Welfare Spending

Blake Stephenson Excerpts
Tuesday 15th July 2025

(1 day, 22 hours ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Blake Stephenson Portrait Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

We must have a fair welfare system—one that provides vital support to those who need it but does not create a barrier to finding work. We need a financially sustainable system that delivers fairness for the taxpayer and does not entrench dependency. The Government’s Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill—which I think has now been shortened to the Universal Credit Bill—barely saves any money. In fact, I think we heard from the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), that it will cost more money, and it will make no impact on helping people back to work. That highlights the Government’s complete failure to reform our welfare system.

The welfare bill continues to rise, and economic growth is being strangled as a result. With thousands signing on to incapacity benefit every day, it is clear that we must get serious and take control of welfare spending. We cannot become a welfare state with an economy attached. I will always stand up for those in Mid Bedfordshire who need vital support. The two-child limit is an important safeguard in our welfare system, striking a balance between supporting families and helping parents into work, and ensuring fairness for working families who do not see their incomes grow as their families grow. Working families across the country are having to make difficult decisions about the size of their family.

Rachel Gilmour Portrait Rachel Gilmour
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will the hon. Member give way?

Blake Stephenson Portrait Blake Stephenson
- Hansard - -

I will happily give way—the hon. Lady has been trying for some time.

Rachel Gilmour Portrait Rachel Gilmour
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Does the hon. Member accept that even with his emphasis on parental financial responsibility, the two-child benefit cap punishes the entirely innocent party—the children, who had no choice in their existence? Is that not deeply unjust?

Blake Stephenson Portrait Blake Stephenson
- Hansard - -

I am sympathetic to the point, but I will get on to how unjust and unfair it is to expect other families to pay for those situations, and the fiscal stability and security we need as a country.

Joy Morrissey Portrait Joy Morrissey
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is actually about growth in the economy, low tax, the welfare state being there as a safety net—not as a path to dependency, in which our economy is stifled and lacks any growth—and children whose parents work hard being given the same privileges and fairness as anyone on welfare benefits?

Blake Stephenson Portrait Blake Stephenson
- Hansard - -

I absolutely agree. It is important that we get people into work so that they can look after their families and make the right decisions for them.

Shifting the financial responsibility of children on to the state risks not only entrenching inequality, but opening the floodgates to unsustainable dependency, encouraging parents to have children beyond their means under the assumption that the state will bear the cost. It is neither equitable nor responsible for the state to incentivise larger families through an open-ended benefits system. That is especially true as the cost of our welfare bill and its burden on the taxpayer continues to rise. The fiscal reality must not be ignored.

Projections from the Child Poverty Action Group and the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimate that removing the cap would create an additional £1 billion annual cost to the public finances. As we grapple with considerable economic pressures, such a policy shift is simply not affordable. Removing the cap would force the Government to raise taxes further, borrow even more money—when borrowing is already out of control—or divert public funding away from other stretched public services. The Government have lost control of the public finances, and working families cannot afford to take another hit.

Ayoub Khan Portrait Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The hon. Gentleman mentioned raising taxes, but does he accept that there are many ways to do that? One way is to look at large corporations and people who have far more money than they will ever use.

Blake Stephenson Portrait Blake Stephenson
- Hansard - -

I certainly accept that there are many ways to raise taxes, but my constituents and businesses in my constituency are paying far too much tax as it is. We cannot continue to squeeze corporations, businesses and hard-working people further to achieve the hon. Gentleman’s aims.

The Government have lost control of public finances. Working families cannot afford to take another hit. I recognise the sensitivity of the debate. It is crucial that we support those in genuine need, and we must work towards ending child poverty. The state, however, simply cannot afford to subsidise unlimited family expansion on the backs of working people.

None Portrait Several hon. Members rose—
- Hansard -