Youth Unemployment
Graham Stuart Excerpts(2 days, 23 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Whately
I am glad that the hon. Lady has some sympathy with the position of young people who are struggling to get jobs. My party halved unemployment; her party’s record is of unemployment going up and up. Since Labour has been in power, unemployment has gone up every single month.
What is going on? What is going on is them: the Labour Government. Same old Labour—in they come and up go taxes and up goes unemployment, every single time. They put taxes up by £36 billion in their first Budget, and not just any old taxes. Their national insurance hike was specifically a tax on employment—literally a jobs tax. If you tax it, you will get less of it. That is not rocket science; it is basic economics.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
UKHospitality says that we could be seeing the death of the great British summer job, and even Labour’s own Alan Milburn has warned that there is a long-standing decline in the number of 16 and 17-year-olds getting Saturday jobs. Previous Labour Governments always shoved up youth unemployment, but never before has Labour threatened to destroy the great British summer job. That is much to be regretted, and it is about time that the Government turned around their jobs tax and Employment Rights Bill policies.
Helen Whately
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Summer and holiday jobs are important ways for young people to gain experience before they leave education and seek full-time jobs, but there has been a shocking decline in the availability of such jobs because of this Government, who have increased regulation and the cost of employment—that is exactly the problem.
On exactly the point about regulation and red tape, the Employment Rights Bill is making it harder for businesses to employ people. Labour says that it wants to achieve growth, but its policies are obviously going to achieve the exact opposite. The problem is that Labour Members do not understand business. Have they any idea how hard it is to break even, let alone to make a profit; any idea how hard it is for people who have started a business to bring in enough to cover the payroll each month, never mind pay themselves; or any idea how hard it is for business owners to make their staff redundant because they cannot afford to keep paying them? Of course they do not, because how many Labour Front Benchers have worked in a business—I am not counting union officials—let alone run one?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am just going to complete the Conservatives’ record, because I think it would be beneficial for us all to hear it. When the Conservatives were chucked out, the youth unemployment rate stood at 13%, compared with just over 9% two years earlier, and the number of young people economically inactive due to long-term sickness had more than doubled in five years to over a quarter of a million on the Conservatives’ watch. They also failed to support young people in the face of the changing retail sector, for example. Many young people start their careers in that sector—I certainly started with a Saturday job—but retail job opportunities have fallen since 2017 as new technology changes how people shop and how shops employ people. The Conservatives took no action on that, so their legacy for young people looks pretty dismal from virtually every angle.
Graham Stuart
In my experience, my neighbour is always a fair and credible person, so will she confirm that youth unemployment reduced over the 14 years that the Conservatives were in government, rather than focusing on some selective period over covid in order to give an entirely partisan and biased view of the statistics? The numbers went down, did they not? The only Government who put up youth unemployment by 45% were the last Labour Government.
Dame Diana Johnson
The right hon. Gentleman, who is a close neighbour in East Yorkshire, says that I am being partial and only giving part of the picture. I think I have been setting out a very full explanation of what the Conservatives delivered for young people over 14 years.
To expand on that point a little, the Conservatives are now talking about the need to increase apprenticeships, for example. On their watch, there was a collapse in youth apprenticeships—starts were down by almost 40% under the Conservative Government over the past decade, leaving this Labour Government to reverse that decline. They have also been critical of the welfare system for trapping people out of work; they seem to have forgotten that they presided over it for 14 years. The Conservatives introduced that system, and it has now been left to us to address the disincentive to work that they built into it. We started to deal with that task through the Universal Credit Act last year.
Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)
This debate lays bare the sheer hypocrisy of the Conservative party. Although I certainly do not welcome the numbers we are seeing on youth unemployment and recognise the challenge, this is not an issue that was created today. It was overseen by 14 years of their Government, as young people were steadily pushed into the margins. After leaving nearly a million young people not in education, employment or training on their watch, it is convenient for them to come to the House to point fingers at those who are tasked with fixing the damage they caused.
Naushabah Khan
No, I will continue.
Let us not forget the damage that the Conservatives caused by cutting youth services by 70% in real terms since 2010. A Government who presided over the rise in NEET numbers year after year cannot claim surprise at the consequences of hollowing out the skills system that once gave young people a route into meaningful work while more and more young people are falling out of the labour market due to ill health. The Leader of the Opposition said in a speech today, when referring to the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), that Britain needed an engineer, not a used car salesman. That is quite funny, because 14 years of Conservative government have left a generation of young people who might not have the opportunity to be either.
When the last Labour Government left office, they left a strong foundation of support for young people: a national careers guidance service, robust apprenticeships and a clear vocational pathway. Fourteen years later, those foundations lie in ruins. Connexions advisers are gone, opportunities for training have been slashed and, as I have said, nearly a million young people were left economically inactive.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. How do we, as so many colleagues have asked this afternoon—certainly on the Opposition Benches—persuade an employer? How do we create the incentives for an employer to take a chance on a young person who may have no work experience—they may be full of ambition, fresh ideas and curiosity, but with little or no experience to offer—when that same employer could choose an older candidate who is proven, reliable and familiar with the workplace? If we can answer that question, we will help more than one person; we will help ensure that we provide the door to opportunity for people to have that dignity of work, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) has just talked about.
I have been a Member of Parliament for nearly 21 years, along with the Minister. In that time, she, like me, will have visited hundreds of schools—I certainly have, from Holderness academy to Withernsea high school—and asked thousands of students the same question: “What do you want to be when you leave school?” Not once has a child replied, “Unemployed”, and for good reason. Young people are ambitious. They want the dignity of work, about which my right hon. Friend spoke so passionately just now, over the indignity of welfare. They want to climb a ladder of opportunity, not fall into the trap of dependency. However, as was reflected in the Minister’s speech, study after study tells us the same hard truth. Young people who experience long-term unemployment are more likely to end up poor, sick and more isolated than their peers, with no options and no hope. No way should we be consigning our young people to that fate.
Labour Governments have done this before. I never want to question anyone’s honesty, but some Labour Members have been very selective in the data that they have given. They have talked relentlessly about the 14 years, but not one of them has given youth unemployment figures for those 14 years, which anyone fair-minded would surely do rather than picking some three-year period around covid. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) did make a fair statistical point. He said, “OK, youth unemployment has gone up under Labour.” He conceded that: how refreshing. However, he also said that it was going up when we came to power and we should deal with that. It was a fair point and a point well made, but in 1997 youth unemployment stood at 14%, and by 2010, under the socialists—the Labour party—it had climbed to 20%.
