Welfare Spending

Helen Whately Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes the two-child benefit cap should remain in place and that households with a third or subsequent child born from 6 April 2017 claiming Universal Credit or Child Tax Credit should not receive additional funding, because those who receive benefits should make the same decisions about having children as those who do not; further believes that lifting the cap would exacerbate a benefits culture which is unfair on the taxpayers who pay for it and unfair on those who become trapped on benefits, because those who can work, should work; and generally supports further changes to reduce welfare spending and ensure that benefits are there only for those who need them.

All of us have to make difficult choices in life about what we can afford. Many of us here are fortunate, but one of those choices will have been the number of children we have. We may wish that such an important decision were not tainted by something as unromantic as money, but that is the hard fact of the matter. Children are wonderful—I say that as the mum of three teenagers—but bringing them up is an expensive business. As Conservatives we believe in the importance of family, in personal responsibility, in fairness, and as families and as a society, in living within our means. That is why today we are calling on all Members to affirm our commitment to a policy that reflects those principles.

Let me take a step back for a moment and reflect on the situation we are in as a country. We have 28 million people in Britain who are now working to pay the wages, benefits and pensions of 28 million others. More than half of all households received more in benefits and benefits in kind than they have paid in taxes. To spell that out, more people are net recipients than net contributors. That is happening right now, and with every day that passes, spending on benefits is going up and up. Health and disability benefits alone are set to hit £100 billion by the end of the decade. That is more than we spend on defence, on education and on policing.

While it might seem kind to spend more on welfare, it is not. It is not kind to those trapped in the welfare system and written off to a lifetime on benefits. As we embark on a doom loop of uncontrolled spending, higher taxes, struggling businesses, entrepreneurial exodus, rising unemployment and then more people out of work and on benefits, it is not kind to those who lose their jobs and their incomes in that cycle of misery. If the moment comes when we cannot afford to provide welfare even to those in desperate need, it most definitely will not be kind to them, the very people our welfare safety net is meant to be there for.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

The shadow Minister talks about kindness. Does she agree, therefore, with the Children’s Commissioner for England, who has said that children in England are now living in “Dickensian levels” of poverty? A principal element of that is the two-child cap. What element of kindness does the shadow Minister see present in that unfairness?

[Helen Whately]

I do not agree with the hon. Member. I am going to talk about poverty in a moment, so if he will just hold on, he will hear my view on that point.

This is a ticking time bomb. If we do not solve this problem, our economy will collapse, yet opposite me sit members of this Labour Government who have just shown us, with the welfare chaos over the past couple of weeks, that they will not, and indeed cannot, fix this. In fact, they are just making it worse.

If hon. Members cast their minds back to early 2020, they will remember that Labour was in the midst of a leadership election. The now Prime Minister made a clear and unequivocal commitment to

“scrap…punitive sanctions, two-child limit and benefits cap.”

Then, once he had secured the leadership of the Labour party and the election neared, he changed that tune. He said Labour was not going to abolish the two-child limit. He acknowledged the need to take tough decisions and not to make unfunded spending promises, and on this we can agree. But saying that he would take tough decisions is not the same as actually taking them.

Take for example the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, now just called the Universal Credit Bill, which Labour voted through last week. It was meant to save £5 billion. The first U-turn brought that down to £2 billion, and the next U-turn then brought it down to—well, the Minister on the Front Bench at the time could not tell us, but the consensus is that it will now cost the taxpayer around £100 million.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does she agree that, as a result of that Bill, one of the things that is most shocking is that in due course it will actually pay someone more to be on welfare than to work full time on the minimum wage?

[Helen Whately]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the problem of a welfare trap, where people would better be better off on benefits than working full time on the minimum wage.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Helen Whately]

I will first make a little progress, but then I will be happy to give way to the hon. Lady.

Last week’s welfare fiasco saw a Bill that was meant to save money become a Bill that will cost money. We have also seen the fiasco of the winter fuel payments cut, with the Government having to row back on their tough talk because taking money from low-income pensioners is not, in fact, the way to make savings. And now we are debating the future of the two-child limit, which Cabinet Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have indicated is the next tough choice that they are not going to make.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

My hon. Friend talks about tough choices. Does she agree that families that are in work make tough choices every single day, about what they can afford and how they spend their money, and that those who receive benefits should really have to make the same tough choices?

[Helen Whately]

My hon. Friend makes an important and thoughtful point. Many families, whether they are living off benefits or in work, would like to have more children but have to make these difficult choices about what they can afford. This is a point about fairness.

I know that many Labour Members passionately believe that the limit should go, and they will make arguments today about child poverty as if they were the only ones who care about it—[Interruption.] For the avoidance of doubt, that is not true. Our difference of opinion is about what to do about it. I think all of us are at a loss to know what the Prime Minister believes in. By contrast, we know what we believe in and we know why we are here. That is why we have brought forward this debate on the two-child limit, because somebody has to make the case for fiscal responsibility, for living within our means, for fairness, for ensuring that work pays and for keeping the two-child cap.

I want to be clear that all of us—including those of us on the Opposition Benches—want children to have the best possible start in life. Let us also be clear about what the two-child limit actually is, because I note that some Members from other parties are confused. The two-child limit restricts the amount of additional universal credit that families receive for having children to the first two children only, with some sensible exceptions, such as for twins or non-consensual conception. The cap does not apply to child benefit, which is available to all families with incomes of up to £80,000 for every child, regardless of the number of children in a family.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I am proud to be a member of the party of Wilberforce, Shaftesbury and Disraeli, who all understood that it is essential to free people from need, and that in that effort the state can be a force for good. But in freeing people from need we should not limit them to a life of dependency. It is entirely possible to believe that although welfare can be a force for good, so too can personal responsibility, and responsibility means making the kinds of choices that my hon. Friend has set out.

[Helen Whately]

I could not put it better than my right hon. Friend.

We know that bringing up children is expensive and important. When working couples have to make tough decisions about whether they can afford to start a family in the first place, they should not be made to pay more in taxes to fund their neighbour to have a third, fourth or fifth child. Someone in a job does not get paid more just because they have another child. If we are worried about people getting caught in a benefits trap where it pays more to be on welfare than in work, how much worse would it be with neither the two-child benefit nor the benefits cap? It would mean benefits increased by thousands. When I say thousands, the House of Commons Library has told me that a family with five children would get more than £10,000 extra a year and a family with eight children would get more than £20,000 extra a year. That is more than the after-tax income of someone working full time on the minimum wage.

[Deirdre Costigan]

Does the hon. Member seriously believe that any family anywhere in the country will take seriously the Conservative party lecturing them on personal and fiscal responsibility, when this is the party that not only brought the economy to its knees through the uncosted promises of Liz Truss’s Government, but partied in the back garden of No. 10 when the rest of us were under covid restrictions?

