Andrew Western
MP for Stretford and Urmston · Labour · United Kingdom
“My hon. Friend has made an important point. The Child Maintenance Service is committed to ensuring that separated parents support their children financially, and to ensuring that the assessment reflects the parents’ true income. I am not familiar with the specifics of the case that my hon.”
“If the hon. Gentleman has specific concerns about how benefits are being administered and fraud is being investigated through the powers of the Scottish Parliament, I would very much appreciate it if he could write to me.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for raising what is an incredibly important case to highlight. I appreciate that it will have been a deeply distressing experience for her constituent and I apologise for that. I can confirm that all payments, thanks in part to my hon.”
“The hon. Member raises an important point. BSP is reviewed annually as part of the wider uprating process, so it would not be appropriate for me to make that commitment today. BSP is limited to 18 months because it is designed to support the acute period following bereavement.”
“Losing a loved one is deeply distressing. DWP provides support through the bereavement support payment—a tax-free lump sum with up to 18 monthly payments for eligible partners. Help with funeral costs is available through the funeral expenses payment for those receiving income-related benefits.”
“The Government are committed to improving data sharing with local authorities, as part of our endeavours to improve services. We are taking forward work with local authorities on the “identifying local vulnerability” project, and that work will support enhanced data sharing across local and central Government.”
The complete record
Every one of 602 lines we hold for Andrew Western, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 13.
“That leaves one issue remaining: the Lords amendments on asset allocation. This House has already considered that question twice, and on both occasions it has rejected the Lords’ position by majorities of over 100. At each stage the Government have reiterated the need for the core policy intent to be delivered, while responding with changes to primary legislation that directly address specific issues raised. I hope the House will bear with me while I explain what we are now proposing, and why I believe it is time for these exchanges to conclude. Let me deal first with the amendments to which we have previously agreed. The reserve power is capped at the Mansion House accord targets: no more than 10% in qualifying assets, and no more than 5% in UK-specific assets. It explicitly applies only to main default funds.”
“I beg to move, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88, insists on its amendments 88A, 88C and 88E to 88P to the words restored to the Bill by that disagreement, but proposes further amendments (a) to (f) to the words so restored to the Bill. I thank the rather shrinking number of peers and hon. Members who have been engaged in the scrutiny of the Bill. It has clearly come a long way since I closed the Second Reading debate. I am glad, in particular, to see that some progress has been made in recent days with the other place’s agreement to this House’s amendments on the approach to defined contribution schemes achieving scale and on the transparency of public sector pension liabilities.”
“At some point, the question before the House is no longer the detail of the amendments, but whether the other place should continue to reject the clearly expressed view of the elected House and delay the passage of a Bill that delivers for savers in a whole host of ways. I urge the House to send these amendments back to the other place, and to bring these exchanges to a close.”
“As Members of this House know, we respect that position, but it is not a position that we share and it is not the position of the Government. There is a well-evidenced collective action problem in the defined contribution market, and the consequences of leaving it unresolved would fall on pension savers. That is not a risk that the Government are prepared to take. This House has made its view clear on two occasions, and the Government have responded by baking in a raft of additional safeguards to primary legislation. This is now a third round of material changes, which I suspect this House may again endorse with a decisive majority.”
“That matters because schemes have a right of appeal to the upper tribunal, a right that is strengthened if applicants know why they were turned down. Let me draw this together. The savers’ interest test now provides a lower threshold, an explicit guarantee that exemptions will be granted when the test is met, a requirement for the regulator to give proper weight to the scheme’s own analysis, and transparency and accountability if an application should fail. Taken alongside the constraints on the power itself—the percentage caps, the single-use restriction, the 2032 sunset and the 2035 full repeal—this is a framework of strong and explicit protections. There are those, here and in the other place, who would prefer the reserve power not to exist at all.”
“Thirdly—here I want to respond directly to arguments raised by noble Lords about the weight that should be given to the judgment of trustees and scheme managers—we are proposing a change to put their assessment of savers’ interests centre stage. The new text makes clear that the responsible regulator must not only receive the scheme’s own assessment of why compliance would be likely to cause material financial detriment, but be required to have due regard to it. Schemes must set out their reasoning, and the regulator must engage with it properly and thoroughly. “Due regard” is established statutory language with legal weight: it means that the regulator cannot simply pay little or no attention to the scheme’s analysis. Fourthly, the regulator must give reasons when it refuses an application.”
