Commons Chamber

Tuesday 3rd February 2026

(began 1 month, 2 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:34
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:43
11:44
None Portrait Q3. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of his proposed changes to jury trials on the criminal justice system. (907626)
-

Sir. >> Justice Secretary. >> Well, with permission, Mr. Speaker, I'll answer questions three, 13 and 19 together. Our focus, as I've said, is on victims being left to wait three, four,
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:58
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:02
12:02
12:03
12:03
12:04
12:04
12:05
12:06
12:06
12:07
12:07
12:08
12:08
12:09
12:09
12:09
12:10
12:11
12:11
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:13
12:13
12:14
12:14
12:15
12:15
12:16
12:16
12:17
12:17
12:17
12:18
12:19
12:20
12:21
12:21
12:22
12:22
12:22
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:28
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:35
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:37
12:38
12:38
12:38
12:39
12:39
12:39
12:40
12:40
12:40
12:41
12:41
12:41
12:42
12:42
12:43
12:43
12:43
12:44
12:44
Hamish Falconer Portrait Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)
-
-
become clearer. Reports suggest many thousands of people across Iran have been killed and many more Iran have been killed and many more arrested in what has been a brutal and bloody repression against those and bloody repression against those exercising their right to public protest. There have been a range of estimates for casualties and estimates for casualties and detentions. However, the internet blackout imposed by the authorities, which we've also condemned and which we've 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 has been 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 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 protests in the strongest possible terms. The government committed to this 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 included designations of the Minister of the interior, police chiefs, and prolific IRGC members for their role in 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 via a range of means. Most recently, we led the call for a special session of the Human Rights Council on the 23rd of 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 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. Mr. speaker, the UK will continue to challenge the actions of the Iranian regime and we stand proudly on the side of freedom and human rights.
12:47
Priti Patel Portrait Rt Hon Priti Patel MP (Witham, Conservative)
-
-
Then Priti Patel. >> The brutal. >> Crackdown on brave Iranians fighting for their basic rights and fighting for their basic rights and freedom continues. The reports are shocking. Mr. speaker, we have now seen that tens of thousands have been killed, hundreds of thousands have been injured. Some are even saying 30,000 people have died. These are war like casualty rates. Yet the condemnation and response is weak. And I ask the Minister, what is the British government doing with our allies to neutralise the regime's tools of repression? The government has announced new sanctions.

The Minister has spoken about that. But what is being done to crack down on sanctions evasion, which is fuelling the Iranian regime's repression, including oil sales and cryptocurrency usage. What steps are being taken to weaken the regime's terrorist proxies? Is the government tracking the regime's illegal funding sources to ensure that UK financial systems and institutions are not facilitating or hosting funds used to target Iranian citizens in Britain with hostile attacks on the IRGC? The EU has chosen to prescribe them.

What is the government's response? We know that 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 this side of the House will support emergency legislation. Mr. speaker, the US build up of naval and Air Force assets in the Middle East is well documented and reported, and has prompted some reported contacts between the US and Iran. So will the Minister say what discussions have been held with the US government about their intentions? And is the UK involved in any contacts between the US and Iran? What plans 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 cooperation is underway to assess any commercial disruption within the region should action materialise? This is not the time to be silent and Britain must stand up for the Iranian people and confront this vile, despotic regime with strength and resolve.
12:49
Hamish Falconer Portrait Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)
-
-
Yeah, Minister. >> Mr. speaker, I'm grateful to the right hon. Lady for the questions going through them in turn. We have taken a series of steps in order to taken a series of steps in order to ensure that anyone wishing to support the Iranian government in this country must meet a much higher threshold to do so. We have done that through introducing 550 sanctions. Some of those introduced by the last government, some of which we have built on. And I'll come to the sanctions that we announced yesterday in due course in relation to the Firs scheme, where we have now put Iran at the very top of the measures.

That implies additional reporting requirements on 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 I know she knows from her time as Home Secretary about the extent of threat Iran poses to the UK. I want to reassure the House that we continue to treat that with the utmost seriousness that it requires, and we believe that the legislative steps that we have taken already in relation to fors, we we believe the increase in sanctions, and we believe implementing the Hall review will all further increase our defences against such action.

She asks about discussions. In recent days we have been in regular discussions with all of our regional partners. She will be aware, I'm sure, of commentary over the last few days about further conversations between the Iranians and the United States. I don't wish to get ahead of the direct participants from the Dispatch Box, but as you would expect, we are in regular discussions with all those with an interest we want to see. As I said in my response to her, we want to see Iran having no prospect of achieving a nuclear weapon.

A diplomatic process to that effect is necessary, and we support all efforts by both the United States and our other partners to seek to ensure that she asks for plans on assets and what scenarios may entail. She'll appreciate why I won't be drawn into speculation in any great detail, but these are clearly very, very delicate moments for Iran. There has been, as she rightly says, very widespread loss of life on the streets of Iran. I will take this opportunity also to say, Mr.

Speaker, 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 a experience felt quite widely across the country. The British Iranian community make an important contribution to this country and understand the anguish they feel over these recent days.
12:52
12:53
12:54
12:55
12:55
12:56
12:56
12:57
12:57
12:58
Hamish Falconer Portrait Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)
-
-
As the Foreign Secretary has >> As the Foreign Secretary has already said, these are incredibly courageous protesters. One can hardly bear to hear the accounts hardly bear to hear the accounts from within Iran, such as those that have been able to circumvent the internet ban. And our thoughts are with them and the actions that we are taking, including those we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

announced yesterday, are a demonstration of Britain's continued commitment to them. Sir John Whittingdale, thank you,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sir John Whittingdale, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members of the Foreign Affairs Committee were told by the Iranian ambassador that 80% of the deaths were the responsible responsibility of ISIS style terrorists. Will the continue to terrorists. Will the continue to give every support to journalists, human rights activists and all those seeking to uncover the evidence, to demonstrate those who are truly responsible in the Iranian regime and to refer them, potentially for prosecution to the International Criminal Court.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It's one of the reasons why it was so important to us to ensure that the independent us to ensure that the independent fact finding mission is voted through by the United Nations to continue its work, and then we will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

continue its work, and then we will see who really was responsible for these deaths. James Frith. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank. The Minister for his work and his statement on this. I want to raise the testimony of constituent raise the testimony of constituent in Bury North, a British Iranian woman who fled Iran after being arrested three times for campaigning for women's and
12:59
13:00
Hamish Falconer Portrait Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)
-
-
of a range of reports along the lines that he describes. I've set out some of the steps that we will be taking in relation to the evidence collection that he described. We see the role of the independent fact finding mission is absolutely vital to provide a UN United Nations backed method by which the evidence can be preserved

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and accountability can be seen. Looks forward. Mr Speaker in response. To the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the. Unilateral US action in. Venezuela, the government merely said that it was waiting to establish all the facts. This while President Trump said that he doesn't need international law, and that he's only constrained by his that he's only constrained by his own morality or his own conscience in advance of any US unilateral in advance of any US unilateral action against Iran. Can 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?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. speaker, as the House knows, this government is a strong supporter of international law. supporter of international law. Everything we do is consistent with that principle, but for the reasons set out to the shadow Foreign Secretary, I won't be commenting on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secretary, I won't be commenting on hypothetical scenarios. Please, sir. Thank you. Mr. Speaker. Can I welcome. The sanctions that have been
13:01
13:02
13:02
13:02
13:03
13:04
13:04
13:05
13:06
13:06
13:07
13:08
13:08
13:09
13:09
13:10
13:11
13:11
13:12
13:12
13:13
13:14
13:14
13:15
13:15
13:16
13:17
13:17
13:18
13:18
13:19
13:19
13:20
13:20
13:20
13:21
13:21
13:22
13:23
13:23
13:24
13:25
David Lammy Portrait Rt Hon David Lammy MP, The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Tottenham, Labour)
-
-
review of separation centres and the government's response to it. On the 12th of April, 2025, convicted terrorists Hashem Abedi brutally attacked three prison officers in the separation centre at HMP Frankland. I've seen the CCTV Frankland. I've seen the CCTV footage of what happened, Mr. Speaker, and it's truly horrifying Speaker, and it's truly horrifying and I want to 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 within prisons containing the most pernicious, extremist and terrorist offenders determined to spread hate and inspire violence and extremism in the prison estate takes, of course, many forms, but to date these units have only been used to contain Islamic extremists and they protect other prisoners, staff and the public. Before responding to Jonathan Hall's review, I visited HMP Franklin Separation Centre. I met the brave officers who served there, dedicated professionals doing an incredible and essential job, a public service carried out far from the public view.

And as the attack made devastatingly clear, extremism and violence in our prisons are real and present threats, and they must be dealt with decisively for the safety of the British public. And that is why the government appointed Jonathan Hall KC to lead an independent review into separation centres, to learn lessons, strengthen our defences and reduce the risk of such an attack happening again. Madam Deputy Speaker, following this incident, the government acted immediately to strengthen protections for front line 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 7.5 to 10,000, with 5000 specifically for officers working in long term and high security prisons, as well as providing training for up to 500 staff in the use of tasers.

I believe the members opposite welcome these moves, but couldn't explain why they had never done so themselves when they were in government. Staff also have access to a range of protective equipment, helmets, arm and leg protection, gloves, batons and shields, as well as body worn cameras and Pava pepper spray, all to help them keep safe. Mr. speaker, Mr. Madam Deputy Speaker, the government is grateful for 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 also 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 to strengthen safety, sharpen accountability and modernise how separation centres operate. The government accepts all 13 in full and in some areas will go further. Full details are in today's government's 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 is 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 tools, training. The support staff need to manage terrorist risks safely and confidently, and including a comprehensive, expert led review of the training for Separation Centre staff, ensuring it's tailored to the uniquely dangerous environments in which they work.

Madam Deputy Speaker, 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 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 supermax style units for the most violent, disruptive prisoners. This will be a tiered system with movement between tiers only permitted following rigorous new risk assessments, and we will begin designing this system immediately.

We will also improve the quality of referrals into separation centres through a single specialist team with 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 legally complex complexity constrain operational flexibility. They undermine prison officers professional judgement, and they expose the system to unnecessary litigation. Members opposite should pause to consider that they did nothing to fix this mess, to support frontline staff to do their job with certainty.

And this government is 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 its robust and grounded in operational reality. Madam Deputy Speaker, the government remains committed to the European Convention of Human Rights, but commitment does not mean complacency. We recognise the challenges of article eight composed for separation centre decision making, as highlighted by Mr. Hall, and the impact that litigation has on the ability to manage terrorists and other dangerous offenders.

Again, unlike the party opposite, we think that this is wholly unacceptable and that is why we are strengthening internal processes so that they are clear and resilient. Resilient to challenge, allowing 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 eight grounds, exploring the full range of options. To deliver this. While being clear we will remain compliant with our obligations under the.

The fourth theme focuses on intelligence. Mr. Hall finds the current intelligence practices are too bureaucratic and insufficiently focussed. The government has already improved how intelligence is used across the prison estate. The new counter-terrorism training package, launched last year, supports staff to identify and act on terrorist risk behaviour. It's another example of how this government supports frontline workers in the way that they were not supported previously, and we will go further improving collection practices so that higher quality and more relevant intelligence is gathered.

And this will be supported by further training specialist staff working with the Security service, of course, to ensure that the most serious risks are managed using the full range of available tools and high quality intelligence directly informs operational decisions. To conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, the attack on HMP Frankland was a stark reminder of the dangerous prison staff face every day. Our response will be decisive and determined. We will strengthen security, better protect staff, reinforce the resilience of our counter-terrorism infrastructure.

We cannot accept the situation we inherited with frontline staff dealing with the most dangerous offenders having 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. We will never lose sight of our first duty and that is to keep the British public safe. I commend this statement to the House.
13:33
13:33
Nick Timothy Portrait Nick Timothy MP (West Suffolk, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Justice Secretary for advance sight of his statement. And I welcome the publication of 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 prisoners, prison officers by Hashem Abedi, who was the man behind the Manchester Arena atrocity last April. And I want to 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 needed. They house the most dangerous and radicalised terrorist offenders in the country. As Charlie Taylor wrote in 2022 after inspecting these centres, they were designed to be used for prisoners from any political or religious viewpoint, but so far they've only been used for Muslim men. That should not be a surprise, because Islamist extremism is by far the greatest threat we face, and attempts to pretend otherwise are not only cowardly, but enormously counterproductive.

MI5 says 75% of its counter-terrorism work is focussed on Islamists, 61% of terrorist prisoners are Islamists, yet the figures show only 10% of prevent referrals are Islamists. Even today. And I know the justice secretary was clear about the Islamist threat. Even then, he had to caveat his comments by saying 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, anti-Semitic 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're afraid to be honest about it, we will never defeat it in prisons. Mr. Hall has previously said that the impact of Islamist groups has been underappreciated for too long by the authorities. He's reported that Islamist gangs in prisons are too often viewed through the lens of good order and discipline, with governors believing they can sometimes provide a degree of calm and stability. He's revealed that prison officers sometimes appeal to the Wing Emir for their assistance in maintaining good order.

So when will prison inspectors be directed to investigate Islamist extremism? Will the justice Secretary ensure known problems like gang enforced Sharia courts in prisons are investigated and reported upon? Will he publish information on the number of religiously and ideologically motivated incidents in prison? The problems for prisons caused by our human rights laws are well documented, and the justice Secretary said he would, quote, consider if new laws are needed to limit litigation based on article eight of the European Convention, making full use of the Sir Humphrey lexicon, he said he was exploring the full range of options, but promised nothing concrete and is obligatory in this government of human rights.

Lawyers pledged frailty to the European Convention, but consider the recent case of Shoaib Abu, an ISIS terrorist serving a life sentence who plans to shoot up a crowd. In his words, of civilians. He was held in a separation centre and made subject to greater restrictions following the Abedi attack. He used article three of the convention not mentioned by the justice secretary to argue successfully that his prison, Woodhill, didn't take into account his mental health. So can the Justice Secretary tell us how many prisoners are in the process of suing the government under the prison rules and the European Convention to escape separation centres and close supervision centres? What is he doing to prevent them being awarded compensation? When will he decide if he needs to legislate? To try to limit the application of article eight? And what is he going to do about article three? Claims like the one made by Abu? And shouldn't the Justice Secretary be open about the reality of his commitment repeated today to the ECHR? It means rights for criminals and terrorists like so of Abu and Hashem Abedi, but danger for prison officers and the wider public.

The justice Secretary can say what he likes about perhaps, after careful consideration in the fullness of time, legislating on article eight. But the simple truth is, as long as we remain in the, he can't guarantee a thing. And that is why we must leave Frank McNally.
13:38
David Lammy Portrait Rt Hon David Lammy MP, The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Tottenham, Labour)
-
-
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I agree with the Shadow Justice Secretary on the dangerous, radicalised offenders that we are talking about. And I sensed some cross-party agreement on that and the importance of the work that is being done here. He rightly talks about Islamic extremism in our prisons being the main context here, and I would agree with him. 254 prisoners in custody for terrorism and terrorism offences in England and Wales. Looking at the latest figures, 60% of those held have an Islamic ideology, 30% held have an extreme right wing ideology and 10% were categorised as as holding other ideologies.

And he's right that in these separation sentences I conveyed, we are dealing with Islamic extremism. And it's pernicious and it's challenging. He talks about gangs. Most prisons show no evidence of extremism based on gang activity where it does exist. We have got a zero tolerance and encourage staff to clamp down on it swiftly with any threatening behaviour. Jonathan Hall talks about the important training that is necessary in this area, and that is why we will be investing in training counter-terrorism specialists and intelligence officers to identify and disrupt gang activity, particularly, and our internal assessment, because he talks also of the previous work that was done in this area.

Our internal assessment is that 208 out of 230 recommendations have been completed. When we look at the entirety of other reviews that have looked at counter-terrorism in prison, and some of them he will have commissioned in his time in the home or home office, only seven of those recommendations rejected, 15 remain open. All of the open recommendations are for for more recent reviews and are being actively worked on. Some of them require legislative changes. Look, we recognise, of course, the use of article eight and article three in relation to this group of prisoners.

But we are absolutely clear that talk about leaving the European Convention of Human Rights in the end, a convention that was championed by Winston Churchill would leave children, the elderly and vulnerable victims like those of John Selby, the 97 killed in the Hillsborough disaster. British troops who died in Iraq in the most vulnerable of positions. So we cannot and must not do that. So first, we're looking closely at the guidance, as I indicated. And two, we will explore legislative obligations.

That's a sensitive and detailed work that we must do, because we do it within our existing obligations to the. Thank you, Madam Chair.
13:41
Jess Brown-Fuller Portrait Jess Brown-Fuller MP (Chichester, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Jess Brown-Fuller. I want to begin by paying tribute to those officers who suffered an appalling assault simply for doing their job. They and their loved 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. And 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, and 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 is taking action, and I would 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. And will he commit to a follow up report to assess whether these changes have genuinely improved safety and effectiveness? And a recent Chief Inspectorate of Prisons report on separation centres found that staff support and mandatory training were applied inconsistently across the prison estate.

At one site, almost half of officers said 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. So will the Secretary of State update the House on whether conditions have improved since that report, and if not, what concrete steps is he taking to address those gaps in training?
13:43
David Lammy Portrait Rt Hon David Lammy MP, The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Tottenham, Labour)
-
-
Well, I'm very grateful to the hon. Lady and we continue, of hon. Lady and we continue, of course, to place individuals in separation centres. We'll do that. And Mr. Hall's review confirmed that they do remain a vital part of our strategy to manage the most significant terrorist risks in our prisons. And I'm pleased that there is cross-party support in relation to that. She asked if I would update the House on the progress as we move to implement Jonathan Hall's review, and I will seek to find ways to update the house as we move through that.

But I have indicated that some of those recommendations will have some bearing on the next spending review and indeed on legislative time frames. So I suspect they will go beyond this particular Parliament. She's also quite, quite rightly mentioned the mental health of the officers involved and what, you know, to be attacked in the way that we saw does involve tremendous trauma for those officers, officers who are putting their lives at risk on a day to day basis, not just the officers, but their families, but those who remain to deal with the aftermath of those attacks, the other officers in the building.

So the training is vital, which is why she's right. It can't be inconsistent, and it's why it's the underpinning of the government response today that we also 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 this with a we approach these offenders with a degree of cynicism and scepticism as to their ability to refrain from the ideological conviction that clearly persists.
13:45
13:46
13:47
13:48
13:49
13:50
13:51
13:52
13:52
13:53
13:53
13:54
13:54
Adam Jogee Portrait Adam Jogee MP (Newcastle-under-Lyme, Labour)
-
-
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 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 empowered our nation. They made, they designed, and they thrived. My bill is about and they thrived. My bill is about ensuring that communities and our industrial heartlands are not forgotten, Madam Deputy Speaker or left behind and are given the opportunity once again to show what they're made of.

We all know that there's a housing crisis in our country, and so I welcome the commitment to build 1.5 million new homes by the end of this Parliament. That means we build in the right places with respect for our green spaces and our natural world, and doing it with our people, not to them. And as we do that, we must remain resolutely focussed on building good quality homes and building communities too. That's how we end overcrowding. That's how we stop the struggle facing families across the United Kingdom to find affordable, long term and secure housing.

And importantly, that's how we give young people and first time buyers a place to call their own. I have only ever owned one home, Madam Speaker, and it's the Newcastle-under-Lyme. I want all families to have the security that their own home can and will provide. But it isn't just about homes, it's about new schools. It's about the community centres that bring people together. It's about the new hospitals. It's about the restoration of this place. It's about buying British building with British, and it's about backing British workers.

When 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, you should and would expect to see a thriving building material industry in our country. But we don't. Instead, we see manufacturers up and down the country on the brink. Thanks. Thanks to a lack of domestic demand, our United Kingdom can produce around 2 billion bucks a year. Yet most manufacturers are currently operating at around a 70% utilisation.

That's 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 paying the British brick industry the backing it deserves and will do that with this bill. The British back brick industry started to climb 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 this decrease in domestic production.

Around 20% of the brick market is now made up of imported bricks. That impacts our workers. It hurts 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 lower transport related emissions and keeping their value in our local communities. It's bonkers Madam Deputy Speaker that we are relying on imports.

When British made bricks are of the highest quality and build resilient, long lasting homes and buildings. This is important too, in the context of building safety reforms required after the disgraceful Grenfell disaster, the cost of energy and of course, how we preserve our planet and protect our environment. Madam Speaker, a typical clay brick building has a lifespan of around 150 years and at the end of that life can be refurbished, recycled and reused. They are strong and they are weather 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 it damages local businesses. Newcastle-under-Lyme Madam Speaker. The centre, as I've said before of our collective universe, is home to one of 15 Ibstock factories. Ibstock is a leading British brick maker with a proud history of supplying bricks to British businesses, builders and the wider construction industry for more than 200 years. At their factory in Chesterton, Newcastle, they employ local people, they boost our local economy and they rightly make the case for what we must do, whatever we can to reduce the risks of undermining the competitiveness of British made bricks.

And I agree with them. North Staffordshire is the ceramic centre, not just of our country, but our world, and the industry is hurting my constituency neighbours, a couple I see here today over the A500 and colleagues on this side of the House will continue signing up for the ceramics industry and keep pushing government to go further and do more in standing up for and protecting the industry in our communities and this country. This bill is part of doing just that. Madam Deputy Speaker, despite being best known for producing tableware, the ceramics industry plays a crucial role in our ability to build anything.

In Britain. You can't manufacture steel, glass or as my bill, draw attention to bricks. Without it, the sector and its supply chain is 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. The ceramics industry is hard to decarbonise. Let's get real about it, Madam Speaker. But let's also not forget that our businesses are willing to engage and make their contribution to that effort.

Progress can and is being made. Recent initiatives, such as pilot hydrogen fired kilns demonstrate that the industry is committed to modernising, 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 of the jigsaw, Madam Speaker, is skills.

And I'm so proud that Newcastle College, based on not Alone in Newcastle-under-Lyme, offer a full time level one diploma in brickwork. We're upskilling our people in Newcastle online, but you don't and we can't without the sustained and future British industry ensure that those young people have something to do with their smarts, their skills and their qualifications. The cost to the livelihoods of people in my community, to the strength of our local economy and our businesses are too great for us not to get this right.

My bill that will see a local first approach 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. Madam Speaker, as I move my bill today, I think of the many men and women over generations who worked in the ceramics industry in Newcastle and North Staffordshire. I think of the potential untapped opportunities yet to be taken and the future that we can build together. And I'm 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 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. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is common sense and it's time is now. Our workers deserve it. Our economy needs it. My bill will help shape and build the future of our United

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Kingdom. So let's get on with it. Yes. The question is that the hon. Member have leave to bring in the Member have leave to bring in the bill. As many as I say, I Of the contrary, no. The ayes have it. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contrary, no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Who will prepare and bring in the bill? Henry Tufnell. Elaine Stewart.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Henry Tufnell. Elaine Stewart. Doctor. Allison Gardner. Gareth Snell. Jacob Collier. Leigh Ingham. Samantha Niblett. Amanda Hack. Samantha Niblett. Amanda Hack. Martin Vickers Rachel Gilmour Robin Swann. And myself. Madam Deputy Speaker. Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Adam Jogee. Keep it straight now. British-Made Bricks (Proposals) Bill Second Reading. What? Day by day?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Day by day? The 27th. Of February.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday, the 27th of February. I'll give the the front benches a I'll give the the front benches a I'll give the the front benches a few moments to shuffle over. If colleagues are settled, we can continue with business. The clerk will now proceed to be the orders

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the day. Universal Credit removal of Two-child limit Bill. Second Reading.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. The reasoned amendment on the Order Paper has not been selected.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order Paper has not been selected. Minister to move the Second Reading and Secretary of State. Thank you, Madam.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker, and I beg to move that the bill be now read a move that the bill be now read a second time, Madam Deputy Speaker. Core to our belief is that no one, no matter what our background, should be trapped by their circumstances. People should have the chance to make the best life they possibly can. Poverty is a
14:03
14:03
Pat McFadden Portrait Rt Hon Pat McFadden MP (Wolverhampton South East, Labour)
-
-
Yes. of dividing lines, dividing lines between so-called shirkers and strivers, between the old distinction of the deserving and undeserving poor. Politics first and policy second. Every time I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

very happy to give. Well, the Bracknell gentleman has provoked me into responding, has provoked me into responding, because I served under that last government and was involved in all of those decisions. And there was a clear principle. There was a principle behind this, which is principle behind this, which is will people take responsibility for their own actions, because there are thousands, millions of people are thousands, millions of people who choose not to have more children because they want to take responsibility for their lives, and they don't want the state to take responsibility.

And yet now, with this change, the government is saying to those people, not only will the state take responsibility, you as the individual will have to pay for it through higher taxes. This is the principle at stake here, and the government is reversing a clear principle position. The last

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government took the. State before the Secretary of State. Response. There are many colleagues in the chamber and I can colleagues in the chamber and I can understand how passionate this debate is, but let's try and keep the noise down. When colleagues are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the noise down. When colleagues are contributing. Secretary of State. Well, the right hon. Gentleman has set out the justification, and has set out the justification, and I'm about to come on as to why that did not stack up at the time. And it certainly doesn't stack up after it certainly doesn't stack up after the experience of the policy. And we should think we should begin by considering why none of our neighbouring countries has this two-child limit. And given that it was always primarily about politics, it is no surprise that it did not achieve the policy objectives that the right hon.

Friend just tried to set out. The Tories claimed that this would lead to people making different choices about the number of children they would have, but that did not happen, and 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. But this is not a static group, not at the moment. People circumstances change, marriages break up, spouses die, 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. We strive directly to the heart of the argument that the right hon. Gentleman tried to make. I am happy to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the Minister for giving way. 12 months ago, not only did this government support the Two-child cap, but it was busy suspending Labour backbenchers who voted Labour backbenchers who voted against it. Could he tell the House? What was it about the Prime Minister's weak position that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

caused him to change his mind? Child poverty. Unlike you? Well, I am going to come on to the timing of this and exactly why the timing of this and exactly why the timing of this is right in the way that we took the decision. So, as I said, as I said, 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, and when it came to costs, no account was taken of the costs further down the line.

Lower educational attainment, worse mental health, lower earnings, perhaps for the whole of people's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

working lives. I am happy to give. that. Whether the two-child cap on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Whether the two-child cap on benefits causes harm is open to debate. I don't regret anything I've

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't regret anything I've ever said on this debate. So no, I do not regret that. But all along do not regret that. But all along in this debate, there's been an attempt to divide workers from attempt to divide workers from non-workers. But around 60% of families affected. If she shows a little patience, around 60% of 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. But as I have said, this was never really about work or decisions about family size or saving money. It was political through and through, and it was children who paid the price with 300,000 more of them going into poverty as a result. Now, the hon. Members very keen, so I'm going to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way to them. Thousand were in poverty a year ago and he's allowed it to persist ago and he's allowed it to persist till now. What has changed is not the fiscal situation. It's not any the fiscal situation. It's not any room in the Budget. This is about. This is the labour equivalent of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is the labour equivalent of Project Save Big Dog, isn't it? Madam Deputy Speaker, timing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, timing does matter. And if he shows a little patience, I'll tell him exactly why we've done this in the timing that we have. So all the policy did was force more children into poverty and indeed, alongside their other key welfare measure, trapping the sick out of work. Now, even some voices on the right recognise the damage that this policy did. Former Tory welfare Minister Lord Freud described it as vicious, said it had been forced on the DWP by the Treasury at the time and the new recruit for reform, the former conservative home Secretary, said let's abolish the two child limit and eradicate child poverty for good.

