Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Slinger]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is opposing the policy that will reduce child poverty by an enormous number.

Conservative Members have not really even tried to defend their record. Perhaps that is because it is indefensible. Their decisions were not accidents; they were choices. The consequences were known, the damage was predictable and the outcome is now painfully clear. Years of ignoring child poverty have left this country with many problems, including the number of children not in education, employment or training. That is an inheritance that this Government are now tackling, not least through the excellent work of Alan Milburn and his investigation into work and child poverty that was commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary.

Children are being condemned to a lifetime of economic inactivity, which is bad for them and their future wealth. As the “Keep Britain Working” report found, someone leaving the workforce in their 20s would lose up to £1 million in earnings. It is also bad for their health. Having four more years in education on average relates to a 16% reduction in mortality rates and reduces the risk of heart disease and diabetes. It is also bad for the country—all that untapped potential and all that unnecessary benefit spend.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[John Slinger]

I will not give way.

The arguments we heard about parental responsibility, the claim that people have children to get benefits, are short-sighted, wrong and, frankly, insulting. The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), could not cite any evidence for her claims.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger]

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

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

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

[Graham Stuart]

I was not here earlier in the debate, so please forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman talked about Members being able to back up their assertions. Who was it in the debate who suggested that the Chancellor did not care? I have never heard anyone on the Opposition side of the House saying that she does not care. Whether she is capable of dealing with it is a different matter entirely, but who was it who said she did not care, because I am sure we would all want to take it up with them and tell them to change their line?

[John Slinger]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention; I always enjoy them. I found this one particularly amusing—and I very much respect and like the right hon. Gentleman—given that I was not actually quoting. I did not say, “And I quote”. I am allowed to use words without having to justify every single one. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that I was referring to the general view of hon. and right hon. Members in this House. [Interruption.] I think I have dealt with that—it was a good effort, but I will move on.

This measure, made possible by the policies of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor—let’s not forget that—will lift 450,000 children out of poverty, and I am proud to say that that includes 2,020 children in Rugby. Let me be clear: lifting the two-child limit is not the whole answer; it is part of the Government’s wider mission. I say to people outside this Chamber, “Do not let the doomsters, the gloomsters, the cynics and the propagandists mislead you.” In just 19 months, as part of that wider mission, this Labour Government have achieved the following: day-one rights for paternity and parental leave; Best Start family hubs bringing health, parenting and wellbeing under one roof; 30 hours of funded childcare from nine months old; free breakfast clubs, with 405 children in my constituency of Rugby benefiting from the April roll-out; minimum and living wages up; record investment in schools; apprenticeships reformed; full funding for apprenticeships for under-25s in our small and medium-sized enterprises; the youth guarantee, mentioned by the Chancellor in the recent Budget; ensuring routes into work, training and education; and Young Futures hubs and youth hubs. May I please ask Ministers on the Front Bench whether I can have one of those hubs in Rugby? Helping children is about more than lifting the two-child cap. This Government do not, and should not, define our moral purpose solely by the pounds we give to those in need—although we should of course give money to those in need. Unlike the Conservatives, we will do those things I listed and, of course, spend money on lifting the two-child limit.

We are glad to do that because it is not just about poverty in financial terms; it is about the poverty of aspiration for our children, which all too often results from the policies of the parties of the right, and it is about the poverty of ambition for what a Government can and should do to unleash the potential of all children. We reject that poverty too. Opportunity, prosperity and dignity for all cannot come—whether through the animal spirits of the economy or the progressive policies of a Government such as ours—unless child poverty is ended once and for all.

In conclusion, we are the Labour party; we want to give young people the skills and opportunities, and to create the ecosystem, that will unleash their potential. That starts by preventing their early years from being blighted unnecessarily by poverty. We also stand for compassion and support for those who really need it, and that is what we will provide. Ending the two-child limit, and the wider measures I have outlined, are vital to ensuring that our young people become the architects of their futures, not merely tenants living in a world shaped by the older generations, by vested interests and, indeed, by those who are opposed to this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Pakes]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I put on the record my tribute to all food bank volunteers, not just for holding me to account and making sure that I am here today to support policies like this, but for making the case that he so powerfully makes: they want food banks to no longer exist. Whenever I speak to Christians Against Poverty, churches, mosques, temples and so many of the faith communities that are important to the social infrastructure that holds poverty at bay for so many families, they all say to me that they wish that they did not have to provide food banks and that they could spend more time doing other things. It is our job, starting today with this Bill, to put that into practice for them.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman is being most generous with his time. I agree with the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince). Does the hon. Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) agree with him that it would be a sign of this Government’s success if we saw fewer food parcels being put out by food banks by the end of this Parliament than we do today?

