Welfare

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[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]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point, and—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:

“notes that the previous Government left over one million young people not in education, employment or training, while overseeing a £33 billion rise in the welfare bill in its final year alone; recognises that since the General Election one million more people are in work and 397,000 more people are economically active; welcomes the imminent publication of the Milburn and Timms reviews; and supports the Government’s commitment to deliver welfare reforms that break down barriers to employment, support more people into good, secure work and bring down the benefits bill.”

The welfare system that the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) has just been criticising is the one that her party designed and built, and then failed to reform when the Conservatives were in office. They failed abjectly on its financial cost and on its human cost. Over 14 years, they utterly failed to reform the system. She said at one stage that they had cut the welfare bill. I asked her in how many of those 14 years the bill fell, and she did not answer the question—not surprisingly—because the answer is none: it never fell in that 14-year period.

On the Conservatives’ watch, 2.8 million people were out of work due to long-term sickness. Progress on the disability employment gap stalled. It fell steadily under the last Labour Government, but it barely shifted during their 14 years in office. The number of young people not in education, employment or training went up by a quarter of a million just in their last few years in power. The number of children in poverty went up by hundreds of thousands, setting back their life chances and making them much more likely to be not in education, employment or training as young adults. Welfare spending rose by £33 billion in their final year in government alone.

[Dr Mullan]

The Minister is berating us on the question of spending during our time in government, arguing that we did not bring it down, but can he name a single one of those years in which the Labour Opposition asked us to bring it down?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent claimed that spending had been reduced; it never was. That never happened, and it would not happen under the proposals she talked about, as I will come to in a moment.

These latest ill thought through proposals show that the Conservatives have learned nothing from their time in government. They are making exactly the same mistakes all over again in opposition: crude cuts to put more people into poverty; more people pushed on to disability benefits; 1 million young people not in education, employment or training; and an explosion in the welfare bill. Those are crude cuts, with no thought for the human costs, which means that savings will never materialise. How much would their proposals increase child poverty? How much would they increase homelessness? How much would they add to their costs of failure?

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

I remember what that time was like, and I remember the arguments about food banks—there were endless debates in the House about that. Is the hon. Member telling me that food bank usage has declined? It simply has not, and that is a stain on our society. [Hon. Members: “It has!”] I am afraid that is not correct. Why are we having this debate? It is because the welfare state is growing, and it is unsustainable. There are more people out of work now.

Labour Members cannot say hand on heart that their employment policies are helping the employment market. They should come to the Witham constituency, or go to any constituency, where they will see employers—family-run businesses—struggling to recruit and employ people because of Labour’s regressive taxation policies. Higher levels of employment tax mean more unemployment, which means more people going on to welfare. These are the basic policies—[Interruption.] There is no point in trying to point score; these are basic policies that the House has to get right.

There has to be recognition right now that the current policies are not helping people get into work. It is too easy to write off people on welfare, but all credit to Opposition Front-Bench Members who are saying things that people do not want to hear. Too many labels are being attributed to people out there in society that write them off. That is a stain on society. We should be helping them and working with employers to incentivise them back into work, not just have them trapped in welfare and benefit dependency.

[Dr Mullan]

On employers, there are various, complex ways in which the Government are trying to unpick the damage they did with their tax rises. Big businesses will engage with such projects—they can look at them for use across their entire workforce—but smaller businesses cannot as they do not have the mental thinking space or the time to go through them. We have seen the biggest drop in employment among those smaller businesses—the people who speak to me and tell me how bad things are—but the Government seem to be completely ignoring that.

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is right. The Minister mentioned the British Retail Consortium in relation to young people. Yes, the BRC is a nationwide organisation, but across parts of the country—the east of England, and I am sure Sussex as well—family-run businesses do not have the ability to work at that level. It is the same in the hospitality trade. We are seeing this again and again.

