Welfare
Helen Whately Excerpts(2 days, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House calls on the Government to commit to bringing working-age welfare spending down in this Parliament.
The day after the Budget, we heard the Chancellor on the radio telling the country some good news: the welfare bill would come down in this Parliament. But hold your horses, Treasury spinners hit the phones just minutes later to say that they could not commit to that. Even No. 10 intervened to say that it has never set an arbitrary target or timetable. By 5 pm, the Chancellor had done a remarkably rapid reverse ferret. He popped up on Channel 4 to tell us that the Government will not bring down welfare this Parliament after all. What a mess. It was, “Oh yes, we will,” then, “Oh no, we won’t.” It is a bit early for pantomime season. Seriously, what is going on over on the Government Benches?
The bill for working-age welfare is £183 billion a year, and it is set to rise to more than £200 billion. Taxes are up, borrowing is up, the cost of borrowing is up, and the Government cannot tell us how they will fund 3% of GDP on defence, on today of all days. They said that they would not put up taxes on working people, but paying for all that welfare will cost working households £50,000 in taxes over this Parliament. The country cannot afford this Labour Government, but it is what we have come to expect from them—no plan, no conviction and no backbone, just ducking tough choices and leaving working families to pay the price.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
My hon. Friend mentions that the Government have no plan, and that includes not having a plan to fund defence. Does she agree that there is no social security without national security, and that threats to the UK are real, present, multiple and serious? Putting off increasing defence spending until later on in the autumn or perhaps even later is a dereliction of duty. The first duty of any Government is to protect our constituents and this nation, and putting off defence spending increases is putting our nation at risk.
Helen Whately
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The first duty of Government is national security. We will not even have social security if we do not have national security. We have to find a way to fund defence. There is no time to waste. As I will set out in my speech, there are plenty of opportunities to make substantial welfare savings, to cut taxes, to bring down the deficit and to fund defence.
To be fair, some Government Members understand the situation that the country is in. Some of them know that their constituents understand it, too. That is why they sometimes go through the motions, as with their amendment today, albeit they hid it at the very end, with some wording that they want to “bring down the benefits bill”. I wonder whether Labour Whips were hoping that their leftie Back Benchers would not read that far. Though Labour talks about bringing down the bill, there is no date. It is the same thing when the Prime Minister says that he wants to bring welfare spending down
“as soon as we possibly can.”
It is nonsense. Without a date or plan, it is just empty words. No one trusts this Government on welfare. Apparently there will not even be any savings in the Prime Minister’s 10-year plan.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
The hon. Member says that we do not have a plan to bring down welfare spending. We are putting £3.5 billion into getting young people back into work. Can the hon. Member tell me how the Opposition arrived at their £36 billion figure—the Institute for Fiscal Studies does not know—and, indeed, how much they will put into getting young people back into work?
Helen Whately
I will set out how we will achieve our £36 billion in savings, if the hon. Gentleman will just sit back and listen. All we have heard from him and his party are plans to spend more money, and he simply reiterated that just now. We do not bring the benefits bill down by spending more money.
This is not just about the welfare bill. Let us talk about what is happening to our country. A total of 6.7 million people of working age are not working and are on out-of-work benefits, and 700,000 of them are under the age of 25. This is a disaster. All those young people are sitting at home whiling away the day instead of going out to work and getting on with their lives. One in four adults now identify as disabled. Claims for personal independence payment have doubled since 2019, but the country is not twice as sick. Hundreds of thousands of households claimed more than £32,000 in benefits last year, and some of them claimed more than £60,000. That is almost twice the average take-home pay of a British worker. People who are working are asking, “Why do I bother?” We cannot expect taxpayers to keep funding a welfare system that is clearly so broken and so unfair.
Mark Pritchard
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her generosity in giving way. I am sure she would like to see the details at some point, but is she aware that some people are actually getting mortgages to buy houses on the basis of the benefits they receive, and that those on benefits who can save a little are actually using benefits to save for a deposit? I am in favour of cutting benefits as long as we protect the most vulnerable, but it is fundamentally unfair that people in my constituency who are working in factories, on farms and in offices and are struggling to save for their first property or pay their mortgage should be outdone by those who are being paid by the taxpayer to sit at home. They can have benefits, but they should not take advantage.
Helen Whately
That is an important point. Most people want to see a welfare system that supports those who really need help. They want to see a welfare system that is a safety net, not a lifestyle choice.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Following the scenario that we have just heard, my understanding is that the Conservatives believe that someone can pay their mortgage for 20 years, be retired on grounds of ill health or disability and then not pay the remainder of the mortgage, because it should not be possible for those who do not work to conclude their mortgages. Is that the position of the Conservative party?
Helen Whately
It sounds to me as if the hon. Member has wilfully misunderstood and misrepresented what my right hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) said a moment ago.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Can we please be a little bit careful about the use of words such as “misrepresented”?
Helen Whately
My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that that was not the intention of the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis).
Reforming welfare is not cruel to people on benefits—quite the opposite. What is cruel is failing to reform welfare, parking young people on benefits while taxing and regulating jobs out of existence, and telling people that a handout is the answer to their problems rather than going out to work. Truly what is cruel is what the Government are doing to hard-working families: squeezing them with tax rises, higher inflation and higher bills so that there is less to go round at the end of the month, all to fund the lifestyle of “Benefits Street”.
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
I agree with the shadow Secretary of State that failing to reform welfare is a very serious failure indeed. Her party was in government for 14 years. Will she tell us in which years spending on welfare fell?
Helen Whately
The right hon. Gentleman’s intervention is extremely timely, as that is literally the next bit of my speech. I thank him for taking me on.