[Andrew Pakes]

Certainly. Many of my food banks would support the single policy that we are voting on today, so I hope the right hon. Gentleman will join me in the Lobby tonight to vote to eradicate food banks. This Bill will put money into the pockets of families. It will not just lift their children out of poverty but—as my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), who is no longer in her place, said—put money into the local economy.

If we ever wanted a symbol of the legacy of Tory failure in government, it is this: in my city of Peterborough alone, nearly 43% of children are growing up in poverty. In the North ward of Peterborough, which is a two-minute walk from my house, six out of 10 children are growing up in poverty. That is a stain on our society, and I am dedicated to eradicating it.

I am proud of the work that my council does, but this policy will help. I am proud of the focus of Peterborough city council, pushed on by groups such as Peterborough Citizens, which has ended the practice of children sleeping in bed-and-breakfast and hotel room accommodation. I was equally proud in the autumn to welcome the Prime Minister to Welland Academy, where he made the national announcement of the roll-out of free school meals for all children on universal credit. An incredible 16,000 extra children will benefit from free school meals this September because of the action taken by this Government, which will be delivered in the coming months.

We all know that we need to do more. The Bill is an investment in our country’s future. The single act of voting for it will lift 450,000 children out of poverty, including 10,000 in Peterborough. As many hon. Friends and comrades in this place have said, almost half of the families on universal credit are in work. Child poverty makes it harder for children to get on in life, and that hurts our economy. I am pleased to see that some Conservative Members have returned to the debate. I thought for a while that the lights were on but nobody was home—it turns out that that applies just to their policy on child poverty rather than to them as individuals. The Conservatives would do well to remember that these figures are not merely statistics; they tell a story of lost opportunity, of lost moments of childhood, and of lost potential not just for the affected children but for our local economies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

I stand here as a proud representative of the Black Country and the trade union movement. Black Country people work hard. We are proud and we are resilient, but 50 years of deindustrialisation and 14 years of Tory austerity mean that wages are low, poverty is high, unemployment is high, economic inactivity is high, and many families have to rely on universal credit to make sure there is enough money to get to the end of the month. I resent the implication that areas like mine, where universal credit payments are high, are somehow “Benefits Street”.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Antonia Bance]

I will get to the right hon. Member.

It was the Conservative party that changed the benefits system to give us one benefit for all circumstances, in and out of work. For the Conservatives to now attempt to invent a deserving and undeserving poor dichotomy, when they made that change to one unified system—which was the correct one—is a little bit galling.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Lady is, as ever, showing a powerful oratorical style, but it is so easy when doing that to get one’s facts wrong. Unemployment, I am sure she will recognise, was at a near record low when the Conservatives left office and has risen by more than 20% in the less than two years that Labour has run the country. I know the hon. Lady is careful with the facts and will want to retract the point about unemployment under the Conservatives. Whatever other ills she wants to attribute to us, I do not think she can genuinely attribute that.

[Antonia Bance]

The right hon. Member will note that I was making a point about the comparative rates in different areas of the country, including my own, and the impacts of deindustrialisation over the last 50 years, rather than about national rates.

On the Labour Benches, we deal with the world as it is—human lives in all their messy complexity—because everyone is deserving of dignity, opportunity and hope, and every child deserves a decent start. That is why I am so proud today to say this: if you get ill or lose your job, if—heaven forbid—your partner dies, or if your husband beats you up and you have to grab your kids and run, the safety net of our welfare state will once again catch you and every single one of your kids.

Since the day I came to this place and long before, I have argued for this change—I have argued that no child is responsible for the actions of their parents, that the happy event of a little one being born should not tip a family into poverty, and that whether a six-year-old eats tonight should not depend on how many sisters or brothers they have. This day has come because we have a Labour Government, and for that reason alone. I invite everyone sitting on the Opposition Benches who thinks they had something to do with this day to retract their comments and remember who those children have to thank.

Ending the two-child limit helps 5,540 children in Tipton, Wednesbury and Coseley. Whenever I go on a school visit in my area—where child poverty levels are at 50%, but not for long—I say to that assembly, to those children, “If you have more than two sisters or brothers, please raise your hand.” And I look and the teachers look at the forest of raised hands of children in larger families, and we know what that means. It means that in April, those families will open their universal credit journal or their banking app, and they will see an amount of money that is adequate to meet their family’s needs—not luxury, not extras, but adequate at last.

Some 1.6 million children nationally will be helped by the policy that we will pass tonight—one kid in every nine of our kids helped. Most of the families that will be helped—six in 10 of them—are in work. Loads of them—four in 10—have a disabled family member. Some of those families have kids so young that the parents cannot work. Not a single one of them deserves to live in poverty.

To the mums with three or more kids, using universal credit to top up low wages and high rents: this is for you. Know that far away in Westminster, a bunch of people you elected to stand up for hard-working, low-income families thought of you and your kids, and took out a gross, punitive law that kept you and your kids poor.