[Helen Whately]

If I could take the hon. Lady back a bit, she might remember when we came into office in 2010, and we had to bring down the deficit year after year to get the country’s finances under control.

Giving children the best start in life is not as simple as handing out more money. It is about giving parents the community support they need as they encounter the challenges of bringing up a child, which is why we launched the family hubs. It is about education, but school teachers around the country are being let go. It is about growing up in a household with someone in work, but across the country people are being made redundant because of the Chancellor’s jobs tax.

I know that I will not win over everyone here with my argument. For instance, I do not expect to convince the four remaining Reform MPs, because their leader has said that he would remove the two-child limit—the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) believes that is the right thing to do and said that he is not finished yet on benefit giveaways. But asking the taxpayer for ever more in taxes to pay for their neighbour’s benefits is not the right thing to do. The country, taxpayers and future generations cannot afford this. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor and Cabinet Ministers have been unable to rule out more tax rises this autumn. Businesses, working people, pensioners, savers, homeowners—whose pocket will be picked next?

Last week, the Office for Budget Responsibility warned that the UK’s finances are in a very “vulnerable position”. Now more than ever we need the Government to take the tough decisions—but will they? I know Labour Back Benchers are itching to vote to scrap the limit, but where are the Government on this? Will they take the position of the Prime Minister in 2020, in 2024 or now, or will they have to abstain because the Government just do not know? Soon we will see.

Only the Conservatives understand the importance of personal responsibility, fairness and living within our means. Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, the Greens and Reform all voted last week for more welfare spending. Will they do the same today, or will they vote with us to back the people getting up every morning, going out to work, doing the hard yards, making the hard choices and working hard to build our country?

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Helen Whately Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

This has been an extraordinary afternoon in the Chamber. Listening to the debate, we have surely all been moved by the stories we have heard of the experiences of hon. Members, of the experiences of their families, loved ones and constituents, and of how the welfare system has served its vital purpose of providing a safety net in times of desperate need, particularly for people whose disabilities or ill health have made it impossible for them to make ends meet on their own. It is clear that there is broad consensus across the House that the welfare system needs reform. There has also been consensus that what we were debating was a bad Bill. It was a rushed and chaotic compromise that would harm disabled people, create a two-tier benefit system, and barely make a dent in the overall welfare bill. How could anyone justify voting for something that would not make a single disabled person’s life better? It is clear that many, many Members could not.

I said that it “was” a bad Bill, because while we have been debating it, it has more or less disintegrated. Less than two hours ago, the Minister for Social Security and Disability told us, in an unprecedented intervention, that clause 5 of the Bill is to be removed in Committee. That takes out all the changes to personal independence payment, and with them almost the entirety of the remaining savings in the Bill. Describing it as chaos now feels like an understatement.

We have a Government with a supermajority who were voted in on a manifesto for change, a welfare system that everyone agrees needs reform, and public finances that simply must be brought under control, but the Government are now serving up a Bill with next to nothing in it. They had already U-turned once; it seems they cannot even deliver a U-turn. The Prime Minister told the country that he was distracted at NATO, and he flew back home on Thursday to sort the problem out. This is what sorting it out looks like. Once again, his calamitous negotiations are letting the country down.

Last week, we offered the Prime Minister help in the national interest and set out three tests that he would need to meet to have our support on welfare legislation. The first was that the welfare bill must come down. We all know people whose lives would not be possible without the help that our welfare system provides. Each and every one of us in the Chamber wants a welfare system that is there for those who need it, but if the welfare bill spirals out of control, it puts that support in jeopardy. The Bill now makes no meaningful changes to a system that we all agree is not working, and I reckon it will now save less than £1 billion from a sickness benefits bill that will be rising to nearly £100 billion by the end of the decade. That is a total dereliction of duty by a Government who claim to want welfare reform and fiscal discipline.

Secondly, we said that we would support plans that get people into work, but the Bill will not help a single person into work. Ministers said, “Trust us, employment support is coming,” but why would anyone trust this Government on jobs when 100,000 were lost in May alone? None of us have seen the Government’s plan to get more disabled people into work, and apart from new red tape and making it more expensive to hire people, I do not think there is one. Thirdly, we said that we must not have more tax rises in the autumn. Given that the Chancellor had already committed to that, it should have been the simplest of those three conditions to agree to, but this desperate climbdown blows an even bigger hole in her Budget. She is pushing us into a doom loop of higher taxes, fewer jobs and more welfare. At this rate, the time is coming when our constituents will not even have a welfare system to call on in times of trouble.

What is left for us to vote for or against this evening? All of us in this House know that welfare needs reform and want to see more people helped into work. All of us in this House—surely most of us, at least—recognise that the country must live within its means. The remnants of this Bill will manifestly achieve none of that. In fact, the only purpose it will now serve is to etch forever into the statute book the moment when this Government totally lost control.

--- Later in debate ---

Bill read a Second time.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the light of the shambles this afternoon, with the Bill being ripped apart literally before our eyes in this Chamber and the Minister unable even to tell us how much it will now save, can you please advise me whether it should still be rushed through to be debated next week in Committee of the whole House, or whether the Government should in fact withdraw it?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The hon. Member has put her point on the record. She has been a Minister in the past and so will know that the scheduling of business is a matter for the Government, and not for the Chair.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading

(2) Proceedings in Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings in Committee of the whole House are commenced.

Programming committee

(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.—(Chris Elmore.)

Question agreed to.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill (Money)

King’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:

(a) any increase in the administrative expenses of the Secretary of State that is attributable to the Act;

(b) any increase in sums payable by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided that is attributable to increasing—

(i) the standard allowance or limited capability for work and work-related activity element of universal credit;

(ii) the personal allowance, support component, severe disability premium or enhanced disability premium of income-related employment and support allowance.—(Chris Elmore.)

Question agreed to.

Welfare Reform

Helen Whately Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for advance sight of her statement.

This is a Government in chaos: open rebellion from their own Back Benchers, unfunded U-turns costing billions, and welfare plans that are not worth the paper they are written on. Their latest idea is a two-tier welfare system to trap people in a lifetime on benefits and deny them the dignity of work, while leaving the taxpayer to pick up the ever-growing bill.

It is a long-held Conservative belief that those who can work, should work. Work provides security and purpose. That is why we launched universal credit, simplifying complex benefits and ensuring that work always paid. And it works. In the decade up to the pandemic, we got the number of people on benefits and the benefits bill itself down. Some 800 jobs were created for every day that we were in office, giving millions of people the dignity and security that work brings.

