Speaker’s Statement
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
The Government inherited an emergency in our criminal courts, with a record and rising open caseload of nearly 80,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard in the Crown court. In Shropshire, Shrewsbury Crown court is at maximum capacity, as is an additional court base at Telford justice centre. We have added another 15 sitting days at that additional court base.
Helen Morgan
In my constituency of North Shropshire, residents have to travel to Shrewsbury to have their case heard. As of last September, there was a backlog of more than 730 open cases at Shrewsbury Crown court, a 7% increase on 2024. The wider West Mercia area ranks 43rd out of 44 areas for the time that it takes cases to get through the Crown court; they often take more than two years to be heard. Does the Secretary of State agree with Shrewsbury Crown court’s resident judge, Anthony Lowe, who said that this is not a “proper justice system”, and what steps will he take to improve the situation in West Mercia and Shropshire?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Member is right, which is why the Minister for Courts and Legal Services visited Telford a few months ago. It is important to say that Sir Brian Leveson has been absolutely clear in his report that we must pull all levers if we are serious about seeing this backlog come down by the next general election. That means investment in more sitting days; the hon. Member will be pleased about the extra days that we have invested in, in her area. It means modernisation, and dealing with the efficiency problems in the system that we inherited. Sir Brian will publish his report tomorrow. We also need reform, and I urge the Liberal Democrats to support our court reforms.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
Since the election, the justice system in Telford and Shropshire has seen a massive increase in capacity. First, a magistrates court has been brought back into use, following years of closure because of a broken roof. We have also received news this week that the Nightingale court will become a permanent court, which is great. However, in order to increase capacity, we need to recruit and retain magistrates. To my great surprise, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is not currently recruiting for magistrates in my area. Will the Justice Secretary take a look at that, and work with me, so that we can recruit and retain as many magistrates as possible for our justice system?
Mr Lammy
I am very much looking forward to working with my hon. Friend, and am pleased with his recognition that the Nightingale court will continue, which is very important. The good news is that we are recruiting more magistrates across the system, including in his area. That announcement was made just two weeks ago.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
We are accelerating magistrate recruitment to meet future demand. Trailblazing reforms in three regions are streamlining the process, reducing the time from application to appointment, and improving candidate experience. These reforms will shape a 2026 national roll-out. They are supported by work done with the judiciary to speed up onboarding and ensure that new magistrates sit sooner.
Anneliese Dodds
After many years of Oxford magistrates court being in a terrible state, I am relieved that the leaks and other faults are finally being repaired. It is obviously harder to recruit and retain magistrates if they are serving in unacceptable conditions, so I am grateful that this is being sorted out, and grateful for the measures that the Secretary of State has announced about recruitment. Will he let the House know what he is doing around retention, because surely that is very important as well?
Mr Lammy
My right hon. Friend is right; there was historical underfunding, which sadly left our courts with a £1.3 billion maintenance backlog. We increased the capital maintenance budget this year to deal with the problems that we inherited in our courts. She is right: magistrates are key. They are the cornerstone of our lay system, with 90% of criminal cases passing through the magistrates courts. We will be recruiting more, but streamlining the system and supporting magistrates with training is also key to retention, and we will invest in that as well.
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
Back in 2004, I became a magistrate—a position that I held for 20 years. When I first walked into the magistrates’ retiring room, I thought everybody in there had retired, because I brought the average age down by about 30 years. That shows that the position is a commitment—people serve for years—and how hard it can be to get younger people involved. First, what is the Department doing to properly recognise and reward long-serving magistrates who keep the system going? Secondly, what is being done to bring in more young justices of the peace, so that magistrates better reflect the communities that they serve?
Mr Lammy
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his service as a magistrate. He is right: we want people from all walks of life, all backgrounds and all ages to feel able to serve in their local community and be a magistrate. He will be pleased to hear that 41% of newly appointed magistrates last year were under 50, as opposed to getting towards the pension age. There is more we can do. Some of that is around simplifying the procedures, and people understanding how to become magistrates, because the complexity of the system was unbelievable, and actually put people off applying.
Mr Speaker
And if you had local magistrates courts—for example, in Chorley—it would help as well.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
I visited my local court just a few days ago. In Horsham, we are lucky enough to have a sufficient number of magistrates, but we still cannot maximise throughput because of a lack of support staff. In July last year, the Justice Committee reported that shortages of support staff were having significant impacts on delays and court capacity. What are the Government doing to attract younger people into the justice system, so that we can finally get to grips with this horrible court backlog?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that we are investing in more trainee legal advisers—108 in the last announcement. He is right: there are issues, particularly in the south-east, with being able to compete with the sorts of salaries that support staff might get beyond the courts. We are looking at that very closely.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Justice Secretary very much for his very positive answers about recruiting magistrates, and about the timescale; that is welcome news. He referred to 90% of cases being dealt with by magistrates in the courts. That means that there are a lot of delays, and those affect victims, who have waited ages—even years—for their case to be heard. Can the Justice Secretary assure us that recruiting more magistrates will mean that the backlog that victims clearly face is addressed? It needs to be addressed; victims need answers.
Mr Lammy
First off, I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning victims. For too long in this place, we have tended to focus either on the prosecution side or on defendants, but it is important that we put victims at the centre. That is why we are coming forward with more magistrates. We need that 90% of cases dealt with more swiftly, of course, but court reform is what gets us the entire package. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to support our court reforms over the coming months.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
As I have said, our focus is on victims who are being left to wait three, four or five years for their day in court. That is why I will bring forward bold change to fix the rotting Courts Service that we inherited, deliver record investment in our courts so that they can sit for more days than ever before, introduce modernisation to deal with the inefficiencies that we inherited, and reform the system so that we can triage which trials get a jury and stop criminals gaming the system.
Sir John Hayes
As you know, Mr Speaker, the age-old jury system connects the public to the exercise of law, and is therefore at the heart of popular consent for criminal justice. In abandoning this link, are the Government careless of the accountability that it brings, or are they driven wholly by thoughtless expediency? Are Ministers careless or thoughtless?
Mr Lammy
We are not abandoning the jury system, but as Sir Brian Leveson said in his Sunday Times article this weekend, the threshold needs to be rebalanced. I am not sure if the right hon. Gentleman was in Parliament in 1988, but I am sure that he did not object when Margaret Thatcher rebalanced the threshold and moved criminal damage and driving a vehicle without authority to the magistrates courts.
Steve Darling
There is clear evidence up and down the country of Serco failing to serve the Courts Service appropriately, including for my constituents in Torbay. Does the Secretary of State accept that if we can make sure that Serco can get people to the courts more rapidly, it will give them better access to justice and allow them to access jury trials?
Mr Lammy
The Courts Minister and the Prisons Minister are working together on this issue. Sir Brian Leveson will have more to say tomorrow in part 2 of his report, on efficiencies, but one of the things that we are looking at is local authorities opening bus lanes to those drivers, so that they can speed through.
Mr Brash
I recognise the Justice Secretary’s sincere commitment to tackling the court backlog that was disgracefully left by Conservative and Reform politicians. However, one of the most troubling aspects of the proposals on jury trials is the suggestion that the changes will be permanent, regardless of whether the backlog persists. Will he consider explicitly making these measures temporary and subject to review, so that their impact, if any, on reducing the court backlog can be properly assessed?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that, but may I refer him to Sir Brian’s report, and to his article in The Sunday Times this weekend? He talks about trials being longer, DNA evidence, the fact that we are passing more legislation in this place, and the police arresting more people. For all those reasons, and if we are serious about tackling the backlog and getting to a properly established system in which people do not wait much longer than six months to a year for their trial, the changes that we are making have to be permanent.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
There is a lot of focus on replacing juries with a single judge in some criminal trials, but the Government also intend to increase magistrates’ sentencing powers, so that they can give sentences of up to 18 or 24 months, which is beyond what Sir Brian Leveson suggests. Is it the Government’s intention that district judges sitting alone will be able to sentence offenders to up to 24 months?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend and I have discussed this issue, and he knows that we need to increase the number of district judges. The forthcoming Bill will give us the power to increase the threshold for magistrates. Obviously, it will be essential to look at how that co-ordinates with the new swift bench, once we get Royal Assent towards the end of this year.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Sir Brian Leveson’s review did not contain any specific modelling to support his view that limiting jury trials would reduce by 20% the time taken for trials. If the Government’s own modelling does not support and validate Sir Brian’s assessment, will they U-turn on the policy?
Mr Lammy
Of course we support Sir Brian’s assessments of 20%. He also relied on international comparators. That is one reason why I was recently in Canada, which thought that 20% was an extremely conservative estimate, and that 50% was more likely. We will of course publish our modelling alongside the introduction of the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman would expect.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
As the Deputy Prime Minister speaks, there is no sitting in 56 of the 516 Crown courtrooms. That is because he and his Department cap the number of sitting days in those courts. It is, in my view, a dereliction of duty to plan to do away with some jury trials when courts are not sitting. The Institute for Government says that Sir Brian’s 20% estimate, which was pulled from thin air, is more like 2%. What on earth are this Government doing? Why do we not get a grip of what is really happening in the system?
Mr Lammy
He still is my hon. Friend. I know that he has a principled objection. It is important to recognise that Sir Brian has emphasised that we need to do all of it to deal with the inefficiencies. We will have more to say tomorrow, when Sir Brian publishes part two of his report, which looks at courtrooms, prisoners and how the justice system works as a whole. We are increasing sitting days and investing more than ever before. I am negotiating with the Lady Chief Justice; there will be more sitting days to come. However, we also need reform to ensure that we continue to support the jury system, which is what we are doing.
Mr Speaker
I call Nick Timothy, and welcome him to his role as shadow Justice Secretary.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I have been reading the Labour party manifesto, but without much luck. Can the Justice Secretary tell the House on which page the promise to restrict jury trials appears? Was it on the same page as digital IDs and all the tax rises?
Mr Lammy
I welcome the hon. Member to his place, and congratulate him on his recent promotion. We will judge him on his record. We note that he was responsible for cutting 20,000 police officers across the country, and that he was the author of the hostile environment policy, the Windrush tax and, of course, the wonderful election-winning dementia tax. He will note that our obligation in government is—as his was—to ensure a fair trial. We are bringing forward a threshold change very similar to the change that Margaret Thatcher brought forward in 1988.
Nick Timothy
Not waving but drowning. Forty of the right hon. Member’s colleagues—the number is rising—say that restricting jury trials is “madness”. He says that he will not listen to them, judges, lawyers or the victims of crime, so perhaps he will listen to these esteemed voices.
“Jury trials will always be a cornerstone of British justice.”—[Official Report, 27 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 517.]
That was the Minister for Courts and Legal Services. “There must be a right of trial by jury in all criminal cases”—that was the Sentencing Minister.
“Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea. You do not fix the backlog with trials that are…perceived as unfair.”
That was Justice Secretary himself. If even he knows that this is a bad idea, how long must we wait for the 14th U-turn from this miserable Government?
Mr Lammy
It is a bit rich raising what my colleagues are up to on the Back Benches when the hon. Member’s colleagues are going to other Benches in this House. He knows that article 40 of Magna Carta makes it clear that justice delayed is justice denied. That is why it is our judgment and the judgment of Sir Brian Leveson that, for example, if someone has shoplifted an iPhone, they should not be entitled to elect for a jury trial. That should be something that can be dealt with by a magistrate or a single judge.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Justice Secretary is right to say that justice delayed is justice denied, but the Institute for Government’s report into jury trials showed that his plans to erode jury trials will make very little difference to the courts backlog, so it is no surprise that there is wide-ranging opposition to the proposals from within the legal profession and across these Benches. If the Deputy Prime Minister does decide to press ahead with these unpopular reforms, he stated that it would not be retrospective, but the Courts Minister said it would be retrospective in the Justice Committee. Who is telling the truth?
Mr Lammy
The IfG estimated a 10% contribution. If this were a 10% contribution to bringing down waiting lists at a hospital in the hon. Lady’s constituency, she would have it. Sir Brian estimated a 20% contribution. I said we would bring forward the modelling. Of course, it is right that there is no substantive criminal liability change in our proposals, so in that sense, it is not retrospective, but in terms of caseload, of course, they will be subject to the new mode of trial once this Bill gets Royal Assent.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
We will be increasing funding for victim support services year on year from 2026 to 2029, recognising the need to meet the rising cost pressure of delivery and the need for long-term funding for our support services. In total, the Ministry of Justice will be investing over £550 million in victim support services over the next three years—the biggest ever investment in victim support services.
Bill Esterson
I am grateful to the Minister for her commitment. Sefton Women’s and Children’s Aid does a brilliant job advocating for victims of domestic abuse, but it has seen a worrying increase in the level of psychological abuse, alongside historical challenges with violence. Can the Minister confirm that Sefton Women’s and Children’s Aid, along with other organisations doing such good work, will get the support that she has just outlined to enable them to look after the victims for whom they advocate so brilliantly?
Alex Davies-Jones
I commend my hon. Friend as a fantastic constituency MP and Sefton Women’s and Children’s Aid for all the brilliant work it does in supporting victims of abuse and violence. He is right to highlight that victims are now coming forward with much more complex needs—not just physical violence, but coercive and controlling behaviour—and it is right that that is properly treated and recognised. That is why we are ensuring that victims have the right to timely support. That is a key part of the Government’s mission to halve the levels of violence against women and girls. We have committed to ringfencing the funding that the MOJ provides to police and crime commissioners, and we are working with them to ensure that, post their abolition, following their term coming to an end, we can provide certainty to victim support services, so that they know they will be there whenever a victim or survivor needs them.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Supporting victims of heinous crimes such as child abuse is paramount. Aside from support services, clear communication and transparency is key, yet the parents of the 21 babies abused by Roksana Lecka at the Riverside nursery in Twickenham Green were given less than a week’s notice that she would be deported to Poland this Thursday. They have been given no information about whether Lecka will continue to serve the rest of her eight-year sentence or whether she will walk free after just four months in a UK prison. They fear that if left unsupervised, she will harm many more children. Can the Minister tell the House what the release terms are for Lecka? Those parents deserve answers.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that very important case. I think the thoughts and sympathies of the whole House will be with all the victims of these most heinous crimes. Child abuse is one of the most heinous crimes, and it is right that we have the correct support services available for child victims. The Sentencing Minister is meeting colleagues in the Home Office today to discuss this case, and I will ensure that the hon. Lady gets a full update as requested on the specifics.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The Prime Minister said that passing the Hillsborough law would be one of his first acts in office, but last month the Government arranged to bring the Bill to the House for its remaining stages twice, only to pull it at the last moment on both occasions. The Prime Minister has made a promise to the Hillsborough law campaigners that he cannot keep without breaking the assurances that he gave to the intelligence agencies. It is another fine mess from Mr Forensic. Can the Minister guarantee that the Bill will complete its passage through both Houses of Parliament before the end of this Session—yes or no?
Alex Davies-Jones
As I said to the hon. Gentleman in a statement, he must have a short memory, because we were brought to this House to discuss this matter. The Hillsborough law will be a landmark moment for this Government. It will be a Bill for the victims, written by the victims who have been through those heinous experiences. We will ensure that national security is upheld, and we will bring this Bill forward when it has the full backing by everyone and when it is ready.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
Prison education builds skills for life, including reading and numeracy, alongside work-focused training. We are expanding prison apprenticeships and prison industries, providing work-ready skills to support rehabilitation.
Lauren Edwards
I thank the Minister for the work he is doing in prisons to improve literacy, but last week the Government confirmed to the Justice Committee that core prison education provision has been cut by a quarter nationally under retendered contracts. The independent monitoring board recently raised concerns about the impact that that will have in prisons, including Rochester prison in my constituency, on prisoner rehabilitation. We know that stable work is one of the top factors in preventing male prisoners from reoffending, so education and training are therefore key to reducing our prison population in the long term. How will the Minister ensure that this will remain a priority?
Jake Richards
It was fantastic to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency with her just last week to visit a facility in the youth custody service, and I look forward to visiting Rochester prison with her in the future. She is right to raise this issue. There are real fiscal pressures when the two twin strategic objectives for this Department are dealing with a prison capacity crisis inherited from the previous Government and pressures in our courts, but that does not mean that we are going to overlook the importance of educational work in the prison system. We are looking at working with the third sector and the private sector to ensure that we can provide adequate provision while maintaining our two strategic aims of stabilising the prison system and solving the backlog.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Next year, the Government will spend more money on education in prisons, yet they will actually commission 25% less education by way of quantity of service. Why are they doing such a poor job of commissioning education on behalf of the taxpayer?
Jake Richards
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who asked this question last week as well. We are raising the quality of the provision of education, but he is right to identify some issues with the contracts that the last Conservative Government entered into, which we are having to look at and deal with. As I said to him last week, it is important that we look at alternatives to those contracts. As I have just said, that includes working with the third sector and looking at how we can get more private sector provision. It also includes, as he said last week, working with governors individually to ensure that they have more autonomy and power to bring in educational facilities from local colleges and universities where it is possible and safe. I am getting to work to do that this week.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
This Government inherited a criminal justice system on the brink of collapse, with record and rising backlogs now touching 80,000, and behind each and every one of those cases is a real victim. That is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake an independent review of criminal courts and why we are making investment in sitting days and our workforce. That is also why we are grasping the nettle of modernisation and why we must have fundamental reform of our criminal courts.
Andy McDonald
The Minister was previously asked but did not clarify whether the Ministry of Justice conducted modelling on how much reducing jury trials would actually reduce the backlog. The Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association have repeatedly asserted that there is no evidence that limiting jury trials will meaningfully reduce court delays. Can the Minister publish the evidence on which these reforms are based and explain why no pilot schemes were undertaken?
Sarah Sackman
As I have told the House repeatedly, we will publish the modelling and evidence base in the usual way, alongside the Bill’s introduction. However, it is simply incorrect to say there is no evidence that adjusting the threshold will reduce court delays; we have the evidence base of the independent review, as well as international comparators to show that decisive action will reduce the court delays.
Danny Beales
I was recently contacted by a constituent whose daughter was the victim of an abusive and violent relationship for many years. There were continual delays in the case coming to court, and then again at the sentencing stage, including a five-month delay in sentencing due to mental health assessments being delayed, as well as barrister annual leave and other issues with staff availability. That led to the repeated cancellation of sentencing dates, which meant that the victim constantly had to relive deeply traumatic events over and over again. What steps is the Minister taking to address those preventable issues, which are causing delays and misery for victims such as my constituent?
Sarah Sackman
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that case; it is a graphic illustration of the crisis that we are grappling with and the impact it is having. Those delays cause trauma, making it impossible for victims to move on with their lives.
What are we doing about it? The fact that over 1,000 trials were cancelled last year because of a lack of barrister availability illustrates one of the problems highlighted by the Institute for Government. That is why we are investing in our workforce, with an increase in legal aid for solicitors and barristers and match funding for pupillages. Let us think about this: it will take time to rebuild the workforce, which is why we must be pulling every lever, investment and structural reform—only that will do.
Matt Bishop
My constituent, a victim of domestic abuse, has seen her case listed and relisted multiple times since 2023, with delays repeatedly granted due to medical claims by the defendant. Does the Minister accept that repeated adjournments risk denying justice to victims? Will she meet me to discuss how cases like that can be progressed without further re-traumatisation?
Sarah Sackman
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that case, and I would of course be happy to meet him. Again, it is a graphic illustration of the ways in which the delays in the process are re-traumatising victims, which is why we must do everything in our power to bring down the delays—whether that is investment, modernisation or structural reform. Those who are against these plans are happy for my hon. Friend’s constituent and others to wait longer. Well, I am not prepared to do that.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
One of the areas causing the delays is the lack of defence barristers. It will clearly take time to train new barristers, but what incentives can the Minister offer to those qualifying in law to become defence barristers, rather than seeking other avenues in the law?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The workforce has been depleted by repeated cuts to legal aid and people choosing more lucrative and attractive areas of work. What are we doing? We have said that we will invest an additional £34 million in legal aid for criminal advocates, and we are also providing match funding for criminal law pupillages to incentivise training and create opportunities for people from all backgrounds to enter criminal law. As he said, that will take time, and in the meantime victims cannot wait. That is why the reforms are necessary alongside the investment.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
One major reason for the court backlogs is the repeated outsourcing of private contracts for prisoner transportation to companies such as Serco, which has caused a loss of a whole court day every single week. Given that there is a lack of penalty clauses for late prisoner transportation, and that Serco continues to be awarded procurement contracts, can the Minister commit to reviewing that matter and the associated costs, instead of removing our juries and our civil liberties?
Sarah Sackman
Of course, that is one of the contributory factors to the issues in our courts, although not the only one—again, we must look at all these things. We await part 2 of Sir Brian Leveson’s report, but in the meantime I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Prisons Minister and I are looking at these contracts so that we can manage their performance and pull every lever. As the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned a moment ago, we are asking local authorities to open up bus lanes so that we can increase the efficiency of prisoner transportation. Let us be absolutely clear: addressing that issue alone will not begin to touch the sides of the problem, which is why we need both investment and reform.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
We recognise that parole hearings can be traumatic for victims, and victim liaison officers can support them throughout the process. We are launching a victims’ code consultation, which will also give victims the opportunity to provide input as to what more can be done.
Anneliese Midgley
Members of James Bulger’s family are my constituents, and they are yet again facing the agony of another parole hearing for Jon Venables, an ordeal that continues to retraumatise them more than 30 years after James’s horrific murder. While Parole Board decisions are rightly independent, the system must command public confidence, so will the Minister give the Parole Board an overarching assessment of Venables’ current risk and tell the House what reviews of the automatic two-year parole hearing cycle are being considered?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend is a fine champion for her constituency, and has raised this case with both me and other Ministers on numerous occasions. Baroness Levitt, who is responsible for Parole Board hearings, will meet Ralph Bulger and his legal advisers this afternoon to discuss this very issue, and I am sure she will be able to offer some more substantive answers to my hon. Friend’s constituent’s question. I put on record my thanks to Ralph for his campaign, and am very happy to meet him or anyone else on this issue in due course.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
There is an 82-year-old man who has been in prison for 38 years. He was convicted of murder, and the trial judge in 1989 said that this was “not a violent process” and gave him a life sentence with a 15-year tariff, which expired over 22 years ago. He is repeatedly described as an exemplary prisoner. Because he has maintained his innocence over the past 38 years, he has not attended the prerequisite courses that would require an acceptance of guilt, so the Parole Board assesses his risk to the public if he is released as “unmanageable”, which seems ludicrous. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the Parole Board’s repeated response to this situation and whether there should be some sort of system for those who maintain their innocence for a great number of years?
Jake Richards
As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, I am unable to talk about the specifics of that case, but if she writes to me, I will make sure I get back to her with any details I am able to share.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
As I have stated, the Ministry of Justice is investing over £550 million in victim support services, the biggest investment in that service to date. In December, we published our violence against women and girls strategy. That strategy sets out how we will achieve our mission to halve these terrible crimes, including domestic abuse, by rolling out domestic abuse protection orders—which are lifesaving—and looking at how we can maximise specialist domestic abuse courts.
Dr Sullivan
A number of constituents have shared with me the terror of waiting in line to get to court, and then waiting in the waiting room before court, with their accused abuser or perpetrator. On some occasions, special arrangements have been put in place, but this has been very hit and miss. Will the Minister look at how the arrangements for protecting survivors and supporting them to get to court while not seeing their abuser can be made standard, to get them from the street to the courtroom safely?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this really important issue. Ensuring that witnesses and victims can give their best evidence in court is vital if we are to achieve prosecution of these awful crimes. We are introducing legislation to improve access to special measures for witnesses and victims, including permitting victims to be accompanied while giving evidence, separate entrances and exits, and the provision of pre-recorded cross-examination. I would be happy to write to my hon. Friend with more information as the legislation progresses.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I recently brought together domestic abuse charities in Bath, such as Developing Health and Independence, Voices, and the Nelson Trust, which provide services including how to navigate the complicated justice system. They all agree it is critical that they all work together and that there are joined-up local services, but what can be done nationally to bring organisations and charities together, rather than pitting them against each other in an environment of often limited resources?
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Lady is totally right to raise that point. We talk a lot about multi-agency working, but it is difficult to put into practice. As she will be aware, just before Christmas we published the “Freedom from Violence and Abuse” strategy on how we can tackle violence against women and girls, with multi-agency working on a national level and practices and applications at the heart of that strategy. I will meet our victims’ sector advisory board later this afternoon, and I will make sure to raise this point with them as well, so that we bring them in. They are the people on the ground delivering this work, so we should learn from them directly.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I welcome the action that the Government are taking to reduce the court backlogs, especially for cases involving violence against women and girls. What consultation has taken place with victims organisations and charities regarding the plans to restrict jury trials? We must ensure that these victims are kept at the heart of any reforms to the courts system, so that they can be satisfied that timely justice will be delivered.
Alex Davies-Jones
It is right that victims are put back at the heart of our criminal justice system. For far too long, their views and their voices were ignored, but not by this Government. The Minister for Courts and Legal Services, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman) and I have met many victims of horrific crimes to hear about how court delays have impacted on them. The Victims’ Commissioner is supportive of our reforms as outlined in Sir Brian Leveson’s report, and we look forward to part 2 being published imminently so that we can discuss how better we can support victims of these crimes going forward, ensuring that they get their day in court and see justice being done.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in congratulating Cheshire police, led by the exceptional Chief Constable Mark Roberts, on its well-executed Operation Crossbow, which I witnessed yesterday? More than 40 perpetrators of domestic violence wanted by the police and the courts were arrested and detained by a police force committed to the safety of women. Does he agree that such operations in Cheshire will be put at risk by the Government’s desire to merge 43 forces into 12, which will increase the risk to victims of domestic violence?
Alex Davies-Jones
I commend the work of brilliant police forces up and down the country doing work to tackle domestic abuse. The hon. Member will know that it was a Labour party manifesto commitment to halve the levels of violence against women and girls, and that is exactly what she is talking about with what is happening in practice in Cheshire. This Labour Government are delivering for Cheshire and her constituency. She will know that the Home Office is consulting on proposals to ensure that we maximise police efficiency and boots on the ground, ensuring that everyone is kept safe and that we have safer streets. The Home Office will update on those plans shortly.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
Assaults on our staff are unacceptable. We are enhancing security measures and easing crowding to curb violence and improve safety. We are investing some £15 million in protective equipment—I announced that shortly after taking office—to help keep frontline staff working in prisons safe.
Mr Snowden
We know that drugs on the prison estate is a perennial problem when it comes to the safety of officers and other prisoners. Governments of all colours have been trying to tackle that for some time. The situation is particularly acute in the open prison estate, due to the different resourcing and the different layout of those prisons. In some places, we have more than 40% of prisoners failing drug tests on arrival in the open estate. Will the Secretary of State consider a policy that says, “If you fail a drug test on arrival, you will be sent straight back to the closed prison you came from”?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman will know that we inherited a prison capacity crisis with violence up and drugs up in our prisons. Because of that, we have invested particularly in X-ray machines and extra prison officers to try to bear down on the problem. We are looking right across the estate at what more we can do to reduce drug use. I spoke to prison officers about it when I visited Frankland prison last week. I am looking closely at how the lowest categories of prisons deal with drugs.
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
The reason I use this powerful Chamber to speak about crimes like rape is that I am desperate to encourage women across the country watching us to use their voice to speak out and report. I am so determined to support the Government in their changes because I am desperate, when these brave women come forward, for them to have a system where they are supported every step of the way to get the swift justice they deserve. I am determined to do everything I can to play my part. When we make these changes and make it easier for victims to get justice, how will the Government ensure that there is capacity in our prisons to take these criminals?
Mr Speaker
Order. That was not relevant to the main question, but I am sure that the Justice Secretary would like to respond to it.
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right: we must have capacity in our prisons to deal with the crisis that we inherited, which is why we introduced the Victims and Courts Bill and the Bill which, I am glad to say, has become law and is now the Sentencing Act 2026. That legislation will also enable us to bear down on the waiting list that is ticking upwards for victims of crime—especially women, who are often at the end of crime that makes them most vulnerable—by the next general election.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The use of drones to bring contraband into prisons has become a significant issue. Last year there was an intra-year increase of 43% in the use of drones for illegal activity on the prison estate, and, as an MP with a prison in my constituency, HMP Littlehey, I find this surge in their use alarming.
Last month the Justice Secretary announced that he had
“tasked British prisons with learning from Ukraine’s drone expertise”
with a £6.5 million funding stream, but no tenders are currently out to develop that capability. The only specific competition from the Ministry of Justice has been November’s £60,000 counter-drone challenge. Can the Justice Secretary tell us what is the current counter-drone strategy for HM Prison and Probation Service, given the current delays in the installation of physical unmanned aircraft systems countermeasures, what specific projects are actually in flight to develop the counter-UAS capability across our prison estate, and by when that capability will be available?
Mr Lammy
This is a very serious issue, which is why I announced the partnership with our Ukrainian colleagues. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman missed it, but I also announced £6 million of funding for that research innovation as part of the package. I know that, because of his own background, he will recognise the substantial expertise that lies in Ukraine; he will recognise, too, that much of what we do to counter the drones that are flying across our prisons is classified, but I can assure him that this is a priority for the Government.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
Decisions on remand and sentence length are made by judges independently of Government, and it would be wholly wrong for a Government to intervene in a judicial matter.
Siân Berry
I am disappointed that the Minister has not acknowledged the real harm and suffering that is going on, which is an obvious consequence of the escalation by Ministers of the number of crimes with which people taking protest action are being charged. Does he not agree that incarcerating people for long months and years without trial for offences that are in essence political has no in-principle place in a democracy such as ours?
Jake Richards
I do accept that there are issues with remand, which are caused by the huge backlog in the court system which this Government are trying to fix. I look forward to seeing the hon. Lady and her colleagues in the Green party support our proposals when they are introduced next month by the Minister for Courts and Legal Services, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman).
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
Members on both sides of the House share my deep concern about the Government’s amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, which has already been dealt with in Committee and which would restrict the right to protest on the basis of “cumulative disruption”. Does the Minister not agree that, given the significance of that proposal and its serious implications for our fundamental right to protest, it is essential that the House has sufficient time in which to scrutinise, debate and vote on it? Can he give me that assurance?
Jake Richards
That piece of legislation is going through the House, as it should. Of course, there is always a balance to be struck between the important right to protest and the protection enabling communities and groups to lead their lives with no trepidation or stifling, and I believe that the amendment strikes that balance.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
Since the last session of Justice questions, the Government have delivered the landmark Sentencing Act 2026 to implement punishment that works to cut crime and make our streets safer. It will ensure that we have enough prison cells for the most serious criminals, incentivise good behaviour in prisons and introduce tough, credible community punishments to drive down reoffending. Our second annual statement on prison capacity shows the impact of our reform. For the first time in years, we no longer forecast a chronic shortage of prison places. That sits alongside the most ambitious prison building programme since the Victorians: we aim to build 14,000 new places by 2030, backed by £7 billion of investment.
Martin Vickers
Could I return the Secretary of State to the issue of jury trials? I have received an email from a constituent who is a practising barrister, who points to the issues, which have already been mentioned, of poor prisoner transport, the cap on sitting days and the condition of many courtrooms. Could the Secretary of State focus on delivering improvements in those areas, and abandon the proposals to limit jury trials?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman really should read Sir Brian Leveson’s report. We have to do all of it. Sir Brian will be publishing the second part of the report, which deals with the issues the hon. Gentleman mentions, but if we did only that, we would not see the backlog fall in his constituency. We have to invest in more sitting days, as we are and will continue to do, but we also need reform, which is why we are bringing forward those reforms on the thresholds.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
I thank my hon. Friend, who has spoken on a number of occasions about his horrific experience, and I think I speak for all in this House when I say that that takes a lot of courage. What he says about the impacts on people of delays in our courts and how knowledge of that is putting off people reporting or continuing with their cases—and we know witnesses and victims pull out of their own cases—means not only that that is a torment for them, but that justice is not even being served and people are walking away. That is why we must pull every lever, and why we are bringing forward these reforms.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
In a world where so many people walk on by or look the other way, I believe it is vital to the rule of law that our whole society gets behind people who are willing to stand up and be counted. We are joined in the Gallery today by one such person—Mark Hehir, a bus driver. Mark leapt to the aid of a passenger who was robbed, and the police said everything he did was entirely lawful, but his employer, Metroline, sacked him. More than 120,000 people have signed my petition giving their full support to Mark. Does the Justice Secretary agree that Mark is a hero who deserves our support?
Dr Mullan
I welcome those remarks, and I am sure the public will want us to work across the parties on these issues, but this is not an isolated case. I have heard from employers themselves, shop workers and bus drivers that they want to do the right thing, but the law inhibits them from doing so. The Conservatives will be bringing forward proposals to introduce good samaritan protections in civil law for both employers and employees. Will the Secretary of State work with us to get that on to the statute book?
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Mr Lammy
First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for continuing to champion this issue, and I also pay tribute to the work of JENGbA. I have met the chair of the Criminal Cases Review Commission—which has referred, I think, three cases to the Court of Appeal—to look closely at the issue. I am of course taking an interest in this issue, and I look forward to meeting campaigners in the coming months to discuss what more we may be able to do.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
It is clear, as more evidence comes to light, that Peter Mandelson abused his position while in government, and the Liberal Democrats are calling for a public inquiry. The Hillsborough law cannot come soon enough to ensure that public inquiries hear all the relevant evidence. When the Public Office (Accountability) Bill finally comes back to the House, will the Government seriously consider my amendment, which would ensure that the duty of candour applies to all those leaving public office, including those who retire, resign or are removed?
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this very important issue on the Floor of the House. All my thoughts are with the victims and survivors of this horrific situation in Scotland at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. The Bill’s duty of candour will create a powerful new obligation on all public bodies and officials to help investigations and inquiries find the truth that is needed, placing them under a legal obligation to provide information and evidence with candour. The duty will apply UK-wide, including in Scotland.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Sarah Sackman
I am sorry to hear about the case the hon. Lady raises. County court rules require that possession claims be listed for hearing within eight weeks of receipt and, in the main, we are hitting that target. Readiness for the coming into force of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 will be important, as will the modernising introduction of the end-to-end digital possession claims service, which will improve the situation for constituents like hers.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
For too long, victims in Altrincham and Sale West and across the country have been treated as secondary thoughts in the criminal justice system—left in limbo, not knowing their rights and feeling voiceless when decisions are made on bail and sentencing. What reassurances can the Minister give that victims will be at the heart of the justice system following the Government’s reforms?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that vital question about putting victims back at the heart of our criminal justice system. That is exactly what this Government are doing by providing free court transcripts for criminal cases, introducing new restriction zones in the Sentencing Act 2026, and consulting on a brand-new victims code to enshrine victims’ rights and ensure they have the ability to request information on parole and offender management. I would be happy to write to him with more information on how this Government are delivering for victims.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise reoffending. It is why the Government are making a record £700 million investment in our Probation Service—a 45% increase—to try to fix a service that the last Conservative Government broke completely. That is the best and only way we will deal with the prison capacity crisis and clamp down on reoffending.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
Prison officers face appalling levels of violence at work every day, but their hands are tied because of the Tory ban on any kind of industrial action—they cannot resist. Does the Minister agree that prison officers should have the legal right to withdraw their labour and to take industrial action to protect themselves and others while at work in what is an extremely dangerous workplace?
Mr Lammy
I recognise the seriousness of the issue my hon. Friend raises. I met prison officer unions just two weeks ago to discuss these very issues. My judgment is that, with the prison capacity crisis as it is and the pay increases we have been able to make to prison officers, this would not be the right time to explore changes in the practices he underlines.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Jake Richards
This is utter nonsense, Mr Speaker—the hon. Gentleman completely misunderstands how our legal system works. The Government understand that lawyers have to represent all sorts of people all the time, and we will stand by that. I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that the shadow Attorney General, while serving on the Tory Front Bench, is currently representing Roman Abramovich, a sanctioned Russian oligarch. There is no word from the Opposition Benches on that issue at all.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I very much welcome the fact that Llanelli, along with the rest of Wales, will be in the pilot expansion of the victims’ right to review scheme. However, as the Minister will know, it is often very difficult for children who have suffered neglect and abuse, or adults who suffered it as children, to report such incidents. Will the Minister agree to meet me to look again at extending the six-month time limit for summary offences, which leaves survivors with no redress and allows abuse and neglect to go unpunished?
