Andrew Western

I will not. The hon. Member said that we should respect the next generation and respect the fact, too, that taxes are too high, but the Conservatives left almost a million young people out of work and many trapped in a housing crisis, and they left the highest tax burden since the second world war. As ever, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) gave a passionate speech about child poverty. I share her concerns about levels of child poverty, but it is my understanding that her SNP Government in Scotland missed their interim child poverty target in 2023-24. I turn to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith). We face each other a lot across the Dispatch Box, and I know that she cares—I do not question that—but we fundamentally disagree on the best way to help people, and that is particularly shown by the motion before us. Let us go through it. It begins: “this House regrets the failure of the Government to get people off welfare and into work”. That was a failure of their Government. It continues: “believes that reforming the welfare system is a moral mission”— yes, the Conservatives do believe that, now that they are in opposition— “and therefore calls on the Government to take urgent action to fix Britain’s welfare system by restricting welfare for non-UK citizens”. They have given no explanation, either in any of their speeches or in the text of the motion, of who that applies to. That is vague. Does it include those covered by the withdrawal agreement, those here under the Ukraine and Afghan schemes, or just those who came over as part of the Boris wave? Without such specificity, how could anyone support the motion? The same applies to the proposal to stop benefits for those with “lower-level mental health conditions”. Again, that phrase is poorly defined. What are lower-level mental health conditions? PIP is not condition-based, at any rate, and we would hope that the Conservative party would know that, because it created that benefit. The Opposition then call for an increase in the number of “face-to-face assessments”. As I said, we are keen to achieve that, and we will do so, but we are constrained by the contracts that they signed, which restrict face-to-face assessments to just 20%. The motion mentions “reforming the Motability Scheme so that only those with serious disabilities qualify for a vehicle”. Again, what is a “serious” disability? It is impossible to know from the text of the motion, or indeed from any of the speeches made. The motion then mentions “retaining the two-child benefit cap”. Hon. Members across the House are well aware that we will shortly bring forward our child poverty strategy, and that all levers available are under consideration, so we could never support that statement at this stage. All that is rounded off with the line: “to get people into employment and build a stronger economy.” What a joke when we consider that the Conservatives left us as the only G7 country with a lower employment rate than we had before the pandemic. The motion, like the plan that it aims to underline, is not worth the paper that it is written on. I urge all Members to oppose it. Question put.