“Arguments have been made, here and in the other place, about whether the test as drafted included sufficiently clear and strong protections. The Government have reflected on those arguments, and the further amendments before the House today respond to them. There are four changes. First, we are lowering the threshold for an exemption. The Bill as drafted would have allowed regulations to require a scheme to show that compliance “would cause” material financial detriment. We are changing that to “would be likely to cause”. A scheme will need to show that detriment is the probable consequence, not a certain one. Secondly, the Bill now makes it explicit that when a scheme meets the threshold, the regulator must grant the exemption. That has always been the Government’s intention, and the amendment ensures that there is no room for doubt.”
“As well as insisting on that package, the Government are today introducing further amendments to the savers’ interest test in the proposed new section 28G of the Bill. I remind the House that the reserve power exists because providers have said that they struggle to do something that is in savers’ interests, namely invest in a wider range of assets. However, the savers’ interest test exists for circumstances in which schemes can show that even investing as little as 10% in private assets—far below the levels that we see internationally, or in open defined benefit schemes here in the UK—might not be in their particular savers’ interest. In those circumstances, it allows them a route to seek an exemption from any requirements imposed by the reserve power.”
“The hon. Gentleman will be aware that conversations are always ongoing to ensure that any legislation that comes from this place can be adopted by all the nations of this great country. I hope that some of the concerns that have continued to be raised by his colleagues, and by peers in the Lords as well, will be addressed by some of the detail that I am about to set out. As I have said, that power can be used only once, and, if unused, lapses entirely in 2032. Even if it is used, however, the entire asset allocation regime falls out of effect and the statute book at the end of 2035. These provisions rule out any of the more lurid uses we have heard it claimed that the power would be used for, restricting it narrowly to underpinning the Mansion House accord.”
“The Mansion House compact has been running since 2023, but progress has been modest. The industry has identified competitive pressure to keep costs low as the single biggest barrier to delivering on its own commitments. In other words, providers want to diversify in their members’ interests, but they risk being undercut on cost by competitors that do not. The reserve power gives the market confidence to move together. We have also heard that the power undermines fiduciary duty—it does not. Trustees’ duties of loyalty and prudence, and to act in members’ best interests, remain.”
“I recognise, as the shadow Secretary of State set out, that there has been a great deal of consensus on many aspects of the Bill, and that we are wrangling merely over this one remaining issue. The Opposition argue that this power is wrong in principle, but we fundamentally disagree. We have had this debate on a number of occasions, including on Second Reading. I set out in my opening speech why this continues to be the Government’s position, and we have heard the arguments against. I gently point out that the shadow Secretary of State’s letter to industry last week conceded that in the absence of this sort of power, funds are understandably cautious about being first movers, and that is a legitimate concern. That is the collective action problem that we have.”
“I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but that is not going to happen. We have to deal with the collective action problem that we are facing, to ensure that providers can move forward with the commitments that they have made. The power gives them assurance, but we hope that we will never need to use the power. The fact of the matter is that the industry requires that certainty; without it, it will not be able to move forward, given the collective action problem that exists. That point has been accepted by the shadow Secretary of State.”
“The power is capped, neutral across asset classes, restricted to a single use, completely sunsetted in 2035 and subject to a savers’ interest test that tonight’s amendments have materially strengthened. The TUC has said that it is “vital” that this Bill passes. Age UK has said that the measures in this Bill “will help both today’s and tomorrow’s pensioners”. The industry wants to get on with implementing these reforms. The Association of British Insurers and its members have said the same. They have welcomed the safeguards that the Government have put in place on the reserve power. It is time to get this Bill passed, and I commend the Government’s position to the House. Question put.”
“On the consensus in the industry, I say to the hon. Lady that it wants this Bill done and taken through this House. Tonight’s amendments make the savers’ interest test easier to pass, create a lower threshold for an exemption, and give certainty that the exemption will be granted where the threshold is met, with due regard being paid to the scheme’s assessment. Reasons for any refusal will be set out. The House has now considered this Bill three times. On each occasion, it has endorsed the Government’s position. We have listened to the concerns raised in the other place, and we have responded with numerous material changes to the primary legislation across three rounds.”