But then, during the pandemic, we saw something new. The health and disability bit of our benefits system started to break. The bill is forecast to hit £100 billion by 2030. One in every four pounds of income tax will be spent on health and disability benefits—more than the entire defence budget. That is not fair for the taxpayer, not fair for people who are written off, and certainly not sustainable for the country.

Despite Labour having 14 years in opposition and now a year in government, they still do not have a plan to bring down the welfare bill or get people into work. What we have before us now is a rushed and chaotic compromise that is not reform in any sense of the word. It is woefully unambitious about savings, conspicuously lacking in compassion and achieves no meaningful change of a system we all know is broken. Thanks to the Government’s latest climbdown, we are left with a plan that will save just £2.5 billion of a £100 billion bill by introducing a two-tier system. Two people diagnosed with Parkinson’s a week apart will now receive different levels of support—all to clear up an internal Labour argument. The Government’s own impact assessment shows that these plans will not get a single person into work. The idea that work is the guiding motivation for these changes is laughable.

There are things that the Government could do. They could reform the fit note system, which sees 94% of people who apply told that they are too sick to do any work at all. They could say today that they would make all sickness benefit assessments face to face. They could get a grip of the rising claims for common mental health problems, such as anxiety and depression. Claims for those and neurodevelopmental conditions such as ADHD are the main reason for the steep rise in the number of people on sickness benefits, making up more than half of all new claims. The Centre for Social Justice has found that the Government could save up to £9 billion by reforming those benefits. However, nothing that we have seen from Labour over the past couple of weeks suggests that it has the courage and conviction to grip that problem. In the meantime, our welfare bill will only continue to rise.

We agree on the need for reform and have set out the conditions under which we would support the Government: first, the welfare budget must come down; secondly, we need to get people back into work; thirdly, there must be no new tax rises to pay for increases in welfare spending. But with the welfare bill ever growing, unemployment rising and jobs disappearing, the Bill fails on all accounts.

Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the changes she is announcing today will be paid for through borrowing or taxation? Where are these good jobs she claims to be creating, when vacancies are going down and unemployment is going up? Has she read the impact assessment for the Government’s Employment Rights Bill, which makes it clear that it will be harder for people to find work as a result? Why did it take the Government a year to publish the terms of reference for their PIP assessment review, and when can we expect changes if it does not report back until autumn 2026? Could I try one more time to ask what the difference is between the Secretary of State’s right to try guarantee and our chance to work guarantee?

Finally, is this it? Are there any more savings? Are the Government not going to get any more people into work? Is this the extent of their ambition for reforming the welfare system during their time in office? In five years’ time, will this be the Secretary of State’s legacy?

[Liz Kendall]

I am in listening mode, and I listened carefully to what the hon. Lady said: once again, her strategy seems to be to rail against the problems that she and her party created. She has some chutzpah to talk about a two-tier system, when that is precisely what the Conservatives introduced when they protected people on legacy benefits when they moved on to UC and replaced DLA with PIP. They were part of that, and the hon. Lady should admit that rather than making those points. She said we should bring back face-to-face reassessments. We are doing so—it was the Conservatives who switched them off.

To be honest, I am still no clearer about what the Conservatives’ policy actually is. The hon. Lady and the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), claim that they had a plan to cut £12 billion from the welfare bill in their manifesto, but the truth is that it was nothing but a vague idea about turning PIP into vouchers. She talks about fit notes—I think the Conservatives tried to reform them about three or four times but completely failed, as have all their other efforts. The one change the Conservatives did propose was to the work capability assessment, and their consultation was ruled illegal by the courts.

What is beyond doubt is the mess that they left our welfare state and country in. Economic inactivity was rising; it is coming down under Labour. Disability benefits were doubling, with the cost to taxpayers soaring. We are putting in place real reforms based on our values—fair for those who need support and for taxpayers. That is the leadership that this country deserves.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Whately Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

Two weeks ago, the hon. Gentleman’s Government told people they were U-turning on winter fuel payments because the economy is on a “firmer footing”. The next day, the unemployment figures were released, showing that a quarter of a million jobs have been lost since the Chancellor’s job-taxing Budget. The country is now losing 100,000 jobs a month. These figures are worse than even the most pessimistic forecast. Is that what a firm footing looks like to the hon. Gentleman?

[Torsten Bell]

A firm footing for economic recovery looks like kicking the Conservative party out of office and growing the economy once again, and that is what we see if we look at the data. The hon. Lady likes to look at one month’s data—well, let us look at it. Data from the Office for National Statistics show that vacancies rose by 27% between April and May. I know the Conservatives want to pretend that everything was wonderful a year ago, but every business and every voter in this country knows that that was not the case.

[Helen Whately]

Honestly, who does the Minister think he is fooling with this spiel? Growth forecasts have been slashed and inflation has surged. What world is he living in? The Government have been in office for a year and people are losing their jobs because of the decisions that they have made. How does he think his “everything’s fine” mantra actually sounds to one of the people who have lost their jobs or to a business facing a tax bill that it cannot afford? Has the Secretary of State even told her Back Benchers, who will be strong-armed into voting for cuts next week, that the welfare cuts Bill that we will be debating will get a grand total of zero people into work, according to the Government’s own impact assessment?

[Torsten Bell]

The hon. Lady asks about what is going on with the economy. What is going on is that we have had four rate cuts over the past year. What is going on is that we have signed three trade deals over the past year. What is going on is that employment has gone up and inactivity has gone down. I know that the Opposition love to latch on to one month’s data, but let us look at the whole period of this Government: wages have increased by more under this party in the past 10 months than they did in the first 10 years of the Conservative Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call shadow Secretary of State.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

More than half of new health and disability benefits claims are now for mental health, yet under the Government’s welfare cuts Bill the personal independence payment could be stripped from three quarters of claimants with arthritis and two thirds of those with heart disease but fewer than half of those with anxiety. Does the right hon. Lady believe this is the right decision?

[Liz Kendall]

I have great personal respect for the hon. Lady but she really needs to make up her mind: first she says our proposals are too late, then she says they are rushed; she criticises us for being cruel, and then says the Opposition are going to vote against our Bill because it does not go far enough. But her deputy, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), has let the cat out of the bag, saying in a recent Westminster Hall debate:

“I am not able to tell…exactly what we would do.”—[Official Report, 7 May 2025; Vol. 766, c. 301WH.]

The truth is that the Conservatives are a broken party with no ideas, let alone a strategy—and, unless they change course, they have no future either.

[Helen Whately]

Goodness me; I asked the right hon. Lady quite a serious question, so that was a very disappointing answer. However, she and I are in agreement that the benefits bill needs to come down, and that will need real reform of the system, so why is she pressing ahead in a panic with her half-baked cuts rather than doing the job properly? We would support a proper rethink of which conditions should get what help, and a better system for people struggling with mental health or neurodiversity, who would be better off in work than parked on benefits. Why did not she make that part of her plan?

