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 4 of 13.
“The result was significant delays and, too often, families being let down. That said, the Government recognise that there is more that the CMS can do to deliver a fair and trustworthy service that is more accessible to parents, and particularly to those who are vulnerable. That is why the CMS is continuing to make significant and meaningful improvements to the service wherever possible, to ensure that parents feel informed, supported and confident in the actions being taken on their case.”
“To set the scene, it is worth explaining how the CMS operates. The CMS is statutorily obliged to consider all valid maintenance applications in accordance with relevant legislation. To ensure consistency and fairness across the system, the CMS applies a set of broad rules intended to secure the best overall outcomes for all parents. Clear, simple rules are essential; they make the system more efficient, improve customer service and are vital when dealing with hundreds of thousands of cases. That is in stark contrast to previous schemes operated by the CMS’s predecessor, the Child Support Agency, which were notoriously complex and inflexible. Those schemes relied heavily on parents providing detailed financial information that was often difficult to obtain or keep up to date.”
“The CMS now supports more than 1.1 million children, a figure that rose nearly 5% in the 12 months to September 2025, through both family-based arrangements and arrangements made via the CMS. An estimated £2.9 billion is transferred each year to children in separated families, keeping around 120,000 children out of relative low income after housing costs. I know that almost all parents want the best for their children, and that, in spite of the difficulties and conflicts inherent in family break-up, a majority of paying parents consistently contribute towards their children’s upbringing, helping to ensure that they receive the support they need. Compliance levels within the collect and pay service remain strong; in the most recent reporting quarter, 74% of paying parents under collect and pay paid maintenance.”
“It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I am struck, as was the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), by the level of interest in this debate and, indeed, by the specifics of some of the cases that have been raised. I concur with her that this is an incredibly important debate, and one that perhaps could have used more time. I am sure that Members will look where they can at various mechanisms to ensure that we return to this in future. I want to begin by recognising the vital role that the Child Maintenance Service plays in supporting families across the country, notwithstanding that we all have examples in our casework of challenging cases—cases where the service could do better.”
“We do have, for want of a better description, persistent offenders who are difficult to pin down. We will all have such examples in our caseload, and we are looking at what more we can do to track people down in those cases. I am conscious of time. This has been an incredibly important debate. The door of my noble Friend Baroness Sherlock is always open to colleagues who want to talk about CMS reform. We are undertaking a calculation review. We are looking to abolish direct pay as soon as parliamentary time allows. That is a very important step to tackle coercive control and abuse in the system. We can always do more. I am happy to speak to colleagues at any point, but I also strongly encourage them, if necessary, to book in with my noble Friend. Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).”
“Gingerbread’s third substantive point concerned the welfare of the child, and I want to offer reassurance on that. Clearly, the entire point of the CMS is to ensure the welfare of the child as it pertains to financial stability and to ensure the ability of parents to look after their children, but if specific safeguarding concerns arise, there are procedures in place to report them to the relevant authority, which is usually the local authority where the child lives. There were a couple of other points that I want to touch on, including the question of enforcement. Clearly, there are always improvements to be made. There was a specific question about hidden income. There is a financial investigation unit in place. If there are specific cases that colleagues would like me to refer to that unit, I am happy to do so.”
“Formal evidence will carry more weight than other evidence in establishing whether there is a pattern of shared care, but the CMS will consider each parent’s statements before making a decision. Where the parties agree in principle that there is a level of shared care but cannot agree on a number of nights, the CMS can make an assumption of shared care of one night a week, but as I said earlier, shared care disputes are challenging. We understand the frustration and the concerns that they present for parents, and we are keeping the issue under active review and looking at how the process can be improved. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East is due a conversation with my noble Friend Baroness Sherlock. She may want to ask Baroness Sherlock for the specifics on that, given that she is the lead Minister on this issue.”