Graham Stuart
I will make a little more progress, and then I will happily give way. Given that I have referred to the hon. Gentleman, it is the very least I can do.
By 2024, the level had been brought back to below 14%. Again and again, Conservatives have brought youth unemployment down. I have mentioned—as have others, including the Minister—just how damaging it is for young people to be unemployed. It has not just a short-term horrific impact, but a lifelong impact. I do not quite know why that is the case, but study after study shows that it is. Now, less than two years in, the figure is 16% and rising. We have seen this film before, and unless we change course—unless the Government change course—we know how it ends. So how do we change course? I think that Conservative Members have tried to indicate to Opposition Members what the answer might be. I know that Opposition Members lack experience of running businesses—so few of them have ever had to make that huge decision, that risk-filled decision, to employ someone and then to employ more people, having to find the money to pay them at the end of the month as well as paying all the taxes—but the answer is that we do it by changing incentives.
As any good economist knows, the single biggest cost for almost any business is its workforce, yet this Chancellor has chosen to increase the minimum wage and so many other costs on business. In turn, the cost of employing 18 to 20 year-olds—just since July 2024—has risen not by £2,000, not by £3,000, but by a staggering £4,095, in less than two years. If we understand that behaviour is driven by incentives and we make it much more expensive to employ a young person than to employ someone older, what happens?
Well, it is not a surprise: the rate of youth unemployment has gone up. Let me now give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Dr Arthur
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I thank him for reflecting on a longer period than just the last few years. However, if he has been in this place for 21 years he will remember that the level of youth unemployment in 2010, a year to which he referred, was not because we had a socialist Government—although I am a big fan of Gordon Brown—but because we had a global financial crisis. Unemployment was high in the UK, but it was high elsewhere as well. The right hon. Gentleman will also remember that part of his Government’s response to that was austerity. Does he want to reflect on the impact of that on our young people?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair and reasonable point, but if he goes back and looks through the data, he will see that youth unemployment stayed stubbornly high under the last quasi-socialist Government, and it was not just because of the 2008 crash. The truth is that, throughout that period, we had a much higher level of youth unemployment than we should have done. He says that we had austerity, but the then Government overspent. We inherited a massive deficit and slowly brought it down throughout the 2010s, but we overspent in each and every year, so the idea that we had austerity is a myth. “Austerity” means living within our means, but we did not live within our means. We overspent each and every year, but by the time we got to covid, we had managed to get our deficit right down. We showed fiscal responsibility, because we know that if Governments spend money that they do not generate, they impose a burden on the very young people on whom unemployment is now being imposed.
I will deal with the minimum wage, which Labour Members have touched on. They asked whether we want to tell young people that they are not worth higher pay. Well, if they do not have the experience, and if they lose out on getting a job against an older person because they do not even have cost competitiveness, they are in trouble. Since the introduction of the development rate in 1998, there has been a lower wage for younger workers. That is deliberate, for a very sensible reason: when young people enter the workplace, they are doing exactly that—they are developing. They are developing skills, confidence, discipline and the ability to work productively alongside more experienced colleagues. Employers were explicitly permitted to pay less in order to reflect an economic reality.
Graham Stuart
I do not doubt the good intentions of the Labour party, the Cabinet and the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), who I may allow to intervene in a moment, but good intentions do not disguise the truth. They have not run businesses, and it shows. They do not understand how employers make decisions or how behaviour is incentivised. By abolishing the development rate, the Chancellor wanted to signal that she is on the side of young people in order to put in place a political divide: “You Tories don’t want to pay young people a fair and decent wage!” Of course we do, but we want them to have jobs. This is the insider-outsider issue that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) touched on earlier.
The effect that the Chancellor has had is the opposite of what she desired, and she is not helping young people. Many have received a short-term pay rise, but hundreds of thousands have received the ultimate kick in the teeth. They have received not a pay cut, but no pay at all, because the jobs they should have been offered have disappeared in a puff of the Chancellor’s smoke.
After the Government’s first Budget, a survey by the Beverley and District chamber of trade found that 88% of its members said they would be less likely to employ young people because of the rise in the minimum wage. Despite that warning, the Chancellor returned with a second Budget and destroyed even more opportunities with another £26 billion tax raid. We can but pray that she is out the door before she completes her tax-taking trilogy. If the Chancellor changes nothing, we need to change the Chancellor.
What would the Conservatives do differently? We would start with a simple truth: jobs are created by employers—by not Ministers, schemes or programmes. Private employers are the ones who generate wealth. The ladder of opportunity is not built by ministerial good intentions; it is built by creating incentives for the behaviours we want. The behaviour we want from employers is for them to take a risk, and to feel that it is worth their while for their family to invest in and give an opportunity to a young person. But under this Government, the first rung of the ladder is being sawn off. Young people do not begin at the top; they begin with a Saturday job or a summer shift, and their first payslip. That is where confidence is built, habits are formed and futures are forged. When those jobs disappear, the ladder does not get longer; it just gets shorter and steeper.
A Conservative Government will abolish business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure—not 10% of them, but 100%. Those are the sectors in which so many young people take their first step. Cutting costs gives businesses the freedom to grow and hire, and we do not need a vast number of people to administer a scheme. When we simply lower the costs for employers, they get on with it. That will create real opportunities for young people to learn, earn and prove themselves.
Under Labour, businesses face another three years of higher and higher costs, heavier regulation and constant uncertainty, leaving young people blocked, frustrated and struggling to get a foothold in the job market. We will repeal Labour’s job-destroying Employment Rights Act, because we cannot regulate our way to prosperity. The Act introduced 28 major reforms—count them—placing significant new requirements on businesses. By the Government’s own estimate, it will lead to £5 billion in costs.
The planned changes to zero-hours contracts are perhaps the most damaging to young people, because employees will require guaranteed hours and compensation for cancelled shifts. I fully accept that these measures are well-intentioned, but they will reduce the flexibility that employers value, and that young people also value because they can balance their studies with gaining experience. Businesses will hire fewer young workers, leaving a generation without the chance to learn, earn and prove themselves.
Graham Stuart
I hope the hon. Lady will say now on the Floor of the House that if the youth unemployment rate continues to go up, as it did under previous Labour Governments, from the 14% inherited from the Conservatives to 20%—if that were to be the terrible outcome, with its scarring impact on young people—she would not seek to stand for the Labour party at the next election, because she would recognise that she had failed us.
