect-and-pay model, in which it will manage all payments, with an improved ability to identify and act on non-compliance.
As part of these reforms, we will halve the fees for those using the CMS, while maintaining a 20% fee for non-resident parents who refuse to pay up on time and in full. Parents currently in the direct pay system will have the choice of keeping their CMS case, which will be moved to the new, improved service, giving them the peace of mind that maintenance will be paid and any problems will be followed up, in return for a small fee—or have improved support to make and maintain a family-based arrangement.
We plan to progress with these proposals and believe that they will address the fundamental issues with direct pay. This change will prevent parents getting stuck in ineffective arrangements, in which no, reduced or erratic payments go to children. We know from research with direct pay customers that only six in 10 receiving parents in direct pay report getting all the child maintenance that they are owed, and only four in 10 say that they always receive it on time. Removing direct pay will mean we can tackle this hidden non-compliance and get money flowing to children in these cases.
To have the best impact on child poverty, we need to ensure that more children are in effective arrangements, which we envisage these changes helping with. We estimate that this change could result in around 20,000 fewer children in poverty, on the “relative low income after housing costs” measure. To further support children receiving maintenance payments, a commitment was made to position child maintenance deductions higher up the universal credit deductions priority order as part of the fair repayment rate. The repositioning gives greater protection, ensuring that child maintenance is paid in cases where the deductions cap is reached.
The removal of direct pay will also represent a significant improvement to victims and survivors of domestic abuse using the CMS, by reducing contact with the other parent, and reducing the paying parent’s ability to financially control the receiving parent by paying too little or too late, as they currently can under direct pay.
I am committed to ensuring that victims and survivors of domestic abuse get the help and support that they need to use the CMS safely, and have outlined in the consultation response the work that the Department is undertaking to support victims and survivors of domestic abuse to use the service safely.
The reforms announced yesterday are just the first step in our plan to reform the Child Maintenance Service. Alongside action to modernise the service, increase ease of access, streamline enforcement, and better support victims and survivors of domestic abuse, the Government are undertaking a fundamental review of the child maintenance calculation.
I believe that the changes outlined in the Government’s response will help us to achieve a CMS that is fair, trustworthy and more accessible to parents, particularly those who are vulnerable. It will be better able to tackle non-compliance head-on by quickly identifying and tackling missed payments and, most importantly, it will lift more children out of poverty.
The changes to remove direct pay and reform the collection fee structure will require changes to legislation, which will be dependent on parliamentary approval. Subject to securing parliamentary time to make the necessary changes in legislation, we aim to implement them in 2027-28.
[HCWS735]
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Western Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
The Department works collaboratively across Government and law enforcement agencies to investigate welfare fraud perpetrated by organised criminal gangs. This type of criminality is complex and far-reaching, and a collaborative approach is therefore essential. I am pleased to confirm that new powers in the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill will help us better tackle organised crime by taking greater control of our investigations through new powers of entry, search and seizure.
Mr Charters
Having spent my career before entering this place tackling fraud, I recognise the scale of the challenge, so I commend the Secretary of State for her leadership, with the biggest ever crackdown on benefit fraud. Given the success of whistleblower reward schemes in tax and financial crime, does my hon. Friend agree with me that there is merit in exploring similar schemes to uncover organised fraud in the benefits system, so that more funds can be recovered to support those who genuinely need support: our constituents?
Andrew Western
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. We take all allegations of fraud seriously. People who suspect fraud against the Department for Work and Pensions can use existing channels to report it, including the national benefit fraud hotline. This Government are not complacent. As I mentioned in my substantive reply, we are taking action with the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, which will provide a range of new powers to address fraud and error in the social security system, after the Conservative party failed to substantively update our powers to tackle ever-more complex fraud during 14 long years in office. However, I will watch with interest whether there is learning from the schemes my hon. Friend mentioned that could be applied to cases of benefit fraud.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Organised gangs operate in many spheres—sex, drugs and, as reported in the media, our welfare system. This totally undermines public confidence in the system. Will the Minister make representations to the Home Secretary to ensure that foreign nationals who are found to have abused our welfare system are removed from the country?