[Liz Kendall]

Let me tell the hon. Lady what we are doing to improve mental health support for people in this country and to make sure that it is treated with equal importance to physical health: we have made significant progress towards recruiting the additional 8,500 mental health workers we said we would recruit in our manifesto to reduce delays and provide support; we have confirmed funding to help an extra 380,000 patients get access to talking therapies; and we are investing the biggest ever amount in employment support for sick and disabled people. I say to the hon. Lady, who left 2.8 million people out of work due to long-term sickness and 1 million young people not in education, employment or training, that it is about time she apologised to the country and made up her mind about whether she will back our reforms.

Winter Fuel Payment

Helen Whately Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

I feel for the Minister, sent here by his bosses to complete what must be the most humiliating climbdown a Government have ever faced in their first year in office. For nearly a year, the Conservatives have campaigned against this cut, and for nearly a year, the Government have tried to hold out. Just four weeks ago, I stood here and asked the Minister how long this tone-deaf final stand could go on for. Loyally, he held the line. He defended the cut one final time. He said their plan for pensioners was right on track. Well, today he has been sent to end that “courageous” last stand, and—unless it is coming next—he has been sent without the one thing that pensioners up and down the country deserve: an apology.

Let us be clear: the Government made a choice to cut the winter fuel payment. It is outrageous to claim that the economy has somehow improved from the day they made the cut, and they know it. In fact, by almost every metric, the opposite is true. Inflation was at the 2% target—now it is 1.5 points higher; 150,000 more people are unemployed; and growth forecasts have been slashed in half by the Office for Budget Responsibility. In the meantime, the Government have gone to town with the country’s credit card. Borrowing is up. Debt is up. Who is the Chancellor trying to fool when she suddenly says she can afford this when before she could not? The fact is that last winter she gave pensioners’ fuel money to the unions. Now she realises how unpopular that was, so she is pretending that everything has changed. Perhaps the most surprising thing is that she thinks anyone is taken in.

According to the Government’s own analysis, 50,000 pensioners were plunged into poverty this year and 100,000 extra pensioners ended up in A&E this winter. Their mistake has hurt people, and it is cowardly not to own up to it. Just like their personal independence payment reforms, there were no consultations or proper assessments—just a self-righteous insistence that what they are doing should not be questioned. There is certainly no thought for those affected or concern for the anxiety that their government by press release is causing. This is what happens when a Government come into office with no plan, no principles, no idea what they want to achieve and no idea how to achieve it. They just bumble from one mistake to another, breaking promise after promise. Did they think they could try out new policies like trying a new mattress—unwrap it, see how it feels, sleep on it for a while, but if it causes a political backache, send it back?

This rushed reversal raises as many questions as it answers. It is clear that when the Prime Minister stood up and made his big U-turn announcement in PMQs, he had no plan and no idea how he was going to pay for it. It is a totally unfunded spending commitment. Where is the £1.25 billion needed to pay for this U-turn coming from? I note that the Minister has kicked that can down the road until the Budget. The Government claim that the change will not permanently add to borrowing, so does that mean it will permanently add to taxation?

On the plan itself, is this really the best system of means-testing that the Government could come up with? Is the Minister sure that they have thought it through, or will this unravel, too? What happens if a pensioner earns over £35,000 a year through non-taxable income? Will they have to register for self-assessment and start filling out a tax return in their 80s or 90s? [Interruption.] You didn’t cover that.

Why should someone earning taxed income be disadvantaged? Is it fair that a millionaire pensioner and their spouse might receive a payment, but two people earning £36,000 will not? What happens if someone dies in the period between receiving the payment and having to pay it back? Will the Government go after the deceased person’s relatives?

I have two final questions. After all this, the savings for the Treasury for this coming year may be as little as £50 million. Does the Minister think it is worth it, and will he apologise?

[Torsten Bell]

I will deal directly with two of the questions raised because it is important to provide reassurance. The right hon. Lady asks what will happen with the estate of someone who is deceased. I want to be clear that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will never pursue any estate for the winter fuel payment alone. She also asks about the level of savings. As I set out in my statement, the savings will be £450 million a year in England and Wales. That is very clear, and it is a significant saving.

More broadly, the hon. Lady talks about an apology. She comes here representing the party of Liz Truss and lectures anybody else about apologies; she comes here representing the party of flatlining wages, rising debt and a 200,000 increase in pensioners in poverty, and asks anybody else to apologise. I have never heard such nonsense. We have listened to pensioners. For all her sound and fury—she was at her most furious today—I still cannot tell what the Conservatives’ policy is, 11 months on. For all the rhetoric and shouting, it sounds like she might support the means-testing of winter fuel payments. After all, that was the policy of her party’s leader, who once also supported means-testing the entire state pension in one of her bolder moments.

Conservative Members say that the policy is not much comfort to pensioners, but Age UK says the exact opposite: charity director Caroline Abrahams said that this announcement is

“the right thing to do”.

Martin Lewis says that it is a “big improvement”. [Interruption.] There is a lot of chuntering from the Conservative Front Benchers. Maybe their Back Benchers can work out what the Front-Bench policy is by the time they get to their feet in a few minutes’ time. I have no idea whatsoever what the Conservative party’s policy is.

More widely, when it comes to pensioners, the Government’s priorities are to raise the state pension and rescue the NHS. The triple lock will see state pension spending rise by £31 billion annually over this Parliament. Some £26 billion is being invested into the NHS because we inherited in England a disgraceful situation in which more than one in five pensioners aged over 75 were on waiting lists. There is no excuse for that legacy from the Conservative party. Neither of those forms of progress—raising the state pension and investing in the NHS—would be possible without the difficult decisions that we have had to make on tax. Those are difficult decisions that every Opposition party has opposed. Only this Government can provide that crucial support for pensioners, because we will do what is necessary to turn that support from rhetoric into reality.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Whately Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

I suspect that the hon. Members on the Government Front Bench are now surrounded: I suspect that they are the only people left in this Chamber who are prepared to defend the cutting of the winter fuel payment. Dozens of their own MPs have now joined a long list of people telling the Government that they have got it wrong, including the Welsh First Minister—talking about learning lessons from Wales—the money-saving expert Martin Lewis, and voters up and down this country. The Conservatives have led this campaign from the start, but if the Government will not listen to us, will they now listen to everyone else and think again?

[Torsten Bell]

We have set out our policy, but here we are 10 months on and I have no idea what the Conservatives’ policy is. I am not even sure that they know what their policy is. For all the shouting, there is no promise to reinstate a universal winter fuel payment. There is one policy from the Leader of the Opposition, the very woman who called for the winter fuel payment to be means-tested in 2022: now, she wants to means-test the entire state pension. Apparently, that is “exactly the sort of thing we will look at”. She thinks that is bold policymaking. It is not—it is bonkers.