“The Government are also taking wider steps to minimise opportunities for abuse within the maintenance system, perhaps most importantly through plans to remove direct pay, reducing the need for any contact between parents and closing off avenues for economic control or coercion. The second point concerned evidential standards for shared care, which is a contested area. I absolutely accept that it is a difficult space for our caseworkers to operate in. When a dispute arises regarding overnight stays, the CMS must avoid taking one parent’s word against the other and must consider certain types of evidence, such as a court order or an agreement between the parents, but it may consider other types of evidence as well, including in cases where a court order is not in place.”
“All caseworkers receive extensive domestic abuse training, which has been refreshed to reflect the Home Office’s statutory guidance on controlling or coercive behaviour, so that they are equipped to identify risks and signpost parents to specialist support. The CMS also has a domestic abuse plan and a regularly updated list of resources to support victims. Where safety concerns arise, though—I accept that they arise in some instances—the CMS can advise on non-traceable payment methods, such as accounts with centralised sort codes to ensure a parent’s location cannot be identified.”
“I will come to the points about communication and enforcement momentarily. I acknowledge that we all have difficult cases, but the CMS does handle billions of pounds a year in payments to families, and it is important to recognise where it works as well as where change is needed. It is failing for some families, as in the cases that have been outlined, and we want to put that right. I will now turn to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle). I will start with the three asks from Gingerbread. First, on the disclosure of domestic abuse and the handling thereof, the CMS recognises that both receiving and paying parents can be victims of domestic abuse, including coercive and controlling behaviour, and it has put a number of safeguards in place to help them use the service safely.”
“Universal credit is primarily reserved for people settled in the UK. With regard to trends, overall the proportion of universal credit claimants in this country who are foreign nationals has fallen from 17% in January 2025 to 15.5% in the latest statistics from January 2026.”
“The hon. Gentleman may be unaware that the proportion of foreign nationals claiming universal credit who are in work is one third higher than the proportion for people who are British or Irish claiming— [ Interruption. ] If he prefers to put the figures into the context that he has just suggested from a sedentary position, the figure is 10% lower in terms of people who are not in work. It is often difficult to extrapolate a specific number because universal credit figures, such as these, are calculated on a per household basis rather than on an individual basis. If I am able to provide the specific number, I will follow up with him in writing.”
“The hon. Lady will be aware that the Conservatives created this system. On her specific question about what we are doing to restrict access to the benefits system for foreign nationals, she will also be aware that the Home Secretary has brought forward proposals to extend the period before somebody can achieve settlement from five to 10 years, and there is a consultation under way to move that point from the point of settlement to the point of citizenship. [ Official Report , 25 March 2026; Vol. 783, c. 4WC.] (Correction) However, if it is the Conservatives’ position to suggest that somebody who has worked here for decades, contributed to the system and made a positive contribution to this country should have absolutely no access to support, we have a fundamentally different point of view.”
“My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that a range of interventions are under way, including reviewing the child maintenance calculation across the piece. If there are specific cases that are causing her concern, she can share them with me and I will ensure that they are referred to our specialist financial investigation unit, which looks into cases where we fear that there is hidden income.”
“In addition to industry support, the proposals before the Committee today have received the support of the devolved Governments of Scotland and Wales. They recognise, as do we, that maintaining the CITB’s ability to raise and invest levy income is vital to ensure that employers across all three nations can access the construction skills they need. For those reasons, I commend the draft order to the Committee.”
“If the draft order is not approved, the CITB will be unable to collect levies in 2026, with potential impacts on apprenticeships, vital industry qualifications, employer support programmes, training standards and the future capability of one of the UK’s most economically significant sectors. The UK requires an estimated 240,000 additional construction workers by 2029, with the largest pressures felt in home building, infrastructure, and repair and maintenance. Approving this draft order therefore plays a critical role in delivering the Government’s commitment to deliver 1.5 million safe and decent homes during this Parliament, as set out in our plan for change, and in supporting major infrastructure and clean energy projects across Great Britain that are vital to economic growth and increased opportunity.”
