Welfare Spending

Sarah Bool Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Every one of us in this Chamber, and generations of MPs before us, want to help and improve the lives of our constituents. That is why this debate is so important, and we really have to tackle it.

The issues with welfare go back generations. We talk about the welfare state as we know it now, coming in after the second world war with Clement Attlee and the establishment of the NHS, but the history of welfare goes back so much further. The National Insurance Act 1911 introduced insurance against sickness, invalidity and—unusually at that time—unemployment. We can even go back even further than that, to Henry VIII and the abolition of the monasteries; it was the monasteries that used to provide charity and care for the infirm and the needy. Since then, we have seen the development of welfare in various forms, and it is something that we have all struggled with. We saw it with the development of the Poor Law and the friendly societies. It has been an area of great change and it has been going on for generations.

I appreciate that anyone coming to this topic comes with the best of intentions. I think there is consensus that welfare reform is needed, but the way in which the provision of welfare is developed at the moment is entirely damaging both to the public purse and to those who are caught in the welfare net. Today’s welfare state has become like the modern-day helicopter parent. For those who do not know, a helicopter parent is one who hovers over their child like a helicopter in every aspect of their life, managing their experiences and feeling that they always need to be involved in order to solve problems. But we know that is not healthy for the child. They can feel smothered, are unable to develop and become trapped. That is what is happening with our current welfare system; it is trapping people and not giving them opportunities.

[Sarah Smith]

I recently met a constituent who was made unemployed in 2020 during the covid pandemic, and she has struggled ever since to find and hold down a job. She has an autism diagnosis, and it is only since this Government started improving the system that she has had access to a disability-trained job coach, who has supported her to get some volunteering and move into a college course; she now has a job ahead of her. That is what we are doing to grasp the system and tackle its challenges.

[Sarah Bool]

I am very sorry that that was the experience faced by the hon. Lady’s constituent, but it is good that she has managed to get the opportunity to work. That is the thing; that is the difference. Changes need to be made. We have come to the Chamber today to try to find a route through this issue for all of us. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) has offered help.

I have a big issue with the language being used in this Chamber all the time. This is a very difficult and sometimes uncomfortable conversation, but it is absolutely essential that we take the action needed. Sentiments like “living within your means”, which I think all our constituents have to do from day to day, should not be replaced by words like “austerity” and then the idea slammed down. That is not helpful to any debate or any of our constituents.

We always ask our constituents to look after their money—money in, money out—and the Government have to do the same. This depends on what our own views of the Government are. There are those who want the Government to be involved in absolutely every element of everyone’s lives—and so be it, but do expect cost rises, inefficiencies and abuse of the system. The most compassionate thing is to put people on the path to take their own opportunities, to have their own jobs and to grow. That is the place we are trying to get to. Sometimes we are too involved, and we are not creating the system of fairness that we all seek.

Given the sums of money that we are talking about, it is even more imperative that we grasp this nettle. It cannot be right or fair that sickness benefit pays £2,500 more a year than the amount received by someone living on the national living wage. A responsible Government have to take proper action to tackle this issue. That is why the Conservative party has come forward with proposals that would reduce spending by £23 billion, through our plan to deliver £47 billion of savings.

The pen sits with the Government. It is entirely with them to take these actions—the actions that constituents are asking for. Rather than dismissing our solutions, as Government Members have constantly done today, perhaps the Government should take some of them on, take up our offer for help and improve the welfare system.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Bool Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend raises a really important point. Throughout its work, the DWP is already looking at how to narrow the gaps between different parts of the country and different groups of people. We have set our jobcentres and employment systems new targets for reducing those gaps, and we are taking cross-Government action to tackle child poverty. We have achieved a lot. There is a lot more to do, but this Government, unlike Opposition Members, have made tackling poverty an absolute priority. Our child poverty strategy is coming out in the autumn, so I ask hon. Members to watch this space.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

10. What estimate she has made of the number of 16 to 24-year-olds receiving universal credit.

[The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)]

The latest provisional statistics, taken from Stat-Xplore, show that in July 2025, there were 768,000 people aged 16 to 24 on universal credit. About a quarter of those young people—around 180,000—are on universal credit and in work.

