5,779 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
The spending review settlement for the Northern Ireland Office explicitly covers the Finucane inquiry, but so far the Government have refused to say how much money has been set aside for that inquiry. Will the Secretary of State please tell the House how much do the Government expect the inquiry to cost?
The Government have just had a spending review, so they must know how much they intend to spend. There will be a line in the Treasury accounts set aside for the Finucane inquiry. I do not understand why the Secretary of State finds it so hard to tell the House how much we expect to spend. Similarly, the Government must know how much compensation they expect to pay Gerry Adams, following their inexplicable decision to drop the appeal that we lodged in that case. We have repeatedly pressed the Government to legislate to prevent that compensation from being paid and the Government have dragged their heels. This morning, Policy Exchange has published an excellent new report, “Legislating about Gerry Adams and Carltona”, which sets out a clear legal solution. The Government have nowhere further to hide, so will they finally do the right thing?
It is a delight to take part in this debate, and I will speak about my lived experience. I want to put on the record that after I was shot and left the military, I received a war pension, and that having had some of my foot amputated this year, I am undergoing reassessment for that process. At one stage in my life, I was also diagnosed with complex PTSD and suffered extreme mental health issues for about 15 years, which I have openly shared in this Chamber, so I understand how people can be impacted by unforeseen circumstances. I saw that from a young age, when my dad died and left my mum, me and my two brothers on our own, with literally nothing. We had a roof over our heads, but I watched my mum go without food to put food on our table. I spoke to my mum at the weekend, and she said that the welfare support she had at that time was a lifeline. She said that she could not possibly have seen a way through if we had not had that. I grew up on free school meals, and understood that the system supported us and allowed us to get through what was a very challenging childhood, although I was brought up in a loving environment. Later in life, I lost a business and found that I could not put food on my children’s table. I had support through a challenging time, and did everything I could to work my way out of that and get back on my own two feet. As a Conservative, I firmly believe that there should be support for people when they need it, because you never know what you are going to face, and the support should be there when it is required. However, welfare should not be an option for people who do not want to work. I have seen many times multigenerational unemployment, whereby families create a career of benefits; they grow up having seen relatives in welfare for many years, and they do everything they can to stay in it. I have seen it at my surgeries, where people say to me, “I can normally cheat the system, but I’m struggling here.” It is not everybody, but I have had people openly admit that to me. As I said, the system needs to be there for people who need it, but at the moment it is my firm view that there are a lot of people who do not need it. It should always provide an incentive for people to return to work where possible, although I also understand that some people will never be able to work and we should support them. Government figures published in April stated that the total cost of health-related benefits in 2019-20 was £46.5 billion. That has risen to £75 billion this year, and is expected to rise to £97.7 billion by 2029-30. On this trajectory, the cost will almost double within a decade. The OBR predicts that the Government’s welfare reforms will increase costs by 5.3%, but expects GDP to grow by only 1.6%. I know the Secretary of State agrees that welfare needs reforming, because on 19 July she sent a “Dear Colleague” letter explaining a system that the Government believed was right. We then received another letter on 26 June that said the system has changed. If the Secretary of State has had to change her mind in the space of a week, how can we believe that the system being put forward is right? I do not believe it is, and this Bill is not a serious attempt to reform welfare. I will back that comment up. We have talked about the social security system. The Government’s forecast for the total cost of the social security system for 2025-25 is £316 billion, and today we are discussing a Bill that does not save even—or saves only about—1% of that cost. That is not reform; it is tinkering around the edges.