“In 2024-25, the CITB supported over 30,000 apprentices and 20,000 vocational qualification achievements; provided almost £130 million in grant funding—including £60 million for small businesses and microbusinesses; and committed up to £40 million to support fast-track training and apprenticeships in areas of high demand for home-building skills. That funding directly underpins our broader economic priorities. The construction sector contributes over £211 billion in total output each year and employs more than 2 million people, but the fragmented nature of the industry, which has a high rate of self-employment and complex supply chains, makes voluntary investment in training less likely to occur. Without a statutory levy, the skills that the industry urgently needs will simply not materialise at the scale required.”
“Employers with wage bills of up to £149,999 will be exempt, and those with wage bills between £150,000 and £499,999 will receive a 50% reduction. Those thresholds will ensure that about 69% of eligible employers pay no levy at all, while a further 15% benefit from reduced rates. All those employers remain eligible for CITB grants and support. The CITB estimates that the proposals will raise about £243 million per year, to be invested in supporting the skills needs of the construction industry. That investment will fund vital programmes to widen participation, raise skills levels, tackle disadvantage and set occupational standards for the industry.”
“In the meantime, it is vital to the continuity of CITB support for employers that the draft levy order that we are debating today continues as planned. I return to the proposals for the draft levy order. I give my thanks to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for its detailed review. This order retains the levy assessment rates that have remained unchanged for four years. Despite employer demand for CITB services having risen by 36% since 2021, levy rates have been deliberately held steady to support businesses still navigating difficult trading conditions at home and globally. The draft order also raises the exemption and reduction thresholds to protect small and micro businesses from unintended levy burdens caused by wage inflation.”
“It builds on the ITBs’ existing collaborative approach to working together, as demonstrated through initiatives such as the Sizewell C skills charter: a set of commitments between the ITBs, the local councils and Sizewell C to help ensure the skilled and inclusive workforce needed to deliver that vital nuclear power station. The consultation is expected to launch shortly, and the views expressed by industry will inform a decision on how to proceed. We cannot prejudice the outcome of the process and, in any case, the earliest the change would be likely to take place is April 2027. Should the Government choose to proceed with the proposed reform, any new levy order will come to the House through the proper parliamentary process.”
“More than 67% of levy-paying employers supported the proposals, representing almost 72% of total levy value—comfortably above the statutory thresholds required for consensus to be achieved. Before we consider the levy proposals in further detail, I take this opportunity to return to the findings of the Farmer review. I am pleased to confirm that the Government intend to consult industry on a proposal to bring together the CITB and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board, or ECITB, to create a single unified body to support the combined skills needs of the construction and engineering construction sectors. That proposal delivers on the recommendation of the Farmer review, which the Government accepted subject to further scoping.”
“The levy remains the CITB’s primary source of funding, and the order is required for the board to raise mandatory assessments on in-scope employers. The funding raised through the levy will enable the CITB to continue its essential work to tackle skills shortages and market failure in training in the construction sector across England, Scotland and Wales. Recognising the differing views within the sector, the CITB continues to receive strong support from employers. The draft order is built on industry consultation, consensus and stability. During the formal consensus process about the proposals in spring 2025, the CITB consulted all 14 prescribed organisations in its industry, alongside a structured survey of non-represented employers.”
“I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. The statutory purpose of the Construction Industry Training Board—I shall refer to it as the CITB from now on—is to make better provision for training across the construction industry. The 2023 independent review of industry training boards by Mark Farmer confirmed the ITBs’ continued value in addressing persistent and structural workforce challenges within their industry. The review also found that a statutory levy remains the most effective model for industry-wide investment in training. This draft statutory instrument gives effect to the CITB levy proposals for 2026, 2027 and 2028.”
“For the reasons set out in my opening speech, with which the Opposition spokesperson largely agrees, I commend this levy order to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.”
“We think that will be essential to driving more young people towards construction apprenticeships and meeting the skills demand that we face if we are to deliver on the 1.5 million homes target. Clearly, it is our intention to ensure that areas without a strategic authority are not disadvantaged in any way. The number of areas for which that is the case is changing all the time. I represent an area within a combined authority, but it is certainly not our intention for anybody to miss out on opportunities as a consequence of their local governance arrangements. I am grateful to the hon. Member for South West Devon for her questions and for the opportunity to participate in this debate. I will come back to her, as I said, on the specifics.”