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome this question from my hon. Friend, who is right to highlight the expansion of the victims’ right to review scheme throughout Wales so that Welsh victims have the right to review their cases. I would be delighted to meet her to discuss what more we can do for Welsh victims across the criminal justice system.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Gentleman will know that justice is a devolved matter. I am content for him to write to me, and I will look into this specific case. However, justice is, of course, a devolved matter.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Violence against prison staff is at intolerable levels, with more than double the number of assaults today than a decade ago, all while prison officers are expected to work until they are 68 years of age. Does the Minister agree that this is unfair and unrealistic, and if so, what are the Government going to do about it?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right that we are expecting a lot of our prison officers. I was staggered at the state of what we inherited from the Conservatives. I met the prison officer unions a couple of weeks ago to discuss these issues and we are in a good dialogue about pay, work and conditions. Of course, they also raised the issue of the retirement age.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State instruct his officials who are putting together construction plans for a new mega-prison adjacent to HMP Grendon to actually listen to local voices, rather than insisting from a distance on traffic management plans that will put thousands of heavy goods vehicles down totally inappropriate rural roads?
Jake Richards
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; when we are building new prisons, we have to think about the local area and ensure that we listen to local people’s views. I would gently say that the Conservative Government promised 20,000 new prison places, but managed just 2% of that—I think we are starting to see why.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Government were making great strides on imprisonment for public protection sentences, yet after my constituent, who was held for nearly two decades, had a minor infringement—he missed an appointment—he ended up back inside. That cannot be right. We need to ensure that people get proper support outside. Will the Government review what happens to IPP prisoners post release?
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Given that the MOJ is responsible for granting exhumation licences, does the Secretary of State agree that significant historical pauper burial sites, such Horton cemetery in my constituency, require stronger safeguards, and will he meet me to discuss how licensing decisions can better protect them?
Alex Davies-Jones
I would be honoured to meet the hon. Lady to discuss the case she mentions.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The Scottish Parliament is this week considering a Bill by the fantastic Scottish Labour MSP Monica Lennon that would enable the prosecution of climate criminals who cause widespread, long-term or irreversible damage to our environment. What consideration have Ministers given to consulting on making ecocide a criminal offence across the United Kingdom?
Alex Davies-Jones
I have had positive conversations with colleagues across Government, including in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, about how we can progress on that. I will be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss what more work we can do.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I welcome the sale of Government land around HMP Wealstun. Were neighbouring residents given advance notice of the auction details so that they could express an interest?
Jake Richards
If the right hon. Gentleman writes to me, I will get back to him on those details.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will shortly make a statement on violence in separation centres. I apologise that I will not be here for it as the Select Committee has a long-planned court visit, but I will read Sir Jonathan Hall KC’s report carefully. Will the Secretary of State also look at violence on the youth estate and the 44% year-on-year increase in assaults on staff by children? What are the Government doing about that?
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
His Majesty’s inspectorate of probation found that weaknesses in risk assessment, information sharing and planning in domestic abuse cases are leaving victims at greater risk of harm and without consistent safeguarding across Kent, Surrey and Sussex. Will the Secretary of State set out what steps his Department will take to ensure that the changes identified in the report are implemented and that victims of domestic abuse receive effective support through the criminal justice system?
Jake Richards
I will look at that report and personally make sure that we consider what the recommendations are and how they can be implemented. This Government have put record investment into our probation services. We are also harnessing technology to ensure that probation officers can do what they are trained and want to do, which is to work with offenders to rehabilitate them, rather than be bogged down in paperwork. I will look at that specific case and come back to the hon. Lady.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) asked about the two-year parole cycle when she raised the appalling case of James Bulger. James’s dad, Ralph, is now a constituent of mine, which is why I am following up. Will the Secretary of State consider changing the rules around the two-year system, given the family’s re-traumatisation when reliving what happened to James every two years?
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
In their manifesto at the last election, the Government promised to set up specialist rape courts in every Crown court location. Will the Minister update the House on how many have been set up to date?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for highlighting the brilliant Labour party manifesto, which we are delivering in government. He is right to highlight the need for specialist rape courts. We are working with the Courts Minister on that and looking to see how we can push this forward to ensure that rape victims who have been languishing, waiting for justice, are not waiting too long. That is why we are implementing Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations to ensure that there is swifter justice for victims.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
The new judicial finding of domestic abuse in the Sentencing Act 2026 will help us better identify domestic abusers in the criminal justice system. Will the Minister explain when that element of the Act will commence? What additional training will be given to judges and magistrates to make sure that they can implement it effectively?
Sarah Sackman
We will update the House when that is ready for implementation. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the importance of training when it comes to domestic abuse cases. Judicial training is an independent function run by the Judicial College. Domestic abuse training, and particularly a trauma-informed approach to evidence, is a mandatory part of that training, as it must be.
Iran
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Foreign, Development and Commonwealth Office if she will make a statement regarding the situation on Iran.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
Iran’s horrific attacks on protesters have shocked the world. In recent days, the scale of the violence and brutality has become clearer. Reports suggest that many thousands of people across Iran have been killed, and many more arrested, in what has been a brutal and bloody repression against those exercising their right to public protest. There has been a range of estimates for casualties and detentions. However, the internet blackout imposed by the authorities, which we have also condemned and which has only recently started to relax, makes it impossible at the moment to reach a reliable figure. As one young Iranian woman chillingly told the BBC:
“We all know someone who was killed”.
What is clear from the reports is the scale of the killing, the brutality of the crackdown and the bravery of the protesters. As the Foreign Secretary has said, the Iranian people have shown extreme courage in the face of brutality and repression.
We condemn these horrific attacks on those exercising the right to peaceful protest in the strongest possible terms. This Government committed to the House that we would hold the Iranian authorities accountable, and that is exactly what we are doing. Yesterday, we announced a sweeping package of sanctions against the Iranian authorities for a number of serious human rights violations; this includes the designations of the Minister of the Interior, police chiefs and prolific Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps members for their role in the recent brutality against protesters. We continue to work with our international partners to tackle the threat posed by Iran and to hold the Iranian regime to account by a range of means. Most recently, we led the call for a special session of the Human Rights Council on 23 January. We are pleased that the council has voted to extend the independent fact-finding mission to collect the evidence of the authorities’ human rights violations, and we will continue to support those efforts.
We continue to monitor developments closely and will not cease in our demands to Iran to protect fundamental freedoms, including access to information and communications. We are also continuing to take robust action to protect UK interests from Iranian state threats. Those threats are unacceptable. They must and will be defended against at every turn. We will continue to work with our allies and partners to improve regional stability and prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The UK will continue to challenge the actions of the Iranian regime and we stand proudly on the side of freedom and human rights.
Priti Patel
The brutal crackdown on brave Iranians fighting for their basic rights and freedoms continues. The reports are shocking. We have now seen that tens of thousands have been killed and hundreds of thousands injured. Some are even saying that 30,000 people have died. These are warlike casualty rates, yet the condemnation and response are weak. What are the British Government doing, with our allies, to neutralise the regime’s tools of repression? The Government have announced new sanctions—the Minister has spoken about that—but what is being done to crack down on the sanctions evasion that is fuelling the Iranian regime’s repression, including in oil sales and cryptocurrency usage? What steps are being taken to weaken the regime’s terrorist proxies? Are the Government tracking the regime’s illegal funding sources to ensure that UK financial systems and institutions are not facilitating or hosting funds that are being used to target Iranian citizens in Britain with hostile attacks?
The EU has chosen to proscribe the IRGC. What is the Government’s response? The Jonathan Hall review concluded nearly nine months ago, so when will emergency and essential measures to take action against the IRGC come to Parliament? We cannot wait, and the Conservatives will support emergency legislation. The build-up of US naval and air force assets in the middle east has been well documented and reported, and it has prompted some reported contacts between the US and Iran. Will the Minister say what discussions have been held with the US Government about their intentions? Is the UK involved in any contacts between the US and Iran? What plans is the Minister making for British assets and the protection of personnel and British nationals in the region should the US decide to strike? Is there a scenario in which the UK might be involved in potential action? How will Ministers ensure that they are at the table, and what planning and co-operation are under way to assess any commercial disruption within the region should action materialise?
This is not the time to be silent. Britain must stand up for the Iranian people and confront this vile, despotic regime with strength and resolve.
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her questions; I will respond to them in turn. We have taken a series of steps to ensure that anyone in this country wishing to support the Iranian Government must meet a much higher threshold to do so. We have introduced 550 sanctions, including some introduced by the last Government and some that we have built on. I will come to the sanctions we announced yesterday in due course.
Let me turn to the foreign influence registration scheme. We have now put Iran at the very top tier, which means additional reporting requirements for those who would seek to act here. That provides new options to our services and our police force should those seeking to act for Iran attempt to do so in the UK. This House has heard from me, and the right hon. Lady knows from her time as Home Secretary, about the extent of the threat that Iran poses to the UK. I reassure the House that we continue to treat that threat with the utmost seriousness that it requires, and we believe that the legislative steps we have taken on FIRS, the increase in sanctions and implementation of the Hall review will all further increase our defences against such action.
The right hon. Lady asks about discussions in recent days. We have been in regular discussion with all our regional partners. I am sure she will be aware of commentary over the last few days about further conversations between the Iranians and the United States. I do not wish from the Dispatch Box to get ahead of the direct participants but, as she would expect, we are in regular discussion with all those with an interest. As I said in my initial response to her urgent question, we want Iran to have no prospect of achieving a nuclear weapon. A diplomatic process to that effect is necessary, and we support all efforts by the United States and our other partners to assure that.
The right hon. Lady asks about our plans regarding assets and what scenarios may entail. She will appreciate why I will not be drawn into speculation in any great detail. These are clearly very delicate moments for Iran; as she rightly says, there has been very widespread loss of life on the streets of Iran. I will also take this opportunity to say that I know that for many British Iranians, there is great anguish about the lack of contact they have been able to have with their families in Iran. I feel that most acutely for British people still detained by the Iranian regime, but it is obviously an experience felt widely across the country. The British-Iranian community make an important contribution to this country, and I understand the anguish they feel over these recent days.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I would like to turn to the threat that Iran poses to people here in Britain. The Intelligence and Security Committee has said,
“since 2022 the risk appetite of the Iranian regime to attempt assassinations of dissidents and…journalists in the UK has increased significantly”.
We need effective collaboration between the police and the intelligence services to protect ourselves—particularly those of Iranian heritage—against the Iranian regime’s use of wide-ranging and persistent threats, including physical threats, harassment and intimidation. What is being done to prevent attacks on media freedom in the UK by the Iranian regime, such as the stabbing of Pouria Zeraati in March 2024?
Mr Falconer
I will repeat to the House the message I gave the Iranian ambassador on one of our first interactions: any violence on the streets of the UK that is linked back to Iran, whatever Iran might think about the origin of those individuals or the press coverage they might supply, will be treated in the most serious terms by the British Government. I have left the Iranian ambassador—and, indeed, all our Iranian contacts—in no doubt about the strength of our feeling on these questions.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
We have been watching developments in Iran with anger and disgust. By some accounts, as many as 30,000 Iranians may now have been killed during the regime’s brutal crackdown on peaceful protest, leaving relatives to sift through piles of body bags. There can be no doubt that Iran’s leaders have perpetrated crimes against humanity on a catastrophic scale—it is utterly intolerable.
The UK has a responsibility to hold Iran’s leaders to account. The Government must take concrete steps to ensure that those responsible will one day face justice. Those steps must include sanctioning the senior leadership, on which the Government have already taken welcome steps in the right direction; using British satellites to collect evidence; pursuing action through the United Nations; opening a case at the International Criminal Court; and proscribing the IRGC. Will the Minister tell me how the Government will hold Iran’s leaders to account, and will he commit today to those concrete measures? What is being done, working multilaterally with our partners, to apply sustained pressure to make Iran drop its nuclear ambitions and ensure that it never acquires a nuclear weapon?
Mr Falconer
I set out to the shadow Foreign Secretary some of the steps we are taking. I am grateful for the Liberal Democrats’ support for the sanctions package that we announced yesterday. I can confirm that we continue to be in very urgent talks with a whole range of our partners about developments in Iran. We must see the fundamental rights of Iranians respected.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
I commend the Minister for coming to the House, and for his excellent work and that of his officials in bringing forward further sanctions yesterday and last week. I also welcome the current position in the very, very sensitive discussions and talks, and commend our European partners, Canadians and all others involved. Could the Minister speak with Home Office officials or his ministerial counterparts about the sophistication required for certain asylum applications that might come forward in the coming months, so that we can ensure that we send the loud message that there will be no asylum for those who have been part of the recent crackdown?
Mr Falconer
As the House would expect, my hon. Friend asks an important question. I will take it up with my ministerial colleagues.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
Within hours of the Hamas massacres, protesters and marchers were organising against Israel. Yet here we are, weeks later, when the Iranian regime is murdering and torturing its citizens by the tens of thousands—still no marches, still no protests. What does the Minister think that says about the prejudices of such activists?
Mr Falconer
The right hon. Gentleman—a former Deputy Prime Minister—pays great attention to developments in the region. As such, he will know that there have been protests outside the Iranian embassy and very disturbing counter-protests in support of the regime’s crackdown. I find it absolutely staggering that anyone is expressing that view on the streets of Britain in the face of the horrors we are seeing.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
This is an evil regime that is murdering and torturing tens of thousands of its own people. I am pleased that the Chamber is giving this matter regular attention. President Trump promised that help was on the way to the protesters. I want to add my voice to those asking that the British Government hear the calls of the protesters and think very carefully about how we can give genuine support to these remarkable, brave people.
Mr Falconer
As the Foreign Secretary has said, the protesters are incredibly courageous. One can hardly bear to hear the accounts from within Iran from those who have been able to circumvent the internet ban. Our thoughts are with the people there, and the actions we are taking, including those we announced yesterday, are a demonstration of Britain’s continued commitment to them.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Members of the Foreign Affairs Committee were told by the Iranian ambassador that 80% of the deaths were the responsibility of ISIS-style terrorists. Will the Minister continue to give every support to journalists, human rights activists, and all those who are seeking to uncover the evidence to demonstrate who in the Iranian regime is truly responsible for this and potentially to refer them to the International Criminal Court for prosecution?
Mr Falconer
It was so important for us to ensure that the independent fact-finding mission was voted through by the United Nations. That means it can continue its work, and then we will see who really was responsible for the deaths.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his work on this matter and for his statement. I want to raise the testimony of a constituent, a British-Iranian woman who fled Iran after being arrested three times for campaigning for the rights of women and children. She was raped and tortured in detention. Following the latest events, she received only brief calls from family before all communications were cut. Her relatives report people being shot in the streets, women and children being killed, bodies being withheld unless families pay large sums—sums based on the amount of bullets that are being used to kill—and almost no access to food, water, medicine, power or cash for those living in fear. What are the Government doing to document and preserve that evidence and testimony; is the status of the Iranian embassy and regime-linked assets in the UK under active review; and how are we supporting British-Iranian families who fear the worst for those they love back home?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for sharing the testimony of his constituent, and I know that there are others across the country with similar experiences. We are aware of a range of reports along the lines that he describes. I have set out some of the steps that we will be taking in relation to the evidence collection that he described. We view the role of the independent fact-finding mission as vital in providing a United Nations-backed method by which the evidence can be preserved and accountability can be seen.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
In response to the unilateral US action in Venezuela, the Government merely said that they were waiting to establish all the facts. Meanwhile President Trump said that he does not need international law, and that he is constrained only by his own morality or conscience. In advance of any US unilateral action against Iran, will the Minister reassure the House that this time the Government will speak up for the use of force when it is in compliance with international law?
Mr Falconer
As the House knows, the Government are a strong supporter of international law. Everything we do is consistent with that principle, but for the reasons that I set out to the shadow Foreign Secretary, I will not be commenting on hypothetical scenarios.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
I welcome the sanctions that have been announced, including those on prolific IRGC members. At the weekend, residents in Huddersfield took part in demonstrations to highlight the brutal repression in the region, particularly that of the Kurdish community in Iran and Syria. As my constituents have said to me, many of the UK-Iranian community are concerned for their safety and the safety of their families in Iran. What assurances can the Minister provide for my residents, and what else can he say about making sure that we proscribe the IRGC?
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the concerns of her constituents in Huddersfield. She referred to her Kurdish community in Huddersfield, and I know that there is a great deal of concern among the Kurdish communities across the region. As we have discussed events in north-east Syria recently in this House, I hope Mr Speaker will forgive me if I pass just brief comment on that. I am glad that, since that discussion, there has been a ceasefire in relation to north-east Syria, which is a source of considerable reassurance to those living there. On my hon. Friend’s important question about the proscription of the IRGC, we are committed to the findings of the Hall review, which set out the need to have a state-analogous process for proscription, and we are committed to bringing forward legislation to achieve that.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Will the Minister please get on with doing that? The fact is that the independent reviewer of terrorism has signalled a way in which something analogous to proscription can be done to the IRGC, even though it is a state body. Does the Minister accept that there is an analogy between the IRGC and the Gestapo and Hitler’s SS, both of which were designated as criminal organisations by the Nuremberg tribunal? Would he be as slow to act if we were operating in that context? For goodness’ sake, get on with it and implement the findings and recommendations of Jonathan Hall.
Mr Falconer
I want the House to be in absolutely no doubt that the IRGC is already sanctioned in its entirety in the UK. The sanctions that we announced on Monday included one on the Interior Minister. There is no pulling of punches by the British Government in response to the sanctions. I say gently to the right hon. Member and to those on the Conservative Benches that we are moving with considerably more alacrity on these questions than they did during their period in government.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister is right when he says that our constituents who have relatives in Iran—relatives who are also British-Iranians themselves—are looking to us for clear action. I must press him on this point about proscription. He is aware, as has already been said, that the European Union has added the IRGC to its terrorist list, as has Australia, Canada and America. When I raised this with the Foreign Secretary three weeks ago, she talked about the importance of our taking action in concert with our allies. Given that our allies have already proscribed the IRGC, can he at least give us some comfort that that legislation will come forward forthwith and that this is an urgent priority for the Government?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I want to see this legislation enacted as soon as possible. It is Home Office legislation, and it will need to go through the House in the usual way, but we are treating it as a matter of urgency. As the House has heard, the reason that the Jonathan Hall review is important is that it addresses itself precisely to the question of the difference between a state actor and a terrorist. I was the head of the terrorism response team in the Foreign Office and I know the difference in threat profile between an actor that is state-based and one that is not. That it is why it is important that we get this legislation right.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
There is a very real human cost to the violence used by the Iranian authorities. As many as 6,000 protesters—people like me and you, Mr Speaker—have been killed and murdered and more than 10,000 have been arrested. There is a real risk of extrajudicial execution. Political prisoners, including children, are being tortured in prison. Will the Government reassure us that they are having conversations with the US authorities ahead of the US-Iran talks, and making it clear to them that the lives and safety of those protesters, particularly the ones who are currently in prison, is of immense importance in the negotiations as they go forward?
Mr Falconer
I can confirm that we are in regular contact with our US counterparts and others on all of those questions.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
I wish to associate myself with the remarks that have been made by a number of Members, particularly those of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden). I continue to advocate for ways in which the west can degrade the ability of the IRGC to kill protesters, such as targeted strikes on arms depots. I wish though to turn my remarks to the matter of proscription.
I am grateful for the Government moving forward with ways to look at proscribing the IRGC, but there is also the Islamic Human Rights Commission, which is linked to the Iranian regime, according to The Times and others. Just this weekend, it was seen on the streets of London with placards and chants in support of the Ayatollah. Even more depressing than that, I have heard reports that Iranian freedom protesters, including women, have been beaten up when they have attempted to hold these people to account outside their own centre. When Ministers are considering this question of proscription, I ask them to look at other groups such as the HRC, which operates under the guise of standing up for human rights when they are doing anything but that.
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his advocacy on Iran and for his question. We are aware of the reports of pro-regime protests in the UK. I cannot comment, as he would expect, on the process of sanction or proscription review, but I have taken his remarks to heart.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I join others in expressing horror at the stories coming out of Iran and the enormous death toll. I hope the Minister will take advantage of those international institutions, in which he has previously expressed confidence at the Dispatch Box, to bring a case to the International Criminal Court, particularly against the leaders in Iran. My secondary question is that, if the Iranian people, through their courage, are able to throw off their oppressors, are we able to say that there is a plan to support whatever may emerge after that event?
Mr Falconer
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate why I do not want to be drawn into speculating about regime change in Iran. The question at the moment is the rights of the Iranian protesters, which we want to see protected. We are horrified to see those rights violated in the way reports suggest, and that is where I want to focus my remarks today.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
In the past few weeks I have had heartbreaking conversations with Iranian and British-Iranian constituents, and letters from many more. They have fragments of information about what is coming out of Iran, and those fragments include many first-hand examples of horrific violence, killing and relatives unaccounted for. I am glad to hear about the step-up in sanctions and the commitment regarding the IRGC.
I would welcome any reassurances that the Minister could give on what we are doing with our allies to break the internet blackout so that we can get information out of Iran about what is really happening, not only for evidence purposes in future but to help the families who I represent find out what has happened to their loved ones.
Mr Falconer
I know that there is a large British-Iranian community in Kensington, and I join my hon. Friend in sharing in its anguish. The most important step needed is for the Iranian authorities to take the decision to lift the internet blockade to allow the Iranian people access to information, which is their right. I will not comment any further on some of the operational elements that my hon. Friend touches on, but that access is vital. I will repeat today, from the Dispatch Box, the call that I made when last we discussed this: the Iranians must allow their people access to the internet.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
In answer to questions from Members on both sides of the House in relation to the proscription of the IRGC, the Minister has rightly said that he wants to see that legislation come forward, but we still do not have a fixed timetable. Given that the EU, the United States, Canada and Australia have proscribed the IRGC, does he not think that it shows Iran incredible weakness from the United Kingdom for us not to be following suit? Furthermore, given that Hezbollah were part of the Government of Lebanon when the previous UK Government proscribed them, does he not think that there is plenty of precedent to just get on and do it?
Mr Falconer
I do not think that the Iranian Government’s interpretation of the actions of the British Government in recent weeks is one of weakness. The sanctions package announced on Monday was far-ranging and follows a whole range of actions, some of which I described in response to the shadow Foreign Secretary.
The fair point that the hon. Gentleman makes is that, given the urgency of the situation, are we taking all of the steps that we need to take? We think that the Hall review is a substantial contribution to the question about the risks of the IRGC; we want to follow it carefully and make sure that we do this properly. That does not mean that we cannot act swiftly through our sanctions regime in the way that we announced yesterday.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I join the Minister in condemning Iran’s brutal crackdown on peaceful protesters in recent weeks. However, it is also important that those who do Iran’s bidding on the streets of the UK—particularly in targeting peaceful protesters—are held to account. I welcomed, last year, the UK’s decision to put Iran on the foreign influence registration scheme. Will the Minister update us on the impact that that is having on the crackdown that Iran is trying to carry out on our own streets?
Mr Falconer
I am grateful for the question. Hostile states have sought to take advantage of the freedoms in this country by failing to register agents on our soil who are seeking to act on their behalf in whatever way. The foreign influence registration scheme means that it is now an offence for someone not to declare that they are acting as an agent for another country. It may well be that those seeking to act for Iran do not register under FIRS. If they do not, they are committing an offence, and I have every confidence in our services and police force that such people will be found.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I share the huge concern and outrage expressed across the House at the brave Iranian citizens who have been so brutally repressed by the regime. It is essential that the UK does everything possible, within the framework of international law, to support their struggle for freedom. I welcome the new sanctions that the Minister has announced on the Iranian leadership. On those principles of international law, will the Minister confirm that the UK will not support or enable in any way, including through intelligence sharing, any violation of international law by the United States or any other power in Iran?
Mr Falconer
I have set out our commitments to international law, and I will not provide hypotheticals.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s announcements about new sanctions on individuals responsible for the brutal treatment of protesters and the vile murder of 30,000 people, but human rights abuses on this scale are never the responsibility of a handful of individuals. They are systemic; they are state-wide actions. That is why I would like to press the Minister again about the decision to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. I know that the legislation would need to be drawn up carefully, but this House rapidly passed emergency legislation to save British Steel and, more recently, to update medical training regulations. Can the Minister confirm that we are moving at pace to introduce emergency legislation that fully proscribes the IRGC? Can he also update us about the UK’s efforts to bring this matter to the UN Security Council?
Mr Falconer
As I set out in my statement, we brought this matter to the United Nations Human Rights Council, and we will continue to raise it with the United Nations, in the way that Members would expect. I want to reassure the House that I understand the points that hon. Members from across the House are making, but we have already sanctioned the entirety of the IRGC. The sanctions that we have announced are far-reaching, as indeed are the foreign influence registration scheme steps. We will bring forward legislation, but I would not wish to get ahead of the Leader of the House when it comes to setting out the timetable.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The IRGC and the so-called morality police have murdered 30,000 people on the streets of Iran. They pursued the wounded to their home, or to hospital, and murdered them. Given the length of time we have had to consider the proscription of the IRGC in its entirety, and given that we now have clear evidence of our own allies proscribing the IRGC in its entirety, why are the Government are not bringing forward such a proscription? Just before the weekend, I contributed to a cross-party letter to the Prime Minister, in which Members offered to support the fast-tracking of legislation through both Houses. The will is there on both sides of the House. Obviously the Minister cannot answer this at the Dispatch Box now, but will he go back to the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary, and ensure that this gets done?
Mr Falconer
I hear the passion in the hon. Gentleman’s voice. We are taking this issue incredibly seriously. This is a far-reaching sanctions package, and we will come back to the House once the Leader of the House is in a position to set out the timetable for the legislation.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the brutal, violent and illegal repression of Iranian civilians by this regime shows just how difficult it is for civilian populations to rise up against their oppressors, as is so often demanded by people around the world? Would he pay tribute to the young women who have been protesting on the streets with great courage at this incredibly difficult time for their country?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure many Members of the House have seen the pictures of female protesters on the streets of Iran, not just in Tehran but across the country. It is impossible not to be moved by their bravery, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the chance to reflect on that.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Thankfully, Iranian influence is in decline in the south Caucasus and central Asia, but one country in which it seems to be in the ascendancy is Georgia. Does the Minister share my concern about allegations that there are up to 13,000 Iranian companies registered in Georgia, with 700 registered to one small building in one small village? There is potential sanctions-busting and sanctions-evasion activity going on there. That money feeds into the Iranian regime and funds its malign and malevolent activity across the world. Will the Minister take that up with the Foreign Secretary, and investigate whether Iran is funding its regime by using Georgia as a back door to the Black sea?
Mr Falconer
The right hon. Gentleman speaks with considerable expertise. He will know that I will not comment on further sanctions from the Dispatch Box, but I will say that Iran’s influence in its near abroad and beyond has usually proven to be malign. We can see the long scars of Iran’s influence in Lebanon, in Gaza and in a whole range of contexts, so I warn all our allies to be very careful about their relationships with Iran.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Minister will be aware of my trip to Jordan last year, as part of a parliamentary delegation of colleagues from across this House. It was clear from speaking to members of the Jordanian legislature that Iran’s malign impact on the region’s security and stability is of great concern to Jordan. Can he provide me with reassurance that the Government are working with regional partners, such as Jordan, to ensure that Iran’s malign and malevolent influence on the region is withstood and held back?
Mr Falconer
I was interested to hear about my hon. Friend’s visit to Oman. The Kingdom of Jordan is one of our closest allies in the region. We discuss these issues regularly with the Jordanians, and other regional powers that are affected, and I was conducting that business this morning.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The IRGC navy is busy practising the rapid deployment of sea mines, presumably with a view to closing the strait of Hormuz, as it did between 1980 and 1988. What assessment have the Government made of the threat that that poses to our critical national interests? Has he considered the prepositioning of our autonomous mine-hunting capability, which entered service at the beginning of last year?
Mr Falconer
I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who was my predecessor, for his questions, but for reasons that he will understand, I will not give the precise low-down on our defence assets. I think he refers to the regular exercises that Iran has conducted in the strait. We are a maritime nation, as are many of the Gulf nations, and we take questions about the free passage of trade with the seriousness that they require.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
As well as funding and fuelling violence across the world, the Iranian regime is once again showing its brutality on the streets. Like many hon. Members, I have had constituents in my surgery in tears; they are living in constant distress and fear about what might have happened to their families. Will the Minister outline how this Government are truly doing all that they can to bring pressure to bear on the Iranian regime, including with regards to embassy arrangements? Does he agree that a united and co-ordinated message must go out from us and our allies, saying that the regime will pay a price for this horrendous violence?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend reflects the feelings of the whole House about the issues that we are describing. He asks me to comment on embassy arrangements. I can confirm to the House that while we did withdraw staff from our embassy in Tehran temporarily, they have now returned, and our embassy is functioning. Our embassy operates under the same restrictions that the rest of Iran currently operates under. As we have heard from many hon. Members, it is a source of real anguish to British-Iranians that we cannot provide consular assistance in Iran in the way that we can in other nations, particularly at a moment of such acute restrictions. However, our ambassador is back in Tehran, alongside his team, and we will do everything that we can.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
China has no regard for human rights whatsoever, and it is known to be trading with Iran, which is enabling Iran to slaughter its own citizens. What assessment is the Foreign Office making of the details of that trade, and what action is it taking?
Mr Falconer
I will not speculate on further sanctions from the Dispatch Box, but of course we have kept a close eye on Iran’s interactions with other states, including both China and Russia. This Government imposed sanctions on Iran for supplying weapons to Russia for use in Ukraine. Given that Iran is conducting such a brutal crackdown on its own people, all members of the Security Council will wish to consider the nature of their relationships with it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his tone in speaking about this incredibly grave situation. Some 6,500 people have been killed by headshots—they have been blinded and murdered—and thousands have been injured. It is estimated that some 60,000 people have been imprisoned. While it is positive news that there may be talks between our closest ally, the USA, and the despotic regime in Iran, we can never be complacent about the situation. Will the Minister press to secure the release of political prisoners and detained protesters? Will he further ensure that access is granted to the prisons, so that they can be assessed, and to the victims of the protest response?
Mr Falconer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his concern about these issues. As he would expect, when it comes to the Iranian authorities, we have been focused on ensuring consular access for our nationals who have been detained, but he raises important questions about basic rights, including the right to a fair trial, access to a lawyer and access for families. We call on the Iranians to show those basic courtesies to their own people.
Separation Centres Review
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement on Jonathan Hall KC’s independent review of separation centres and the Government’s response to it.
On 12 April 2025, convicted terrorist Hashem Abedi brutally attacked three prison officers in the separation centre at His Majesty’s Prison Frankland. I have seen the CCTV footage of what happened, and it is truly horrifying. I pay tribute to the officers, who I know will continue to be deeply affected by the appalling attack that they suffered, simply for doing their jobs and keeping all of us safe.
As the House will know, separation centres are specialist, high-secure units in prisons, containing the most pernicious extremist and terrorist offenders, determined to spread hate and inspire violence. Extremism in the prison estate takes many forms, but to date, these units have only been used to contain Islamic extremists. They protect other prisoners, staff and the public.
Before responding to Jonathan Hall’s review, I visited HMP Frankland’s separation centre. I met the brave officers who serve there. They are dedicated professionals, doing an incredible and essential job—a public service carried out far from the public view. As the Abedi attack made devastatingly clear, extremism and violence in our prisons are real, present threats, and they must be dealt with decisively for the safety of the British public. The Government appointed Jonathan Hall KC to lead an independent review of separation centres so that we can learn lessons, strengthen our defences and reduce the risk of such an attack happening again.
Following this incident, the Government acted immediately to strengthen protections for frontline staff. One of my first acts as Deputy Prime Minister was to invest £15 million in prison security, increasing the number of stab-proof vests available for frontline officers from 750 to 10,000, with 5,000 specifically for officers working in long-term and high-security prisons, and providing training for up to 500 staff in the use of tasers. I believe that Conservative Members welcomed these moves, but could not explain why they had never made such provision themselves when in government. Staff also have access to a range of protective equipment, including helmets, arm and leg protection, gloves, batons and shields, as well as body-worn cameras and PAVA—pelargonic acid vanillylamide, or pepper—spray, to help keep them safe.
The Government are grateful to Mr Hall for his forensic and thorough work. His findings are clear: the core principle behind separation centres remains sound. Small, specialist units are crucial for managing the most dangerous and influential offenders, not just because of the violent nature of the offending, but because of the risk of radicalisation they pose to other prisoners. They must be kept away from the general prison population, but the system must improve. The report makes 13 recommendations for strengthening safety, sharpening accountability and modernising how separation centres operate. The Government accept all 13 in full, and in some areas will go further. Full details are in today’s Government response, but I will now set out the key themes.
The first focuses on managing risk. When it comes to staff safety, Mr Hall finds that the most dangerous offenders actively seek out weaknesses to exploit, and the underlying risk posed by certain terrorist prisoners can never be entirely removed. The Government are clear that prison staff must be properly equipped to spot those risks and tackle them. Alongside our immediate protective measures, we will continue to invest in the tools, training and support that staff need to manage terrorist risk safely and confidently, including a comprehensive, expert-led review of training for separation centre staff, to ensure that it is tailored to the uniquely dangerous environments in which they work.
The second theme addresses how separation centres work in practice, and how they are led. Mr Hall identifies a clear need to transform the way in which separation centres are governed and operated. That is why we will explore all available options to overhaul the system, including, at the next spending review, the creation of new, tougher super-max-style units for the most violent and disruptive prisoners. This will be a tiered system, with movement between tiers permitted only following rigorous new risk assessments. We will begin designing that system immediately. We will also improve the quality of referrals into separation centres through a single, specialist team with the expertise to produce high-quality, defensible referrals.
The third theme focuses on reform of current policy and law. Mr Hall finds that outdated procedures and legal complexity constrain operational flexibility, undermine prison officers’ professional judgment and expose the system to unnecessary litigation. Conservative Members should pause to consider that they did nothing to fix this mess in order to support frontline staff in doing their job with certainty. This Government are clear that process and policy must support effective risk management, not obstruct it. We have already improved the defensibility of our separation centre policy framework, and we will go further to ensure that it is robust and grounded in operational reality.
The Government remain committed to the European convention on human rights, but commitment does not mean complacency. We recognise the challenges that article 8 can pose for separation centre decision making, which Mr Hall highlighted, and the impact that litigation has on the ability to manage terrorists and other dangerous offenders. Again, unlike the Conservative party, we think that that is wholly unacceptable, which is why we are strengthening internal processes so that they are clear and resilient to challenge, and allow staff to focus on managing risk and protecting the public. We will also consider whether new legislation is needed to protect decisions taken by experienced staff in separation centres from litigation on article 8 grounds. We are exploring the full range of options to deliver that, while being clear that we will remain compliant with our obligations under the ECHR.
The fourth theme focuses on intelligence. Mr Hall finds that current intelligence practices are too bureaucratic and insufficiently focused. The Government have already improved how intelligence is used across the prison estate. The new counter-terrorism training package, which was launched last year, supports staff to identify and act on terrorist-risk behaviour. That is another example of how this Government support frontline workers in a way in which they were not supported previously. We will go further by improving collection practices so that higher-quality and more relevant intelligence is gathered. That will be supported by further training for specialist staff, through work with the security service, to ensure that the most serious risks are managed using the full range of available tools, and that high-quality intelligence directly informs operational decisions.