“I am sure all Committee members would agree that we cannot allow that group of savers to miss out on a safe, dependable default pension income, particularly at a time when rising cost of living pressures make a reliable and predictable retirement income more important than ever. I commend the draft order to the House.”
“That work culminates in the amendment before us today, which will allow NEST’s 14 million members to benefit from modern, flexible retirement choices, without distorting competition across the market. Without this change, NEST—as the largest master trust in the country—would be unable to offer flexi-access drawdown or fully meet the expectations of guided retirement, including providing the vast majority of its members with a simple, dependable default income in later life. That would fall hardest on NEST members, many of whom are lower-paid workers, and therefore most in need of secure and straightforward retirement income options.”
“As a result, 14 million NEST members are left with fewer in-scheme options than those in comparable pension arrangements elsewhere, which cannot be right or fair. In the 2023 consultation, “Helping savers understand their pensions choices”, most of the 46 industry and member groups that responded supported allowing NEST to provide default pension options. They recognised NEST’s scale and unique role, and they agreed that its members should receive fair and equivalent treatment, while also being clear that NEST should not gain any commercial advantage. Since the consultation, the Department for Work and Pensions has worked closely with NEST and the wider pensions industry to uphold the principle of fairness.”
“The Pension Schemes Bill includes guided retirement measures that will require pension schemes to design and make available default pension plans with a sustainable income for the majority of savers. The reforms made through this amendment will ensure that NEST can deliver on those expectations and provide its members with a level of choice, flexibility and support comparable to those of other large-scale providers. NEST members currently have three main options at retirement: they can buy an annuity; take an uncrystallised funds pension lump sum; or take their pot as cash or transfer to another provider. Since NEST was created, we recognise that pension freedoms have transformed the market. Savers elsewhere can access a far wider and more flexible range of retirement choices—flexibilities that the 2010 Order prevents NEST from offering.”
“The amendment will allow NEST to expand its retirement options to include flexi-access drawdown. FAD is a retirement income option that allows individuals with a defined contribution pension to withdraw any amount from their pension pot, while keeping the remaining funds invested. The draft order also enables NEST to offer a scheme pension paid directly by the scheme administrator, or through an appointed insurer, and it gives the trustee authority on a member’s death to provide a dependant’s scheme pension or drawdown pension to eligible individuals, including dependants, nominees and successors. Together, these measures give NEST the flexibility to offer a full range of retirement and post-death benefits consistent with other major pension schemes and wider industry practice.”
“I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft National Employment Savings Trust (Amendment) Order 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. The draft order was laid before the House on 26 February 2026. Automatic enrolment is a major policy success that has substantially increased workplace pension participation. The National Employment Savings Trust has been central to that progress and remains critical to the system’s continued effectiveness. NEST now supports nearly 14 million members, around one third of the working-age population, providing a low-cost, accessible pension scheme for employers and workers across the UK. Subject to Parliament’s approval, the draft order amends the National Employment Savings Trust Order 2010, which sets out the legislative framework for NEST’s operation.”
“On the question of the use of secondary regulations and the concern that the industry has in that regard, I will take that on the chin: the industry is making a fair criticism and we will engage with it on that. On the particulars of this change, as a result of the consultation we know that the industry is broadly content with what is proposed here; I hope that that is part of the reason why the Opposition has determined not to oppose these changes. On the question of revisiting previous amendments, including the Liberal Democrat one, we will not be looking to reverse previous decisions that the Government have made—the shadow Minister is clearly doing his job in asking us to do so—and that includes decisions on mandation changes.”
“I welcome the broad support from both colleagues who have spoken. I was surprised that the hon. Member for St Albans resisted the temptation to point out that describing the coalition Government as the Cameron Government when things are positive is a particularly interesting tack; I credit Steve Webb for a lot of the positive work on auto-enrolment and broader pension changes. On the FAD changes, I welcome the Opposition spokesperson’s support. This is an important set of changes, and I am delighted that he is supporting them—not least because his Government consulted on the issue back in ’22-23. Given the broad support, I think we can all agree that this is an overdue change. It is one that I welcome.”