I do not know if that is still her position. We will find out in the vote, but it seems that the new party she has joined wants to restore the two child limit. They are not just importing failed Tory politicians, they are importing failed Tory policies to between 2010, when the Conservatives came into office, and the summer of 2024 when they left it, child poverty had risen by some 900,000. And that is something to ponder as they have their debate on the benches opposite about whether Britain is broken or not, and if it is who was responsible, who designed the welfare system that they tell us is broken on a daily basis.

They did. Who broke the prison system that we've had to rescue? They did. Who shook international confidence in our economy and its key institutions? They did. And this is the inescapable problem that they have with their current position, an attack line that says, we trashed the country and we left you with a terrible inheritance, might just not be the winning argument that they think it is. So let them have their debate about whether Britain is broken. While we get on with the task of fixing what they left

**** Possible New Speaker ****

behind. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, yes, I'll give way to my. I thank my right hon. Friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way, Madam Deputy Speaker, and this is a crucial policy because it has exactly as he has described. But it's a down payment described. But it's a down payment on tackling other failures of the former government, the poor quality and overcrowded housing that puts and overcrowded housing that puts too many children in poverty of situation. And is he not proud like me, that we've now got a Labour

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government that's tackling these issues and getting our children where they should be? Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My friend is right and the point she makes is we also tackle them piece by piece and over time. And I piece by piece and over time. And I want to turn now to this question that people have asked of why not that people have asked of why not do this right away? And here, Madam Deputy Speaker, is the difference between government and opposition between government and opposition in opposition? The truth is, it's easy to tally up everything that's wrong with the country and promise wrong with the country and promise to reverse it.

But a winning manifesto has to be more than a list of what is wrong. Yeah, we spent plenty of time. 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 written off by the voters because the hard yards of winning their trust on the essentials of exercising power had not been done. Change only comes by earning the trust that is essential to victory, and it is because we did that that we are able to sit on this side of the house and change anything at all, whether that is for children, low paid workers or anyone else.

And 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, and that is why she was right to spell out at the Budget that this policy can only be done now, and can only be funded through a combination of savings from fraud and error in the benefit system, changes to the Motability scheme, and reform of online gambling

**** Possible New Speaker ****

taxation. I give way to the. Hon. Gentleman, right hon. Gentleman, for being for giving way, Gentleman, for being for giving way, and I have tried my best to be patient as I think he has. He indicated I should be, but surely indicated I should be, but surely does he not agree? There's only one way that he's going to pay for these increases. Taxes. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

these increases. Taxes. Yeah. Well, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor spelled out at the Budget how it was going to be paid Budget how it was going to be paid for. And if she didn't hear me the first time, I'm happy to repeat. Savings from fraud and error in the benefit system changes to the Motability scheme that they did not carry out when they were in power, and reform of online gambling taxation. It was also right that we did the work and took the time to do the work on the child poverty strategy that was so ably co-chaired by my right hon.

Friend, the Secretary of State for education, which means that the strategy included wider policies on child care, school holidays, help, and a number of other measures, as well as those in the bill before us today. Now, 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, it will lift an estimated 550,000 children out of poverty, just as the last Labour government reduced child poverty.

This Labour government will reduce

**** Possible New Speaker ****

child poverty. Secretary of State and I am glad

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secretary of State and I am glad that the UK government is finally taking action on child poverty and removing the two child cap on removing the two child cap on Universal Credit through this bill today, a policy that applied, of course, as opposed from the start. course, as opposed from the start. But more than 1 in 5 households affected by the two child limit will not benefit because of the cap will not benefit because of the cap in benefits. So does the Secretary of State agree with me that the government should now lift the benefit cap so that every eligible household and every eligible child

**** Possible New Speaker ****

receive the full support? This bill sets out to provide. Hear, hear. Well, I would remind her that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I would remind her that the benefit cap does not apply to families who are in work or who have a disabled child. It is in have a disabled child. It is in place, and that approach balances support and fairness without support and fairness without undermining incentives to work. Now, the bill will also remove the need for the vile policy known as the rape clause. That is a feature of the current conservative regime that we inherited. Women will no longer have to relive terrible experiences to get support for their child, and for the families who benefit from this measure.

It will help all children, regardless of the circumstances of their birth. IEA. My understanding is that it's the position of the party opposite to bring back the limit and therefore to bring back this provision. Perhaps the Shadow Secretary of State can clarify that when she comes to speak, and perhaps reform can clarify that when they contribute to the debate, too. Madam Deputy Speaker, the policy change in 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, and that's an investment worth making for the whole country. It's about giving children a genuine shot at life so that they can do well at school, stay healthy, and contribute to the country and our community. As an adult, that is harder. When children grow up poor, 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. Poor children are likely to be earning about 25% less than their peers by the age of 30.

They are four times more likely to experience mental health problems, with growing consequences for worklessness and indeed for the benefits bill later in life that we are seeing in the system today. They are more likely not to be in education, employment or training numbers, which grew rapidly in the final years of the party Opposite's time in power and about which they did nothing. That is why we are reforming the system through changing. The incentives in Universal Credit, ending the situation where the sick were 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 this policy was introduced, but it is essential that they are part of our debate about changing it today. Investing in children's potential today is about changing lives through better educational attainment, improved health, 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 financial aid 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. More help for childcare, for working parents to make work, pay and ease. The choice between looking after children and taking up a job that is in their interests and in the national interest.

Because why should we lose the talents of parents who have children? The youth guarantee to 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. More apprenticeships for young people. Stopping the 40% decline in youth apprenticeship starts over the last decade 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.

And all of this, all of this becomes more urgent as the population ages, and we need more young workers to support the country in the future. A better start in life is a bond between the generations. A good childhood is in all our interests and in the national interest. No, Madam Deputy Speaker, this debate is part of a wider one in politics, because we have seen in this debate and on other issues, there is in our country a politics of division that wants to set person against person and group against group.

And I believe we are only in the foothills of this. We will see more of it home grown and imported from overseas, becoming ever harsher as it seeks to use rage to fuel itself and to win support. This is the battle to come, not just on this issue, but on a much wider way. Yeah, and I want to make clear today that we set ourselves against that politics. We 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 country. The chaos in the country which people are so tired of. So 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 trying to tear each other down. 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. This is in our interests and in the national interest. And this is the fight to come between these two kinds of politics. And that is what the change in this bill is all about. And that is why I commend it to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House. The question is the bill be now read a second time, and I call the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

read a second time, and I call the Whately. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Every week, millions of people up and down the country sit at their kitchen table and do the sums. kitchen table and do the sums. What's coming in, what's going out and what's simply isn't affordable. and what's simply isn't 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? And though romantics might love this to be a decision about whether you want the joy of bringing new life into this world, the reality is many people ask themselves, can we afford it? They're not looking to someone else to help them make ends meet or pick up the bill.

They're just doing the maths. Now that's a difficult conversation, but it's a simple question members should ask themselves today before we vote. Why should people on benefits get to avoid the hard choices faced by everyone else? Now let's be clear about what the two-child cap is and what it isn't. 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. What it does is say child benefit. What it does is say there's a limit. There's a point at which it's simply not fair to make taxpayers fund choices. They themselves cannot afford to make. Lady. Lady.
14:23
Helen Whately Portrait Helen Whately MP (Faversham and Mid Kent, Conservative)
-
-
Madam Deputy. say to my constituent who found herself single with three children in temporary accommodation, then moved into a one bedroom flat with three children. Her youngest, in the overcrowded conditions, got ill. She had to give up her good job to look after that child. This is a lifeline for her. She wants to go back to work, but it's difficult. She did not choose to be in that situation. It wasn't a choice. And for the record, most of my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

constituents don't have space for a kitchen table. I'll say to the right hon. Lady that I am sure we all around this that I am sure we all around this House care about poverty and the prospects for children. But the prospects for children. But the answer to that is not to spend more and hand out more money, and to trap people in worklessness. The trap people in worklessness. The answer is to support people, to work exactly the opposite of what work exactly the opposite of what her government is 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. If you're in work, if you're in work, you don't get a pay rise because you have another child. And if we are serious about avoiding a benefits trap where it pays more to be on welfare than in work, than we should be honest about what happens if you lift the two child cap.

Benefits for individual households rise by thousands. Nearly half a million households will receive around 5000 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 over £45,000 untaxed. You have to earn around £60,000 to get from your own income, from work to that income from work. There are around 75,000 households who will get between 10,000 and £21,000 extra as a result of this bill.

For some of households, the extra money that they get in itself is more than a full time income for someone on the minimum wage after tax. I'll give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way to my. Does my. Hon. Friend agree with me that it is an issue of fairness for the taxpayer, for working hard and being rewarded by someone else, getting a benefit that is higher than what you're earning at a job. than what you're earning at a job. And that is the issue here. And that is why we need to keep the two child benefit cap.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

child benefit cap. Helen Whately. Exactly as my hon. Friend says. And the point hon. Friend says. And the point here is the amounts of extra money that some families will be receiving without even working is money that you have to have such a high income to achieve through work. It simply exacerbates the poverty trap. And I just I will give way to hon. Members the other side in a in a moment. But I just ask hon. Members to think about the implications of these kind of extra sums of money that people will be receiving.

Some people will, quite frankly and factually calculate that they can boost their income far more by having children than by working.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For work. The best way out of poverty won't be work. They don't like to hear this, but I'm sorry, it's just rational. The best way out of poverty won't be work. It'll be poverty won't be work. It'll be having babies. And on this. And on this, I want to address the argument that has been made that lifting the cap is necessary because women aren't having enough babies. We know that a declining birth rate is a cause for concern, but falling birth rates are driven by many factors changes in people's aspirations, the poor jobs market, the cost of housing and childcare, penalties motherhood imposes on careers, and the changing nature of 21st century relationships.

Children are important. We need to have more. But the answer to this complex problem is not. Here's some cash for having a kid. I'll give way to the hon. Gentleman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. And I thank the honourable, my hon. Member for giving way. We looked at this giving way. We looked at this extensively in the Treasury Select Committee. I'm frankly unaware, Madam Deputy Speaker, of any Madam Deputy Speaker, of any particular evidence that supports the behavioural arguments. The right hon. Lady sets out. But in right hon. Lady sets out. But in any event, why should the 95,000 children in Scotland bright, children in Scotland bright, talented children be punished by an utterly cruel policy? And has it not fatuous to suggest that people are having children for money and frankly, insulting to people in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Glasgow and across the United Kingdom? Yeah. Helen Whately. I'll say to the hon. Gentleman,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll say to the hon. Gentleman, the fact is that people do the sums. That is the reality of the world we live in. And that brings me, as is a member of the Treasury Select a member of the Treasury Select Committee, as he as he indicated. So he must be interested in this question even though he's looking question even though he's looking at his phone. Which brings me to an unavoidable question. Where is the 3 billion to fund this bill coming from? Or in fact, 14 billion over a five year period? We all know where it comes from.

It will come from taxpayers, either today's or tomorrow's, from the men and women who get up every morning, go to work, pay their bills and do the right thing at the last Budget. The Chancellor made a deliberate political choice. She knows 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 within to live within their means.

This bill asks them to shoulder even more. I give way to the hon. Lady.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Shadow Secretary of State for giving way. She must know State for giving way. She must know that, in fact, the vast majority of families in poverty contain at least one adult in work. And she least one adult in work. And she asks how this is being paid for. Well, it's being paid for by increasing taxes on gambling giants. increasing taxes on gambling giants. So wouldn't it be more truthful to say that she is on the side of gambling giants and not children in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

gambling giants and not children in poverty? Yes, Helen Whately. Unfortunately, hon. Lady doesn't seem to understand that hypothecated taxes isn't a thing. Think what she says simply doesn't make sense. The fact is, this will cost the government money, so it will cost taxpayers money. Either people now or in the future. That is simply the way it works.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I put a question to. I'd be delighted. To hear Desmond Swayne.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To hear Desmond Swayne. We've now heard the shouts of cruelty and the rape clause, but I cruelty and the rape clause, but I can only see one of the seven who was suspended sitting opposite. Now was suspended sitting opposite. Now the rest of them kept their heads down and voted to perpetuate what down and voted to perpetuate what they call this cruelty. And the rape clause. How do they sleep at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

night? My right hon. Friend does indeed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My right hon. Friend does indeed make quite a significant point about the strange position that so about the strange position that so many MPs opposite find themselves in, having previously voted against lifting this cap. But now here they lifting this cap. But now here they are, being delighted about lifting it. Madam Deputy Speaker Speaker members opposite say that this bill will end child poverty. And they have read that increasing handouts will decrease the metric called relative poverty.

But relative poverty is actually a deeply misleading measure. It isn't an accurate measure of living standards. It tells you nothing about whether people have enough to live off, 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's not progress. That's levelling down and throwing money at one flawed metric is not a strategy.

In fact, doing the opposite of what Ministers claim to want trapping families in long term dependency rather than lifting them out, there is a proven way to improve children's life chances, and that's 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 to create structure and routine in their household. The centre for Social Justice have found that children in workless households are four times more likely to be materially deprived.

Yet under this government, the number of children growing up in workless households has risen at the fastest rate on record, now reaching 1.5 million. Contrast that with our record 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. We drove unemployment down to historic lows. By contrast, under this Labour government, unemployment is rising month on month. So sadly, the number of children in Workless households will keep on going up and inflation is up to almost double the level they inherited.

Higher inflation means the money in your pocket is worth less. In other words, you're poorer, fewer jobs, more unemployment, higher cost of living. That's what they are doing to people in this country. And I say this to them you don't lift children out of poverty by making the whole country poorer. So what

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is this bill? I have to give way to my hon. I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way, and I'm really enjoying giving way, and I'm really enjoying listening. How people have met constituents who have suffered hard times. I grew up in these hard times. I grew up in these hard times on welfare through a death of a parent, watching my mum go without food to feed us. But there without food to feed us. But there is no possible way already with pulling the changes to the benefit cuts the country can afford.

This cuts the country can afford. This will have no defence of the realm. Already. South Shropshire residents are going to start going without. There is no feasible way to fund this whichever way they look at it. Does my right hon. Friend agree

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with me? Helen Whately an important point is that no other party in this is that no other party in this chamber seems to realise the very serious financial position this country in when we have to ask country in when we have to ask ourselves hard questions about what the country can afford. But, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the country can afford. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, yes, I'm happy to Jarvis. I think we on this side of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think we on this side of the House understand at least the historical consistency that the benches opposite 186 years ago made the economic arguments against stopping children being sent up chimneys. You're still making the same arguments now, 186 years later, about stopping children being put into poverty. Same old Tories 200 years later.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I mean, honestly, consistency. If he listens to what I'm about to say about the backs and back and forth they had on this policy on his side of the House, he should think a bit harder before he talks think a bit harder before he talks about consistency. So what is this Bill really about? If Labour truly Bill really about? If Labour truly believe lifting the two child limit is essential to tackling poverty, 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 he promised to scrap it.

But then, once he'd secured the leadership of the Labour Party, he changed that tune. He said Labour were not going to abolish the two child limit. His Chancellor sitting there, she said it was unaffordable. Just six months ago. They even suspended that, suspended the whip from MPs who voted to lift the cap. But now the Prime Minister's leadership is under threat. Are now it's the end for the cap. How long until he goes the same way? That's the real reason we're debating this legislation today.

We have a weak Prime Minister running scared from his left wing backbenchers. Talking of left wing. I expect Labour will be joined in the division lobby later by some of the hon. Members to the left of me, the Lib Dems SNP plied. No doubt they will also be competing to see who can be the most generous with other people's money reform have dumped on the welfare spending bandwagon two. Madam Deputy Speaker, you'll have noticed we haven't tabled an amendment to this bill.

It's not that we think it's perfect. I hope that's clear. It's that any amendment still leaves you with a watered down version of the cap. Other parties have gotten a right muddle on this one in particular, but to us it's clear and simple. The cap should stay. Anything else is a worse policy. Amending this bill is not the right answer. Just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

vote it down. Yeah, yeah. Madam Deputy Speaker, first and foremost, I've argued against this bill on the grounds of fairness, but there's another reason to vote but there's another reason to vote against it, too. More than half of households in this country now receive more from the state than 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 we face in our country. The Conservatives are the only party who recognise how serious this is. We wouldn't be spending more on benefits. In fact, we've set out how we'd be saving 23 billion. We'd 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'd get the benefits bill under control and back people to work. They claim 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 has lost its way. They know when a Prime Minister's time is up.

Members of this House shouldn't be enticed by his final throes. Step back and do what's right for the country. Back. People who do the right thing, back jobs and work and lower taxes. Back living within our means and raising the standard of living for everyone. Not a policy that will add billions to the benefits bill and traps parents in a downward spiral of dependency. This bill does not end

**** Possible New Speaker ****

poverty. It entrenches it. So we oppose it. Yes. I come to the select committee

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I come to the select committee chair, Debbie Abrahams, after which I will come to Steve Darling Debbie Abrahams. Thank you so much, Madam.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you so much, Madam. Deputy Speaker. Speaker of. The measures brought forward in this government's Budget last year. The abolition of the two child limit is the one that fills me with limit is the one that fills me with most hope, and more and more than a little pride as well. So I thank
14:39
Debbie Abrahams Portrait Debbie Abrahams MP (Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)
-
-
the government to for listening to so many of us who who are raising this as a concern. As my right hon. this as a concern. As my right hon. Friend has already reminded us, child poverty isn't just about children going hungry once in a children going hungry once in a while, or them not being able to choose to buy the designer trainers choose to buy the designer trainers that they want. For every 1% increase in child poverty, more babies die before their first birthday.

In fact, it's been quantified as a causal link, and it's 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 who's who is born into a wealthy one. So I, I ask the party opposite to consider this. When they make their interventions in their speeches this afternoon. Yeah. If they are lucky enough to survive that first year, they will be more likely to suffer poor physical and mental health and more likely to end up as an emergency hospital admission.

The impacts on their neurological development as they grow profound, that the brain actually changes in how it makes its neural connections because of the stress and adversity that that children go through. And this in turn affects their behaviour, their cognitive development and their achievements in school. And this and these disadvantages continue into adolescence and adulthood. It affects every aspect of children's lives. We are rightly concerned about the numbers of young people who are not in education, employment or training.

So-called NEETs. Nearly 1,000,016 to 24 year olds are in this position. We must look at the evidence why this is and not just to jump to conclusions for political expediency. The strong evidence from the UK Millennium Cohort Study that persistent exposure to poverty and childhood adversity, including poor parental mental health, means that you are five times more likely to be Neet. It is estimated that more than half, nearly 53% of the current Neet cases are attributable to persistent exposure to poverty and childhood adversity.

It's not because young people fancy a duvet day, and it really does. I think

**** Possible New Speaker ****

these are disgraceful phrases that are being repeated in the media. Yeah yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah yeah, yeah. And he goes on, so right through adolescence, young adulthood into adolescence, young adulthood into your earning capacity, as we've already heard, the party opposite when in government were warned repeatedly. I actually shadowed the government in this role and took government in this role and took the bill through the the House on behalf of the party. And they had repeated warnings. Well, I was chaired a APPG, Madam Deputy Speaker, that raised this as and we engage with the Faculty of Public Health, who actually did an impact analysis to identify the harms that would take place, and did a retrospective analysis to show the damage it was already having that the bill there was the two child limit, the benefit cap, but also the benefit freeze.

We must not forget the benefit freeze as well. The harms this has had to children's lives to our young children's lives to our young

**** Possible New Speaker ****

adults. Now is absolutely shameful. Well. I will thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will thank you. Thank my honourable. Thank you. I thank the hon. Friend for giving way. I think one of the things that way. I think one of the things that we look at in the Work and Pensions Select Committee is quite clear. The evidence is there at removing The evidence is there at removing the two child benefit cap will enable that long term investment in enable that long term investment in our young people, that poverty, those young people in poverty

**** Possible New Speaker ****

suffer extraordinarily. And we need to give those young people those life chances. Yeah, absolutely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, absolutely. And my right, my hon. Friend, is a wonderful member of the Select committee. I thank her for that. committee. I thank her for that. She's a very active member in in particular, the joint committee that we have with the Education that we have with the Education Select Committee as well. But I wanted to go on very briefly to say Madam Deputy Speaker. Then in the Madam Deputy Speaker. Then in the space of the 15 years between 2010 and when we became elected in 2024, we saw child poverty escalate from 3.9 million children, 29% to 4.3 million 31%.

So going back to the calculation at the beginning of my speech, the impacts on families that have been bereaved as a consequence of the unfortunate position that they in financially can't be underestimated. Like many, many of us, I have, constituents have grown up under the clouds and chains of austerity, clinging on to the hope that things could get better. And I believe it is that hope. That is why we are here on these benches, and how important what we are doing now and today as part of that and building that whole rebuilding that trust with the people who invested their vote, trusted us to deliver for them.

So I cannot thank the government enough for doing this. But as has already been said, it is a down payment. 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've prepared the ground for a better Britain and this year we we will start to see children and their families flourish. But I also recognise that this is only the first step. We are lifting 450,000 children to 500,000 children out of poverty, which is fantastic.

But this is just about 10% of of all children that are living in poverty. So we need to have our eye on that 90% that is still remaining. And it can't be. That is an important first step, but it's the first step. We must say this. And I know that, my hon. Friend, the chair of the Education Select Committee, and I are looking forward to exploring just how we can do this. As I've previously mentioned, we need to be thinking beyond individual departmental budgets.

Tackling child poverty needs to be a whole system government approach, which includes how we Budget and how we how the OBR schools budgets. We need to use evidence much better in our policy planning. Our impact analyses are very narrow and don't reflect how people experience poverty and the impacts that this has, not just on the DWP but on other departments as well. And this needs to change. Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I don't see responding to the unequivocal evidence when it's presented to you and Sam is just emerging the the bit that I mentioned about the UK Millennium Cohort Study that's only come on stream in the last 6 or 7 months.

It's right you respond to that. It's a strength, not a weakness. It demonstrates humility and integrity. Poverty and inequality are not inevitable. Inevitable. They are political choices driven by values. And when

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that evidence changes, so should you. Hey. Before I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before I. Call Steve Darling, there are so many colleagues wishing to contribute. Backbenchers will be on a speaking limit, and speaking a speaking limit, and speaking limit will start at 5.5 minutes. I now go to Liberal Democrat

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now go to Liberal Democrat spokesperson first Steve Darling. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And the. Liberal Democrats exist.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Liberal Democrats exist. To build and. Safeguard a. Society that is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Free, open and fair. And we all that society.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Needs to be a society. That no one is enslaved by poverty, ignorance and conformity. And that's why we as liberal Democrats, it's almost in our it is Democrats, it's almost in our it is in our nature to be against the two child limit. That's 4.5 million child limit. That's 4.5 million children who actually live in poverty within the UK. And I know somebody who who takes a passion for the future of our children, whether it's looked after children, adopted children and so forth, it is that they are all our responsibility and we should have a passion for supporting our youngsters because in our country, children are 20% of our population, but they're 100% of our future.

And we just need to reflect on where this was brought on. That's already been covered by some, that it was brought in by the Conservatives. This Dickensian policy of judging families. And it is judging because we've already heard from some members where because of situations beyond people's circumstances, they find themselves where perhaps a family member, a parent, is suddenly ill or even worse, still dies, and that parent is left alone, providing for those youngsters in really difficult circumstances.

But equally, why should we decide as a society that because you're the third or fourth child, we value you less and that seems morally bankrupt to believe in that? You know, it is so important that we value our children because they are our future. It is also very sad that seven members of the Labour Party were suspended from the whip for doing the right thing and backing the ending of the two child limit, but I just wanted to reflect a little bit more about what this means in Torbay I do, I represent
14:49
Steve Darling Portrait Steve Darling MP (Torbay, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
one of the most deprived constituent well, constituencies in the southwest of England. And when the southwest of England. And when I visited a school in Paignton, the head teacher told me how children head teacher told me how children turn up, cough, cold, tired and hungry. You know they have to provide warm clothes for the youngsters because parents can't afford it. They have to provide food for the youngsters. The head teacher was doing that incredible teacher was doing that incredible piece of altruism where she was taking on being a foster carer, so that if a child did need support, she would be able to have the qualifications to step in and support the family in need.

Elsewhere in Torbay, in Torquay, Barton Hill Academy. One of the things that Jenny and I love going to schools, Jenny particularly, and so do the kids, enjoy Jenny more than me, I'm sure. But but the reality is having a chat with youngsters about what you like and what don't you like about living in your town is something that's a special thing to do. Whether you're a councillor or a member of Parliament, and usually you hear things about litter, the environment, graffiti, older kids swearing, things like that.

But actually what I found really disturbing was how these youngsters, these nine and ten year olds, were talking about the cost of living crisis, how they were worried about mom who couldn't quite afford to put enough petrol in the car, how the utility bills were worrying their parents, how they weren't doing so many nice things that they used to do a couple of years ago because mom or dad said they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

couldn't afford it anymore. So with pleasure. Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It was, of course, his party in coalition that delivered on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

austerity and delivered this policy. Has he anything to say to the British public about that period of his party's history? Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. I thank, I thank the, the Member for their non-partisan intervention. for their non-partisan intervention. And I would say that we oppose the two child limit, and we're on the record for doing that. And I'm delighted that we did so. But the reality is that since 2005, the Joseph Rowntree Report has just highlighted how, since 2005, tackling poverty in the UK has actually flatlined. In a report published last last week. So we as Liberal Democrats welcome this step forward of ending the two child limit.

And it isn't just about children, it is actually about the future of our country and investing in people and believing in them. When you look at the fact, as the Secretary of State has alluded to, youngsters have worse outcomes from education. They have heart levels and mental health challenges later in life. They're a they are not able to contribute to society as strongly as they would. The reality is the tax man actually takes less off of them later in life because

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they have not so profitable jobs. And also, I would reflect. On that very.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On that very. Point with pleasure. surprised. That the honourable. Gentleman is claiming.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gentleman is claiming. They'd take less of the. Student loans, which. Could have received the £3 billion. This is going to are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

billion. This is going to are effectively taxing young people at 70, 71%. Does he not feel that tax rate is high enough? Done.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Done. Well, I would like to thank my colleague for his on for his thoughts on that. I would remind my colleague that shortly after the coalition, the Conservatives stripped away an awful lot of the safeguards around student loans and that that continues. And that is not a happy situation for for many students up and down the country, that the Tories rob them of those safeguards. But coming back to Torbay Hospital, my visit there and I spoke to one of the senior directors of the hospital who was saying to me how she sees her role as extremely important because it isn't just about treating people, it's actually tackling deprivation in Torbay that she talks about, and the fact that she comes across some patients who believe that a lifespan of up to around about 60 something is adequate, and that just reflects the levels of deprivation in my community, and one that this will help tackle it.