My hon. Friend is right. The Government have a huge majority, and they have a chance to reform welfare. If they do not take it at this moment, it will not get reformed. I believe that pausing the Bill would get the support of many Members across the House. The Government should go back, create an assessment process that can actually look at who requires welfare and who does not, and plan the system out before looking at implementing it—a multi-stage approach. I respect the Minister and am looking forward to the Timms review, but we might as well make him the Chair of the Select Committee as well; it is as if he is marking his own homework. We need to have a fairer approach, and the new system does not provide it. I believe in welfare and have benefited of a good welfare system. I am proud that we have a welfare system to support the people who need it, but it must be affordable and sustainable, and where possible it should put people back into work. I do not believe that any of these changes are going to do that. I believe, hand on heart, that every Member will recognise that saving 1% on the whole social security system is not reform—nobody can ever say it is. It is tinkering around the edges and a missed opportunity.
The winter fuel payment U-turn will cost £1.25 billion, and the welfare reform U-turn will cost £2.5 billion, all adding to Labour’s unfunded black hole. This is from a Chancellor who said that she would never make a spending commitment without explaining where the money was coming from—yet another U-turn. The Chancellor has also said that her fiscal rules are iron-clad and non-negotiable. Can she reconfirm that commitment now, or are we heading for yet another U-turn?
The House will note that the right hon. Lady did not categorically rule out the possibility of changing the fiscal rules in the autumn. Given that, will she at least confirm that she stands by her commitment not to raise the rates of income tax, national insurance or VAT in the autumn? Is it a yes, or is it another potential U-turn?
The Secretary of State was right: welfare reform is tough, and Governments tend to duck the issue, with notable exceptions such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). However, if a Government are going to change welfare radically, they should surely review the options and then decide which ones to take. By contrast, this Government have decided on their option, and are then going to review what they might have done. Surely that is not the right way to run welfare, or any part of Government.
My right hon. Friend quite rightly mentions covid. I am sure there is one thing that we can agree on. Unfortunately, people were assessed much more often in person before covid, and during covid that was understandably stopped. Surely we can all agree that we have to get those in-person assessments going and get them going quickly.
Given the rather botched way in which the Government have dealt with this issue and the U-turn that is proving to be unsatisfactory, and given the scale of the changes that need to be made, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government will just move away from any meaningful reform, deeming it to be too difficult or too hot to handle? That does no service to those who are in receipt of benefits, and it is certainly of no benefit to taxpayers.
The hon. Gentleman is making a most correct and powerful point, which is that this is not the best way of making law and it is hugely disrespectful to Members on all sides of the House, irrespective of position. Does he agree that that is compounded by the woefully inadequate time that is being set aside for Committee consideration of the Bill and Third Reading next week? That timeframe is very truncated, and we are all absolutely dizzied by the number of U-turns and concessions. The hon. Gentleman is right: it is much better to withdraw the Bill, start again, and bring it back in September.
The House knows that not only is the Minister an honourable man, but he has spent the largest proportion of his parliamentary career looking at these issues. He must surely understand, however, that the confusion that has been expressed in this place is now being felt and expressed in the country at large. I have never seen a Bill butchered and filleted by its own sponsoring Ministers in such a cack-handed way—nobody can understand the purpose of this Bill now. In the interests of fairness, simplicity and natural justice, is it not best to withdraw it, redraft it, and start again?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. With the weather we are experiencing at the moment, topping out at 33°C here today in London, who needs to travel abroad? We can head to our bars, restaurants, tourist attractions and have a staycation in the beautiful UK. South Northamptonshire has more than 220 hospitality businesses, which employ around 3,000 people. We will experience much focus this weekend because we have the grand prix at Silverstone and I declare I am looking forward to seeing some of that racing. However, the focus goes far beyond that, because we have to think about our smaller hospitality businesses, whether that is the Plough at Shutlanger, the Red Lion in Brackley, the Red Lion in Bozeat, the White Hart in Hackleton or the Rose and Crown in Yardley Hastings—I literally have too many to name, but they are vital to our sector—
There would be at least 95 to name. We ask all those who run these businesses to take a risk. We ask them to keep our communities together and to offer jobs, but we do not give them the environment in which to flourish. They are working so very hard, but it is a real struggle with employer national insurance increases, business energy costs remaining incredibly high and the national minimum wage increase of about 17% in little over a year. Nationally since April, 220 pubs have had to shut and more than 1,000 have shut in the last year. What are the Government going to do to turn this around? I ask the Minister to consider the measures proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood). We must remember—this is a word of warning—that in rural areas, we do not have the luxury, as we do in cities such as London, of being able to go to a pub or restaurant in another street. The loss of a pub, restaurant or hotel leaves a vast desert. Covid, when we all had to isolate, reminded us of the importance of social interaction and contact. I say to the Minister, “Please do not deny rural communities these opportunities through poor policy.”
