Chris Curtis

Let me start on that last point. I am the proud son of a single mother, and I am probably standing here today only because of the support that she got from the last Labour Government. There are three things that we as Members can agree on. First, the welfare bill is too high, and the trajectory is unsustainable. Spending on disability benefits alone has risen from £45 billion last year and is forecast to reach almost £70 billion by 2031-32. If we want to protect the welfare state, we must make it more sustainable. Secondly, we have a duty to protect those who cannot work and provide a safety net for those who work but have fallen on hard times. That is what the welfare state is for. Thirdly, helping more people into work is good not only for the Treasury, but, as many people have said, for those individuals. Good work brings dignity, purpose, independence and often better health. That matters, because this debate is presented as a contrast between those who are willing to reform the welfare system and those who want the status quo, but I reject that. I believe in reforming the welfare state because I am a Labour politician, not despite it. The disagreement is on how we do that and the determination with which we push through changes. We have seen that just announcing spending cuts does not achieve them. The Conservatives announced £11 billion of welfare cuts in 2010. In 2015, they promised another £12 billion. When they introduced PIP, they expected it to reduce spending by 20% compared with the system that it replaced; instead, the OBR said that it increased spending. Even before the pandemic, working-age disability benefits spending was rising by more than 5% a year in real terms. Announcing savings does not always lead to delivering them. There are two reasons for that, both of which are relevant to the Opposition’s proposals. First, cutting one benefit can simply move the cost elsewhere. Take local housing allowance; the Opposition have announced that they are going to add extra limits to that, as well as reinstate the two-child benefit limit. Imagine a family with three young children who are already struggling to pay the rent. They could lose support for their third child while their housing allowance is pegged to a level that covers only the cheapest tenth of local properties. What happens is that they can now no longer afford their home. Quite rightly, I think there is consensus across the Chamber that we do not leave children sleeping on the pavement, and I do not believe the Opposition are arguing against that.