The Government like to say that all this happened on our watch. Let me remind them what actually happened. Last time Labour left power—no surprises—we inherited high unemployment, a rising welfare bill and more than a million young people not in education, employment or training. During the 2010s we brought down unemployment, brought down the number of NEETs and brought down the welfare bill. In the 2020s, as we all know, covid and lockdowns accelerated the rise in claims for mild mental health conditions and neurodiversity, and the number of NEETs did go up, although it did not reach the level it is at today under Labour. When this Government showed up, they had no plan, and in fact they have only made things worse.
Helen Whately
I will not give way again. They will have their opportunity to speak in due course.
Let me remind the House of the things that the Labour Government have done—of which, no doubt, they are proud—to make benefits easier to claim and more generous. As soon as they entered office they cancelled our sicknote reforms, our PIP reforms, and our plans to update the work capability assessment to reflect the option to work from home. Then, one year in, they cobbled together some poorly thought through changes to save just £5 billion from the benefits bill. Even that was too much for Labour Back Benchers. In a moment of utter shambles—we have never seen anything like it—on the Floor of the House, in the middle of a debate, amid a flurry of concessions, they ripped up their own legislation. In true Labour fashion, the Bill ended up costing money instead of saving any.
One of those concessions was the Timms review of personal independence payment. I have a great deal of respect for the Disability Minister, but what hope is there for his review, given that it started out as a bargaining chip to buy off angry Back Benchers? No wonder it has ruled out making any savings. In fact, its recommendations so far will actually increase the benefits bill. It says that PIP is not generous enough and too hard to claim, although we know that one in six people on PIP admit that they face no extra cost for their condition, and “sickfluencers” sell scripts and model answers so that people can game the system.
Desperate to make his MPs like him again after his savings fiasco, Keir Starmer scrapped the two-child benefit cap despite promising that he would keep it. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Labour Members are cheering again. I remember that they cheered at the time, but they got rid of him anyway. Let me remind them that nearly half a million households received an extra £5,000 in benefits, and about 75,000 received between £10,000 and £21,000 more. That is more than the income of someone working full time, just in extra money. People can see that this is a benefits bonanza.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
More than half the households to have benefited from the lifting of the two-child limit have somebody who is in work. I wonder what the hon. Lady would say to those people, given that she is talking as if they do not work or contribute. The lifting of the limit will have helped their household, kept them in work and helped their children to not be in poverty.
Helen Whately
What would the hon. Lady say to people who are not on benefits, who ask, “Can we afford to have another child?”, and decide that they cannot? The fact is that someone who is in work and decides to have another child will not be given a pay rise.
None of what I am saying should come as a surprise, given that 204 Labour Members have more PIP claimants in their constituencies than the size of their majorities. No wonder the Welfare Secretary has said that all his MPs ask him is, who can they tax more in order to pay more benefits? Most Labour Members see no problem with the size of the welfare bill. The Disability Minister himself said that
“the current level of spending is not a great concern”,
but some of them know that the anger is building out there. People who work are getting tired of being taxed to the hilt to pay for people who do not. Some Labour MPs will desperately want to reassure their constituents. They will be hoping that the Timms and Milburn reviews will give them some succour, but they will not face the facts, and neither will they bring down the benefits bill. Labour spin doctors may try to say otherwise, but nobody is buying it.
The Conservatives are the only ones with a plan that backs welfare savings—no ifs, no buts. Our reforms will save £36 billion.
Helen Whately
The hon. Member asks “How?” from a sedentary position. I have our plan with me here and, if he will just listen, I will set it out.
As I said, our reforms will save £36 billion. When the Prime Minister was asked about them, he said that they were just a number. He could not be more wrong. Savings are important, but reforming the welfare system is a good thing to do in its own right. We have not just plucked a big round number out of thin air; it takes hard graft to work out who should get support and what help they should get. It also involves saying who will not get benefits any more, which is not something that welfare party Members will ever have the courage to do.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Lady knows that I always try to find cross-party consensus where possible. [Interruption.] I know—sometimes it is difficult, right? She referred to the Timms review. I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Minister is leading that review, because he is absolutely the right man for the job. Does she recognise that one of the things that the Timms review is looking at is the importance of bringing back in-person assessments for PIP? Those were scrapped by the previous Government. I am sure that she will come up with reasons for why that happened, but does she not recognise that it is good to bring them back? In-person assessments mean that we can get PIP to the people who need it, and fraudulent claims will go down. I did not mention Harlow—sorry!
Helen Whately
The hon. Member—for Harlow—has indeed found an opportunity for consensus across the House. We do want to see face-to-face assessments brought back. In fact, we want to see the Government get on with it—the sooner, the better.
If the Government are asking people to fund our welfare system, that system needs to do what the public want it to do. Our plan is grounded in five clear and widely held principles: fairness; contribution; responsibility; welfare as a safety net, not a lifestyle choice; and living within our means. Unlike the Timms review, we will not shy away from reforming sickness and disability benefits. We should not be telling millions of people that they need handouts from the state for milder conditions, neurodiversity and anxiety. The state is telling people that what matters is what they cannot do or what they find difficult, not what they can do. We will stop giving PIP for mild mental health conditions and routine back and joint pain, and shift from cash handouts to support, backed by an extra £1 billion of funding. This will save £13.7 billion a year.
The same tragedy is unfolding in children’s benefits. The number of child disability living allowance claims for behavioural conditions, learning difficulties and ADHD has doubled since 2020, as Policy Exchange’s recent excellent paper has highlighted. Even the Government’s own adviser, Professor Fonagy, has said that the actual prevalence is not going up at the same rate, yet half a million more children will be signed on under this Government. That is half a million children being told that they have something wrong with them, that they cannot succeed and that they need handouts, which can be up to £20,000 a year. I have heard stories of children saying that they do not want these labels foisted on them, but they are not being given a choice. Child disability living allowance is a conveyor belt on to PIP and then a clear path to becoming another of the 1 million NEETs, so we will reform DLA. Yes, cash should go to the families of seriously disabled children, and we will provide £1 billion of extra support for those with milder conditions. After that, we will save £2.8 billion from these reforms.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is not often that I disagree with the hon. Lady, but I have to put this on the record. In my constituency, a large number of children are assessed by specialists, be it privately or through the NHS, and the number is rising greatly. They are assessed by professionals, who agree that they have ADHD, dyslexia or another challenging disability. The figures in my constituency tell me that things are getting worse, and the medical evidence proves it. Does the hon. Lady not agree?