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. The Minister will be pleased to hear that the draft regulations are a point of agreement between the Government and His Majesty’s official Opposition. Time and again, I have heard from farmers just how difficult their supply chain negotiations can be, and today’s regulations are an important step for the sheep sector in strengthening protections for producers and processors. We know just how much pressure sheep farmers are under, especially those in upland areas, and a lack of certainty about the price and classification that they can expect at the end of the process only makes it far harder to run their businesses. With the supply chain being so important, I am pleased to say that last year the previous Conservative Government began the process that has culminated in the draft regulations, with the public consultation, which ran between January and March—and, of course, through the passing of the underlying Agriculture Act 2020. It is good to see that much of the learning from the consultation has been implemented in the regulations and that the new Administration have decided to continue with the proposed changes. The draft regulations will provide not only much needed reassurance to our primary producers, but clarity for our larger abattoirs, setting clear standards for the presentation, measurement and record keeping of carcases. In particular, there is precise guidance on the proper presentation of carcases and a requirement to measure weight to the nearest 100 grams. Standard setting in relation to automated classification is also welcome and should help many abattoirs access such processes with confidence, thus improving their options for growth. It is also good to see that, primarily, the draft regulations will impact larger facilities of more than 2,000 processed animals a year, protecting struggling smaller abattoirs from the burdens of increased regulation. Only a few weeks ago, we discussed in detail the challenges facing smaller abattoirs, and I look forward to continuing to work with the Government—or to hold them to account —on that issue, as much work remains to be done to ensure rigorous standards without overburdening smaller businesses. We will support the Government on the regulations.
This week, the 19% tariff on imports of US ethanol falls to zero through the 1.4 billion litre quota negotiated by this Labour Government, which represents the size of the UK’s entire ethanol market. That will have a hugely damaging impact on our rural economy, UK jobs and the NHS, with Government effectively offshoring the benefits of ethanol production and its by-products to the US. What conversations are the Chancellor and her team having with this green energy sector, in which a huge number of jobs are now at stake in Teesside and Hull?
I speak today not just as a Member of this House, but as someone who has lived with the reality of a disability in my own family. I grew up with a sister who has a learning disability. Later in life, she also faced the brutal challenge of cancer. I have seen for myself the emotional toll, the complexity of care, and the financial pressures that came with that journey—pressures that were not self-inflicted, or in any way her fault. I have also seen at first hand how PIP can be a lifeline for many people working in my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley, helping them to avoid total reliance on the state. For my constituent Shane, this support is “the fragile scaffolding” on which his life and work currently depend. All these experiences have shaped my own principles, including the need to take personal responsibility, to have a moral duty to support those who genuinely cannot support themselves and to follow the foundational principle that people in exactly the same situation should be treated the same before the law. This Bill breaks those principles. Under Labour’s current plans, someone like Shane, or my sister, Becky, will be treated completely differently by the state, not due to their willingness to work, but based on a completely arbitrary cut-off date, currently being forced through by Ministers in Whitehall. If the Bill passes, someone in my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley, newly diagnosed with a learning disability, cancer or other life-changing condition in late 2026, will get thousands of pounds less in support than someone in identical circumstances today.
I am sure that Dennis and Jill will be looking at the debate carefully and understanding clearly the issue of fairness, which is at the heart of what this legislation addresses. As I have explained, it is a scenario that Shane, in my constituency, is experiencing: he is able to receive PIP today, but someone in a similar circumstance to him will not be able to receive it after late 2026. That is not fair.