Lift 2000 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, and by lifting the two child

**** Possible New Speaker ****

limit, we include more people in a brighter future. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Janet Daby.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Janet Daby. Yeah, yeah. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it's a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Torbay. And I appreciate their support for lifting the two child limit. Madam lifting the two child limit. Madam Deputy Speaker, I cannot express enough how delighted I am to speak in this debate. Are these changes will make a real, tangible
14:54
Janet Daby Portrait Janet Daby MP (Lewisham East, Labour)
-
-
will make a real, tangible difference to children and families lives across our country? The cost of living, standards of living and thriving. To live above the poverty line is a concern, and such a struggle for so many people and families and prides. Being a member of this House. I campaigned on lifting the two child limit cap, and I've done so since being a member of this House. 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 draught.

It is miserable when you are cold, poor and uncomfortable, and anything and everything this government does to make life easier for communities is the right thing to do. I recently spoke to a headteacher at a local school of mine in my constituency, which serves one of the most deprived areas, and I found out that teachers are using their own money to buy children essential items. Essential items like sanitary products, underwear and tights. And of course, they need to do this because the children need them.

We on this side of the house are right. We are compassionate about children compared to the members opposite. Now, I love and I applaud the teachers and the school for its kindness and for the discreet way in which they help children. And I applaud all schools that do this for children, but children should not be in this situation in the first place. And in Lewisham we have a shop called the Bank of things, where secondary school children can receive the essential free items that they need again like toiletry products, pens, paper and even school uniform.

But at the heart of this, I know parents wish to provide for their children and but some just don't have the means to do so. And 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. And it is why the broader child poverty strategy is so vital. Increases to the national Living Wage, strengthening workers rights through the Employment Rights Bill and expanded free childcare for parents, reducing the cost of school uniforms.

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. Now, teachers and school staff are also purchasing lunch for children whose parents cannot afford it, but not because they want to, but because the free school meal, including all those on Universal Credit put in place by this government, 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 was despicable in its actions and what it launched at children, the two child limit cap and universal Credit payment deductions at 25% was wrong. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation have said that as well as removing the two child limit cap, a protected minimum floor to universal Credit is also needed, which will reserve declining living, reverse declining living standards for families with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

children and get children out of poverty and falling into poverty. I thank my hon. Friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and she rightly highlights that this is part of a wider structure and the number of parents that are in work. And doesn't she agree that part of our strategy on child poverty is also

**** Possible New Speaker ****

about supporting parents into better paid work so that they can continue to support their families? And David.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And David. Can I add, my friend is absolutely correct. It is about supporting parents into better paid

**** Possible New Speaker ****

work. Absolutely quickly. Can I just commend the hon. Lady

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just commend the hon. Lady and put it on record? Thank the hon. Lady for her words. Thank the Minister for his commitment, and thank the Labour Government for thank the Labour Government for bringing this forward. 50,000 children in Northern Ireland will benefit out of 13,000 households, benefit out of 13,000 households, out of child poverty and a better living standard. It has to be good

**** Possible New Speaker ****

news. If anybody's against that, there's something wrong with them. Yeah. I absolutely thank my hon. Friend on the other side there, and he's stated that so eloquently and so accurately as well. This means that the last conservative government got it wrong. I would also add that with rising rents and mortgages increases, they got it wrong. And who suffers? Babies, toddlers, primary and secondary aged school children. And that is wrong. Unlike the previous government, this government accepts this overwhelming scale of a challenge, and I'm sure the government Ministers will agree that more still needs to be done.

But further reality to the situation. But bringing further reality the situation. My own son has paid for a school friends lunch and he's done this more than once, and he's done this because his friends do not have enough money on their lanyard. But I'm sure that so many other children share food with their friends because they have compassion and they do not want their friends to go hungry. Now, I welcome the government's decision to lift the two child benefit cap. This will provide crucial support to an estimated 3530 children across my constituency.

It is a significant step and I commend the government for taking it now. Breakfast clubs are great, absolutely fantastic, but they are limited to primary schools and this means secondary school children miss out. There could be 2 or 3 children from the same household. Two children receive breakfast at primary school, but the other goes hungry at secondary school. This is not right. Parents should not have to worry about their ability to feed their children, and and teachers should not have to subsidise parents or the state by feeding their pupils.

And as I come to an end, I must mention the remarkable football player Marcus Rashford. As a child, he knew what it was like to go hungry, and he is dedicated to ensuring that it does not happen to other children. I respect his effort to reduce child poverty and I ask this government to make the necessary effort to keep children out of poverty and to support them to ensure they they, they have a full stomach and they reach their full potential in life.
15:01
Neil Shastri-Hurst Portrait Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst MP (Solihull West and Shirley, Conservative)
-
-
Yes. >> Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. 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. Now we all share in this House the same objective. We want every child. Well, I hope we do, because we want every child in every corner of this country to have hope and opportunity in their future.

But but if we are truly honest, a good society is not measured by how much it spends, but by how wisely it spends. And that is where this bill does not meet the test before it. So if I can begin with a real life experience, I'll make some progress, if I may. If I can start with a real life experience from my own constituency. Some months ago, I met a couple at a at a community event. Both were in work and both were clearly raising their their children with a great deal of pride and care.

And they spoke to me with a quiet determination about that the make. No foreign holidays, no luxuries, careful budgeting of the household income. And the message they sent to me was that they didn't expect the state to intervene on their behalf. They weren't asking for anything special. They were merely asking for fairness and fairness. Is is what is at stake today. Now, the two child limit rests on a 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 weighed the responsibility against aspiration. Every day they ask themselves, can they provide? Can they sustain, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

can they provide their children with security? I will give way. Debbie Abrahams hon. Gentleman,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Debbie Abrahams hon. Gentleman, just just mentioned in terms of whether it was wise or not about the expenditure. And he then went the expenditure. And he then went on to say about choices, did he? I don't know if you heard my speech, don't know if you heard my speech, but children born into poor families are five times more likely to die just because they are poor, and five times more likely than families that have a little bit more income.

Is that fair to that child when they if they die because they were born into poor families? I can't understand the gentleman's logic.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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 make choices about how we spend taxpayers money, to ensure that it is fair. Across the board, we can all come with individual stories all come with individual stories that of course are moving. But there is the reality. There is the reality of how we support the government expenditure across the board. So that is fair and equitable, and it ensures that families up and down the country are having to make similar choices every single day.

Now, what this bill tells the country is that choices no longer matter. It tells the taxpayer that restraint is optional. It tells government that conquered by ambition. It is conquered. It is conquered when families are supported to stand tall and not encouraged, to lean forever. And for far too long, politics has fallen into the trap of believing that every social problem has a fiscal solution. If only we spend some more money, if only we subsidise a little bit more, if only we borrow more.

But history teaches us a much harder lesson a society that confuses help with dependency does not liberate the poor, it simply imprisons them. Now this bill will cost approximately £3 billion a year, £3 billion, not paid by abstractions, but paid by people, paid by the nurse working a night shift, paid by the self-employed plumber. I will, in a moment the self-employed plumber by the shop worker who is saving for a deposit. All the small business owner who is keeping three other people in employment and they are entitled to ask, is this fair? Is it fair that they have to calculate every single pound whilst the state abandons calculation altogether? And I simply don't believe it is.

I'll

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way. Hon. Gentleman, for giving way. My right hon. Friend made it very clear at the front bench the number clear at the front bench the number of people who made these choices and decisions, and then found themselves later on, Universal Credit through changes in Credit through changes in circumstances. This is a safety net, and it is not this party's or this government's position that people with children shouldn't work and shouldn't be supported into work. That is very much part of this equation.

Would he just reflect on equation. Would he just reflect on that and think about what happens when people's circumstances change? It's a safety net, a leg up, not a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

handout. Neil Shastri-Hurst I thank the right hon. Lady for her right hon. Lady for her intervention. A safety net would be there if it provided a short term there if it provided a short term boost. What this does is provide an endless chequebook to without any checks and balances in place. If there was a sunset clause, that may be different, but there is not. There is not the child. The two child limit was more about than about blame. It was about balance.

It was about balance. And it recognised that a welfare system without boundaries eventually loses all legitimacy together. And when legitimacy is lost, discourse soon follows. And that's the great unspoken risk of this. Bill doesn't merely expand spending, it weakens trust. It widens the gap between those who give and those who receive. And in doing so, it puts the whole settlement at risk. And what is fundamentally missing from this is any serious strategy for mobility. Whereas the plan for skills, the plan for progression, the plan for family stability, and for moving people from welfare into work, instead, it is simply offering a politics of reassurance without reform, of comfort, without challenge, spending, without strategy and debt without direction.

And on this side of the House we recognise the importance of lifting people up, of not holding them down or providing opportunity and not permanent subsidy, that the true measure of social justice is not how many people we support, but, crucially, how many people we no longer need to. The question before us, therefore, is whether we will tackle poverty at its roots, rather than merely managing it year after year. Whether we build a system that strengthens families or one that substitutes for them, whether we choose the easy road or the responsible one.

Now this bill chooses the easy route. It chooses sentiment over structure, it chooses expansion over reform, and it chooses today, over tomorrow. And I simply cannot support that choice.
15:08
Kim Johnson Portrait Kim Johnson MP (Liverpool Riverside, Labour)
-
-
Kim Johnson. I have to start by saying that I really believe that the Shadow Chancellor and other members on the other side live on alternative universe because they are totally detached from the reality of the constituents in my Liverpool Riverside constituency. But Madam Deputy Speaker, 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.

And as the MP for Liverpool Riverside, child poverty has been on the top of my agenda since coming into Parliament over six years ago. No thank you. It saddens me that one in every two children in my constituency are living in poverty, and it appals me that we are the sixth richest

**** Possible New Speaker ****

economy in the world, and that is a statistic that should shame everybody. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And it is a shame that it has taken so long to reverse this 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 it as were united in calling for it as their number one priority for reversing trends in child poverty, which exploded, as we all know on this side, under their Tory austerity measures. The facts were very clear and indisputable, and I want to pay tribute in particular to the end Child Poverty Coalition, co-ordinated by Rachel Walters in the Child Poverty Action Group and the National Education Union, who 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, and I fear it may never happen. But I also want to pay tribute to the schools and my Liverpool Riverside constituency who go over and above every single day to support children and families who are living in poverty. And I want to take the opportunity to highlight research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which estimates that 1.5 million children, over a third of the total number of children living in poverty.

In large part, this is driven by the no Recourse to Public Funds policy. Half of the children living in families that fall under this policy live in poverty, and research by the Ippr also shows that these children face a far higher risk of very deep poverty. And as the government has laid out in today's debate, no child should have to live their life, have to their life opportunity limited by the conditions they were born into. So it follows that we must go further to alleviate child poverty and to roll 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.

And before I came into this place, I worked for the DfE, supporting the development of shortstop programs across the northwest. And I know 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. Labour is rightly proud of, but one that should spur us to recreate and go even further now that we're in government again. Lifting the two-child cap in full is 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. And I'm proud to be part of a Labour government that has taken this bold and vital step. But now we need to go further in redistributing the vast wealth this country has to ensure that our communities can flourish and no child is left behind. And 14 years of Tory austerity, tax on living standards and 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.

Today. And I'm proud we made the right choice. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
15:14
Luke Evans Portrait Dr Luke Evans MP (Hinckley and Bosworth, Conservative)
-
-
Scott Arthur Luke Evans. >> Thank you, Madam. >> Deputy Speaker. >> And fairness. >> Matters not only to those receiving the but those making the difficult choices without it. Now, during my short time, I've got. I'm going to talk about the principles and then the context. And I come to this from my constituency thinking about the publican who wakes up in the morning, who goes out of their house in Barwell. They have two children. They're going to their business and they've seen their National Insurance contributions rise.

They've seen their valuation change in the tax go up on that. They've seen the rate relief been withdrawn from the minimum wage go up. These are all costs that they're having to consider. What about the independent pharmacist on the high street who gets up and goes to work, who has had to go into to Hinkley facing the fact of National Insurance contribution

**** Possible New Speaker ****

just. As he mentions the local pharmacist. The local pharmacist in pharmacist. The local pharmacist in my constituency is my twin sister, and she put herself through a and she put herself through a degree in pharmacy whilst on Universal Credit. As a single parent of three children. That

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wasn't her choice, but it was a position that was that was thrust upon her. What would you say to people like her? I'd credit her, and she's a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd credit her, and she's a credit to his family for what she's managed to achieve. And I'll come on to the point of where I'm trying to get to on that, because the key part I'm trying to make, the point is here when they leave their door, is it's only fair that the choices they've made to only have two children is simply thrown out the window, because an extra £303,650 is now being given to the third and fourth child next door, simply for not going to work.

I would argue that isn't fair, and that's what the heart of this principle is here. Because at the end of the day, the welfare state works when it's best as a bridge to work, not a substitute. And we've often heard about the working poor, and that's why I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm listening to you. I'm giving way. But the benches opposite way. But the benches opposite always seem to portray this as an individual moral failing. That's how they see welfare, when actually how they see welfare, when actually it's about. And it's about a collective insurance against economic risk. That's how we see it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

economic risk. That's how we see it. And you see it as a moral issue. We see it as an economic issue. Order! Not me, the hon. Gentleman. Doctor Luke.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Doctor Luke. Far from the truth. I'm simply arguing that we need to be fair to those who need the system to support them and those who contribute to it. And I worry we're actually pulling at the fabric here, because if we think about this, it's interesting. The debate in the House is very much slanted towards the Labour side because they have the numbers. Actually, if we look at the public polling on this, we know that consistently 60% of the public support this, and only 30% want the cap to be taken away.

Why is that? Fundamentally, they understand there has to be a give and take, and the worry here is you're suddenly going to get £3,650 with no contractual change within society to better yourself, the money could be better spent. Taking an example from the last government did, for example, in 2021 they changed the UC slider from 63% down to 55% to encourage work. Now that cost about 2.5 billion. We're talking about 3 billion here. And we've heard from the other side as well about how it's going to be paid for.

This isn't hypothecated. This is to the pharmacists. I was talking about the hon. Member's sister paying for this, the publican going out, seeing their taxes rise. And that's the contract that I am worried about and that I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So it. Is an issue of fairness that people in Beaconsfield Marlow in the South villages have seen their the South villages have seen their taxes go up and they're seeing those taxes being given to people that are not working. And it is unfair.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

unfair. Exactly right. And the public will stand for a generous the public will stand for a generous public will stand for a generous safety net. What they will not stand for is people not trying to take that forward. And I worry when take that forward. And I worry when we talk about unemployment, right. We have from this government and we talk about the chances for employment and the working poor. We're seeing more people out of work under this very government by the choices they are making.

This is fundamental to the debate we are having here today, and trying to leverage morality into it is missing the reality of the responsibility that every family in this country makes fiscal choices and expects to behave responsibly. So should the government that leads them. And that's at the crux of it, which in my time left, I'll move on to the context, because if this was a moral crusade, as we've heard the Prime Minister say, he would have done it in his very first Budget.

He would have made that choice. But we've heard from other members here when this was put forward by the new government that came in, 40 odd MPs didn't vote for it, and seven had the whip removed. And if we're talking about poverty, one thing that hasn't been raised in this House so far is about the winter fuel payments. When we know the government's own analysis said it would put 50,000 pensioners into absolute poverty, in 100,000 pensioners, into relative poverty.

So there's a dichotomy here and it is about choices. But the other side seemed to say, well, if we're going to solve poverty, we need to focus on one area. When they all voted to take the fuel payments away on the other side, and I hear chuntering from the other side to say it was making means tested. That wasn't until later when there was a climbdown. And this is the key because these are difficult choices that have to be made. And I worry on this side of the house that actually the public see straight through what is going on.

They need fairness in the system. They don't need a vote coming forward to try and placate the backbenchers of a failing Prime Minister, because if it truly was the mission of the Prime Minister at the start, he would have done

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this straight away. I will give way. The other side from being

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The other side from being generous with their intervention time. This is be really clear. This time. This is be really clear. This government came in with a plan to tackle child poverty, but quite rightly set up a task force to deal with this under two excellent with this under two excellent Secretaries of State. And since with my hon. Friend at the helm as well. And that is why it happened well. And that is why it happened now, later, not 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 part. And helping parents into work

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is is also part. Yeah. It comes to that point. Why in that case did the was the whip that case did the was the whip removed? Why is there no contingency on any within this bill of some retort of how to make sure of some retort of how to make sure that someone is progressing through the system? Because as we've heard time and time again on this side time and time again on this side and the other side, it is a safety net there to springboard.

I come back to my point. If you wanted to back to my point. If you wanted to make a difference, you could change the rating on the Universal Credit to encourage more people into work that isn't happening, that isn't changing. And so that would help support people who are in work, who are impoverished on that basis. And we, as the government brought in the Household Support Fund to make sure there was that immediate support there. Now, I'm pleased to see the government is bringing forward some form of contingency, but we still haven't seen what that looks like.

That's going to be a concern to people going forward. But I start where I began. At the end of the day, this system has to be fair to those who are getting the support, but those who are paying for it. At the end of the day, a family lives within its constraints. So should a country. And this bill does nothing but the opposite. And that's my concern.
15:22
Fleur Anderson Portrait Fleur Anderson MP (Putney, Labour)
-
-
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. >> I'm very, very. >> Proud to support this Universal Credit. >> Removal of two. >> Child limit bill. This will tackle child poverty and restore basic fairness to our social security system. And I, like many others on this side, have been campaigning on this since I became an MP and I thank the Child Poverty Action Group, the Trussell Trust and my foodbank volunteers who've been in lobbying me about this for a very long time too.

But this win is for those families in my constituency who I see in my surgeries, I see in their homes, and I think of one family who literally move around a light bulb from room to room because they're so scared of using up additional electricity bills, because they're so worried about the costs that they have. That's just one example of the impact, the real impact that poverty has on a ferry, on a on a family. I'm very glad that today we're dismantling this cruel and unfair policy, and we're continuing the job of fixing a broken system set up by the Conservatives, which has led to children not only have not having the basics and not having opportunities which everyone on our country should have.

Six months after this policy was brought in, nine years ago, UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty Philip Alston visited the UK and did a report on the equity levels that he found here in the UK. He said it was the system here was 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, since the Conservatives forced this two child benefit cap through every single day, 909 children have been pushed into poverty not because of anything they've done or their parents have done, but because an arbitrary poverty policy denied them the support they need.

It always was 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's a national disgrace. Removing this limit will lift 450,000 children out of poverty by 2029. And that's what real, measurable change looks like. I was on the Child Poverty Task Force for over a year, where we really drilled down into what can make the most difference, and scrapping this Two-child benefit cap was always top of the measures, and I'm proud that that strategy also brings in many other ways in which we can support families as we know when we know who's being hit the hardest.

By this policy. 68% of families affected have a child under five. The early years shapes everything that follows health, education, life chances. Inequality in childhood becomes inequality for life, and 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 900 children received no support and 2490 children in total were living in households hit by the two child limit.

Across Wandsworth, this picture was even starker 1820 households were affected, 2330 children denied support and in total 6540 children living in households impacted by this cruel rule. A rule based on the fiction that families in poverty plan before they have children and plan ahead to be in poverty for the long term, and so decide on the number of children they'll have in their loving family on the basis of that, instead of a policy which is there for whenever a family is in real need, we have got the parents backs.

We've got those children's backs. No matter what number they come in their family. Scrapping the two child limit will be transformative for these families and for the communities that they're in. It will change whole disadvantaged communities in my constituency, across London, across the United Kingdom, who all currently pay the price for high numbers of children in poverty, whether they're in their own family or not. And it is part of this government's wider mission to build a fairer country, to support and not penalise families, to support parents into secure and better paid work, to deliver more affordable homes, to cut the cost of living and give every child the best possible start in life.

I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Carla Lockhart honourable. Member for giving way and commander on her speech. Evidence shows that the two child limit has shows that the two child limit has not changed fertility or employment, but it has coincided, sadly with a disproportionate rise in abortion among among mothers with two or among among mothers with two or more children. Would she agree that removing the two child limit cap would better support mums and help would better support mums and help ensure no woman feels pushed towards an abortion because she can't afford another child?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Are the hon. Member highlights one of the many painful decisions that people have to make on the back of this this policy about heating and eating, about what to do in their families, and highlights the whole area of Northern Ireland which will benefit from this as well. We need to bring the whole of the United Kingdom, the whole of the United Kingdom, every child across the whole of the United Kingdom up and lifting this policy will do that. It's fair policy will do that.

It's fair across every part of the United Kingdom. Also for all families who are affected. And I thank the hon. Member for raising the different aspects that this bill introduced. So I am proud to support this bill, and I urge members across the House to do the same.
15:28
Kirsty Blackman Portrait Kirsty Blackman MP (Aberdeen North, Scottish National Party)
-
-
Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Kirsty Blackman. >> Madam Deputy Speaker, I'll touch briefly on the Conservatives position and then talk about the bill itself. I mean, the Conservatives have at least been consistent on this. They've been consistently cruel in their policies. And I would just point out that the level of detachment with the reality that is faced by so many families in my constituency, the reality for such a high percentage of families is they don't choose whether or not to have children.

They don't sit down and work out or do the does the money add up? You know, the reason that you've got the rape clause in place is because those choices are not able to be made by so many people. It's not an intention that people set out with how many children I want, how many children they're planning to have. It is about it is about what happens in circumstances that that are created. And the reality is that this is a very entitled, privileged position that the Conservatives are holding, and it does not reflect the majority of our constituents.

I said I wasn't going, I said I wasn't giving way in terms of where we are today. The Labour Party are being a bit smug about the position that we're in. The SNP have been absolutely consistent 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 the rape clause. She talked about it so much, but she was one of the people that was leading the charge on this.

I would like also on that note, to 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 you were willing to put your principles first in in this regard. Looking at where we are today, it is a good day that the two child cap is being cancelled. I am sad, though, that the Secretary of State said that he does not regret anything that he has said before.

He does not regret saying it's open to debate whether the two child cap causes harm. Despite the fact that he is now saying absolutely the opposite of that, he says he does not regret that previous comment. I am glad that the government are finally scrapping this. Children should not be at the sharp end of the decisions that are being taken, just like older people who are having their Winter fuel payment scrapped should not be at the sharp end of this. None of them are able to take the decisions in relation to their finances.

None of them are able to work a few more hours. If you're six years old, you can't do that. They're not able if you're if you're a pensioner, to work that few more hours because you may be significantly over pension age and unable to work. We do need to recognise what's been said by a significant number of people, that so many of these families are in work. People are working hard. It's just that work doesn't pay. It's just that work doesn't pay enough. And actually, if you look at the stats on how people feel about the Social Security system, people feel that the Social Security system should provide enough support for people to be able to live.

That is what people feel. And we know that on Universal Credit, we know that particularly if you're a large family on Universal Credit, even if you are working, people cannot afford the essentials. And that is what this is about. That is about giving people the best chance in life. The government, however, are not going far enough yet. Their child poverty task force and the strategy that came out of it, the strategy that came out of it, was simply a reiteration of many, many things that have been announced already.

It was a summary. It was here we are. Here are all the things that we have announced already as a government. It does not have the ambition that we need to see child poverty tackled. If you look at the stats, the number of children in poverty, the rate of children in poverty by the end of this parliament will be exactly the same as it is now. It will not reduce child poverty over the piece. We will go back to the same number of children, the same percentage of children in poverty as we have now, because the government is failing to have ambition.

If the UK government look at and I asked them to do this the other day, look at the Scottish Child Payment, look at the amount of additional money that is being provided, particularly as of next year, to families with children under one recognising that first 1000 days, and how difficult and how important those first thousand days are. Looking at those uplifts to ensure that people are taken out of poverty. Looking at the baby box. Looking at the best start grant that is being provided to families, looking at the child poverty delivery plan that we will be bringing out in March, which, unlike the UK government's paper, which simply lays out a number of great things the government says it is doing.

Unlike that, we have targets. We are looking at what actual difference each of our policies are making. I would urge the UK government to look at what being is done in Scotland, to look at the fact that child poverty in Scotland is lower than it is in any other part of the UK. To look at that and consider what can be done to ensure that children can have the best possible start in life, whether they live in England, Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland.
15:33
Douglas McAllister Portrait Douglas McAllister MP (West Dunbartonshire, Labour)
-
-
Douglas McAllister. I rise to support this Bill and I 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 labor tradition, and one that this government has been proactive in pursuing from the very outset. This will deliver the much needed change that we promised to my constituents. West Dunbartonshire as a constituency with pockets of significant deprivation, but one built on a proud legacy of hard work, fairness and a strong sense of community.

For too long, too many families in my constituency 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 2260 children in West Dunbartonshire. Last year, over 4500 children were living in poverty in my constituency and despite the claims of those who oppose this 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 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. These figures underline why this 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 within a primary school in my constituency where it was common for children to arrive hungry, having had nothing to eat at home. I would like to remind the house that these are not just statistics. These are children's 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 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 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 to tackle 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 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 educational 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, the NHS and 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 families in West Dunbartonshire face, and will lift 450,000 children out of poverty by 2030. I was elected on a manifesto commitment to improve the life chances of every child, and supporting this 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 this bill and what it represents hope, opportunity and fairness and I commend this bill to the House.
15:38
Tom Tugendhat Portrait Rt Hon Tom Tugendhat MP (Tonbridge, Conservative)
-
-
Tom Tugendhat Thank you. >> Deputy Speaker. >> I've heard so many well

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I've heard so many well motivated and moving stories about human misery. And the truth is those are the stories of our those are the stories of our country. Those are the stories of a country that has tried over more than 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. We may have 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, this community grows. Now, when I say economy, I don't just mean the bald rows of figures that accountants and bankers add up.

I mean the way in which the Greeks meant it, the way a home works together, the way people interact to bring a community, to bring a whole. How does that work? How do you get growth? How do you get investment at the right point, reward at the right point, so that you actually see the progress that society can bring? Because we've 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 that it led to, not because they were evil, but because their intentions were not aligned with the reality of a human economy.

We've seen it time and time again, and sadly, though, we're now having a debate about two child benefit cap, we're now having a debate about £3 billion. We're really having a debate about what does it mean to grow an economy, because although the Liberal Democrat spokesperson made a joke out of it, the reality is we are seeing young people paying 70 odd percent tax. And because of that, we're seeing young people making the choice to go to Dubai or to Portugal, to the United States or to Australia.

We're seeing that money and that connection between young people and old people being broken. We're seeing families being left in need, not just of the economic connection, but of the human connection between them. Because actually, this debate, this isn't just about cash. I won't give way. This isn't just about cash. This is fundamentally about people. And there is an attempt, again, to pretend that the only interaction between people is that which is moderate, that which is defined, that which is organised by the state.

And that just simply isn't true. It simply isn't true to say that unless the state provides, it doesn't count. And yet again and again and again, we hear the same thing. So today in the United Kingdom, yes, I know we left taxes high. Many people seem to have forgotten that Covid seemed to increase the debt enormously. And when those of us tried to vote against various lockdowns, we were accused of murdering various different groups depending on whoever it was that the then Leader of the Opposition seemed to be siding with.

And I've said I won't. And so what we are seeing today, what we are seeing today, is a legacy. It's true. A legacy of poor decisions, of legacy, of poor decisions over Covid that some of us condemned at the time, a legacy of promises made in the last year or two, and debts to those who challenged the leadership in the last 6 to 12 months. And we are now seeing a level of burden falling on those who are working, which is growing and growing and growing.

And we are seeing people voting with their feet, either by not working or by leaving. And I'm afraid, Madam Deputy Speaker, 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're seeing a government adding not to a debt of 2 trillion, which is the one that they state, but of 12 or 13 trillion, depending on how you count pension liabilities and PFI and many other of the state's debts.

