Pensions Triple Lock
Debate between Pat McFadden and Helen Whately(2 days, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Thirty years ago, nearly one in three pensioners in our country lived in poverty. Today, that figure has halved, thanks in no small part to the decisions made by our party, when in government, to stand by pensioners—people who have done the right thing, worked all their lives and paid into the system. That is the fair and right thing to do. Yet we are faced with a Government that do not seem concerned about what is fair and right. Can the Secretary of State explain why his party has chosen to go after pensioners instead of tackling the fastest growing part of the benefits bill: working-age welfare?
Working-age benefits are costing us £140 billion a year, and rising fast. That includes the cost of benefits to 6 million working-age people who are not working. Many could and should be, but instead they are spending decades of their lives on benefits; it is unaffordable and morally wrong. However, the Secretary of State has done nothing of substance about it, and now his party’s refusal to bring down the welfare bill is putting the state pension in jeopardy.
The Prime Minister is desperate for cash to pay for his new national care service—that is why he is ditching the triple lock. Let’s not beat around the bush and say that it is some kind of adjustment—it is ditching the triple lock. To look at the numbers, the savings that the Secretary of State is hoping for will hardly touch the sides. Come the mid-2030s, a national care service is forecast to cost over £18 billion, versus potentially £4 billion a year in savings from the triple lock. Those numbers are extremely uncertain; the care service could well cost more—demand tends to grow for something that is free—but scrapping the triple lock could save less. At the very least, Labour’s policy creates a £15 billion black hole in the public finances.
And what a way to announce it: a couple of lines in a conference speech—no proper explanation or detail, just millions of pensioners left wondering what it means for their retirement. Labour Back Benchers should remember how these things go. Their last Prime Minister came after pensioners’ winter fuel payments. That was not a plan that stood the test of time; it was the Government’s first U-turn. How many Labour Members in the Chamber today defended that ill-conceived policy, only to see it abandoned in the face of pressure?
Listening to the Secretary of State’s statement, it is clear that he is branding this plan as the Pensions Minister’s idea. It is not his first rodeo. I suspect he can see that this is a U-turn in waiting. How long has it got? And all this before the Government’s own Pensions Commission has even reported. Did the Secretary of State forget that he had one? The Government asked it to look at whether people will have enough to live on in retirement. Why bother asking for independent advice if he has already made up his mind on the biggest question?
The Secretary of State will know that more women rely on the state pension than men. Had he even thought about them before rushing to this change? What happens if the savings from scrapping the triple lock are lower than he expects? Will the Government scale back its social care plan or push taxes up even higher?
The Conservatives introduced the triple lock to give pensioners dignity in retirement after the humiliation of Labour’s pension rise of 75p a week, and we have backed the triple lock ever since. Unlike working-age adults, most pensioners live on fixed incomes and most are unable to work. If the Prime Minister wants to make savings, he should start with working-age welfare; that is what a Conservative Government would do. We have a plan to save £36 billion from the benefits bill and get Britain working again. But the reality is that with the Budget looming, the Prime Minister has no plan for fixing the country’s finances, and this announcement is simply a distraction from the tax rises that are coming.
This is Labour doing what Labour does best—dodging the tough choices, ducking a fight with its welfare-loving Back Benchers, leaving a black hole in its fiscal plans and hammering those who have worked and paid into the system to give more handouts to “Benefits Street”. I am appalled, but frankly I am not surprised.
All we have seen on welfare is a Government missing in action without the backbone to do what is right. They are clearly not on the side of pensioners or hard-working taxpayers. The question is: whose side are they on?
Pat McFadden
I listened to the shadow Secretary of State carefully outline her opposition to our plans. The trouble for her is that so many in her party agree with the case for change. The shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), for example, has said that we should “unpick” the triple lock. The shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), has called it “simply not affordable” and described it as a “Ponzi system”. The shadow Justice Secretary, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), actually wrote the 2017 manifesto that pledged to replace it with a double lock.
But my favourite is Lord Gove, who told LBC that if Andy Burnham changed the triple lock he would “declare that I will be campaigning at the next general election exclusively for Stella Creasy in Walthamstow.” I look forward to seeing him at the end of the Victoria line at the next election with a red rosette on his chest!