The attack at HMP Frankland was a stark reminder of the dangers that prison staff face every day. Our response will be decisive and determined. We will strengthen security, better protect staff, and reinforce the resilience of our counter-terrorism infrastructure. We cannot accept the situation that we inherited, in which frontline staff who dealt with the most dangerous offenders had to second-guess their actions. This Government will always stand behind those who stand between the public and danger. We will not shy away from reform in this area, and we will never lose sight of our first duty: to keep the British public safe. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before I call the Opposition spokesperson and other Members, I note that the Hashem Abedi case, to which passing reference was made, is sub judice. Members should avoid reference to the specifics of such cases.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I thank the Justice Secretary for advance sight of his statement, and I welcome the publication of this important review. The Government commissioned Jonathan Hall to produce his report following the very violent attack on three prison officers last April by Hashem Abedi—the man behind the Manchester arena atrocity. I pay tribute to the vital work done by the brave men and women of the Prison Service.
We should be frank about why separation centres are necessary. They house the most dangerous and radicalised terrorist offenders in the country. Charlie Taylor wrote in 2022 following an inspection:
“The centres were designed to be used for prisoners from any political or religious viewpoint, but so far, they have only been used for Muslim men”.
That should not be a surprise, because Islamist extremism is by far the gravest threat that we face, and attempts to pretend otherwise are not only cowardly but enormously counterproductive. MI5 says that 75% of its counter-terrorism work is focused on Islamists, and 61% of terrorist prisoners are Islamists, yet the figures show that only 10% of Prevent referrals are Islamists. The Justice Secretary was clear about the Islamist threat, but even then he felt the need to caveat his comments by saying that extremism in the prison estate takes many forms. Of course it does, but time after time, we hear people in positions of authority refer to acts of terrorism, antisemitic violence, and the poison of intolerance and hatred, without the bravery or honesty to name the ideology behind it all. Its name is Islamism, and it has no place in our country, but if we are afraid to be honest about it, we will never defeat it.
Mr Hall has said that in prisons,
“The impact of Islamist groups has been underappreciated for too long by the authorities.”
He has reported that Islamist gangs in prisons are too often viewed
“purely through the lens of good order and discipline”,
and governors believe that they
“can sometimes provide a degree of calm and stability”.
He has revealed that
“prison officers sometimes appeal to the wing ‘emir’ for their assistance in maintaining good order.”
When will prison inspectors be directed to investigate Islamist extremism? Will the Justice Secretary ensure that known problems, such as gang-enforced sharia courts in prisons, are investigated and reported on? Will he publish information on the number of religiously and ideologically motivated incidents in prisons?
The problems for prisons caused by our human rights laws are well documented. The Justice Secretary said that he would consider whether new laws are needed to limit litigation based on article 8 of the European convention on human rights. Making full use of the Sir Humphrey lexicon, he said that he was exploring the full range of options, but promised nothing concrete, and—as is obligatory in this Government of human rights lawyers—he pledged fealty to the European convention.
Let us consider the recent case of Sahayb Abu, an ISIS terrorist who planned to “shoot up a crowd” of civilians and is serving a life sentence. He was held in a separation centre and made subject to greater restrictions following the Abedi attack. He used article 3 of the convention—which the Justice Secretary did not mention—to argue successfully that his prison, HMP Woodhill, did not take into account his mental health. Will the Justice Secretary tell us how many prisoners are in the process of suing the Government, under the prison rules and European convention on human rights, to escape separation centres and close-supervision centres? What is he doing to prevent them from being awarded compensation? When will he decide whether he needs to legislate to limit the application of article 8? What will he do about article 3 claims like the one made by Sahayb Abu?
Should not the Justice Secretary be open about the reality of his commitment to the ECHR, which he repeated today? It means rights for criminals and terrorists like Sahayb Abu and Hashem Abedi, but danger for prison officers and the wider public. The Justice Secretary can say what he likes about legislating—perhaps, after careful consideration, and in the fullness of time—to avoid litigation based on article 8, but the simple truth is that, as long as we remain in the ECHR, he cannot guarantee a thing. And that is why we must leave.
Mr Lammy
I agree with the shadow Justice Secretary on the dangerous radicalised offenders we are talking about. I sense some cross-party agreement on that and on the importance of the work being done here. He rightly talks about Islamic extremism in our prisons being the main context, and I agree. Some 254 prisoners are in custody for terrorism and terrorism-connected offences in England and Wales, according to the latest figures, and 60% of them have an Islamic ideology, 30% have an extreme right-wing ideology and 10% were categorised as holding other ideologies. He is right that in these separation centres, as I conveyed, we are dealing with Islamic extremism, and it is pernicious and challenging.
The shadow Justice Secretary talked about gangs. Most prisons show no evidence of extremism based on gang activity. Where it does exist, we have a zero-tolerance approach and encourage staff to clamp down swiftly on any threatening behaviour. Jonathan Hall talks about the important training that is necessary in this area. That is why we will be investing in training counter-terrorism specialists and intelligence officers to identify and disrupt gang activity in particular.
The shadow Justice Secretary also talked about previous work in this area. Our internal assessment is that 208 out of 230 recommendations have been completed from all the other reviews that have looked at counter-terrorism work in prison, some of which he will have commissioned during his time in the Home Office. Only seven of those recommendations were rejected, and 15 remain open. All the open recommendations are from more recent reviews and are being actively worked on. Some of them require legislative changes.
We recognise the use of article 8 and article 3 by this group of prisoners, but we are absolutely clear that leaving the European convention on human rights—a convention that was championed by Winston Churchill—would leave children, the elderly and many vulnerable victims, like those of John Worboys, the 97 killed in the Hillsborough disaster and British troops who died in Iraq, in the most vulnerable position. We cannot and must not do that, so first, we are looking closely at the guidance, as I indicated, and secondly, we will explore legislative obligations. That is the sensitive and detailed work that we must do, because we do it within our existing obligations to the ECHR.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I want to begin by paying tribute to those officers who suffered an appalling assault simply for doing their job. They and their loved ones will continue to feel the effects of that day for years to come. They deserve not only our thanks, but the assurance that everything possible is being done to prevent anything like this from ever happening again.
That attack exposed serious weaknesses in how separation centres are run and made clear the need for urgent change. The Liberal Democrats therefore welcome the independent review conducted by Jonathan Hall KC and the work he has done to examine how these centres operate and what steps are needed to strengthen safety and security, so that something like this never happens again. Getting separation centres right is crucial for the integrity of our prison system and for the staff, who should never have to put their health or lives at risk simply to do their job. These facilities must be fit for purpose and capable of securely managing the most dangerous extremists and terrorists.
The Ministry of Justice has been left firefighting crisis after crisis. If we are serious about restoring confidence in the justice system, we cannot afford complacency, especially when dealing with the most dangerous offenders. It is right that the Government are taking action, and I ask the Secretary of State today to set out a clear timeline for the implementation of those 13 recommendations and when the House will receive an update on the progress. Will he commit to a follow-up report, to assess whether these changes have genuinely improved safety and effectiveness?
A recent report on separation centres by His Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons found that staff support and mandatory training were applied inconsistently across the prison estate. At one site, almost half of officers said that insufficient attention had been paid to their mental health, and at both centres, more than a third said they needed additional training to feel confident in their role. Will the Secretary of State update the House on whether conditions have improved since that report? If not, what concrete steps is he taking to address those gaps in training?
Mr Lammy
We will continue to place individuals in separation centres, and Mr Hall’s review confirmed that they remain a vital part of our strategy to manage the most significant terrorist risks in our prisons. I am pleased that there is cross-party support for that.
The hon. Lady asked whether I would update the House on progress as we move to implement Jonathan Hall’s recommendations. I will seek to find ways to update the House as we do that, but I have indicated that some of those recommendations will have some bearing on the next spending review and on legislative timeframes, so I suspect they will go beyond this Parliament.
The hon. Lady rightly mentioned the mental health of the officers involved. To be attacked in that way involves tremendous trauma for those officers, who are putting their lives at risk on a day-to-day basis, as well as for their families and the other officers in the building who remain to deal with the aftermath of those attacks. The training is vital, and she is right that it cannot be inconsistent. That is why the Government’s response today is underpinned by the need to ensure that the intelligence agencies and counter-terrorism are working hand in hand with our experts in prisons to get this right, and that we approach these offenders with a degree of cynicism and scepticism as to their ability to refrain from the ideological conviction that clearly persists.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I agree with everything the Justice Secretary says about making these places safer, but I have been reading the report from the prisons inspectorate, which said that although separation centres were generally safe, there was not enough skilled focus on deradicalisation. This is a highly complex area. Although I do not want to sound like a weak and washy liberal, we believe that prisons are about not just punishment but redemption. The Secretary of State may not be able to reply now, but could he write to me about what skilled psychological pressures we are using on these people to try to change their behaviour. There are many good Muslims who totally abhor violence whom we could perhaps involve in the process. Maybe I am being naive, but I think it is a question that needs to be asked.
Mr Lammy
I recognise in the question the power of the right hon. Gentleman’s Catholicism and belief in redemptive capacity. It is important that we have the best psychiatrists and those with the necessary psychosocial skills working with this group of offenders, but I am convinced that we must remain cynical and cautious in relation to that group, recognising that someone can present for years as a passive, compliant prisoner and yet down the line suddenly attack prison officers in the way that we saw.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I entirely agree with what the Justice Secretary says about the dangers of deception. It is also concerning to note that people are now trying to use a mental health argument to get out of separation centres, given that anyone who holds a fanatical Islamist, Nazi or revolutionary view from some other doctrine has, by definition, a mental health question mark over their personality. I appreciate that he may have to write to me afterwards, but can he indicate what proportion of people imprisoned for terrorist offences related to Islamism are in separation centres, and what proportion are in the rest of the prison estate? What is known about the number of other people who have been radicalised by Islamist extremist prisoners in those parts of the prison estate that are not separated out like the units with which he is primarily concerned today?
Mr Lammy
I am happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman with the detail, because it is a very good question. There are 254 prisoners in custody for terrorism or terrorism-related offences, 60% of whom have an Islamic ideology, and all the prisoners in our separation centres come from that cohort. He will recognise that that is a tiny proportion of the rising population in prison who say they are of the Muslim faith. It is important to emphasise that. However, radicalisation is a bigger thematic area than just the work of those extremists in separation centres—he is absolutely right—and we have to continue bearing down on it. I have discussed this in Committee stages of Bills under the previous Government. It remains a long-standing issue and will continue to be, I suspect, for decades to come.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I wholeheartedly agree that our most dangerous prisoners should be dealt with appropriately, but I will touch on an adjacent point around prison capacity. We are aware that the Government are in the process of rolling out more prison places—around 14,000—but we are also aware that none of those prison places are currently designated as category A. Looking at the most recent statistics for the beginning of the year, we see that of the available capacity in the prison system, only 12% is category A. Is the Justice Secretary confident that there is enough remaining capacity in the prison system at category A level, given that the remaining prison places planned are categories B to D? What is the number of available prison places remaining that will trigger a need for us to build out that capacity?
Mr Lammy
I was very pleased to say in oral questions that we are turning the tide on the prison capacity crisis that we inherited. In the context of my statement, I talked about a tiered approach—yes, a supermax approach, but on more than one site. As we enter a spending review and I make that case, as well as the case that Jonathan Hall makes, by definition and necessity the places will have to be category A—at the highest tier—for this group of prisoners. It is important, as we saw after the incident at Frankland, that we are able to move prisoners to other high-security sites; we have Belmarsh prison here in London, which I visited early in my post. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; we will need to have those places, and I am happy to write to him with more detail.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and his careful words. In Northern Ireland, we operated segregation in our prisons during the troubles, and we found that it was essential to keep those who were able to turn moderates around into fanatics away from the general populace. However, for most of that time, we did not have to wrestle with the ECHR. In matters of national security, we have the right to restrict privileges, such as privacy and the right of assembly. Will the Secretary of State exercise those powers to keep in isolation those whose very presence is dangerous?
Mr Lammy
I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has great experience of staring in the face, and at the consequences of, terrorist and extremist behaviour. It is important that we remain in the ECHR framework and that we bear down on excessive litigation. It is also important that the guidance is clear for the staff who have to work within this framework and that, where we can, we look at capping compensation payments, for example, and other areas. We will continue to review how, staying within the law, we do not create an excessive and unbearable environment for those who have to work there and protect us all.
Point of Order
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. A number of news outlets are reporting, alongside comment from Downing Street, that the Cabinet Office has sent unredacted correspondence to the police regarding Peter Mandelson’s leaks of market-sensitive information to the sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein. Have you or the Speaker’s Office received any notification from the Prime Minister that he intends to give a statement to update the House on this matter? If you have, will you ensure that time is made for the Prime Minister to give that statement today?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of that point of order. I have not received any notice that any Minister intends to make a statement on this matter. However, Ministers on the Front Bench will have heard the hon. Member’s point of order and will no doubt pass it on.
British-made Bricks (Proposals)
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for measures to increase the use of British-made bricks in construction projects in the United Kingdom, including specific measures relating to the building of new homes; and for connected purposes.
This Bill is a big deal for my community back home in Newcastle-under-Lyme. Our people are smart and skilled; for generations, they powered our nation, they made, they designed and they thrived. My Bill is about ensuring that communities in our industrial heartlands are not forgotten or left behind and are given the opportunity once again to show what they are made of.
We all know that there is a housing crisis in our country, so I welcome the commitment to build 1.5 million new homes by the end of this Parliament. That means that we build in the right places, with respect for our green spaces and our natural world, and do it with our people, not to them. As we do that, we must remain resolutely focused on building good-quality homes and building communities. That is how we end overcrowding, stop the struggle facing families across the United Kingdom in finding affordable, long-term and secure housing, and—importantly—give young people and first-time buyers a place to call their own.
I have only ever owned one home, and it is in Newcastle-under-Lyme. I want all families to have the security that their own home can and will provide, but this is not just about homes; it is about new schools and the community centres that bring people together. It is about the new hospitals. It is about the restoration of this place. It is about buying British, building with British, and backing British workers.
The manufacturing base for bricks here in the United Kingdom is ready to meet the demand for our building needs of all types. With that readiness, we would and should expect to see a thriving building material industry in our country, but we do not. Instead, we see manufacturers up and down the country on the brink, thanks to a lack of domestic demand.
Our United Kingdom can produce around 2 billion bricks a year, yet most manufacturers are currently operating at around 70% utilisation. That is because in recent years, this country has started to rely on second-rate imports, often of a lower quality than the bricks made to the highest of British standards. We must start giving the British brick industry the backing it deserves, and we will do that with this Bill.
The British brick industry started to decline when brick kilns were shut across the country following the economic crash of the late noughties, and brick imports to the United Kingdom began to make up for that decrease in domestic production. Around 20% of the brick market is now made up of imported bricks. That impacts our workers and hits British manufacturing, and it needs to change.
Imported bricks are being shipped over longer distances, including from far across the seas, with each brick used resulting in a greater carbon release. British-made bricks, from Newcastle-under-Lyme and across the country, will typically travel shorter distances to building sites, helping to lower transport-related emissions and keeping their value in our local communities.
It is bonkers that we are relying on second-rate imports when British-made bricks are of the highest quality and build resilient, long-lasting homes and buildings. That is important in the context of the building safety reforms required after the disgraceful Grenfell disaster, the costs of energy, and how we preserve our planet and protect our environment. A typical clay-brick building has a lifespan of around 150 years; at the end of that life, the bricks can be refurbished, recycled and reused. They are strong, weather-resistant and fire-resistant. They provide longevity, durability and adaptability, and they sit a cut above the rest.
The lack of domestic demand for British-made bricks hits our economy and damages local businesses. Newcastle-under-Lyme—as I have said before, the centre of our collective universe—is home to one of 15 Ibstock factories. Ibstock is a leading British brickmaker, with a proud history of supplying bricks to British businesses, builders and the wider construction industry for more than 200 years. At its factory in Chesterton in Newcastle-under-Lyme, it employs local people, boosts our local economy and rightly makes the case that we must do whatever we can to reduce the risks of undermining the competitiveness of British-made bricks, and I agree.
North Staffordshire is the ceramics centre of not just our country, but our world, and the industry is hurting. My constituency neighbours over the A500—I see a couple of them here today—and colleagues on the Government Benches will continue standing up for the ceramics industry and keep pushing the Government to go further and to do more in standing up for and protecting the industry in our communities and this country. This Bill is part of doing just that.
Despite being best known for producing tableware, the ceramics industry plays a crucial role in our ability to build anything in Britain. We cannot manufacture steel, glass or—as my Bill draws attention to—bricks without it. The sector and its supply chain are concentrated in our part of the world, but over the last few years, the industry has suffered huge losses due to rising energy costs, trade disruptions and the ongoing impact of the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Let us get real about it: the ceramics industry is hard to decarbonise, but let us not forget that our businesses are willing to engage and to make their contribution to that effort. Progress can be and is being made. Recent initiatives, such as pilot hydrogen-fired kilns, demonstrate that the industry is committed to modernising itself with low-carbon manufacturing. Hydrogen production is vital to manufacturers having the confidence to move away from natural gas kilns to modern electric and hydrogen-fired manufacturing processes that will future-proof the industry.
The ceramics industry cannot deliver this transition without sustained support, and my Bill is one part of the jigsaw. Another key part is skills, and I am so proud that Newcastle college, based on Knutton Lane in Newcastle-under-Lyme, offers a full-time level 1 diploma in brickwork. We are upskilling our people in Newcastle-under-Lyme, but we cannot do so without sustaining our British brick industry in future to ensure that those young people have something to do with their smarts, skills and qualifications. The potential cost to the livelihoods of people in my community, and to the strength of our local economy and businesses, is too great for us not to get this right. My Bill sets out a local-first approach that will help support our ceramics industry, and I look forward to working with His Majesty’s Government to do more in the weeks and months ahead.
As I present my Bill today, I think of the many men and women over generations who have worked in the ceramics industry in Newcastle-under-Lyme and north Staffordshire. I think of the potential untapped, the opportunities yet to be taken and the future that we can build together. I am grateful to colleagues from all four nations of our United Kingdom, and from both sides of the House, for putting their names to my Bill.
The Government must invest in further support so that we can safeguard jobs in communities like mine in our industrial heartlands, support our local economies and ensure that the British brick industry is fighting fit. My Bill is simple and common-sense, and its time is now. Our workers deserve it and our economy needs it. My Bill will help shape and build the future of our United Kingdom, so let us get on with it.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Adam Jogee, Henry Tufnell, Elaine Stewart, Dr Allison Gardner, Gareth Snell, Jacob Collier, Leigh Ingham, Samantha Niblett, Amanda Hack, Martin Vickers, Rachel Gilmour and Robin Swann present the Bill.
Adam Jogee accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 February, and to be printed (Bill 378).
Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 458 / Noes: 104 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The reasoned amendment on the Order Paper has not been selected.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Core to our belief is the idea that no one, no matter their background, should be trapped by their circumstances. People should have the chance to make the best life they possibly can. Poverty is a barrier to that ambition, and it makes it much harder for people to achieve their full potential.
This legislation has its roots in the change made during the Conservative years to introduce the two-child limit on support for families on universal credit. Let us be clear at the start about what this was always about. It was never really about welfare reform, nor was it even about saving money. No, this was always, first and foremost, a political exercise—an attempt to set a trap for opponents, with children used as the pawns. This was all about the politics of dividing lines: between the so-called shirkers and strivers, or the old distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor. Politics first and policy second, every time.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman has provoked me into responding. I served in the previous Conservative Government, and I was involved in all those decisions. There was a clear principle behind them: will people take responsibility for their own actions? There are thousands—millions—of people who choose not to have more children because they want to take responsibility for their lives, rather than the state doing so. With this change, the Government are saying to those people, “Not only will the state take responsibility, but you as the individual will have to pay for it through higher taxes.” That is the principle at stake here, and the Government are reversing a clear principled position taken by the last Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, let me say that there are many colleagues in the Chamber and I can understand how passionate this debate is, but let us try to keep the noise down when colleagues are contributing.
Pat McFadden
The right hon. Gentleman has set out the previous Government’s justification. I am about to explain why that did not stack up at the time, and why it certainly does not stack up after the experience of the policy.
We should begin by considering why no other neighbouring country has this two-child limit. Given that the policy was always primarily about politics, it is no surprise that it did not achieve the objectives that the right hon. Gentleman just tried to set out. The Tories claimed that this would lead to people making different choices about the number of children to have, but that did not happen. The family size premise was itself based on the fundamental misconception that there is a static group of people who are always on universal credit.
Pat McFadden
Not at the moment. This is not a static group; people’s circumstances change, marriages break up, spouses die and jobs can be lost. In fact, around half of the families who will benefit from the lifting of the two-child limit were not on universal credit when they had any of their children. This is not a static group of people, which drives directly at the heart of the argument that the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) tried to make.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Twelve months ago, not only did the Government support the two-child cap, but they were busy suspending Labour Back Benchers who voted against it. Can the Secretary of State tell the House what it was about the Prime Minister’s weak position that caused him to change his mind?
Pat McFadden
I will come on to the timing of our decision, and exactly why it is right.
Pat McFadden
Not at the moment.
As I said, around half the families who will benefit were not on universal credit when they had any of their children. These are people who found themselves in need of help long after any decisions about family size had been taken.
No account was taken of the costs of the policy further down the line, such as lower educational attainment, worse mental health and lower earnings, perhaps for the whole of people’s working lives.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Does the Secretary of State regret saying that whether the two-child cap on benefits causes harm is “open to debate”?
Pat McFadden
No, I do not regret anything I have ever said on this issue. All along in this debate, there has been an attempt to divide workers from non-workers—
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?
Pat McFadden
I shall if the right hon. Lady shows a little patience.
Around 60% of the families affected by the current policy are in work, and of those who are not working, a significant number are affected by serious health conditions or caring responsibilities—circumstances in which any of us could find ourselves. As I have said, this was never really about work, decisions about family size or saving money; it was political through and through. It was children who paid the price, with 300,000 more of them going into poverty as a result.
Sir Desmond Swayne
It appears that those 300,000 were in poverty a year ago, but the Secretary of State has allowed that to persist till now. What has changed? It is not the fiscal situation, and it is not any room in the benefits budget. This is the Labour equivalent of Project Save Big Dog, is it not?
Pat McFadden
Timing matters, and if the right hon. Gentleman shows a little patience, I will tell him exactly why we have done this in the timeframe that we have.
All the policy did was force more children into poverty, alongside the Conservatives’ other key welfare measure of trapping the sick out of work. Even some voices on the right recognise the damage that this policy did. Former Tory Welfare Minister Lord Freud described it as “vicious” and said it had been forced on the Department for Work and Pensions by the Treasury at the time, and the former Conservative Home Secretary and new recruit for Reform, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), has said,
“Let’s abolish the two-child limit, eradicate child poverty for good”.
I do not know whether that is still her position—we will find out at tonight’s vote—but it seems that the party she has now joined wants to restore the two-child limit. Reform is importing not just failed Tory politicians, but failed Tory policies.
Between 2010, when the Conservatives came into office, and the summer of 2024 when they left it, the number of children in poverty had risen by some 900,000. That is something to ponder as Members on the Opposition Benches have their debate about whether or not Britain is broken. If it is, who was responsible? Who designed the welfare system that they tell us on a daily basis is broken? They did. Who broke the prisons system that we have had to rescue? They did. Who shook international confidence in our economy and its key institutions? They did. This is the inescapable problem with the Conservatives’ current position: an attack line that says, “We trashed the country and left you with a terrible inheritance,” might just not be the winning argument they think it is. Let them have their debate about whether Britain is broken while we get on with the task of fixing what they left behind.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
As my right hon. Friend has described, this is a crucial policy, but it is a downpayment on tackling other failures of the former Government, including the poor-quality and overcrowded housing that puts too many children in poverty of situation. Is he proud, as I am, that we now have a Labour Government who are tackling these issues and getting our children where they should be?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is right, and the point she makes is that we also tackle these issues piece by piece and over time.
I turn now to the question that people have asked: “Why not do this right away?” Here is the difference between government and opposition. The truth is that in opposition, it is easy to tally up everything that is wrong with the country and promise to reverse it, but a winning manifesto has to be more than a list of what is wrong.
Pat McFadden
Not at the moment. We spent plenty of time in opposition writing those lists—we had many years to do it—only to see them turn to dust on the morning of an election defeat. Good intentions were written off by the voters because the hard yards of winning their trust on the essentials of exercising power had not been done. Change comes only by earning the trust that is essential to victory, and it is because we did that that we are able to sit on the Government Benches and change anything at all, whether for children, low-paid workers or anyone else.
Our first job when we came into office was to stabilise the economy after the irresponsibility and chaos of the Tory years, and even after my right hon. Friend the Chancellor had done that, change still has to be paid for. That is why she was right to spell out at the Budget that this policy can only be introduced now, and can only be funded through a combination of savings from fraud and error in the benefits system, changes to the Motability scheme, and reform of online gambling taxation.
Wendy Morton
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have tried my best to be patient, as he indicated I should be, but surely he agrees that there is only one way for him to pay for these increases, which is taxes?
Pat McFadden
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor spelled out at the Budget how this was going to be paid for. If the right hon. Lady did not hear me the first time, I am happy to repeat myself: savings from fraud and error in the benefits system, changes to the Motability scheme—which the Conservatives did not make when they were in power—and reform of online gambling taxation.
It was also right that we took the time to do the work on the child poverty strategy, which was so ably co-chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education. That work meant that the strategy included wider policies on childcare, school holidays help and a number of other measures, as well as those that are in today’s Bill.
The Bill is about ensuring that children have the chance of a better life. It will mean 450,000 fewer children in poverty in the last year of this Parliament and, taken together with the other measures in the child poverty strategy, will lift an estimated 550,000 children out of poverty. This Labour Government will reduce child poverty, just as the last Labour Government did.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
I am glad that the UK Government are finally taking action on child poverty and removing the two-child cap on universal credit—a policy, of course, that Plaid has opposed from the start. However, more than one in five households affected by the two-child limit will not benefit because of the cap on benefits. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government should now lift the benefit cap, so that every eligible household and every eligible child receives the full support this Bill sets out to provide?
Pat McFadden
I remind the hon. Lady that the benefit cap does not apply to families who are in work or who have a disabled child. It is in place, and that approach balances support and fairness without undermining incentives to work.
The Bill removes the need for the vile policy known as the rape clause, which is a feature that we inherited from the Conservative regime. Women will no longer have to relive terrible experiences to get support for their child. For the families who will benefit, this measure will help all children, regardless of the circumstances of their birth. My understanding is that it is the current position of the Conservative party to bring back the limit, and therefore to bring back that provision. Perhaps the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), can clarify that when she comes to speak, and perhaps Reform Members can clarify their position when they contribute to the debate.
The policy change made by this Bill is not just about the redistribution of money—it is not just about placing children on the right side of an income line in a spreadsheet. It is about changing the story of children’s lives. That is an investment worth making for the whole country. It is about giving children a genuine shot at life, so that they can do well at school, stay healthy, and contribute to their country and community as an adult. That is harder when children grow up poor, as they are less likely to do well at school, with less than a quarter of children in the lowest-income households getting five good GCSEs.
By the age of 30, those who grew up poor are likely to be earning about 25% less than their peers. They are four times more likely to experience mental health problems, with growing consequences for worklessness and for the benefits bill that we are seeing in today’s system. They are more likely not to be in education, employment or training—those numbers grew rapidly in the final years of the Conservatives’ time in power, and they did nothing about it. That is why we are reforming the system by changing the incentives of universal credit, ending a situation in which the sick have been signed off and written off, and increasing support to get disabled people into work. As Sir Charlie Mayfield estimated in his recent “Keep Britain Working” report,
“Someone leaving the workforce in their 20s can lose out on over £1 million in lifetime earnings—with the state incurring a similar cost”
to support them. These are the kinds of consequences that were not thought through when the Conservatives’ policy was introduced, but it is essential that they are part of our debate about changing it.
Investing in children’s potential today is about changing lives through better educational attainment, improved health and a better chance of a decent job. The most radical thing that a Government can do is enable people to change their own story. Our ambitions should go well beyond providing financially for people; they should be about providing the platform for that change, so there is a direct link between this Bill and the other things we are doing. We are providing more help with childcare for working parents in order to make work pay and to ease the choice between looking after children and taking up a job. That is in their interests and in the national interest—why should we lose the talents of those who have children?
The youth guarantee will help the young unemployed with training, work experience and ultimately a subsidised job, so that they know the pride and purpose that comes with having work. That is in their interests and in the national interest. We have more apprenticeships for young people, stopping the 40% decline in youth apprenticeship starts over the last decade. That is in their interests and in the national interest. Better life chances are part of the battle against the human and social cost of more and more young people being signed off sick and declared unfit for work. All these things will become more urgent as the population ages and we need more young workers to support the country. A better start in life is a bond between the generations. A good childhood is in all our interests and in the national interest.
This debate is part of a wider one in politics. In this debate and in others, we have seen a politics of division in this country that wants to set person against person and group against group, and I believe we are only in the foothills of it. We will see more of this division, both home-grown and imported from overseas, becoming ever harsher as it seeks to use rage to fuel itself and to win support. That is the battle to come, not just on this issue, but much more widely—and I want to make it clear today that we set ourselves against that politics, and make a clear and explicit choice to reject it.
Anger and division are not the fuel upon which this country’s future must be built. They will produce nothing. They will solve nothing. Indeed, they will only perpetuate the chaos in the country that people are so tired of. Instead, we embrace the mantle of hope to offer a chance and not a grievance—a society where we help each other up, rather than try to tear each other down, and where we say to those born into poor circumstances, “We will help you be the best you can be, not through altruism, but because we need you, we believe in you and we want your contribution.” That is in our interests and in the national interest. This is the fight to come between these two kinds of politics; that is what the change in this Bill is all about, and it is why I commend the Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Every week, millions of people up and down the country sit at their kitchen table and do the sums to work out what is coming in, what is going out, and what simply is not affordable. Sometimes the conversation may take a more serious turn to one of life’s biggest decisions: “Shall we start a family?” or “Can we afford another child?” Though romantics might love that to be a decision about whether people want the joy of bringing new life into this world, the reality is that many ask themselves, “Can we afford it?” They are not looking to someone else to help them make ends meet or pick up the bill; they are just doing the maths. That is a difficult conversation, but Members have to ask themselves a simple question before we vote: why should people on benefits get to avoid the hard choices faced by everyone else?
Let us be clear about what the two-child cap is and what it is not. The two-child cap restricts the additional universal credit a household can get to the amount for two children, with carefully considered exceptions, such as twins or non-consensual conception. It does not apply to child benefit. It says that there is a limit, and a point at which it is simply not fair to make taxpayers fund choices that they themselves cannot afford to make.
Dame Meg Hillier
What does the shadow Secretary of State have to say to my constituent, who found herself single with three children in temporary accommodation and then moved into a one-bedroom flat? In those overcrowded conditions, her youngest got ill, and she had to give up her good job to look after that child. This Bill is a lifeline for her. She wants to go back to work, but it is difficult. She did not choose to be in that situation—it was not a choice. And, for the record, most of my constituents do not have space for a kitchen table.
Helen Whately
I am sure that all of us in this House care about poverty and children’s prospects, but the answer is not to spend more, to hand out more money and to trap people in worklessness; the answer is to support people to work, and that is exactly the opposite of what the hon. Lady’s Government are doing.
We all know that bringing up children is expensive and important, but when working couples are having to make tough decisions about whether they can afford to start a family at all, they should not be asked to pay higher taxes to fund someone else to have a third, fourth or fifth child. Someone who is in work does not get a pay rise because they have another child. If we are serious about avoiding a benefits trap, whereby it pays more to be on welfare than in work, we should be honest about what happens if we lift the two-child cap. Benefits for individual households will rise by thousands. Nearly half a million households will receive around £5,000 more on average. A single parent on universal credit with five children could get an extra £10,000 without doing any work, taking their household income to more than £45,000, untaxed—people have to earn about £60,000 to get that income from work! Around 75,000 households will get between £10,000 and £21,000 extra as a result of this Bill. For some households, the extra money will be more than a full-time income, after tax, for someone on the minimum wage.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is an issue of fairness for the taxpayer if people are working hard in a job but being rewarded less than someone else getting benefits? That is why we need to keep the two-child benefit cap.
Helen Whately
It is exactly as my hon. Friend says. The extra money that some families will be receiving—without even working—would require such a high income to achieve through work. This simply exacerbates the poverty trap.
Several hon. Members rose—
Helen Whately
I will give way to Members on the Government Benches in a moment. I just ask them to think about the implications of the extra money that people will be receiving. Some people will—frankly and factually—calculate that they can boost their income far more by having children than by working. The best way out of poverty will not be work—[Interruption.] Government Members do not like to hear this, but I am afraid it is just rational. The best way out of poverty will not be work; it will be having babies.
I want to address the argument that lifting the cap is necessary because women are not having enough babies. We know that a declining birth rate is a cause for concern, but falling birth rates are driven by many factors, including changes in people’s aspirations, the poor jobs market, the cost of housing and childcare, the penalties that motherhood imposes on careers and the changing nature of 21st-century relationships. Children are important and we need to have more, but the answer to that complex problem is not, “Here’s some cash for having a kid.”
John Grady
We in the Treasury Committee looked at this issue extensively, and I am unaware of any particular evidence that supports the behavioural arguments the hon. Lady is setting out. In any event, why should 95,000 bright and talented children in Scotland be punished by an utterly cruel policy? Is it not fatuous to suggest that people are having children for money, as well as insulting to people in Glasgow and across the United Kingdom?
Helen Whately
The fact is that people do the sums. That is the reality of the world we live in. The hon. Gentleman indicated that he is a member of the Treasury Committee, so he must be interested—even though he is looking at his phone—in these unavoidable questions. Where will the £3 billion to fund this Bill come from? Where will the £14 billion over a five-year period come from? We all know where it will come from: taxpayers—either today’s or tomorrow’s—and the men and women who get up every morning, go to work, pay their bills and do the right thing. In the last Budget, as she knows, the Chancellor made a deliberate political choice: to raise taxes on people who work and save, so that millions who do not work will receive more in benefits. Working families already make hard choices. Many already strive and struggle to live within their means. This Bill asks them to shoulder even more.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
The shadow Secretary of State must know that the vast majority of families in poverty include at least one adult in work. She asks how this Bill is being paid for. Well, it is being paid for by increased taxes on gambling giants. Would it not be more truthful to say that the hon. Lady is on the side of gambling giants rather than children in poverty?
Helen Whately
Unfortunately, the hon. Lady does not seem to understand that hypothecated taxes are not a thing. What she has said simply does not make sense. The fact is that this Bill will cost the Government money, so it will cost taxpayers money, either now or in the future. That is simply the way it works.
Sir Desmond Swayne
We now hear shouts of “cruelty” and “the rape clause”, but I see only one of the seven who were suspended sitting on the Labour Benches. The rest of them kept their heads down and voted to perpetuate what they now call cruelty and the rape clause. How do they sleep at night?
Helen Whately
My right hon. Friend has indeed made a significant point about the strange position in which so many Labour Members find themselves. Having previously voted against lifting the cap, here they are now, delighted about lifting it.
Labour Members say that the Bill will end child poverty. They have read that increasing handouts will decrease the metric called relative poverty. However, relative poverty is a deeply misleading measure. It is not an accurate measure of living standards. It tells us nothing about whether people have enough to live on, or whether children will have better life chances. It can get worse when the country gets richer, even when living standards for the very poorest are rising, and it can look better when people are getting poorer. That is not progress; it is levelling down. Throwing money at one flawed metric is not a strategy. In fact, it risks doing the opposite of what Ministers claim to want, trapping families in long-term dependency rather than lifting them out of it.
