Welfare Spending 2025-11-04

The hon. Member questions the use of a case study involving personal independence payment as an example against the welfare system, arguing that PIP is not based on work ability but rather health needs.

The hon. Member challenges the Conservative claim by reminding the House of the increase in DWP spending during his time, and questions the current government's commitment to reducing welfare costs.

De Cordova criticised the Conservative government's record on welfare, highlighting that during their time in office, the disability employment gap remained stubbornly at 30%. She argued for proactive measures to improve employment opportunities for disabled people.

Shannon questioned whether vulnerable groups would be targeted under welfare reform. He emphasised the importance of not penalising those who cannot cope with life due to disabilities or health issues.

Thomas pointed out that over 50% of households are net recipients from the state. He asked about the Minister's expectations for changing this figure by the end of the Parliament.

Evans raised concerns over the practical delivery of WorkWell scheme, inquiring where work coaches would go when premises do not have space. He welcomed the expansion of the scheme but sought clarity on its implementation.

Duncan Smith questioned whether money could be saved as more people are returned to work, especially those with mental health issues. He suggested that sickness benefit within universal credit provides an opportunity for face-to-face support.

Mr Mayhew questioned the Minister about the current disincentives within sickness benefits, noting that someone on sickness benefit receives significantly more than those working full-time. He called for a plan to reverse this situation.

Ms Lockhart highlighted the issue of welfare fraud in Northern Ireland, which costs around £240 million annually and is likely higher due to restrictions on investigations. She suggested a UK-wide strategy for tackling this problem.

Mr Allister attempted to intervene but was not given the opportunity by the Minister at that moment, so no specific position or statistics were provided in the text.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson criticised the previous Conservative Government's record on welfare and healthcare spending, noting an increase of 2.8 million economically inactive people and a rise in incapacity benefits costs to £51 billion. He also raised concerns about cuts to mental health services and Access to Work schemes.

Mr Akehurst criticised the previous Conservative Government's approach to welfare spending, noting that it ballooned out of control under their watch. He highlighted the incompetence in handling welfare and called for a different approach.

The Conservative MP acknowledges the pandemic's impact but questions Labour’s criticism of external factors. He supports businesses that received support during the pandemic and asks Labour to acknowledge their own lack of preparedness in managing such crises.

Reiterates his argument, emphasising the failure of the Conservative government in addressing social care issues leading people to leave the labour market. He contrasts this with Labour's achievements in reducing economic inactivity and increasing employment since coming into office.

The MP argues that the welfare bill is out of control, blaming a system that promotes dependency over work. He highlights an increase from 2 million to 3 million people on universal credit for health-related reasons since his party left office.

Questions Mr Bedford about the Conservative government's record in managing NHS waiting lists and their impact on welfare spending.

Challenges Mr Bedford’s claims, pointing out that the Conservatives left office with 1.4 million PIP claimants for mental health reasons and a significant number of people on waiting lists.

Questions Mr Bedford about his stance on the two-child benefit cap, challenging him to acknowledge its impact on children's well-being.

Critiques the Conservative government’s approach as cruel and punitive, noting that their policies led to a rise in destitution rather than employment among non-graduates. He highlights Labour's focus on creating good jobs through collaboration with businesses and trade unions.

Highlighted a constituent's struggle with unemployment due to autism diagnosis and noted improvements under the current government.

Emphasised Labour’s commitment to lifting people out of poverty but criticised the retention of the two-child benefit cap, arguing that it undermines trust in the party. Criticised government for not addressing issues like the two-child benefit cap and welfare cuts.

Argued that the current welfare system incentivises welfare over work, leading to increased unemployment and dependency. Stressed commitment to cutting £23 billion from welfare spending to encourage work over welfare dependence.

Acknowledged speaking without notes and paid tribute to a colleague who left the chamber, but did not provide substantial policy position or critique within the provided text.

Vince supported the Government’s aim to get people back into work, welcomed local solutions like the inactivity trailblazer scheme and employment advisers in GP surgeries and mental health institutions. He pointed out that unemployment benefits have decreased under this government and mentioned the review of PIP led by his right hon. Friend.

The hon. Member for Plymouth Moor View, Fred Thomas, criticised the Conservatives' claims as nonsense, highlighting that even under Henry VIII welfare reforms were needed and difficult to implement. He agreed with Vince on the need for more face-to-face PIP assessments.

The hon. Member for North West Norfolk, James Wild, argued that the current welfare system is unsustainable and unfair to both taxpayers and recipients of benefits. He highlighted Labour's record in creating 4 million jobs and halving youth unemployment but noted an increase in unemployment under the current government. Wild called for a welfare system that helps people up rather than holds them down.

The hon. Member for Burnley, Oliver Ryan, criticised the Conservatives' record on welfare reform, pointing out increases in unemployment and households relying on Government support under their rule while spending billions of pounds on failure. He emphasised that they have zero credibility on this issue due to expensive failures left behind.

The current welfare system is broken and has contributed to child poverty. The Conservative motion is a mess as it assigns value based on income, citizenship status, and residence in the UK.

Not explicitly stated in the provided text but mentioned briefly by Kirsty Blackman before being interrupted.

Conservatives believe in social justice and care for the most vulnerable, advocating for welfare system reform to encourage work over benefits dependency. The current welfare expenditure is unsustainable with £1 in every £4 of income tax spent on health and disability benefits.

The hon. Member for South West Devon argued that the current welfare system is failing individuals and taxpayers, proposing reforms such as increasing face-to-face assessments for disability benefits, reforming the Motability scheme to target only those with serious disabilities, maintaining the two-child benefit cap to encourage employment, and reducing welfare spending to support housing benefits and business rates relief.

The hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford interjected several times during the debate, primarily challenging points made by Rebecca Smith about welfare reform and Motability scheme costs.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith criticised the Conservative party's record on welfare, highlighting issues such as high unemployment among young people in Scotland, long NHS waiting lists, and economic inactivity due to ill health.

The Opposition criticises the Conservative party's plan, questioning its definitions of lower-level mental health conditions and serious disabilities. They also mention that the current contracts restrict face-to-face assessments to just 20%, which contradicts calls for an increase in such assessments. The motion is further criticised for supporting the two-child benefit cap and aiming to get people into employment while leaving the UK as the only G7 country with a lower employment rate than before the pandemic. The speaker urges all Members to oppose the motion.