We see it with first jobs. For many of us, our first ever jobs were behind tills, washing up or in the service sector. As everybody knows, in my family I grew up under the till, because my family ran small shops, but while employability skills are so valuable, those experiences have gone and it is harder to get a job. That is what we are lacking right now.

I commend my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench for doing the hard yards in looking at how we can be better and proposing solutions and alternatives. They might not fit everybody—it is right that we debate and discuss them—but the House must recognise that the current situation is totally unsustainable. We need to do better by those trapped in welfare and give young people in particular opportunities and hope and create pathways for good future employment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

The Conservatives are sat here today criticising welfare spending when we all know it was their Government that created the very system they are now complaining about. Universal credit was dreamed up by the Conservatives, and it created a system where people were better off on welfare than in a job. For under-25s, the choice was a poverty-level standard rate of £317 a month or a far higher disability rate of £747 a month—more than double. This of course created a massive incentive for young people to go on the higher rate, and because they got zero support, they were effectively consigned to never getting a job.

Since being elected, Labour has already changed this. We have cut the disability rate from £747 to £556 for those young people who may be able to work with the right support. We have made the higher rate only for those with a severe health condition or disability that is unlikely to change. This is the Labour way to reform welfare: looking after those who will never work and helping them, while encouraging those who can work to get into a good job by removing the perverse incentives that were created by the Conservatives.

The Conservatives also came up with the personal independence payment, although from the way they talk about it in this place, anyone would think it had nothing to do with them. It is a benefit that helps with the additional cost of being disabled, so it is supposed to be paid to those in work as well as to those who are not. In fact, over 80% of recipients are not working. A Unison report found that assessors routinely used the fact that a claimant was employed as justification to reduce or entirely withdraw their PIP award. As a result, disabled people left jobs or went part time to keep their PIP. This was yet another perverse incentive created by the Conservative benefits system, which made people better off not working.

Those perverse incentives are why, in the Tories’ final year in government, the welfare bill rose by £33 billion and almost 3 million people were not working because of long-term sickness. For over a decade, the Conservatives presided over a system that meant people were better off on benefits, and it is only now that they have been kicked out that they have decided it needs to change, but their answer is to slash benefits crudely in a way that would only see massive increases in child poverty and homelessness. It is a false economy, as the money will only have to be spent again on other public services.

[Dr Mullan]

Is the hon. Member’s position that, prior to 2010, under the Labour Government, someone was never better off on welfare than working?

[Deirdre Costigan]

Under the last Labour Government, work was the cornerstone of everything that we did, and we will continue with that under this Labour Government.

As I said, the Opposition’s approach to welfare is a false economy, and we will end up spending the money again on public services. It would just move the cost from the welfare bill to the NHS and local authorities. Their plan to bring back the two-child limit would see 3,660 children in Ealing Southall fall into poverty. That is not just a statistic; it is 3,660 children in Ealing Southall going hungry and cold, and it is the taxpayer who would still end up picking up the tab. The Conservatives’ claim to be able to cut £13 billion from disabled people’s benefits seems like a random number they plucked from the sky with no real plan.

The Leader of the Opposition says she can cut this £13 billion because

“Double amputees run marathons… People with autism”

have set up “tech companies”. She may be right about a very small number of people, but she should tell that to the parents in my constituency with non-verbal and developmentally disabled autistic children—parents who spend every single day of their lives fearing what will happen to their grown-up child when they die. I can only imagine how utterly crass and insensitive the Leader of the Opposition’s comments must sound to those parents.

Instead of scaring those parents, Labour is taking a measured approach to changing the system. We have commissioned the Timms report to look at making PIP fit for the modern world, where we know so much more about the impact of mental health and fluctuating conditions than we did a decade ago, and we have commissioned the Milburn review, which will radically change how we support young people to get into work.

Already Labour is spending £3.5 billion on employment support for sick and disabled people with personalised support through Connect to Work. We have invested in new apprenticeships and introduced a jobs guarantee, with paid work for six months, backed by mentoring and tailored support. Those reforms are part of our work to address the broken welfare system inherited from the previous Government and to ensure that the system supports those who can work while protecting those who cannot.