I could go on, but we would be here all day. Let me just say that I have a file as thick as my morning porridge full of quotes from Tories saying that the triple lock is unsustainable and will have to be changed. They say it in private, they say it before they join the Front Bench and they say it after they leave it, but the shadow Secretary of State did not say it. That leaves her with some questions. How will she fund her opposition to what we have announced? Will it be, as when the Tories were in government before, through faster and faster rises in the state pension age, asking people to work into their 70s before they even get a pension at all? If she will not tell us that, can she tell us how they would fund the future of social care? Should we simply add that to the list of unfunded tax promises that they come out with on an almost-weekly basis? Stamp duty, inheritance tax, national insurance, private schools—all funded from fantasy welfare savings that they never manage to achieve in office.
The right hon. Lady spent her time attacking the system that her Government designed, created and legislated for. She spoke about welfare bills rising. In this Parliament, they are rising at half the rate as in her party’s last Parliament in power. She spoke about pensioner poverty. It rose under the Government in which she served. We look forward to the report of the Pensions Commission next year. I referred to it in my statement. Baroness Casey will also report on how and when the national care system will be rolled out.
In the midst of her attacks against a system that her own party created, the right hon. Lady did ask about welfare reform. We have already cut the gap between the health and standard elements of universal credit, and we have made changes to the Motability scheme. We have stopped people buying British pensions on the cheap, and we will make more changes following the reports of the Milburn and Timms reviews.
The truth is that what we have here is a stark contrast between a party that is prepared to take the decisions needed to offer a new settlement for older people and their families, and one that is in the frankly pathetic position of resisting that change in public while, one after another, agreeing with it in private.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Pat McFadden and Helen Whately(3 days, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Every DWP Question Time, Labour Members dutifully line up to give the welfare Secretary a chance to make it look like he is doing something about the youth unemployment crisis—a crisis of their own making. Their jobs tax and their unemployment Act have killed 300,000 jobs, hitting young people hardest. We have had enough talk about hubs and schemes. Young people tell me they want real jobs. That is why we will halve national insurance for 21 to 24-year-olds, so it is cheaper for businesses to hire them. Under the Conservatives, there will be thousands more jobs for young people. Will the Secretary of State get the Chancellor to use his Budget to do the same?
Pat McFadden
I remind the hon. Lady that, under her Government, the number of young people not in employment, education or training went up by a quarter of a million in the two years before the last election. As I said to the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), there are now 243,000 more people in work than at this time last year. The employment rate in the UK today is higher than in every year but one of the Conservatives’ 14 years in power. The UK had the fastest growing economy in the G7 in the first half of this year. I will tell the hon. Lady what could threaten that: a bunch of unfunded tax cuts from the Opposition. We know where that ends up—we saw the movie a few years ago—so I advise her not to repeat it.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
The working-age welfare bill is set to reach £170 billion by the end of this Parliament, up £45 billion on the welfare party’s watch. All around the country, the residents of “Benefits Street” are doing better under Labour. The welfare Secretary is always across his brief, so can he tell me the benefits bill for his constituency?
Pat McFadden
The welfare budget rose twice as fast during the hon. Lady’s party’s last Parliament in power as it is during this Parliament. We are reforming the system through changes to universal credit, more personalised employment support and the youth guarantee that we have referred to a number of times during this session.
Helen Whately
I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not know the answer, but I can help him. It is £400 million a year. That is why he is dragging his heels on welfare reform. The number of personal independence payment claimants in his constituency exceeds his majority, and the same can be said for 203 of his fellow Labour MPs. It is no wonder all his colleagues ask him who they can tax in order to spend more on benefits. Will this month’s Budget just be more of the same—hiking taxes on working families to pay for “Benefits Street”?
Pat McFadden
I remind the hon. Lady that the system she criticises is the one designed, created and legislated for by her Government and her party. We are changing the system through the changes in universal credit announced in April this year, through more personalised support for the people with long-term health conditions who were signed off and written off by her party, and through more intervention on youth opportunity for the young people who were neglected while the NEET numbers went through the roof on their watch.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Pat McFadden and Helen Whately(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I associate myself and those on the Opposition Benches with the Secretary of State’s comments about the outgoing permanent secretary of the Department for Work and Pensions. I am sorry that this may be my last exchange with the Secretary of State, as we await the coronation of the king in the north and the appointment of his new team. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not sacked for telling the truth about his fellow Labour MPs, who just want to put up taxes to pay for more benefits. Does he think that our next Prime Minister will have the courage to take on those Labour MPs and bring down the benefits bill, or will the new PM bottle it like his predecessor did?