There is a proven way in which to improve children’s life chances, and that is work. Work allows parents to provide for their families, to pay the rent or mortgage, to put food on the table and clothes on their children’s backs, to set an example to their children, and to create structure and routine in their households. The Centre for Social Justice has found that children in workless households are four times more likely to be materially deprived, but under this Government the number of children growing up in workless households has risen at the fastest rate on record, and has now reached 1.5 million. Contrast that with our record, Madam Deputy Speaker. From 2014 onwards, the number of children in workless households fell year on year. We lifted a million people out of absolute poverty, including 100,000 children, and we drove unemployment down to historic lows.
Under this Labour Government, unemployment is rising month after month, so, sadly, the number of children in workless households will continue to increase. Inflation is up as well, to almost double the level that the Government inherited. Higher inflation means that the money in your pocket is worth less: in other words, you are poorer. Fewer jobs, more unemployment, a higher cost of living—that is what the Government are doing to people. I say this to them: you do not lift children out of poverty by making the whole country poorer.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I am enjoying listening to Members who say they have met constituents who have suffered hard times. I grew up in hard times, on welfare, through the death of a parent, watching my mum go without food to feed us. There is no possible way, given that the cuts to benefits have been pulled, that the country can afford this. We will have no defence of the realm. South Shropshire residents will start going without. There is no feasible way to fund this measure, whichever way Labour Members look at it. Does my hon. Friend agree with me?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend has made the important point that no other party in the Chamber seems to realise what a serious financial position the country is in. We have to ask ourselves hard questions about what the country can afford.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
We on the Labour Benches at least understand the historical consistency:186 years ago the Tories made economic arguments against stopping children being sent up chimneys, and 186 years later they are making the same arguments, about stopping children being put into poverty. Same old Tories, nearly 200 years later!
Helen Whately
If the hon. Gentleman listens to what I am about to say about the back and forth on this policy on his side of the House, he will see that he should think a bit harder before talking about “consistency”.
So what is this Bill really about? If Labour truly believes that lifting the two-child limit is essential to tackling poverty, why did it take the Prime Minister 18 months to do it? Years ago he called the cap “punitive” and promised to scrap it, but then, once he had secured the leadership of the Labour party, he changed that tune. He said that Labour was not going to abolish the two-child limit. His Chancellor, who is sitting on the Front Bench, said that it was unaffordable. Just six months ago, the Government even suspended the whip from MPs who voted to lift the cap, but now that the Prime Minister’s leadership is under threat, it is the end for the cap. How long will it be before he goes the same way? That is the real reason we are debating the Bill today: we have a weak Prime Minister, running scared from his left-wing Back Benchers.
Talking of the left wing, I expect that Labour will be joined in the Division Lobby later by some of the Opposition Members sitting to the left of me. No doubt the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru will also be competing to see who can be the most generous with other people’s money. Reform UK has jumped on the welfare spending bandwagon too. You will have noticed, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we have not tabled a reasoned amendment today, not because we think that the Bill is perfect—I hope that is clear—but because any amendment would still leave us with a watered-down version of the cap. Other parties have got in a right muddle on this—one in particular—but to us it is clear and simple: the cap should stay. Anything else is a worse policy. Amending the Bill is not the right answer; the House should just vote it down.
First and foremost, I have argued against the Bill on the grounds of fairness, but there is another reason to vote against it. More than 50% of households now receive more from the state than they pay in. The benefits bill is ballooning. Health and disability benefits alone are set to reach £100 billion by the end of the decade—more than we spend on defence, education or policing. The benefits bill is a ticking time bomb. We have to start living within our means. Other parties are simply in denial about the situation that we face in our country. The Conservatives are the only party that recognises how serious this is. We would not be spending more on benefits; in fact, we have explained how we would be saving £23 billion. We would stop giving benefits to foreign nationals, stop giving benefits for lower-level mental health problems and milder neurodiversity, stop the abuse of Motability, and bring back face-to-face assessments. We would get the benefits bill under control, and back people to work.
Labour claims to be compassionate, but there is nothing compassionate about making welfare the rational choice, nothing compassionate about rewarding dependency over work, and nothing compassionate about saddling working families with higher taxes to fund political U-turns. Outside this place, people can see what is happening. They know when a system is unfair. They know when a Government have lost their way. They know when a Prime Minister’s time is up. Members should not be enticed by his final throws. They should step back and do what is right for the country. They should back people who do the right thing, back jobs and work and lower taxes, and back living within our means and raising the standard of living for everyone, rather than backing a policy that will add billions to the benefits bill and trap parents in a downward spiral of dependency. This Bill does not end poverty. It entrenches it, so we oppose it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Of the measures brought forward in this Government’s Budget last year, the abolition of the two-child limit is the one that most fills me with hope and more than a little pride, so I thank the Government for listening to so many of us who raised this issue as a concern.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has reminded us, child poverty is not just about children going hungry once in a while, or not being able to buy the designer trainers they want. For every 1% increase in child poverty, more babies die before their first birthday. In fact, this causal link has been quantified, and it amounts to 5.8 additional deaths per 100,000 live births. A baby born into a poor family is five times more likely to die than a baby born into a wealthy one. I ask Opposition Members to consider that when they make their interventions and speeches.
If such children are lucky enough to survive their first year, they will be more likely to suffer poor physical and mental ill health and more likely to end up as an emergency hospital admission. The impacts on their neurological development as they grow are profound. How the brain makes its neural connections changes because of the stress and adversity that children go through. In turn, that affects behaviour, cognitive development and achievements in school. These disadvantages continue into adolescence and adulthood, so every aspect of children’s lives is affected.
We are rightly concerned about the number of young people who are not in education, employment or training, and nearly 1 million 16 to 24-year-olds are NEETs. We must look at the evidence for why that is, not just jump to conclusions for political expediency. There is strong evidence from the UK millennium cohort study that persistent exposure to poverty and childhood adversity, including poor parental mental health, means that such people are five times more likely to be NEET. It is estimated that more than half—nearly 53%—of current NEET cases are attributable to persistent exposure to poverty and childhood adversity. It is not because young people fancy a duvet day, and I really think it is disgraceful that such phrases are repeated in the media. This pattern goes on right through adolescence and young adulthood, and it affects people’s earning capacity, as we have heard.
When in government, the Conservatives were warned repeatedly. I was a shadow Work and Pensions Minister, and I represented the Labour party during the passage of the original legislation, so I know they had repeated warnings. I chaired an all-party parliamentary group that raised the issue, and we engaged with the Faculty of Public Health, which did an impact analysis to identify the harms that would take place. We also did a retrospective analysis to show the damage the policy was having. That legislation introduced not only the two-child limit and the benefit cap, but the benefit freeze—we must not forget the benefit freeze—and the harms those policies have caused to the lives of children, who are now our young adults, are absolutely shameful.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
This issue is one of the things we have looked at in the Work and Pensions Committee, and the evidence is quite clear that we must remove the two-child benefit cap and enable long-term investment in our young people. Those young people in poverty suffer extraordinarily, and we need to give them better life chances.
Debbie Abrahams
Absolutely; my hon. Friend is a wonderful member of the Select Committee, and I thank her for that. In particular, she is very active on our joint inquiry with the Education Committee.
In the space of the 15 years between 2010 and when we were elected in 2024, child poverty escalated from 3.9 million children, or 29%, to 4.3 million, or 31%. To go back to the calculation at the beginning of my speech, the impact on families that have been bereaved as a consequence of the unfortunate position they found themselves in financially should not be underestimated. Like many of us, I have constituents who have grown up under the clouds and chains of austerity, while clinging on to the hope that things could get better. That hope is why we are here on these Labour Benches, and we know how important what we are now doing is in rebuilding trust with the people who invested their vote in us and trusted us to deliver for them.
I cannot thank the Government enough for doing this, but as has been said, it is a down payment and there needs to be more. We can overturn the horrors of the last 15 years. We have done so in the past, and we can again. We have prepared the ground for a better Britain, and this year we will start to see children and their families flourish, but I recognise that this is only the first step. We are lifting 450,000 to 500,000 children out of poverty, which is fantastic, but that is only about 10% of all the children living in poverty, and we need to have our eyes on the remaining 90%. This is an important first step, but we must say that it is only the first step.
The Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), and I are looking forward to exploring just how we can do more. As I have previously said, we need to be thinking beyond individual departmental budgets. Tackling child poverty needs a whole-system Government approach, which includes how we budget and how the Office for Budget Responsibility scores Budgets. We need to use evidence much better in our policy planning. Our impact analyses are very narrow, and do not reflect how people experience poverty and the impacts that that has not just on the DWP, but on other Departments. That needs to change.
Finally, when unequivocal evidence is presented to us—some of the evidence is only just emerging; the UK millennium cohort study that I mentioned came on stream only in the last six or seven months—it is right that we respond to it. That is a strength, not a weakness, and it demonstrates humility and integrity. Poverty and inequality are not inevitable; they are political choices driven by values, and when the evidence changes, so should our decisions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. As so many Members wish to contribute, Back Benchers will be on a speaking limit, which will start at five and a half minutes. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a society that is free, open and fair, and a society in which no one is enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. That is why it is in our DNA to be against the two-child limit. There are 4.5 million children living in poverty in the UK. As somebody with a passion for the future of our children—looked-after children, adopted children and so forth—I know they are the responsibility of us all, and we should have a passion for supporting our youngsters, because children are 20% of our population, but 100% of our future.
We must reflect on the fact that this Dickensian policy of judging families was brought in by the Conservatives. It is judging because, as we have heard, a parent may find themselves in a position beyond their control—when a family member or the other parent is suddenly taken ill or, even worse, dies—and they are left alone to provide for their youngsters in really difficult circumstances. Equally, why should we decide as a society that, because they are the third or fourth child, we value them less? Such a belief seems morally bankrupt. It is so important that we value our children because they are our future. It is also very sad that seven Labour Members had the Whip suspended for doing the right thing and backing the end of the two-child limit.
I want to reflect a little more on what this means in Torbay. I represent one of the most deprived constituencies in the south-west of England. When I visited a school in Paignton, the headteacher told me how children turn up cold, tired and hungry. It has to provide warm clothes for the youngsters, because parents cannot afford them. It has to provide food for the youngsters. The headteacher was taking on the incredible altruism of being a foster carer, so that if a child did need support, she would have the qualifications to step in and support the family in need.
Jennie and I love going to schools, Jennie in particular—the kids enjoy Jennie more than me, I am sure. Having a chat with youngsters about what they like and do not like about living in their town is a special thing to do, whether as a councillor or a Member of Parliament. Usually, one hears about litter, the environment, graffiti, older kids swearing and so on. In Torquay, in Barton Hill academy, what I found really disturbing was how the nine and 10-year-olds were talking about the cost of living crisis. They were worried about mum, who could not quite afford to put enough petrol in the car, and utility bills were worrying their parents. They told me they were not doing so many of the nice things they used to do a couple of years ago, because mum and dad said they could not afford it any more.
Dame Meg Hillier
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It was, of course, his party, in coalition, that delivered austerity and delivered this policy. Does he have anything to say to the British public about that period of his party’s history?
Steve Darling
I thank the hon. Member for her non-partisan intervention. The Liberal Democrats opposed the two-child limit. We are on the record as doing that and I am delighted we did so. A Joseph Rowntree Foundation report published last week highlights how tackling poverty has flatlined since 2005, so the Liberal Democrats welcome this step forward in ending the two-child limit.
This measure is not just about children; it is about the future of our country and investing in people and believing in them. The Secretary of State alluded to the fact that youngsters have worse education outcomes, higher levels of mental health challenges later in life, and are unable to contribute to society as strongly as they could. The taxman takes less from them later in life, because their jobs are not so profitable.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I am slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman is claiming that less is taken off them. Student loans, which could have received this £3 billion that this change will cost, are effectively taxing young people at 70% or 71%. Does he not think that that tax rate is high enough?
Steve Darling
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his thoughts on that. I remind my colleague that shortly after the coalition Government, the Conservatives stripped away an awful lot of the safeguards around student loans, and that continues. It is not a happy situation for many students up and down the country that the Tories robbed them of those safeguards.
On a visit to Torbay hospital, I spoke to one of its senior directors. She sees her role as extremely important, because it is not just about treating people but tackling deprivation in Torbay. She comes across some patients who believe that a lifespan of up to around 60-something is adequate. That reflects the levels of deprivation in my community, which this measure will help to tackle. It will lift 2,000 children out of poverty in Torbay. We should have high ambitions for our country. As Liberal Democrats, we believe the best days of our country are ahead of us. By lifting the two-child limit, we include more people in a brighter future.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling). I appreciate the Liberal Democrats’ support for lifting the two-child limit.
I cannot express enough how delighted I am to speak in this debate, as these changes will make a real tangible difference to the lives of children and families across our country. The cost of living, standards of living and striving to live above the poverty line are a concern, and such a struggle for so many people and families. I campaigned to lift the two-child limit prior to being a Member, and I have done so since becoming a Member. I hear of families with a roof over their head, but no carpet under their feet; a window to look out of, but no thick curtains to keep out the draft. It is miserable when you are cold, poor and uncomfortable, and anything and everything the Government do to make life easier for communities is the right thing to do.
I recently spoke to a headteacher at a local school in my constituency that serves one of the most deprived areas. I found out that teachers are using their own money to buy children essential items, such as sanitary products, underwear and tights. Of course, they need to do that because the children need them. We on the Labour Benches are right: we are compassionate about children, compared with Members opposite. I love and applaud the teachers and the school for their kindness and for the discreet way in which they help children. I applaud all schools that do this for children, but children should not be in that situation in the first place. In Lewisham, we have a shop called the Bank of Things, where secondary school children can receive free essential items such as toiletry products, pens, paper and even school uniform.
At the heart of this issue, I know parents wish to provide for children, but some just do not have the means to do so. In fact, in my constituency, 65% of children living in poverty have at least one parent in work, so this is absolutely not about parents who do not want to work. It is why the broader child poverty strategy is so vital. Increases to the national living wage, strengthening workers’ rights through the Employment Rights Act 2025, expanded free childcare for working parents, reducing the cost of school uniforms, and building more council homes—these measures and more work together to ensure that work pays, and that parents and carers can provide for their families with dignity.
Teachers and school staff are also purchasing lunch for children whose parents cannot afford it, not because they want to but because the free school meals system put in place by this Government, including to all those on universal credit, still leaves some families behind.
This Government’s fair repayment rate policy also supports households with debts, by reducing the maximum amount that can be deducted from universal credit from 25% to 15%. The previous Conservative Government were despicable in their actions and what they launched at children. The two-child limit cap and universal credit payment deductions at 25% were wrong. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has said that, as well removing the two-child limit cap, a protected minimum floor to universal credit is also needed. That will reverse declining living standards for families with children and get children out of poverty.
Dame Meg Hillier
My hon. Friend rightly highlights that this is partly about the wider structure, and it is also about the number of parents who are in work. Does she not agree that part of our strategy on child poverty is also about supporting parents into better-paid work, so they can continue to support their families and their children?
Janet Daby
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct; it is about supporting parents into better-paid work.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady. May I put on record my thanks to her for her words, the Secretary of State for his commitment and the Labour Government for bringing this change forward? Some 50,000 children in Northern Ireland, out of 13,000 households, will benefit—out of child poverty and into a better standard of living. That has to be good news. If anybody is against that, there is something wrong with them.
Janet Daby
I thank my hon. Friend—I call him that even though he sits on the other side of the House—for stating that so eloquently and accurately.
This means that the previous Conservative Government got it wrong. I would also add that with rents rising and mortgages increasing, they got it wrong. Who suffers? It is babies, toddlers, primary and secondary school children, and that is wrong. Unlike the previous Government, this Government accept the overwhelming scale of this challenge. I am sure that Ministers will agree that more still needs to be done.
To bring further reality to the situation, my own son has paid for a schoolfriend’s lunch on more than one occasion when they have not had enough money on their lanyard. I am sure that many other children also share food with their friends because they have compassion and do not want their friends to go hungry.
I welcome the Government’s decision to lift the two-child benefit cap, which will provide crucial support to an estimated 3,530 children across my constituency. It is a significant step and I commend the Government for taking it.
Breakfast clubs are absolutely fantastic, but they are limited to primary schools, meaning that secondary school children miss out. There could be three children from the same household where two children receive breakfast at primary school but the other goes hungry at secondary school. That is not right. Parents should not have to worry about their ability to feed their children and teachers should not have to subsidise parents or the state by feeding their pupils.
As I come to an end, I must mention the remarkable football player Marcus Rashford, who knew what it was like to go hungry as a child and is now dedicated to ensuring that it does not happen to other children. I respect his efforts to reduce child poverty. I ask this Government to make the necessary effort to keep children out of poverty and to support them to ensure they have a full stomach and reach their full potential in life.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
At its heart, this debate is about choices, and the choice before us today is whether we believe that compassion is best expressed through limitless expenditure or through a system that is fair, responsible and worthy of the people who fund it. We in this House all share the same objective: we want every child—[Interruption.] Well, I hope we do, because we want every child in every corner of this country to have hope and opportunity in their future. If we are truly honest, a good society is measured not by how much it spends, but by how wisely it spends, and that is where the Bill does not meet the test before it.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I will make some progress.
I will start with a real-life experience from my own constituency. Some months ago, I met a couple at a community event, both of whom were in work and clearly raising their children with a great deal of pride and care. They spoke to me with a quiet determination about the sacrifices they were forced to make: no foreign holidays, no luxuries, often working long hours and, of course, careful budgeting of the household income. Their message was that they did not expect the state to intervene on their behalf; they were not asking for anything special. Instead, they were merely asking for fairness, and fairness is what is at stake today.
The two-child limit rests on the simple principle that the welfare system should reflect the real choices faced by working families up and down the country. Across the United Kingdom, parents weigh responsibility against aspiration every day, asking themselves whether they can provide, whether they can sustain and whether they can provide their children with security.
Debbie Abrahams
The hon. Gentleman just spoke of whether or not the expenditure was wise. He also spoke about choices. I do not know whether he heard my speech, but children who are born into poor families are five times—five times—more likely to die just because they are poor than children in families with a little more income. Is it fair to a child if they die just because they were born into a poor family? I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman’s logic.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but this is about choices. We come to this place to make choices about how we spend taxpayers’ money to ensure that it is fair across the board. We can all bring moving individual stories, but there is the reality of how we support Government expenditure across the board so that it is fair and equitable and ensures that families up and down the country are having to make similar choices every single day.
What this Bill tells the country is that choices no longer matter. It tells the taxpayer that restraint is optional. It tells Government that limits are now outdated. The Government say that the Bill will reduce child poverty—I understand that, and I respect that intention—but poverty is not conquered by cheque books alone. It is conquered by work, education, stability and ambition. It is conquered when families are supported to stand tall instead of being encouraged to lean forever.
For far too long, politics has fallen into the trap of believing that every social problem has a fiscal solution—if only we spend more money, subsidise a little more or borrow more—but history teaches us a much harder lesson. A society that confuses help with dependency does not liberate the poor, but simply imprisons them.
The Bill will cost approximately £3 billion a year, which will be paid not by abstractions, but by people—by the nurse working a night shift, the self-employed plumber, the shop worker who is saving for a deposit or the small business owner who is keeping three other people in employment. Those people are entitled to ask whether this is fair. Is it fair that they have to calculate every single pound while the state abandons calculation altogether? I simply do not believe it is.
Dame Meg Hillier
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made clear in his speech the number of people who make these choices and decisions and then, later on, find themselves on universal credit through changes in circumstances. This is a safety net. It is not the position of Labour or the Government that people with children should not work and should not be supported into work; that is very much part of the equation. Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on that and think about what happens when people’s circumstances change? This is a safety net—a leg up—not a handout.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
It would be a safety net if it provided a short-term boost. What it does instead is provide an endless cheque book without any checks and balances in place. If there was a sunset clause, that would be different, but there is not.
The two-child limit was about more than blame; it was about balance. It recognised that a welfare system without boundaries eventually loses legitimacy altogether, and when legitimacy is lost, discourse soon follows. That is the great unspoken risk of this Bill: it does not merely expand spending, but weakens trust; it widens the gap between those who give and those who receive and, in doing so, puts the whole settlement at risk.
What is fundamentally missing from this Bill is any serious strategy for mobility. Where are the plans for skills, for progression, for family stability and for moving people from welfare into work? Instead, the Bill simply offers the politics of reassurance without reform, comfort without challenge, spending without strategy and debt without direction.
The Conservatives recognise the importance of lifting people up, of not holding them down and of providing opportunity and not permanent subsidy. The true measure of social justice is not how many people we support, but, crucially, how many people we no longer need to support. The question before us, therefore, is whether we will tackle poverty at its root or merely manage it year after year; whether we will build a system that strengthens families or one that substitutes for them; and whether we will choose the easy road or the responsible one. This Bill chooses the easy road—it chooses sentiment over structure, expansion over reform and today over tomorrow. I simply cannot support that choice.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I really believe the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), and other Opposition Members live in an alternate universe, because they are totally detached from the reality of my constituents in Liverpool Riverside.
It is with great pride that I rise today in support of our Bill to lift the two-child cap—a campaign that has long been close to my heart. Lifting half a million children immediately out of poverty has to be a great thing for this country. As the MP for Liverpool Riverside, I have had child poverty at the top of my agenda since coming into Parliament over six years ago.
Kim Johnson
No, thank you.
It saddens and appals me that, in the sixth richest economy in the world, one in every two children in my constituency lives in poverty. That is a statistic that should shame everybody.
It is a shame that it has taken so long to reverse the draconian cap that was driving hundreds of families into poverty every single month. Children’s charities and organisations, the Children’s Commissioner and politicians of every background were united in calling for that as their No. 1 priority for reversing trends in child poverty, which exploded, as we all know, under the Tory austerity measures. The facts are clear and indisputable.
I pay tribute in particular to the End Child Poverty coalition, co-ordinated by Rachel Walters, the Child Poverty Action Group and the National Education Union, which I have worked with closely throughout my time in Parliament to champion support for children living in poverty and, in particular, to campaign against the two-child cap. Without their incredible work to make it impossible for this Government to ignore the necessity of lifting the two-child cap, I fear it may never have happened. I also pay tribute to the schools in my Liverpool Riverside constituency, which go over and above every single day to support children and families who are living in poverty.
I take this opportunity to highlight research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which estimates that 1.5 million children in families with migrant parents live in poverty. That makes up over a third of the total number of children living in poverty. In large part, that is driven by the no recourse to public funds policy, with half of the children living in families that fall under that policy living in poverty. Research by the Institute for Public Policy Research also shows that those children face a far higher risk of very deep poverty.
As the Government have laid out in today’s debate, no child should have their life opportunity limited by the conditions they were born into. It therefore follows that we must go further to alleviate child poverty and row back on the policies, such as no recourse to public funds, that still play a major role in systematically driving large numbers of families into poverty.
Before I came into this place, I worked for the Department for Education supporting the development of Sure Start programmes across the north-west. I know at first hand the difference that supporting a young family can make to those children’s life chances and the benefits of early intervention and integrated provision. It is a record that Labour is rightly proud of, but one that should spur us to recreate and go even further now that we are in government again.
Lifting the two-child cap in full is a brilliant win for our campaigners and will be life-changing for millions of children who need the extra support to achieve their full potential. It will be a major boost for local economies, putting money immediately and directly in the pockets of families who will go out and spend it productively. I am proud to be part of a Labour Government who have taken such a bold and vital step, but now we need to go further in redistributing the vast wealth that this country has to ensure that our communities can flourish and no child is left behind. Fourteen years of the Tory austerity tax on living standards and the systematic dismantling of our public services needs to be met with a bold Labour programme of taxing wealth, renationalising our public services and providing them with proper funding.
We still have children who are growing up with diseases that we thought had been consigned to the Victorian era, including rickets and scarlet fever, made possible by a crisis in child poverty and malnutrition. Lifting the two-child cap is a good start, but Labour cannot be complacent about the monumental challenges that we face in government to boost living standards, tackle inequalities and start putting power and wealth back in the hands of working people. Poverty is a political choice; it is about choosing the interests of the many over the influence of the few. I am proud that we made the right choice.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Fairness matters, not only to those receiving the support but to those making the difficult choices without it. During the short time I have, I will talk about the principles and then the context.
I come to this subject thinking about the publican in my constituency who has two children and who wakes up in the morning, leaves their house in Barwell and goes to their business. They have seen their national insurance contributions rise, their valuation has changed and the tax has gone up on that, the rate relief has been withdrawn from them and they have seen the minimum wage go up. Those are all costs that they are having to consider. What about the independent pharmacist on the high street, who gets up and goes to work in Hinckley, having to face the fact that national insurance contribution costs are going up?
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman mentions the local pharmacist. The local pharmacist in my constituency is my twin sister. She put herself through a degree in pharmacy while on universal credit as a single parent of three children. That was not her choice; it was a position that was thrust upon her. What would the hon. Member say to people like her?
Dr Evans
I would credit her. She is a credit to the hon. Gentleman’s family for what she has managed to achieve.
The key point I am trying to get to is that, when those people leave their doorstep, is it fair that the choice they have made to have only two children is simply thrown out the window, because an extra £3,650 is now being given to the parent of the third and fourth child next door, simply for not going to work? That is not fair, and that is the heart of the principle.
At the end of the day, the welfare state works best when it is a bridge to work and not a substitute for it. We have often heard about the working poor.
Clive Lewis
I am listening to the hon. Gentleman. Conservative Members always seem to portray this as an individual moral failing. That is how they see welfare, when actually it is about a collective insurance against economic risk. That is how we see it. You see it as a moral issue; we see it as an economic one.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. It is not me who is being referred to; it is the hon. Gentleman.
Dr Evans
That is far from the truth. I am simply arguing that we need to be fair to those who need the system to support them and those who contribute to it. I worry that we are pulling at the fabric here.
It is interesting that the debate in the House is slanted towards the Labour view, because they have the numbers. If we look at the public polling, however, we know that, consistently, 60% of the public support the cap and only 30% want it to be taken away. Why is that? Fundamentally, they understand that there has to be give and take. The worry here is that someone will suddenly get £3,650 with no contractual change within society to better themselves.
The money could be better spent. To take an example from the last Government, in 2021 they changed the UC slider from 63% to 55% to encourage work. That cost about £2.5 billion; we are talking about £3 billion today. We have heard from the Government how this will be paid for. It is not hypothecated. The pharmacist I was talking about and the sister of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) will pay for this, as will the publican who goes out to work. They will see their taxes rise. That is the contract that I am worried about.
Joy Morrissey
It is an issue of fairness. The people of Beaconsfield, Marlow and the south Bucks villages have seen their taxes go up and they are seeing those taxes being given to people who are not working. It is unfair.
Dr Evans
That is exactly right. The public will stand for a generous safety net, but they will not stand for people not trying to take things forward. I worry that, despite this Government’s talk of employment rights, the chances for employment and the working poor, more people are out of work under this very Government due to the choices they are making. That is fundamental to today’s debate, and trying to leverage morality into it misses the reality of responsibility. Every family in this country make fiscal choices and expect to behave responsibly, and so should the Government who lead them. That is the crux of the matter.
In the time I have left, I will move on to the context. If this were a moral crusade, as we have heard the Prime Minister say, he would have done it in his very first Budget; he would have made that choice. However, as we have heard from other Members, when this policy was put forward after the new Government came in, 40-odd MPs did not vote and seven Labour Members had the Whip removed.
If we are talking about poverty, one thing that has not been raised in the debate so far is the winter fuel payments policy. The Government’s own analysis said that it would put 50,000 pensioners into absolute poverty and 100,000 into relative poverty. So there is a dichotomy here, and it is about choices. Government Members seem to say that if we are going to solve poverty, we need to focus on one area, yet they all voted to take the fuel payments away—[Interruption.] I hear chuntering from the other side about means-testing, but that did not happen until later when there was a climbdown.
The key thing is that these are difficult choices that have to be made. I worry that the public see straight through what is going on. They need fairness in the system. They do not need a vote to be held to try to placate the Back Benchers of a failing Prime Minister. If this truly was the mission of the Prime Minister at the start, he would have done it straightaway.
Dame Meg Hillier
Let us be clear: this Government came in with a plan to tackle child poverty, but quite rightly set up a taskforce to deal with it under two excellent Secretaries of State, and now with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability at the helm as well. That is why this policy has happened now and did not happen immediately. It would have been a bad mistake to have dealt with this in a piecemeal fashion. Instead, we now have a whole strategy, of which this is a part, as is helping parents into work.
Dr Evans
Why, in that case, was the Whip removed from Labour Members? Why is there no contingency in the Bill to ensure that someone is progressing through the system? We have heard time and again from Members on both sides of the House that it is not only a safety net but a springboard. I come back to my point that if the Government want to make a difference, they could change the rating on universal credit to encourage more people into work, but that is not happening. That would help to support people who are in work but who are impoverished. The last Government brought in the household support fund to ensure that there was immediate support. I am pleased that the Government are bringing forward some form of contingency, but we still have not seen what that looks like. That will be a concern for people.
I shall end where I began. This system has to be fair to those who are getting the support, but also to those who are paying for it. At the end of the day, a family lives within its constraints and so should a country. This Bill does nothing but the opposite, and that is my concern.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I am very proud to support the Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill. It will tackle child poverty and restore basic fairness to our social security system. I, like many other Labour Members, have been campaigning on this issue since I became an MP. I thank the Child Poverty Action Group and the Trussell Trust, as well as the food bank volunteers who have been in to lobby me about this issue for a very long time. This win is for the families in my constituency who I see in my surgeries and in their homes. I think of one family who literally move a light bulb around from room to room because they are so scared of the cost of using additional electricity. That is just one example of the real impact that poverty has on a family.
I am glad that we are dismantling this cruel and unfair policy today, and that we are continuing the job of fixing a broken system, set up by the Conservatives, that has led to children not having the basics or the opportunities that everyone in our country should have. Six months after this policy was brought in nine years ago, the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty, Philip Alston, visited the UK and produced a report on the poverty levels that he found here. He said that we had a
“punitive, mean spirited, and often callous”
benefit system and that the high levels of child poverty were not inevitable but a “political choice”. That was back in 2018.
Every single day since the Conservatives forced this two-child benefit cap through, 109 children have been pushed into poverty, not because of anything they or their parents have done but because an arbitrary policy denied them the support they need. It was always indefensible. Because of the failings of the Conservative Government, child poverty in the UK has risen faster than in 37 other high-income countries over the past decade. That is a national disgrace.
Removing this limit will lift 450,000 children out of poverty by 2029. That is what real, measurable change looks like. I was on the child poverty taskforce for over a year, and we really drilled down into what could make the most difference. Scrapping the two-child benefit cap was always at the top of the measures. I am proud that our strategy also brings in many other ways in which we can support families.
We know who is being hit the hardest by this policy, with 68% of the families affected having a child under five. The early years shape everything that follows: health, education and life chances. Inequality in childhood becomes inequality for life. This Bill gives us the chance to break that cycle. The latest universal credit data shows the scale of the damage. In April 2025, 700 households in Putney were denied a child element for at least one child because of this policy. That meant that 900 children received no support and 2,490 children in total were living in households hit by the two-child limit. Across Wandsworth, the picture was even starker, with 1,820 households affected, 2,330 children denied support and a total of 6,540 children living in households impacted by this cruel rule.
It is a rule based on the fiction that families in poverty plan before they have children—that they plan ahead to be in poverty for the long term and decide on the number of children they will have in their loving family on the basis of that—rather than a policy that is there for families whenever they are in real need. We have got those parents’ backs and we have got those children’s backs, no matter what number they come in their family. Scrapping the two-child limit will be transformative for those families and for their communities. It will change whole disadvantaged communities in my constituency, across London and across the United Kingdom, who all currently pay the price for the high numbers of children in poverty, whether those children are in their own family or not.
The Bill is part of this Government’s wider mission to build a fairer country; to support, not penalise, families; to support parents into secure and better paid work; to deliver more affordable homes; to cut the cost of living; and to give every child the best possible start in life.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member on her speech. Evidence shows that the two-child limit has not changed fertility or employment but that it has coincided, sadly, with a disproportionate rise in abortions among mothers with two or more children. Does she agree that removing the two-child limit will better support mums and help to ensure that no woman feels pushed towards an abortion because she cannot afford another child?
Fleur Anderson
The hon. Member highlights one of the many painful decisions that people have to make on the back of this policy, such as decisions about heating or eating and about what to do in their families. She also highlights the fact that the whole of Northern Ireland will benefit from this Bill as well. We need to bring every child across the whole of the United Kingdom up, and lifting this policy will do that. It is fair across every part of the United Kingdom for all the families who are affected. I thank her for raising a different aspect that this policy has introduced.
I am proud to support the Bill, and I urge Members across the House to do the same.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I will touch briefly on the Conservatives’ position and then turn to the Bill itself.
The Conservatives have at least been consistent on this policy—consistently cruel. I would point out the level of detachment with the reality faced by so many families in my constituency. The reality for such a high percentage of families is they do not choose whether to have children. They do not sit down and work out whether the money adds up. The reason that the rape clause is in place is because so many people are not able to make those choices. People do not set out with an intention to have a certain number of children; it is about what happens in the circumstances that are created.
Kirsty Blackman
I will not.
The reality is that the Conservatives’ position is a very entitled, privileged one, and it does not reflect the majority of our constituents.
Kirsty Blackman
I said I would not give way.
Let me turn to where we are today. The Labour party is being a bit smug about the position we are in. The SNP has been absolutely consistent in calling for the removal of the two-child cap. Alison Thewliss stood in this Chamber and highlighted the rape clause at every possible opportunity; I think people got fed up with her talking about it so much, but she was one of the people leading the charge. On that note, I thank those Labour Members who did back removing the two-child cap at the earliest opportunity. I understand how difficult it is to do that, and I appreciate that they were willing to put their principles first.
Today is a good day because the two-child cap is being cancelled. I am sad, though, that the Secretary of State said that he does not regret anything he has said before on this. That means he does not regret saying that it is “open to debate” whether the two-child cap causes harm, despite the fact that he is now saying absolutely the opposite.
I am glad that the Government are finally scrapping this policy. Children should not be at the sharp end of Government decisions, just as older people whose winter fuel payment was scrapped should not be at the sharp end. None of them is able to take these decisions on their finances. None of them can work a few more hours: a six-year-old cannot do that; a pensioner cannot just work a few more hours, because they may be significantly over the pension age and unable to work.
We need to recognise what has been said by a significant number of Members today, which is that so many of these families are in work. People are working hard; it is just that work does not pay—it does not pay enough. If we look at the stats, we see that people feel that the social security system should provide enough support for people to be able to live. We know that people living on universal credit—particularly large families—cannot afford the essentials, even if they are working. That is what this debate is about: giving people the best chance in life.
The Government, however, are not going far enough yet. The strategy that came out of their child poverty taskforce was simply a reiteration of many things that had already been announced. It was a summary: “Here we are. Here are all the things we have announced already as a Government.” It does not have the ambition we need in order to see child poverty tackled. If we look at the stats, we see that the rate of children in poverty by the end of this Parliament will be exactly the same as it is now. This measure will not reduce child poverty over the piece; the same percentage of children will be in poverty as are in poverty now, because the Government are failing to have ambition.
The UK Government should look at the Scottish child payment, as I asked them to do the other day. They should look at the amount of additional money being provided, particularly as of next year, to families with children under one, in recognition of the difficulty and importance of those first 1,000 days. They should look at those uplifts to ensure that people are taken out of poverty, at the baby box, at the Best Start grants being provided to families, and at the tackling child poverty delivery plan that the Scottish Government will bring out in March. Unlike the UK Government’s paper, which simply lays out a number of great things that the Government say they are doing, we have targets in our plan; We are looking at the actual difference that each of our policies make. I urge the UK Government to look at what is being done in Scotland and at the fact that child poverty is lower in Scotland than in any other part of the UK, and to consider what can be done to ensure that children have the best possible start in life, whether they live in England, Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
I rise to support the Bill and do so proudly on behalf of the families I represent in West Dunbartonshire. The two-child benefit cap makes poor children poorer. It punishes children for their circumstances and it has no place in our United Kingdom. Tackling child poverty is a proud Labour tradition and one that this Government have been proactive in pursuing from the very outset. This will deliver the much-needed change that we promised to my constituents.