Jayne Kirkham
As an ex-employment lawyer—in fact, I was an equity partner in a law firm that employed 50 people, so I do have some experience—I remember that when the minimum wage came in in 1998, the figure for over-21s was the same, but the Conservative party changed that, so that those under 25 were paid less, although people’s rent does not cost less when they are 24. There is still a differential for under-21s of £2 an hour, so how can the right hon. Member say that that differential is no longer there when it still exists?
Graham Stuart
The differential has been eroded, but the hon. Lady is quite right to mention that. What we are talking about is balance. None of us is talking about a total free-for-all for employers. We are looking at getting balance, and it looks as though that balance has gone wrong, as the hon. Lady must know. What have been the great external economic shocks over the last year and a half? There have not really been any. There is no reason, other than the policies of this Government, for this increase in youth unemployment, with the loss of nearly 100,000 jobs in hospitality. This is about getting the balance right, and this Government have not done so.
The Conservatives will align incentives, cut costs and free businesses to hire—to get the balance right—and in doing so, we will give them the freedom to give young people a chance to prove themselves, because Conservative Governments stand for work, not welfare, and for opportunity, not dependency.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
This has been an excellent and engaging debate, in which I think everyone has recognised that this is an important issue to which we should be dedicating time. Indeed, it is a crisis, because youth unemployment is rising faster here in the UK than anywhere else in the G7.
We have had some fantastic contributions from those on the Conservative Benches. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), a former employment Minister, spoke in an extremely well-informed way. He also incorporated some very practical things into a call to action. We had a passionate speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), who talked specifically about The Greyhound as an exemplary business in her constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) made a very apposite comment: that the best welfare programme for young people is a job. In an outstanding speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) shared her deep experience of working in a family business and the importance of those jobs in our retail and hospitality sector to teaching young people reliability, communication and resilience.
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend is picking out remarkable contributions to this debate. Was she particularly struck by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), who is not in his seat, saying that the Conservatives should apologise for not having any mention in their motion of transport to help young people get to work, when the much longer Liberal Democrat amendment, ironically, has no mention of transport either?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) spoke extremely eloquently about the importance of the Dog and Duck in his constituency and about how terrible it is for the local community that it has closed because of all the extra costs. My right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) was absolutely on the mark about some of the statistics and the fact that we have seen this film before. We have learned about the importance of the ladder of opportunity that is built by good intentions. We need to create those jobs in the private sector; we cannot regulate our way to prosperity. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), in a speech that was very practical and befits his background in both the private sector and local government, had some very sensible points to make.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
As we have seen so often in this debate, that is a tragedy. Every young person deserves the chance to move into the world of work. What we are seeing from those statistics is that this is not a blip, but a trend—and a trend that is moving in the wrong direction.
Graham Stuart
Does my hon. Friend look forward to the Minister’s reply, as I do? Youth unemployment has already gone up from 14% to 16%. Does she want to hear from the Minister at the Dispatch Box a commitment that this Government will reduce it back down, so that they can for once end their time in power—in 2029—however short-lived it may have been, with a lower rate of youth unemployment than they started with?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I certainly hope that we will hear a plan of action to tackle this alarming crisis, and a less selective grouping of statistics than we heard from the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson) when she opened the debate.
This Government have made it more expensive, burdensome and risky for businesses to hire young people. That is not a view that I am expressing from a partisan point of view—[Interruption.] I will try to follow the example of the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) and not be partisan, by quoting from external organisations. The Federation of Small Businesses warns that many firms are now scaling back recruitment, with young workers the most exposed. The highly respected and neutral Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned of a worrying rise in unemployment among young workers, citing policy-driven increases in labour costs. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research has highlighted a cooling labour market with disproportionate effects on young people.
How in their first 18 months have the Government managed to have such a terrible impact on our young people? First, there is the national insurance rise. The Institute of Directors has described the national insurance rise as a direct disincentive to hiring. Young people are the least experienced, the least established and the most vulnerable to cost cutting, and when it is made more expensive to hire, employers hire fewer people. It is not complicated.
Secondly, we have Labour’s increase in the minimum wage. Since the 2024 general election, the cost of hiring a full-time minimum wage worker has risen sharply across every age group. For over-21s, the annual cost has increased by 15%, but for 18 to 20-year-olds, it has jumped by 26%, despite the fact that there is no employer national insurance to pay for that age group. For apprentices, it has risen by 25%. In fact, since Labour got into government, it now costs £4,000 more a year to hire an 18-year-old full time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
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.
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. 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. 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.
Graham Stuart
The Minister knows that youth unemployment was at 20% when the Conservatives came into power, and at 14% when we left. Can he commit that his Government, with their vast array of programmes, will bring youth unemployment back below the level that his Government inherited? Previous Labour Governments have failed to do that, and shoved up youth unemployment, with all the damage that goes with that. Will his Government ensure that the numbers come down, and if they do not, will the Government put their hands up and admit their failure?
Andrew Western
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
Welfare Spending
Graham Stuart Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)
Well, there we have it—as ever, all politics and no economics. The Conservatives come to this House to talk not about the people of this country, but about themselves. In March, we found out the truth of the Tory record on child poverty, which is highly relevant to their motion today. From 2010 to 2024, the number of poor children skyrocketed by nearly 1 million. After 14 years in office, the Conservatives left us with 4.5 million of our children growing up without the ability to make ends meet. That is what Tory Governments do, just as they did from 1979 to 1997, when child poverty more than doubled, leaving 4.2 million children in relative poverty. The Conservatives can come to this House to defend the failures of the last Government as many times as they like, as their motion does today. Every single time, we will remind them of their record.
Alison McGovern
I will give way if the hon. Gentleman apologises to the 4.5 million children in this country growing up in poverty.
Graham Stuart
The Minister and Labour Members are in absolute denial about the state of the country. The Government came in with growth as their No. 1 mission, and what have they done? They have brought growth to an absolute, shuddering halt. They have done what every Labour Government do, which is to increase unemployment. Who does that hurt the most? It is the poorest. From an age point of view, who does that hurt the most? It is the young. An increase in youth unemployment of 45% was a scar on this country that the last Labour Government left. It was the Conservative Government that outgrew Germany, France, Japan and Italy over the 14 years we were in power. She should be ashamed of her record, even though it is only 12 months old.
Alison McGovern
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that lengthy intervention. I deeply regret that he does not feel the need to look his own record in the face and, more than anything, that he has nothing to say to the 4.5 million children in this country without the means to make ends meet.
Emergency food parcels distributed by Trussell Trust food banks have increased by 164% over the past 10 years, and 1.1 million children are living in households that have gone to a food bank over the past 12 months. In this country we now have more food banks than police stations. Are the Conservatives proud of that record? I hope not.