“It also creates opportunities to help apprentices and other new entrants complete high-quality training, and enables existing workers to reskill or upskill to progress their careers. If it is okay with the hon. Lady, I will write to her with the specifics on the percentage of apprentices still in meaningful employment, as well as on her question about workforce retention. On the question of recruitment, particularly through the mechanism of apprenticeships, the hon. Lady will have noted the changes the Government are bringing forward to apprenticeship funding to introduce new foundation apprenticeships, of which construction apprenticeships form a key component.”
“I am grateful to the hon. Member for South West Devon for her contribution and for the thoughtful scrutiny applied to the draft levy order. The evidence is consistent: market forces alone will not deliver the pipeline of skilled workers that the industry urgently needs, which I suspect is what is driving her questions about how the Government will tackle that. Whether it is meeting the demand for new homes, retrofitting and repairing existing properties, or delivering the critical infrastructure needed for economic growth, there is work to do. The levy is the mechanism that enables the collective benefits of a focused skills strategy for the construction industry and ensures that employers of all sizes can access support for training and share the benefits of a skilled, competent and resilient workforce.”
“That is just part of our youth guarantee, which we are rolling out so that every young person gets the chance to earn or learn; and it accounts for part of the more than £1.5 billion that was made available for employment and skills support at the Budget, which will create around 355,000 new training or workplace opportunities. [ Official Report , 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 3WC.] (Correction) Our jobs guarantee will make available subsidised paid employment for around 55,000 young people. These are significant interventions, while the Conservatives offer nothing. The vision they have to offer young people is as bleak as the reality of their record: they offer low-paid, insecure work, and a cold shoulder instead of a helping hand. We have seen where that leads, and we have chosen a different path.”
“This Government will never take that attitude to the next generation—an attitude of ambivalence at best, and contempt at worst. Instead, we are clearing up the mess that the previous Government left in their wake. We are giving young people opportunities to succeed, and the support that they need. We are determined to meet the size of the challenge that we inherited, and to deliver on the huge scale that is required. That is why we are refocusing apprenticeships towards young people. We are also bringing support to where young people are by expanding youth hubs to over 360 areas across Great Britain.”
“If only the Conservatives had had 14 years to do much of what the shadow Minister just outlined. It seems as though they never tire of pulling apart their own abysmal record. Today they have chosen to focus on the crisis of opportunity that they handed down to young people, and that this Government are determined to address. The Conservatives were perfectly happy, it seems, for youth apprenticeship starts to plummet by nearly 40%. They sat and watched as the number of young people neither learning nor earning spiralled upwards by 300,000 in three years, and they were devoid of ideas to help young people overcome the barriers to work that they face. Perhaps worst of all, when confronted with undeniable proof of their failure, they blamed young people, instead of supporting them.”
“Friends the Members for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald), for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin), for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan), for Harlow (Chris Vince) and for Banbury (Sean Woodcock). Those excellent contributions not only highlighted the toxic legacy of the Conservative party, but set out the range of key interventions that this Government are making, which include, but are not limited to, the youth guarantee. I think the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) asked a question about the timing of Connect to Work, but I may have lost track.”
“4WC.] (Correction) She went on to criticise the national insurance increase in the Budget and its impact, but then set out that the Liberal Democrats would cut business rates and VAT and scrap that national insurance contribution increase. I say to her gently that that is the problem with the Liberal Democrat position; they never say how they would pay for it, or what they would do. She lambasts the decisions taken in the first Labour Budget. Would the Liberal Democrats choose to withdraw the additional money that has gone into the NHS? It is not credible to set out only what they are against. We heard a number of excellent contributions from my hon.”
