Welfare Spending

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, which at its heart is about fairness and what works, rather than what sounds good. I believe that supporting families and helping parents requires a balanced system that provides support for those who need it, but that also ensures a sense of fairness to the taxpayer and the many working families who do not see their incomes rise automatically when they have more children. The previous benefit structure, which adjusted automatically for family size, was unfair on taxpayers, who pay for the extra benefits being received. Indeed, under the previous Labour Government, 1.4 million people spent years trapped in out-of-work benefits, with 50,000 households allowed to claim benefits worth over £500 a week, or over £26,000 a year, which was higher than the average wage at that time.

Taxpaying families who are not in receipt of benefits often have to make tough decisions when choosing how many children to have, and many will have made the decision not to have more simply because they could not afford it. As others have pointed out, for demographic reasons we may wish that that was not the case, but it is, and it simply is not fair to ask families who are making those difficult decisions to pay for the benefits of others who are not making those choices.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This is about fairness; it is about hard-working families who are trying to take care of their two children, while watching someone who is on benefits having multiple children. It is about fairness, equity and welfare state dependency.

[Dr Mullan]

I agree. I find it hard to believe that Labour Members would allow and support a system where someone could have five, six, seven, eight, or nine children—all being paid for by somebody else—and think that that is fair.

[Sir John Hayes]

I spoke earlier about F. E. Smith, who spoke about all having prizes who had

“stout hearts and sharp swords”.

The stout hearts drive us to do the best for those in the greatest need, but our sharp swords should make us brave enough to recognise that there are those who are absorbing welfare expenditure that should be spent on those needy people. That is what the Government ought to do, but I heard none of that from the Minister.

[Dr Mullan]

It is the inability to have difficult conversations and make difficult points that puts Labour Members on the wrong side of these issues and on the wrong side of British taxpayers, who understand the complexity of these things.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Mullan]

Not right now.

I recognise, of course, that some people are not able to make the same choice about the number of children in their family—including, for example, children who are cared for under kinship arrangements, or adopted; there are many exceptions to the policy to make it fair. The welfare system is already growing unsustainably, with spending on health and disability benefits alone set to hit £100 billion by the end of the decade, yet Labour, Reform and the Liberal Democrats all back higher welfare spending, including scrapping the two-child limit, which will keep taxes high. The Resolution Foundation estimates that scrapping the two-child benefit limit will cost £3.5 billion a year by 2029-30. Is this really an appropriate time to put more pressure on the public finances?

[Graham Stuart]

The focus of the motion today is the two-child benefit limit, yet we heard not a single word from the Minister about it. That shows just how listless and drifting the Government are, when those on the Front Bench cannot tell the truth to this House or to those on the Back Benches. The truth is that the Labour party is riven in two, and those on the Front Bench no longer have any power of propulsion.

[Dr Mullan]

As others have pointed out, the Government put forward welfare reforms that were supposed to save money but ended up costing money, and this is yet another attempt to placate their Back Benchers in a way that we cannot afford. We must be clear about our record: we brought down absolute child poverty when we were in government. Labour Members are happy to quote figures on relative poverty and take them at face value, but when we quote figures on absolute poverty from the same datasets, they do not want to hear it. I am clear that I care more about absolute poverty, and how much someone actually has to spend on things that they need, than I do about relative poverty.

[David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman also care about deep poverty? That increased to a point where four in 10 children who were in poverty under the Conservatives were in deep poverty. Will he apologise for that?

[Dr Mullan]

I think we need to look at the absolute poverty figures and at what difference we can make to them—and what makes a long-term difference to the number of people in poverty of any kind is employment. We reversed the decline in employment, but we are now seeing it get higher every day under this Government’s policies. That is what is bringing even more people into poverty—their record on the economy and on employment.

[Rachel Gilmour]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Mullan]

I want to finish my speech.

Poverty is, of course, a matter for Government. It is about policies and about incomes, but there is another important side to child poverty in this country that people are too uncomfortable to talk about: child maintenance and the absence of payments made in single-parent families. Research by the single-parent advocacy organisation Gingerbread found that 43% of children in single-parent families in the UK are living in poverty, compared with 26% in couple families. We know that poverty has many causes and there is no single solution, but there is clear evidence that when child maintenance is paid in full, it has a significant impact in lifting children out of poverty. Research shows that where it is received, child maintenance cuts the child poverty rate by 25%.