Nobody in this country should be begging—no child should face that indignity. The consequences are serious. Over 80% of parents say they struggle to get basic support, such as a GP appointment, or to see a health visitor. Schools are in an attendance crisis, with one in five kids now missing a day a fortnight or more, and it is worse for poor kids. That is the Conservatives’ record. These failures for our children will echo down the years and will turn up in our nation’s life expectancy, the benefits bill they say they care about and, worst of all, in the sense of hopelessness that far too many people in this country now have.
Do the Conservative Opposition have a response on their record? As we have heard, no, they do not. Have they apologised to families in the UK? As we have heard, no, they have not. Have they reflected on their record? As we have heard, no, they have not. They bring a motion to this House to do none of the above, but to agree with the Tory party policy from 10 years ago. They are the same Conservative party that created the mess we are in now, and they have no regrets. Their motion talks of a benefits trap, and the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) just repeated that. They will be awfully cross when they find out who spent £3 billion on the universal credit system that they now say traps people in poverty. They promised that universal credit would get people into work; instead, it pushed people into incapacity benefits.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
Tackling the causes of child poverty is the reason I came into this place. As a teacher and then cabinet member for education, I know only too well about the child poverty that has grown for over a decade—I could see it happening before my eyes. In Wales, much has already been put in place to mitigate the impact, including in my own work: long-established free breakfast clubs, work to lower the cost of the school day and universal free school meals in every primary school.
There is also the incredible work that my local schools do, with family support spaces, banks of winter coats and food banks—yes, food banks—in schools, to make sure that children go home to a proper meal. The necessity of these in 21st-century Britain is a stain on our country, so when I hear Conservative Members talk about benefits culture, blaming people for their financial struggles and telling them to live within their means, I am frankly staggered, because it is their inaction and shoulder-shrugging that has led us to where we are today.
Graham Stuart
Does the hon. Lady recognise that there were 800,000 fewer people—including 300,000 children—in absolute poverty and 4 million more people in work in the UK when the Conservatives left power in 2024 than there were in 2010? Labour Governments take us in the opposite direction: they put people in the dole queue and make the whole country poorer. That is why the Conservative party can be proud of its role in poverty reduction, including for children.
Gill German
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention, but to be frank, I do not recognise any of it. The Tories sat on their hands and allowed low-paid work to grow, access to work to dwindle, welfare dependency to deepen and daily living costs to soar.
Dr Mullan
Not right now.
I recognise, of course, that some people are not able to make the same choice about the number of children in their family—including, for example, children who are cared for under kinship arrangements, or adopted; there are many exceptions to the policy to make it fair. The welfare system is already growing unsustainably, with spending on health and disability benefits alone set to hit £100 billion by the end of the decade, yet Labour, Reform and the Liberal Democrats all back higher welfare spending, including scrapping the two-child limit, which will keep taxes high. The Resolution Foundation estimates that scrapping the two-child benefit limit will cost £3.5 billion a year by 2029-30. Is this really an appropriate time to put more pressure on the public finances?
Graham Stuart
The focus of the motion today is the two-child benefit limit, yet we heard not a single word from the Minister about it. That shows just how listless and drifting the Government are, when those on the Front Bench cannot tell the truth to this House or to those on the Back Benches. The truth is that the Labour party is riven in two, and those on the Front Bench no longer have any power of propulsion.
Dr Mullan
As others have pointed out, the Government put forward welfare reforms that were supposed to save money but ended up costing money, and this is yet another attempt to placate their Back Benchers in a way that we cannot afford. We must be clear about our record: we brought down absolute child poverty when we were in government. Labour Members are happy to quote figures on relative poverty and take them at face value, but when we quote figures on absolute poverty from the same datasets, they do not want to hear it. I am clear that I care more about absolute poverty, and how much someone actually has to spend on things that they need, than I do about relative poverty.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
Before I turn to some of the rawer politics as the debate demands, I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in this important debate. Like other hon. Members, I am appalled by the level of child poverty in this country. Running through the debate was an underlying and understandable anger at the unacceptable increase in child poverty since 2010, with 1.1 million children using food banks to eat.
Graham Stuart
I am sure that the Minister wants to give a fair and balanced overview, and we all wish to see fewer people in relative poverty, notwithstanding his support last week for a measure that would have put it up by a quarter of a million. Just to have balance on the record, does he recognise that, in absolute terms, between 2010 and 2024 the number of children in poverty dropped by 300,000, and the number of people in poverty overall by 800,000?
Andrew Western
I absolutely accept that the Conservative party, because of its shameful record, made a fundamental change to the way in which poverty is assessed. We have returned to the internationally recognised comparator that exposes that shameful record. We will not run away from that internationally recognised comparator. It is on that on which we will be judged, and the Conservatives must also be judged on that.
I thank Labour Members who spoke in the debate so passionately about the work that the Government have already done on child poverty and the Conservative party’s shameful record. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd North (Gill German), for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) and for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance)—and, yes, my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman). He and I may not agree on the process being followed by the Government to tackle child poverty wherever we see it, but I do not doubt his commitment and support to tackling it.
I thank in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) for his powerful personal testimony about his upbringing, and about the stigma of poverty and the shame that many parents feel when they require extra support. Like him, I grew up in modest circumstances, as one of five children. For a period, in a single-parent household, we were dependent on tax credits, child tax credits and the education maintenance allowance—remember that? I will not allow privately educated Conservative spokespeople to lecture us on the plight of struggling families up and down the country when they have shown no care at all about the part they played in putting many of those families into crisis.
Andrew Western
What is low is scrapping the Child Poverty Act in 2016. The Conservatives’ record on child poverty is cheap and low. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) can continue to chunter from a sedentary position; I could reel off their record all day.
Andrew Western
I am afraid I will not take any further interventions, as I only have a couple of minutes left. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) tempted me to speculate about decisions around taxation. He will appreciate that that is way above my pay grade, and I hope that he is patient enough to wait for the next fiscal event to get an answer to his question.
Graham Stuart
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given collective responsibility, is it in order for a Minister of the Crown to argue against a policy of his own Government? If I have understood correctly, it is the policy of the Government and the Labour party to maintain the two-child benefit cap.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The right hon. Gentleman will know that that is not a matter for the Chair, and he is seeking to drag me into the debate.
Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill
Graham Stuart ExcerptsWednesday 9th July 2025
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Universal Credit Act 2025 View all Universal Credit Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at as at 9 July 2025 - (9 Jul 2025)
Debbie Abrahams
Let us be clear: this will apply to newly acquired conditions in particular. My argument is that by delaying the changes, we can ensure that people with a newly acquired disability or condition can receive treatment and care quickly by making sure that the NHS ramps up its treatment process. I do not think it is ideal, but it is a reasonable compromise, and I hope the Government will listen.
As I said, people with both new and existing severe conditions will be protected. This, I understand, is covered in Government amendment 2 and new clause 1.
There is significant evidence of the harms that disabled people would potentially have experienced if the Bill had remained in its previous form, but the concessions that have been made over the past couple of weeks have addressed that. I applaud the Government for that; it was definitely the right thing to do when the evidence was provided. When our fiscal rigidity is set to cause harm and undermine what we are trying to do in the longer term, it is right that we think again, and Iusb therefore urge the Government to consider my amendments.
There is strong evidence that the Government will make savings in social security spending in the long term through case off-flows. As I have mentioned before, that will be achieved naturally through the additional capacity in the NHS, the realignment of the labour market and, of course, the bringing forward of the employment support.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate.
The Bill is being rushed through by a Labour Government desperate to paper over the cracks in an economy that they themselves have brought to a shuddering halt. So many of the questions that are coming before the House at the moment are the result of that economic flatlining and the flailing of a Government who are casting around desperately to see how they can get themselves off that economic hook.
Put simply, the Bill is unaffordable. The Prime Minister’s latest concessions to his unruly Back Benchers—now happy and victorious—have left the Exchequer with a £5 billion gap to plug, which inevitably means higher taxes for hard-working families who are already feeling the pinch. Far too few of those voices will be heard today. Too often in debates in this House, Members are consumed with the idea that more spending is a better thing that can always be afforded, and therefore no responsible decisions need to be made. That was the decision of the Labour Back Benchers who wrested from those on the Front Bench control of one of the flagships of this Government’s agenda, leaving the Government—massively endowed as they are with Members of Parliament—like some gigantic ship that has lost all power and propulsion, listing at sea, waiting for the next wave to come along.
Graham Stuart
As we in this Chamber know, the next wave that comes along and buffets this Labour Government from the left comes all too often from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), to whom I am happy to give way.
Graham Stuart
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady that we should consider such people. I think of the lady who came to see me on Saturday at my street surgery. She was concerned about the brutality of the PIP process and the way that she and her husband, who has a degenerative, progressive disease for which there is no cure, are put through the wringer to justify their situation, which anyone with any common sense would see deserves support. But the hon. Lady will be aware of the mushrooming in claims from those with various levels of mental health challenges.
Ultimately, we must balance looking after people with degenerative, progressive diseases in a humane and civilised manner with making sure that we have a system that cuts out fraud, and that seeks to minimise those who do not need aid seeking it and getting it. If only we could have a system in which people did not claim for money that they do not deserve and need, we would be able to look after the people whom I think—this is one area of commonality between the hon. Lady and me—both she and I would agree require fairer and more generous treatment.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Does the right hon. Member agree that the reduction in investment in the NHS and in mental health service support for the people of our country has led to an epidemic of people who have had to wait for support, sometimes for nearly two years, which worsens their condition and makes it harder for them to recover and go back to their normal daily life at work? That also leads to an increased demand on PIP.
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. We on the Conservative Benches know that throwing money at a problem without proper safeguards is not leadership, is not generous and is not kind, but is an abrogation of responsibility and economic negligence.
Let me be clear: this Bill in its current form locks in billions of pounds of additional welfare spending year after year. Under the current Chancellor, we have already seen Britain’s debt interest forecast soar and the bond markets become jittery—more than that, they are charging far more than after the mini-Budget to which Labour Members so love to refer. And inflation, of course, has proven stubbornly high. Now we have yet another unfunded spending commitment, with no plan to pay for it except reaching deeper into taxpayers’ pockets. The Chancellor might not say it outright, but families in Beverley and Holderness and across the country know exactly where this ends up—with them paying more.
The Prime Minister can indulge in his favourite hobby of U-turning his way throughout his time in office, but that is not governing in the national interest, which is what he promised to do. It is the latest example of the Prime Minister bending to pressure from the left of his party, which is so well represented on the Government Benches today, desperate as he is to shore up support for a drifting Government who have lost all propulsion.
Instead of fixing the underlying problems in our economy—or fixing the foundations, as has oft been repeated—Labour has chosen the easy political route of higher spending, higher borrowing and, inevitably, higher taxes. Those higher taxes will be imposed not on some mythical class of super-rich people, which the Greens like to propose, but on ordinary men and women who get up in the morning, work hard, look after themselves and recognise personal responsibility as a central tenet of their lives. That also needs to be a central tenet of our political lives.
That is why I have tabled two amendments to the Bill. Amendment 41 would ensure that Parliament retains control over future annual above-inflation increases. It would mean that the House of Commons must explicitly approve continuing those rates beyond 2027-28, protecting against open-ended commitments that we cannot afford. New clause 9 would require the Government to report on fraud and error arising from these provisions.
Graham Stuart
Given the scale of welfare fraud that we have seen in recent years—it already costs the taxpayer more than £8 billion—it is only right that we get a proper handle on where taxpayers’ money is actually going.
Graham Stuart
I would happily give way if there were Labour Members who had an interest in controlling the public finances rather than running up the national credit card irresponsibly, which is their wont. Those efforts by the Front-Bench team have now come to nought. They have given in to their Back Benchers and they no longer have any control or say on the direction of this Government. Together, these straightforward safeguards to protect the public purse would help reduce waste and misuse.
I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will stand up today and try to paint this as a fair and measured Bill. [Interruption.] Labour Members can shout and scream in frustration, but they will have their time to speak. In reality, this is not a fair and measured Bill. It achieves nothing but a two-tier benefit system, unfunded spending commitments and, ultimately, higher taxes for ordinary working people.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Member give way on that point about fraud?
Graham Stuart
If the hon. Gentleman, who is so energetically rising from his place, can tell us how he is committed to ensuring that the public finances of this country are kept in a healthy state, I and the House look forward to it with bated breath.