Helen Whately
I did refer to the Government’s own review and the work of Professor Fonagy, because that review says that the prevalence is not rising at the same rate as the claims. Clearly, something must be done to make sure that assessments are being done properly. That is very serious and it requires further work.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The broader question is not so much whether the rates are going up, but whether having any of these diagnoses should preclude people from working.
Helen Whately
I am responding to an intervention, if the hon. Lady will give me a moment.
There is a really important point to be made. Following this debate, I will no doubt receive a lot of criticism about some of the things I say from people who are neurodiverse. However, many people who have an ADHD diagnosis who are in work will respond by talking about the strengths that they believe their ADHD gives them. In fact, if he does not mind my mentioning it, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), who is sitting beside me, has recently received an ADHD diagnosis and has had the courage to talk about what that means for him. We should talk about what people can do, not what they cannot.
Helen Whately
I will make a little progress.
Britain cannot be a cash machine for the world. Migrants come here believing that we will give them money, free healthcare and a house. This has to change. We will stop giving benefits and social housing to foreign nationals with indefinite or limited leave to remain, because being British has to count for something. That will save £9.5 billion and free up 230,000 social homes for British families who are stuck waiting. Labour Members should think about how much that will help British families facing homelessness.
We will save £1 billion by fixing loopholes in the household benefit cap and stopping households on benefits claiming endless cash, and a further £1 billion by rooting out fraud and error. Working families do not get a pay rise when they have another child, and families on welfare should not do so either, so we will bring back the two-child cap and save £3 billion. We will save an extra £4.5 billion by reforming housing benefit, which will include reforms that both Onward and the IFS have argued for. There will be no more asking taxpayers to pay for people on benefits to live in places where working people cannot afford to live, and we will save another half a billion pounds by tackling long-term unemployment. People who could be working but choose not to do so will have their benefits cut by a third after six months and be put on to a card, instead of receiving cash. Some people call this a nanny state measure, but it is not. It is not their money; it is taxpayers’ money.
Labour Members could show today that they understand the anger out there. They could show that they have found their moral compass—or are they going to keep on backing “Benefits Street”? We know where we stand. The Conservatives are on the side of people who get up, go to work and pay their taxes. They are the ones who fund our welfare system to support the seriously sick and disabled, and people who fall on hard times. Most people think our approach is the right thing to do. What they will not accept is being taken for a ride. We do not take their hard graft for granted, and it is time for Labour Members to decide where they stand.
Sir Stephen Timms
No, I am not giving way again.
Like the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), I am looking forward to Alan Milburn’s report. His interim report on young people and work was a powerful rallying cry for change and a powerful indictment of the system left behind by the previous Tory Government. The steering group working on PIP, which I co-chair, will also be coming forward with our recommendations later this month. The final reports of both reviews will be published in the next couple of months. The Government will then consider the recommendations and bring forward a White Paper in the new year.
The social security system should always provide security for those who cannot work, but for those who can work the system needs to be a bridge to provide a way into greater participation. That means going beyond the approach we inherited that provides an assessment, writes a cheque and after that says goodbye, with no offer of skills or training and no opportunity to get a job. We do not just owe young people an income; we owe them a future. Young people were starting to doubt whether they had a future. We need to show them that a way is being opened up, as it is. It means ending the Tories’ “signed off, written off” culture, changing the question the system asks from, “What benefit are you entitled to?” to “How do we help you to live the fullest life, to fulfil your aspirations?”
Helen Whately
I object to the way the Minister is describing our approach to welfare, which I do not agree with. I have talked about how the Conservatives brought down the working-age welfare bill during our time in government. The Minister appears to disagree with that statement. Can he tell me whether he is disagreeing because he includes rises in the state pension during that time—so he is considering the full bill including the state pension—or is it because he is looking at figures in nominal terms?
Sir Stephen Timms
The hon. Lady has perhaps taken some advice and is conceding that the bill never fell under their 14 years in government.
We need to learn the lessons from the success of what has happened in other countries, such as Denmark, which the Secretary of State visited last week to see how a focus on asking what people can do, not just what they cannot do, has given it one of the highest disability employment rates in Europe.
The Tory party signed people off, wrote them off and then blamed them. Our approach is very different: we want to invest in people’s success and give them the chance of education, training, a decent job and a full life—not a life constrained by the limitations of benefit income. That is the way to bring hope for the future and bring the benefits bill down. In the next few weeks, the House will see the two major reports that we are bringing forward. The Government’s response to them will set out the details of how we will set about that task, and I am looking forward immensely to the debates ahead.
Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate, not least because it gives this House an opportunity to remind the Conservative party of a rather inconvenient truth. The welfare crisis facing our country did not begin on 4 July 2024; it was inherited on that day from a Conservative party that had 14 years to fix our welfare system, tackle economic inactivity, improve employment opportunities for disabled people and build a health service capable of getting people back into work. What did the Conservatives leave behind? They left millions of people economically inactive because of long-term sickness; a welfare system that too often wrote people off, rather than helping them back into employment; NHS waiting lists at record levels; and a generation of young people facing barriers to opportunity.
