Debates between Lisa Nandy and Gavin Williamson during the 2010-2015 Parliament

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Gavin Williamson
Tuesday 8th January 2013

(11 years, 11 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gavin Williamson Portrait Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker.

If they read Hansard tomorrow, many of my constituents will be under the misapprehension that the last Labour Government were a great welfare-reforming Government, but one of the points that many others will make to me is that that left the legacy of welfare dependency that has corroded so much of our society. The simple reality is that the last Labour Government should have dealt with the issue of welfare reform when they had the opportunity to do so, between 1997 and 2010.

Lisa Nandy Portrait Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

Research carried out recently by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that no such culture of worklessness existed, and that in fact there was a strong commitment to work among people throughout the country, including the 3,500 unemployed people in my constituency.

Gavin Williamson Portrait Gavin Williamson
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Where we have a culture in which it sometimes does not pay to take a job or to work more hours, we capture people in a culture of dependency.

How do we measure success? Is it about spending more and more money? Is it about spending money on welfare, constantly and consistently, or is it about results? I think that we on this side of the House believe that it is about results. In 1997, the number of households in which no one had ever worked was 184,000. That number was far too high. Given all the billions of pounds that were spent, we would expect it to have fallen considerably: perhaps by 10,000, perhaps by 50,000, perhaps by 100,000. So what happened? Did it increase or did it fall? It increased, and not by 10,000—