The Conservatives’ approach to welfare spending is to let it run out of control when they are in government and then come up with crude and financially illiterate cuts when they are out of government and will not have to deliver them. Instead of making families and their children sick, homeless and dependent on food banks, Labour’s choice is to bring down welfare spending in a safe and sustainable way by doing one simple thing: making people better off in work. That is the Labour way and that is the way that we will deliver.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I have a solemn duty to talk about an incredibly difficult and challenging statistic in relation to the prosperity of this country: the size and scale of worklessness in our country right now. Some 6.7 million working-age people are claiming benefits and are not in work. That is one in six of our working-age population. I do not know how anyone can hear that statistic and not be horrified by what it represents for the prosperity of a country that seeks to do well. Historically, that figure has been around one in 10. It causes me particular concern, for a number of reasons, that today’s figure is related to an increase in claims for mental health challenges and disabilities.

We have talked about the challenges of ensuring that people do not feel stigmatised or labelled in a way that will not be conducive to their finding work. When it comes to mental health conditions such as depression, we have to recognise that getting in work and getting a job is advantageous to someone’s mental health, and that not working is a disadvantage to their mental health. I am afraid that there is also the challenge of fraud in the benefits system. We all have to accept that the benign view of human nature that we have heard expressed by Government Members, in which no one is ever induced or encouraged to make a claim that might not reflect their reality, is naive in the extreme.

[Daniel Francis]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Mullan]

Let me finish my point.

The fact is that mental health conditions are almost entirely self-reported. People are asked questions that relate to how they feel, what their mood is and what they can or cannot do, and we must accept that that inevitably has a risk of inducing or encouraging people to exaggerate their claims. The hon. Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) is not in her place any more, but she inadvertently accepted that point when she talked about the disability living allowance, and how the changes that were made encouraged people to put in higher claims. That in itself is admitting that people say or do different things depending on the available incentives.

We must not forget that a welfare system does not exist in isolation; it is part of a wider society. All of us face a complex mixture of incentives and disincentives to do the right thing. There will be people at either end of the spectrum, but a lot of people are at a point in between. That is why I support our policies, which make it very clear that when it comes to access to cash, being on benefits is not the same thing as being in work, and it should not be the same thing. I support our plans to make the welfare state more about helping and supporting people with the things that they need, rather than just giving them money. That is also why I support our plans on the two-child benefit cap. We should never create a situation in which people who are working have to make tough decisions that those on benefits are excluded from having to make.

Government Members like to say that benefits are claimed by people in work, which is true, but the claimant numbers do not reflect how the money is spent. More than 80% of the money spent is spent on people who are not in work. A much smaller proportion of expenditure is on people who are in work. That is why I support the idea that the system should have two tracks: a track for people who have put into the system, who can then fairly ask more of it when they are in need, versus a track for people who have never put into the system. These are the incentives and disincentives that we all interact with in society. When I meet and speak to people on the frontline who work with people who are in poverty and claiming the support of charities and other sectors, they are very clear about that. They will freely talk about the people who come to see them—the people who they think are legitimate and really in need, and the people who they think are not. That is why I find it so extraordinary that Government Members never seem to want to acknowledge what we all know is a real pressure in society.

[Daniel Francis]

We heard from the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) that 20 or 30 years ago, a person born with a brain injury would be unlikely to survive. Today, such people survive and live with a disability for the rest of their life—people like my daughter. Is the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) really saying that because those people have never paid in or contributed, they are not entitled to any help from the state?

[Dr Mullan]

That is not the system that we propose. We are talking about people who have had an opportunity to contribute and have not done so; the system should take that into account. That is a fair and reasonable point to make.

[Natasha Irons]

The hon. Member is talking about contributions and people who have contributed. Does that include foreign nationals?