The welfare bill rose by £33 billion in the final year in which the Leader of the Opposition was in the Cabinet, and there was an increase of a quarter of a million young people not in education, employment or training in the final three years of the Conservative Government. That is not a record to boast about, but a record to apologise for, yet here we are, listening to Conservative Members—the very few who are present for this Opposition day debate—lecturing this Labour Government about the very problems that they created. They have apparently now discovered the answer to those problems: £36 billion of welfare cuts, and all during a cost of living crisis.
The ink is barely dry on the Conservatives’ proposals, and already the highly respected Institute for Fiscal Studies has raised serious questions about the credibility of their numbers—serious questions, by the way, that the shadow Secretary of State did nothing to address in her opening remarks. The Conservatives claim that they can save £14 billion by restricting health-related benefits for people with certain mental health conditions and with back and joint problems, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies points out that disability benefits are assessed according to the impact of a person’s condition, not simply the name of their diagnosis. The IFS also highlights that two thirds of personal independence payment recipients with a mental health diagnosis also have a physical health diagnosis.
I ask Conservative Members a very simple question: how exactly will they distinguish between somebody who is genuinely unable to work and somebody whose illness they have decided is not serious enough? Will it be a Conservative politician making that judgment, a Treasury spreadsheet, perhaps, or an arbitrary list of conditions drawn up to make their sums add up? Illness does not become less debilitating simply because a politician decides it is too expensive, nor does disability disappear because the Treasury wants to save money.
Then there is the Conservatives’ proposal to save £9.5 billion by restricting benefits for foreign nationals. Again, the IFS questions the certainty of these savings, pointing to the possibility that eligible individuals will seek to obtain British citizenship. There is a further problem with their figures, because the Department does not routinely publish a breakdown of benefit expenditure by nationality.
The Opposition need to explain precisely how they have calculated that £9.5 billion figure, what assumptions they have made about eligibility and future behaviour, and how much of that money they genuinely expect to save. Identifying a group of people and attaching a multibillion-pound saving to them is not the same as demonstrating that the saving can actually be delivered. A credible fiscal proposal needs to account for the people who acquire citizenship, those whose immigration status changes, and those who would remain eligible for support under existing rules. The IFS has already raised questions about the assumptions underpinning the Conservatives’ figures, so before Conservative Members start banking £9.5 billion in savings, perhaps they could explain how they intend to achieve them. A headline figure is not a costed policy, and a projected saving is not a saving until they can demonstrate where it will actually come from.
Perhaps the most extraordinary criticism of this approach comes from within the Conservative party. We have been here before: in 2016, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—I notified him that I would mention him in this debate—resigned from David Cameron’s Cabinet over its approach to welfare cuts. He warned that the reductions in welfare for working people had “gone too far”, and criticised an approach to balancing the books that placed an unfair burden on the poor and vulnerable. These are the words not of a Labour politician, but of the man who designed the Conservative welfare programme and championed universal credit. I seriously think that Conservative Members should reflect on that. If even the architect of their own welfare reforms when they were last in government recognised that there was a point at which welfare cuts went too far, what exactly makes them think that another £36 billion of ill-thought-through cuts is the answer now?
I have to say that the use of the phrase “foreign nationals” intrigues me. Let me be clear: foreign nationals, in the main, are not entitled to benefits. They have no recourse to public funds. A look under the bonnet exposes the groups of people the Conservatives propose taking support from: 50,000 people who came here on humanitarian visas—half of whom, by the way, are in work. And who is entitled to a humanitarian visa? Ukrainian refugees, people who came here because they worked alongside our troops in Afghanistan, and British national overseas visa holders, particularly those from Hong Kong who are living in our constituencies.
There used to be consensus in this place that supporting the people I have just listed was virtuous, and that our commitment to our allies was unshakeable. Do the Opposition really think that the British public support cutting support for Ukrainian refugees, former soldiers and translators who worked with us in Afghanistan, and those fleeing oppression in Hong Kong? That is why they rely on such broad and politically convenient labels as “foreign nationals.” Examine the actual groups of people who would be affected, and the Conservatives’ proposals become much harder for them to defend. That is precisely why we should look beyond the headline figures and examine who would pay the price of these cuts. The next category the Conservatives talk about is refugees—people who came to this country fleeing war, persecution and famine; people who were vetted extensively and awarded refugee status by our country. The Opposition propose cutting off their access to benefits entirely. That is who they are referring to.
Michael Payne
It would be really interesting to hear why it is not correct, because I have read the proposals referred to in the speech in detail. It is absolutely clear that that is who the Opposition are referring to when they use the phrase “foreign nationals”. If they want to bank made-up savings on the backs of refugees, they should come out and say so.
The next category is people with indefinite or limited leave to remain; the shadow Secretary of State mentioned them in her speech. As mentioned earlier, many of these people will simply seek British citizenship, meaning the Opposition’s claimed savings are illusory at best. It is also worth pointing out that 110,000 of these people are in work, so their benefits will likely be lower than the Opposition’s figures imply. That fact also completely blows a hole in their argument that contribution should be the basis of our welfare system. Those people contribute. They are our care workers, our nurses, and our NHS staff.
This is where the Conservatives’ argument becomes particularly difficult to understand. They tell us that welfare should reward contribution, and that people who work hard, pay taxes and contribute to our country should be recognised, yet they propose restrictions that could penalise people who are already doing precisely that. They cannot stand at the Dispatch Box championing contribution on Monday, and then propose taking away support from the people who contribute on Tuesday. Surely the test of a welfare system is not simply where somebody was born, but whether the rules are fair, whether a person is contributing where they can, and whether they receive the support to which they are entitled.
Finally, the remaining categories are “other” and “no immigration status recorded”. According to the Department’s spreadsheets, to which the Opposition have linked in their report, the “other” category includes “individuals no longer receiving UC payments”, so any savings attributed to that category are highly questionable. As for the “no immigration status recorded” category, there is as much chance that these are British nationals as not.