This Bill gives no clarity or dignity to the many people such as the constituent the hon. Lady kindly mentions, or those in my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley. That is why I do not support a plan that creates such a two-tier system, which now seems to be the hallmark of this Labour Government and goes against the very principle of fairness. Let us not forget exactly why we are here: these changes are being pushed through at pace, at the eleventh hour, without proper evidenced reasoning for the new cut-off date. That is not the kind of detailed policy making that we expect from our leaders.
That is the nub of why there is so much concern that has been consistently raised by all Members on the Conversative Benches, and many on the Government Benches as well, who, dare I say, are considering how they will vote later. No one doubts that our welfare system, which is set to exceed £100 billion by 2030, needs reform. If we continue to follow the Chancellor’s strategy of recklessly borrowing, which will have the same negative implications on PIP, some of the poorest in society who feel the biggest impact of any financial crisis will be exposed.
Trust is at the heart of the issue, and if we want to create a system that commands public trust, this is not the way to do it. We need to reward effort and promote self-reliance, but the Bill creates a two-tier system detached from individual responsibility. We need to make the welfare system more targeted, but the Bill, like many Government policies, simply shifts new costs on to people who will genuinely be ill, newly disabled or simply younger and does little to target those relying on the state.
I will take no lectures from somebody who supported a 10% rise in council tax across the Bradford district, impacting many of those who will be impacted by PIP. This is not principled reform, it is not radical and it is not good policy making—and many Labour Members know it. The Government can and should be doing better. I will not support the Bill.
Labour’s jobs tax has really clobbered British businesses. The Office for National Statistics says that the number of available jobs is collapsing. Perhaps the Chancellor has not updated herself on how British business thinks about confidence: the Institute of Directors has said today that business confidence has plummeted; the Bank of England is warning of significant declines in wage growth; and the British Chambers of Commerce says that taxes on businesses cannot be increased. The Chancellor has bungled welfare changes, eviscerating confidence in the Prime Minister and blowing an even bigger hole in the public financing, meaning that she will raise taxes yet again this autumn. Will she avoid creating the same damaging uncertainty she did last summer by ruling out from the Dispatch Box today any further tax increases on British businesses?
It is great to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Dame Siobhain. I want to follow up on what my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham said and ask a few additional questions, particularly about the provision in clause 18 for persons with disabilities. I obviously welcome the inclusion of this clause in the Bill—we clearly want to ensure that public transport is as accessible for all as possible—but I am slightly concerned that, in a way, it provides false hope. Subsection (2) states: “An enhanced partnership scheme may specify”, so it is a “may”, rather than a “must”. It is nice to have that consultation, but there is an opportunity for the local authority or whoever is providing the bus service not to do it. The clause allows for a consultation, but there are no guarantees that what disabled people want will happen. I am also slightly concerned about the taxi guarantee scheme. I do not know whether hon. Members have experienced the same thing as me, but my constituency of South West Devon is an interesting mix of urban and rural. It might be thought that large chunks of Plymouth are technically easily accessible, but the Access Plymouth minibus system does not even work across the city, let alone go into the rural parts of the constituency. Out in the South Hams and West Devon, which is a different local authority, the bus services are typical rural bus services: they are not very reliable or frequent. It is also worth saying that taxis are not reliable either. Just this weekend, a local taxi service that runs out of the village put a post on social media saying, “We’re fully booked this evening.” Even able-bodied people, let alone people with disabilities who are trying to benefit from a taxi guarantee scheme, need to book in advance, so I question the feasibility of delivering on this clause. We are not only saying that bus services will be reliable for persons with disability; we are offering them a taxi guarantee scheme. Yet we do not know—I assume the Minister will be able to explain this—what assessment has been made of the wider public transport picture or whether the taxis exist to provide the scheme, particularly in our rural communities. I know the Bill seeks to address those places. Ultimately, we need to ensure that we manage the expectations of those we are trying to help with the Bill. I ask the Minister, what consultation has been held on, and what thought has been given to, the provision of rural services for people with disabilities? The taxi guarantee scheme is a great idea, but is it deliverable? What analysis has been made of that? Secondly, what might stop a local authority from delivering on this, and what assessment has been made of potential obstacles? Apart from the supply of buses and taxis, are there other reasons why a local transport authority might not be able to deliver this? If it is that important to ensure that persons with disability can access public transport, which is something that I think we all agree we want, then the obvious question is: why does the legislation not say that an enhanced partnership scheme “must” do it? Why does the Bill say just that it “may”? It seems that there is a conflicting ambition here. Perhaps I have answered my own question in saying that there might not be the supply, but if we want to ensure a better world for persons with disability, I am intrigued as to why it does not say that a scheme must do this.