“We will clearly need to do a range of work to ensure that proper support is available in the necessary amount, but I will ensure that she receives an update on the specific activities that the Department is undertaking to move us forward in that regard. It is a reasonable question, and I will ensure that she gets a detailed response. The amendment itself simply enables NEST to provide for the decumulation options required to deliver on the broad principles of the changes that we are seeking to make. Given the overall support for the measures, I commend the instrument to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.”
“I suggest that it is always good practice for an individual to look at how their pensions and other investments are invested. I am more than happy to ask the pensions Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), to come back to the hon. Gentleman on the specifics of whether we are looking at any work in this space to enable people to have greater access to that information. It is best if I take that question away and come back. It is also best if I come back to the hon. Member for St Albans on her question about behavioural change. As the hon. Member said, 77% is a significant number when we are talking about 14 million members. Guided retirement sets out the principles and framework for how schemes should support the vast majority of members with the big decisions as they move into saving for retirement.”
“To conclude, these statutory instruments will give these three authorities the opportunity to shape their adult education provision, address local barriers, focus provision to meet local needs, enhance economic growth and bring greater prosperity to their areas. I commend the regulations to the Committee.”
“I can also confirm that, on the basis of the evidence submitted, Ministers have concluded that the statutory tests have been met. Each area has given its consent and demonstrated that devolution is likely to improve the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of the people who live and work in the region. A report has been laid before Parliament explaining how these conditions have been met. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all our partner organisations and, in particular, colleagues at Buckinghamshire council, Surrey county council and Warwickshire county council for their expertise and input in getting to this important milestone.”
“I recognise that the nature of skills challenges, and the solutions, will be different in every region, and I am pleased that three new areas are poised to take the opportunities and develop new thinking and priorities for the adult skills fund in their areas. If the statutory instruments are approved, Buckinghamshire, Surrey and Warwickshire will be responsible for managing their adult skills funding allocations efficiently and effectively to deliver for their local residents. Each area has consented to the transfer of these powers and to the making of these statutory instruments. They have also provided assurances that permanent skills teams are in place to manage delivery effectively. They have each developed a strategic skills plan, setting out how they will use their devolved adult skills funding to meet key priorities.”
“They can work directly with employers, training providers and other local partners to commission new provision to meet local needs and set funding rates that incentivise the delivery of provision that offers the most positive impacts for their region. Within that local flexibility, strategic authorities must offer free courses for adults to deliver national statutory entitlements in English, maths, digital courses, level 2 and 3 qualifications for those who do not yet have those skills and free courses for jobs. This funding provides an essential stepping stone for adults with the lowest skills.”
“The adult skills fund supports millions of adults across England to develop the skills they need to equip them for work, an apprenticeship or further learning. We know that local areas are best placed to identify what their local people, communities and businesses need. Strategic authorities decide how they spend their funding to deliver opportunity and growth in their area. They will be able to respond in a more agile way to local priorities and emerging challenges and to address any barriers more effectively. Local areas can apply the flexibility that devolved adult skills funding functions offers, for instance to identify adults in their region who are most in need and invest more funding to support those groups.”
“The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill will confer the same functions on strategic authorities to be exercised from at least one full academic year after the authority’s establishment. The package of these instruments and that Bill will increase the percentage of the adult skills fund that is devolved from 67% to 76%. Six further areas agreed devolution deals through this Government’s devolution priority programme. The Government are going through the legislative process to form these areas, with the intention that they will deliver adult education functions from August 2027, subject to ministerial approval. Taken together, those actions deliver on the Government’s commitment to empower local leaders and unlock growth.”
“For the most part, those organisations have been combined authorities, although functions and funding were devolved to Cornwall council a year ago. The previous Government agreed devolution deals with the three local authorities we are considering today in March 2024. Those deals, taken forward by this Government, committed to full devolution of the adult education budget, now called the adult skills fund. That was to be exercised from academic year 2026-27, subject to readiness conditions and parliamentary approval. It has been judged that all three authorities have demonstrated readiness to acquire functions, and therefore these instruments are the final step in ensuring that they are able to deliver from August this year.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I am very grateful for the opportunity to debate these three statutory instruments, which were laid before the House on 25 February 2026 under the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016. If they are approved, the Department for Work and Pensions will transfer adult education functions and the associated adult skills fund to these local areas for the start of the new academic year, 1 August 2026. These local areas will then have the freedom to use their adult skills fund to help their residents meet their skills needs, fulfil their potential and contribute to the growth of their region. Since 2018, a portion of the adult skills fund has been devolved to local bodies who have exercised control over the spending in their area.”