So what does that all mean for the £9.5 billion identified in savings? After accounting for the fact that the figure is likely to be inaccurate, accounting for those who seek British citizenship and accounting for the fact that the final two categories either contain no one claiming benefits or may not even contain foreign nationals, any remaining savings come from cuts to support for refugees, Ukrainians we have found homes for, Afghan interpreters we have an obligation to, and care workers, nurses and NHS staff we rely on.
Let us be clear about what we have established: the Conservatives have announced £9.5 billion in savings, but their own assumptions need rigorous scrutiny. Some of the people affected are refugees, some have supported our armed forces, and some are already working in our public services. Some may not even fall within the category that the Conservatives claim to be targeting. This is a very long way from the Conservative party of old, which used to be credible when delivering savings.
Let me turn to their proposal to move disabled people from the personal independence payment on to attendance allowance when they hit pension age. My word—a disabled person who worked their entire life, having assiduously saved, will finally reach the age at which they can retire, only to find that the Conservative party has ripped their personal independence payment away. I wonder how many Conservative Members have explained that proposal to the older disabled people in their constituencies. This is the problem with the Conservative welfare policy. The savings are announced in billions, but, as the Minister said earlier, the consequences are felt in individuals and families. The nasty party is truly back.
Let me be clear and unequivocal. I believe in welfare reform. I believe that those who can work should be supported and expected to work. I believe that taxpayers deserve a system that is fair, sustainable and protects public money, and I believe that fraud and abuse should be tackled robustly. Ministers should be commended for the work that they are already doing in that regard.
I also believe something equally important—that people who are genuinely sick, disabled or unable to work deserve dignity, security and compassion. Those principles are not contradictory; they are the foundations of a decent welfare state built by William Beveridge and people whose shoulders we in this House sit on. They are precisely why I support the approach of this Labour Government under the leadership of this Prime Minister. Rather than simply announcing make-believe cuts and hoping for the best, this Government are reforming the incentives within universal credit and investing £3.5 billion in employment support by the end of the decade.
We are providing personalised help to people who have too often been abandoned by the system. We are increasing the standard universal credit allowance above inflation while protecting existing recipients of the health element and those with the most severe lifelong conditions. We are supporting people into employment, not simply pushing them into poverty, and we are recognising that welfare reform cannot be separated from fixing the NHS, improving mental health services, investing in skills and creating decent jobs.
In Gedling, I meet constituents who want nothing more than the opportunity to work, contribute and build better lives for themselves and their families. They include people living with disabilities who face enormous barriers to employment, people with long-term health conditions who desperately want treatment so that they can return to the jobs that they love, and parents who work hard, pay their taxes and still struggle to make ends meet. They do not need another round of political finger-pointing or simplistic slogans like those we heard today from the shadow Secretary of State. They need a Government prepared to do the difficult work of reform. That is what this Labour Government are doing.
The Conservatives had 14 years to build a welfare system that works. Instead, they left behind a system that too often trapped people in inactivity, failed to provide the support that they needed and left taxpayers facing an increasingly unsustainable bill, as the Minister set out earlier. Now, from the comfort of opposition, out of office, they have produced a plan built around £36 billion of cuts, with serious unanswered questions about whether their figures add up.
Perhaps the most revealing part is that even their own former Work and Pensions Secretary warned nearly a decade ago that welfare cuts had gone too far. The lesson seems to be one that the Conservatives have chosen to forget. Welfare reform is not simply about how much money can be taken out of the system or somebody else’s pockets. It is about whether we can help people into work, protect those who cannot work and build a system that is sustainable for the long term.
They failed to fix the system when they had the power to do so. Now they want the country to believe that they have all the answers. Well, the British public have seen the Conservatives’ record, and this Labour Government will take absolutely no lectures from the architects of the very crisis that Ministers are now clearing up.
We will vote for welfare reform. We will protect those who need protecting. We will support those who can work into good, secure employment, and we will build a welfare state that is fair to taxpayers, compassionate to those in need and worthy of the country that we all aspire to be. That is the Labour difference, and it is one I am proud to defend.
Local Government Reform
Helen Whately Excerpts(5 months 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
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered local government reform.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I would particularly like to thank Mr Speaker for granting me exceptional permission to speak from the Back Benches on an issue that many of my constituents feel very strongly about.
One day, not long after the new Labour Government came into office, they suddenly announced that they were going to abolish every district and borough council in this country and also change the boundaries of many cities. Following that, a proposal was swiftly put forward by the Labour Mayor of Leicester to expand the boundaries of the city, to swallow up many surrounding areas. All of this came completely out of the blue—it had not been mentioned in the general election—and the Government did not start by asking people what they might want; instead, they simply told them what was going to happen.
Right from the start, it was clear to me from speaking to people in Leicestershire that there was very strong opposition to this plan. Right from the start, I have said to Ministers on the Floor of the Commons, “If you believe this is the right thing, and if you believe this is what local people want, why don’t you let us have a vote on it? Why don’t you give people a say?” But Ministers treated the idea of giving people a vote as ridiculous—“What an absurd idea! Why would we ask people what they want?”—and said no to allowing us a local referendum. Because the Government will not give people a vote, I have given my constituents a vote. Over recent weeks, I have been balloting people in the affected area about whether they want to be part of the city of Leicester. I sent every household in the area a ballot paper asking, in a completely neutral way, “Do you want to become part of the city or not?”
The result has been surprising and overwhelming. I knew that people felt very strongly. It turns out they feel very, very strongly about this issue. I sent a ballot paper to all 22,000 households in Oadby and Wigston, and 10,774 have responded—about half, which is an incredible response to an informal local referendum. Of those who have voted, almost all are opposed to Oadby and Wigston being swallowed up by the city. In fact, 97% of people—10,410—voted against it, so it could not be clearer that people in Oadby and Wigston do not want to be swallowed up by the city.