Pat McFadden
I enjoy our exchanges, and I welcome the opportunity that the shadow Secretary of State has given me to point out that in the past year I have said time and again that we have to change the question that the system asks from “What benefits are you entitled to?” to “How do we help you change your life?” The debate on how we reform the system has changed to one in which we are putting opportunity and work at the centre of what we do. That is what we are doing with the youth guarantee, and that is what we will continue to do.
Helen Whately
I heard no commitment from the Secretary of State that the benefits bill was going to come down any time soon. Labour can change its leader, but it is still the same old welfare party.
The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) told us this morning that he is going to bring “Manchesterism” to the whole country. In Manchester, he is spending nearly three quarters of a million pounds on helping asylum seekers to claim benefits. British people are tired of seeing their hard-earned money being spent on handouts to foreigners. We cannot be a cash machine for the world. Does the Secretary of State think that this is a good use of taxpayers’ money?
Pat McFadden
Of course, people should only receive benefits if they are properly entitled to and qualified for them. All this has to be underpinned by our being as caring and as passionate about wealth creation as we are about fair wealth distribution. That is what unites Labour people. We are asking the right questions, while the hon. Lady is still asking the wrong ones.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Pat McFadden and Helen Whately(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I was disappointed that the Secretary of State did not answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), so let me help him. Unemployment among 18 to 24-year-olds is at 14.3%—that means that one in seven young people is unemployed. There are thousands fewer jobs and thousands fewer vacancies under the right hon. Gentleman’s Government. I speak to young people across the country, who tell me that it is desperately difficult to get a job, and it is no wonder. His Government have made it much harder for businesses to employ people, especially young people.
I appreciate that the Secretary of State may be trying his best with his plethora of work schemes, but they are just a sticking plaster for the damage that the Chancellor has wreaked. Governments do not create jobs; businesses do. His Government need to change tack and back businesses to create opportunities for the next generation. I am on their side—isn’t he? Will he help the Chancellor understand before it is too late?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Lady neglected to mention that youth unemployment never recovered to levels enjoyed under the last Labour Government at any point during the Conservative party’s time in power; it was exacerbated during their last few years in particular. The difference is that we are responding with the initiatives that I have set before the House today. That is because we believe that work is the best answer and the best opportunity for young people. I will keep going, to give young people hope and opportunity because that is what this Labour Government stand for.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Mr Speaker,
“We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget”.
That is the view of the author of the Government’s strategic defence review, the Labour peer, former Labour Defence Secretary and former Secretary-General of NATO Lord Robertson. Which will the Secretary of State choose: defending the country or paying people not to work?
Pat McFadden
The Conservative party failed to reform welfare and failed to back our defence forces—it left the armed forces at their smallest size since Napoleonic times—and it says that there is a choice. The truth is, the Conservatives did neither of those things; we are doing both. We are increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP—something they never achieved, despite inheriting that level from us when they took office—and we are reforming welfare by putting work and opportunity at the heart of everything we do.
Helen Whately
Let us put some facts on the table, because it is time for the Government to confront the hard choices. We are spending less than 2.5% of GDP on defence, but 5.3% of GDP on welfare. Six million people of working age are living on benefits. Under the Secretary of State’s Government, over a million more people have gone on to universal credit and hundreds of thousands have gone on to sickness benefits—and the Government are choosing to spend even more by scrapping the two-child cap. We cannot go on like this. When will he and the current Prime Minister come forward with a plan to bring the welfare bill down? Or is it like with Sir Olly Robbins: another topic where his judgment and the Prime Minister’s differ?
Pat McFadden
The shadow Secretary of State said that she wanted some facts, so let me give her some facts. The Tories inherited spending on defence at 2.5% of GDP; they left office with it lower. They left the Army at its smallest in two centuries, and they cut the number of frigates and destroyers by 25%. It is the Labour Government who are increasing expenditure on defence. It is the Labour Government who are reforming welfare, including the changes in universal credit this month, and the youth employment initiatives that we have talked about throughout these questions.