“We have chosen to target the apprenticeship funding that this Government have to spend on young people. That is because they are less likely to have a relationship with an employer who might be able to fund their training, and less likely to be able to access some of the other opportunities that people who access higher-level apprenticeships might have, and because there are other routes, including a more traditional higher-education route, for people to access instead of a level 7 apprenticeship. The hon. Lady asked about the timing of the roll-out of the youth guarantee. The first tranche—the first 55,000 opportunities—will be in place from April, and by September we will see the roll-out of the full 300,000. [ Official Report , 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c.”
“I admire their chutzpah for continuing to table Opposition day debates on subjects on which their record is absolutely appalling and by a considerable margin the most significant factor in what we face today, but that does not mean that the public will forgive or forget what they left behind. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), asked about the impact of artificial intelligence on the workforce. I assure her that the Government are cognisant and mindful of the need to keep a close eye on it. We have recently set up a new cross-Government unit that will look at AI’s impact on the labour market, and will offer free AI foundations training for all workers. She raised concerns about the defunding of level 7 apprenticeships. I will not pretend that the Government’s decision is not difficult.”
“Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), who opened the debate, and I worked for many years in the private sector. I managed a small business; I worked in a global business; and I did several other jobs in the private sector in between. Conservative Members suggested that they cut the welfare bill and halved unemployment, using a pick ‘n’ mix of flattering figures from various moments of their time in office. However, we, like people up and down this country, will judge them on their legacy when they left office. They left a spiralling welfare bill that disincentivised people from looking for work, and they left us the only G7 country with a lower employment rate than before the pandemic. They are not prepared to face up to the mess that they left our country in, and they do that time and again.”
“Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), who showed that the Conservatives have suddenly developed empathy for young people after leaving us with a NEET number of almost 1 million. We heard Tory Members compare the youth unemployment rate with those of other G7 countries, but we have the second-highest youth employment rate in the G7. We are not complacent, and we know that there is work to do. [ Interruption. ] I am aware that it is a different figure, but it is relevant when looking at the overall picture. Several Members, but first among them was the shadow Secretary of State, said that nobody on the Government Front Bench had ever worked in a business. I suggest that she checks the record. Certainly, both the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon.”
“That is why we are making interventions in the form of the youth guarantee and increased investment in the growth and skills levy. I gently point out that, as the right hon. Member will be aware, the rate of youth unemployment rose by 4% in the Conservatives’ last two years in office. Today we have heard attack after attack, and excuse after excuse for youth unemployment rising, but it was rising when they left office. This is not a new problem. It is a significant challenge that we are serious about addressing, but if the Conservatives wish to continue with their policy of collective amnesia about the mess that they left behind, they will never have anything to offer young people. I turn to Opposition Members’ contributions, beginning with that of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon.”
“I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that clarity. He will be aware that Connect to Work is already live in two thirds of delivery areas. By April, that will be all areas. In his area of East Hampshire, it is already live, and we expect that it will support up to 4,800 people.”
“I will confirm for him separately the figure for this financial year. That figure is the aspiration in the round, using the £18.7 million funding that has been made available. The right hon. Gentleman then launched a staunch defence of zero-hours contracts. He will know that we have a fundamentally different view of that. It is my view that insecure work is a blight. It is hugely problematic for those on challenging budgets not knowing what hours they have to work each week. This is the fundamentally different perspective that we have on this side of the House.”
“Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) asked how we would encourage an employer to take a chance on a young person. We are doing that by not charging national insurance contributions for under-21s or for apprentices under 25, by fully funding apprentices at SMEs and by placing young people in six months of guaranteed work if they have been out of the workforce for 18 months so that they have the chance to prove themselves. That is a range of interventions that we are putting in place because we recognise that there is a challenge with youth unemployment. It is long standing and it is not new, but we take it very seriously.”
“Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) said that the best welfare support of all was a job, so he will be delighted to see the additional 513,000 people who have entered into employment over the past 12 months. The hon. Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja), who is also not here, said that she was tired of hearing about this Government’s ambition, but the Conservatives had a paucity of just that. They left almost a million NEETs, a welfare system that disincentivised work—something we have begun to address—and an employment rate lower than before the pandemic. They can accuse us of being too ambitious if they like, but they had given up on delivering opportunity for our young people—something that this Government will never do. The right hon.”
“Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), who I do not think is in her place, said that apprenticeships were an opportunity for young people to find work, and I quite agree with her, but the reforms of the Conservative party had the effect of delivering a situation where, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson said, the average age of those entering into apprenticeships was significantly increased. We are seeking to reverse that trend, and it is important that we do so. This is a key mechanism for giving young people the skills that they will need in the future. I believe she also called this a youth unemployment crisis of this Government’s making. I fail to see how that can possibly be the case when there was such a stark increase in the youth unemployment figures in the final two years of the Conservative Government. The hon.”
“The challenge in the NHS is markedly different—I would freely acknowledge that—but the right hon. Gentleman is talking about other roles in the NHS. It is not unusual for people to hold more than one job if they are operating as bank staff, so they do not have the uncertainty about receiving no funding at all. The right hon. Gentleman also made the criticism that the jobs guarantee only kicked in after 18 months. That is the final stage of a range of new interventions that this Government are putting in place, including an additional supported conversation at 13 weeks, followed by four weeks of intensive work coach support with specialist teams. It is not just a question of a jobs guarantee after 18 months; a broad range of interventions are being put in place. The hon.”
“He then asked—again, this is daring, but I know that he is daring if nothing else—what that had done to the voting intentions of young people in relation to the Labour party. If I were a Conservative Member of this place—I have no intention of being one, and I do not know how much longer he intends to be one—I would not point to any other party’s polling among 18 to 24-year olds, because theirs is truly dire given the appalling legacy that they left behind.”
“The attacks on the national minimum wage increase are frankly a smokescreen for a party whose policies targeted young people for 14 years and would very clearly continue to do so now. I cannot resist remarking that I thought it more likely for the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) to be in the young person category than in the 40-plus category. I note that he has had a change of employment status, because he was on the Front Bench on Monday but has returned to his previous position in the Parliamentary Private Secretary pigeonhole—there is a thriving labour market on the Conservative Benches, if nowhere else. He pointed to youth unemployment rising, homeownership falling and NEETs being on the up. That is a brave take given that every single one of those facts was true in July 2024.”
“I certainly would. I also note that the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), having complained about the increase in the minimum wage in her closing contribution, failed to say what level the Conservative party think it is acceptable to reset that at. I personally could not look young people in the eye and justify such a cut to their wages, but the Conservatives seem happy to do so. The shadow Minister also pointed to the lack of a plan of action, but that was set out comprehensively by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, underpinned by the £1.5 billion for the youth guarantee and growth and skills levy funding increase, but not limited to those interventions alone.”
“If that is the best that they can offer on one of the few days a year on which they have control of the Order Paper—no idea, no clue and no plan beyond highlighting multiple problems in our society, which we inherited directly from them, as the facts show—I think they will have rather more Opposition days before they come back to the Government side of the House. Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)) , That the original words stand part of the Question.”
“If that is the position of the Leader of the Opposition, Conservative Members may need to find a new home other than Reform— [ Interruption. ] I am not sure where that comment came from, but I think it might have been my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), who knows a little about political journeys and will allow me to leave it there. I, too, am concerned about the spiralling welfare bill and the rise in youth unemployment, about which we have heard a lot today, but the shadow Minister refused to set out what the Conservatives would do.”
“My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we have already taken action. We published the skills White Paper in October, and we are investing £1 billion in skills packages in sectors that will create hundreds of thousands of jobs over the next five years. The Budget also set out more than £1.5 billion investment in employment and skills support over the spending review period, including for the youth guarantee and apprenticeships for young people.”
“I confess that my hon. Friend has had more conversations with the Department for Education on this subject than I have, because he met the Secretary of State recently to discuss this. He will be pleased, I am sure, to know that the Department for Work and Pensions, working with UKHospitality, piloted skills passports in the hospitality sector last year, and that the role of my noble Friend the Skills Minister sits directly between the Department for Education and the Department for Work and Pensions specifically so that the sort of joined-up work to which he refers can take place.”