[Mr Speaker]

The good news is that the Minister has no responsibility for the Opposition.

[Helen Whately]

That is not something that the Leader of the Opposition said. To the point in hand—the winter fuel payment—I wonder for how much longer this tone-deaf final stand will go on. Every time the Government talk about winter fuel payments, they make out that they had no choice, but that is simply not true. To govern is to choose. At best, this policy was only ever going to save £1 billion or so, but they are spending £8 billion on setting up an energy company, and the cost of asylum hotels will rise to £15 billion under Labour. This has always been a choice, and it is the wrong one. Can the Minister guarantee that next winter, every single one of the 750,000 poorest pensioners who missed out on the winter fuel payment this year will receive it?

[Torsten Bell]

I can guarantee that this Government are going to deliver on our priorities for pensioners by raising the state pension, with a £470-a-year increase this April, and saving the NHS, with a £26 billion increase every single year. What will the Conservatives be doing? None of that, because they oppose every single measure required to fund it. We know what the Tory plan is, because we have just lived through it: pensioner poverty rising and the NHS collapsing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

The number of job vacancies is falling month on month under this Labour Government, but the number of people employed is also falling. Could the right hon. Lady admit what this means is happening in the economy?

[Liz Kendall]

It is quite interesting to get that question from the shadow Secretary of State, since under her Government the employment rate did not get back to where it was pre-covid—the only country in the G7 not to do so. She left 1 million young people not in education, employment or training, and she left near record numbers of people—2.8 million—out of work due to long-term sickness. Businesses are still desperate to recruit. We are overhauling the system to ensure that people get the support they need.

[Helen Whately]

I am disappointed that the Secretary of State did not answer the question. I can answer it, if she will not. It means that businesses have stopped hiring, the growing economy that we left is being hammered by the Government’s jobs tax, and thousands of young people are leaving school and university with worse prospects than this time last year. Businesses need a Government who understand them and back them—that is what jobs depend on. She needs businesses to hire people so she can hit her employment target. What is her message to them?

[Liz Kendall]

The shadow Secretary of State fails to recognise that job vacancies were falling under her Government. I would say to her that we are inundated with businesses that are desperate to recruit and to get young people the skills they need. I met a whole group of businesses in Leicestershire last week who are really keen to work with us. I suggest the hon. Lady takes a good, long, hard look at her own party’s record—the number of people she left on the scrapheap—say sorry and get her own policies right first.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Helen Whately Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

Every penny of taxpayers’ money lost to fraud or error is money wasted, so we Conservatives support many of the measures outlined in the Bill, not least those that continue the hard work done by my colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions prior to the general election. The Government have a responsibility to ensure that every penny they raise in taxation is spent well. That is fair to taxpayers, who have worked hard to earn that money. When it comes to welfare, at the heart of our system must be the principle that Government support should go only to those for whom it is intended. Every penny that does not undermines the entire system. It erodes public trust and support. That has put support for some of the most vulnerable people in society at risk. That is why, in government, we did the groundwork for the clauses of the Bill that enable banks to help crack down on fraudsters, recognising that while the state should never be able to see what someone spends their money on, it should be able to check whether they are entitled to the money that they are claiming.

The amendments we have tabled to the Bill are constructive, so I am disappointed that the Government have chosen not to support them. Videos from sickfluencers are hard to avoid when searching online about benefits, but rather than helping people to claim something that they may need and should rightly receive, the videos tell people how to game the system. We want taxpayers to get their money back, even if it has already been spent. Why should we tolerate people using social media platforms to help others commit fraud, and to help them cheat the tests that are there to ensure that support goes to those who need it? Why should someone who has committed fraud be able to keep their high-end television or luxury car, just because they spent their ill-gotten gains before the Department got to them? We are clear that both those things should be tackled, but sadly Labour has shown itself to be on the side of the fraudsters.

As I said at the outset, we back the overall purpose of the Bill and much of its content, but I hope that the Secretary of State’s colleagues in the other place will take note of the constructive approach we have taken and the arguments made, particularly those made so articulately by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) today and in Committee. I look forward to seeing the Bill improved before it may become law.

Winter Fuel Payment

Helen Whately Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to publish data on the number of eligible pensioners it estimates did not receive the Winter Fuel Payment in 2024–25; further calls on the Government to publish data showing the impact of changes to the Winter Fuel Payment on levels of pensioner poverty and the number of hospital admissions; also calls on the Government to set out how it intends to ensure that those eligible for Pension Credit receive it before winter 2025-26; and calls on the Government to apologise for the misery caused to vulnerable pensioners in winter 2024–25.

Now that the sun has come out, I suspect that many of us will quickly forget the chill of the winter—the evenings when it was freezing outside and we reached for our jumpers, and perhaps the switch on our central heating too. However, for many pensioners turning up the heating was not an option, because one of the Chancellor’s first acts in her new job last year was to scrap the winter fuel payment for 10 million pensioners—something of which she gave no hint before the election, a time when voters rightly expect political parties to spell out their plans. As a result, millions of older people, many with fixed and far from substantial incomes and many living in draughty homes, missed out on £300 this winter. That money makes all the difference. In fact, for some it is literally a choice between heating and eating. At the same time, energy bills went up. Before the election, the Government did not say they would cut the winter fuel payment, but they did promise to bring our energy bills down—by £300, in fact. Instead, they are up by about £170. It was a promise so easily made and so carelessly broken.

Labour Members may not like hearing this, but let us pause for a minute to think about what this means in human terms. I remember well my grandmother in her 90s in layers of jumpers, shawls and blankets in winter, even when she had the heating on. In fact, I remember well giving her a woollen shawl as a Christmas present, because she was always cold. I would describe myself as someone who feels the cold, but I know that what I feel on a winter’s day is not a patch on how someone in their 80s or 90s feels, especially if they have health problems, and I know from my time as a Health Minister about the connection between being cold and ending up in hospital.

To help get the winter fuel payment cut past Labour Back Benchers, some of whom do have consciences, the Government claimed that they were going to protect the most vulnerable because those on pension credit would still get it, but let us look at what that really means in practice—at the facts. Pension credit tops up a pensioner’s weekly income to £218.15 if they are single or, if they have a partner, to £332.95 jointly. Someone with an annual income of £11,500 could be ineligible for pension credit. They may be just £1 or £2 over the threshold, but because of the cliff edge, they do not get pension credit and, as a result of the Government’s cut, they would not get the winter fuel payment either. So we are not talking about rich people.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

I certainly remember, and I am sure others will, the Government saying that those with the broadest shoulders would take the strain. Does the shadow Secretary of State consider those on this level of income to have the broadest shoulders?