But that is not all. The plan put forward by the Mayor of Leicester would see him taking over other areas as well, such as part of the Harborough district including Great Glen, Newton Harcourt and the area around the Strettons. The bid he has put into Government would see him swallowing up all of the Harborough district, including Market Harborough. We have no idea how the Government will respond to that.
We know that the mayor definitely wants to take over the area around Great Glen, but people there are also very strongly opposed to this. I sent out 2,000 ballot papers there. Around that area, 1,035 people voted, of whom 1,013 voted against being part of the city—98% of people do not want to join the city. If we take all those together—Oadby and Wigston and the area around Great Glen—that is 11,423 people who have voted against joining the city, which is an incredible number in quite a small area.
I have not balloted other places nearby in quite the same detail, but I suspect that if I gave a vote to people in Kibworth, Burton Overy, Gaulby or King’s Norton, they would say exactly the same. People do not want to be part of the city, yet so far the Labour Government have refused to listen and have not wanted to give people a say. They must now start listening to the wishes of the people. Next month, we will find out what the Government have decided to do. If the Minister decides to push ahead with plans to expand the city, Ministers must know that they are doing so in the face of total and overwhelming local opposition.
When I talk to local people, they give me different reasons why they do not want to be part of the city. One factor is higher council tax. A typical band D property in the city pays £122 more than a property in Oadby and Wigston, and £139 more than a property in Harborough. Obviously, a bigger property pays even more: a band H property pays £244 more in the city than in Oadby and Wigston, and £278 more than in Harborough.
But it is not just the cost that is driving the opposition; people do not want to lose local accountability and their local identity. All these places have their own strong local character. Oadby and Wigston have always been separate from the city of Leicester. Wigston is in the Domesday Book—in fact, it had been around for about 500 years even then. It has two beautiful medieval churches and is known for their two spires. South Wigston is very different. It is a Victorian model town, built by a visionary industrialist called Orson Wright, who built the whole place with his own brickworks. That red brick character can still be seen driving up the Blaby Road.
Oadby, as the name implies—there are lots of “by’s” around Leicestershire—has Viking origins. It has its own quirks and history, too. For example, of the 114 livery companies in this country, all are in the City of London apart from one, which is in Oadby, in the beautiful hall and alms-houses created by the Framework Knitters.
I could go on and on. Great Glen has its own history. It has a beautiful church, which was quite badly damaged by parliamentarians who were camping there during the civil war—I suppose that, as a parliamentarian myself, I should apologise for that. These are places with their own strong history, and their desire to hold on to that local accountability and identity is seen as ridiculous by local officials.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a really important point about local identity and about how important it is that Ministers listen. We have a Minister here today listening. I want to talk about the local government reorganisation in Kent, an area that has an incredibly strong historic identity. It is actually England’s oldest county, with a history going back more than 2,000 years—it was the Kingdom of Kent—yet under this local government reorganisation, Kent is due to be broken up, and it is not even getting a mayor. It will be fragmented into multiple parts. The population between Kent and Medway is over 2 million. At the moment, Kent has an identity and a voice. It is set to lose both through this local government reorganisation, and the case for substantial savings simply is not there. The local government reorganisation needs to be looked at again, and I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that, at the moment, the proposals are a shambles.
Neil O’Brien
I am very sorry to hear that. I was just about to make that point: as well as the loss of local accountability and identity, the argument is just wrong. Ministers believe that big is always better—that big is beautiful—but the evidence does not support that. If big were beautiful, Birmingham city council, which is the biggest unitary in the country, would be our best council. Is it our best council? No, it is not; we have bins piling up in the streets.
It is not just that one anecdote; the point can be expressed in lots of different ways. The Local Councils Network found that, for mega-councils with populations of over half a million, which was the Government’s original target for this reorganisation, the average council tax is £2,009, but for councils below that size, it is £250 a year cheaper. If mega-councils are so efficient and wonderful, why are they much more expensive? Why are local residents not feeling the benefit of the efficiency? The truth is, of course, that the gains are not there. The reorganisation, and the chaos that will come with all this, will actually cost us lots of money, and we will end up with something that is remote but not more efficient.
Water Supply and Housing Targets: West Kent
Helen Whately Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks 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
Tom Tugendhat
It is no surprise to me that this issue applies across the whole of the United Kingdom. I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
One thing that the Government have not changed, but ought to change, is the position of water companies in planning. Somewhat strangely, water companies are statutory consultees on the local plan process, but not on planning applications. I invite the Minister in her response to explain whether she agrees that this is peculiar.
There are four water supply companies across Sevenoaks district. Two cover the area that I am privileged to represent: SES Water in and around Edenbridge, and South East Water elsewhere. In advance of this debate, I asked the new leader of Sevenoaks district council, Kevin Maskell, to outline what engagement on local plan and infrastructure delivery matters the council has received from water companies. The answer was that only two of the four water companies had even replied, and the replies received were very limited. Indeed, the experience from Sevenoaks is that water companies see their role as not being a priority.
There is no detailed modelling for housing projections against water resources management plans, especially for site allocations. All infrastructure planning is deferred to the planning application stage, where the water companies are not even a statutory consultee. That makes it impossible to plan for the cumulative impact of developments on the water network. How is that good for planning? Well, it isn’t.
If the situation with water suppliers is a problem in Sevenoaks district, however, it is critically urgent and potentially disastrous in Tonbridge and Malling. For the benefit of the Minister, I will explain what has happened in recent months. Tonbridge and Malling borough council agreed to its regulation 18 local plan consultation in the autumn. It received unanimous cross-party support, which was a huge vote of confidence in the leadership of Matt Boughton and the work of Mike Taylor, the cabinet member for planning. Both of them have contributed enormously to the life of our community.
