Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

Ashley Fox Excerpts

2nd reading & Money resolution
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

Not at the moment. This is not a static group; people’s circumstances change, marriages break up, spouses die and jobs can be lost. In fact, around half of the families who will benefit from the lifting of the two-child limit were not on universal credit when they had any of their children. This is not a static group of people, which drives directly at the heart of the argument that the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) tried to make.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Twelve months ago, not only did the Government support the two-child cap, but they were busy suspending Labour Back Benchers who voted against it. Can the Secretary of State tell the House what it was about the Prime Minister’s weak position that caused him to change his mind?

[Pat McFadden]

I will come on to the timing of our decision, and exactly why it is right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

The benefits system is a safety net designed to support people in hardship, but a fair system must balance that with the needs of those who pay for it. Benefits are paid by the taxpayers of today or, if the money is borrowed, as is so often the case with this Government, by the taxpayers of tomorrow. Every time the cost of benefits rises, so does the burden on the taxpayer, and that cost is growing unsustainably. Spending on health and disability benefits alone is set to hit £100 billion a year by the end of the decade. It is a mark of Labour’s irresponsibility that it presents a Bill today to increase welfare spending further.

I believe in personal responsibility. Not only should our country live within its means, but every individual and family should do so too. Many thousands of couples every year think about whether to have children. They make that choice based on a number of factors, but one of the most important is whether they can afford to bring up that child as they would like to. Those in receipt of benefits should face the same choices as those in work. That is why the Conservatives introduced the two-child benefit cap, and it is why I believe it should be retained.

Under the pre-2017 system, there was a fundamental element of unfairness. A family in receipt of benefits saw them increase automatically every time they had another child. That was not true of a family not in receipt of benefits. Why should a taxpayer who has decided that they cannot afford more children subsidise the third, fourth or fifth child of someone not in work?

I understand why Labour Members are in favour of more welfare spending. They stopped representing working people a long time ago, and they now want to create a society where more than half the population is dependent on the state to ensure their re-election. Why has the leader of Reform UK, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), supported scrapping the two-child cap until so very recently? Voters in my constituency, some even sympathetic to his cause, have been horrified. I think the answer is that he is chasing votes in the north of England, hoping to win support from former Labour voters. That instinct for higher spending shows that Reform UK is wholly unserious about governing our country. Britain needs a Government determined to deliver the changes we need: controlling public expenditure and reducing borrowing, leading to lower taxes and a stronger economy.

[Sam Rushworth]

I am deeply offended by the hon. Gentleman’s comment about people in the north of England, as though they are people who simply vote for their own welfare. That is not true. The people I represent are proud to be hard-working people in good working-class jobs, and many of them have children who have been impacted by the two-child cap. Would the hon. Gentleman like to apologise to them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox]

If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I was saying, he would know that I was describing the tactics of the hon. Member for Clacton. That, I believe, is what motivates his policy on this matter.

The Government seem to be completely powerless to do anything to reverse the spiralling costs of the welfare state. The Prime Minister did, of course, try to produce a package of modest reforms last year. He set out to save £4.5 billion, but was forced into a humiliating U-turn and ended up spending more taxpayers’ money to buy off Labour rebels. He now says that his welfare reforms strike the “right balance”. Does anyone believe him? There is not a thought for the taxpayer, and not a thought about the extra debt that the Government are incurring and the interest that will have to be paid on it.

Let me remind Labour Members that before the election, they said repeatedly that they would

“not increase taxes on working people”.

That was accompanied by a manifesto pledge that they would increase spending by £9.5 billion, but in the 18 months since they were elected, the Government have actually increased spending by £100 billion—10 times more than they promised. They have increased taxes by £66 billion, and borrowing by an extra £40 billion. This is what the Labour Government do best: spending other people’s money. It is in their DNA. They do not care about getting better value for the taxpayer; their only thought is about how to spend and borrow more, as if that were a sign of caring.

I am proud to have a leader with the backbone to tell the truth to the British people. We need to reduce the size of the state so that it does less but does it better. We will reward people who do the right thing—who work hard, who save, who invest, who create jobs, and who build a more prosperous country for all of us.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

One of the early steps we have taken is to change the way that the growth and skills levy—the apprenticeship levy—works, so that more of that money is directed towards young people. That step was necessary because there had been a 40% decline in youth apprenticeship starts over the past 10 years. If we want to focus on young people and on employment for young people, we need to ensure they have a good chance of getting an apprenticeship start.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I wish the Secretary of State well with this initiative, but does he share my concern that as his Department seeks to reduce youth unemployment, the Chancellor is doing everything she can to increase it, with her jobs tax increasing unemployment? Of the 170,000 payroll jobs lost since the election, until November 2025, some 45% involved young people. This Government have cost young people 150 jobs per day since they came into office. How does his scheme cope with that?