Work and Pensions
Debate between Pat McFadden and Helen Whately(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pat McFadden
I think that the statement offers hope to young people throughout the United Kingdom. I look forward to a positive and close working relationship between the UK and Welsh Governments on this issue, because I believe that both Governments share a desire for young people, in Clwyd North and everywhere else in the country, to have the best start in life. I think that, for example, the £3,000 hiring bonus and the jobs guarantee for the long-term youth unemployed, which are GB-wide initiatives, can help people in my hon. Friend’s constituency and offer hope that there is a solution to the scarring effect of leaving young people to fester in long-term unemployment, which is not good for them and not good for the country either.
Universal Credit: Foreign Nationals
The following extract is from Work and Pensions Questions on 9 March 2026.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
The working-age benefits bill is set to reach £171 billion by the end of this Parliament, yet the Government are doing nothing to get it under control. In fact, by scrapping the two-child cap, they have added another £3 billion. It is time to stop spending and get saving. The Conservatives would stop benefits for foreign nationals and save £7 billion a year. Britain cannot be a cash machine for the world. With war in Ukraine and now in the middle east, we must boost our national security, so why are the Government continuing to bankroll benefits for migrants rather than investing in defence?
Youth Unemployment
Debate between Pat McFadden and Helen Whately(6 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
The Government have lost control of welfare. The benefits bill is ballooning. Sickness benefits alone will cost us £109 billion by the end of the decade. Working-age benefits are costing £161 billion right now and rising. But instead of bringing forward welfare savings, Labour MPs have chosen to spend ever more on benefits. Just the other day, they backed an extra £3 billion spending on scrapping the two-child benefit cap. It is all paid for in the same way—by taxpayers, by hard-working people, and by the businesses that employ them.
First the Government tax jobs, and then they wonder why there are fewer of them. Let me tell them: if you tax it, you get less of it. Under Labour, unemployment has gone up month after month. Our youth unemployment now rivals that of Greece, at over 16%. That is one in six young people out of work, wanting employment but denied the chance—and a university degree will not save them, either. Some 700,000 graduates are out of work, and nearly 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training. So many young people have done everything asked of them. They have studied hard, done their exams and got their grades, but now they are getting rejection after rejection to their job applications.
The Government are letting down a whole generation, and the Secretary of State knows it. He said so himself this week on the radio. He talked about the “scarring effects” of youth unemployment: worse mental health, worse outcomes and even lower life expectancy. He is right, so why are his Government making things so much worse? Let us be clear about what this new policy is. It is not a jobs plan or a serious new deal for young people; it is a sticking-plaster, and an expensive one costing over £1 billion. These are state-subsidised jobs to replace the real ones that Labour has killed.
The Secretary of State has laid into our record on apprenticeships, but he knows perfectly well that the drop he refers to happened because we raised the standard of apprenticeships to make them a qualification that would actually count, and to make them a meaningful alternative to university, not just a way for businesses to get cheaper workers. I warn him not to just chase higher numbers in his reforms; quality matters. And why are the Government doing nothing about dead-end degrees and mounting student debt? Why not adopt the policy we have announced of cutting back on low-value degrees, and using the saving to increase apprenticeships? This Government’s answer is to just go back, cap in hand, to the taxpayer.
At the end of his statement, the Secretary of State talked about welfare reform, but why do we never hear the important word “savings”? I think we know why. The Government tried and failed to make welfare savings last summer. What has changed since then? The Prime Minister is only weaker and more indecisive, though the problem becomes ever more urgent. Today’s personal independence payment figures show that claims are up again. There are over 300,000 more people on PIP since Labour took over—a rise of 9%—and the number of young people claiming PIP has risen by 14%. There are nearly 150,000 more people claiming benefits for mental ill health and neurodiversity. I have been clear: this cannot go on. Benefits are not the right answer. Work is better for us. People who can work should work.