The reality is, this country is broke to a degree that nobody in this House seems to be appreciating, certainly nobody on the benches opposite. And we simply do not have the understanding here amongst the noble and well-meaning socialists, that the reality is they are racking up debts for their children. That will mean that this state will be impoverished, we will be left weaker, and actually the whole country will be poorer.
15:43
Helen Hayes Portrait Helen Hayes MP (Dulwich and West Norwood, Labour)
-
-
Helen Hayes, thank you, speaker. Child poverty is a scourge on any Child poverty is a scourge on any society. It is a tragedy for individual children and families and the untapped potential, worse and the untapped potential, worse health and lower attainment that result 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's 3 in 10 children on average, nine in every classroom, seven out of ten 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 even before they set foot in a classroom. This situation is not an inevitability. It has come about through the deliberate political choice to prioritise a rhetoric about the benefit system, and stereotypes about the families that rely on it, rather than looking at the evidence and the reality of people's lives. The Child Poverty Action Groups analysis of DWP data finds that 1.6 million children have been directly impacted by the decision to impose a cap on the Social Security measure that specifically supports families to care for children to the first two children in a family, 59% of these children have parents in work.

The two child cap has directly pulled through 150,000 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 because 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 taking remove the pernicious two child cap,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and to lift 400,000 children out of poverty. Goodbye. Thank you. And I absolutely welcome this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I absolutely welcome this bill. It is an enormous step forward and will bring great relief to a lot of people, a lot of families. But would you also recognise that the continuation of the overall benefit cap will mean the overall benefit cap will mean that about 150,000 children will not benefit from this bill, and not benefit from this bill, and will remain in the relative poverty that they do at the present time. And does she would she look forward to further legislation to remove the overall benefit cap in order to try and eliminate all poverty

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amongst children? Well, member, for his intervention, I'm going to go on to talk a little bit about some of the talk a little bit about some of the further measures that I believe the government needs to take on this journey of tackling child poverty. Evidence from the Joseph Rowntree Evidence from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation is clear that in the medium term, investments to bring medium term, investments to bring down child poverty reduces the demand on public services caused by poor physical and mental health and poor physical and mental health and poor education outcomes that 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. This Labour government, by removing the two child cap, is projected to deliver the biggest ever reduction in child poverty in a single parliament. I am also proud of the other measures our government has 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 Select Committee is working jointly with the Work and Pensions Select Committee to undertake formal scrutiny of the government's child poverty strategy. We want the strategy to be as effective as possible, and we will be listening over the coming weeks to evidence from experts on the impacts that the measures announced will have and whether there is more that should be done.

I want the government to be truly ambitious in tackling child poverty, not simply lifting the poorest children just above a threshold, important as that is, but ensuring that right across our country, children can truly thrive. That will require action on some of the other causes of poverty, housing costs and the shocking number of children living in temporary accommodation, food and energy costs. Access to support for families in communities, and an education and skills system that really works for everyone.

These are the questions that our committees will turn to in the coming weeks. But this step today is fundamental. It sets a context for an ambitious strategy. It will be transformative for families, and I am proud to vote for it today. Charlotte King.
15:48
Charlotte Cane Portrait Charlotte Cane MP (Ely and East Cambridgeshire, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Like so many across the House, I welcome the government's decision to finally scrap the two child to finally scrap the two child limit on benefits. I just wish they'd 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. This cap is not a measure against the exploitation of the benefit system. To avoid work and continue having children.

Instead, it's been an enormous burden on thousands of household budgets and has pushed more children into poverty, even if, like those on that side of the house, you believe that children have that people have children irresponsibly. I still can't see how those children should be punished. Every child deserves a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

good start in life. Will the honorable lady give way? I will. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. There are many reasons why people end up on Universal Credit, and there are many reasons why people end up in a family why people end up in a family situation with more than two children. And it's because of those blended families that Cotswold blended families that Cotswold District Council chose not to apply the two child limit in its welfare the two child limit in its welfare support scheme.

Does the hon. Lady agree with me that councils like Cotswold District Council that have gone out of pocket in these cash strapped times to support families with with blended children, sorry, blended families with more than two children shouldn't end up out of pocket and should be compensated by the government for the support that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they gave in previous circumstances. I thank my hon. Friend for her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and I commend South Cotswold Council for for what it Cotswold Council for for what it did. Unfortunately, when I tried to get East Cambridgeshire District get East Cambridgeshire District Council to to condemn the cap on child to the two child cap, the the child to the two child cap, the the Conservatives refused to agree to that. So this policy was poorly conceived from the outset and has amounted to little more than a tax not on the parents, but on vulnerable children growing up in a cost of living crisis.

Now in my constituency of Ealing, East Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, we're thankfully below the national average for child poverty. But it's worth noting that in my relatively wealthy constituency with relatively high paid work, child poverty has continued to rise 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 last 15 years, pushing one 850,000 more children into poverty and in rural areas like my constituency, poverty can be all the more challenging.

Parents have to travel miles to reach a supermarket or food bank for affordable food. Transport costs for school and work are far higher, fuel costs are higher, and children often find themselves socially isolated. We should never have got to this point. The 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. Today 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.

Child Poverty Action Group estimates that child poverty may cost in excess of £39 billion per year, accounting for additional public spending in areas like health and education, as well as future tax receipt losses from resulting unemployment. Behind this economic loss are children who will miss out on sports, clubs and healthy food. Facing a higher risk of disabilities and long term health conditions, as we heard earlier. Even facing an increased chance of early death, they're not afforded the opportunities to develop and pursue their own interests.

Many may miss out on higher education, apprenticeships and even early employment. This bill is about the future of all children living in this country. We must ensure that they're 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 make annual reviews of the entire Universal Credit System to ensure that it keeps up with the pace of cost of living, and becomes an effective tool to tackle child poverty?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lee Barron. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The first thing I Deputy Speaker. The first thing I want to do is kind of bring this back, because it's being pitched as if it's those that are not in work, getting something that's being paid getting something that's being paid for by those that are in work. That ain't the case, and it's wrong to ain't the case, and it's wrong to suggest it. I'll tell you what's doing. It is the scar that was left on our economy about in-work on our economy about in-work poverty.

Reducing child poverty is the reason that I came into politics. Children don't choose their circumstances. They're not to blame for low wages. They're not to blame for insecure work. They're not to blame for their parents pay packets. Yet they're 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's why I was proud when this government announced this policy, and that 450,000 children will be lifted out of poverty by the end of this Parliament, and that includes over 3000 children in Corby and East Northamptonshire.

That's not just the statistic. That's 3000 children. That's 3000 lives. That's 3000 futures and 3000 chances. And do not let anyone tell you that this isn't about values, because it is. I remember when we announced this and the Tories on their benches were growling at us because we were suggesting that we'd put a tax on mansions, telling us we couldn't put a tax on mansions. And now sitting in here today telling us we shouldn't be lifting 450,000 children out of poverty.

This is all about values and all about where I stand. This issue tells us everything you need to know about the priorities of the parties that are opposite. They'll fight for their cheaper mansions, but not for children who go to bed hungry. And then there's reform. They tried 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're voting against this bill and their amendment to this bill.

They said they disagree with removing the two child limit because it fails to incentivise
15:56
15:56
Kit Malthouse Portrait Rt Hon Kit Malthouse MP (North West Hampshire, Conservative)
-
-
Kit Malthouse. >> Kit Malthouse. >> Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you. As my hon. Friend from Shirley said, As my hon. Friend from Shirley said, no one in this House will doubt the importance of supporting children. I realise that Labour backbenchers are feeling good about the fact that they've 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, and I know they think they've 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 £70, £17.25, rising to £70.90. They haven't asked whether that is enough to address poverty. They haven't 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 what may be the unintended consequences. And I'm afraid, colleagues, I am concerned about this measure being one of those careful what you wish for. Things that the government is, is stumbling into.

First of all, a number of members on this side certainly have mentioned, have mentioned in a moment, have mentioned the demographic time bomb. And indeed, the Secretary of State mentioned the demographic time bomb that we face. There has been no discussion of this measure within the overall fiscal problem, which our children will be facing. At the moment, we have about 3.6 workers per pension in this country. By 2050, that will have fallen to two. How are we going to pay for all this in the future? How are we going to fund it all without enormous debt? We only have to look across the channel at France to see what an eruption, a fiscal eruption, can look like in terms of civic disruption and unrest on the streets, when the necessary correction is made to welfare state, which is running out of control.

And I'm afraid, colleagues, that is exactly the situation we find ourselves in. No one is pretending that decisions about welfare are easy. They are not. Having worked briefly as a Minister in the DWP, these are difficult decisions. Yet no one questions the micro decisions that are made. It's simply enough to say to people, we're pumping money out there, let's hope for the best. Why is the standard rate of the mobility section of of Pip set at £30.30, I don't know.

Does anybody else? Is there an argument for it? These are the decisions that Ministers have to make on a on a daily basis, not just about whether we pay welfare, how much we pay. And my argument, one of my concerns about this measure is none of that is part of a wider conversation about this massive demographic steam train that's coming down the tunnel towards us. The second issue that I have is that this necessarily because it includes them in the welfare, necessarily because it includes them in the welfare bill, treats children as a burden somehow to be mitigated, rather than treating them as a bonus, to be encouraged.

And as my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth said, on this side of the House, we would much rather there were work incentives that came alongside children. When I was briefly Secretary of State for education, I was inundated with correspondence and approaches from lots of highly productive and ambitious women who wanted assistance within work. They wanted some kind of bonus relief, some kind of package to encourage them to have children rather than see children as part of some kind of safety net, where women have to be rescued if they have children.

And so I think this is a for a country that needs more children, we have to have a tilt in our mentality towards our approach and hope that we can move from mitigation towards encouragement. And my concern about, as I say, embedding the notion that people should have more children within the welfare system is about mitigation, as I say, more than encouragement. But the final issue that I wanted to raise is one that a number of members have raised, which is about legitimacy. Legitimacy of the system.

We often pretend that we do things for the first time in this country, whereas in fact, we can look overseas for lessons and we don't have to look very far. If you look to France, where successive governments increased family related welfare with weak links towards work or contribution, actually what it created in society was a wider resentment and any successful welfare system has to have an eye to legitimacy and consent from the wider population for it to exist. And if you talk to French political scientists, go on, I will.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Forgive me, but we don't 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, and I know that perhaps we can learn from the hon. Gentleman's experience, the hon. Gentleman's experience, because he has been forced out to get a second job to make ends meet.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

get a second job to make ends meet. So perhaps there's some droplets of experience he can give to these people who are struggling to make ends meet. Well, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I. I I'm glad the hon. Gentleman is paying attention to my register, but as he will know, I haven't been forced out to get a job. I founded my business 30 years ago, and one of the few people in this house who's created jobs by the sweat of my own hand rather than just talked about it. And frankly, I pay the Sainsbury's bill and the mortgages and all the rest of it, of my all my employees every single month. And I'm proud to do so.

Maybe he could learn some lessons by spending some time with some business people about what it is to make true fiscal and economic decisions. But I want to move on to my third point, and that is about legitimacy. And one of the things they found in France was this rise in resentment, which actually resulted in 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.

And, I'm afraid, colleagues in the Order Paper today, we've seen that writ large in an amendment that was not called Madam Deputy Speaker, but from the Reform Party, an amendment calling for open discrimination in our welfare system against those who do not have entirely or parents who were born entirely in this country. I'm afraid, Madam Deputy Speaker, I declare an interest that includes my children, two of my children not born to a British citizen. It also includes the children of members of Parliament who set for the Reform Party.

And there is something grotesque about seeking legislation which seeks to downgrade the citizenship of your own children.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jack Abbott. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. And it's true to say the party opposite has been say the party opposite has been right about one thing today. This is about choices. And I'm incredibly proud to be making the incredibly proud to be making the one we're making today. The Conservative Party did do untold damage to our country, whether it's hollowing out of the criminal hollowing out of the criminal justice system, crumbling school buildings and hospitals, record NHS buildings and hospitals, record NHS waiting lists and of course, Liz Truss as well.

But the most egregious part of their record was
16:04
Jack Abbott Portrait Jack Abbott MP (Ipswich, Labour )
-
-
the harm they inflicted on our nation's children. An entire generation plunged into poverty and generation plunged into poverty and poverty is not inevitable. The last Labour government lifted 600,000 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 that trend. Over their 14 years in power, child poverty rose by 900,000 and now 4.5 million 900,000 and now 4.5 million children live in poverty. And in my own constituency of Ipswich, thousands are growing up in poverty.

That's around 1 in 3. And these aren't simply abstract statistics. These are children and families I meet with every week. Now, the shadow Secretary of State said that families have difficult conversations around the kitchen table. And she's absolutely right. Parents are worried about whether they're going to be turning the heating on or skipping a meal. Kids already feel the weight of their world and their shoulders before their 10th birthday, and has already been mentioned just a moment ago. Parents working two jobs are still unable to make ends meet.

Yeah, it's cold bedrooms, it's missed meals. It's too small, patched together school uniforms. And these are scars that last a lifetime. Now, many much of that hardship and suffering can be directly attributed to the two jihad benefit limit. It is a failed, cruel policy experiment. And leaving aside the fact free nonsense we've heard previously from the party opposite, it makes no difference to family sizes. It does not drive up employment and indeed has already been mentioned. Today, almost 60% of families affected are already in work.

It does not achieve the so-called goals. The way the Tory ideologues would lay out and still pretend that it exists. Instead, it punishes children. All it does to make children poorer is the single biggest driver of child poverty today. And perhaps that is why there is so few from the party opposite prepared to sit and defend this morally, socially and economically bankrupt point. I will giving way. There aren't many on this benches. He admittedly won the election last time, but we do know that the public support keeping this cap in place that we know 60% on average on any poll for the last few years, suggests this cap should remain in place.

Why does he think the British public back the cap staying here? I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Actually, I was referring to today here defending this policy, and I don't think there will be a single person out there in the country who defends keeping hundreds of thousands of children more in poverty. That is what we are getting rid of today. That is what his party is defending. And indeed, it is difficult to think of another policy in modern Britain that is so stark in its design and so devastating in its impacts.

That 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 a myriad of ways at every stage of life after that, children growing up in poverty are more likely to experience mental and physical health issues and do worse at school. They're more likely to be unemployed, earn less, will be in low skilled work than their peers, and they're more likely to experience homelessness and poor health, the shadow Secretary of State said.

This is a trap for worklessness. No, this policy is a trap for worklessness. This is exactly what this policy has achieved over the previous few years. So 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. So for children growing up in a low income household in Suffolk, my county education disadvantaged before starts before they even begin school and 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're almost half a year behind their peers. By the time they finish Key Stage three. As they're choosing their options, they're staggering 21.7 months behind nearly two full school years before they even begin studying for their GCSEs. And the translation? This deprivation gap over every stage of a child's education onto 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 this had on so many families.

Many of you will remember, never mind huddling around a kitchen dining room table trying to do their work. Many families didn't have that kitchen dining room table. Indeed, many disadvantaged students in places like Ipswich were left without electronic devices laptops for many, many months and I hope this would be a watershed moment in the way we view education and poverty and its links. But instead what I saw in opposition as a council councillor in Suffolk was more cuts to children's centres, more than halving of health visitors.

And we wonder why we have such problems now when it comes to young children entering education for the first time, it is an absolute disgrace that even now, even after all the impact that we have seen, even after all the evidence we have seen, the party opposite cannot bring themselves to want to support measures that reduce child poverty. So that is why I'm proud to support this bill, because scrapping the two child limit is an action that will have one of the greatest impacts on driving down child poverty.

This one action will mean 450,000 children will be lifted out of poverty across our country, including more than 3000 in my town of Ipswich. Through this action, and alongside an enormous package of actions our government is taking, we will take over half a million children out of poverty, the largest reduction in a single parliament since records began. This party policy is quite simply wrong. The number of brothers and sisters the child have should never determine whether they go hungry, and it should never determine how well they do in school.

And no child should be punished simply for existing. So 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 is following the footsteps of every Labour government that came before it, lifting children out of poverty and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

transforming children's lives. Yeah, Sarah. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Although the. Reasoned amendment put forward in the name of my reform UK in the name of my reform UK colleagues and myself has not been selected, I would still like to speak to the contents of this speak to the contents of this important amendment. Scrapping the two child. The two child benefit two child. 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 already on benefits to have more children in the full knowledge that the state will pay for them.
16:11
Sarah Pochin Portrait Sarah Pochin MP (Runcorn and Helsby, Reform UK)
-
-
Removing the two child benefit cap without imposing any other without imposing any other restrictions, such as limiting it to working families with British to working families with British born parents, fails to incentivise, not yet fails to incentivise work. One minute it increases. 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 are those who work are being punished, while those who play the system are rewarded.

The cost to the taxpayer of scrapping this 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. This is not sustainable. It is not fair. This is another step towards crippling our economy. Instead of introducing policies to grow it, we cannot advocate for a society where work doesn't pay. Furthermore, due to higher birth rates among foreign nationals, at just a minute.

I don't know who's first. Furthermore, due to higher birth rates amongst foreign nationals, a significant amount of this additional expenditure is expected to go to households where at least one parent is born outside the UK. To be clear and to conclude, reform

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will only lift the cap for British families where both parents are in. Full.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Time work.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Time work. Next speaker I'm listening to the front bench opposite is quite something. You'd think that the recipients of this benefit were spending the money on soft furnishings for their second homes. They aren't. They're spending it on
16:13
Richard Quigley Portrait Mr Richard Quigley MP (Isle of Wight West, Labour)
-
-
They aren't. They're 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'm proud to be part of a government that is 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 the benches opposite, including describing this Budget as a Budget for benefit street.

In doing so, completely denigrating 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 opposite and the Leader of the Opposition to my constituency for them to explain directly to the nearly 1600 children who will be lifted out of poverty by the removal of the two shell cap, why she so routinely denigrates people like them and their parents, parents who themselves are paying the price for a government.

She was part of a government that sent mortgages soaring and allowed inflation to reach 11%. Sadly, I won't hold my breath when she's not using the Isle of Wight as a punchline of one of her poor jokes, she treats it as a photo opportunity without the basic respect of engaging with local people, local media or indeed the local MP. Yeah, but perhaps we should not be surprised. The party opposite has consistently failed to understand the real, tangible difference. Policies like this make to people's lives instead of reckoning with the impact of their own poverty accelerating decisions, they choose to vilify those who stand to benefit.

And as I understand it, reform will now reverse the total cap to find to find money, to pay for a cheaper pint at your local pub. Presumably their next policy will increase the drunk driving limit to whatever you think you can get away for it with, and lower the age of buying cigarettes to 12 because dad is 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 first hand the impact government decisions have on local economies. Austerity was not just a line in a Budget. It was a decade of underinvestment that hit businesses like mine hard. It hollowed out our high streets, weakened consumer confidence and squeeze the incomes of working families. But this policy is about more than tackling poverty and the intergenerational damage it causes. It's about giving hardworking families the chance to feel part of their high street again, 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 is about ensuring the next generation does not go to school hungry or without the basic necessities, necessities, and about putting our country on a stronger footing by giving every child a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fair start in life. Yes, sir. Ashley Fox. Madam Deputy Speaker, the benefit system is a safety net designed to support people in hardship. But a fair system must balance the needs of those who pay for it. Benefits are paid by taxpayers of today. Or if the money is borrowed, as so often the case, by this government, by the
16:16
Ashley Fox Portrait Sir Ashley Fox MP (Bridgwater, Conservative)
-
-
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 are set to hit £100 billion a year by the end of this decade. It is a mark of Labour's irresponsibility that they present 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 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 do so. 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 why I believe it should be retained. Under the previous system pre 2017, there was a fundamental element of unfairness.

A family in receipt of benefits saw those increase automatically every time they had another child. That was not true of a family, not in receipt of those benefits. Why should a taxpayer who has decided not to 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 now want to create a society where more than half the population is dependent on the state to ensure their reelection.

But why has the leader of reform UK, the hon. Member for Clacton, 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's chasing votes in the north of England, hoping to win support from former Labour members. 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, reducing borrowing, leading to lower taxes and a stronger economy.

And I'll give way to the hon. Gentleman, deeply offended by his comment about people in the North of England as though north of England voters are people that just simply vote for their own welfare. That's simply not true. The people I represent are very proud to be hardworking people in good working class jobs, and many of those people have children that are impacted by the two child cap. So would you like to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

apologise to them? Sir Ashley Fox. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. If he'd listened his intervention. If he'd listened to what I said. I was describing the tactics of the hon. Member for Clacton, and that, I believe, is Clacton, and that, I believe, is what motivates his policy on this matter, that this government seems to be completely powerless to do to be completely powerless to do anything to reverse the spiralling costs of the welfare state. The costs of the welfare state.

The Prime Minister did, of course, try to make 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 rebels on the benches opposite. He now says his welfare reforms strike the right balance. Does anyone believe him? Not a thought for the taxpayer, not a thought of the extra debt they're incurring and the interest that will have to be paid on it.

Let me remind Labour members that prior to the election, they said repeatedly that they would not increase taxes on working people. They accompanied this by a manifesto pledge that they would increase spending by £9.5 billion in the 18 months since they were elected. They have actually increased spending by £100 billion, ten times more than they promised. They've increased taxes by 66 billion and borrowing by an extra 40 billion. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is what Labour does best spending other people's money.

It's in their DNA. They don't care about spending and borrowing. They don't care about getting better value for the taxpayer. Their only thought is to spend and borrow more. As if that is 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 it does less and does it better. We will reward people who do the right thing, who work hard, who save, who invest, who create jobs, and who will build a more prosperous

**** Possible New Speaker ****

country for all of us. Samantha Niblett. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise today 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 live on the edge of financial insecurity. That was not my child's fault a few years ago, at the end fault a few years ago, at the end of 2018, beginning of 2019, way before I stood in this House for a period of time, I was a single
16:22
Samantha Niblett Portrait Samantha Niblett MP (South Derbyshire, Labour)
-
-
parent and out of work. Not for long in the grand scheme of things, but long enough to struggle again. And I don't want to make this about me, but I want to give this example because hopefully it shows a modicum of insight and empathy, modicum of insight and empathy, which appears to be missing on this from this side of the house. And although there like millions of people across this country, I was doing everything I could to keep going, to keep my home afloat and going, to keep my home afloat and to shield my child from the worst of the stress and anxiety that comes with not having enough.

Many people experience this even in work. People with responsibility for more children than I have. At that time, I had to register my car as Sorn because I simply couldn't afford to run and tax it. And so every day I would do a twice a day walk to school. That took me about three hours. Now I want to be clear what that meant. In practice. It meant starting the day already exhausted, and especially for my daughter, knowing I still had to parent to job hunt to cope.

And at the end of the day, it meant digging deep for energy and often, quite frankly, often just didn't have. But some days, if I could scrape together enough loose change coins I gathered from hither and thither, I could afford a bus. And that small thing, that single bus journey made an enormous difference, an enormous difference to me and to my child. I had a little bit more patience, a little bit more capacity to be the parent that my child needed me to be.

And that's the reality we're talking about today. For so many, the two child cap is often discussed in abstract terms numbers, incentives, thresholds. But behind every statistic is a family making impossible choices, parents skipping meals so that their children can eat, children growing up with limits imposed on them before they've even had a chance to begin. And this is not about supporting families who are simply irresponsible or reckless or thoughtless or not planning ahead for children they can and can't afford.

And it predominantly impacts working families who fall on hard times. Sometimes families who lose a job, families whose circumstances change through illness, bereavement or redundancy, families who did not need, did not plan to need support but need it nonetheless. Children do not choose the circumstances they are born into. And yet, under the two child cap, we are telling some children that they're worth less than others. That support will stop an arbitrary line drawn between this. Sorry, that support will stop an arbitrary line drawn not by need, but by ideology.

Lifting the two child cap is not about rewarding anyone, it's about recognising reality. It's about acknowledging 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, better crime, better education and stronger communities. We 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, the exhaustion, the worry, the quiet determination to keep going, I know how much difference a little extra support will make for so many families and children who will be lifted out of poverty because of this.

It's not luxury, it's not comfort, it's just dignity and a fair chance. It's the difference between a parent breaking or not going without a meal to feed their child, or not a child not starting the day exhausted, a warm bedroom at bedtime or not. Don't have children if you can't afford them. Just doesn't wash. It's not a parent's fault. They don't. They. They have record high energy bills thanks to the war in Ukraine. It doesn't help a parent out of work due to ill health, thanks to a broken NHS system that has not been there to help fix them.

After 14 years of a conservative government. And it's no parents fault when they have a child with send for who they've had to give up work, perhaps to support or the fault of over 60% of working families who are struggling. So this is why I urge this House to do the right thing. Just as Citizens Advice have. Child Poverty Action Group have Alder Hey Children's Hospital have mental health foundation have Royal College of Nursing have UK women's Budget group have Unicef UK have to name but a few.

I noticed there's been absolutely no evidence in organisations that back their, their, their claims that this is the wrong thing to do. And I want to ensure that this in in this country, no child is held back simply because of the circumstances they were born into or circumstances that have changed, that have made things harder for their parents and for them. That's why I'm grateful that we are not just doing this in isolation, but we'll have best Start hubs. This Labour government is delivering breakfast clubs to help parents get back into work and to get to work earlier.

We're delivering up to £7,000 worth of childcare for working parents, and we're helping young people out of work, education or training into the workplace to better their life opportunities. And that is what lifting the two

**** Possible New Speaker ****

child cap is about. Manuel. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The two child limit has punished children for circumstances entirely children for circumstances entirely beyond their control. For nearly a decade, families have been denied support simply because a child support simply because a child happened to be born a third or fourth. That was a cruel choice made by policy makers not in children's best interests. And it really shows that government can
16:27
Manuela Perteghella Portrait Manuela Perteghella MP (Stratford-on-Avon, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
get it wrong. This was a particularly callous policy because particularly callous policy because it was designed to punish children, and because of the harm done to and because of the harm done to generations of young people, the future of our country today. For future of our country today. For 4.5 million children in the UK are growing up in poverty, including in my constituency of Stratford on 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 still struggling to afford basics like heating, healthy food, transport and even furniture. Many live in privately rented homes where costs keep rising while support has been cut and frozen, and these families are doing everything asked of them. Yet the system has been stuck against them, and I would gently remind the shadow secretary that looking after five children as a single parent is a job is work.

Raising a family is one of the most important jobs and contributions a person can make to society. Research by the Social Market Foundation has made a wider point that when countries make it harder to have and raise children, birth rates tend to fall and population age faster, and 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.

And 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 and 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're 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 front line. 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.

And that is why I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues support the removal of the shameful two

**** Possible New Speaker ****

child limit, and why I am proud to back its Second Reading today. James Frith.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

James Frith. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course I support this bill. It's Of course I support this bill. It's what we're here for at the stroke of a pen. Not any pen, but that of of a pen. Not any pen, but that of a government pen. The years of opposition, hoping to be able to
16:31
James Frith Portrait Mr James Frith MP (Bury North, Labour)
-
-
opposition, hoping to be able to come in and enact the sort of change that we are able to make here today. And it is why I am proud to stand in support of this Bill and support of my hon. Friend, the Minister in his place, and the work he 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 7000 children in Bury North are growing up in poverty.