[Pat McFadden]

The hon. Member will be aware that 513,000 more people are in work compared with this time last year. He referred to the Chancellor. I am grateful to the Chanceller for the £820 million funding for the youth guarantee, which will bring training help to 300,000 young people and provide subsidised employment for those young people who have been out of work for 18 months. That is important to get young people into the habit of the discipline, pride and purpose that comes with having a job.

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

I am listening to every word of your strictures, Ms Nokes. This Bill is also pragmatic by providing time to adjust and by ensuring that saving into a pension remains hugely tax-advantaged. I say gently to Members who do not agree with the detail of this Bill that they should be careful not to give the impression to savers or those not saving that there is not already a strong financial incentive to continue pension saving in exactly the way people have been doing. Clause 1 provides for that pragmatic approach in Great Britain. Clause 2 does the same for Northern Ireland, and clause 3 provides for the territorial extent and start date of these measures.

I will turn more substantively to the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Witney. At one level, I was glad to see amendments 5 and 6 tabled by the shadow Minister, which aim to exempt basic rate taxpayers. It shows the Opposition, as part of the secret plan that I mentioned earlier, accepting the inevitability of change and instead grappling with what the right pragmatic version of that looks like. In many ways, the amendments aim to deliver the same objective as the £2,000 cap, which, as I said, will mean that 95% of those earning less than £30,000 are unaffected, as are the vast majority of basic rate taxpayers.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Can the Minister explain what is pragmatic about withdrawing a 2p in the pound tax relief from a higher rate taxpayer without a student loan, while withdrawing a 17p in the pound tax relief from a basic rate taxpayer who happens to have a student loan?

[Torsten Bell]

The pragmatic approach is to allow people to continue with salary sacrifice up to £2,000 and to not bring in the measure for four years, so that people have time to adjust. Opposition Members will need to justify wanting to spend more than is being spent on the Royal Air Force on that—I sat through Prime Minister’s questions today, and I heard people calling for more defence spending—while not being able to live up to what that requires, which is taking seriously that we spend tax reliefs effectively. For everybody, there will still be a strong tax incentive to save into their pension.

Taking the approach that the Opposition propose, rather than our proposed cap, would likely be impossible to implement in practice and add unnecessary complexity. That is not least because employers would in many cases not know which employees would end up being basic rate taxpayers. They certainly would not know for sure until the end of the financial year, or at least late on into it.

Amendments 7 and 8 would uprate the cap by inflation. The Government have set out our policy intent for a £2,000 cap to be introduced in April 2029, with the timing driven by the desire to give everyone time to adjust. In that context, it does not make sense to index that cap ahead of 2029. Our view is that the future level of the cap in the next decade and beyond is for Budgets in those decades—or at least significantly closer to them. I know that Members are keen to start debating the 2031 Budget, but having heard from Ms Nokes, I think we should leave that for another day.

Our approach is consistent with the one that this House has taken under Governments of all three main parties, which is to have key elements of the pension tax system that are not routinely indexed, including the annual allowance. It is of course right that this and all Governments will want to keep the cap under review to ensure that it continues to meet the objectives we have set out today.

Several of the new clauses probe at the impact of the changes. The Government have published a tax information and impact note alongside the Bill. It sets out the impact of the policy on the Exchequer, the economy and individuals and businesses. It also provides an overview of the equality impacts.

New clauses 1 and 2 focus on SMEs. I have heard suggestions—this has been gently hinted at today—that SMEs are more likely to be affected. The opposite is true. Only 39% of employers offer pension salary sacrifices, and small businesses are less likely to do so than larger businesses. Indeed, the status quo puts SMEs at a disadvantage relative to their larger competitors, which is the opposite of the point that the hon. Member for Witney wanted to make.

New clause 3 focuses on marginal tax rates, but the changes in the Bill do not directly affect a person’s marginal tax. Those wanting to make pension contributions to keep their taxable income below a certain level can continue to do so, and I have read much misleading commentary on that point.