Andrew Western
I am very happy to raise with the Home Office the issue that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted, but I would say to him, and indeed to his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench, that what genuinely undermines confidence in the welfare system is the record of the previous Government, who allowed welfare fraud to spiral towards £10 billion a year and failed to take the powers needed, as we are doing now, to get that number down.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
The issue of economic abuse through the Child Maintenance Service is a serious one, which this Government are looking to address urgently. I am pleased to say that a response to the “Child Maintenance: Improving the collection and transfer of payments” consultation was published earlier today. We intend to reform the CMS into a single service type, where the CMS collects and transfers all payments. This reform will drastically reduce opportunities for economic abuse throughout the service and make sure that money gets to the children who need it. We estimate that this change alone could lift more than 20,000 children out of poverty.
Sarah Green
I have too many constituents whose financial abuse is effectively being perpetuated and facilitated by the Child Maintenance Service. I have secured a meeting with the relevant Minister in the other place, but it has been postponed. Could the Minister help me to secure a date for that meeting? I am sure that he would agree that if the system is at fault, it needs to change.
Andrew Western
I hope the hon. Member has heard me say that we concur with the need for change. We have announced changes in the right direction today, and I will of course pick up with my fellow Minister about securing that meeting for her. I know they have already been in protracted talks about arranging it, and I will make sure it happens.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
My constituent, Deborah, should receive monthly child maintenance payments for her daughter, but her former partner withholds payments, despite my complaints and hers to the DWP Child Maintenance Service complaints team, advising them that he deliberately withholds payments for three months and then backdates them. That is a form of abuse and controlling behaviour, but the DWP complaints team have advised me today that there is nothing they can do to prevent it, despite a deduction-from-earnings order being in place. Does the Minister agree that that is a completely inadequate response that requires a ministerial review of the system?
Andrew Western
I am sorry to hear about the case that my hon. Friend has highlighted. He will have heard the reform that I announced earlier, but I absolutely understand why he wants to raise this issue for his constituent, and if he would like to meet me to discuss it further, I would be happy to do that.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
Many new mothers in Plymouth are claiming maternity allowance, not because they are unemployed, but because they do not qualify for statutory maternity pay; they may be self-employed, have recently changed jobs or have had a pregnancy-related sickness. Many of them have contacted me with concerns that maternity allowance is treated as unearned income and is therefore subject to universal credit deductions, unlike statutory maternity pay. What steps is the Department taking to ensure financial security for women in Plymouth who are claiming maternity allowance?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. The treatment of maternity allowance in universal credit was subject to a judicial review, which upheld the policy of treating it as unearned income when calculating universal credit and of treating SMP paid by employers as earnings, in common with other statutory payments made by employers. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that, depending on individual circumstances, additional financial support—for example, child benefit and the Sure Start maternity grant—may be available to parents.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
My constituent Tirath is currently being pursued by the Child Maintenance Service for £20,000, despite having successfully appealed the claim in 2022. He is now at risk of losing his professional status as a pharmacist because of this process. Will the Minister encourage the CMS to investigate that case urgently or to meet with me to discuss it?
Andrew Western
I am very sorry to hear about the plight of the hon. Member’s constituent. If she would like a meeting with me, I am very happy to give her that, and I am also happy to look into the matter, as she suggests.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme: Capital Disregard
Andrew Western Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Ms Jardine, and to do so in a debate on such an important and emotive subject. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) for securing it. He has spoken passionately today, as have all Members who contributed, and has done so consistently in his fight to bring forward Philomena’s law. I want to say on the record what a champion he has been for that cause.
As we have heard, this was a painful, scandalous and shameful episode in Ireland’s history. It is impossible to imagine the trauma that the women and children who were sent to these institutions suffered; the heartbreaking accounts of their experiences are distressing in the extreme. What happened to them is truly appalling—all the more so because it was only in 2021 that they finally received an apology from the then Taoiseach, Micheál Martin. It is absolutely right that the victims of the scandal are at last receiving some kind of redress through the mother and baby institutions payment scheme in Ireland.