West Dunbartonshire is a constituency with pockets of significant deprivation, but it is also one that is built on a proud legacy of hard work, fairness and a strong sense of community. For too long in my constituency, too many families have been held back by the two-child benefit cap—a policy that does not reflect my values. It is where I live, and it is where I want our children and young people to succeed. By scrapping the two-child limit, we will directly benefit 2,260 children in West Dunbartonshire. Last year, over 4,500 children in my constituency were living in poverty, and despite the claims of those who oppose the Bill, more than 60% of those households with children in poverty are working families. I see parents turning to food banks not because they have failed, but because the system has failed them.
In some parts of West Dunbartonshire, over 65% of people are living in relative poverty. In 2024, this meant that eight children in every classroom of 30 in my constituency were growing up in poverty, while more than 12,000 households struggled with fuel poverty. Those figures underlie why the Bill will make such a difference. There are many families in my constituency that struggle every single day to make ends meet, and I see children starting life on the back foot through no fault of their own. My wife works in education, and for many years she worked in a primary school in my constituency where it was common for children to arrive hungry, having had nothing to eat at home.
I remind the House that these are not just statistics. These are children skipping meals and living in cold, damp homes because their families cannot afford to buy sufficient food, never mind pay the heating bill. These children are the next generation in West Dunbartonshire, and they should not be denied the same opportunities as others. Every single child matters.
At the heart of Labour values is an inherent belief that background should not be a barrier to success, and the removal of the two-child limit is a clear and welcome expression of that commitment. This is the change that we promised and it will make a real, tangible difference to so many families in my constituency. The removal of this limit is only part of this Labour Government’s plan for change, and for tackling poverty in a sustained way. The Chancellor’s decision to reduce the level of debt repayments taken from universal credit means that 1.2 million of the poorest households keep more of their award each month. This is a straightforward change, but one that will have a real impact on family finances in West Dunbartonshire.
The Budget delivered record additional funding for Scotland, which will create opportunities to improve outcomes for families and children in places like West Dunbartonshire. However, it is disappointing that the SNP has too often failed to match increased resources with effective delivery when it comes to tackling child poverty in Scotland. Education is the quickest route out of poverty, but in my constituency and across Scotland, the educational attainment gap continues to widen. Meanwhile, further education colleges are being starved of funding, further undermining the life chances of young people in West Dunbartonshire. Removing the two-child limit is the right thing to do. It will give children a better start in life, regardless of how many siblings they have. This will increase their life chances. Not only that, but the decision will also ease the strain on our schools, our local charities and the NHS, and will therefore benefit all in society.
The solution to fixing the welfare system cannot be found in punishing those most vulnerable in society. Social security should provide stability and dignity for everyone, especially children. The Bill is essential to helping alleviate some of the burdens and daily struggles that families in West Dunbartonshire face, and it will lift 450,000 children nationally out of poverty by 2030. I was elected on a manifesto commitment to improve the life chances of every child, and supporting the Bill is consistent with that commitment. Labour has always stood for communities like West Dunbartonshire. Children are not a burden and poverty is not inevitable. I am proud to support the Bill and what it represents—hope, opportunity and fairness—and I commend it to the House.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I have heard so many well motivated and moving stories about human misery, and the truth is those are the stories of our country. Those are the stories of a country that has tried for over 100 years to introduce a social welfare service to look after the poorest in our community and to do the best for them, and, in various different ways, all of us—and I do mean all of us—seek to do that. We may have different expressions and different understandings of quite how that works, but we do all try to look after those who are most vulnerable in our society.
But I think the division here comes in a very fundamental way, and it comes in the questions that one has to ask oneself when one looks at the way in which this economy, this society and this community grow. When I say economy, I mean not just the bald rows of figures that accountants and bankers add up, but the way in which the Greeks meant it: the way a home works together, the way people interact to bring about a community and to bring about a whole. How does that work? How do we get growth? How do we get investment and reward at the right point so that we actually see the progress that society can bring?
We have seen societies, time and time again, doing the well-meaning thing, and ending up costing everyone. We can read the constitutions and the promises of Governments and nations over the last century and see the human misery they led to—not because they were evil, but because those intentions were not aligned with the reality of a human economy. We have seen it time and time again.
Sadly, although we are now having a debate about the two-child benefit cap and about £3 billion, we are really having a debate about what it means to grow an economy. Although the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), made a joke out of it, the reality is that we are seeing young people paying something like 70% tax—and some are therefore making the choice to go to Dubai, to Portugal, to the United States or to Australia. That connection between young and old people is being broken, with families left in need of not only the economic connection but of the human connection between them.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Member give way?
Tom Tugendhat
I will not.
This debate is not just about cash; it is fundamentally about people. There has been an attempt again to pretend that the only interaction between people is that which is metricked, divined and organised by the state, and that simply is not true. It simply is not true to say that, unless the state provides it, it does not count. Yet, again and again, we hear the same thing.
Yes, I know that the Conservative Government left taxes high, but many people seem to have forgotten that covid seemed to increase the debt enormously, and that when some of us tried to vote against various lockdowns, we were accused of murdering various groups, depending on whoever the then Leader of the Opposition seemed to be siding with.
Several hon. Members rose—
Tom Tugendhat
I have said I will not give way. It is true that what we are seeing in the UK today is a legacy: of poor decisions on covid that some of us condemned at the time; of promises made in the last year or two; and of debts to those who challenged leadership in the last six to 12 months. We are now seeing, falling on those who are working, a level of burden that is growing and growing, and people are voting with their feet, either by not working or by leaving.
I am afraid that what we are seeing here is a false choice. We are seeing a Government making promises that will never be able to be cashed. We are seeing a Government adding to a debt, not of £2 trillion—the one that they state—but of £12 trillion or £13 trillion, depending on how we count pension liabilities, private finance initiatives and many of the state’s other debts.
The reality is that this country is broke, and to a degree that nobody in this House seems to appreciate—certainly nobody on the Government Benches. We simply do not have the understanding here, among the noble and well-meaning socialists, that the reality is that they are racking up debts for their children that will mean that this state will be impoverished, we will be left weaker and the whole country will be poorer.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Child poverty is a scourge on any society. It is a tragedy for individual children and families, and the untapped potential, worse health and lower attainment resulting from it hold the whole of society back. In the fifth richest economy in the world, it is also inexcusable. Under 14 years of Conservative-led Governments, the number of children living in poverty grew and poverty deepened, compounded by a housing crisis unprecedented since the second world war, the growth of insecure, low-paid work, and the imposition of the two-child cap.
Action for Children estimates that 4.5 million children are living in poverty in the UK. That is three in 10 children—on average, nine in every classroom. Seven out of 10 children who are living in poverty have at least one parent in work. Behind those statistics are children without a bed to sleep in; children without enough nutritious food to eat; children without warm clothes in winter, living in cold, damp, mouldy homes; children who lack the basics to nurture their growth and development, who are disadvantaged before they even set foot in a classroom.
This situation is not an inevitability. It has come about through the deliberate political choice to prioritise the rhetoric about the benefits system and the stereotypes about the families who rely on it, rather than looking at the evidence and the reality of people’s lives. The Child Poverty Action Group’s analysis of DWP data finds that 1.6 million children have been directly impacted by the decision to impose a cap, above the first two children in a family, on the social security measure that specifically supports families to care for children. Some 59% of those children have parents in work.
The two-child cap has directly pulled 350,000 children into poverty. It is a measure that effectively punishes children for the number of siblings they have. One of the reasons I joined the Labour party many years ago is that we believe that every child deserves to have the opportunity to succeed. We do not judge children on the circumstances of their birth or the decisions of their parents. I am therefore delighted that the Government are taking action to remove the pernicious two-child cap and to lift 400,000 children out of poverty.
Jeremy Corbyn
I absolutely welcome this Bill. It is an enormous step forward and will bring great relief to a lot of families. Does the hon. Lady recognise that the continuation of the overall benefit cap will mean that about 150,000 children will not benefit from this Bill and will remain in relative poverty? Would she welcome further legislation to remove the overall benefit cap in order to try to eliminate all poverty among children?
Helen Hayes
I will go on to talk a little about some of the further measures that I believe the Government need to take on this journey of tackling child poverty.
Evidence from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation is clear that, in the medium term, investment to bring down child poverty reduces the demand on public services that is caused by poor physical and mental health, and by poor education outcomes, which are caused by poverty. Removing the cap is projected to increase the health and education standards of 2 million children who would otherwise have been affected by the cap. By removing the two-child cap, this Labour Government are projected to deliver the biggest ever reduction in child poverty in a single Parliament. I am proud of the other measures that our Government have already announced to help families, which will also help to reduce child poverty: the expansion of free school meals to all children whose families are on universal credit, the delivery of universal free breakfast clubs and the reduction in school uniform costs. The Government’s commitment to children can be in no doubt.
The Education Committee is working jointly with the Work and Pensions Committee to undertake formal scrutiny of the Government’s child poverty strategy. We want the strategy to be as effective as possible, and over the coming weeks we will be listening to evidence from experts on the impacts that the measures announced will have and on whether more should be done. I want the Government to be truly ambitious in tackling child poverty. We should not simply lift the poorest children just above a threshold—important as that is—but ensure that children can truly thrive right across our country. That will require action on some of the other causes of poverty, including housing costs—a shocking number of children are living in temporary accommodation—and food and energy costs. We must provide access to support for families in communities, and an education and skills system that really works for everyone.
Those are the questions that our Committees will turn to in the coming weeks, but this step today is fundamental. The Bill sets the context for an ambitious strategy and will be transformative for families. I am proud to vote for it today.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Like so many Members from across the House, I welcome the Government’s decision finally to scrap the two-child limit on benefits—I just wish they had done so much earlier. The two-child limit is a cruel and unfair penalty on those in the most urgent need of welfare and support. The cap does not tackle the exploitation of the benefits system in order to avoid work and to continue having children; instead, it has been an enormous burden on thousands of household budgets and has pushed more children into poverty. Even if one believes, like the Conservatives, that people have children irresponsibly, I still cannot see how those children should be punished. Every child deserves a good start in life.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
There are many reasons people end up on universal credit and in family situations with more than two children. It is because of those blended families that Cotswold district council chose not to apply the two-child limit in its welfare support scheme. Does my hon. Friend agree that such councils—which have, in these cash-strapped times, supported blended families with more than two children —should not end up out of pocket and should be compensated by the Government for that support?
Charlotte Cane
I commend Cotswold district council for that work. Unfortunately, when I tried to get East Cambridgeshire district council to condemn the two-child cap, the Conservatives refused.
This policy was poorly conceived from the outset and has amounted to little more than attacks—not on parents, but on vulnerable children growing up in a cost of living crisis. My Ely and East Cambridgeshire constituency, which is relatively wealthy and has relatively high-paid work, is thankfully below the national average for child poverty. However, child poverty has continued to rise there despite the fact that 70% of affected households have at least one parent in work. Clearly, this is not a case of families scrounging off the system, but of family budgets stretched to breaking point.
Nationally, the picture looks similarly grim. Child poverty has increased over the past 15 years, pushing 850,000 more children into poverty. In rural areas such as my constituency, poverty can be all the more challenging: parents must travel miles to reach a supermarket or a food bank for affordable food, transport costs for school and work are far higher, fuel costs are higher and children are often socially isolated.
We should never have got to this point. The previous Conservative Government should have recognised that the two-child limit was both a failed experiment and salt in the wound for families dealing with spiralling costs in food, energy and basic necessities. I welcome the Government’s decision to make this correction, but it must be seen as the first step in improving the quality of life for children and building a better future. The Child Poverty Action Group estimates that child poverty may cost in excess of £39 billion a year, accounting for additional public spending in areas such as health and education, as well as future tax receipt losses from resulting unemployment.
Behind that economic loss are children, who will, having missed out on sports clubs and healthy food, face a higher risk of disabilities and long-term health conditions—and, as we heard earlier, they even face an increased chance of early death. They are not afforded the opportunities to develop and pursue their own interests. Many may miss out on higher education, apprenticeships and even early employment.
The Bill is about the future of all children living in this country. We must ensure they are equipped with the resources to thrive and the ability to contribute to a society that supports them from the very start. In that spirit, will the Minister agree to annual reviews of the entire universal credit system to ensure that it keeps pace with the cost of living and becomes an effective tool to tackle child poverty?
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
First, I want to take us back, because this debate is being pitched as if those who are not in work are getting something that is being paid for by those in work—that ain’t the case, and it is wrong to suggest it.
I will tell the House what the problem is: the scar of in-work poverty that was left on our economy. I came into politics to reduce child poverty. Children do not choose their circumstances. They are not to blame for low wages. They are not to blame for insecure work. They are not to blame for their parents’ pay packets, yet they are the ones who feel the consequences the most. A child’s chances should not depend on their parents’ wages. A child’s future should not depend on whether mum or dad has a bad boss or a bad year. That is why I was proud when the Government announced this policy, which will lift 450,000 children out of poverty by the end of this Parliament. That includes over 3,000 children in Corby and East Northamptonshire. That is not just a statistic. It is 3,000 children; it is 3,000 lives; it is 3,000 futures and 3,000 chances.
Members should not let anyone tell them that this is not about values, because it is. When we announced that we would put a tax on mansions, the Tories on the Opposition Benches were growling at us and telling us we could not do that, and now they are sitting there today telling us we should not be lifting 450,000 children out of poverty. This is all about values and where we stand. This issue tells us everything we need to know about the priorities of the Opposition parties: they will fight for their cheaper mansions but not for children who go to bed hungry.
And then there is Reform. Reform Members try to present themselves as the voice of working people, but when it comes to it, they vote against working families, they vote against employment rights, and they are voting against this Bill. Their amendment to the Bill says that they disagree with removing the two-child limit because it “fails to incentivise work” for low-paid families, but that is not people cheating the system or people taking advantage. That is working people kept in low pay by a system that the Conservatives built—a system that Reform now defends.
Work should be the route out of poverty, not into a lifetime trapped in it for children or their families. That is why this Government have chosen to back working families. That is why this Government have chosen to back children. That is why this Government are choosing fairness, and that is why Parliament should back this Bill.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) said, no one in this House doubts the importance of supporting children. Labour Back Benchers are feeling good about the fact that they have organised themselves to deliver what they see as a simple moral good, but as they know and we know, things are much more complicated than that. I know they think they have delivered a simple moral good because not a single one of them has mentioned the rate. None of them has questioned why the additional rate is set at £17.25, rising to £17.90. They have not asked whether that is enough to address poverty. They have not sought to get under the skin of whether this is a more complicated and nuanced argument than it might at first appear. Just the simple act is enough, without contemplating the unintended consequences.
I am concerned that the Government are stumbling into a “Careful what you wish for” measure. First, a number of Opposition Members—and, indeed, the Secretary of State—mentioned the demographic time bomb that we face. There has been no discussion of this measure in the context of the overall fiscal problem that our children will face. At the moment, we have about 3.6 workers per pensioner in this country. By 2050, that will have fallen to two. How will we pay for all of this in the future? How will we fund it all without enormous debt? We have only to look across the channel at France to see what a fiscal eruption can look like, with civic disruption and unrest on the streets, when the necessary correction is made to a welfare state that is running out of control. I am afraid that that is exactly the situation we find ourselves in.
No one is pretending that decisions about welfare are easy—they are not easy. Having worked briefly as a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, I know that these are difficult decisions, yet no one is questioning the micro-decisions that are made. It is simply enough to say to people, “We’re pumping money out there. Let’s hope for the best.” Why is the standard rate for the mobility section of the personal independence payment set at £30.30? I do not know. Does anybody else know? Is there an argument for it? These are the decisions that Ministers have to make on a daily basis, not just about whether we pay welfare but how much we pay. One of my concerns about this measure is that none of that is part of a wider conversation about the massive demographic steam train that is coming down the tunnel towards us.
The second issue I have is that this legislation treats children as a burden to be somehow mitigated, necessarily because it includes them in the welfare bill, rather than as a bonus to be encouraged. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) said, we on the Conservative Benches would much rather there were work incentives that came alongside children. When I was briefly the Secretary of State for Education, I was inundated with correspondence and approaches from lots of highly productive and ambitious women who wanted assistance in work. They wanted some kind of bonus, relief or package to encourage them to have children, rather than a safety net that rescued women if they had children. For a country that needs more children, we need a tilt in our mentality and approach to move from mitigation towards encouragement; that is my concern about embedding the notion that people should have more children in the welfare system.
The final issue I will raise is the legitimacy of the system, which has been raised by a number of Members. We often pretend that we do things for the first time in this country, whereas we can in fact look overseas for lessons, and we do not have to look very far. In France, where successive Governments increased family-related welfare with weak links towards work or contribution, it has created a wider resentment in society. Any successful welfare system must have an eye to legitimacy and consent from the wider population for it to exist.
Dr Arthur
We do not have to look to France. This is fundamentally an issue that many families face around balancing their budgets; many of them are having to get second jobs. Perhaps we can learn from the right hon. Gentleman’s experience, because he has been forced out to get a second job to make ends meet. Perhaps he can give some droplets of experience to those people who are struggling to make ends meet.
Kit Malthouse
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is paying attention to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, but, as he will know, I have not been forced out to get a job. I founded my business 30 years ago; I am one of the few people in this House who has created jobs by the sweat of my own hands, rather than just talking about it. Frankly, I pay the Sainsbury’s bill, the mortgages and all the rest of it for all my employees every single month, and I am proud to do so. Maybe he could learn some lessons, by spending time with some businesspeople, about what it is to make true fiscal and economic decisions.
Let me return to my third point, which is about legitimacy. One thing that was found in France was a rise in resentment, which resulted in President Macron taking specific steps to means-test the access to family welfare. French political scientists will point to the rise of the National Rally in France directly stemming from a mishandling of the welfare system and a growth in resentment in those who did not participate in it.
I am afraid that today we see that writ large in the Order Paper in the Reform party’s reasoned amendment, which was not selected. It calls for open discrimination in our welfare system against those who do not have parents born entirely in this country. I must declare an interest as I am afraid that includes two of my children, who were not born to a British citizen. It also includes the children of Members of Parliament who sit for the Reform party. There is something grotesque about seeking legislation that would downgrade the citizenship of one’s own children.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
It is true to say that the Conservative party has been right about one thing today: this is about choices, and I am incredibly proud to be making the one that we are making.
The Conservative party did untold damage to our country, whether it was in hollowing out the criminal justice system, crumbling school buildings and hospitals, record NHS waiting lists or Liz Truss, but the most egregious part of its record was the harm it inflicted on our nation’s children. An entire generation was plunged into poverty.
Poverty is not inevitable. The last Labour Government lifted 600,000 children out of poverty, but the Conservatives’ scorched-earth programme of austerity reversed that trend. Over their 14 years in power, the number of those in child poverty rose by 900,000, and 4.5 million children now live in poverty. In my constituency, thousands of children are growing up in poverty, which is around one in three. Those are not simply abstract statistics; they are the children and families I meet every week.
The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), said that families have difficult conversations around the kitchen table, and she is absolutely right. Parents are worried about whether they will be turning the heating on or skipping a meal; kids already feel the weight of the world on their shoulders before their 10th birthday; and—as was mentioned just a moment ago—parents working two jobs are still unable to make ends meet. It is cold bedrooms, missed meals and two small, patched-together school uniforms—these are scars that last a lifetime.
Much of that hardship and suffering can be directly attributed to the two-child benefit limit. It is a failed, cruel policy experiment and—leaving aside the fact-free nonsense that we have heard previously from the Conservative party—it makes no difference to family sizes, and it does not drive up employment. Indeed, as has already been mentioned, almost 60% of affected families are in work. The two-child limit does not achieve the so-called goals that Tory ideologues pretend to lay out. Instead, it punishes children; all it does is make children poorer, and it is the single biggest driver of child poverty. Perhaps that is why there are so few Opposition Members prepared to sit and defend this morally, socially and economically bankrupt policy.
Dr Evans
There are not many on the Opposition Benches—the hon. Gentleman’s party won the last election—but we know that the public support keeping this cap in place. Any poll conducted in the last few years has suggested that, on average, 60% of people think that the cap should remain. Why does the hon. Gentleman think the British public back the cap staying in place?
Jack Abbott
I was actually referring to the number of Opposition Members defending this policy here today. I do not think there is a single person in the country who will defend keeping hundreds of thousands more children in poverty. That is what we are getting rid of today, and that is what the hon. Gentleman’s party is defending. It is difficult to think of another policy in modern Britain that is so stark in its design and so devastating in its impact. This policy, for nearly a decade, has quietly and cruelly shaped and limited the life chances of children across this country. Poverty impacts children before they are even born, and its effects continue to be felt in myriad ways at every stage of life after that.
Children growing up in poverty are more likely to experience mental and physical health issues and to do worse in school. They are more likely to be unemployed, earn less or be in low-skilled work than their peers, and they are more likely to experience homelessness and poor health. The shadow Secretary of State said that it is a trap for worklessness. No, this policy is a trap for worklessness, which is exactly what it has achieved over the previous few years. The consequences of poverty are severe and long-lasting, with children born into poverty ultimately having lower life expectancies. Life is shorter because of poverty, and poverty exists in its extreme because of this policy.
For children growing up in a low-income household in my county of Suffolk, education disadvantage starts before they even begin school, and it compounds at every stage of their education. The latest figures from the Education Policy Institute’s 2025 disadvantage report shows that, before kids even enter primary school, they are almost half a year behind their peers. By the time they finish key stage 3, as they choose their options, they are a staggering 21.7 months behind—that is nearly two full school years before they even begin studying for their GCSEs. The translation of this deprivation gap over every stage of a child’s education to their examination results is tangible and stark: disadvantaged students in Suffolk are 4.4 grades behind at the age of 16.
I remember being a councillor during the pandemic, and I saw the enormous impact that this had on so many families, as many Members will remember. Never mind huddling around a kitchen or dining room table trying to work, many families did not have a kitchen or dining room table. Indeed, many disadvantaged students in places like Ipswich were left without electronic devices, such as laptops, for many months. I had hoped that that would be a watershed moment in how we view the link between education and poverty. Instead, what I saw in opposition, as a county councillor in Suffolk, was more cuts to children’s centres and more than a halving of health visitors, yet we wonder why we have such problems now when young children enter education for the first time. It is an absolute disgrace that even now—even after the impact we have seen and all the evidence we have seen—the Conservatives cannot bring themselves to support measures that reduce child poverty.
I am proud to support this Bill, because scrapping the two-child limit will have one of the greatest impacts on driving down child poverty. That one action will lift 450,000 children across our country out of poverty, including more than 3,000 in my town of Ipswich. Through this action, alongside an enormous package of other actions that our Government are taking, we will take over half a million children out of poverty—the largest reduction in a single Parliament since records began.
The two-child limit is quite simply wrong. The number of brothers and sisters that a child has should never determine whether they go hungry or how well they do in school, and no child should be punished simply for existing. Tackling child poverty is in our Labour party’s DNA, and today I could not be prouder to be a Labour MP, because today this Labour Government are following in the footsteps of every Labour Government who came before them by lifting children out of poverty and transforming children’s lives.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Although the reasoned amendment tabled by my Reform UK colleagues and myself has not been selected, I would still like to speak to the contents of that important amendment.
Scrapping the two-child benefit limit does nothing to help hard-working parents who set their alarm clocks every morning, and does everything to encourage families who are already on benefits to have more children in the full knowledge that the state will pay for them. Removing the two-child benefit cap without imposing any other restrictions, such as limiting it to working families with British-born parents, fails to incentivise work.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sarah Pochin
Let me make some progress. It increases the support to non-working families beyond that given to working parents earning above the benefit level, so those who work are being punished while those who play the system are rewarded. The cost to the taxpayer of scrapping the cap is estimated at £15 billion over the next five years, with families affected by the cap estimated to gain an average of £25,000 per family over that period, and the more children they have, the more they get. That is not sustainable, and it is not fair—it is another step towards crippling our economy instead of introducing policies to grow it. We cannot advocate for a society in which work does not pay.
Furthermore, due to higher birth rates among foreign nationals—
Several hon. Members rose—
Sarah Pochin
Just a minute—I do not know who is first.
Due to higher birth rates among foreign nationals, a significant amount of this additional expenditure is expected to go to households in which at least one parent was born outside the UK.
To be clear, and to conclude, Reform will only lift the cap for British families where both parents are in full-time work.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
Listening to the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), is quite something—one would think that the recipients of this benefit were spending the money on soft furnishings for their second homes. They are not; they are spending it on food, rent and clothing for their children. The rise in child poverty under the previous Tory Government has been a shameful stain on this country, and I am proud to be part of a Government who are taking action, not only to provide food and basic necessities but to give children the opportunity to escape cycles of poverty and build secure, independent futures. In the months since this policy was announced, we have heard some truly shameful language from Opposition Members, including describing this Budget as a “Budget for ‘Benefits Street’”. In doing so, they completely denigrate the 450,000 children who never chose to be born into poverty, and who for the most part have simply had the misfortune of growing up during years of successive Conservative Governments.
It is telling that using taxpayers’ money to lift children out of poverty is framed by the Conservatives as an irresponsible use of public funds, while the £10 billion lost to covid fraud is something we are apparently expected to forget and move on from without consequence. I would genuinely welcome the shadow Secretary of State and the Leader of the Opposition to my constituency, so that they can explain directly to the nearly 1,600 children who will be lifted out of poverty by the removal of the two-child cap why the Leader of the Opposition so routinely denigrates people like them and their parents—parents who themselves are paying the price for a Government she was part of, who sent mortgages soaring and allowed inflation to reach 11%. Sadly, I will not hold my breath. When she is not using the Isle of Wight as a punchline for one of her poor, laugh-less jokes, she treats it as a photo opportunity, without having the basic respect to engage with local people, local media or, indeed, the local MP.
Perhaps we should not be surprised. The Conservative party has consistently failed to understand the real, tangible difference that such policies make to people’s lives. Instead of reckoning with the impact of their poverty-accelerating decisions, they choose to vilify those who stand to benefit from the Bill. As I understand it, Reform would now reverse the two-child cap to find money to pay for a cheaper pint at the local pub. Presumably Reform’s next policies would increase the drunk-driving limit to whatever people think they can get away with and lower the age of buying cigarettes to 12, because daddy will be too busy down the pub saving money to buy his own cigs.
As a small business owner, I know too well the damaging legacy of austerity, and the removal of the two-child cap represents the clearing away of one of the most shameful legacies of the austerity years. I know from first-hand experience the impact that Government decisions have on local economies. Austerity was not just a line in a Budget; it was a decade of under-investment that hit businesses such as mine hard. It hollowed out our high streets, weakened consumer confidence and squeezed the incomes of working families.
This policy is about more than tackling poverty and the intergenerational damage it causes; it is about giving hard-working families the chance to feel that they are a part of their high street again, and supporting those who have lost a wage earner or whose wages have simply failed to keep pace with the cost of living. It is called social security for a reason, and it is the solemn responsibility of any Government to provide a safety net to those who, through no fault of their own, have fallen on hard times.
This policy is not just about the removal of the benefits cap; it is an investment in our greatest asset—the British people—and in our future. It is about ensuring that the next generation do not go to school hungry or without the basic necessities and about putting our country on a stronger footing by giving every child a fair start in life.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The benefits system is a safety net designed to support people in hardship, but a fair system must balance that with the needs of those who pay for it. Benefits are paid by the taxpayers of today or, if the money is borrowed, as is so often the case with this Government, by the taxpayers of tomorrow. Every time the cost of benefits rises, so does the burden on the taxpayer, and that cost is growing unsustainably. Spending on health and disability benefits alone is set to hit £100 billion a year by the end of the decade. It is a mark of Labour’s irresponsibility that it presents a Bill today to increase welfare spending further.
I believe in personal responsibility. Not only should our country live within its means, but every individual and family should do so too. Many thousands of couples every year think about whether to have children. They make that choice based on a number of factors, but one of the most important is whether they can afford to bring up that child as they would like to. Those in receipt of benefits should face the same choices as those in work. That is why the Conservatives introduced the two-child benefit cap, and it is why I believe it should be retained.
Under the pre-2017 system, there was a fundamental element of unfairness. A family in receipt of benefits saw them increase automatically every time they had another child. That was not true of a family not in receipt of benefits. Why should a taxpayer who has decided that they cannot afford more children subsidise the third, fourth or fifth child of someone not in work?
I understand why Labour Members are in favour of more welfare spending. They stopped representing working people a long time ago, and they now want to create a society where more than half the population is dependent on the state to ensure their re-election. Why has the leader of Reform UK, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), supported scrapping the two-child cap until so very recently? Voters in my constituency, some even sympathetic to his cause, have been horrified. I think the answer is that he is chasing votes in the north of England, hoping to win support from former Labour voters. That instinct for higher spending shows that Reform UK is wholly unserious about governing our country. Britain needs a Government determined to deliver the changes we need: controlling public expenditure and reducing borrowing, leading to lower taxes and a stronger economy.
Sam Rushworth
I am deeply offended by the hon. Gentleman’s comment about people in the north of England, as though they are people who simply vote for their own welfare. That is not true. The people I represent are proud to be hard-working people in good working-class jobs, and many of them have children who have been impacted by the two-child cap. Would the hon. Gentleman like to apologise to them?
Sir Ashley Fox
If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I was saying, he would know that I was describing the tactics of the hon. Member for Clacton. That, I believe, is what motivates his policy on this matter.
The Government seem to be completely powerless to do anything to reverse the spiralling costs of the welfare state. The Prime Minister did, of course, try to produce a package of modest reforms last year. He set out to save £4.5 billion, but was forced into a humiliating U-turn and ended up spending more taxpayers’ money to buy off Labour rebels. He now says that his welfare reforms strike the “right balance”. Does anyone believe him? There is not a thought for the taxpayer, and not a thought about the extra debt that the Government are incurring and the interest that will have to be paid on it.
Let me remind Labour Members that before the election, they said repeatedly that they would
“not increase taxes on working people”.
That was accompanied by a manifesto pledge that they would increase spending by £9.5 billion, but in the 18 months since they were elected, the Government have actually increased spending by £100 billion—10 times more than they promised. They have increased taxes by £66 billion, and borrowing by an extra £40 billion. This is what the Labour Government do best: spending other people’s money. It is in their DNA. They do not care about getting better value for the taxpayer; their only thought is about how to spend and borrow more, as if that were a sign of caring.
I am proud to have a leader with the backbone to tell the truth to the British people. We need to reduce the size of the state so that it does less but does it better. We will reward people who do the right thing—who work hard, who save, who invest, who create jobs, and who build a more prosperous country for all of us.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of lifting the two-child cap, not just as a Member of Parliament but as someone who knows personally what it means to live on the edge of financial insecurity. That was not my child’s fault.
A few years ago, between the end of 2018 and the beginning of 2019, long before I entered the House, I was for a time a single parent and out of work—not for long in the grand scheme of things, but for long enough to struggle again. I do not want to make this speech about me, but I want to give this example because, hopefully, it shows a modicum of insight and empathy that appears to be missing in more than one party on the other side of the House.
Like millions of people, I was doing everything that I could to keep going, to keep my home afloat and to shield my child from the worst of the stress and anxiety that come with not having enough. Many people experience that even in work—people with responsibility for more children than I have. At that time, I had to register a statutory off-road notification for my car because I simply could not afford to run and tax it, so twice a day, every day, I would walk to the school. That took me about three hours. Let me be clear about what that meant in practice. It meant—especially for my daughter—starting the day already exhausted, yet knowing that I still had to parent, to job hunt, to cope. At the end of the day, it meant digging deep for energy that, quite frankly, I often just did not have. On some days, if I could scrape together enough loose change—coins that I gathered from looking hither and thither—I could afford to take a bus, and that small thing, that single bus journey, made an enormous difference to me and to my child. I had a little more patience, a little more capacity to be the parent that my child needed me to be.
That, for so many, is the reality that we are talking about today. The two-child cap is often discussed in abstract terms—in terms of numbers, incentives and thresholds—but behind every statistic is a family making impossible choices, parents skipping meals so that their children can eat, and children growing up with limits imposed on them before they have even had a chance to begin. This is not about supporting families who are simply irresponsible or reckless or thoughtless or not planning ahead for children they can or cannot afford. It predominantly impacts on working families who sometimes fall on hard times, families who lose a job, families whose circumstances change through illness, bereavement or redundancy, families who did not plan to need support but need it none the less. Children do not choose the circumstances they are born into, yet under the two-child cap we are telling some children that they are worth less than others. This support will remove the arbitrary line drawn not by need, but by ideology.
Lifting the two-child cap is not about rewarding anyone, but about recognising reality. It is about acknowledging that the cost of living has risen, that wages have not kept pace and that social security should provide security, especially for children. When we invest in families, we invest in better outcomes, better health, less crime, better education and stronger communities. We also reduce pressure on public services further down the line, and we give parents the breathing space they need.
When I think back to the long walks, exhaustion and worry, as well as the quiet determination to keep going, I know how much difference a little extra support will make for the very many families and children who will be lifted out of poverty by this policy. It is not luxury and comfort; it is just dignity and a fair chance. It is the difference between a parent breaking or not, going without a meal to feed their child or not, and the difference between a child not starting the day exhausted and having a warm bedroom at bedtime or not.
Saying, “Don’t have children if you can’t afford them,” just does not wash. It is not a parent’s fault if they have record high energy bills thanks to the war in Ukraine. Saying that does not help a parent who is out of work due to ill health, thanks to a broken NHS that has not been there to help them after 14 years of Conservative government. It is no parent’s fault when they have a child with special educational needs and disabilities, who perhaps they have had to give up work to support. The fault does not lie with the more than 60% of working families who are struggling. That is why I urge this House to do the right thing, as have Citizens Advice, the Child Poverty Action Group, Alder Hey children’s hospital, the Mental Health Foundation, the Royal College of Nursing, the Women’s Budget Group and UNICEF UK—to name but a few. I notice that Conservative Members have referred to absolutely no organisations that back their claim that this is the wrong thing to do.
I want to ensure that no child in this country is held back simply because of the circumstances they were born into or the changed circumstances that have made things harder for them and their parents. That is why I am grateful that we are not passing the Bill in isolation, but that this Labour Government are delivering Best Start hubs, breakfast clubs to help parents get back into work and to get to work earlier, and up to £7,000 of childcare for working parents. We are also helping young people who are out of work, education or training into the workplace to better their life opportunities, and that is what lifting the two-child cap is about.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
The two-child limit has punished children for circumstances entirely beyond their control. For nearly a decade, families have been denied support simply because a child happened to be born as a third or a fourth child. That was a cruel choice made by policymakers, not one made in children’s best interests, and it really shows that a Government can get it wrong. This was a particularly callous policy because it was designed to punish children, and because of the harm done to generations of young people, who are the future of our country.
Today, 4.5 million children in the UK are growing up in poverty, including in my constituency of Stratford-on-Avon. This policy has been a major driver of deep poverty, pushing working families further into hardship at a time when food, energy and housing costs remain painfully high. In Stratford-on-Avon, I hear from parents who are working hard, often juggling insecure hours or caring responsibilities, yet are still struggling to afford basics such as heating, healthy food, transport and even furniture. Many live in privately rented homes where costs keep rising, while support has been cut or frozen. These families are doing everything that is asked of them, yet the system has been stacked against them.
I gently remind the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), that looking after five children as a single parent is a job—it is work. Raising a family is one of the most important jobs or contributions that a person can make to society. Research by the Social Market Foundation has made the wider point that when countries make it harder to have and raise children, birth rates tend to fall and populations age faster. That has real consequences for the long-term health of our economy and the public finances, because a smaller working-age population has to support a larger retired population, while demand, productivity and innovation can all suffer.