Neil Coyle
I am really intrigued, Madam Deputy Speaker, because the right hon. Member suggested that he has a concern about tackling fraud and responsibility in public finances. Can he tell us where he was under the previous Government when fraud in the benefit system hit its highest level ever seen in the history of the UK’s social security system? Where are his references in Hansard? Where was he on Bill Committees and in this House when that fraud was soaring? And where was he when this Government began passing legislation to tackle that horrific level of irresponsible fraud in the benefit system?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman will know that, as the benefit system grows, the likelihood is that fraud will grow within it. I applaud all efforts to crack down on fraud. I want to see greater efforts by those on the Front Bench to do that, but he knows that it is those sitting on the Back Benches who are now calling the shots.
Ultimately, all roads lead back to the Treasury. The truth is that the Bill is not the product of serious policymaking—neither in its inception nor its eventual outcome, gutted and filleted as it has been by a triumphant left in the Labour party. Instead, it is the product of panic—a rushed response to economic pressures caused by a feeble Chancellor who has brought the economy to a halt. It has been written not with reform in mind, but with rebellion in the rear-view mirror. The result is a muddled, mean-spirited piece of legislation that satisfies no one, least of all the vulnerable people who will suffer under it, or the British taxpayer who will pay for it.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The right hon. Member is right to bring his speech back to the vulnerable people who will be impacted. He will know the devastating impact of cancer on many families. One in two face the reality of a cancer diagnosis. Young Lives vs Cancer has said that, on average, the disease costs £700 a month and £6,000 in annual income. Does he agree that the Bill, by ensuring that those people do not get the high rate universal credit health element, will be devastating for many cancer patients right across the country?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the plight of cancer sufferers and the need to have a system that is more generous to those who genuinely need it, but is also tougher in ensuring that the funding goes to the places where it is most required. Under this Chancellor, as we know, Britain risks a return to the same old Labour habits: spend today, tax tomorrow and leave the mess for someone else to clear up. We saw that under Gordon Brown, and we are seeing it again today. The public deserve better than another Labour tax-and-spend spiral that leaves less money in their pockets and less resilience in our economy.
The Bill in its current form is a short-term fix with long term costs. It fails to tackle fraud, fails to address getting people back into work, despite all the protestations from Ministers that it had anything to do with that, fails to guarantee value for money and fails working families by paving the way for inevitable tax rises. If Labour wants to be taken seriously on economic credibility, it needs to start by showing some discipline on spending and not indulging in a spending spree that Britain simply cannot afford. The Prime Minister promised a serious Government—remember that?—a grown-up Government, yet here we are debating a confused, divisive Bill whose main achievement so far is to split the Prime Minister’s own Benches.
Graham Stuart
If the hon. Lady wants to tell me that the Bill is not confused or divisive and has not been driven by the ructions on the Back Benches, I look forward to hearing her intervention.
Patricia Ferguson
The right hon. Gentleman will understand that it is for me to decide what my intervention will be. I was going to say that I am very pleased to hear him sticking up for people who really need help. What part of new clause 9 actually makes things better for people who need help?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Lady should recognise that looking after the public finances, minimising fraud and ensuring that this House keeps control of public expenditure is exactly in the interests of the most vulnerable. Who will pay the highest price as this economic spiral goes downwards? As always under a Labour Government, it will be ordinary working people, the increasing numbers of unemployed people and vulnerable and disabled people—they are always the ones who pay the price for a Labour Government.
When the last Labour Government left power in 2010, youth unemployment was up 45%. That is their record on young people, who are most vulnerable to the negative impacts of unemployment. It is those vulnerable groups who are always let down by a Labour Government—and most of all by a Labour Government that is run not by those with some sense of public finance control but by their Back Benchers who are out of control.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it was 14 years of a Conservative Government that led us to a 29% disability employment gap, a 17% pay gap, 4 million disabled people in poverty, and the UN telling the last Government over the first half of their decade that they failed on almost every single commitment in the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities?
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I respect her a great deal. She will be aware that under the last Conservative Government millions more disabled people came into the employment market. Around 2.5 million—possibly as many as 3 million—more disabled people entered the employment market and had the dignity of work. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have no credible plan to get our economy growing. Hard-working families in Beverley and Holderness and right across the country deserve better than another Labour Government chasing short-term headlines at the cost of long-term economic growth and stability.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Last week’s chaos and climbdown has been overshadowed by events of the last 48 hours. The impact assessment published last night shows that £2 billion is still to be stripped from up to three quarters of a million sick and disabled people by 2029-30 through the slashing of the health element of universal credit in two. By the end of this Parliament, some people will lose around £3,000 a year because of these reforms, including those with fluctuating conditions.
If that was not bad enough, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has waded in to protect disabled people where this Labour Government have not. I believe that international laws and conventions must be upheld, but this Government are now under investigation for breaches. No matter what the spin is, passing the Bill tonight will leave such a stain on our great party, which was founded on values of equality and justice. The only way out is to withdraw clauses 2 and 3 so that breaches of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities are not upheld.
The UN’s contention is my contention; sick and disabled people have not been consulted. If someone with a fluctuating physical or mental health condition such as multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia, cystic fibrosis or a recurring musculoskeletal condition had a period of remission and worked but then relapsed and returned to universal credit, unless unequivocally stated otherwise in the Bill, they would return on to the pittance of £50 a week for their health element.
Olivia Blake
I agree. That is my plea to the Treasury Benchers: There is still time to withdraw the Bill and come back with something better.
These issues should be tackled head-on. It is unjust that, because of the way we have built society, each and every disabled person faces £1,000 in extra costs on average per month. None of that is optional spending; it is the unavoidable price of navigating a society that was not designed with disabled people in mind. There is a whole host of reasons for that spending; they are the non-negotiable realities of having a disability. Disabled people know better than anyone the barriers that keep us from work and what would help, so listen to us.
Graham Stuart
A non-negotiable reality is that we have must economic growth to fulfil the Government’s priorities, be it looking after the poor or the disabled, or any other priority. Yet under this Government, inflation has nearly doubled, and their unemployment Bill, jobs tax and other measures have brought the economy to a halt. Can Labour Members not understand that if they do not prioritise private enterprise and economic growth, they will never be able to serve the most vulnerable, who depend on that growth the most?
Olivia Blake
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for interrupting at that point, because I have two suggestions that I think would be good for growth. The first is to ask the British Investment Bank to support disabled people in setting up their own business, as it does women and those setting up a minority-led business. I know many ADHDers who would make great entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, sometimes they end up going down the path of criminality. We should consider how we can ensure that their innovation is enhanced and used properly.
The second suggestion is that we make our economy much more inclusive. There could be a national insurance contribution discount for taking on someone with a disability, who may be in receipt of PIP and may have been out of work for more than six months. I am sure that, through a more inclusive society, we can encourage growth, not discourage it.