The payments can never, ever put right the terrible suffering that those women were forced to endure. No amount of compensation can make up for what they lost, but compensation for them and their family members is an important acknowledgment of the wrong that was done. Norma Foley, the Irish Government’s Minister for Children, Disability and Equality, recently highlighted how disappointed she is that not all the religious bodies involved have offered meaningful compensation. It appears that only two religious orders have contributed to the scheme in Ireland, so there is still quite some way to go to ensure that there is proper accountability and responsibility for the impact that time in these institutions had on the lives of those women and their children.
What does this scandal mean for the United Kingdom and our social security system? Due to the close historic ties between Ireland and this country, there has always been movement of people from one to the other. My constituency of Stretford and Urmston, much like that of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey), has a long history of drawing in families from Ireland, which contributed to the economic and cultural growth of the area and helped to shape the communities of today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) continued the theme highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford of the north-west’s significant Irish population and the contributions made by those Irish people to the cities of Manchester and Liverpool in particular. Other Members referenced the same thing in their communities, and the point is not lost on me. The same is true for many of the constituencies that are not represented here today, particularly urban areas where there is a significant Irish diaspora.
It is therefore not surprising that some of the people affected by this scandal are now living in the United Kingdom. The Irish Government estimate the number of applicants to the compensation scheme will be in the region of 34,000. They estimate around 40%—13,600—are living outside Ireland, with the majority assumed to be in the UK, though some will be in other countries too, particularly the United States.
However, as queried by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), there is no way of knowing exactly how many of those affected and now living in this country are also in receipt of an income-related benefit. On the question of cost, it is simply not possible to give a firm figure or determine the implications of the change, were it to be adopted. It is even less possible to speculate on how many might, at some point in the future, claim an income-related benefit. That is an important factor.
Income-related benefits such as universal credit, housing benefit and pension credit provide a taxpayer-funded safety net for people in various circumstances and on low incomes. The nature of those benefits and the rules under which they operate are approved by Parliament. To ensure that money is directed to those most in need, rules have been developed over many years setting out not only conditions of entitlement, but how a person’s financial and personal circumstances affect the amount they receive. That means income, such as earnings or pensions as well as capital and any savings above a certain level are generally taken into account; that is the point of income-related benefits.
The more money a person already has, the less they can expect to receive from the taxpayer. However, the social security system recognises that, in certain cases, the money or capital someone has can be ignored—or, as the terminology has it, disregarded. In pension credit, for instance, there are 28 separate categories of capital that are disregarded. Examples relevant for today’s debate include various compensation payments, and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge and others highlighted some examples. These disregards cover medical compensation, such as payments in respect of infected blood; payments in respect of an historic wrong, as was highlighted, including those concerning Windrush and child migrants; and payments resulting from specific events, including payments relating to Grenfell tower and the London Bombings Relief Charitable Fund.
The number of disregards has grown over time as Parliament has responded to tragic events and scandals, such as the recent Post Office scandal. We must not forget that income-related benefits are paid for through general taxation, so disregarding a compensation payment comes at a cost to the taxpayer. That is why, when deciding whether a new disregard is appropriate—unfortunately, we live in a world where tragic events and scandals happen—several factors are considered: where the event took place, who is responsible, how many people are affected, and whether it is proportionate to amend the law.
What all the examples I have given have in common is that the circumstances that gave rise to that compensation payment either occurred in this country or involved events for which the UK Government have direct responsibility or liability. The events that are the subject of this debate were a truly horrendous episode in Ireland’s history. We heard multiple references to the film “Philomena,” which I saw a very long time ago—not knowing what it was about, but because Judi Dench was in it. I will watch anything she is in, as I think she is amazing. As the hon. Member for South West Devon said, the film hits particularly hard as one watches it and sees what people endured.
Philomena’s example, what we have heard from her and her family’s Member of Parliament, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), and Christina’s story, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins), show just how significant an impact these events had on so many lives. It is absolutely right, therefore, that the Irish Government have taken responsibility, apologised and set up a compensation scheme to address the wrongs that occurred.