New clause 4 proposes an impact assessment of the changes before they take effect and five years after. I again commend the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, who is showing admirable zeal for supporting the argument that I made on Second Reading that any responsible Government should keep the £500 billion of tax reliefs under review to ensure that they are delivering efficiently on their objectives. That is the exact thought pattern that identified this relief as needing reform. I look forward to the shadow Minister changing his mind and supporting our measures. The Government should and will continue to keep this and all taxes and tax reliefs under review, rather than singling this particular relief out via primary legislation.

I turn briefly to new clauses 5 and 6, which focus on the impact on pension savings. I can reassure the Committee that the Office for Budget Responsibility has set out that it does not expect any material impact on savings as a result of the Budget 2025 tax changes. I hope that these remarks reassure Members on the points that their amendments have raised. I commend the Bill to the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the business voice and employers’ voice is very important in this. When I wrote the new remit letter to Skills England, I asked it to take into account the views of employers, because it is very important that the skills system is training people in a way that employers want, and that meets the future demands of the labour market.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State to his place, and to his new responsibility for skills. The Government recently reduced the amount of funding for level 7 apprenticeships, so can he tell the House what assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of this reduced funding on the number of nurses in training?

[Pat McFadden]

The apprenticeships and skills budget, like every other budget, demands choices. We are choosing to prioritise the level that we need in the economy, and the areas where the value is greatest. That does imply certain choices, and I am confident that the choices we have made will benefit the workforce as a whole, and future opportunities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, because he raises an important point that I do not want to let go, which is how many people with a long-term health condition or a disability are desperate to work. Our own survey of people on sickness and disability benefits found that 200,000 people would work right now if they were given an opportunity. We need to give people help to tackle their underlying health conditions, which we are doing through our investment in the NHS. We need to encourage employers to do more to give opportunities to disabled people to work. Above all, this Government are determined to meet our responsibilities, with £3.8 billion invested into employment support for sick and disabled people—the biggest amount in a generation. I look forward to working with him and organisations in Swindon to make sure we get that support right locally.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State accept that the reason that unemployment is higher today than the day she took office is the jobs tax, which increases employers’ costs by £25 billion? What hope does her trailblazer programme have when the Chancellor is working against her?

[Liz Kendall]

I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s premise. Economic inactivity is down by 400,000 because we are moving more people from being out of work and not looking for work to starting to have to look for work. Employment is up by 725,000. We have created 380,000 jobs. I know there is more we need to do. We are working very closely with employers. We are overhauling what we are doing. One of the things that employers say to us is, “We do not want to tell our story to thousands of different job centres.” We are putting in a single account manager and we are overhauling our support for employers. I would be happy to meet him and employers in his constituency to see what more we can do to support them, because we want to get Britain working and earning again.

Welfare Spending

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

The UK’s benefits system is designed to act as a financial safety net. It exists so that people in hardship through no fault of their own can be supported. Supporting families and helping parents into work requires a balanced and fair system. It must provide meaningful support for those who need it most, while maintaining a sense of fairness for taxpayers. That is why the Conservatives introduced the two-child limit and believe it should be retained—so that people on benefits face the same choices as those in work. The welfare system is growing unsustainably, with spending on health and disability benefits alone set to hit £100 billion by the end of the decade.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend acknowledge the words of Richard Hughes of the OBR, who said in a report last week:

“The UK cannot afford the array of promises that it has made to the public”?

He also said that debt is on a trajectory that the UK “can’t sustain”.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point. It is essential that we put Britain’s finances on a sustainable path. All benefits are funded by taxpayers or borrowing, so every time the cost of benefits rises, so does the burden on taxpayers, or the debt we place on future generations.

[Sir John Hayes]

My hon. Friend is right about the cost of benefits, but he is also right to suggest that they need to be directed to those in the greatest need—the most deserving. That is what we all want across this House. Sadly, because of family breakdown and the fragmentation of communities, the state has stepped in to do what was once done, in my early life, by families, individuals and communities. It is really important that this welfare reform is seen in that broader context, and that we direct the money to those with the greatest need.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point. I know that he, like all Conservatives, believes in personal responsibility, living within our means and fairness to the taxpayer.

[Rachel Gilmour]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I will not take any more interventions.

Many thousands of couples think every year about whether to have children. They make that choice based on several factors, but one of the most important is whether they can afford to bring up that child as they would like to. Under the previous system, pre-2017, there was a fundamental element of unfairness in the system. A family in receipt of benefits saw those increase automatically every time they had another child. That is not true for a family not in receipt of benefits. Why is it that someone on benefits should not have to make the same choices and sacrifices as someone in work? Why should a taxpayer who is unable to afford to have more children subsidise the third, fourth or fifth child of someone not in work?