I think there is some slight confusion among Committee members because my hon. Friend said clause 23 when he meant clause 27.
Given the Minister is comparing the rail system with buses, and saying that he wants to bring buses into line with the railway, I am intrigued about who will do that enforcement. We have the British Transport police on the railway, and there are signs everywhere and a phone number that someone can call, but at the moment on buses—I have been on ones where antisocial behaviour is taking place—it ultimately falls to the driver to enforce against that. Is that what the Minister is saying will happen as a result of this legislation? Will there be additional powers or will an additional force be created to enable that enforcement to take place—or is that entirely down to LTAs to figure out for themselves?
I am intrigued: does the hon. Member agree that we also have an issue where pedestrian crossings land straight on to cycle routes on busy main roads? Although it is outside the scope of the Bill, would his proposed review also look at that? For example, when a visually impaired person or someone using a wheelchair crosses Vauxhall Bridge Road, which is very busy, they are sent straight into a cycle lane that cuts across it. Does he agree that, in an ideal world, it would be nice to address that too?
The Secretary of State is absolutely right that any Government that take office should aim to reduce poverty in this country. Why then do her own Government’s figures show that the actions she is taking this afternoon will put an extra 150,000 people into poverty? Does she really think that is what her Back Benchers expected when they were elected to government last year?
The Prime Minister’s inability to control his Back Benchers means that the Chancellor now has to find an extra £2.5 billion to fill the savings that she is claiming to have made. Can the Leader of the Opposition guess how she might raise that money?
The Minister is doing an admirable job defending the farcical. Last week, there were £5 billion of savings. Today, there were £2.5 billion of savings. Then he came to the Dispatch Box and did three more U-turns. As he stands at that Dispatch Box today, how much will these new measures save the taxpayer?
I am pleased to respond to the debate on behalf of the Opposition. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) on securing it. She gave a serious and passionate speech about the injustices experienced by too many businesses, and I commend her campaign and encourage all small businesses to visit her website so that they can tell their stories and give their evidence. Every Member’s speech confirmed what a significant problem this is. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) reminded us of the effects on our high streets. With his usual journalistic flair for arresting language, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) questioned Ofgem’s wide remit, which ranges from regulating careless errors, such as mix-ups between night and day meter readings leading to intimidating demands for bills as high as £18,000, to systemic failures and cynical malpractice. We need the Government to act. Even apparently innocent mistakes come with a terrible burden for small businesses. We all know the pain and stress of the bureaucracy we have to handle when there is a problem, and sometimes that bureaucracy feels like a deliberate hurdle that has been constructed by the businesses in question. Small firms have to contend not just with high costs, but with lost time, which is a highly precious commodity for them. We must also consider the systemic problems. The hon. Member for Tamworth mentioned kickbacks for brokers who push more expensive contracts, and she rightly asked about the powers available to deal with errant companies. I thought her comparison with fines for breaches of data laws was apposite. Will the Minister tell us when we can expect the review of Ofgem to conclude? Can we expect increases in the fines levied against companies when they fall short? As the hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) suggested, high energy costs themselves are a huge problem. It is not just about the conduct of businesses; we must explore the effects of wider Government policy, too, because no country in history has ever made itself richer by making energy more expensive. First fossil fuels and then nuclear powered the industrial and technological revolutions of the 19th and 20th centuries, and yet it is the policy of our Government to increase the price of energy and make its supply less reliable. They are defying common sense by pushing up demand for electricity with their ideological targets for decarbonising the grid and rolling out heat pumps and electric vehicles. Large-scale electrification is pushing the grid to its limits; it is already struggling to supply new homes, factories and data centres. We can clearly see the effect on energy bills for