Child Poverty

Baroness Paul of Shepherd's Bush Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Paul of Shepherd’s Bush (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend Lady Lister for securing this debate. She talked about a “strong start” and my comments come in that context.

This is an important debate that speaks to what it means to be Labour: a determination to lift the most vulnerable children in the most difficult circumstances and to give all children, especially the most disadvantaged, the best possible start in life. The child poverty strategy is a strong and serious piece of work. It recognises the complexity of the challenges facing families and the need for a cross-governmental response, and I welcome its intent. If I may, however, I shall focus on an emerging dimension of child poverty that we cannot afford to overlook: the differing outcomes for boys and girls, even when they experience the same early disadvantage. I think the evidence is becoming clear that child poverty is not a uniform experience. It is shaped not only by low income, poor housing and food insecurity, but by gender, where different developmental patterns, expectations and responses to disadvantage begin to drive very different outcomes.

When we look closely, we see that while poverty harms all children, boys are often more likely to experience its most damaging and long-term consequences. Education provides the clearest examples. Boys from low-income households arrive at school less ready to learn, fall behind early and leave with fewer and lower qualifications than girls facing the same disadvantages. They are also twice as likely to be permanently excluded. This matters. When boys disengage early, the consequences cascade: lower attainment, reduced employment prospects and a far greater risk of long-term disadvantage. Exclusion is not just a disciplinary response; it is too often a poverty pathway.

We already have some insight into where this leads. Alan Milburn’s excellent interim report on young people and work describes the scale of the NEET problem and amplifies how this is not just a labour market issue but a deeper disengagement from education, work and the structures that support adult life. Within that, there is a clear and growing gender dimension. Some boys face a double disadvantage, being both poor and male. I am deeply concerned about this. I worry for the boys and young men whose life chances are constrained by that compounded disadvantage. I worry for their families too, who support them often without the tools to help. I also worry for our society, because the consequences extend beyond the individuals, their lost potential, their growing alienation and the weakening of our social fabric. We are seeing the growing consequences all around us. We must also recognise the role of social media. While it affects all young people, young boys are being drawn towards content that amplifies grievance, promotes damaging models of masculinity and often creates a false sense of belonging where one should not be happening.

This brings me to my central point. If outcomes differ, our response must evolve. A child poverty strategy that treats children as a uniform group risks missing those who are falling furthest behind. Equality of intention does not guarantee equality of outcome. We need a more targeted, evidence-based approach. That means recognising early literacy gaps and providing focused support for boys who fall behind in reading and communication. It means understanding why boys are more likely to be excluded, and intervening earlier, keeping them within the school system that best protects them. It means creating clearer and more engaging pathways into skills, training and employment—routes that connect them with those young men who are currently drifting away from that opportunity. It also means recognising the importance of positive male role models.

For many boys growing up in poverty, consistent male presence in family, school and communities is limited. Where that absence exists, it matters. I grew up without knowing my father, so I know how difficult it is to talk about this subject, but it is incredibly important that we do. Boys benefit from seeing positive, stable examples of adulthood—men who model responsibility, resilience and constructive engagement with work and society. Where else will they learn how to be a man?

This is not about creating division, nor is it about diminishing the progress needed for young girls and young women; it is about recognising where child poverty is deepest and responding with clarity and purpose. A strategy that works for most children but fails the most vulnerable boys is not yet a strategy that works. If we are serious about social justice, which I know we are, we must be serious about these outcomes. I want every boy, however difficult their start in life, to grow up in a country that sees them, nurtures them and helps them flourish. We cannot afford to look away from this. I ask the Minister to consider my thoughts when she responds.