The welfare bill in this country is increasing at an unsustainable rate. Unemployment is rising, thanks to the action of the Government, and more people than ever are receiving disability benefits, but this Government seem completely powerless to do anything to reverse that trend. The Prime Minister says that his welfare reforms strike the “right balance”, but the truth is that he was forced into a humiliating U-turn by his own Back Benchers and has had to totally gut his plans. Scrapping the Government’s PIP reforms means that the welfare Bill will make no savings at all—indeed, the total package will end up costing the taxpayer about an extra £100 million a year. What a fiasco!

The Government set out to save £4.5 billion, and have ended up spending more taxpayers’ money to buy off Labour rebels. No thought was given to the burden on the taxpayer, or to the extra debt that the Government would incur and the interest that will have to be paid on it by our children. The fact that so many Labour Members want to remove the two-child benefit cap is testament to the irresponsibility with which they treat the public finances. Their solution is always to spend more money—preferably belonging to someone else.

Now, we have the spectacle of the leader of Reform UK, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), saying that he also supports scrapping the two-child cap, despite having been an outspoken supporter of it when it was introduced. Reform supporters in my constituency are rather puzzled by his decision. It suggests that the hon. Member is not guided by any political principle, but is chasing votes in the red wall, where he hopes to win seats from the Labour party. In my view, that confirms that he is wholly unserious about governing this country. There is only one party in this House that is serious about sound money, and that is the Conservative party. We are the only party that is serious about stopping the creeping reliance on welfare, and that cares about taxpayers keeping more of the money they earn.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

3. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of recent trends in the level of unemployment.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

14. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of recent trends in the level of unemployment.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)]

We all know the importance of work, and since the election we have seen employment rise by 500,000, but Britain is a country that has too few young adults in work or education, and where the post-pandemic employment recovery has taken too long. That is why we will continue our reforms to support more people into work.

[Torsten Bell]

The Secretary of State inherited a labour market that was a mess under the Conservatives, with nearly 1 million young people not in education or training, and 2.8 million too sick to work. Employment is up by 500,000. Economic inactivity—[Interruption.] Conservative Members might not like to hear it, but economic inactivity is down by 300,000 under this Government. No one on the Government Benches will take lectures on a good labour market from the Conservatives.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Unemployment is now 115,000 higher than when Labour took office. The Chancellor’s new jobs tax and the Employment Rights Bill make hiring a new person more expensive. The family farms and family business taxes are reducing investment. Can the Minister therefore explain how he will reduce unemployment while the Chancellor is pursuing policies that increase it?

[Torsten Bell]

I do not want to try the patience of the House but, as I have said, employment is up by 500,000 under this Government. [Interruption.] Conservative Members do not like to talk about that. The hon. Gentleman mentions what British business wants—what British business wants is a Government who are actually fixing the public finances and the public services that mean that when a member of staff gets sick, they do not sit on a waiting list for years, as they did under the previous Government. The Conservatives like to attack the Employment Rights Bill, but stopping good employers being undercut by bad is the pro-business thing to do.

Mansion House Accord

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

Exactly; that is what is going on. I speak to pension funds every week who say they are looking to increase their allocation of UK assets because political stability has been delivered—because Liz Truss has been exited from this building. I speak to Australian and Canadian pension funds as well who are saying that they want to open an office in the UK because political and economic stability has arrived.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Increased investment in the United Kingdom is always welcome. Will the Minister confirm that this Government will never interfere in the fiduciary duty of pension trustees to get the best return for their members?

[Torsten Bell]

The job of pension trustees is absolutely to deliver for their savers and the accord today is delivering exactly that, making sure that we have diversity of asset allocations in our pension schemes. So the answer to the hon. Member’s question is yes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

The Government’s own impact assessment of their Employment Rights Bill says that it will increase the cost to businesses by £5 billion, which will be borne mostly by small businesses. Does the Minister share my concern that, when combined with the additional national insurance charges on employers, that will reduce the opportunities for young people in my constituency just as much as for young people in Kensington and Bayswater?

[Alison McGovern]

I have said already in this session of questions that we have changed the DWP to serve employers much better, and that is an important shift. I understand that Conservative Members do not want people in this country to have greater rights at work, sick pay if they need it or secure hours if they are on an exploitative zero-hours contract. Unfortunately for them, last year the public voted for the opposite.