The Secretary of State needs to answer some questions. Where exactly has the extra £1 billion that he has just announced for state-funded jobs come from? Will this latest plan actually bring down youth unemployment? Will it even touch the sides? How will he stop fraudulent claims for the cash? How will he make sure that no one loses their job because of his cash handouts? How will he make sure that all this spending makes a difference, and that he is not subsidising employment that would have happened anyway? Does he accept that taxing jobs on the one hand and subsidising them on the other is not an economic strategy, but the economics of the madhouse? Finally, can the Secretary of State at least agree that the benefits bill needs to come down? Perhaps he could take this chance to use the word “savings”. Does he see the irony? Does he understand my feeling of déjà vu? This is another plan from his party for welfare reform that spends more money, rather than saving it. When will he bring forward a plan to actually bring down the benefits bill? He talks about welfare reform; is this it?
Pat McFadden
I fear that the hon. Lady’s response was written without her listening to a word in the statement. She has confirmed that the Conservative party not only bequeathed us the problem, but has learned nothing about how to tackle it. There was no statement of responsibility, no statement of regret and no apology for the record on youth apprenticeships—in fact, she defended cutting youth apprenticeship starts. It is a continued pretence that somehow all of this started just two years ago.
The hon. Lady asks where the funding to help young people comes from. It comes from stable management of the economy—something that the Conservatives know nothing about and that we have practised for the past two years. Young people, at whom all of this is aimed, will have heard her disparage efforts to get them into work and to give them more opportunity. They will have heard her dismiss our changes, which will boost youth apprenticeships. They will have heard her pretend that we can somehow wish all this away with tax changes. That proves that the Conservatives have learned nothing from their disastrous management of the economy. They will have heard her say that the package does not offer young people anything, when we have announced a plan to give them a new deal with more jobs and more apprenticeships. That is the difference between our approach and theirs.
I want to give young people in this country opportunities to get skills, to get a job, to get off benefits and to build a better life for themselves. That is much better than kicking the ladder away and leaving the system unchanged, which is what the Conservatives did. How does the hon. Lady explain the number of NEETs rising by a quarter of a million in the last three years in which they were in power? How does she explain their lack of action to deal with it? When it comes to welfare, what I have said today is very clear and simple: the best means of welfare reform is to put work and opportunity at the heart of the system, and that is what we are doing with this plan.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Pat McFadden and Helen Whately(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Under this Labour Government the number of people on benefits is soaring, with nearly a million young people not in education, employment or training, and over 700,000 university graduates are now out of work and on benefits. Many young people are putting in hundreds of job applications and getting hundreds of rejections. This Government are killing their jobs and their dreams by taxing job-creating businesses into oblivion. What does the Secretary of State have to say to those young people?
Pat McFadden
What I have to say to those young people is that the rise in graduate inactivity happened under the last Government. Economic inactivity is down by 450,000 since the last election. There is a critical problem—the hon. Lady is right—in NEET numbers, which have been rising for four years. The difference is that we are doing something about that through the youth guarantee, which has £820 million behind it, and by changing her record on apprenticeships, which saw a 40% fall in youth apprenticeship starts over 10 years.
Helen Whately
Young people hearing that answer will not be reassured, but that is no surprise—what else can the Secretary of State say? The Prime Minister is too busy blocking rivals for his job, while a generation of young people pay the price for his weakness, and so are taxpayers, who are footing a ballooning benefits bill. Now is not the time for another review, scheme or slogan; what young people want is the chance to get a decent job and to get on in life. Surely he agrees that it is time to scrap the job-killing red tape in the Employment Rights Bill and cut taxes for businesses, so that they can give young people the chance to get off welfare and into work.
Pat McFadden
People want to stand for my party, but people want to leave the hon. Lady’s, and they are doing that day by day. We want to give hope to young people. That is why we have put the youth guarantee in place and we are changing the apprenticeship system: she could have done those two things while she was in office, while the NEET numbers were rising year on year, but she utterly failed to do so.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Pat McFadden and Helen Whately(10 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
In the Budget last month, the Chancellor put up taxes in order to spend £16 billion more on welfare. The Government chose to make working people worse off in order to spend more on benefits. The sickness benefit bill is now set to skyrocket to more than £100 billion by the end of this decade. The Secretary of State likes to blame us, but his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), cancelled our reforms, and Labour Back Benchers stymied the Government’s. Working people are saying to me, “Why bother? I’d be better off on benefits.” The country cannot afford that. The Secretary of State must know this—he is no fool—so when is he going to come up with some welfare savings?