[Helen Whately]

My hon. Friend makes exactly the important point I am making, which is that if the Government thought what they were doing would affect just the very wealthiest in society, they were very wrong.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Is it not very telling that, although when this policy was voted on in this House in September the Government had a majority of 120, there are very few Labour MPs on the Government Benches to defend their own policy in this debate?

[Helen Whately]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right. As I said a moment ago, I do believe that some Labour Members have consciences, but I am not sure which ones. Are those with consciences the ones who are hiding away from the Chamber because they feel guilty and do not want to hear this debate, or the hon. Members here who are actually going to stand up in support of pensioners and join us in the Lobby later.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I am looking forward to the opening speech of the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), because if we see the same sympathy that he showed for people in his “Newsnight” interview last night, we should be in for a treat.

When the Government put forward their proposals, they claimed that they were going to save £1 billion. However, the amount of money they would be paying out with the increased uptake of pension credit was going to cost £3.5 billion at that time. Does the shadow Secretary of State have up-to-date figures on whether this policy will actually deliver a saving for the Government?

[Helen Whately]

One of the things we would very much like to see is a full set of figures from the Government, but my hon. Friend makes a very important point. The Government said they wanted everyone who was eligible to sign up for pension credit and therefore be able to access the winter fuel payment, but if everyone had actually signed up for pension credit, the Government would not have saved the money they set out that the policy would save.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

The Department for Work and Pensions states that it works to a planned timescale of 50 working days for processing applications. However, on 9 December, in response to my written question, it turned out that, at its peak just before the coldest period, it was 87 working days. Even now, the answer is that it takes on average 56 working days to get pension credit sorted. That is a problem, because the Government directed people to pension credit who cannot then get access to it when they need it, at the coldest time of the year. Is that not a despicable decision?

[Helen Whately]

Yes. My hon. Friend makes a really important point. He has been every effective in his use of parliamentary questions to scrutinise the Government and get data from them—they do not like to give it willingly. He identifies the long delays for pension credit approvals and therefore access to winter fuel payment. Some will have applied before the deadline for pension credit and got the whole way through winter without getting money, or even knowing whether they were going to get any money. We know well from charities such as Age UK, which represents pensioners, that pensioners are very reluctant to get themselves into debt. If they did not know whether they were getting the payment, they would have been very reluctant to spend money in the hope that they might.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Helen Whately]

Let me make a little progress and then I will be delighted to take more interventions from colleagues.

The Chancellor has previously argued that winter fuel payments should be means-tested and cut for the richest pensioners, but who here thinks that someone on an income of £11,500 is rich? Age UK estimated that over 80% of pensioners living below or only just above the poverty line would lose their winter fuel payment.

The issue is not just that low-income vulnerable pensioners miss out on help with their heating because they are just above the pension credit threshold—the problem is worse than that. Last summer, the Government knew that over 800,000 people may be eligible for pension credit but did not claim it, meaning that they, too, would miss out on the winter fuel payment. The Pensions Minister at the time, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds), assured us that the Government would get on top of that. In fact, she told us that her target was to have 100% of those eligible for pension credit claiming it. But here we are many months later, and still around three quarters of a million eligible pensioners are not on pension credit. That is another promise easily made but easily broken. There has been a woeful failure by the Government to close properly that gap, despite all the coverage the winter fuel payment received.

Of course, we knew that this would be hard. We, too, had pension credit uptake campaigns in Government. More people signed up, but still many did not. I expect the Government knew that they would fail, too. Their officials would have told them, but it was easier for them to assure the press, the charities and their Back Benchers, “Don’t worry,” just as we have heard their Ministers do about the welfare reforms in the last 24 hours. For them, it was easier to wait for the spring to come and hope that everyone would simply forget. Well I say to them, “We won’t let you forget.” Nor will millions of pensioners and their families: 10 million pensioners are missing out on help with their heating, among them around 1 million of the most vulnerable people in our country, quite literally left in the cold by this Labour Government. That will not be forgotten in a hurry.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. It is absolutely right that we ask the questions we are asking today. The statistic that has shocked me most in this debate is that of the millions of pensioners who lost their winter fuel payment, 44,000 are estimated to have been terminally ill. Is she as shocked as I am by that statistic?

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Whately]

I was indeed extremely shocked by that statistic; that is one reason why we need to have this debate today and try to get some of the data out of the Government. They were at the time, and continue to be, incredibly reluctant to share whatever they know about the impact of this cut on people, including the terminally ill.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Going back to data, this policy does not just impact pensioners, because the Government seconded 500 extra staff to try to deal with pension credit. We know, from another written answer, that those staff came from the services handling child maintenance, counter fraud, compliance and debt, so there is going to be an ongoing impact. Do the Government not need to be transparent about the impact on the Departments that have had to move staff across to try to deal with their own policy?

[Helen Whately]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about transparency, and he recognises that this policy has had an impact not only on pensioners, but on other parts of Government, and therefore on other constituents. It is another thing that I hope the Government Back Benchers in the Chamber are taking note of, to pass on to their colleagues who, for some reason, have chosen not to be present to discuss this topic this afternoon.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is being exceptionally generous in giving way. Does she agree that the Government need to be completely transparent about the costs of this policy? It has been estimated that it will cost the NHS—already pressed—£169 million. We know from NHS England that 100,000 extra people aged 65 or over have been through A&E this relatively warm winter. Is this policy not a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul?

[Helen Whately]

My right hon. Friend, given his experience in this area, will know very well the connection between heating and health, particularly for older people. The Government must surely ensure that they understand the knock-on impact of the cut to the winter fuel payment on older people’s health, and therefore on admissions to hospital and on hospitals’ ability to cope. As we know, there are then the consequences for older people, who, when admitted to hospital, often end up having long hospital stays, with significant loss of independence and reduction in quality of life as a result.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Helen Whately]

I will continue, because I know that many Members wish to speak this afternoon—at least on the Opposition Benches.

From the moment the Government announced this policy, we were deeply concerned about the impact it would have, which is why we led the opposition to the cut, and why we forced a vote on it back in September. The vote was a chance for Labour MPs to make a stand. Instead, 348 Labour MPs chose to support the winter fuel payment cut. We then saw the Government trying to avoid telling people the impact the cut would actually have, so we are trying again today.

I put it to the Minister that now is his chance to be straight with people. What did the Government know when the cut was announced? Did they know how many pensioners would miss out? Did they know how many would end up in hospital? Their own report from 2017 found that cutting the winter fuel payment could cause nearly 4,000 pensioners to die. Did Ministers ask if that was likely to happen this winter? I would be happy to give way to him if he wanted to answer my questions right now, but, given they have not been answered for months, I fear he will not.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Helen Whately]

I will in a moment—I was hoping the Minister might have answers, but he does not.