Let me address the Opposition spokesperson’s intervention on the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) about those from Northern Ireland who spent time in mother and baby institutions. My understanding is that Northern Ireland is setting up its own scheme, but of course social security matters are devolved to its institutions. Whether Northern Ireland and the Republic establish a reciprocal agreement is a matter for them—such is the nature of devolution. I assure the hon. Lady that a scheme is in development.
Before securing this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge introduced a ten-minute rule Bill, which shows how strongly and passionately he cares about this issue. I assure him that both the Minister for pensions and the Minister for Social Security and Disability—I am sorry to disappoint everybody, but I am neither—are already carefully considering whether to legislate to disregard payment from Ireland’s mother and baby institutions payment scheme.
A decision on that has not yet been made, partly because, to answer the hon. Member for South West Devon, conversations are ongoing across the Government, with Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers and officials, as well as directly with the Irish Government, about whether it is possible and how it might work. It is raised at that level frequently, because of the historical relationship between the two nations. I realise that Members will be disappointed that I am unable to confirm today whether a scheme will be put in place.
Daisy Cooper
It is not unusual in this House for Ministers to say that things are actively under consideration. In a previous Parliament, I have been in this room when Ministers have said that repeatedly. If it is under active consideration, can the Minister please say when that might conclude? Is he in a position to give us a deadline today, or is he able instead to write to every Member that has contributed to this debate within the next 14 days with a deadline?
Andrew Western
I am going to disappoint the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, because I am unable to give her that assurance today. Conversations between the UK and Irish Governments, as well as conversations between Government Departments, are ongoing. I do not want to suggest that we are leaning one way or another, or that a decision is imminent.
The hon. Member for South West Devon set out how unprecedented a decision this would be. We regularly receive requests for scandals and issues that have happened in other countries to be considered for a disregard in this country. For instance, when the coalition Government were in power, the Magdalene Laundries was one such example where a disregard was not put in place. More recently, we saw this with the Australian child abuse scandal and with Gurkhas seeking a disregard to the 28-day rule around the allocation of pension credit.
This would be a significant change with broader ramifications, but that is not to say that we are not looking to take that change forward. Thought still needs to be given to this, and conversations need to continue. I am grateful to all Members for the opportunity to set out the current conversations, and to hear directly about people’s experiences.
Carla Lockhart
I thank the Minister for his response in relation to Northern Ireland, but I reiterate that the Northern Ireland Executive is just the postman for social benefits. The UK Parliament is sovereign. For something of this nature, given the small number it would impact and the small cost, I would want Northern Ireland to be part of the conversation from a UK-wide perspective, so that we go hand in hand, because constituents in Northern Ireland are as deserving as those here in GB.
Andrew Western
I do not want to openly disagree with the hon. Lady, but I gently say that social security matters are devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly, although of course it seeks alignment on issues wherever it is able to do so, and I welcome that. The fact that it is looking at its own scheme related to people from Northern Ireland who were in mother and baby institutions in Northern Ireland points to the flexibility within the devolved system. However, I accept the point that she makes about the importance of ensuring that, were the UK Government to apply a disregard, we would look to have conversations with the Northern Ireland Assembly about that also being applicable in its jurisdiction.
As I was saying, this debate has been an important opportunity not just to set out the Government’s position, but to hear powerful testimony about Christina’s story and more information about Philomena’s story.
Daisy Cooper
I know that the Minister is just about to respond to the fact that we have heard powerful testimony. I understand that he is not in a position to set out any deadlines today, so I implore him to make a different commitment. Will he please commit today, in front of the many people who have joined us, to use his good offices to facilitate a meeting between our constituents who are affected by this issue and the relevant Minister, so that they can speak directly to those in power who may be in a position to make decisions in due course? Will he please commit to doing everything he can to ensure that our constituents have their voices heard by those at the top?
Andrew Western
I will happily take that request back to the Department; clearly, it is a matter for the relevant Minister. However, I can perhaps liaise with my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge, who has led this campaign, to see whether such a meeting is possible, and I will happily update all Members on whether or not we are able to convene that meeting.