Over a third of the families I represent are well above the national average. The majority of them in work. Behind each number, a child arriving at school hungry, a parent worrying about rent or heating, families doing everything right but still short on the bills they have to pay. What? But proximity to prosperity does not cushion poverty. It simply hides it. Too often, policy has failed to understand that. It is why the government is right to reassess how funding is allocated, recognising that affluence and deprivation sit side by side.

Ward by ward and, crucially, why this change is being made now when it is costed, affordable yet overdue. In Chesham Fold and parts of East Ward, parents work every hour they can, budgeting meticulously yet still struggling to cover the basics. Madam Deputy Speaker, the least well off are often the best at budgeting because they have no choice but to stretch limited means as far as possible. And nowhere is inequality clearer than in health. A child born in one part of my constituency can expect to live 7 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 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 and reduce the poverty, the depth of that poverty for many more. It increases spending power in exactly the communities that need it most. That money is spent locally in full on food shops, markets, uniforms, rent, heating, 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 also 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, as the recent Sutton Trust report states, growing up with Send and in poverty creates a double disadvantage. So I support this government's instincts on welfare reform. Rights and responsibilities matter. Contribution matters.

But responsibility only works if the floor people are expected to stand on is high enough in the first place. This 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.
16:35
Zarah Sultana Portrait Zarah Sultana MP (Coventry South, Your Party)
-
-
Yes. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Today, Labour MPs are lining up to congratulate themselves for ending the two child limit. I welcome that 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 and punished by my former party for doing so. Well, that punishment was being handed out from the Labour Whips office on behalf of the Prime Minister. Children in Coventry South and children across the country pay the price.

Facts matter. The two child limit pushes an estimated 109 children into poverty every single day. From the moment that I was suspended for voting to scrap it to today, when the Second Reading of this bill is being debated, 19 months have passed, 19 months of delay and excuses. That means over 63,000 children were pushed into poverty. While this Labour government delayed, argued and disciplined its own MPs for doing the right thing. Those children, those children will not get that time back.

They will carry the consequences for the rest of their lives. Madam Deputy Speaker, there are now 4.5 million children living in poverty in Britain. That is not a statistic. It is a national disgrace in the sixth largest economy in the world. And without further action, that number will rise to 4.7 million during this Parliament. So scrapping the two child limit matters because it is the single biggest driver of rising child poverty. It will lift. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Member for giving way on this point. Would she recognise that an additional cause of child poverty is a tax threshold that has not been hasn't raised at that has not been hasn't raised at all, and the insufficiency of the minimum wage, which drives many minimum wage, which drives many working families into desperate poverty and therefore they, their children suffer as a result of that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

children suffer as a result of that. Absolutely. I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. If I can continue without the heckling from the other side who have now decided that child poverty is a priority that they want to pursue. So scrapping the two child limit matters because it is the single biggest driver of rising child poverty. It will lift hundreds of thousands of children closer to dignity and security. But this Labour government has decided to stop half way because while the two child limit goes, the benefit cap remains.

That means 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 only gain parts of what they are owed, and some parents will be left with just £3 a week after rent, £3 to fee clothe and raise a child. So let us be clear you 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.

It does not 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 is serious about tackling child poverty, it has to finish the job. That means scrapping the benefit cap, ending the two child limit in full, increasing child related benefits, making free school meals universal so 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 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 in cold, hungry and anxious about what comes tomorrow. Madam Deputy Speaker. Reducing child poverty is not radical. It is responsible. It is the right thing to do. It improves health, improves education, improves long term economic outcomes. And last July, alongside six other colleagues, I did not vote to scrap the two child benefit cap 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, then it must act on that belief and abolish the two child benefit cap in full without delay.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Ian. Burn. Thank you, Madam.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. I was also one of the seven Labour MPs suspended of the seven Labour MPs suspended for voting and to be quite clear on an amendment to the King's speech to strengthen the King's speech, to remove the two child limit. I had made a vow to my constituents in made a vow to my constituents in Liverpool West Derby during the election. I would vote to scrap this inhumane policy at every single opportunity I could, so I did.

Today, I am grateful and frankly relieved that the government has recognised this policy for what it always was, and a moral attack from the architect of austerity, George Osborne, which punished working class children. Everything we should oppose in a Labour government. So today is a big step in the right direction for the government elected on a promise to support the most vulnerable and for change. And I'm delighted we stand here today. Madam Deputy Speaker. Shamefully, 4.5 million children are living in poverty in the UK, 850,000 more than in 2010.

The two child limit has been the key driver of this increase since its introduction in 2017, according to the Child Poverty Action Group. Every single day this policy existed, 109 children were pushed into poverty and denied their ability to live life to the full. Trussell figures are just a start. Almost 1 in 3 emergency food parcels last year went to families with three or more children. Families who make up just 11% of the population. More than 2 in 5 of those families experienced food insecurity this winter.

Food banks have been forced to provide emergency food parcels every 10s emergency food parcels every 10s every 10s. Madam Deputy Speaker, in one of the richest, wealthiest nations on Earth. But I will give nations on Earth. But I will give way to my hon. Friend.
16:42
Ian Byrne Portrait Ian Byrne MP (Liverpool West Derby, Labour)
-
-
Compliment him on the amazing work he's done on the right to food and the work he's done on food banks in Liverpool, supported by all the football clubs there. He must be aware. Maybe he's got figures on it of the number of families with children who use food banks, who themselves are in work, sometimes doing two jobs but are still so poor they cannot afford to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pay a weekly grocery bill. I thank my friend for that intervention. My hon. Friend. And intervention. My hon. Friend. And in the food pantries that we run in Liverpool with food banks, over 60% of those that access those food pantries are in work. That's the stark reality of what the world stark reality of what the world that we live in. So behind the figures, what we are speaking about, real families and real children. real families and real children. All the Children's Hospital charity made abolishing the two child limits its primary focus.

And it's put children first report. They see first hand the damage this policy causes to our children in our communities. I've spoken to my great friend, the paediatrician Doctor Ian Sinha from All 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, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is why scrapping the two child limit matters. In my constituency of Liverpool, West Derby alone, over three till 3000 children would be lifted out of poverty nationally for four 400,000 470,000 children would benefit by 2027, along children alongside children and adults.

This represents a 15% reduction in child poverty, with the living standards of 1.6 million children improving immediately, and the impact goes far beyond immediate relief. As we heard the Right to Food Commission's evidence session last week in Knowsley, lifting families out of poverty, improving their food security transforms lives. Better health outcomes, less pressure on the NHS, higher educational attainment and a stronger future workforce for those in this place today, and many here now who rallied against the cost of living, lifting children out of poverty.

The economic benefits of removing the two child limit is estimated at 3.1 billion per year. To reduce pressure on public services, increased employment, higher tax revenues. It's cost neutral for those who only speak the language of the Treasury. It's not only morally right, but it's fiscally responsibility responsible if that floats your boat. There's the there's the a that that's what we're talking about. We must be honest though. This doesn't go far enough. We are voting to remove the two child benefit limit, not the benefit cap.

The cap remains, meaning 50,000 families will see no benefits at all and 20,000 only a marginal increase. If we really serious about ending child poverty, and I hope we are with the strategy that we're bringing forward, this government must commit to removing the benefit cap entirely within this Parliament. The Right to Food Commission will also call for comprehensive right to food legislation, including universal free school meals. Transparency on food costs and the requirement for food security to be considered across all areas of policy.

So I urge colleagues to support this bill. But they also remind the House that when it comes to inequality, we do not get to choose where our modern missile mission ends. As long as children in 21st century Britain are hungry or in poverty, there is more we can do and we must do. Let us remove the two child limit today and the benefit cap. Legislate for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

right to food and build a Britain behind. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Miss Jarvis. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Scrapping the two child benefit cap Scrapping the two child benefit cap is the single most important action this government could take to improve outcomes for children in improve outcomes for children in poverty. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have called for this consistently, so I'm pleased that the government is finally that the government is 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 families who are often struggling the most.

This cruel, shameful policy should never have been introduced in the first place, and I will just reiterate that circumstances can change in a heartbeat. Redundancy. Bereavement.
16:46
Liz Jarvis Portrait Liz Jarvis MP (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Discovering a child needs special care, which means that a parent has to give up work. Life changing to give up work. Life changing events can all have a huge and sometimes devastating impact on sometimes devastating impact on household income. According to the End Child Poverty Coalition, 20 End Child Poverty Coalition, 20 20.6% of children in Eastleigh are growing up in poverty. These experiencing experiences in early experiencing 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 only see their incomes lift partially from April, due to having their income raised to benefit cap level.

So 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. This bill, on its own, while welcome, is not enough.

Madam Deputy Speaker, a fair society does not balance its books on the backs of children. It is frankly astonishing that the party to my right would reinstate the two child benefit cap, according to the IFS, their 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

country is eradicated once and for all. Here. Doctor Darren parfait.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. And I'm proud to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Support this bill today. And I. Do so with the families of Southampton firmly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Southampton firmly. In mind. Those are families. Who fell foul. Of the last conservative government's mission to make government's mission to make Britain Dickensian again. Where? More than 83%. Sorry, my city is among those who are the poorest in the country, worse off than more than 83% of local authorities when it comes to the deprivation that affects children now in here, that's a potentially abstract statistic there. It's reflected in the lived reality of my constituents.

More than 1 in 5 working age adults in Southampton.
16:50
Darren Paffey Portrait Darren Paffey MP (Southampton Itchen, Labour)
-
-
Are on Universal Credit, rising to an average of 1 in 3 in our most deprived neighbourhoods. Now, as many honourable colleagues have said, many of those people are working hard, but they are still falling short. And what was the last conservative government's answer to that? It was to count the children and punish the whole family. And no doubt tonight they will traipse through the lobbies and vote to keep a lid on the 450,000 children who are about to be released from poverty.

The two child limit simply didn't work. And if anything, it compounded the pressures on families. Families who repeatedly tell me that the universal Credit they received barely covers the rent, let alone food, heating or school essentials. That's the Tory legacy. That's the deeply entrenched poverty that this Labour government is having bit by bit to undo. And it's therefore no surprise that still an estimated 10,000 children in Southampton are living in households with an absolute low income and 25% of children in relative low income.

These are the realities that demand clear action, and this bill is part of that action being led by the Labour government. I'll give way. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. And the way he's describing the issues in his constituency in the issues in his constituency in Southampton actually also apply in a very similar way to my residents in reading. Does he agree with me? It's an important aspect of the government's work is not only what we're debating today, but the wider and broader package of measures, and broader package of measures, including measures to help with housing, measures to help with the cost of transport, and many other measures, including the Warm Homes measures, including the Warm Homes initiative.

Perhaps he wants to say a little bit about the overall impact of these measures.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for making a salient point, and I will come to that wider package of come to that wider package of measures, of course. We've heard arguments, straw man arguments. I believe that say, well, this one thing will not solve child poverty. Well, no one is claiming that it will solve child poverty. It is one will solve child poverty. It is one piece of a jigsaw of wider work that this government is doing. But that this government is doing.

But I am glad that this punitive, arbitrary cap, which only made life worse for so many, is being scrapped, and that will lift up to 2500 children in Southampton Itchen out of poverty. Now if it was, if I was to credit the opposition benches with one thing in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, it would be their consistency. Sadly, it's wrong, consistently wrong and inconsistent and desperate attempt to be divisive in this. They are trying to split the country into those who pay tax and those who receive welfare.

These generalizations around the deserving and the undeserving poor are not only crass, they're just factually wrong. Many contribute through work for years. They fall on hard times. They rely on the safety net that they have paid into. And my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire made this point eloquently. The Conservatives ignore the fact that many are receiving Universal Credit while they're working. That's the state topping up poverty wages. The Conservatives might be happy to ignore that Labour is taking action on minimum wages now.

What a contrast. This bill, therefore removing the two child limit is a vital step. But it is not. To my hon. Friend Reading's point that a stand alone one. It sits alongside this Labour government's wider work, opening free breakfast clubs that will transform life chances with early adopter schools in Saint John's, Saint Patrick's and Hightown primary schools in my constituency. It sits alongside the £20 million Pride in Place investment into the Western Estate. It sits alongside expanding free school meals and with a third of pupils in my state funded schools eligible for free school meals.

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 are trying to get into work and facing barriers. We're strengthening some of the Universal Credit work allowances, and we're delivering a comprehensive child poverty strategy aimed at giving every single child a fair start. And I commend the Secretary of State for education and the Work and Pensions secretaries for the work that they have done on leading that vital change.

The reality is if if we're being idealistic, we all dream of a future where these kinds of benefits might not be as necessary as they are now. We dream of, and I would argue Labour is working towards a world where work pays well, where it pays better, something our employment rights bill moves us closer to achieving, where the cost of living crisis is less acute, as our action on warm homes and freezing rail fares and freezing VAT rates and income tax rates and fuel duty all help to achieve.

Add to that the creation of opportunities through the Youth Guarantee and through more apprenticeships. Then there is a lot that is happening, but there is of course more to do, much more to do. But today, Madam Deputy Speaker, what this bill does is recognises a very simple truth. Children do not choose the circumstances they are born into. Supporting this bill and scrapping the arbitrary failed cap

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is not only the right economic moral. One for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sian Berry. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. The fact

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker. The fact is, this bill is too narrowly drawn by the government. It will, as members have mentioned several members have mentioned several times, leave at least 150,000 children in larger families with no children in larger families with no extra help at all. Families like Mariam's, highlighted by the UK
16:56
Siân Berry Portrait Siân Berry MP (Brighton Pavilion, Green Party)
-
-
charity who is a lone parent of three, fled from domestic abuse and relying upon us for her income relying upon us for her income while she restarts her life. Abolishing the two child limit alone will not improve Mariam's alone will not improve Mariam's life one bit, because she is affected by both the two child affected by both the two child limit and the overall benefit cap. In December, after this policy change was finally announced, about 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 help in this way, and they told me this information was not available.

It is beyond me how they could decide that this policy would leave children out in this way, without knowing how many. DWP data says there are nearly 1000 families subject to the benefit cap in my constituency of Brighton Pavilion. But they did not tell me, and I still don't know how many of my families this bill will exclude. But we do know now how many children in total at least will be left out and not helped. The impact assessment for this bill says 50,000 families will see no gain at all from this bill, and another 20,000 families in the first year will only partially gain before the household benefit cap kicks in for them too.

That is, in total, at least 200,000 children who are not getting the help they need from the government. Madam Deputy Speaker, the benefit cap, like the two child limit, was always unjust, introduced by the Conservatives, led by headlines and misrepresentations driving up stigma and demonisation, demonisation of children in poverty and their parents. The Conservatives fail to see that Social Security is security for everyone and that this spending pays back in wider benefits. The Treasury and the country will see, by not limiting lives due to nothing more than prejudice.

And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

madam, I will. Just on that. Does the hon. Member share my concerns that the arguments that are being made by the Labour Party in cancelling the two child cap are the same arguments that were applicable 19 arguments that were applicable 19 months ago, when 61,000 children could have been kept out of poverty if they had agreed with us in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

if they had agreed with us in the King's Speech, rather than waiting until now. I thank the hon. Member for pointing out yet again, that some pointing out yet again, that some of us in this House voted to move on this issue many, many, many months ago. And it is about time the government caught up. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, I also want to take time to utterly reject the racist agenda of the reform members objections. The fact is, this bill is not wrong, but it fails to do right by far too many children.

And so I am here to ask Ministers, what will the government do to fix this? The scope of the bill could be widened by the government to remove the benefit cap as well, through a motion to this House, if not by a simple amendment. And I have been trying on that score as well. It is down to the government to help and listen on this issue, which so many members have raised today. So I ask,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

quite simply, will they act? Nadia Whittome. Yes, thank you

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Nadia Whittome. Yes, thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. The introduction of the two child limit by the Conservatives in 2017 limit by the Conservatives in 2017 has had a devastating impact on child poverty rates. Every day it child poverty rates. Every day it affects 1.7 million children, with a loss of roughly 3500 pounds a a loss of roughly 3500 pounds a year for affected families. A huge 17% of children in my constituency live in a family subject to this inhumane and unjust policy.

But
17:00
Nadia Whittome Portrait Nadia Whittome MP (Nottingham East, Labour)
-
-
it's also a policy that has failed on its own terms. A study by the London School of Economics found London School of Economics found that it did not increase employment rates among those families affected, the majority of whom are already in the majority of whom are already in work. Meanwhile, the wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of children hundreds of thousands of children became collateral damage in this reckless experiment, from living in overcrowded homes to going to bed overcrowded homes to going to bed hungry.

It is utterly disgraceful that this cruel policy is remained in force for so long, and I know that many of our constituents have felt let down, that our Labour government has not acted quicker. So I'm greatly relieved that the calls that so many of us have repeatedly made are now being heeded, and that the government is finally scrapping the two child limit. This wouldn't have been possible without the tireless work of campaigners, who've spent almost a decade fighting for this change, and experts agree that the removal of the two child limit is the most cost effective way to cut child poverty.

With this change expected to lift almost half a million children out of poverty by the end of this Parliament. Madam Deputy Speaker, 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. Because 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's lifted in April because of the benefit cap. I'm also worried that children whose parents are subject to no recourse to public funds will continue to be disproportionately at high risk of poverty because they're denied support. And the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has warned that progress on tackling poverty is likely to stall without

**** Possible New Speaker ****

further action. And that's why, yes, I. Thank the Member for giving way, and I absolutely agree with her about the effect of En 50,000 children not getting any benefit. Would she agree that there needs to be a more comprehensive approach to child poverty, including raising child poverty, including raising the tax threshold to take the poorest families and poorest people out of taxation altogether, and also looking at the extraordinarily high levels of private sector rent in many places that are way above the local housing allowance.

So families on benefit end up

**** Possible New Speaker ****

subsidising their rent in order to keep a roof over their head. I thank my right hon. Friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my right hon. Friend for the intervention, and I do agree with the points that he makes. And I think particularly in my constituency inbox, we have huge numbers of constituents who are numbers of constituents who are effectively evicted because landlords keep hiking their rents. landlords keep hiking their rents. And that's why I back his call and the calls of Sadiq Khan and Andy Burnham, our mayors, to allow local areas to to introduce rent controls.

And I also back the calls of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation for Universal Credit to cover the cost of essentials like 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. And we must do this 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

place for all of us to live. This must be our goal. Thank you. Susan Murray.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Susan Murray. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It seems with increasing frequency, I stand in this place welcoming labour U-turns. Well, today I welcome yet another. The decision 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
17:04
Susan Murray Portrait Susan Murray MP (Mid Dunbartonshire, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Scottish Government to divert funds from social care and council services towards a Scottish Child services towards a Scottish Child Payment. So it's with that in mind, I'd like to urge the hon. Member from Aberdeen North to on the benches behind me to discuss with her colleagues in Holyrood the her colleagues in Holyrood the merits of using some of the projected £155 million savings to projected £155 million savings to help fund a new health and care hub for the people of Bearsden and Milngavie in my constituency.

Now I'm aware that there are people who are not supporting lifting the cap. This change is set to cost UK taxpayers over 3 billion annually by 2030, clearly an enormous sum, and we have already seen over the past year that this Labour government is set on making working people pay for their changes through tax, band freezing, National insurance rises and pension changes. So it's with this in mind that I'd like to urge the government to look seriously at the Liberal Democrat proposals aimed at raising tax revenue.

Firstly, banks have made record profits an estimated £50 billion in a single year off the backs of hard working people. We in the Liberal Democrats believe that it's only fair that they pay some of this back. 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 this, and I know that the members to my right will not be happy to hear this again. We need a customs Europe, a customs union with Europe, trade deals in China and India are not unwell and welcome.

But the biggest opportunity is right on our doorstep. An extra 90 billion per year in tax revenue that does not require going cap in hand to those who stand against our values or who facilitate our enemies. Madam Deputy Speaker. Lifting children out of poverty doesn't have to put a further strain on working people. We can create a fair tax system where companies pay their fair share to help those they profit from. Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could I gently remind the hon. Lady that this is a very specific debate about the removal of the two debate about the removal of the two child limit, and not a wider debate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

child limit, and not a wider debate you. I apologise. So removing the two

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I apologise. So removing the two child cap is a vital first step, and I hope that the government chooses to listen to more Liberal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Democrat proposals. Steve Witherden. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. 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
17:07
Steve Witherden Portrait Steve Witherden MP (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr, Labour)
-
-
being pushed into poverty in the years ahead, whilst also leading to years ahead, whilst also leading to better health development, educational attainment and economic educational attainment and economic outcomes. These improvements shape life chances and in turn, ease life chances and in turn, ease pressure on our public services and strengthen our wider economy. This strengthen our wider economy. This decision is a testament to the campaigners who have worked tirelessly for years to see this policy repealed. And hon. Members across this House who repeatedly called for change, including those who lost the whip in 2024, for standing firmly by their principles.

I strongly support this measure and will, of course, be voting in favour. This cruel policy 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 this crisis will not disappear. We should be pulling 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.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will he give way on that point? I will. Neil Duncan. Jordan. I thank. The hon. Member for giving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Member for giving way. Is he aware that five and six low income households on Universal income households on Universal Credit are going without the essentials? So would you agree with me and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Trussell Trust Foundation and the Trussell Trust that we need a welfare system that provides for the essentials of provides for the essentials of daily living, food, heating your home and so on. If we are to really

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tackle deep seated poverty in this country. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And can I thank my my hon. Friend And can I thank my my hon. Friend for his intervention. And I do agree, absolutely appalling agree, absolutely appalling statistics that have been quoted. You know, an essentials guarantee would embed the principle that would embed the principle that Universal Credit should, at a minimum, protect people from going without food, heating and other basics. A protected minimum for would ensure no one falls below a humane safety net.

I hope that the government continues on this path of reversing cruel, conservative policies that harm the most vulnerable in our society. much.
17:10
David Baines Portrait David Baines MP (St Helens North, Labour)
-
-
Madam Deputy Speaker. >> Madam Deputy Speaker. >> This has been a really revealing debate, a very interesting one with interesting points on all sides. interesting points on all sides. But unfortunately it has obviously become quite polarising. On one side of the debate, we've got those who actually work with children and families and who see the hugely damaging impact that the two child limit has had. The Child Poverty Action Group, for example, says scrapping the two child limit would be 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 lives. And I agree with Unicef, which says that no child should be punished for the number of siblings that they have. Scrapping the two child limit will lift around 2500 children in Saint Helens North, out of poverty, and in this Parliament, we're on course to lift a record number of children out of poverty.

Nationally, more than half a million free breakfast clubs are opening in more primary schools. More than 5000 families in Saint Helens North will benefit from extended free school meals later this year. Working families are receiving 30 hours of free childcare. Yes, this all has to be paid for and I'm aware it will be paid for by taxpayers. But politics and government is about choices. Yeah, the shadow Minister said in her introduction at the start that we should look at the record of the Conservatives in government.

The hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley said government is about choices. Well, the country is well aware of their record and the choices they made, and that's why they sat on that side of the chamber. This Labour government is choosing to give all children the opportunity to thrive, and we will all benefit as a result. Every single penny in pursuit of that goal is money well spent. In my opinion, as a taxpayer. But Madam Deputy Speaker, on the other side of the debate, we have got the Leader of the Opposition and others not simply taking a reasoned and reasonable position, but using language that is at best insulting and at worst, dangerous talk of so-called benefit street in a single stroke.

Alienate and denigrate millions of Britons in receipt of benefits, many of whom, of course work. There are neighbours, there are friends there. The people we see day in and day out around our communities, as it's been said already by colleagues on this side, most of the children who will be helped by the removal of the two child limit are in households where someone works. 59% of households affected by the two child limit are in work. And to those who say work should pay, I agree, and that's why I'm supporting measures put forward by this government to do exactly that which are opposed by those people who say work should pay.

Square that circle, I can't. Good luck to them. All I ask is that those who talk in that way about things like benefit streets and denigrating millions of people and children, just think how those children and young people. 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. Madam Deputy Speaker, we also hear a lot about looking after our own. Well, I agree we should look after our own.

We should support people who need it. And that's what this move does. Investing in our children, in the wellbeing of future generations for their sake and for our collective good. Through my entire working life, I've seen the impact of poverty on families and children. I've tried my best to help them, and I'm sure all of us in this chamber on all sides, have met many families who've struggled and dealt with sudden changes in circumstances, whether it's ill health, bereavement, job loss or housing crisis.

For those families with more than two children, the impact is even more acute and it saddens me and frankly 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'll be voting tonight for them here.
17:14
Gill German Portrait Gill German MP (Clwyd North, Labour)
-
-
Chairman. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Deputy Speaker. >> I know all too well the difference this bill will make for families across the country. In my constituency of Clwyd North, I've seen far too many families struggling to make ends meet. And indeed, it was a reality. It's a reality that is a huge part of what drove me to this place. In the first instance, from my primary school classroom and a lead role in local government. So I am pleased and proud to welcome and support this bill today, and the tangible difference it will make in Clwyd North and beyond.

And it's important to note why this is happening now. This has come at a time when it has been fully costed and as part of an overall strategy, and this is crucial to note, we can all call for something. We've made it happen here across Wales. This change will help 69,000 children, including 3100 children in my Clwyd North constituency, a change that cannot be overstated in terms of how deeply it is needed and how proud I am to see it delivered under this Labour government.

It's exactly the kind of action that we need to support families of all shapes and sizes. After 14 years of Tory austerity, which has left far too many children in poverty, and while it might seem obvious, I do want to make this point and emphasise that children are part of these families. They don't exist in a bubble and they can't disappear when life gets tough. Supporting families makes children better off. Families face a range of circumstances, often unexpected.

But regardless of this, every child deserves to have their needs met. Poverty and 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, earn an average 25% less. And I am proud that it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

has been. I will give way. I'm grateful for the member giving way and she makes a giving way and she makes a fantastic point. I think you either get it or you don't. What we're doing is giving children an opportunity to better their futures. I'm myself. When I was young, my I'm myself. When I was young, my father, an engineer, fell ill, and my mother and my family fell to the my mother and my family fell to the state.

But today, I'm an officer of the court, and I'm here as a member of Parliament. Let's give every

**** Possible New Speaker ****

child a chance to develop and better their futures. Chairman. I thank the hon. Member and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member and I absolutely agree. Every child deserves the chance to fulfil their potential, and it is our potential, and it is our responsibility to make that happen. And I'm proud that it has been a Welsh Labour government in Wales Welsh Labour government in Wales that has led the way with practical initiatives to support children. initiatives to support children. Free breakfast in primary schools since 2004. Hear, hear. Protected by legislation since 2013. Universal free school meals for primary school children since 2022.

And I'm incredibly proud to have been part of rolling that out across Clwyd North. Statutory guidance on school uniform branding in place for years and the School Essentials grant to help with the costs of going to school. And while these initiatives are invaluable, I have heard repeatedly as the chair of the Children in Wales APPG and in many, many years before from organizations like 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.

And now, finally, with a Labour government in place in Westminster, we've done exactly that and we've done it in a measured, fully costed way that accounts for every penny needed. These organisations have long been sounding the alarm, and I'm proud that our Labour government that has taken action. As the MP for North, I know exactly what I want to see and we need a long term solution to child poverty. And to do this we need parents and families in reliable, fairly paid work to see child poverty off for good.