Gingerbread’s “Fix the CMS” report found that 57% of parents who care for a child and had a child maintenance arrangement in place reported that they did not receive the full amount. The amounts involved are significant. At the end of September 2024, total cumulative arrears of payments that were formally expected stood at £682.1 million, and that figure is due to reach £1 billion by the end of the decade. That is just a fraction of the story, because those figures are based only on the sometimes quite pitiful amounts that non-custodial parents have to pay, either because they earn little or because they hide what they earn. Those figures also do not include parents who are not pursued for money by the custodial parent.

Absent parents are denying children much higher amounts of money than the official figures suggest, and there is a deep unfairness to that. If a custodial parent simply chose not to provide any more resources to the child they care for, they would face criminal sanction for neglect. A non-custodial parent who does not give money for the upkeep of their child faces no similar ramifications. I have no idea why we do not place an expectation on a non-custodial parent to make the same efforts to find work and earn money as we do with out-of-work people on benefits, as they are also creating a burden on the taxpayer.

As the Minister may know, there is legislation that allows steps to be taken to place non-paying parents in home detention. I urge her and the Government to look closely at that. If people cannot be bothered to go out, work and pay for their children when they do not live with them, they should not be allowed out on a Saturday night to drink beers with their mates. That would help to drive down the huge amount of money that is owed to children by parents who are simply not paying for them—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Western]

What is low is scrapping the Child Poverty Act in 2016. The Conservatives’ record on child poverty is cheap and low. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) can continue to chunter from a sedentary position; I could reel off their record all day.

[Dr Mullan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andrew Western]

I will not at the moment.

Let me come to the shadow Secretary of State, who, like many Conservative Members, was in total denial of the Conservative record, not only on child poverty, but on the welfare bill, which has spiralled enormously since 2020. They put 4.5 million children in poverty, and they come here with this motion. There was no recognition of the fact that almost 60% of families affected by the two-child limit are in work. There was no understanding of the lack of clarity in their motion, which does not specify whether it relates only to universal credit and child tax credit. It says that children “should not receive” any “additional funding”. What of child benefit? What of disability living allowance for children? The motion is not worth the paper it is written on, unless that is now their policy.

The Conservatives have talked about personal and fiscal responsibility—quite unbelievable from the party that crashed the economy and left the welfare bill spiralling. They take no responsibility for their actions at all, but they seek to lecture others on how they should live their lives. The shadow Secretary of State talked about giving families broader support—for instance, through family hubs. How many Sure Start centres closed under the previous Government? In their first 10 years alone, it was 1,300. Then, we heard that only the Conservatives understand the importance of living within their means. I have two words for the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately): Liz Truss.

[Andrew Western]

Lifting the cap is one of the many levers that the Government are considering. We will look at that in the round, and when we come forward with our child poverty strategy, we will look to lift children in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and here in England—children up and down this country—out of poverty, because that is a moral mission for this Government. Indeed, we have already started that important work, with free breakfast clubs, free school meals for families on universal credit, restrictions on branded school uniform items and, to the point made by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), proposed changes to the Child Maintenance Service. We will also abolish direct pay, which was created by the Conservative party. This will lift 20,000 children out of poverty.

[Dr Mullan]

I am deeply moved by the Minister’s commitment to reducing poverty. Will he explain why, as a Minister, he supported the Government’s proposals in the Universal Credit Bill last week, which their own impact assessments said would increase poverty?

[Andrew Western]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there was £1 billion worth of employment support alongside those measures, the impacts of which are yet to be scored by the Office for Budget Responsibility. We are serious about getting people back to work as a route to tackling poverty, as well as providing an important safety net for those who need it.

The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) asked why others should subsidise someone’s third, fourth or fifth child. I say gently to the Conservatives that it is never the child’s fault. A third child has the same right to thrive as the first two, and if they do not, all three children suffer. A hungry child is a hungry child, whatever their background.