The TMBC cabinet member for infrastructure, Adem Mehmet, approached infrastructure providers for consultation responses, including South East Water, which is the drinking water supplier for almost all of the borough—and the whole of the part that I am lucky enough to represent. I have a copy of the response here, dated 17 December 2025. In it, South East Water tells Tonbridge and Malling borough council that the maximum number of additional homes it can supply between now and 2042 is 6,318. The Government housing target for the council is 19,620.
What is Tonbridge and Malling borough council expected to do? Is it supposed to allocate sites for 13,302 new homes, despite having been told that there is no infrastructure for water to be supplied to those properties? I am sure that the Minister agrees that this would not be appropriate or wise. Having received the response, and being the excellent councillor he is, Adem Mehmet wrote to South East Water on 15 January this year, which happened to be in the middle of the water outages we were facing. South East Water responded on 3 February.
Three simple questions were put to South East Water. First, does South East Water agree that it cannot provide sufficient water to cope with a significant increase in housing targets? South East Water agrees that it cannot. Secondly, do the current targets mean that there will be more water shortages? Again, South East Water agrees that the probability of water outages is higher. Thirdly, would the planned increases identified in the water resources management plan allow South East Water to cope with the Government housing targets for Tonbridge and Malling? South East Water says that the increases will not be sufficient to meet the Government housing targets.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend on securing this debate and on the speech he is making about the challenge of supplying water to Tonbridge and Malling, now and in the future with such a huge number of developments planned. Given the difficulty of supplying water to his constituency, where there are 19,000 more homes planned, how on earth can there be enough water for the 20,000 homes in the pipeline for my constituency? We are already suffering with water outages and having to rely on water being tankered, so there is very poor resilience. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government should think again about the scale of the housing plan for rural constituencies like mine and his, particularly given the lack of adequate infrastructure?
Tom Tugendhat
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her comments, which I completely agree with. I am sure that they have generated enormous response to her current petition, which is at signhelenspetition.com, should you wish to sign it, Sir John. I understand that it will be increasingly popular at this time, and rightly so, given how badly areas of east Maidstone were affected during the water outages a few weeks ago.
What I and my hon. Friend have said will be no doubt familiar to the Minister, who has been aware of this for a number of weeks. She received a letter from Tonbridge and Malling borough council leader Matt Boughton on 16 January, and another on 11 February—I have both of them here. There was one reply received on 12 February from Baroness Taylor in the Minister’s Department, which frankly does not answer the question and does not mention South East Water’s comments at all. The council has chased for a proper reply, but is still waiting. I am sure that the Minister will update me on where that is.
I have been told that officials in the Minister’s Department have met with the planning department from the council, but again there has been no progress. It is that lack of urgency that motivated me to apply for this debate, because, frankly, this cannot go on. I have all the evidence of the council being proactive in raising this issue, and it clearly wants the same as the Department: a local plan. However, the Department is not giving this the attention it needs. I request that the Minister and her officials meet me and senior representatives from the council to resolve this issue urgently.
Why so soon? It is quite obvious that there is not enough water to cope with the current housing targets. The Minister has told the council to submit a local plan for the new high housing targets this year. The applications are coming in—ask residents in Hadlow and Wateringbury, or Edenbridge in Sevenoaks district—but I have been told that Tonbridge and Malling now cannot determine planning applications for new development because of these water issues, even on sites it wants to develop. Right now, there is effectively a moratorium on development in Tonbridge and Malling because of the Minister’s Department. How does that help the Government meet their ambition for 1.5 million homes a year? The Government clearly need to sort this out for our community now, and make changes to prevent this from happening elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
Why did the Government not take account of the water resources management plans when determining housing targets for our councils in 2024? Why are water resources management plans not developed using up-to-date housing targets? It is pretty absurd that the 2007 housing target is used to inform the 2024 plan for water infrastructure in our community. It is no wonder that there is deep opposition to housing targets and deeper distrust of water companies.
Why can Sevenoaks not get any meaningful engagement with water providers on the local plan? Why has Tonbridge and Malling been placed in this position by a completely unrealistic Government policy? The Government are telling them that they must meet their housing targets, and they have no choice, yet the housing target has 13,000 more homes than the water supplier has the ability to cater for. It is not even close to being realistic either way.
What is the solution? There are only two possibilities: one is to get more water into the system, and the other is to reduce the housing target. The water resources management plan 2024 identifies a lot of schemes: new pumping stations, upgrading waste water treatment works, a new pipeline in Tonbridge and new drinking water storage tanks. We could do all the above and we would still be 13,000 homes away.
The question remains: where is the water coming from to fill the extra capacity in the water network? A new reservoir would help, but where would that be in our community, given our proximity to Bewl Water and Bough Beech? The truth is that there simply cannot be enough water for the scale of development that the Government are insisting be accommodated in our area. That means that there is only one way out of the issue: the Government must urgently and immediately reduce the housing target for Tonbridge and Malling borough council, and do the same for other councils in South East Water’s area, including Sevenoaks district council.
It would be completely irresponsible for the Government to proceed with the current housing targets for both councils while this issue remains unresolved. The Minister knows that I agree that we need more homes; in my community, we particularly need homes for people to live as families with their relatives. Our community should not only take its fair share but be part of that opportunity. However, new homes must be built only if we can actually supply them with water, and at the moment we cannot. I urge the Minister to consider the points I have raised and, on the Tonbridge and Malling issue, agree to meet Matt Boughton and me as a matter of urgency.