We must rebuild our economy after it's been 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 needed for today's jobs and the jobs of the future, and we must ensure that we have the transport, the childcare and the infrastructure needed so people can get to work in the first place. I will work tirelessly to make sure these opportunities are open to people in Clwyd North, particularly our young people, and my constituency is ideally placed between two major investment zones, and it's my responsibility to make sure that my residents benefit from the opportunities these bring.

This brings. Madam Deputy Speaker, it's 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 both supported and in fairly paid, reliable work. That must be our relentless focus if we are to reduce our shocking child

**** Possible New Speaker ****

poverty figures, not just for today, but for generations to come. John McDonnell.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

John McDonnell. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Surprise! I'm. I'm pleased I've sat Surprise! I'm. I'm pleased I've sat through the debate today. All the debate and the speeches I've heard debate and the speeches I've heard on our side here have been incredibly eloquent and moving, and I'm really pleased we are where we I'm really pleased we are where we are now in terms of scrapping the two child limit. I've listened to the opposition speeches. Just just looking back in history.

They are reminiscent of the debates that
17:21
John McDonnell Portrait Rt Hon John McDonnell MP (Hayes and Harlington, Labour)
-
-
were taking place in the early 19th century with regard to the Poor Law, and if people can remember their history. There was an economist called Malthus at the time who suggested, if you gave anything to suggested, if you gave anything to the poor by way of support or benefits, it would it would make benefits, it would it would make them lazy. It would make them breed. And the only way you control population was actually to starve population was actually to starve the poor.

And that was what was reflected in the debate that we heard today. And I just hope one day we'll have a civilised society where those views aren't heard, especially the racist views that were expressed by the reform, how to how to separate our, our society in in that way, at the moment when we know there are divisions that we need to be bringing people together. But I just say this to my my hon. Friends and to the front bench, please, please don't spoil this bill now.

And I say that others have raised I don't want to repeat the argument so others have raised the overall cap. And if we allow that to exist, it will spoil this bill. It won't do the job that we need it to do. 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 there's 150,000 children who will still be hit by this. And that means really, we we will not have done our job.

And I know we can argue, well, we'll come back to that. But the longer we delay it, the longer those children will live in poverty. And I just, I just think there must be a way in which we can resolve this quickly. This piece of legislation could be that way. And actually, in comparison with removing the overall two child limit cap, this is relatively and I say this in inverted commas, inverted commas, relatively inexpensive. I think it's about 500 billion compared with the 303 billion.

So we could do it. It can't be done by an amendment from a member of Parliament from the backbenches, because it only the government can bring forward proposals that involve increased expenditure in any form. So my appeal, I just want to appeal to the frontbench. Please don't spoil it at this stage. Try and 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's it will be relatively inexpensive and its impact will be severe.

I don't want to get into another row over this particular issue. I voted against the two child limit when it was introduced and I railed against it. I, I don't think I've ever been so angry in this house as that that day, and that's why I've continuously voted to scrap the two child limit. And I know people are anxious that in terms of the vote over the King's Speech, but it wasn't a vote against the King's speech. It was a vote in favour of scrapping the two child limit.

And I understand the argument. Well, you have to do that in a way that is part of a component, part of a Budget that you can then afford. But that's why I was disappointed we hadn't done that, first of all, because it was so meaningful for me to scrap the two child limit itself. But but we are where we are now and I'm really pleased. So I just want the front bench to go that little step further and scrap the overall limit.

There's other issues as well. We can come back to rent controls, etc. we can come back to that at the next stage in the progress of tackling child poverty through our strategy. So it is an appeal. But let me just say this. Although a backbencher can't move an amendment that raises expenditure, we can move amendments that make this bill dependent on further reports within a time limited period of scrapping the overall limit. So I'll give notice now and be open about it, is if the government frontbench doesn't bring forward a meaningful amendment, I will be seeking to work with the clerks to bring forward amendment that at least commits the government to consider and report back to the House on scrapping the overall limit, and if necessary, I will push that to a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

vote. And for the assistance of backbenchers still wishing to speak, backbenchers still wishing to speak, I'm about to remove the time limit. I'm about to remove the time limit. Josh Fenton Glynn, thank you. This is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is. You're in trouble now. Yeah. Do you want the rest of this? This you want the rest of this? This bill will be remembered as one of the proudest moments of this government's first term. Yeah. Before entering this place, I worked on policy around poverty. And it's something that motivates me every day. One constant theme I found when looking at the evidence was that the simple solutions were often the best. Indeed, it's interesting that members opposite often argue for a simplified tax system for the wealthy, but then when it comes to benefits, they do nothing but buttress the system with more and more complex rules.

Yeah, but poverty ruins lives.
17:27
Josh Fenton-Glynn Portrait Josh Fenton-Glynn MP (Calder Valley, Labour)
-
-
Yeah. poverty leads to worse life outcomes. It leads to poorer educational outcomes. Poverty as a child leaves us three times more likely to be in poverty as an adult. And the longer the period of deprivation a child goes through, the worse their chances as an adult. It's clear that the impact of childhood 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 you are constantly hungry or cold or in damp housing without repairs, the effects are long lasting on your health and your self-esteem, and on your chances. When kids grow up in poverty, the economy loses out to. Even if members choose not to care about worse outcomes for children. Something that I think we have a moral imperative to care about. It's a question of cold economic logic. In 2023, my old employer, Child Poverty Action Group, estimated that the cost of child poverty was 39 billion a year.

Yeah, 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. And this is the first legislation on child poverty passed since the Child Poverty Act. I remember working on the passage of that act, and I remember the now Lord Cameron committing to halving and then ending child poverty. Indeed, he accepted the evidence based view that relative poverty is an appropriate measure to measure child poverty, because children with less money are less able to take part in the society that their friends do, and they're less able to achieve in the same way.

Yeah, a bold way to face the electorate in 2010, but not that matched at all by the record in power, a record of abject failure. Yeah, the two child limit pushed hundreds of thousands more children into poverty. 14 years of government failure shot through the need for this bill is the failure of the last government. Unicef found that the UK saw the largest increase in relative poverty out of 37 high income countries that they measured between 2013 and 2023, an increase of a third, the largest increase compared to the EU.

And we heard a lot from across the House about people in work. Well, when I was working at Child Poverty Action Group, we used to have 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. And even if they don't have a parent in work, I don't believe that the sins of the parents are visited on the children.

I don't believe that children have control over where they're born. We hear about choices. Should children

**** Possible New Speaker ****

family? Yeah. This is social and economic

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is social and economic vandalism that we will reverse when this bill becomes law. Yeah. The removal of the two child benefit removal of the two child benefit cap will lift 450,000 children out cap will lift 450,000 children out of poverty, with 2 million children set to benefit overall. Think about set to benefit overall. Think about what that means. The lives changed, the futures opened up, and if nothing else moves you, then think about the savings to the public purse.

When fewer children grow up

**** Possible New Speaker ****

facing both the barriers that poverty causes, that follow them into adulthood. Here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here. There is more to do. My hon. Friends on frontbench will know that I'm likely to be very annoying about the things more that we have to do, but I. But I welcome this government's support for free government's support for free breakfast clubs, expanding childcare, family homes and getting more young people into work. And I look forward to reviewing how these programmes make children bring children out of deprivation. Today, I couldn't be more proud than to walk through the division lobby that will give millions of children a fairer start here.
17:31
Sam Rushworth Portrait Sam Rushworth MP (Bishop Auckland, Labour)
-
-
Sam Rushworth. >> Thank you. >> Madam Deputy Speaker. The last. >> Time that we had the debate on this issue, I took many this issue, I took many interventions from the party opposite. There are a few of them here today, but they wanted to know if I would support lifting the two child cap. And I said at the time, as I will say again, that increasing household incomes of children in poverty is one of several things that we need to do to tackle the scourge of child poverty in places like Bishop Auckland, and that I trusted.

The government's heart is in the right place on this issue, and so I'm delighted with the proposals they brought forward. And today I will enthusiastically vote for this bill. It's a bill that will lift 450,000 children out of poverty, 2310 households in my constituency are currently affected by the two child cap. As I say, it's only one measure. It needs to be combined with other measures, and I think we've heard often in this debate that that it's the single quickest way to lift children out of poverty.

That's because we measure poverty by household income. But poverty is multidimensional, and it is important that we address the multifaceted aspects of poverty. And combined with other measures, it will make a real difference. Measures like the Renters Rights Bill, the Employment Rights Bill, increases in the national minimum wage, falling interest rates. That's cutting mortgages, the new rules on school uniforms, the 30 hours of free childcare, the free breakfast clubs in every school to reduce the early morning stress on working parents, the extension of free school meals to a further 4500 children in Bishop Auckland.

The extension of the warm homes discount to more households, an investment in youth hubs, family hubs and arts and culture. All of those things will help support children in poverty and that's why I'm proud to be part of this Labour government at this time. At a round table in my constituency shortly after I was elected, we invited educators and charities and 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, where that uniform was left of children living in cold and damp homes, children in children who are excluded from extracurricular activities because they have to get the only free bus home because their parents can't afford the £1 bus fare to take a later bus home.

So I came here today to speak on behalf of those children to be their voice. Now, I want to address some of the arguments that we've heard against this. And I think too much of this debate, frankly, has focused on party politics rather than on children. Party opposite seems to be simultaneously arguing that we should have done this sooner and that we shouldn't be doing it at all. But as I've engaged with the government over the last 18 months and had many conversations, including in number ten and with Ministers, I've been reassured throughout that the Prime Minister had a strong personal commitment to eradicating child poverty, and it hasn't surprised me at all to see this legislation brought forward.

The opposition to what we're doing today is based on falsehoods. The first of those falsehoods is that this is about supporting children in workless households. As my hon. Friend said a moment ago, firstly, the children are not to blame. You can never blame a child for being born in a poor home, but also 59% of families affected by the two child cap are families in work. And we also know that Universal Credit requires people to show evidence of actively seeking work.

You can't simply sit on universal Credit. It is not that easy, and we know that often this is a temporary measure. I think about my own family. 12 years ago, I was working as a gardener on just above the minimum wage, and my wife was working as a carer while I was completing my PhD, and we relied for a time on having our income topped up by tax credits, as it was called. Then I almost crossed that out of my speech, because I know that I'll get an onslaught of abuse just for saying so.

Such is the 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. She raised three children, two of whom had a disability. I remember her telling me about a friend when she moved into her council house, telling her how you can paint the floor and put duvets at the windows to keep it warmer. But she put herself through a degree in pharmacy at Durham University and now works in my constituency for a GP practice as a pharmacist, and my brother, who was the highest earner in our family, died at the age of 35, leaving behind three children.

So people fall on hard times and when they fall on hard times, a caring society should be there for each other. One of the other lies, though, that we're hearing in this debate, is that this is funded by a tax on workers as they seek to divide people, to tell people who are just about managing that their taxes, paying for people that aren't working. That's so not true. We know what's funding this and many other things. A fairer tax system, abolishing the non-dom status, a mansion tax, the remote gaming duty that's going to generate an extra billion pounds.

So this is also about fairness and about who pays. And finally, there's this sort of lie that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

keeping children in poverty is good isn't. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. The welfare bill increased £88 billion under the conservative government, despite the real value government, despite the real value of welfare decreasing. They oversaw a real terms decrease in living a real terms decrease in living standards. And where did it lead a generation of children who were malnourished, who experienced malnourished, who experienced family breakdown, who were denied opportunities to become a generation of adults that are realising their full potential, an increase in sickness in days lost to sick pay, an increase in mental health disorders, a 250% increase in looked after children.

Rising cost pressures on government as a result of those policies. And as I finish, I must turn my attention to some comments that were made by the Member for Runcorn. He's no longer in her place, and I intend to write to her about this, because I was deeply offended by the suggestion that people who were born in this country, 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, she worked as a carer and more recently went through university and now works as a midwife in our NHS. And I am so proud of her and the idea that somehow she should be less entitled because of her birth, I find frankly disgusting and I think reform need to rethink that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. And so as I as I conclude, I will be voting with the government will be voting with the government tonight, and I will also emphasize again that this is one of several again that this is one of several things that we need to do to have that national mission to end once and for all, the scourge of child

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and for all, the scourge of child poverty in our country. Lizzi Collinge. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Now, when the Labour government came into office, there were 4.5 million children living in poverty. I believe that is a moral stain on our nation, and that's why it's
17:40
Lizzi Collinge Portrait Lizzi Collinge MP (Morecambe and Lunesdale, Labour)
-
-
been a central mission of this Labour government to tackle child poverty in all its forms. And poverty in all its forms. And that's why the Labour government are taking a range of measures, like the breakfast clubs, which like the breakfast clubs, which we've had fantastic pilots of and in my constituency, and actually what we've heard from schools that have implemented those free have implemented those free breakfast clubs is that attendance is improving through them. Yet is improving through them. Yet another impact of of tackling shortages in childhood.

We're expanding free school meals to more children, which is fantastic. The family hubs that will help families that are struggling get the support that they need, and of course, more support for childcare for working parents who too often are kept out of work by the high costs of childcare. But today, Madam Deputy Speaker, we're talking about ending the two child limit on Universal Credit. Now, this measure alone will lift nearly half a million children out of poverty. In my constituency of Morecambe and Lunesdale, it's about 1900 kids who will benefit from this.

And it's not just the right thing to do in and of itself. The evidence shows that tackling poverty and childhood helps is more cost effective than mopping up the damage. Later, the damage of poverty was outlined so eloquently earlier by my hon. Friend from Oldham East. The fact is that poverty kills. It kills. It's as simple as that. Now, 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 this cap, and mothers with really young babies who normally we would not expect to work ignoring the significant number of people affected who are in ill health or who have caring responsibilities, 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 and are now struggling to put food on their table.

Madam Deputy Speaker, about six months after the election, I knocked on a door in Morecambe and it was answered by a lady who was really distressed. Once I got talking to her, it came about that she had five kids and that 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. She was on minimum wage. They were really struggling to prevent their children finding out just how difficult a financial situation they were in.

And I was able to tell her that in a few months time, she thanks the Labour government was going to get a pay rise because we were putting the minimum wage up. Yet another measure that we're taking to tackle

**** Possible New Speaker ****

child poverty. I'll happily give way. One of the most distressing things I found when I was working at church, Action on Poverty, at church, Action on Poverty, talking to parents of children in poverty was how often mothers went without food. You talked about families struggling to so that their children didn't see. Would you agree that that's the reality of this, of this policy. And that's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of this, of this policy. And that's what we're changing today? Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank my hon. Friend for his and I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He's absolutely right. Parents, in my experience, will do anything to protect their children from the realities, the harsh realities of life. It is parents who go without food. It is parents who have to go to the food bank. And actually, Madam Deputy Speaker, I remember the first time I met the people running the food bank in Morecambe.

I met them first in 2017, and I walked up to them and I said, one day I will put you out of business. And they said, thank you, because their strategic aim was to not exist. Food banks should not exist in. Some of the people who ignore, who are opposed to lifting this limit, are also willing to ignore the fact that the policy itself didn't work under its own terms. It didn't limit the number of children born. It merely condemned them to living in poverty.

They were also willing to ignore the evidence that shows we're dealing in poverty. And childhood is much more cost effective than mopping up later. It prevents huge costs later down the lines in terms of education, health, or indeed in the criminal justice system. Now, I'm not saying there are no feckless parents. Of course there are feckless parents. There are 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 and get housekeeping money off her drunkard father.

Now, she used to tell this as a funny story with a smile on her face, but it wasn't funny. And it's not funny now, and I was really quite shocked, actually, to see that the Reform Party are now saying that they would keep the limit on on Universal Credit, two child limit on Universal Credit, and instead put that money into taking taking down the cost of being. Now I, I love a drink, don't get me wrong, but I do. I can't help but think that if reform are around 100 years ago, they would have been standing with my drunkard ancestor rather than a little girl who was going in there with a handout for housekeeping money.

And Madam Deputy Speaker, because there are a few who are feckless, do we condemn hundreds of thousands of children

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to poverty? Are we willing? I'll happily give way. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

giving way. Does she agree with me that fecklessness is not a trait that is only something that poorer people exhibit in our country?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I absolutely agree with his point that Fecklessness is not limited to any one socio economic group, and it's up are in fact, actually, it's really interesting to see people who are born into great wealth consider that their position is only their due to their very hard work, and yet people born into poverty. It's their fault that they're there. It's really quite shocking. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, over a million children live in households unable to afford even the most basic necessities of life, and there are parents choosing between heating and eating, children doing their homework on the floor in housing, too crowded to give space to study a whole family in one room because that's all they can afford to heat kids wheezing due to damp.

And what compounds this heartbreak is that childhood poverty festers and it grows. It infects people's prospects in education, in health, in employment, across the whole of their life. Now, rather than tackling this, we see discussions around welfare inevitably devolve into conversations about merit. Who deserves help and who doesn't, at first of all say, these are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

children. We're talking about children who. Are who are entirely reliant on adults for their existence and their support, who are entirely reliant on governments like us to reliant on governments like us to make sure that they are looked after, if by no fault of their own. Their parents do not have enough Their parents do not have enough money to to have the necessities of life. Now this if this Victorian life. Now this if this Victorian attitude to the deserving and undeserving poor had won the day previously, we wouldn't have had any of the public services that we now take for granted.

We wouldn't have had free education. Because why shouldn't parents just pay for the education themselves? We wouldn't have had the NHS because why shouldn't people just pay for the doctors themselves? And actually, as we know, the Reform Benches would be very happy to get rid of the NHS and bring in private insurance systems. Now, none of us earned those things ourselves through our own merits. Actually, we inherited them from people who recognized that actually, everyone deserves a good chance at life.

Everyone deserves the chance to thrive, to succeed, to start their own business, to get an education, whatever it is that they want to do that makes their life a good life. Now that's the obligation that we now have to our children. And the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and others have already shown that scrapping the two child benefit limit could drive the single largest falling child poverty seen in a single parliament. And actually, my local Citizens Advice did a brilliant report and they say that the that this scrapping of the two child limit is the fastest and most cost effective intervention there is to tackle child poverty.

I'll happily give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Thank you, hon. Member for giving way. And she's making a compassionate speech on making a compassionate speech on this. If the Joseph Rowntree say it's the biggest change that can be done in the Parliament, that's a full parliament term, why is the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

full parliament term, why is the government doing it now when they refuse to do it 18 months ago? Right. You comment. Thank you. And I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. And I think it's actually a reasonable question. And actually a reasonable question. And the answer was we had to make sure that we as a country could afford it. And also we had to take a strategic approach to tackling child poverty. Now, what wasn't what we weren't going to do is come into the absolute state of the economy that we came into and then make very quick decisions of such a scale.

What we did was do it properly and carefully, and part of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a strategy. It's not.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's not. It's not OK. I'm interested by the Opposition Benches interpretation of reality. I will interpretation of reality. I will just say that and let's not forget actually moving on to something else that seems to have been missed else that seems to have been missed in in this discussion is that the families hit hardest by the two families hit hardest by the two child limit are those who are spending the largest share of their income on absolute essentials. Lifting these families out of poverty not only reduces hardship, it actually boosts the local economy in the same way that raising the minimum wage does.

Now in Morecambe and Lunesdale, I have got thousands of fantastic small local businesses who rely who rely on local people having enough money in their pocket to go out and spend, whether that's the corner shop, the local supermarket, whether that's the clothes shop on the front where I get my kids school uniforms from. They rely on people spending. And we know that people who are hard up spend every single penny that they have. Yeah, yeah. Now, I've spoken in this chamber before about the cost saving of prevention, and this is just simply no different.

Investing in our children now pays dividends later, with improved educational outcomes and higher adult earnings. Now, even if in the face of all contradictory evidence, we accept the myth. So buy the right that all the parents affected by the cap are somehow scroungers and feckless. I still don't believe that their children should have poverty, using children as pawns to influence parental behaviour or illustrate moral lessons not only doesn't work, it's profoundly unjust. And it didn't 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, hours worked in affected households and the stated effect on birth rate is so tiny that it's doubtful the effect is bigger than the margin of error in the data. The cap hasn't led to greater employment rates or higher number of hours worked. What the cap has done is made childcare and travel costs an even higher barrier for those households who are trying desperately to work more.

And as well, the two child benefit cap also assumed that all pregnancies are planned and in full knowledge of the government's social security policy. Now, I don't know about you, but most people aren't over the details of Social Security policy. We know this is simply not true. We know that contraceptives fail. Stuff happens. I remember when Tony Blair had an oopsy baby in the 90s, and I remember and I remember my dad saying, when is the Prime Minister can't always get it right.

How do we expect every single person in the country to. With apologies to the Blairs for referring to that. But we also know and what became really clear from the previous conservative policy was that actually a startling number of children are conceived through rape, and what this policy meant was that traumatised women were having to disclose their rape to faceless bureaucrats, just to try and get enough money to raise that child that had been that, that that had come through rape.

That is surely compounding the trauma of survivors of sexual assault. And finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, our country's future depends on investing in the potential of our children, all of our children, wherever they were born and however they were conceived. And today, what we're saying, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that there are no second class children in Britain and that under a Labour government, child poverty is not an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

inevitability. It's a choice and we choose to end it. Hey.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Neil. Duncan. Jordan. Hey, doctor. Jeevan. Sunder. Oh, thank you, Madam Deputy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh, thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a pleasure to be able to speak for the next hour. Whilst to speak for the next hour. Whilst there is no time limit. Buckling, I want to start today's speech by want to start today's speech by first addressing what the Conservatives said, why we need state support to help end child
17:54
Jeevun Sandher Portrait Dr Jeevun Sandher MP (Loughborough, Labour)
-
-
poverty in the technological era that we're in today. But I want to make clear as well why we're here to end the two child limit and the to end the two child limit and the economic sense. Yes, it is a pounds and pence issue. We save more money and pence issue. We save more money by feeding kids today, but also in far more important, morally. No child should be going hungry in child should be going hungry in this country here. But before I get to that, I'd like to share with the to that, I'd like to share with the house where I spent two years of my life.

Between 2016 and 2018, I was an economist, the economist, working in the Somaliland Ministry of Finance, one of the poorest nations on earth. And I was there during what was then their worst drought in living memory and one of the poorest nations on earth. When a drought came, that meant failing harvest. It meant dying livestock. And yes, it meant rising hunger. And I can say that you never really forget what that hunger looks like, what it feels like for a whole nation to go through.

And I could understand what was happening, even if it was incredibly difficult. But what I was and am shocked and appalled by was when returning to this country and seeing children going hungry in this nation, the fifth nation, the fifth richest nation on earth, children went hungry after the introduction of the two child limit for poverty up. But for the largest families affected by the two child limit, child hunger up. Food bank parcels are known in my childhood, 1,000,000 in 2017 and then 3 million by the time the Conservatives left office.

And most shamefully of all, child malnutrition doubled over the past decade. That is the shameful legacy of the two child limit and what it meant for child hunger in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

country. I will give way. Member for giving way. I wonder if he is aware of the fact that the Trussell Trust was actually founded in this country in 2000 under the Labour government, and that it was Labour government, and that it was not recommended by the Department of Work and Pensions to be offered as a solution to families in need as a solution to families in need at the time. So it's it's one thing to be talking about food banks, but it is important to make sure that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we acknowledge when they were first set up in this country. The guidance. Changed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And did the guidance change between 2017 or 2016 and 2024? between 2017 or 2016 and 2024? Explain to me from the frontbench why the number of food bank parcels tripled from when the two child

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tripled from when the two child limit was introduced to 2024? I'll give way. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I think without having the statistics in front of me right this second, I think no, it's let me finish. We had the global me finish. We had the global pandemic where there was a huge amount of need for food banks. In fact, it was the conservative government that invested hundreds of thousands of pounds in food banks to ensure that nobody went without. In fact, in the council that I was a Cabinet member for at the time, we utilised that funding that came from the conservative government directly to ensure that poverty didn't increase over the Covid pandemic.

So I think if there were numbers that went up, we have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fact. That the rise happened before Covid. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. The rise happened after two child limit was reduced. I will agree with the hon. Lady on one agree with the hon. Lady on one point. She is not across the statistics. I will say this as well. statistics. I will say this as well. Benches opposite have advanced an argument, which I think is a fair argument and one to take head on. argument and one to take head on. Members opposite have said, well, why is it you don't just create lots of jobs and that's the way to get out of poverty.

The way to get out of poverty is through work. Right? And I think it's a fair argument to make, by the way. But I want to take that one 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, good jobs that were there for people. As they left school, they left school, they went to local factory, they earned a decent wage, they earn a decent wage. They could buy a house to support a family.

And then in the 1980s, in this country, indeed across high income nations, we saw deindustrialization, automation, the replacement of those mechanical jobs by machines. And what we've been left with not just in this country, but across high income nations across the world, are those who can use computers effectively, high pay graduate workers, and lots of low paid jobs everywhere else. That's not just a problem that we confront. It is worse because of decisions made in the 1980s. But we're seeing that across high income nations, and as a result of that, you need state support to ensure that those on low pay can afford a decent life.

And this, by the way, in a moment. And this, by the way, is not the first time in history we have confronted this in the early bit in the Industrial Revolution between 1750 and 1850, we saw machines replace human beings. And so what did we see? The economy grew by 60% per person, but people had less to eat. Men were shorter in 1850 than they were in 1750, because the technological era had changed. My right hon. Friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would like to intervene. I'm not right honourable, but I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm not right honourable, but I welcome the promotion. And I do wonder, though, because because I've listened to this debate from the chamber this afternoon, Madam Speaker, and heard many of the Conservative Party benches talk about how the route out of poverty about how the route out of poverty is through work. And I absolutely, fundamentally agree. But I also find it completely incongruous to find it completely incongruous to their speeches that whenever they've had the opportunity to vote for our Make Work Pay Act to increase stability in work, create well-paid jobs, they voted against it.

And only last week, the shadow Secretary of State was making an argument for cutting the minimum wage for young people. So. So how is it with my hon. Friend? Think that you can on one hand argue for work as a way out of poverty, but on the other hand, restrict the opportunities for work, push down

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pay and reduce the opportunities people. Yeah. I agree with the hon. Member. And I would say as well, the And I would say as well, the benches opposite have often spoken about their employment record in office, how many jobs were created. But whilst our jobs are created, But whilst our jobs are created, child poverty rose and child hunger rose. Something is not right in their model of the world. There's something to review there. There is something to review there. There is no law of economics that says just because you work hard and you're a decent person, you will earn a wage decent person, you will earn a wage that can support a family.

And that is not the technological era we live in today. That is why today we're ending the two child limit. It's why I'm so proud that we're doing so now in economic sense, in the pounds and Pence as members on this side of the House realize and have stated as well, when we ensure that children today have enough to eat, they learn more today and they earn more tomorrow. The cost of child poverty every single year, around £40 billion. The cost of ending the two child limit about £3.5 billion.

In simple matters of pounds and pence. It does make sense to invest today so children can eat and learn more today. But this isn't just a pounds and pence issue. I'm an economist. I've been talking about it, I get it, yes. But it's about so much more than that. This is about the moral argument. No child in this country should be going hungry. No ifs, no buts, no exceptions. Yeah, that is why I'm so proud of this bill. It's why I'm so proud to vote to end the two child limit.