As I was saying, this debate has been an important opportunity not only to set out the Government’s position, but to hear powerful testimony. I am grateful to all Members who have contributed to the debate, everyone who has come along to listen and everyone who agreed to have their story told. As I have said, no decision has been made yet. We are very much listening to those who have been impacted by this issue. It would be a significant change—setting a precedent—but none the less we are keen, as I have said, to continue talks with the Irish Government and across Government before coming to a decision on this matter.
Office for Nuclear Regulation Corporate Plan 2025-26
Andrew Western Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
Later today I will lay before this House the Office for Nuclear Regulation’s corporate plan 2025-26. This document will also be published on the ONR website.
I can confirm, in accordance with paragraph 25(3) of schedule 7 to the Energy Act 2013, that there have been no exclusions to the published documents on the grounds of national security.
[HCWS648]
Benefit System: Fraud and Error
Andrew Western Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
The annual statistics for fraud and error in the benefit system for the financial year ending 2025, were published on Thursday 15 May 2024, at 9.30am.
Today's figures confirm the overall rate of overpayments is now 3.3% (£9.5 billion) for 2024-25, compared to 3.6% (£9.7 billion) in 2023-24. Overpayments due to fraud account for 2.2% compared to 2.7% last year while claimant error and official error are now at 0.7% and 0.4% respectively, compared to 0.6% and 0.3% last year.
This Government made a manifesto commitment that they will safeguard taxpayers’ money and not tolerate fraud or waste anywhere in public services. With welfare benefits paid to around 24 million people, the welfare system is a deliberate target for both organised crime groups and opportunistic individuals and it is vital that the Government continue to robustly tackle fraud to ensure support goes to those who need it most. We are taking further steps to minimise error, ensuring the right people are paid the right amount at the right time. The total rate of benefit expenditure underpaid in FYE 2025 was 0.4% (£1.2 billion), compared with 0.4% (£1.1 billion) in FYE 2024.
Through autumn Budget 2024 and spring statement 2025, the Department has committed to deliver £9.6 billion in scored savings out to 2029-30. This will be delivered through a suite of measures, including additional resourcing for the Verify Earnings and Pension Service which uses HMRC data to identify changes in claimants’ earnings and private pensions that may impact entitlement to carer’s allowance and pension credit, and new verification measures for capital and self-employed income and expenses across universal credit claims.
As part of this, the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery Bill), which moves to Second Reading in the House of Lords today, is estimated to deliver benefits of £1.5 billion over the next five years. It will safeguard public money by reducing public sector fraud and error and allowing the more effective recovery of moneys owed to the Government. The Bill will also help spot and stop errors earlier to avoid claimants’ getting into debt. The latest fraud and error in the benefit system statistics show overpayments at a staggering £9.5 billion in the last year, with capital remaining one of the top reasons for overpayments in UC and PC. This demonstrates the continued importance of the eligibility verification measure, which is a core part of the Bill.
Today we have also published our unfulfilled eligibility statistics, following last year’s reclassification from customer error underpayments. Unfulfilled eligibility measures how much a customer could have been eligible for had they told us their correct circumstances. The total unfulfilled eligibility rate in FYE 2025 was 1.3% (£3.7 billion) compared with 1.2% (£3.1 billion) in FYE 2024. The Department will report more on both overpayments and underpayments by way of its annual report and accounts, which are due to be published in July 2025.
[HCWS637]
Contingencies Fund Advance
Andrew Western Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
I would like to notify the House that the Department for Work and Pensions has obtained approval for an advance from the Contingencies Fund of £4,500,000. This will enable the Department to start building an IT solution, for the delivery of the eligibility verification measure, from May 2025 onwards, before the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, which includes this measure, receives Royal Assent.
Funding for this measure was included in the 2024 spending review. It is expected to generate £940 million in savings over five years to 2029-30. Expenditure before Royal Assent will help to ensure the timely delivery of these savings.
Parliamentary approval for capital of £4,500,000 for this new service will be sought in a main estimate for the Department for Work and Pensions. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £ 4,500,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
The advance will be repaid at the earliest opportunity following Royal Assent of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill.