Helen Whately
The Minister mentioned that the water taskforce will be meeting with David Hinton, the chief executive of South East Water, to hold him to account for its abysmal performance in the recent outages. If that taskforce finds that South East Water’s response has been inadequate, as I believe it was, what action will the taskforce be able to take? I believe that David Hinton should no longer be the chief executive because of those failures.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
In the short term, the priority is to make sure that the company has a viable plan so that we can deliver the homes that we want. The approach that the taskforce has taken in other areas is to sit alongside the company to stress-test its proposals and propose improvements to them so that we can get the building happening. As the hon. Member will know, we are driving through bigger reforms of the water sector because we recognise that the status quo is suboptimal and that we need to hold companies and their bosses to account where they are not delivering for their customers.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The hon. Lady makes an important point. It is a challenge, but our job is to work across Government and the different agencies, and with the water companies, to rise to the challenge. I gently point out that over the past decade and a half, the Conservative party could have introduced reforms to bring our water sector up to scratch and deliver what our communities need for the housing they also need. That was not done, so we are working on it at record speed. Our commitment is to work holistically across the piece to resolve the challenge, but we absolutely recognise that it is a challenge.
Hon. Members have questioned the validity of our housing targets. It is absolutely right that the Government are taking bold action to overhaul the planning system and carry out the reforms necessary to deliver the homes and infrastructure that every single community needs. There is consensus across the House that the status quo in terms of housing development is not adequate for the needs in our communities, so we have to step up.
We believe that our revised standard method strikes the right balance between meeting the scale of need across the country and focusing additional growth on the places facing the biggest affordability pressures. While those targets are ambitious, we have always been clear that they are necessary, given our inheritance. The key is to ensure we work consistently across the different parts of the system to deliver that objective and ambition.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will make more progress.
The lack of water infrastructure is blocking our capacity to deliver more homes and is resulting in water outages such as those in west Kent. That is a clear signal that we need wholesale reform and that the system is not doing what needs to be done.
We believe that we can secure water supplies for the future only by managing water demand, reducing leakages and creating new water assets. We have to do all three of those things, and we are working with the water industry and the regulator to do that.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Let me address that point directly. We are clear that we are not building enough homes across every part of the country, and we are trying to ensure that the system delivers. Whether it is my community in London or the right hon. Gentleman’s community in Tonbridge, the reality is that there are not enough affordable homes for people to live in—a situation none of us wants. It is absolutely right to have housing targets commensurate with the need. I do not believe that politics is being played here; we are trying to deal with the need in parts of the country where there is both demand and the capacity to deliver more homes.
I acknowledge that there is a problem with the wider system and the infrastructure that we are building, and we are addressing it, but that is made harder by the fact that, candidly, a lot of these problems have been here for a decade and a half. They could have been addressed, but they were not, so we are trying to do that. We are having to do it all at the same time, but nobody can ask us to resile from our ambition to build enough homes for people to live in.
Helen Whately
I thank the Minister very much for taking a second intervention from me. I do not disagree that the country needs more homes; that is an accepted fact. However, what we have seen under her Government is housing targets being shifted out of London, so that London’s numbers have fallen and the numbers in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) and in my constituency of Faversham and Mid Kent have gone up. Against that backdrop, I have not seen London homes having large outages where they have not had enough water for days on end, whereas in Kent we have had them on multiple occasions. Yet still her Government persist in reducing the housing ambitions for London and putting more housing in rural areas, such as our constituencies, where we simply do not have the infrastructure that is needed. Surely she must recognise that the Government need to change tack.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
On that specific point, our methodology is trying to strike a balance, where we think there is both need for homes and the capacity to build those homes. I absolutely acknowledge that the water sector and some of our other infrastructure providers are not where they need to be. All the reforms we are trying to drive through in planning reform and the water sector, and the robust action that we are taking to work across the piece, are in response to that very problem.
For example, in the context of the investment required to build our water assets, the Government are ensuring that £104 billion of private sector investment is going into the water sector over five years to enable that building of assets. I want to reassure the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and hon. Members that the Government will introduce the water reform Bill when parliamentary time allows, working in partnership with water companies, investors and communities to make sure that we have a system that is fit for purpose.
An important part of that reform, which pertains to this very debate, is the establishment of regional water planning function, which will enable a more holistic, co-ordinated approach to water, environment and supply planning and support the delivery of national strategic objectives such as economic growth, meeting house building targets and nature recovery, while enabling regional and local priorities to be realised. That more joined-up approach will deliver a more resilient and future-proof water system—that is our hope and our intention—better able to absorb shocks, which will hopefully prevent situations such as those we have seen in west Kent from ever happening again. I think there is consensus that such situations are appalling and that we absolutely must mitigate them in the future.
To answer the direct questions put by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge about the water companies and their role in the planning system, we are just going through the responses to a consultation on statutory consultees. The Government intend to list water companies and sewage companies as consultation bodies for new plan-making, so that they are involved right up front in the system. However, we are also looking at their relationship with regard to planning applications in particular, for the reasons that he set out.
Critically, the right hon. Gentleman also asked me to sit down and discuss this issue with my team and other Ministers. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) is the Minister for Housing and Planning, but I will take that suggestion away and get that meeting in the diary as a priority, because we appreciate and understand the specific issues. I come back to the fact that we know there is a systemic problem; we are working hard to deal with it, but we recognise the urgency of the situation, because the plan-making process is happening.
To conclude, I again commend the right hon. Member for Tonbridge for securing this important debate and shining a spotlight on the particular issues and concerns in his constituency. I return to the fact that the status quo is appalling; the water shortages that we have are absolutely unacceptable, and the Government are committed to working with him and with his local council to make sure that we are resolving this situation.
We all agree that we need more homes. We also all agree that the water sector has to be reformed, so that we can deliver the infrastructure we need to service those homes. This Government are committed, as we have been from day one, to driving through whole-system reform to ensure that the interaction between planning, house building and the wider infrastructure sector is right and fit for purpose, in order to deliver what we need. I look forward to continuing our engagement and to making sure that we resolve the specific issue with the plan and the capacity within the plan. My Department is ready and willing to work very closely with the council to do that, and we will take the plan forward.
I again thank the right hon. Member for securing this debate and you, Sir John, for chairing it.
Question put and agreed to.