I have taken up far too much time, so I will end with this. Disabled people know what is best for us. We should be investing in people’s independence, not leaving them on the sidelines or pushing them into poverty. That is a matter of justice, but in the end, it saves money as well. More than that, it gives people the dignity and freedom to live well. That, surely, should be our purpose.
Sir Stephen Timms
I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the same answer that I gave him last week, which is that the figures will be published by the OBR in the usual way.
A number of amendments that have been discussed relate to clause 5, which, as the House knows, we are removing through Government amendment 4, so the Bill will make no changes to PIP. Parallel amendments to schedule 2 cover Northern Ireland and, as has been pointed out, Government amendment 5 changes the Bill’s name, once enacted, to the Universal Credit Act 2025. We will now make PIP fit and fair for the future with the wider review to conclude by autumn next year. The Opposition’s amendment 45, on face-to-face assessments, therefore no longer fits in the Bill, but I would say to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), that we are indeed going to get ahead with increasing the number of face-to-face assessments, and the point that he needs to recognise is that that should have been done after the pandemic and it was not done. We are getting on and fixing the problems.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) for giving the House, in her new clause 11, a helpful checklist of the desirable features of our co-produced review. I have committed to Disability Rights UK and to others that I will shortly discuss these matters with them, but let me set out my thinking now in response to my hon. Friend’s new clause. I accept subsection (1) of her new clause. The UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities has featured a bit in this debate—my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) referred to it, as did others. To quote article 4.3 of the convention, we should
“closely consult with and actively involve persons with disabilities”
in carrying out the review. I accept the point, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, that that is what co-production entails.
Sir Stephen Timms
We will aim for a consensus among all those taking part, and that is what I hope we will achieve.
Sir Stephen Timms
No, I will not give way.
Some amendments seek to change the new universal credit arrangements. The increase to the standard allowance—the first permanent real-terms increase in the headline rate of out-of-work benefits for decades—is an important step forward, as my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) highlighted. Balancing that with a lower health top-up for most new claims is key to tackling—
Graham Stuart
On a point of order, Madam Chair. We were told that the Bill was going to bring a £5 billion saving to the Exchequer, then it was £2.5 billion. Is it in order not to have any idea what this will cost the taxpayer?
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That is a point of debate, not a point of order. Continue, Minister.
Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill
Graham Stuart ExcerptsTuesday 1st July 2025
(6 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Universal Credit Act 2025 View all Universal Credit Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Badenoch
I will give way to the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) first.
Mrs Badenoch
The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. He needs to get an education and look at the facts.
Graham Stuart
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the chief architect of the fiasco faced by people with disabilities and every member of the Labour party today is the Chancellor of the Exchequer? The fact that she is not here to face up and take responsibility is all we need to know about her and those on the Government Front Bench.
Mrs Badenoch
My right hon. Friend is quite right: this is a fiasco, and it is the Chancellor’s fault. She marches Labour Members up and down the hill all the time, and they are the ones who have to face their constituents. We are trying to help to get a welfare system under control and get people into work.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) is right to raise the Chancellor. When the economic outlook worsened this spring, she chose to force through these changes to welfare, which are designed not to reform or improve the system, but to address a hole in her numbers. Those changes were rushed for Rachel, as we say. I watched when she made that Budget, and it was quite clear that she had no idea of the consequences of her decision. The country should not have to pay for the mess she has made, and neither should disabled people. Even with the changes in this Bill, welfare spending will still be billions higher at the end of the Parliament. Slowing down how much you increase spending is not a cut.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), my fellow Select Committee Member.
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the need for reform of the social security system. I believe that the social security system, like the NHS, should be there for any one of us in our time of need, whether that need is a result of being in low-paid work or of not being in work at all, protecting us from poverty and destitution. Unfortunately, it did not do that under the last Government. If we become sick or disabled or if we can no longer work, the system should be there for us. I believe that the vast majority of people of working age want to work and do the right thing by their families, and, as the Committee heard, there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. We have just completed our “Pathways to Work” inquiry.
The Leader of the Opposition, who I think was the Equalities Minister in the last Government, did not mention, for example, the inquiry conducted by the Equality and Human Rights Commission—which was subsequently escalated to an investigation—into the DWP’s potential discrimination against disabled people. That is still outstanding. Nor did the Leader of the Opposition mention the investigation of the last Government by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities for breaches of the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities—not once, but twice. What she said was therefore a little bit rich.
For the last 15 years we have seen a punitive, even dehumanising, social security system in which not being able to work has been viewed with suspicion or worse—with devastating consequences, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). Too many people relying on social security support to survive have died through suicide, starvation and other circumstances exacerbated by their poverty. Since 2010, under previous Administrations, 10 prevention of future deaths reports have been issued by coroners because of the direct causal responsibility of the DWP. We do not even know the full number of claimants’ deaths or the full extent of the harms, but my Committee’s “Safeguarding Vulnerable Claimants” report, published in May, defined recommendations to prevent such harms from being done to claimants, and it has been at the forefront of my mind while I have been considering the Bill.
I want to acknowledge some of the positive measures in the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper and the “Get Britain Working” White Paper, which I believe will have a significant and positive impact on people’s lives and help them to get into work. Those measures include the reform of jobcentres and the merger with the National Careers Service; the new right to try and the new regulations just announced; the Trailblazer programme, which will increase the opportunity for people to get closer to the labour market by working with community groups, the voluntary sector and health bodies; Connect to Work, providing employment support; “Keep Britain Working”, an essential and independent review undertaken by Sir Charlie Mayfield on how to reduce the appalling disability employment gap, which was not improved by the Opposition during their 15 years in power and which remains at about 29%; and—this is really important—the commitment to safeguarding, which is one of the key measures in the Green Paper.
There is also, of course, the work that the Government are undertaking in other Departments. They are increasing NHS capacity to ensure that, for example, hip or knee replacements or mental health support are available in weeks, as was the case when I was an NHS chair under the last Labour Government, not the years for which people are now having to wait. They have introduced the Employment Rights Bill and the industrial strategy—I could go on. However, the Bill, as it is currently planned, risks undermining some of those excellent initiatives.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Lady is always fair-minded in the Chamber and outside. She will recognise that 2.5 million, or perhaps as many as 3 million, more disabled people entered the workforce under the last Conservative Government. Does she share my concerns that the Bill could undermine the ability of people with disabilities to enter the labour market?
Debbie Abrahams
We have to ensure that that does not happen. There are risks: I am being very honest about that.