[Sarah Bool]

According to the Library, in my constituency, the claimant count among those aged 16 to 24 has risen by 46%; that is one of the largest percentage increases in the country. Conservative Members know that the Government have a moral duty not to let our young people learn that a life of benefits is the life for them, so how does the Minister explain that increase? What will she do?

[Alison McGovern]

I must remind Conservative Members again that it was their party that introduced universal credit, removing the distinction between out-of-work benefits and in-work benefits. For three quarters of young people who are out of work and on universal credit, our guarantee for young people will make sure that they get a second chance in life, after they were utterly failed during the pandemic by the Conservative party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall]

We want to give people like Charlie the chances and choices in life that he deserves. Our Connect to Work programme will do everything from helping people access health treatment to providing work placements and building their confidence through training, skills—whatever meets their individual needs. That is the key to this: an end to a one-size-fits-all tick-box approach, and tailored support for him. We are also working closely with employers so that they remove the barriers to work and can employ people with all the skills and talent that people like Charlie have.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

T3. One of the main benefits of saving into a private pension is the tax relief that people get from the Government, which is one of the smartest ways to save for later life. Any move by this Government to cut pension tax relief will devastate savings rates and the adequacy of pension provisions. I would hope that the Secretary of State knows that, so can she assure me that she has made it clear that when the Chancellor is looking to fill the fiscal black hole of her own making, she must not target pensions?

[The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)]

The hon. Lady only had to wait till next week’s Treasury questions, when she could have asked her question, but she has the same answer. What we should do is look at the record of parties and what they have done. When I look back over the last 14 years of Tory Budgets, I see a party—[Interruption.] And the Lib Dems; thank you for pointing that out. I have seen parties chopping and changing pension tax relief left, right and centre, because they had no plan. Those were the same Budgets that drove child poverty up and wages down.

Income Tax (Charge)

Sarah Bool Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

This is a Budget of broken promises. Some 88% of my constituency is agricultural land. The reforms to agricultural property relief and business property relief will effectively be the end of the family farm. On Back British Farming Day two months ago, Labour Members proudly stood by the Massey Ferguson outside the Palace, but farming is more than a photo opportunity. Careful environmental stewardship that comes from long-term family ownership is put at risk by this policy. The impact also extends to tenant farmers. If the availability of land to rent is reduced as a result of carving up all our small farms, new entrant farmers who will begin their careers on let holdings are denied their opportunity to start, just at the point when we should be encouraging them for the future. I urge hon. and right hon. Members, as well as anyone else watching this debate, to join the thousands of others who are signing our petition to stop this.

The village pub is another core pillar of my rural constituency. I spoke recently in Westminster Hall about the essential importance of these institutions to the rural way of life, and about how this Government should continue the 75% business rate relief, so I am very disappointed to see that this rate will be cut to 40%, particularly at a time when many rural pubs are struggling to remain viable.

And all of this is while the Chancellor increases employer national insurance contributions, causing great distress in the hospitality industry. This tax hike will result in jobs lost, small and medium-sized businesses squeezed, and enterprise damaged. The Chancellor appears to be punch-drunk on Labour’s election victory, but the British public are going to suffer the ultimate hangover.

Can I also stress one point for caution? As the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on investment fraud and fairer financial services, I appreciate that the Chancellor wants to ensure that everyone pays what they owe and in a timely fashion, but I urge the Government to ensure that any victims of historical pension and investment fraud are protected. Enforcement action against victims should be suspended and HMRC should be instructed to use its wide discretion in debt forgiveness. HMRC should focus on pursuing those who orchestrated the schemes and on recovering stolen funds from the fraudsters, rather than targeting the victims.

The markets dislike this Budget and my constituents will be penalised by this Budget, so who wants this Budget? Is this really what Labour Members wanted? I ask the many Labour Members who now represent rural constituencies: did they stand for election to end the family farm? Did those who owe their seats to the pensioners who showed up in huge numbers at the polling stations stand for election to make them cold this winter? We on this side will not relent in our opposition to this catalogue of broken promises.