To this day, the Government have not published a full impact assessment setting out the truth about their policies. Is that because they do not know themselves, or because they do not want to admit the harm that they were willing to do?

Thanks to the effort of colleagues and the public, we have, however, been able to glean some information in the months since. The Secretary of State admitted to the Work and Pensions Committee that she had seen internal modelling showing that 100,000 pensioners would be pushed into poverty because of their political choices. Thanks to a freedom of information request, the Government were forced to publish their equality analysis, showing that 71% of people with a disability would lose their winter fuel payment, while official NHS data shows that the number of over-65s attending A&E this winter soared by nearly 100,000 compared with last year, despite this being a less cold year.

And now, as I have said, it feels as if spring is here. It is time for the Government to be honest with the public and tell us what this policy has done in practice. I hope they will not tell us that they did not monitor the results, because that surely is not credible. It is time to tell us how many eligible pensioners did not receive the winter fuel payment this year; time to tell us how the cuts have hit pensioner poverty; and time to tell us what those cuts did to hospital admissions. Ministers need to know this information so that they can prepare responsibly for next year. Back Benchers need to know this information so that they can represent their constituents effectively. And the public deserve to know the consequence of the actions of the Government they elected.

[Deirdre Costigan]

Will the shadow Minister be honest with the House, and honest with pensioners: how many would be affected, and by how much, by the means-testing of the state pension, to which the Leader of the Opposition is committed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Deirdre Costigan]

Will the shadow Minister tell the House how many pensioners would be impacted by the Leader of the Opposition’s plan to means-test the state pension, and by how much?

[Helen Whately]

I do not want to fall into the same trap as the hon. Lady did when she made those accusations. What she has just said does not describe the position of the Leader of the Opposition. I also remind her that today is an opportunity for the Government to answer questions, and that is what she should be looking to the Minister, rather than the shadow Minister, to do.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

I have always said that it is absolute nonsense that somebody like me, who is still working, and my wife, who is still working, should receive the winter fuel allowance. We were going to address that, which was right—so we should have done. If that is what is called means-testing, then I am perfectly happy with that. But what we were not going to do was to take money from the pockets of the poorest pensioners in the country, and that is what this Government have done.

[Helen Whately]

I could not have made the point better than my right hon. Friend.

I have one final question before I conclude: what was all this for? We clearly know who lost out and who suffered as a result of the cut to the winter fuel payment, but who benefited? To govern is to choose. All those who got inflation-busting pay increases after Labour did its deals with its trade union friends were the ones to benefit. Billions for the unions, but nothing for the pensioners. This will be the legacy of yet another Labour Government. The last one increased the state pension by just 75p a week; this one have taken away the winter fuel payment.

By contrast, it was the Conservatives who introduced and protected the triple lock, which saw the state pension increase by £3,700 during our time in office; it was the Conservatives who reduced the number of pensioners living in absolute poverty by 200,000—Labour will undo that by a quarter in its first year—and it was the Conservatives who delivered nearly £12 million in winter fuel payments and cost of living payments for pensioners, because we understand the need to help the most vulnerable through the winter. It is astonishing how many people Labour has already let down in just eight months—pensioners, farmers, business owners, young people looking for jobs, and, yesterday, disabled people—in its rush to fix its financial mess.

Earlier we heard the Prime Minister say that if a party has a big majority, it does not need to consult, so the onus is on all of us here. Colleagues, and especially Labour Members, have an opportunity today to make the Government listen. It is a chance to stick to our principles, stick up for our constituents and vote to see the truth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Before I begin, will the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), clarify her earlier comments? Does she not support pay rises for the armed forces? [Interruption.] She is more than welcome to clarify; I can see that she looks a bit confused.

[Helen Whately]

The hon. Lady asks about something that I have never said, so I was surprised to hear it.

[Louise Jones]

I very much thank the hon. Lady for those comments. I know she vociferously criticised pay rises for public sector workers in her speech, so I am glad to have clarified that.

The winter fuel payment was a policy that the Labour Government introduced in 1997, and it stands as one of the great achievements of that Labour Administration. When it was brought in, pensioner poverty was significantly higher than what we face today, and it made a real difference to many pensioners who were struggling with heating, eating, and many other living costs. Along with many things that that Government achieved, we had the shortest NHS waiting times in history, we brought crime down, and we created Sure Start, which made a difference to many young people’s lives. We had record results in schools, we introduced the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, and we brought in the first ever Climate Change Act in 2008. All those things made a huge difference to the lives of people in this country, in particular pensioners.

Welfare Reform

Helen Whately Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. She and I agree on one thing: the welfare bill is too high. Left unchecked, it will rise to £100 billion by the end of the decade. Spending more on sickness benefits than we do on defence is not the sign of a strong country.

This is not just a question of money. We have 3 million people of working-age who are not in work due to ill health, not filling the roles businesses need, not contributing to our economy and not fulfilling their own potential. The best way to get the welfare bill down is to get people off benefits and into work. That is what we did year after year after taking office in 2010. Despite the once-in-a-century pandemic, 4 million more people were in employment when we left office than when we inherited Labour’s mess. Before the pandemic, economic inactivity was at an historic low, but it is true that we then started to see a new phenomenon: growing numbers of people, and—particularly worryingly—young people, claiming sickness benefits. A system set up with good intentions to protect the most vulnerable in society has over time morphed into something broader, driven in part by a well-intentioned but not always helpful medicalisation of life’s ups and downs.

In government, we identified the problem and worked up plans to tackle it, but at every point Labour Members opposed them. In fact, the now Chancellor said that not one single penny could be saved from benefits. When they came into office, not only did they cancel or delay pretty much everything we handed over, but they had no plans of their own. They walked into the Department with empty notebooks. All they had done in opposition was oppose, instead of the hard work of coming up with their own answers. That is why the country has had to wait another eight months for this announcement. In that time, taxpayers have shelled out £7 billion in extra sickness benefits, and nearly half a million people have been signed off sick. In fact, 60 people were signed on to sickness benefits while the Secretary of State was talking.

None the less, I have been looking forward to hearing what the right hon. Lady would announce today and which of the many things briefed to the media her spinning policy wheel would eventually land on. Governing is hard—we know that. In the last few weeks, the Government have made it look really hard, but that is nothing compared with how hard life can be for a severely disabled person, somebody for whom getting up, getting dressed and getting breakfast—things most of us found easy this morning—are hard if not impossible. For some people, the last few weeks have been deeply frightening. They will be glad of the uncertainty finally ending.