businesses. The Climate Change Committee—an unelected and unaccountable quango against which Ministers offer little or no resistance—says the cost of electrification must be shifted on to bills for gas and oil. For years the climate lobby insisted that renewables were cheaper than gas, but now that they have to put their money where their mouth is, they want to put the public’s money where their mouth is—now that the world can see the truth, they want to transfer the massive cost of renewables on to gas bills. The renewables obligation, feed-in tariffs and the capacity market are all direct costs to business. Environmental levies are already projected by the Office for Budget Responsibility to increase from £9.9 billion last year to £14.8 billion by 2030. Those hidden costs support the complex web of public subsidies that prop up wind and solar. Wind and solar generators are given billions of pounds in subsidies paid through green levies. Without those subsidies, most of them would not be commercially viable. The levies are not the only costs created by a dependence on unreliable renewables; customers also bear the balancing costs that are paid to generators to switch their power on and off. As wind and solar expand, those costs will triple to £8 billion by 2030. Grid decarbonisation will create a carbon price of £147 per tonne of CO2, which is 2.7 times higher than the current level. Ever-rising carbon prices will be locked in under the EU reset deal, which will keep us aligned with the EU emissions trading system. We already have the highest industrial energy prices in Europe. Our energy consumption fell last year by 0.1%—we were the only G7 country where that happened, apart from Japan and Germany. Despite global energy demand getting ever higher, our energy supply fell by an average of 2.1% per year between 2014 and 2024. Output from energy-intensive industries has fallen to its lowest level since the 1990s. Decarbonisation is undoubtedly fuelling deindustrialisation. Just last week, it was announced that a facility in Teesside, one of the largest chemical plants in the country, will be permanently closed. The Grangemouth oil refinery stopped processing crude oil last April. British Steel has been brought to its knees. Yesterday, we heard the sad news about the Prax Lindsey oil refinery. The Energy Secretary wants to blame international gas prices for our insane energy prices, when he has been throwing policy costs on to British industry to subsidise expensive and unreliable renewables. Now he says he will subsidise heavy industry to counter the cost of the renewable subsidies he is making it pay. There are countries, such as the United States, that rely much more on fossil fuels and have lower energy costs than we do. Labour is trying to con the public by blaming global prices, when it is the one that is piling on policy costs.
The Minister, as Ministers do, made a point about the volatility of gas prices. When wholesale gas prices fell and the price cap was lowered, the Labour party put out posters saying, “Labour have just cut your energy bills.” Will she accept that it was wrong for the Labour party to do that, when that fall was because of the reduction in wholesale prices and nothing to do with policy costs, which were actually increasing?
Order. We have run out of time. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
The hon. Member has put her point on the record. She has been a Minister in the past and so will know that the scheduling of business is a matter for the Government, and not for the Chair. Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill (Programme) Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7), That the following provisions shall apply to the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill: Committal (1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House. Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading (2) Proceedings in Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced. (3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings in Committee of the whole House are commenced. Programming committee (4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.—(Chris Elmore.) Question agreed to. Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill (Money) King’s recommendation signified. Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)), That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of: (a) any increase in the administrative expenses of the Secretary of State that is attributable to the Act; (b) any increase in sums payable by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided that is attributable to increasing— (i) the standard allowance or limited capability for work and work-related activity element of universal credit; (ii) the personal allowance, support component, severe disability premium or enhanced disability premium of income-related employment and support allowance.—(Chris Elmore.) Question agreed to.