The same analysis also underlines something we should be honest about in this debate: in the UK, being a parent is too often tied to financial pressure. Where families feel supported through affordable, high-quality childcare and a safety net that does not penalise children, outcomes are better for parents and for children alike, and the whole society benefits. If we are serious about giving every child the best start in life, we should stop designing policy that makes it harder for families to get by.
Removing the two-child limit is the single most effective step this House can take to lift children out of poverty during this Parliament. It is backed by children’s charities, economists, educators and those working on the frontline. It will improve health, educational outcomes and life chances, while easing pressure on public services in the long term. A fair society does not balance its books by denying children support. It invests in them, protects them and gives every child the opportunity to thrive. That is why I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues support the removal of the shameful two-child limit and why I am proud to back the Bill’s Second Reading.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
Of course I support the Bill. It is what we are here for: to do this at the stroke of a pen—not of any pen, but that of a Government pen—after years in opposition, hoping to be able to come in and enact the sort of change we are able to make today. I am proud to stand in support of this Bill, and of the work that the Minister for Social Security and Disability continues to do in assessing the welfare reforms to come.
In my constituency, child poverty is a daily reality for too many families. More than 7,000 children in Bury North are growing up in poverty. That means that over a third of the families I represent are in poverty—well above the national average—and the majority of them are in work. Behind each number is a child arriving at school hungry, a parent worrying about rent or heating, and families doing everything right but still falling short on the bills they have to pay. What makes this harder is that Bury North is often seen, on paper, as doing reasonably well, with strong communities and pride in place, but proximity to prosperity does not cushion poverty; it simply hides it.
Too often, policy has failed to understand that. That is why the Government are right to reassess how funding is allocated, recognising that affluence and deprivation sit side by side, ward by ward. Crucially, it is why this change is being made now, when it is costed and affordable, yet overdue. In Chesham Fold and parts of East Ward, parents work every hour they can, budgeting meticulously, yet still struggle to cover the basics. The least well-off are often the best at budgeting, because they have no choice but to stretch limited means as far as possible.
Nowhere is inequality clearer than in health. A child born in one part of my constituency can expect to live seven to 10 years less than a child born barely a mile away. That gap is not about lifestyle choices. It is about poverty shaping lives before they have even properly begun. That is why lifting the two-child limit matters so much, and why I support it as an economic and moral intervention. Scrapping it will lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, reduce the depth of poverty for many more and increase spending power in exactly the communities that need it most. That money is spent locally, in full, on food shops, markets, uniforms, rent, heating and transport. It circulates through local economies, gives them buoyancy, stabilises households and reduces pressure on public services downstream. Child poverty already costs our economy close to £40 billion a year in lost potential and higher demand. Ending it for families in Bury North is not ideological; it is hard-headed prevention.
I challenge those who continue to trade in the myths that cling to this debate. Most affected families are already in work; many include a disabled child. Family circumstances change overnight for many of us, through bereavement, redundancy or relationship breakdown. A social security system that fails to recognise that is not tough; it is brittle and will break too easily, as it did for 14 years. This matters even more profoundly for children with special educational needs and disabilities, with the recent Sutton Trust report stating that growing up with SEND and in poverty creates a “double disadvantage”.
I support this Government’s instincts on welfare reform. Rights, responsibilities and contribution matter, but responsibility works only if the floor people are expected to stand on is high enough in the first place. The Bill, alongside wider measures to support families and tackle low incomes, sends a clear message: we are serious about prevention, serious about fairness, and serious about breaking the link between the circumstances of birth and chances in life.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Your Party)
Labour MPs are lining up today to congratulate themselves on ending the two-child limit. I welcome that decision; I fought for it and I voted for it, and I was suspended and punished by my former party for doing so. While that punishment was being handed out by the Labour Whips Office on behalf of the Prime Minister, children in Coventry South and across the country paid the price.
Facts matter: the two-child limit pushes an estimated 109 children into poverty every single day. From the moment I was suspended for voting to scrap the limit to today, when we are debating the Second Reading of this Bill, 19 months have passed—19 months of delay and excuses. During that time, while this Labour Government delayed, argued and disciplined their own MPs for doing the right thing, over 63,000 children were pushed into poverty. Those children will not get that time back. They will carry the consequences for the rest of their lives.
There are now 4.5 million children living in poverty in Britain. That is not a statistic; in the sixth largest economy in the world, that is a national disgrace. Without further action, that number will rise to 4.7 million during this Parliament. Scrapping the two-child limit matters because the limit is the single biggest driver of rising child poverty.
Jeremy Corbyn
Does the hon. Member recognise that additional causes of child poverty include a tax threshold that has not been raised at all and the insufficiency of the minimum wage, which drives many working families into desperate poverty, with their children suffering as a result?
Zarah Sultana
I agree completely with the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] If I could continue without the heckling from those on the Labour Benches who have now decided that child poverty is a priority they want to pursue—as I was saying, scrapping the two-child limit matters because the limit is the single biggest driver of rising child poverty. Scrapping it will lift hundreds of thousands of children closer to dignity and security.
But this Labour Government have decided to stop halfway, because although the two-child limit goes, the benefit cap remains. That means that tens of thousands of families will feel no benefit at all from this change. According to the Government’s own analysis, 50,000 families will gain nothing, another 10,000 will gain only part of what they are owed, and some parents will be left with just £3 a week after rent—£3 to feed, clothe and raise a child. Let us be clear: the Government cannot claim to have ended a policy that punishes children while keeping another that traps them in deep poverty. The benefit cap does not drive employment or create opportunity; it simply takes money from the poorest families—many of them single parents with very young children—and pushes them deeper into despair and hardship.
If this Labour Government are serious about tackling child poverty, they have to finish the job. That means scrapping the benefit cap, ending the two-child limit in full, increasing child-related benefits and making free school meals universal so that no child is excluded simply because their parents earn a pound too much. It means introducing an essentials guarantee into our social security system so that everyone can afford the basics, and ending the four-year freeze on local housing allowance so that families can keep a roof over their heads in the middle of a cost of living crisis. Every single day of delay causes real harm to the most vulnerable in our society; every day of half measures by this Labour Government means that children will continue growing up cold, hungry and anxious about what comes tomorrow.
Reducing child poverty is not radical; it is responsible, it is the right thing to do, it improves health, it improves education and it improves long-term economic outcomes. Last July, alongside six other colleagues, I voted to scrap the two-child benefit cap not for applause; I voted for it because poverty is a political choice, and it was the right thing to do. If this House truly believes that all children are equal, it must act on that belief and abolish the two-child benefit cap in full, without delay.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
I was also one of the seven Labour MPs suspended: for voting, to be quite clear, on an amendment to strengthen the King’s Speech by removing the two-child limit. I had made a vow to my constituents in Liverpool West Derby during the election that I would vote to scrap that inhumane policy at every single opportunity I had—so I did.
Today I am grateful and, frankly, relieved that the Government have recognised this policy for what it always was: an immoral attack from the architect of austerity, George Osborne, which punished working-class children. That is everything we should oppose in a Labour Government. Today is a big step in the right direction for the Government elected on a promise to support the most vulnerable, and for change. I am delighted that we stand here today.
Shamefully, 4.5 million children are living in poverty in the UK—850,000 more than in 2010. The two-child limit has been a key driver of that increase since its introduction in 2017. According to the Child Poverty Action Group, every single day that the policy existed, 109 children were pushed into poverty and denied their ability to live life to the full. Trussell figures are just as stark: almost one in three emergency food parcels last year went to families with three or more children, who make up just 11% of the population, and more than two in five of those families experienced food insecurity. This winter, food banks have been forced to provide an emergency food parcel every 10 seconds—in one of the richest, wealthiest nations on Earth.
Jeremy Corbyn
I compliment the hon. Member on the amazing work he has done on the Right to Food Commission and on food banks in Liverpool, supported by all the football clubs there. He must be aware—maybe he has figures—of the number of families with children who use food banks who are in work, and sometimes doing two jobs, but who are still so poor that they cannot afford to pay a weekly grocery bill.
Ian Byrne
I thank my right hon. Friend for those remarks. We run food pantries in Liverpool with Fans Supporting Foodbanks, and over 60% of those who access those pantries are in work. That is the stark reality of the world we live in.
Behind the figures are real families and real children. Alder Hey Children’s Charity made abolishing the two-child limit its primary focus in its Put Children First campaign report. That charity see at first hand the damage the policy causes to the children in our communities. I have spoken to my great friend, the paediatrician Dr Ian Sinha from Alder Hey children’s hospital. He was presented with a child who, at first sight, he thought had leukaemia. It turned out to be malnutrition.
Poverty kills. That is why scrapping the two-child limit matters. In my constituency of Liverpool West Derby alone, over 3,000 children will be lifted out of poverty. Nationally, 470,000 children will benefit by 2027, alongside 200,000 adults. That represents a 15% reduction in child poverty, with the living standards of 1.6 million children improving immediately.
The impact goes far beyond immediate relief. As we heard at the Right to Food Commission’s evidence session last week in Knowsley, lifting families out of poverty and improving their food security transforms lives, leading to better health outcomes, less pressure on the NHS, higher educational attainment and a stronger future workforce. For those in this place today and many who are not here now who rallied against the cost of lifting children out of poverty, the economic benefit of removing the two-child limit is estimated at £3.1 billion per year through reduced pressure on public services, increased employment and higher tax revenues. It is cost-neutral. For those who speak only the language of the Treasury, it is not only morally right but fiscally responsible. If that floats your boat, that is what we are talking about.
We must be honest, though: this measure does not go far enough. We are voting to remove the two-child benefit limit, not the benefit cap. The cap remains, meaning that 50,000 families will see no benefit at all and 20,000 will see only a marginal increase. If we are really serious about ending child poverty—and I hope we are, with the strategy that we are bringing forward—this Government must commit to removing the benefit cap entirely in this Parliament. The Right to Food UK Commission will also call for legislation on a comprehensive right to food, including universal free school meals, transparency on food costs and the requirement for food security to be considered across all areas of policy.
I urge colleagues to support the Bill, but I remind the House that when it comes to inequality, we do not get to choose where our moral mission ends. As long as children in 21st-century Britain are growing up hungry or in poverty, there is more we can and must do. Let us remove the two-child limit today, end the benefit cap, legislate for the right to food and build a Britain where no family or child is left behind.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
Scrapping the two-child benefit cap is the single most important action this Government could take to improve outcomes for children in poverty. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have called for it consistently, so I am pleased that the Government are finally taking this step. Children and young people in Eastleigh and across our country have paid the price for a policy that was never about fairness, but instead about cutting support to the families who are often struggling the most. This cruel, shameful policy should never have been introduced in the first place. I reiterate that circumstances can change in a heartbeat: redundancy, bereavement or discovering that a child needs special care, meaning that a parent has to give up work—these life-changing events can all have a huge and sometimes devastating impact on household income.
According to the End Child Poverty coalition, 20.6% of children in Eastleigh are growing up in poverty. These experiences in early childhood shape outcomes for life, affecting health, educational attainment and future earnings. Without further action, over 4 million children in the UK will still be growing up in poverty by 2029. Housing costs, inflation—particularly food inflation—and high energy costs continue to be central drivers of hardship.
The Department for Work and Pensions’ own impact assessment has found that around 50,000 low-income families currently affected by the two-child benefit limit will gain nothing when it is lifted in April. A further 20,000 will see their incomes lift only partially from April, due to having their income raised to benefit cap level. What further measures will the Minister take to ensure that all children can fulfil their full potential? Citizens Advice Eastleigh recently advised a single parent whose universal credit was reduced by nearly 30% due to the benefit cap, which, combined with her high rental costs, left her with only £400 a month to feed and clothe her children and keep them warm. Charities in my constituency and across the UK say the same thing: the Bill on its own, while welcome, is not enough.
A fair society does not balance its books on the backs of children. It is frankly astonishing that the Conservatives would reinstate the two-child benefit cap. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Conservatives’ policy did not have a significant impact on labour supply and has not considerably affected fertility decisions, so the only thing it did was to drive more children into poverty. What a terrible legacy that is. I wonder what they would say to the 72% of children living in poverty who are in working families, and the families with three or more children who are in poverty through absolutely no fault of their own. A fair society protects its children, invests in them and gives every child the chance to thrive. That is why I support this Bill, and why I will continue to press for further action until child poverty in this country is eradicated once and for all.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I am proud to support the Bill and do so with the families of Southampton firmly in mind. Those are families who fell foul of the last Conservative Government’s mission to make Britain Dickensian again.
Child deprivation in my city is among the worst in the country—worse than more than 83% of local authorities. Here, that is a potentially abstract statistic; there, it is reflected in the lived reality of my constituents. More than one in five working-age adults in Southampton are on universal credit. That rises to an average of one in three in our most deprived neighbourhoods. As colleagues have said, many of those people are working hard but are still falling short. What was the last Conservative Government’s answer to that? It was to count the children and punish the whole family. No doubt tonight Conservative Members will traipse through the Lobby and vote to keep a lid on the 450,000 children who are about to be released from poverty.
The two-child limit simply did not work. If anything, it compounded the pressures on families—families who repeatedly tell me that the universal credit they receive barely covers the rent, let alone food, heating or school essentials. That is the Tory legacy, and that is the deeply entrenched poverty that this Labour Government are having to undo bit by bit. It is therefore no surprise that an estimated 10,000 children in Southampton still live in households with absolute low income and that 25% of children live in households with relative low income. These realities demand clear action, and this Bill is part of that action being led by the Labour Government.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. The issues he describes in his Southampton constituency apply in a similar way to my residents in Reading. Does he agree that an important aspect of the Government’s work is not only what we are debating today, but the wider and broader package of measures, such as help on housing and the cost of transport and the warm homes initiative? Perhaps he will talk about the overall impact of these measures.
Darren Paffey
I thank my hon. Friend for making that salient point, and I will come to that wider package of measures.
Of course, we have heard straw-man arguments, saying, “Well, this one thing will not solve child poverty.” No one is claiming that it will solve child poverty; it is one piece in the jigsaw of the wider work that this Government are doing. But I am glad that this punitive, arbitrary cap, which only made life worse for so many, is being scrapped. That will lift up to 2,500 children in Southampton Itchen out of poverty.
If I were to credit the Conservative Opposition with one thing in this debate, it would be their consistency.
Darren Paffey
Consistently wrong, and they have made a consistent and desperate attempt to be divisive. They are trying to split the country into those who pay tax and those who receive welfare. These generalisations around the “deserving” and the “undeserving” poor are not only crass but factually wrong. Many contribute through work for years. They fall on hard times and rely on the safety net that they have paid into—my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) made that point eloquently. The Conservatives ignore the fact that many receive universal credit while they are working. That is the state topping up poverty wages. The Conservatives might be happy to ignore that, but Labour is taking action on the minimum wage—what a contrast.
This Bill removing the two-child limit is a vital step, but—to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda)—it is not a stand-alone measure. It sits alongside this Labour Government’s wider work, such as opening free breakfast clubs, which will transform life chances, with early adopters in St John’s, St Patrick’s and Hightown primary schools in my constituency. It also sits alongside the £20 million Pride in Place investment in the Weston estate and the expansion of free school meals. A third of pupils in my state-funded schools are eligible for free school meals, and more are set to get that support, making a material difference to their lives and breaking down some of the barriers to learning that still exist.
Labour is investing in more childcare to help those parents who face barriers to getting into work. We are strengthening some of the universal credit work allowances, and delivering a comprehensive child poverty strategy aimed at giving every single child a fair start. I commend the Secretaries of State for Education and for Work and Pensions for the work they have done on leading that vital change.
We all dream of a future where these kinds of benefits might not be as necessary as they are now. We dream of, and Labour is working towards, a world where work pays well and pays better, which our Employment Rights Act 2025 moves us closer to achieving. We dream of a world where the cost of living crisis is less acute, as our action on warm homes and freezing rail fares, VAT rates, income tax rates and fuel duty will help to achieve. Add to that the creation of opportunities through the youth guarantee scheme and more apprenticeships, and we can see that a lot is happening, but that there is still much more to do.
The Bill recognises a very simple truth: children do not choose the circumstances into which they are born. Supporting the Bill and scrapping the arbitrary failed cap is not only the right economic decision; it is the right moral decision.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
The Government have drawn this Bill too narrowly. It will, as Members have mentioned several times, leave at least 150,000 children in larger families with no extra help at all. For example, Maryam, highlighted by the Z2K charity, is a lone parent of three. She fled from domestic abuse and relies on us for her income while she restarts her life. Abolishing the two-child limit alone will not improve her life one bit, because she is affected by both the two-child limit and the overall benefit cap.
In December, after this policy change was finally announced—about 18 months after the Government should have taken action—I asked Ministers how many families and children would be excluded from the extra help, and they told me that that information was not available. It is beyond me how they could decide that this policy would leave out children without knowing exactly how many. DWP data shows that there are nearly 1,000 families subject to the benefit cap in my constituency, but I was not told—and I still do not know—how many of my families will be excluded from the provisions in the Bill. We do know how many children in total will be left out and not helped. The impact assessment for the Bill says that 50,000 families will see no gain at all, and that another 20,000 families in the first year will only partially gain before the household benefit cap kicks in for them too. In total, at least 200,000 children will not get the help they need from the Government.
The benefit cap, like the two-child limit, was always unjust. Introduced by the Conservatives who used headlines and misrepresentations, they drove up stigma and demonisation—demonisation of children in poverty and their parents. The Conservatives failed to see that social security is security for everyone, and that this spending pays back in wider benefits that the Treasury and the country will see. We should not limit lives through prejudice,
Kirsty Blackman
Does the hon. Member share my concerns that the arguments that are being made by the Labour Government in cancelling the two-child cap were applicable 19 months ago, and that 61,000 children could have been kept out of poverty if the Government had agreed with us in debates on the King’s Speech, rather than waiting until now?
Siân Berry
I thank the hon. Member for pointing out yet again that some of us in this House voted to move on this issue many, many months ago, and it is about time that the Government caught up.
I utterly reject the racist agenda of Reform’s objections. The fact is that the Bill is not wrong, but it fails to do right by far too many children, so what will the Government do to fix that? The scope of the Bill could be widened by the Government to remove the benefit cap. This could be done through a motion or even by a simple amendment, which I have been trying to achieve. It is down to the Government to listen to Members who have spoken on this issue today. I quite simply ask them whether they will now act.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
The introduction of the two-child limit by the Conservatives in 2017 has had a devastating impact on child poverty rates. Every day, it affects 1.7 million children, with a loss of roughly £3,500 a year for affected families. A huge 17% of children in my constituency live in families subject to this inhumane and unjust policy.
It is also a policy that has failed on its own terms: a study by the London School of Economics found that it did not increase employment rates among those families affected, the majority of whom are already in work. Meanwhile, the wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of children became collateral damage in this reckless experiment, from living in overcrowded homes to going to bed hungry.
It is utterly disgraceful that this cruel policy has remained in force for so long, and I know that many of our constituents have felt let down that our Labour Government did not act more quickly. I am therefore greatly relieved that the calls that so many of us have repeatedly made are now being heeded, and that the Government are finally scrapping the two-child limit. This would not have been possible without the tireless work of campaigners, who have spent almost a decade fighting for this change.
Experts agree that the removal of the two-child limit is the most cost-effective way to cut child poverty, with the change expected to lift almost half a million children out of poverty by the end of this Parliament. With more than a third of children in my constituency growing up in poverty, I breathe a sigh of relief for the children and families in Nottingham East, and right across the country, who will finally be receiving the support that they should always have had.
Poverty is a political choice, and this Bill proves that we can make decisions that have a real impact, but this must be the start and not the end. I am concerned that around 50,000 low-income families currently affected by the two-child benefit limit will gain nothing when it is lifted in April because of the benefit cap. I am also worried that children whose parents are subject to no recourse to public funds will continue to be at a disproportionately high risk of poverty because they are denied support. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has also warned that progress on tackling poverty is likely to stall without further action.
Jeremy Corbyn
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I absolutely agree with her about those 50,000 families not getting any benefit. Does she agree that there needs to be a more comprehensive approach to child poverty, including raising the tax threshold to take the poorest families and poorest people out of taxation altogether, and looking at the extraordinarily high private sector rents in many places, which are way above the local housing allowance and mean that families on benefit end up subsidising their rent in order to keep a roof over their heads?
Nadia Whittome
I thank the right hon. Member for that intervention. I agree with the points that he made, particularly because, from my constituency inbox, huge numbers of constituents are effectively evicted because landlords keep hiking their rents. That is why I back his call, and the calls of Sadiq Khan and Andy Burnham—our mayors—to allow local areas to introduce rent controls. I also back the calls of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation for universal credit to cover the cost of essentials such as food, toiletries and heating.
Addressing people’s material conditions—their living conditions—is how we keep the far right at bay. We must show that we are on the side of working-class people. We must tax the multimillionaires and put money back into our public services and people’s pockets. We must do that at pace, so that no child grows up in poverty, in the sixth-largest economy in the world, so that people can see the difference that a Labour Government can make, and so that our society becomes a happier, healthier and more equal place for all of us to live. That must be our goal.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
It seems that with increasing frequency I stand in this place welcoming Labour U-turns, and today I welcome yet another. The decision to lift the two-child cap is clearly the right moral choice, and it will lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty.
For those in Scotland, this is a particularly welcome change. There will no longer be any need for the Scottish Government to divert funds from social care and council services to the Scottish child payment. With that in mind, I urge the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), who is on the Bench behind me, to discuss with her colleagues in Holyrood the merits of using some of the projected £155 million savings to help fund a new health and care hub for the people of Bearsden and Milngavie in my constituency.
I am aware that some people do not support lifting the cap. The change is set to cost UK taxpayers over £3 billion annually by 2030—clearly an enormous sum. Over the past year, we have seen that this Labour Government are set on making working people pay for their changes through tax band freezing, national insurance rises and pension changes. With that in mind, I urge the Government to look seriously at the Liberal Democrat proposals that aim to raise tax revenue. First, banks have made record profits—an estimated £50 billion in a single year—off the backs of hard-working people. We Liberal Democrats believe that it is only fair that the banks pay back some of that money. A windfall tax on these enormous profits could raise £7 billion per year, without placing any more strain on people who are already struggling.
On top of that—I know that Conservative Members will not be happy to hear this again—we need a customs union with Europe. Trade deals with China and India are not unwelcome, but the biggest opportunity is right on our doorstep: an extra £90 billion a year in tax revenue that does not require going cap in hand to those who stand against our values or who facilitate our enemies.
Lifting children out of poverty does not have to put a further strain on working people. We can create a fair tax system in which companies pay their fair share to help those from whom they profit.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. May I gently remind the hon. Lady that this is a very specific debate about the removal of the two-child limit and not a wider debate on tax policy?
Susan Murray
I apologise.
Removing the two-child cap is a vital step, and I hope that the Government choose to listen to more Liberal Democrat proposals.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
Scrapping the two-child limit is a clear win-win. It will improve the living standards of around 1.6 million children overnight and prevent hundreds of thousands more from being pushed into poverty in the years ahead, while also leading to better health, development, educational attainment and economic outcomes. These improvements will shape life chances, ease the pressure on our public services and strengthen our wider economy.
This decision is a testament to the campaigners who have worked tirelessly for years to see the two-child limit repealed, and to hon. Members from across the House who have repeatedly called for change, including those who lost the Labour Whip in 2024 for standing firmly by their principles. I strongly support this measure and will, of course, vote in favour.
The cruel two-child limit was introduced by the Conservative Government in 2015, with the stated aim of making savings in the welfare system. The bottom line is that misdirected interventions, based on cuts rather than investment, will never fix a system that is producing deepening poverty.
Poverty and the cost of living crisis are taking a devastating toll on Welsh communities. Across Wales, thousands of people are struggling to make ends meet, going without essentials and falling further into debt. With just three months to go until the elections, it is clear that this crisis will not disappear, and we should pull every available lever to tackle it. Removing the two-child cap and delivering a robust child poverty strategy are welcome steps, but more must be done.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
Five in six low-income households on universal credit are going without the essentials. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Trussell Trust say that the welfare system must provide the essentials of daily living— food, heating and so on—if we are to tackle deep-seated poverty in this country. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Steve Witherden
I agree with my hon. Friend, who cites some absolutely appalling statistics. An essentials guarantee would embed the principle that universal credit should, at a minimum, protect people from going without food, heating and other basics. A protected minimum floor would ensure that no one falls below a humane safety net.
I hope that the Government continue along the path of reversing cruel Conservative policies that harm the most vulnerable in our society.
David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)
This has been a very revealing debate in which Members on all sides of the House have made interesting points, but this matter has unfortunately become quite polarising.
On one side of the debate, we have those who work with children and families and see the hugely damaging impact that the two-child limit has had. The Child Poverty Action Group says that
“scrapping the two-child limit is the most cost-effective way to start to reduce child poverty”.
Dame Rachel de Souza, the Children’s Commissioner, called removing the two-child limit
“a vital first step towards lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty quickly, with the potential to transform their lives.”
I agree with Unicef, which said:
“No child should be punished for the number of siblings they have.”
Scrapping the two-child limit will lift around 2,500 children in St Helens North out of poverty. In this Parliament, we are on course to lift a record number of children—more than half a million nationally—out of poverty. Free breakfast clubs are opening in more primary schools, more than 5,000 families in St Helens North will benefit from extended free school meals later this year, and working families receive 30 hours of free childcare. Yes, that must all be paid for, and I am aware that it will be paid for by taxpayers, but politics and government are about choices.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), said that we should look at the Conservatives’ record in government. The hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) said that government is about choices. Well, the country is well aware of the Conservatives’ record and the choices that they made, which is why they are sat on the Opposition Benches. This Labour Government are choosing to give all children the opportunity to thrive, and we will all benefit as a result. Every single penny spent in pursuit of that goal is money well spent, in my opinion as a taxpayer.
On the other side of the debate, however, the Leader of the Opposition and others do not take a reasonable and reasoned position but use language that is at best insulting and at worst dangerous. In a single stroke, talk of the so-called “Benefits Street” alienates and denigrates the millions of Britons who receive benefits, many of whom work. They are our neighbours and friends; the people we see day in, day out around our communities. As my hon. Friends have said, most of the children who will be helped by the removal of the two-child limit are from households in which someone works—59% of the households affected by the two-child limit are in work.
I agree with those who say that work should pay, which is why I support this Government’s measures to ensure exactly that—measures that are opposed by those who say that work should pay. Try to square that circle, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I cannot—good luck to them. All I ask is that those who talk in that way about “Benefits Street”, and who denigrate millions of people, including children, think about how those children —never mind their parents—might feel when they see those headlines. We can and should debate policy, but we gain nothing from making people feel worthless.
We also hear a lot about “looking after our own.” I agree that we should look after our own and support the people who need help. That is what the Bill would do through investment in children and the wellbeing of future generations, for their sake and for our collective good. I have seen the impact of poverty on families and children throughout my working life, and I have tried my best to help them. I am sure that all Members, on both sides of the Chamber, have met many families who have struggled and dealt with sudden changes in circumstances, whether from ill health, bereavements, job losses or housing crises.
For families with more than two children, the impact is even more acute. It saddens me—frankly, it staggers me—that some would choose to extend that pain tonight. Every child matters; every child counts; every child has a role to play in our country and its future. I will vote tonight for them.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
I know all too well the difference this Bill will make for families across the country. In my constituency, I have seen far too many families struggling to make ends meet. Indeed, that reality was a huge part of what drove me to this place from my primary school classroom and a lead role in local government, so I am pleased and proud to welcome and support the Bill today and the tangible difference it will make in Clwyd North and beyond.
It is important to note that the Bill has been fully costed and is part of an overall strategy. Everyone can call for something, but we have made it happen. Across Wales, this change will help 69,000 children, including 3,100 children in my Clwyd North constituency. I cannot overstate how deeply this change is needed and how proud I am to see it delivered under this Labour Government. It is exactly the kind of action we need to support families of all shapes and sizes after 14 years of Tory austerity, which have left far too many children in poverty.
Although it might seem obvious, I want to emphasise that children are part of these families; they do not exist in a bubble, and they cannot disappear when life gets tough. Supporting families makes children better off. Families face a range of circumstances, often unexpected, and every child deserves to have their needs met regardless of that. Poverty in childhood does nothing but cost society in the long term. Children growing up in poverty are less likely to work as adults, and by the age of 30 they earn 25% less on average.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
The hon. Member makes a fantastic point. You either get it or you don’t: what we are doing is giving children an opportunity to better their futures. When I was young, my father, who was an engineer, fell ill, and my mother and my family fell to the state. Today, I am an officer of the court, and I am here as a Member of Parliament. Let us give every child a chance to develop and better their futures.
Gill German
I absolutely agree. Every child deserves the chance to fulfil their potential, and it is our responsibility to make that happen.
I am proud that a Labour Government in Wales have led the way with practical initiatives to support children, including free breakfast in primary schools since 2004, protected by legislation since 2013; universal free school meals for primary school children since 2022—I was incredibly proud to be part of rolling that out across Clwyd North; statutory guidance on school uniform branding that has been in place for years; and the school essentials grant, to help with the cost of going to school.
Although those initiatives are invaluable, I have heard repeatedly for many years, including as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on children in Wales, from organisations such as Barnardo’s Cymru, Citizens Advice Wales and Save the Children Wales that the single most effective step to lift children out of poverty would be to remove the two-child cap. Now, finally, with a Labour Government in Westminster, we have done exactly that, and we have done it in a measured, fully costed way that accounts for every penny needed. Those organisations have long sounded the alarm, and I am proud that it is our Labour Government who have taken action.
As the MP for Clwyd North, I know exactly what I want to see. We need a long-term solution to child poverty. We need parents and families in reliable, fairly paid work to see child poverty off for good. We must rebuild our economy after it was decimated in the worst way. We must create clear pathways into work for young people and those locked out of employment. We must equip people with the skills that are needed for today’s jobs and the jobs of the future, and we must ensure that we have the transport, childcare and infrastructure that are needed so that people can get to work in the first place. I will work tirelessly to ensure that those opportunities are open to people in Clwyd North, particularly our young people. My constituency is ideally placed between two major investment zones, and it is my responsibility to ensure that my residents benefit from the opportunities that that brings.
It is absolutely right that this cap is being lifted here and now, but we must remember that the very best way to ensure that children live well is to ensure that their families are supported and are in fairly paid, reliable work. That must be our relentless focus if we are to reduce our shocking child poverty figures, not just for today, but for generations to come.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I am pleased that I have sat through the whole debate today. The speeches I have heard from Members on the Government Benches have been incredibly eloquent and moving, and I am really pleased that we are where we are now in scrapping the two-child limit.
I have listened to the speeches by Opposition Members. Looking back in history, they were reminiscent of the debates on the Poor Law in the early 19th century. If people remember their history, they will know that there was an economist called Malthus at the time. He suggested that if anything was given to the poor by way of support or benefits, it would make them lazy and make them breed, and he thought that the only way to control the population was to starve the poor. That was reflected in the debate today. I hope that one day we will have a civilised society in which those views are not heard, especially the racist views expressed by Reform on how to separate our society, when we know that there are divisions and that we need to bring people together.
Let me say to my hon. Friends and to those on the Front Bench, please do not spoil this Bill now. I do not want to repeat the arguments, but others have raised the issue of the overall cap. If we allow that to exist, it will spoil the Bill; it will not do the job that we need it to do. Scrapping the two-child limit will lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, but, as others have said, if we maintain the overall cap, it will mean that 150,000 children will still be hit. That means that we will not have done our job. I know we can argue that we will come back to that, but the longer we delay, the longer those children will live in poverty.
There must be a way to resolve this issue quickly, and this piece of legislation could be that way. In comparison with removing the overall two-child limit, it is—I say this in inverted commas—“relatively inexpensive”. I think the cost would be about £500 million compared with £3 billion, so we could do it. It cannot be done by an amendment from a Back-Bench Member, because only the Government can bring forward proposals that involve increased expenditure in any form.
I appeal to those on the Front Bench: please do not spoil the Bill at this stage. Try to bring us all together in absolute consensus across most of the House and do the job properly. Lift all children out of poverty in this way, because, as I say, I think it will be relatively inexpensive, and the impact of not doing so will be severe.
I do not want to get into another row over this particular issue. I voted against the two-child limit when it was introduced. I railed against it—I do not think that I have ever been so angry in this House as I was that day—and that is why I have continually voted to scrap it. I know that people are anxious about the vote in the King’s Speech debate, but that was a vote not against the King’s Speech but in favour of scrapping the two-child limit. I understand the argument that it must be done as a component part of a Budget so that we can afford it, but that is why I was disappointed that we had not done it first—because it was so meaningful for me to scrap the limit itself. We are where we are now, and I am really pleased.
I just want those on the Government Front Bench to go that little step further and scrap the overall limit. There are other issues, such as rate controls, but we can come back to those at the next stage of tackling child poverty through our strategy. So I make that appeal. Let me just say that although a Back Bencher cannot table an amendment that raises expenditure, we can table ones that make the Bill dependent on further reports being published within a time-limited period on scrapping the overall limit. I will be open in giving notice now that, if the Government do not bring forward a meaningful amendment, I will seek to work with the Clerks to table an amendment that at least commits the Government to consider and report back to the House on scrapping the overall limit. If necessary, I will push that to a vote.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. For the assistance of Back Benchers who still wish to speak, I am about to remove the time limit. [Interruption.]
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
You’re in trouble now, Madam Deputy Speaker!
The Bill will be remembered as one of the proudest moments of this Government’s first term. Before entering this place, I worked on policy around poverty, and it is something that motivates me every day. A constant theme that I have found, when looking at the evidence, is that the simple solutions are often the best. Indeed, it is interesting that Opposition Members often argue for a simplified tax system for the wealthy, but when it comes to benefits, they have done nothing but buttress the system with more and more complex rules.
Poverty ruins lives. We know that growing up in poverty leads to worse life outcomes, including poorer educational outcomes. Being in poverty as children leaves us three times more likely to be in poverty as adults, and the longer the period of deprivation a child goes through, the worse their chances will be as an adult. It is clear that the impacts of child poverty are deep-rooted. Lifting the two-child benefit cap is one of the single most effective ways to change that trajectory and give people a better outcome for the rest of their lives. If someone is constantly hungry, cold or in damp housing without repairs, the effects on their health, self-esteem and chances are long-lasting.
When kids grow up in poverty, the economy loses out too. Even if Members choose not to care about worse outcomes for children—something I think we have a moral imperative to care about—it is a question of cold economic logic. In 2023, my old employer, the Child Poverty Action Group, estimated that the cost of child poverty was £39 billion a year, and that investing to solve the issue
“would bring similarly large gains to the economy”.
The lifting of this cap alone will ultimately save £3.2 billion a year.
This is the first piece of legislation passed on child poverty since the Child Poverty Act 2010. I remember working on the passage of that Act, and how the now Lord Cameron committing to halving and then ending child poverty. Indeed, he accepted the evidence-based view that relative poverty is appropriate for measuring child poverty, because children with less money are less able to take part in the society to which their friends belong, and are less able to achieve in the same way. It was a bold way to face the electorate in 2010, but it was not matched at all by the Conservatives’ record in power of abject failure. The two-child limit pushed hundreds of thousands more children into poverty. This Bill is shot through with the needs created by the last Government’s 14 years of failure. UNICEF found that between 2013 and 2023, the UK saw the largest increase in relative poverty out of the 37 high-income countries that it measured—an increase of a third. That is a larger increase than across the EU.
We have heard a lot from Members across the House about people in work. When I was working at the Child Poverty Action Group, we had a killer stat. We used to say, “One third of children in poverty have a parent in work.” By the time that lot left government, two thirds of children in poverty had a parent in work. Even if a child does not have a parent in work, I do not believe that the sins of the parents are visited on the children. I do not believe that children have control over where they are born. We hear about choices; should children choose to be born to a different family? The two-child benefit cap is social and economic vandalism that we will reverse when this Bill becomes law. The removal of that cap will lift 450,000 children out of poverty, with 2 million children set to benefit overall. Think about what that means—the lives changed and the futures opened up. If nothing else moves Members, think about the savings to the public purse from fewer children growing up facing the barriers that poverty causes, which follow them into adulthood.