“Question put and agreed to. DRAFT SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL (ADULT EDUCATION FUNCTIONS) REGULATIONS 2026 Resolved, That the Committee has considered the draft Surrey County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026. —(Andrew Western.) DRAFT WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (ADULT EDUCATION FUNCTIONS) REGULATIONS 2026 Resolved, That the Committee has considered the draft Warwickshire County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026. — (Andrew Western.)”
“I think we would all hope to not be in that position, and my view is that it is unlikely, but we need to be mindful that this is a significant change alongside the other significant changes that Members have mentioned. For instance, I recognise that the position on Warwickshire is not yet fully settled, but we anticipate changes. We have come up with an option to enable continued delivery in the Surrey area, and we would hope to work through something similar for Warwickshire. On balance, I respectfully disagree with colleagues who propose a delay, because I want to get these powers down to the best possible local footprint so that areas continue to have a greater say in shaping decisions in their region. On that basis, I commend to the Committee the regulations pertaining to Surrey, Warwickshire and—how could I forget—Buckinghamshire.”
“Key data that local areas are expected to report against include adult skills data on spend and the number of learners in their local areas taking up statutory entitlements. Skills England uses that information to undertake annual skills stocktakes, which each local area can use to discuss key findings, including how any issues can be addressed. However, if significant or persistent issues are identified, the Government would take further action. That could include undertaking a further diagnostic review or, in serious cases, escalating to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which is able to intervene under measures set out in the Local Government Act 1999.”
“On the question of accountability and readiness more broadly, and how we would satisfy ourselves that local areas were behaving wisely in the decisions they take in this space, it is perhaps important to recognise that accountability arrangements for devolved organisations are set out in the English devolution accountability framework. As part of that, local areas with devolved powers are required to submit annual assurance reports to the Department for Work and Pensions and to publish them on their own organisation’s website. Those reports set out what a devolved area has delivered against its strategic skills priorities over the previous academic year. They include an assessment of key outcomes, local partnership work, achievements, challenges and lessons learned.”
“The Government recognise that the change may present challenges, with a new system and new local authorities to work with. However, at the same time, the pressing need for local decision making means that we are minded at the moment to make arrangements for a new body in the form of a foundation strategic authority. That will ensure that we can continue to deliver this through the local prism and that residents across the whole of Surrey, including key stakeholders and partners, will have certainty that the transition will be seamless, not just in terms of the devolution we are talking about now, but in terms of the new structure of two local authorities.”
“I thank colleagues for their broad support for the principle of more localised decision making and the flexibility it brings to local areas to shape the delivery of skills to meet the needs of the local labour market and community. Ordinarily, I would respond separately to each Member who has contributed, but the theme of all the questions was accountability, readiness and the practicality of the three local authorities, and in some cases the individual areas, delivering adult education provision from as early as this academic year. It is worth acknowledging the question asked by both the Opposition spokesperson and the hon. Member for Woking about the proposed future shape of Surrey, which will be split into two local authority areas.”
“We then heard about the range of options that the Conservatives want to secure for young people, that it is a Conservative choice to be able to earn and learn through apprenticeships or to go to university, but that was not the choice that young people had. They hammered apprenticeships for young people, and that is one of the reasons why we face the challenges in the system that we do today. We heard from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), in what I thought was a very considered contribution. I always think that it is incredibly brave for a Liberal Democrat to speak in any debate about fees, loans and so on.”
“2WC.] (Correction) The shadow Secretary of State labelled the motion a new deal for young people, but why on earth is a new deal required? It is because the Conservatives trebled fees, scrapped maintenance grants, oversaw a 40% cut to youth apprenticeships, and drove the number of NEETs up by a quarter of a million in their last three years in government. By contrast, under this Government, young people are getting a new deal, with a new target of two thirds of young people in an apprenticeship or at university, our youth guarantee and our jobs guarantee, because we understand that young people need support to thrive, especially after 14 years of the Conservative party.”