As we heard in the evidence that my Committee received as part of our “Pathways to Work” inquiry, ours is an ageing society, with worse health than other advanced economies as a result of the austerity policies of the previous Government, including the cuts in support for working-aged people. According to a very good report—published in 2018, so before the pandemic—if we improved the health of those in the areas with the worst health in the country, we would increase our productivity by more than £13 billion a year. We need to look at that in the round.
Oral Answers to Questions
Graham Stuart Excerpts(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend’s constituent will benefit from the big increase in the universal credit standard allowance, which we have talked about, and from free school meals for her children. Somebody who starts work or increases their hours may also be eligible for support with up-front childcare costs. The flexible support fund can award the full cost for up to a month of fees to a childcare provider in advance of the care being delivered, so that may be an option for his constituent.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
At the weekend, Vivergo and Ensus workers learned that UK negotiators had successfully protected the UK bioethanol industry until President Trump called the Prime Minister and he sold out that industry, allowing a genetically modified bioethanol to flood the market and put all those jobs at risk. What can the Secretary of State tell those workers who feel that they have been sold out by our Prime Minister when negotiators had successfully protected an industry of the future?
Alison McGovern
This Government will always have the backs of working people, and I believe there will be a statement shortly on our modern industrial strategy. I know that Ministers from the Department for Business and Trade will be extremely engaged in the point that the right hon. Gentleman has just raised.
Winter Fuel Payment
Graham Stuart Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Torsten Bell
I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. We want to make sure that the vast majority of pensioners can receive winter fuel payments. We want to make that as easy as possible, which means making receipt automatic.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Minister seems unable to say sorry, but does he at least regret that more than 90,000 more elderly people went to A&E last winter than did the year before, in the last winter under the Conservative Government?
Torsten Bell
Over the last few years, since 2020, energy bills have risen for all households, and far too many people have been struggling. That is absolutely right, and the Government are focusing on addressing it through the warm home discount and the warm homes scheme, which provides the insulation that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) mentioned. We need to do that right across the board, including, in the long run, by fixing our broken energy system.
Statutory Sick Pay
Graham Stuart Excerpts(9 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Graham Stuart (in the Chair)
I will call Imran Hussain to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the rate of Statutory Sick Pay.
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart.
Successive Governments have grappled with statutory sick pay, with report after report saying that we need fundamental, root-and-branch change to a system that is letting workers down every day. Frankly, successive Governments have failed to tackle this important issue head-on, with many actively avoiding or dodging it.
I am therefore glad that, within their first 100 days, this Labour Government delivered on our pledges and introduced a transformative, once-in-a-generation Employment Rights Bill to drag workers’ rights into the 21st century. Although the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who is largely responsible for the Bill, is not here today, I put on record my thanks to him. In a previous role, I had the pleasure of working alongside him in developing much of the policy outlined in the Bill, which will mean that workers’ rights in our country are fit for purpose.
The Bill makes welcome changes to statutory sick pay. In 2022, a Trades Union Congress survey found that 80% of those earning more than £50,000 a year receive their full pay when sick, compared with only a third of those earning under £15,000. Around half of all employees in the UK get their full pay, just under a third get statutory sick pay, and one in 10 gets nothing at all. Most low-paid employees—around 8 million—are in the middle group, reliant on statutory sick pay.
For those workers, the measures in the Employment Rights Bill are much welcome: removing the three-day waiting period so that workers are eligible for sick pay from day one; removing the lower earnings limit and extending sick pay eligibility to 1.3 million of the lowest-paid workers currently denied it due to the lower earnings limit of £123; and setting the 80% earnings replacement rate. However, as the TUC, the safe sick pay campaign and many others have said, we must not stop here. We must continue to be ambitious in strengthening workers’ rights.
Oral Answers to Questions
Graham Stuart Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Western
I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for the proposed fraud Bill. The level of fraud in the welfare system is absolutely unacceptable; almost £10 billion was lost last year. Increased use of data will be essential to clamping down on both capital fraud and broader fraud. However, we will do that without sharing any information at all with banks and financial institutions.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for her personal commitment to transparency. Further to the question asked by the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), will she share with the House how many thousands of people will die as a result of Labour’s choice to cut the winter fuel payment?
Liz Kendall
I am very happy to share the data: there are 200,000 more pensioners living in poverty after 14 years of Conservative government. I am also very happy to publish information showing a 152% increase in pension credit claims, thanks to the big, bold campaign run by this Labour Government.
Social Security
Graham Stuart Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mel Stride
I am left feeling that that intervention was barely worth the wait.
The fact that we even have a debate today is near miraculous given the resistance from the Labour party—we have it thanks to the scrutiny that the Conservative party is providing to the Government. We know that petitions have been railing against the measures: 100,000 people have signed the Silver Voices petition, a third of a million the 38 Degrees petition, and over half a million the Age UK petition. They are calling on the Government to think again. The press, particularly the Express newspaper, is doing a sterling job in bringing these matters to our attention. Even the trade union movement, including Unite, is pointing a finger at the Government and saying that they are picking the pockets of pensioners.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
There is a sense of disappointment. Yesterday, the Health Secretary was dragged in here because a multimillion-pound-making consultant in the health industry is wandering corridors with access to papers, and today pensioners are being betrayed. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when people voted Labour, they thought that they were getting change and transparency? They were promised higher standards; they are getting the opposite.
Oral Answers to Questions
Graham Stuart Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
On reforming welfare, we are increasing the incentives to work and increasing the disincentives not to work or to engage with the system, and we are looking to better target help for those who need it most.
Mel Stride
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and considerable interest and knowledge in this area, and for the discussions he has held with me on these matters. As he will know, we are currently going through a 12-week consultation on how PIP can be reformed. I certainly subscribe to the view that we want to examine the issue of one size fits all and whether there are better ways of looking after people.
Graham Stuart
I welcome the Government’s welfare reforms and celebrate the millions of additional people now in work thanks to this Conservative Government. I note that every Labour Government there has ever been has left more people unemployed and on the dole queue at the end than at the beginning—theirs is a truly disgraceful record. However, can my right hon. Friend assure my constituents who may be chronically ill or vulnerable that, although there will be support in place, they will not be forced back into work if that is not appropriate?
Mel Stride
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Work is essential and is at the heart of the reforms we are bringing through. Indeed the Office for Budget Responsibility has assessed the impact of our measures with the work capability assessment reforms, for example, as leading to over 400,000 fewer people on those benefits by the end of the forecast period. I am very proud of that achievement because, as he highlights, that will mean more people have work and the benefits of it.