Pat McFadden
The Conservatives’ zeal for change is very touching; it is just a pity that they only discovered it the day they stopped having any responsibility for running the welfare system. Let me remind the hon. Lady that this is the system that they created, and these are the gateways to benefits that they created. The reform that they put forward was struck down by the courts, and the incentives in the system that she attacks are the ones that they legislated for. Now we have begun to change the system, with the first change in universal credit incentives for years, more support for the long-term sick and disabled, and a youth guarantee that offers hope where previously there was only neglect.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Pat McFadden and Helen Whately(11 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his new job and wish him luck in it—especially because, with every day that passes under this Government, we see fewer people enjoying the chance to start a new job. Unemployment has gone up month after month. Nearly 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training because of this Government’s policies, jobs tax and business red tape; even the Pensions Minister’s former think-tank agrees with me. People all around the country are out looking for work—young people who want to get on in life and all those trying to provide for their families—so can the Secretary of State tell us and them when he will get unemployment down?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Lady has a short memory. The Government in which she served presided over the biggest slowdown in living standards in recent memory, and there are 358,000 more people in work now than there were at the start of the year. We will keep supporting young people into work and will change the system that we inherited, which had the wrong incentives and a lack of support. We are putting both of those things to rights.
Helen Whately
No surprises there, Mr Speaker; the Prime Minister can put new faces on the Front Bench, but they still do not have the answers. The right hon. Gentleman criticised the previous Conservative Government, but we got unemployment down to a 40-year low—a record Labour could only dream of. The Government do not want to be held to account. Worse still, the right hon. Gentleman knows that what he is doing will not work, because the country is looking down the barrel of more tax rises in next month’s Budget, which will kill yet more jobs and opportunities. Whether it is graduates looking for their first job or older people being made redundant, people are crying out for a Government who are on their side. What will it take to get the Chancellor to understand that it is businesses that create jobs, not the Government, and does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the more the Chancellor damages the economy, the bigger the welfare bill will get?
Pat McFadden
Since we came into office, interest rates have been cut five times, helping businesses and households. According to Lloyds, business confidence is at a nine-year high, and there is to be much more private investment, including the £150 billion announced during the recent state visit. Add to that the trade deals that the Conservatives could not secure—there are reasons to be optimistic about the future of the economy and I hope the hon. Lady shares them.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Indeed, questions are to be answered by the Government on this occasion.
The right hon. Gentleman has an important and not always easy job. I am sure that we all remember the fiasco before the summer when the Government tried to make welfare savings and ended up legislating for welfare spending. Since then, the Prime Minister has said that there is a “clear moral case” for welfare cuts, and the Chancellor has said that she “can’t leave welfare untouched”. Does the Secretary of State agree?
Pat McFadden
I notice that the hon. Lady did not want to clarify the position on means-testing the state pension. Welfare reform is happening all the time. We passed important changes to the universal credit system that were voted through by the House and, as I said, we are putting in place important employment support to help not only long-term sick and disabled people but young people into work through many of the policies that I have talked about today.
Helen Whately
I cannot help but notice that the Secretary of State continues to attempt to deflect from his job of answering the questions. The fact is, we just heard that he will not commit to making the welfare savings that his Prime Minister and his Chancellor have said they need to make. I thought the Prime Minister was meant to be in charge.
Getting people off welfare and into work not only saves money; it is morally wrong to condemn people to a life on benefits. Without welfare reform, this country is stuck on Labour’s broken record of higher taxes and lower growth. We have even offered to help the Secretary of State, so why will he not commit to making welfare savings?
Pat McFadden
We inherited a situation that had 3 million people inactive and almost 1 million people not in employment, education or training. We are putting in place critical employment support to help long-term sick and disabled people into work, we have changed the incentives through legislation on the universal credit system, and we are increasing the number of face-to-face checks in the system, which fell on the Conservatives’ watch. What do people think it fell by? Do we think it fell by 10%? Do we think it fell by 30%? No, it fell by 90% under the system over which the hon. Lady’s Government presided.