There is more to do. My hon. Friends on the Front Bench will know that I am likely to be very annoying about the further things we have to do, but I welcome the Government’s support for free breakfast clubs, expanding childcare, family hubs and getting more young people into work. I look forward to reviewing how those programmes bring children out of deprivation. Today, I could not be prouder that I will walk through the Division Lobby to give millions of children a fairer start.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The last time we debated this issue, I took many interventions from Conservative Members—there are fewer of them in the Chamber today—who wanted to know whether I would support lifting the two-child cap. As I said at the time, increasing the household incomes of children in poverty is one of several things we need to do to tackle the scourge of child poverty in places like Bishop Auckland, and I trust that the Government’s heart is in the right place on this issue. As such, I am delighted by the proposals they have brought forward and I will enthusiastically vote for the Bill. It will lift 450,000 children out of poverty. Some 2,310 households in my constituency are currently affected by the two-child cap.
As I said, the Bill is only one measure; it needs to be combined with others. We have heard often in this debate that removing the two-child cap is the single quickest way to lift children out of poverty. That is because we measure poverty by household income, but poverty is multi-dimensional, and it is important that we address its multifaceted aspects. Combined with other measures, the Bill will make a real difference. Those measures include: the Renters’ Rights Act 2025; the Employment Rights Act 2025; increases in the national minimum wage; the falling interest rates that are cutting mortgages; the new rules on school uniforms; the 30 hours of free childcare; free breakfast clubs in every school to reduce the early morning stress on working parents; the extension of free school meals to a further 4,500 children in Bishop Auckland; the extension of the warm home discount to more households; and investment in youth hubs, family hubs, and arts and culture. All those things will help to support children in poverty, which is why I am proud to be part of this Labour Government at this time.
At a roundtable in my constituency shortly after I was elected, we invited educators and charities—people who work with children—to talk to us about their experience of child poverty. There were tears in the room as headteachers talked of having to bring food into school to feed hungry children; of a child whose uniform was wet because there was no glass in the window of their home; of children living in cold and damp homes; and of children in Shildon who are excluded from extracurricular activities because they have to get the only free bus home, as their parents cannot afford the £1 bus fare to take a later bus. I came here today to speak on behalf of those children and to be their voice.
I will address some of the arguments that we have heard against the Bill. Too much of this debate has focused on party politics, rather than children. The Opposition seem to be simultaneously arguing that we should have done this sooner and should not be doing it at all. As I have engaged with the Government over the past 18 months and had many conversations, including in No. 10 and with Ministers, I have been reassured throughout that the Prime Minister has a strong personal commitment to eradicating child poverty, so it did not surprise me at all to see this legislation brought forward.
The opposition to what we are doing today is based on falsehoods. The first is that the Bill is about supporting children in workless households. As my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) said a moment ago, the children are not to blame. We can never blame a child for being born in a poor home. Also, 59% of the families affected by the two-child cap are families in work. We also know that universal credit requires people to show evidence of actively seeking work. People cannot simply sit on universal credit—it is not that easy. We know, too, that it is often a temporary measure.
I think about my family. Twelve years ago, I was working as a gardener on just above the minimum wage while I was completing my PhD, and my wife was working as a carer. We relied for a time on having our income topped up by tax credits, as they were called then. I almost crossed out that bit of my speech, because I know I will get an onslaught of abuse just for saying so, such is the rhetoric in our country right now, demonising people who ever draw on our social security system. My twin sister became a single parent, not of her choosing, and raised three children, two of whom had a disability. I remember her telling me that when she moved into her council house, a friend told her that she could paint the floor and put duvets at the windows to keep it warmer. My sister put herself through a degree in pharmacy at Durham University and now works in my constituency as a pharmacist for a GP practice. My brother, who was the highest earner in our family, died at the age of 35, leaving behind three children. People fall on hard times, and when they do, a caring society should be there for each other.
One of the other lies we are hearing in this debate is that the Bill is funded by a tax on workers. Other parties seek to divide people, telling those who are just about managing that their taxes are paying for people who are not working, and it is not true. We know what is funding this Bill and many other things: a fairer tax system, abolishing the non-dom status, a mansion tax, and the remote gaming duty, which will generate an extra £1 billion. It is about fairness and who pays.
Finally, there is this lie that keeping children in poverty is good or necessary for the economy. It is not. The welfare bill increased by £88 billion under the Conservative Government, despite the real value of welfare decreasing. They oversaw a real-terms decrease in living standards. That led to a generation of children who were malnourished, who experienced family breakdown and who were denied opportunities to become a generation of adults realising their full potential. We had an increase in sickness and in days lost to sick pay, an increase in mental health disorders and a 250% increase in looked-after children. We have rising cost pressures on Government as a result of those policies.
As I finish, I must turn my attention to the comments made by the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin), who is no longer in her place. I intend to write to her, because I was deeply offended by the suggestion that people who were not born in this country, but work hard, are somehow less. My wife was not born in this country; she came here as a teenager. She worked in a meat factory and as a carer. More recently, she went through university and now works as a midwife in our NHS. I am so proud of her, and I find the idea disgusting that she should somehow be less entitled because of her birth. Reform needs to rethink that.
To conclude, I will be voting with the Government tonight, and I re-emphasise that this is one of several things that we need to do in our national mission to end the scourge of child poverty in our country once and for all.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
When the Labour Government came to office, 4.5 million children were living in poverty, and I believe that that is a moral stain on our nation. It has been a central mission of this Labour Government to tackle child poverty in all its forms. They are taking a range of measures, like introducing breakfast clubs. We have had some fantastic pilots of those in my constituency, and we have heard from schools that provide them that attendance is improving as a result. That is yet another impact of tackling childhood shortages. The Government are also extending free school meals to more children, while family hubs will help families who are struggling to get the support they need, and of course, there is more childcare support for working parents, who are too often kept out of work by the high costs of childcare.
Today, though, we are talking about ending the two-child limit on universal credit. This measure alone will lift nearly half a million children out of poverty, and in my constituency of Morecambe and Lunesdale about 1,900 kids will benefit. It is not just the right thing to do, in and of itself; the evidence shows that tackling poverty in childhood is more cost-effective than mopping up the damage later—the damage of poverty that was outlined so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). The fact is that poverty kills. It is as simple as that.
Some will say that poverty is caused by fecklessness or laziness, ignoring the 70% of children affected by this limit who live in working households; ignoring the fact that 15% of those affected by the cap are mothers with really young babies—mothers who we would normally not expect to work; ignoring the significant number of people affected who are in ill health or have caring responsibilities; and ignoring the fact that the cost of living crisis, which was brought upon us by the Conservatives and by reliance on foreign gas, means that people who could afford their children when they had them are now struggling to put food on the table.
About six months after the election, I knocked on a door in Morecambe, and it was opened by a lady who was really distressed. Once I got talking to her, it turned out that she had five kids. She said to me, “I could afford those children when I had them. I would never have had these children had I not been able to afford them.” She worked days, her husband worked nights, and she was on the minimum wage. They were struggling to prevent their children from finding out just how difficult a financial situation they were in. I was able to tell that lady that in a few months’ time, thanks to the Labour Government, she would receive a pay rise, because we were putting the minimum wage up—yet another measure that we are taking to tackle child poverty.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
One of the most distressing things that I discovered when I was working at Church Action on Poverty and talking to parents of children in poverty was how often mothers went without food. My hon. Friend has talked about families struggling so that their children did not find out. Does she agree that that is what we are changing today, and that that is the reality of this policy?
Lizzi Collinge
My hon. Friend is entirely right. Parents, in my experience, will do anything to protect their children from the harsh realities of life. It is parents who go without food. It is parents who have to go to the food bank. I remember the first time I met the people running the food bank in Morecambe, in 2017. I walked up to them and said, “One day, I will put you out of business.” And they said, “Thank you”, because their strategic aim is not to exist. Food banks should not exist.
Some of the people who oppose the lifting of this limit are also willing to ignore the fact that the policy itself did not work on its own terms. It did not limit the number of children born, but merely condemned them to living in poverty. They are also willing to ignore the evidence that dealing with poverty in childhood is much more cost-effective than mopping up later. It prevents huge costs later down the line in terms of education, health or indeed the criminal justice system.
I am not saying that there are no feckless parents. Of course there are feckless parents, and there have always been feckless parents. I remember my great-grandma telling the story of having to go to the pub on a Friday night to try to get the housekeeping money off her drunkard father. She used to tell it as a funny story with a smile on her face, but it was not funny then and it is not funny now. I was really quite shocked at Reform saying that it would keep the two-child limit on universal credit and instead put that money into reducing the cost of beer. I love a drink—do not get me wrong—but I cannot help but think that, if Reform Members were around 100 years ago, they would have been standing with my drunkard ancestor, rather than with the little girl with her hand out for the housekeeping money. Do we condemn hundreds of thousands of children to poverty because there are a few feckless parents?
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that fecklessness is not a trait exhibited only by poorer people in our country?
Lizzi Collinge
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that fecklessness is not limited to any one socioeconomic group. It is interesting how people born into great wealth consider their position to be due only to their very hard work, yet they consider it to be other people’s own fault if they are born into poverty. That is really quite shocking.
More than 1 million children live in households unable to afford even the most basic necessities of life. There are parents choosing between heating and eating, children doing their homework on the floor in housing that is too crowded to provide a space to study, whole families staying in one room because that is all they can afford to heat, and kids wheezing due to damp. What compounds this heartbreak is that childhood poverty festers and grows. It infects people’s prospects in education, health and employment across their whole life.
Rather than tackling that, discussions about welfare inevitably descend into conversations about merit: who deserves help and who does not. These are children we are talking about—children entirely reliant on adults for their existence and their support, and entirely reliant on Governments such as ours to make sure they are looked after if, from no fault of their own, their parents do not have enough money for the necessities of life.
If this Victorian attitude to the deserving and undeserving poor had won the day previously, we would not have had any of the public services that we now take for granted. We would not have had free education, because why should parents not just pay for education themselves? We would not have had the NHS, because why should people not just pay for doctors themselves? As we know, Reform Members would be very happy to get rid of the NHS and bring in a private insurance system. None of us earned those things through our own merit; we inherited them from people who recognised that everyone deserves a good chance in life and the chance to thrive and succeed, whether by starting their own business, getting an education or doing whatever it is that will make their life a good life. That is the obligation we have to our children.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and others have shown that scrapping the two-child benefit limit could drive the single largest fall in child poverty in a single Parliament. My local Citizens Advice has done a brilliant report saying that scrapping the two-child limit is the fastest and most cost-effective intervention to tackle child poverty.
Stuart Anderson
The hon. Member is making an impassioned speech. If the Joseph Rowntree Foundation says that this will be the biggest change made in a Parliament —a full parliamentary term—why are the Government doing it now after refusing to do it 18 months ago?
Lizzi Collinge
That is actually a reasonable question. The answer is that we had to make sure the country could afford it and we had to take a strategic approach to tackling child poverty. What we were not going to do, given the absolute state of the economy when we came into government, was make very quick decisions on such a scale. We did it properly, carefully and as part of a strategy. [Interruption.] I am interested by Opposition Members’ interpretation of reality.
Let us not forget—moving on to something else that seems to have been missed in this discussion—that the families hit hardest by the two-child limit are those who spend the largest share of their income on absolute essentials. Lifting those families out of poverty not only reduces hardship, but actually boosts the local economy in the same way that raising the minimum wage does. In Morecambe and Lunesdale, I have thousands of fantastic small local businesses who rely on local people having enough money in their pockets to go out and spend, whether it is in the corner shop, the local supermarket or the clothes shop on the front where I get my kids’ school uniforms. They rely on people spending and we know that people who are hard up spend every single penny that they have. I have spoken in this Chamber before about the cost saving of prevention. This measure is no different. Investing in our children now pays dividends later, improving educational outcomes and raising adult earnings.
Even if, in the face of all contradictory evidence, we accept the myth sown by the right that all the parents affected by the cap are somehow scroungers and feckless, I still do not believe that their children should have to live in poverty. Using children as pawns to influence parental behaviour or illustrate moral lessons not only does not work, it is profoundly unjust. And it did not work. Even by its own logic, the two-child benefit limit has been woefully ineffective. Back in 2019, a cross-party Work and Pensions Committee found “no evidence” that it was working as intended. It had next to no effect on employment rates and hours worked in affected households, and the stated effect on birth rate is so tiny that it is doubtful that it is greater than the margin of error in the data. The cap has not led to greater employment rates or a higher number of hours worked. What the cap has done is make childcare and travel costs an even higher barrier for those households who are trying desperately to work more.
The two-child benefit cap also assumed that all pregnancies are planned, in full knowledge of the Government’s social security policy. I do not know about others, but most people I know are not over the details of social security policy. We know that it is simply not true that all pregnancies are planned. We know that contraceptives fail. Stuff happens. I remember when Tony Blair had an oopsie baby in the ’90s. With apologies to the Blairs for referring to them, I remember my dad saying, “Well, if the Prime Minister can’t always get it right, how we do expect every single person in the country to do so?”
We also know—it became really clear from the previous Conservative policy—that a startling number of children are conceived through rape. The policy meant that traumatised women were having to disclose their rape to faceless bureaucrats just to try to get enough money to raise the child who had been conceived through rape. That is surely compounding the trauma of survivors of sexual assault.
Finally, our country’s future depends on investing in the potential of our children—all our children, wherever they were born and however they were conceived. Today, we are saying that there are no second-class children in Britain and that under a Labour Government child poverty is not an inevitability. It is a choice and we choose to end it.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to speak for the next hour, while there is no time limit. [Laughter.] Buckle in!
I want to start today’s speech by first addressing what the Conservatives said and why we need state support to help end child poverty in the technological era we are in. I also want to make clear why we are ending the two-child limit. In the economic sense, yes, it is a pounds and pence issue—we save more money by feeding kids today—but far more importantly, morally no child in this country should be going hungry.
Before I get to that, I would like to share with the House where I spent two years of my life between 2016 and 2018, when I was the economist working in Somaliland’s Ministry of Finance. I was there during what was then its worst drought in living memory. When drought came to Somaliland—one of the poorest nations on earth—it meant failing harvests, dying livestock and rising hunger. I will never forget what that hunger looked like and what it felt like for a whole nation.
I could understand what was happening in Somaliland, even if it was incredibly difficult, but I was shocked and appalled on returning to this country to see children going hungry here—in the fifth richest nation on earth. Those children went hungry after the introduction of the two-child limit. Poverty went up in the largest families, who were affected by the two-child limit, and child hunger went up. Food bank parcels were unknown in my childhood; there were a million handed out in 2017, and three million by the time the Conservatives left office. Most shamefully of all, child malnutrition has doubled over the past decade. That is the shameful legacy of the two-child limit and what it meant for child hunger in this country.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Trussell Trust was founded in this country in 2000, under a Labour Government, and that the Department for Work and Pensions did not recommend that it be offered as a solution to families in need at the time? It is one thing to talk about food banks, but it is important to ensure that we acknowledge when they were first set up in this country.
Dr Sandher
Did the guidance change between 2016 and 2024? Could the hon. Lady explain to me from the Opposition Front Bench why the number of food bank parcels tripled from the introduction of the two-child limit to 2024? I will give way if so.
Rebecca Smith
Well, without having the statistics in front of me right this second—[Interruption.] No, let me finish. We had the global pandemic, when there was a huge need for food banks. In fact, it was the Conservative Government who invested hundreds of thousands of pounds in food banks to ensure that nobody went without. The council for which I was a cabinet member at the time used the funding from the Conservative Government directly to ensure that poverty did not increase over the covid pandemic. If numbers went up, we have to ensure that that fact is reflected.
Dr Sandher
The rise happened before covid; it happened after the two-child limit was introduced. I agree with the hon. Lady on one point: she is not across the statistics.
Opposition Members have advanced an argument that I think is fair. They ask why we do not just create lots of jobs, which is the way to get out of poverty. The way to get out of poverty is through work, right? I want to take that argument head-on. We are living in a different technological era. In the post-war era, we had the advance and expansion of mass-production manufacturing, which meant there were good jobs for people as they left school. They left school, went to the local factory and earned a decent wage, meaning that they could buy a house and support a family.
Then, in the 1980s, in this country and indeed across high-income nations, we saw deindustrialisation and automation, bringing the replacement of those mechanical jobs with machines. Like other high-income nations across the world, we have been left with those who can use computers effectively—high-paid graduate workers—and lots of low-paid jobs everywhere else. It is not just us confronting that problem, although it is worse here because of decisions made in the 1980s; we are seeing it across high-income nations. As a result, state support is needed to ensure that those on low pay can afford a decent life.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Dr Sandher
In a moment.
This is not, by the way, the first time in history that we have confronted this problem. In the early part of the industrial revolution, between 1750 and 1850, we saw machines replace human beings. What did we see then? The economy grew by 60% per person, but people had less to eat. Men were shorter in 1850 than in 1750 because of the change of the technological era. I think my right hon. Friend would like to intervene.
Gareth Snell
I am an hon. Friend, not right honourable, though I welcome the promotion.
I have listened to this debate from outside the Chamber this afternoon and heard many Conservative Members talk about how the route out of poverty is through work. I absolutely and fundamentally agree with that, so I find it completely incongruous that whenever they have had the opportunity to vote for our make work pay Act, to increase stability in work and create well-paid jobs, they have voted against it. Indeed, only last week, the shadow Secretary of State made an argument for cutting the minimum wage for young people. How does my hon. Friend think that someone can argue, on the one hand, for work as a way out of poverty, but on the other, restrict the opportunities for work, push down pay and reduce the opportunities created for working people?
Dr Sandher
I agree with my hon. Friend. Conservative Members have often spoken about their employment record in office and how many jobs were created. Yet while that happened, child poverty and child hunger rose. Something is not right in their model of the world and there is something to review there.
There is no law of economics that says that just because someone works hard and is a decent person, they will earn a wage that can support a family. That is not the technological era we live in today. That is why we are ending the two-child limit today and I am so proud that we are doing so.
In an economic sense—in pounds and pence—as Labour Members realise and have stated, when we ensure that children have enough to eat, they learn more today and they earn more tomorrow. The cost of child poverty every single year is around £40 billion. The cost of ending the two-child limit is about £3.5 billion. It makes sense to invest today so that our children can eat and learn more, yet this is not just a matter of pounds and pence; as an economist, I often talk about that and I get it, but it is about so much more. This is about the moral argument. No child in this country should go hungry—no ifs, no buts and no exceptions. That is why I am so proud of this Bill, I am so proud to vote to end the two-child limit and I am so proud to be sat on the Labour Benches.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
The child poverty crisis that we inherited from the previous Government is, indeed, stark. In 2014, 16.5% of children were in relative poverty and by 2024, that had risen to 21.8%. The simple truth is that Conservative Members oppose a measure that lifts children out of poverty. They have not changed.
Successive Conservative Governments—and yes, the Liberal Democrats, who cannot get off scot-free, given the coalition—carried out policies that led to hundreds of thousands more children being pushed into poverty. To be precise, the figure is 900,000 more , leaving 4.5 million children living in poverty across our country. That is a shameful number, as large as the population of countries such as Croatia or Ireland. By the end of the Conservatives’ time in office, almost a third of children in the UK were living in poverty. That tells us exactly who they prioritised and who they did not. Even now, they would undo progress.
Stuart Anderson
Will the hon. Member say what statistic backs up the statement that a third of the children in the UK were living in poverty?
John Slinger
The number of children—[Interruption.] The number of children in poverty rose substantially.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the statistics on below-average-income households are published annually by the Department for Work and Pensions, which is the source of the statistic that he so cleverly deployed in the course of his argument.
John Slinger
That is indeed the statistic that I was reaching for in my notes, and I thank my hon. Friend.
Even now, Opposition Members would undo progress. They would reintroduce the limit; they would make things worse. And as for Reform UK— [Hon. Members: “Where are they?”] Exactly! Where are they? We have seen populist policy hokey-cokey already today. It was probably taking place while the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) was speaking.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
The Reform policy really is quite something, as I am sure my hon. Friend would agree. In fact, if someone lost their child benefit because of the Reform policy, it would take 345 pints a week to make a saving. So it does not really help anyone, but it does hurt those in the most poverty. Will my hon. Friend recommend that people do not listen to the easy answers of Reform and actually work to make people’s lives better?
John Slinger
I thank my hon. Friend. I was very moved by his speech, which he delivered from a position of great knowledge and great concern built up over a very impressive career. He is absolutely right. I, of course, would not recommend people to take too seriously policies that are, as I said, populist policy hokey-cokey. To scrap or to reinstate? It is hard to tell. What we have seen from Reform UK is the concept of political triangulation being stretched absolutely to breaking point. In fact, it has broken, with some of the populist nonsense that Reform has spoken about in recent days.
Dr Sandher
I like a pint as well, as it happens—sometimes more than one—but I think it is fair to say that parents across this country will not appreciate getting 5p off each pint they buy, knowing that it will make more children hungry. I am pretty shocked by the trade-off there. I agree with supporting our pubs, and I will do it every single weekend as part of our patriotic duty, but that is not fair. There is another, more damaging, side to this which says that if we just deport and attack enough people, it will make us richer. That is absolutely something that we on this side of the House should reject, and something that Members on the other side of the House sometimes reject as well.
John Slinger
I could not have put it better, particularly the point my hon. Friend made about enjoying a pint. I too enjoy a pint, but linking something as serious as tackling child poverty to the price of a pint in our pubs is trivialising an incredibly serious topic—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) is speaking from a sedentary position. Would he like to intervene?
Dr Evans
I just see the irony of the hon. Member talking about linking this to alcohol, which is a serious problem. Gambling is a serious problem as well, and his party has directly linked this to gambling, even though this is not a hypothecated tax. Could he explain the dichotomy between the two?
John Slinger
It is perfectly acceptable and reasonable for a Government such as ours to take measures in Budgets to provide the resources necessary to enact a policy, as this Bill would do, that will lift so many children out of poverty. I think the hon. Member makes a fairly fatuous point, if I may say so.
Sam Rushworth
Does my hon. Friend share my confusion at the point that has just been made? Does it not illustrate that all of this is about choices, and that the choice that is being made on this side of the House is, yes, to increase the tax on gambling and on mansions in order to decrease child poverty? The choice that Reform would make would be to increase child poverty for 5p off a pint.
John Slinger
I am assuming that the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth is opposing the policy before us today. So you actually do not want to take the measure that we are going to take—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. “You”, Mr Slinger—I have mentioned this to you so many times. Let us start again.
John Slinger
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is opposing the policy that will reduce child poverty by an enormous number.
Conservative Members have not really even tried to defend their record. Perhaps that is because it is indefensible. Their decisions were not accidents; they were choices. The consequences were known, the damage was predictable and the outcome is now painfully clear. Years of ignoring child poverty have left this country with many problems, including the number of children not in education, employment or training. That is an inheritance that this Government are now tackling, not least through the excellent work of Alan Milburn and his investigation into work and child poverty that was commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary.
Children are being condemned to a lifetime of economic inactivity, which is bad for them and their future wealth. As the “Keep Britain Working” report found, someone leaving the workforce in their 20s would lose up to £1 million in earnings. It is also bad for their health. Having four more years in education on average relates to a 16% reduction in mortality rates and reduces the risk of heart disease and diabetes. It is also bad for the country—all that untapped potential and all that unnecessary benefit spend.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Will the hon. Member give way?
John Slinger
I will not give way.
The arguments we heard about parental responsibility, the claim that people have children to get benefits, are short-sighted, wrong and, frankly, insulting. The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), could not cite any evidence for her claims.
David Baines
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. He says no evidence was given for those arguments. That is because there is no evidence, and yet opponents of the policy continue to make the arguments. Does he agree that it is damaging, dangerous and insulting to children and to families that are working hard up and down the land to do the best they can?
John Slinger
I agree with my hon. Friend that it is insulting, and it was surprising that the shadow Secretary of State could not cite any evidence at all.
Regardless of any two-child limit, parents will of course still have children, and those children must never be punished for the circumstances of their birth. The best way to support them, the single most effective way to lift them out of poverty, is this Bill.
Some Members across the House and some across our country implied that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor does not care about child poverty. They implied and claimed that she does not care about economic inactivity and our moral duty. That accusation was not just wrong; it was deeply disrespectful, particularly given her long record of campaigning on these issues.
Graham Stuart
I was not here earlier in the debate, so please forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman talked about Members being able to back up their assertions. Who was it in the debate who suggested that the Chancellor did not care? I have never heard anyone on the Opposition side of the House saying that she does not care. Whether she is capable of dealing with it is a different matter entirely, but who was it who said she did not care, because I am sure we would all want to take it up with them and tell them to change their line?
John Slinger
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention; I always enjoy them. I found this one particularly amusing—and I very much respect and like the right hon. Gentleman—given that I was not actually quoting. I did not say, “And I quote”. I am allowed to use words without having to justify every single one. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that I was referring to the general view of hon. and right hon. Members in this House. [Interruption.] I think I have dealt with that—it was a good effort, but I will move on.
This measure, made possible by the policies of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor—let’s not forget that—will lift 450,000 children out of poverty, and I am proud to say that that includes 2,020 children in Rugby. Let me be clear: lifting the two-child limit is not the whole answer; it is part of the Government’s wider mission. I say to people outside this Chamber, “Do not let the doomsters, the gloomsters, the cynics and the propagandists mislead you.” In just 19 months, as part of that wider mission, this Labour Government have achieved the following: day-one rights for paternity and parental leave; Best Start family hubs bringing health, parenting and wellbeing under one roof; 30 hours of funded childcare from nine months old; free breakfast clubs, with 405 children in my constituency of Rugby benefiting from the April roll-out; minimum and living wages up; record investment in schools; apprenticeships reformed; full funding for apprenticeships for under-25s in our small and medium-sized enterprises; the youth guarantee, mentioned by the Chancellor in the recent Budget; ensuring routes into work, training and education; and Young Futures hubs and youth hubs. May I please ask Ministers on the Front Bench whether I can have one of those hubs in Rugby? Helping children is about more than lifting the two-child cap. This Government do not, and should not, define our moral purpose solely by the pounds we give to those in need—although we should of course give money to those in need. Unlike the Conservatives, we will do those things I listed and, of course, spend money on lifting the two-child limit.
We are glad to do that because it is not just about poverty in financial terms; it is about the poverty of aspiration for our children, which all too often results from the policies of the parties of the right, and it is about the poverty of ambition for what a Government can and should do to unleash the potential of all children. We reject that poverty too. Opportunity, prosperity and dignity for all cannot come—whether through the animal spirits of the economy or the progressive policies of a Government such as ours—unless child poverty is ended once and for all.
In conclusion, we are the Labour party; we want to give young people the skills and opportunities, and to create the ecosystem, that will unleash their potential. That starts by preventing their early years from being blighted unnecessarily by poverty. We also stand for compassion and support for those who really need it, and that is what we will provide. Ending the two-child limit, and the wider measures I have outlined, are vital to ensuring that our young people become the architects of their futures, not merely tenants living in a world shaped by the older generations, by vested interests and, indeed, by those who are opposed to this Bill.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
I first put on record my thanks to my Deep Heat patch; three hours of bobbing with a bad back has been a very special introduction to this debate. I welcome the opportunity to highlight an issue that is the driving mission of so many of us and the reason why we are in this House.
Like many Members, I had the opportunity over December to attend services at some of the wonderful churches across Peterborough. That was not just Christmas spirit; there is nothing more majestic than the raising of voices “to the newborn King” by a packed congregation in a 900-year-old cathedral. At every service, I met congregations dedicated to helping others in my city. Child poverty was at the heart of those conversations—the impact of child poverty on the children themselves, but also its corrosive impact on parents and on all of us in society. Nothing goes to the heart of Labour’s values more than addressing the corrosion that poverty causes in young lives, and I am deeply proud to speak in this Second Reading debate on one of the most important pieces of legislation that this Government are bringing forward.
I would like to use this opportunity to thank the Peterborough food bank volunteers and our Care Zone furniture volunteers, whom I have met consistently since being elected, for the incredible work they have done to support and help families and children in need. I also thank the volunteers at KingsGate community church, who do so much to help families in need with food and debt advice, and to navigate the still-too-clunky networks of the DWP and the state.
That help is needed; we all know the national statistics. The hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) mentioned the Trussell Trust, and I looked up the figures in preparing my contribution: in 2010, the last year of the Labour Government, the Trussell Trust reported that just over 43,000 emergency food parcels were handed out; in the last year of the Conservative Government, more than 3 million food parcels were handed out.
Rebecca Smith
No one has ever told me that they would adore to hear me speak in this place! I completely appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but I too have been doing some research while this debate has been going on. It is worth noting that those food bank numbers have increased because they only count Trussell Trust food banks, so the more food banks join the Trussell Trust network, the more those numbers go up.
In my city, where, as I may have mentioned, I held the cost of living portfolio during the pandemic—[Interruption.] There’s no need to yawn! My city did not need the additional food bank that was set up, and it ended up having to send food away. If that food bank had joined the Trussell Trust, it would have added to those numbers and distorted the figures. While I am not saying that there might not have been an increase, I believe it is worth recognising that particular point.
Andrew Pakes
It is a very unusual way to defend food bank use to say that it is because poverty is now being counted in a better way. The Trussell Trust is very clear that when Labour was last in government, food banks existed as an emergency provision for when people fell through the cracks of the welfare system. The industrialisation of food banks is shocking, as is the justification of it by the Conservatives.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend for his speech. We all have to admit that when the Conservatives came into government with the Liberal Democrats in 2010, they unleashed their social security cuts on our communities. That is what has devastated our communities. Food bank use went up, child poverty went up and disabled people’s rights went down because of the policies of the Conservative Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is only this Labour Government who are committed to eradicating child poverty and ensuring that many children, including thousands in my Battersea constituency, will be lifted out of poverty as a result of lifting the two-child benefit cap?
Andrew Pakes
I wholeheartedly agree. There is something wrong with society when Members of Opposition parties, including my Liberal Democrat colleagues, do not mention the long-lasting impacts of austerity on our public services, our welfare provision and the support given to families.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for recently welcoming me to the Peterborough museum and art gallery, where we went to a “Dr Who” exhibit and discovered that Davros was considering defecting to Reform. I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent speech. I recently talked to the chief executive officer of the food bank in Harlow, and he spoke of the big difference that this policy will make. Does my hon. Friend agree that the people who work for food banks want them not to be needed any longer, and that this Government should try to achieve that?
Andrew Pakes
I agree with my hon. Friend. I put on the record my tribute to all food bank volunteers, not just for holding me to account and making sure that I am here today to support policies like this, but for making the case that he so powerfully makes: they want food banks to no longer exist. Whenever I speak to Christians Against Poverty, churches, mosques, temples and so many of the faith communities that are important to the social infrastructure that holds poverty at bay for so many families, they all say to me that they wish that they did not have to provide food banks and that they could spend more time doing other things. It is our job, starting today with this Bill, to put that into practice for them.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman is being most generous with his time. I agree with the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince). Does the hon. Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) agree with him that it would be a sign of this Government’s success if we saw fewer food parcels being put out by food banks by the end of this Parliament than we do today?
Andrew Pakes
Certainly. Many of my food banks would support the single policy that we are voting on today, so I hope the right hon. Gentleman will join me in the Lobby tonight to vote to eradicate food banks. This Bill will put money into the pockets of families. It will not just lift their children out of poverty but—as my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), who is no longer in her place, said—put money into the local economy.
If we ever wanted a symbol of the legacy of Tory failure in government, it is this: in my city of Peterborough alone, nearly 43% of children are growing up in poverty. In the North ward of Peterborough, which is a two-minute walk from my house, six out of 10 children are growing up in poverty. That is a stain on our society, and I am dedicated to eradicating it.
I am proud of the work that my council does, but this policy will help. I am proud of the focus of Peterborough city council, pushed on by groups such as Peterborough Citizens, which has ended the practice of children sleeping in bed-and-breakfast and hotel room accommodation. I was equally proud in the autumn to welcome the Prime Minister to Welland Academy, where he made the national announcement of the roll-out of free school meals for all children on universal credit. An incredible 16,000 extra children will benefit from free school meals this September because of the action taken by this Government, which will be delivered in the coming months.
We all know that we need to do more. The Bill is an investment in our country’s future. The single act of voting for it will lift 450,000 children out of poverty, including 10,000 in Peterborough. As many hon. Friends and comrades in this place have said, almost half of the families on universal credit are in work. Child poverty makes it harder for children to get on in life, and that hurts our economy. I am pleased to see that some Conservative Members have returned to the debate. I thought for a while that the lights were on but nobody was home—it turns out that that applies just to their policy on child poverty rather than to them as individuals. The Conservatives would do well to remember that these figures are not merely statistics; they tell a story of lost opportunity, of lost moments of childhood, and of lost potential not just for the affected children but for our local economies.
Gareth Snell
My hon. Friend’s point about lost moments of childhood is often missed. It is all well and good to talk about the impact on parents and on the economy, but having grown up in poverty, I remember walking to school with a hole in my shoe, and not being able to ask my grandparents for anything because they could not afford it. I remember feigning not wanting to go on school trips because I knew that they could not afford it. I remember making sure that the holes in my jumper were hidden when I got home because I knew that they could not afford to replace it. Those memories stick with people throughout their lives and continue to have an effect on them once they have grown up. This is not just about the economics of the here and now; it is about the real-life impact on young people today and in the future. I thank my hon. Friend for ensuring that those voices are heard.
Andrew Pakes
I entirely endorse my hon. Friend’s comments. It sounds as if we may have had similar childhoods, only in different parts of the country.
The statistics cited in this debate do not sit in isolation. It is no coincidence that, alongside high levels of child poverty, Peterborough also has some of the highest levels of low-paid and insecure work in the country. At the last count, and going by the Government’s definition, one in three working people in Peterborough are in chronically insecure work—largely zero-hours shift work, which the Conservative party voted to keep in our economy, while we voted to eradicate it. Peterborough has one of the highest numbers of adults with no qualifications. Despite our city’s wonderful industrial heritage, nothing says more about the wasted opportunities of the last 14 years than the 70% drop in level 2 and level 3 apprenticeships in Peterborough—that comes at a cost to the country.
Although I have painted a picture of the difficulties that many families face in my city, I pay tribute to the incredible ingenuity, determination and grit that parents demonstrate—often in difficult times and despite the adversity that they face—to do their best, look after their children, raise ambition and give people jobs and opportunities. We were sent here to serve them, and we will help them by voting for the Bill.
To be honest, the Conservatives have some brass neck to talk about poverty, as do our colleagues and friends in Reform UK. At one point, I thought that they were plastic Tories, but now that the transfer window has closed, I just think that they are Tories. I represent a wonderful, brilliant and diverse city, so the naked racism in the Reform amendment, which talks about denying support for hard-working families based on the birthplace of the parents, is an affront to democracy and to British values.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. Does he not agree with us that British people should be put first?
Andrew Pakes
I think that my community is full of wonderful British people—people who stand up for British values, and who go out every single day and work to do the best for their children and community. If you want to have a fight based on British values, bring it on, because every day Labour Members will defend—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I respectfully remind the hon. Gentleman not to use the word “you”. He was suggesting that he might like to have a fight with me, and that would not end well.
Andrew Pakes
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am wearing a deep heat patch for my bad back, so there would be no fight from me today. I apologise to the House for the passion I have for British values and the hard work of people in my community, who I will stand up for every day against the plastic patriots and others who seek to attack them.
Andrew Pakes
I will try to make some progress.
We have inherited an economic and moral failure by the previous Government, and this Bill will start to put that right by injecting money into the pockets of families and supporting children. It is also why I welcome the youth guarantee and the focus on earning and learning for this Government. The DWP has described Peterborough as a national youth unemployment hotspot, and it is a national hotspot for child poverty, too. Through the work of this Government to address the needs of children in poverty—the expansion of family hubs, the support for breakfast clubs, the investment in schools and early years alongside the investment in further education and apprenticeships—we are beginning to turn the tide.