That's why I'm so proud today. To be sat on these Speaker.
18:01
John Slinger Portrait John Slinger MP (Rugby, Labour)
-
-
John Singer. >> John Singer. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the child poverty crisis that we inherited from the previous 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 on hon. Members are today opposing a measure that lifts children out of poverty. They have not changed under successive conservative governments. And yes, the Liberal Democrats, who can't get off scot free on this, given the coalition absolutely carried out policies that led to hundreds of thousands of more children being pushed into poverty, 900,000 to be precise, leaving 4.5 million children living in poverty across our country a shameful number as large as the population of a country like Croatia or Ireland.

And by the end of their time in office, the Conservatives time in office. Almost a third of children in the UK were living in poverty. And that tells you exactly who they prioritized and who they did not prioritise, Madam Deputy Speaker, and even now they would undo that progress. They would. Yeah, of course I'll give one. Would the I thank the hon. Member for giving way. We'll be able to support what statistic that backs up. A third of the children in the UK were living in poverty.

Please the numbers. I thank the hon. Member for his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

intervention. The numbers of children. Published annually. By DWP.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By DWP. As the numbers of exactly the number, the numbers of children in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

number, the numbers of children in poverty rose substantially. At that point. Of course. Thank you very much, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think I'm sure my hon. Member would agree that the statistics are published annually statistics are published annually in the households below average income statistics by the Department for Work and Pensions, which is the source of statistics so cleverly deployed in the course of his argument.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend, and that is indeed the statistic that I was reaching for in my notes. And I reaching for in my notes. And I thank him even now, opposition members, hon. Members, would undo that progress. They would reintroduce the limit, they would make things worse. And as for make things worse. And as for reform UK, what? What exactly indeed, where are they? We have indeed, 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 was speaking

**** Possible New Speaker ****

policy. Really is quite something, I'm sure you'll agree. In fact, if you sure you'll agree. In fact, if you lost your child benefit because of the reform policy, it would take the reform policy, it would take £345 a week in order to to actually make a saving. So it doesn't really help anyone, but it does hurt those help anyone, but it does hurt those in the most. Poverty. Poverty. So will my friend recommend that people don't listen to the easy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people don't listen to the easy answers of reform and actually work to make people's lives better? I thank my hon. Friend and 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's absolutely right. I, of course, would not recommend people to take too seriously policies that, as I said, are populist policy, hokey cokey to scrap or to reinstate. It's hard to tell. And what we've 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they have have spoken about in recent days. Of course. Thank you very much. It's not just about that. I like a pint as just about that. I like a pint as well as it happens, Madam Deputy Speaker, sometimes more than one. But I think it's fair to say that parents across this country will not appreciate £0.05 off each pint not appreciate £0.05 off each pint they pay, knowing that it's going to make more children hungry. I'm pretty shocked by the trade off there, and I agree with supporting there, and I agree with supporting our pubs and I will do it every single weekend.

Madam Deputy Speaker, as part of our patriotic duty. But it's not fair. But there's another side of this, well, more damaging side that just says you just deport and attack. Enough people will make you richer, and it's absolutely something we should reject on this side of the House as something that sometimes the other

**** Possible New Speaker ****

side of the House they also reject as well. John. Thank my hon. Friend and I, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank my hon. Friend and I, I couldn't have put it better, particularly the point he made about enjoying a pint to enjoy a pint. But I do think that linking in some way, something as serious in some way, something as serious as tackling child poverty with the price of a pint in our pubs, is price of a pint in our pubs, is trivialising something incredibly serious topic. The hon. Gentleman is speaking from a sedentary

**** Possible New Speaker ****

position if you'd like to intervene. I do see. The irony of him talking.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The irony of him talking. About linking it to alcohol, which is a serious problem. Gambling is a serious problem as well, and his party have directly well, and his party have directly linked this to gambling, even though it's not a hypothecated tax. Could he explain the dichotomy between the two? I think.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

between the two? I think. It's perfectly acceptable and reasonable for for for our government that governments such as ours to take measures in budgets to provide the resources necessary to enact a policy, as this bill seeks to do in a moment, to enact a policy, as this bill seeks to do, that will lift so many children out of poverty. And I think he makes a fairly fatuous point, if I may say.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So. Share my confusion at the point just made. Doesn't that really illustrate that all of this is illustrate that all of this is about choices and and the choice that's being made on this side of that's being made on this side of the House is to, yes, increase tax on gambling, increase tax on mansions in order to decrease child poverty. The choice that reform would make is increase child

**** Possible New Speaker ****

poverty for £0.05 off a pint. Hey. Of course, the the hon. Gentleman that intervened on me is opposing. I am assuming the policy before us today. So you actually don't want to take the measure that we are going to take? Sorry. The hon. Gentleman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order the use of mentioned that again.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

again. I apologize, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is opposing the policy that will will reduce child poverty by an enormous reduce child poverty by an enormous number. So, look, the Conservative Party, conservative, hon. Members haven't really even tried to defend their record. Perhaps it's because it's 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 us, left this country with many problems, including the numbers of children not in education, employment or training.

Madam Deputy Speaker, an inheritance that this government is now tackling, not least with the excellent work of Alan Milburn in his investigation into into work and child poverty that was commissioned by my right hon. Friend, the Work and Pensions Secretary. Children condemned to a lifetime of economic activity which is bad for them. It's bad for their wealth. As the Keep Working Britain report found, someone leaving the workforce in their 20s would lose out up to £1 million in lost earnings.

It's bad for their health, Madam Deputy Speaker, 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's bad for the country. All that untapped potential and all that unnecessary benefit spend. Now, the arguments we heard, Madam Deputy Speaker, I won't give way on that point. The gentleman. No, I won't give him that point. The arguments we heard about parental responsibility, Madam Deputy Speaker, the claim that people have children to get benefits.

Those arguments were short sighted, wrong, and frankly insulting. The shadow Secretary of State herself could not cite any evidence for her claims. I will give way to my own.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him, I thank him for giving way. He's making a very powerful speech. He says there is no evidence for that. It's because there is no evidence. But yet opposition opponents to this move tonight continue to make it. Does tonight continue to make it. Does he agree with me that it's damaging, it's dangerous, and it's insulting to children and to families who are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to children and to families who are working hard up and down the land to do the best they can. I agree with my hon. Friend. Of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree with my hon. Friend. Of course it is insulting, and and it was surprising that the shadow Secretary of State couldn't cite any evidence at all. Madam Deputy Speaker, regardless of any two child limit, parents will of course still have children and must, 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 their kids out of poverty is this measure before the House this evening.

Now, some hon. Members, Madam Deputy Speaker, right across this House and right across our country, implied that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor does not care about child poverty. They imply, and they claimed that she does not care about economic inactivity, that she does not care about our moral duty. And that accusation was not just wrong. It was deeply disrespectful, particularly given her long record of campaigning on these issues. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this, of course, I'll give you. Gentlemen, I wasn't here earlier in the debate, so please forgive me. in the debate, so please forgive me. Madam Deputy Speaker, the hon. Gentleman talked about members being able to back up their being able to back up their assertions. Who was it in the debate who suggested that the Chancellor didn't care? I've never heard anyone this side of the House say she didn't care, but she's not capable of dealing with. It's a different matter entirely. But who different matter entirely.

But who was it who said that she didn't care? Because I'm sure we all want to want to want to take it up with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

them and tell them to change their line. Thank you madam. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I, I always enjoy his intervention. I, I always enjoy his interventions. I particularly enjoy this one because as I, as I and I very much respect and like the very much respect and like the right hon. Gentleman. But in this case it was particularly amusing given that I wasn't actually given that I wasn't actually quoting it. I didn't say, and I quote, I'm allowed to use words without having to justify every single word.

You know, full. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well. Madam Deputy Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman knows full well that I was referring to the general view of honourable and right hon. Members in this House. He knows it full well. He knows it full well. This measure, I mean, I think I've dealt with that. It's absolutely this, Madam Deputy Speaker, it was a good effort, very good effort. But I'm going to move on. Madam Deputy Speaker, this measure made possible by the policies of my right hon.

Friend the Chancellor, let's not forget that we'll lift 450,000 children out of poverty. And I'm proud to say that that includes 2200 2020 directly in rugby. But let me be clear, Madam Deputy Speaker, lifting the two child limit is not the whole answer. It's part of the government's wider mission. So to the people outside of this chamber, don't 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 has achieved the following day one rights for paternity and 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 rollout minimum and living wage up record investment in schools, apprenticeships reformed full funding for apprenticeships for under 25 in our SMEs. Madam Deputy Speaker, The Youth guarantee mentioned by the Chancellor in the recent Budget, ensuring routes into work, training and education, young futures hubs and youth hubs.

And may I please ask the frontbench if I can have one of those in rugby? Because helping children is more than lifting the two child cap, this government does not and should not define its moral purpose solely by the pounds it gives to those in need. Although we should of course give money to those in need. But unlike the party opposite, we would do these things I've listed and and of course, spend money on lifting the two child limit. We're glad to do this because it's not just about poverty in financial terms, Madam Deputy Speaker.

It's about the poverty of aspiration for our children that all too often results from the policies of the parties of the right. It's about the poverty of ambition, about what a government should and can do to unleash the potential of all of our children. We reject this poverty to opportunity and prosperity and dignity, for all cannot come. Madam Deputy Speaker, whether through the animal spirits of the economy or from the progressive policies of a government such as ours, unless child poverty is ended once and for all.

Madam Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, we are the Labour Party. We want to give young people the skills, opportunities and create the ecosystem that unleashes their potential. And that starts by preventing their early years being blighted unnecessarily by poverty. We also stand for compassion and for support for those who really need it. And that's what we will do. Ending the two child limit and wider measures that I have outlined, Madam Deputy Speaker, are vital to ensure that our young people become the architects of their future, not merely tenants living in a world shaped by the older generations and by vested interests, and indeed by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

those who are opposed to this bill. Andrew Pate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And can I first put on record my thanks to my deep heat patch for my
18:16
Andrew Pakes Portrait Andrew Pakes MP (Peterborough, Labour )
-
-
three hours of bobbing with a bad back have been a very special introduction to this debate. >> Very.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very. Can I say also, this is a welcome opportunity to speak in this debate and to highlight an issue that goes to the driving mission of why so many of us are in this house. Like many of us, I had the opportunity during December to attend services at some of my wonderful churches across Peterborough. This wasn't just the Christmas spirit, but there is nothing more majestic than the raising of voices to the newborn king. With a packed congregation at a 900 year old cathedral, every service I met congregations dedicated to helping others in my city.

At the heart of those conversations was child poverty, the impact of child poverty on the children themselves, but also its corrosive impact on parents and all of us in society. Nothing goes to the heart of Labour's values than to address the corrosion of poverty on young lives, and I am deeply proud to be speaking this Second Reading debate on what is one of the most important pieces of legislation that this government is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bringing forward. Yeah. So I'd like to also use my opportunity to thank Peterborough Foodbank volunteers and our Care Zone Furniture volunteers, who I've met consistently since being met consistently since being elected for the incredible work they've done during this time to support and help families and support and help families and children in need. I'd also like to thank the volunteers at Kingsgate Community Church who do so much to help families in need with food, with debt advice and helping them navigate the still too clunky networks of DWP and the state.

And that help is needed. We all know the national statistics. My honourable the hon. Member opposite quoted the Trussell Trust. Well, 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 that single year. In the last year, the government opposite over 3 million food

**** Possible New Speaker ****

parcels were handed out. I would adore to give way. Thank you. I've never told me they would adore to hear me speak in this adore to hear me speak in this place. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I completely appreciate the point he is making. However, I have also been doing some research have also been doing some research whilst this speech has been going on, and it's worth noting that foodbank numbers increase because they only count Trussell Trust food banks. And so the more food banks that join the Trussell Trust network, the more those numbers go network, the more those numbers go up.

And in the case of my city, whereas I may already have alluded to, I held the cost of living portfolio during the pandemic only to yawn. I we actually didn't need the additional food bank that was set up, and they ended up having to send food away. Now, if that food bank had joined the Trussell Trust, it would have added to those numbers and actually distorted the figures. So whilst I'm not saying there may not have been an increase, I do believe it's worth recognising

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that particular point. I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think that's a very unusual

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think that's a very unusual way to defend food bank use, because you're counting poverty better in terms of the Trussell better in terms of the Trussell Trust are very clear. When Labour was last in government, food banks existed as an emergency provision. existed as an emergency provision. When people when people fell through the cracks of the welfare through the cracks of the welfare system. But it is the industrialization of food banks and the industrial justification that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is something that's shocking. From this, the party opposite. My friend, for giving way, and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My friend, for giving way, and I commend him on the speech that he is giving. But we have to all admit, when the when the party opposite when the when the party opposite came into government with the Liberal Democrats in 2010 and they unleashed their Social Security cuts on our communities, that is what has devastated our communities. what has devastated our communities. Food bank use did go up, child poverty did go up. Disabled people's rights also went down because of the policies of this government.

So does my friend agree with me that it's only this Labour government that is committed to eradicating child poverty and ensuring that many children,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

including thousands in my Battersea constituency, will be lifted out of poverty as a result of lifting the two child benefit cap. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. I thank my hon. Friend for intervention and wholeheartedly agree there is something wrong agree there is something wrong about society where the parties opposite, including my Liberal Democrat colleagues, have not mentioned the impact and long mentioned the impact and long lasting impact of austerity on our public services, on our welfare provision and the support we have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

provision and the support we have given to families. I give way to my hon. Friend over there. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for welcoming me to Peterborough and the museum, where we went to a Doctor Who exhibit, and we discovered that Davros was considering defecting to reform. I thank him for his excellent speech. I speak to the CEO of the food bank in Harlow very recently, and he spoke of the big difference that this policy will make.

Would he agree with me that actually the people that work for these food banks actually want to see them not being needed any longer? And actually, that's something that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this government should try to do? Absolutely. I also agree with my hon. Friend, I'd like to put on record my tribute to all of those food bank volunteers, not just for holding me to account and make sure I'm here to account and make sure I'm here today to speak and support policies like this, but also making the case that he so powerfully makes they want to see themselves out of existence. Whenever I've met Christians against Poverty, my churches, my mosques, my temples, churches, my mosques, my temples, so many of those faith communities that are important to the social infrastructure of holding poverty at bay for so many of these families, all of them say to me, they wish they didn't have to do this and could spend more time doing others.

It is our job, starting today, with this bill, to put that into practice for them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I've gone. To the hon. Gentleman to be most generous. I must say I agree with generous. I must say I agree with the hon. Member for Harlow. Does he also agree with him that it would be a sign of success of this government if we see many fewer food parcels put out through food banks by the end of this Parliament

**** Possible New Speaker ****

banks by the end of this Parliament than we do today? Certainly. And I think many of my food bank foodbanks would say my food bank foodbanks would say that this one single policy that we are voting on today. So I hope he will join with us. Join me in the lobby tonight to eradicate that will actually put money into the pockets of families who won't just lift their children out of poverty. But as my hon. Friend, who's no longer in her place said, put money into the local economy.

Because, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you ever want 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. Two minutes walk from my house in the ward of North ward in Peterborough. Six out of ten, six out of every ten children are growing up in poverty. That is a stain on our society and something that I am dedicated to eradicate. I am proud of the work that my council does, but this policy will help its council.

I am proud of the focus of Peterborough City Council, pushed on by groups like Citizens Peterborough, that has ended the practice of children sleeping in B&B and hotel room accommodation. I was equally proud to welcome the Prime Minister to the Welland Academy in the autumn to make the national announcement of the roll out of free school meals for all children on Universal Credit. Incredible 16,000 extra children will benefit this September from free school meals because of an action and a choice taken by this government to be delivered in the coming months.

But we all know we need to do more. This bill is an investment in our country's future. It will take 450,000 children out of poverty. This bill alone, its action will take nearly 10,000 children lifted out of poverty in Peterborough by this single act that we are voting on today, and as many other hon. Friends and great comrades in this place have said, almost half of families on Universal Credit are in work. Child poverty makes it harder for children to get on in life, and it hurts our economy.

The party opposite would do well to remember and I am very pleased some of them have now returned to the debate. I thought for a while that the the lights were on, but nobody was home. It turns out that's just their policy rather than them as individuals. When it comes to our approach to child poverty, each party opposite would do well. To remember these figures are not merely statistics. They tell a story of lost opportunity, lost moments of childhood, lost potential for those children impacted, but also for our local economy, local shops and our local

**** Possible New Speaker ****

things. I'll happily give way. I think. Madam Deputy Speaker, the point my hon. Friend just made about the lost moments on the child about the lost moments on the child is one that often gets missed because it's all well and good talking about the impact that this has on parents and economy. But as has on parents and economy. But as a child that grew up in poverty, I remember walking to school with a hole in my shoe and not being able to ask my grandparents because they couldn't afford it.

I remember not feigning not wanting to go on school trips because I knew they couldn't afford it. I remember making sure that the holes in my jumper were sort of hidden when I got home, so because I knew they couldn't afford to replace it. Those memories stick with people throughout their life, and it has an effect on people when they grow up as well. So this isn't this isn't just about the economics of of the here and now. This is about the real life impact on young people today and the impact it will have on the future.

So I thank them

**** Possible New Speaker ****

heard. Thank you. I entirely endorse the comments made by my friend. It sounds like made by my friend. It sounds like we may have had similar childhoods in different parts of the country, because neither do the figures and statistics that have been cited in statistics that have been cited in this debate 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, insecure work in the country. At the last count, the the government's definition, nearly 1 in 3 30% of people in work are in chronically insecure work, largely zero hours shift work, something that the party opposite voted to keep going in our economy, whereas we voted to take action and eradicate zero hours contracts.

We have one of the highest levels of adults with no formal qualifications, and despite our industrial wonderful heritage as a city, nothing says more about the wasted opportunities of the last 14 years than the 70% drop in level two and level three apprenticeships in Peterborough and across the country. And I want to pay tribute because, despite painting a picture of difficulties that many families face in the city, I want to pay tribute to the incredible ingenuity, determination and grit that parents, often in difficult times, pay to do the best to look after their children, to raise ambition, to give people jobs and opportunities despite the adversity they face.

They are the people we were sent here to serve, and they are the people who will be helped by the vote that people on this side and some other colleagues in this House will be voted on. And I have to say, to be honest, Madam Deputy Speaker, there is some brass neck talking about poverty from the party opposite in terms of what they do. So but also there is some brass neck from the from our colleagues and friends in the Reform Party. I used to think at one point they were plastic Tories.

Now, after the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

closure of the transfer window, I just think they're Tories. Yeah. In terms what they do. But I have to say representing a have to say representing a wonderful and a brilliant and a great diverse city, to see the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

great diverse city, to see the naked racism in some of their amendments about British born parents and denying hard. Working.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Working. Hard working families doing the best based on the birth of their parents is an affront to democracy,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

parents is an affront to democracy, an affront to British values. I will happily give way. The hon. Gentleman, for giving way. He's very generous with his time. Does he not agree with us first?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Here, here. I think my community is full of wonderful British people, people who stand up for British values, who stand up for British values, people who go out every single day and work to do the best for their children, the best for their children, the best for their community. And if you want to talk about if you want to have a fight based on British values, bring it based on British values, bring it on. Because every day the people on this side of the House will defend British.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

British. Could I respectfully remind the hon. Gentleman he doesn't use the word you because he was suggesting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that he might like to have a fight with me, and that wouldn't end well. Andrew Pakes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Andrew Pakes. I do apologise, madam. You've heard me say. I'm used to saying I'm wearing a deep patch. My bad. I'm wearing a deep patch. My bad. Back today. So there would be no fight for me today in this. And I will apologise to the House for the will 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 every day against the plastic patriots and others who seek to attack them.

Because we have. I'm going to try and make some, make some progress. We've inherited an economic and moral failure by the previous government, and this bill will start to put right by injecting money into the pockets of families and support for children. But 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. It is not just for youth employment, it's for child poverty as well.

And when we put together the work of this government in addressing the needs of children in poverty, the expansion of family hubs, the support of breakfast clubs, the investment in schools, the investment in early years alongside the investment in further education and the investment in apprenticeships. We are beginning to turn this tide around because what matters to the people of my constituency is the chance to get on in life, a chance to support their children, a chance to have pride in their community and pride in their families.

And today, with this single bill and the vote that I hope everyone in this House will do, we begin to restore pride in our community by giving dignity back to parents and difficult situations.
18:30
Antonia Bance Portrait Antonia Bance MP (Tipton and Wednesbury, Labour)
-
-
Antonia. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker and I stand here as a proud representative of the Black Country and of the trade union movement. Black country people work hard. We Black country people work hard. We are proud. We are resilient. But 50 years of deindustrialisation and 14 years of Tory austerity means 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 that there is enough money to the end of the month.

I resent the implications that areas like mine, where Universal Credit payments are high, are somehow benefits streets. It was the party opposite. I will get to you. It is. It was the party opposite. I will get to the hon. Member. It was the party opposite who changed the benefits system to give us one benefit for all circumstances, in and out of work, and to attempt to reinvent a deserving and undeserving poor dichotomy at this time, when they made that change, which was the correct change to one unified system, is a little bit galling.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

way. And she. Has ever.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Has ever. Showing a powerful oratorical style, but sometimes it's so easy when doing that to get one's facts when doing that to get one's facts wrong. Unemployment, I'm sure she will recognise, was at a near record low when the Conservatives record low when the Conservatives left office, and has risen by more than 20% in the less than two years that Labour have run the country. that Labour have run the country. And I know the hon. Lady is careful with the facts, and she'd want to retract the point about unemployment under the Conservatives, whatever other ills she wants to attribute to us.

I don't think she can genuinely attribute that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank the hon. Member for his intervention. He will note that I was making a point about the comparative rates in different areas of the country, speaking about my area and the impacts of deindustrialisation over the last 50 years. Rather than making a point about national rates on this side of the House, we deal with the side of the House, 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 a long before, I have argued for this change, that no child is responsible for the actions of their parents, that the happy event of a little one being born shouldn't tip a family into poverty, and that whether a six year old eats tonight shouldn't depend on how many sisters or brothers they have.

This day to day has come because we have a Labour government and for that reason alone, and I invite everyone who thinks they had something to do with this day, who sits on the bench other than these ones, to retract their comments and remember who those children have to thank for ending the two child limit helps 5540 children in Tipton, Wednesbury and Coseley. Whenever I go to a school visit, I say to that assembly to those children in my area where child poverty is 50%, but not for long, I say for those to those children, if you have more than two sisters or brothers, please raise your hand.

And I look and the teachers look at that forest of raised hands of of children in larger families. And we know what that means in April, because we know that in April. That means that those families will open their universal credit journal, will open their banking app, and they will see an amount of money that is adequate to meet their family's needs. Not luxury, not extras, adequate. At last, 1.6 million children nationally, helped by this policy that we will pass tonight.

One kid in every nine of our kids helped. Most of those families helped are in work. 6 in 10 loads of them have a disabled member, 4 in 10. Some of them have kids so young that the parents can't work, and not a single one of them deserves to live in poverty. So to the mums with three or more kids using Universal Credit to top up low wages and high rents, this is for you. 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

kept you and your kids poor. Yeah. Happily.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Happily. She talks about speaking for the public, but consistently on all public, but consistently on all polling, 60% of Brits want to see this policy stay in place. What

**** Possible New Speaker ****

does she say to them? In my constituency and elsewhere, who have raised questions with me who have raised questions with me about this policy, is that in order to will the ends, you have to will the means. Save the children have published this morning some polling that shows that 78% of the country want to see child poverty cut the fastest and the 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 that is born.

And to those parties opposite, I would say this I hear you say, go out and get a job to these families. Most of them are already in work.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Are you telling those five and six year olds. Not you? I have not spoken in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not you? I have not spoken in this debate and. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I say to those on Deputy Speaker. I say to those on the benches opposite who are saying to people who are already in work to go out and get a job, what are they supposed to do? They're supposed to send their five year olds out on a paper round to make the money add up. When it doesn't. the money add up. When it doesn't. Don't talk to me about how families should plan better.

You never met a better planner than a single mum in Princes End. Making the money stretch. Don't cry crocodile tears for kids whose dad died. But when his when his widow needed help, we said nah, shouldn't have had so many kids. Yeah. Don't tell me that a dad who lost his job don't deserve help for his kids because he didn't predict years in advance when planning his family that his factory would close and he'd be dumped out of work. Yeah. Be honest about what supporting the two child limit means if you support it.

You think some kids should be hungry tonight? Yeah, well, we don't. Absolutely. And I have no words for the idea of the charlatans of the Reform Party that they will reimpose. The two child limit plunged thousands of children into poverty, take hundreds of pounds from families each month in order to make it cheaper to have a pint. And the hon. Lady representing the Reform Party was to frit to give way to me. So I ask her now. Her policy means that Sikh children in my constituency who have a mum or dad born in the Punjab, children with a mum or dad living in my constituency, their mum or dad was born in Bangladesh or in Poland or in Pakistan.

British people, our neighbours, our friends, people who work and play by the rules, British citizens, but second class citizens for reform. I was glad to see the Member for North West Hampshire called them out. I would like to see more calling out of the frankly disgusting point of view, the differentiation between different types of British citizen based on nationality, based on the colour of your skin that we see in our national political dialogue going on from the Reform Party. I hope people across the country, in Scotland, in Wales, in my borough of Sandwell, will reject that division when the time comes in May, and in Gorton and Denton as well.

Now I say this to my constituents, working hard to make ends meet. I won't apologize for prioritizing our kids. Every child, every child deserves a fair start in life. As one of our greatest prime Ministers said. Launching his own child poverty mission. Poverty should not be a birthright. Being poor should not be a life sentence. We want for every child the freedom to learn to play sport, to sing, to dance, to get on in life free from want and fear, to be kids.

This is what a Labour government does. Half a million children out of poverty. I'll be voting for it tonight and I hope you will too. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Shadow Minister Rebecca Smith. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Now I'm going to start by just Now I'm going to start by just repeating something that the Secretary of State said at the beginning of his remarks, which that he made much of the need to that he made much of the need to set against anger and division. So in my remarks, I'm going to appeal to everyone's better nature to do that, because ultimately, this that, because ultimately, this removal of the two child limit was not in the Labour Party's manifesto.

And so until recently, it wasn't
18:40
Rebecca Smith Portrait Rebecca Smith MP (South West Devon, Conservative)
-
-
And so until recently, it wasn't something that the party opposite was committed to. In fact, it was ruled out by the Chancellor. So I have to say it has been a bit rich to sit through this entire debate and be lectured today, when in 2024, the limit was clearly good enough for the party opposite the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. I think it's also worth pointing out that we keep hearing 4.5 million and half a million. Again, this two child limit reduction seems to be reducing the 4.5 million that the government say is in poverty by just half a million.

So it'll be interesting to hear the Minister make some comments on that as we progress this afternoon. Now, again, Madam Deputy Speaker, this debate has been caricatured by 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. Now, many of us on these benches grew up on benefits. I am one of those people that grew up on benefits and was in fact worse off when Labour came into power in 1997 when the child benefit was scrapped and replaced by working tax credits.

Because my mum supported my dad's business and didn't go to work in her own right while she raised her four children. So when I get asked why I'm a conservative, that's why I say that they are. And I have checked that out this afternoon to make sure that I'm factually accurate. Now we're speaking up for those who work hard, have high bills, housing and food costs too, but are paying tax because they work and don't qualify for Universal Credit. Now, just one final point I want to make before I get to my speech.

