Welfare Spending

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Britain’s welfare system was created as a safety net. It is a system designed to protect people who face hardship through no fault of their own, but today, that net is becoming a trap—for individuals, for families, and for this country. Any welfare system must be fair, providing support for those who truly need it and a reward for those who do the right thing—who get up in the morning, go to work and provide for their families. Right now, too many people feel that doing the right thing is punished, not rewarded. Under Labour, Britain has stopped working, because for too many, it has stopped making sense to work. There are good fiscal reasons why we Conservatives plan to cut welfare spending by £23 billion, but there is also a moral argument. By making work pay less and welfare pay more, the Government are incentivising welfare over work, which is profoundly unfair.

One of the best examples is the two-child benefit cap. We all know that the Chancellor is going to announce its removal in the Budget, and will no doubt be supported by the Liberal Democrats, by Reform UK and by other high-spending left-wing parties. She will do so because she and the Prime Minister are terrified of their own Back Benchers. The Prime Minister now says that the welfare reforms he is carrying out strike “the right balance”. Who does he think believes that? He is like brave Sir Robin in “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”. Brave Sir Keir ran away—bravely ran away. When danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled; bravest of the brave, Sir Keir. He was forced to retreat and turn a Bill designed to save money into one that actually cost the taxpayer more.

Why are we Conservatives committed to keeping the two-child benefit cap? It is not just because there is a limit on what the state can afford; it is also a question of fairness. Millions of families across Britain make careful choices about whether or not they can afford a child. Why should a taxpayer who has decided that they cannot afford a third or subsequent child be asked to subsidise one for someone who is not working?

[Antonia Bance]

One of my constituents lost her husband after they had made a decision to have three children together, as working taxpayers. Her husband had died, and she needed the help for which she had contributed: was that a lifestyle choice?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

When we design welfare rules, it has to be for the whole economy and all our people, and I believe that the two-child benefit cap is fair.

Under this Labour Government, unemployment has risen every month since they took office; 5,000 people a day are now signing on for sickness benefits, and, thanks in part to the Chancellor’s jobs tax, the number of graduate jobs has fallen by a third; and what is the Government’s response? It is more tax, more borrowing, more spending, and more excuses. When the Chancellor breaks her promise and raises taxes again in the Budget, what will be her excuse? Will it be 14 years of Conservative government? Will it be this mythical black hole that only she and her Back Benchers can see? The Office for Budget Responsibility cannot find it. Perhaps it will be the pandemic, or perhaps it is all because of Brexit. The Chancellor’s excuses are growing increasingly thin, and the people who elect us know that. They know that it is the Chancellor’s fault.

We will cut welfare spending by focusing support on those who truly need it, not those who can work but choose not to. We will use those savings to get the economy working again for individuals and for businesses. We will scrap punitive taxes on family businesses, family farms and local shops. We will abolish stamp duty, because when people can buy a home and when businesses can hire and grow, Britain prospers. We respect the fact that taxpayers already paying too much. We respect small businesses that cannot just pass on additional costs to someone else, and we respect the next generation, who deserve to inherit opportunity and not just the debts of this Labour Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox]

On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Vince]

I am going to make some progress, but I must get to my “teacher” point. I may have mentioned a few times in the House that I used to be a teacher. When I visit Harlow’s schools and colleges, I am blown away by our talented young people. I want the best for them: high-quality jobs, and an ambition that does not stop at a glass ceiling and a lifetime on benefits.

I genuinely believe that getting people into meaningful employment can and will help some of the mental health issues that people suffer from. I have seen that in my work for a homelessness charity. I therefore welcome getting employment advisers into GP surgeries and mental health institutions.

One way to get people back into work is by getting NHS waiting lists down. I know a number of self-employed people in Harlow who are really struggling because of the huge impact that long waiting lists have on them getting back to work. This Government are funding our NHS not just for now, but for the future.

I gently add that the number of people claiming unemployment benefits has actually gone down over the last year under this Government, which we should welcome. I also welcome the review into PIP, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability is leading the charge on that important piece of work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Western]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andrew Western]

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

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

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

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

That was a failure of their Government. It continues:

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

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

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

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

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

“lower-level mental health conditions”.

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

The motion mentions

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

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

“retaining the two-child benefit cap”.

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

All that is rounded off with the line:

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

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

Question put.