What matters to the people of my constituency is having the chance to get on in life, to support their children and to have pride in their community and their families. Today, with this Bill, which I hope all Members will vote for, we begin to restore pride in our community by giving dignity back to parents in difficult situations.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
I stand here as a proud representative of the Black Country and the trade union movement. Black Country people work hard. We are proud and we are resilient, but 50 years of deindustrialisation and 14 years of Tory austerity mean that wages are low, poverty is high, unemployment is high, economic inactivity is high, and many families have to rely on universal credit to make sure there is enough money to get to the end of the month. I resent the implication that areas like mine, where universal credit payments are high, are somehow “Benefits Street”.
Antonia Bance
I will get to the right hon. Member.
It was the Conservative party that changed the benefits system to give us one benefit for all circumstances, in and out of work. For the Conservatives to now attempt to invent a deserving and undeserving poor dichotomy, when they made that change to one unified system—which was the correct one—is a little bit galling.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Lady is, as ever, showing a powerful oratorical style, but it is so easy when doing that to get one’s facts wrong. Unemployment, I am sure she will recognise, was at a near record low when the Conservatives left office and has risen by more than 20% in the less than two years that Labour has run the country. I know the hon. Lady is careful with the facts and will want to retract the point about unemployment under the Conservatives. Whatever other ills she wants to attribute to us, I do not think she can genuinely attribute that.
Antonia Bance
The right hon. Member will note that I was making a point about the comparative rates in different areas of the country, including my own, and the impacts of deindustrialisation over the last 50 years, rather than about national rates.
On the Labour Benches, we deal with the world as it is—human lives in all their messy complexity—because everyone is deserving of dignity, opportunity and hope, and every child deserves a decent start. That is why I am so proud today to say this: if you get ill or lose your job, if—heaven forbid—your partner dies, or if your husband beats you up and you have to grab your kids and run, the safety net of our welfare state will once again catch you and every single one of your kids.
Since the day I came to this place and long before, I have argued for this change—I have argued that no child is responsible for the actions of their parents, that the happy event of a little one being born should not tip a family into poverty, and that whether a six-year-old eats tonight should not depend on how many sisters or brothers they have. This day has come because we have a Labour Government, and for that reason alone. I invite everyone sitting on the Opposition Benches who thinks they had something to do with this day to retract their comments and remember who those children have to thank.
Ending the two-child limit helps 5,540 children in Tipton, Wednesbury and Coseley. Whenever I go on a school visit in my area—where child poverty levels are at 50%, but not for long—I say to that assembly, to those children, “If you have more than two sisters or brothers, please raise your hand.” And I look and the teachers look at the forest of raised hands of children in larger families, and we know what that means. It means that in April, those families will open their universal credit journal or their banking app, and they will see an amount of money that is adequate to meet their family’s needs—not luxury, not extras, but adequate at last.
Some 1.6 million children nationally will be helped by the policy that we will pass tonight—one kid in every nine of our kids helped. Most of the families that will be helped—six in 10 of them—are in work. Loads of them—four in 10—have a disabled family member. Some of those families have kids so young that the parents cannot work. Not a single one of them deserves to live in poverty.
To the mums with three or more kids, using universal credit to top up low wages and high rents: this is for you. Know that far away in Westminster, a bunch of people you elected to stand up for hard-working, low-income families thought of you and your kids, and took out a gross, punitive law that kept you and your kids poor.
Dr Luke Evans
The hon. Lady talks about speaking for the public, but consistently, in all polling, 60% of Brits want to see this policy stay in place. What does she say to them?
Antonia Bance
I say to the people in my constituency and elsewhere who have raised questions with me about this policy that in order to will the ends, you have to will the means. Save the Children published this morning some polling showing that 78% of the country want to see child poverty cut. The fastest and most effective way to cut child poverty is to get rid of this punitive, gross policy that artificially inflates the number of children in poverty and creates an escalator to get more into poverty every day, with every child born.
To the Opposition parties, I would say this. I hear you say to these families, “Go out and get a job.” Most of them are already in work. Are you telling those five and six-year-olds—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Not “you”—I have not spoken in this debate!
Antonia Bance
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I say to those on the Opposition Benches who are telling people already in work to go out and get a job: what are those people supposed to do? Are they supposed to send their five-year-olds out on a paper round to make the money add up when it does not? Do not talk to me about how families should plan better—you will never meet a better planner than a single mum in Princes End making the money stretch. Do not cry crocodile tears for kids whose dad died but when his widow needed help, we said, “Nah. You shouldn’t have had so many kids.” Do not tell me that a dad who lost his job does not deserve help for his kids because he did not predict years in advance, when planning his family, that his factory would close and he would be dumped out of work. Be honest about what supporting the two-child limit means. If you support it, you think that some kids should be hungry tonight—well, we don’t.
I have no words for the idea of the charlatans of the Reform party, who would reimpose the two-child limit, plunge thousands of children into poverty and take hundreds of pounds from families each month in order to make it cheaper to have a pint. The hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) was too frit to give way to me, so I will say this to her this now. Her policy would affect Sikh children living in my constituency who have a mum or dad born in the Punjab, or children in my constituency with a mum or dad who was born in Bangladesh, Poland or Pakistan. These are British people. They are our neighbours and our friends—people who work and play by the rules. They are British citizens, but they are second-class citizens for Reform.
I was glad to see that the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) called out Reform. I would like to see more calling out of that frankly disgusting point of view: the differentiation between different types of British citizen based on nationality and the colour of their skin that we see going on in our national political dialogue and in the Reform party. I hope that people across the country, in Scotland, in Wales and in my borough of Sandwell, will reject that division when the time comes in May—and that those in Gorton and Denton will do so as well.
I say this to my constituents who are working hard to make ends meet: I will not apologise for prioritising our kids. Every child deserves a fair start in life. As one of our greatest Prime Ministers said when launching his own child poverty mission:
“Poverty should not be a birthright. Being poor should not be a life sentence”.
We want every child to have the freedom to learn, to play sport, to sing, to dance and to get on in life, free from want and fear—the freedom to be kids. This is what a Labour Government will deliver: half a million of children out of poverty. I will be voting for the Bill tonight, and I hope other Members will too.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I will start by repeating something that the Secretary of State said at the start of the debate. He made much of the need to set against anger and division, so I am going to appeal to everyone’s better nature. Ultimately, the removal of the two-child limit was not in the Labour party’s manifesto, so until recently it was not something to which the Government had committed—in fact, it was ruled out by the Chancellor. I have sat through the entire debate and I have to say that it is a bit rich of Government Members to lecture us today, when in 2024 the limit was clearly good enough for the Labour party, including the current Prime Minister and the Chancellor. It is also worth pointing out that we keep hearing the figures 4.5 million and half a million. It seems that the removal of the two-child limit will reduce the 4.5 million people who the Government say are in poverty by just half a million. It will be interesting to hear the Minister comment on that.
The debate has been caricatured as being rich Conservatives versus everyone else, but nothing could be further from the truth. We believe in a safety net, but we also believe in personal responsibility. Many of us on the Opposition Benches grew up on benefits. I am one of those people, and I was in fact worse off when the Labour Government came into power in 1997; they scrapped the child benefit and replaced it with working tax credit, and my mum supported by dad’s business and did not go to work in her own right while she raised her four children. When I am asked why I am a Conservative, that is what I say—and I have checked that this afternoon to ensure that I am factually accurate. We are speaking up for those who work hard and have high bills, as well as housing and food costs, but who are paying tax because they do not qualify for universal credit.
I want to make one final point before I come to the body of my speech. Lots has been said about free school meals this afternoon, but when I recently questioned the Department for Education on whether it has any record of the number of councils making the most of the auto-enrolment for free school meals, I was told that the Government do not have the figure. They might wish to go away and look at that. I absolutely appreciate that auto-enrolment helps the most vulnerable, but if the Government are not taking account of the levers in their hands to improve that system, then they need to do some work.
Having done my bit of ad-libbing, I will make some progress with my speech. Fundamentally, maintaining the two-child limit is about fairness—fairness to working parents who do the right thing, fairness to working parents who make difficult choices and fairness for families who live within their means.
Rebecca Smith
No, I am going to make some progress.
We are talking about men and women who are working long hours in shops, schools, offices, construction sites and care homes right across the country. Why should families in receipt of universal credit have to avoid the difficult decisions about how many children they can afford, unlike those who are not in receipt of it?
Compassion is often framed in terms of supporting the most vulnerable, and rightly so—indeed, I have highlighted my own personal conviction on this in previous debates—but as one a colleague in my previous council career told me, “The left has no monopoly on compassion, Rebecca.”
Compassion cuts both ways. We must remember the millions of hard-working families across the UK who are not on large salaries yet fall outside any thresholds for universal credit—the families who earn the same for going to work as their neighbours do on universal credit. It is unfair to these parents to make them bear a double cost: raising their own children and subsidising other people’s.
Several hon. Members rose—
Rebecca Smith
No, I will not give way; I am going to make some progress.
These mums and dads are the backbone of our economy, and we cannot afford to let them down. Scrapping the cap reduces incentives for parents to look for a job or work longer hours. Why would they bother going to work, or working more, when they could get more in benefits? A strong economy must provide incentive structures that help people to do the right thing, and we tamper with these fundamental structures at our own peril.
Gareth Snell
On the point of doing the right thing, the data suggests that in the shadow Minister’s own constituency there are 1,160 children living in a household that does not currently receive universal credit support for the additional children. Some of them will be listening this evening, and some will be teenagers. What would she say to them? Would she tell them that she could do something this evening, but she is choosing not to? What is her justification to those children?
Rebecca Smith
I also speak for the 60% of the population who do not think we should be scrapping the cap. No doubt a large proportion of those people are also in my constituency.
As Conservatives, we believe in personal responsibility and living within our means. Our welfare system should be a safety net for the most vulnerable, not a lifestyle choice, as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) has argued so powerfully. As I have alluded to, it seems that we are not alone; that principle of fairness is echoed across the country, with a recent YouGov poll finding that 57% of respondents believe that the cap should be retained.
The situation is particularly stark for self-employed mothers, who can only access statutory maternity allowance —a flat rate that falls far below what their peers can receive via their employer. I recently met one self-employed mother who told me that she is seriously weighing up whether to have a second child because she and her husband simply cannot afford it right now. This is a deeply personal dilemma, fraught with conflicting emotions. Equally, those not on benefits who have more children do not get paid more wages—they just have to absorb the extra costs within their budgets—so this idea that we need to give people more money because they have more children does not always make sense. However, this Government are determined to give families on universal credit a free pass; as a result, those families will not have to make those kinds of hard choices.
According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, for 70% of the poorest households currently subject to the two-child limit, any money they stand to gain from the scrapping of the limit will get partially or fully wiped out by the household benefit cap. How do the Government square that circle when they have been quoting the headline figures for poverty? As has been raised numerous times today by Opposition Members, if Labour truly followed its own logic on child poverty, it would also need to scrap the household benefit cap, at even greater cost to the taxpayer.
Conversely, 40% of those affected by the two-child limit will be exempt from the overall household benefit cap, because they have at least one claimant or child receiving health and disability benefits. This means that households with six children will get an additional £14,000 every single year. For larger families in particular, the financial gap between going to work and being out of work will shrink significantly. We are trapping good people in a bad system. Shockingly, one in four full-time workers would be better off on benefits than in work—that is 6 million workers across the UK whose neighbours on combined benefits are receiving more income than they are. It is no wonder that every day 5,000 people sign on to long-term sickness benefits. According to the Centre for Social Justice, a claimant who is receiving universal credit for ill health plus the average housing element and personal independence payment could receive the equivalent of a pre-tax salary of £30,100, and a family with three children receiving full benefits could get the equivalent of £71,000 pre-tax. How is this fairness?
At best, scrapping the cap is a sticking plaster that does not tackle the root causes of poverty. We know that work is the best route out of poverty—in fact, if this Government hit their ambitious target of increasing employment rates by 80%, that could lift approximately the same number of children out of poverty as scrapping the two-child limit. Instead, this Bill will be yet another strain on our ballooning benefits budget. If it had been retained, the two-child limit would have saved the taxpayer £2.4 billion in 2026-27, rising to £3.2 billion in 2030-31. Instead, the bill is being passed on to all those families I have spoken about already.
Rebecca Smith
No, because I believe the hon. Gentleman’s Minister will want to have a fair share of time as well.
When it comes to reforming welfare spending, the Prime Minister has shown extraordinary weakness of resolve. Scrapping the two-child cap is simply a political decision to placate his Back Benchers, costing taxpayers billions. It is unaffordable for a welfare system that is already on its knees, and damaging to the very work incentives his party promotes. Indeed, no one voted for it at the general election. As the Leader of the Opposition has said,
“28 million people in Britain are now working to pay the wages and benefits of 28 million others. The rider is as big as the horse.”
Let us look at this through the eyes of hard-working parents and individuals. Many of their businesses and workplaces are already being hit by Labour’s damaging tax rises. These are people with a work ethic—they willingly shoulder the burden of supporting their families without relying on the state—but their commitment to doing the right thing is being thrown back in their face. The Conservatives are the only party truly standing by hard-working families. We are the only party serious about bringing the welfare bill under control and protecting taxpayers from yet more unavoidable costs. Keeping the cap is about fairness, responsibility and respect for the sacrifices that parents make every single day. To scrap it flies in the face of that.
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
Like the shadow Minister, I will start by quoting my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. At the start of the debate, he said that this Government have chosen to reject the politics of division and of rage. Instead, we have chosen to seek to bring the country together and to open up a hopeful way forward. That is the choice that underpins this Bill.
It was my great privilege to take through this House the Child Poverty Act 2010, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn). That Bill, as he pointed out, had all-party support. George Osborne spoke in favour of it. A few months later, George Osborne was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Government took the opposite stance. The four separate child poverty targets were scrapped. The headline rate of benefits was over time cut to the lowest real-terms level for 40 years. The Child Poverty Commission set up by the Act was replaced by the Social Mobility Commission, and child poverty eventually rocketed by 900,000 to 4.5 million. That is what Tory policies did. Their claim of wanting to tackle child poverty proved to be hollow, and we discovered the authentic voice of the Tory party, which we have heard again this afternoon.
We should not forget the contribution of the Tories’ coalition partners in the 2010 to 2015 Government. I warmly welcome the Lib Dem support that we have heard today. The hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) made a thoughtful speech on behalf of his party, and we also heard from the hon. Members for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane), for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella), for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) and for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray). Their party leader was in the Cabinet when much of the damage was done, and he did nothing to stop it when it came to the crunch. In the battle against child poverty, the Lib Dems were nowhere to be seen.
Sir Stephen Timms
I will not just at the moment. Poverty does immense harm, as we have heard, to children and their future prospects. In the classroom, children eligible for free school meals are on the wrong end of an education gap that reaches 19 months by age 16. They earn around 25% less at age 30. Recent research by Liverpool University has shown that children growing up below the poverty line are three times more likely to be not in education, employment or training as young adults. To tackle the NEET problem—as we must, with almost a million young people left NEET by the last Government—we have to tackle child poverty, too.
We have heard arguments in this debate that we are piling up costs for the future. Actually, it is the failures of the past that have piled up those costs, and we are now having to address that. The costs of child poverty play out throughout the lives of those affected. They play out in our social security system, in the NHS and in other public services, too. The Tories claim that by making those cuts, they were saving money. What they were doing, in fact, was heaping up massive costs of future failure, which we are all now having to pick up.
The Bill will deliver a better future for our children and for the country. Removing the two-child limit in universal credit will lift 450,000 children out of poverty by the end of this decade, and that figure rises to more than half a million children alongside other measures in our child poverty strategy. That is a generation less likely to struggle with their mental health, more likely to do well at school and more likely to be in work as young adults and to thrive in their future working lives. That is a generation with the capacity to thrive. That is the future we are choosing to build.
Siân Berry
The Government narrowed the scope of the last benefits Bill, and it could widen this Bill to take in the wider benefit cap, too. The Chancellor who could find the money for that is right next to the Minister. Can the Minister explain why, despite the interest in lifting the overall benefit cap in the Chamber today, according to the impact assessment the only options assessed were doing nothing or this very narrow measure?
Sir Stephen Timms
The change for which I think the hon. Lady is arguing would make a relatively modest alteration to the figures. There is a real advantage in the benefit cap, in terms of the incentive to work. We are not proposing to change that, and in the changes that we are making we are maintaining that incentive very robustly. This is a change from the choices of the last Government, which left us with a third of primary schools running food banks.
I echo the tribute paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) to the work of the End Child Poverty Coalition. Members including my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (David Baines) rightly referred to the Child Poverty Action Group, and others mentioned the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. I pay tribute to all those who have campaigned, successfully, for the change that we are making.
The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), said in her opening speech that her party did not accept the relative poverty definition. As we were reminded during the debate, her party embraced that definition in 2010—it was part of the change that was made at the time—but between 2010-11 and 2023-24, even absolute poverty rose. It was higher at the end of that period than it had been at the beginning. That was an extraordinary feature of her party’s record in government.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for her contribution to the debate and for the work of her Work and Pensions Committee, alongside that of the Education Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), in scrutinising our child poverty strategy. The points that she made were absolutely right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) was, I think, the first to draw attention to the struggle that teachers are having in supporting children in classes. According to survey evidence, in 38% of schools staff are currently paying out of their own pockets to provide essentials for their pupils because their parents cannot afford to buy them. They have full-time roles tackling hardship, taking away funds that ought to be spent on education.
The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) made a thoughtful speech, as he often does, but he was wrong. He said that the extra money would be for people because they were not working. It was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister), my hon. Friend the Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron)—in a spirited contribution—and my hon. Friends the Members for Ipswich (Jack Abbott), for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley), for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey), for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) and for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) that the great majority of the beneficiaries of this measure are people in work, and as a result the hon. Gentleman’s argument crumbled away.
Sir Stephen Timms
No, I will not be giving way.
It was very interesting to hear the arguments of the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin). Her party is looking more and more like a cut-price Boris Johnson reunion party, with all the old faces turning up on the Reform Benches. Now they are even starting to sing some of the old songs. The leader of their party has been talking for years about opposing the two-child limit, and just a few weeks ago, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman) wrote an article in which she said that she opposed it. Today they are voting with the Tories in favour of the cap. Those old policies would cause the same damage if they were brought in again in the future.
I remember a time when there seemed to be at least some degree of consensus in the House on the importance of tackling child poverty. Well, there was not much sign of that among Conservative Members this afternoon, and I am sorry that we have lost it. Scrapping the two-child limit on universal credit is the single most effective lever that we can pull to reduce the number of children growing up poor, and in pulling that lever we are helping hundreds of thousands of children to live better lives now, and to have real grounds for hope for their futures. We are supporting their families, the majority of whom are working families, and by enabling the next generation to fulfil its potential we are investing in our country’s success in the years to come.
The Bill is the key to delivering the biggest fall in child poverty in any Parliament on record, and in doing so it will make a very big contribution to the missions of this Government. Our manifesto was summed up in one word—“change”—and this is what change looks like: ambition for families, and for the country.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Will the Serjeant at Arms investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby?
Business without Debate
Fish and Chip Sector
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
It is good to see so many right hon. and hon. Members in their plaice as we skate through the choppy waters that are the fish and chip sector. The chips are down for fish suppers. While the word “iconic” is overused, surely fish and chips warrant that label. At Heathrow airport, visitors are greeted with signs extolling the virtues of what is, or was, our national dish. Welcome to Britain: land of drizzle, warm beer, warm welcomes and fabulous fish suppers.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Fish and chips is a great British food, but fish and chips first came to Britain with Jewish immigrants from Spain in the 16th century. Cold fried fish was a staple of many Shabbat lunches, including my own grandma’s. The first chippy is credited to Joseph Malin, who added chips in about 1860, in London. What a great idea and what a great immigration story!
John Cooper
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention—a fascinating history lesson.
Staying with history, during the war fish and chips were deemed so vital to the nation’s morale that Prime Minister Winston Churchill insisted they be exempt from rationing. If the ingredients were available, fish suppers were on the menu and chip shops got extra cooking fat to keep the home friers burning.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman. I am mindful that the best chips come from Comber spuds and the best fish comes from Portavogie—that is just me talking up my own area. Does he agree that the new fisheries management plans have resulted in reduced total allowable catches, affecting local supply? It means that in Northern Ireland a cod supper, which was £6 or £7, is now £10 to £11.50. Does he agree that, without intervention, the fish and chip shop days will be as few as the fishermen’s days at sea?
John Cooper
I thank my near neighbour for his intervention. He presages some of what I am going to touch on now.
Today all is not well. Romano Petrucci, proprietor of the Central Café in my home town of Stranraer, is just one of many business people warning that this staple is fast becoming an unaffordable luxury. Data from the Office for National Statistics indicates that the average price of a portion of takeaway fish and chips was £10.96 in December, up from £9.99 the year before—an increase of 10%. That was higher than average price increases for other takeaway meals or carry-outs, as we call them in Scotland.
Over the same period, the average price of a Chinese takeaway main course increased by 4% and an Indian takeaway main course by 3%, while a takeaway pizza increased by just 2%. That £10 barrier is hugely significant, for customers generally have a ceiling on what they regard as reasonable—perhaps £6 for a coffee or £7 for a pint of beer. Above that, sales dip, and no wonder at £40 or more for a fish dinner for a family of four, and so, sadly, it has proved: the ONS says that sales of fish and chips fell by 21% in 2024 compared with the previous year.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
If the hon. Member is paying £6 for a coffee, he should come to Darlington where it definitely is not £6. We also have the best places for fish and chips, with Yarm Road Fish and Chips and Cockerton Fisheries both winning awards. Please do consider a visit to Darlington to try some really pukka fish and chips.
John Cooper
I certainly would not pay £6 myself for a coffee. If I can find a pint cheaper than £7, I think I will be there.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
As we are talking about the best chips, the first fish and chip shop was actually in east London, where I was born. I have a chip shop challenge; I am going around London trying chips—any excuse. Chip shops are an important part of London’s economy, so the hon. Gentleman’s debate is vital. This week, my chip shop challenge went viral because I got some abuse—but it was absolute pollocks!
John Cooper
I thank the hon. Lady for her interesting intervention. Her chip challenge sounds like a lot of fun, and I defer to Madam Deputy Speaker about the question of proper parliamentary language—I am sure what she said is perfectly acceptable.
Fish and chip shops accounted for 60% of the fall in sales, with 36 million fewer portions of fish and chips sold in fish and chip shops in 2024 compared with 2023. Something has gone drastically wrong. Worse, it is not just one thing but a series of issues. I have some sympathy with the Minister because the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is not directly responsible for all these matters, but of all Departments, it should realise that government must not work in silos and instead should work across Whitehall.
John Cooper
I feel like I am swimming upstream here, but I am happy to give way.
James Asser
I recently had a conversation with a chip shop in my constituency. One of the issues it raised was getting younger people interested in going into the business because there are other opportunities elsewhere. Indeed, the person I spoke to—it was a family business—had moved on to other opportunities. The hon. Member is coming on to the many issues that face the sector. Does he agree that we need to look at opportunities for education in catering colleges to encourage people that fish and chip shops still present a viable business opportunity? Like many other long-standing businesses, if interest is lost, that is how they die out. That is one issue we need to look at.
John Cooper
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I will touch on the question of skills in a few moments.
A key reason for prices leaping like a salmon is an increase in the price of fish itself. Incredibly for an island nation, we are a net importer of fish. Previously, a high proportion of fish used in the UK was imported from Russia, though in March 2022 the Government rightly imposed a 35% tariff on Russian seafood imports following the illegal invasion of Ukraine. That invasion also hit the price of flour and sunflower oil—both major Ukrainian exports. There was also a reduction in the North sea cod quota, mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is setting out really well the challenges that fish and chip shops are facing in this difficult international climate, but there are domestic issues too. North East Lincolnshire council, in my constituency, plans to pedestrianise Cleethorpes marketplace, which the famous Steels Cornerhouse fish and chip restaurant says could amount to a £150,000 loss in click-and-collect orders alone. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that local authorities should be doing all that they can to support our favourite fish and chip shops?
John Cooper
The hon. Lady makes an important point. We should of course support businesses of all kinds, and pedestrianisation can be a double-edged sword. One of the difficulties is the weather in this country, and there is nothing better than pulling up right outside the shop that you want to go to, so decisions have to be balanced.
The reduction in the North sea cod quota for 2025 reduced supply, and, of course, increased prices. I am more a haddock man myself, but cod is one of the top five imported and consumed species in the UK. Labour’s failed “mackerel for missiles” deal gave the EU further rights in our waters, but did not give us access to Europe’s multibillion-pound Security Action for Europe defence fund. The EU now takes seven times more fish, by value, from our waters than we take from its waters.
Fish and chip shops have also faced challenges from increased electricity prices due to the use of energy-intensive cooking appliances. Increased energy costs have also contributed to higher potato prices, with more to come as the carbon border adjustment mechanism is effectively a fertiliser tax, adding perhaps an extra £100 per tonne. Even changes to reliefs on double-cab pick-ups—the farmers’ workhorse—have increased potato prices.
Let us hear no nonsense about the people behind the counter being low-skilled; today’s fish-frier could be tomorrow’s FTSE 100 chief executive officer, or the founder of a €1 billion unicorn start-up. They work with cash and high-value stock, and, crucially, learn communication skills through dealing with the public.
Increases to the minimum wage, which is paid not by the Government—although Labour likes to pretend that it is—but by hard-pressed businesses, are also an issue. Add the increase in employer national insurance, which puts a bounty of about £900 on the head of each employee: no wonder youth unemployment is rising.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is outlining some of the economic challenges that the sector is facing. One of my constituents is heavily involved in the National Federation of Fish Friers. He told me that he often feels that the Government are very good at listening to UK hospitality and other big sectors, but they do not necessarily understand the specific local issues of this sector. Does he agree that we would welcome more communication and better collaboration between them?
John Cooper
The hon. Member makes a very good point. Many industries are not actually treated as an industry. For example, agriculture is treated as a series of small individual businesses, and its totality is not taken into account. That is a very fair point.
The truth is that Labour’s Employment Rights Act 2025 is about the clipboard class—the trade union apparatchiks —and not really about actual hard-working people. What is the point of workers’ rights if that all-important first job eludes people?
Will the fish supper go the way of the red telephone box—much loved, but a relic of the past? Will the Labour party’s indifference turn a British staple into a luxury for the elite? Whether you call it a fish supper, a one-and-one, or just regular fish and chips, this Government risk frittering away a classic.
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
I am yet again condemned to talk a lot about food while kept from tea, dinner, or whatever we want to call it. I also responded to a Backbench Business debate on farming and fishing, and did not get to have lunch, while everyone happily talked about food. It is a sort of torture from being in this particular job, but perhaps it will do well for my diet.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) on raising this issue. I think this has been one of the more popular Adjournment debates, given the interventions that we have heard from both sides of the House. That demonstrates what a place heart fish and chip suppers hold in everybody’s heart. I congratulate him on securing this Adjournment debate, which I am happy to answer. He is right to point out that not all the issues he has raised are directly for DEFRA, but I will do my best to answer some of them.
I know the hon. Gentleman raised this issue in January, when he asked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House whether the fish supper had had its chips—something that he has done again today. I note the various puns that people have come up with, and the somewhat dubious use of fish species to give the impression that other, unparliamentary words may have been said. Perhaps it is worth noting that the pollock fishery is doing quite well and has recently been reopened to commercial fishing after some good measures were taken, which have managed to revive that fishery, but I will not go into detail.
Dame Angela Eagle
We agree about the revival of pollock fishing. Obviously, I hope Hansard is listening extremely carefully—otherwise, we are all going to get into serious trouble.
The sector was left to cope with rising costs and global shocks on its own for years, but this Government are taking a different approach. We understand that if we want these businesses to survive and thrive, we have to get involved. We need to support the fishers who land the catch, the farmers who grow the potatoes, and the high street traders who keep their doors open and deliver the final product millions upon millions of times every year, so maintaining a secure and affordable supply of fish is of key importance.
Melanie Onn
The supply of fish is an international business, and it is really complicated. One issue that has been problematic is that, post Brexit, some of our supertrawlers, such as the Kirkella, are no longer able to supply to the UK, which has elevated the cost of this food.
Dame Angela Eagle
My hon. Friend is unique in England because she has the Kirkella deep sea trawler, which she has just mentioned. It can be out trawling and processing for months, and it brings back absolutely processed products. There are some issues with where the Kirkella can fish, given what is happening with fish supplies. I am happy to talk to her about this matter, and I hope to visit her constituency at some stage so that I can have a look at that incredible vessel.
We are supporting the UK fleet to ensure that it has access to opportunities to catch cod and haddock. They are migrating north, which is one of the problems, as is the fact that they have been overfished. In 2026, the Government secured approximately £115 million-worth of fishing opportunities for these stocks. We are also taking steps to restore stocks to sustainable levels, so that we can continue harvesting them over the long term. For example, we have recently agreed measures such as seasonal closures with the EU and Norway to protect Northern Shelf cod, which is in a particularly parlous state.
However, fish and chip shops are particularly reliant on imports of fish, as the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway said. Maintaining sustainable stocks of white fish in UK waters means that we have to import large volumes of white fish to meet demand. Relationships with trading partners such as Norway and Iceland, where these stocks can be fished, are therefore critical. Industries used to depend heavily on Russian frozen-at-sea fillets, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but costs have risen sharply following the war in Ukraine, because businesses have had to find alternative supplies to stay competitive. We are supporting the sector to seek alternative species and sources of fish in order to move away from any remaining Russian-caught fish in the supply chain, and we are working with the National Federation of Fish Friers and the Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation to reintroduce British-caught rock salmon to the menu.
Of course, I do not need to tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you cannot have a fish and chip supper without potatoes. From our seed and ware potato farms to our fresh and processing sectors, potatoes continue to play an important role in UK farming and food production. I was pleased to see that the Scottish planted area rose for the second year in a row, despite the challenges of the weather and the global disruptions faced by the whole arable community this year. The Government remain committed to working with the farming sector to deliver stability, confidence and growth. The Secretary of State set out at the Oxford farming conference that the new sustainable farming incentive offer for 2026 will be more focused, more transparent and fairer so that more people can benefit.
We continue to invest in our farming sectors. The farming collaboration fund will provide up to £30 million over the next three years, delivering a new approach to farm collaboration and advice, and will back existing and new farmer groups, link them with expert support and help to create strong partnerships that drive growth and deliver environmental outcomes. We are putting partnership with the sector on a firmer footing. Farmers and food businesses will have a stronger voice at the heart of government.
A new farming and food partnership board, chaired by the Secretary of State and me, will drive growth, productivity and long-term profitability. It will remove barriers to investment and improve how the supply chain works, complementing our work to develop a 25-year farming road map—a single long-term plan to bring together regulation, innovation, skills investment and environmental recovery. I certainly hope that we can make our farming sector as profitable and nimble as possible.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned cooking oil, another important aspect of the production of fish and chip suppers. The price and supply of cooking oil is important. As he pointed out, Ukraine is a major supplier of sunflower oil, but supply chains were severely disrupted by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. As a result, the UK suspended tariffs on sunflower oil imports from 1 January 2023. Last year, we extended the tariff suspension until 31 December 2026, so that importers will continue to have tariff-free access to sunflower oil. We are currently seeking views on whether the suspension should be extended for another two years. Clearly, anyone listening to the debate, be they in the fish and chip sector or elsewhere, should get in touch with us if they have a view about that important issue.
Tom Gordon
I will not make any fish puns; it is not my plaice to do so. We have fantastic fish-and-chipperies in Harrogate and Knaresborough, including Oatlands Mount. Local chippy owners tell me that a cut in VAT for hospitality and restaurants would deliver a meaningful boost for them. Will the Minister pass that on to her Treasury colleagues?
Dame Angela Eagle
I will skate over the hon. Member’s attempt at a fish pun. I am happy to pass on his comments, which are not a matter for DEFRA, as he will know. As an ex-Treasury Minister, however, I can tell him that VAT is a large source of revenue, and fiddling around to make the system more complex is not often the best way of achieving an aim, but it is something that the Lib Dems do with rather a lot of things. His proposal would give away the simplicity of a sales tax, but I am happy to pass it on.
We recognise that small hospitality businesses, including fish and chip shops, are under real pressure, which is why we have started to reform the business rates system to better support the high street. The Government are producing a new permanently lower tax for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties, including fish and chip shops. As we announced in the Budget, those new tax rates are worth nearly £1 billion a year in forgone tax revenue for the Treasury, and will benefit 75,000 properties. Fish and chip shops benefit from a £4.3 billion support package, protecting businesses from steep bill increases. Meanwhile, the smallest businesses will be protected by increases in the employment allowance from the effective national insurance contribution changes. Later this year, we will bring forward a new high streets strategy to reinvigorate our communities, and we will work with businesses and representative bodies to pull it together. That cross-Government strategy will consider what more we can do to support our high streets.
The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway spoke about the minimum wage. The Government accepted in full the Low Pay Commission’s recommendations on the minimum wage, to support the lowest-paid workers. As he knows, although that represents a cost for business, there is a balance here in terms of what the lowest-paid workers can get in exchange for their labour. When they get reasonable pay, they put that money into the local economy, so there is a balance—it is not all on one side. I am sure that he would not want the fish and chip sector to rely on very low wages in order to sustain itself. The balance that the Government have decided to strike is to accept the Low Pay Commission’s independently made recommendations on national minimum wage levels in full.
We recognise that the sector is under pressure as a result of energy prices and are taking action to support it, such as through the permanent cut to business rates for hospitality announced in the recent Budget. The Government are concerned about the challenges that hospitality businesses can face in securing appropriate, fair and competitively priced energy contracts. To address that, the Government and Ofgem work closely together to identify and implement policy changes that can improve energy costs in the non-domestic market. Two years ago, Ofgem concluded an extensive non-domestic market review. Interventions to support businesses since that have included expanding the overarching standards of conduct for suppliers to all non-domestic customers, clearer rules on deemed rates and required standards for managing changes of occupancy.
The Government have also recently announced a decision to directly regulate energy brokers and other third-party intermediaries where there is some evidence of abuse. Although third-party intermediaries can support businesses to secure more tailored and better value energy contracts, some rogue brokers exploit customers through excessive commissions or predatory sales tactics, which could prevent businesses from accessing competitive energy prices. Regulation will help to ensure that businesses can trust that brokers are acting in their best interests. If parliamentary time allows, the Government are working to have Ofgem ready to implement regulation in this area in the second half of 2027.
In addition to new regulation, the Government have published a consultation with proposals to strengthen the powers of the Energy Ombudsman to ensure that consumers receive fairer and faster redress when things go wrong. Both those measures will improve competition in the energy market and ensure that non-domestic customers, such as those heating sunflower oil to fry chips in, are able to access free dispute resolution support.
More than 600 hospitality small and medium-sized enterprises across England will receive free energy usage and carbon reduction assessments, and advice and guidance to help them cut carbon, cut costs and support increased productivity and growth. That project is expected to save the businesses an average of £5,000 a year, and it is already identifying key behavioural changes that can have a significant impact on energy bills. I hope the fish and chip sector can be made aware of that and exploit it. Fish and chip shops, along with all small and medium-sized enterprises, can access advice on reducing their energy bills and the business benefits of decarbonisation through the UK Business Climate Hub and the business growth service.
Fish and chip shops may be small in size, but they embody something much bigger: the value of work, community and pride in British produce. While the last Government looked the other way as costs piled up, we are taking responsibility. We are backing the fishers and farmers who supply this great British staple, and we are backing the traders who serve it to millions. This Government will always be on the side of the workers who keep our plates full and keep the high streets alive. With the right support, these businesses can thrive, and this iconic part of our national life will be there for generations of Friday night fish and chip suppers in the future.
Question put and agreed to.