Youth Unemployment

David Baines Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

I fear that the hon. Lady’s response was written without her listening to a word in the statement. She has confirmed that the Conservative party not only bequeathed us the problem, but has learned nothing about how to tackle it. There was no statement of responsibility, no statement of regret and no apology for the record on youth apprenticeships—in fact, she defended cutting youth apprenticeship starts. It is a continued pretence that somehow all of this started just two years ago.

The hon. Lady asks where the funding to help young people comes from. It comes from stable management of the economy—something that the Conservatives know nothing about and that we have practised for the past two years. Young people, at whom all of this is aimed, will have heard her disparage efforts to get them into work and to give them more opportunity. They will have heard her dismiss our changes, which will boost youth apprenticeships. They will have heard her pretend that we can somehow wish all this away with tax changes. That proves that the Conservatives have learned nothing from their disastrous management of the economy. They will have heard her say that the package does not offer young people anything, when we have announced a plan to give them a new deal with more jobs and more apprenticeships. That is the difference between our approach and theirs.

I want to give young people in this country opportunities to get skills, to get a job, to get off benefits and to build a better life for themselves. That is much better than kicking the ladder away and leaving the system unchanged, which is what the Conservatives did. How does the hon. Lady explain the number of NEETs rising by a quarter of a million in the last three years in which they were in power? How does she explain their lack of action to deal with it? When it comes to welfare, what I have said today is very clear and simple: the best means of welfare reform is to put work and opportunity at the heart of the system, and that is what we are doing with this plan.

[David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)]

Young people are often unfairly criticised, but it is worth remembering that the vast majority of them are in employment, education or training. Those who are not deserve our support, and to be provided with opportunity, not the condemnation and ignorance that was all they got from the Conservatives in government, and all we have heard from them today. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the number of young people not in employment, education or training is a scandal, and that it demands action? Will he set out how this new investment will support young people in St Helens North and across the country?

Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

David Baines Excerpts

2nd reading & Money resolution
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)]

This has been a very revealing debate in which Members on all sides of the House have made interesting points, but this matter has unfortunately become quite polarising.

On one side of the debate, we have those who work with children and families and see the hugely damaging impact that the two-child limit has had. The Child Poverty Action Group says that

“scrapping the two-child limit is the most cost-effective way to start to reduce child poverty”.

Dame Rachel de Souza, the Children’s Commissioner, called removing the two-child limit

“a vital first step towards lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty quickly, with the potential to transform their lives.”

I agree with Unicef, which said:

“No child should be punished for the number of siblings they have.”

Scrapping the two-child limit will lift around 2,500 children in St Helens North out of poverty. In this Parliament, we are on course to lift a record number of children—more than half a million nationally—out of poverty. Free breakfast clubs are opening in more primary schools, more than 5,000 families in St Helens North will benefit from extended free school meals later this year, and working families receive 30 hours of free childcare. Yes, that must all be paid for, and I am aware that it will be paid for by taxpayers, but politics and government are about choices.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), said that we should look at the Conservatives’ record in government. The hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) said that government is about choices. Well, the country is well aware of the Conservatives’ record and the choices that they made, which is why they are sat on the Opposition Benches. This Labour Government are choosing to give all children the opportunity to thrive, and we will all benefit as a result. Every single penny spent in pursuit of that goal is money well spent, in my opinion as a taxpayer.

On the other side of the debate, however, the Leader of the Opposition and others do not take a reasonable and reasoned position but use language that is at best insulting and at worst dangerous. In a single stroke, talk of the so-called “Benefits Street” alienates and denigrates the millions of Britons who receive benefits, many of whom work. They are our neighbours and friends; the people we see day in, day out around our communities. As my hon. Friends have said, most of the children who will be helped by the removal of the two-child limit are from households in which someone works—59% of the households affected by the two-child limit are in work.

I agree with those who say that work should pay, which is why I support this Government’s measures to ensure exactly that—measures that are opposed by those who say that work should pay. Try to square that circle, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I cannot—good luck to them. All I ask is that those who talk in that way about “Benefits Street”, and who denigrate millions of people, including children, think about how those children —never mind their parents—might feel when they see those headlines. We can and should debate policy, but we gain nothing from making people feel worthless.

We also hear a lot about “looking after our own.” I agree that we should look after our own and support the people who need help. That is what the Bill would do through investment in children and the wellbeing of future generations, for their sake and for our collective good. I have seen the impact of poverty on families and children throughout my working life, and I have tried my best to help them. I am sure that all Members, on both sides of the Chamber, have met many families who have struggled and dealt with sudden changes in circumstances, whether from ill health, bereavements, job losses or housing crises.

For families with more than two children, the impact is even more acute. It saddens me—frankly, it staggers me—that some would choose to extend that pain tonight. Every child matters; every child counts; every child has a role to play in our country and its future. I will vote tonight for them.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Baines]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. He says no evidence was given for those arguments. That is because there is no evidence, and yet opponents of the policy continue to make the arguments. Does he agree that it is damaging, dangerous and insulting to children and to families that are working hard up and down the land to do the best they can?

[John Slinger]

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is insulting, and it was surprising that the shadow Secretary of State could not cite any evidence at all.

Regardless of any two-child limit, parents will of course still have children, and those children must never be punished for the circumstances of their birth. The best way to support them, the single most effective way to lift them out of poverty, is this Bill.

Some Members across the House and some across our country implied that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor does not care about child poverty. They implied and claimed that she does not care about economic inactivity and our moral duty. That accusation was not just wrong; it was deeply disrespectful, particularly given her long record of campaigning on these issues.