“When I came to this place, my maiden speech was about generational inequality. Based on her description, I think that I have timed out in my ability to call myself a young person, so I am delighted that we have my hon. Friend here holding that torch and continuing to fight and to make the case for young people. Turning to the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), we have had some serious chutzpah from the Tories today, opening with the fact that this Labour Government have increased fees—fees increased for sustainability purposes but certainly not trebled, as the Conservative party did. She spoke of the threshold freeze being unfair. April’s increase is our second in two years—as many as they managed in 12 years post introducing the plan 2 scheme. [ Official Report , 23 March 2026; Vol. 783, c.”
“We have heard plenty today about its flaws, the worry it causes and the pressure on graduates. We have had, as we often do on Opposition days, a spirited debate. I will begin my comments on some of the contributions that we have heard by thanking my hon. Friends the Members for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for Erewash (Adam Thompson), for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia), for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre) for an especially powerful contribution. I single out my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting), who continues to be a champion in this place for young people not only in her constituency but up and down this country.”
“Let me begin by stating the obvious: the issues with plan 2 loans are a legacy of the previous Government. Plan 2 borrowers in England are undergraduate students who began their courses between 2012 and 2023. The loans were designed, implemented and operated by the previous coalition and Conservative Governments. When we were elected, we immediately recognised the pressure. We uplifted the plan 2 repayment threshold in 2025 to £28,470 and will increase it again to £29,385 next month, ensuring that it is higher than average graduate salaries three years after a course has finished. Before we came into Government, for most of the time that plan 2 loans have existed, the repayment threshold has been frozen—for 10 years during the Tory Government. This is a system that we would never have designed.”
“They drove up child poverty, ravaged Sure Start, scrapped Building Schools for the Future, broke the SEND system—and that is just their legacy for children and young people, before I even get to the fact that they left the NHS on its knees. Their damage, the mess they left, has a long tail, and we must never forget that that damage cannot be fixed overnight.”
“I will not because I am short on time—I am sorry. While I do think that a Liberal Democrat should be wary, the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire made an important point in his defence of degree courses with which I agree. The hon. Members for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) attacked the Government for acknowledging the problems of the system and for saying that we recognise that work is needed, there is much to do, but we will look at it. When we say there is much to do, there are messes left all over the place. What exactly are we talking about? We are talking about a legacy of starved further education funding. The Conservatives oversaw a 40% drop in youth apprenticeships.”
“That is why we are creating foundation apprenticeships and that is why— [ Interruption. ] I am not suggesting— [ Interruption. ]”
“We then heard from the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), who said that all forms of education have intrinsic value, which leaves me somewhat confused given the Conservatives have made a compelling argument today for scrapping a number of degree courses and they ran down the number of apprenticeships available to young people. I want to briefly come to the contribution of the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), because he is always considered in this area and, indeed, I consider him an expert on this subject. I cannot pretend to be familiar with the Brown and Cable plans, but it is important to pick up a point he made around the vast majority of apprenticeships being taken by people over 25. I believe that that is a problem in the system.”
“Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) mentioned youth unemployment figures, and I absolutely agree that these are a concern. We are not complacent on this issue, so he will welcome the youth guarantee, the jobs guarantee, the increase to apprenticeship funding, the shift to more apprenticeships for young people, the revised target of two thirds of young people either in an apprenticeship or at university, and the update to our approach to encourage technical learning while earning. He will also be pleased to know that, unlike him, I do have a history degree, so I have no problem looking at the Conservatives’ record of the past 10 years. I absolutely appreciate that they do not want to be held to account for the mess they left, but sadly they devastated this system, and it falls to us to resolve the problems they left.”
“What I say is that students, like everybody else, benefit from an improved NHS and from a range of interventions that this Government are making, but we cannot change everything overnight. The hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) commented that young people not in employment has rocketed under this Government, which is an interesting take given that the number of NEETs is 14,000 lower now than it was at this point last year, but it increased by 250,000 in the Conservatives’ final few years in office. We then heard from the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst). I simply reiterate the comments made in the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) about the rubbishing of the Conservatives’ proposal already done by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The hon.”
“Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not attribute a time period to the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I am simply stating that it is a fixed intention of this Government to seek to address that and to ensure that more young people under the age of 25 can access apprenticeships. Yet again in these Opposition day debates, we see a Conservative party that continues to run away from its record and that brings forward overnight solutions that, in this case, have already been discredited. It is not fit to govern and would never solve this problem for young people. Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)) , That the original words stand part of the Question.”