There's been lots of things about free school meals this afternoon, but I would like to point out to hon. Members opposite that when I recently questioned the Department for education as to whether or not they have any record of the number of councils that are making the most of the auto enrolment for free school meals, I got told that the government doesn't have the figure, so that might be something that they wish to go away and look at, because I absolutely appreciate that auto enrolment helps the most vulnerable.

But if you're not taking account of the levers that are in your hands to improve that, then I would just say, I think that's something that needs some work. Now. Madam Deputy Speaker, having done my bit of ad libbing, I'm going to 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. And I'm going to make some progress. Fairness for families who live within their means.

Men and women who are working long hours in shops, schools, offices, construction sites and care homes right across the country. Now why, Madam Deputy Speaker, should families in receipt of Universal Credit have to avoid the difficult decisions about how many children they can afford, unlike those who aren't? Now, 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 of my colleagues in my previous council career told me, the left has no monopoly on compassion, Rebecca.

And indeed, 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 of 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. Now I'm going to continue with 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 bother going to work or work more when you could get more in benefits? A strong economy must improve. Provide incentive structures which help people to do the right thing, and we tamper with these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fundamental structures at our peril. I will give way. I thank the Shadow Minister for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Shadow Minister for giving way and on the point of doing the right thing, the data suggests that in her own constituency, there are 1160 constituency, there are 1160 children who live in a household that are not currently getting Universal Credit support for the additional children. Some of those additional children. Some of those will be listening this evening. Some of them will be teenagers. Some of them will be teenagers. What does she say to them when she says that she could do something this evening, but is choosing not to? What is her justification to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

those children this evening? I also speak for the 60% of the population who don't think we population who don't think we should be scrapping this. No doubt a large proportion of those are also in my constituency now. As as conservatives, we believe in 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 has argued so powerfully Kent has argued so powerfully before, and as I've alluded to, it seems we are not alone.

This principle of fairness is echoed across the country. A recent YouGov poll found that 57% of respondents believe the cap should be retained. The situation is particularly stark for self-employed mothers, who can only access statutory maternity allowance, a flat rate which falls far below what their peers can receive via their employer. Now, I recently met one self-employed mother who told me 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 don't get paid more wages. They just have to absorb the extra costs within their budgets. So this whole point that we need to give more money because you have more children doesn't always make sense. However, this government is determined to give families on Universal Credit a free pass. As a result, they will not have to make these kinds of hard choices. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, 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 scrapping the limit will get partially or fully wiped out by the household benefit cap.

Now, how does the government square that circle when they've been quoting the headline figures of poverty? If Labour truly followed its own logic regarding child poverty, they would also need to scrap the household benefit cap at even greater cost to the taxpayer, something that has been raised numerous times by the left of the chamber on opposition benches today. 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 out of work will shrink significantly. We are, Madam Deputy Speaker, trapping good people in a bad system. Shockingly, 1 in 4 full time workers would be better off on benefits than in work. That is, 6 million workers across the UK whose neighbors on combined benefits are receiving more income than they are. It is no wonder that every day, 5000 people are signing on to long term sickness benefits.

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 £30,000 one £30,100, according to the centre for Social Justice. A family with three children receiving full benefits can get the equivalent of £71,000 pre-tax. How is this fairness at best? Scrapping the cap is a sticking plaster which does not tackle the root causes of poverty. We know that work is the best route out of poverty.

In fact, if this government hits its ambitious target of increasing employment rates by 80%, this 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. The two child limit would have saved the taxpayer £2.4 billion in 2026 to 27, rising to 3.2 billion in 20 3031. No, because I believe your Minister will want to have a fair share as well. His Minister apologies if it had been retained.

Instead, the bill is being passed on to all those families I have spoken about already. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, 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 backbenchers, costing taxpayers billions. It is unaffordable for a welfare system already on its knees and damaging to the very work incentives his party promotes. And indeed, no one voted for it in the general election.

As the Leader of the Opposition has said herself, 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. Look at it through the eyes of hardworking 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.

Now 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.
18:49
Stephen Timms Portrait Rt Hon Sir Stephen Timms MP, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (East Ham, Labour)
-
-
You. >> Thank you. >> Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm like the shadow Minister. I'm going to start by quoting my right hon. start by quoting my right hon. Friend, what he said at the start of the debate that this government has chosen to reject the politics of division and of rage, and instead, Madam Deputy Speaker, this government has chosen to seek to bring the country together and open up a hopeful way forward. And that is the choice which underpins this bill.

It was my great privilege, Madam Deputy Speaker, to take through this House the Child Poverty Act 2010, referred to by my hon. Friend, the Member for Calder Valley. That bill, as he pointed out, had all party support. George Osborne spoke in favour of it. But 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 with a Social Mobility Commission, and child poverty eventually rocketed by 900,000 to 4.5 million. That is what the Tory policies did. Their claim of wanting to tackle child poverty proved to be hollow, and we've discovered the authentic voice of the Tory party, which we've heard again this afternoon. But we shouldn't. Madam Deputy Speaker, forget the contribution of their coalition partners in the 2010 to 2015 government. I warmly welcome the Lib Dem support that we've heard today.

A thoughtful speech by the hon. Member for Torbay on behalf of his party. The members for illion, East Cambridgeshire, Stratford on Avon, Eastleigh, Mid Dunbartonshire but of course their current party leader within the Cabinet when much of the damage was done and did nothing to stop it when it came to the crunch. Madam Deputy Speaker, in the battle against child poverty, the Lib Dems were nowhere to be seen. And poverty does have. We've heard immense harm? I won't just at the moment I don't poverty, the immense harm to children and to their future prospects in the classroom.

Children are 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 from 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 as well.

And we've heard in this debate arguments that what we're doing is piling up costs for the future. Actually, it's the failures of the past that are piled up, those costs that we are now having to address. The cost of child poverty play out throughout the lives of those affected. They play out in our social security system, in the NHS, in other public services as well. The Tories claim by making those cuts they were saving money. What they were doing, in fact, was heaping up massive costs of future failure, which we're all now having to pick up.

And the bill that's in front of us tonight 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's a figure that rises to over half a million children, alongside other measures in our child poverty strategy. There's 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.

A generation with the capacity to thrive. That is the future that we are choosing to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Member. Minister for giving way. The government narrowed the scope of government narrowed the scope of the last benefits bill, and it could widen this bill to take in the wider benefits cap, too. The the wider benefits cap, too. The Chancellor is right there to find the money for it. So could the the money for it. So could the Minister explain why the only options assessed according to the impact assessment were doing impact assessment were doing nothing? And this very narrow option, given the interest in lifting the overall benefit cap in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this chamber today. The change, which I think she's arguing for, would make a arguing for, would make a relatively modest alteration to the figures, and there is a real advantage in the benefit cap in terms of the incentive to work. So we're not proposing to change that. we're not proposing to change that. And we are maintaining we are maintaining very robustly in the changes that we're making that incentive to work. So, yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a change from the choices of the previous government, which left us with a third of primary schools running food banks.

I want to echo the tribute that's been paid in the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside, to the work of the End Child Poverty Coalition. My hon. Friend, the Member for Saint Helens North, rightly and others, referred to the Child Poverty Action Group, others to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, to all those who've campaigned successfully for the change that we are making now in the debate, the opening for the opposition, the shadow Secretary of State said that her party didn't accept the relative poverty definition.

Now, of course, as we were reminded in the debate, her party embraced that definition in 2010. That was part of the change that was made at the time. But actually from 2010 11 to 20 23, 24, even absolute poverty rose. It was higher at the end of that period than it was at the beginning. That is an extraordinary feature of their record. I'm grateful to my hon. Friend, the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth, for her contribution and the work of her committee, working with my hon.

Friend the Member for Darlington and West Norwood and the Education Committee in scrutinising our child poverty strategy. The point she made were absolutely right. My hon. Friend, the Member for Lewisham East, I think, was the first to point out the struggles that teachers are having in supporting children in classes. That survey evidence says that 38% of schools at the moment have staff paying out of their own pockets to provide essentials for their pupils because they can't afford to buy them themselves.

Having full time school roles to tackle hardship, taking away funding that ought to be spent on education. And my hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth made a thoughtful contribution, as he often does, to our debates. But he was wrong. He said that the extra money is going to be for people because they're not working well. As my hon. Friend for West Dunbartonshire, for Corby and East Northamptonshire, a very spirited contribution for Ipswich, for the Isle of Wight, West for Southampton Itchen, the South, Derbyshire for Nottingham East, Bishop Auckland and Peterborough all pointed out the great majority of the beneficiaries of this measure are people in work.

So as a result, as a result, his argument crumbled away. No, I won't, I won't be, I won't be giving way. I won't be giving away. It was very interesting to hear the arguments of the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby. I mean, her party looks more and more like a cut price. Boris Boris Johnson reunion party now with all the old faces turning up on those benches. And now they're even starting to sing some of the old songs that the leader of their party has been talking for years about opposing the two child limit.

The hon. Member for Fareham and Waterlooville wrote an article just a few weeks ago saying she opposed it, and today they're voting with the Tories in favour of the two child cap and those old policies which are called the same damage if they were to be brought in again in the future. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do remember a time when there seemed to be in the House at least some degree of consensus that it was important to tackle child poverty.

Well, there wasn't much sign of that from the party opposite. This afternoon. I'm sorry we've lost that. Scrapping the two child limit in Universal Credit is the single most effective lever we can pull to reduce the number of children growing up poor. And in pulling it, we're helping hundreds of thousands of children to live better lives now, and to have real grounds for hope for their futures. We're supporting their families, the majority working families, and by enabling the next generation to fulfil its potential.

We're investing in our country's success in the years to come. This bill is the key to delivering the biggest fall in child poverty of any Parliament on record, and in doing so, it's going to make a very big contribution to the missions of this government. Our manifesto, summed up in one word, was change. This is what change looks like. Ambition for our families, ambition for families and for the country.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the bill be now read a second time. As many as now read a second time. As many as of that opinion say aye. Of the
18:59
19:21
19:21
19:22
John Cooper Portrait John Cooper MP (Dumfries and Galloway, Conservative)
-
-
He hasn't died yet. It's good to see so many right honourable and hon. Members in their place as we skate through the choppy waters that are the fish and chip sector for the chips are down for fish suppers. And while the word iconic is overused, surely fish and chips warrant that label a Heathrow airport. Visitors are greeted with signs extolling the virtues of what is or what was our national dish. Welcome to Britain. Land of drizzle, warm beer, warm welcomes and fabulous fish suppers.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Happy to Peter Prinsley. I thank the Member for. Taking an intervention. So fish and chips is a great British food. 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 Spain in the 16th century. Cold fried fish was a staple of many Shabbat lunches, including my own Shabbat lunches, including my own grandma. Now, the first chippy is credited to Joseph Malin, who added chips in about 1860, in London.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

chips in about 1860, in London. What a great idea and what a great immigration story. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. A fascinating history lesson there during the war. Again, back to the history. Fish and chips were deemed so vital to the nation's morale that Prime Minister nation's morale that Prime Minister Winston Churchill insisted they be exempt from rationing. If the ingredients were available, then ingredients were available, then fish suppers were on the menu and chip shops got extra cooking fat to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

chip shops got extra cooking fat to keep the home fires burning. I'm happy to give way to my near neighbour. Can I commend the hon. Gentleman for Dumfries and Galloway? And and I'm mindful of that, that the best chips come from Cumbria spuds and the best price comes from Portavogie where that well known. That's just me talking and and build up my own area. But does he agree that the new fisheries management plans has resulted in reduced total allowable catches affecting local supply means that the cod in Northern Ireland are suffers now? When it was 6 to £7, now 10 to £11.50, does the member agree that without intervention, the fish and chip shop days will be as few as the fishermen's days at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sea? Well, I think my new neighbour for his intervention there, and he precedes some of what I'm going to precedes some of what I'm going to touch on now, because today all is not well. Romano Petrucci, proprietor of the Central Cafe in proprietor of the Central Cafe in my home town of Stranraer, is just one of many businesspeople warning that this staple is fast becoming an unaffordable luxury. Data from the ONS indicates the average price the ONS indicates 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%.

This was higher than the 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%. The average price of a takeaway Indian main course increased by 3%, while the average price of a takeaway pizza increased by just 2%. And that £10 barrier is hugely significant for customers generally have a ceiling on what they regard as reasonable perhaps £6 for a coffee, £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 Omsk that sales of fish and chips fell

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by 21% in 2024. Happy to give way. Giving way on that point. And I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Giving way on that point. And I would like to say that if you're paying £6 for a coffee, you should come to Darlington where it definitely isn't £6. And we also have the best place for fish and chips with Yarm Road Fisheries and Cockerton Fisheries both winning Cockerton Fisheries both winning awards. So please do consider a visit to Darlington and try some really fish and chips.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

really fish and chips. For that intervention. And I certainly wouldn't pay £6 myself for a coffee, £7 for a pint. If I can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

find it cheaper than that, I think I'll be there, certainly. Yeah. Just as we're talking about the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just as we're talking about the best chips. I mean, the first chips, fish and chip shop was actually in East London, where I was born. I've East London, where I was born. I've got a chip shop challenge where I am going around London trying the am going around London trying the chips. Any excuse. It's it's actually a really important part of actually a really important part of our economy in London. And so the hon. Gentleman's debate is really vitally important.

This week my, my Tik-Tok challenge went viral. Madam Deputy Speaker because I got some abuse from somebody, but it was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

absolute. But thank you very much. I thank the hon. Lady for her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Lady for her interesting intervention. Her chip challenge sounds like a lot of fun, and I defer to the lady speaker and I defer to the lady speaker about the the question of proper parliamentary language. I'm sure it's perfectly acceptable, but fish it's perfectly acceptable, but fish and chips, fish and chip shops accounted for 60% in that fall in sales, with 36 million fewer sales, with 36 million fewer portions of fish and chips sold in fish and chip shops in 2024 compared to 2023, something has gone drastically wrong.

And worse. It's not just one thing, but a series of issues, and I have some sympathy with the Minister here because DEFRA are not directly responsible for all these matters. But Defra of all departments, should realise that government must not work in silos and instead should work across Whitehall. A key reason for prices. I feel like I'm swimming upstream here, but I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

happy to give way, giving way. Just on that point. I recently had a conversation with a chip shop in my constituency. One of the in my constituency. One of the issues they raised was actually getting younger people interested in going into the business, because there are other opportunities elsewhere. Indeed, the person I elsewhere. Indeed, the person I spoke to was a family business had moved on to other opportunities. He's coming on to the point of the many issues. Does he agree that actually we need to look at opportunities for education and catering colleges to encourage people that this is still a viable people that this is still a viable business and an opportunity because, like many other longstanding businesses, if interest is lost, that's how they die out.

So that's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

at. John Cooper I thank the gentleman for his intervention there. He makes a very good point. I will touch on this question of skills in a few moments, but a key reason for prices leaping like a 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 island nation, we are a net importer of fish. Previously, a high proportion of fish used in the UK was imported from Russia, though 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 flower prices and the price of sunflower oil, both major Ukrainian exports. There was also a reduction in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

North Sea cod quota, which my hon. Friend who is not his place now mentioned. I'm happy to give way. I'm very grateful.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful. To the hon. Gentleman for giving way and he's setting out really well the the challenges that fish and chip shops are facing in this difficult international climate. But there are domestic issues too. And North East Lincolnshire Council in my constituency plan to Pedestrianise Cleethorpes marketplace, which steals famous Cornerhouse fish and chip Cornerhouse fish and chip restaurants, they could amount to £150,000 loss in click and collect orders alone. Does he agree with me that local authorities should be doing all that they can to support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our favourite fish and chip shops? It's a very important point and we should, of course support businesses of all kinds and businesses of all kinds and pedestrianisation can be a double edged sword. One of the difficulties is the weather in this country, and there's nothing better than pulling up right outside the shop that you want to go to. So it's a really you've got it. It's a balanced decision on that. The balanced decision on that. The reduction in the North Sea cod quota for 2025 reduced supply and quota for 2025 reduced supply and price prices increased, of course, and more.

A haddock man myself, Cod is one of the top five imported and consumed species in the UK, and Labour's failed mackerel for missiles deal gave the EU further rights in our waters, but did not give us access to Europe's multi-million pound, multibillion pound safe defence fund. And the EU now takes seven times more fish by value from our waters than we take from theirs. Fish and chip shops have faced challenges from increased electricity prices, owing to use of high energy, intensive cooking appliances.

Increased energy costs have also contributed to higher potato prices, with more to come as cbam is an effective fertiliser tax, putting an extra £100 per tonne on and even changes to reliefs on double cab pickups. The farmers workhorse of all increased potato prices. And let us hear no nonsense about the people behind the counter being low skilled, today's fish fry could be tomorrow's FTSE 100 CEO or the founder of 1 billion, a so-called unicorn Start-Up. They work with cash, high value stock and, crucially, they learn communication skills dealing with the public, but increases to the minimum wage, which is not paid by the government.

That will Labour like to pretend that it is, but by hard pressed businesses are also an issue. And in an increase in employers, National insurance, which puts a bounty of about £900 on the head of each employee. No wonder youth unemployment is rising. The truth is, I have to give way, way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And he's outlining some of the economic challenges that the sector are facing. One of my constituents is heavily involved in the National Fish Friers Federation, and he was telling me that he often feels that the government are very good at listening to UK hospitality and other big sectors, but they don't necessarily understand the specific necessarily understand the specific local issues of this sector. Does he agree with me that we would welcome seeing more communication and better collaboration between

**** Possible New Speaker ****

them? Absolutely. There are members of a very good point. I think many industries are not treated as an industry. Agriculture is one where it's treated as a series of small individual businesses. And the totality, the total totality of it is not, is not taken into account. A very fair point. But the truth is that the Labour's employment rights Bill is about the clipboard class, the trade union apparatchiks and not really about actual hard working people. What point workers rights, if that all important first job eludes you? Madam Deputy Speaker, will the fish supper go the way of the red telephone box? Much loved, but a relic of the past.

Will Labour Party indifference turn a British staple into a luxury for the elite? Whether you call it a fish supper, a one on one, or just regular fish and chips, this government risks frittering away a classic thank you.
19:33
Angela Eagle Portrait Dame Angela Eagle MP, The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Wallasey, Labour)
-
-
Dame Angela Eagle. >> Oh well, thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yet again condemned to talk a lot about food, condemned to talk a lot about food, but kept from tea or dinner time or whatever we want to say. I did the whatever we want to say. I did the backbench business debate on farming and fishing and didn't get lunch while everyone happily talked about food. It's a sort of torture that you get when you're in this particular job, but I think perhaps it'll do well for my diet.

I'd like to, first of all, congratulate the hon. Gentleman for the Member for Dumfries and Galloway for raising this issue today. It's been one of the more popular adjournment debates. I think, given the interventions that we've had from all sides of the House. And I think that that demonstrates how what a place in everybody's heart fish and chip suppers actually have in this country. And so I congratulate him for getting this adjournment debate tonight, which I'm happy to answer.

But he is right in pointing out that some of the issues he's raised are not directly issues for the for DEFRA, but I will do my best to answer some of them as I go through my contribution to the questions that he's asked. I know he raised this in January when he asked my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the House, if the fish supper had had its chips, something he's done again today. I note the various puns that people have come up with, and somewhat dubious use of fish species to give the impression that other words may have been said, which wouldn't have been parliamentary in this House.

But perhaps it's a good idea to notice that the pollock fisheries doing quite well, and has and has recently been reopened to commercial fishing after some good. And good. Yes, I will when I've actually finished the sentence. But there were, there were, there were some good measures taken which has managed to revive some of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pollock fishery, but we won't go into detail. I'm happy to give way. Thank you. Just to ask the question. So we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just to ask the question. So we we have a load of. Yes. I think that we we agree. We

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think that we we agree. We agree about Pollock fishing. Reviving I think is probably what I'm going to say. And, and and I'm going to say. And, and and obviously, I hope Hansard are listening extremely carefully or we're all going to get into serious we're all going to get into serious trouble. I think after years in which the sector was left to cope with rising costs and global shocks on its own, I think this government is taking a different approach. We understand that if we want these businesses to survive and thrive, then we have to get involved.

We need to support 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 upon millions of times every year. So maintaining a secure and affordable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

supply of fish is of key importance. We are. Yes. I'm very grateful to her for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to her for giving way. The supply of fish is an international business. It is really, really complicated where it comes from. One of the issues that has been problematic is post-Brexit. Some of our supertrawlers, like the Kirkella, are no longer able to supply to the UK, which has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

elevated the cost of of this food. My hon. Friend, is is unique in many ways in England because she has this deep sea trawler, which is the kirkella she's just mentioned, which is can be out for months trawling and processing, I believe, and bringing back absolutely processed products. And there are some issues about where the kirkella can fish, given what's happening with fish supplies, which I'm happy to talk to her about, and I hope at some stage to visit her constituency so I can have a look at this incredible vessel myself.

But we're supporting the UK fleet to ensure that it's got access to opportunities to catch cod and haddock, which is migrating north. One of the problems with it, as well as being overfished in 2026, the government secured approximately £115 million of fishing opportunities for these stocks. We're also taking steps to restore stocks to sustainable levels so we can continue harvesting them over the long term. For example, we've recently agreed measures such as seasonal closures with the EU and Norway to protect northern shelf cod, which is in a particularly parlous state.

Fish and chip shops are, however, particularly reliant, as the hon. Gentleman said, on imports of fish, maintaining sustainable stocks of white fish in UK waters means 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. Again, the hon. Gentleman mentioned in his speech. But since the war in Ukraine, costs have risen sharply because businesses have had to find alternative supplies to stay competitive.

We're supporting the sector in seeking alternative species and sources of fish, to move away from any remaining Russian caught fish in the supply chain, and we're working with the National Federation of Fish Friers and Cornish Fish Producers Organisation to reintroduce British caught salmon on the menu, for example. Of course, I don't need to tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you can't have fish and chips supper without potatoes, potatoes from our seed and ware potato farms to our fresh and processing sector.

And they 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 global disruptions faced by the whole arable community. This year, the government remains 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 focussed, 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 it will back existing and new farmer groups, link them with expert support and help create strong partnerships that drive growth and deliver environmental outcomes. We're 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 I will drive growth, productivity and long term profitability.

This will remove barriers to investment and improve how the supply chain works. This complements our work to develop a 25 year farming roadmap. Single long term plan bringing together regulation, innovation, skills, investment, environmental recovery and hoping, certainly that we can make our farming sector as profitable and nimble as possible to be. Now, the hon. Gentleman mentioned cooking oil again. An important aspect of the production of fish and chip suppers. The price and supply of cooking oil is important.

And as he pointed out, Ukraine is a major supplier of sunflower oil. But supply chains were severely disrupted after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. As a result, the UK suspended tariffs on sunflower oil imports from the 1st of January 2023. Last year, we extended the tariff suspension until the 31st of December 2026 so that importers will continue to have tariff free access to sunflower oil. We're currently seeking views on whether the suspension should be extended for another two years.

And clearly anyone listening to this who has a view about that in the fish and chip sector or anywhere else, should get in touch with us about their views on this important issue.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Happy to. Fishponds. I don't see it as my place. One of the points that I place. One of the points that I would just like to make is obviously we've got fantastic fish and chip in Harrogate and Knaresborough, including Oatlands Mount. When I speak to local chippy Mount. When I speak to local chippy owners, one of the things that they were saying about the deliver a meaningful boost to them is if we meaningful boost to them is if we could see a cut in VAT for hospitality, restaurants, the likes of a chippy two, I wonder if that might be something she'd be able to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

might be something she'd be able to pass on to her colleagues in the other Department of the Treasury. Well, I'm happy to pass it on. I think I'll skate over the hon. Member's attempts at fish ponds. I'm happy to pass it on. It's not a matter for DEFRA as as he might point out, but I think that as VAT is an Ex-treasury Minister, I can say that VAT is a very, very large bring in of resource and fiddling around to make the system more complex is often not the best way of achieving an aim, but something that I think the Lib Dems do with rather a lot of things.

And they give in. They give away the simplicity that you can sometimes get with something like a sales tax. But I'm happy to pass on the the contribution the hon. Gentleman made. Now we recognise that small hospitality businesses, including fish and chip shops, are under real pressure, which is why we've started to reform the business rates system to better support the high street. The government is producing a new, permanently lower tax for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties, which include fish and chip shops.

As announced in the Budget, these new tax rates are worth nearly £1 billion per year in foregone 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 increases. Meanwhile, the smallest businesses have also been protected by increases in the employment allowance from the effect of NICs changes. Later this year, we'll bring forward a new high street strategy to reinvigorate our communities, and we'll work with business and representative bodies to pull this strategy together.

It will be a cross-government strategy, and we'll be looking at what more government can do to support our high streets. Now we recognise and the hon. Gentleman talked about a minimum wage, but the government accepted the Low Pay Commission's recommendations on the on the minimum wage in full, which supports the lowest paid workers. As he knows, although this is a cost of business, there is a balance here in terms of what the lowest paid workers can get in exchange for their labour.

And of course, when they get a reasonable pay, they also put that money into the local economy. So there's a balance. It's not all on one side. And I'm sure he wouldn't want the fish and chip shop sector to rely on very, very, very low wages in order to maintain itself. So the balance that the government has decided to strike is to accept low Pay Commission's recommendations on national minimum wage levels, independently made in full. We recognise that the sector is under pressure as a result of energy prices and are taking action to support them, such as through the permanent cut to business rates for hospitality announced in the recent Budget.

The government is concerned for hospitality businesses and the challenges they can face securing appropriate, fair and competitively priced energy contracts. And and so the. To address this, the government and Ofgem work closely together to identify and implement policy changes which 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 this have included expanding the overarching standard of conduct for suppliers to all non-domestic customers, clearer rules on deemed rates and required standards for managing changes of occupancy.

The government has also recently announced a decision to directly regulate energy brokers and other third party intermediaries, where there is some some evidence of abuse. Well, third party intermediaries can support businesses to secure more tailored and better value energy contracts. Some rogue brokers exploit customers through excessive commission or predatory sales tactics, which could prevent businesses from accessing competitive energy prices. Regulation will help ensure that business 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 and the second half of 2027.

In addition to new regulation, the government has also published a consultation with proposals to strengthen the powers of the Energy Ombudsman to ensure consumers receive fairer and faster redress when things go wrong. Both these measures will improve competition in the energy market and ensure that non-domestic customers, such as those heating sunflower oil to fry those chips in, are able to access free dispute resolution support. Over 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.

This project is expected to save businesses an average of £5,000 a year, and it's already identifying key behavioural changes that can have a significant impact on energy bills. And I hope that's something the fish and chip sector can certainly be made aware of and hopefully be able to exploit itself. 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. Madam Deputy Speaker but they embody something much bigger the value of work community pride in British produce. So while the last government looked the other way and costs piled up, we are taking responsibility. We're backing the fishers and the farmers who supply this great British staple, and we're backing the traders who serve it to millions. This government will always be on the side of those who work, who keep our plates full and keep the high streets alive with the right support.

Madam Deputy Speaker, these businesses can thrive, and this iconic part of our national life will be there for generations of Friday night fish

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and chip suppers in the future. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn. As many as of that opinion say aye. I. The ayes have
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page