[Dr Mullan]

I do not think that foreign nationals should be entitled to benefits, because of the basis on which they are allowed into our country. The only reason they are allowed into our country is that they are net contributors. Why would we undermine that by allowing them to be net recipients of benefits? They are only here because they have signed up to the idea that they will come and be net contributors, so I do not think that that entitles them.

[Natasha Irons]

Just so that I am clear, if somebody is born in another country, comes here and gets citizenship or indefinite leave to remain, and has contributed to the system because they have been working, should they be able to claim from the system? That was my question. They may well have been a high earner, but they may have fallen on hard times and fallen back on the system that we all rely on, and they may have contributed to that system.

[Dr Mullan]

They are citizens, are they not? They have signed a deeper contract with the country that they are in, and they are here under a different set of circumstances. The hon. Member needs to be clearer when she asks her questions in relation to two different groups of people, because we treat them very differently in our proposals. There is a distinction.

Let me make a final point that is often not talked about enough. We are all incredibly focused on what the Government should do to help people and how taxpayers should help people. We know that for very many people in poverty, a big factor in that is having absent parents who give them absolutely no money or pitiful amounts of money for very many years. We also know that a large proportion of families with children who are in absolute poverty would not be in poverty if an absent parent who is not paying was paying.

I wish that there was as much focus on the dereliction of duty that parents too often show to their children and the complete failure for decades to tackle that issue, across all parties, as there is on what taxpayers and the state should deliver. That is a significant moral failing that we are too shy to talk about in this country, and it does not get the attention that it needs. If all parents, whether they have split up or are together, contributed to the upkeep of their children, we would see a lot less child poverty; I wish that MPs on all sides of the House were as invested in that issue as they are in deciding how much the state should pay in their place.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With an immediate three-minute limit, I call Chris Curtis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

No, that would be an asinine interpretation of what I have just said. The point I am making is that every time the Conservative party came up with a reform or a modernisation when in government, the gut reaction of the Labour party was to oppose it.

I happen to think that the welfare state is one of our crowning glories. It was brought in to address a number of deeply systemic societal problems, and it has been a tremendous force for good and transformation in our country. However, it is always intended to be a safety net, a permanent safety net for those who—as a result of disability, for example—find themselves unable to enter the workplace. It removes pressure and anxiety, and it gives people the dignity to live that they quite legitimately deserve, but it should never have been allowed under successive Administrations to become a cocoon. It has ceased to be a safety net; it has become a trap with perverse, Kafkaesque incentives, where the cumulative benefits an individual can receive are greater than anything they could hope to aspire to when getting into a job for the first time. I hope the House can agree that there is nothing kind or caring about trapping people in that sort of environment.

We all know—as various right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned in their speech—the fundamental importance and transformative nature of work for individuals, their families and their communities. It promotes a sense of self-respect, self-reliance, and being able to do things for yourself.

[Dr Mullan]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Simon Hoare]

I will not. The benefits of work are clear and unquestionable, yet we are trapping people through perverse incentives; if they earn an extra pound here or there, they suddenly lose a great slew of benefits. Surely—I say this to Members on the Treasury Bench—we will have to be far more imaginative and far more bespoke in how we approach welfare. We should be using digital and the raft of opportunities it offers to provide a far more bespoke, personally tailored network of support to get people back into work, rather than trapping them.

I want to say one thing about disability, as I had the honour of chairing the all-party parliamentary group for multiple sclerosis in the last Parliament. We will get more disabled people back into work because they want to stay in work—for all the reasons I have set out—if they have the confidence that they can ask their employer for reasonable adjustments, and if their employer has the confidence to ask what the employee might need in order to stay in work. Let us not have a slanging match across the two Dispatch Boxes; let us try to work cross-party. It will be good for the economy and good for our people up and down the land, and it will generate greater tax receipts to pay for the social services, defence and other areas that we want to see expenditure in. However, the status quo cannot be defended.