[HCWS631]
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Western Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
The Department is committed to ensuring that individuals receive high-quality and accurate assessments. Assessment suppliers are closely monitored using a range of performance measures designed to improve the accuracy of their advice. Independent audits are conducted to maintain high standards, and as part of our pathways to work proposals we are considering recording assessments as standard to increase transparency and build trust in the system.
Robin Swann
Data shared with me by Dermot Devlin from Disabled People Against Cuts shows that £50 million has been spent on PIP appeals in the past year alone, and also that His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service has reported that over 70% of those PIP appeals have been successful. When people are put through the harrowing process of being told that their PIP appeal is not appropriate and having to go through the entire appeal system, what are Ministers doing to ensure that any changes make that system friendly to those using it?
Andrew Western
I would be very happy to have a conversation with the hon. Gentleman about the assessment process and the mandatory reconsideration process, but I would also say to him that I do not recognise those statistics. Indeed, under the current statistics, appeals are down by 16% on the previous year to January 2025. The other point that I would make to him is that while around 20% of applications are subject to a mandatory reconsideration, only around 5% of those are successful.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
The Centre for Inclusive Living in Dudley, which supports those with disabilities, and many residents have written to me to raise concerns about the PIP entitlement criteria and assessment. What reassurances can my hon. Friend give that this Government will protect those most vulnerable in society and that those with disabilities will be enabled, not disabled?
Andrew Western
I thank my hon. Friend for raising her constituents’ concerns and say to them that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at the beginning of this session, we have this week announced a broader review of the PIP assessment process that I hope in due course, and by working with stakeholders, will be able to give my hon. Friend’s constituents and stakeholder organisations considerable reassurance.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Can the Minister explain why it appears that telephone assessments for PIP have a significantly higher success rate in applications than face-to-face applications?
Andrew Western
I am not able to explain the reason for that difference, but I am able to reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we are looking to move away from telephone appointments and return as quickly as possible to assessments made face to face wherever we are able to do so.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
Can the Minister give us more information on what the PIP assessment review will look like?
Andrew Western
As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the review has only been announced today. There are a considerable number of strands to it that will be led by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability. What I can tell my hon. Friend is that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, that work is beginning this week by reaching out, as is entirely appropriate, to those stakeholder organisations, who will feed in to the purpose and scope of that work moving forward.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
This Government are committed to tackling poverty right across the UK. We are reviewing universal credit to ensure that it is doing the job we want it to do: making work pay and tackling poverty. We have already announced that we will improve the adequacy of the standard allowance in universal credit, and we have introduced the fair repayment rate. Alongside that, the child poverty taskforce is exploring all available levers to reduce child poverty in all four nations, including considering social security reforms.
Ann Davies
Just a day before the new figures revealed yet another rise in child poverty in Wales, the UK Labour Government confirmed plans for billions of pounds-worth of welfare cuts, pushing tens of thousands more children into hardship. The Government tell me that the data is not robust enough to know the poverty impact on Wales, which is really not good enough. The Labour First Minister—of the Senedd, not the “Assembly”, if I may correct the hon. Member for Bristol North East (Damien Egan)—has also criticised this Government’s approach. Will the Secretary of State now listen to the First Minister of Wales, conduct a Wales-specific impact assessment and scrap these cruel measures?
Andrew Western
I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Lady, but I am sure she would not want us to produce a potentially inaccurate assessment of the impact on Wales. What I would say—and I am sure that she agrees with this—is that the levels of poverty in Wales are unacceptable, which is a result of 14 years of the Conservative party failing to address the long-term industrial decline of many communities across Wales. I would also say to her that the best way to get people out of poverty is to get them into work, so I am sure she will welcome the recent launch of the inactivity trailblazer in Wales.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree with me that the new fair repayment rate, which caps universal credit deductions at 15%, along with the actions of the Welsh Government to help more than 48,000 young people gain skills and find jobs through the young person’s guarantee scheme will help alleviate poverty in Wales, and therefore should be welcomed?
Andrew Western
I of course agree with my hon. Friend, about both the benefits of the youth guarantee and the specific impact of the fair repayment rate, which across the country will support 1.2 million of the poorest families, including 700,000 families with children.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)