Welfare

Sean Woodcock Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

I start by disappointing Conservative Members: I agree with some of what they are saying. The welfare bill is too high, and too many young people are not in education, employment or training; it is morally indefensible. The problem is that Conservative Members seem to have forgotten who was in charge when those trends first took hold. In their final year in office, the welfare bill rose by a record £33 billion. Listening to some of the speeches this afternoon, one might think that Conservative Members had spent 14 years campaigning against Conservative Governments. They are right to highlight the growing number of young people who are not in education, employment or training, but it is not a new problem. It did not begin last year, or in July 2024; it grew on their watch, and yes, it has continued since. Frankly, that should prompt some humility, not self-righteousness from Conservative Members.

I also agree with Conservative Members when they say that we need to spend much more on defence. What puzzles me, however, is the argument that all we need to do is cut welfare, and the defence budget will somehow take care of itself. If it is that easy, why did they not do it? They had 14 years in government, and over those 14 years, welfare spending rose while, in the words of a former Defence Secretary, our armed forces were “hollowed out”. What exactly are Conservative Members asking us to learn from their example—that it is entirely possible to end up with a growing welfare bill and shrinking military capability at the same time? Anyone on the Opposition Benches can demand cuts, but it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that reform actually works.

Earlier this year, I brought together a group of young people from my constituency who were not in education, employment or training. Not one of them told me that welfare was the reason that they were out of work. They talked about poor or non-existent careers advice; artificial intelligence and the rapidly changing labour market; and struggling to get employers to give them a chance, because they lacked confidence or soft skills, in some cases. In other words, they talked about barriers. We can ignore those barriers and make speeches about random, crude cuts to welfare, or we can try to deal with them. I would much rather do the latter. Real welfare reform is not measured by how much money leaves the Treasury; it is measured by how many people can enter and remain in work.

The Opposition are right to demand welfare reform and stronger defence, but they have no right to pretend that they bear no responsibility for the position in which this country finds itself on either score. After their 14 years in government, the welfare bill had risen and our military was hollowed out. The country needs welfare reform and stronger defence, but demanding change is not the same as delivering it. The real test is whether more people find work, whether barriers are removed, and whether our armed forces are genuinely stronger. None of those challenges will be solved by that lot on the Opposition Benches pretending that the previous 14 years did not happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

My right hon. Friend is right. As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick), the Government had 14 years to plan for this great reform and modernisation of welfare, and they did nothing with it. They arrive in government, and precious little happens.

[Sean Woodcock]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hoare]

It gives me another minute, so why not?

[Sean Woodcock]

Is the hon. Gentleman’s position seriously that it is Labour’s fault that the welfare bill went up under the Conservatives?

[Simon Hoare]

No, that would be an asinine interpretation of what I have just said. The point I am making is that every time the Conservative party came up with a reform or a modernisation when in government, the gut reaction of the Labour party was to oppose it.

I happen to think that the welfare state is one of our crowning glories. It was brought in to address a number of deeply systemic societal problems, and it has been a tremendous force for good and transformation in our country. However, it is always intended to be a safety net, a permanent safety net for those who—as a result of disability, for example—find themselves unable to enter the workplace. It removes pressure and anxiety, and it gives people the dignity to live that they quite legitimately deserve, but it should never have been allowed under successive Administrations to become a cocoon. It has ceased to be a safety net; it has become a trap with perverse, Kafkaesque incentives, where the cumulative benefits an individual can receive are greater than anything they could hope to aspire to when getting into a job for the first time. I hope the House can agree that there is nothing kind or caring about trapping people in that sort of environment.

We all know—as various right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned in their speech—the fundamental importance and transformative nature of work for individuals, their families and their communities. It promotes a sense of self-respect, self-reliance, and being able to do things for yourself.