Before the hon. Member gets to her feet, I am just reminded of the midwifery-led Crowborough birthing unit, which helps the lovely mums in my constituency.
We are staring down the barrel of a crisis that no serious Government can ignore. The welfare system no longer works as it should, and what was once a safety net has become a trap. A system designed to protect the most vulnerable is now encouraging dependency, and dragging this country into deeper debt. The welfare system is a crucial safety net for the poorest and most vulnerable in our society, so I was quite surprised at the tone that the Secretary of State decided to take today. She thinks that she can stand there and get away with the fiction that all this was caused by the previous Government, so let me refresh the memories of Labour Members, especially those who were not here at the time. In 2010, we inherited 8% unemployment, and we brought it right down. The last Conservative Government reformed welfare to introduce universal credit, and our reforms helped to ensure that unemployment more than halved and was at a near record low. What have we seen since Labour came in? Unemployment has risen every single month since Labour came into office. During our time, 800 jobs were created for every day we were in office. At the same time, until the covid pandemic, we kept spending under control, cutting the deficit every year. But covid changed everything—[Interruption.] It did, and now we face a new—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, it is delightful to hear Labour Members laughing. I remember when we sat on the Government Benches, and they were demanding that we spent more and more and more money. Thank God it was Conservatives who were there under covid—Labour would have bankrupted the country! We face a new reality. Under this Government, every working day 3,000 people move on to incapacity benefits—3,000 every single day. That is a 50% increase from when we left office. The Government have been in power for only one year; imagine what it will be like after the next four years. A 50% increase and 3,000 people going on to incapacity benefits every day is not normal, sustainable or acceptable. Spending is spiralling under Labour.
The Father of the House is absolutely right. This is something we should all be able to agree on, but the Government are too busy trying to shift the blame instead of solving the problem. Let us talk about solving the problem. We have 28 million working people propping up 28 million people who are not working—the rider is getting heavier than the horse. Health and disability benefits were £40 billion before covid. By 2030, on this Government’s spending plans, they will hit £100 billion.
I will remind the right hon. Lady of our inheritance. We took difficult—[Interruption.] I will. I have said it before, and I will say it again: we had 8% unemployment, and we got it down to 4%. Every single time Labour leaves office, it leaves more people unemployed. The welfare system needs continual reform. We took difficult decisions and got universal credit through with so much opposition from Labour. We improved the system, but that does not mean it cannot be improved further. We have offered to help, but the Government do not want any help: they just want to make things worse. By 2030, on this Government’s spending plans, we will hit £100 billion on health and disability benefits alone. That is more than we spend on defence. That should make everyone in this House stop and think, because this Bill does nothing to fix that problem. That is why we cannot support it. The Conservative party is the only party in this House urging restraint. Unless this House acts, the Government will bankrupt our children. They will bury the next generation under a mountain of borrowing and debt, and they will do it not because we have no choice, but because they lack the courage to choose. A fundamental and serious programme to reform our welfare system is required, and this Bill is not it—it is a fudge. I feel sorry for the Secretary of State: she looks as if she is being tortured.
I will in a moment. We all know why this is happening: this is a rushed attempt to plug the Chancellor’s fiscal hole. It is driven not by principle, but by panic. The changes were forced through not because they get more people into work, but because someone in 11 Downing Street made a mistake. It is clear that these changes were not designed to introduce fundamental reforms. How did we get here? Last year, at the Chancellor’s first Budget, she left herself no headroom. That same Budget killed growth, meaning that unemployment has increased every month since Labour took office. This is a good time for me to remind the House again that every time Labour leaves office, it does so with unemployment higher than when it came in, and it is doing that again.
I will give way to the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) first.
The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. He needs to get an education and look at the facts.