I genuinely want the right hon. Lady to succeed, and I welcome her commitment today to increasing the number of reassessments and to having more of them face to face and recorded. I welcome the investment in employment support for disabled people. I welcome, of course, her reannouncing a host of things that we were doing in government. Scrapping the work capability assessment and creating a single assessment is already Government policy that is due to come in in 2026-27. Her big idea seems to be to delay that until 2028. Merging new-style jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance into a new time-limited higher rate is a proposal that we worked up in government. We launched a consultation on tightening up eligibility for PIP and, by the way, we would have gone much further with that. We consulted on ending reassessments for people whose health conditions will not improve, and the right to try guarantee sounds remarkably similar to our chance to work guarantee. Of course, on the Secretary of State’s continued support for WorkWell, I launched that programme with the now shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride). In fact, the only original idea I can see in the entire announcement is increasing the rate of unemployment benefits—a Labour policy if ever I have heard one.

This is a now-or-never chance to seize the moment—a now or never for millions of people who will otherwise be signed off for what could end up being a lifetime on benefits—but today’s announcement leaves me with more questions than answers. How many people will be helped back into work and by when? Surely we have not been waiting eight months for just another Green Paper. Where is the fit note reform crucial to stem the flow of people on to benefits? Where is the action on people being signed off sick for the everyday ups and downs of life? Why is the right hon. Lady planning to save only £5 billion when the bill is forecast to rise to over £100 billion? Do the savings she is announcing today include the £5 billion we had already agreed with the OBR for reforming the work capability assessment? If so, she has made virtually no savings of her own. What is the net saving given the additional expenditure planned?

Fundamentally, this is too little, too late. The fact is that £5 billion just does not cut it with a bill so big going up so fast. She needed to be tougher. She should be saying, “No more hard-working taxpayers funding the family next-door not to work, no free top-of-the-range cars for people who do not need them, no more sickfluencers helping people to claim money they do not need.”

Before the right hon. Lady puts on her angry voice and leans across the Dispatch Box to shout at me about “14 years”, I gently say to her that everybody in this Chamber and around the country knows that we lost and Labour won. Her job now is to govern and mine is to hold her to account. Our country needs everybody who can work to do so. That principle should be at the heart of our welfare system. It is good for the taxpayer, good for the economy and good for the individual and their family, who benefit from security, dignity and purpose that work brings, and it means that those who genuinely cannot work get the support that they deserve.

The fact is that fewer people work under Labour. That has happened every time Labour has been in office, and it is already happening now. The Government should have taken their time in opposition to come up with meaningful reforms, but they did not, and the country is already paying the price.

[Liz Kendall]

I personally like the hon. Lady a great deal, but her entire response seemed to be railing against her own party’s failings and lamenting action that her party failed to take. “Too little, too late,” will indeed be the epitaph of the Conservative party. One thing on which I agree with her that this is a now-or-never moment, and I am proud that this Government are taking it. We are taking decisive action, ducking the challenges that have been ignored for too long.

I am not interested in being tough. This is about real people with real lives, and we must be careful in how we talk about it. I am interested in taking the right steps to change the system in order to transform people’s lives and, crucially, ensure that we have a social security system that lasts. One in three of us will have a health condition in our lifetime, and one in four is disabled. Unless the country, the welfare state, the world of work and all our public services wake up to that fact, the welfare state that the Labour party created will not be there for future generations. That is what we are determined to secure. This is a substantial package of measures that will save around £5 billion by 2029-30. We will have to wait until the OBR comes up with its final costings on all this at the spring statement.

I leave hon. Members with this: a decade ago, former Chancellor George Osborne said:

“Governments…let…unemployed people get parked on disability benefits, and told they’d never work again. Why? Because people on disability benefits don’t get counted in unemployment figures that could embarrass politicians.”

The Labour party is not embarrassed about this situation; we are ashamed of the state the Tories left the country in. We will face up to our responsibilities; it is time that Conservative Members did the same.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Whately Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

Back in the autumn, the right hon. Lady said

“we will not allow young people not to be in education, employment or training.”

How is it possible then that since Labour has been in office there are 100,000 more young people in exactly that situation?

[Liz Kendall]

The hon. Lady had 14 years to solve the problem and the Conservatives’ record is clear: nearly 1 million young people not in education, employment or training, which is one in eight of all our young people; and the number of young people with mental health concerns who are out of work has now reached 270,000. That is the legacy of 14 years of Conservative government, and it is a legacy that this Government are determined to change.

[Helen Whately]

I asked about what has happened “since” the right hon. Lady’s party has been in government: it is her Chancellor’s tax on jobs and economic mismanagement that are costing young people opportunities. Instead of taxing jobs, Labour should have been ready with a plan for welfare reform at the time of the Budget. They have spent nine months trying to cobble one together and still we wait. Why did the right hon. Lady not make any plans in opposition, and does she regret that?

[Liz Kendall]

Conservative Members had no plan. Even their own former Chancellor admitted that the numbers were made up. The only thing they put forward were proposals on the work capability assessment, which have recently been ruled illegal by the courts. They had no plan, but they had a clear record: leaving people behind, writing them off and putting them on the scrapheap. This Labour Government will turn that around and get people, and our country, on the pathway to success.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

We heard yesterday that the Cabinet had not yet seen the welfare plan that the right hon. Lady is apparently due to announce tomorrow. Given all the media briefings, the apprehension of disabled people and the growing number of people not working, none of us would want to see that delayed. Can she assure us that she has got collective agreement so that she can announce her plan here in this Chamber tomorrow?

[Liz Kendall]

The hon. Lady will have to show a little patience. She talks about plans, but we have seen her and the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), making claims in various newspapers about their plan—but there never was a plan. The former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), actually admitted that during the election when he said that the numbers had already been scored. The only thing that the previous Government ever put forward was ruled illegal by the courts. They had 14 years to put this right; this Government will act.

[Helen Whately]

I listened hard to the right hon. Lady’s answer but, given everything I heard, I still do not think she has the support of Cabinet colleagues, with less than 24 hours to go. It was a no.

There is never a good time for millions of people to be out of work, but as the world gets more dangerous we can afford neither the benefits bill nor the waste of human potential. Given the opposition of the right hon. Lady’s party to welfare reform, can she assure me that her planned reforms will grasp the nettle and bring the benefits bill down?

[Liz Kendall]

That from a member of a Government who left one in 10 working-age people on a sickness and disability benefit, one in eight young people not in education, employment or training, and 2.8 million people out of work due to long-term sickness. That was terrible for them—for their life chances, incomes and health—and terrible for taxpayers who are paying for an ever-spiralling bill for the cost of failure. Unlike the Conservative Government, who wrote people off and then blamed them to get a cheap headline, we will take decisive action, get people into work and get this country on a pathway to success.